MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by msla | 2025-05-29 18:46:39+00:00
Read further:

> Pollan, for his part, signed a letter with a group of fellow academics (including Nestle) on June 16 to protest UC Berkeley’s screening of the film (let’s pause here to note: they are protesting the mere fact that this film was even shown). Those who signed the letter attested that the movie was nothing more than an advertisement for GMOs, and said it “marginalizes the lived experiences of farmers and eaters.”
by ezst | 2025-05-29 18:46:40+00:00
> AI has seen mass adoption

Yeah, on the end-user side (so, discounting the chatbots, the dark patterns and the always-on features shoved down our throats), AI hasn't even seen as much mass adoption as crypto has. But even if it had, once the venture capital propping all this has dried out, nobody will be willing to foot the exorbitant costs of running inference.
by Jarwain | 2025-05-29 18:47:00+00:00
That's fair! I guess I see it as trading technical complexity with the human complexity of getting everyone on board with an update to the standard, and getting that standard implemented across the board. It's a lot easier to get my coworkers to just use duckdb as a reader/writer with ducklake than to change the system.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what the process of proposing that change to the hive file scheme would even look like
by sigmoid10 | 2025-05-29 18:48:36+00:00
It's mostly a question of experience. I've been writing software long enough that when I give chat models some code and a problem, I can immediately tell if they understood it or if they got hooked on something unrelated. But junior devs will have a hell of a hard time, because the raw code quality that LLMs generate is usually top notch, even if the functionality is completely off.
by ortusdux | 2025-05-29 18:49:12+00:00
> I think the big question everyone wants to skip right to and past this conversation is, will this continue to be true 2 years from now? I don’t know how to answer that question.

I still think about Tom Scott's 'where are we on the AI curve' video from a few years back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhJbKBuNnA
by jmyeet | 2025-05-29 18:49:29+00:00
This is incorrect. Chevron deference wasn't giving the executive branch sole power to interpret ambiguous statutes as you claim (despite your scary example). The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to.

But the real problem comes in because 40 years of laws were written both both parties with Chevron deference in mind. Not only did Congress not take action to overrule Chevron, consistently for 40 years, they intentionally wrote ambiguous statutes to give agency's the power to interpret those statutes, mostly because enumerating every possible circumstance was impossible.

Take managing fish stocks. What fish stocks? When should fishing seasons be? What's the inspection mechanism? How are licenses and quotas issues? How are they enforced? How should all this be reported to the public, Congress and the president? What about fish stocks that border international waters? How should they be managed?

Chevron acknowledged what was already happening: it was impossible to write legislation that way. Congress didn't have the bandwidth to initially write it, let alone maintain it as circumstances change.

The Supreme Court (rightly) recognized that without Chevron deference it would be impossible to an agency manage anything because any ambiguities or any simply unofreseen gaps would be used to neuter the agency in the courts. It made it impossible to have such agencies and that's the whole point of overturning Chevron. The very wealthy don't want Fedearl agencies. The whole thing is a libertarian wet dream and over the coming years we'll see the consequences as the same people poison the water supply and the food supply, overfish alal fishing stocks, crash the economy through unregulated financial markets and so on.
by ratamacue | 2025-05-29 18:49:47+00:00
My brain was largely trained using immense amounts of copyrighted material as well. Some of it I can even regurgitate almost exactly. I could list the names of many of the copyrighted works I have read/watched/listened to. I suppose my brain isn't open source, although I don't think it would currently be illegal to take a snapshot of my brain and publish it if the technology existed and open-source that. Granted, this would only be "reproducible" from source if you define the "source" as "my brain" rather than all of the material I consumed to make that snapshot.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-05-29 18:49:53+00:00
They didnt believe before the signs. God offers the signs as a proof. Also, it should be telling that only one religion even has proof it's true. Then, dominant philosophies of the world continue to do what it predicts, fail like it predicts, and more prophecies get fulfilled.

At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
by ivape | 2025-05-29 18:50:05+00:00
1) We can start with the fact that Historians believe Christ existed.

2) I can grant you he might have just been a harmless mentally ill person.

3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.

4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.

5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.

6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.

7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.

8) I’d let the whole true date of physical reality go. We literally reinvented time after he died. I won’t hold the Old Testament to the test of carbon dating, and reconsider that those books told us all the nature of how things began (from a big explosion).

9) And then we find the miraculous Dead Sea Scrolls proving that those books were not altered through the course of time.

10) The books say your soul is quite important. Christ was also one of the first to suggest your morality is from within (the thing atheist often suggest).

11) I’d finally suggest the following about science:

Imagine I take a shit in a toilet. Imagine you are a brilliant scientist that sits around and figures out every measurement of how the shit moves around the toilet, down to the physics, down to the chemical composition of the shit. You would have figured out the physics of the universe of your toilet, but you will never ever know that I took the shit because I ate a lot of Taco Bell.

12) Hubris would be thinking our constant measuring (science) proves anything about our purpose.

13) Given the above hypothetical, it would be humble to accept the fear of god scripture puts into us, since we would have never even come close to figuring out our purpose via science (finding the true nature of God’s Taco Bell order) without these goofy books.

14) Last but not least:

If the Big Bang was the moment of creation, you can believe one of two things:

A) Something caused it

B) Space was a vacuum and something came from nothing.

If you believe A (You believe in God), our very existence is contingent on the sequence, A lead to B, then to C, and so on, so the entire chain of us talking here was deliberate (plus or minus all the free will decisions of humans, mostly a rounding error in the grand scheme).

15) And my personal favorite, everyone one of our births was a miracle given how sexual reproduction works (we all beat a million other possibilities). Faith is not hard when you truly see just how insane the odds are for so many things. Therefore, I’m quite open to the ridiculousness of the Galileans story. Another way to put it is, I am in awe of God.
by schmidtleonard | 2025-05-29 18:50:44+00:00
"Not too much" and "mostly plants" are good, but trying to redefine food is a bit wacky, once you learn that that's his game.

I'm not even against the idea that processed food is often bad and should always be treated with skepticism, but naturalism as a foundational principle is just way too exploitable. I called "companies are going to start marketing sugar as a natural alternative to low-calorie sweeteners" a decade before I saw it in grocery stores and I would like to pre-register my prediction that tobacco products will soon come back as "natural alternatives to vapes" in the not too distant future.
by goatlover | 2025-05-29 18:50:47+00:00
> It's obvious we need a physical environment, that we perceive it, that it influences us via our perception, etc., but there's nothing special about embodied cognition.

It's also obvious that we have bodies interacting with the physical environment, not just the brain, and the nervous system extends throughout the body, not just the head.

> if a process is not only computational, it is not computational in its entirety. It is totally superfluous. And the assumption that mental processes are not computational places it outside the realm of understanding and falsification.

This seems like a dogmatic commitment to a computational understanding of the neuroscience and biology. It also makes an implicit claim that consciousness is computational, which is difficult to square with the subjective experience of being conscious, not to mention the abstract nature of computation. Meaning abstracted from conscious experience of the world.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-05-29 18:51:17+00:00
I think Jira gets unwarranted hate.

It has an incredible amount of flexibility and customizability. PMs take that flexibility and turn it into a draconian list of requirements for tickets and workflows.

PMs want a million ways to extract and analyze information from tickets so they can create a hundred dashboards. The software engineers want simplicity so they can just quickly find what needs to be done, do it, and mark it as done.

Jira can be simple and easy. It's the PMs that turn it into a nightmare, but the hate gets targeted at Jira.
Show HN: Clean Simple DNS Lookups
by matthewtse | 2025-05-29 18:51:27+00:00
Hey HN,

Last weekend I vibe-coded a cool website that lets you do easy DNS record lookups.

I know you can just use dig or nslookup, but oftentimes I'm too lazy to remember the syntax, and there are less technical users who need to manage DNS entries but aren't comfortable with the command line.

We debug customer DNS issues often at ImprovMX, and we typically link to tools like mxtoolbox.com to point out DNS record issues. But those tools seem quite bloated and from the 2000s. I wanted something super clean & simple, and there were a few features I thought were ergonomically needed but lacking: - no confusing dropdowns or syntax for DNS lookup, just put in your domain or subdomain - click-to-copy for all values - header-links so we can provide URLs that will direct another user to an exact domain and which record we want to reference

This was SUPER FUN to vibe code!

The frontend was pretty much one-shotted with lovable. It's amazing how good AI is when working on a clean slate with all the latest popular frameworks (react, tailwind, shadcn, etc.). And I spent the next few hours making small tweaks with cursor.

The backend is a dead simple python flask server.

Both are hosted on render.com <3 I love how simple and value-oriented render.com is. It's always the provider that gives me the least headache when I want to just launch and forget something.

Give it a try and let me know what you think!
by danielbln | 2025-05-29 18:51:57+00:00
For me the creativity in software engineering doesn't come from coding, that's an implementation detail. It comes from architecture, from thinking about "what do I want to build, how should it behave, how should it look, what or who is it for?" and driving that forward. Bolting it together in code is hoeing, for that vast majority of us. The creative endeavor sits higher up on the abstraction ladder.
by tengwar2 | 2025-05-29 18:52:04+00:00
That story is only tracked back to the 1400's, so not credible. The currently favoured theory is that this was a translation error. Apparently in Aramaic (the language of Judaea and Galilee), the word for "camel" is very close to the word for "rope". As with all parables (and this does qualify as a parable) it may be intended to reward some thought - e.g. the only way of getting a rope through the eye of needle is to strip away almost all of it, rather than being a flat negation.
by PaulHoule | 2025-05-29 18:52:16+00:00
Archived here: https://archive.ph/z1ChR

One problem is that you can only get to Mars every two years or so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_win...

and if they miss the Nov 2026 window (about 1.5 year from now) they have to wait another 2 years. They have to get Starship to orbit, then they have to perfect the orbital refueling process. They don't have much room for error.

One obvious mission plan for refueling is that the orbits line up every 24 hours so you can launch starship A into LEO and then launch starship B 12-20 days in a row to refuel A. I think you might be able to do better than that if you have some crossrange. I've also heard talk along the lines that starship A gets refueled at LEO, gets launched to a HEO parking orbit, then other starships that are fueled multiple times meet up with it in HEO. One way or another it is a lot of flights and if starship B blows up you'd better have starship C in the wings and a few days of leeway assuming B didn't take out the launchpad with it.

Starship has lots of problems of its own. If there was one of those chopstick thingies on the Moon or Mars it would have no problem landing. Maybe if there was a colony there would be chopsticks but you're going to have to bootstrap your way there. Without it, objects like the Moon and Mars are covered with boulders and a really tall spacecraft with flimsy legs and rocket engines sticking out of the bottom where they could get smashed looks risky. Also SpaceX's control system runs everything from the ground by remote control which is great in Earth orbit but will not fly around Mars and probably not even the moon -- thus they'll have to develop an autonomous control system more like Boeing's failed space capsule.

Not like those problems can't be overcome with time, but time is not on your side when Mars is concerned. So far Starship has been about rapid iterations but if martian colonists need a replacement part they could wait for years to get it. If they don't stick the landing the first time you have to wait two years for another try. If you were designing a mission plan for Mars colonization it would have to be built with having physical twins on and around the Earth and Moon where you could thoroughly test things.

Myself if I had something like Starship working I'd build a flashy space hotel in LEO. I computed that the atmosphere for a small Bernal sphere could be sent to LEO in 15 Starship loads of LN2, with the same number of launches NASA hopes to land a few tons on the moon and maybe get it back.
by traceroute66 | 2025-05-29 18:52:32+00:00
> When talking with reasonable people

When talking with reasonable people, they will tell you if they don't understand what you're saying.

When talking with reasonable people, they will tell you if they don't know the answer or if they are unsure about their answer.

LLMs do none of that.

They will very happily, and very confidently, spout complete bullshit at you.

It is essentially a lotto draw as to whether the answer is hallucinated, completely wrong, subtly wrong, not ideal, sort of right or correct.

An LLM is a bit like those spin the wheel game shows on TV really.
by ComputerGuru | 2025-05-29 18:52:52+00:00
That answers half my question (eg disable networking), thank you. The other part was about the overhead of adding this to an app (startup memory usage and increase in binary size) and how much work has been done on interop so that you can execute a static rust function Foo() passing in a rust singleton Bar, or accessing properties or methods on a rust singleton Baz, i.e. calling whitelisted rust code from within the JS env (vice-versa is important but that’s possible by default simply by hard-coding a JS snippet to execute, though marshaling the return value of a JS function without (manually) using JSON at the boundary is also a nice QOL uplift).
by imchillyb | 2025-05-29 18:52:56+00:00
You are conflating a localized source of photonic emission with light.

Light is an electromagnetic field that permeates everything in and through. Without the field first there are no photons, there is no physics, no gravity.

God claimed to be this force. In all. Through all. Nothing could exist without it.

How would a primitive people know this, understand this? They could not. We certainly can.
by kstrauser | 2025-05-29 18:53:41+00:00
That's also why I don't use it. It's not bad at all! It's just not how I want to use Emacs. It's not right for me.

I sure do get the appeal of an out-of-the-box Emacs setup that does everything with modern defaults, but the base installation gets better, more ergonomic, and more powerful by the year on its own.
by muchosandwich | 2025-05-29 18:53:46+00:00
Seems like he has a problem with the final edit of the movie and not anything specific about GMO. This is a growing problem with documentaries where the filmmakers claim a certain angle to get people to participate but reveal a corporate angle in the edit.

This is his actual position (source: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinn... 2012)

> Americans have been eating genetically engineered food for 18 years, and as supporters of the technology are quick to point out, we don’t seem to be dropping like flies. But they miss the point. The fight over labeling G.M. food is not foremost about food safety or environmental harm, legitimate though these questions are. The fight is about the power of Big Food. Monsanto has become the symbol of everything people dislike about industrial agriculture: corporate control of the regulatory process; lack of transparency (for consumers) and lack of choice (for farmers); an intensifying rain of pesticides on ever-expanding monocultures; and the monopolization of seeds, which is to say, of the genetic resources on which all of humanity depends.

Largely he's been proven correct as GMO crops from Monsanto have has negative biological, legal and financial consequences on neighboring crops and water supplies. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:... GMO crops from other sources don't have the same problems.
by em-bee | 2025-05-29 18:53:46+00:00
moses is a prophet or messenger of god just like jesus or mohammad. they are not subject to the same tests. some claim they aren't even human. according to my understanding paul also has been directly chosen by god for a specific mission. i haven't looked at the miracles jesus performed because, since them happening can't be verified and i can't witness them myself they are quite irrelevant for me. i also didn't get the impression that everyone witnessing a miracle was automatically convinced.

also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.
by asdff | 2025-05-29 18:54:02+00:00
I'm sorry I offended you! However I do think it is highly relevant as there is this prevailing theory that the free market will bail us out of any ills and will bring forth necessary scientific advancement as soon as they are needed. It is that sentiment that I was pushing back against, as I don't believe we have the control that we really believe we do for these ideas to pencil out so cleanly as they are considered.
by krupan | 2025-05-29 18:54:12+00:00
"Simple navigation, consistency, fast loading times, and ruthless minimalism"

Modern websites have none of those. It's all pop ups asking you to subscribe and/or give feedback before you have even had a chance to read anything, content that jumps around as images (ads) load, and huge blobs of JavaScript. I feel like the web has regressed massively in the last few years
by BJones12 | 2025-05-29 18:54:41+00:00
> But he continued to lie about it until recently

From what I've heard, he has disclosed actions years, possibly decades, ago but did not mention that involvement of a minor. I expect this is because a lawyer, or possibly anyone with a quarter of a brain, gave the same advice to him as they would any other human - shut your mouth. Is that a wrong?

> And now he's suing the church for millions of dollars for some retirement he feels he's entitled to.

One article [0] says "his attorney sent a letter to church lawyers [demanding] more than $1 million that had accrued in Morris's retirement account". Again, I suspect that he is getting advice from lawyers to do what they would advise any other human to do - collect on earned retirement benefits. Is that a wrong?

> He's massively enriching himself, to continue living a lavish lifestyle

If you'll forgive the crudeness of this comparison, I expect that running a church of 100,000 attendees to be of comparable, but not equal, complexity as a company with 100,000 customers. That could make running Gateway in the same ballpark as running Asana. The CEO of Asana gets 15 million a year for his trouble. Morris got, what, 5% of that? 3%? Is it self-enrichment to offer world-class leadership to a church at a 95% discount to its free market value?

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/robert-morris-gateway-chu...
Show HN: Jam – a functional React-like build system
by gilesjb | 2025-05-29 18:55:33+00:00
Jam is a build system. More exactly, it's a Java/Kotlin function memoizer with a persistent result cache, which turns out to be most of what you need for a build system.

To demonstrate the memoization, we can use an executable Kotlin script like this:

#!/usr/bin/env kotlin -Xjvm-default=all -cp build/jam-0.9.jar interface FibonacciExample : Project { fun fib(x : Long) : Long = if (x < 2) x else fib(x - 1) + fib(x - 2) fun demo() { println("fib(10) = ${fib(10)}") } } Project.run(FibonacciExample::class.java, FibonacciExample::demo, args)

and then run it:

% ./fibonacci.kts [compute] demo [compute] fib 10 [compute] fib 9 [compute] fib 8 [compute] fib 7 [compute] fib 6 [compute] fib 5 [compute] fib 4 [compute] fib 3 [compute] fib 2 [compute] fib 1 [compute] fib 0 [current] fib 1 [current] fib 2 [current] fib 3 [current] fib 4 [current] fib 5 [current] fib 6 [current] fib 7 [current] fib 8 fib(10) = 55

The Jam runtime logging displays the fib(x) calls as they recurse down to the fib(1) and fib(0) base cases, and also shows how duplicate calls are eliminated by returning memoized results from the cache.

When the script completes the cache is saved to a local file. If we run the same script again, the result is ready to go:

% ./fibonacci.kts [compute] demo [current] fib 10 fib(10) = 55
by progval | 2025-05-29 18:55:43+00:00
> written with a fair bit of feature flags

I see you use Cargo feature for this. One thing to be aware of is Cargo's feature unification (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html#feat...), ie. if an application embeds crate A that depends on nova_vm with all features and crate B that depends on nova_vm without any security-sensitive features like shared-array-buffer (eg. because it runs highly untrusted Javascript), then interpreters spawned by crate B will still have all features enabled.

Is there an other way crate B can tell the interpreter not to enable these features for the interpreters it spawns itself?