MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by paranoidroid | 2025-06-27 04:38:33+00:00
I'm still trying to get my foot in the door. Ever since I started building 'raw' pages for people who had either "business ideas" or ran a 100 person sales team, no one has known or respected the difficulty of what goes into what we build or how it is actually a better solution than whatever they were asking for originally. Maybe once I actually break into the industry i will finally find a manager who understands what the solution is and how we get there in six months and equates that to a proper working solution instead of a internal-politics motivated project to get and edge over some other dept.
by Robotbeat | 2025-06-27 04:39:20+00:00
Bingo.

It's all contingent on a factor of 100-1000x reduction in launch costs, and a lot of the objections to the idea don't really engage with that concept. That's a cost comparable to air travel (both air freight and passenger travel).

(Especially irritating is the continued assertion that thermal radiation is really hard, and not like something that every satellite already seems to deal with just fine, with a radiator surface much smaller than the solar array.)
by torstenvl | 2025-06-27 04:40:20+00:00
It isn't my reading comprehension that is deficient. You are talking in circles and demonstrating a remarkable inability to think clearly. I was just being polite.

Something being proprietary means that it is owned. It means "relating to an owner or ownership"; "of, relating to, or characteristic of an owner or title holder"; "used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right"; "privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization."
Ask HN: How are you responding to the 16B credential leak?
by rajkumarsekar | 2025-06-27 04:42:02+00:00
Cybernews uncovered a record-breaking leak involving 16 billion unique login records from services like Google, Apple, Facebook, GitHub, and more.

How are you responding to this?

If you haven’t heard about it yet, here’s the full article: https://cybernews.com/security/billions-credentials-exposed-infostealers-data-leak/
by BrenBarn | 2025-06-27 04:43:03+00:00
Yeah, although Matrix is theoretically about being an open protocol supporting a range of clients and servers, in practice it winds up being heavily skewed to just Element/synapse. I think this is partly because there is still too much churn in the protocol. A decent amount of that churn is improving things, but it still makes it too hard for average-joe devs to keep up with what's hip. I don't think there's much chance of a real menu of feature-rich clients until the protocol becomes stable. Unfortunately, I don't foresee that happening soon.
by staplung | 2025-06-27 04:44:08+00:00
I prefer the paper on cat chirality:

https://blog.dimview.org/math/2017/07/28/cat-chirality.html

Though his dataset is only a single cat he fails to reject the null hypothesis. But you can use the included graphics to plot the chirality of your own pet.

With my dog, the only thing I've noticed is that no matter which chirality he initially choses, he seems to need to switch it up after a while.
by teleforce | 2025-06-27 04:44:41+00:00
> Some would might consider it racist.

How come whoever pointing out the fact that those who're emigrated later to modern Israel for the past century since the Israel - Palestinian conflicts started are actually outside immigrants, they themselves can be considered racist?

Actually most people would consider artificial emigration en mass based on the dubious promised land claim of the holy book of one single race religion in this case Jewish, is the act of racism itself.

However, when the new immigrants govt started forcefully displacing the original native people out of the home without proper land purchase transactions and agreements of the local native populations, thus becoming majority in a very short time span. This very act is even more problematic beyond racism and under international law it can be considered apartheid [1].

Since your ancestors are from Morocco, imagine if the Jewish and the Muslim of Morocco in the near future start claiming back Spanish lands by emigrating en mass, and forcefully displacing the local native Spanish just because their ancestors have once lived and ruled Iberian peninsular for several hundreds years [2]. Is this hypothetical situation is fine with you?

Fun facts, now Spain is allowing and inviting the expelled Jewish descendants in Morocco to come back to Spain and become Spanish citizen [3]. Why do you think that they're not extending this goodwill offers to Muslim descendents that were also expelled alongside Jewish population from Spain? I think you'll probably the answer because allowing it will most probably upset the demographics of the current Spain due to potential en mass migration of this Muslim descendants compared to much smaller number of Jewish descendants.

[1] Apartheid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

[2] Islam in Spain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain

[3] Spain passes citizenship plan for descendants of Jews exiled centuries ago (2015):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33102891
by Robotbeat | 2025-06-27 04:44:57+00:00
You need less batteries in orbit than on the ground since you're only in shade for at most like 40 minutes. And it's all far more predictable.

Cooling isn't actually any more difficult than on Earth. You use large radiators and radiate to deep space. The radiators are much smaller than the solar arrays. "Oh but thermos bottles--" thermos bottles use a very low emissivity coating. Space radiators use a high emissivity coating. Literally every satellite manages to deal with heat rejection just fine, and with radiators (if needed) much smaller than the solar arrays.

Latency is potentially an issue if in a high orbit, but in LEO can be very small.

Equipment upgrades and maintenance is impossible? Literally, what is ISS, where this is done all the time?

Radiation shielding isn't free, but it's not necessarily that expensive either.

Orbital maintainence is not a serious problem with low cost launch.

The upside is effectively unlimited energy. No other place can give you terawatts of power. At that scale, this can be cheaper than terrestrially.
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-27 04:45:39+00:00
Extrapolating it to 100 doors has been the only way I could understand the problem and why its beneficial to change.

Even the Wikipedia article extrapolates this out to 1 million, but assumes all the time that the host knows which door the car is behind and will avoid picking the door with the prize in it when narrowing it down to 2 doors for the contestant.

I think where the author is coming from, is what happens to the probabilities if the host doesn't know which door the car is behind and in the scenario of 1 million doors, there's a risk that the door with the prize is thrown away at random when narrowing it down to the 2 doors. Where the remaining choice to keep your original door or switch could result in both doors not having the prize at all.

However by changing that the author has missed the original intent of the Monty hall problem, because they have removed the fact that one of the remaining doors has to have a car in it. If the host didn't know which door the car was behind, there is a chance the contestant is no better off switching. Which isn't the intent of the problem.

If I have understood correctly, it is important to the monty hall problem that the host knows which door has the car in it and that door is always behind one of the doors left at the end.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-06-27 04:47:48+00:00
And where do these "values" come from?

Value is objective, as good is a matter of being the kind of thing a thing is. That a subject is making the determination doesn't mean it has no objective reality. The subjective is not a cause of value anymore than a telescope is the cause of the image of the moon. The telescope can distort the image, but it would be nonsensical to call it the cause.

To consign value to mere subjectivity only makes value more mysterious, not less, as all this does is assert it as a brute fact with no relation to reality. On the other hand, an objective basis grounds it in human nature.
by divbzero | 2025-06-27 04:50:48+00:00
He didn’t mention it in this letter, but in Surely You’re Joking Feynman described how he solved for the motion of plates spinning and wobbling across a cafeteria in Cornell. When his colleague asked what’s the importance of this problem, he responded: “There’s no importance whatsoever. I’m just doing it for the fun of it.”
by weq | 2025-06-27 04:52:34+00:00
In the coming years, you will be paying AI companies a cut of your salary. It will be the cost of doing buisness. People will be so dumb they wont be able to tell whats an AI halluciation or not. We will continue to enter our every thought into the AI until it can replace us at that task. Your job will become AI slop input -> AI slop output. Everyone will conform on a natural optimisation point.

This all discounts how human variation and thinking is critical to the advancement and survival of the species being adaptable as possible to the climate and conditions of the given day. We didnt get to moon on the back of one person or race. The AI can only emulate what it sees, it cant have ideas of its own. The dawn of AI will never be seen again, all AI will suffer from the collective delusion to the point your freedom will be defined by not truth.

https://tech.co/news/another-study-ai-making-us-dumb
by KingOfCoders | 2025-06-27 04:53:48+00:00
It's not, license just says "Nothing guaranteed", it's not saying what to expect. A "I can do whatever I want" doesn't tell you anything about my behavior.

"The viewpoint expressed by Wellnhofer's is understandable, though one might argue about the assertion that libxml2 was not of sufficient quality for mainstream use. It was certainly promoted on the project web site as a capable and portable toolkit for the purpose of parsing XML. Open-source proponents spent much of the late 1990s and early 2000s trying to entice companies to trust the quality of projects like libxml2, so it is hard to blame those companies now for believing it was suitable for mainstream use at the time."

If the license says one thing, and you say and promote something else, you can't say "But it's in the license" and "I said so at a conference" just as it fits you.

So what should I believe? What you write in the license? What you say at a conference? Nothing you say?
by Dell3420 | 2025-06-27 04:54:44+00:00
I agree with this, and as we see the bubble keep growing, and the risk getting higher, default is everywhere.

We can see in South East asia it doesn't end well, KoinWorks/Lunaria, eFishery, Investree (even the founder can make another scam in Middle East), Crowdee, Akseleran, etc...

They called Unicorn, where in west we see Klarna, Afterpay, etc..

it's taking money, never generate right revenue, scamming million of people hard earning salary, just for VC doing their bubble pump and burst..
by JohnBooty | 2025-06-27 04:55:39+00:00
I was feeling burnt out until I got a pretty cool job a couple of years back. Instead of corporate crap we're building a product for scientists. I'm working on a small team with minimal interference. It feels good.

The downside is that this kind of job is rare. If/when this ends I'll probably need to go right back to the corporate grind. I don't have any other marketable skills, nor a financial runway, so.... realistically I need to do this until I die/retire.

I'm both excited and terrified about how the AI thing is going to play out.

I'm a fan. It's obviously the future. But I think it might entirely replace us, or at least 95% of us.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-27 04:56:23+00:00
Feo was a major MTA stan and proponent, even years later. Honestly, it is probably my favorite computing architecture of all time despite the weaknesses of the implementation. It was extraordinarily efficient in some contexts. Few people could design properly optimized code for them though, which was an additional problem.

There were proofs of concept by 2010 that the latency-hiding mechanics could be implemented on CPUs in software, which while not as efficient had the advantage of cost and performance, which was a death knell for the MTA. A few attempts to revive that style of architecture have come and gone. It is very difficult to compete with the economics of mass-scale commodity silicon.

I hold out hope that a modern barrel processor will become available at some point but I’m not sanguine about it.
by simtel20 | 2025-06-27 04:57:54+00:00
Most of the criticisms were accurate, if often very, very, very detail-oriented. DJB has always had a few settings: either you're on his level, on his wavelength, or he treats you as maybe bright enough to tie your own shoelaces on a good day.

That said, if you want to run a dns server and don't have huge scalable business to run on it, you can just run tinydns for a couple of decades and not worry about security issues, it just runs. BIND is more complex, and has evolved a lot more to do more because new features are implemented it as the reference, and so it needs to both scale up and out, and also change a lot, and for that, you get https://kb.isc.org/docs/aa-00913. So anyway, you can make up your mind, but my impression as a greying beard is that ISC has always been a risk you usually just need to accept if you need their tools since no-one else is doing anything to dethrone them.
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-27 05:01:03+00:00
Having written another comment, overall my anecdotal understanding is that the whole Monty Hall problem is based on the host knowing which door and will avoid removing any doors that don't have the car. That's the premise of the problem and isn't counterintuitive, but completely part of the intent of the problem.

If you remove the host knowing what is behind each door, then its no longer the monty hall problem.
by ecb_penguin | 2025-06-27 05:01:04+00:00
> YC is very similar to a university

No it's not. It's not even remotely comparable.

> There is a small group of companies that create the reputation on which everybody lives

Also called luck. YC investors cannot articulate what made them successful, or else they'd have better results.

Universities have decades of sustained output. They are not comparable.

> you joining some arbitrary YC startup was a bad experience

I am at a YC unicorn. We are one of YC's most successful startups.

> The average performance of a YC company is __phenomenal__

It absolutely is not. It doesn't even beat the SP500. The __vast__ majority of YC companies are unprofitable failures.

You could flip a coin and beat YC.
by InvisibleUp | 2025-06-27 05:02:13+00:00
To clarify, at the time I was aiming for the tone of Tantacrul's popular and well-received videos about poor software UX. (In particular, the MuseScore video is a good comparison; that was also an open source passion project.) Light-hearted ribbing / frustration venting mixed with genuine compassion toward the project's creator and his remarkable effort. Clearly I wildly missed the mark there. I'll try my best to avoid things like this happening again in the future.
by BrenBarn | 2025-06-27 05:02:21+00:00
> One of the big problems is that folks judge Matrix based on the legacy Element apps, which have now been succeeded by Element X: https://element.io/blog/we-have-lift-off-element-x-call-and-... etc.

Okay, but they do that because they used those apps, and they did that because you released those apps and said the same thing you're saying now ("use our app, it's really cool"). Surely you can understand why someone who dealt with that is going to be suspicious of "this time for sure".

> However, because it's a rewrite, it doesn't quite have feature parity with the old apps, which are now over 10 years old

So people can either judge based on "legacy" apps that do more, or the shiny new app that does less. Again, surely you can understand why people might be disappointed with both of those.

There isn't any way to avoid being judged on your whole history.

I recently tried Element X. I will say the onboarding was better, although that comes with the caveat that I'm not sure how that would go if I didn't have another device at hand to verify with. And UTD errors have definitely decreased (across all clients). Apart from that, the UX is okay, but I don't see it as radically better than the old Element.

There has been a good deal of improvement in Matrix, which I appreciate and kudos are due to you and the team for that. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to make claims like Element X being "radically better" than any competitor. And, importantly, making grandiose promises like that increases the risk of losing trust if people's experience isn't absolutely stellar.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-06-27 05:02:29+00:00
The difference is not in the claim "good for somebody", full stop, but your relativistic and subjectivist take as well as your distortion of human nature.

A person with pika desires to eat things with no nutritional value, like glass or polystyrene. A drug addict desires drugs. A pedophile desires sexual relations with children. These are disordered desires that do not advance the good of the subject: eating glass is not good for you; taking drugs is not good for you; having sexual relations with children is not good for you (both the sexual act in itself, but also that harming children like that is gravely opposed to justice and our social nature).

In the case of an armed conflict, our social nature entails justice, and so we can determine the moral features of a war according to justice. We can objectively say that the Russian invasion, broadly, is gravely immoral and that the Ukrainian defense of their country, broadly, is moral (it is still possible for Ukrainians to engage in immoral acts as part of their defense, of course).

W.r.t. universal health care, this is not something that is intrinsically evil, and so whether it would be good to institute universal health care will depend on particular circumstances. That there is debate over such things does not imply that there is no objective fact of the matter. Indeed, if that were the case, then genuine debate would be impossible, as genuine debate presupposes an objective truth. It would be nothing more than a battle of arbitrary wills willing things for no reason.
by HPMOR | 2025-06-27 05:02:55+00:00
Nobody ever pays too much or too little for a startup. Because either you __really__ make it, or you don't. It is statistically more likely for your YC startup to be worth more than $1 billion, than it is to be acquired in a cash deal for $80mm. It is because of this fact that $2/22mm is not unreasonable. However, most of the hot companies during the batch will fetch $3-4mm/30-40mm valuation. The average raise during demo day is close to ~$3mm, the median <$800k.
by dcow | 2025-06-27 05:05:42+00:00
I wasn’t as clear as I should have been: I am not talking about global population and humans going to zero in some hyperbolic nightmare fantasy. I am talking about one society, e.g. US population, living with the values and freedoms and technology we enjoy today, sustaining itself. Our society will cease to exist because of course humans aren’t just going to stop making babies. It’s just that the ones that do achieve positive replacement rate will have different society than us. The call to action is that if we want our comfortable society to persist, we have to swing back to a positive replacement rate at some point time (preferably before we become an irrelevant global minority), and also figure out how to insulate against the other faster growing societies, eventually. I never argued we always have to go up, that only matters in the context of ways to combat other more rapidly growing populations.
by Lvl999Noob | 2025-06-27 05:06:37+00:00
Yes. I believe zero sized types should be possible and they should all have the same address. Trying to deref the pointer is UB right away because you do not have the byte under that pointer. As it is, the malloc implementation now needs special casing for 0 sized allocations and different implementations special case it differently. C is supposed to be low level so surface this confusion up. Let the programmer decide if they want a unique address and reserve a byte or a non unique one with no overhead.
by ecb_penguin | 2025-06-27 05:07:33+00:00
I'm here for the scam! I get paid absurd amounts of money at an unprofitable YC startup. It's fine, though, because our founders are scamming even more money.

It's all a ponzi scheme where we pass investment dollars to the next bag holder (series C!). It doesn't really matter what you do. If you can get the bag by scamming some dumb investor about AI, that's true trickle down economics.
by HPMOR | 2025-06-27 05:07:38+00:00
You're wrong. YC's returns far exceed the returns of the S&P 500. This is why LP's throw money at YC's funds. And secondly, I've been through YC. It is very apparent after many many group office hours, which startups are likely to be in the 6% unicorn group and which are not. You are correct the vast majority of YC companies are failures. However this does not preclude that the *mean* of YC outcomes is very very good. If Bill Gates were in a room with me and my friends the MEAN net worth would be tens of billions of dollars, the median would be less than a $100k.
by addaon | 2025-06-27 05:10:12+00:00
> Well it’s actually 16.66 ms (1000 / 60). You can’t round up. A render loop that takes just a fraction more than the absolute minimum above would neck down to 30fps.

This is about response time, not render loop time. Response time is the analog time required to transition a physical subpixel from one brightness level to another, usually measuring from when the transition starts. A 16.67 ms response time does indeed mean that with a 16.66(6) ms frame period it's still 0.003(3) ms away from completing the transition... but that just means that it's an immeasurable fraction away from the commanded brightness at that time, not that there will be rippling effects to the next frame or anything.
by bee_rider | 2025-06-27 05:10:33+00:00
I don’t think random should be faster than contiguous access, if you parallelize both of them.

Although, it looks like that chip has a 1MB L2 cache for each core. If these are 4 Bytes ints, then I guess they won’t all fit in one core’s L2, but maybe they can all start out in their respective cores’ L2 if it is parallelized (well, depends on how you set it up).

Maybe it will be closer. Contiguous should still win.
by sramsay64 | 2025-06-27 05:11:30+00:00
This was my experience of Ada as well. Beautiful language, that somehow seemed to combine the best parts of Haskell and C. But so difficult to find documentation online. C++ has it's footguns, but it's hard not to learn them all just from the background noise alone. The tooling and stackoverflow-ability makes C++ feel as fast to develop as a scripting language in comparison to Ada.
by cherrycherry98 | 2025-06-27 05:12:28+00:00
GC usually only runs when the process wants to allocate an object but there's no space left on the heap. It's entirely possible that it did a bunch of work previously which created a bunch of garbage now waiting to be cleaned up. See the G1PeriodicGCInterval flag to enable idle collections (assuming G1).

Java is also fairly greedy with memory by default. It likes to grow the heap and then hold onto that memory unless 70% of the heap is free after a collection. The ratios used to grow and shrink the heap can be tuned with MinHeapFreeRatio and MaxHeapFreeRatio.