MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tikhonj | 2025-06-29 05:15:51+00:00
At some point, I did a rough count, and the number of operators you encounter in "normal" Haskell code—avoiding lens or domain-specific libraries—was pretty close to the number of operators you'd encounter in, say, JavaScript. This was a while ago and I don't want to redo the exercise now, but, even if we're being generous to JavaScript, practical Haskell needs on the order of 2x as many operators as practical JavaScript, not 10x.

Haskell has some up-front incidental complexity, but it's a difference of degree not kind from popular starting languages. It's easy to underestimate how much you had to learn about Algol-style languages that you've just internalized so well that you don't even realize. I've taught some complete programming beginners (high or middle schoolers) Java and Python and, especially one-on-one, I've seen how they get confused by things I did not even remember required explanation!

For example, in Python, people put : in the wrong place and don't understand how = works. "Basic" syntax like : and = are far more complex than we realize, we've just learned the basics so well that it's second nature. It's similar to how native English speakers don't even realize we have rules for adjective order ("big red ball" vs "red big ball"), while language learners run into it like a brick wall.
by phrinj | 2025-06-29 05:15:55+00:00
I discovered that Claude Code's ~/.claude.json file logs partial/unsent keystrokes and stores OAuth metadata (emails, user IDs) in plaintext. The metadata isn't even needed after initial auth - you can delete it and stay logged in.

This creates an unencrypted, ever-growing log of sensitive user activity. Filed an issue and wrote a cleanup script that deletes this info instantly when it tries to save it.

Verified on WSL, but likely affects all platforms.
by paul7986 | 2025-06-29 05:21:42+00:00
Starting to have a hate / little love relationship for AI and chatGPT.

We are feeding this beast that no doubt will take thousands to more of our design and development jobs. People I know are falling in love with it (lonely people) and spending less time with their friends as chatGPT tells them everything they want to hear.

For instance a close friend has an obsession with a rockstar and thinks in another life they were a couple and she feeds chatGPT this delusion and it prompts her along helping her fall back into this delusion. As one time she overstepped her boundaries to the point that the rockstar told her to go away her interest is not welcome and she swore hime off. Yet now she has this algorithm that tells her that's not a delusion thus keeping her delusion going.

Why do we need AI? Who does it help besides the tech people whom it will continue to make rich while it wreaks havoc on everyone else?
by voidhorse | 2025-06-29 05:22:10+00:00
I don't think that's a fair representation of the argument.

The argument is not "here's one failure case, therefore they don't reason". The argument is that systematically if you given an LLM problem instances outside training sets in domains with clear structural rules, they will fail to solve them. The argument then goes that they must not have an actual model or understanding of the rules, as they seem to only be capable of solving problems in the training set. That is, they have failed to figure out how to solve novel problem instances of general problem structures using logical reasoning.

Their strict dependence on having seen the exact or extremely similar concrete instances suggests that they don't actually generalize—they just compute a probability based on known instances—which everyone knew already. The problem is we just have a lot of people claiming they are capable of more than this because they want to make a quick buck in an insane market.
by DocTomoe | 2025-06-29 05:22:37+00:00
Interestingly, and that may be a personal opinion - I have bought more music from more obscure musicians in the last few years, mostly thanks to Bandcamp.

Before that, I mostly gravitated to 'blockbuster musicians', old classics, 1970s psychedelic rock. Today I buy some unknown musician's album every few days (and I pay what I'd pay for a 'proper' album, even if it is pay what you want).

Part of that is simply availability. The old record stores of old were often just "what's popular" with a side dish of "what the owner likes". Today? I found some Touareg rock band the other day. In the 1990s, that was virtually impossible even for music lovers.

Part of it is that today, I pay for what I like. Radio sucks, the classics are oversaturated, and often enough new releases are just qualitatively worse - both in composition as well as remasters which tend to sacrifice nuance for loudness. But indy bands? I don't expect perfection, but often enough find it.

Now, I understand I am a rare breed. In a Spotify world, the one buying FLACs is exotic. I do understand that the mid-range musician is not going to become a millionaire - but who ever did?

The example in the article sounds a lot like the artist has been bent over a barrel by the record company - a pattern even "successful" musicians have experienced. Maybe instead of chasing fame, the solution is to do your own marketing.

The musical middle class wasn’t thinned out by the audience, but by labels and streaming models. If you’re not topping the charts, you vanish between promotion costs and algorithmic obscurity - unless you go directly to the listener.
by wwweston | 2025-06-29 05:23:13+00:00
~15-20 years ago, the popular wisdom was that we were entering the age of the long tail, where the open distribution opportunities of the internet combined with discovery technology would mean that it'd be easier for many artists to "make it" to a point where they had 10k fans. What happened?

We decimated recordings as a revenue stream (and literal decimation might be wildly generous, given that stream payouts frequently never add up to a single sale for many artists). We let people peddle the lie that artists can just find some other revenue source like merchandising or another job or anything else rather than paying for the thing people ostensibly value.

Minor league success was never an easy proposition but we had a chance to give it better margins. And we let Spotify and others eat those, and let too many people tell comforting lies to consumers along the way.

And without a major cultural shift, we will do the same thing for everyone eventually.
by raincole | 2025-06-29 05:27:09+00:00
It's not about hypercomputation.

What the commenter above you said doesn't make sense in our daily life, but it makes perfect sense when in comes to non-standard models.

You got confused because you're thinking natural numbers as something we can count in real physical world, which is a perfectly sane mental model, and that is why there was a comment above said:

> People find that weird because they don't think about non-standard models, as arguably they shouldn't.

Q is not a number you can actually count, so it doesn't fit into our intuition of natural number. The point is not that Q exists in some physical sense in real life, like "3" in "3 apples" (it doesn't). The point is that ZF itself isn't strong enough to prevent you from defining random shit like Q as a natural number.
by Kn1026 | 2025-06-29 05:27:24+00:00
Hi everyone, I’m Khoi from SnowX, a small research lab in Silicon Valley.

Back in the day, browsers could open only one page at a time. If you wanted to read something else, you had to close the current window and start over. The arrival of tabs changed everything, suddenly we could research, shop, and stream side-by-side. One subtle invention, and the world’s work habits shifted overnight.

Two decades later, a new bottleneck has appeared: information overload. A single project now spawns dozens of chats, documents, spreadsheets, and dashboards. The more windows we juggle, the harder our brains work to stitch them together, leading to fatigue and missed details.

That’s why we’re building the AI Agent Workspace at SnowX.

Imagine each tab is no longer a webpage but a specialized teammate:

One agent finds sources and summarizes them.

One agent turns your idea into a design mock-up.

One agent watches your metrics and alerts you to anomalies.

One agent converts rough notes into a polished slide deck.

These agents talk to one another and share context, while you drag, drop, and reprioritize them as easily as browser tabs—only now the heavy lifting is done by AI.

In our upcoming release SnowX will let you:

Spin up an unlimited number of agents.

Keep a shared memory so every tab understands the big picture.

Dial each agent’s level of autonomy up or down as you need.

Would love to hear your thought and we’re offering free early access to everyone in our Discord community
by kingstnap | 2025-06-29 05:28:10+00:00
I do wonder about actual numbers, though.

* Is the amount of music listened to in a day down? * Is the rate of music creation down? * Given some metric of diversity is music diversity down? * Given some metric of quality is music quality down? * Are there fewer artists per capita / in total? * Has the Gini coefficient really shifted?

I assume that for almost all of these, the answer is actually no. Presumably, technology has made making more higher quality music easier and cheaper than ever, and people are listening to more than ever.
by justcool393 | 2025-06-29 05:28:35+00:00
i think that people vastly overstate the costs of this sort of thing and it's super bizarre. if you're treating this as a big official corporation™ and such and want to pay 500 devs like $200k/year or something to make work, then yeah you're gonna have problems.

but if you want to build a social network and aren't dreaming of being gazillionaires for it (which is quite reasonable), then you can get by very easily. how do I know this? because... well it's being done successfully. not was done successfully, is done successfully.

you can probably even get people to help out on it.

you can build a social network with a dedi running nginx hosting your Python application running on a Linux box backed against Postgres (and redis for session storage, although even that is a bit overkill) for like $80/month deployed with a "deploy.sh" script that you run to kick the damn thing into running (Docker is used in dev only, but could easily work here). should you probably add health checks or whatever? yeah. it still works really well.

this scales well past the 100k users mark.

what about video/images/etc? well, this nginx server happily sends out user uploaded video storing them as files on a bog standard ext4 filesystem. backups exist of the site.

the "stack" i mentioned here isn't fancy or particularly tightly optimized, it's in fact pessimized in a lot of ways. hell I know there were a gazillion ways we could improve performance of our application. show the backend app to a game dev and they'd probably want to start strangling people with how poorly optimized most of the actual app is.

and still, it scales well.

again, I stress that this isn't some theoretical idea, this is actively being executed. the entire venture makes money for the team from the users who willingly (and unforcibly in order to use the service, the actual site is free to use in its full form) give money. this isn't ZFS. this isn't Rust. this isn't using some blue-green deployment. this isn't spending hours toiling away at which sysctl to set to squeeze every last cycle out of each box. this isn't behind some massive CDN with "internet scale" boxen or even (for the video serving part) behind any anti-DDoS service.

it's just a matter of doing actual engineering and being willing to actually build the things you want to build.
by nick_m | 2025-06-29 05:28:50+00:00
Hey Roblox Engineers on here - a brilliant article, by the way - and I want to chip in here, I'm a senior engineer and understand how tech works all the way down. NAND gates, flip-flops and I/O schedulers, and networks? No problem.

I have two young children, a boy and a girl. They both love playing Roblox, and I play along with them too, and their friends join in as well. Yes, they both always want more Robux, but let's look at this from a different perspective:

They create their own worlds - often amazing, it's not like they can run out of LEGO pieces, their creativity is their only barrier. In COVID lockdown, they could carry on playing with their friends, despite not being physically together. Humans still monitor and care for the "game", yes, some bad actors might get through occasionally, but on the whole, it's a safe and well-controlled, fun place to be. I used the concept of a Roblox Avatar to gently explain to my children, that people online might not be all they pretend to be - after all, in some games, I'm a super weight-lifter with a six-pack, and I have wings too :-O We all laughed. It's already taught both my children some genuine life-lessons - working in a pizza shop and doing deliveries, earning money, deciding how to lay out their dream houses (and Theme Parks!), and so on - plus, the importance of locking the door to keep the "bad guys" out.

All this, whilst having fun. Roblox is a force for good - if you pay the odd time for some credits, then so what, developers and us creatives also have to keep the roof over our heads.
by Rastonbury | 2025-06-29 05:29:23+00:00
In those games its more difficult to create a private hangout space or "GTA for kids". Haven't heard of the weird romance thing, but seen my nephew playing a roblox game where the goal is kill as many people wheelchairs as you can. I saw I guess the humor in it because I played San Andreas when I was his age but him mom might have been shocked. Those other games are much more restricted in the possibilities, moderation seems impossible
by bluefirebrand | 2025-06-29 05:31:00+00:00
> our current system makes people produce value for others in their chase for status

I don't think most of the people who have extremely high status are doing anything remotely close to producing value

They just own capital which they use to pay other people to produce value, which they then take credit for, which boosts their status

So it would seem that we're pretty divorced from the idea of "produce value -> get status" these days, if you can just pay people to produce value for you instead
by chickenzzzzu | 2025-06-29 05:31:29+00:00
Who is this "we" you speak of? There is no society. There is only individuals making decisions on how to spend their money, time, and comfort.

If hundreds of millions of people decide to use Spotify and Youtube to obtain their music, and if that means most artists are shafted in the process, no secret organization enacted some conspiracy to achieve that. Instead, technology enabled a new form of consumption, and producers faced a new level of competition.
by b112 | 2025-06-29 05:31:30+00:00
This is an article about hiring new grads in 2024/5, and what's different/weird, eg parents at interviews.

You've responded by saying you haven't seen that in the past. So what? The article mentions now, not the past.

The article says "almost 1 out of 10" interviews. You say 12.5% is 1 in 10?!? 10% is one in ten, and almost is a less than property, so it's less than 10%.

Did you get AI to summarize the article for you or something, then reply?
by wtfwhateven | 2025-06-29 05:32:59+00:00
>No, this is illegal and prosecutable.

This is a lie.

The ruling made such a case unprosecutable as it made any possible evidence in such a case inadmissable. You've been told this multiple times but gloss over it for some reason.

The majority went out of there way to make the president unprosecutable. Not only did they make "official" (whether or not something is an official act is something this very same majority will decide!) acts unprosecutable they ensured that even if immunity doesn't apply then NONE of the evidence is admissible.

The simple and irrefutable fact is that the ruling allows the president to have a political opponent killed and be wholly immune to any possible prosecution.

For example:

- President has political opponent killed by any means (ask CIA to do it or whatever), or accepts a bribe from someone in return for sending weaponry or anything else

- President's term ends

- Former president is charged for his obviously criminal acts

- Former president's lawyers argue their actions were "official acts"

- Prosecutor appeals

- Gets all the way to the supreme court

- Supreme court decides that the crimes commited were official acts because the president did them (and thus must be official)

or if the court tries to look marginally less ridiculous and corrupt:

- Supreme court decides the crimes themselves weren't official acts but any and all communication related to the acts themselves were official acts and are this inadmissable (making the prosecution impossible)

MAYBE the 'justices' have integrity at that point and don't rule that way... too bad. The president can just have pre-emptively have disloyal 'justices' killed and personally appoint loyalists... and have them rule the way he wants. It's all an official act, after all.

Can you show me what part of the ruling prevents the above?

Whether or not you believe the above is "unrealistic" or "fearmongering" is irrelevant as this is what the majority's absurd opinion allows for. It's simply unjustifiable, unconstitutional, ridiculous and there's no excuse for it.
by metalrain | 2025-06-29 05:34:21+00:00
MCP works for small, well defined actions (like examples in the article), but enterprise APIs can have hundreds/thousands of endpoints/schemas for different concepts and variations of operations.

For example how would you MCP Google Ads rpc API https://developers.google.com/google-ads/api/reference/rpc/v... so that LLM and user will understand that? Seems like we can't escape complexity.
by waluigi | 2025-06-29 05:34:27+00:00
It’s even more counterintuitive than you let on! If you are working in ZFC along with the axiom “ZFC is consistent” then there’s no issue: just a normal number[1]. Where things get really strange is in ZFC plus the axiom “ZFC is inconsistent”.

This already sounds like an inconsistent theory, but surprisingly isn’t: Godel’s second incompleteness theorem directly gives us that Con(ZFC) is independent, so there are models that validate both Con(ZFC) and ~Con(ZFC). The models that validate ~Con(ZFC) are very confused about what numbers are: from the models perspective, there is a number corresponding to a Godel code for the supposed proof of inconsistency, but from the external view this is a “nonstandard number”: it’s not not a finite numeral!

Getting back to BB(748): what does this look like in a model of ZFC + ~Con(ZFC)? We can prove that the machine internal to the model will find that astronomically large Godel code, so BB(748) will be a nonstandard number. In other words, you can tell if a 748 state machine will terminate in this model: you’ve just got to run it for a number of steps that’s larger than every finite numeral!

[1]: unless there’s some machine that with 748 that enumerates theorems of ZFC+Con(ZFC) but that’s a different discussion.
by Lerc | 2025-06-29 05:34:31+00:00
That still seems unfalsifiable. If it fails one instance the claim is that the failure is representative of things outside the training set. If it succeeds the claim is that it is in the training set. Without a definitive way to say something is not in the training set (a likely impossible task) the measure of success or failure is the only indicator of the purported reason reason for the success or failure.

Given models can get things wrong even when the training data contains the answer, failure cannot show absence.
by skissane | 2025-06-29 05:37:29+00:00
Israel really is unique among Western nations. Can you point to a Western nation where there is a constitutional distinction between "citizens" and "the nation for whom the state exists", such that you can belong to the former without belonging to the later?

And it isn't "essentially limited to Western Europe". The same is true of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – naturalisation as a citizen automatically makes you an official member of the "nation for whom the state exists". I believe it is true for most or all Latin American nations as well.

Now, Israel is not unique globally speaking – I think Malaysia's bumiputera status is a rather close parallel. But I doubt that's a comparison most Zionists are keen to draw attention to.

> "civic" nation-states) and non-nation-states

If you are going to argue that "Germany is a civic nation state, the US is a non-nation-state", that is a false and arbitrary distinction. Because American nationalism is an entirely real thing – but in its mainstream contemporary manifestation it is civic nationalist, not ethnic nationalist, just like how mainstream contemporary German nationalism is civic nationalist not ethnic nationalist. Now, historically America was arguably racial nationalist – America was a nation, not necessarily for any particular White ethnicity, but for White people [0] – but it has evolved from racial nationalism into civic nationalism

[0] The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited US citizenship by naturalization to "free white persons". The Naturalization Act of 1870 made people of African descent eligible for citizenship by naturalization, but people who were categorised as neither "white" nor "African" remained ineligible for citizenship by naturalisation until the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) removed all racial restrictions on naturalisation. So US nationality law arguably was explicitly racially nationalist from 1790 to 1870, and remained so in a somewhat watered down sense from 1870 to 1952.
by voidhorse | 2025-06-29 05:37:30+00:00
I only skimmed it so far, but this seems to only argue against the functional import of the OP, not its philosophical import.

On my reading, the philosophical claim is that these models do not develop an actual logical, internal representation of domains.

The functional import is whether or not they are able to realize specific behaviors within a domain. The paper argues that a markov process can realize the functional equivalence of the initial goal oriented picture of its domain—that is can solve goals with an error bound—but not that it develops an actual representation of the domain.

Lack of an actual representation prevents such a machine from doing other things. For example, iiuc, it would be unable to solve problems in domains that are homomorphic to the original, while an explicit representation does enable this.
by data-ottawa | 2025-06-29 05:39:27+00:00
Being able to plug MCPs into my desktop Claude app has been awesome. I gave it a K/V store and access to my project folder and it uses the tools very well with minimal guidance.

Today there's no way I can talk an average person into getting MCP working without them having to modify some config files hidden away somewhere.

I would bet big money that as soon as Claude and ChatGPT add 1 click "app store" experiences everyone will be using them in a week.

It is not easy to "just" use an API as a human, plus a lot of APIs force you to deal with tokens and storing+executing code. In some cases it's easier for the LLM to simply fetch or curl basic APIs directly than waste context tokens on the overhead of an MCP tool call (e.g. all these weather tool examples), but with MCP consistency is much better, so depending on the use case MCP vs API both have advantages.

Since my comment is already pretty long: LLM+RSS+Fetch is a killer combination for me, and it's almost all off the shelf these days. Once I add an RSS merge tool I think it will be an excellent way to consume content.