MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by boomlinde | 2025-06-16 09:12:48+00:00
There's a "correct" sound in that the MIDI standard itself doesn't specify a standard instrument assignment. For that, there's General MIDI but also entirely different approaches (like the MT-32 instrument assignment, which predates General MIDI) and extensions to General MIDI (like Roland's GS and Yamaha's XG). Some didn't have a standard assignment at all (like the FB-01). Even the Adlib and earlier Soundblaster cards didn't have exactly GM compatible MIDI playback drivers; General MIDI specifies a minimum number of 24 simultaneous voices, and an OPL2 or even a pair of them can't satisfy that requirement.

There's also a "correct" sound insofar that the tracks were usually arranged using one sound module or another. Even when devices are compatible in the sense that they have adopted the same standard, hearing music on another device than the one the soundtrack was originally arranged for will cause some degradation, because the standards are only loosely specified in terms of timbre, volume levels, envelopes etc.

Some DOS games have specific arrangements for a variety of different kinds of MIDI devices for these reasons, with different mix levels and instrument setup, sometimes scaled down arrangements, adjustments for the instrument patches and even loading entirely new patches onto the devices.
by cess11 | 2025-06-16 09:12:51+00:00
That strawman isn't particularly pretty, maybe you could put some effort in next time you make one?

To me civilisation isn't an inherently good term, and I'm not a believer in natural or god given hierarchies, or even the state as necessary. On the contrary, I consider the state to be a crime in itself, founded on the threat of violence and by necessity it destroys cooperative forms of social life as a survival tactic.
by ludwik | 2025-06-16 09:13:01+00:00
> there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered

I'm a complete layman when it comes to physics, so forgive me if this is naive — but aren't "ordered" and "disordered" concepts tied to human perception or cognition? It always seemed to me that we call something "ordered" when we can find a pattern in it, and "disordered" when we can't. Different people or cultures might be able to recognize patterns in different states. So while I agree that "there are more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered," I would have thought that's a property of how humans perceive the world, not necessarily a fundamental truth about the universe
by Huxley1 | 2025-06-16 09:13:19+00:00
I was pretty amazed by how expressive Peano Arithmetic is when I first started using it. At first it just seems like a basic system, but once you realize that computation itself can be encoded inside PA, and that it can simulate many kinds of computation, things that felt complicated start to click.

Does anyone have recommendations for beginner-friendly resources that explain these encoding techniques?
by lormayna | 2025-06-16 09:14:53+00:00
This module from SeedStudio is perfect for a small portable node. https://www.seeedstudio.com/Wio-SX1262-with-XIAO-ESP32S3-p-5...

There is also a version with Rak chip instead that ESP32, that is a lot less power hungry and it's perfect for a solar powered module.
by badmintonbaseba | 2025-06-16 09:16:30+00:00
> Smaller size at runtime (uses less memory).

Yours is smaller (in terms of sizeof), because std::function employs small-buffer optimization (SBO). That is if the user data fits into a specific size, then it's stored inline the std::function, instead of getting heap allocated. Yours need heap allocation for the ones that take data.

Whether yours win or lose on using less memory heavily depends on your typical closure sizes.

> Faster at runtime

Benchmark, please.
by pif | 2025-06-16 09:18:21+00:00
> I don’t understand std::function<> implementation.

This is the kind of (maybe brilliant, maybe great, maybe both, surely more than myself) developers I don't like to work with.

You are not required to understand the implementation: you are only required to fully understand the contract. I hate those colleagues who waste my time during reviews because they need to delve deeply into properly-named functions before coming back to the subject at hand.

Implementations are organized at different logical level for a reason. If you are not able to reason at a fixed level, I don't like to work with you (and I understand you will not like to work with me).
by jstanley | 2025-06-16 09:19:47+00:00
Maybe, (I don't know), but it's easy to accidentally come up with a theory of "mysterious stuff" that appears to explain something, but neither constrains your expectation nor provides predictions.

Phlogiston is the classic example. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causa...
by souvik3333 | 2025-06-16 09:19:54+00:00
We have not trained explicitly on handwriting datasets (completely handwritten documents). But, there are lots of forms data with handwriting present in training. So, do try on your files, there is a huggingface demo, you can quickly test there: https://huggingface.co/spaces/Souvik3333/Nanonets-ocr-s

We are currently working on creating completely handwritten document datasets for our next model release.
by ajsnigrutin | 2025-06-16 09:21:52+00:00
The problem with lora (and APRS over satellite... well, even ground APRS) is, that the bandwidth is very limited and usually only for "one person at a time", so while meshtastic/meshcore might be fine for tens of stations and a few users chatting, once those numbers get higher, the routing/signalization uses up most of the bandwidth, and many people sending messages at the same time makes the whole system very unreliable.

APRS is a bit better, because it requires ham licences and (usually) a bit more expensive equipment, but with "SmartBeaconing" and just a few hams, you get collisions (multiple people transmitting at the same time, effectively jamming eachother).

Reddit is usually full of preppers and other idiots buying these cheap chinese radios, usually without any knowledge and licences (that are needed to use them), and in turn they know nothing about actual use of those devices.... simplex range in urban environment is measured in hundreds of meters or maybe one or two large buildings between radioss, and repeaters will be in use by actual emergency servics and not really usable for any kind of "private use".

tldr: get a few books, a pack of cards, wait it out, not so long ago being unreachable away from home was the norm, and we managed.
by nestorD | 2025-06-16 09:22:08+00:00
I don't use it to avoid reading man pages. Rather, as often with LLMs, this is a faster way to do things I already know how to do. Looking at commands I run in various situations and typing them for me, faster than I can remember the name of a flag i use weekly with a pdf processing tool or type 5 consecutive shell commands.

Money wise, my full usage so far (including running purposely large inputs/outputs to stress test it) has cost me.... 19c. And I am not even using the cheapest model available. But, you could also run it with a local model.
by Retric | 2025-06-16 09:23:07+00:00
I think you may have something with that line of reasoning.

The threshold for transformative for fictional works is fairly high unfortunately. Fan fiction and reasonably distinct works with excessive inspiration are both copyright infringing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter

> Models themselves are very clearly transformative.

A near word for word copy of large sections of a work seems nowhere near that threshold. An MP3 isn’t even close to a 1:1 copy of a piece of music but the inherent differences are irrelevant, a neural network containing and allowing the extraction of information looks a lot like lossy compression.

Models could easily be transformative, but the justification needs to go beyond well obviously they are.
by tialaramex | 2025-06-16 09:23:31+00:00
One of the big differences was in attitude. The TLS 1.3 anti-downgrade feature was not compatible with some popular middlebox products. Google told people too bad, either your vendor fixes it (most shipped free bug fixes for this issue, presumably "encouraged" by the resulting customer anger) or you can't run Chrome once this temporary fudge goes away in a year's time.

Previously (in earlier protocol versions) nobody stood up to the crap middleboxes even though it's bad for all normal users.
by ThaUnknown | 2025-06-16 09:23:37+00:00
I'm sorry you feel that way.

That's not the license change diff, that's the diff of almost 6 months of work and over 200,000 lines of code written, easy mistake no?

Commit history has not been re-written, I assume you simply don't own a scroll wheel, because all the old commits are still [right there](https://github.com/ThaUnknown/miru/commits/master/?after=342...), they are simply just flooded by a massive re-write of the entire codebase.

The specific commit you're likely looking for is [here](https://github.com/ThaUnknown/miru/commit/9b1ec67e69614684cd...), which yes, you're right, Miru/Hayase is now BSL1.1 based, which is "source available" not "FOSS" mainly to protect the codebase from people who actually tried making money off of it.
by Zobat | 2025-06-16 09:24:41+00:00
Apple is Berkeley Unix-based, while not actually Linux it's possible their contributions to open source have made it's way into Linux (me guessing, no real experience of either Linux or Mac).

Could also be that there's been work done to communicate with Apple specific products, again wild guesses but based on my perception of people working with Apple products is that there might be above average number of "edge cases" that needs addressing when communicating with those.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-06-16 09:24:57+00:00
Copyright doesn't "produce a cultural hellscape." That's just nonsense. Capitalism does because it has editorial control over narratives and their marketing and distribution.

Those are completely different phenomena. Removing copyright will not suddenly open the floodgates of creativity because anyone can already create anything.

But - and this is the key point - most work is me-too derivative anyway. See for example the flood of magic school novels which were clearly loosely derivative of Harry Potter.

Same with me-too novels in romantasy. Dystopian fiction. Graphic novels. Painted art. Music.

It's all hugely derivative, with most people making work that is clearly and directly derivative of other work.

Copyright doesn't stop this, because as a minimum requirement for creative work, it forces it to be different enough.

You can't directly copy Harry Potter, but if you create your own magic school story with some similar-ish but different-enough characters and add dragons or something you're fine.

In fact under capitalism it is much harder to sell original work than to sell derivative work. Capitalism enforces exactly this kind of me-too creative staleness, because different-enough work based on an original success is less of a risk than completely original work.

Copyright is - ironically - one of the few positive factors that makes originality worthwhile. You still have to take the risk, but if the risk succeeds it provides some rewards and protections against direct literal plagiarism and copying that wouldn't exist without it.
by skrebbel | 2025-06-16 09:25:12+00:00
Oh really? Cool, I did not know that.

How does that work with variables in the closure then? I could see that work with the autogenerated class: Just make a class field for every variable referenced inside the lambda function body, and assign those in constructor. Pretty similar to this here article. But it's not immediately obvious to me how private static methods can be used to do the same, except for callbacks that do not form a closure (eg filter predicates and sort compare functions and the likes that only use the function parameters).
by prof-dr-ir | 2025-06-16 09:26:34+00:00
Good question. You are absolutely right that entropy is always fundamentally a way to describe are our lack of perfect knowledge of the system [0].

Nevertheless there is a distinct "reality" to entropic forces, in the sense that it is something that can actually be measured in the lab. If you are not convinced then you can look at:

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

and in particular the example that is always used in a first class on this topic:

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

So when viewed in this way entropy is not just a "made-up thing", but an effective way to describe observed phenomena. That makes it useful for effective but not fundamental laws of physics. And indeed the wiki page says that entropic forces are an "emergent phenomenon".

Therefore, any reasonable person believing in entropic gravity will automatically call gravity an emergent phenomenon. They must conclude that there is a new, fundamental theory of gravity to be found, and this theory will "restore" the probabilistic interpretation of entropy.

The reason entropic gravity is exciting and exotic is that many other searches for this fundamental theory start with a (more or less) direct quantization of gravity, much like one can quantize classical mechanics to arrive at quantum mechanics. Entropic gravity posits that this is the wrong approach, in the same way that one does not try to directly quantize the ideal gas law.

[0] Let me stress this: there is no entropy without probability distributions, even in physics. Anyone claiming otherwise is stuck in the nineteenth century, perhaps because they learned only thermodynamics but not statistical mechanics.
by jart | 2025-06-16 09:26:53+00:00
I wrote a shell that's designed to be good enough for the things likely to be passed to system() and popen(). It probably took me a week. To make it a non-toy POSIX shell, I could see potentially taking me a year. The shell is nuts. There's a reason why Thompson got replaced with Bourne and Bourne got replaced with Almquist, and most people use Bash, and then a lot of people started using Zsh. It's simple enough to attract greenfield implementors, and complicated enough for them all to get improved upon.
by frankvienna | 2025-06-16 09:27:26+00:00
Hey Hackernews!

We're two months into building Woberry (a job search platform), and I have a question about our content strategy/SEO.

What We've Been Doing (The "Right" Way)

Like every good founder, I followed all the SEO advice:

Built tons of FAQ pages with proper JSON-LD markup

Optimized for keywords like "resume builder" and "job search tips"

Created helpful blog content targeting long-tail keywords

Got our technical SEO perfect (Core Web Vitals, schema, etc.)

The Problem: Nobody's Clicking Anymore

Last week I searched "how to write a cover letter" and Google's AI just... answered it. Completely. No clicks needed.

Same with ChatGPT search. People ask "best job search tools" and get recommendations without ever visiting our site.

It's like we're optimising for a game that's already over.

The Plot Twist

I found this research on "Generative Engine Optimization" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637528.3671900) that suggests we should optimise for AI responses instead of traditional search results.

Their findings: Adding statistics, credible quotes, and citations to content increased AI visibility by 40%. Meanwhile, keyword stuffing actually hurts you.

My Questions for This Community

For early-stage startups (0-6 months):

Are you still doing traditional SEO or pivoting to something else?

Has anyone experimented with optimizing content specifically for AI search engines?

What's actually driving traffic for you right now?

For slightly more mature startups:

Have you noticed your organic traffic changing in the last 6 months?

Are you seeing more zero-click searches in your analytics?

How are you adapting your content strategy?

And lastly, to my question, are we wasting time on traditional SEO when we should be preparing for an AI-first search world?

Or am I overthinking this and should just keep grinding the classic way?

Drop your experiences below - especially if you're seeing similar shifts in your analytics.

I'm genuinely curious how other founders are handling this transition.

P.S. - If you're job hunting and want to see what we're building, check out woberry.com
by staunton | 2025-06-16 09:28:18+00:00
It's always a question of what precision you want.

For really any physical system, when describing it at ever greater precision, more and more effects become relevant until you can't calculate it anymore (or even your theory itself breaks down). In this case, the precision they need is extremely high so this is a problem.

For the vast majority of systems, there's no point in going there because the precision of experiments is too low (which means that the experiments feature even more poorly controlled effects which would be unreasonable to model).
by tsimionescu | 2025-06-16 09:30:07+00:00
> From this pov, it makes a lot more sense to connect gravity with some orderly or disorderly features of these trajectories.

On the contrary, entropic gravity works pretty well for the Newtonian view of gravity as a force, and not the GR view of gravity as a deformation of space time and analogous to acceleration. Acceleration is a very elementary concept, one you find even in microscopic descriptions. Gravity being essentially the same thing makes it far more elementary than a concept like entropy, which only applies to large groups of particles.

So, if the GR picture is the right one, if gravity and acceleration are essentially the same thing, its very hard to see how that aligns with gravity being an emergent phenomenon that only happens at large scales. However, if gravity is just a tendency for massive objects to come together, as in the Newtonian picture, that is perfectly easy to imagine as an entropic effect.
by vanschelven | 2025-06-16 09:30:20+00:00
For those not in the know:

The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."

Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.

On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened.

https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/...
by nebula8804 | 2025-06-16 09:30:56+00:00
For me it was Epic Pinball on a Sound Blaster 16. Playing Duke Nukem 1 was awesome and all(wish I could go back) but when I heard the intro to Epic Pinball come out of these speakers:

https://assets.superhivemarket.com/store/product/190602/imag...

It was one of those moments where computers blew my 8 year old mind, I was never the same.
by saidinesh5 | 2025-06-16 09:31:08+00:00
I think it really is up to us to make things as fun as we want to see... There may be more minefields as we grow old (Can a senior pull a harmless prank on newly joined juniors without coming off as mean/threatening?), but at the same time these little joke comments/commit messages, pranks etc.. are what brought people closer together in every place I worked at so far...

I mean what other choice do we really have? let the fun police win?
by nunobrito | 2025-06-16 09:31:55+00:00
Please stop with the FUD.

Portugal was for 24 hours without electricity. LoRa networks were jammed and non-operational because the bandwidth is limited. APRS kept working.

It is far better to have a walkie-talkie that you can use as PMR on the 446 range and use for satellite text messages than an expensive toy that very few use.

And as you also know: You do NOT require a radio license when operating under emergency situations, which is the context on this case.
by sky2224 | 2025-06-16 09:32:07+00:00
I think the person you're replying to is being a bit alarmist, but in the context of AI, the models available 8 months ago were honestly significantly worse than what we have now.

Simon Willison did a great write up about the advancements of LLMs over the past six months, and it was a pretty cool read.

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/6/six-months-in-llms/
by thorin | 2025-06-16 09:33:35+00:00
My dad worked at BT and used to take me to different exchanges at the weekend normally on Saturday mornings. I guess he claimed a day in lieu for working a couple of hours and then we went for lunch or pottered around the shops. In there were all sorts of interesting things. Piles of discarded electronics of various eras. Several computers and terminals for connecting to mainframe systems. I remember a Sinclair QL and Amstrad PCWs I think. He would let me play around with the terminals, no idea what OS was on there maybe VAX or VMS, use the printers and Microdrives. I was really interested in all that stuff as a kid but didn't really have anyone to learn from as my dad was more of a lineman, having started in the Royal Signals. Fun times!
by skrebbel | 2025-06-16 09:33:38+00:00
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if this was about Python or Java web backends or something like that. But in C++, especially for a program like SumatraPDF with millions of installations on end-user computers where crashes can occur far away from a debugger, it's often borderline impossible to analyse problems without at least somewhat understanding the internals of every library feature you use.

I think avoiding features you don't understand the implementation of makes a lot of sense in those kinds of situations.

The hidden assumption in your comment is that the contract is implemented perfectly and that the abstraction isn't leaky. This isn't always the case. The author explained a concrete way in which the std::function abstraction leaks:

> They get non-descriptive, auto-generated names. When I look at call stack of a crash I can’t map the auto-generated closure name to a function in my code. It makes it harder to read crash reports.
by Mukesh_dhal17 | 2025-06-16 09:33:46+00:00
Exactly , this has been a longstanding issue and usually we come across these problems in some or the other form , either we accept it or ignore it ! All we need to bring the change and make it more streamlined so that our efforts does not go in vain .. We as a team been working in this aspect as AI in HR , focusing on AI recruiting agent , would like to exchange thoughts how we can make it better! Feel free to reach out as we are participating in SHRM , showcasing our product .
by cubes | 2025-06-16 09:33:52+00:00
This brought me back. I was a member of the UC Berkeley Computer Science Undergraduate Association (https://www.csua.berkeley.edu) in the early aughts. Through the CSUA I came across a job posting for a sysadmin job at Skotos Tech (https://www.skotos.net/), the multiplayer text games company Christopher Allen founded after his work at Consensus Development/Certicom to develop the SSL/TLS implementation for Netscape. It's been a long and strange road.
by roenxi | 2025-06-16 09:35:18+00:00
Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence.

Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.