MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dumah | 2025-06-27 21:10:25+00:00
Radiation at desirable operating temperatures is a relatively weak means of heat transport, hence spreaders.

Only a big power-efficient chip like M2 Ultra could survive if it could _only_ radiate from one side of the wafer into CMB.

The rest of the silicon will become molten at 100% TDP: H100, Xeon, Core, EPYC, Ryzen.

Most would be over 400C at 1% TDP.

Conduction and convection are linear or close and are effective at desirable temperatures, whereas thermal radiation is quartic and highly convex.
by LorenPechtel | 2025-06-27 21:13:22+00:00
How are they not doing their job?

A judge's job is to *judge*. They have basically zero ability to gather evidence, that is the responsibility for the parties to the case.

Would you have them issue a ruling before being presented with evidence? That makes no sense. But at the same time harm can come from not issuing a ruling. Thus we have injunctions--if a judge feels a case is likely to prevail they can issue an injunction prohibiting actions which inflict harm that can't be remedied by the resolution of the case.
by chis | 2025-06-27 21:14:15+00:00
I read this post more as a fun thought experiment. Everyone knows Claude isn't sophisticated enough today to succeed at something like this, but it's interesting to concretize this idea of Claude being the manager of something and see what breaks. It's funny how jailbreaks come up even in this domain, and it'll happen anytime users can interface directly with a model. And it's an interesting point that shop-manager claude is limited by its training as a helpful chat agent - it points towards this being a usecase where you'd be better off fine-tuning the base model perhaps.

I do agree that the "blackmailing" paper was unconvincing and lacked detail. Even absent any details it's so obvious they could have easily ran that experiment 1000 times with different parameters until they hit an ominous result to generate headlines.
by ge96 | 2025-06-27 21:15:23+00:00
It is crazy you can buy a used laptop for $15 and do something meaningful with like writing code (meaningful as in make money)

I used to have this weird obsession of doing this, buying old chromebooks putting linux on them, with 4GB of RAM it was still useful but I realize nowadays for "ideal" computing it seems 16GB is a min for RAM
by owlstuffing | 2025-06-27 21:15:31+00:00
Reminds me of a book, Mailing May[1], I read to my daughter and now my granddaughter. A true story of a family on a budget who sent their daughter to see grandma as mail cargo on a train. Cute story.

https://www.amazon.com/Mailing-May-Michael-Tunnell/dp/006443...
by firesteelrain | 2025-06-27 21:15:58+00:00
You're right that the textbook definition of a technical recession is two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth. That part’s clear.

So technically, we can say “Q2 is over” on Tuesday, but we won’t be able to declare a recession (or not) until that data comes out. Unless you're inside the Fed or BEA models, we're all just speculating until then.

The advance estimate drops on July 22 from the BEA.

US is in a slight slowdown though
by jonstewart | 2025-06-27 21:16:40+00:00
Judges have never been able to make rulings based on their own subjective politics. They must justify their rulings under the law.

I could extend some merit to the idea that injunctions should be limited in complex cases where case law is thin and the law is less than clear. When executive orders are clearly unconstitutional, however, I do not then see any reason for limits.
by pxc | 2025-06-27 21:16:53+00:00
`test` and `[` are Bash builtins just like `[[` is built into bash. But `[[`'s implementation does some things that actual commands can't do because it gets parsed differently than a normal command.

When Bash sees it, it treats it as something that needs to be matched, like a string, and won't stop taking user input in an interactive session until it sees the `]]` or something else that causes a syntax error. If I write `[` and just hit enter, I get an error from the `[` command, same as if I ran an external one. But if I use a `[[`, I get an error message back from Bash itself about a malformed conditional (and/or it will wait for input before trying to execute the command):

2 bash which -a [ /Users/pxc/.nix-profile/bin/[ /bin/[ 󰧈 2 ~ bash [ bash: [: missing `]' 󰧈 2 ~ 2 bash /bin/[ [: missing ] 󰧈 2 ~ 2 bash [[ ∙ no prompt bash: conditional binary operator expected bash: syntax error near `prompt' 󰧈 2 ~ 2 bash [[ ∙ a = bash: unexpected argument `newline' to conditional binary operator bash: syntax error near `='

The other thing `[[` does is it has you write `&&` and `||` instead of `-a` and `-o`. A normal command can't do this, because it can't influence the parser of the shell running it-- `&&` will get interpreted by the shell rather than the command unless it is escaped.

This same kind of special handling by the parser probably allows for other differences in error messages, but I don't write Bash that produces such errors, so I couldn't tell you. ;)

> more certain to be a bash built-in

If you want to be sure that you're using a built-in rather than a command, you can use the `builtin` command. But because `[[` is actually special syntax, it's technically not a builtin, so you can't use it this way! Check it out:

~ took 34m8s 2 󰈺 bash 󰧈 2 ~ bash builtin [[ bash: builtin: [[: not a shell builtin 󰧈 2 ~ 1 bash builtin [ bash: [: missing `]'

The thing that lets `[[` yield more sophisticated error messages in some ways is actually the very reason I prefer to stay away from it: it's special syntax when an ordinary command works just fine. I think the any-command-goes-here-and-all-commands-are-equal structure of if statements in Unix shells is elegant, and it's already expressive enough for everything we want to do. Stuff like `[[` complicates things and obscures that elegance without really buying us additional power, or even additional concision.

Imo, that's the real reason to avoid it. I'm all for embracing Bashisms when it makes code more legible. For instance, I think it's great to lean on associative arrays, `shopt -s lastpipe`, and `mapfile`. They're innovations (or deviations, depending on how you look at it ;), like `[[`, but I feel like they make the language clearer and more elegant while `[[` actually obfuscates the beauty of `if` statements in shell languages, including Bash.
by biimugan | 2025-06-27 21:17:41+00:00
This is decidedly not equivalent to those things, even roughly. Interpreting a statute (which by the way this Supreme Court has expressly limited, which is ironic given your comment) is quite different from interpreting an amendment to the Constitution. What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
by newswangerd | 2025-06-27 21:17:57+00:00
I guess a better term for it would be frontend and business logic. On iOS and Android the business logic (backend) is run using go mobile bindings and are imported directly into the native framework. For Windows, Mac and Linux, it runs as a gRPC daemon in the background. You could use C bindings for PC, but those seemed like a hassle, and I need a daemon anyway.
by stego-tech | 2025-06-27 21:18:21+00:00
Alternatively, notice how detractors to a well thought-out argument that attempts to distill decades of history into a single comment within a larger thread, immediately devolve into flailing insults rather than offering a compelling counter-narrative.

Sure, pvg's bite-sized nugget of McWisdom holds generally true for any topic covering a span of time and wrapped in the cloak of biological aging, but notice how it also does nothing to provide sustenance in the form of tangible examples, counter-arguments, or advice. It's convenient, sure, but hardly nourishing.
by soundblaster | 2025-06-27 21:18:49+00:00
same! nice trick.

at the end of article it shows an mcp to fetch youtube subs. I've made a similar one using simonw's llm as a fragment, if you find it useful.

llm -f youtube:<id> llm -f yt:<lang>:<id>

https://github.com/redraw/llm-fragments-youtube
by attemptone | 2025-06-27 21:19:38+00:00
I'd wager it is the strongest. Most of the arguments always argue in quantities. So and so much of energy waster per hour, this many job losses and that growing trend of delusions supported by LLMs.

We've already seen it with climate change. Arguing with statistical factoids is too ethereal for anyone and leads to some kind of fatigue. There is no emotional difference between 100 mWh and 10000 mWh. But a "I had to bring my dog to the vet because chatGPT told me to give it chocolate" will convince anyone to deeply distrust technology.

FAANG and its acolytes deprived us from actual connection with our environment. Judging the argument as weak is sad proof of that.

So how about instead of using the slot-machine that chatGPT is, we go visit our grandma, hug our dad or just get a new houseplant :)
by quantadev | 2025-06-27 21:19:57+00:00
In 25 years we'll have #GlassModels. A "chip", which is a passive device (just a complex lens) made only of glass or graphene, which can do an "AI Inference" simply by shining the "input tokens" thru it. (i.e. arrays of photons). In other words, the "numeric value" at one MLP "neuron input" will be the amplitude of the light (number of simultaneous photons).

All addition, multiplication, and tanh functions will be done by photon superposition/interference effects, and it will consume zero power (since it's only a complex "lens").

It will probably do parallel computations where each photon frequency range will not interfere with other ranges, allowing multiple "inferences" to be "Shining Thru" simultaneously.

This design will completely solve the energy crisis and each inference will take the same time as it takes light to travel a centimeter. i.e. essentially instantaneous.
by Amezarak | 2025-06-27 21:20:17+00:00
It's astonishing how many people fail to address the legal argument in the SCOTUS opinion, disregard the legal question altogether, and apparently want the courts to decide how things "should" be, regardless of legality.

IANAL but I read SCOTUS opinions regularly and this one is hard to argue with. If things should be different then we need legislative/constitutional changes.
by brailsafe | 2025-06-27 21:21:29+00:00
I got a chance to sit in briefly with Khal and the developers for a few weeks at their company while I was a naive and hapless high-school student going into post-secondary, during the development of this game. Their dev studio was tiny, like 4 or 5 people at the time. It was interesting to get some exposure to professional game development at that time in my life, because I was maybe 17, playing WoW and various RTS titles, which gave them a chance to ask me what I thought of it and what makes good games in general.

I recall probably not seeming so enthusiastic for many of the same reasons I don't understand why people play Star Citizen now, there just didn't seem to be any compelling gameplay loop or reason that it would be more intrinsically interesting than any other game or any other source of media on Space. If you were already a Space enthusiast and looking for Space games, I imagined it might be another thing to play with, but they and Nasa seemed at the time to hope that it was going to spur that interest, almost like if bureaucrats wanted to make a rollerblading game to get people interested in being active, even though it would have taken a miracle to resurrect what had already become unpopular. As in, if you don't have an interest in space, it would take a miracle to make a sufficiently compelling game, especially setting out to build an MMO, especially with a small budget, and relatively dated sdk, to capture the attention of kids who already had endless options. It was a grand vision that seemed unlikely to be captured, and I guess I was hoping I was wrong.

Aside from all that, it looked like a challenging and compelling project from the development perspective, probably a good learning opportunity for the team, it must have pushed them pretty hard. I appreciated being welcomed into their Space despite certainly impairing their productivity, and I hope they've continued on to other ambitious projects since.
by int_19h | 2025-06-27 21:22:11+00:00
You can write it just fine if `const Z` is itself nested inside a function definition.

And this isn't really any different from variable references, if you think about it. If you have an expression (x + 1), you can only use it somewhere where there's an `x` in scope. Similarly, you can only use `return` somewhere where there's a function to return from in scope. Indeed, you could even make this explicit when designing the language! A function definition already introduces implicit let-definitions for all arguments in the body. Imagine if we redefined it such that it also introduces "return" as a local, i.e. given:

fn foo(x: i32, y: i32) -> i32 { ... }

the body of the function is written as if it had these lines prepended:

let x = ...; let y = ...; let return = ...; ...

where "return" is a function that does the same thing as the statement. And similarly for break/continue and loops.

The thing that actually makes these different from real variables is that they cannot be passed around as first-class values (e.g. having the function pass its "return" to another function that it calls). Although this could in fact be done, and with Rust lifetime annotations it would even be statically verifiable.
by gwern | 2025-06-27 21:22:18+00:00
FWIW, I call this approach 'square' writing, and have compiled some links at https://gwern.net/doc/design/typography/square/index

Probably the most interesting one is the 'Hangulatin' font (https://www.t26.com/fonts/22320-Hangulatin-EN), which is exactly what it sounds like, and unfortunately has been abandoned/linkrotten but you can see a lot of it in the old video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0syCsC0_4s
by ahazred8ta | 2025-06-27 21:22:42+00:00
Try making the pictures a smaller thumbnail, and redo the ones that have obvious non-real elements in the picture.

People by now are pretty used to recognizing AI-slop pictures and relying on that as an indicator that the rest of the content is low quality slop as well. You are marketing to an audience that DOES judge a book by its cover. Get local feedback on removing anything that other people think is AI generated.

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=adhdhelp.app
by newswangerd | 2025-06-27 21:22:48+00:00
This is very cool! I'm going to take a look at your code.

I've been playing with the idea of creating a "protobuf db" library that would allow you define schemas in protobuf and then query them with something akin to an ORM. It wouldn't make any sense for large databases, but for embedded applications that only need to store a few MB of data, it would be perfect.
by wredcoll | 2025-06-27 21:22:51+00:00
I suspect this is more true than we realize.

I have this idea that if one of us were talking to a bill and ted from 2200 or so, one of their questions would be something like "so 40,000+ people died in america alone from car crashes, and everyone knew this and just ignored it???"

It's amazing what you get used to.
by ghurtado | 2025-06-27 21:23:21+00:00
keep in mind I don't know much about waves, so all of this could be wrong, but I think PWM works by modulating the width of the pulse, in other words, the "duration of the note" if you will, so the frequency of the square wave remains constant. You have a high pulse of width t to represent a zero and a high pulse of t*2 to represent 1. The human ear might hear this as a modulating frequency, but that's only because the pulses are changing faster than our brains can recognize pitch, if that makes any sense . I don't know what a t state is, but I suspect the number is the duration of the pulse in microseconds or something of the sort.

I believe IR remotes work on a similar principle: a series of blinks of two different durations, which represent 0 and 1
by krapp | 2025-06-27 21:23:56+00:00
To be fair, that is exactly what 2A supporters have claimed they're willing, ready and able to do, and what the 2A is intended to allow. Every single time there's a mass shooting or other such event, they're the first to start lecturing people on how that violence a price worth paying to have an armed populace around keeping the government in check, and that the threat of popular violence is the only thing keeping the government in check. An armed society is a civil society, and what not.

So yeah. Do a "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants," already. The gun people were more than willing when they thought a Democrat was stealing their votes or Bill Gates was putting microchips in vaccines.
by Amezarak | 2025-06-27 21:24:06+00:00
Sure, that was a concern: a sufficiently large faction of Senators might combine to protect a bad President, or destroy a good one unjustly.

> Mr. MADISON, objected to a trial of the President by the Senate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misdemeanor. The President under these circumstances was made improperly dependent. He would prefer the Supreme Court for the trial of impeachments, or rather a tribunal of which that should form a part.

> Mr. PINKNEY disapproved of making the Senate the Court of impeachments, as rendering the President too dependent on the Legislature. If he opposes a favorite law, the two Houses will combine agst. him, and under the influence of heat and faction throw him out of office.

Ultimately it was decided that "in four years he can be turned out", so it was not worth addressing further. Indeed some argued that the President should not be impeachable at all because of this.

> Mr. KING expressed his apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive & Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the case, if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary therefore that a forum should be established for trying misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good behaviour? The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature: Like them particularly the Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6 years he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good behaviour, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised. But under no circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.
by sidewndr46 | 2025-06-27 21:24:31+00:00
You just believe you can sense the direction of loud noises in urban environments. Our nervous system has no "404 not found" for positional awareness. Even after severe head trauma, you have a sense of position for everything. It's so wrong as to be useless, but you have it.

Ask anyone who's been at a shooting in a city. Everyone gives a different answer for where the shooter was at. It's such a severe issue the US Army has microphone arrays they equip urban combat vehicles with. Even with bullets actually bouncing off the armor the troops cannot accurately locate the direction of the shooter(s).
by magicalist | 2025-06-27 21:24:53+00:00
> it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed.

Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!
by bobsomers | 2025-06-27 21:25:22+00:00
What if those people consider what they're being told by the authorities, understand that it makes sense, and choose to take that action because it's important for the public good?

Why are people who prioritized public health during a temporary pandemic "sheep", but the President's supporters who demonstrate exceptionally cult-like behavior, "free thinking individuals"?

You can't have it both ways.
by pornel | 2025-06-27 21:26:57+00:00
???

"Expressibility" and "expressive power" are vague and subjective, so it's not clear what you mean.

I suppose you object to orthogonality in the syntax? Golang and Java definitely lack it.

But you also mention C in the context of "maximum possible flexibility"? There's barely any in there. I can only agree it has mistakes for others to learn from.

There's hardly any commonality between the languages you list. C# keeps adding clever syntax sugar, while Go officially gave up on removing its noisiest boilerplate.

D has fun stuff like UFCS, template metaprogramming, string mixins, lambdas — enough to create "incomprehensible" code if you wanted to.

You're talking about modern languages vs relics of the past, but all the languages you mention are older than Rust.
by duskwuff | 2025-06-27 21:27:19+00:00
That's not a great analogy. A person is expected to use their discretion, and can be held legally liable for their actions. A machine is not, and cannot.

> Then what if their memory is so good, they repeat entire sections verbatim when asked. Does that violate it? I’d say it’s grey.

That's an unambiguous "yes". Performing a copyrighted play or piece of music without the rights to do so is universally considered a copyright violation, even if the performers are performing from memory. It's still a copyright violation if they don't remember their parts perfectly and have to ad-lib sometimes, or if they don't perform the entire work from start to finish.
by timr | 2025-06-27 21:27:36+00:00
Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]:

> California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said.

Call me a crazy, glass-half-full centrist, but I prefer to look at this as a clawing back of extremely broad powers from rather partisan judges. It's been maddening that circuit court judges in a few hyper-partisan districts basically push every decision to the Supreme Court.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenshi...
by woodruffw | 2025-06-27 21:27:50+00:00
This should come with a heavy caveat: it’s based on heuristics, and heuristics can be wrong (at best) or maliciously gamed (at worst).

I wish companies would take a simpler approach: stop intermediating your open source interactions through middlemen, and work directly with your upstreams. You might discover that you have too many to work with, in which case you’ve laid the problem bare rather than obscuring it with metrics and policies.
by danielvf | 2025-06-27 21:28:13+00:00
Don't be fooled by the headline - that's neither the authors words, nor his opinion, but an editor trying to bait viewers.

The article itself is good, and worth a read.

You can read the full article on the author's own substance here. https://walkingtheworld.substack.com/p/is-it-euro-poor-or-am...