MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by saltcured | 2025-06-06 19:58:51+00:00
I'm somewhere in between. I mostly learn a lot like the author of the article says, just incorporating things into my worldview. I am terrible at remembering things like "so and so's" theorem/algorithm/historical proclamation. But when I absorb the idea, it becomes part of my own operating model. I'm terrible at citation.

Despite aphantasia, my autobiographical memory is a weird mixture of gaps and some very solid vignettes/moments where I remember a lot of detail. It's never a long-running scene. Many of these memories are pinned at some traumatic or surprising moment, but some seem to be much more mundane and yet somehow were recorded as if they were pivotal.

I have a pretty high ACE score. Ironically, some of my pivotal memories are meta-moments when I had a sudden veil lift from previously repressed memories. I'm remembering not the original traumatic moments, but the moment of realization that my memory had these decade-plus gaps or eras to it.
by moyix | 2025-06-06 19:58:51+00:00
I made a CTF challenge based on that lovely feature of select() :D You could use the out-of-bounds bitset memory corruption to flip bits in an RSA public key in a way that made it factorable, generate the corresponding private key, and use that to authenticate.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1723398619313603068.html
by ianbicking | 2025-06-06 19:59:01+00:00
It's confusing, but if I look closer then 10x is an exaggeration, it's more like 5x...

https://elevenlabs.io/pricing

Creator tier (lowest tier that's full service) is $22/mo for 250 minutes, $0.08/minute. Then it's $0.15/1000 characters. (So many different fucking units! And these prices are actually "credits" translated to other units; I fucking hate funny-money "credits")

https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing#transcription-and-s...

Estimated $0.015/minute (actually priced based on tokens; yet more weird units!)

The non-instruction models are $0.015/1000 characters.

It starts getting more competitive when you are at the highest tier at ElevenLabs ($1320/month), but because of their pricing structure I'm not going to invest the time in finding out if it's worth it.
by palmotea | 2025-06-06 19:59:15+00:00
> Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.

That's all fine and dandy if you only have yourself to think about...
by jorangreef | 2025-06-06 19:59:25+00:00
Zig's pre-1.0 status also refers more to API stability. The language and tooling already has more quality, at least in my own experience, than if we had picked C, which was the only other choice available to us when we made the decision to invest in Zig's trajectory back in 2020, given we needed to do static allocation and that any sort of global allocator was out of the question.

But, no. On the commercial side, I don't think we've had one conversation with a prospect or CTO or engineering team where they were concerned that we picked a systems language for the next thirty years. And while Zig is a beautiful, perfect replacement for C, I think the real reason the question has never come up, is that our customers come to us instead of us to them. We're not trying to convince anyone. They're already appreciating the extensive end-to-end testing we do on everything we ship.

However, I should emphasize again, that given all the assertions, fuzzing and DST we do, Zig's quality can't be overstated. It holds up.
by sfRattan | 2025-06-06 19:59:28+00:00
>Do you have an understanding of the point you are arguing, or are you repeating things you've heard?

Do you understand that a security model includes allocation of finite developer resources? How much time a project's developers will spend on each class of problems?

The GrapheneOS developers have chosen a narrow set of devices that meet their hardware requirements, and that narrow list of devices allows also them to focus their resources, tightly integrate software hardening with the functioning of the hardware, and makes the project logistically manageable at all. Each clause in that sentence is part of the security model, not just the hardware requirements.

Have you ever tried to get a new build of something like LineageOS (or, once upon a time, CyanogenMod) running on a new device at all? Each ARM SoC (i.e. almost every smartphone) has numerous bespoke customizations, and its own set of largely binary-blob firmware, and often necessitates per board builds of an OS.

Adding even another half dozen devices is highly nontrivial. If you want it that badly, do the work and port GrapheneOS to those devices. Release your work downstream of the project, and benefit from its security improvements in software. It would be a good, worthy project with its own goal of bringing better security to a broader audience who are only using stock Android. That isn't the GrapheneOS project's goal.

Do you understand the purpose of the GrapheneOS project?

Its developers are in an ongoing cyber-arms-race against companies like Cellebrite and against state-level actors. The extreme hardware requirements (the primary two being Titan chips and multiyear firmware update guarantees from the vendor) are chosen with those adversaries in mind. That's their goal.

You and I are incidental users of the project. We are not its intended user: the person who needs a device that is as secure as possible against focused, well-resourced, state-level adversaries.

My stance is that I'm grateful to have access to a top-tier security tool, free and open source, way beyond my actual needs or threat model. I'm grateful it is so easy to use that the compromise (specific hardware required, 3-5% of apps I try not working) is well worth it. My stance is also that I'm against the broadening of project scope for the convenience of people who, like me, don't actually need this level of security but who, unlike me, are unwilling to make the compromise.

I'm not repeating things I've heard. I've built versions of Cyanogen and Lineage for phones I've owned over the years. I have a good idea of the work involved just getting things running at all, before even approaching the question of security. And all I'm saying is, "if you want support on devices beyond the project's scope that badly, do that work yourself and share it with the community."
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-06 20:00:19+00:00
Psychodiagnostics when the patient isn't present is fraught, but my take is that Elon, like Kanye West [1] is bipolar but thinks he is autistic. The way he posts furiously for a while, disappears from the news for a few weeks, and then starts firing off unhinged salvos fits the profile.

[1] LET'S GO DEFCON 7 ON #ACTUALLYAUTISTIC
Show HN: Arxivlens – Save Hours Researching Scientific Literature on ArXiv
by Ava234 | 2025-06-06 20:00:33+00:00
So, I spend a ton of time on arXiv, like probably most of you. And while it's obviously amazing for keeping up with new papers, I always found the actual searching and browsing part a bit... clunky? Especially when you're trying to quickly figure out if a paper is even worth diving into. I got a bit fed up with it, so I ended up building this little web app called ArxivLens (https://arxivlens.com/). My main goal was to make it way quicker to skim papers and find what you're actually looking for. The big thing I added that I think is pretty useful is an AI overview feature. Basically, it tries to give you a quick summary of a paper, so you can tell at a glance if it's relevant without having to open the PDF and scroll through everything. It's not perfect every time, but it saves me a ton of clicks and time. Beyond that, I just tried to make the whole interface more intuitive for filtering, browsing, and generally just making the arXiv experience less of a chore. It's totally free, just something I built for myself that I figured others might find helpful too. Would love for you guys to check it out and tell me what you think. Any feedback, good or bad, is super welcome! Cheers!
by sitkack | 2025-06-06 20:01:10+00:00
Software is like Art, it doesn't have value until sold or can be used. If they sell services based on the software, they are generating revenue and then taxation on that revenue can occur.

Same as if they sell the software, either as a copy or ownership.

But not being able to take salary as a business expense seems like as thing that would happen if software in and of itself has value, which is largely does not.
by orangecat | 2025-06-06 20:01:51+00:00
If a company is making $10 billion in annual profits, and they discover that they're spending $100 million on a useless project, are they morally obligated to continue that spending indefinitely?

There is no justification for "cost cutting" when it hurts the larger economy.

It is not good for the economy to have people doing work that doesn't produce value.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-06 20:02:29+00:00
No, that's literally the Section 174 change. You now must count them as R&D.

The relevant paragraph from Section 174:

> (3) Software development

> For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174
by oarfish | 2025-06-06 20:02:47+00:00
is Nestor's book really excellent? I didn't make it more than halfway through because nowhere could i find any references for all the outlandish claims that are made. A lot of them are implausible anyway, and so far as I know the actual science does not support all these theories put forth in the book. If a thing is made out to be the cure to everything, it's likely the cure to nothing.

would be happy to have some good references.

this isnt to say that breathing exercises are not beneficial, but this book left me scratching my head.
by pyman | 2025-06-06 20:02:56+00:00
Thanks for sharing this inside information. It's really helpful and gives me (and others researching this case) a better understanding of what was happening behind closed doors.

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind:

1. I checked on LinkedIn and saw that most employees are based in India. Is that correct?

2. From what I understand, customers knew their apps were being built by developers, and they could use an internal tool called Studio to track progress and view the names of the developers assigned to tasks. Is that accurate?

3. Did you work with Craig Saunders, the Head of AI? I heard he was attending events and demoing some internal apps he had built, and that people were pretty impressed. Do you know what exactly he was showing?

4. The builder.ai website never claimed to use GenAI, only AI, and it clearly says that their virtual assistant, Natasha, assigns developers to projects. Have you ever seen Natasha doing this in action?

Thanks again for speaking up and helping clear up some of the confusion.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-06 20:03:57+00:00
Assuming not working out vs. working out for 150-200 calories burned 3-6 times a week, you would gain (assuming the entire surplus went to fat, @ 3500 calories surplus -> 1 lb fat gain), 13.37 to 35.66 lbs of fat, which assuming starting at the US median adult male weight of ~200lbs, is a gain of 6.7-18% of starting body weight, all in fat, which would, especially at the high end but even near the middle to low end, be "a bunch of fat".
by kelnos | 2025-06-06 20:04:18+00:00
> Removing a specific tax exemption to create a level playing field isn’t discouraging R&D.

If the end result of removing this exemption is that there is less R&D done in the US, then yes, empirically, removing the exemption discourages R&D. Assuming the mass layoffs were indeed fueled by the removal of this exemption (I don't know if the article is correct or not), then it is reasonable to assert that it is true that removing the exemption has reduced the amount of R&D done.

Or, you could also say that the "default state" is some low level of R&D, and the tax exemption encouraged and incentivized more of it.

Either way you slice it, though, the status quo prior to 2022 was some level of encouraged/incentivized R&D. That status quo changed to encourage/incentivize less R&D, and companies have followed these lack of incentives and have fired a lot of their R&D staff. Is that a good thing for the US? I can't see how it could be.
by paxys | 2025-06-06 20:05:29+00:00
If you are so passionate about it then start a company that builds, deploys and maintains SaaS software on-prem for a comparable cost (say $10/user-mo). If you can provide the same service, guarantees and price points as the typical SaaS while letting companies keep control of their data and preventing lock-in then you'll have the largest market in the world.
by gspencley | 2025-06-06 20:05:37+00:00
Not only is it subjective but V8 does so much to optimize JavaScript code that I wouldn't be surprised if the benefits for most applications were negligible anyway.

Although JavaScript is still an interpreted language, it basically gets "compiled" when the browser parses the bundle. On the surface, the only thing WebAssembly automatically gets you is you get to skip the runtime compilation phase.

I might be talking out of my ass, so take this with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised if once we start collecting real data on this stuff, SOME WebAssembly code could actually run slower than just using JS code. My hypothesis is that if you're starting with non-JavaScript code, you might be doing things in that language that would be slower to do the same way in JavaScript. I'm thinking of things like Array.map(), .filter() etc. ... which are hyper-optimized in V8. If you're taking an algorithm from C code or something which then gets compiled to WebAssembly, it's not an automatic given that it's going to compile to WebAssembly that is just as optimized as what V8 would do when it comes across those API calls. Again, this is just a hypothesis and I could be way off base.

In any case, what we need is real world data. I have no doubt that for certain applications you can probably avoid land mines by hiring devs who are experienced building certain performance-critical things at a lower-level than your average JS dev... and their experience in those languages may transfer very well to the browser. In this scenario, you're not getting huge perf wins from using WebAssembly per-se... you're getting huge perf wins for not doing typical stupid, lazy, ignorant things that most average JS devs do ... like cloning large objects using the spread operator and then doing that over and over and over again "because immutability."
by lifeisstillgood | 2025-06-06 20:06:18+00:00
I’m not sure I fully understand the problem here

1. I start “Facebook for dogs” It’s gonna be massive. For the first year me and five guys code away in the garage and I use my savings / credit card / family trust fund to pay them 100k each. Expenses are 500k, revenue is, amazingly, 1.5M and taxes owed is 500k.

At this point turning round and saying the development was R&D, and claiming 500k of tax breaks is just (to me) ripping off the American Taxpayer.

And I’m not even an American Taxpayer.

If the revenue was zero would anyone suggest that the taxpayer give me 500k to help ? (Ok I would because I like free money but most people won’t)

Or am I missing something?
by JHonaker | 2025-06-06 20:06:22+00:00
Agreed wholeheartedly. I have argued with the VP of our department about this paper quite a few times.

I feel like Breiman sets up a strawman that I've never encountered when I work with my colleagues that are trained in the statistics community. That doesn't mean it didn't exist 25 years ago when he wrote it. I concede that we are sometimes willing to make simplifying assumptions in order to state something particular, but it's almost like we've been culturally conditioned to steep everything we say with every caveat possible.

Whereas I am constantly having to point out the poor feedback we've had about some of the XGBoost models despite the fact that they're clearly the most "predictive" when evaluated naively.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-06 20:06:45+00:00
> I bet they were classified as R&D for accounting purposes.

It's not just that. Section 174 now explicitly calls out Software as always being an R&D expense:

> (3) Software development

> For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174
by subsistence234 | 2025-06-06 20:06:46+00:00
> Every policy is targeted discrimination for or against certain groups of individuals

Lol are you talking about "discrimination" on the basis of task-relevant skills?

Until 20 years ago, nobody in OS cared who you were IRL, your gender, ethnicity etc. In many cases they didn't even know, plenty people only contributed under pseudonyms. Hard to believe for people who only joined the show after social media had become pretty much mandatory, and the "I don't care who you are IRL"-crowd got drowned out by "who you are IRL is the most important thing, not what you contribute"-crowd.
by calmbonsai | 2025-06-06 20:06:55+00:00
It never fails to astonish how poorly the larger sports leagues cater to their biggest fans. Local blackouts are treating your most loyal fanbase to the worst service. I shouldn't have to VPN for anything. Sports has a global audience.

Every league should offer something akin to a season ticket "firehose" (all games streamed live with hosted replays) like MLS does on Apple TV or Gallagher rugby on the Rugby Network.
by kelnos | 2025-06-06 20:07:15+00:00
> The economy is generally more efficient without central planning

Big fat "citation needed" there. I know you chose the term "central planning" to try to invoke the communism boogeyman, but overall, free markets do not exist, and have never existed. Governments constantly use various levers (taxation being one of them) to encourage or discourage certain kinds of business activity. This is nothing new, and I find it laughable to suggest that this kind of thing should be done away with entirely.
by ianburrell | 2025-06-06 20:07:15+00:00
My understanding is that nearby nuke and high altitude produce different EMP. The nearby one destroys electronic, but less of concern since close to nuclear blast. The high altitude one covers a large area, but it is more like solar flare, causing current in large conductors and primarily affecting the grid.

The problem is that the recent government studies that say high altitude can hurt electronics are all made by alarmists. When we should be focusing effort on grounding the grid, both for EMPs and for flares.
by thegrim33 | 2025-06-06 20:07:28+00:00
Could also just look at their submission history; all they do is post political content every single day of their life. Such a person is not going to have overly impartial/intelligent takes on issues. I wish there was a plugin that could do sentiment analysis and auto-filter out such users from submissions/comments shown to me. Or just a button I could manually click to never see a person's posts again.
by hwillis | 2025-06-06 20:07:47+00:00
Unfortunately no, which is a real shame because herpesviruses like EBV are harmful and practically unavoidable. This research is specific to delivering mRNA to white blood cells.

Herpesvirus latency is really complicated, more so than HIV. It hides in more tissues and particularly in nerves, which have some degree (debated) of immune privilege. Every type has different latency. Most types have multiple, very different methods of staying latent and stay more latent than HIV. We understand some of those methods, partially understand many of them, and still don't know a lot about others. A latent infection will probably still remain if too few of these pathways are activated at once.
by nomel | 2025-06-06 20:07:59+00:00
Much of it, at that level, is a mostly arbitrary construct, with blurry boundaries, left to subjective interpretation, made up long before the very new concept of genetic analysis was even a thing, where a more informed hierarchy could be made. Even then, the end bits of the hierarchy turn into a knotted mess a generation or two after you remove a river or mountain.

Categorization is a fundamental part of our intelligence, but not necessarily a reflection of reality.
Show HN: Sics-Ground – An Open Source Physics Sandbox with Real-Time Effects
by magi-clip | 2025-06-06 20:08:35+00:00
Hey HN,

So I made [sics-ground](https://github.com/magical-paperclip/sics-ground), a physics sandbox thing you run in your browser. I wanted something fun to mess with, and also to help people see how physics works (and maybe just watch stuff explode lol). If you like making balls bounce, objects stick, or just seeing a bunch of shapes go wild, you might like this.

You can drop circles, squares, or polygons onto the canvas and then adjust their behavior using sliders for gravity, friction, and bounciness. Theres also four special collision effects: bounce, explode, stick, and gravity shift I tried to make it look as smooth as possible, even on those fancy retina screens. The canvas automatically scales so it looks sharp and not all blurry.

- It's built with matter.js so the physics are actually pretty realisitc - I wrote a custom particle system for the explosions and trails - It uses object pooling (it doesn't make your computer laggy) - There's some code to make sure it pauses when you're not looking at the tab, to save your cpu and battery - All the UI is just HTML/CSS and a bit of JS

I made this partly because I wanted to learn more about the Canvas API, and also just to have a fun project to show friends and teachers. I think it could be useful for science demos, or just playing around with physics.

Stuff I wanna add next: - Maybe a WebGL renderer for even crazier effects - Tools to connect things with joints or ropes - Touch controls for phones (it's kinda bad on mobile rn sorry lol) - Preset demos for teachers - Save and load your favorite setups

If you wanna try it or mess with the code, it's all open source! Here's the link again: [https://github.com/magical-paperclip/sics-ground](https://github.com/magical-paperclip/sics-ground)

please don't forget to star the repo!!

Let me know what you think, or if you got any ideas for new features! Thanks for reading :)
by nickff | 2025-06-06 20:08:42+00:00
That is helpful, thanks, but I think it is not practical to redact LLM request information beyond the GDPR personally identifiable standards without just deleting everything. My (admittedly quick) read of those rules is that their ‘redacted’ information would still be readily identifiable anyway (not directly, but using basic data analysis). Their redaction standards for CC# and SIN are downright pathetic, and allow for easy recovery with modern techniques.