MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwaway198846 | 2025-06-28 19:20:41+00:00
I understood your point I just don't find it convincing. For example modern olive (staple of mediaterrian for thousand of years) don't come close to Iran (according to the map on Wikipedia). If you look at map of predicted future water stress you will see it includes far more than mediaterrian climate (or mediaterrian). Thus my main point - it doesn't make sense to call it "Mediterranean Water Collapse"
by freeone3000 | 2025-06-28 19:20:45+00:00
The issue holding us back was never that we had to write a frontend — it was the data locked behind proprietary databases and interfaces. Gated behind API keys and bot checks and captchas and scraper protection. And now we can have an MCP integrator for IFTTT and have back the web we were promised, at least for a while.
by ethagknight | 2025-06-28 19:21:31+00:00
Well, that’s one way to look at it. Another is to consider the fact that the target was an Antonov 2. How did that get there?? Soviets were the original invader, following a power vacuum from the fall of Japan and inability of France to reestablish a colony. Mass executions were taking place in the north prior to US involvement.

It was quite messy, including the US actions, and the “facts” can vary wildly based on who tells the story, but it is inaccurate to simply label America as the invader.
by qingcharles | 2025-06-28 19:21:33+00:00
When I was working on Microsoft DRM in the early 2000s my thoughts immediately went to a future where AR glasses would block certain things -- but I was thinking of where a building owner wouldn't permit their structure to be visible when you are using AR.

For instance -- I talked to some guys who made awesome super-wide postcards of famous landmarks, but they had been sued by the Louvre for using a photo they had taken of the pyramid, because the structure is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without licensing.

Think about that dystopia.

https://www.onlinevisibilityacademy.com/buildings-that-are-t...
by pama | 2025-06-28 19:21:46+00:00
V3 is number 5 in your list. R1-0528(free) is number11 and R1(free) is number15. Openrouter separates the free (in the top 20 list you shared) vs paid (further down) instances of V3 and R1, and of course it doesnt count the direct connection to the providers, or the various self-hosted solutions (choice of companies working in sensitive areas, including many of my friends).
by discostrings | 2025-06-28 19:22:11+00:00
For many, and hopefully increasingly more and more of us, time and attention can be more valuable than money.

Manipulating our behavior to develop familiarity with a product by seeding the habit of using it as an ad-clicking serf and nurturing that habit by drawing it out across a series of days as the means of acquiring security for our tools and information is a coercive and corrosive exchange.

It's designed to seem like such a small thing that it's benign, as if attention is worth infinitely less than money. By changing us, forming new and often bad habits, and extracting ongoing attention interest payments without us noticing, the cost can end up being far greater.
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-28 19:22:17+00:00
Let X = "1 if ZF is consistent, 0 otherwise". Then the statements "X = 0" and "X = 1" are independent of ZF. Whether the definition of X is a satisfactory definition of a particular number is a question of mathematical philosophy.

BB(748) is very similar, in that I'd call it a 'definition' independent of ZF rather than a 'number' independent of ZF.
by trhway | 2025-06-28 19:23:30+00:00
People being killed in Gaza are the colonizers isn't it? In addition to being colonizers they clearly declared the goal of performing ethnic cleansing of Jews, and proved that it isn't just words by perpetrating genocide of Jews on October 7.

You nicely sidestepped the case of US where Native people are still fighting for their rights and would be killed the same way if they try to perpetrate against Non-Native Americans the things like October 7.

Palestinians perpetrated October 7, Native Americans don't do such things, thus no surprise that the situation is different.

>Maybe because it happened 1000 years ago

So, how old or recent it should be for you to dismiss or not an ethnic cleansing?
by charcircuit | 2025-06-28 19:24:41+00:00
But the comment is not just saying something negative.

It is implying that claims from the article like "Then, three days ago, Tristan wrote again to say that mxdys has improved the bound again, to BB(6)>9_2_2_2" are not real results. The justification for these not being real results is solely based off whether author is actually on the forefront of research.
by akavi | 2025-06-28 19:24:48+00:00
Same reason humans use high-level languages: limited context windows.

Both humans and LLMs benefit from non-leaky abstractions—they offload low-level details and free up mental or computational bandwidth for higher-order concerns. When, say, implementing a permissioning system for a web app, I can't simultaneously track memory allocation and how my data model choices aligns with product goals. Abstractions let me ignore the former to "spend" my limited intelligence on the latter; same with LLMs and their context limits.

Yes, more intelligence (at least in part) means being able to handle larger contexts, and maybe superintelligent systems could keep everything "in mind." But even then, abstraction likely remains useful in trading depth for surface area. Chris Sawyer was brilliant enough to write Rollercoaster Tycoon in assembly, but probably wouldn't be able to do the same for Elden Ring.

(Also, at least until LLMs are so transcendentally intelligent they outstrip our ability to understand their actions, HLLs are much more verifiable by humans than assembly is. Admittedly, this might be a time-limited concern)
by Xcelerate | 2025-06-28 19:24:48+00:00
Right, Hilbert’s goal was (loosely speaking) to “find a finitely describable formal system” sufficient to “capture all truths”. When Gödel showed that can’t be done, that shouldn’t imply we just stop with the best theory we have so far and call it a day—it means there are an infinite number of more powerful theories (with necessarily longer minimal descriptions) waiting to be discovered.

In fact, both Gödel and Turing worked on this problem quite a bit. Gödel thought we might be able to find some sort of “meta-principle” that could guide us toward discovering an ever increasing hierarchy of more powerful axioms, and Turing’s work on ordinal progressions followed exactly this line of thinking as well. Feferman’s completeness theorem even showed that all arithmetical truths could be discovered via an infinite process. (Now of course this process is not finitely axiomatizable, but one can certainly extract some useful finite axioms out of it — the strength of PA after all is equivalent to the recursive iteration up to ε_0 of ‘Q_{n+1} = Q_n + Q_n is consistent’ where Q_0 is Robinson arithmetic).
by kelseyfrog | 2025-06-28 19:25:06+00:00
If I had to choose between common good and shareholder value all else being equal, I'd choose common good every time.

We should be suspicious of games that favor shareholder value over common good and repair them. Of course this is harder than it sounds, but letting the person with the most money in a Monopoly game also set the rules is absurd and and obviously wrong. Wrong even without having a consensus reality on what "common good" entails and this is important.

The "capital game" should serve us, rather than us serving it. A fatalistic lack of imagination is no longer an option. When we're more afraid of unintended consequences than accepting that we have a responsibility to the current consequences, our current consequences look rather intended.
by StochasticLi | 2025-06-28 19:25:15+00:00
No. I worked at Meta, and these are mostly mid-skilled engineers who want to make money while working a few hours a week and pretending to work the rest. They would never attract top talent because top engineers can earn 10 times their salary on their own without leaving the terminal nowadays. Even if they offered $10M/year, I feel these kinds of people can't be bought.

It's just a job. You will get fired if you question people above you.
by FireBeyond | 2025-06-28 19:25:20+00:00
> You mean, when occasionally Hamas will try to kill random Israeli civilians using rocket fire? Which is basically a declaration of war and causes Israel to fight back?

Changing the goalposts, are we?

Yes, that happens.

How is Israel turning off electricity and fresh water to the entire country as a result not considered treating the population as sub-human (as in not deserving of basic human needs), the original point of this discussion ?

> If you think the blockade is the reason for their actions, then you're quite simply wrong - they were founded many years before and always had the same goal of destroying Israel, including working hard against the peace process that was forming between Israel and the eventual Palestinian Authority.

Oh, you're so close to the point! "The peace process forming between Israel and the eventual Palestinian Authority" is exactly why Netanyuhu and his ilk started supporting Hamas. Because when your explicitly stated goal is to evict Palestinians (and Netanyuhu has said as much, in as many words), global sympathy starts to wane when the PLA is looking for peaceful solutions (yes, admittedly, after periods of violence and terrorism) and now Israel looks like the bad guy. So let's prop up Hamas, because they are more extremist, and make a more convenient bad guy.
by nyrikki | 2025-06-28 19:25:33+00:00
To try and help people digging into this, the following helped me.

Two lenses for trying to understand this are potentially Chastain's limits on output of a lisp program being more complex than the program itself [1] or Markov's proof that you can't classify manifolds in d>= 4.

If you try the latter and need/want to figure out how the Russian school is so different this is helpful [2]

IMHO the former gives an intuition why, and the latter explains why IMHO.

In ZFC, C actually ends up implying PEM, which is why using constructionism as a form of reverse math helped it click for me .

This is because in the presence of excluded middle, every sequentially complete metric space is a complete space, and we tend to care about useful things, but for me just how huge the search space grows was hidden due to the typical (and useful) a priori assumption of PEM.

If you have a (in my view) dislike for the constrictive approach or don't want/have to invest in learning an obscure school of it, This recent paper[3] on the limits for finding a quantum theory of everything is another lens.

Yet another path is through Type 2 TMs and the Borel hierarchy, where while you can have a uncomputable number on the input tape you algorithms themselves cannot use them, while you can produce uncomputable numbers by randomly selecting and/or changing an infinite sequence.

Really it is the difference between expressability and algorithms working within what you can express.

Hopefully someone else can provide more accessible resources. I think a partial understanding of the limits of algorithms and computation will become more important in this new era.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/chao-dyn/9407003 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05495 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11773
by perrygeo | 2025-06-28 19:25:45+00:00
uuids as a primary key can be a major insert performance bottleneck since they are randomly distributed.

data isn't indexed so queries other than select-by-uuid will be slow (unless you're putting indexes on special keys which is just an ad-hoc schema with extra steps)

data migrations will be painful and require full table scan/rewrite (hope you can afford downtime)

No relationship between any of your data; it's all just independent blobs of data that may or may not be related. No referential integrity means you need another out-of-band process to make sure everything is pointing to valid data.

I get the temptation to nope out of schemas and do schema-on-read. Worked for Mongo, right? (did it?) However, postgres allows an even better option: create an actual schema for your business domain THEN add a jsonb column to every table. If you need to add extra stuff, you can just shove it into the data column. You get all the benefits of a static schema plus an option to jump ship and do JSON in a pinch.
by pakthrow | 2025-06-28 19:25:50+00:00
As a matter of power in the global scope, sure. Locally, it's messier. The British had to concede to local autonomy across the border they drew in what is now north-western Pakistan, and that formal arrangement persisted past partition (and informally persists to this day.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_...
by ath3nd | 2025-06-28 19:26:08+00:00
> Germany is the absolute last country on this planet to lecture the rest of us on how to criticize Israel

What a bad take. Germany, if it learned its lessons from the Holocaust, which was a genocide they did on the Jewish population, is absolutely the FIRST country in the world to teach Israel that what it's doing is absolutely abhorrent. Don't repeat my mistakes, so to say.
How do you handle production webhook delivery reliability in your apps?
by Tanjim | 2025-06-28 19:26:25+00:00
Hey everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about webhook delivery reliability lately. In many projects I’ve worked on, building robust webhook infra turned out to be deceptively complex:

- Retry logic (exponential backoff, timeouts) - Handling non-2xx responses - Delivery monitoring and alerting - Back-pressure or queueing to avoid overwhelming receivers - Secure signing and validation flows

In one project, a failed webhook caused a payment processing delay for hours because the retry logic was buggy. Another time, burst traffic took down the receiver endpoint with no DLQ strategy in place.

I’ve been researching different approaches teams here use:

Do you build your own custom webhook delivery queue and monitoring system? Use cloud solutions like AWS EventBridge or Step Functions to orchestrate? Or integrate third-party tools that handle delivery, retries, and observability for you?

I’m curious about how you ensure production-grade reliability at scale without burning dev hours on plumbing. Recently, I’ve been working on a tool in this space to handle these issues automatically, but would love to hear:

- What architecture have you found most reliable? - What are the edge cases you’ve encountered (e.g. signature mismatches, downstream outages)? - Any horror stories or lessons learned from webhook failures in production?

Looking forward to learning from your experiences and best practices around webhook infra!
by heigh | 2025-06-28 19:26:26+00:00
My father was 76 and started to forget things, basic things like what he did yesterday, who we met the week before (family from overseas who we haven’t seen in years)…

This is when I realised it was getting serious. But he’s a Norwegian born in the 40s, so talking about his mental health and opening up to him is near impossible.

I did call him out on these massive lapses in memory, but jokingly though.

However, without formally addressing anything, he started out of no where and never, ever before doing it my entire life: sudoku.

1-2 hours a day, then more, all the time.

He’s now in his mid 80s and as sharp as ever.

I know he went and saw a GP, and they prescribed sodoku.

But the effectiveness of it, taken seriously, is absolutely incredible.
by tim333 | 2025-06-28 19:26:56+00:00
A lot of these 'water crisis' articles seem to try to make it out to be more of a crisis than it is, in that the amount of water remains similar and people squabble over what to use it for. Like in Cyprus they say the amount of water is down 17% since 1900 which is not that much and the main reason they are short is "all these tourists, all these golf courses". Life is full of trade offs - you have to decide whether to use it for vineyards or golf courses but I'm not sure that's the crisis the article makes out.
by citizenpaul | 2025-06-28 19:28:48+00:00
I think its bigger. Morality and social contract have eroded and continue to erode.

Look at Mozila for the most insidious example. Take a privacy focused product. Rope in a bunch of suckers. Then literally delete the privacy focus from your mission statment and start the "slaughter"

Craiglist is proof it can be done at scale.. Its just that so few people with them means and morality exist anymore. The Sodom and Gomorrah fable is a warning not to let this happen or your society will destroy itself.
by MichaelDickens | 2025-06-28 19:28:54+00:00
It's known that BB(14) is bigger than Graham's number, but this new finding leads me to believe that BB(7) is probably bigger than Graham's number. Intuitively, the technology required to go from pentation to Graham's number feels simpler than the technology required to go from `47,176,870` to `2 <pentate> 5`.
by alephnerd | 2025-06-28 19:29:37+00:00
> The company is the product.

If you've ever dealt with Investor Relations at a public company, this becomes very apparent very quick.

Core fundamentals as a business can be strong, but if you cannot craft a unique story or thesis (which does not have to be tangentially related with active initiatives) about your company, you will not succeed.

Usually, the onus should fall on PM, EMs, and Sales Leadedship to drive customer outcomes, but the hyperfocus on short term deliverables AT THE EXPENSE of a long term product vision makes it difficult to push back.

Very few newly founded or public companies can do the latter - the most recent ones I can think of are maybe Datadog and Wiz (not public but they did drive a customer centric mentality internally).

Of course, a lot of this is also due to the extreme bloat that formed in the tech industry in the late 2010s to early 2020s. Teams grew unrealistically large with limited financial justification beyond cherry-picked growth metrics, and this meant a lot of companies lost the ability to innovate frugally or nimbly. Unrealistically high valuations also played a role because towards the end, founders could end up demanding IPO-sized multiples in private markets even without the underlying fundamentals (eg. Lacework's $9 BILLION valuation on what was at most $90 MILLION in revenue).

A lot of the current AI products and stories are cost-competitive due to that bloat itself, so some amount of rightsizing will help the industry.
by djoldman | 2025-06-28 19:29:48+00:00
There are two things going on here.

The first and simpler question is what is a valuable software product? For products where the user expects to pay nothing, like almost all social media, the answer is: the product with the most user-hours. Therefore products that attract many user-hours attract much investment. There isn't some kind of insidious conspiracy to push specific types of products: investors don't care, they care about how many minutes of ads they can push down the pipe (legally).

The second question is: (again for products where the user expects to pay nothing) what products attract the most user-hours?

It seems folks dance around and rarely confront what I consider to be the main explanation here and where the primary cause is: humans choose and prefer to consume and interact with content that induces in them a set of emotions. They generally choose to experience stuff that gets them upset, looks cute, inspires longing, makes them feel lonely, etc.

If one categorizes the things that the consumer chooses as "problematic," where is the problem? The problem as stated is the consumer. One can't engineer a way out of that: folks have tried to provide alternative options and these mostly fail to attract heaps of users.

To put this in the language of TFA: the addiction isn't engineered into the consumer. The addiction was there from the beginning: a million products were tried out, products evolved to better align with preferences, and now the products are "addictive."
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-28 19:30:02+00:00
>It's about China being expansionist, actively preparing to invade Taiwan, and generally becoming an increasing military threat that does not respect the national integrity of other states.

Remove the word Taiwan and you are describing the US.

>It's about China being expansionist

US has been doing that since their inception as a country. Are you telling me the USs 750 foreign military bases located in at least 80 foreign countries and territories is NOT expansionism? Come on!

>actively preparing to invade Taiwan

The US illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years killing and torturing innocents in the process and leaving the Taliban in power to further cause harm. Wow many countries did China invade? Yet somehow China is the boogieman? Please!

> generally becoming an increasing military threat that does not respect the national integrity of other states.

Same with the US, Trump threatened to annex Greenland and Canada, yet I don't see sanctions on the US.

I don't see the US having any ground to stand on criticizing China.
by LorenPechtel | 2025-06-28 19:30:50+00:00
Force that the individual can employ would be counterproductive. Remove any of the problematic people and the remainder get more support.

Look at how history has played out. When a government is nearly universally despised by it's people it can be overthrown by mass action, basically bloodless and sometimes with a good outcome.

However, so long as the government has a reasonable sized core of support the outcome is always bad. Violent overthrow always brings the most ruthless, not the best for the people.

Note that this does not apply to throwing out a colonial power. There are multiple examples of good outcomes from throwing out colonial powers by force.
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-28 19:32:07+00:00
> What happens at whatever number it starts true at?

Usually, "what happens" is that the machines become large enough to represent a form of induction too strong for the axioms to 'reason' about. It's a function of the axioms of your theory, and you can add more axioms to stave it off, but of course you can't prove that your new axioms are consistent without even more axioms.

> There is a presentation of it that is in like less than one page in terms of the halting problem---all of the Gödel-numbering stuff is essentially an antiquated proof.

Only insofar as you can put faith into the Church–Turing thesis to sort out all the technicalities of enumerating and verifying proofs. There still must be an encoding, just not the usual Gödel numbering.
by SoftTalker | 2025-06-28 19:32:34+00:00
You misunderstood, or I wasn't very clear. I have and use good email tools. I only meant that the crusade to get everyone else to follow is lost.

I am the one oddball in my office who doesn't use Outlook and who sends plain-text emails with ">" prefixed quotes. But I'm under no illusions that anyone else is going to be convinced, and I no longer make any effort to try.
by timr | 2025-06-28 19:33:44+00:00
> I still do that classic thing non-fluent speakers do: I'll get halfway through a sentence, realize I don't know a specific word, and have to rephrase my thought more simply. To be clear, I'm far from a beginner, just not yet fluent.

Isn't that a thing everyone does? I don't have as many languages as you, but when I finally got to the point where I could reliably do what you're describing in Japanese, I felt like I had actually achieved a baseline level of fluency for the first time. The flywheel became self-perpetuating vs. my French, where every sentence is a struggle.

Not asking to be argumentative, btw -- just wondering what's on the other side.