MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by edanm | 2025-06-16 06:19:24+00:00
No, I don't say stupid things like that, and probably very few people ever said it (well, except critics of Israel claiming that Zionists said that).

So to be clear, by "stole the land" you're only referring to the Nakba that happened because of the war? Those are the only cases of what you're talking about that I'm aware of (until 1948, I'm not talking about the despicable acts currently happening in the WB).
by IshKebab | 2025-06-16 06:20:45+00:00
> load all the code into a running Ruby REPL

That counts as running it if you ask me. And I don't see how just loading the code would help you find the callers of a function?

> Anywhere from half to 1/10th of the size of codebases in statically typed languages is my experience, including with direct translations.

That sounds highly implausible.
by strogonoff | 2025-06-16 06:20:56+00:00
1. I believe in modern cameras it’s 10+ bits per pixel, undebayered, but willing to be corrected. Raw-capable cameras capture 12+ bits of usable range. Data rates far exceed 5 gigabit per second.

2. Your second paragraph is a misunderstanding. Unless you really screw up shooting settings, it is not random noise but pretty usefully scene data available for mapping to narrow display space in whatever way you see fit.
by devjab | 2025-06-16 06:21:08+00:00
I don't think that research will show what you're hoping it would. I'm not a big proponent of AI, you shouldn't bother going through my history but it is there to back up my statement if you're bored. Anyway, even I find it hard to argue against AI agents for productivity, but I think ik depend a lot on how you use them. As an anecdotal example I mainly work with Python, C and Go, but once in a while I also work with Typescript and C#. I've got 15 years experience with js/ts but when I've been away from it for a month it's not easy for me to remember the syntax, and before AI agents I'd need to go to https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript or similar quite a lot when I jumped back into it. AI agents allow me to do the same thing so much quicker.

These AI agent tools can turn your intend into code rather quickly, and at least for me, quicker than I often can. They do it rather unintrusive, with little effort on your part and they present it with nice little pull-request-lite functionalities.

The key "issue" here, and probably what this article is more about is that they can't reason as you likely know. The AI needs me to know what "we" are doing, because while they are good programmers they are horrible software engineers. Or in other words, the reason AI agents enhance my performance is because I know exactly what and how I want them to program something and I can quickly assess when they suck.

Python is a good language to come up with examples on how they can quickly fail you if you don't actually know Python. When you want to iterate over something you have to decide whether you want to do this in memory or not, in C#'s linq this is relatively easily presented to you with IEnumerable and IQuerable which work and look the same. In Python, however, you're often going to want to use a generator which looks nothing like simply looping over a List. It's also something many Python programmers have never even heard about, similar to how many haven't heard about __slots__ or even dataclasses. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll quikly end up with Python that works, but doesn't scale, and when I say scale I'm not talking Netflix, I'm talking looping over a couple of hundred of thousands of items without breaking paying a ridicilous amount of money for cloud memory. This is very anecdotal, but I've found that LLM's are actually quite good at recognizing how to iterate in C# and quite terrible in both Python and Typescript desbite LLM's generally (again in my experience) are much worse at writing C#. If that isn't just anecdotal then I guess they truly are what they eat.

Anyway, I think similar research would show that AI is great for experienced software engineers and terrible for learning. What is worse is that I think it might show that a domain expert like an accountant might be better at building software for their domain with AI than an inexperienced software engineer.
by IcePic | 2025-06-16 06:22:18+00:00
..but you don't find it strange that merit somehow only ended up in one gender over the last several hundreds of years? Especially given that there seem to have existed competent women in this time, but for some reason men chose to elect only men into high positions, to the point of preventing women from applying or getting such jobs. Then suddenly we all collectively decided that from now on, only merit is measured, but we pipe up when a woman gets elected to say that "did these people really check merit?"

It feels a bit too close to "lets only choose people like we did the last hundreds of years" when noone batted an eye if some man got chosen. If you didn't comment "but did they really check this mans credentials and merits" every time MI6 gets a new boss, then it feels a bit odd to do it only now, don't you think?
Freelance SEO Help Available – Open to Opportunities
by deepmistry | 2025-06-16 06:23:41+00:00
Hi, I’m Deep — a seasoned SEO professional with years of experience helping businesses improve their online visibility and organic growth. I’ve worked across a wide range of industries, partnering with startups, agencies, and global clients to deliver impactful SEO strategies that drive results.

My work includes:

Technical SEO: Site audits, issue resolution, speed optimization

On-Page & Off-Page SEO: Full-spectrum optimization for visibility

Keyword Research & Competitive Analysis: Smart targeting strategies

Content Strategy: Planning, optimization, and scaling content

SEO Audits & Strategy: Actionable insights for sustainable growth

I'm currently open to freelance, remote, or contract-based opportunities. Whether you're looking for ongoing support or a one-time SEO push, I’d be happy to discuss how I can help.

You can reach me at: deepseowork@gmail.com

Thanks for reading — I truly appreciate your time and any referrals.

– Deep
by const_cast | 2025-06-16 06:24:35+00:00
> If the appellate court decides that argument is BS, those government officials can be subject to criminal penalties. Especially if they continue to do it even after the court has ruled against them.

Well, this is the part that remains to be seen. Is anyone going to go to prison? For my money, no. But I'm cynical. We'll see what happens. But, I think merely a theoretical rule of law means nothing. I'm sure Nazi Germany had many laws on the books that were broken and subsequently ignored.
by hansmayer | 2025-06-16 06:26:31+00:00
Ugh. Please lets stop adopting military concepts into the field of business leadership. Given that most humans and engineers in particular perform best when in position of having high autonomy, which is exactly the opposite of military environment, why do we keep borrowing from there? Is it because all the expired military "experts" who are trained to fit in and not think for themselves, lost all the wars in the past two decades and need a new job? Why do we allow people who are severely under-educated even compared to a junior-LLM-assisted rookie to tell us what we need to do? No, please don't be a "force multiplier", just look around and do what makes sense in your specific environment. You are way smarter than that.
by koonsolo | 2025-06-16 06:26:35+00:00
History is full of people with extreme wealth and power. I would say our current political structures are keeping them somewhat under control.

Edit: So in that sense, I'm also on the side that billionaires are created naturally. When you already have a lot of wealth, the odds are in your favor to create even more wealth. So if you would just keep the system running without much interference, wealth will naturally accumulate to those who already have a lot. Therefore, we need political structures to keep that under control.
by vonunov | 2025-06-16 06:27:24+00:00
Besides, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04272-1#Sec3

>For rainbow trout, an estimated 10 (1.9–21.7) minutes of moderate to extreme pain (Hurtful, Disabling and Excruciating pain combined) are endured by each trout due to air asphyxia (Fig. 1).
by ulrikrasmussen | 2025-06-16 06:29:23+00:00
> If you think of ChatGPT as capable of being an automated Jim Jones, I think the danger becomes more clear. These tools are not incapable of being dangerous.

Thinking back on the documentaries about NXIVM, personas like Keith Raniere also seem eerily similar to LLMs in the sense that you can give them any prompt on the spot, and they will start generating long speeches which are essentially bullshit but on the surface seem coherent or even deep.
by tsimionescu | 2025-06-16 06:30:27+00:00
> For one thing, they are probabilistic, so you wouldn't get the same content back every time like you would with a compression algorithm.

There is nothing inherently probabilistic in a neural network. The neural net always outputs the exact same value for the same input. We typically use that value in a larger program as a probability of a certain token, but that is not required to get data out. You could just as easily determinsitically take the output with the highest value, and add some extra rule for when multiple outputs have the exact same (e.g. pick the one from the output neuron with the lowest index).
by rpozarickij | 2025-06-16 06:31:19+00:00
One doctor recommended this brand to me too not long ago, but I'm a bit worried that this probiotic contains histamine-producing bacteria since I have some histamine sensitivity.

And overall I'm a bit hesitant about consuming too many strains at once.

So far I've been having success with S. boulardii CNCM I-745 (which is actually a probiotic yeast) and I'm trying out L. rhamnosus GG.

Bifidobacterium infantis 35624 also looks interesting.
by delusional | 2025-06-16 06:32:45+00:00
But it is not at all the same _type_ of writing. Most of the prompts I've seen and written are shorter, less organized, and most importantly not actually considered a piece of writing. When you are writing a prompt you are considering how the machine will "interpret" it and what it will spit back, you're not constructing and argument. Vagueness or dialectics in a prompt will often just confuse the machine.

Hitting the keys is not always writing.
by nayuki | 2025-06-16 06:33:33+00:00
I happen to come across the original videos ~3 years ago and they are good.

https://www.youtube.com/@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 "Organic Japanese with Cure Dolly"

https://www.youtube.com/@organicjapanesewithcuredol49/playli...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg9uYxuZf8x_A-vcqqyOF... "Japanese from scratch: the game-changing course in organic Japanese" (93 videos)
by andreton | 2025-06-16 06:34:50+00:00
Dont have a software engineer background and just playing around to build tools just for my own use.

Getting Lovable to built the base (looking at using Bolt). But then needing to use a mix of LLMs (request limits) in Zed IDE and/or OpenAI Codex to do the more complex work when Lovable goes around in circles with or just wont fix a UI button.

I am certainly no master, but reading everyone's comments has taught me a few things. Thanks!
by bruce511 | 2025-06-16 06:36:36+00:00
I seem to recall one or two doing this. But i suspect the reason they don't is cause they don't need to.

They all have a pot already. The benefits of more pots seems low. Conversely the calorie cost seems high (if only just collecting clay and cutting wood to fire it.)

On Alone thd priorities are shelter and food. Clay pots seems like a luxury in terms of utility use and energy cost.
by voidr | 2025-06-16 06:38:45+00:00
> “We’re entering an era of untrustable code everywhere” - This assumes AI-generated code is inherently less trustworthy than human-written code, which isn’t obviously true.

It's not true if your humans are on controlled substances all the time, it is true if we are talking about real humans.

I've been testing coding agents on real code and I can say without a doubt that they make worse mistakes than humans.
by lysergic | 2025-06-16 06:38:53+00:00
My second closest childhood friend died from leukemia about ~18 years ago, when we were about ~10 years old. I still think about him sometimes and even now as I'm writing this I feel some sadness.

According to my mother his mother was head nurse of pediatrics and had not noticed my friend becoming sick, and he became very sick. He was given kemo therapy and subsequent bone marrow transplant, but he didn't get better. Apparently the kemo made him blind and more afraid until his death.

And his death took a toll on his family, and especially his twin sister, which their mother lashed out at and was told by their mother that "she should have been the one dead."

Childhood cancer ruins so many people and relationships, and I deeply hate this thing that almost seem intrinsic to the human condition.
by Retric | 2025-06-16 06:40:34+00:00
> Which specific characteristics? How are those "favorable"? How are "injurious" filtered out?

Mobility for one, within close distance to an egg the sperm which can orient on the chemical gradient beat out those unable to move.

> So why not billions?

Cost vs benefit

> Now try it with the eggs. Why have a few instead of millions?

Spending more resources on a few fetuses is the chosen strategy. Which would run into issues if both sides released millions of cells. The chemical signaling to abort a large number would be complex at implantation, much simpler to release a limited number of eggs.
by ulrikrasmussen | 2025-06-16 06:41:31+00:00
Yes, #1 basically means that they screwed up the design from the get go, since it is impossible to reap the actual benefits of Datalog when the language you evaluate is not, in fact, Datalog. Recursive queries have the ability to perform arbitrary computation in projections, so for starters any top-down evaluation strategy or hybrid evaluation such as magic sets is ruled out.
by yorwba | 2025-06-16 06:41:35+00:00
To be pedantic, short quotes (as opposed to short copied fragments that are not used as quotes) are explicitly one of the allowed uses (Zitierbefugnis). You can even quote entire works "in an independent scientific work for the purpose of explaining its content"! https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...

Generally speaking, exceptions to copyright are based on the appropriateness of the amount of copied content for the given allowed use, so the shorter it is, the more likely it is for copying to be permitted. European copyright law isn't much different from fair use in that respect.

Where it does differ is that the allowed uses are more explicitly enumerated. So Meta would have to argue e.g. based on the exception for scientific works specifically, rather than more general principles.
by Douger | 2025-06-16 06:42:50+00:00
I view it as a shame that I haven't encountered more instances of prose in this (scientific/technical) context. I think it adds to the 'quality' of the piece. From a selfish point of view I would enjoy if I encountered more of this style of writing while being introduced to topics. Although, I'm also not contributing any writing of any quality to any corpus. So there is dissonance there.

As a complete aside, I thought your writing here http://canonical.org/~kragen/memory-models/ was helpful. And I now know about BNF!
by WalterBright | 2025-06-16 06:44:47+00:00
Most of them did a simply terrible job of building a fireplace, from poisoning themselves with the smoke to literally burning their shelter down. Some built a bed up off the ground, which is smart, but never seemed to consider heating up rocks in the fireplace during the day and slipping them under the bed at night.

Anyhow, some mud and clay skills would help make a decent fireplace.

Staying warm is a crucial skill, not a luxury. Some of them got frostbite.

Also, most of them had food storage problems where their meat would get robbed. Some went to great effort to make their meat inaccessible, to no avail. I imagine that would make a storage pot useful.
by audunw | 2025-06-16 06:45:10+00:00
“Bicycle for the mind” analogy is actually really good here. Since bicycles and other transportation technology has made us increasingly weak, which has a negative impact on physical health. At this point it has reached such a critical point that people are taking seriously the fact that we need physical exercise to be in good health. My company recently introduced 60 minutes a week of activity during work hours. It’s probably a good investment since physical health affects performance and mental health.

Coming back to AI, maybe in the future we will need to explicitly take mental exercise as seriously as we do with physical exercise now. Perhaps people will go to mental gyms. (That’s just a school you may say, but I think the focus could be different: Not having a goal to complete a class and then finish, but continuous mental exercises..)
by ofwellkgi | 2025-06-16 06:46:48+00:00
It shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone that happy people make way better workers than angry and sad ones. Autonomy makes people happy, and on top of that experts usually know what they're doing, some even like their field and actually enjoy taking on challenges.

I think organizations of any type or size have a habit of discounting the power of spite aswell. You can do way worse than lose productivity, revolutions happen because people are unhappy.
by gsf_emergency | 2025-06-16 06:47:43+00:00
Baselians

https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article-abstract/doi/10....

raise the notion that Trump could be an intentional moderate (lol)

(and that market mechanisms may not be enough to "marginalize" the unintentional non-moderates-- the leftist manifestations of Elon?)

Elsewhen, the joust betwixt Trump and his mimetic nemesis, the Fed, will be fun to observe
by sjducb | 2025-06-16 06:48:03+00:00
Man in the middle interfering with TLS handshakes?

The handshake is unencrypted so you can modify the messages to make it look like the server only supports broken ciphers. Then the man in the middle can read all of the encrypted data because it was badly encrypted.

A surprising number of servers still support broken ciphers due to legacy uses or incompetence.
by delusional | 2025-06-16 06:48:04+00:00
> No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book.

You don't get to say that. Copyright protects the author of a work, but does not bind them to enforce it in any instance. Unlike a trademark, a copyright holder does not lose their protection by allowing unlicensed usage.

It is wholly at the copyright holders discretion to decide which usages they allow and which they do not.
by perching_aix | 2025-06-16 06:49:07+00:00
I think you hit the nail on the head there, you and the author are simply from different cultural zeitgeists. I also remember Star Trek and Dr Who being a big deal, but I was entirely too young to care. And I continue not to care, since I don't watch live action shows much. Never seen an episode of Friends or Game of Thrones either for example. Just a starkly different generation and subculture.
by teekert | 2025-06-16 06:49:18+00:00
I would call it cognitive debt. Have you ever tried writing a large report with an LLM?

It's very tempting to let it write a lot, let it structure things, let it make arguments and visuals. It's easy to let it do more and more... And then you end up with something that is very much... Not yours.

But your name is on it, you are asked to explain it, to understand it even better than it is written down. Surely the report is just a "2D projection" of some "high dimensional reality" that you have in you head... right? Normally it is, but when you spit out a report in 1/10th of the time it isn't. You struggle to explain concepts, even though they look nice on paper.

I found that I just really have to do the work, to develop the mental models, to articulate and to re-articulate and re-articulate again. For different audiences in different ways.

I like the term cognitive debt as a description of the gap between what mental models one would have to develop pre-LLMs to get a report out, and how little you may need with an LLM.

In the end it is your name on that report/paper, what can we expect of you, the author? Maybe that will start slipping and we start expecting less over time? Maybe we can start skipping authors altogether and rely on the LLM's "mental" model when we have in depth questions about a report/paper... Who knows. But different models (like LLMs) may have different "models" (predictive algorithms) of underlying truth/reality. What allows for most accurate predictions? One needs a certain "depth of understanding". Writing while relying too much on LLMs will not give it to you.

Over time indeed this may lead to a population "cognitive decline, or loss of cognitive skills." I don't dare to say that. Book printing didn't do that, although it was expected at the time by the religious elite, they worried that normal humans would not be able to interpret texts correctly.

As remarked here in this thread before, I really do think that "Writing is thinking" (but perhaps there is something better than writing which we haven't invented yet). And thinking is: Developing a detailed mental model that allows you to predict the future with a probability better than chance. Our survival depends on it, in fact it is what evolution is in terms of information theory [0]. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of ... information."

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PCHelnFKGc
by rajnathani | 2025-06-16 06:49:21+00:00
Side: The space age progress of the 1950s and 1960s, is one of the most baffling levels of technological progress. Analog computing (as the sibling comment here by jschveibinz points out about OP article's tech) (and very primitive digital computing), fuel cells, advanced rocketry without FEA/CFD simulation software, literally de-accelerating to land on the moon, and then thrusting to take off again, the list goes on.
by eviks | 2025-06-16 06:51:39+00:00
> Cost vs benefit

Both of which you've failed to quantify, so you have no answer as to why stop at millions and not thousands or billions.

> Mobility for one

Your continue to stop at the most important part - relevance to your own criteria. If you care about probability of live birth or cutting out those unnamed "issues", how do tiny variations in mobility help? What's the mechanism connecting the two?
by eesmith | 2025-06-16 06:53:33+00:00
The article quotes a researcher: “Most field systems have been either lost or destroyed due to intensive land use across most of North America, through farming, including pastures and the cutting down of trees for urban development,”

My watching of years of Time Team episodes tells me that Roman mosaic floors keep being found in England, like https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/news/rutland-roman-... from about 1,500 years ago. Doing so makes the news.

These floors, and the ruins around them, whilst buried, don't always survive the last century or two of machine plowing, which goes deeper than the medieval animal-based plowing.

Imagine the archeological excitement by your bus stop if a preserved part of the farm from 1,000 years ago were discovered, barely disturbed, giving archeologists a snapshot of what daily life was like at the time.

You know also know the story of Pompeii, and how its ruins have helped understand the Roman era.

This story is likely somewhere in between those two. Unlike your bus stop farm there aren't written records from the 1,000 years ago, nor are there many other sites from which to draw comparable results.