MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kvemkon | 2025-06-24 02:48:24+00:00
> The ability to reprogram an FPGA to implement a new digital circuit in milliseconds would be a game changer for many workloads,..

Only 47 milliseconds from power-on to operational.

Lattice Avant™-G FPGA: Boot Up Time Demo (12.12.2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4NUVYyLUxc
by kurikuri | 2025-06-24 02:49:07+00:00
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

Sure, I agree with what you’ve stated here.

> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

I reread what I wrote and still don’t see that I framed the conversation in this way. What I did frame was the motivation of the company (which I implied to be profit) versus the motive of the government (that of public interest). These are both biased and the effect of the bias could be anticipated: companies would slant their published information with a focus on the effects of profits, whereas the government’s overt bias would slant its information output towards safety (in the case of the CSB) without much concern for profit.

> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

Sure, we both agree the author is biased towards the government, but you’ve missed the thrust of what I wrote entirely: your nuance added absolutely no value to the discussion, it didn’t make a point or refute anything the author said.
by WD-42 | 2025-06-24 02:51:16+00:00
The difference with this project is the data from Rubin itself isn’t where most of the scientific value comes from. It’s from follow up observations. Coordinating multiple observatories all with varying degrees of programmatic access in order to get timely observations is a challenge. But hey if you insist on being an “everything is easy” Andy I won’t bother anymore.
by iforgotpassword | 2025-06-24 02:51:29+00:00
It rarely happens right when locking the phone, mosty because I already developed the habit to press the power button not with the tip of my thumb but lower down, where the joint is. But when shoving it back in my pocket it still happens on a regular basis, even when I try to avoid it. The button is just located in such a way that it's very hard to avoid touching it while doing so. Then I pull it out a while later to find I changed 20 settings and made a dozen in-app purchases. ;)
by PaulShin | 2025-06-24 02:51:47+00:00
That's an even more precise and insightful framing. You're absolutely right—the catalyst was licensing, and the technical problem of SCM was, in a sense, already "solved." Thank you for sharpening the point further.

You've actually given me the perfect "Part 2" of the analogy "the relationship between Git and GitHub."

Yeah, Git is the powerful, low-level engine. Technically brilliant, but with a notoriously steep learning curve. The real explosion in adoption came when GitHub wrapped it in a user-friendly product with a clear workflow (pull requests, issues, etc.). GitHub didn't reinvent SCM; it reinvented the collaboration workflow on top of it.

That's exactly how we see the problem we're tackling. The "protocols" of modern work already exist: real time chat, task lists, documents. But they exist as separate, low-level primitives, like Git commands. The "collaboration tax" comes from users having to manually act as the interface between them.

Our goal is to be the "GitHub for general collaboration." To take those existing primitives and build a seamless, opinionated workflow on top where the connections are automated. The user shouldn't have to think about the "protocol"; they should just be able to work.

So, your point is well taken and helps clarify our position. We're not trying to build the "Git" (the core primitive). We're trying to build the "GitHub" (the intuitive workflow layer that makes the primitives powerful for everyone).

And that philosophy is baked right into our name. The reason we're called Markhub is because we're building a central "Hub" where every "Mark" a team makes a message, a decision, a task, a document can live together in a single, seamless flow.
by tptacek | 2025-06-24 02:51:49+00:00
SOC2 is viral. When you sell B2B services to a SOC2-attested company, they will have a policy somewhere that requires them to ensure that you take adequate security precautions (this is called "vendorsec"). If you're not SOC2, the standard vendorsec process is that your prospective customer gives you a giant Excel spreadsheet questionnaire to fill out. If you are SOC2, your last SOC2 report will usually suffice.
by aurizon | 2025-06-24 02:52:05+00:00
Yes they have. The thickness of steel as inner/outer walls. The mass of motors and their internal copper has been cut by the use of far higher frequencies of alternating current often generated via pulse width modulation up to 50-200 Khz. The use of glues to fasten, foam to insulate and of course the planned life of 4-8 years. They are made to throw away, with no economic repair path as the labor cost plus parts often exceeds a new machine - it can take 3-4 hours of service labor to answer a call, arrange to view, use the embedded diagnostics to ID the fault and look up the parts cost = quote the client with the trip to inspect cost, plus the inflated parts cost plus another 3-4 to go fix. All these labor hours are costed at $75-125 per hour = zero economic way to fix
by jwr | 2025-06-24 02:53:22+00:00
> You're not even allowed to buy a car without a permit that proves you have a parking space for it.

I would cross out "even" in that sentence, and then step back and admire it. This is one of the best things about Japan. For some bizarre reason there is an implicit assumption (at least in many places in Europe, especially Central Europe) that 12m2 of public shared city space should be reserved for your metal box on wheels and that it's somehow a right.
by colechristensen | 2025-06-24 02:53:32+00:00
>I write this only because the piece ends with Excalidraw psyched to have cleared their Type 1. I hope their auditors told them they were always going to clear that bar.

The signal having a Type 1 says is that you're interested in even trying to pass the next one, which in itself is a good sign to everyone. Maybe being excited and proud of "passing" type 1 is a little exaggeration for folks who know the details, but I'm very willing to forgive that. A lot of orgs show a lot more pride about much more dubious things.
by darkerside | 2025-06-24 02:54:02+00:00
And yet not everyone does. And even if you have everyone free housing, not everyone would take it. So now what?

When you ignore a homeless person, you are depersonalizing them on some level. If you saw every homeless person as a some or a daughter, a mother or a father, a best friend, a laughing child, a person doing their best, could you really walk by? Probably not. And they were all these things at one point, perhaps not too long ago.
by raddan | 2025-06-24 02:54:30+00:00
There are a lot of variables, but from personal experience it also depends on how you talk about that experience in your tenure dossier. I was able to spin a research finding into a commercial product. Due to intracompany politics, that product never shipped. But my tenure committee talked glowingly about my ability to take a research idea and polish it into something that a major software company would pay me to commercialize.
by Analemma_ | 2025-06-24 02:54:32+00:00
If you’re not SOC2 certified, a lot of orgs (by policy or by law) have to ask you tons of questions about your security situation to verify that you’re “as good as” SOC2 before they can do business with you.

Strictly speaking it’s better than a hard-and-fast requirement to be certified— at least you have some choice— but as was the case here it tends to be so onerous and repetitive that people tend to just get the certification.
by bccdee | 2025-06-24 02:54:50+00:00
> Dialogue has been a weak point in "interactive fiction" since the beginning

Hard disagree. Dialogue is a strength of interactive fiction. Dialogue trees are unique to the medium. Titles like Firewatch, Night in the Woods, and Disco Elysium are all-time great examples of dialogue writing. I'd love to see interactive fiction that put more emphasis on internality instead; in that dimension, Disco Elysium really stands alone.

> maybe LLMs will change that

LLM-generated dialogue is only ever going to waste your time. Good dialogue is expressive and clever and characteristic and dense, none of which describe anything I've seen from an LLM. You'd be better-off just reading the prompt.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-24 02:55:35+00:00
Not really. The reason the overturning of Roe was widely considered to be inevitable, even by jurists who were pro-choice, is that the theory of privacy used in that case was fundamentally incompatible with a broad range of regulatory powers most people think the Constitution grants the Federal government.

The reasoning behind Roe was generally regarded as tenuous even by the justices that supported it. Overturning it was required to defend the government’s Constitutional authority for agencies like the FDA, which was undermined by inconsistencies introduced by Roe v Wade. Eventually those judicial inconsistencies come home to roost.

tl;dr: Roe being overturned had little to do with privacy and more to do with protecting specific regulatory powers from being unconstitutional using the same reasoning introduced in Roe v Wade.

Removing such decisions from Federal purview was an elegant solution to the problem, with the practical effect of deferring all such decisions to voters at the State level.
by hliyan | 2025-06-24 02:56:20+00:00
I think we will soon have to confront serious, real world proof that an unregulated free market is not ultimately self-regulating. Control systems without upper bounds (e.g. shareholder value / profit maximization) are prone to feedback loops and oscillations. And an oscillating system cannot be judged in its entirety during an upward cycle alone (20th century).

Going one level of abstraction higher: there is no evidence that demand/supply dynamics alone will regulate a society over larger populations and time scales. Even the phrase "invisible hand" appears only once in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, somewhere around page 500, and that refers not to the market at large, but to the emergence of protectionist behaviours among suppliers within a country.

Laws and regulations are part of the free market system. As rules approach zero, competition approaches war.
by lmm | 2025-06-24 02:56:23+00:00
A couple of the ones on that list are what might be called "alternate history" e.g. one is a "cold war goes hot" WW3 scenario.

There are plenty of abstract or futuristic war games, so I'm sure someone has done an operational one, but generally this kind of game appeals to someone who wants to play through a detailed simulation, and that's a lot less interesting (and harder to get right!) if you're trying to simulate an original fictional war environment. (I guess simulating the likes of Star Wars might appeal, but then you get into the issue of whether what's seen in the movies can be made to correspond to any kind of logistically grounded simulation at all)
by ordu | 2025-06-24 02:56:33+00:00
Altruism is very real thing, with very real examples of behavior influenced by altruism. Moreover it altruism is not just something that people do, because they are culturally programmed to believe, that altruism exists. Examples of altruistic behavior are known for many species, including those, that cannot pass complex concepts from one generation to the next by telling fairy tales to their offspring.

Economics tends to use model where every agent is a total egoistic rationalist, and likely it is one of the reasons why the society tolerate totally egoistic corporations. You claimed in other comment that you believe that everything is biased? Don't you think that economics biased you toward egoism?
by ViscountPenguin | 2025-06-24 02:57:33+00:00
I'm not sure I'd consider 15g/km particularly low, for a rail system at least, but thanks for the source. Definitely interesting to see the disparity between night and day energy mixes in those numbers.

Here in Australia, we're lucky enough to have incredibly cheap solar during the day. But iirc, our energy is even dirtier (in most non-SA/Tasmanian states) during the night due to the use of brown coal.
by georgeburdell | 2025-06-24 02:58:28+00:00
Yes, that is the rationale, even though in the specific case I cite, said red light runner caused an accident and left their insurance info and produced a driver’s license. The police don’t care.

It doesn’t have to be like that. Why does New York not need to ID the driver to cite for idling? “The owner of the vehicle may not be the one driving it.”
by spauldo | 2025-06-24 02:58:30+00:00
It's pretty important for anyone working around chemicals. I work around truck racks and pump houses and giant fuel tanks all day, and I'm rather glad I don't need to worry about being blown 100 feet in the air in an explosion and leave my family behind like my great uncle did. The reason I don't worry is because, partly due to the CSB, we're pretty good at knowing how to work around explosive liquids safely.

Everyone gets hung up on money and they don't pay attention to value. The CSB annual budget is less than some of the contracts I work on, automating fuel farms on military bases. They're good value for money.
by jfoster | 2025-06-24 02:59:10+00:00
The video seems honest in what way? What part of it makes you think that? The only evidence of ride discomfort that I saw was some steering wheel shuddering.

Once I saw the part where the car was being blamed for the pickup location chosen by the user, I really struggle to believe anything that's being said. Felt like they wanted to say it's not good right from the start.
by intermerda | 2025-06-24 03:00:00+00:00
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

Do you believe in priors? Or do you evaluate each perspective at its face value?

> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

That's not the dichotomy here. It's a biased government acting on behalf of biased companies.

> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

The only discourse you personally have contributed is "both sides."

> What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.

Sounds like you are intentionally giving benefit of doubt to well-known bad faith actors. This makes you incredibly naive at best, or biased sealioner at worst.
by derbOac | 2025-06-24 03:00:19+00:00
This raised some interesting arguments to think about for a bit, but I think it tried too hard to be contrarian and clever and in the end I just got angry.

Wirecutter, for example, uses data from "the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers", not exactly an unbiased group, to argue about appliance longevity. And the Baumol effect, while probably real, might just as well reflect planned obsolescence as much as it causes replacement — it's a common criticism that units aren't made to be repaired, which means the repair costs go up because the parts are functionally unrepairable. It's a moot point whether something theoretically could be repaired if it can't be in practice — it's less repairable, and therefore less durable, either way.

The MR piece on clothing durability is similarly hand-wavy, to the point I kind of wonder what its motives were. It confuses durability with functional performance (you can have a modern raincoat that performs really well as a raincoat but doesn't last very long), and is haphazard in pointing to numbers without acknowledging the bigger picture. It acknowledges denim has declined in weight from 13-16oz to 9-11 oz/y, which is pretty big, but then seems to minimize this, without acknowledging the harder-to-quantify things like declines in fabric quality independent of density, like staple length or manufacturing quality, or substituting long staple virgin wool with low quality short-staple wool-nylon blends, etc. etc. It then seemingly proceeds to argue that because you can get some high quality products somewhere (the discussion of Filson was particularly ironic), the entire market system is intact and functioning as it should.

One of the arguments I've been making for years is that products in many categories have degraded so much over time, that current consumers and critics don't even know how to evaluate product quality relative to the past. In other words, they don't even know what they're missing, and in some cases, are actively misled to evaluate products on superficial characteristics that reinforce short-term immediate impressions, even leading to perceptions of markers of quality as negative.

I guess I felt like both of these pieces really superficially treated a lot of complicated supply-consumer decision making dynamics over time for the sake of trying to be clever, and in the process did more harm than good. There are some areas where product quality has increased (cars, for example), but these pieces were not about those.
by throwawayabcdef | 2025-06-24 03:01:00+00:00
No need. I gave ChatGPT this prompt: "Write a data mover in Xilinx HLS with Vitis flow that takes in a stream of bytes, swaps pairs of bytes, then streams the bytes out"

And it did a good job. The code it made probably works fine and will run on most Xilinx FPGAs.
by atmavatar | 2025-06-24 03:01:20+00:00
It's more like the current administration and the billionaires behind them are acting like private equity. Now that they have control of the government, they'll dismantle anything they can and set us on a path to destruction to squeeze out every bit of value they can for themselves.

Those most responsible are either betting they won't be around long enough to deal with the smouldering wreckage or planning to ditch before the country hits rock bottom.
by tptacek | 2025-06-24 03:03:12+00:00
I'm not saying it's a bad sign, I'm saying: you really can't fail a Type 1, unless your auditor is messing with you (a good auditor's job is to make sure you end up with a Type 1). My broken-record SOC2 point is: minimize your Type 1 controls, and add new controls over time.

You can do lots of security things. I'm not saying minimize security. I'm saying minimize the security things you talk about in your Type 1.
by kmoser | 2025-06-24 03:04:25+00:00
> I’m not sure why it is that this obviously aging little structure doesn’t feel ugly or rundown. It doesn’t trigger any negative feelings. It somehow feels atmospheric, like a living time capsule. The music, of course, helped.

Several things help prevent it from feeling run down: 1) the music, 2) the fact that it's probably immaculate: no dust or dirt anywhere, 3) the rustic surfaces have a patina, but no physical degradation (rust/rot), and 4) it's well lit.
by gusgus01 | 2025-06-24 03:04:53+00:00
I'm not fully informed about pumped storage, but twenty minutes is more than enough for most hydroelectric plants to go from 0 to full power, and that's probably the case for pumped storage as well. Eg,

In the case of Cruachan Power Station: “It takes just two minutes for a turbine to run up from rest to generate mode,” says Martin McGhie, Operations and Maintenance Manager at the power station. “It takes slightly longer for the turbines to run down from generate to rest, but whatever function the turbines are performing, they can reach it within a matter of minutes.”

https://www.drax.com/power-generation/in-energy-storage-timi...
by tptacek | 2025-06-24 03:05:18+00:00
I think we've managed to get an exception in every Type 2 we've done (each time, some dumb paperwork policy thing; I think in one instance we were untimely with a post-facto merge PR signoff, the closest we've come to an actual slip. The first exception we got, I raised hell and wrote a management statement. But nobody cares about trivial exceptions, and so I've learned not to here either.

But, true, I didn't even pay attention in our last Type 2 (I don't run security here) --- passing was a foregone conclusion.
by Metacelsus | 2025-06-24 03:07:22+00:00
> In this study, we report the generation of fertile androgenetic mice by allele-specific epigenetic remodeling of seven imprinting control regions (ICRs). Our findings, together with previous achievements of uniparental reproduction in mammals, support previous speculation that genomic imprinting is the fundamental barrier to the full-term development of uniparental mammalian embryos.

See also a discussion in Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/06/researchers-get-viab...
by serjester | 2025-06-24 03:07:36+00:00
I listened to their podcast with Dwarkesh and found them incredibly off putting. They’ve done so little confidence modeling and have completely failed to understand they’re dealing with a chaotic system.

The smartest people in the world struggle to predict Apple’s stock price next year and yet they think they’ve found a formula to predict the onset of super intelligence.

Pure hubris. I really appreciate the write up, it’s refreshing to see a review with such rigor.
by dontdoxxme | 2025-06-24 03:07:53+00:00
> even if the server is breached, attackers cannot impersonate users

The weakest link is still the web platform, an attacker can change the JavaScript served.

> even if users reuse the same password across services the impact to other services using the same password is minimal

Failing to understand this argument, if an attacker wants to target the service, they can run the key derivation themselves?

They can also enumerate users because the salt is returned. It says the server should implement rate limiting to stop brute forcing, but that isn't going to help with simple password reuse.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-06-24 03:08:40+00:00
I'm under the impression that there was a paper on "ego depletion" has sort of become a poster child for p-value hacking. It has sort of poisoned the topic. Upon learning of such a hack one should rationally revert to a null hypothesis, not revert to the assumption that the hacked conclusion was false.

As a climber I see ego depletion happen all the time. You find a crumbly hold, or get harassed by an insect, or whatever else it is, and you conclude that the next move is the crux. Then other people climb it and nobody agrees with you--that move was one of the easier ones. Anecdata, of course, I just wish we could learn from the bad science and then be washed clean, rather than be haunted by it.
by UltraSane | 2025-06-24 03:09:57+00:00
Calling the brutal murder of 1,200 people an "excuse" is pretty despicable. That would be like if a Mexican cartel invaded the US and killed 40,000 people.

" US had a long history of doing the same when it came to Indians."

Yes, and you don't see Native Americans trying to take back their land using military force and mass murder because they aren't evil and aren't stupid.

"I wouldn't fault Jews and other minorities in the holocaust for fighting back against their oppressors either."

The only people oppressing Palestinians in Gaza are Hamas.