MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by glitchc | 2025-06-06 23:20:47+00:00
Tell that to the airline. It's not up to the pilot. The airline has to agree to pay for it. The 737 Max was offered because it was a lot cheaper for airlines to add marginal additional hours of training, instead of the minimum 25000 hrs of recertification that would be necessary for a brand new platform. In short, the 737 Max is exactly what the airlines were clamoring for and why it sold so well.

This was discussed extensively on HN when the incident occurred (and subsequent articles). You may want to go read those comments and enlighten yourself.
by jeffbee | 2025-06-06 23:21:25+00:00
1024 is absurdly low for a modern platform. This is just one of those traps that Linux and the other surviving unix-like operating systems leave laying around for their users to fall into. It is possible to exhaust all memory by opening a huge number of files, but there are lots of ways to exhaust all memory, so that's not a good reason. On a modern system, which typically have a minimum of 8GiB main memory and usually much more, you can safely set it to a million or whatever.

The only reason you'd want 1024 as a limit is if you intend to start a process that might have been naively written to use `select` without checking the limits.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-06-06 23:23:20+00:00
There's so much reporting around the DOGE folks that is just off the wall bonkers. Locking themselves into CFPB and other agencies, after demanding not just admin level accounts but root access too systems that no one should access except in emergency cases.

These folks have seemingly unmitigated access to systems, in completely unhinged wild ways.

They also are executioners for the civil service. The recent reports on how NSF grants were all ran by a disinterested non communicative DOGE child seem to be all to common, just one of what this legion of state-ociding invaders are up to. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro...

Any attempt to dismiss the extreme panic & freak out that should be happening here is wild.
by afavour | 2025-06-06 23:23:37+00:00
> It's very Aaron Sorkin's West Wing.

My completely unfounded theory is that the West Wing broke the brains of an entire generation of center left leaning Americans. Led them to believe that being noble and earnest brings you electoral rewards, that you should break bread with your opposition, who are fundamentally reasonable people capable of compromise.

I think Trump 2.0 might have finally finished that mindset off but good lord did it take a long time.
by throw0101c | 2025-06-06 23:24:00+00:00
> You mean like the great depression which happened not long after formation, which some prominent economists have argued was exacerbated by the fed?

The tight monetary policy of the Fed (dictated by the rules of then-orthodox gold standard) made the Great Depression worse:

* https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-an...

And it was only after leaving the gold standard that countries started to recover:

> In the end, recovery from the Great Depression does not begin until countries give up on the combination of the Bagehot Rule and of commitment to sound gold-standard finance. Those countries that have central banks willing to print up enough money so that people are willing to spend it--it is when you adopt such policies that your economy begins to recover. If you don’t, you become France, which sticks to the gold standard all the way up to 1937, and never gets a recovery. When World War II begins, Nazi Germany’s production--equal to France's in 1933--had doubled between 1933 and 1939. French production had fallen by 15%.

* https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2013/10/the-grea...

It was the 'sound money' orthodoxy that everyone adhered to that made things bad, and not the Fed specifically. It's not like things were any more stable pre-Fed:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

And the "Great Depression" used to refer to something else pre-1930s:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

It should also be noted that how the Fed (or any central bank) was run one hundred years ago, and how it/they are run now, are two different things. We've learned a lot (sometimes through painful experience(s)) about how to run economy(s).
by soraminazuki | 2025-06-06 23:26:14+00:00
Subscribe to Premium and pay ever-increasing prices [1][2][3] so that Google can track you better with you always being logged into an account with payment information attached. While still being exposed to ads for VPNs, cryptocurrency, scams [4], and more.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626035

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807803

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279998

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43298054
by notepad0x90 | 2025-06-06 23:26:33+00:00
That won't work because people breed dogs for a purpose, that's why we have breeds. We don't breed to have better hunting humans for example. We practice eugenics on dogs, but we don't practice it at scale on ourselves.

Cats are interesting, tabby cats are most like humans, because they are very "mixed" but not with a purpose, just at random and by convenience. Orange cats have specific behavioral traits, but they weren't bred on purpose either.

The "on purpose" part is important because in those cases, we keep breeding them until specific traits are exaggerated to the max. With human reproduction, if having a blonde hair is considered ideal in a specific part of a country over several hundred years, then yeah, you'll see blondes mate more than non-blondes and you'll have lots of blondes, but you'll still see blondes marry non-blondes so their great-grandchildren could have red or black hair just the same. Now instead of hair consider behavioral traits. Those are even more complicated because us humans don't operate on a purely instinctual directive like animals. if a person has a genetic propensity for violence for example, that doesn't mean much because they can still decide to act against their "genetics" (otherwise, it doesn't make sense to punish them). Even dogs bred for their violent nature can be trained out of it to a large extent.
by johannesrexx | 2025-06-06 23:27:12+00:00
Mr. Gruber was certainly one of the inventors of Markdown but has rested on the laurels ever since. Remember that the late Aaron Schwartz was the co-inventor of Markdown. So let's not give Mr. Gruber too much attention for his opinions on how Markdown has evolved because he's chosen not to participate in its development or adoption.

Indeed, he is far more likely to let loose a tirade of anti-Trump sentiment, and in that regard he comes across as a terribly damaged individual. His opinions are many, and so we cannot give them too much weight.

We must have balance in The Force.
by runarberg | 2025-06-06 23:28:22+00:00
What is your hypotheses? What are you trying to predict? If you don’t have any hypothesis, if the only thing you are predicting is what you measure, you are by definition not doing science.

Science is more then mere observations. You can observe all the white swans you like, and if your only prediction is “all the swans I have seen are white” that isn’t science, it is just bird watching.

If you want to measure IQ and you observe differences in population, and you don’t give a theory as to why that is, and you don’t make any further predictins based on your observations, you are just surveying.

Now, somebody might create a model based on these observations, and make predictions based on that model, then-and-only then are you doing science. If Tycho Brave had only been observing the stars, never developing the Tychonic system, he would have just been an excellent astrologer, and as you know astrology is not a science. When Kepler later used that data to prove Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, then—and only then—would we consider his observation to be scientific.

In IQ testing, the only people making predictions with the data are psychometricians. They are using it to try to prove the existence of the g-factor. This effort is in vein, as this theory has long been debunked. It is modern day alchemy (or phrenology if you will). Nobody else is making any other predictions with IQ data. The only people who are using IQ data are using it to make predictions in a futile effort to prove their race pseudo-science. And they keep failing at it.
by nialv7 | 2025-06-06 23:28:55+00:00
I've seen this too often, papers that ask questions they don't even bother to properly define.

> Are these models capable of generalizable reasoning, or are they leveraging different forms of pattern matching?

Define reasoning, define generalizable, define pattern matching.

For additional credits after you have done so, show humans are capable of what you just defined as generalizable reasoning.
by latchup | 2025-06-06 23:29:14+00:00
> Successful people aren't bitter, that's a trait that losers develop.

>So, basically, you think all the pro-AI folks are "bad," and defensive because they feel like anti-AI folks are attacking the thing that makes them not bad?

Thanks, I needed a laugh. I have indeed grown bitter over the years, but life has always has a way to make me smile in store.
by blindriver | 2025-06-06 23:31:08+00:00
Pharma companies aren’t incentivized to cure HIV. Gilead found a cure for Hepatitis C but instead of being praised for it, it was derided by Wall Street because the limited financial value. I certainly hope a more honorable company will find a cure instead of a monthly treatment like Ozempic, which is a Wall Street darling because it’s expensive and monthly.
by WorldMaker | 2025-06-06 23:31:21+00:00
In Haskell's case that is indirectly Lisp's fault. Lisp heard of Algol (C's design-by-committee "grandparent" on the family tree) identifier restrictions and thought they were silly. (I think Lisp is also often classified as Haskell's great-grandparent on the family tree? Lisp -> Scheme -> ML -> Haskell, I think?) As with most of that FP family the boundary between "operator" and "identifier" is real thin to nonexistent.

Aside: I've got half a feeling you could implement an APL-like directly in Haskell as a DSL using Unicode-named functions. I've seen Unicode Haskell files that look like APL (and GHC supports a surprising amount of that almost out of the box, as I recall).
by Retric | 2025-06-06 23:31:57+00:00
> unlikely to have no profits if you have no revenue.

It’s much easier to have revenue than profits, set the price lower and suddenly zero profit. Some company avoiding profits because of the 21% tax on profit like that would be mathematically dumb.

> There is no unplanned economy, only different outcomes from better or worse plans. And I'm having a hard time imagining a worse plan than one that intentionally disincentivizes businesses from adopting a sustainable business model early in their lifetime.

There’s zero advantage to avoiding revenue or profit here. You’re tilting at windmills.

You simply need less investor money for R&D when other parts of the company are profitable. As to central panning, the mistake you just made is mitigated when many people are all independently making plans. Governments always need to get it right, the market is fine if some people get it right and therefore can reinvest in their success.
by roenxi | 2025-06-06 23:32:19+00:00
And it had no impact [0]. Increases in US Federal spending look like a jump from 5% to 20% of GDP. "Cuts" look like a flat line at 20%. Although I don't know what the situation might have changed post-COVID (higher again).

If we're defining "drawdowns" to mean "hold steady" then sure, lots of those. If it means drawing spending down then there technically was one in the 1940s. The proper terms for what we're seeing are "reallocation" or "expansion" depending on the congress.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
by highway900 | 2025-06-06 23:32:32+00:00
> This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.

The opposite is also true. Games that should never be made are being made due to the rubbish that can be generated by these tools. Observe the generated samples on the landing page, they are literally just copying street fighter. These tools are so useless without ripping off the hard work of humans. The deluge of slop is a signal to noise problem.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-06 23:32:37+00:00
Gains are frequently not realizable as a matter of law and/or contract, for good reason. Additionally, there are many assets with notional value conditional on not liquidating them, which makes them de facto not realizable. And of course, the majority of assets have no liquidity, so realizability is a practical fiction.

The unrealized values are a fiction. There is significant value in treating values as unknowable when they are, in fact, unknowable. Forcing people to make up a fake valuation creates a lot of adverse incentives.
by hnlmorg | 2025-06-06 23:33:43+00:00
> Exactly my point. Your metric (for judging graphics capabilities) in this case was strictly preference (bias) about a set of games with a specific visual aesthetic from 1991/92 ("It wasn’t until the era of ray casting 2.5D 1st person shooter that PCs started looking better than their counterparts").

That’s the literal opposite of my point. I don’t think you’re actually reading my comments properly. Or if you are, you’re just reading the words and assuming I’m wrong so not really listening to the points im making.

> Yes, until, by my estimation, 1987/88 (at a time a lot of dedicated PC-gaming magazines got off the ground as well). Strictly on technological grounds, i. e. on many technological but also economical metrics, as contextualized by real-world use cases across whole industries and economies in many nations.

That’s not an unreasonable estimation. The date isn’t going to be exact and I’d probably nudge it a little later, but I don’t think you’re being unfair with that figure either.

> My experience is, as I've internalized a long time ago, certainly limited. But then again, so is yours. :p

I see you’ve forgotten the part where I mentioned how I ran a side gig as tech support ;)
by hn_acker | 2025-06-06 23:36:05+00:00
For pay scales GS-05 and above, applicants have to write short essays for four questions, the third of which is:

> How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.

As House Representative Stephen F. Lynch pointed out [1], a question about adopting a particular president's priorities is at odds with the federal employee's oath and puts a loyalty test in the hiring process:

> Every federal worker is legally required to take an oath of office that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The oath does not require federal workers to swear to protect and defend executive orders or policy initiatives. It does not require that workers have loyalty to a President or to a political party. In fact, the very ethos of our civil service is that it serves the Constitution and the American people. That mandate transcends any political position or capriciously signed executive order.

There are multiple DOGE employees [2][3] who would be unlikely to pass a good faith execution of the "merit and competence" guideline of the new hiring process.

[1][pdf] https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/060225ew1...

[2] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/02/a-23-year-old-crypto-bro...

[3] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-c...
by roncesvalles | 2025-06-06 23:37:09+00:00
To some degree this happens if you're trying to optimize and find The Best solution for something that isn't core to your product's value proposition. Just take something that meets your requirements and you'll probably be fine. And if you need to switch to something else down the line then, oh well, pull a couple of all-nighters and get it done. Dealing with the ground shifting below you is part of the job.
by WorldMaker | 2025-06-06 23:37:43+00:00
I recall Anna Anthropy's book on ZZT doing a great job of capturing the feel of the early PC ZZT scene and some of its AOL/CompuServe/Prodigy communities in the early 90s. Might serve as other bits of inspiration, if you like short history books: https://www.amazon.com/Boss-Fight-Books-Anna-Anthropy/dp/194...
by Retric | 2025-06-06 23:38:23+00:00
What specifically do you disagree with? That R&D is an investment? I mean outside of the tax code that’s what it means to do R&D.

As to my other point, the highest risk category of startup has zero customers for years they also have zero revenue, zero profit, and zero taxes to pay here. On the 5th year they can deduct R&D from each of those years making the net effect on them minimal vs a startup with profits on year 0.
by awb | 2025-06-06 23:39:10+00:00
As an engineer, if you’ve had a skilled Project Manager you’ve receive detailed, thoughtful “prompts” on how to complete a project that leads to a shared understanding. But with unskilled Project Managers you might receive a vague “prompt” that leads to ambiguity and misalignment. And Project Managers can go through training or read books on how to effectively “prompt” (aka communicate) more effectively.

When I say that your native language is now a programming language, I mean that you are now the Project Manager, and the code is generated automatically. But because the code is auto-generated, the focus shifts towards the “prompt” as the first and potentially only step in generating code.
by Jensson | 2025-06-06 23:39:30+00:00
> IMO: because we have always had nowhere near enough food. Agriculture revolution was what, 10,000 years ago? That's a blip.

I think its the opposite, agricultural is much more reliable food so then population could grow until everyone barely starved. Before then people either had more food than they could use or they just died from starvation, people generally lived better lives before agriculture but there were much less people.

The reason we grow fat is because its good to be fat when you are a hunter gatherer, since there is more food than you can possible eat when you kill a large animal you just eat as much as you can, and then you survive better if you don't find another kill for a while.

Agriculture only started to produce enough food for everyone when we human stopped multiplying, before then starvation was only a few generations away as people would multiply exponentially until there isn't enough food again.
by Reubend | 2025-06-06 23:40:06+00:00
> “There’s proof by induction, proof by contradiction, and then proof by intimidation,” He says. “If you say something with enough authority, people just get scared. I think o4-mini has mastered proof by intimidation; it says everything with so much confidence.”

Proof validation is the perfect solution to this, and indeed I would love to see future improvements to LLMs which allow them to formalize their proofs with a feedback loop from something like Lean or Coq so that they can ensure that hallucinations haven't occurred.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-06 23:42:09+00:00
For many assets, like real estate, there are liquid markets with market prices. There are a number of US states that already tax based on real estate value, you can dispute the assessed value but that impacts other things like insured value.

Being difficult to assess value is a problem they’ll make you pay an accountant for and punish you if you get it wrong, it’s not going to stop them.
by reisse | 2025-06-06 23:44:51+00:00
You've had a good chance to really see 4096 descriptions in select() somewhere. The man is misleading because it refers to the stubbornly POSIX compliant glibc wrapper around actual syscall. Any sane modern kernel (Linux; FreeBSD; NT (although select() on NT is a very different beast); well, maybe except macOS, never had a chance to write network code there) supports passing the descriptor sets of arbitrary size to select(). It's mentioned further down in the man, in the BUGS section:

> POSIX allows an implementation to define an upper limit, advertised via the constant FD_SETSIZE, on the range of file descriptors that can be specified in a file descriptor set. The Linux kernel imposes no fixed limit, but the glibc implementation makes fd_set a fixed-size type, with FD_SETSIZE defined as 1024, and the FD_*() macros operating according to that limit.

The code I've had a chance to work with (it had its roots in the 90s-00s, therefore the select()) mostly used 2048 and 4096.

> Anyways, seriously just use poll().

Oh please don't. poll() should be in the same grave as select() really. Either use libev/libuv or go down the rabbit hole of what is the bleeding edge IO multiplexer for your platform (kqueue/epoll/IOCP/io_uring...).
by carefulfungi | 2025-06-06 23:46:55+00:00
I think this response is understandable. But also feels disingenuous. If a dependency update appears to be an automated version bump, and you trust your test base, and you trust the dependency author (did you read the whole dependency's dependency graph before importing it? You probably didn't.) it's only a small step to auto-merge. The horror here is that the bot isn't the author and the version update isn't legitimate. That's on Github's presentation and settings, in my opinion.

Relying on a human reviewer, regardless, is a weak guarantee. If your security posture is "Joe shouldn't make mistakes", you still have a weak security posture.
by sagyam | 2025-06-06 23:47:52+00:00
Sorry about that that is my blogging platform Hashnode. It was lesser of four evils:

- Medium which paywalls the article and forces you to sign up just to read.

- Substack has same problem, it's great for funneling people to your paid newsletter but there is a sign up banner as soon the page loads.

- Build your own and miss out on the social aspect and there's no proof if the numbers are real.
by troad | 2025-06-06 23:48:47+00:00
I learned Common Lisp during the life of this HN account, and there's an amusing trajectory in my comments, from "I hear Lisp is beautiful and I'd love to learn it", through "Wait, Common Lisp is kind of a horrendous mess", to "OK, I get this, this is very cool".

Common Lisp genuinely expanded my thinking about programming, so I find this article's poetry analogy very apt. But part of this growth was clarifying my own preferences about programming, and some of CL's greatest strengths - extremely clever runtime meta-programming, CLOS, etc - are not actually things I want to work with in a code base at scale.

I also think the UX for CL, outside the commercial Lisps, is pretty grim. CL would greatly benefit from a rustup-cargo-like system with good dep management and sane beginner defaults, like wrapping the SBCL REPL in rlwrap. Haskell is more beginner friendly than CL right now, and that's quite the indictment.
by 90s_dev | 2025-06-06 23:49:14+00:00
> I got to see first-hand that notions like function calling, sequential processing, and boolean logic are not intuitive

It was a very long time since I first learned programming.

It was QBasic first I think.

It was a very slow process that I had mostly forgotten.

It took me a very long time to grasp what's now very basic control flow.

But I was like 7 or 10.

I remember feeling like "this is pure magic!" so many times so very early on.

Part of what I want to do is rekindle that like pico8 did for me. Somehow.
by SubiculumCode | 2025-06-06 23:49:19+00:00
I think that degradation of plastic is the larger concern. Storage of garbage is generally an overstated concern, while microplastic pollution clearly show the threat of plastics that break into millions of tiny pieces.[1] Stable plastics that last pose so many fewer problems when it comes to pollutants.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...