MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by viraptor | 2025-06-06 23:02:56+00:00
> They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do.

No, they're forcefully entering buildings, adding unapproved infrastructure with no oversight and get rubberstamped access to everything, with people in the way being threatened firing.

> There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access

No, there have been no consequences. The only ones we've seen were: 1. they have to stop, 2. they can continue but with supervision of someone. There's been access abuse already and it will not be prosecuted.

> yet the mere possibility of a potential leak

There were effectively leaks already. Where Doge was told no they can't access some data they already looked through, those were leaks.

I'm not sure why you bring up Equifax - yes, they're both bad ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-06 23:03:22+00:00
Last year I switched to a local mom&pop pharmacy from CVS. It was a really strange experience when the owner greeted me by name after seeing me twice over a month apart. Almost startling and somewhat offputting.

I just kind of forgot that some people are just that good at recognizing others. It's something I can't relate to at all, so it's a concept that just slips away from my mental models. But I suppose that's always how it is when you try to conceptualize how another being experiences the world.
by ty6853 | 2025-06-06 23:04:14+00:00
You're mixing causation and correlation. Those with genotypes that produce black skin score lower on IQ tests on average but I never claimed the gene caused it and even disclaimed it above:

>> nor does it mean the gene itself causes that

So re:

>No, they don't.

Yes, they do, but you just jumped the gun straight to your strawman because you thought you were saying 'no' to something I didn't even say, maybe because of some political motive.
by vlovich123 | 2025-06-06 23:04:32+00:00
It will be a trope eventually. But like I said, the cost benefit analysis puts it generally in the benefit camp. And if every next product also does this, are you actually going to not use the product? In most cases I think people put up with this & just minimize the interaction that leads to this (another benefit for the support team wording things this way since they have to field fewer support requests)
by throw0101c | 2025-06-06 23:05:29+00:00
> Note that the government has huge incentives to downplay the inflation rate. Over the time period of the graph, the price of gold went up by about 100x; I would consider that a more accurate estimate of inflation than the 18x number implied by the chart.

The CPI is one of the most studied and examined statistics that the government releases. Everyone from hyper-capitalist financial traders to leftist unions folks (because of CoL contract provisions) examine in and none of these folks who have a vested interested in calling out fraud have stepped forward.

There have been numerous peer-reviewed examinations about it, including open source code:

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

There are disagreements about the "best" way to measure certain things (e.g., owner-occupied housing), but for the published methodology there is no cooking of the books that anyone without a tinfoil hat can find.

A recent profile of how the BLS does things:

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2024/joh...

* http://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in...

(Included as a chapter in the recent Michael Lewis (of Big Short fame) book Who Is The Government?)

And regarding gold specifically, there have been periods (that stretch over decade(s)) where gold has been flat, especially in inflation-adjust terms:

* https://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/07/CMD_GLDNFLT0711_VF...

The fact that it just happened to pop up over the last 2-3 years is recently bias. Your returns would have been highly dependent on when you got in for each (use slider):

* https://www.macrotrends.net/2608/gold-price-vs-stock-market-...
by neilv | 2025-06-06 23:05:38+00:00
It looks OK to me:

(define (time-to-move from-pos to-pos) ;; Calculates the total time to move between two positions, ;; assuming rotation and ascension can occur simultaneously. (max (time-to-rotate (position-azimuth from-pos) (position-azimuth to-pos)) (time-to-ascend (position-elevation from-pos) (position-elevation to-pos))))
by kurthr | 2025-06-06 23:07:03+00:00
I don't know why it "Sounds toxic as s*t". It's a reactive salt. LD50 is ~1gram so don't swallow or get it in your eyes or nose. It seems comparable in hazard to commonly available cleaning compounds like ammonia and bleach.

That doesn't make it safe, but it's not a crazy carcinogen or auto-immune risk, and it literally dissolves in water. It's present in all sea water ~0.1ppm so you can't escape it.
by kiitos | 2025-06-06 23:07:14+00:00
[disks are] somewhere between non-byzentine fault tolerance and Byzantine fault tolerance ... you expect the disk to be almost an active adversary ... ... so you start to see just a single disk as a distributed system

My goodness, not at all! If you can't trust the interface to a local disk then you're lost just at a fundamental level. And even ignoring that, a disk is an implementation detail of a node in a distributed system, whatever properties that disk may have to that local node are irrelevant in the context of the broader system, and are the responsibility of the local node to manage before communicating anything with other nodes in that broader system.

Combined with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRgvaqpQPwE it seems like the author/presenter is conflating local/disk-related properties/details with distributed/system-based requirements/guarantees. If consensus requires a node to have durably persisted some bit of state before it sends a particular message to other nodes in the distributed system, then it doesn't matter how that persistence is implemented, it only matters how that persistence is observable, disks and FS caches and etc. aren't requirements, they're just one of many possible implementation choices.
by purplesyringa | 2025-06-06 23:07:18+00:00
OP here. The post is about a method I derived as a part of my work on a Java decompiler. I also have related questions for people in programming language theory. ("Ask HN" doesn't seem to fit submissions with URLs, so I'm posting it here.)

It's frustrating how few online resources cover efficient (de)compiler designs. There's many people doing cheap, but low-quality decompilation (e.g. here's someone's post on writing a .NET decompiler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9952145), and there's even more people writing stupid non-optimizing compilers. There's also quite a few folks improving LLVM or Ghidra, or writing new, but heavy theorem prover-based decompilers (e.g. DREAM: https://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/ag/martini/Staff/yakdan...). But there's frustratingly little information on the middle ground.

Also, and I think this ties to the previous point, there's next to zero entry-level resources on hard topics. It's like there's an invisible wall: tons of people learn tokenization, parsing, codegen, and then they stop because their compiler already "works". Resources that do focus on optimization are haphazard, either exclusively describing peephole optimizations, or explaining how higher-level optimizations can work in theory without any mention of how to implement them efficiently and fit them together in a LLVM-like backend framework.

There's literally no specific info on pass ordering and pass design, as if it's something intuitive. But the more I'm working on the decompiler, the more I realize that I have to cram basically everything into a single pass if I want to avoid the dreaded `do { .. } while (changed);` loop and arbitrary heuristics. But not all passes can be merged, obviously, so I have to re-architecture everything all the time.

Regarding the method in the post, I could easily be reinventing a wheel and not knowing it.

So I'm very interested in hearing if this method is used anywhere else, whether CFGs can be efficiently applied to decompilers without encountering the problems described described in my post, some advice on pass design and ordering, and maybe information about specific algorithms compilers and decompilers use (I know about dominators, obviously, but I've never heard about anything else; I can't imagine there aren't any).

I also learn best by doing and following experiences, rather than copying the finished product, so if anyone knows a blog series on a person developing a full optimizing compiler from scratch or something similar, that would be very useful.
by polynox | 2025-06-06 23:08:48+00:00
I have come back from week long international trips, having arrived by plane on Monday or Tuesday, and by Thursday someone will ask me what I did last weekend, and I'll draw a blank, and the social pressure of not having an answer and not wanting to pause for a whole minute to exercise my memory to reconstruct the last week will make me say something like, "nothing much, you?". It's that by the second or third day of being back in my routine, I forget what it was like outside of that routine, feel so immersed in it day-to-day, so unless I remember that I did have a disruption I won't really remember anything...
by afavour | 2025-06-06 23:09:48+00:00
> in order to help that department become more efficient

Sorry, you had a noble aim but you just introduced a whole new load of bias to the statement.

That notion that DOGE is trying to make the government more efficient is exactly the “partisan crap” you deride. There is no evidence of them actually doing so, if anything it seems they’ve cost the government money.
by gruez | 2025-06-06 23:12:26+00:00
>and retrieving the money after winning was an extreme hazzle that took weeks with photocopies of passports and gas bills and what not. Paying the bets took a minute.

Blame the AML/KYC/income tax regulatory regime. Placing a bet doesn't require KYC any more than spending $10k at a club doesn't require KYC. However once the casino needs to disburse money Uncle Sam suddenly wants his cut and to make sure it doesn't go to Bad People.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-06 23:12:39+00:00
I mean, yes, it will be true for other R&D types. But that's also new and also broken for the same reason: it means new R&D companies are at a massive disadvantage in their first few years compared to the established players who have lots of expenses queued up to deduct. It's wealth redistribution from young startups to established players who have 5 years of past expenses to use in their favor, and that is going to be a very bad thing for the health and vibrancy of our economy.

And, as a sibling points out (and as I pointed out in a comment at the top level), software is in this regime singled out from all other possible R&D expenses, making it particularly vulnerable. A skilled accountant/lawyer can probably turn big chunks of other R&D expenses into something that doesn't fall under 174. No amount of skill can do that for software, because we're singled out.
by phatskat | 2025-06-06 23:12:42+00:00
Funny, I always called it “the GTA effect” as in either Grand Theft Auto 1 or 2, one of the top-down ones, once you got a particular kind of car you would see more of that same car on the road. I don’t know if it was an optimization strategy or just me falling victim to the effect I ascribed to the game.
by throw0101c | 2025-06-06 23:14:07+00:00
> But nor does it include owning stocks in companies that go out of business, or indeed, nations.

Which is why you invest in the entire market, internationally diversified. There are now funds (mutual/ETF) that allow you to do this with a single purchase:

* https://www.finiki.org/wiki/Asset_allocation_ETF
by haiku2077 | 2025-06-06 23:14:34+00:00
> No matter what you do, accidents will happen.

This is an objectively false statement. There are just four simple safety rules that prevent all unintentional gun injuries, _even if you violate some of the rules some of the time_.

> I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education

I'm in 30s and have learned probably about as much from Youtube as I did from my entire schooling.
Show HN: Bridgit – In-Person-First Networking
by amfooladgar | 2025-06-06 23:15:21+00:00
I recently launched Bridgit Social, an iOS app that helps people discover and connect with others who are physically nearby — either in the same place or within walking distance, to meet in-person, HERE and NOW!

The goal is to make meeting new people feel simple, immediate, and grounded in real-world presence — not through long online exchanges.

This project started from a personal need to expand both my personal and professional networks. I had used various social networking apps and grew frustrated that most of them led to long online conversations, but rarely resulted in real-life interactions — where the actual human connection actually begins!

I wanted something built specifically to support in-person connections, while respecting privacy and giving users full control. You can think of it as a way to bring some of the value of LinkedIn into real-world, in-the-moment interactions.

Links: - Landing page: https://bridgitsocial.com - App Store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bridgit-social/id6743941115
by phonzay1 | 2025-06-06 23:15:55+00:00
Location: Minneapolis, MN area

Remote: Yes (also open to hybrid or on-site)

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: TypeScript/JavaScript, React, Express, Ruby, SQL, HTML/CSS, AWS (CDK, SDK, API Gateway, Lambda, DynamoDB, S3, Bedrock, OpenSearch), Node.js, PostgreSQL, MongoDB

Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DlAARgMPSmo-bzkv1lyrXnGkr1I...

Email: phonzay1@gmail.com

I'm a full-stack software engineer who finds joy in exploring and solving problems. I recently co-created Apiary (https://apiary-gateway.github.io/), an open-source platform for managing LLM integrations across multiple providers.
by vkou | 2025-06-06 23:15:58+00:00
> This bill is goated for upper middle class and tech and defense sector

No, it's not, because giving its authors any power or wins or ability to execute on their agenda is disastrous for nearly everyone, including tech and the middle class. The only people that its illegal acts are good for is a tiny minority of crooks, fascists, and oligarchs.

Given the firehose of illegal stuff they are doing that is impossible to push back on, it is utterly imperative to push back on every little thing that is possible to push back on, and to hold consent hostage to an end to the former.

You're letting them burn your house down because they promised you a bottle of whiskey.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-06 23:16:16+00:00
The unrealized value is notional, not actual. This is a very important distinction. The notional value is often not remotely realizable. In many cases, the realizable value can be a tiny fraction of the notional value.

Most laypeople grossly conflate notional and real value. Taxing notional value massively inflates the adverse impact of tax incidence on expected returns relative to people’s casual intuition based on the relative tax rates for realized and unrealized gains.

A tax on unrealized gains is in effect a way of laundering a steep tax rate so that it looks “small” and therefore reasonable to the unsophisticated.
by throw0101c | 2025-06-06 23:16:24+00:00
> now do purchasing power of the dollar

… if the dollar is literally stuffed in a mattress or buried in jars in your backyard. Which is not the point of a currency.

Having it drop in value—at a modest, predictable rate—is arguably a good thing:

> No currency should be able to buy the same basket of goods over very long timespans through hoarding. If you want to retain the purchasing power of your money, it should participate in society via investment.

* https://twitter.com/dollarsanddata/status/159265180975079833...
by notepad0x90 | 2025-06-06 23:18:13+00:00
it's not the US alone, this concept originated from the UK. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was used by the ruling class (think, east India company directors and such) to divide humans into sub-species with different levels of evolution. This would allow them the moral justification they needed to continue their conquest. There is a reason "all people are created equal" is the phrase used to abolish things like slavery. people focus on the "created" part, but the equal part is just as relevant.

This concept of race is designed so that one race can claim better evolution than the other, as a whole that is. People with specific ancestry might be better at specific things (provided they pursue those things to their potential), but associating that with an entire race was only useful at the time of this social constructs' creation because Europe needed to conquer the world and what do Europeans have in common the rest of the world doesn't have? Skin color. Which due to the latitude of Europe as a continent, people whose ancestors are from there have less melanin in their skin to account for lesser sunlight (You can see the same effect with north-east Asians). If you think about it, the western classification of "race" has more to do with geography than genealogy.
by xeonmc | 2025-06-06 23:18:22+00:00
> While sparring with o4-mini was thrilling, its progress was also alarming. Ono and He express concern that the o4-mini’s results might be trusted too much. “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.”

I think there is a pitfall of designating a uniform categorization of “reasoning” like in this article; it is not surprising to hear that models are good at casting a wide net in fitting many different ideas together by association, however the subtle pitfalls in assuming that pieces fit together without unexpected interactions is something which require formal reasoning through instead of just correlating literature.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-06 23:18:23+00:00
> Year 0 you’re unlikely to have any profits, future years you have multiple years of R&D to offset with.

You're only unlikely to have no profits if you have no revenue. And you only get to break even 5 years in, which most startups will never reach.

In practice what is likely going to happen is that we'll see more and more startups deliberately avoid revenue in the early days. More and more free tiers followed by rug pulls when revenue actually becomes an asset rather than a liability.

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.
by GloamingNiblets | 2025-06-06 23:18:34+00:00
Good list, I'm also keeping an eye on Tri Alpha Energy and First Light Fusion. TAE recently announced [1] initiating a field reversed configuration with no plasma injectors, only neutral beam injection, which is a pretty big deal in simplifying the design.

[1] https://tae.com/tae-technologies-delivers-fusion-breakthroug...
by elpocko | 2025-06-06 23:18:50+00:00
A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work.

If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.

My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
by CardenB | 2025-06-06 23:19:02+00:00
It's perhaps noteworthy that OBBBA is not the first bill to attempt to revert this tax law. It's simply the latest. There have been other attempts to revert section 174.

Other attempts that come to mind: 1. Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (H.R. 7024) 2. American Innovation and R&D Competitiveness Act of 2025 (H.R. 1990)

This article is informative: https://www.cebn.org/media_resources/section-174-sign-on-let...
by timmyd | 2025-06-06 23:20:19+00:00
[op here] To be clear: Yes, there are 3 kernels - you can see those in the linked github at the end of the article if you clicked that. These are:

transpose_naive - Basic implementation with TMA transfers

transpose_swizzle - Adds swizzling optimization for better memory access patterns

transpose_swizzle_batched - Adds thread coarsening (batch processing) on top of swizzling

Performance comparison with CUDA: The Mojo implementations achieve bandwidths of:

transpose_naive: 1056.08 GB/s (32.0025% of max)

transpose_swizzle: 1437.55 GB/s (43.5622% of max)

transpose_swizzle_batched: 2775.49 GB/s (84.1056% of max)

via the GitHub - simveit/efficient_transpose_mojo

Comparing to the CUDA implementations mentioned in the article:

Naive kernel: Mojo achieves 1056.08 GB/s vs CUDA's 875.46 GB/s

Swizzle kernel: Mojo achieves 1437.55 GB/s vs CUDA's 1251.76 GB/s

Batched swizzle kernel: Mojo achieves 2775.49 GB/s vs CUDA's 2771.35 GB/s

So there is highly efficient matrix transpose in Mojo

All three Mojo kernels outperform their CUDA counterparts, with the naive and swizzle kernels showing significant improvements (20.6% and 14.8% faster respectively), while the final optimized kernel achieves essentially identical performance (slightly better by 4.14 GB/s).

The "flag" here seemed innapropriate given that its true this implementation is indeed faster, and certainly the final iteration could be improved on further. It wasn't wrong to say 14% or even 20%.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-06 23:20:43+00:00
> You assume rents are currently $1,000/month and that a new tax causes them to rise to $1,500/month to maintain the same return. That implies an added tax burden of $500/month per lot.

That implies an added tax burden of $500/month per unit. It's only $500/month per lot if the lot is only expected to have one unit.

> New development isn't disincentivized — it's neutral or even encouraged under a pure LVT.

You're getting this result by comparing it to existing property tax, which even more heavily disincentivizes new development.

Consider what happens if you only compare LVT to itself, i.e. to see what happens if you raise the amount of LVT by $500/lot.

If you build the fourplex, the amount of LVT increases by $500/lot or $125/unit. Now incentive to build the fourplex is lost unless the tenants are going to eat another $125/mo in rent.

And wait a minute here, under the existing property tax system the government was getting $500/mo/unit in property tax. If the typical plot is going to have a fourplex on it and the tax is expected to raise the same amount of revenue as the old property tax then it needs to be $2000/lot and thereby likewise increase the required rents by $500/mo/unit.

Where the incentive changes is that now you'll want to build not just fourplexes but highrises to try to dilute the LVT over more units. But now you've got a weird incentive: If existing rents are high enough then you want to build a highrise. But as soon as they drop below the point that building a highrise is profitable -- and highrises have a higher construction cost per unit -- you certainly don't want to build anything smaller than that, because the higher LVT per unit for smaller structures outweighs the lower construction cost per unit for smaller structures. So as soon as prevailing rents can't justify any more highrises, you get no more construction at all. Even if there are still a bunch of abandoned lots.