MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ChocolateGod | 2025-06-21 00:07:09+00:00
Did you even read the use case for this? or just Googled 'Wayland DRM' and post the first link?

When VR headsets are exposed to user space, they appear as displays and subsequently the display server will control them (which isn't useful), this is just a protocol that allows clients (like games, SteamVR) to have control transferred so they can drive the VR headset instead. This is because multiple applications are not allowed to control the same display on the Linux kernel at the same time.

It does not make DRM/DRI part of Wayland. Again, it goes back to my original comment of "you use Wayland to communicate with the display server"

IIRC GNOME originally wanted to do this over Dbus, but there was opposition.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-21 00:07:40+00:00
> Can we stop calling reform abolishment?

People talking about "prison abolition" aren't talking about reform when they do.

Some people talking about prison abolition (but far from all, or even the majority) might also be willing to accept reform as an intermediate step or compromise, and might engage in discussion about the shape of reform that might be acceptable in that role, but that's secondary too, and not the focus of, their advocacy for abolition.
by metalman | 2025-06-21 00:08:57+00:00
example, find that pic, or file,aaaaaaaaand anyway it's there somewhere.....I think example, try and create a file or take a pic,ooops too late droped your phone, and oh right, exactly what format that is universul, never mind, no point, it's someone property and closed tech that dictates who, when, and where you can exchange information with. search is completly broken it's like bieng stuck in a maze that is activly working against you, and it is even odds that a dog eared encyclopedia and a telephone book can yield acceptable results

always almost never quite right
by godelski | 2025-06-21 00:09:07+00:00
My favorite Knuth quote[0]

If you find that you're spending almost all your time on theory, start turning some attention to practical things; it will improve your theories. If you find that you're spending almost all your time on practice, start turning some attention to theoretical things; it will improve your practice.

But yeah, in general I hate how people treat theory, acting as if it has no economic value. Certainly both matter, no one is denying that. But there's a strong bias against theory and I'm not sure why. Let's ask ourselves, what is the economic impact of Calculus? What about just the work of Leibniz or Newton? I'm pretty confident that that's significantly north of billions of dollars a year. And we what... want to do less of this type of impactful work? It seems a handful of examples far covers any wasted money on research that has failed (or "failed").

The problem I see with our field, which leads to a lot of hype, is the belief that everything is simple. This just creates "yes men" and people who do not think. Which I think ends up with people hearing "no" when someone is just acting as an engineer. The job of an engineer is to problem solve. That means you have to identify problems! Identifying them and presenting solutions is not "no", it is "yes". But for some reason it is interpreted as "no".

> see for example, the wide array of names for basic functional data structure primitives like map, fold, etc. that abound across languages

Don't get me started... but if a PL person goes on a rant here, just know, yes, I upvoted you ;)

[0] You can probably tell I came to CS from "outside". I have a PhD in CS (ML) but undergrad was Physics. I liked experimental physics because I came to the same conclusion as Knuth: Theory and practice drive one another.
by RivieraKid | 2025-06-21 00:10:34+00:00
I understand the principle that models of reality don't need to be 100% accurate to be useful.

But... the way MD, CFD or weather models approximate reality seems fundamentally different from how current virtual cell models do it.

In MD, CFD or weather models, all of the relevant low-level mechanisms are known, that's why when we want to study a system's reaction to some external shock, we know we will get a roughly correct result with some well-defined error.

But in a virtual cell many low-level interactions are not modelled and these interactions can have large effect. Often they are not modelled because they simply haven't been discovered yet. With an accurate cell model we would be able to discover all of those mechanisms, that's where most of the value is.

Here's a flawed analogy: Current virtual cell models are like LLMs. They give us permutations of what we already know but they can't discover what we haven't discovered yet.
by robobenjie | 2025-06-21 00:10:45+00:00
I had a dickens of a time with the ending. Having it end at the present seemed super abrupt (as it really feels like we are in the middle of a big shift) but I didn't really want to venture into my own predictions. One of my early readers had the suggestion of using prominent AI CEO/VC's predictions about the near future and treating them seriously as if they were inevitable fact, which I found very funny. And really this is all about amusing myself.
by FretLabs | 2025-06-21 00:11:18+00:00
Hey HN, I just launched FretLabs - a web application that allows you to practice guitar scales alongside your favorite songs. It started as a personal project to give a little structure to my freestyle sessions/scale practice routine and has since evolved considerably. If you're familiar with Chordify, it's like that but for scales.

Features: - 10,000+ song catalog (growing daily), or upload your own MP3s - Automatic key signature and song section boundary detection - Dynamic 3d fretboard with customizable scale options/controls - Left-handed mode, support for 4, 6, and 7 string guitars

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feedback, or answer any questions!
by mindcrime | 2025-06-21 00:11:56+00:00
> people who think neural nets are a relatively recent thing, and not something that emerged back in the 1940s-50s

And to bring this full circle... if you really (really) buy into Schmidhuber's argument, then we should consider the genesis of neural networks to date back to around 1800! I think it's fair to say that that might be a little bit of a stretch, but maybe not that much so.
by nine_zeros | 2025-06-21 00:12:21+00:00
> - the way you experience work culture at a company is much more determined by your director/vp (e.g. the 50-200 person group you're most closely tied to) than the overall company culture.

> many reports of a toxic work culture are really just cultural mismatches. At scale, this means it's easy to read 100 stories of a bad match and treat it as toxicity.

And you get both of these nuggets of actionable info in watering holes - which was the original point.
by robobenjie | 2025-06-21 00:13:57+00:00
There is exactly one joke by ChatGPT. For Stability AI's CEO's prediction that there are no longer any human programmers by 2028 I liked the idea of referencing Stanford's intro to CS class which is semi-famously a bell-weather for the tech industry. My original replacement class was "Growing food for Sustenance" which kind of worked but I thought was weak. I asked ChatGPT for alternates and it gave me about 15, of which "Barter Economics and Goat Management" was clearly the funniest, and annoyingly funnier than mine.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-21 00:14:43+00:00
> However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning.

"Prison" (carceral punishment) does not encompass all possible restrictions on personal freedom and movement. Even in systems with carceral punishment, other restrictions on freedom and movement are used for some situations, that do not involve incarceration.
by roenxi | 2025-06-21 00:15:01+00:00
I've read the abstract and disagreed with it enough that I don't want to read the article proper.

1) The abstract appears to be an opinion piece; I don't know how they do things in philosophical journals but I would hope for a dryer standard.

2) Nature is really messy - it'd make sense if parts of our bodys were actually parasites. The immune system, gut flora, skin mites are all obvious places where foreign hostile bodies might colonise then integrate into humanity over time. If an addition has any benefits evolutionary pressure will eventually cause it to become symbiotic.

3) Humans are by design easy to manipulate. We're social animals built to group up behind leaders and do what they say. There are brutal social hierarchies where low status humans live relatively unpleasant lives because high-status humans think that is reasonable. We're not built to unthinkingly optimise out own personal outcomes of make all the decisions ourselves. Humans being manipulated is not, in and of itself, a hint that things are going wrong.

4) "It is not plausible for a part of the cognitive system to be designed to thwart the goals and desires of the user in the way a smartphone is" - it absolutely is, the #1 enemy of most people is their own mind. It leads them to do wildly stupid things. There are people who spend their entire lives working to overcome their own cognitive systems to achieve peace and happiness.
by ednite | 2025-06-21 00:15:09+00:00
Absolutely, and for me, the biggest surprise was how it boosted my energy and clarity for my day job. Writing felt like a mental reset. Instead of draining me, it actually made me more productive. I think this can be said for any hobby we enjoy doing.

At first, I was worried I wouldn’t find the time or that the hobby would take too much of it. Turns out I was wrong on both counts. I made the time, looked forward to it, and felt reenergized afterwards .

I agree that journaling has a similar effect, it clears the mental clutter and makes space for deeper thinking.
by godelski | 2025-06-21 00:15:41+00:00
Another interesting thing I see is how people will refuse to learn history thinking it will harm their creativity[0].

The problem with these types of interpretations is that it's fundamentally authoritarian. Where research itself is fundamentally anti-authoritarian. To elaborate: trust but verify. You trust the results of others, but you replicate and verify. You dig deep and get to the depth (progressive knowledge necessitates higher orders of complexity). If you do not challenge or question results then yes, I'd agree, knowledge harms. But if you're willing to say "okay, it worked in that exact setting, but what about this change?" then there is no problem[1]. In that setting, more reading helps.

I just find these mindsets baffling... Aren't we trying to understand things? You can really only brute force new and better things if you are unable to understand. We can make so much more impact and work so much faster when we let understanding drive as much as outcome.

[0] https://bsky.app/profile/chrisoffner3d.bsky.social/post/3liy...

[1] Other than Reviewer #2
by worik | 2025-06-21 00:15:54+00:00
Do we, or do we not, live in democratic societies?

If we do then we must ensure that we get the social benefits from new technologies, and we suppress the harm.

Does anyone still believe that "self interest" in the aggregate is what is best for society? I think it is clearly untrue

So we need to take collective action.

AI/LLMs are a "steam engine" moment. We can make life better for everyone. But we do need to change course, together, to get there
by nothrabannosir | 2025-06-21 00:17:59+00:00
I wasn’t talking about gp languages at all. I’m not the one to whom you need to repeat that ;)

- Makefiles

- regular expressions

- m4

- awk

- sed commands

- jinja templates

- jq

- nix

I have a love-hate relationship with many of these but I sure am happy that they tried. Whatever sucks about them is improved by an even better language, not by regressing to just using general purpose languages everywhere.

PS I put awk in there because you’re not the boss of me. It’s a dsl for text manipulation which happens to be Turing complete. If you write any serious program in awk that isn’t some form of text manipulation, it will make the front page of HN, that’s how rare that is. And to TFA’s point: awk excels at the niche for which it was developed—in a world where LLMs came before awk, it would be very hard to get awk off the ground. That is a net loss. That is the point of TFA.

You’re not wrong about the cost. But you’re wrong about the benefit.
by Vetch | 2025-06-21 00:18:28+00:00
> he's inability to see its application to modern compute held the field back by years.

I find Schmidhuber's claim on GANs to be tenuous at best, but his claim to have anticipated modern LLMs is very strong, especially if we are going to be awarding nobel prizes for Boltzmann Machines. In https://people.idsia.ch/%7Ejuergen/FKI-147-91ocr.pdf, he really does concretely describe a model that unambiguously anticipated modern attention (technically, either an early form of hypernetworks or a more general form of linear attention, depending on which of its proposed update rules you use).

I also strongly disagree with the idea that his inability to practically apply his ideas held anything back. In the first place, it is uncommon for a discoverer or inventor to immediately grasp all the implications of and applications of their work. Secondly, the key limiter was parallel processing power; it's not a coincidence ANNs took off around the same time GPUs were transitioning away from fixed function pipelines (and Schmidhuber's lab were pioneers there too).

In the interim, when most derided Neural networks, his lab was one of the few that kept research on Neural networks and their application to sequence learning going. Without their contributions, I'm confident Transformers would have happened later.

> It's clear to me no one read his early paper's when developing GANs

This is likely true.

> self-supervision/transformers.

This is not true. Transformers came after lots of research on sequence learners, meta-learning, generalizing RNNs and adaptive alignment. For example, Alex Graves' work on sequence transduction with RNNs eventually led to the direct precursor of modern attention. Graves' work was itself influenced by work with and by Schmidhuber.
by andsoitis | 2025-06-21 00:18:30+00:00
> Imagine someone who was deprived of all sensory inputs, and has only ever been fed language (speech or text) - would they be able to "understand" it?

Complete sensory deprivation is unlikely survivable:

- Pain sensation is crucial for survival (prevents injury)

- Proprioception is needed for basic motor function

- Some sensory input appears necessary for normal brain development

- Complete sensory deprivation would likely result in severe developmental issues incompatible with life

There's no documented case of a human who has lived with absolutely zero sensory input from birth or throughout their life.
by behnamoh | 2025-06-21 00:19:22+00:00
I wish it had keyboard shortcuts. As a Vim user, in Chrome it's tedious to click on every suggestion given by the app. Also, maybe add a "delay" so it doesn't think the currently-being-typed word is a mistake (let me finish typing first!).

Otherwise, it's great work. There should be an option to import/export the correction rules though.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-06-21 00:19:47+00:00
Doesn’t appear to be a problem for EV sales. Is your closest gas station 2 miles away?

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2024-ev-sales/

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/trends-in...
by yandie | 2025-06-21 00:20:36+00:00
I wonder how this would apply with vision models? I tried with a few example of single images and they appear to do well. I did a few toy examples and they seem to do pretty well (Claude + Gemini) with spotting differences. An example image: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/127578601938412480/

They seem to struggle more when you flip the image around (finding fewer differences, and potentially halluciating)
by jiggawatts | 2025-06-21 00:21:06+00:00
Of course not.

AMD stubbornly refuses to recognise the huge numbers of low- or medium- budget researchers, hobbyists, and open source developers.

This ignorance of how software development is done has resulted in them losing out on a multi-trillion-dollar market.

It's incredible to me how obstinate certain segments of the industry (such as hardware design) can be.
by sidrag22 | 2025-06-21 00:21:28+00:00
its creating a problem and selling the solution to that problem. im surprised there isnt more of a distaste for youtube out there for just their overall product... ads aside. One of the better things ive done for myself this past year is remove the right sidebar as well as almost all of the homepage.

my youtube homepage is just that left sidebar, which has dots if a new video for one of the channels i care about uploads. It totally frees me from clickbait thumbnails, and "youtube rabbit holes".

youtube has just been getting slaughtered with horrible trends of mindless content, low effort documentary stuff, all sorts of low effort garbage with high effort thumbnails/titles. it is so nice to just rid myself of all of it.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-06-21 00:21:34+00:00
Even if cork is used, the adhesives it needs to stay in place can also be plastic, and shed microplastics.

We better evolve to tolerate some level of microplastics because they're not going away any time soon. It's mind boggling how many microplastics sources are in modern civilization, and how hard it would be to eliminate say half of them.
by sheepscreek | 2025-06-21 00:21:40+00:00
Okay - newsflash. Microplastics are everywhere already. In the water you drink from tap. In the wild caught (or farmed) fish you eat. Soon we’ll be told they are also present in the fruits and vegetables we eat, maybe even in milk and eggs! Pretty sure meat and chicken already contain them to varying degrees.

So yeah, sure, there are microplastics in drinks in glass bottles. But to say they contain “more” microplastics than plastic containers sounds like the BS concocted by packaging lobby.

Here’s a fun fact: did you know that a good RO system can filter out most microplastics from the tap water, but it also releases some (of its own) into the filtered water! We really dug ourselves into a big hole by using plastics for just about everything.
by MostlyStable | 2025-06-21 00:22:31+00:00
From everything I've heard/read you can pretty safely go to 80-90% of listed state of charge (manufacturers often also include a hidden buffer for exactly this reason).

My car, which like I said has a 260 mile range, I only charge to 80% unless I'm going on a long road trip. So for 90%+ of the time, it's never charged more than 80% (and I very rarely discharge it to less than 15%). For most people, a 300 mile range like I describe would be plenty to be able to not need 100% charge except on rare occasions. But even if it's not for you, or for some people, I very specifically said "my ideal EV". A 600 mile range that I almost never use is just extra weight that I'm carrying around and decreasing efficiency, and isn't actually providing much real battery protection. I am absolutely not someone who drives 360 miles a day (which is what you could do if you were doing an 80% to 20% discharge on a 600 mile battery every day. I'm pretty confident that stats suggest that very few people drive that much on a regular basis. The 150 miles I get from the the 80% to 20% range on my current battery is already more than enough.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-06-21 00:22:58+00:00
Sure, I'm not blaming anyone else. But some of the smartest, most highly paid people in the world have as their sole job looking at data and feedback loops to build more successful ways to highjack your attention.

It's sort of like blaming the obesity epidemic on lack of willpower. Yes, any individual is responsible for himself. At the same time, companies have found better and more ingenious ways to addict lots of us using food. When I look back at pictures from the 1950s and see that nearly everyone is skinny/normal weight, am I just supposed to think that they had so much more willpower than today's people?
by laszlojamf | 2025-06-21 00:24:06+00:00
I love this, and I don’t mean to throw any shade on it, but this is kind of thing I’d the best to come out of the ”vibe coding” revolution. I don’t know if this was vibe coded, but what I mean to say is that there are a million things that you just never get around to doing, and LLMs help you to actually _realize_ little cool ideas like this.
by piskov | 2025-06-21 00:25:10+00:00
Yet most of the people now struggle with some basic calculations: “your calculator history is more embarrassing than your browser history”.

Ie “use it or loose it” kind of vibe.

That’s why one of the possible threats of AI is if one would “forget” how to reason. Or even worse: brain rewires itself to never being able to reason again.

Then again, for me personally it’s a very low probability in our lifetime: ie no that kind of earth-shattering changes of either real AI or, say, nuclear fusion in this century.

However I would love to see long-term studies of someone really smart start only watching tictoc, reels and shorts (and doing nothing else). With brain scanning and what have you.
by tomhow | 2025-06-21 00:25:35+00:00
Now I've been able to look into those comments, I agree it's not what we want on HN, and I've acted on more of their comments. If that kind of thing continued we'd ban them.

The problem in this thread was that almostgotcaught posted multiple escalatory comments, then when I replied to them asking them to stop, which is just routine moderation here, they continued escalating and making swipes against HN's whole approach to moderation and assuming bad faith on our part, rather than doing what many others do and working constructively with us to help HN function better.

They've said elsewhere that they were very upset by the comments and I can understand that. It's a topic that's sensitive and is prone to get people upset. I could have been more considerate of that. It's hard to be considerate when your character is under attack for just doing the job that is expected of you and that you do the same way every day.

The biggest takeaway is that HN can't discuss topics like this without them descending into hellish flamewars, which is disappointing.
by bobmcnamara | 2025-06-21 00:25:35+00:00
2/3/4) Please see historical data above regarding three burial sites. Practically today, these sites are built by mining.

5) Industry term. Operationalizing any significant system will involve human beings, and with it their workplace culture. You can read about it here: https://mshasafetyservices.com/fostering-a-culture-of-safety.... Many mining hese were written in blood.

6) No, the concern is that people may be harmed. You see we've lost track of radioactive waste in the past. And humans are remarkably curious. Often we've figured it out before anyone was harmed. Sometimes sadly not. But the harm is the concern, not the lack of knowledge of harm.
by jordigh | 2025-06-21 00:26:43+00:00
The point of most ads isn't to get you to buy things. Most ads just want you to think of the product and be aware it exists. Their objective is to slowly hijack your brain.

If you know what "it gives you wings" or "the happiest place on earth" means, the ads already worked.

Ads are trying to combat obscurity. A brand with bad reputation is far better than a brand nobody's ever heard of.
by predatorialism | 2025-06-21 00:27:10+00:00
Title: The Founder Grind Loop: Why You’re Always the One Bleeding

Text: Most founders don’t burn out from failure — they burn out from carrying too much for too long. This essay unpacks the structural self-harm behind startup leadership, where urgency, guilt, and over-ownership become the default operating system.

It's not noble. It’s predatorial — turned inward. If you're a founder, builder, or solo operator stuck in the loop, this might hit close.

Written from experience. Curious how others broke out — or didn’t. https://predatorialism.org/the-founder-grind-loop