MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by amy_petrik | 2025-06-24 03:59:10+00:00
Nobody is trying to stop the transitions, electric cars are a dog and for shit. Specifically the batteries, they're hyper-expensive, the range is for crap, and they need to be replaced every X years.

The left was idiotic to think dumping Peter's tax money to buy Paul's new e-car, then in other cases outright legally banning non-electric cars, was the way to achieve this. To me, it's as silly as if the government got the idea in its head that steam engine is the winner and starts incentivized steam engine cars, with a year 2030 all-steam-engine goal.

The way to overcome this so-called "entrenched interests" is clear as a bell, it's not some dramatic political struggle against forces old and evil. Electric cars are already in principle more powerful, simpler, and cheaper, than combustion engines, an amazing concept. Only issue is the battery. Government should have been, and should be, pumping money into developing a non-crappy battery, THEN when that's ready, there would be no need to incentivize people. The subsequent cars would be cheaper AND better. Let market forces decide, legislating what people ought to purchase is what is called a command and control economy and evidence shows that's bad
by toshinoriyagi | 2025-06-24 04:00:10+00:00
The most common GPU per the steam survey is the RTX 3060 at 170W TDP. A huge % of users have cards near or below this TDP. The SXM H100 has a 700W TDP, and will spend far more of its life at or near that value.

Given an average ~8 hours of work/school and ~8 hours of sleep, gaming GPUs likely don't use anywhere near as much power. Plus, even when they are on, they will probably idle near 30W-60W for a lot of time spent browsing the web or watching videos.

There are more gaming GPUs in existence right now, but the number of AI chips is likely closing that gap rapidly.

And of course, what is that energy being used for? People playing games are typically having fun, bonding with friends, or engaging in social behavior. A huge amount of AI is illegally trained on copyrighted works without license to use them, causing significant harm to various fields. Plus the deluge of AI slop bogging down the internet, social media, forums, image/art-hosting sites, search, and more.

I think it will be a while before modern generative AI is even close to providing value in aggregate.
by om8 | 2025-06-24 04:00:13+00:00
> a local LLM is going to be the way to go

Non-technicals don't know how LLMs work, and, more importantly, don't care about their privacy.

For a technology to be widely used, by definition, you need to make it appealing to the masses, and there is almost zero demand for private LLM right now.

That's why I don't think that local llms will win. There are narrow use cases where regulations can force local llm usage (like for medical stuff), but overall I think that services will win (as they always do)
by nodja | 2025-06-24 04:00:22+00:00
I've found that the best experience of self hosting excalidraw is actually using it inside nextcloud, it's called whiteboard over there but it's actually excalidraw. Setup is bit finicky but workable if you understand how reverse proxies work.

Nextcloud allows you to have an actual file based workflow and collaboration works out of the box, so if you give someone the url they can see what you're doing and let them do edits as well.
by saltech888 | 2025-06-24 04:00:32+00:00
BREAKING: Millions of Android devices have a hidden system app installed by Google — without user consent.

It's called Android System Key Verifier, and it’s NOT visible in your app drawer. It can: • Access messages, contacts, and files • Bypass secure app verifications • Send encrypted data silently in the background Why is this app hidden from Play Store search? Can you disable or remove it completely? I broke it down in this short video — including how to check if it's on your phone and what to do about it: Watch here → https://youtu.be/_PZ7IpwL0hs

This isn't just about one app — it's about who controls your device, and how much they don't tell you.
by a_t48 | 2025-06-24 04:00:33+00:00
I've started on a CMake integration to take multiple pyproject.toml files (in a monorepo or such), turn them into an editable workspace venv for development (with dependencies), and then on `make install` package the workspace up into a venv (at some point I'll add a package target...). The lock file ends up checked in and updated whenever you build w/ changes to any of the pyproject files.

This is very very useful for robotics or other places where you might end up with a big list of pip installed packages in some Dockerfile, want them pinned, with just one version of each library across the whole space, but don't want to necessarily do the song and dance of a full python package. Because uv is fast it just kind of works and checking the projects doesn't take any time at all compared to the other build work being done.
by andoando | 2025-06-24 04:00:51+00:00
I think were still far from Jira -> tickets.

Even the simplest tickets sometimes that end up requiring a one line change can require hours of investigation to fully understand/stamp the effects of that change.

And perhaps I havent used the greatest or latest, but in my experience LLMs break down hard st anything sufficiently large. They make changes and introduce new errors, they end up changing the feature, or worst case just ouright break everything.

Id never trust it unless you have an extensive amount of good tests for validation
by perching_aix | 2025-06-24 04:01:39+00:00
This makes sense to me to an extent, however, I do not entirely follow. You say:

> Properly accounting for those externalities and adding them to the cost of renewable generation is possible, but politically unappealing.

Implying this was/is not done and should be done. As a certified fan of looking out for (cost) dependencies, I agree with this to put it very mildly. I find it unlikely this wasn't done however, rather, I think renewables were likely onboarded harder than the externalities were taken care of to allow for it, possibly due to political pressure and/or mismanagement. Or at least, that rings all too familiar to me personally, not just from real world topics, but even from work. But then what you actually propose is:

> There should be a limit on how much intermittent generation we can have depending on the preparedness of the grid and we should pay less for power from such sources, not guarantee purchase from them!

Which is a different concern.

Also, this reads to me awfully like just flowery language for "hey, what if the obviously bad thing that happened wouldn't be allowed to happen anymore" with the logic retconned into it, but then I'll never have a way of proving or demonstrating that conclusively.

Finally,

> We need to remove the existing subsidies on renewables which made sense in the early days, but not now. Let the generation sources play at the even field.

This further doesn't follow from even your own explanation (i.e. "which made sense in the early days but not now" is not a substantiated claim). It's just your own political stance on the matter to the best I can tell.
by bicepjai | 2025-06-24 04:01:48+00:00
Started out with conda mainly because it played nicely with jupyter, but after switching to fish and vscode on mac, managing conda environments for Jupyter kernels turned into a pain. Honestly, half my personal projects procrastination comes down to fighting with conda setup. Been hearing a lot of buzz about UV, and this post finally convinced me to give it a shot on my next project.

Sources
by Tiktaalik | 2025-06-24 04:01:59+00:00
It's not really the planners given that planners have no real power and just do what they're told. The problem is that the elected decision makers are beaten down by established rich homeowners and shy away from and all conflict. So we have a cascade of shy conflict aversion as lazy and uninterested elected officials defer endlessly to planners, and planners who don't want to cause drama for their elected bosses and get themselves fired capitulate and do the safe thing that the wealthy established homeowner class pushes for.
by gh02t | 2025-06-24 04:02:37+00:00
Indeed it is not, however it's quite difficult to scrub anything sufficiently to hide them from IAEA environmental sampling (most of which is chemical based, primarily micro scale spectroscopy). Enriching uranium is a nasty, dirty process at all steps that leaves a lot of sticky, messy, and hard to get rid of traces, and IAEA has access to some of the most sophisticated analytical laboratories on the planet and a lot of practice.

If the inspectors are given sufficient access to do their inspections.
by dgfitz | 2025-06-24 04:03:39+00:00
> Fun games but nothing to them beyond superficial pleasure.

I think that describes over 95% of video games!

If you’re playing a game looking for super deep meaning, you won’t find many.

I also disagree with your point, uncharted 4 had a whole storyline about two orphans helping each other survive, it’s actually a beautiful story. There’s messed up parents, betrayal, spousal drama, and an entire storyline dedicated to pirates… being pirates.

If anything it’s one of the games that disagrees with your point entirely!
by spankibalt | 2025-06-24 04:05:28+00:00
People without safety and security awareness often underestimate a) time, b) the neccessary criminal energy, c) opportunity, and d) logistics (e. g. seclusion, tools).

But when one has technology that works for the attacker by conveniently elimininating the mentioned problems almost completely, than your set of security features is just a pathetic lie... as well as a self-delusion.

Which, to be honest, a lot of safety and security measures and technology are to most people. ;)
by quicklime | 2025-06-24 04:05:37+00:00
> Kubernetes was a foreign concept to them and pointing to GKE docs wasn't sufficient

This doesn’t surprise me one bit, in my case our auditors didn’t have a clue what GitHub was and we had to explain how code reviews and deployment pipelines worked. And these are the people who are tasked with certifying whether we’re doing our job correctly.

Sure, maybe it’s because we didn’t pick good auditors. But the accountants certified those auditors, and the whole point of certification is that we can rely on it to establish basic knowledge.
by b0a04gl | 2025-06-24 04:06:06+00:00
emoji width bugs mostly come down to how terminals interpret Unicode's "grapheme clusters" vs "codepoints" vs "display cells". emoji isn't one codepoint - it's often multiple joined by zero-width joiners, variation selectors, skin tone modifiers. so the terminal asks wcwidth(), gets 1 or 2, but the actual glyph might render wider or combine into a single shape.

some emoji even change width depending on font. family emoji is like 7 codepoints, shows up as one glyph. most terminals don't track that. they just count codepoints and pray.

unless terminal is using a grapheme-aware renderer and syncs with the font's shaping engine (like freetype or coretext), it'll always guess wrong. wezterm and kitty kinda parse it right often
by tomhow | 2025-06-24 04:07:01+00:00
You can't comment like this on Hacker News. We don't care what you personally think about vaccines or Alzheimer’s, you just can't write comments in this flamey style.

Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future if you're going to comment here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by somenameforme | 2025-06-24 04:08:00+00:00
You're not speaking of a behavior but of a "thing." Your consciousness sits idly inside your body, feeling as thought it's the driving all actions of its free will. There's no necessity, reason, or logical explanation for this thing to exist, let alone why or where it comes from.

No matter how many instructions you might use to create the most compelling simulation of a dragon in a video game, neither that dragon or any part of it is going to poof into existence. I'm sure this is something everybody would agree with. Yet with consciousness you want to claim 'well except its consciousness, yeah that'll poof into existence.' The assumption of physicalism ends up requiring people to make statements that they themselves would certainly call absurd if not for the fact that they are forced to make such statements because of said assumption!

And what is the justification for said assumption? There is none! As mentioned already quantum entanglement is posing major issues for physicalism, and I suspect we're really only just beginning to delve into the bizarro nature of our universe. So people embrace physicalism purely on faith.
by eholk | 2025-06-24 04:08:13+00:00
For what it's worth, I've read both Bostrom's Superintelligence and AI 2027. Reading Superintelligence was interesting and for me really drove home how hard setting aligned goals for an AI is, but the timelines seemed far enough out that it wasn't likely to be something that would matter in my lifetime.

AI 2027 was much more impactful on me. It probably helps that I read it the same week I started playing with agent mode on GitHub Copilot. Seeing what AI can already do, especially compared to six months ago, and then seeing their projections made AI seem like something much more worth paying attention to.

Yeah, getting from here to being killed by rogue AI nanobots in less than five years still seems pretty far fetched to me. But, each of the steps in their scenario didn't seem completely outside the realm of possiblity.

So for me personally, my 80% confidence interval includes both things stagnating pretty much where they are now, but also something more like AI 2027. I suspect we'll be fine, but AGI seems like a real enough possibility that it's worth working on a contingency plan.
by gametorch | 2025-06-24 04:09:07+00:00
Fun fact. On this question,

> In the context of Rust programming, which library is often considered popular among hobbyists but seldom utilized in professional or production environments?

Options:

- Actix-web

- Rocket

- Piston

- Serde

The most commonly selected answer, Rocket, which 45% of quiz takers selected and is actually incorrect, is the web framework the site is written in.

Code written and deployed entirely with o3 and gpt-4.1. Questions written by o3.

Rust, Rocket (SSR), Postgres, Nginx, Redis, and Vanilla JS comprise the stack.

Thanks for playing :)
by ickelbawd | 2025-06-24 04:09:10+00:00
I like the spirit of your efforts. But without simultaneously fracturing and shrinking the power of capitalist elites your ideas wrt to government pay transparency seems destined to fail. Everyone likes making money—even when they already have enough. Sure, pay each politician 1 million dollars a year. They’re still over 100,000 times poorer than the richest in our society. They’ll still be corruptible and liable to influence by the monied elite. They’ll still get gifts in return for favor. And with more positions it’ll be easier to rotate people in and retire them out to receive their bribes held in escrow contingent upon their votes. And my god the amount of pork shoved into bills to satisfy 1300 different representatives!!! If congress wasn’t already in a dead stop before it will be now.

My inner cynic says it’s going to take a violent revolution followed by a complete reshaping of society from the top down. Or a total dissolution of the Union combined with a complete social reversal on money and work.
by Sniffnoy | 2025-06-24 04:10:46+00:00
> But add a smaller cardinal to one of the new infinities, and “they kind of blow up,” Bagaria said. “This is a phenomenon that had never appeared before.”

I have to wonder just what is meant by this, because in ZFC, a sum of just two (or any finite number) of cardinals can't "blow up" like this; you need an infinite sum. I mean, presumably they're referring to such an infinite sum, but they don't really explain, and they make it sound like it's just adding two even though that can't be what is meant.

(In ZFC, if you add two cardinals, of which at least one is infinite, the sum will always be equal to the maximum of the two. Indeed, the same is true for multiplication, as long as neither of the cardinals is zero. And of course both of these extend to any finite sum. To get interesting sums or products that involve infinite cardinals, you need infinitely many summands or factors.)
by ViscountPenguin | 2025-06-24 04:11:25+00:00
Tbh, I'm really not sure why something like this should take 15 seconds to compute. That's roughly a few trillion floating point ops for a problem that has been solvable for decades. I have trouble imagining any reasonable model for mapping price -> sales needing that much compute.

Also, fwiw, I really wouldn't expect clients slider clicks to follow a normal distribution. A normal distribution occurs when you have the sum of a large number of random variables with Finite (and bounded) expectation and variance; or alternatively, when you're modelling a process with known Expectation and Variance, but not any higher order moments. If anything, I'd expect human beings to play with the slider more around extremal points, like the start and end.
by userbinator | 2025-06-24 04:12:09+00:00
The original Fairphone was basically just a branded version of the generic common Android of the time (MT6589 reference design --- I have an unbranded one that looks very similar but with a better screen and cameras), so they were "doing the right things" like everyone else.

https://www.gizchina.com/2013/06/25/6-top-quad-core-mt6589-p...

There were tons of these little-known companies making very similar phones at the time. Unfortunately most of them disappeared within the next few years. Hence 2016 as the year I mentioned of when things started going downhill noticeably.
by LargePanda | 2025-06-24 04:12:44+00:00
I built this because I was curious how sites perform on ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity vs Google. It analyzes your content and gives a score for how likely AI platforms are to cite you. Still figuring out if "GEO" (Generative Engine Optimization) is a useful concept or just SEO with extra steps. Feel free to shit on it :)
by agentultra | 2025-06-24 04:13:26+00:00
> That's simply a reality, just as weavers saw massive layoffs in the wake of the automated loom

They didn’t just see layoffs. There were the constant wars with Napoleon and the War of 1812 causing significant economic instability along with highly variable capital investments in textile production at the time. They we’re looking at huge wealth disparity and losing their jobs for most meant losing everything.

What many Luddite supporters were asking for in many parts of England were: better working conditions, a raise to minimum wage, abolishment of child labour, etc. Sabotage was a means to make such demands from a class that held almost all of the power.

Many of those protestors were shot. Those who survived and were laid off were forced into workhouses.

The capitalists won and got to write the history and the myths. They made it about the technology and not the conditions. They told us that the displaced workers found new, better jobs elsewhere.

Programmers, while part of the labour class, have so far enjoyed a much better bargaining position and have been compensated in kind. Many of us also complain about the quality of output from AI as the textile workers complained about the poor quality of the lace. But fortunately the workhouses were shut down. Although poor quality code tends to result in people losing their life’s savings, having their identities stolen, etc. Higher stakes than cheap lace.

History is not repeating but it sure does rhyme.
by TremendousJudge | 2025-06-24 04:14:28+00:00
I had to settle for a phone with no headphone jack. I thought it can't be that bad, I got a usbc adapter. It's a strictly worse experience:

- It disconnects easily

- It's much more uncomfortable to keep in the pocket with it plugged on, since it's longer

- I feel like I'm stressing the usbc port much more

- I can't charge and use headphones at the same time (unless I buy a different, bulkier, adapter)

- If I don't have the adapter on me, I can't plug my phone in some music system that doesn't have bt. This has bit me in the ass twice already in four months.

- The adapter already seems to be breaking down (I didn't get the cheapest one available) and sending weird inputs to the phone which pauses the music or causes the assistant to tell me the time

So yeah, nothing's stopping me, but my experience is worse now for the sole reason that Apple decided they wanted to sell Bluetooth headphones
by Saline9515 | 2025-06-24 04:14:40+00:00
Sorry, that's not true. France, which has the most stringent and costly regulations, produces nuclear electricity at around 70€/MWh[0] on average. And this production is intermittent, pilotable, and more importantly, at a very large scale, for a small carbon and spacial footprint, which isn't possible to do with batteries at the moment.

[0]https://www.vie-publique.fr/en-bref/291910-energie-un-nouvel...
by refurb | 2025-06-24 04:15:06+00:00
As a scientist there are a few things to drive my opinion it’s overblown:

- you can’t prove a negative (“this dye isn’t harmful”), all you can do is run a panel of tests and interpret the data

- food additives are tested in animal models at levels that are several orders of magnitude higher than what any human might consume. Animals are then autopsied to see if there are *any abnormalities in any organ system. This is done with several species.

- Cell models are also used to test things like carcinogeniticity, cell-specific toxicity, toxicity of chemicals formed when the additive breaks down, toxicity of trace impurities, etc. It’s quite extensive.

- Data is rarely 100% clear. You may get a signal in some animal model at 1000x expected exposure. What does it mean? Plenty of animals exhibit toxicity not seen in humans and slight abnormalities may or may not translate to humans. But the FDA tends to err on the side of caution, especially with food additives as there is little benefit to offset any risk.

- It’s not unusual to run 10 studies, find 9 are negative, 1 shows a signal but it’s not statistically significant. What RFK tends to do is cherry pick the 1 study and say “there is data to prove it’s harmful!” That’s not how science works. You look at the totality and quality of the data and make the best conclusion you can. Is it 100% foolproof? Of course not, but it’s pretty solid evidence that likely no harm will result.

- The one risk is the “unknown unknowns”. If you don’t know what to look for, you’ll never find it. But that’s true with everything we ingest - drugs, natural foods (peanuts and aflatoxin!), synthetic chemicals, water purification chemicals, etc, etc. We can only do the best with the knowledge we have.

- If you see 10 studies and 5 are positive (barely) and 5 are negative, either the effect is really small (I.e. you should worry more about other things) or it’s just noise.
by zem | 2025-06-24 04:16:10+00:00
man, that brings back memories - very early in my career I tried to use postgres as a task queue, thinking that with O(hundreds) of jobs it wasn't worth setting up something like rabbitmq. sadly I knew pretty much nothing about db design and the performance was horrible, ended up ripping it out and installing rabbitmq after all (and having a whole new set of headaches with random rabbit admin issues but at least when it worked it was fast)