MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nickpsecurity | 2025-06-22 18:39:05+00:00
I know a missionary that serves Iranians. The country is so hostile to Christians that the main, missions strategy is to reach Iranians outside of Iran. Then, they go back in and maybe talk to their own people. Eventually, they get ejected or something worse happens to them, too. There's always a narrow window where people can hear or share the Gospel. Then, discipleship in a high-persecution regime is usually done in secret churches whose meetings are even more difficult.

Under such regimes, the hope is that a sprinkle of people here and there come to know Christ. They immediately have eternal life with forgiveness of sins. Over time, as they share Christ and His Word, more lives will transform as a side effect of the sanctification process. As they do, and people witness it, hearts and minds might change over time in a way that changes the whole country (or its leadership).
by hinkley | 2025-06-22 18:39:13+00:00
The common failure mode is commit messages proudly proclaiming they fixed a bug that they did not. And linking knock-on bugs created by their fixes to one bug.

Maybe I’m weird that way. I’ve had too many coworkers who don’t really even look at annotations to remind themselves why this code was written in the first place. They will just yolo and hope nobody ties the problems back to them. But once you’ve dealt with an irate customer who waited impatiently for a bug to be fixed, and only to have the bug be reintroduced a short time later, you may become more circumspect about bug fixes.

There’s often a refactor needed to fix multiple bugs at once. There’s often refactor can open up new feature opportunities, or performance improvements.
by crote | 2025-06-22 18:39:17+00:00
Some countries are already doing this, for example Vietnam and China.

I recall reading about it years ago because some enterprising individuals decided that the revenue from catching random violations in-the-wild wasn't enough, so they started to deliberately create dangerous situations, where breaking a traffic law (which would then be recorded and submitted for a reward) was the only safe option for the victim. Unfortunately I haven't been able to quickly find a source to back this up.
by Animats | 2025-06-22 18:39:25+00:00
Penrose did this argument better.[1] Penrose has been making that argument for thirty years, and it played better before AI started getting good.

AI via LLMs has limitations, but they don't come from computability.

[1] https://sortingsearching.com/2021/07/18/roger-penrose-ai-ske...
by mort96 | 2025-06-22 18:40:22+00:00
I will answer under the metaphysical assumption that there is no immaterial "soul", and that the entirety of the human experience arises from material things governed by the laws of physics. If you disagree with this assumption, there is no conversation to be had.

The laws of physics can, as far as I can tell, be described using mathematics. That doesn't mean that we have a perfect mathematical model of the laws of physics yet, but I see no reason to believe that such a mathematical model shouldn't be possible. Existing models are already extremely good, and the only parts which we don't yet have essentially perfect mathematical models for yet are in areas which we don't yet have the equipment necessary to measure how the universe behaves. At no point have we encountered a sign that the universe is governed by laws which can't be expressed mathematically.

This necessarily means that everything in the universe can also be described mathematically. Since the human experience is entirely made up of material stuff governed by these mathematical laws (as per the assumption in the first paragraph), human intelligence can be described mathematically.

Now there's one possible counter to this: even if we can perfectly describe the universe using mathematics, we can't perfectly simulate those laws. Real simulations have limitations on precision, while the universe doesn't seem to. You could argue that intelligence somehow requires the universe's seemingly infinite precision, and that no finite-precision simulation could possibly give rise to intelligence. I would find that extremely weird, but I can't rule it out a priori.

I'm not a physicist, and I don't study machine intelligence, nor organic intelligence, so I may be missing something here, but this is my current view.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-22 18:40:48+00:00
I don't think it would be unfair to accept the brain state of green as an accurate representation of green for all intents and purposes.

Similar to how "computer code" and "video game world" are the same thing. Everything in the video game world is perfectly encoded in the programming. There is nothing transcendent happening, it's two different views of the same core object.
by yoshamano | 2025-06-22 18:41:16+00:00
I decided to receive my Librem 5 I ordered in August of 2019 and shipped in April 2023. From the reports by the people who received the first non-test batches of phones (the "Evergreen" batch), I knew this was never going to be a daily driver. Their software team just isn't up to the task of pounding a Linux system into the shape of what people expect from a cellphone. The type of person who is using this daily only needs phone and SMS, charges it most of the day (or carries extra batteries), and can contort the rest of their needs into a ten year old hardware platform with immature display support. So mine just sits in my drawer of curiosities.
by WhitneyLand | 2025-06-22 18:42:21+00:00
“This paper presents a theoretical proof that AGI systems will structurally collapse under certain semantic conditions…”

No it doesn’t.

Shannon entropy measures statistical uncertainty in data. It says nothing about whether an agent can invent new conceptual frames. Equating “frame changes” with rising entropy is a metaphor, not a theorem, so it doesn’t even make sense as a mathematical proof.

This is philosophical musing at best.
by dang | 2025-06-22 18:43:01+00:00
The comments you're talking about are getting flagged, mostly because they're off topic.

Edit: I've unflagged some of the others, but here are some examples of the kind I mean:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349249

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349183

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44348874

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44348759
by onetom | 2025-06-22 18:43:02+00:00
or they should just make sure emacs can work with the machine thru ssh, then there is nothing to install ;)

if no ssh, then nano is not a bad option, though i would go with joe (https://joe-editor.sourceforge.io/) which can also show the shortcuts, but much much more powerful, yet it's just a single ~700kbyte exe (or 1.5MB with some optional syntax highlighting grammars and docs)
by ICBTheory | 2025-06-22 18:43:49+00:00
Hi and thanks for engaging :-)

Well, it in fact depends on what intelligence is to your understanding:

-If it intelligence = IQ, i.e. the rational ability to infer, to detect/recognize and extrapolate patterns etc, then AI is or will soon be more intelligent than us, while we humans are just muddling through or simply lucky having found relativity theory and other innovations just at the convenient moment in time ... So then, AI will soon also stumble over all kind of innovations. None of both will be able to deliberately think beyond what is thinkable at the respective present.

- But If intelligence is not only a level of pure rational cognition, but maybe an ability to somehow overcome these frame-limits, then humans obviously exert some sort of abilities that are beyond rational inference. Abilities that algorithms can impossibly reach, as all they can is compute.

- Or: intelligence = IQ, but it turns out to be useless in big, pivotal situations where you’re supposed to choose the “best” option — yet the set of possible options isn’t finite, knowable, or probabilistically definable. There’s no way to defer to probability, to optimize, or even to define what “best” means in a stable way. The whole logic of decision collapses — and IQ has nothing left to grab onto.

The main point is: neither algorithms nor rationality can point beyond itself.

In other words: You cannot think out of the box - thinking IS the box.

(maybe have a quick look at my first proof -last chapter before conclusion- - you will find a historical timeline on that IQ-Thing)
by matsemann | 2025-06-22 18:44:50+00:00
If it's fluid, I guess you always would have an issue with buoyancy/density. The things you want to suspend will either want to float up or sink down before it cures.

But maybe it could work with something like beads of same refraction index, and then pour resin in when everything is in place? At least it works for water, I've seen it used for decorations and then pouring water over when everything is in place.

Random video showing what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LuTlY6DkHQw
Show HN: Lazycontainer: A Terminal UI for Apple Containers
by andreybleme | 2025-06-22 18:44:59+00:00
Apple finally released native support for Containers, but it's missing a terminal UI.

I'm building this TUI to make managing Apple containers easy, just like lazydocker made it easy to manage all things Docker.

Existing Docker compatible TUIs do not support Apple containers. The current version has support for managing containers and images.

Feedback, issue reports, and PRs are appreciated :)
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-22 18:45:05+00:00
Those USB-C to laptop power adapters are awesome. However, they can be kinda dumb. The available charge current is communicated to the laptop with a resistor, and the adapter does not change this value based on what your USB adapter can provide.

My adapter was just a tiny bit underpowered and would cut out if I tried to run a heavy CPU load while the battery was charging. I think this eventually killed the cheap adapter cable.

Just buy two
by invalidname | 2025-06-22 18:45:13+00:00
> The PA's reward for this is the settlers.

Yes. That should be the real outrage here.

The extreme-right fascists in the government are indeed using Oct 7th as an excuse to make the west-bank worse. I hope we can kick them out of office in the next election but the Iran thing shuffles the deck a bit and reduced some of the hate against Bibi.

> I think a basic problem for Israel here is that some relatively small percent of the population wants genocide, and they're the ones who've been driving the cart for the last decade or so.

I don't think they want Genocide. They look at the Palestinian extremists and say that they will never change. No matter what we try they will always try to kill us. So if it's us or them it should be us.

I get what they are saying. The fact that Palestinians voted for Hamas shocked us all back in the day. The problem is that Palestinians don't have stable leadership that we can talk to and trust. We also have pretty poor leaders since Rabin.

> What, to you, is the realistic road to a two-state solution?

I used to think there is no other option. That we might take a detour and get there eventually after all the pain since there's no other realistic option. Now I'm afraid that the Israeli extreme right might rise to power. The anti-Israel sentiment is actually fueling it which is pretty horrifying.

I hope calm voices will take the Saudi deal which can truly revolutionize the middle east. But right now I think we need to calm down. We've been in nonstop war since 2023 and it puts you in a fight or flight mode. People are picking up extreme stances as a result.

> With regards to the hostages - to an outside eye, Israel's bombing campaign doesn't really seem to indicate they're overly worried about the health and safety of those 53 remaining hostages.

Bibi doesn't want them back and Hamas don't want to release them. He knows that if they will be back he will have to end the war and then might lose his government. Now with the Iran campaign it might finally give him the incentive to close on a reasonable deal.
by GoblinSlayer | 2025-06-22 18:45:27+00:00
>Huh??? When?

In the blog post you linked above:

>No, it isn't because it can't account for the Born rule. See:

>https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...

>What you cannot demonstrate experimentally, not even in principle

I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have.
by nsingh2 | 2025-06-22 18:46:04+00:00
US foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus.

Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.

Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.
by hinkley | 2025-06-22 18:46:11+00:00
You’re treating a commit as an atom, which is not true in patch based git situations like Linux.

Most of the rest of us do not work this way, but they still do. The rest of us also only have to deal with three way merges most of the time, instead of octopus merges. Though I jokingly call, “fixing an incorrect three way merge” a “five way merge” because you end up doing a star shaped pattern of diffs to re-resolve the code to retain the intents of all three versions. A to merge, B to merge, merge to HEAD~, A to HEAD~ and B to HEAD~
by sherr | 2025-06-22 18:46:25+00:00
This was interesting and I was waiting for H.G. Wells to show up, which he did. For anyone interested in the far reaches of science-fiction literature, and much else, see "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". It is used to be a thick book but is now online, and includes a decent entry on Maurice Renard [1]. I often worry about the quality of the translation for works not in English though.

[1] https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/renard_maurice
by alexjplant | 2025-06-22 18:47:55+00:00
I was pleased to see that the author used the PT5000, one of my favorite calibers. As pointed out in the article it's a Chinese clone of the ubiquitous ETA 2824-2; this movement is used in a lot of affordable watches that are sold on AliExpress. You can get a Submariner homage with a sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, lume, and full water resistance powered by this movement for $100 that keeps time just as well as a Swiss watch (i.e. within COSC standards). Before I sold it mine was running at +5spd... the Chinese watchmaking industry is truly something to behold.
by legitster | 2025-06-22 18:48:26+00:00
> That Brearley is credited with discovering stainless steel is due mostly to luck; that he is credited with fathering it is due mostly to his resolve.

It's interesting that most times I have heard these stories growing up the "discovery" aspect was always emphasized - some retelling even framed them as "accidents". Forgetting the parts where the person in question had dedicated a lifetime of study in pursuit of the finding.
by proc0 | 2025-06-22 18:48:40+00:00
The paper is skipping over the definition of AI. It jumps right into AGI, and that depends on what AI means. It could be LLMs, deep neural networks, or any possible implementation on a Turing machine. The latter I suspect would be extremely difficult to prove. So far almost everything can be simulated by Turing machines and there's no reason it couldn't also simulate human brains, and therefore AGI. Even if the claim is that human brains are not enough for GI (and that our bodies are also part of the intelligence equation), we could still simulate an entire human being down to every cell, in theory (although in practice it wouldn't happen anytime soon, unless maybe quantum computers, but I digress).

Still an interesting take and will need to dive in more, but already if we assume the brain is doing information processing then the immediate question is how can the brain avoid this problem, as others are pointing out. Is biological computation/intelligence special?
by 827a | 2025-06-22 18:49:26+00:00
I genuinely do not understand where this take is coming from.

The incentives for having a nuclear program have not changed. Ukraine did not have nukes. Crimea, as a part of Ukraine. Syria. Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. Libya. None of these countries had nukes. They paid for it.

What happened today isn't only not a "massive" change to the status quo, as you seem to think it is. Its so much less significant than what happened to the rest of those countries I just listed. Yet, you used the word "massive". Why? I have no idea.

Iran did not learn any new lessons yesterday. Nothing they didn't already know. The US does not want them to have nukes. We've done everything short of boots on the ground to stop them from having them. They should still want them. They're correct, in the defense of their territorial sovereignty, to want them. But, we'll keep stopping them. That's how it was in the 2000s, the 2010s, its how it is the 2020s, and it's how it will be in the 2030s and 2040s. They keep trying, we keep stopping them. The incentives haven't changed. Nothing has changed. Yet you doomers keep thinking this is the end of the world or its WW3. It isn't.

If anything has changed: Iran just learned that something which took them a decade of development, cost hundreds of lives, and billions of dollars, was stopped by a couple planes from a country half a world away at basically no cost to us, without barely a thought or care. Fox News was tracking these B2s on ADSB a day before they hit Iran; it didn't matter. That's how ahead the US is. The asymmetry here should scare the shit out of them, and the world; that they will never have a conventional nuclear program because they're so unbelievably outmatched and outgunned that if our President has one bad nights sleep he could just wipe out half their country, half of any country, with no congressional authorization, no checks, no balances, just launch a plane and they're dead. Maybe this pushes them to non-conventional means of obtaining nukes; but it shouldn't significantly change their desire for wanting one in the first place. They've always wanted nukes.
by scuff3d | 2025-06-22 18:49:29+00:00
AI tools fall onto the category of just in time learning. No, even semi-competent, software engineer is going to become obsolete because they don't know the newest and most hyped AI tool. And anyone stupid enough to hire on that basis isn't worth working for.

How processors work, cache and memory work, how the browser works, data structure and algorithms, even design patterns are all important foundationaly knowledge. How to tell an AI to shit out some code or answer a question definitely isn't.
by nine_k | 2025-06-22 18:50:01+00:00
China, by all means, can have as modern silicon as they can produce themselves! And they are not bad at it, just not as good as TSMC.

Iran, OTOH, can't have the nuclear weapons they could produce themselves.

(BTW can your neighbor, who keeps saying that he's going to kill you, or maybe your friend, obtain a machine gun? Would you approve of that?)
by jacques_chester | 2025-06-22 18:50:03+00:00
It's a great feature, but GitHub's parser chokes on it.

Compare:

https://github.com/jchester/spc-kit/blob/eb2de71d815b0057e20...

To:

https://github.com/jchester/spc-kit/blob/main/sql/02-spc-int...

Basically the original rendering makes me look incompetent to a casual skimmer. Plus tools like JetBrains IDEs can suss out what comments belong to what DDL anyway.
by YZF | 2025-06-22 18:51:25+00:00
Incredible work. I love it.

This would be a similar process to finishing any painted surface. Progressive through the grits, each time removing the scratches from the previous grit, wet sanding with the higher grits. You can then hand polish with polishing compounds you can get at any hardware/car accessory store. You can start with an orbital sander or a belt sander of some sorts. I've done this on guitars I've built.

If you're fairly close it shouldn't be a ton of work.
by hinkley | 2025-06-22 18:51:32+00:00
A project management tool that uses Notes would make IDE integration easier though.

I vaguely recall dismissing Notes as a solution to my problems. I may be recollecting some of this wrong, but IIRC the problem with Notes is that they aren’t batteries included. It’s easier to cajole devs into using new tools if the setup is simple and it doesn’t complicate their workflow. Notes fails this litmus test. Set it on by default and make it come down with pull and up with push instead of a separate activity.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-22 18:51:42+00:00
We understand and build the trellis that the LLMs "grow" on. We don't have good insight into how a fully grown LLM actually turns any specific input into any specific output. We can follow it through the network, but it's a totally senseless noisy mess.

"Cat" lights up a certain set of neurons, but then "cat" looks completely different. That is what we don't really understand.

(This is an illustrative example made for easy understanding, not something I specifically went and compared)
by justagoat | 2025-06-22 18:51:49+00:00
Hi HN,

I came across this project and thought it was worth sharing. It’s called ChunkHound, a local-first, offline code search engine that lets AI assistants (and humans) explore and search large codebases — semantic search, regex, MCP protocol, etc.

After speaking with the developer, I learned something pretty wild.

The entire project — specs, architecture, implementation, even the name — was generated by an AI coding agent. No human coding, just high-level prompting with a factory-style system feeding the agent tasks and specs. The agent handled the full build end-to-end.

In a way, it even indexed itself once it was done.

* Local-first semantic + regex search (Tree-Sitter + DuckDB)

* MCP server to serve AI agents (Claude, Cursor, VSCode, etc.)

* MIT licensed

Repo: https://github.com/ofriw/chunkhound
by reillyse | 2025-06-22 18:52:19+00:00
That’s an interesting thought experiment actually.

If you think about the amount of money given up as a startup employee you will definitely get some winnings.

For example, say as a startup employee you are earning/being compensated 80,000 a year in equity. If you bought $80,000 of lottery ticket’s each year how much would you win. Depends on the lottery but most lottery’s have a rough payout of approximately 50-70%. Let’s say it’s 50%. So you would expect to receive back $40,000 per year.

Do half of all startups equity turn into cash, I think not. So probably more likely to make money from the lottery.
by jen20 | 2025-06-22 18:52:20+00:00
> Win-win for who exactly?

Society at large? All the people who don't have the breathe the fumes of some garbage commercial vehicle.

> Your backyard fence looks DIY

Provided it's up for code, whether it was "done yourself" or not doesn't matter.

> your porch light looks like a fire hazard.

Absolutely this should be reported.
by ezst | 2025-06-22 18:52:39+00:00
> Still struggling to find anything in your wall of words that actually backs up your claims.

I mean, one easy thing you could do is to explain how LLMs are adequate as

>> thinking machines, search engines, knowledge archives, …

How much practical experience do you have with LLMs? Have you even tried running models locally? Then how have you not experienced yourself tweaking few parameters and gotten the same model to say one thing and its opposite just after? Through your extensive use of commercial LLMs, aren't you getting daily occurrences of confabulations? Making stuff up is what defines¹ LLMs, and that's not me saying it.

If your field is so inconsequential that reliability and faithfulness of your output has no practical merit or repercussion, I'm glad that you get some entertainment out of this. Still doesn't make it the norm, though.

¹: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746