MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dzaima | 2025-06-27 19:18:10+00:00
More generally than the other replies, BQN is an array language, and as such "a+b" & "a×b" etc automatically map over arrays, and the interpreter can thus trivially vectorize them (and, if you're curious, yes, in a naive interpreter (which CBQN currently is) this does mean intermediate arrays go through memory, which is probably a significant part of the difference in speed).
by redczar | 2025-06-27 19:18:54+00:00
According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?

This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.
by bumby | 2025-06-27 19:19:47+00:00
>smaller impact than expected

Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless you actually know that uncertainty, effect size, and those costs (including opportunity costs), you’re just making stuff up because “it just makes sense so it must be true.” That’s neither good science, nor good policy.

Advocating for big policy changes (like changing building codes) without understanding those aspects is like jumping into a pool headfirst before knowing the depth.
by ezekg | 2025-06-27 19:19:58+00:00
I don't understand the whole bit on taxes. You have no authority i.r.t. taxation, and so I assume you mean your -- i.e. the platform's -- cut, so that type of "tax" verbiage is strange to me. Also, your site doesn't seem to go into where the money's coming from. Do the project maintainers pay you, and you pay the contributors? If so, this doesn't seem to address the underlying issue of maintainers not getting paid, because they're the ones paying. Overall, the site is very confusing.
by sega_sai | 2025-06-27 19:20:00+00:00
Interesting paragraph from dissenting opinion:

"No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."
by tfourb | 2025-06-27 19:20:47+00:00
They don't, really. At least in Germany, the "right to one's likeness" already exists as an explicit law but entirely separate from copyright and trademark law, which is what governs brand likeness.

What Denmark is proposing is simply an extension of the existing safeguards that many EU countries, as well as EU legislation generally, already provide regarding the control of their citizens over their likeness. It is not really revolutionary but a sensible addition in the light of technological advancements.
by ihiep | 2025-06-27 19:20:47+00:00
Thank you both for this feedback! You're right. I made a mistake by not testing thoroughly enough. I was being overly conservative based on assumptions rather than actual testing. Your detailed feedback about $TERM values and real-world tmux usage is exactly what I needed. I should have tested more environments before making assumptions about terminal compatibility. Thanks for keeping me honest and helping improve Zenta!
by comex | 2025-06-27 19:20:52+00:00
Well, sure, standards compliance doesn't matter much on such a small device.

Personally I'd be less worried about uniqueness and more worried about alignment. An address of -1 would violate alignment requirements on most modern targets. But that may have been fine on the target in question; older microcontrollers tended to not have any hardware-level alignment requirements, and the C implementation could have treated all types as having alignment 1.
by bunderbunder | 2025-06-27 19:21:02+00:00
It reminds me a little bit of the inescapable lifecycle of a ticketing system:

1. People love it because it's lightweight and fast. 2. More and more people use it. 3. Feature requests start to roll in. 4. It becomes bloated and slow. 5. People get fed up and start to hate it. 6. Create a new ticketing system and return to step 1.
by perching_aix | 2025-06-27 19:21:39+00:00
The "i like bagels -> oh so you hate croissants, huh?" framing strikes again.

This is what things going to shit looks like. You may be completely justified in acting the way you are, it just so happens that that's of very little help. Spiraling is pretty tough to prevent at that point.

And yes, very obviously people have an easier time understanding things when they're better aligned with their thinking.
by tzs | 2025-06-27 19:22:43+00:00
Add

3. Not allow someone who gets both (1) a log of authentication provider transactions, including timestamps, who was being verified, and whatever output the provider generated, and (2) a log of the website's age checks including timestamps, website accounts, and whatever proof was provided to match them up to associate real IDs from the authentication provider with website account IDs.

To make this work I think any such system will need to be so widely used that there are hundreds or thousands of verifications happening every second at each authentication provider and typical users get verified many times a day, and there should probably be some random delays introduced by the user's computer.

Otherwise it could be too easy to unmask people by looking at verification timing. If you are trying to unmask a user who verified through provider P and P only did a verification for one person that day it is very likely that is the person you are trying to unmask.
by derriz | 2025-06-27 19:23:54+00:00
I'm responding here because so many replies are making the same point.

In your particular example, let's put your example into a context. Is

fn foo(option: Option<i32>) -> i32 { let y = match option { Some(x) => x, None => return Err("whoops!"), }; return 1; }

well typed? It should be if we are to believe that "return <expr>" is an expression of type () - but, naturally, it causes a compilation error because the compiler specifically treats "return <expr>" unlike other expressions. So there is no improvement in regularity, while it admits all sorts of incomprehensible "puzzlers".

I don't see why you'd lose this ability if you removed the claim that "return <expr>" is itself an expression. Most/many languages have mechanisms to allow expressions to affect flow control - e.g. with exceptions, yield, etc. - which do not these constructs (for example "throw x") to have a type.

Rust could just as easily supported the syntax you use above without making "return <expr>" a tapeable expression.
by jonahbenton | 2025-06-27 19:24:22+00:00
Yes, uploading IDs to commercial entities (porn or not) is terrible. Coinbase's recent KYC breach is going to lead to a metric ton of identity theft. While there used to be penalties for securities fraud- no more of that under Trump- there are no penalties for privacy violations and until there are, commercially pervasive KYC is an absolutely awful idea.

Wrt login.gov, as someone who has contracted with fedgov and knows some former 18f people, absolutely excellent humans and technologists- their work notwithstanding, Musk's criminal rampage through fedgov databases and US SC complacence with same has turned me into a rabid libertarian. Cities and states are set up to- and should be funded to- provide individual constituent service. Fedgov is just not.
by trod1234 | 2025-06-27 19:26:03+00:00
In many respects, the industry is destroying itself right now, it is a rotten system.

Blind people have taken hold of the reigns, and they believe that they can do whatever they want because you don't have a choice. This continues right up until it can't, and they learn the hard way that there is always a choice.

Quite a number of us feel this way, and its not just dev work either.

Many SA's, SREs, IT Architects etc all feel these things, and there is a lot of nonsense across the board both with and without AI.

The borderline coercive exploitation, and market manipulation of factor markets, are driving a lot of people to other areas disruptively at great personal loss.

This transition naturally happens anytime the personal costs of work involved exceed the pay being provided in a workplace or business sector, and these blind people believe they can get ahead, and continue full steam ahead by imposing costs on others through chaotic distortions, without any real consequence.

Someday they will the consequence that shows they are wrong, but they won't recognize it, and those consequences are real.

Let them get what's coming to them, and just step out of the way. Do what's best for you.

It sounds like you should look at taking a break/breath then begin retooling so you can do something that you can support yourself with, and just let those people who are exploiting others burn themselves down. Karma can be a bitch.

Goodwill in such environments inevitably runs out, and people quiet quit and just collect a paycheck. Any intelligent person rolls back their individual production as the pay gap vs. personal cost increases. It is not your job to educate these suka people, and they wouldn't listen to you if you tried.

I would suggest meditating a bit on what exactly drives you and aim towards productive activities that follow that path, and finding like-minded people who do listen, this is quite hard today given Ahriman's influence but is still doable.

Inner clarity is inner strength.
by ethbr1 | 2025-06-27 19:26:57+00:00
Debatable.

The AJAX approach was pioneered by the Outlook web team ~1998 and semi-standardized as XMLHTTP in IE 5 (1999).

So a decade before Chrome was released.

Admittedly, Chrome did a lot to push forward web apps, but that was 100% in Google's self-interest given they were competing against thick client MS Office.
by Mario10 | 2025-06-27 19:27:46+00:00
Hi ezekg, When we say “taxes,” we actually mean the platform’s cut or fee, not any government tax. We get that it sounds confusing and we’ll fix that wording, thanks.

The idea behind the platform is to help folks who might not code themselves, like companies or users, pay developers to improve the projects they care about. So if you use or rely on a project, you can create sponsor issues, and the devs get paid for their work.

It also gives companies a chance to see top talent in action by watching contributors work on real open-source projects before hiring them.

Sure, it doesn’t magically fix the whole “maintainers getting paid” problem, but it’s a way to get stuff done and reward contributors.
by _wire_ | 2025-06-27 19:27:51+00:00
Yes a serious problem that's getting worse.

The large size of the A-pillar to hold side airbag, the long slope of the windshield requiring an arch for the A-pillar to meet the door, the distance of the seat from the A-pillar, standardization of street block and geometry, the relative size/distance/speeds of vehicles, and recent public works for crossings is creating a serious hazard.

Basically, the from the drivers perspective the pedestrian's crossing remains hidden behind the A-pillar for the entire duration of the vehicle's approach while the pedestrian sees a clear line of sight and asserts a new sense of entitlement to cross via urban design campaigns to create boldly marked crossings.

There's a couple of another related crossing design patterns which I will term "the forest for the trees hazard":

One forest-for-trees-hazard is traffic calming pylons placed in the middle of intersections next to elementary schools that are planted with shrubberies and grasses that grow higher than people and completely obscure the crossings.

Another forest-for-trees-hazard is crosswalks so festooned with a clutter of multicolored stripes, barrier poles, signs and warning flags that pedestrians get lost visual chatter.

Finally islands being erected on broad streets and medians including trees and plastic pylons which at night create a coruscation of vertical moving shadows from exceptionally bright and tightly focused headlights of oncoming traffic put the driver of blind faith that the movement is not a pedestrian. In other words, drivers are being conditioned to ignore pedestrians because their movement is indistinguishable from other patterns of light across the roadway.

Meanwhile, after 75 years of American urban planning around the automobile, the pedestrian and cyclist are obviously total afterthoughts, facing daunting environments that can never be property retro-fit to accommodate them without upending the entire civic plan, which design itself is nothing more than sprawl checked by artifacts of case law for previous liabilities.
by btilly | 2025-06-27 19:27:52+00:00
> I would encourage that you attain at least basic proficiency in the subject matter before drawing such hasty conclusions, but you don't seem to respond well to encouragement, so I'll leave it at that.

I respond just fine to encouragement. It is unwarranted intellectual arrogance that I react poorly to.

The world is full of too many arguments for any person to master. We therefore must find ways to evaluate arguments from first principles, to help us decide which arguments are worth further investigation.

Here is such a principle. Any argument about physical reality which is not rooted in physical evidence can only result in a correct conclusion by coincidence. And any model of physical reality, no matter how accurate in experience, may prove to be wrong upon the discovery of more physical evidence.

As an example, Kant argued that Euclidean geometry was a necessary property of space. This was widely accepted, and was in perfect agreement with experience. And yet his a priori conclusion about physical reality, was later found to be false.

Therefore, only arguments based on physical evidence should be considered for the question of how the universe was created. And there must be room to question even them. Which means that conclusions from the philosophy that you accept, should only be accepted by others if better arguments are presented which come from evidence. And, even then, our acceptance should come with an asterisk.

That's one principle. Here is a second.

Any argument that results in a false conclusion, must either start with a false premise, or include a mistake. We can conclude this entirely without examining the argument.

You have presented an argument that there can be no rationality without intentionality. However even a basic acquaintance with the philosophy of mathematics demonstrates a system which contains rationality without any form of intentionality. Therefore your conclusion about rationality is wrong. And therefore your conceptualization of a teleos, and insistence on its necessity, is likewise wrong.

It may be interesting. It may be entertaining. But it is clearly a poor intellectual foundation from which to try to understand rationality.

By all means, you're free to entertain yourself by continuing to try to understand the world through made-up ideas about how things must be. Just don't expect others to take your claims seriously.
by tfourb | 2025-06-27 19:28:01+00:00
I guess philosophically speaking, it is pretty rare for an individual to develop a written "voice"/style distinct enough to warrant this kind of protection. Not least because only very few people would ever be able to mistake a "fake" of your written style for the real thing (because very few would be familiar with your style in the first place) and even if this happened, the likely consequences are almost always negligible. It's simply an edge case and any solution to it that I can think of would produce more problems than it solves.

Your likeness on the other hand is pretty unique for most people in the world and the technological ability to produce convincing and arbitrary copies of it has very obvious and frightful consequences. Resolving this problem is of tremendous importance for social cohesion.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-06-27 19:29:17+00:00
Federal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts.

I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". And now that Trump has shown the way, you can be sure future presidents will follow.

Another terrible outcome is that you then have federal orders applied differently from state to state (or more accurately, federal district to district). If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will.

This is right up there with the Presidential Immunity in terms of terrible decisions by this SCOTUS.
by steveklabnik | 2025-06-27 19:30:07+00:00
> Is ... well typed?

It's not, but not due to the return, it's because you're trying to return a Result from a function that returns an i32. This works:

fn foo(option: Option<i32>) -> Result<i32, &'static str> { let y = match option { Some(x) => x, None => return Err("whoops!"), }; return Ok(1); }

> It should be if we are to believe that "return <expr>" is an expression of type ()

It is not, it is an expression of type !. This type unifies with every other type, so the overall type of y is i32. return is not treated in a special way.

> if you removed the claim that "return <expr>" is itself an expression

This code would no longer work, because blocks that end in an expression evaluate to (), and so you would get the divergent, not well typed error, because one arm is i32 and the other is ().
by stego-tech | 2025-06-27 19:30:15+00:00
That’s the gist, yes, at least initially. It never stops at a given category of person, though, and you can assume next steps would be to set arbitrary milestones and dates around who is and is not a citizen based on birthright. Picture the glut of immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s who never got proper citizenship, or only had permanent residency. You can bet that the next step would be to say if you can’t point to a US Citizen direct ancestor after a given year, you’re no longer a citizen yourself.

That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
by gopher_space | 2025-06-27 19:30:16+00:00
The reason you don't hear much about positive knock-on effects is that their time frames stretch beyond anyone's planning horizon. The only immediate effects will be losses, and they'll be around for a while.

There's no existential threat compelling enough to shut down trade for the generation or two it would take to see real benefits, and those benefits could be realized within the same time frame through other means.

This turns conversation around positive effects into a thought experiment people might not find germane to a current discussion. The tariffs simply won't be in place long enough.
by derriz | 2025-06-27 19:30:39+00:00
See my comment above, your example only "just works" if the enclosing function has the appropriate return type (in this case none).

So the syntactic element "return" is not just an expression - unlike other sub-expressions, it involves action at a distance - i.e. it must not just agree with it's context as part of an expression but it must agree with the enclosing fn signature.
by munificent | 2025-06-27 19:31:02+00:00
Does anyone know why `union` isn't a reserved word in Rust?

Most contextual keywords in other languages come from either:

1. Features that were added after the language was in wide use and can't add keywords without breaking existing code.

2. Features where the word is particularly useful elsewhere, so would be painful to reserve (like `get` and `set` in Dart).

But neither of those seem to apply to Rust. As far as I know, it's always had ML-style unions, and "union" doesn't seem to be a particularly useful identifier otherwise.

Why isn't `union` fully reserved?
by themaninthedark | 2025-06-27 19:31:12+00:00
I would assume that the child would be registered with the embassy that the parents are citizens of and there would be an application for a non-resident visa that would be fast tracked.

Greenland, Finland, Norway and Sweden all have no concept of Jus Soli and as far as I know, kids born to non-residents aren't being deported from the hospital.

>Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens.

I would think a birth certificate would work....
by redczar | 2025-06-27 19:31:13+00:00
Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.

Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.
by benreesman | 2025-06-27 19:31:41+00:00
I did two things this year that had nontrivial effects on my state of mind.

1. I quit drinking for the time being. This had a modest but real effect on my mood and general wellbeing. It has pros and cons, but on balance it's a win for where I'm at and what I'm trying to do. I might choose differently in the future.

2. I installed GrapheneOS and built NixOS, from source, with fairly extreme choices about networking. This had a staggering effect on every aspect of how I think and feel: cutting the surveillance capitalism at the network level is like having a mass of rage and angst and blurry confusion taken out of my head. I will never, ever go back to that.

Its time for everyone to cut the cord. Get a Pixel, an 8a open box at best buy can be 200-300, install Lineage or Calyx or Graphene, and reclaim ownership of your brain.
by dormento | 2025-06-27 19:32:35+00:00
> I'm 15

Is this the new hn meta?

https://github.com/jleuth/gofer leads to https://www.jleuthardt.com/

> Hey, I'm Jacob Leuthardt. I'm a two-time founder, I.T. infrastructure engineer, with CompTIA A+ and AWS Cloud Practitioner certifications.

Unless this is a dig at the deluge of "I'm twelve and I've created this framework" that I've seen recently. In this case, well played.
by mmh0000 | 2025-06-27 19:32:40+00:00
> What does AutoSleep offer above and beyond Apple’s Health app?

In my experience. After initial setup, it is way more accurate.

Apple commonly says I get more hours of sleep than I know I do. Apple counts just being relaxed as sleeping. Whereas I can tune AutoSleep to correctly identify the difference between me sleep and just being super relaxed. Thus I get a much more accurate image of what is working

Also the apple sleep graph is actually terrible. Almost impossible to understand when wake up are occurring.
by bobbylarrybobby | 2025-06-27 19:33:45+00:00
The type of return is !, not (). Meaning there are zero instances of this type (whereas there is one instance of ()). ! can coerce to any type.

Also, the type of return is a separate matter from the type of the thing being returned. You obviously can't return Result from a function returning i32. The point of type coercion is that you can yield `return Err(...)` in one branch of a match and have it type check with the other branch(es).