MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by artur_roszczyk | 2025-06-28 05:36:33+00:00
Hey, Good question! You're right. Nothing should prevent you from using it with other environments, especially after the 0.2.x refactor, where I dropped dependencies on wtype and ydotool. Now you can pipe the transcribed text to anything you want. My motivation was that the only reason I stayed stuck with ChatGPT was access to many customized system prompts (through projects) that I could dictate to. I like speaking to AI in my native tongue. Now I can switch to Claude fully. Thanks for checking it out!
by taeric | 2025-06-28 05:37:21+00:00
I confess your comment leaves me even more confused, all told. :D

I largely get the intent of what you are saying. But the entire point of why developers use templates is so that they can create pages that meet a design. And the entire reason I think they constantly get redone, is that design is inherently a visual process.

This is like trying to use formatting strings to try and handle localization. It just doesn't work. Folks will try and piecemeal all of the different strings in their application, only to find that some languages don't decompose the sentences in the same way. It can work wonders in small demos. It falls on its face when doing large things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm largely sympathetic to the gripes about the `createElement` and related methods. I've hacked on top of them many times with stuff similar to https://taeric.github.io/cube-permutations-1.html. They aren't pretty. But I'm not entirely clear on why template strings would be largely better?

Further, I could be surprised and this new API will usher in a better way of doing things. I'm not opposed to the effort. I just have a low prior on it succeeding. And I heavily disagree that we know what a good templating syntax is. Quite the contrary, until we learn to embrace visual artifacts, I do not think we will solve the templating needs.
by 1659447091 | 2025-06-28 05:39:09+00:00
I don't know much about "Reddit ignorance" as I don't use it except for a couple programming languages. But I understand the argument/point trying to be made.

Many states in the US are as large as countries in Western Europe. Both Texas and Alaska are larger than France in land size.

If the US broke apart, California and Texas would take 2 slots in the top 10 world economies (by GDP) with NY at 11 and Florida behind them beating out Spain. Less known states (in terms of world recognition) beat out many countries too. Illinois beating Switzerland & Pennsylvania running about even. Ohio, Georgia, Washington (the state, not dc) N. Carolina soundly outpacing Belgium, Sweden & Ireland. etc

For size, population and GDP, the combined countries of west Europe (that is fuzzily grouped together for these purposes) is comparable to the collection of states in the US. Thus, should either be compared by similar US State to single European country, or USA to the Western Europe conglomerate of countries.

That is how many Americans see the US. Culture, customs and even beliefs and language* can vary between states in ways one would think they are in a different country. This way of American's seeing the US vs Europe also relates to geography, sure, most Americans can't point European countries on a map and name them, but how many people outside NA can locate & name US states that are not CA, NY, or maybe TX?

* yeah it's pretty much all english, but there are a few distinctly different version of english where some could have trouble understanding each other (as can happen in large countries). Some 13% speaks Spanish. While it's all Spanish, Texas Spanish is not the same as California Spanish; try using your very limited Texas Spanish in Spain if you want funny looks.
by heylook | 2025-06-28 05:39:25+00:00
> I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.

Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation.

One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages".

It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.
by bob6843789 | 2025-06-28 05:41:02+00:00
I don't know. I've never run on a properly surfaced track. The one my high school had was essentially just loose limestone, at the time. Though that was ~25 years ago. I think it was upgraded since then. Besides, at that time, I was about capable of running half a lap. High school me was NOT athletic.

As for now. I'm kind of 50/50 or maybe 60/40 in favour of a regular old road vs trails. I much prefer a road to something like a beach. Having to compensate for the constantly giving, lumpy ground that is sand, is kinda meh. I also seem to remember a study that found it was actually worse for injury risk, to run on sand.

Landing on the ball of the foot means your leg isn't hyper extended, which means the impact is diffused since the knee and hip aren't completely straight at the moment of the strike. The whole hyper extended leg and heel-strike thing seems to be a consequence of raised-heel shoes. See my other post on this thread. Particularly the Harvard link.

Without shoes the first impact is the ball, followed by the toes, then the heel, last (or sometimes not at all). The impact on the joints is actually lower this way than heel-striking with a raised heel shoe. You can kinda just try this, even by jumping in place and landing on your heel with a shoe, vs landing on the balls of your feet.
by wat10000 | 2025-06-28 05:41:57+00:00
In context, those sound like things they’re going to do for you. People are not going to understand this as “we’re going to use your stuff for our own purposes unrelated to the services you get.”

Here’s the thing. Even if we grant your idea that maybe this is more understandable, why would that be reasonable? Facebook employs a lot of very smart people and has enormous resources. I’m confident they could come up with wording that would make this very clear to everyone. I mean, “we will use your photos to build our next generation AI systems” is a lot clearer than what they have here, and I just came up with that on the spot. That they haven’t done so is a deliberate choice.
by yawaramin | 2025-06-28 05:45:11+00:00
Both claims are debatable.

Pretty concise code: Go code is full of `if err != nil {...}` song and dance and they seem pretty committed to keeping it that way. Java is stuck with decades of decisions and libraries made in their early days because they can't break backward compatibility. Eg, all the standard library collection types are mutable. And of course, both of them have the 'null pointer' problem, which OCaml doesn't.

Meanwhile OCaml has had the same main type-level tools (record types, variant types) and techniques (pattern matching, first-class functions) since the very beginning and those are still the workhorse till this day.

Certainly better perf: I'd say that really depends on how much tuning has been done. OCaml applications by default are fairly performant and with OCaml 5's multicore support and effect handlers will unlock even more performance wins.
by kadoban | 2025-06-28 05:45:38+00:00
> I realize now that “a lot of delta-v” is an understatement. 500 AUs is ridiculously far. To get there in under a century you’d need fission-fraction reactors, well beyond our current tech.

Voyager 1 is 166 AU away, it launched about 50 years ago. So wouldn't we just have to do about twice as well as that, or launch 2 of them in opposite directions? That sounds _very_ hard (Voyager is amazing), but it can't be beyond our current tech, right? We did fairly close to that 50 years ago.
by seangrogg | 2025-06-28 05:46:49+00:00
As a person that occasionally daytrips into Rust and Zig, I'd imagine some number of us are coming from higher level languages (JS/TS, Python, etc) as our daily drivers and interested in what performance we could get closer to the metal.

In those cases we don't have a particular investment in C/C++, we don't know the differences between gcc or clang, we are used to package managers, don't manage header files, and things like comfy error messages and "if it compiles it's reasonably safe tm" are better than... Not having those things.

Meanwhile, outside of things like CUDA interop I don't know what the compelling case for C/C++ even is for someone who isn't invested.
by dawnofdusk | 2025-06-28 05:50:55+00:00
Haha that's crazy I'm so used to reading RL papers that when the blog linked to a textbook about RL I just filled in Sutton & Barto without clicking on the link or thinking any further about the matter.

I think the other criticism I have is that the historical importance of RLHF to ChatGPT is sort of sidelined, and the author at the beginning pinpoints something like the rise of agents as the beginning of the influence of RL in language modelling. In fact, the first LLM that attained widespread success was ChatGPT, and the secret sauce was RLHF... no need to start the story so late in 2023-2024.
by motoxpro | 2025-06-28 05:51:19+00:00
What is the difference between this and a group chat? Most people have < 20 people that they know well enough to give a secret code to unless you're a creator or personality, in which care we are back to snapchat.

If the posts are more long form, what is the difference between this and a blog where the "secret code" is the URL?

Or even a finsta account currated the way you want.

I don't say these as a "it's not gonna work" as in consumer its about the experience, I genuinely wonder why the experience will be better
by JohnKemeny | 2025-06-28 05:52:22+00:00
I get what you're saying: stuff in the USA tend to be on the large side, but that's not what makes a country. The USA speaks more or less one language. In Europe, English is literally only spoken in UK. Other countries speak different languages and it is in fact very rare for two countries to speak the same language.

Moreover, USA have their supreme leader and (the former) constitution. In Europe, each country has their own parliamentary setup, presidents/ministers, their own legislature, fiscal politics, etc.

Of course someone from USA is of the opinion that Europe is some small homogenous entity, while each us state is unique in its own way, that's not at all surprising.
by andai | 2025-06-28 05:56:51+00:00
A few years ago I ran Windows XP in a VM inside Windows 10.

When you pressed Win+E, Windows opens an explorer window (in both versions).

In XP this happens in the span of a single video frame.

In Windows 10, first nothing happens, then a big white rectangle, then you get to watch all the UI elements get painted in one by one.

The really impressive part is that this was before they rewrote explorer as an electron app! I think it might actually be faster now that it's an electron app.
by jl6 | 2025-06-28 05:57:05+00:00
> To further support their observations, Lagrange and her colleagues ran computer models that visualized the potential planetary system. The simulations yielded images that aligned with the ones captured by the telescope. “This was really why we were confident that there was a planet,”

Don’t get me wrong, I love that we are doing this work and have no reason to doubt that this is indeed an exoplanet image, but I view this kind of modelling as a pretty weak form of support for a hypothesis. Models are built from assumptions, which are influenced by expectations. They are not data.
by JimDabell | 2025-06-28 05:57:47+00:00
This article seems false.

> On Friday, TechCrunch reported that Facebook users trying to post something on the Story feature have encountered pop-up messages asking if they’d like to opt into “cloud processing”, which would allow Facebook to “select media from your camera roll and upload it to our cloud on a regular basis”, to generate “ideas like collages, recaps, AI restyling or themes like birthdays or graduations.”

> By allowing this feature, the message continues, users are agreeing to Meta AI terms, which allows their AI to analyze “media and facial features” of those unpublished photos, as well as the date said photos were taken, and the presence of other people or objects in them. You further grant Meta the right to “retain and use” that personal information.

The straightforward explanation is this: they have a feature where it is helpful to group people together. For instance suggesting a photo of you and a friend to be posted on their birthday. In order to make this work, they need to perform facial recognition, so they ask for permission using their standard terms.

Can they train their AI with it? Yes, you are giving them permission to do so. Does the information available tell us that is what they are doing? No, it does not. In fact, a Meta spokesperson said this:

> “These suggestions are opt-in only and only shown to you – unless you decide to share them – and can be turned off at any time,” she continued. “Camera roll media may be used to improve these suggestions, but are not used to improve AI models in this test.”

— https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/27/facebook-is-asking-to-use-...

Could they be lying about this? Sure, I guess. But don’t publish an article saying that they are doing it, when you have no evidence to show that they are doing this and they say they aren’t doing this.

Might they do it in the future? Sure, I guess. But don’t publish an article saying that they are doing it, if the best you have is speculation about what they might do in the future.

Does it make sense for them to do this? Not really. They’ve already got plenty of training data. Will your private photos really move the needle for them? Almost certainly not. Will it be worth the PR fallout? Definitely not.

Should you grant them permission if you don’t want them to train on your private photos? No.

This could have been a decent article if they were clearer about what is fact and what is speculation. But they overreached and said that Facebook is doing something when that is not evident at all. That crosses the line into dishonesty for me.
by os2warpman | 2025-06-28 05:58:51+00:00
I agree with you.

It is indeed spherical frictionless cow-ly possible if we spend a trillion dollars to increase ORNL's annual Pu production capacity so that it doesn't take 200 years to make 600kg of Pu-238.

When someone demonstrates a complex device (let's set aside power generation how about a valve? Or a capacitor?) that can last a century in space I'll agree that it is actually possible.

That's what "current level of technology" means. The lego bricks exist, now, today, preferably in stock ready for immediate shipment on Digikey, and can be snapped into place.
by larodi | 2025-06-28 06:01:41+00:00
Perhaps it rather needs a facelift and support for JSON. I would imagine one day something regex or jq-level concise emerges, something reasonably short and descriptive, to allow transforming arbitrary tree into another arbitrary tree.

The idea behind XSLT is genial, but the real essence of it is XPath which makes it possible. And we've seen XPath evolve into CSS Selectors, and being useful on its own.

So in essence there are two sides of the transformation:

- selection - when you designate which parts of the tree match - transformation - when building the new three

And while there are established approaches to the first part, perhaps XSLT is the only one which fits the definition of 'generally accepted' when it comes to the transformation.

But one can argue the transformation is possible with jq, it is just that I definitely don't like its overly-engineered syntax. IMHO the champion of the transformation syntax is yet undecided, even though in 2025 XSLT is still more or less king. Which is fascinating as XML is long not a usual choice of preference.
by thayne | 2025-06-28 06:01:43+00:00
- Java's use of GC and a large runtime makes it inappropriate for many use cases

- Java had a pretty slow startup time, which makes it a poor fit for many CLI applications and similar

- Java has historically had pretty poor support for interoperating with c libraries (although this is improving with project panama)

- Rust has a richer, more powerful type system than Java (although scala's is more comparable)

- Rust's affine types (lifetimes) actually prevent certain types of bugs that occur in languages like Java as well. Things like using a connection or file handle after it is closed, forgetting to release a lock, not properly synchronizing access to memory between multiple threads, etc.
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-28 06:02:22+00:00
Yeah the one difference with some other enshittified things is that I really have the impression that Facebook was always meant to go this way.

It was also one of the first to drop genuine user-sercing features like the old timeline (just all the posts of people you followed which you came there to see) which it replaced with the algorithmic feed which recommended stuff you never asked for or wanted.

Instagram did keep that feature though until 2 years and still has it although it's constantly switching it off.
by parpfish | 2025-06-28 06:03:52+00:00
Oorah also owns a ton of property in upstate New York. Specifically, a couple summer camps for kids and tons of houses in the surrounding community. So that’s what their “charity” spends money on.

Also interesting to note that their “boys camp” looks like it gets the lions share of the cash. It looks like a theme park with go karts and camels and water slides next to a lake. The “girls camp” is just a horse farm a few miles down the road.
by whatshisface | 2025-06-28 06:04:23+00:00
Religious organizations are allowed to manage billion dollar tax exempt funds with management fees of 100% and nearly constituonal cover for false and misleading statements. Meanwhile, university endowments would be taxed at the same rate as for profit companies if the reconciliation bill passes.

Due to the significance of tax drag for short term capital gains, we might see a world where most high frequency or quant trading is done by the Mormon Church (today posessing assets about double what Bridgewater has under management).
by yongjik | 2025-06-28 06:05:15+00:00
LIGO (the famous gravity wave detector) is made of two 4-kilometer arms. According to its website:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

> At its most sensitive state, LIGO will be able to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton! This is equivalent to noticing a change in distance to the nearest star (some 4.2 light years away) of the width of a human hair.

So I think two telescopes at 450km distance synchronized to "merely" (haha) a visible light's wavelength should be doable, if we throw a fuckton of money on that.
by dafelst | 2025-06-28 06:05:22+00:00
It is entirely unclear to me what point you are trying to make. Is your mundane solution to just add more sanitization and analysis to C and C++? If so, that's great, more safety in any language is fantastic. My issue with that is that it is an optional addition to the language rather than the default behavior.

The point I am making is that safe Rust _by default_ straight up disallows compiling code that has the potential for the vast majority of memory safety issues. Code with those issues is just a plain invalid program, and will not compile. If you want to bypass those protections, you need to explicitly opt-in with the unsafe keyword.

C or C++ code with the same issues is perfectly valid, will compile and run, but it has the potential to be incorrect. You can (and should!) bolt on tools to fix that, but the issue is that the language allows that behavior by default. Until these tools are the defaults, the problem is only partially solved - you have to opt-in to a large chunk of safety features, and even if you do, you get fewer of them to boot.

I'm not saying you should use Rust by any means. If you like C++, continue using it. But the fact here is that Rust solves a bunch of problems here and now today that C and C++ cannot, so it is baffling to me that people have such a visceral negative reaction to it.
by aryonoco | 2025-06-28 06:05:49+00:00
OCaml is nice. I like it a lot.

But arguably F# (whose original name was OCaml.NET) is underrated. It improves on OCaml in a number of areas (better pattern matching, computation expressions, namespace support) but more importantly, F# solves OCaml’s biggest problems: lack of decent libraries and subpar tooling.

With F# you get instant access to thousands of high quality NuGet packages which includes everything from fast web servers to highly performant json deserialisation, and you can use some of the best IDEs, tooling and debugger around (JetBrains Rider is outstanding IMO).

F# suffers from the Microsoft association unfortunately, even though Microsoft barely cares about it and provides minimal support for it, most good things about F# are developed and maintained by the community. But the perception exists, and many think it’s still Windows only

I’ve recently been doing a lot of F# development, I do my work on a Mac, using Rider and OCI dev containers, and the code is deployed on Kubernetes, and honestly I don’t remember the last time I enjoyed a programming language and development tooling so much.
by wk_end | 2025-06-28 06:05:50+00:00
? This works fine in a type system without an explicit bottom type. In Haskell or ML or whatever `emptyList` would be given a polymorphic type, `List a` or `'a list`.

There's issues around doing this with mutable collections (i.e. the value restriction) but that's not what you're referring to...
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-28 06:06:13+00:00
I like this poetic way of putting it, though I don't agree with the message.

In Holland we have a saying, what do you bring it your house is burning down? And most people said my photos. This was before the digital age and cloud obviously. We take photos because we care. Stuffing them into everyone else's face has also been a thing at birthday parties but outside that not so much.
by another_twist | 2025-06-28 06:06:33+00:00
Go is definitely full of these issues. Java has pretty good perf out of the box due to JIT. The libs may be old but they do their jobs really well. Some common ones like Guava are updated as new features become available. Tbh the collections being mutable isnt really an issue since it gets the job done and reasoning about these things isnt that hard. However I do prefer immutability wherever I can get it.
by necovek | 2025-06-28 06:07:06+00:00
The comment you are responding to is wondering about what might be "healthier" in general? It even acknowledges that it could work "worse in others".

I do not think it's a stretch to say that some people deal with adversity and misfortune better than others, and not everyone ends up with mental health issues after very similar experiences!

So without getting riled up, my response to the GP would be: "no, it wouldn't, because even if that works with simple majority of the population, it might leave 49% of the people messed up — let's not move away from the individual approach!" (I don't have actual numbers).