MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pfdietz | 2025-06-26 02:18:29+00:00
Look at those goalposts shift!

I don't need to argue things are practically mineable in space to rebut the point. I just need to argue if they aren't practically mineable, energy consumption isn't a reason.

I have already given you the counterargument.

> we have maybe platinum

Those making the energy argument need to rebut every possibility. The "it takes to much energy to ship back" is ludicrously wrong for platinum. The argument destroyed, why would we need to say more?

It takes as little as 0.1 km/s delta V to get onto an Earth-intersecting orbit from known NEOs. The energy of a mass moving at 100 m/s is 5x10^3 J/kg, or 1.4e-3 kWh. If a kWh costs $1 in space, this would be a fraction of a cent per kilogram. This delta-V is so small that the energy cost of sending back base metals would be affordable. Hell, the energy cost of shipping gravel from space would be affordable! Other costs, probably not, but that's not the claim we're addressing.
by Hizonner | 2025-06-26 02:18:52+00:00
> TLS certificates for IP addresses are already a thing that exists.

Still not wide use. It's when it gets into wide use that you end up having to include it in everything.

For now, it's a parlor trick, and it's a parlor trick that shouldn't work.

> nobody is going to remove support for things that work today just because it'd be slightly cleaner.

Work, but shouldn't and aren't actually used except by crazy people.

> If that doesn't work in a given TLS client, this will be treated as a bug in that client, and rightly so.

I've tried to use TLS on microcontrollers that barely had the memory to parse X.509 at all. Including stuff just because you can doesn't make that better.

... and I'm not going to go check the relevant RFCs, but I very much doubt that IP SANs are listed as a MUST. If I'm wrong, well, that's still a bug in the RFCs.

> Also, how would DoH or DoT work without this?

Hardwired keys for your trusted resolvers. Given that the whole CA infrastructure long ago gave up on doing any really robust verification of who was asking for a cert, making your DNS dependent on X.509 is a bad idea anyway. But if you really want to do it even though it's a bad idea, you can also bootstrap via the local DNS resolver and then connect to your DoH/DoT server using a domain name.

DoH, of course, is a horrible idea in itself, but that's another can of worms.
by data-ottawa | 2025-06-26 02:19:16+00:00
Tangental, but I worry that LLMs will cause a great stagnation in programming language evolution, and possibly a bunch of tech.

I've tried using a few new languages and the LLMs would all swap the code for syntactically similar languages, even after telling them to read the doc pages.

Whether that's for better or worse I don't know, but it does feel like new languages are genuinely solving hard problems as their raison d'etre.
by 2Gkashmiri | 2025-06-26 02:19:16+00:00
I have a solar inveter from a company, aparticular German brand. I wanted to use home assistant with it so I needed rs232 data.. tried the support and they asked me to sign an NDA.

Okay, cool. I did with a fake name, address and everything and they sent a file..

Turns out the file is available online.

Facepalm pro Max.

So my question is, what kind of "IP" is in a data sheet that needs protection ? And this isnt even some secret product but a generic solar product sold by millions.

Rs-232 protocol ? Really ?
by dylan604 | 2025-06-26 02:19:31+00:00
no, now you're just being obstinate because you think it's cool on the internet or something. if you think doing 5 push ups and 5 crunches is punishment, then we're just on different planets. fine, if you're so against physical exercise. then make the ankle biters clean their room, take out the trash, walk the dog (oops physical exercise again), or any of a number of other things. unless you're one of those parents who thinks chores are too taxing for their sweetwiddleones
by pc86 | 2025-06-26 02:20:26+00:00
I get what you're saying, and I agree that's how it feels but that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it is.

I guarantee you there are companies in the US right now paying their full-time employees who work 40+ hours less than they pay consultants who are also writing code who are working 30, 20, even 10 hours a week or less. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're taking advantage of their employees (though they may well be). Everyone agreed to do the thing they're doing knowing exactly what the terms were.

If I agree to do a job for $X that is otherwise "not exploitation" by whatever metric we choose to use, it doesn't suddenly become exploitation if I could have gotten 2X or 3X to do the same job.
by freejazz | 2025-06-26 02:20:33+00:00
> the desire to be free from unreasonable searches applies to the judiciary as well as the executive.

Discovery is not a search. There's no point to having this discussion when you keep pushing these obtuse misunderstandings of words that have particular meanings in these contexts. No less so when you insist you do understand that you are pushing different meanings of the words than what are being discussed.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-26 02:20:37+00:00
Sorry to hear that, my heart goes out to him. I post a lot about it here on HN, you can scroll through my prior posts, about half are on this. Also feel free to email me. Chrons is pretty common in people with hEDS, which is what I have, so while I don't have direct experience with having it myself I do know quite a few people who have had it.

Edit: had to do a quick double check, but the foods that I eat, and don't eat, are specifically for hEDS/ME/CFS brain fog which I believe is IL-1B cytokine related and I think it's plausible that this probably has a crossover to Crohn's. Listing it here as something to consider; A diet of zero sugar and zero fruit, a lot of kale, chia seeds, and pumpkin seeds. I do one meal a day, and an occasional extended water fast. For vitamins I take TUDCA, DIM, and D3.

Prolonged use of steroids can cause dysautonomia which causes a plethora of other issues. So understanding dysautonomia could help. I also use a weak ligand approach to dysautonomia which is unusual with the use of modafinil and amitriptyline.

Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) is a rather benign medication that's been known to help. There is little downside to trying it - so it can be used as a bit of a diagnostic in addition to treatment. Of course DIY research rules apply.

One of my more out there theories that seems to be quickly gaining traction is that a low dose of GLP-1 agonists can be surprisingly good for autoimmune conditions.

Most of my other peptides are hEDS focused and include VIP, Ipamorelin, Selank/Semax, and BPc157/TB500. Though I really only take the ipamorelin and semaglutide these days. These are a bit more risky but since my alternative is to be very sick I have a different risk tolerance profile compared to most.
by raydenvm | 2025-06-26 02:21:10+00:00
You can also consider self-publishing taking into account the modern AI capabilities. Why don't try it, including Korean language, maybe with the final review by a human?

Here is the experience of Jurgen Appelo with his new book who decided to self-publish it: https://jurgenappelo.com/blogs/news/just-because-you-can

Prior to this one, Jurgen had written around 8 books using the traditional publishing approach.
by sarchertech | 2025-06-26 02:21:18+00:00
Antibiotic overuse in animals is a problem. It was recently banned for use as a growth promoter however, and use in animals is inherently less likely to lead to human infectious drug resistant bacteria.

And none of that has any impact on whether or not we should limit antibiotic overuse in humans.

Doctors certainly aren’t under-prescribing antibiotics if you look at the data.
by Filligree | 2025-06-26 02:21:23+00:00
> Of course it is. And nobody said otherwise, because that is explicitly stated on the commit message

Don’t be ridiculous. The majority of people are in fact honest, and won’t submit such code; the major effect of the policy is to prevent those contributions.

Then you get plausible deniability for code submitted by villains, sure, but I’d like to hope that’s rare.
by Nextgrid | 2025-06-26 02:22:46+00:00
> allows agents to act on behalf of registered users with economic incentives to control usage

There's a huge economy out there based on wasting human time. They explicitly do not want agents acting on behalf of humans, because it means human time is no longer being wasted.

They also don't want to get paid in money, because the money would go to a different profit center. The only payment they accept (because they use that as a metric to justify their salary) is "engagement" aka proof of wasted human time.
by simonw | 2025-06-26 02:22:59+00:00
I still don't think hallucinations in generated code matter very much. They show up the moment you try to run the code, and with the current batch of "coding agent" systems it's the LLM itself that spots the error when it attempts to run the code.

I was surprised that this paper talked more about RAG solutions than tool-use based solutions. Those seem to me like a proven solution at this point.
by Aloisius | 2025-06-26 02:23:39+00:00
It doesn't share your FileVault key if you already have FileVault enabled.

Rather, if you install it on an unencrypted drive, it'll turn FileVault on and then save a backup of the key to iCloud.

Not sure if this is just a beta issue or it was intentional. It would be annoying for people who don't want encryption, but I guess for most people, an encrypted drive + iCloud key is probably better than an unencrypted drive.
by const_cast | 2025-06-26 02:25:57+00:00
> But can I ssh to my remote server and run emacs or another program completely transparently yet with Wayland? Nope. I do that with X11 continuously

The problem is this usecase sucks major ass on X and has for a decade at least. It worked meh at one point, but as modern applications became more complex and X exploded in complexity it no longer makes any sense.

X is an unbelievably chatty protocol. Believe it or not, it's primarily meant to be run on a local socket, which is almost certainly memory mapped. Running it over the network has incredible latency, terrible lag spikes, and your windows will just kill themselves somewhat randomly.

There are newer remote desktop protocols which are literally just better.
by amy214 | 2025-06-26 02:26:21+00:00
>They feel like used car salesmen. Incentives are definitely misaligned with the employee

A lot are spray and pray, and because of those bad eggs, these people overrepresent the field. Poor fit jobs throughout, they don't vet you until you reply. Gives the whole vocation a bad reputation.

I will entertain a very thoughtful, personal message that shows they chose ME specifically as a good fit. Generally these people are more honest matchmakers who will warn you, for example, if it's a rough work culture. Tough to say if a spray and pray recruiter will start using AI to emulate this, would be sad
by viraptor | 2025-06-26 02:26:52+00:00
Only the simplest one is open (and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I wanted) https://github.com/viraptor/pomodoro

The others are just too specific for me to be useful for anyone else: an android app for automatic processing of some text messages and a work scheduling/prioritising thing. The time to make them generic enough to share would be much longer than creating my specific version in the first place.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-06-26 02:28:02+00:00
> I know several people like this, and it seems they feel like they have god powers now - and that they alone can communicate with "the AI" in this way that is simply unreachable by the rest of the peasants.

A far too common trap people fall into is the fallacy of "your job is easy as all you have to do is <insert trivialization here>, but my job is hard because ..."

Statistically generated text (token) responses constructed by LLM's to simplistic queries are an accelerant to the self-aggrandizing problem.
by colechristensen | 2025-06-26 02:28:06+00:00
I don't really think we needed to incentivize amazon to grow to dominate the market reaching 40% total retail ecommerce market share and destroying many competitors that weren't trying to race to monopoly. The companies taking profit not trying to conquer the world were doing the right thing and were put to disadvantage by the tax code. Tax revenue is not maximized by allowing rotating monopolies that only pay taxes for the relatively brief period between when they're growing and dying.
by nicce | 2025-06-26 02:28:17+00:00
> Not necessarily. 500 might indicate the process died, which might take more resources to startup, have cold cache, whatever. If you spam that repeatedly it could easily take down the site

That is true, but the status code 500 alone does not reveal that; it is speculation. Status codes are not always used correctly. It is typically just indicator to dig deeper. There might be a security issue, but the code itself is not enough.

Maybe this just the same general problem of false positives. Proving something requires more effort and more time and people tend to optimise things.
by zoky | 2025-06-26 02:28:40+00:00
> However, in the limit, as the faces tend to zero in area, you end up with a D1.

Not really. You end up with a D-infinity, i.e. a sphere. A theoretical sphere thrown randomly onto a plane is going to end up with one single point, or face, touching the plane, and the point or face directly opposite that pointing up. Since in the real world we are incapable of distinguishing between infinitesimally small points, we might just declare them all to be part of the same single face, but from a mathematical perspective a collection of infinitely many points that are all equidistant from a central point in 3-dimensional space is a sphere.
by Groxx | 2025-06-26 02:29:23+00:00
By far the largest review-effort PRs of my career have been in the past year, due to mid-sized LLM-built features. Multiple rounds of other signoffs saying "lgtm" with only minor style comments only for me to finally read it and see that no, it is not even remotely acceptable and we have several uses built by the same team that would fail immediately if it was merged, to say nothing of the thousands of other users that might also be affected. Stuff the reviewers have experience with and didn't think about because they got stuck in the "looks plausible" rut, rather than "is correct".

So it goes back for changes. It returns the next day with complete rewrites of large chunks. More "lgtm" from others. More incredibly obvious flaws, race conditions, the works.

And then round three repeats mistakes that came up in round one, because LLMs don't learn.

This is not a future style of work that I look forward to participating in.
by overfeed | 2025-06-26 02:30:03+00:00
> Google vs. Oracle was about whether APIs are copyrightable, which is an important issue that speaks to antitrust.

In addition to the Structure, Sequence and Organization claims, the original filing included a claim for copyright violation on 9 identical lines of code in rangeCheck(). This claim was dropped after the judge asked Oracle to reduce the number of claims, which forced Oracle to pare down to their strongest claims.
by SECProto | 2025-06-26 02:31:10+00:00
Hi, not sure why you edited instead of replying - most of the time I would not see that at all, I just happened to come back to look.

If you hit a "throttle limit" as you said in a sibling comment - I don't know what that is, but you should take it as a helpful suggestion to post less, not circumvent by editting responses into comments.

> I asked how many people you know who throw in dumpsters working Windows 10 PCs, and you went on a tangent answered something completely different, in bad faith I would say.

Regarding bad faith arguments, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - assume someone is responding in good faith. It's a boring and antagonistic discussion topic.

Anyway, I was responding in good faith to your comment in context, not in isolation. You asked about working windows 10 PCs going to landfill, yes - in a thread where the context is Microsoft discontinuing windows 10 security updates later this year. So no, I agree, working windows 10 PCs probably don't go to the landfill right now - but this situation will change in a year or two, and that is what the whole discussion is about. This was a good faith read on your whole comment, because you talked about all the different generations of PCs, from MS DOS to current, not just windows 10.

If you want only my comment about Windows 10 PCs, read the last paragraph of my other response.

> if you post an ad for a Pentium 3 PC now, someone will take it from you to use it

This is not accurate. Best case, someone might take it, pull the hard drive to try to find something valuable, and dump the rest in a dumpster.

I have a half dozen older PCs (MS-DOS, windows 95, ME, XP, XP) in various boxes. You're welcome to them if you'd like - I would have to pay someone to take them off my hands. This isn't a localized thing, either - I've lived in a number of developed countries (north america, east asia) and the same would apply in all of them. I would say your situation is the unusual one.

> There's no excuse to just throw working PCs in a landfill other than malice

If your PC isn't getting security updates, it is not working. I wouldn't use it for anything online, ever. And if I want to play an old game, emulation is lower energy cost than an old PC.
by sysmax | 2025-06-26 02:31:12+00:00
Sadly, that stuff backfires. The researcher will publish your response along with some snarky remarks how you are refusing to fix a "critical issue", and next time you are looking for a job and the HR googles up your name, it pops up, and -poof-, we'll call your later.

I used to work on a kernel debugging tool and had a particularly annoying security researcher bug me about a signed/unsigned integer check that could result in a target kernel panic with a malformed debug packet. Like you couldn't do the same by just writing random stuff at random addresses, since you are literally debugging the kernel with full memory access. Sad.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-06-26 02:31:56+00:00
Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more secure code. Tooling and automation help a lot with security and AI makes it easier to write good tooling.

I would wager good money that in a few years the most security-focused companies will be relying heavily on AI somewhere in their software supply chain.

So I don't think this policy is about security posture. No doubt human experts are reviewing the security-relevant patches anyway.
by typewithrhythm | 2025-06-26 02:33:02+00:00
Very briefly visited, (I'm an Aussie) I saw lakes and dams; but I never really had a look to see if there was a good spot to build a pipe between or to create a new lake.

You don't actually need an excess of water, you need to be able to move enough between lakes though. You are not using any extra water from the system by adding pumps.

That's the real determining factor right, places with cheap big pumped hydro projects ideally already have big dams that are not full, so from that point it works. But then you need a reasonable amount of elevation between reasonably close lakes (or ideal new spots).
by chrismorgan | 2025-06-26 02:33:03+00:00
Even disregarding the SHA-256 thing, there is unavoidable significant asymmetry and range that renders proof of work unviable. One legitimate user may use a low-end phone, another may have a high-end desktop that can work a hundred or more times as fast whatever technique you use, and an attacker may have a bot net.

It’s important to assume, in security and security-adjacent things, that the attacker has more compute power than the defender. You cannot win in this way.

Proof-of-work is bad rate limiting that relies upon the server having a good estimate of the capabilities of the client. No more, no less.

I bring up the SHA-256 thing as an argument that none of the players in the space are competent. None of them. If you exclude hand-rolled cryptography or known-bad techniques like MD5, SHA-256 is very literally the worst choice remaining: its use in Bitcoin and the rewards available have utterly broken it for this application. If you intend proof of work to actually be the line of defence, you start with something like Argon2d instead. I honestly think that, at this stage, these scripts could replace their proof of work with a “sleep for one second” (maybe adding “or two if I think you’re probably a bot”) routine and have the server trust that they had done so, without compromising their effectiveness.
Ask HN: What if the universe itself runs on O(1) memory?
by amazedsaint | 2025-06-26 02:33:42+00:00
I keep circling back to two facts that seem incompatible until you squint just right.

1- Turing says: any discrete procedure can be emulated on a tape that grows as needed. Irreversibility—and therefore information loss—is baked in.

2- David Deutsch: the physical world is fundamentally reversible; no bit of history is ever truly deleted.

Now to add in something I’ve only recently wrapped my head around: there’s a universal bound—a Bekenstein-style ceiling—on how much information any bounded region can hold. Past that, additional bits aren’t stored; they’re smeared into geometry, energy, and curvature. In other words, the universe enforces a topological limit on computation: you can keep calculating forever, but you must keep folding state back into the same finite fabric.

So, I think the right mental model isn’t “bigger tape, bigger RAM.” It’s topological transformations: moves that twist, braid, and refold the same patch of memory without tearing or gluing anything new. Every legal operation must be invertible, because tearing (irreversibility) would leak information past the bound.

I have a toy implementation of an O(1) VM—where the active cell set never exceeds a fixed small constant, no matter how many steps I run. Round-trip tests pass, and the tape stays sparse. It’s slow and fragile, so I wouldn’t ship it till I perfect it a bit more, but the geometry feels right and I can rewrite quite few algorithms from O(N) to O(1) trading memory for a bit of compute

Why share this? Because the idea reframes practicality - maybe we shouldn’t ask “how do we scale memory?” but “how do we braid computation inside the universal limit nature already imposes?” If that framing holds water, Turing gave us the floor, Deutsch gave us the ceiling, and I think I’m starting to stare towards the center

Curious if anyone else thinks this is more than philosophical exercise. Anyone else familiar with anything like this?
by erdaniels | 2025-06-26 02:33:46+00:00
I was getting frustrated trying to figure out how to get a wheel and pex built in my work's uv monorepo/workspace. I've been used to how easy it is to build a go binary for any platform. Anyway, once I figured it out, I figured I should publish my cleaned up findings. This is great for deploying self-contained python executables and not needing to worry about any packaging non-sense at runtime.
by treyd | 2025-06-26 02:35:35+00:00
If you do the same comparison of the rates of leaded gasoline during childhood to adulthood crime rates across different countries which have different histories of leaded gasoline usage, you notice that the correlation persists. While of course correlation does not imply causation, it's a link that's fairly well-established in literature, it's not a spurious correlation, and we know that lead has concrete neurological effects, so it's plausible from a pharmacological basis.