MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vlovich123 | 2025-06-26 19:16:32+00:00
> I am not familiar with the Itanium story and I don't know who to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Market_reception

> A compiler must attempt to find valid combinations of instructions that can be executed at the same time, effectively performing the instruction scheduling that conventional superscalar processors must do in hardware at runtime.

> In an interview, Donald Knuth said "The Itanium approach...was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write."[222]

There were lots of people but the gist of it is that scheduling auto-optimization is not really possible to do statically at compile time and too much overhead to attempt to do generically at run time. In this case it was instruction parallelism, but the same fundamental issues apply to this kind of auto loop idea.

> I believe query planners in for example Trino/BigQuery do this already?

That is completely different from trying it on every for loop in a program. They do it at the broader task level to determine how much parallelism will help.
by jongalloway2 | 2025-06-26 19:16:39+00:00
CSnakes integrates Python into .NET apps - https://tonybaloney.github.io/CSnakes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqoxHNH9Iwo shows adding an LLM

There are several ways to manage migrations depending on the team structure and dev practices: SQL scripts, command line, bundles (single-file executables), and in-app. The team recommends SQL scripts since they can be reviewed, tuned, and managed by a DBA but take your pick. https://learn.microsoft.com/ef/core/managing-schemas/migrati...
by orangeboats | 2025-06-26 19:16:40+00:00
Some of the problems are indeed due to the sheer difficulty to implement proper high DPI/mixed DPI support, but some mentioned in the GP are definitely inflicted by the X11 protocol:

>Spanning two monitors results in terrible scaling problems.

>Apps that do account for it at start up won't account for it during reposition, so they look fine if they open on the right monitor and terrible if moved to the other.

Especially the second point. Applications on Wayland simply get told what scale they should draw on. No need to determine whether they are on the right monitor or the other monitor, yada yada. For those problems, how can you say X11 is not bad, when clearly other protocols have shown the problem is solvable?
by ujkhsjkdhf234 | 2025-06-26 19:17:02+00:00
Capitalism and colonialism share a lot of similar traits and are not exclusive. In this case, this is the very definition of colonialism, taking over someone's territory and exploiting their resources. AI is trained on all of these publishers' material without consent and without compensation and then big tech turns around and says pay us if you want a slice of the pie we stole from you.
by speeder | 2025-06-26 19:17:38+00:00
Whenever I see this reasoning, I wonder how many people really believe not a single NATO country will ever elect a nutjob that might just decide to invade someone for a bullshit reason.

For example, hypothetically, what is the chance for a major NATO country will never have a president that might decide to bomb another country out of the blue, because that country according to said president, has weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact the same country intelligence said the target DOESN'T have such weapons? This will never happen right?
by skissane | 2025-06-26 19:18:18+00:00
IANAL either but the answer likely depends on the jurisdiction

US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance.

By contrast, standards for copyrightability in the UK are a lot weaker than-and so no court has ruled on the issue in the UK yet either, it seems likely a UK court would hold model weights to be copyrightable

So from Google/Meta/etc’s viewpoint, asserting copyright makes sense, since even if the assertion isn’t legally valid in the US, it likely is in the UK - and not just the UK, many other major economies too. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand tend to follow UK courts on copyright law not US courts. And many EU countries are closer to the UK than the US on this as well, not necessarily because they follow the UK, often because they’ve reached a similar position based on their own legal traditions

Finally: don’t be surprised if Congress steps in and tries to legislate model weights as copyrightable in the US too, or grants them some sui generis form of legal protection which is legally distinct from copyright but similar to it-I can already hear the lobbyist argument, “US AI industry risks falling behind Europe because copyrightability of AI models in the US is legally uncertain and that legal uncertainty is discouraging investment”-I’m sceptical that is actually true, but something doesn’t have to be true for lobbyists to convince Congress that it is
by joe_the_user | 2025-06-26 19:18:23+00:00
Yeah,

At this point, Google has become a shitty ChatGPT.

In the last few weeks, using both Google and ChatGPT for search, I get a far broader range of links from ChatGPT.

Basically, Google-today is the product of a long history of having and using its search the monopoly for profits and political agendas (include lots of other entities legally and otherwise forcing this use btw). All it's search results were as "opinionated" as an AI even before the appearance of ChatGPT. It's logical that any "green fields" search engine would be better.

Of course, the problem will be that OpenAI and company will face the

Example: The original Phil Specter version of Let It Be (the album) exists on Youtube but it's not possible to easily find it with either Google or Youtube searches (I've a number of times). But easily ChatGPT found a link to the song and album for me (Ole 'Chat gave strings use for google but these didn't work either btw).
by runarberg | 2025-06-26 19:19:33+00:00
I tried a 20 minute conversation, as a beginner Japanese learner (mid-to-high A1).

My first problem was setting my native language truthfully to Icelandic which seemed to confuse both me and the AI tutor. We spoke together in Japanese but asking how to say a word in Japanese but giving the Icelandic word didn’t quite work, giving the word in English worked much better.

Now as a beginner I don’t think this service is right for me. It is very hard to have a conversation—even a basic one—at my level and I didn’t actually learn that much as I wasn’t able to say anything. I did however learn that I need to practice creating sentences on my own, and I need to practice speaking, but honestly I would much rather do that via structured exercises from a textbook then from an AI tutor (or a human tutor for that matter). I have been skipping those exercises in the textbook that I use, so I guess having that 20 min conversation did indeed help me realize what I need to focus on. So I guess thanks for that.

A more useful feedback from a beginner’s perspective. Taking your time between sentences is something you can do with an AI tutor which you can‘t do with a human tutor, so I recommend you add stuff like dictionaries and grammar keys which beginners can look up before starting the next sentence.

I would also like to see some basic note-taking, or even message drafting, such that you can type in a draft before you start speaking your next sentence. I don’t think intermediate speakers would need these as they can just ask the AI tutor during the conversation, but for beginners it is nice to have some written materials as you practice.
by cameldrv | 2025-06-26 19:19:33+00:00
I'm not going to rent from Hertz anymore if they do this.

If you've ever rented a car, most rental cars have a number of scratches like this one. If they're charging the customers to repair every little scratch, does that mean they're guaranteeing every car you rent from now on is going to be absolutely pristine, or are they just going to pocket the cash?

Anyhow I don't want to have to worry about whether Hertz is going to want to charge me a couple of thousand bucks to repaint a door if someone dings it with a shopping cart, so they're off the list. Luckily there are many other options.
by westurner | 2025-06-26 19:19:45+00:00
Is there any distinction made between trail and road runs?

I don't know how you can claim that running on hard pavement is good for the body, with comparable cardio as a control.

I strongly doubt that this control model is correct if the recommended adjustment is to discard the association between e.g. patellar tendinitis and patellofemoral pain syndrome and running surface hardness. Still, the guidelines should be to avoid road runs because they certainly exacerbate symptoms of such injuries or disorders.
by mindslight | 2025-06-26 19:20:22+00:00
From my perspective all of the "2FA" are nonconsensual steps I'd rather not do, so the easiest options are the least worst. My SMS# for them is a GVoice which goes to my email. Somewhere far down on my todo is a script that just watches for those emails and spits out the code in a terminal for easy pasting.

Specifically, Ally, Cap1, BoA, and my local bank all only make me do SMS/email nags at worst. If any of them started pushing trash like expecting to force me to install their app on my actual in-my-pocket-when-out cell-plan phone, I'd drop them like a bad habit.

I've never really had a problem with unauthorized transactions, and I'm generally not squeamish about random online retailers (though most seemed to have moved to Shopify, shrug). Generally the most important thing you can do to protect yourself against fraud is review the transactions on your account within 30 days, so any feature that makes it more difficult to do this actually hurts you.
by dml2135 | 2025-06-26 19:21:38+00:00
I've become something of the guy that's the main code remover at my current job. Part of it is because I've been here the longest on the team, so I've got both the knowledge and the confidence to say a feature is dead and we can get rid of it. But also part of it is just being the one to go in and clean up things like release flags after they've gone live in prod.

I'm trying to socialize my team to get more in the habit of this, but it's been hard. It's not so much that I get pushback, it's just that tasks like "clean up the feature flag" get thrown into the tech debt pile. From my perspective, that's feature work, it just happens to take place after the feature goes live instead of before. But it's work that we committed to when we decided to build the feature, so no, you don't get to put it on the tech debt board like it was some unexpected issue that came up during development.

Curious to hear other perspectives here, I do worry that I'm a bit too dogmatic about this sometimes. Part of it maybe comes from working in shared art / maker spaces a lot in the past, where "clean up your shit" was rule #1, and I kind of see developers leaving unused code throughout the codebase for features they owned through the same lens.
Show HN: AI that roasts your book taste
by lusolai | 2025-06-26 19:22:04+00:00
Give the chat bot a list of books or a picture of your book tracker list of books. Maybe you want to get roasted on your choice of books this year?

I was inspired by something similar I saw end of last year, that would roast your music taste. I also wanted to play around with Cursor and vibecoding, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to do so. I'm a developer, but this was my first web development project.

Have fun and let me know what you think!
by grep_name | 2025-06-26 19:22:52+00:00
I felt like it was a weird hangup too until I realized that the lifespan of my phones has dropped to a third since that damn jack disappeared. Every single phone since then the point of failure has been a worn out / chewed up USB port.

Turns out, when you have to use the same port for all music streaming as well as charging, you end up using that port (in my case) something like 1000% more often, and it absolutely demolishes the phone.
by crystal_revenge | 2025-06-26 19:23:12+00:00
> It's pretty common to use a cheaper model to fix these errors to match the schema if it fails with a tool call.

This has not be true for a while.

For open models there's 0 need for these kind of hacks with libraries like Xgrammar and Outlines (and several others) both existing as a solution on their own and being used by a wide range of open source tools to ensure structured generation happens at the logit levels. There's no-need to add multiples to your inference cost, when in some cases (xgrammar) they can reduce inference cost.

For proprietary models more and more providers are using proper structured generation (i.e. constrained decoding) under-the-hood. Most notably OpenAI's current version of structure outputs makes use of logit based methods to guarantee the structure of the output.
by AndyKelley | 2025-06-26 19:23:26+00:00
It's very cool, I'm enjoying playing with it.

Feedback: The tutor pronounces some obvious things wrong that contradicts the words. Two examples: 気滅の刃 - it pronounced 刃 wrong despite the furigana being correct. It also kept pronouncing は as "ha" even when used as topic particle in more complex sentences. Edit: also observed 使い方 pronounced "saifou" - no idea what's going on there. It was in a mixed english-japanese message.

I think I would pay for this if I wasn't worried about learning mispronunciations or errors.

Oh, more feedback: focus the app on the conversation with the tutor and leave the memorization to Anki - just let us export those words we struggle with to CSV or something so we can import into existing vocab workflows.
by cameldrv | 2025-06-26 19:23:48+00:00
I had this happen once with Avis in France. I actually did ding the side view mirror, and when I returned the van, I told them about the damage. Unfortunately when we picked up the van it already had two huge scratches running the whole length of the van, which I took pictures of, and so naturally they sent me an invoice for repainting the whole side of the van.

I tried with their customer service to work it out, but they just gave me the runaround, so I disputed the charge with my credit card and I never heard anything about it after that.
by justinludwig | 2025-06-26 19:24:13+00:00
> - System design at ~whiteboard still feels reasonable / CS basics.

Bingo. Timeless classic for good reason.

Code review also can be good, not in a "can you spot the 17 bugs" way, but rather as a tool for discussing what makes code good, what make a code-review good, what are the tradeoffs in this particular section of code, what tests or other safety checks might you want to add to this particular code, etc.
by cyanydeez | 2025-06-26 19:24:20+00:00
The problem is there's no growth market, there's no easy to canibalize existing market, and the tools are not "we'll buy a new one every year".

The world in which capitalism has taken hold is not one that produces incrementally better products for niche markets.

You end up mostly with passionate people improving niche markets, and if it involves hardware, we're just at the beginning of small time custom hardware makers to make a dent into this type of market need.
by yeudbfbivkfknr | 2025-06-26 19:26:15+00:00
I've worked at Jane Street (opinions my own). Ocaml is only part of the retention tactic.

The implication that Jane Street locks engineers into only getting experience with Ocaml isn't really true: most engineers there are competent enough to keep another language up to scratch through hobby projects if they wanted to; and somewhere like the mentioned Millennium could still hire someone from Jane Street even with only modest C++ experience (for example) because of their domain understanding, low-latency experience, and general transferable programming skills.

It's just true that a lot of the people there genuinely value getting to use a functional language. Also they pay well, the culture is pretty good, and if something goes wrong you can usually just switch teams, so there's really not a big reason to leave.
by ProgramMax | 2025-06-26 19:26:42+00:00
Yes, lots.

The big one is adoption. I love JPEG XL and hope it becomes more widely adopted. It is very scary to add a format to a browser because you can never remove it. Photoshop and MSPaint no longer support ICO files, but browsers do. So it makes sense for browsers to add support last, after it is clearly universal. I think JPEG XL is well on their way using this approach. But they aren't there yet and PNG is.

There is also longevity and staying power. I can grab an ancient version of Photoshop off eBay and it'll support PNG. This also benefits archivists.

As a quick side note on that: I want people to think about their storage and bandwidth. Have they ever hit storage/bandwidth limits? If so, were PNGs the cause? Was their site slow to load because of PNGs? I think we battle on file size as an old habit from the '90s image compression wars. Back then, we wanted pixels on the screen quickly. The slow image loads were noticeable on dial-up. So file size was actually important then. But today?? We're being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
by noahbp | 2025-06-26 19:26:48+00:00
“In some regions”

Guatemala is the only place outside the US where I was not quoted 3-5x Uber prices by very pushy taxi drivers.

Taxi drivers are scam artists and thieves. There’s no reputational damage either, as you will never see them again.

Uber solves the reputation problem: every driver is rated, and poorly rated and badly behaved drivers do not get to work for them.
by sirodoht | 2025-06-26 19:27:03+00:00
I seem to be liking Peter Thiel's ideas more and more. I found this conversation quite fascinating. It feels like he is focused, intentional, clearheaded, well-read. I disagree with a lot of his premises, but if we want to take technological progress seriously, I find Peter Thiel amongst the few sensible voices in Silicon Valley.

For example, it's quite common in a discussion for people to not really listen but just jump from one topic to another just so they can have more space to speak. I like this part where Peter subtly calls out Ross on this:

> Thiel: We’re jumping around a lot of things. So, again, the critique I was saying is: They’re not ambitious enough.

I loved the Antichrist-Armageddon analogy too:

> But I think we have an answer to this plot hole. The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon nonstop. You talk about existential risk nonstop, and this is what you need to regulate.
by acrooks | 2025-06-26 19:27:18+00:00
Often when I've rented cars, the agent has shown me an evaluator they use to assess damage - like this https://www.core77.com/posts/111200/Damage-Evaluator-Templat...

Using that as a template, I would find it difficult to argue against a claim. e.g., the evaluator linked above permits any bumper scratches smaller than 6 inches, or a wheel scratch less than 2 inches. I feel like it permits reasonable wear and tear.

However, the example in the article was for 1-inch wheel damage, which would be permitted by the evaluator, so I guess the AI flags _any_ damage. I wonder how receptive these businesses will be to negotiation and pushback. Maybe they'll capitulate if you push hard enough, but it puts an unfair burden on the customer to argue against unreasonable claims (likely by design to maximise cash collection).
by skissane | 2025-06-26 19:27:54+00:00
The problem is that contracts don’t bind subsequent recipients, copyright does

Google gives the model to X who gives it to Y who gives it to Z. X has a contract with Google, so Google can sue X for breach of contract if they violate its terms. But do Y and Z have such a contract? Probably not. Of course, Google can put language in their contract with X to try to make it bind Y and Z too, but is that language going to be legally effective? More often than not, no. The language may enable Google to successfully sue X over Y and Z’s behaviour, but not successfully sue Y and Z directly. Whereas, with copyright, Y and Z are directly liable for violations just as X is
by crazygringo | 2025-06-26 19:27:59+00:00
> In this case they are charging someone for damage that they have no intention of remediating.

That's a fantastic point, thank you!

In which case, surely there ought to be a consumer protection law against it? It feels like straight-up fraud. And this doesn't apply just to car damage, but with security deposits for apartments, etc. If you don't repair it, you don't get to charge for it.

I can partially understand if Hertz is considering it to be additional depreciation on the value of the car when they eventually sell it. But even in that case, the depreciation is nowhere near the value of repair, because a buyer won't perform the repairs either. So if Hertz can charge damages that are a proportion of total damages across many renters that can be justified as resulting in a lower resell price, then OK maybe. But that would be what per-renter -- like $10 or something?

So I think the point still stands then. How is this not outright fraud? Or at least some related concept that ought to be legislated?
by bitpush | 2025-06-26 19:28:17+00:00
> Microsoft has become a lot more friendly to open source under Satya. True, but that's just few open source projects, albeit influential ones. There are soo many other companies doing influential open source projects.

I dont disagree with anything you said because turning a ship around is hard. But hand-to-heart, what big tech company is truly innovating to the future. Lets look at each company.

Apple - bets are on VR/AR. Apple Car is dead. So it is just Vision Pro

Amazon - No new bets. AWS is printing money, but nothing for the future.

Microsoft - No new bets. They fumbled their early lead in AI.

Google - Gemini, Waymo ..

I think Satya gets a lot more coverage than his peer at Google.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-26 19:29:06+00:00
I'm confident that 'drilling' with multiple bombs was the known approach prior to the attack. The planned approach to soviet bunkers was to use repeated accurate strikes of nuclear bombs to achieve a similar drilling for their bunkers.

There appears to be an assumption that the main facility was exposed to blasts from the tunnels and since that appears to be an obvious weakness I'm wondering why the Iranians wouldn't have blast doors between the tunnels and the facility as a form of redundancy. I am still worried that this is part of an approach to slowly warm Americans up to another war, much easier to sell a limit strike as a success, then 3-6 months later when the Iranians have recovered it'll be even easier to sell another strike or a more involved engagement.
by toast0 | 2025-06-26 19:29:49+00:00
What are your processes waiting on? in Linux top, show the WCHAN field. In FreeBSD top, look at the STATE field. Ideally, your service processes are waiting on i/o (epoll, select, kqread, etc) or you're CPU limited.

Is there any cross-room communication? Can you spawn a process per room? Scaling limited at 25% CPU on a 4 vcpu node strongly suggests a locked section limiting you to effectively single threaded performance. Multiple processes serving rooms should bypass that if you can't find it otherwise, but maybe there's something wrong in your load balancing etc.

Personally, I'd rather run with fewer layers, because then you don't have to debug the layers when you have perf issues. Do matchmaking wherever with whatever layers, and let your room servers run in the host os, no containers. But nobody likes my ideas. :P

Edit to add: your network load is tiny. This is almost certainly something with your software, or how you've setup your layers. Unless those vCPUs are ancient, you should be able to push a whole lot more packets.