MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: I built a Mac app to restore Dock-click minimize and avoid tiny buttons
by goofywon | 2025-06-14 18:21:57+00:00
Hey HN,

I'm the developer behind Click2Minimize. This app is my personal fix for two long-standing frustrations with the macOS interface.

First, I wanted to restore Dock-click minimize. On other operating systems, I was used to clicking an app's icon to minimize its window—a simple, fast toggle. On a Mac, that second click does nothing, which always felt like a dead end in my workflow.

Second, I was tired of having to deal with the tiny buttons. So much of window management—minimizing, maximizing, arranging—forces you to stop what you're doing, carefully aim your cursor at one of three small dots, and click. It's a constant micro-interruption.

The Solution: A Fluid, Mouse-First Approach with Alternative Trackpad Gestures

-----------------------------------------------------

Click2Minimize is a lightweight, native utility that turns your entire window title bar into a powerful gesture area. The goal is to let you manage your workspace without ever needing to aim for those little dots.

* Consistent Dock Behavior: Click on Dock icon to minimize/hide the app.

* Minimize Window Under Mouse: Simply hold down left mouse button and click the right one, or double-click the right button.

* Maximize Window Under Mouse: Simply hold down right mouse button and click the left one, or double-click the notch area.

* Snap Window to Left/Right: Simply hold down right button and rock the scroll wheel, or use fn key while swipe on trackpad.

* Restore Window Size & Position: Holde down right button and click middle button, or user fn key with right-click on trackpad.

* And many other useful gestures, such as the App Switcher and changing workspaces, were also included. Most importantly, it handled macOS full-screen mode smoothly and no longer felt intrusive.

It is designed to resemble a missing feature of the operating system, with all gestures being highly intuitive, especially when using a mouse, as there is no need to remember keyboard shortcuts or bring the window to the front.

Feedback, Discount & Free Licenses:

----------------------------------------

I'm here all day and would love to hear your thoughts. I genuinely want to make this app better, and the HN community's feedback is invaluable.

Furthermore, I'll be sending a completely free license to the commenters with the most thoughtful feedback, bug reports, or feature suggestions I see. You're not just buying an app; you're helping to shape it.

Link: https://idemfactor.gumroad.com/l/click2minimize
by atonse | 2025-06-14 18:22:01+00:00
Agreed. I initially thought "this is going to make everything look so messy" but after I watched this particular video, it's clear that they've put so much thought into every scenario imaginable, including giving developers a lot of advice on when to use it, and when not to use it.

All that is very old-school Apple actually. Way way way more thought put beneath the surface than just meets the eye, when it comes to UI interactions.

I remember the inertial scrolling, rubber banding stuff on iOS. During those early days, people analyzed things like the navigation push and pop animations, and there was a lot more going on there than just "go left, go right"
by emilsedgh | 2025-06-14 18:22:20+00:00
I've heard this argument again but just because you can hail a Waymo through Uber doesn't mean Uber can continue as-is. In a world where Uber is just the app, Uber's margins would be extremely thin and it wouldn't justify the market price it has now.

Also, why would Waymo, in the long term, use Uber for this?

They have the car, the driver, the app/software. They are not gonna share a big chunk of the profit with Uber in long term. The current partnership is probably just a tactical thing for both, not a strategic one.
by anovikov | 2025-06-14 18:22:38+00:00
If you were an early boomer born in 1946, you saw all of the 1966-1982 bear market - and by 36 probably didn't save shit because there was nothing worthwhile to invest into.

Sure, stock market performance after that compensated for that in full, but by that point, boomers were probably somewhat burnt out and resistant to change. It was the X-ers who took full advantage of the bull run we are experiencing, with one big and a couple small breaks, ever since.
by mft_ | 2025-06-14 18:22:39+00:00
Scalability? Waymo is operating in a handful of carefully chosen US cities. Uber can probably open in any city in the world (within reason) with probably a few weeks' effort.

I agree with your underlying premise that in the (very) long term, all taxis will be automated; I guess the gamble for investors is how long that transition takes, across the globe.
by DidYaWipe | 2025-06-14 18:22:59+00:00
That's better than plain text that just happens to be a hidden control, but text with a background color might just be... text with a background color, for emphasis. Or it's text with a background color, to distinguish it from editable text. A background color does not tell the user that it's a control.

A box around it? Slightly better, but still doesn't convey state. Sure, you can fill it in when it's "on," but that's still guesswork on the part of the user if he arrives to find it filled in already.
Show HN: Self Modify Retro Website
by clacker-o-matic | 2025-06-14 18:22:59+00:00
Hi!

I made a website that can modify itself (yes using llms) and its pretty hilarious the things you can get it to do. It was inspired by my friend jeremy who made https://jeremy46231.github.io/tater/ last winter.

It uses a self built agent / tool calling system that keeps breaking (maybe it wasnt the smartest decision lol) and whatever llm is the cheapest atm so typically it can get a bit confused. It's good enough to have a bit of a laugh though. You can also save and load versions of the site through the menus at the bottom or shortcuts. (i know that its broken but don't really plan to pour more than the 3 hours i already have into this; this was primarily created to scratch an itch and have fun with my friends)

Hopefully someone else finds it funny too!

Code is open source under MIT at https://github.com/taciturnaxolotl/plastic
by echelon | 2025-06-14 18:23:50+00:00
We should be specific when we say "models".

The code outlining the network vs. the resultant weights. (Also vs. any training, inference, fine tuning, misc support code, etc.)

The theoretical diagram of how the code networks and modules are connected is math. But an implementation of that in code is copyrightable.

Afaik, the weights are still a grey area. Whereas code is code and is copyrightable.

Weights are not produced by humans. They are the result of an automated process and are not afforded copyright protection. But this hasn't been tested in court.

If OpenAI GPT 4o weights leak, I think the whole world could use it for free. You'd just have to write the code to run them yourself.
by walrus01 | 2025-06-14 18:24:00+00:00
> Likewise, a drone factory is as vulnerable to drone attack as any other big, static, expensive piece of defense infrastructure.

It's really not, the Ukrainians have geographically distributed assembly and testing, QC of quadcopters in the ten to fifteen inch propeller size class in many random and hard to find locations. A shitload of them can be assembled by a team of ten people working in a 2000 sq ft workshop in an apartment building basement.

Large drone factories like something that can crank out shahed 136 size uav? Or like what the US mil calls a group 3 uav? Or group 4 sized? Sure, agreed, different thing.

I agree with a lot of the points the author makes in this article but I question if they've ever assembled a 12" prop size quadcopter (large enough to carry a good sized amount of munition on a 10-15 minute one way trip) from components. It's something easy to distribute as a cottage industry.
by Kotlopou | 2025-06-14 18:24:04+00:00
Asker of the SO question here: I edited the question to link to a few other answers on this kind of thing. Essentially, "PA is consistent" is not enough, but a "uniform reflection principle" that says "if PA proves something, it's true" is enough. I'm not 100% certain that this principle is equivalent to omega-consistency, but if I'm reading this correctly, it should be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A9-consistent_theory#Relat...

The Wikipedia article says T is omega-consistent if "T + RFN_T + the set of all true sentences is consistent", which should mean the same thing as "T + RFN_T is true".
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-06-14 18:24:20+00:00
> For all his faults, Jobs always sold the idea that he really thought the stuff he was showing was the coolest thing ever.

I am generally of the opinion that Jobs was vastly overrated, but one thing I will always give him credit for is that he was a brilliant salesman. One of the greatest the world has ever seen. I believe that the man could quite literally sell someone the shirt off their own back.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-06-14 18:24:40+00:00
How is the lack of reliable identification not a direct result of the political climate?

The Republican party believes it is acceptable for LEO and ICE to wear masks, refuse to give their names or badges or IDs, to swoop in with unmarked cars in plain clothes and point guns at civilians in order to kidnap "suspects" without warrant or apparent cause, then deny them lawyers and potentially ship them to other countries. They believe police should not wear bodycams, they believe they cannot be held liable for the damages, even bodily, that they cause. In fact, they even encourage the abuse of suspects and get on press conferences to explicitly state their plan to harm or kill. The sitting President has repeatedly joked about it on camera.

The Democratic party is the antithesis of this. Accountability, monitoring, zero-trust. Cameras, restraint, more limited roles, community outreach.

And now, here, someone dressed up as LEO assassinated Democratic legislators.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-14 18:24:54+00:00
The insane expense and questionable quality in magic leap was the projection system, not the darkening.

As for what information I have, I could link you some press releases from FlexEnable, but how about I simply point out that you can slap a commodity grayscale LCD on the outside of any pair of glasses, whether or not they have an AR projector.

There are multiple brands of sunglasses and AR glasses that can already do global tinting with the press of a button, you just need to split that up.

The hardest part is getting the alignment right, but you already did the hard alignment work if you build AR glasses. Also making things as light as possible is hard but glasses that are a bit heavy are still valid solutions.
by mousethatroared | 2025-06-14 18:25:01+00:00
To be clear, science is a shit show. Especially biology.

That being said, it's not true that we don't replicate results. We don't intend to, and we don't do it for the sake of replication, but as a matter of conducting experiments we do a lot of replicating.

And negative results are just thrown out.
by whytaka | 2025-06-14 18:25:01+00:00
Two problems from what I've seen so far:

1. Browser navigation overlapping website viewport in iOS Safari. What is the real height of the viewport?

2. Floating side panel on macOS: necessitates needless extension the app body. Also, the App close button is in the side panel, which is floating IN the app body. This seems like a betrayal of their so called structure philosophy.
by perching_aix | 2025-06-14 18:26:36+00:00
> I'll say this against your perspective (or perhaps just use of language), though: it seems to leave little room for skepticism of the greatest general (not product-specific) claims made today in the AI industry.

Maybe I can alleviate this to an extent by expanding on my views, since I believe that's not the case.

I tried alluding to this by saying that, in my view, models have an understanding [of things], but to put it in more explicit terms, for me "understanding" on its own is a fairly weak term. Like I personally consider the semantic diffing tool I use to diff YAMLs to have an understanding of YAML. Not in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal sense. The understanding is hardwired, sure, but to me that makes no difference. It may also not even be completely YAML standard-compliant, which is what would be the "equivalent" of an AI model understanding something to an extent but not fully or not right.

This leaves a lot of room for criticism and skepticism, as that means models can have elementary understandings of things, that while are understandings, are nevertheless not e.g. meaningfully useful in practice, or fail to live up to the claims and hype vendors spout. Which is sometimes exactly how I view a lot of the models available today. They are not capable of fully understanding what I write, and to the extent they are, they do not necessarily understand it the way I'd expect them to (i.e. as a human). But instead of me classifying this as them not understanding, I still decidedly consider these tools to be just often on the immature, beginning side of a longer spectrum that to me is understanding. I hope this makes sense, even if you still do not find this view agreeable or relatable.

You may argue that my definition is too wide, and that then everything can "understand", but that's not necessarily how I think of this either. A "more rigorous" way of putting my thoughts would be that I think things can understand to the extent they can hold representations of some specific thing and manipulate them while keeping to that representation (pretty much what happens when you traverse a model's latent space in a specific axis). But I'm not sure I spent enough time thinking about this thoroughly to be able to confidently tell you that this is a complete and consistent description, fully reflective of my understanding of understanding (pun intended).

Like when in an image model you can quite literally manipulate the gender, hairstyle, clothing of characters depicted by moving along specific directions, to me that is a clear evidence of that model having an understanding of these concepts, and in the literal sense.
by kelseyfrog | 2025-06-14 18:28:57+00:00
I'm coining "fauxthropomorphize" as a neologism to prefix every statement about LLMs and to get the "But you're anthropomorphizing LLMs"-crowd off our collective backs. One can then just start statements like such "Fauxthropomorphizing: <the statement>".

Fauxthropomorphism

/ˈfoʊ-θrə-pə-ˌmɔːr-fɪz-əm/ (noun)

Definition:

The deliberate use of anthropomorphic language to describe non-sentient systems (such as AI models), while explicitly disclaiming belief in their consciousness, agency, or subjective experience. A stylistic or rhetorical shortcut, not an ontological claim.

Etymology:

Blend of faux (French for "false") + anthropomorphism (from Greek anthropos, "human" + morphē, "form").

Lit. “False-human-form-ism.”
Show HN: UltraXOXO – a tic-tac-toe of tic-tac-toe's
by ChandSethi | 2025-06-14 18:29:06+00:00
It's a surprisingly challenging version of tic-tac-toe. It has similarities to chess, yet much more approachable.

It's a big XO board made up of 9 smaller XO boards. You need to win the bigger XO board, by winning 3-straight smaller XO boards.

There are just 2 rules: 1) If X plays in, say, cell N in a small board, then O must play in the cell N of the bigger board.

2) If cell N of the bigger board is full, players gets a free turn - they can place wherever they like.

I did not invent this format. Found it on a reel and played on pen-paper with a friend in flight (highly recommended). It did feel like a project to get started with vibe coding. So yes, do expect some visual bugs.

The 'bot' is decently sharp. It thinks 2 steps ahead and uses some basic heuristics.

Do share screenshots/browser details if you want to report a bug. Tell me how many turns it took you to win/lose :)
by rbanffy | 2025-06-14 18:30:22+00:00
I would love to find a fundamental flaw in this reasoning, but I can't. It was, I guess, naïve to not expect exponential technological progress not to reflect in the political structures. The world is changing, and changing very quickly.

The article doesn't get much into what can be the next step - fully autonomous drones that travel by night, charge by day, and find a target by themselves. A bit like landmines, with a shorter half-life, but highly mobile and intelligent enough.
by ajuc | 2025-06-14 18:30:29+00:00
Most of the work is in making electronics, batteries and engines. All requires typical long supply chains and big factories.

Assembly is a very small part of the job.

Currently there's no shortage of the components, but we could imagine a strict trade controls of the components, some cold war deglobalization scenario or even a WW3. Without CPUs there's no drones.
by fasthands9 | 2025-06-14 18:31:51+00:00
I wouldn't touch Uber stock, but the PE ratio is only 15. My guess is the market is expecting them to be able to still grow in the next few years even if they eventually face tough competition.

I think there's also the fact that if self-driving cars take off and price goes down, people will ultimately rely on taxis/delivery more than ever. Maybe there is a place for Uber to be the platform for that still, maybe not.
by searine | 2025-06-14 18:32:47+00:00
It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem?

Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished.

Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed.

This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything.

The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.
by mosura | 2025-06-14 18:32:56+00:00
One of the potential great filters is the absorption of all resources available to a civilization by a drone program intended to counter the drone program of a rival civilization.

Historically nuclear arms used to be thought of as creating a hostage type scenario, where you can think of major cities of nuclear powers held hostage by their opponents. This is ok as long as the rival nuclear powers remain large and few in number such that their desires for your compliance do not contradict those of another nuclear power. The drone problem is going to become a variant of the “everyone has nukes now” except drones are so much harder to detect in idle states.

Companies selling what they claim are solutions to this stand to print money, but it is not clear how it can really be done.
by osigurdson | 2025-06-14 18:32:56+00:00
I agree that their keyboards and mice are the worst. Even the cheapest no-name peripherals do not invoke the same kind of anxiety that Apple's stuff does. I don't have any issue with their UIs however. I think they are generally very good. Things are not perhaps as discoverable as they could be but the alternative would probably be worse as it would lead to more clutter.
by refulgentis | 2025-06-14 18:34:05+00:00
I'm embarrassed to ask: can someone elaborate on, say, what we have now that we didn't have before the repo existed?

I have studiously avoided making models, though I've been adjacent to their output for years now... I think the root of my confusion is I kinda assumed there was already PyTorch based scripts for inference / training. (I assumed _at least_ inference scripts were released with models, and kinda figured fine-tuning / training ones were too)

So then I'm not sure if I'm just looking at a clean room / dirty room rewrite of those. Or maybe everyone is using "PyTorch" but it's usually calling into CUDA/C/some proprietary thingy that is much harder to grok than a pure PyTorch impl?

Anyways, these arent great guesses, so I'll stop myself here. :)
by brookst | 2025-06-14 18:34:57+00:00
Perhaps. Or it may be that Uber sees its long term future as lead gen and management for people/goods transportation, and Waymo sees itself as fulfillment of those.

Uber has tremendous brand recognition and marketing in ways that Google has never been good at. I don’t think it’s the most likely outcome, but I would not be shocked to see Uber take an minority ownership stake in Waymo, use it as the preferred self-driving option, and phase out human drivers in many areas over the next 10 years.
by mdaniel | 2025-06-14 18:35:40+00:00
I'm thankful that the view-source:https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.... allows one to see the annotations since clicking on the planet jumps scrolls past them. My gratitude for not baking such things into 8MB of JS

Also thanks to the view-source I learned that it offers different units, including busses, Great Wall of China, etc
by bowsamic | 2025-06-14 18:35:45+00:00
Yes they literally did. I spoke on various topics, one of those being about how people try to convince me to take more drugs. Their sole response? Telling me, in effect, "maybe you won't have a bad trip next time". This cannot be interpreted in any other way than to convince me to open up to the possibility of taking such drugs again which is exactly what I am criticising.

So yes, they did do that.
by cakealert | 2025-06-14 18:35:49+00:00
Would you need to harden individual targets if you design and deploy a defensive drone swarm that is always patrolling?

It will successfully mitigate the cheap flying drone threat as long as they aren't launched close to the target. There will probably not be any more birds in human territory however since discriminating will be counter productive anyway, hostile drones will seek to impersonate birds otherwise.
by foota | 2025-06-14 18:35:58+00:00
I'm not sure, but it clearly wasn't sufficient if it does.

I guess the issue here is if you're crash looping, once the task comes up it will generate load retrying to get the config, so even if you're no longer crash looping (and hence no longer backing off at borg) you're still causing overload.

As long as the initial rate of tasks coming up is enough to cause overload, this will result in persisting the outage even once all tasks are up (assuming that the overload is sufficient to bring goodput of tasks becoming healthy to near zero).

Interestingly you can read that one of the mitigations they applied was to fan out config reads to the multiregional mirrors of the database instead of just the regional us-central1 mirror, presumably the multi regional mirrors brought in significantly more capacity than just the regional mirrors, spreading the load.

I'd be curious to know how much configuration they're loading that it caused such load.
by CharlesW | 2025-06-14 18:37:22+00:00
> So that's bandcamp->musicbrainz, and then picard can get it from musicbrainz as usual?

Exactly, using Harmony for the Bandcamp→MusicBrainz bit. You just paste the MusicBrainz URL into Picard's search box (upper right-corner of window) immediately after you've submitted.

> …I guess the point is to have someone in the loop to sanity check things?

I'm honestly not sure what the rationale might be for having a human editor in the loop for sources like Bandcamp, Apple Music, Spotify, etc.