MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cjbenedikt | 2025-06-27 21:58:05+00:00
Makes a lot of sense for cash strapped American Symphonies. I was part of a group of musically trained business people assembled to save the Gewandhaus in Leipzig - one of the best and biggest Symphony Orchestras in the world which after German unification was on the brink of collaps. We decided to offer well heeled and well educated amateur musicians the opportunity to play one concert incl. 3 rehearsals for a fee. We were swamped with requests. CEOs, lawyers, medical doctors, you name it. We held auditions with Blomsted and later Abbado to select those who were good enough. It was a raving success. We repeated it for several years until it morphed into a separate orchestra - the Management Symphony. It also became a vital source of financial support as its members not only "paid-to-play" but also donated financially or bought valuable string instruments that were lend to the orchestra's principal soloists.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-27 21:58:14+00:00
> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen.

This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend.

Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around.

We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-27 21:58:14+00:00
>Obviously yes? If I (or again, my Dad who know nothing about computers) can walk out of an Apple store with a device that is already unsupported, that's Apple's fault, not his.

Obviously no!

1) Apple Isn't the only one selling apple devices. Your Dad can buy a new old stock iPhone 6 form anywhere like Walmart or eBay.

2) SW support, legally speaking begins from the product launch date, not from the date you purchased it. If you buy an iPhone 1 off eBay in 2050 you can't hold apple on the hook for 10+ year of SW Updates.

3) Why is it Apple's fault your dad buys dated stuff without doing due diligence? Should consumers be protected against their own stupidity and lack of research? Where does the government nanny state begin?
by shwouchk | 2025-06-27 21:58:25+00:00
saw this post last night and tbh thought it a bit weird since initially it was described by author as “alternative to emailing yourself” - like, really? after 20 years of dropbox? the countless competitors it spawned, including OSS as well as by all major email providers???

came back curious to see if the discussion took a different direction from besides sarcasm or another 30 posts saying “why not syncthing?” - glad to see the couple to comments including OP and yours as constructive.

that being said, i’m a syncthing user, including running my own (st) discovery server on openwrt. aside from some annoyance at rather frequent conflicts and being browser based, im running it on all 5 major OSs, including ios (mobius sync) and android.

i strongly disagree that running it on a phone is a pain, and in fact, found it the most reliable and versatile sync solution for ios by far - and that includes icloud, dropbox, google drive and google photos.

the only thing that comes close is apple photos, but that’s specifically for photos. and that too, only because of the deep os integration, ie always running in the background and allowing seamless access to older photos that are not on device. even then, there’s always a mysterious slight difference in # of items reported on the mac vs the phone - “eventual consistency”, where “eventual” is t=infinity i suppose.
by IshKebab | 2025-06-27 21:59:25+00:00
The "proper" way to do this is to define functional coverage for your code and then you would realise that the test was broken when you didn't hit the cover points that the test was supposed to hit.

I've never seen functional coverage used in software though - only in hardware verification. Bugs aren't costly enough to make it worth the effort.

Also... just use a better language than Python where these trivial bugs can't happen so easily.
by refulgentis | 2025-06-27 21:59:30+00:00
There's a lot of Not Even Wrong, in the Pauli sense, going on presumably because back-of-napkin-with-LLM is like rocket fuel, I love it. :) But, the LLM got ahead of understanding the basics. I could write probably 900 words. Lets pull one thread out as an example:

> I guess maybe with very heavy quantizing to like 4 bit that could beat sufficiently-artifact-free video coding for then streaming the tokenized vision to a (potentially cloud) system that can keep up with the 15360 token/s at (streaming) prefill stage?

the 6-7s I am seeing is what it costs to run an image model, even running on GPU on M4 Max with 64GB of GPU RAM. This repros with my llama.cpp wrapper, and the llama.cpp demo of it.

It is simply getting tokens that is taking that long.

Given that reality, we can ignore it, of course. We could assume the image model does run on Pixel at 60 fps, and there's just no demo APK available, or just say it's all not noteworthy because as the Google employee points out, they can do it inside Google, and external hasn't been prioritized.

The problem is that the blog post is announcing this runs on device at up to 60 fps today, and announces $150K in prizes if you work based on this premise. We have 0 evidence of this externally, the most plausible demo of it released externally by Google is running at 1/500th of this speed, and 1 likely Google employee is saying "yup, it doesn't, we haven't prioritized external users!" The best steelman we can come up with is "well, if eventually the image model runs at 60 fps, we could stream it to an LLM in the cloud with about 4 seconds initiate + prefill latency!"

That's bad.
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-27 22:00:12+00:00
I feel that way. Also there are many cases where I can eliminate two choices as obviously wrong but can’t tell the difference between two similar shades. I wouldn’t feel bad getting disqualified for a gross error but when it is two shades of bluish-green it doesn’t seem fair.

Another possibility is to give it more of a tournament feel where the early cases are easy and the last ones are hard so I get disqualified at 15/20 (webdev and photographer who does gfx programming for fun) but a real goldeneye could go further. 3/20 does not represent my skill.
by b0a04gl | 2025-06-27 22:00:22+00:00
this works like functional programming where every symbol is a pure value and operations compose into clean, traceable flows. when you hit an ambiguous step, the model steps in. just like IO in FP, the generative call is treated as a scoped side effect. this can engage your reasoning graph stays deterministic by default and only defers to the model when needed. crazy demo though, love it
by camjw | 2025-06-27 22:00:28+00:00
Thank you, this feedback is so so useful to me. Login gate when you ask to speak to a jeweller maybe?

> Probably also worth adding [..] a newsletter that aggregates the best designs every week.

Yep this is a great idea, thank you.

> Also, it wasn't obvious to me that the examples in the "Need inspiration?" section were generated, or that I could tweak those designs.

No, its not. I will work on this too, thank you.
by lelandbatey | 2025-06-27 22:00:57+00:00
If you are born and live in the US, how could you possibly not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Likewise, if you are born in the US to tourist parents who then leave the United States with you, how exactly are you supposed to "collect benefits"? And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?
by Jtsummers | 2025-06-27 22:01:12+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_programming

Tacit programming basically means constructing new function/routines without introducing explicitly named parameters.

In an ML-family language, you can construct `double` with something like:

double = 2*

Partial application of the binary function * means we don't need to be explicit like this:

double x = 2 * x

The linked Prolog is implementing an interpreter for a Forth-like language. Forths let you do tacit programming via operations on the stack. The above example, in Forth, would be:

: double dup + ; : double 2 * ;

Neither of which has an explicit variable. The first duplicates the top of the stack then adds the top two items on the stack, the second pushes 2 onto the stack and then multiplies the top two items.

If you copy/paste the gist into the site below you can play around with the program stored in `main`. Change `main` to just:

main --> mul, add.

With the query `main(R).` you'll get a result of `R = 1*2.`. Add each instruction one at a time and re-execute the query. The result will always be the top of the stack, before the last `is_` you'll get this:

R = abs(5^(pi-5)).

Which is then processed by the last `is_` into the result, 0.05023...

https://play.scryer.pl/
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:01:53+00:00
>and the supreme court itself reserves the right to make universal injunctions on iterim orders/policies until they decide the case on a full hearing (at which time they can invalide the law/order)

Doesn't that require an appeal? Or are you saying they'd go put a policy or law on hold even if there wasn't an open case after a lower judge ruled against them and the government chose not to appeal so as to not risk losing more broadly.

Seems like the takeaway here for any would-be executive-overreachers is "lose a couple cases affecting a handful of plaintiffs and ignore those loses."

IIRC the general trend for getting a class certified for a class action is also in the "make it harder to do" direction.
by teachrdan | 2025-06-27 22:01:55+00:00
> Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Government benefits were basically nonexistent at the time, and besides, with the US population at under 40 million people, we needed more citizens, not fewer. Your "logical" argument is completely anachronistic and irrelevant.

The conservative side of the Supreme Court claims to rule based on what the writers of the Constitution had in mind. This is another example of how they completely ignore what the writers/framers/etc. of the Constitution intended as soon as it interferes with the larger conservative agenda that they serve.
by starchild3001 | 2025-06-27 22:02:31+00:00
I feel getting paid to write code doesn't work anymore (did it ever work?).

The bar in FAANG, which I've been luckily employed at for 9 yrs, is to i) identify an important business problem ii) propose a design to solve it iii) implement the design yourself or with the team iv) demonstrate solution and/or real world impact.

Coding, it turns out, is the easy part, which can be done by AIs as of 2025 :)

Identifying important business problems to solve, and translating those into engineering systems is still beyond the reach of AIs (luckily).

That said, human's job is getting harder everyday. Expectations go up every f'in year. The demands often look impossible (it turns out this is how you get the most out of people).

So best of luck! It's pretty tough out there. Too many new grads struggling. And relatively few jobs.

That said, this too shall pass. I've seen 3 major downturns since 2000, and this is just one of them. Boom and bust happens...
by schiffern | 2025-06-27 22:04:36+00:00
Also check out the CodysLab version of biological urine reuse (aka the giant aquarium filter):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhYW0QVS408

Great channel. Quite a shame to hear about Cody's burnout after constant issues getting paid by YouTube, and apparently dating problems with the stigma associated with "youtuber."
by guptadeepak | 2025-06-27 22:04:55+00:00
I want to share my insights on escaping the early-growth trap for B2B SaaS. The key challenge is building scalable, effective marketing with limited expertise and budget.

Programmatic SEO, exemplified by companies like Zapier, lets you automate the creation of thousands of targeted pages for high-intent keywords. This approach is cost-effective, leverages your existing product data, and builds long-term SEO authority and trust—unlike paid channels that vanish when budgets dry up.

What trade-offs have you faced when setting up programmatic SEO systems for early-stage SaaS?
by tmountain | 2025-06-27 22:05:18+00:00
This implies that executive orders should be the status quo, which deviates from the design of the American system of government. The courts should not be routinely blocking the president because the president should not be routinely ruling by executive order. This change paves the way for additional power concentrated in the executive branch which is already far too powerful. It is the next step towards an authoritarian regime and no good will come from this ruling.
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:05:42+00:00
It stretches credibility to claim that the "proper functioning of the government" is broken today requiring a change by something that is ... quite old.

(I think there's a MUCH stronger argument to be made that the proper function of the US government has been broken by Presidents changing thing by executive order because nobody has enough votes to do much in the Senate. It seems like "nobody has the votes to make big changes" should be an indicator that not making big changes is the proper result.)

The status quo would be "issue a ruling, it may or may not get put on hold while the government appeals, eventually it gets to the Supreme Court if necessary." Seemed to be working. Republicans obviously have used this to challenge stuff themselves.

It is unclear why there is a need for giving the government an escape hatch to let them say "sure, we lost this one case, we'll stop enforcing things against these few people, we just won't appeal and will continue to do whatever we want nationally instead."
by v5v3 | 2025-06-27 22:05:53+00:00
The UK is all about 'appearencea' hence why they came up with 'justice must not just be done but be seen to be done'

With ref to your point 1 and 2 , they are not needed. HRA 1998 covers that.

Point 3 - the supreme court was previously within the House of Lords and the one day they got their own building.

The primary and secondary legislation, and leading case law is fine in the UK. Its just that the Judges know what are really there for and routinely falsify the outcomes.

No one sees the case files, no one sees the transcript, only the judges judgement is published and that we all have to pretend is never anything other than perfect...
by jltsiren | 2025-06-27 22:06:24+00:00
In modern parliamentary systems, political leaders are not in direct control of the executive branch. Politicians may issue priorities and guidance, but career civil servants run the show. Department heads serve fixed terms that are independent of the election cycle, and they cannot be removed without a criminal conviction. If politicians want major changes, they can change the law. And in many countries, the constitutionality of proposed legislation must be established in advance.

The descent to authoritarianism usually begins with a party gaining enough power that it can override the checks and balances. Which often involves rewriting the constitution.
by tolerance | 2025-06-27 22:07:16+00:00
I agree with you 100% and I'm not sure if it contradicts my point that humans have a natural advantage over LLMs in the way I tried to illustrate.

My initial comment was going to make an abstract reference to how human beings are pretty much wired for reasoning from the time that they're being breastfed, or at least reared in the clutch of their mother. It has something to do with the impression I've picked up of how the inheritance of a language, and subsequently literacy, starts with your mom—in ideal cases.

I don't know if this is a strike against humans in the whole argument for efficiency. But I don't think it does.

Computers don't have Moms. Go Moms.
by int_19h | 2025-06-27 22:07:42+00:00
Coincidentally R is one language in which `if` and `while` can be written as functions, because all function arguments are lazily evaluated, and one can get access to the underlying lambda for repeated re-evaluation. In fact, `if` and `while` are functions in R, and you can call them as such if you properly quote the keyword so that it's treated as an identifier. And then the familiar C-style syntactic forms are just syntactic sugar for function calls.

R takes it up a notch though by making all syntactic constructs boil down to a function call. Function definitions are themselves calls, for example, and so are assignments and even curly braces.
by tshaddox | 2025-06-27 22:07:55+00:00
I'd also argue that there are only superficial similarities between, say, React and Svelte. Yes, they both have a syntax based heavily on HTML, but they work very differently. React is the only major framework that works by having (mostly) normal JavaScript functions return lazy representations of markup (in the form of JSX). React has no template-level notion of looping or conditional rendering, because you use normal JavaScript for that.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-06-27 22:08:02+00:00
> See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly.

You're right about the defunding of research - it's loudly proclaimed as a way to save money.

You're also right that the long term effects would indeed cost a lot more but I would add only if the current social contract is kept in place. As I see it, the chainsaw brandishing is really aimed at the latter, the former is just for show.

Redefining the social contract appears to be the endgame here, in that case, the thinking goes much further than quarterly.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-27 22:08:21+00:00
Again, until 1882-1891, reasons other than “you’re Chinese” didn’t exist in US immigration.

We didn’t even bar felons or people with contagious diseases before that act. Pregnancy certainly wasn’t disqualifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882

> It imposed a head tax on non-citizens of the United States who came to American ports and restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself." The act created what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1891.

The quotas you describe didn’t come until the 1920s. Well after the amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924?wprov=...
by mjburgess | 2025-06-27 22:08:26+00:00
Not necessarily, though I'd guess what Kavanaugh imagines is that many states will obtain state-wide injunctions that make executing an order like this practically impossible (indeed, that is what the SC has said should happen next) -- and, imv, he believes there is a nation-wide class in-play and this will go to a nation-wide class action. At which time the executive will be entirely boxed in. Given this, the executive has to ask the SC to stay some of these, or grant cert., or there's practically no EO in play.

It's important to remember here that states are relevant parties to these suits against the federal government, and there are enough of them to enjoin any practical excerise of executive action.

The SC has basically asserted that only it will, temporarily or permanently, review those cases where there is a federal-level split on these issues requiring a universal solution.

I have a feeling he's also hinting that the SC will, in light of this, look at how it handles temporary orders -- he has, at least said, it is now obligated to be very proactive in these areas and take on all such temporary requests to enjoin the executive

There's also the APA question, I don't fully understand judicial review in these cases -- but iirc, the APA grants courts to order the executive to stop (or to take) action on such policies. So when the EO has a "policy implementation" people can bring suits under the APA to enjoin, which is equivalent to a universal injunction.
by foobar12345quux | 2025-06-27 22:08:30+00:00
Hi Rich, using ptrdiff_t is (alas) the right thing to do: pointer subtraction returns that type, and if the result doesn't fit, you get UB. And ptrdiff_t is a signed type.

Assume you successfuly allocate an array "arr" with "sz" elements, where "sz" is of type "size_t". Then "arr + sz" is a valid expression (meaning the same as "&arr[sz]"), because it's OK to compute a pointer one past the last element of an array (but not to dereference it). Next you might be tempted to write "arr + sz - arr" (meaning the same as "&arr[sz] - &arr[0]"), and expect it to produce "sz", because it is valid to compute the element offset difference between two "pointers into an array or one past it". However, that difference is always signed, and if "sz" does not fit into "ptrdiff_t", you get UB from the pointer subtraction.

Given that the C standard (or even POSIX, AIUI) don't relate ptrdiff_t and size_t to each other, we need to restrict array element counts, before allocation, with two limits:

- nelem <= (size_t)-1 / sizeof(element_type)

- nelem <= PTRDIFF_MAX

(I forget which standard header #defines PTRDIFF_MAX; surpisingly, it is not <limits.h>.)

In general, neither condition implies the other. However, once you have enforced both, you can store the element count as either "size_t" or "ptrdiff_t".
by MetaWhirledPeas | 2025-06-27 22:08:39+00:00
Regardless of what was said in the past, and regardless of what you think of their leadership, this actually did happen. A car delivered itself.

We are stuck in a rut where we cannot divorce the past from the present, and words from reality.

If you were a time traveler from 2005 and saw the current state of affairs you would observe these facts:

- EVs are popular (!!!)

- Tesla is a leader in EVs

- Tesla is by far the most interesting American car company

- The car delivering itself is pretty amazing

- Robotaxi is pretty amazing, and so is Waymo, but they aren't much different in behavior, and one of the two (Waymo) looks a lot more expensive and a lot more complicated.

I doubt Robotaxi growth will accelerate nearly as quickly as the ever-hyperbolic Musk says it will, but I also don't think it's a grift. However they got there, they are there; Robotaxi exists, and it works, and it's impressive.

Please be aware that clickbait is more popular than it ever has been, and negativity is the current bait, so nearly everything you read about Tesla is framed in a negative way. This has a profound effect on public sentiment, and none of us are immune.
by hagbard_c | 2025-06-27 22:08:52+00:00
I don´t know whether pigs will ever be able to fly but this test seems to point at the fact that pork is not likely to be airworthy. Maybe now that defence spending is on the rise again they can finally retire this boondoggle and leave all that old space shuttle technology in the museum where it belongs, Morton Thiokol or whatever their name is now - they produced the SRBs for the space shuttle - can do good business in the defence market and does not need this project to stay afloat.
by monster_truck | 2025-06-27 22:09:00+00:00
No, I mean like you crumple to the ground and cook to death if there isn't someone close enough to grab you within a few minutes. 212F ambient air. Like the inside of a meat smoker, but big enough for humans.

DC's aren't quite there yet, but the hot spots that do occur are enough to cause arc flashes which claim hundreds of lives a year.