MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by esperent | 2025-06-14 07:47:15+00:00
> read a book or magazine

Assuming that reading a physical book/printed magazine is inherently better than using your phone in the same situation is just a kind of snobbiness.

Someone in those photos could have been watching a veritasium video, or studying their college notes on their phone. Someone in the earlier years with a book could have been reading Mills and Boone.

But either way, who cares? Why are we judging what people do to pass a few minutes of their day in an inherently boring place like the subway?

As to the value of boredom, sure. But environment matters too. I think there's very little value to boredom on a subway. If you want to make a personal choice to be bored on the subway, go for it. But I don't see any valid reason to judge other people for choosing otherwise.
by pxska | 2025-06-14 07:48:09+00:00
In one of my previous companies, we had a separate project on GitHub (think of it as a Jira epic) where we collected various feedback after every release. Not to say we weren't expecting feedback outside of that time frame, but after every release is just when we received the most feedback.

Once the bigger wave of feedback came in, that project went through triage (usually by the project managers, etc), where every single point of feedback was given some sort of resolution (whether it's a bug we need to fix, a good feature request for the future, or something to not be done at least for now). Every single task had to get a resolution. After that, we had a filter where each of the tasks moved into their respective projects (bugs, features, etc) and we went on from there.

The company Linear [1] has pretty good systems built for triaging [2] for example. In another company, I was in a team with two other designers, who basically dumped all the feedback they received (or had the feedback be dumped) into triage and they reviewed it every once in a while.

[1] https://linear.app/

[2] https://linear.app/docs/triage
by snerbles | 2025-06-14 07:49:20+00:00
Having been through both: AFROTC field training is about half the length of USAF enlisted basic. In fairness to the cadets, they attend training throughout their college years before and after Field Traning - the whole experience is more of a slow long ramp of goofy BS that tries one's patience in ways most enlisted troops won't quite comprehend until they're an experienced NCO. It's also much easier to "just be a number" and muddle through enlisted BMT. Try that in officer training, and you'll be ranked bottom of the class with limited career options.

In terms of physical exertion, enlisted BMT is a bit more intense. Job-specific training might be much more intense, for the handful of AFSCs that see ground combat.
Show HN: LaminarFlow – platform to manage your business's financial workflow
by ydew | 2025-06-14 07:49:40+00:00
I'm Yash, and I'm a solo-founder of LaminarFlow — an AI-native, open-source platform to help startups, founders, and SMBs manage their financial ops more efficiently.

It brings together financial insights, banking, invoicing, payment tracking, time tracking, and banking-style reconciliation — all powered by an AI agent that automates the boring stuff.

We’re building this as an open startup, sharing everything publicly, and keeping it fully open-source (MIT).

Would love your feedback and thoughts!
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-14 07:52:31+00:00
Maybe this gives US gov an extra leash on them? Surely the standards of what's approaching treason are different for people in service, so maybe it's just a way to trick execs into getting personally under government control, so they'll not be able to shield behind the whole "free enterprise" / "private business" thing when they want to trade with China or EU against the US Gov preferences?
by pxska | 2025-06-14 07:53:42+00:00
I don't personally use AI for code completion inside my editor, however I do use ChatGPT like Google nowadays. Whenever I had a question in the early days, I just typed it into Google and scavenged through all the different links it gave me. Nowadays I just type it into ChatGPT (or any other LLM available for me at that moment) and see what it says.

I also try to use my brain to keep solving problems, but those sometimes seem like problems that are sometimes beyond the comprehension of LLMs (wicked questions, etc). For coding purposes, I consider ChatGPT a rubber duck and love to bounce ideas with it, but eventually I still end up refactoring whatever it is that it gave me.
by KaiserPro | 2025-06-14 07:56:20+00:00
Oh its possible, but it costs a lot of power, and has design implications.

You need the camera on and streaming, sure you only need a portion, but also your camera needs to cover all of your screen area, and the output remapped. It also means that your camera now has limited placement opportunities.

Having your camera on costs power to, so not only is your GUI costing power but its costing more power because the camera is on as well.
by jwrallie | 2025-06-14 07:59:33+00:00
One interesting thing I observed by being trilingual is that different countries’ medical systems will give different and sometimes contradictory instructions when you Google for some medical information.

One of this is sex during menstruation. I was instructed that it was not a problem but in Japan they specifically instruct that it is discouraged because there might be a link with Endometriosis.

If you try to Google if sex in menstruation can lead to infertility you are going to find little information in English, but you are going to find many hits in Japanese.
by nhatcher | 2025-06-14 08:00:55+00:00
Oof, that is poorly written. I'll update the text.

Notice how every hat has a special "marked" vertex. It is the red dot in this image:

https://www.nhatcher.com/images/hats/hat-marked.png

This is what I mean by "at the center ofthe hexagon you have the hat". What should say is "the center of the hexagon coincides with the marked vertex of a hat". Hope that makes more sense.
by KaiserPro | 2025-06-14 08:01:24+00:00
In Boz I can't think of anyone less suited to the task.

At every stage of the RL expansion there has been a stunning lack of both solid direction and attention to detail. Not to mention piss poor logistics.

The default position for anything in meta/facebook is to just throw people at the problem. Which I suppose is a good match for a stereotypical view of the army.
by pjmlp | 2025-06-14 08:02:38+00:00
The knobs aren't on the GC necessarily, rather language features.

With a Go compiler toolchain you have stack and global memory static allocation, use of compiler flags to track down when references escape, manually allocate via OS bindings, there is the unsafe package, and use slices with it, an assembler is part of the toolchain learn to use it, and regardless of CGO is not Go memes, it is another tool to reach for if Assembly isn't your thing.
by CactusRocket | 2025-06-14 08:05:40+00:00
> and without sacrifices

There are always trade-offs/sacrifices.

The Go team isn't making new versions just for fun. Each version since 1.21 has had improvements. Especially the fix/change to for loop variables in 1.22 is very nice to have, and helps preventing to write bugs.

If there's a reasonable expectation that users will use outdated platforms, it makes sense to support them. If there is no such expectation at all, why would one forego the improvements to the language and tooling.

There's always a price to pay.
by philipwhiuk | 2025-06-14 08:06:34+00:00
OpenJDK isn’t a thing you can get.

What you get is a distribution of OpenJDK, one of which is by Oracle. There’s also one by RedHat and by Eclipse and others.

You may be thinking of the Hotspot JVM and the answer is that Hotspot offers negligible difference and I’m not sure even exists for the later versions of Java.

If you use Oracle OpenJDK in production (past a specific patch point for some versions) to the best of my knowledge you are probably still on the hook for the licensing fees.

(They allow it in development in order to get you to use it in production at which point the lawyers pounce).

At my company we use RedHat OpenJDK on RedHat VMs and Eclipse Temurin OpenJDK in docker containers.

(Other JVMs include Graal (also owned by Oracle)).
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-14 08:06:52+00:00
People wonder why execs, not people with actual tech skills. I'll wager that for the military/government, this is not really about what skills those people bring in - it's about that accepting this role puts them under jurisdiction of military justice, and suddenly all kinds of things that are business-as-usual when e.g. dealing with foreign powers, could become potential UCMJ offenses.

Call me conspiracy theorist if you like, but this looks to me like US Gov seeking to put a leash on the tech/AI companies, by tricking execs into getting personally exposed for things that would otherwise qualify as private business. Strategically, that's worth way more than just getting some FAANG engineers as part-time advisors.
by zxexz | 2025-06-14 08:07:43+00:00
For sure. I would like to point out for readers to think about the fact that if you are, say, a guy in your 30s, the women close to you getting breast cancer will also have a profound impact on your life. Likely a greater one than dying of prostate cancer in your 80s.

Maybe (hopefully) neither of those happen! Maybe you get prostate cancer in your 30s! I just hope one can realize that getting the disease oneself is not the only way the disease can affect them, far from it.
by tsurba | 2025-06-14 08:07:57+00:00
Is it a puzzle if there is no algorithm?

But testing via coding algos to known puzzles is problematic as the code may be in the training set. Hence you need new puzzles, which is kinda what ARC was meant to do, right? Too bad OpenAI lost credibility for that set by having access to it, but ”verbally promising” (lol) not to train on it, etc.
by snerbles | 2025-06-14 08:08:07+00:00
A Lieutenant Colonel in an advisory role would have to engage in an astoundingly epic screwup to court-martialed under the UCMJ. They'll be counseled behind closed doors long before getting formally charged with Article 90 or 92.

An Article 88 (or 133!) case involving these guys would be a really funny scandal, though.
by npinsker | 2025-06-14 08:08:32+00:00
Ironically, both features you mention are ones that seem questionable. `$` feels like a bit of an anti-pattern to me because it encourages hard-coding strings, so if you move, rename, or switch components around, it silently breaks. Unity's encouragement of pointers feels cleaner.

Godot has `@export`, but also `@export_multiline`, `@export_dir`, `@export_global_file`, etc. which produce slightly different behaviors. Unity supports true metadata through C# attributes (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/advanced-top...) -- with all the power of C#, so you can freely add multiple attributes with parameters (which themselves are type-checked) and even program your own custom ones. You can add custom C# attributes, then use those attributes to drive the display of the inspector, which is a perfect little DSL solution that -- because of GDScript -- feels very far away from Godot at the moment.
by parmesant | 2025-06-14 08:08:36+00:00
At the moment our focus is on observability, hence the narrow scope of our dataset. A pretty good benchmark for observability seems to be Datadog's BOOM- https://huggingface.co/datasets/Datadog/BOOM

But for general purpose time-series forecasting, benchmarks mentioned in other comments like GIFT or M4 might come in handy. We might include them in the follow-up experiment.
by imiric | 2025-06-14 08:09:47+00:00
What you're saying makes sense, and I do agree with some of it. But you're not seeing the experiences that a fully immersive digital world can deliver once the technology and UX improves.

Yes, we read and write on 2D surfaces, but a 3D environment allows you to have an infinite number of them. You could be writing on one, with a video playing in the background, while keeping an eye on a stock ticker, all inside a virtual beach, outer space, or whatever you want. You could be having a conversation with someone who looks and feels like they're physically in front of you. Have you seen the new visionOS avatars? They're incredibly realistic. Talking to a 2D video from a crappy webcam feels awfully primitive in comparison.

There are an infinite number of these experiences that we can't imagine yet, which a 2D display simply can't deliver.

As for HIDs, we'll figure it out. Voice and touch will become far more useful and user-friendly. Remember how touch keyboards on smartphones were unbearable to use initially, and tech geeks like myself strongly preferred a device with a physical keyboard? Well, text prediction and haptics got a lot better, and we invented swipe typing, so the experience improved considerably. I'm typing this on a swipe keyboard from my phone, and while I would prefer to use a keyboard on a real computer, I also like being able to type with one hand from bed. :)

So I'm sure we'll invent input mechanisms that feel natural and friendly to use in VR as well. In the meantime you can also use a physical keyboard. There are many software developers who have adopted AR glasses, with a phone and keyboard as their mobile workstations. The tech is almost there.

If you think about it, a 2D board with keys you press to compose words is an archaic method of inputting data into a machine. It's a remnant from typewriters dating back to the 19th century. They're far from being an optimal method for doing the type of things we use computers for today.

Ultimately, we can have different opinions on whether we want these experiences or not, but the reality is that this future is inevitable, for better or worse. As we move towards transhumanism, fully immersing our visual sense in a digital world is an obvious first step. The current iteration of devices that we're used to is merely ~50 years old, and ~20 for mobile devices. It's far too early in our technological evolution to consider these the best designs we can produce.
by southernplaces7 | 2025-06-14 08:10:15+00:00
What i'm seeing here are the arguments of an apparently typical AI bro completely missing the forest for the trees.

I do art, photography and painting both, and most of my friends and acquaintances are artists of some kind or another too and generally among all of them as far as I know, the idea of having a visual regurgitation algorithm make your visual and textual (and now video) creations for you is anathema to artistic creativity.

Sure, there are artists who use AI to create interesting projects that I would call art, because the main crux of the work requires their creative construction and integration of elements and narrative, regardless of the final form it takes.

On the other hand, some idiot spending a couple minutes on a prompt to create a dozen variations of a cat making a mouseburger is not art, it's someone playing with some digital visuals.

And yes, I declare myself completely able to say that shit like that isn't art, and that the kind of person who'd claim it to be so because they couldn't pull a bit of their own effortful creativity out of their ass has no idea what art is or represents.

If you have a camera, you still need to take it to places and set up compositions. It takes effort, and there's a distinct difference between someone who learns to do it well vs. someone who has no clue except for an occasional, incidental lucky shot. Becoming a photographic artist lies in the gradient we move along between these two extremes, in sometimes unusual ways that are saturated with human creative narrative and effort. The same goes for other forms of creative expression.

Photoshop is a bit more tricky, and especially now, that it includes Firefly AI tools for completely rebuilding photos into... something else. but if one is serious about respecting their own learning curve of photography, they try to not let it take away from the essential message they were trying to communicate with the human-made photos they took in the first place. So on and so forth.

Bottom line: art is many things, and we could debate that, as well as questions of quality and preference, but it emphatically isn't the wholesale regurgitated, instant productions of a completely unthinking algorithm.
by seanhunter | 2025-06-14 08:11:42+00:00
I guess it varies by country which I should have acknowledged. I was talking UK and EU and Africa which I am most familiar with, although I have also been to the USA and Asia and seen manhole covers there. You certainly get round manhole covers, but there are far more rectangular ones. Eg this kind of thing https://www.drainageshop.co.uk/polydrain-inspection-chamber/...
by sweeii | 2025-06-14 08:12:32+00:00
Welcome to labubu-live-wallpaper.com – the ultimate destination for Labubu fans! We offer a collection of stunning live wallpapers that capture the playful, mysterious charm of Labubu. Whether it’s a magical forest adventure or an adorable moment of mischief, every animation brings your device to life with heart and imagination.

Features:

High-quality animated wallpapers with vivid details

Compatible with mobile phones, tablets, and desktops

New themes released every week – including seasonal and exclusive designs

Clean and ad-free experience for full immersion

Transform your screen into a Labubu wonderland. Explore the magic now at labubu-live-wallpaper.com!
by zozbot234 | 2025-06-14 08:13:14+00:00
I didn't see anyone "handwaving away" performance regressions in the thread. The closest was a special case where a Golang program was auto-tuning caching decisions based on heap size metrics, and this led to an apparent regression due to the improved metrics w/ the new GC leading to excessive caching. That's hardly the common case!

(In general though, if you take the authors' concerns about the increased future impact of memory bandwidth and memory non-locality seriously, the obvious answer is "don't use GC in the first place, except when you really, really can't avoid it. And even then, try to keep your object graphs as small and compact as possible wrt. memory use; don't have a single "tracing" phase that ends up scanning all sorts of unrelated stuff together." Of course this is unhelpful if you need to work w/ existing codebases, but it's good to keep in mind for new greenfield projects!)
by gyomu | 2025-06-14 08:13:36+00:00
Alan Dye is the interface design lead at Apple, he's been there since 2006.

One of the lead designers on Liquid Glass is Chan Karunamuni, who's been at Apple since the early 2010s. If you search for more of the names of the design presenters at this WWDC, you'll find a lot of people with similarly long tenure.

So the theory that it's all Gen Z designers with no experience or talent seems pretty weak.
by JetSetIlly | 2025-06-14 08:13:36+00:00
True. However the control really only extends to the name and the amount of human effort allowed by employees on the Google implementation, as far as I can tell.

If Google decide that they were no longer developing their implementation of the language and moving the employees to other things, there's nothing stopping a foundation from being established. It would be ideal if this was organised by Google as part of their exit, but failing that I would expect other stake-holders in the language to organise something.

What advantages would moving to a foundation like structure bring to Go?
by Kwpolska | 2025-06-14 08:13:40+00:00
Aero Glass in Windows Vista and 7 worked quite well. Virtually no applications had the glass everywhere. Many stayed with the default of only having a glass title bar and window border. Some apps extended it a little to cover a toolbar or two. Also, the glass effect was simpler, and had enough contrast by default (and the colour and transparency were customizable), whereas Apple has the glass everywhere and often with unreadable text.
by red_admiral | 2025-06-14 08:14:02+00:00
The top programming languages by popularity or job openings seem to be a toss-up between python, JS (or things that compile to JS), and SQL. Other less used languages might lead to steeper career advances - there's still a market for COBOL programmers for example with more demand than supply - but that's not what I would like a college to start out with as a first language.

As a teaching language for top-end CS degrees, going python-first would be an experiment. Theory says it'll turn out badly; in practice I'm not sure especially if there is an emphasis on good coding practice. Python for a degree with a bit of programming but not full CS is in my opinion the correct choice, but that doesn't mean we should ban it for CS degrees.

If I had to choose a language for teaching a module on object-oriented programming, I'd go with golang, not Java or C#. Not because of licences, but because we've learnt things about subclassing and exceptions and design patterns to get around language restrictions that golang mostly fixes so it's easier to pick up the spirit of modern OOP.
by hardwaresofton | 2025-06-14 08:14:18+00:00
Thanks for the explanation -- back when I wrote Java, it was a choice between "Oracle Java" (i.e. Oracle JDK) and the OpenJDK -- where you downloaded was different and what you agreed to download was different.

> If you use Oracle OpenJDK in production to the best of my knowledge you are probably still on the hook for the licensing fees.

I'd be surprised by this but I guess that is par for the course.

> At my company we use RedHat OpenJDK on RedHat VMs and Eclipse Temurin OpenJDK in docker containers.

Thanks for clarifying -- do you find any differences that were important? Or is it more you've never needed the Oracle distribution so you never had reason to find out?

I'm just wondering why anyone would choose Oracle's distribution in this day and age. Who are their main customers that are happy to be customers?
by throwaway290 | 2025-06-14 08:14:45+00:00
If you're right, maybe the reason they rushed it is because people accuse Apple of copying others if they take time to do something right

However, it is also true that Apple's QA gets bad lately. They let features creep but lose attention to detail so there are more small glitches recently. Along with just bad design, like surely the old Apple would not allow mouse cursor to be "lost" in the notch on the new MBPs. Maybe it's the trend. They become less and less about getting it right and more about getting it out and then reacting when users complain.
by dshacker | 2025-06-14 08:15:17+00:00
I mean yeah, in theory. I just found it really hard to work on multiple changes at a time vs git branches. Back in SD i used to have 2 or 3 machines + multiple VMs to be able to work on multiple things at a time. So I wouldn't say no need. In git I can do work, submit, switch, do work submit switch.