MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by giantrobot | 2025-06-27 21:30:17+00:00
This elides a huge advantage to this approach: your blog (or whatever) is just raw data. Consuming it with a browser applies the linked stylesheet and spit out HTML. But you can consume the endpoint with anything.

For instance you could share a music playlist as an XSPF document. In the browser your style sheet could make it into a nice web page with audio tags to play the content. But that exact same endpoint opened with VLC would just treat it as a normal playlist.

You can just publish raw data (with robust schema validation) and each user agent will handle it appropriately. Even a bare bones style sheet could just say "open this URL with some particular application.

Since the XSLT engine is built into browsers you get a free transformation engine without any JavaScript.
by Amezarak | 2025-06-27 21:30:31+00:00
The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me.

> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]
by elmolino89 | 2025-06-27 21:30:38+00:00
Well, call them lazy but once you have i.e. biocontainers in which individual bioinformatics programs are prepackaged, hardly any scientist in that field would be reinventing the wheel and often just waste te time trying to install all the requirements and compile a program already running "good enough" using downloaded SIF. Sure, at times with say limited resources one can try to speed up some frequently used software creating SIF from scratch with say newer or more optimized Linux distro (if memory serves me right containers using Alpine Linux/musl library were a bit slower than containers using Ubuntu). But in the end splitting the input into smaller chunks, running i.e genome mapping on multiple nodes then combining the results, should be way faster than "turbo-charging" the genome mapping program run on a single node even with a big number of cores.
by firesteelrain | 2025-06-27 21:30:45+00:00
I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case.

Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping.

If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class action or taking it up to the Supreme Court

Not giving individual judges a veto over national law.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-06-27 21:30:47+00:00
> tmpfs will swap.

We are both wrong to a degree, but you are more correct than I was.

According to the docs[0]:

tmpfs ... is able to swap unneeded pages out to swap space, if swap was enabled for the tmpfs mount.

So `tmpfs` does not unconditionally use swap, but can use it if possible. What I was thinking about is `ramfs`, which doesn't support swap, but that is not the topic of the question to which I replied.

0 - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesystems/tmpfs.htm...
by _proofs | 2025-06-27 21:31:19+00:00
i work in an embedded space in the context of devices and safety. if it were as simple as "just use c++ for these projects" most of us would use a subset, and our newer projects try to make this a requirement (we roll our own ETL for example).

however for some niche os specific things, and existing legacy products where oversight is involved, simply rolling out a c++ porting of it on the next release is, well, not a reality, and often not worth the bureaucratic investment.

while i have no commentary on the post because i'm not really a c programmer, i think a lot of comments forget some projects have requirements, and sometimes those requirements become obsolete, but you're struck with what you got until gen2, or lazyloading standardization across teams.
by abraxas | 2025-06-27 21:31:41+00:00
I think Java might be the best language for LLMs to use in an agentic mode. It has an extensive and well documented standard library. It's fairly type stringent without the escape hatch of an Unknown type (yeah, I know you can beat that in various ways but it's not idiomatic Java) and it compiles fast (within the context of actual java files - maven craziness excepted). In that sense it's a language in which an LLM can easily and quickly verify syntax correctness in a quick iteration loop. I don't think any other language has the sweet spot of Java for an LLM. Java was made for a mediocre developer as a C++ with guard rails and that's exactly what an LLM agent needs to be effective as this is what a SOTA LLM is - a mediocre developer that happens to know a lot of coding patterns.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-27 21:31:53+00:00
> California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining…

Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it.

> It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court.

It is. This sort of thing should've died before ever becoming an EO, and at every level of the judiciary as clearly unconstitutional. That it didn't is a big problem.
by IshKebab | 2025-06-27 21:32:29+00:00
> Also the whole point of building the program using compilers/libraries in the container is to use such container to run the aforementioned program in that very environment

Says who? That's only because that's the only way it works, not because it's desirable to only work like that.

The only way Apptainers work well is if you put everything you need in one Apptainer, which makes them much less useful than you might imagine.
by skgough | 2025-06-27 21:32:36+00:00
HomeAssistant's dependency requirements are so complex as to make a deployment of it essentially read-only. Trying to mod it with HACS is so hard that I gave up even though I write python for a living. I can't recommend it to anyone that doesn't know how to use linux at an expert level. This detracts from it's mission IMO; I would like to tell my family to use it instead of Google Home or Amazon whatever but it is so fragile that I can't do that in good conscience.
by indil | 2025-06-27 21:32:37+00:00
Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-06-27 21:33:17+00:00
"They turn what would have taken 100000 lines of C or 25000 lines of C++ to a few 1000s lines of Rust."

How do they do with smaller programs that would have taken far less than 100,000 lines of C.

For whatever reasons, many authors choose to rewrite small C utilties, or create similar ones, using Rust.^1 Perhaps there are countless examples of 100,000 line C programs rewritten in Rust but the ones I see continually submitted to HN, Github and elsewhere are much smaller.

How does Rust compilation time compare with C for smaller programs.

NB. I am not asking about program size. I am asking about compilation speed.

(Also curious about resource usage, e.g. storage, memory. For example, last time I measured, Rust compiler toolchain is about 2x as large as the GCC toolchain I am using.)

1. Some of these programs due to their size seem unlikely to have undetected memory-safety issues in any language. Their size makes them relatively easy to audit. Unlike a 100,000 line C program.
by raincom | 2025-06-27 21:33:31+00:00
Judges make use of reasonableness, superset of rationality, all the time. The issue is what is reasonable to 30% is not reasonable to another 25%. As long as there is a political backing for their reasonable decisions, they are fine. One can call it subjective or political. That’s why judges do judge and provide good reasons that can be defendable by 20% of those who vote and have political sway.
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-27 21:34:36+00:00
I wish they’d make car alarms illegal. afaict they do nothing. no one looks. It does not stop car theft or breakins. all it does ruin everyone’s sleep.

Especially in 2025, if you want to know if your car is being whatever triggers an alarm then have it send you a message that only bothers you and not several hundred other people.

There is your new startup idea for ycombinator. car alarm app with optional $$$ track down service :p
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-06-27 21:34:38+00:00
I was wrong in my unconditional assertion that `tmpfs` does not use swap. It can, depending on conditions described here[0].

What I was thinking about is `ramfs`, which does not use/support swap and has other limitations not present in `tmpfs`.

Sorry for confusing the topic.

0 - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesystems/tmpfs.htm...
by root_axis | 2025-06-27 21:34:47+00:00
Voting and engagement is not the issue. Trump would have won even if all eligible voters voted.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...

The problem is that Dems are just culturally irrelevant. Most people don't care about issues, policy or the economy, they just want to cheer for a team and will justify everything their team does regardless of efficacy or outcome. Trump is the fun underdog team that everyone is talking about, the Dems are the boring party-pooper team we all love to hate. During covid, that boring became a source of needed stability, but after boring stewarded us through the crisis, nobody wanted to be associated with them again.
by sram1337 | 2025-06-27 21:36:04+00:00
This is the voodoo that excites me.

Examples I found interesting:

Semantic map lambdas

S = Symbol(['apple', 'banana', 'cherry', 'cat', 'dog']) print(S.map('convert all fruits to vegetables')) # => ['carrot', 'broccoli', 'spinach', 'cat', 'dog']

comparison parameterized by context

# Contextual greeting comparison greeting = Symbol('Hello, good morning!') similar_greeting = 'Hi there, good day!' # Compare with specific greeting context result = greeting.equals(similar_greeting, context='greeting context') print(result) # => True # Compare with different contexts for nuanced evaluation formal_greeting = Symbol('Good morning, sir.') casual_greeting = 'Hey, what\'s up?' # Context-aware politeness comparison politeness_comparison = formal_greeting.equals(casual_greeting, context='politeness level') print(politeness_comparison) # => False

bitwise ops

# Semantic logical conjunction - combining facts and rules horn_rule = Symbol('The horn only sounds on Sundays.', semantic=True) observation = Symbol('I hear the horn.') conclusion = horn_rule & observation # => Logical inference

`interpret()` seems powerful.

OP, what inspired you to make this? Where are you applying it? What has been your favorite use case so far?
by kazinator | 2025-06-27 21:36:50+00:00
What makes comprehensible input comprehensible? Is that a trick question?

Avoiding unknown vocabulary, or including just a small amount that can be inferred from context; avoiding rare grammatical rules; avoiding stuffing too many clauses into sentences, keeping them short.

Just like a language has a large vocabulary of words of which only a subset is common, a similar observation holds for the grammar rules. Some are used only in very formal/erudite speech or writing. Also, just like your active vocab is not as large as the vocab you understand, the same goes for grammar: you don't wield as many constructs as you grow.

Semantically, avoiding obscure cultural references, culturally rooted unstraightforward metaphors, figures of speech or idioms.

Avoiding difficult topics. E.g. "I have a pen" vs. explaining Karl Popper's logical positivism.

It's much easier to acquire the "household" dialect of a language than to be able to understand news about politics, scientific papers, or literary essays.
by angst | 2025-06-27 21:37:44+00:00
hf: https://huggingface.co/tencent/Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct

gh: https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/Hunyuan-A13B

note:

the LICENSE file explicitly states that the project cannot be used in certain regions: "THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, UNITED KINGDOM AND SOUTH KOREA AND IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE TERRITORY, AS DEFINED BELOW."

https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/Hunyuan-A13B/tree/main/LI...
by chatmasta | 2025-06-27 21:37:44+00:00
Something I’ve wanted to hack together for a while is a custom react-renderer and react-reconciler for prompt templating so that you can write prompts with JSX.

I haven’t really thought about it beyond “JSX is a templating language and templating helps with prompt building and declarative is better than spaghetti code like LangChain.” But there’s probably some kernel of coolness there.
You can now buy personally Human Attention for $5
by Lovishotherdays | 2025-06-27 21:38:07+00:00
Attention used to be personal property. Now feeds scalp it and resell it by the pixel. I got tired of donating mine, so I built Momentarily.

What it is: a calendar with 30-second slots.

Price: $5 flat, paid once.

What you get: during your slot I think only about you or whatever you specify. No phone, no tabs, no idle Spotify.

What you don’t get: follow-up emails, analytics, or an upsell. When the timer hits 00:30 it’s over.

Call it reverse capitalism. Instead of stealing attention I sell mine at retail.

Link: https://momentarily.example (booking + source).

AMA: performance art, protest, or tiny utility?
by bigbadfeline | 2025-06-27 21:38:29+00:00
> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too.

They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world.

>They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude.

"Harm of finite magnitude" extends up to the boundaries of infinity. No mortal can cause infinite harm, so the limitation you offer... just isn't.

> Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it.

The "long history of dealing with" media monopolization is a long history of defeats of the common man - press, radio, tv, internet - were all subjugated by monopolistic interests. And you think that's somehow good for the subjugated?

> AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism.

Ah, that was it, the little people are way too dangerous and should be put in shackles for their own good. The big bosses, on the other hand, can only do harm that "generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude". That's very soothing and all but unfortunately, both history and logic lead to the exact opposite conclusion.

I'm still amused by the bold claims you make - according to you, people of unlimited power and means can only do harm of finite magnitude, while little people of no power and no means are very scary and unpredictable indeed... That could only be the worldview of the former imposed on the latter.
by tolerance | 2025-06-27 21:38:34+00:00
This is a great question.

My remedial guess is that the human mind is more efficient at the pattern recognition that LLMs excel at in their own right.

We can do a lot more with less data, exert less effort and come to a reasonably accurate conclusion.

LLMs can artificially reason, but it requires intricate software that took decades to develop to the standard that it's reached now, and computers that suck the earth of its resources at a hair-raising scale, and like you've mentioned a lot of data. A lot of data. Apparently the entire internet and then some on a carousel.

Intelligence is an innate faculty of man and man's measure of intelligence generally doesn't require that much, depending on what's expected of the man throughout the course of his life.

Because AI is a technology the expectations we place on it are way higher.

A manuscript with a few errors, blotches, misspellings, omissions, what have you, is excused. If your printer does the same thing for every four or five jobs, it's defective.
by Leynos | 2025-06-27 21:38:59+00:00
I prefer to talk through a code review with the candidate. I like to get a feel for how they approach another developer's code, the type of questions they ask, and whether or not they have a sense of situational needs.

It's worked well for me so far.

I'm not a fan of whiteboarding or on-the-spot code examinations. I feel the ability to communicate effectively about code and algorithms, critique in an empathic fashion is far more important.

Similarly, I feel that curiosity is one of the strongest skills a developer can have, and this is not something that can be demonstrated through coding exercises.
by Anechoic | 2025-06-27 21:39:10+00:00
I've tried searching the literature to find out whether this is either 1)wrong, or 2)generally known within the fields of audiology and occupational hygiene, but so far I've come up empty.

FWIW, I've also heard the same, but don't remember where off the top of my head. It's at least potentially true, but the conventional wisdom among acousticians/noise control engineering is that age-related hearing loss is mostly to increasing age rather than external factors.
by vel0city | 2025-06-27 21:39:12+00:00
IRT The Simpsons, the Simpsons of 1989 and the Simpsons of today are essentially two radically different shows, they just happen to both be animated and feature four fingered yellow cartoon people. That very early 90s Simpsons show featured far more family violence and other things along that nature than the show today, among a lot of other things that make the show very different.

Even then, it wasn't like the average person was arguing for it to be banned by obscenity rules. The spat between H.W. Bush and the Simpsons was a comment he made, saying "We are going to keep on trying to strengthen the American family, to make American families a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons." It's not like Bush was actively pushing for The Simpsons to be taken off the air or anything along those lines.

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to have some kind of standard like a reasonable person/common person/contemporary community standard when trying to define something like "obscenity". Not making an argument of what kind of law to pass with that, just stating I don't think having some etched in stone standard would ultimately be good in the end for any kind of law related to such content. Ultimately its the same to me in terms of laws that would otherwise try and regulate certain kinds of commerce or whatever, with extremely rigid definitions that can't keep up with changes to the marketplace. That we might find something like The Simpsons potentially detestable in the 90s but otherwise fine today is an example for such a standard with flexibility, not against it IMO. We wouldn't want the law to be bound to whatever people specifically thought was "obscenity" in 1850 to still hold legal weight today.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-27 21:39:55+00:00
> The author of the clause…

That'd be a deeply ironic thing to cite as evidence for this court.

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

"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law."

Legislative intent didn't save the Voting Rights Act, or the EPA.
by Animats | 2025-06-27 21:40:41+00:00
Interesting. Questions, the Nature paper being expensively paywalled:

- Is the analog computation actually done with light? What's the actual compute element like? Do they have an analog photonic multiplier? Those exist, and have been scaling up for a while.[1] The announcement isn't clear on how much compute is photonic. There are still a lot of digital components involved. Is it worth it to go D/A, generate light, do some photonic operations, go A/D, and put the bits back into memory? That's been the classic problem with photonic computing. Memory is really hard, and without memory, pretty soon you have to go back to a domain where you can store results. Pure photonic systems do exist, such as fiber optic cable amplifiers, but they are memoryless.

- If all this works, is loss of repeatability going to be a problem?

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10484797
by firesteelrain | 2025-06-27 21:41:01+00:00
Right, it’s a delay, not a final veto. But when that delay applies nationwide, it functions like a veto until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years

If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. But the solution isn’t to stretch injunction power beyond its legal limits

It is about who gets to block national policy for everyone, based on one local case. That kind of sweeping relief was never authorized by Congress