MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kbelder | 2025-06-15 05:43:07+00:00
This is one of those issues where I think that the experts in the field saying that are just plain wrong. I know how that is a bad assumption to start out with; but I also know that obviously there is an amount of mutations that is beneficial, and organisms with a rate lower than that will be outcompeted. It could be no other way.

So is it just misunderstanding? Maybe they don't understand the question, or we don't understand the answer? Or they're hidebound, or incentivized somehow to be blind to the truth? Epistemological questions abound.
by luuio | 2025-06-15 05:43:27+00:00
1. Beyond just querying, the stored proc spent a lot of time processing data. As in, looping through cursors, making business logic decisions, calculating things, etc.

2. Having the business logic (not just loading the data) inside the stored procs meant that a change in business logic that would normally only need to update application code, now invalidates the stored procedure's cached execution plan.
by freetime2 | 2025-06-15 05:43:36+00:00
Anecdotally, the worst codebase I ever worked on made heavy use of stored procedures. Over the years people couldn’t be bothered or were afraid to update them - which really was the root of the problem. This led to all kinds of crazy patterns in the application code like calling things in a loop where a bulk operation was needed. Or stringing together several stored procedure calls to get the desired outcome, when really a refactor was need to combine or decompose them as needs evolved.

If you’re hiring devs for their experience with C# (which the app was written in) then you probably want to have the bulk of your business logic written in C#. Even the DBAs at my current company tend to advocate for using stored procedures only as a last resort for this reason.

That team eventually decided they needed to rewrite the whole app using a NoSQL database. I didn’t stick around long enough to see how that decision turned out.
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-06-15 05:46:38+00:00
Why do you assume the surveillance will go away as they become cheaper? The taxi company know who is in their car and they have access to interior cameras if something happens. In many respects, it is going to be even more difficult to take a dump in one and get away with it than if a human was driving it. They have your credit card number and visual evidence of what you did, they will just charge your card automatically for things like puking.
by drdaeman | 2025-06-15 05:46:52+00:00
I think you took too much of a jump, considering all properties the same, as if the only way to make the system fair is to make it entirely blind to the applicant.

We tend to distinguish between ascribed and achieved characteristics. It is considered to be unethical to discriminate upon things a person has no control over, such as their nationality, gender, age or natural hair color.

However, things like a car brand are entirely dependent on one's own actions, and if there's a meaningful statistically significant correlation owning a Maserati and fraudulently applying for welfare, I'm not entirely sure it would be unethical to consider such factor.

And it also depends on what a false positive means for a person in question. Fairness (like most things social) is not binary, and while outright rejections can be very unfair, additional scrutiny can be less so, even though still not fair (causing prolonged times and extra stress). If things are working normally, I believe there's a sort of (ever-changing, of course, as times and circumstances evolve) an unspoken social agreement on what's the balance between fairness and abuse that can be afforded.
by breidhuides | 2025-06-15 05:47:37+00:00
Braid Technologies | Senior Software Engineer – Systems | Tokyo, Japan | Full-time | On-site | https://www.notion.so/braid-technologies We are developing a cutting-edge platform for automated advanced engineering design that transforms high-level problem descriptions into geometry that is optimized and ready for manufacturing. Consider: not just code, but compilers for physics problems.

To assist us in developing our core stack, which includes high-performance geometry kernels and DSL compilers, we are seeking senior systems engineers with solid backgrounds in computer science. A close-knit, highly technical team with expertise in physics, mathematics, compilers, C++, Rust, and optimization will be yours to join.

You will be working on systems-level architecture and backend infrastructure; high-performance geometric algorithms (meshing, optimization, constraints); a bespoke compiler stack for our engineering DSL; and cooperative work with academics, designers, and domain specialists. [1] https://github.com/3yq27y4lgp2bvz6bkhm

You might be a fit if you: - Have strong CS fundamentals and systems programming experience - Know your way around C++, Rust, Python of functional languages - Enjoy writing performant, well-architected code for real-world math problems - Are excited by geometry, compilers, or simulation engines

We’re based in Tokyo and this role is on-site. We’ll sponsor your relocation and visa. Our team is international, and we work in English.

Learn more and apply: https://www.notion.so/braid-technologies Or email us: nation@braid.tech
by roenxi | 2025-06-15 05:47:49+00:00
Is this day 1 support a claim about the future or something they've demonstrated? Because if it involves the future it is safer to just assume AMD will muck it up somehow when it comes to their AI chips. It isn't like their failure in the space is a weird one-off - it has been confusingly systemic for years. It'd be nice if they pull it off, but it could easily be day 1 support for a chip that turns out to crash the computer.

I dunno; I suppose they can execute on server parts. But regardless, a good plan here is to let someone else go first and report back.
by nevon | 2025-06-15 05:48:00+00:00
It's true. Though it's not about leaving them outside for the night with only a dull knife with which to fight off the wolves. It's about leaving them in their prams outside for nap time. Obviously bundled up to keep warm during winter.

We're not really concerned about baby kidnappings here, so it's not uncommon to see prams with sleeping babies outside of cafes while the mom or dad is inside having some coffee.
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-15 05:48:29+00:00
There's many more hub airlines though that don't use them. Is Emirates really that different? Or are they kinda stuck because they went all-in.

Many operators dropped the 380 during COVID. Makes sense but they never took them back on afterwards and passenger numbers are higher than ever before now. The A380 is cool but it was built for the past not the future.
by Hindol007 | 2025-06-15 05:49:35+00:00
Really appreciate this feedback: AI — totally optional, it’s just a GitHub-based recommendation system, not a black-box.

You’re also totally right about private repos. We’re thinking of adding self-declared skill tags so devs who build behind the scenes aren’t excluded.

And your last point? Super valid. We’re working on light friction + curation to prevent the “job-seeker spam” effect.

Would love your take on what would make it actually useful for someone like you.
by tomcam | 2025-06-15 05:51:47+00:00
Chickens are hilarious and surprisingly adorable. All plans of eating ours went right out the window when I brought home the first wave of day-old chicks.

They can be very mean to each other. “Pecking order” is literally true and the results can be heartbreaking. Ours have never pecked each other’s eyes, thank heaven, but I’m guessing most of that is from the roosters, not the hens. Roosters can get disgustingly rapey and have to be separated from the hens, who can get seriously injured during the mating process.
by viccis | 2025-06-15 05:53:04+00:00
>Your model will be pretty damn good and absolutely will be able to generate "synthetic a priori" y outputs for any given x within the domain.

You don't seem to understand what synthetic a priori means. The fact that you're asking a model to generate outputs based on inputs means it's by definition a posteriori.

>You would probably still get a great result in the sense of generating "new" outputs that are not observed in the training data, as long as they are within or reasonably close to the original domain.

That's not cognition and has no epistemological grounds. You're making the assumption that better prediction of semiotic structure (of language, images, etc.) results in better ability to produce knowledge. You can't model knowledge with language alone, the logical positivists found that out to their disappointment a century or so ago.

For example, I don't think you adequately proved this statement to be true:

>they would have to in order to continue decreasing validation loss

This works if and only if the structure of knowledge lies latently beneath the structure of semiotics. In other words, if you can start identifying the "shape" of the distribution of language, you can perturb it slightly to get a new question and expect to get a new correct answer.
by ashoeafoot | 2025-06-15 05:55:56+00:00
His language hierarchy holds up, but thats not how this works . You can not heap personal catastrophic beliefs into a train waggon and by proof of chaining that train, your work is invalidated or valid and valued.

His academic works stand independent of the unsavoury character -similar to Werner von Braun. But that doesn't remove the fact he supported "any-but-american-imperialism" decorated with racists undertones ("the brown people can not be perpetrator and victims at the same time") and tried to undermine the western value based world order.
by random3 | 2025-06-15 06:03:37+00:00
I see. Thanks for clarifying. I did want to argue about how it was phrased and what is alluding to. Implying increased risk from "knowing" the eval regime is roughly as weak as the definition of "knowing". It can be equaly a measure of general detection capability, as it can about evaluation incapability - i.e. unlikely news worthy, unless it reached top HN because of the "know" in the title.
by MoonGhost | 2025-06-15 06:05:09+00:00
My guess the weights from HF are used as initial state for the model because full training is too expensive. Then small dataset is used to train in further for short time. Which is fine tuning. Together it shows that model is 1) compatible 2) trainable. In theory it can be trained from scratch on big dataset. I didn't look in the code yet so the questions are: 1) can it be trained in parallel? 2) resources required for training?

Anyway, I may try to train it on limited specialized dataset...
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-15 06:05:41+00:00
To be honest I'm afraid to rate low. I suspect I'll get flagged as a bad rater and banned from Uber/Lyft. So, if the ride is bad I just don't rate and don't tip. Even not tipping is scary to me given it's all tracked and they know me as a customer.

Another issue which I wish they'd add and related to rating, every person has a different preference. My preference is a safe driver who obeys traffic laws. Others people preferences are a driver who gets there as fast as possible, even if that means speeding, cutting people off, running red lights, etc... I've recorded drivers regualarly going 15-20 miles over the speed limit.

I wish I could put that preference in to the app and it would tell the driver, "this person will give you a higher rating if you drive safely and don't break any traffic laws". I'm not sure they could put the other "this passenger prefers quick service" without implying things.

Scaryiest Uber/Lyft I've had the driver was checking their stock portfolio on their smartphone while driving.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-15 06:06:20+00:00
"They wanted everything to be written into simple primitive Key-Value stores for their new design."

I feel this is a very political phenomenon that is very poignant in democracy, both Argentina and the US have elected executives that promise to chainsaw most of the government bureocracy for cost and streamlining reasons.

There's a chapter of south park where the kids buy a roller coaster park and make it their own way with their own rules, and slowly they start to face the challenges of running the whole operation, they start by hiring a security guard, and then the security guard needs food so they hire some fast food chain and then the bathrooms and etcetera, by the end of the chapter the park is fully operational and as good as always.

I used to be very libertarian and revolutionary too when I was younger, then I tried to revolutionize a codebase, ended up breaking stuff, and when correcting I ended up with the traditional architecture.

I don't doubt that driving a plow over the traditions of the previous generation is necessary, but in my experience there is always more wisdom in what we throw away than what we innovate, so I guess I'm a conservative
by Hindol007 | 2025-06-15 06:08:16+00:00
Great point, thank you! Totally agree the animation was meant to give it vibe, but I’ve now added a fade-out after a few seconds to reduce distraction.

Appreciate the nudge these small details matter. BTW do you have any advice regarding this, like what do you think of the idea I'm just validating it rn! before actually coding everything out
by xtracto | 2025-06-15 06:09:13+00:00
I think the paper got unwanted attention... for a scientific paper. It's like that old paper about a "gravity shielding" podkelnov rings experiment that got publicized by some UK news paper as "scientists find antigravity" and ended up destroying the Russian author's career.

By the way, it seems Appke researchers got inspired by this [1] older chinese paper to get their title. The Chinese author's made a very similar argument, without the experiments. I myself believe Apple experiments are just good curiosities, but don't drive as much of a point as they believe.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02878
by viccis | 2025-06-15 06:10:27+00:00
>LLMs think

Quick aside here: They do not think. They estimate generative probability distributions over the token space. If there's one thing I do agree with Dijkstra on, it's that it's important not to anthropomorphize mathematical or computing concepts.

As far as the rest of your comment, I generally agree. It sort of fits a Kantian view of epistemology, in which we have sensibility giving way to semiotics (we'll say words and images for simplicity) and we have concepts that we understand by a process of reasoning about a manifold of things we have sensed.

That's not probabilistic though. If we see someone reach a ledge and take a step over it, then we are making a synthetic a priori assumption that they will fall. It's synthetic because there's nothing about a ledge that means the person must fall. It's possible that there's another ledge right under we can't see. Or that they're in zero gravity (in a scifi movie maybe). Etc. It's a priori because we're making this statement not based on what already happened but rather what we know will happen.

We accomplish this by forming concepts such as "ledge", "step", "person", "gravity", etc., as we experience them until they exist in our mind as purely rational concepts we can use to reason about new experiences. We might end up being wrong, we might be right, we might be right despite having made the wrong claims (maybe we knew he'd fall because of gravity, however there was no gravity but he ended up being pushed by someone and "falling" because of it, this is called a "Gettier problem"). But our correctness is not a matter of probability but rather one of how much of the situation we understand and how well we reason about it.

Either way, there is nothing to suggest that we are working from a probability model. If that were the case, you wind up in what's called philosophical skepticism [1], in which, if all we are are estimation machines based on our observances, how can we justify any statement? If every statement must have been trained by a corresponding observation, then how do we probabilistically model things like causality that we would turn to to justify claims?

Kant's not the only person to address this skepticism, but he's probably the most notable to do so, and so I would challenge you to justify whether the "thinking" done by LLMs has any analogue to the "thinking" done using the process described in my second paragraph.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#David...
Show HN: Shields.rs – a Rust badge engine 10x faster than Node.js
by jannchie | 2025-06-15 06:10:33+00:00
Hi HN,

I've been working on a project I'd love to share: shields.rs, a high-performance badge rendering engine written in Rust.

The goal was to build something incredibly fast and reliable for services that need to generate a lot of badges. The result is an engine that can render a badge in about 4.5 microseconds, which is over 10 times faster than the popular badge-maker library for Node.js.

A key feature is that the output is bitwise-identical to shields.io. This means you get 100% compatible and consistent SVGs every time. It supports all the styles you'd expect (flat, flat-square, plastic, etc.) and makes it easy to add logos from Simple Icons or your own custom SVG.

The API is designed to be simple and chainable. Here's a quick peek:

``` let badge = Badge::plastic() .label("version") .message("1.0.0") .message_color("#4c1") .build(); ```

I wrote this because I wanted a more performant and type-safe solution for badge generation. It was a fun challenge to optimize the rendering pipeline and SVG generation logic in Rust.

You can check out the source code and benchmarks on GitHub: https://github.com/Jannchie/shields

And the full documentation is on docs.rs: https://docs.rs/shields

I would be grateful for any feedback or questions. What do you think?
by hattmall | 2025-06-15 06:11:11+00:00
Cheap and easy were the big factors, in roughly equal proportions, with a nod towards cheap. I did a lot of things I didn't need to do and just wouldn't have done at all if I would have had to pay taxi prices for several years while Ubers were cheap. Taxi's were also only easily available in very limited circumstances.

Taxi's here worked one of two ways. You either negotiated a price before leaving, or they ran a meter and went some crazy route then when you got to the destination clicked a bunch of buttons and the total went up by $15-$20.

When negotiating a price, it was usually $10 per person, for about a 3-4 mile ride, and they wouldn't take you right away if less than 4 people. They would encourage you to load like 8 or 10 people in (All Taxi's were vans) and would try to pick up other people along the way. Tipping was all but mandatory. So add another $2-3 per person.

Uber/Lyft on the other hand was $5-6 or $2-3 for the shared one. An SUV was like $12-$20 that could seat 7, and the whole booking on the phone and tracking was excellent. Uber was so cheap that I would frequently book them because it was easier than going down into the parking garage since I could just meet the Uber on the street.

A cheap ride in 5-10 minutes was available pretty much 24 hours a day. Now surge pricing was a whole different beast, but I never got caught in that.

Not only that, the first 2 years it was completely free. Because I got a $25 credit for signing up and then $25 for ever referral. I had a prepaid phone from some spring MVNO that let you change your number by just texting a shortcode. I would just make a new account every night before I went out and have $50 in free rides.

Now Lfyt and Uber are expensive, there's practically none available unless it's the middle of the day. Taxi's are down to pretty much $5 per person to go most places, but they are just completely destroyed unsafe cars. The last one I took was a longer ride $10 or $20 and it had no seat belts and the driver was so large I have no idea how he got in and out of the car.
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-15 06:12:26+00:00
If the automated systems work I'd use them. Instead, USA systems are designed around trying to prevent theft and they error in the store's favor. I've had those automated systems scream that I haven't put my purchase in the bag. The purchase being single envelope of yeast, too light to measure. So it screams and scream "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG" until some employee comes over and presses reset on the machines. Meanwhile the entire store is glaring at you.

So yea, I've stop using automated machines in the USA.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-15 06:12:40+00:00
I'm not hugely experimented, and SQL has always been enough for me, perhaps due to my simple requirements. But so far I hold the opinion that ORM is always a mistake.

I find a lot of programmers don't know how to write an array of floats to disk, if you forced me to choose between an ORM or No DB at all, I would choose no DB all day.

ORM feels like an abstraction on top of an abstraction. I don't trust that those who chose ORMs have studied and exhausted the possibilities of the two underlying layers, I feel more often than not they recourse to higher layers of technology without understanding the lower level.

But I may be wrong, maybe those who use ORMs know all about File systems and Posix and SQL itself.

It also reminds me of the people who ask chatgpt to write a prompt for them, it's as if you had a dishwasher and you were too lazy to load the dishes onto the dishwasher, so you buy a product that loads the dishes to the dishwasher.
by robocat | 2025-06-15 06:13:47+00:00
> and you don't "own" property there, most land is not freehold, you are merely temporarily leasing it from the state

Nobody really owns land: the government disallows many many activities, maybe charges you a yearly rental, and just has different hurdles to take it from you (eminent domain, market replacement cost). Even freehold is more like a franchise right to sell your freehold. Perpetual is somewhat irrelevant given zoning restrictions.
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-15 06:15:11+00:00
did you report it? Ideally the person that left the bandages in the car would get flagged. They get flagged a few more times for littering in the car they get banned.

Yes, you don't know if it was the previous person, previous previous, etc but if they are a repeat litterer it won't take long to figure out who it is and warn them they'll lose their privilege to use the service if they continue to abuse it.
by umanwizard | 2025-06-15 06:17:07+00:00
So basically, you’re admitting key elements of your original story were made up?

> A Waymo could do the same, I guess, but they could also sit in it until the company contacted them, or the cops showed up.

How’s this different from an uber? If this guy is as big and strong as you say, the uber driver has no more ability to force him out than a Waymo does.
by makeitdouble | 2025-06-15 06:18:26+00:00
> close to the end of the year.

That wasn't a consideration in the past. e.g.

"MacBook Pro (13-inch, Late 2011)", introduced on October 24th 2011

https://support.apple.com/en-us/111341

> they prefer that then having people use iOS 25 for the majority of 2026.

I'm not blind to the advantage of their new naming scheme, and honestly they could name it iOS 2077 it would be their prerogative. It just sounds off to me to equate "they're just cheating a bit" to "it makes sense".
by retsibsi | 2025-06-15 06:20:01+00:00
On Lichess, this isn't the case; if I set my movement preference to 'click two squares', a click on a piece is registered immediately on mousedown regardless of cursor movement.

(When I set my movement preference to 'either', it's a bit harder to test, but I think a brief click-and-drag always counts as a click provided the mouseup happens within the initial square.)