MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tuesdaynight | 2025-06-05 12:17:20+00:00
I trust that Claude Code is good, and I believe that most people commenting here are truthful to their experiences. However, I have a strange feeling that companies are using bots on these announcements comments.

Maybe I'm being overcautious, but one of the worst things (for me) that came from the AI rush of these past years is this feeling that everything is full of bots. I know that people have preferences, but I feel that I cannot trust anymore that a specific review was really made by a human. I know that this is not something new, but LLMs take it to the next level for me.
by sph | 2025-06-05 12:17:37+00:00
Yes, it is good to have a state-sponsored and controlled DNS service, because the state is my friend and has my best interests at heart.

If you're a criminal, a person with something to hide, or a loathsome anarchist you should go away and use unofficial and unapproved software like a local instance of unbound or https://www.dnscrypt.org/
by contingencies | 2025-06-05 12:17:40+00:00
Use case = ?

3kg! That's a very high price to pay for reliability under GNSS denied environments in the day time. Surely you can get ~altitude from a barometer, ~position from inertial + IMU + prior position, and if you want more accuracy maybe DEM models + topography is better.

Therefore I'd suggest this is not going to be very useful on anything with a view toward efficiency (drones). This is more likely a 'quick fix' plugin for existing fat-plane avionics for 'identified risk' reasons. OK move commercially, but technically meh. The go to market plan would presumably be FUD around GNSS denied situations. Reality: unlikely to be problematic in most cases (known flight path, high altitude, low GNSS-denied environment dwell time).
Ask HN: How LLMs know the context of some question?
by JPLeRouzic | 2025-06-05 12:18:05+00:00
Often at the end of an LLM dialog, they respond with something like "Happy coding."

I didn't think much about it until today: If LLMs are simply the product of a transformer decoding weights from an immense volume of text, how do they know I am coding? It's not written at the end of the answer, it's only written if I thank them!

Maybe it's in the training set, but I doubt that every answer on Stack Overflow ends with "Happy coding!"

So where does it come from?
by itkovian_ | 2025-06-05 12:18:09+00:00
I don’t want to bash the guy since he’s still in his phd, but it’s written in such a confident tone for something that is so all over the place that I think it’s fair game.

Like a lot of the symbolic/embodied people, the issue is they don’t have a deep understanding of how the big models work or are trained, so they come to weird conclusions. Like things that aren’t wrong but make you go ‘ok.. but what you trying to say’.

E.g ‘Instead of pre-supposing structure in individual modalities, we should design a setting in which modality-specific processing emerges naturally.’ Seems to lack the understanding that a vision transformer is completely identical for a standard transformer except for the tokenization which is just embedding a grid of patches and adding positional embeddings. Transformers are so general, what he’s asking us to do is exactly what everyone is already doing. Everything is early fusion now too.

“The overall promise of scale maximalism is that a Frankenstein AGI can be sewed together using general models of narrow domains.” No one is suggesting this.. everyone wants to do it end to end, and also thinks that’s the most likely thing to work. Some suggestions like lecuns jepa’s do suggest to induce some structure in the arch, but still the driving force there is to allow gradients to flow everywhere.

For a lot of the other conclusions, the statements are literally almost equivalent to ‘to build agi, we need to first understand how to build agi’. Zero actionable information content.
by chii | 2025-06-05 12:18:19+00:00
> they can always create more inflation by just buying more and more stuff with freshly printed money.

the GFC would like to chat about that.

The feds cannot nudge more than a tiny bit in either direction. Look how much money was printed during and post GFC, to try make inflation higher, and it never did.

The bank of japan tried the same a decade earlier too, in japan. Inflation never took hold no matter what they tried.

> As long as the Fed ain't out of assets

the Feds can never be out of assets, as they just print more. What they cannot control is the hearts and minds of all economic participants - and that is where the root of inflation (or deflation) comes from.
by Modified3019 | 2025-06-05 12:18:56+00:00
I mostly use mine just for monitoring humidity (I use a humidifier, but don’t want the humidity going up past 60% or bad things can start to grow) and CO2 which I try to keep below 800-ish PPM by keeping the window slightly open (except during pollen season, which is now)

There was an initial effort of doing things and seeing the effects and eventually finding a nice equilibrium. I now have a feel for what’s needed and it’s not something I put any thought into. I basically check it when the seasons change. Rather than contributing to anxiety, I am now relieved of unknowns.

I’m quite allergic to pollen, and very sensitive to things like smoke, so I’ve already someone more focused on managing my environment than a normal person. A wick based humidifier (don’t use ultrasonic, those breed bacteria and launch them into the air) and large air filter with a big but quiet fan are the most important things in my room. Yes, even the bed.

These devices can also be a good way to catch localized air pollution that exceeds safety limits, though where I live that’s not an issue. Citizens capable of checking air and water quality is a positive in my opinion.
by capnrefsmmat | 2025-06-05 12:19:36+00:00
OpenAI is the custodian of the user data, so they are responsible. If you wanted the court (i.e., the plaintiffs) to find specific infringing chatters, first they'd have to get the data from OpenAI to find who it is -- which is exactly what they're trying to do, and why OpenAI is being told to preserve the data so they can review it.
by weinzierl | 2025-06-05 12:19:50+00:00
That is a very positive article and it matches my experience, the only bleak outlook is:

"async has a relatively high complexity cost for us due to the 'static bound (cc), cancellation-safety, and restrictions relating to traits and dyn. These currently seem insoluble. Bifurcation between sync and async primitives and ecosystem idiosyncrasies further increase the async tax. Effects-inspired solutions seem unpromising."

"Pre-1.0 Rust had a solution: libgreen. It achieved concurrency in user-space without this bifurcation, but at significant performance, portability and maintenance cost and so was removed. With increased engineering bandwidth this may be worth revisiting. Again the language simplicity would be worth it. (One day I’ll create a PoC of zero-cost wrapping of std::{fs, net} plus fiber::{spawn, select} using generator!)"
by WJW | 2025-06-05 12:19:56+00:00
I was wondering about this too and did some googling. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1510/1/... indicates that it's probably above 900nm wavelength, as beyond that you get only minor interference from refracted solar radiation.

It does say that higher in the atmosphere will always be better from an interference perspective (makes sense, as then there will be less atmosphere between the sensor and the stars), so that is why they market this specifically for use on aircraft. At 250k per unit it's not something you'll be able to mount on your car anytime soon.
by ahofmann | 2025-06-05 12:19:57+00:00
I've lost count how often I wrote 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1 somewhere. Cloudflare and Google (and Quad9) understood that you need to remove friction to get more users. I hardly remember 1.1.0.0 (or is it 1.1.1.0 ?), so I've never entered that somewhere.

*Don't make me think*

According to that rule, DNS4EU is dead in the water. It took me at least 5 clicks to see their fucking IP. And there are multiple, to choose from, oh dear lord, help me! The only thing I want to know is: which IP do I need to enter, so that I can try out their service.

Everyone else understood this. Look at Cloudflare: https://www.cloudflare.com/de-de/learning/dns/what-is-1.1.1.... the IP is RIGHT IN THE URL! I don't even need to visit their website.

But OK, I get it, I'll read their stuff. So the IP could be 84.56.11.11 I think. Could be wrong. I'm pretty sure, it is wrong, because my brain didn't bother to hold that information for 30 seconds. I have multiple working DNS IPs in my brain, the new one needs good reason to get storage space in my small, stupid brain.

I know, this is an extreme take to that matter. But when you build a product, you need to understand, that 99.9% of your potential users are apes, that are bored, stressed and angry at the same time. They don't care at all about all the stuff you care about. Give them, what they need to progress. After that, they will maybe care a little bit about your product.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-06-05 12:20:10+00:00
> For me the value in Zig is its simplicity as a language

I was reading an article about rust posted here yesterday and i realized: i have no clue what is going on in this code (also i presume "templage" is a typo):

#[derive(Debug, Default)] pub struct Context { authed: bool, } #[derive(Template)] #[templage = "layout.jinja"] struct HomeTemplate { ctx: Context }; pub async fn home() -> impl IntoResponse { HtmlTemplate( HomeTemplate { ctx: Context::default() } ).into_response() }
by qznc | 2025-06-05 12:20:41+00:00
I found the flow quite intuitive.

1. Open website

2. Click "Explore Options".

3. I see five options depending on if I want filter/ad-blocking/child protection. Each with a plus-button.

4. Click a plus-button and it shows what to use for IPv4, IPv6, HTTPs, and TLS.

I don't think it is perfect (step 2 feels unnecessary) but it is one of the good websites in my opinion.
by jvanderbot | 2025-06-05 12:20:48+00:00
Landsat is one of those (for now, bygone) projects that the US Gov (and EU!) ran to the benefit of basically everyone. Imagine the benefit for any kind of land planning to have access to this data. USGS.gov has tons of soil and topology data, thanks in large part to this program, and essentially free for all.

Other programs we just never think about include NOAA state of the art weather from which all "local weather" is possible, free and open air navigation charts, and free air traffic control. Think about how, scattered across the entire continental USA, there are a dense network of radio towers broadcasting homing signals so that any aircraft can navigate safely without subscription or cost.

And then of course we have GPS.

It's just unbelievable the things we've built and essentially given away for the benefit of humanity. Apolitically, I look forward to an era where we can do that again (without living on borrowed time, if possible).
by kypro | 2025-06-05 12:21:06+00:00
While this article seems to be trying to imply Musk made this decision himselves it seems like the request actually came from the legal team at Telsa. Obviously Musk is still the CEO though and should overrule the decision for the reason you note, but should probably just note that this isn't necessarily a decision coming directly from Musk. Almost any company is likely to do the same thing given their incentives. The reason Musk's stance on patents was rare was because it's arguably a pretty bad business decision.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-05 12:21:30+00:00
You mean the Patriot that ended up getting 28 people killed due to a SW bug?[1] That Patriot?

Let me repeat myself again, Ada won't save you from human bugs. If you hire bad programmers or have bad dev and test practices, there's no magic programming language that will save you from your calculation and logic mistakes. You can code in raw machine code like you're 1960's NASA, and still have less bugs than a clueless vibe coder in Ada/Rust/etc. if you know what you're doing and have the right test and verification processes.

[1] https://www.cs.unc.edu/~smp/COMP205/LECTURES/ERROR/lec23/nod...
by raffael_de | 2025-06-05 12:21:58+00:00
> For example, western PL designers might disregard cultural aspects of non-Western languages, like non-English numerals

There is a reason why even in native Arabic¹ or Thai² communication Western "Arabic" numerals are used ... deliberately.

Also I didn't find any suggestions or criticism actually regarding the _design_ of programming languages (from a feminist perspective); after all the title suggests that this is what the paper is about. There is only a single irrelevant reference to Python - I mean, practically thinking: what should be changed about Python to make it more "feminist"?

Java, JavaScript, Rust, C++ aren't mentioned even once ... wouldn't it make sense to make the point clear by providing concrete examples of what is not satisfying about the status quo? Or is it maybe that there is no point to the question to begin with?

1: https://www.aljazeera.net/ebusiness/2025/6/5/countries-large...

2: https://www.thairath.co.th/news/crime/2862747
by ragnese | 2025-06-05 12:22:11+00:00
Thank you for sharing that experience. It certainly meshes with my suspicions. I'm actually currently experiencing almost the same phenomenon in my house. My refrigerator was here when I moved in five years ago. It has a service sticker on it from 1997! I don't know exactly when this model left the factory, but if it's "only" 28 years old that would mean that things have gotten worse even since the 90s.

The only issue the fridge has had is that one of the defroster heater coils died (it has two- I guess because it's a side-by-side style, so the freezer part is tall). It wasn't very hard to replace. In fact, the hardest part was actually finding the part, itself.
by nextaccountic | 2025-06-05 12:22:12+00:00
> No builds

> In Unison, you're almost never waiting around for your code to build. Why is that?

> Because Unison definitions are identified by their hash, they never change. We may change which names are associated with which hashes (and this is used for Unison's approach to refactoring and code evolution), but the definition associated with a hash never changes.

> Thus, we can parse and typecheck definitions once, and then store the results in a cache which is never invalidated. Moreover, this cache is not just some temporary state in your IDE or build tool (which gets mysteriously inconsistent on occasion), it's part of the Unison codebase format. Once anyone has parsed and typechecked a definition and added it to the codebase, no one has to do that ever again.

> This idea also applies to caching test results for pure computations (deterministic tests that don't use I/O). There's no need to rerun a deterministic test if none of its dependencies have changed!

> The result of this pervasive caching is you spend your time writing code, not waiting around for the compiler.

This is a neat idea but seems dangerous. Any miscompilation will be in the cache forever, and anyone can trigger a new cache entry. Also, does this mean that with every compiler release there will be a full rebuild of the whole ecosystem, or things are rebuilt on demand?

I think this would work better with a formally verified compiler (a compiler with a mathematical proof that it always compiles correctly), or at least a weaker proof such as proving the compiler is deterministic (no easy feat if the compiler is multithreaded) and that the output doesn't depend on the environment the compiler is running on (at very least, that it compiles the same on any OS)
by vascocosta | 2025-06-05 12:22:23+00:00
I've experienced this. I would say it depends a lot on the complexity at hand, so for instance if it's something rather simple, you can keep track and avoid pitfalls even when doing it with a lot of mutation and imperative style. On the other hand, when complexity grows, I find myself going more functional and avoiding mutation at all cost, as obviously it avoids a lot of problems.

I would say Rust's borrow checker and lifetimes make it harder to use traditional patterns and favor a more functional approach. Obviously, sometimes doing it the functional way might be hard, for people not so used to it, but it keeps the compiler happier I would say.
by xenodium | 2025-06-05 12:22:46+00:00
I have lots of happy users who moved from Notes to my app Journelly (feels like tweeting but for your eyes only) https://xenodium.com/journelly-like-tweeting-but-for-your-ey...

It’s powered by org plain text, but Markdown is coming too.

Edit: you don’t need to know org markup today to use Journelly. It’s an implementation detail. Here’s a happy user https://ellanew.com/ptpl/157-2025-05-19-journelly-is-org-for...
by skrebbel | 2025-06-05 12:23:38+00:00
To be fair I don't follow at all. Are you saying that it's more likely for the US under Trump to become a Yarvin-style ultracapitalist monarchy than, say, an Orban-style just-about-dictatorship? Despite the fact that the first is one crackpot's weird idea on the internet and the latter is a model with a playbook that's demonstrated to work extremely well in practice? (if your goal is to stay in power as long as you can) It just seems.. well unlikely at least?

I mean it's so weird, one day some Republican says positive shit about Orban and the whole left wing media screams "oh no they're going to pull an Orban" and now suddenly it's "well actually no, we heard Vance has once read a Moldbug rant so actually they're going to install a king-CEO". Next day Trump is a fascist, the day after he's "Putin's asset". It gets a bit ridiculous to be honest. Do we really believe the administration believes in anything at all? I'm not convinced anybody running the US right now has the attention span to read a Yarvin post all the way to the end. It just feels like obsessive fearmongering to me at this point, stack up all the bogeymen you can think of on one big pile and say that the Trump administration is all of them at the same time.

I say this as someone who thinks Trump is the worst thing to happen to the world in quite some time. I worry that all this panic actively hurts the opposition and that anybody who kinda sorta likes Trump is going to be very tired very fast of this kind of reporting.
by wpietri | 2025-06-05 12:23:53+00:00
It's because claims of true merit have for a long time been used as the justification for the exclusion of people systems have been rigged to exclude.

Just to pick the most obvious example, the US's slave states systematically kept black people uneducated and beaten down, and then used their condition to justify their ongoing subjugation. For example, from the Texas declaration of Secession talks about the how the Northerners had "an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law." In their view, the southern aristocracy were the obvious and true holders of merit, and the system that put them on top was just proof of their merit.

Or you could look at how women were systematically excluded for generations from education and economic resources, and then their condition was used at the justification for not letting them vote.
by mrkeen | 2025-06-05 12:23:56+00:00
I did a fair bit of Rust (only single-threaded, quite a few years ago) but it sounds like the dependency inversion principle is popping up again.

DIP, async/await, coloured-functions, io-monad. All cases where the business logic should go in one column (abstract/sync/blue/pure), and your machinery should go in the other column (concrete/async/red/io). Your logic will remain unit-testable that way, regardless of how big or small it gets.

Irritated newcomers will complain about not being able to call in the other direction. So what's a language-designer to do? Attract the largest possible user-base by not getting in the user's way - or filter out frustrated users and have fewer but better codebases out there?
by bilekas | 2025-06-05 12:24:08+00:00
> as any critique of the EU seems to be met with universal outrage.

Absolutely not, in fact as an EU citizen, I am the first to call out issues and complain about things getting changed. That's why there are nicer privacy protections for example in the EU.

That said, the comment doesn't really apply to "only EU".

> a simple database with ~500k entries (~10GB on disk), which has burned €45M (!) so far and employs a team of ~50 people

"Burned €45M" with zero citiation, on even where the funding goes to, there are lot of regulations around medical databases, and for good reason.

Tell me outside the EU doesn't have overblown budgets also?
by chii | 2025-06-05 12:24:31+00:00
> So when new people move in, there is an increase in demand

but the presumption that there will be a stream of people moving in is false. The people would just not move to a place with high rent (all else being quite equal).

So high rents will lower the incoming demand. Aka, the current rent is almost always the max the market will bear, regardless of people moving in (or out) - so you can assume it's at some sort of equilibrium.

A new tax on the land will cause the owner to obsorb it, and under that equilibrium assumption above, they will not be able to raise the rent to compensate. Unless, the new tax has an equal and opposite tax credit to renters! Who now have more money, and would be able to accept a higher rent as they've become slightly richer.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-05 12:24:31+00:00
Then why did the auto and aerospace industry standardize on C/C++ instead of Forth?

Just because something is sometimes better doesn't mean it's also more economical in production. You're still limited by budget constrains. With that budget you need to hire and/or train SW developer. It doesn't matter that X language might be better if you can't find and/or train people with experience on it. So you're better off using C with safety.
by perihelions | 2025-06-05 12:24:33+00:00
Optical isn't particularly power-inefficient, is it? The equivalent of an optical magnitude +5 star, in 500 km low orbit, is (if I didn't err) only 1 kilowatt of isotropic power in a solar spectrum. Much less if it's a non-isotropic beam pointed towards earth.

+5 is the brightest ~1,600 stars, likely similar to whatever any star tracker would be using.
by kuschku | 2025-06-05 12:25:02+00:00
> I wish there were an API to build such a firewall, e.g. as a part of a browser extension,

There was in Manifest V2, and it still exists in Firefox.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

That's the API Chrome removed with Manifest V3. You can still log all web requests, but you can't block them dynamically anymore.
by snickmy | 2025-06-05 12:25:23+00:00
I really feel for the creators here. I was thinking exactly like that before trying to build an electronic device myself.

Later on I talked to people working in the hardware industry for small production scale, and pretty much told me that a fair pricing is usually 5x to 7x the total BOM (bill of materials).

After going through that experience myself, I couldn't agree more. This device in particular has some extra well thought design and style which might be worth a premium (on top of that 5x/7x multiplier).
by udiocla | 2025-06-05 12:25:24+00:00
Yes, we’ve tried Emailable — solid tool, but quite expensive in the long run.

MailShrimp is built to be much more lightweight, transparent, and affordable (starts at $14.90/month for 10,000 validations) — and you can try it for free.

Would love to hear your thoughts if you give it a spin.