MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:29:35+00:00
>But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation.

And... who was suffering for it, exactly? How was it hurting me?

> That’s a clever line. > > See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”

"This law is only blocked for these people" is the less "clever", more "obvious" situation in your mind? No, that's a clever hack that same sneaky bastard came up with to justify removing further obstacles for the executive to increase its own power.

But it seems to fly against the face of history. Federal law has been in the business of preempting local authority for centuries. Now we want to unwind that and let jurisdictions opt-out case-by-case?
by FlyingAvatar | 2025-06-27 22:29:35+00:00
If you have a dependency that is simple and stable, it could appear unmaintained since it doesn't have a lot of recent commits, bug reports, comment history, etc.

If a library author wants to make their package "look" maintained for some reason, they could generate superfluous commits and open and close fake bug reports. This could be a "good" signal to the heuristic, but has no real world benefit or worse-case could be used to lend credibility to a package with known vulnerabilities.
by tshaddox | 2025-06-27 22:29:59+00:00
> It seems like "nobody has the votes to make big changes" should be an indicator that not making big changes is the proper result.

"Nobody has the votes" seems like a weird way to put it, because is implies that everyone wants to make changes, they just can't agree which changes to make. On the contrary, I think the issue is that most congresspeople do not want to make changes. Changes are scary. If your name is associated with a change, and that change becomes unpopular, it might threaten your reelection!
by ggm | 2025-06-27 22:31:01+00:00
So for example, seeking reproductive rights in one state which is forbidden in another?

Forgive a possibly silly question but in what sense does being "in" Florida mean you are bound by Florida state law when you leave? How long did you need to be in Florida before you became bound by its law? What if you fall pregnant after you left? Can you be in breach without ever having been in Florida, and a LEO can therefore take you there and charge you?
by ggreer | 2025-06-27 22:31:17+00:00
The cheapest batteries today are around $100/kWh. Optimistically assuming 12 hours of sunlight per day, a 40MW datacenter would need 480MWh of batteries to cover the dark period, costing $50 million. Realistically you'd need at least 16 hours worth of batteries to cover winter months when the night is longer, raising your battery costs to $65 million. You'd also need ≈5x more solar panels than in space, and these panels would be more expensive due to shielding from weather. 120MW of ground-based solar panels would cost around $100 million.

Assuming the $165M of panels and batteries last for a decade, and there are no maintenance costs, they'll provide 3,504,000MWh over that time for an energy cost of 4.7 cents per kWh. This is competitive with grid power in some places. It also has the advantage of not needing backup generators. But maintenance costs do exist, and it makes more financial sense to buy power as you use it rather than pay upfront.
Show HN: USB Connection Info – Mac Menu Bar App to Avoid Cable Confusion
by tTarnMhrkm | 2025-06-27 22:31:33+00:00
Like many of you, I've collected a drawer full of USB-C cables over the years. And like many of you, I've experienced the frustration of plugging in a "fast" external SSD, only to see abysmal transfer speeds. Recently, I got a new SSD, excited to finally get some quick backups going. Plugged it in, started copying, and watched the progress show hours for a few GB. My immediate thought: DOA drive, or worse, I was scammed.

After some head scratching and cable swapping, I discovered the culprit: a USB-C cable that was only negotiating USB 2.0 speeds. It looked identical to my other cables, but its internal wiring was effectively throttling my transfer rates. It's a common problem, made worse by the visually similar USB-C cables despite their vast range of capabilities.

I knew macOS's System Information panel could show me the current USB connection speed, but digging through that every time I connected a new device or swapped a cable was just too much friction for my workflow. I figured there had to be a better way.

So, I decided to build it. I've developed several Mac apps in Swift before, but this was my first dive into menu bar applications and background processes. It was a fun challenge to integrate with the system in a lightweight, background application format.

The result is USB Connection Information. It's a small menu bar app that displays the active USB connection speed for your devices at a glance. It shows speed, USB version, wattage, device manufacturer, and more. No more guessing, no more deep dives into system panels. My goal was simply to solve a recurring annoyance I faced, and I hope it can help others avoid similar headaches!

It's now available on the Mac App Store, supporting macOS 13.0 and forward.

You can find it here: https://apps.apple.com/app/id6747853674

I'm keen to hear your thoughts, feedback, and if this is a problem you've faced too!
by boothby | 2025-06-27 22:32:04+00:00
If a foreign diplomat is pulled over by the cops after running over a pedestrian, they can flash an ID card and drive away. If an undocumented immigrant does the same, they go directly to jail and probably get deported in short order. That's what jurisdiction means.

In ordinary times, the notion of establishing precedent that immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the US would be met with sputtering indignance for all but the most idealistic anarchists. Because that goes way beyond open borders, it promotes foreigners to super-citizens untouchable by the law.
by yapyap | 2025-06-27 22:32:07+00:00
wow, sounds worthless.

unless you are a celebrity or something why in the world would I value you at 300$ an hour.

If I HAD to pay someone a few bucks to listen I would much rather give it to some homeless person who can stretch that money way further than anyone doing _this_

anyway that was my initial reaction, if you want more attention I charge 10 euros per intentional comment
by p0w3n3d | 2025-06-27 22:32:07+00:00
I must contradict. 2005-6 was happening my PRADO development, which already was present on market as a framework that was exensively using javascript (mimicking Microsoft's ASP.NET forms) to make AJAX requests and regenerate states of components that were placed on the web page using DOM.

The thing was that it was really hard to write code that did the same DOM + placement on all the browsers, and if a framework could do that, this was becoming great help. I started my webpage development in 2000-ish with if (`document.forms /* is ie */`) ... and was finding a way to run IE on my Linux computer to test the webpage rendering there. And CSS 2 was released on 1998 and could change everything and was the Deus Ex Machine everyone expected, except for it didn't work, especially on IE (which had majority of market, and especially if you developed a business application, you had to count it as the majority of all your clients, if not the only ones). So in CSS 2 you could __allegedly__ do things you really needed, like placing things together or in a related position, instead of calculating browser's sizes etc., but it didn't work correctly, so you had to fallback to javascript `document.getElementById().position = screenWidth/2 etc`.

So according to my memory, (1) these were the dark times mainly because of m$ being lazy and abusing their market position (2) we used javascript to position elements, colorize them, make complicated bevels, borders etc (3) this created gap for Google that they could use to gain power (which we admired at that time as the saviours of the web) (4) Opera was the thing and Resistance icon (boasting themselves of fulfilling all standards and being fast, but they failed a few times too)

also DSL, LAN internet sharing and AOL (in Poland 0202122 ppp/ppp), tshshshshshs, tidutidumtidum, tshshshshshsh ...
by merksoftworks | 2025-06-27 22:32:21+00:00
Some of the QT people have forked off and started working on slint[1], iced[2] is the most mature gui in the rust ecosystem right now (in my opinion), but still lacking in some ways, including portability to mobile and component libraries are sort of against the design principle so it's allergic to network effects. Iced is built on some pretty orthodox elm architecture principles by some very talented and devs - but they leave very little room for impurity.

[2] https://iced.rs/ [1] https://slint.dev/demos
by futurisold | 2025-06-27 22:32:52+00:00
One last comment here on contracts; an excerpt from the linked post I think it's extremely relevant for LLMs, maybe it triggers an interesting discussion here:

"The scope of contracts extends beyond basic validation. One key observation is that a contract is considered fulfilled if both the LLM’s input and output are successfully validated against their specifications. This leads to a deep implication: if two different agents satisfy the same contract, they are functionally equivalent, at least with respect to that specific contract.

This concept of functional equivalence through contracts opens up promising opportunities. In principle, you could replace one LLM with another, or even substitute an LLM with a rule-based system, and as long as both satisfy the same contract, your application should continue functioning correctly. This creates a level of abstraction that shields higher-level components from the implementation details of underlying models."
by threemux | 2025-06-27 22:33:01+00:00
Justice Jackson's dissent is honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've read from the Court and I've been reading most every opinion for years now. Heavy on the pathos, completely devoid of cogent legal theory. Kinda reminds me of Breyer, who, charitably, had an esoteric style.

Kavanaugh is good to read on any topic - his writing is clear and often easily understandable by the layman. Gorsuch is an excellent writer as well. Those two are imo the best writers currently among the justices.
by ianburrell | 2025-06-27 22:33:39+00:00
Earth is the closest spot for most of space. It makes most sense for satellites to send data back to Earth. They would have to find a use where with lots of compute but latency really matters.

For farther out, computer on ships, stations, or bases makes sense, but that is different than free floating satellites. They already have power, cooling, and maintenance.

It is like saying there should be compute in the air for all the airplanes flying around.
by andy99 | 2025-06-27 22:33:48+00:00
Does anyone else remember the text game "Drug Wars" where you were a drug dealer and had to go to one part of town to buy drugs ("ludes" etc.) and sell them while fending off police and rivals etc.?

I think it would have been cool if the vending machine benchmarks (that I believe inspired this) was just LLMs playing drug wars.
Ask HN: Why do LLMs call Trump "former president" despite current knowledge?
by ahmedfromtunis | 2025-06-27 22:33:54+00:00
THIS POST IS NOT POLITICAL.

I noticed that when I ask Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity and other LLMs about current events, they would sometimes refer to Trump as "former president".

The reason I find this question-worthy is that this happens despite the fact that the LLMs have otherwise "realtime" knowledge about the events in question.

As an example, they'd say something like this: "Trump ordered the attack on Iran. The former president said...".

Does this observation offer an insight into how LLMs process information?
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:34:34+00:00
> "Nobody has the votes" seems like a weird way to put it, because is implies that everyone wants to make changes, they just can't agree which changes to make. On the contrary, I think the issue is that most congresspeople do not want to make changes. Changes are scary. If your name is associated with a change, and that change becomes unpopular, it might threaten your reelection!

The split in Congress is driven by the split in the people and the people DO want actions taken. Just - different actions for each faction.

If there was only one fairly unified party of voters in the country and a Congressman was refusing to vote to do what the voters wanted them to do, they'd get voted out.

"Not doing anything to be careful" is a bug enabled by the population being split.
by ytNumbers | 2025-06-27 22:34:42+00:00
I will agree that you could say that, at $5, he's ripping people off by taking advantage of people who are desperate for even one minute of human interaction. If he priced it at $1, would he still be unethical and exploitative? Does everything have to be free? At even that price, is it still a ripoff? For me, the answer would be determined by the value of his feedback to people.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-06-27 22:34:43+00:00
Distinctly no, this is in the dissent. That requires an appeal from the government and for SCOTUS to pick up the case in a reasonable time.

Now the government can choose to "lose" in some places and let the injunction stand. Then, in all other locations in the country, the constitution of the United States is quite literally different in perpetuity.

And it's not even by-locality, sans cases brought by a state government. SCOTUS has defined injunctions as by-litigant. So now two babies born next to each other in the same hospital to visa parents can have different naturalization statuses based on if those parents had sued in the right district court or not.

This makes US law effectively intractable. The only natural resolution then is to visit Obergfell - the gay marriage case that the current SCOTUS majority has harped against for years in their rulings - and resolve the conflict by appealing to the federal nature of the law & enforcement, revoking citizenship of even those with an injunction.

In another comment I've gone into detail on exactly how the federal government can force that case to the SCOTUS.
by LargoLasskhyfv | 2025-06-27 22:35:08+00:00
The passengers of that flight went onto the long detour. The plane itself just got detoured 75 miles to Hahn, former US AFB. Took so long because the personell there wasn't ready to handle the luggage, or already gone. Because unexpected. Then the airline messed up further by bringing them to Frankfurt am Main by Bus/Coach, to wait there for a morning flight to Munich. The Bus could also have brought them to the next main train station, in lets say Mainz, from where they could have taken the next fast train to Munich, or whereever they needed to be, payed for by Condor. Cheapskates.
by pedalpete | 2025-06-27 22:35:08+00:00
I agree with you, but for a different reason, assuming I am even understanding what is happening here, I'm not American.

My reading is that under the previous system, a single district could prevent an order federally, even if every other district judge agreed with the new order.

I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. I would understand that they could limit powers in their district, and potentially challenge laws at a state level, and then federally.

Let's look at how this could have impacted a topic that gets my attention in the US, gun laws.

I'm definitely left, so let's say a president came in and made some order about changing gun laws and made it harder to get a gun.

It seems to me, that if that were to occur, a single judge in a gun-loving district could block the order universally for all the other states?

That doesn't seem right. It does make sense that they could say that law doesn't apply to our district, and we will challenge that law being applied to our state and if the state agrees, they could then challenge the law federally.

I'm obviously making up a ton of stuff about a system that I don't understand.
by vannevar | 2025-06-27 22:35:40+00:00
>The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics.

It would be more accurate to say that prior to this ruling, any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective view of the law. It may differ in other countries, but under the US Constitution, the judicial branch ultimately decides the limits of executive authority, not the President.

If it's truly a matter of national security, the President could always file emergency appeal and it would almost certainly be granted. If it's such a dire and immediate emergency that even those few hours were critical, it's doubtful that any President would feel obligated to obey the injunction anyway.

Far from preventing the proper functioning of government, this was one of the few remaining guardrails maintaining the proper functioning of government under unprecedented circumstances.
by lurking_swe | 2025-06-27 22:35:51+00:00
it seems like you’re not really understanding the “point” of the United States and what makes it different from other countries. That’s a shame.

Is america only for the white descendants, the former slave owning class? Perhaps former Nazis who fled Germany after the war? Who is america _really_ for? Why should Trump and the GOP get to decide who the undesirables are? This narrative of “giving away citizenship” quite literally makes zero sense.

Even as a child growing up it was clear to me (from teachers, textbooks, books, movies) that what makes america special is its ability to integrate immigrants from various backgrounds into 1 working nation. It’s a land of immigrants from the start.

The founding fathers didn’t “belong” here either. The land was stolen from native americans and other tribes that lived here. It’s in the DNA of the country. Some Americans need a big mirror and a heaping spoon of empathy IMO.
by parpfish | 2025-06-27 22:36:10+00:00
Half-baked thought:

when something bad happens now it’ll be all over news broadcasts and social media.

I think it’s pretty well established that fear mongering will skew your perception of something bad happening, but something I hadn’t considered until now is that it can make the bad thing worse. In addition to dealing with whatever tragedy befell you, there’s a layer of judgemental shame piled on top (“how could they be so careless to let this happen? They must be a bad, neglectful parent”)
by mjburgess | 2025-06-27 22:36:19+00:00
Imagine you're a SC judge in this case, and you have to craft a judgement which allows universal injunctions in incredibly narrow and highly specific cases, whilst ruling out almost all of them. And that the area of law you're dealing with is a puddle of mud (equity).

You can either try to do this and roll the dice again on letting district courts interpret this judgement, or just say, basically no -- if you want to do this you have to come to us (or go via one of the other mechanisms). Given there are ~25 recent cases of this in total, its not a very significant number -- but the effects are extremely significant.

They chose the lesser of two evils, and in this lesser world, basically everything is still fine. You can still get the right outcomes.

This is the actual job of the court. There is no right answer. There is only what judgement they can write and what effects it will have, and whether those are the most consistent with the spirit of the constutional order (or statutory order) that has been setup.

its very common for them to rule, "in cases of doubt, just get congress to pass a law allowing this to happen"

They very often actually do amend laws due to SC rulings. Many laws are passed every year, and its very common to see amendements explicitly reply to tell the SC to undo its actions in cases where they've asked congress to be clear.

Just because I think there's a read of "complete equitable remedy" in this case which plausibly allows a district court to issue a UI, does not mean that the SC wasn't right to set a standard which precludes it. Or that asking congress to make this possible isn't the right position for the court to take.

You have to remember that congress is the democratic legislative body, not the courts. Having district courts intrude on US-wide implementation of congress' laws (via the executive) should really require congress to authorise that.

And in any case, they have in the APA -- and the SC can still do it.
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:36:42+00:00
This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now.

Without you telling me any specific harms of the "chaos and inconsistency", and how you think they will be reduced now, then I can only consider the harms of the new potentials for inconsistency which is "the excecutive intentionally does not appeal when they lose to small groups because they want to be able to continue to overreach nationally."

What are the concrete examples of chaotic things that caused issues that you don't think could happen now?
by hugs | 2025-06-27 22:37:22+00:00
Happy to see more Nim projects on HN!

I don't know if AI code gen helped with this particular project, so please forgive my small tangent; Claude Code is surprisingly good at writing Nim. I just created a QuickJS + MicroPython wrapper in Nim with it last week, and it worked great!

Don't let "but the Rust/Go/Python/JavaScript/TypeScript community is bigger!" be the default argument. I see the same logic applied to LLM training data: more code means more training data, so you should only use popular languages. That reasoning suggests less mainstream languages are doomed in the AI era.

But the reality is, if a non-mainstream language is well-documented and mature (Nim's been around for nearly 20 years!), go for it. Modern AI code gen can help fill in the gaps.

tl;dr: If you want to use Nim, use Nim! It's fun, and now with AI, easier than before.
Paul Graham as your personal AI Advisor
by vednig | 2025-06-27 22:37:28+00:00
I’m Ved, an "jobless" engineer with a mild allergy to hype and a fondness for well-factored code.

This project is the Paul Graham AI Advisor, trained on 200+ essays—basically YC’s Clippy: instead of fixing your résumé, it’ll tell you your idea is terrible and insist you launch it anyway. Speaks Lisp, loves growth curves, and will explain why you’re not default alive.

Also as a part of Resurrect AI — this is our first prototype that lets you converse with history’s greatest minds. Finally, you can debate dead geniuses who can’t block you but will still make you feel stupid.

This is an early build. I’d love your suggestions to improve it—or, if you're feeling bold, to invest in pushing it further.
by kube-system | 2025-06-27 22:37:32+00:00
Why were they surprised? The fact that it's printed? Or were they just not aware that the same information (and more) is freely available on people search websites today? (one of which has the same namesake as that large white book)

Either way, I think trust now and always in the US has been driven more by the urban/rural divide than anything else. Even as this article points out, this was primarily a rural phenomenon. When you know your mail carrier on a first name basis, things are a lot different.
by jaehong747 | 2025-06-27 22:37:45+00:00
great job! it reminds me genaiscript. https://microsoft.github.io/genaiscript/

// read files

const file = await workspace.readText("data.txt");

// include the file

content in the prompt in a context-friendly way def("DATA", file);

// the task

$`Analyze DATA and extract data in JSON in data.json.`;