MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by saghm | 2025-07-08 12:11:52+00:00
You can already write method bodies today that have constraints that aren't enforced by the type definition though; it's trivially possible to write a method that requires Debug on a parameter without the type itself implementing Debug[0], for example. It's often even encouraged to define the constraints on impl blocks rather than the type definition. The standard library itself goes out of its way to define types in a way that allow only partial usage due to some of their methods having bounds that aren't enforced on the type definition. Rust's hashmap definition in the standard library somewhat notably doesn't actually enforce that the type of the key is possible to hash, which allows a hashmap of arbitrary types to be created but not inserted into unless the value actually implements Hash[1].

[0]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/101wzdq/why_rust_has_...
Show HN: Inkaterm – Convert images to colorful ASCII art in your terminal
by redstar1228 | 2025-07-08 12:14:27+00:00
I built a simple Python CLI tool called inkaterm that takes a PNG image and converts it into ANSI-colored ASCII art for display in the terminal.

It's designed to be fun, fast, and useful for terminal lovers or those who want to create cool text-based visuals.

You can install it from PyPI: pip install inkaterm

Feedback and contributions are welcome! https://github.com/Redstar1228/Inkaterm
by evertedsphere | 2025-07-08 12:14:44+00:00
that's incorrect

haskell implements the "perfect derive" behaviour that the blog post is complaining about rust's lack of. the constraint is only propagated to the field types when using a haskell derive, not the parameters themselves (as in rust)

so the following compiles just fine:

data Foo -- not Eq data Bar a = Bar deriving Eq f :: Eq (Bar Foo) => () f = ()
by aredox | 2025-07-08 12:15:02+00:00
Now as many cases as the 2019 outbreak, and the year is only half-way:

https://archive.ph/Qltl3

Note that the situation would have exploded already in the last 5 years but the COVID pandemic stamped down on all infectious diseases.

Now we have active spread, antivax messaging at the highest levels of government, and repeated COVID infections that has certainly damaged everyone's immune system - adults and babies alike:

https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1928177827750265259

https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1942296270854344998

https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1935394752918110367

The most damning thread of all:

https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1918723962701312389#m
by 9dev | 2025-07-08 12:15:11+00:00
> All your data is being sold to the lowest bidder

There aren't that many possibilities on how geolocation data vendors get access to high-precision location data of millions of people. A publicly traded company that generates revenue from targeted ads can never be fully trusted to behave. A social network that optimizes for time spent looking at ads will never really care about its users well-being. Algorithmic feeds are responsible for a widening social divide and loneliness. Highly detailed behavioral analysis can hurt people even when aggregated, for example when they get less favorable insurance terms based on their spending habits. Data that can be used to increase revenue will not be left untouched just to keep moral higher ground. Sensitive information shared with an LLM that end up in training data today might have dangerous consequences tomorrow, there is no way to know yet.

This isn't even about proper handling of individual pieces of data, but the higher-order effects of handing control over both the world's information and the attention of its inhabitations to shareholder-backed mega-corporations. There are perverse incentives at play here, and anyone engaging in this game carries responsibility for the outcome.
by Scene_Cast2 | 2025-07-08 12:15:25+00:00
What ended up launching is a fancy product quantization based on k-means. Some of the tricks were storing magnitude separately (i.e. removing the mean) and rearranging dimensions based on variance (and/or rotation based on PCA) for PQ to work better.

I also remember trying to fit a distribution so that I can generate synthetic data (not for a lack of data, but more for understanding the problem space better). The synthetic data quantized pretty differently - my guess is that it's because of random areas of density and sparsity.

I'm not quite following your exact rearranging idea though. Not sure if the above answers the question.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-07-08 12:15:26+00:00
For the kids just learning about software design today, remember that the way things are now is not necessarily ideal, and you do not have to go along with it. You can color outside the lines.

One of the great misfortunes of traditional software [and network] design is a lack of visibility throughout the stack. The author here talks about "multiple return values", which is to find out multiple pieces of information from some other piece of code. But that code calls other code, and that other code calls more, all with its own information that might be useful for you to know.

Good software design is cohesive and loosely coupled. That means you should not know, or depend on, the internal workings and variables of some other component. But at the same time, when problems happen, it is useful to know what happened in some other component, maybe even 3 components down the line. In particular, you can usually determine the cause of failures by examining just the inputs and the outputs of a function. Examine the inputs and outputs of every function in the system, and that's enough to identify or recreate most bugs. (i/o, system resource pressure, and network interruption are the last bits of info you need, but harder to gather)

But I'm not aware of this capability (examining the input and output of components multiple levels away from the current code) existing as a software design pattern. Within one component, sure, but outside it? If you load a different component into yours, maybe it exposes attributes and whatnot to you. But what about the components that component uses? And what if we're leaving the immediate computing environment? I still want to know what was going on further down the line.

Such a solution exists within systems-of-systems, as in distributed tracing. But only to an omnipotent observer in a faraway land. I want my code to know what happened elsewhere, if only to report a more accurate error message than "500 internal server error". I can count at least 20 times in the past 6 months that I have encountered a web app whose frontend literally did nothing when I clicked a button, and only upon opening up the browser's inspection tools did I see a backend API returning an actual error message. But an equal number of times, just "500 error" or similar. I want to see "the add-user api call failed because you do not have permissions to add users", or "the server that tried to process this request ran out of disk space", and I want to press a button that automatically composes an e-mail to the company with a bug report that includes all the details. Can you build that today with existing software design?

Sure, if you spend 120 hours building the distributed tracing and observability infrastructure (or pay Datadog a quarter million for it), and 80 more hours to train the devs how to use it. But we shouldn't need infrastructure. The software can carry relevant data to-and-fro; let it carry more than just "errno".
by shakna | 2025-07-08 12:15:49+00:00
The problem there, is seeing the underlying theme. People wanted less of the same. They didn't want big groups controlling the vast amount of the art that they were exposed to. Throwing away copyright, might allow more competition in the space.

Allowing LLMs freedom to snap up everything, overwhelming hurts the smaller people who would have led to said competition. It further entrenches all the biggest players.
by jakelazaroff | 2025-07-08 12:16:46+00:00
Here's another comment I left in response to this same person (YZF) [1] with 13 examples of Israeli MKs and other government officials declaring their intent to kill civilians. Many of these are explicit calls for genocide.

That was in December 2023, after two months, when the death toll was only around 17,000 [2]. It's now been 19 months of near constant siege; if you check Wikipedia, as of today the official count is around 58,000 people killed directly. That's likely to be a vast undercount of the total number of deaths: an estimated 64,620 had died from traumatic injury by June 2024 [3], and probably many thousands more from malnutrition and disease. There are also thousands of uncounted bodies buried under the rubble. Israel has (intentionally) destroyed almost every hospital in Gaza, damaged or destroyed at least 92% of residential buildings [4] and cut off all food and water at least twice (and repeatedly massacred civilians at aid sites).

Do you really think fewer than 100k people have died as a result of this?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38576316

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestini...

[3] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[4] https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162491
by incomingpain | 2025-07-08 12:16:48+00:00
Great article, i missed the original that spawned this article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefo...

I've been done with firefox for many years.

Librewolf, firefox fork, is the way to go; available on flathub. Obviously Brave still being main browser.

Mozilla went wrong long ago. They publicly went political and followed through with the firings. They have blogs from the ceo straight up calling for political censorship.

Even more odd, it was mostly just US politics which stands out to non-americans. They are focused on everything except the browser and so it was inevitable to decline.
by VISHESH_01 | 2025-07-08 12:16:58+00:00
Hi,vishesh here,would love to collaborate, I have 8 months of experience building ML solutions.

I am a flexible Fullstack AI developer.

take my resume for reference :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJBfVqmZycwueCMq1ym484lMmU3...
by VISHESH_01 | 2025-07-08 12:19:19+00:00
Hi,vishesh here,would love to collaborate, I have 8 months of experience building ML solutions.

I can work as an intern to cut your times on building models so you can focus on designing them.

take my resume for reference :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJBfVqmZycwueCMq1ym484lMmU3...
by jjulius | 2025-07-08 12:19:24+00:00
At a very high level, you are technically correct - existence is inherently risky and, try as we might, we can't always prevent disaster from striking. Disaster will strike again, somewhere.

At a more macro level, we certainly do understand relative risks of specific areas after interacting with them long enough. We begin to get a better picture of what makes one flood plain significantly more dangerous than another. There are instances where things like this can be avoided, or at least mitigated to a certain degree.
by jjcob | 2025-07-08 12:19:34+00:00
What I was getting at was that maybe typing speed is not the bottleneck. You have to look at how much time the clerk spends typing vs. eg. talking to the customer, clarifying details, explaining the process, reviewing documents, etc. If they spend 5% of their time typing, then even speeding up their typing speed by a factor of 5 will only lead to a 4% speedup, assuming they are fully booked (ie. no wait time between clients).
by iainmerrick | 2025-07-08 12:20:00+00:00
I was responding to the parent comment, that the CGI somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this"

I agree with that, The Hobbit looked pretty bad. You're right that part of it was the bad writing, but I think it's a vicious circle -- if you're convinced that CGI can make twenty minutes of elf-vs-goblin parkour look cool, you'll write that into the script.

If instead you started from the viewpoint of, well, we made a successful movie trilogy out of a famous book trilogy; here's another famous and beloved book by the same author, who even went back and revised it to make it fit with the trilogy -- why don't we just use all the tools at our disposal to put that book on the big screen? Maybe that could have resulted in one really good movie.
by 542354234235 | 2025-07-08 12:21:39+00:00
>It wasn't anything like the end of Back to the Future

Originally there was no sequel planned for Back to the Future. The ending was just a fun gag, having Doc show up, tell them its their kids now, and then flying right into the camera [1]. It was only after the film became a hit that they decided to do a sequel, and the “To Be Continued…” was added to the VHS release [2].

[1] https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/back-to-the-future-not-plan...

[2] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-back-to-the-future-or_b_8...
Show HN: HN client app that remembers reading history
by krishnasangeeth | 2025-07-08 12:22:09+00:00
hey HN,

I am re launching an HN client app that i built this year. It got very little traction when i launched earlier. Following YC advice to do multiple launches, I am going to give it another shot.

It’s fairly basic, but here are some of the features that I hope you would like.

- Minimal, distraction-free UI

- keyword based search functionality to see past stories.

- Dark mode support

- Breeze through comments with collapse functionality.

- Bookmark your favourite stories to read later or revisit any time

- All your reading history is saved.

- Export reading history when you want it.

I hope you give it a try! The app is free with an optional contribution for those who wish to do it.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/h-for-hacker-news/id6744145932
by andrewmcwatters | 2025-07-08 12:22:41+00:00
Yeah, this would be a great opportunity. I think most of the time when you search for anything on app stores, the results are mostly filled with apps that can’t follow design guidelines, have annoying IAP that should have just been you paying for the app, etc.

It’s abundantly clear that Apple has to allow a lot of slop in to collect their rent.

Google Play just straight up isn’t worth browsing.

The Microsoft Store is maybe worse or on par because their audience doesn’t seem to care about user experiences all together.
by dan_can_code | 2025-07-08 12:22:53+00:00
great app, I like the adaptive style, but one piece of feedback is that, sometimes it is not clear what the goal is. For example, the language "Brilliant queen win ahead!" tells me, right, I am going to checkmate for the win with the queen in this game. But, actually the puzzle is to instead win the queen piece. "win" in chess to me always means checkmate.

Overall great app.
by skruger | 2025-07-08 12:23:11+00:00
As to the training set's depth of APL, yes, it's an issue. However, it's worth seeing how well MoonBit[1, 2] works with LLMs, faced with exactly the same problem -- integrating the LLM directly into the parser pipeline.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnY0F9w1xdM 2: https://www.moonbitlang.com/blog/moonbit-ai
by shakna | 2025-07-08 12:23:55+00:00
Re-identifying data is really, really easy. Anonymised data is largely... Not anonymous for long. [0] The leading research has been saying that for decades.

And whilst you say there's so much protection... We have countless examples of where it's been done. [1]

The only real way to be safe with data is... To not have it in the first place. (Which, bonus, often means governments can't compel you to keep it.)

[0] https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta/vol5/iss1/3/

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonchandler/2019/09/04/resear...
by willguest | 2025-07-08 12:24:54+00:00
> There is NO EVIDENCE that the central Texas floods are the result of climate change.

This isn't how climate science or causality works in relation to climate change. The climate is a chaotic, complex sysem that does not have a single, identifiable nexus by which we can "prove" things happen.

Climate scientists know this and, instead of trying to demonstrate irrefutable proof, point to a better need for monitoring and warning systems, of exactly the type mentioned in this article.

It is unfortunate that the author felt the need to lean into this argument, as is it precisely this kind of perspective that leads people to become suspicious of monitoring and warning systems (by generally rejecting scientific argumentation) - the exact problem that the author claims led to avoidable deaths.

The whole approach is quite confusing to me - why identify the issue and then act to reinforce the issue?
by motorest | 2025-07-08 12:25:41+00:00
> So you didn't think they were dismissive or trivialised the issue?

What issue would that be? People falsely claiming they suffer from conditions they do not have? Or is it when they claim they struggle with a condition they self-diagnosed but somehow don't even bother to seek medical help not even to verify a diagnosis? Because if there is something that harms those who actually have to endure these conditions is people making fraudulent claims and trying to capitalize on everyone's goodwill.

> I mean, I can sympathise with the frustration of people somewhat 'giving up' after labelling their own issues, but it's not a logical conclusion to assign it all to a trend.

Is it "giving up", or is it just abusing a label they clearly know doesn't apply to them? You're somehow avoiding the elephant in the room and the whole point of this thread, which is the problem created by fraudulent claims by attention seekers.
by kgwxd | 2025-07-08 12:26:03+00:00
> Nintendo Switch parental controls, then Microsoft Xbox account settings and parental controls, then Nintendo Online subscription stuff

Yeah, I learned with my first kid, DO NOT use parental controls. Lie about their birthday. Don't even accidentally use their real one anywhere. I go with their month and day, but my year.

Use the platform gift cards to buy stuff, don't put your card in there. Even with kids who know better, accidents happen. Lucky for me, worst case was a $5.99 in Robux, which I would have bought them anyway, but it was on my Roblox account instead of theirs (non-transferable), and the lowest price package is a friggin' major rip off.

If you're so worried about the stuff the companies block for kids accounts, just don't let them on the platform, or on the internet in general, because they're going to see it anyway.
by meindnoch | 2025-07-08 12:26:23+00:00
"Oh no, my trees have been attacked by an unknown disease and they're all dead now! I guess we'll have to cut them down :'("

A well placed hole with a 1/2 inch drill bit, and 100% glyphosate does wonders to a tree. Make sure the hole is slanted downwards, so the glyphosate stays inside to be transported by the cambium.
by almostdeadguy | 2025-07-08 12:26:51+00:00
All the #[derive(Clone)] does is generate a trait impl of Clone for the struct, which itself can be bounded by trait constraints. It doesn't have to know that every use of the struct ensures generic parameters have to/don't have to be Clone. It doesn't have to make guarantees about how the struct is used at all.

It only needs to provide constraints that must hold for it to call clone() on each field of the struct (i.e. the constraints that must hold for the generated implementation of the fn clone(&self) method to be valid, which might not hold for all T, in which case a Struct<T> will not implement Clone). The issue this post discusses exists because there are structs like Arc<T> that are cloneable despite T not being Clone itself [1]. In a case like that it may not be desirable to put a T: Clone constraint on the trait impl, because that unnecessarily limits T where Struct<T>: Clone.

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Arc.html#impl-Clon...
by Pesthuf | 2025-07-08 12:26:54+00:00
I once had a use case where I wrapped a callback based library (Amazon's S3 library I think) call to instead return an iterator. Couldn't do that with only a generator since you can't yield in the callback itself. And it wasnt possible to write a custom iterator class since the library didn't give you back control until it was done.

That was the first and only time they were kinda useful to me.
by graemep | 2025-07-08 12:27:10+00:00
Distance driven is not a great metric in the case of cars or other road transport (it is for most transport) because conditions vary.

If I drive the approx 200 miles to central London I am at a far greater risk of having an accident in the crowded traffic of the last few miles than I am on the motorway on the way there.

One big difference between the US most of Europe is that people tend to commute by car a lot less.
by jmiskovic | 2025-07-08 12:27:25+00:00
Personally I hated the NXP's docs for the ARM M4 core. Bunch of dry tables listing each register in details, lacking the juicy diagrams and descriptions on how the bits integrate to work as a subsystem. I constantly needed to cross-reference 3+ documents (most of which describe the whole family and not the specific IC). Their HALs and code samples were obviously written by students/interns.

I liked working with Microchip uC, but this was back when the whole IC (PIC24) was described in a single ~1000 page document. I found it very readable and instructive in general.

If I had to pick something today it would be with RP2040/2350. The docs look awesome and there's a huge community that is not locked down in some corporate moderated forum but spread organically, with actually useful GitHub projects. It is the only embedded product where it felt like the open source community is along for the ride and not just picking up the scraps. I hope they continue this line of products.
by Lutger | 2025-07-08 12:28:28+00:00
New York Times did not got it wrong, the author got the New York Times wrong.

First of all, the NYT article did NOT claim that the central Texas floods are the result of climate change, and for sure it did not claim that there is any evidence for it. In fact, the supposedly left leaning morally indefensible article actually said that: "Hill Country – the part of the state where the Guadalupe River swelled on July 4 – is sometimes called “flash flood alley” for how at risk it is to seemingly out-of-nowhere surges of water."

So the NYT already acknowledges the history of flooding. The main focus of the article is that climate change is increasing the chances of floods 'such as these in Texas' and highlight the importance of NOAA for dealing with its impacts. And it does so by making a sound argument with references to authoritative sources.

Until an attribution study is done you can't say for sure that 'science says' the odds of the Texas floods were increased by climate change. But you can't say it wasn't either. I won't be so annoying to say its morally indefensible, but its definitely incorrect.

Furthermore, the idea that climate change increases extreme weather events is quite defensible and easy to understand, maybe there is even consensus about it among climate scientists. Its not morally wrong to think the Texas floods fit into this pattern, it is actually quite obvious to think they do.
by conartist6 | 2025-07-08 12:29:30+00:00
Context awareness, yep. Response to fuzzy inputs... idunno, why does it need that?

The thing I think is really silly is that it tries to make incremental writes to a flat file really fast, which is an impossible goal. As the file gets bigger your writes will just get slower and slower and slower at a rate that increases linearly with the size of the file.