MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by WillAdams | 2025-07-09 13:45:02+00:00
In what way does LibreCAD writing out .dxfs, or Solvespace or BRL-CAD having a human-readable file format option developed not suit your needs?

That said, I believe this would be helped immensely by an overview of CAD --- fortunately, one was published a while back, and dragged back from 404-ness by one CAD vendor:

https://www.shapr3d.com/history-of-cad/introduction

a reading of that to understand the overall context would probably provide a solid foundation for your efforts.

There has been some recent discussion of making OpenSCAD and derivatives thereof more interactive:

https://groups.google.com/g/pythonscad/c/a-FVSiRnzhw

and various efforts/research:

https://www.reddit.com/r/openscad/comments/18wpaoz/investiga...

https://old.reddit.com/r/openscad/comments/1eswe2w/i_made_a_...

Try that latter at:

https://scriptcad.com/paulftw/2.0-demo

Agree w/ @jpm_sd that Dune 3D is well worth looking at (it's the only interactive 3D CAD where I was actually able to make it through the tutorial).
by dgacmu | 2025-07-09 13:45:04+00:00
Not entirely. California now handles its peak using solar+storage quite effectively.

https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/

It's not entirely 1:1. CA has about 20GW of solar production, and the solar+storage together completely replace about 5GW of fossil capacity.

(But don't discount wind. Wind+solar combine pretty well, and if you throw that in, you'll see that CA is actually replacing about 10GW of fossil capacity with solar+storage+wind. That's _capacity_, not production, so that's 8GW of avoided plant construction.)

We still need more progress in storage, for sure, but the trajectory has been good so far. Storage prices have continued to drop and given the lag of construction times, we should expect online storage to continue to improve for at least several years. Another bit of battery coming online should let CA take that from 5 to 7GW of replaced peak capacity from solar+storage.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-07-09 13:45:26+00:00
1. If something's expensive enough, that turns into manpower and then energy use as you look at the whole supply chain.

2. The ratio doesn't really matter once it hits double digits. If something outputs 100 energy units, the difference between it costing 10 energy units to build versus costing .01 energy units to build isn't a game changer. The important number is that almost all the energy it makes is "profit". And if you can make a solar panel output a few percent more energy, that matters more than getting the energy cost to 0 and having an infinite ratio would matter. All else equal, a solar panel that costs 4kWh to make and has a 1000x return is worse than a solar panel that costs 400kWh to make and has a 15x return.
by Jon1410 | 2025-07-09 13:45:31+00:00
A fictional story of a man imprisoned for killing the person who hurt his child, and what happens when justice arrives too late. It doesn’t argue. It observes.

Quietly, it explores how systems fail, what silence costs, and how violence can live inside inaction. No names, no glorification. Just the weight of doing something irreversible when no one else would.

Is there ever a right moment to become the law when the law refuses to move?
by suninsight | 2025-07-09 13:45:49+00:00
This isn't multi-agents at all. Infact if you read the article in detail, you will realize that the author goes in detail to explain how this system is different from multi-agents. And this is exactly why the author calls it "Agency" because it is fundamentally different from multi-agents.

I agree that multi-agent doesnt work in practice. But this isnt that.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-07-09 13:46:02+00:00
I hate to say it, but reasoning models simply aren't suited for edge computing. I just ran some tests on this model and even at 4bit weight quantisation it blows past 10GB of VRAM with just ~1000 tokens while it is still reasoning. So even if you're running on a dedicated ML edge device like a $250 Jetson, you will run out of memory before the model even formulates a real answer. You'll need a high end GPU to make full use of it for limited answers and an enterprise grade system to support longer contexts. And with reasoning turned off I don't see any meaningful improvement over older models.

So this is primarily great for enterprises who want to do on-prem with limited budgets and maybe high-end enthusiasts.
by littlecranky67 | 2025-07-09 13:46:28+00:00
Not sure why you gave up. All you need to do, is use query params: /todo?id=123 and use `const { id } = useSearchParams()` in your code. Yes, the urls won't be that pretty, but I don't know if this is a road block. I have a NextJS webapp up and running that is 100% SPA (no SSR, full static export) and uses a C#/.NET REST Backend for data [0]. Works (almost) flawlessly.

[0]: lockmeout.online
by zokier | 2025-07-09 13:47:02+00:00
Having completely isolated ephemeral request handlers with no shared state and no persistent runtime makes very clean and nice programming model. It also makes deployments simple because there is no graceful shutdown or service management to worry about; in simplest case you can just drop in new executables and they will be automatically taken into use without any service interruption. Fundamentally CGI model allows leveraging lot of tools that Linux/UNIX has to offer.
by JimDabell | 2025-07-09 13:47:10+00:00
It’s not. It’s pretty much the opposite. This is what he’s talking about:

> our clever thinker invents a new, higher, broader abstraction

> When you go too far up, abstraction-wise, you run out of oxygen.

> They tend to work for really big companies that can afford to have lots of unproductive people with really advanced degrees that don’t contribute to the bottom line.

REST is the opposite. REST is “We did this. It worked great! This is why.” And web developers around the world are using this every single day in practical projects without even realising it. The average web developer uses REST, including HATEOAS, all the time, and it works great for them. It’s just when they set out to do it on purpose, they often get distracted by some weird fake definition of REST that is completely different.
by dsmmcken | 2025-07-09 13:47:15+00:00
The tool we use for our docs AI answers lets you mine that data for feature requests. It generates a report of what it didn't have answers for and summarizes them as potential feature gaps. (Or at least what it is aware it didn't have answers for).

People seem more willing to ask an AI about certain things then be judged by asking the same question of a human, so in that regard it does seem to surface slightly different feature requests then we hear when talking to customers directly.

We use inkeep.com (not affiliated, just a customer).
by Tainnor | 2025-07-09 13:47:27+00:00
But "safe" and "unsafe" are not a binary thing.

Maybe for LOB applications, it would be better if languages defaulted to arbitrary precision arithmetic. But scientific computing is also a huge field that often uses the same languages and there, arbitrary precision is often the completely wrong tool, e.g. it would make certain key algorithms (like Gaussian elimination) exponential.

I feel like this is just one of these things that developers should know about so they can make the correct choice, just like DB indices.
by dlahoda | 2025-07-09 13:47:42+00:00
i tried gemini, openai, copilot, claude on reasonably big rust project. claude worked well to fix use, clippy, renames, refactorings, ci. i used highest cost claude with custom context per crate. never was able to get it write new code well.

for nix, i is nice template engine to start or search. did not tried big nix changes.
by anonzzzies | 2025-07-09 13:47:43+00:00
Once you get used to it, traditional ways look tedious and annoying to me. I think the power is in 'once you get used to it'. That will keep out most people. See python llm implementations vs k ones as a novice and you will see verbose unreadable stuff vs line noise. When you learn the math you see verbose code where the verbose code adds nothing at all vs exactly what you would write if you could.
by pydry | 2025-07-09 13:47:54+00:00
It'll probably be fulfilled in 3 stages

1) Gas peakers - where every kilowatt hour delivered by solar or wind is just a kilowatt hour of gas that would otherwise have been burned. We are generally still here - still burning gas while it's sunny and windy.

2) Pumped storage and batteries gets us to 98% carbon free grids with ~5 hours of storage with 90% roundtrip efficiency - https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

(98%/5 hours is for australia and will vary for different countries but probably not wildly).

3) Syngas fills in that last 2-5% with ~50% roundtrip efficiency. Every kilowatt hour used in those 5% times - those dark, windless nights will be quite expensive although, counterintuitively still cheaper than an every kilowatt hour generated by a nuclear power plant - https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...

3 and to some extent 2 will require natural gas to be prohibited or taxed heavily.
by mhb | 2025-07-09 13:47:54+00:00
Is this you confidently asserting the opposite of what TFA says and what is known to be true about chocolate? Impressive.

A wise citizen once said:

It is telling how someone can think their idea is so novel, and rather than doing research go ahead and announce it like it is something new.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503723
by bluGill | 2025-07-09 13:48:15+00:00
That won't help. I've worked with graphical programming languages before. They work well enough, but in every case I've seen the files saved are not merge-able. Even code generation tools a trivial change will sometimes result in saved files that are almost entirely. Even with text based coding, sometimes you have to make major changes to a file and you tell everyone else on the project don't touch that file since their changes will not merge - the difference is because you are working with the text you know this will happen.

What you want is something that allows more than one person to work on a project. Programming started with file locks - you can divide a large project into pieces (parts, sub assemblies...) and then lock those pieces. I think that is done by the better CADs already, if not it is easy and you should apply that.

Eventually we figured out how to create merge tools - break the program up into lines, and if a line is changed by only one person apply the change, otherwise make sometime redo that line manually. Until you figure out how to merge graphical drawings you are stuck. Making the file next based isn't going to fix anything because the tools will sometimes need to restructure the file based on what seems like a trivial change.
by mixedbit | 2025-07-09 13:48:35+00:00
> Let me ask you this: if I gave you an object X in your favourite OO language, could you use your languages reflection capabilities to discover all properties of every object transitively reachable from X, and every method that could be called on X and all objects transitively reachable from X? Could you not even invoke many of those methods assuming the parameter types are mostly standardized objects or have constructors that accept standardized objects?

Sure this can be done, but I can't see how to build a useful generic app that interacts with objects automatically by discovering the methods and calling them with discovered parameters. For things like debugger, REPL, or some database inspection/manipulation tool, this approach is useful, but for most apps exposed to end users, the UI needs to be aware what the available methods do and need to be intentionally designed to provide intuitive ways of calling the methods.
by Spivak | 2025-07-09 13:48:40+00:00
I think you throw away a useful description of an API by lumping them all under RPC. If you tell me your API is RPC instead of REST then I'll assume that:

* If the API is available over HTTP then the only verb used is POST.

* The API is exposed on a single URL and the `method` is encoded in the body of the request.
by JimDabell | 2025-07-09 13:48:45+00:00
> REST on the WWW only works because humans read and interpret the results.

This is very obviously not true. Take search engine crawlers, for example. There isn’t a human operator of GoogleBot deciding which links to follow on a case-by-case basis.

> I have yet to see an API that was improved by following strict REST principles.

I see them all the time. It’s ridiculous how many instances of custom logic in APIs can be replaced with “just follow the link we give you”.
by pineaux | 2025-07-09 13:48:54+00:00
The longest run up until now... But you shouldnt be so sure that it is still a democracy and you shouldnt be so sure that the fact it was kept a democracy for so long was because of free speech absolutisme. I for one, think that the US of A has lost a lot of its narrative in the last 20 years. I think its the narrative that kept it a democracy until now.
by lxgr | 2025-07-09 13:49:06+00:00
> Let's assume I have the philosophy that my phone, my sim or esim, and anything else which I have purchased and is in my possession, belongs to me.

Then you can't use eSIMs as specified. eUICCs are an implementation of trusted computing.

> I think I may be misunderstanding the attack, though. Is this possible to perform against somebody else for whom I will never have physical possession of the phone? Or for someone else to perform it against me, without ever having physical possession of my phone?

In a non-broken eSIM security architecture, eSIM profiles are singletons, i.e. they can only be installed on any given eUICC at one time. At install time, the SM-DP decrements the logical "remaining installs" counter from 1 to 0; at uninstall time, it goes back up to 1. This of course only works if the eUICC's assertion of "I deleted eSIM profile x" is trustworthy, hence it requires trusted computing.

A different security architecture not relying on trusted computing is of course possible to imagine, but that's not what current networks assume.
by Gormo | 2025-07-09 13:49:10+00:00
> But most people don't want to have to adjust things, they just want it to be good out of the box.

That's why software development and distribution are two different concepts in the Linux world. The core software is fully customizable, but people who want preconfigured out-of-the-box experiences can choose a distro that is largely defined by its configuration choices.
by nerdjon | 2025-07-09 13:49:44+00:00
I would say what you are describing is also not blind loyalty. But there are very much people who do have blind loyalty. I agree on not hating them just because they want to make money, but there are people that seem to act like Valve is their friend and somehow this saint for gaming as if they are a non-profit or something. I guarantee you they are not working on SteamOS out of the goodness of their hearts and it is more about their ability to retain control and fend off Microsoft more heavily pushing their store (yes I know you can run anything you want on SteamOS but that does not change that for most users the Steam store will be the easiest option for them).

We see a little bit of it on HN, but look at the comments on the Gist itself. This was also shared on /r/steam and the comments there. Or the fact that this is currently sitting at "flagged" on HN for no valid reason I can figure out.

There are a (seemingly) rather large subset of gamers that any talk of using another store is immediately scoffed at. Dare have to be critical of Valve/Steam (except for them not putting out games anymore, everyone seems to be in agreement that it sucks) and people try to pivot to all of the good things they have done as if that just makes whatever bad behavior they are doing justified.

Edit: Seriously, go look at some of the more recent comments on the gist attacking this guy and tell me there is not blind loyalty to Valve. Some of these responses are seriously unhinged.
by moebrowne | 2025-07-09 13:49:51+00:00
There is a complementary Partial Function Application RFC which, among other things, solves the one-parameter limitation. It allows a question mark to be substituted in for the piped value:

$foo |> str_replace('hello', 'hi', ?);

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application_v2
by gm678 | 2025-07-09 13:50:12+00:00
The article alludes to it by mentioning single table inheritance, but some of these patterns go all the way back to Fowler's _Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture_:

* https://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/singleTableInheritan...

* https://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/classTableInheritanc...

* https://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/concreteTableInherit...
by xpe | 2025-07-09 13:50:41+00:00
Even carefully thought out comments like the above are only hints and ideas relating to making sense of the world. They don’t talk about building quantitative predictive or causal models to disentangle the many factors driving success, failure, and everything in between.

I recommend The Book of Why by Judea Pearl as a starting point for digging into the lesser-known techniques of assessing causality. The causality work over the last couple of decades is still under-appreciated and not used often enough.

One is unlikely to find anything close to rigor when it comes to business or entrepreneurial books. They can be a starting point for analysis, but their bias to tell an interesting story and sell copies often work at odds with truth seeking.

At the risk of oversimplification, one decent model for acting comes from decision theory. (1) Look at the data probabilistically and act accordingly. (2) If you don’t have enough data, assess the cost/benefit of acquiring more.

But we don’t have the time or the discipline to make all important decisions this way, do we? Probably not. So, (3): if you act on intuition, be honest with yourself about that. Be curious about yourself and your decisions and how you can do better. Focus on areas where improvement is likely to make an outsized impact. (This leads back to #2, except it is about seeking better knowledge and self-awareness instead of just data.)

I try not to exaggerate, but these three principles might be sufficient to subsume all other business advice.

Embrace the uncertainty and move forward anyway.
by coldspoon95 | 2025-07-09 13:50:59+00:00
From a pure physics and first principles perspective, a higher EROI implies higher scalability and lower costs.

Nuclear today has high costs associated to it due to uncertainty in permitting, high upfront costs due to red-tape, annd archaic regulations that stifle any innovation. These make risk management prohibitively expensive as is the cost of insuring them. If the catastrophic rate of failure and associated deaths are far far smaller than what’s generally accepted in society(think fatalities due to vehicle accidents), then we must work to removing the red-tape to ease construction of these. They’re also far more green to operate.

This way, we can keep solar for residential, and for industries to offset their own use(think data centers investing in their own energy supply instead of paying others. Think on-premise vs off-premise).
by HybridCurve | 2025-07-09 13:51:31+00:00
The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997: deregulated capital flows allowed speculators to rapidly pull money out of countries like Thailand, causing their currencies to collapse. The IMF stepped in, but their 'rescue' packages demanded strict conditions- forced privatization, and further deregulation, which often made things worse. And let's not forget Black Wednesday, when speculators broke the Bank of England. This was called "a textbook case of a speculative attack enabled by capital mobility" which is a core neoliberal policy. Just like all politics: never trust the meaning or identity of something derived from it's headline, title, name, or label- those are always the first lies we are told.
by rz2k | 2025-07-09 13:52:08+00:00
I think you have misunderstood energy yield expressed as a multiple of energy input as a fundamental measurement of the viability of any energy technology.

If you run scenarios, you’ll find that this number is entirely irrelevant. Instead, try considering the availability and required quantities of raw materials and inputs like silver, indium, land, and of course money which is the best proxy for measuring how much of the world economy would be required for building out any technology.
by ngriffiths | 2025-07-09 13:52:09+00:00
The doc bot goes in the same category as asking a human who has read the docs. In order of helpfulness you could get:

- "Oh yeah just write this," except the person is not an expert and it's either wrong or not idiomatic

- An answer that is reliably correct enough of the time

- An answer in the form "read this page" or quotes the docs

The last one is so much better because it directly solves the problem, which is fundamentally a search problem. And it places the responsibility for accuracy where it belongs (on the written docs).
by ImPostingOnHN | 2025-07-09 13:53:42+00:00
> Then you can't use eSIMs as specified.

Could you elaborate here, please? I am kind of ignorant on this topic. Using an exploit to root my phone results in not using the phone "as specified", but it still works, and it's okay with me, because I own it.

It sounded like the concerns you had were ones the network operator should be concerned with. Suppose I don't care about their concerns unless they result in my stuff being compromised*.

Are you saying that it breaks the security in a way that someone who doesn't own my phone and doesn't have physical access to my phone can compromise my phone and/or my eSIM?

* - for the purposes of simplifying discussion, I'm dismissing the possibility that the network operator throws up their hands and entirely stops using/allowing eSIMs because they can't control everything
by coldspoon95 | 2025-07-09 13:54:15+00:00
Exactly my point. Solar and Wind being intermittent require additional expense of grid storage which other forms of energy do not need.

So to scale, for each GW of solar, you’ll need a GW of storage plus the energy reserve to take through the night. Can’t rely on wind here as that’s also intermittent.

And grid storage is energy intensive and sets up twisted incentives for those playing to get rich with energy arbitrage. Think solar farm generators owning their own grid storage and reducing solar output to sell at higher $ from storage. Because, with intermittent sources pricing has to be more dynamic.
by close04 | 2025-07-09 13:54:34+00:00
> and the paid version comes with a tonne of apps pre-installed

I didn't like the way they sell this on their page, "Bundled with alternatives to over $5,000 of professional software". They list the commercial alternatives with their prices but no mention of what's the bundled alternative. Probably the usual free software that any user with a modicum of familiarity with an app store can install in minutes.

The lack of transparency about what software they bundle, and the implication that this software is entirely equivalent to the commercial/professional one feels a bit dishonest and puts me off.