MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ben_w | 2025-07-10 09:29:56+00:00
People plant loads of trees for lumber, but you're right, it's an economics question in the end.

This actually means I'm also worried about something currently impossible: that when we do develop the tech sufficiently to be useful, if it's cheap enough to be profitable, nothing would seem to stop extraction. So CO2 goes down to, what, 300ppm? Pre-industrial? Ice age? Same coin, other side. We want to flip a coin and have it land on the edge.

A single world government could organise to fix this either way, but as all leadership roles come with the risk of the leader being fundamentally bad, this isn't something I'd advocate for either.
by fouronnes3 | 2025-07-10 09:30:46+00:00
I wanted to love Thunderbird, used it for years then a bug [0] literally deleted all my emails. I regularly see updates of people understandably raging on the ticket :( It's a bug that literally deletes user data from both the server and the client without warning. It's been open and confirmed for 17 years straight. It could happen to you. How is it not top 1 priority to fix it?

[0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462156
by seydor | 2025-07-10 09:30:50+00:00
To be fair the US is leading the world in solar and wind per capita

EDIT: energy consumption from renewables, not installed capacity

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=chart&hideCo...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-solar?tab=char...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-electricity-per-capi...
by wongarsu | 2025-07-10 09:31:08+00:00
Both on the API (which I'm using for openwebui) and on grok.com.

It might just be that twitter is a disproportionate amount of their training data, leading grok to believe in a world where twitter is much more ubiquitous than in our current reality. And the grok.com version might be unintentionally biased because it has a tool to search twitter and the system prompt instructs it on how to use it, leading to a sentence about X to always be in the prompt in that version. I'm not at all claiming that it has to be an intentional plot to promote twitter, it might just be an accident. But it is a very perceivable bias
by badmintonbaseba | 2025-07-10 09:32:46+00:00
It's an entirely a different metagame if the goal is to improve your personal best time over multiple games within a given time frame. Once you get good enough with the deterministic reasoning, the game transforms into probabilistic strategies for time saves in both the vanilla and the guaranteed solvable game, and at that point the two games are very different.

For the vanilla game the guesses become integral part of the game that you can strategize around. There are guesses where some squares are less likely to contain mines than others. You can also try to uncover guesses as early as possible in a game, so you don't waste too much time on a game that is doomed to fail.
by runroader | 2025-07-10 09:33:13+00:00
Pretty much everyone speaks English too, it's the official language of the company. Though we all try to be respectful; if I can't understand them then they tell me again in English. I try to respond as much as possible in German and switch to English if needed - there's also heavy use of deepl on my side which seems to be a lot more idiomatic than Google, MS, or Apple translate.
by sparkie | 2025-07-10 09:33:47+00:00
You don't need a license to train AI, but that's not the point.

The license is applying to using your work - a EULA if you like. If you provide a license which states that it cannot be used for training, then users of your work are required to follow its licensing terms, and not following them is a violation of the licensing terms.

If you've made your work available to use, without an explicit clause specifying that it can't be used for training AI, then it is a valid use of your work that doesn't violate its licensing terms.

EULAs themselves are a grey area where their clauses are not necessarily enforcible, but it's ultimately for a court to decide, and it would definitely be better to have it as a clause in your license.

If the user ticks a box to declare they've read the terms and agree, it's hard for them to argue otherwise in court.

A sufficiently advanced LLM should be able to read the term and comprehend that it can't learn from the work and should ignore anything from it. As AI improves it will be more difficult for the providers to argue that term violations were accidental because their AIs would specifically need to be instructed to ignore such clauses - and the developers who provide such instructions would have a much weaker defence in a court.
by bayindirh | 2025-07-10 09:34:48+00:00
I have written a boundary element method based material simulation code in my Ph.D., and had time and opportunity to apply both good design practices and some informed coding such as minimum and biased branching (so the code runs unimpeded for most of the time), lockless algorithms and atomics in parallel code where applicable. Moreover I looked for hotspots with callgrind, and checked for leaks with valgrind.

As a result, I was handling two 3000x3000 (dense and double precision floating point) matrices and some vectors under ~250MB RAM consumption, and getting in an out of whole integration routine under a minute. Whole evaluation took a bit more than a minute in last decade's hardware.

Perf numbers returned great. ~5IPC, 20% cache trash, completely and efficiently saturated FPU and memory bandwidth.

Result? The PoC was running in 30 minutes, my code was run and done under 2 minutes for most problems. The throughput was 1.7 million complete Gaussian Integrations per second, per core. We have an adaptive approach which takes many partial integrations for a one complete integration [0], so it amounted to a higher number of integrations (IIRC it was ~5 mil/sec/core, but my memory is hazy.).

The code I have written doesn't call for SIMD explicitly, but Eigen [1] most probably does for Matrix routines. Nevertheless, the core "secret sauce" was not the formulae but how it's implemented in a way which minds for the processor's taste. Adding "-march native -mtune native -O3 -G0" gave a 3x performance boost in some steps of the code.

Currently slowly reimplementing this in a tighter form, so let's see how it goes.

So, also considering what I do for a job, I know how nuanced Knuth's quote is, but people are people, and I'm not the one who likes to toot his horn 7/24/365.

I just wanted to share this to confirm, validate and support your claim only, and to continue conversation if you are interested more in this.

[0]: https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik/vol29/iss2/45/

[1]: https://eigen.tuxfamily.org/
by netbsdusers | 2025-07-10 09:34:58+00:00
> you can technically look at some of the code that comes with it, but you can't modify it.

This is equally true of the GPLv2. The attempt to close this loophole - Tivoisation as Stallman called it - only won him a lot of scorn from Linux land and a refusal to adopt the GPLv3!
by citrin_ru | 2025-07-10 09:35:44+00:00
Android is based on copyleft code and it is far from an open hackable system. On some devices it possible to install an own build but it requires skills and patience so not an option even for most IT professionals. But for most devices there are locked loaders and closed drivers/firmware. I don’t see a copyleft license helping if a business is not willing to participate in open-source.
by eru | 2025-07-10 09:35:58+00:00
> Never forget that Industry itself came to America by way of direct theft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater

Wikipedia says:

> He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21.

Doesn't sound like he stole anything? At most it's some infringement of intellectual properties. (Wikipedia says: 'He learned of the American interest in developing similar machines, and he was also aware of British law against exporting the designs.' But again, no theft.)
by Merovius | 2025-07-10 09:36:11+00:00
> C++ templates are duck typed at compile time.

"Compile time" is not the right distinction. This is about "instantiation time". Go's implementation specifically allows to type-check the body and the call separately. That is, if you import a third-party package and call a generic function, all the type checker needs to look at to prove correctness is the signature of the function. It can ignore the body.

This is especially relevant, if you call a generic function from a generic function. For C++, proving that such a call is correct is, in general, NP-complete (it directly maps to the SAT problem, you need to prove that every solution to one arbitrary boolean formula satisfies a different boolean formula). So the designers made the conscious decision to just not do that, instead delaying that check to the point at which the concrete type used to instantiate the generic function is known (because checking that a specific assignment satisfies a boolean formula is trivial). But that also means that you have to (recursively) type-check a generic function again and again for every type argument provided, which can drive up compilation time.

A demonstration is this program, which makes gcc consume functionally infinite amount of memory and time: https://godbolt.org/z/crK89TW9G (clang is a little bit more clever, but can ultimately be defeated using a similar mechanism).

Avoiding these problems is a specific cause for a lot of the limitations with Go's generics.

> Look at Haskell type classes or Rust's traits for some classic examples of how to 'type' your generics. (And compare to what Go and C++ are doing.)

Yes, those are a different beasts altogether and the differences between what Go is doing and what Haskell and Rust are doing requires different explanations.

Though it's illustrative, because it turns out Rust also intentionally limited their generics implementation, to solve the kinds of performance problems Go is worried about. Specifically, Rust has the concept of "Dyn compatibility" (formerly "Object safety") which exists because otherwise Rusts goal of zero-cost abstractions would be broken. Haskell doesn't have this problem and will happily allow you to use the less efficient but more powerful types.

(All of this should have the caveat that I'm not an expert in or even a user of any of these languages. It's half-knowledge and I might be wrong or things might have changed since I last looked)
by SteveVeilStream | 2025-07-10 09:38:22+00:00
I don't want to sound promotional but this is the space we are living and breathing everyday at VeilStream.com so I do have some opinions. My suggestion to anyone using any type of AI (whether it be an AI coding tool like Cursor, an end-to-end AI application development tool like Lovable, or an additional agent anywhere in the process,) is to never allow access to your production database until you have done a very thorough security review (which would include testing for this type of vulnerability.) Our proxy server can sit in front of a database to filter/anonymize data so that you can do full end-to-end development and testing with no risk of data leakage and without needing to make any changes to the underlying database.
by ralfj | 2025-07-10 09:39:09+00:00
> This is different from no aliasing of Rust, where mutable references of even the same type may not alias.

It is different, yes. I never said it was the same. Your claim was that the Rust model is more difficult, that needs more justification than just "it is different".

Rust allows pointers of arbitrary types to alias if you use raw pointers. That kind of code is impossible to write in C. So there is a very objective sense in which the Rust variant is more expressive, i.e., it lets you do more things. That's not necessarily a measure of difficulty, but it is at least an objective way to compare the models. (But arguably, if something is impossible to do in C, that makes it more difficult than doing the same thing in Rust... ;)

Compare that to Rust, where if you hit aliasing limitations, there's always a way to change your code to still do what you need to do: use raw pointers. In other words, every UB-free C program can be translated to a UB-free Rust program that does substantially the same thing (same in-memory representation), but the other direction does not hold: translating a UB-free Rust program to UB-free C is not always possible, you might have to do extra copies.

Objectively comparing difficulty is going to be hard, so I gave some anecdotal evidence based on what we know about making real-world Rust code compatible with our aliasing models. Do you have any evidence for your claim of the C model being simpler?

(Other people already replied very well to the other points, I will not repeat them.)
by thomassmith65 | 2025-07-10 09:39:47+00:00
I expressed that poorly. Just 'boring' alone doesn't warrant a flag.

There's a subjective element.

As an example of something I would flag: a one sentence 'hamas supporter!' or 'genocide denier!' accusation in reply to someone's thoughtful comment. If the same sentiment were expressed in a more original way, I might upvote.

Edit: In regard to news stories, sometimes a story breaks and the main and 'new' pages wind up a dozen links to it. At some point, I might flag that. I'm not sure if that's kosher, but there's little purpose in having users wade through identical articles. Maybe @tomhow or @dang can set me straight if they happen to read this.
by notahacker | 2025-07-10 09:39:49+00:00
He doesn't seem particularly happy with how things are going with the new administration, and Trump seems to be enjoying the fall out rather more. As Elon himself acknowledged, to the extent he actually believed in cutting the deficit the Big Beautiful Bill is doing the opposite, and I'm pretty sure some of the cuts that actually are taking place are ones he isn't happy with.

He could have gained valuable information and he certainly got to exact petty revenge on regulators that crossed him, but I'd have a hard time putting a higher valuation on that than the tangible revenue drops of some of his businesses, not to mention risk of repercussions. I also think Trump is remarkably easy to get close to for someone with Elon's money,came and social circles whilst spending a lot less, especially if he's offering unqualified endorsement. Don't forget DOGE was launched as a collab with a relatively minor Silicon Valley player whose other claim to fame was running against Trump...
by TFYS | 2025-07-10 09:40:12+00:00
> centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything.

The local knowledge problem might have been an issue with central planning a few decades ago, but I don't think it is anymore. Everyone now has in their pocket a device with which they're able to instantly send any kind of information anywhere. We now have computers and software powerful enough to process all this information. The price mechanism is an ancient, inefficient and slow way to transmit information compared to what we could achieve today if we really wanted to.

People have all kinds of incentives other than profit. People wouldn't just lie down and die if they couldn't make money by owning things. The failures of past attemps at planning had more to do with the limited technology they had and the poor decision-making structure that centralized power and allowed too much corruption. That doesn't mean planning will always have that kind of a result.

> a government not influenced by money

This is impossible in capitalism, which will always over time create concentrations of capital large enough that influencing the people in government will become affordable, no matter how hard you make it. Government is just people, and there'll always be ways to influence people using money. In a well designed government it would be hard and expensive, but you can never make it impossible. Eventually a corporation or an individual will become so wealthy that they can afford it, and at some point conditions will arise where influencing the government will be a cheaper way to increase profits than fairly competing in the market.
by chickenbig | 2025-07-10 09:40:18+00:00
Hmmm, not a particularly enlightening article. Lots of assertions without numbers. How much does reprocessing cost France? How much does MOX fuel cost France to make?

As for the "five percent of nuclear waste, which is composed of long-lived radioactive material" it rather conflates transuranics (with fairly long half lives) and fission products (which are generally fairly short-lived https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product#Lon...). A key benefit of reprocessing is splitting short and long half life materials, which will enable better disposal options tailored to the nature of the material. For instance, short-lived can be vitrified and stored near the surface for a few hundred years, the long-lived baked into synroc. All this has been done.
by upofadown | 2025-07-10 09:41:11+00:00
>To avoid situation where someone generates a key with matching fingerprint...

That would be a preimage attack. No one knows how to do that with SHA-1. The best you could do would be to generate two different keypairs with the same fingerprint. That doesn't have any security implications. ... which is lucky, otherwise we would need unusably long fingerprints in the 256 bit range. Note that Signal effectively only has 100 bits per identity for the key fingerprint (they combine two identities to make the 60 decimal digit safety number). Using a birthday attack, generating a collision would only involve 2^50 operations, which is practically feasible.
by selfhoster11 | 2025-07-10 09:41:12+00:00
No, public literally just means "in a place that isn't private". It doesn't mean that the utterance will be recorded forever verbatim, or that the scope of the non-private place is "the entire world". New York Times may be public, but so is a cafe in a shopping mall. You cannot claim that the two are one or the same, because they are quite obviously markedly different despite fitting the category.
by cik | 2025-07-10 09:41:34+00:00
> And Saskatchewan. Which the site notes is "a bit of a mystery".

There's no mystery. This is rubbish research. In parts of Manitoba we also use all-dressed for the same purpose (and of course chips). The unifying factor is French culture. The Riel Rebellion helped bring tremendous franocphones, and French culture out west. There are areas like St. Boniface in Winnipeg where s some people speak only French. The Metis are in both Manitoba and Quebec...
by nikitaeverywher | 2025-07-10 09:42:33+00:00
There's more, let me enrich the list of data a bit:

(1) Minimal data (as per your comment): - Your IP address (hence, your location and the internet provider you use)

(2) Inevitably collected data (you can't avoid not giving this data for things to operate): - The website domain (goes to DNS and your internet provider / VPN) - The page URL you access (goes to your website and Cloud/CDN provider they use) - Timestamp of the request (goes to all) - Cookies, user agent, referral and other headers your browser typically sends (goes to your website and Cloud/CDN provider they use)

(3) Client-side collected data (arbitrary JavaScript and what blockers typically block): - Same data as above (but let's say, instead being fed to a third party like Google) - Some client-only data (screen dimensions, session duration) - Behavioral data (page element clicks, cursor moves, etc) - Whatever the website itself wants to collect (typically, ad conversions, attribution, purchases etc)

It's absolutely valid (3) can be misused and it's fair to be minimized. But to same extent (2) can. It all just narrows down to giving less data, to less third parties. A random ad-heavy site on the internet still has a little chance to know you've purchased a new pair of shoes in some random store.

There are truly genuine and legit cases when website owners would like to use (3) for whatever purpose, but they can't get accurate data (and with some blocker extensions, even after the consent has been granted). Like, you may want to see how many scroll it down, read and to what extent. There's value. Each website decides this for themselves – they are the builders.
by Quidkey123 | 2025-07-10 09:44:14+00:00
Quidkey is an Account to Account (A2A) payment solution that lets shoppers pay directly from their bank. Our predictive algorithm surfaces the customer’s bank at checkout, boosting trust and conversion while eliminating fraud and chargebacks. Businesses get paid within 1 to 2 business days from local and international customers, while saving over 60 percent on fees.
by Applejinx | 2025-07-10 09:44:20+00:00
By the time I left I was deleting multiple bot followers a day. You cannot take X's claims at face value, everything about the platform is aggressively dishonest. NPR's experience is instructive: https://niemanreports.org/npr-twitter-musk/

I don't think it's realistic to pretend that abandoning X is seriously restricting anyone. If anything, sticking with it is brand endangerment and by leaving it you're making the smart move, with or without animus.
by vbezhenar | 2025-07-10 09:46:06+00:00
C is not frozen.

C11 added generics, multi-threading, unicode support, static assertions. It broken compatibility with earlier versions by removing `gets` function.

C23 added `nullptr`, very fundamental change. typeof operator. auto keyword for type inference. Lots of breaking changes by introducing new keywords. Another breaking change is empty brackets `()` now mean as function taking no arguments.

So lots of new features and breaking changes with every new iteration. Thankfully, compilers support sane standards, so you can just use `-ansi` and live happy life, I guess...
by hardru | 2025-07-10 09:46:19+00:00
The product we are building has a tool that allows you to explore your competitors and helps you tailor new pricing models (and apply them to your codebase, although we probably don't easily support your tech stack, so you could probably only use the first part). It's www.runonatlas.com

Maybe it could help you? The pricing models suggestions are free :)
by alkonaut | 2025-07-10 09:47:06+00:00
Yes. And there should be studies that show that the number of people who are hampered by syntax highlighting is probably so vanishingly small sompared to those that are either helped or not helped (unhelped, but not hampered)

Syntax highlighting studies usually don't report on whether some subjects perform worse with syntax highlighting - usually only that they as a group perform better. But even with that evidence, it should be obvious that syntax highlighting should be either on for everyone, or on initially and off as an option for the rare individual.

https://ppig.org/files/2015-PPIG-26th-Sarkar1.pdf
by yawboakye | 2025-07-10 09:47:17+00:00
one wonders why colors exists after all. why, we should know all about vegetation, streams, living, and non-living organisms so that their chromatic attributes are very unnecessary. monochrome for the win! i propose dark gray btw /s

on a more serious note: somehow nature choose to let us see colors, and this sense has been immensely useful to our existence and pleasure. maybe go could learn a thing or two from nature?
by notTooFarGone | 2025-07-10 09:47:24+00:00
The main criticism is skill atrophy which you don't recognize and rather talk about literal nazism.

Society is a construct and we teach children to be a part of that. If Society is shit we teach our children shit. That's it.

Can AI retrieve the knowledge for that? I guess that's possible.

Can AI make it meaningful and actually transfer that knowledge?

To learn something and truly take it as your own human contact is very much wired into our DNA. Trying to replace that with some form of text will rob an essential part in learning that has consequences that we can't properly measure. We can only see what happens with humans as they have less contact, increased loneliness and lack of role models which would likely increase.