MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jjcm | 2025-07-07 17:05:03+00:00
PM on Design Systems here at Figma.

There's an element of truth to this post, but I think the author's conclusions are incorrect.

First is the truth - we are working on things that allow designs to be closer to code (allow here is the key word, not enforce). We've always seen Figma as being at the center between Freeform and Structured design - I talked about it in depth during our keynote at Schema 3 years ago: https://youtu.be/Yo7rL0pvHTk?t=147

Our goal is to enable both, not push designers towards one or the other. The author notes:

> You can’t drag things around freely or try odd combinations of layouts. You can’t simply paste something into a frame without it snapping to the bottom of the stack.

What the author is seeing isn't Figma restricting your ability to design, it's other designers adopting it as part of their process. I'd encourage the author to dive into the why of that. What we've found is that often times these structured design approaches can accelerate even freeform design - rarely do you want a menu that doesn't have equal gaps between similar items, so quickly adding that logic can let you move faster. More importantly though, quickly moving past those repetitive parts of the design can let you more quickly focus on the more creative parts.

All that said, these structured approaches can be overbaked, which is what the author might be seeing. Knowing when not to use features such as autolayout can be just as important as knowing how to use them. The most important thing though is you can always detach from them. One of the top requests we've had from Design Systems authors for a while now is to prevent detaches, but it something we've never implemented, mainly because we always want a way to allow the designer to fully go back to that freeform design mentality. You can always remove an autolayout, you can always detach an instance, you can always break a variable. They're optional features, not handcuffs that bind you. If you want to go a step further, there are plenty of plugins out there that fully detach all restrictive elements on a selection, making all colors a hex code, all autolayouts removed, and everything absolutely positioned so you can just drag things around. We don't provide a native feature to do this (since it's a fairly extreme measure that removes a lot of helpful metadata), but we also don't prevent actions like this if people really want to go to the creative extremes.

Happy to answer any questions about any of this though - this is my bread and butter.
by ltbarcly3 | 2025-07-07 17:05:11+00:00
There is some kind of massive brigading happening on this thread. Lots of thoughtful comments are downmodded or flagged (including mine, which I thought was pretty thoughtful. I even said poop instead of shit.).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492241

My comment was basically instantly flagged. I see at least 3 other flagged comments that I can't imagine deserve to be flagged.
by SoftTalker | 2025-07-07 17:05:55+00:00
Yes, and to clarify that is the "rolling stop" I am talking about. Slow down, enough to verify that everything is clear, this will often mean coming to a nearly complete stop, especially if there are cars ahead of you or crossing. There's no need to come to a dead stop (and for how long? One second? Five? If you wait too long the driver on the cross street will get impatient and go out of turn). If I roll through a stop sign at a walking pace or slower that's not materially more unsafe than coming to a dead stop, and perhaps it is safer as it doesn't frustrate other drivers).

Of course if there are pedestrians waiting to cross, or the sight lines are bad, you behave accordingly.
by redcobra762 | 2025-07-07 17:06:40+00:00
It's abusive and wrong to try and prevent AI companies from using your works at all.

The whole point of copyright is to ensure you're paid for your work. AI companies shouldn't pirate, but if they pay for your work, they should be able to use it however they please, including training an LLM on it.

If that LLM reproduces your work, then the AI company is violating copyright, but if the LLM doesn't reproduce your work, then you have not been harmed. Trying to claim harm when you haven't been due to some philosophical difference in opinion with the AI company is an abuse of the courts.
by mjb | 2025-07-07 17:07:08+00:00
There are a large number of "toolchanger" printers out there, include Prusa's XL. They're pretty great: multiple nozzle sizes and types, multi-material and multi-color without a lot of waste, and even the ability to use different tools (like lasers and subtractive manufacturing). In the consumer space the technology is still fairly expensive, and the complexity reduces reliability, but I suspect is going to become more and more of the norm over time.

Most modern printers also support simpler multi-material setups which change the filament in a single tool automatically. Waste is fairly high (because of the need to purge), and speed fairly low (because of the need to purge), but the technology is mature and cheap.
by samrus | 2025-07-07 17:07:17+00:00
I feel like private companies enforcing when you can and cant move at a stop sign is a libertarian hellscape.

This isnt alot better, but at least its a provate vendor that gets data to the government who then decide to cite whats supposed to be dangerous behavior. Theres obviously corruption there, but these people are at least somewhat beholden tp the public through local elections and stuff. The toyota executives are not
by plekter | 2025-07-07 17:07:18+00:00
While in general I am very much in favour of playing both sides of an abstraction, I would argue that RTL is nowhere near the top of the stack.

In the GPU world, you have games, which are built on game engines, which are built against an API, which is implemented in a driver (which contains a compiler!), which communicates through OS abstractions with hardware, which is written in a HDL (this is where you write RTL!), which is then laid out in silicon. Now each of these parts of the stack have ridiculous complexity in them, and there are definitely things in the upper layers of the stack that impact how you want to write your RTL (and vice versa). So if your stack knowledge stops at RTL(which, honestly there is absolutely nothing wrong with!), there is still lots of fun complexity left in the stack.
by ofjcihen | 2025-07-07 17:08:19+00:00
This is something that people working on extremely simple apps don’t understand because for their purposes it looks like magic.

If you know what you’re doing and you’re trying to achieve something other than the same tutorials that have been pasted all over the internet the non-deterministic pattern machine is going to generate plausible bs.

They’ll tell you any number of things that you’re supposedly doing wrong without understanding what the machine is actually doing under the hood.
by feraloink | 2025-07-07 17:09:07+00:00
I saw Treasury Secretary Scott Bissent (spelling?) being interviewed on CNN about Elon a few days ago. (Elon shoved Bissent in the hallway at the White House cause he was mad about something and then he called Bissent a moron.)

Bissent told CNN that Elon completed his DOGE thing and was now needed by the shareholders of his many companies. Bissent was succinct and polite. Whomever posted the CNN video snippet said that maybe now we know who gave Elon a black eye that day.

EDIT: I just read your .is linky to article. Glad they quoted Bissent.
by visarga | 2025-07-07 17:09:36+00:00
I like this approach. It's not that intelligence is in the brain or the model, and it should not be a noun. It is a process, a search process based on exploration and learning.

Think of a river - the water carves the banks, the banks channel the water. Which is the real river?

A model is like the river banks, it is not intelligent in itself. Neither is activity by itself. Intelligence comes from their co-constitutive relation.

You can see the structure+flow coupling in many places. The model weights (banks) vs the training set (water). The contextual tokens (banks) vs the mass of probability for the next token (water). Agent environment (banks) vs agent activity (water).

The trick here is that neither is capable of explaining the process, or more fundamental than the other. It is a recursive process rewriting its own rules.

And we know from Godel, Turing and Chaitin that recursive processes exhibit incompleteness, undecidability and incompressibility. There is no way to predict them from outside, they can only be known only through unrolling, you have to be inside, or you have to be it to know it.
by calmbonsai | 2025-07-07 17:09:40+00:00
I disagree. The best cordless vacuums all follow the same basic flow-through (e.g. https://a.co/d/bpto7LL ) design and are around $30 USD.

The cost multiple of a Dyson doesn't even result in incremental performance.

The singular use case for a Dyson cordless is frequent cleaning of an uncarpeted floor in a public space (e.g. coffee shop, gym) as it does have substantially reduced noise while running.
by jones89176 | 2025-07-07 17:09:43+00:00
Here's the actual EU directive:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1996/53/oj/eng

I tried to find some official document that properly explained how and why they agreed on these values, but it's really hard to find proper documents. After all, the directive was agreed on in 1996...

Here's a link to perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-is-the-length-of-trucks...

To sum it up, it's a mix of everything: Safety (for infrastructure and humans), efficiency, and of course EU-wide harmonization of standards.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-07-07 17:09:45+00:00
They say it’s only effective for personal projects but there’s literally evidence of LLMs being used for what he says can’t be used. Actual physical evidence.

It’s self delusion. And also the pace of AI is so fast he may not be aware of how fast LLMs are integrating into our coding environments. Like 1 year ago what he said could be somewhat true but right now what he said is clearly not true at all.
by parliament32 | 2025-07-07 17:09:54+00:00
> a consideration of impact on the potential market for a rightsholder's present and future works

This is one of those mental gymnastics exercises that makes copyright law so obtuse and effectively unenforceable.

As an alternative, imagine a scriptwriter buys a textbook on orbital mechanics, while writing Gravity (2013). A large number of people watch the finished film, and learn something about orbital mechanics, therefore not needing the textbook anymore, causing a loss of revenue for the textbook author. Should the author be entitled to a percentage of Gravity's profit?

We'd be better off abolishing everything related to copyright and IP law alltogether. These laws might've made sense back in the days of the printing press but they're just nonsensical nowadays.
by momojo | 2025-07-07 17:10:22+00:00
A light-weight anecdote:

Many many python image-processing libraries have an `imread()` function. I didn't know about this when designing our own bespoke image-lib at work, and went with an esoteric `image_get()` that I never bothered to refactor.

When I ask ChatGPT for help writing one-off scripts using the internal library I often forget to give it more context than just `import mylib` at the top, and it almost always defaults to `mylib.imread()`.
by scarface_74 | 2025-07-07 17:10:31+00:00
I am saying that most people who come on HN and say “there is no such thing as serverless and there are servers somewhere” think they are sounding smart when they are adding nothing to the conversation.

I’m sure you knew that your code was running on computers somewhere even when you first started and wasn’t running in a literal “cloud”.

It’s about as tiring as people on HN who know just a little about LLMs thinking they are sounding smart when they say they are just advanced autocomplete. Both responses are just as unproductive
by karohalik | 2025-07-07 17:10:39+00:00
No one is saying that structure or boundaries aren’t important. Of course they are. But what is being challenged here is the assumption that a meltdown = misbehavior. Sometimes it is. But often what looks like “acting out” is actually communication. Discomfort, overstimulation, unmet needs, not manipulation.

Teaching kids discipline without empathy doesn't create resilience. It creates shame, masking, and fear of expressing emotions. And yeah, being on time matters. But so does understanding why the kid is melting down in the first place, especially if it’s a recurring thing. Otherwise, you’re just dragging a panicked, overwhelmed human out the door like a bag of potatoes and calling it a parenting win.
by ben_w | 2025-07-07 17:11:04+00:00
Not that remarkable.

I mean 400 MW is tiling a 4km square with cheap PV, even after accounting for capacity factor. And 400 MW is also what you get from 1052 Tesla Model 3's at max acceleration, according to their website (though obviously draining a 74kWh battery at 510hp empties it rather a lot faster than "overnight"), and ICEs are also tiny power plants so you get the same power out from order-of-magnitude same number of those.

In fact, this is why I'm putting the money I can set aside for investments, into China rather than the USA: they're speed-running cheap PV and batteries, which are cheaper than most everything else right now.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-07 17:11:22+00:00
> Phonetic is absolutely a feature linked to spoken languages, though?

It's a feature linked to spoken languages, since it is a feature of the relation of non-spoken (usually written) language to a spoken language.

But it is not a feature of a spoken language.

> Sign language, for example, is not phonetic, as many users of it cannot speak or hear.

Yes, in causal terms, the fact many users of sign languages aren't familiar with the sounds of the spoken language is a reason sign languages tend not be phonetic, but they are not phonetic in definitional terms because the symbols in the sign language do not represent the sounds of spoken language.

But it would make no sense to call a spoken language phonetic (except maybe if it was a code for a different spoken language, in which the phonemes in one mapped to the individual phonemes, rather than ideas, of the other.)
by simonw | 2025-07-07 17:11:45+00:00
This uses an OpenAI-compatible endpoint, so got this working with my https://llm.datasette.io/ CLI tool.

First I added their models to my ~/Library/Application Support/io.datasette.llm/extra-openai-models.yaml file:

- model_id: morph-auto model_name: auto api_base: https://api.morphllm.com/v1 api_key_name: morph

Then I added the API key like this:

llm keys set morph # Paste in API key from https://morphllm.com/api-keys

Then I saved an LLM template with their prompting pattern:

llm -m morph-auto '<code>$code</code><update>$update</update>' --save morph

Now I can run operations like this:

llm -t morph -p code "$(cat orig.txt)" -p update "$(cat update.txt)"

The -t option is the template I named when I ran --save. The -p name value options then set the content for the template $code and $update variables.

Example transcript here: https://gist.github.com/simonw/de67818603d448a3fee788ace2976...

One thing that worries me: since it's using XML-style tags <code> and <update>, if my own source code contains those tags I expect it may get confused.
by mindslight | 2025-07-07 17:11:54+00:00
Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it.

I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing.

(of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
by timr | 2025-07-07 17:12:13+00:00
> That even if a show is apolitical (or mostly apolitical like TAL), it will inherently have some political bias because the creators are inherently biased.

I agree, but I'd extend with one other observation: a show can be rigorously unbiased in its coverage of any particular topic, but extremely biased in the decision of what to cover. The "editorial whitespace" is almost invisible, but perhaps more important than what gets covered. If you never cover the good points of the other side, its easier to make them look like uneducated extremists.

For example, while writing one of the other comments on this thread I wondered what a "TAL for conservatives" would look like, and it started to become interesting. While I'm sure that a great many people on the right would initially react harshly to the stereotypical affectations of TAL (tinkly emo music, emotional narratives, soft speech, etc.), you could easily imagine a show where you borrowed this style, and applied it to stories about families losing their multi-generation business to overregulation, bureaucratic interactions with big government, veterans affairs, etc. It could even be quite powerful, because there's clearly a human story that drives all forms of political belief.

TAL touches on some of this, but I bet there's more than enough content to fill a TAL-sized niche on the right.
by SoftTalker | 2025-07-07 17:12:28+00:00
Good point, another thing that the EU tends to do differently from the US. US rarely uses "Yield." The only places I generally see it are at roundabout entries.

Often on EU roads they will use "sharks teeth" yeild markers where a side road enters or crosses a main road. The requirement there is essentially "proceed if clear" a full stop is not required. I have rarely (maybe never) seen a US-style 4-way stop there (my experience is limited to Scandinavia and Germany).
by chasil | 2025-07-07 17:12:36+00:00
Let's consider ten thousand forks.

$ cat winforktest.sh #!/home/busybox-1.35 sh i=1; while [ $i -lt 10000 ]; do (echo $i); i=$((i+1)); done

On Linux, this takes:

$ cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.10 (Ootpa) $ time ./winforktest.sh > /dev/null real 0m0.792s user 0m0.490s sys 0m0.361s

On Windows,

c:\users\x>ver Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.22631.5472] c:\users\x>busybox | busybox head -2 BusyBox v1.37.0-FRP-5236-g7dff7f376 (2023-12-06 10:31:32 GMT) (mingw64-gcc 13.2.1-5.fc39; mingw64-crt 11.0.0-2.fc39; glob) c:\users\x>busybox sh ~ $ time ./winforktest > /dev/null real 3m 44.44s user 0m 0.32s sys 0m 4.90s

Windows is quite a bit slower, at least with Busybox.

I understand that WSLv1 presents a more efficient fork(), which is not really available to shims like Cygwin or mingw.
by williamdclt | 2025-07-07 17:12:52+00:00
To be clear, I'm not particularly advocating for making english a phonetic language. I'm just saying it being non-phonetic does cause issues (and makes it frustrating, but also shows a very interesting history).

Assuming we wanted to make English a phonetic language, then your question is kind of moot: phonetic means we need to pick the pronunciation rules for phonemes, which would make other ways to pronounce these phonemes incorrect. Some of currently-correct english would become incorrect english.

> For example, I would guess that 50% of English speakers are non-rhotic

Note that accent isn't really what people talk about when they complain about pronunciation. The problem is that there's no mapping from letters to phoneme in any english accent: laughter/slaughter, draught/draught, G(a)vin/D(a)vid...
by idopmstuff | 2025-07-07 17:12:53+00:00
"A successful aging treatment would be something that:

prevents diseases of aging, ideally more than one;

preserves a healthy function that normally declines with age (like fertility, immune function, cognitive function, resilience, or physical fitness); or

reverses the course of at least one age-related disease."

I think a lot of the anti-aging companies out there would say that the real answer is a combination of the second and third - reversing the course of age-related decline.

Also, I think it's sort of contradictory to have two of these points focus on diseases of aging but in a subsequent section say that oncology isn't anti-aging. Cancer is in many ways a disease of aging (it's very clear from the numbers that increasing in age causes increases in likelihood of developing cancer, generally more than any other single factor). Curing cancer obviously isn't going to get you a general-purpose anti-aging treatment, but that's why it seems odd to say that reversing the course of an age-related disease is a successful aging treatment.
by sillysaurusx | 2025-07-07 17:13:51+00:00
On the contrary, if you ask a random person how fast the fps needs to be before it doesn’t really matter, the vast majority will say either 60 (because that’s usually the cap) or 24 (because it’s what movies use).

If it wasn’t generally accepted, the world wouldn’t use it in well over 9 out of 10 cases.

You’re correct that the rest of my comment was mistaken; see the sibling comment that presents a paper from nearly a century ago showing that humans can perceive up to 2,000 Hz.
by DrillShopper | 2025-07-07 17:13:57+00:00
Anybody opposing the "Stop Killing Games" initiative should read this comment.

Nobody is forcing anybody to make their games rely solely on online services. It's not a legal requirement, regulatory requirement, or anything else. It is a choice, like most things in software. To make the choice to rely on online services and then say "we'll have to spend money later to unfuck this!" is honestly short sided, pathetic, and nobody should accept it.
by GuinansEyebrows | 2025-07-07 17:13:58+00:00
Culturally, the Dutch expect higher quality at reasonable prices (love to see frugality as part of a national identity!). On the whole, American ad culture has us convinced that we must either suffer with worse tools or spend more on a name brand with increasingly diminishing returns… to say nothing of the conspicuous consumption we’re all nudged/shoved into.
by mschuster91 | 2025-07-07 17:14:09+00:00
Possible causes for this include the prevalence of really large SUVs, which make it physically much more difficult to even see pedestrians - especially children.

Another part is truck design. Same reason: American trucks have elongated noses for the engine, whereas European trucks have the driver sitting directly above the engine.

On top of that, European countries have much more strict testing requirements on vehicles. Basically, every 2-4 years you have to have your vehicle inspected for roadworthiness - foundational stuff such as structural rust, worn-down tires or brakes gets caught much, much earlier than in the US.
by nancyminusone | 2025-07-07 17:14:27+00:00
The only Dyson that we have is an old vacuum I pulled out of the trash, which they haven't sold in years. Was clogged with hair; we removed the hair. Works well enough. It's a vacuum. It vacuums stuff pretty ok.

9/10 would trash pick again. I don't think I would ever buy one new though.
by owenversteeg | 2025-07-07 17:14:49+00:00
We do, of course, use accents and other diacritics. It's not as common as in other languages, but most people will come across a few each day. The popular argument here is that many are French, with the accents optional, yet soupçon and exposé are rarely written naked. If you want non-French, pick up the New Yorker and you will find coöperative and reëlect, or a poem to find changèd and learnèd. We use them in names, from Brontë to Beyoncé.

There is an excellent Wikipedia article that goes into detail on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical...