MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Aurornis | 2025-07-08 14:18:23+00:00
> Absolutely no. We don't want to maintain our own toolchain and we want everything to be coming from the BSP [Board support package] and integrated nicely with the vendor's IDE

This is critical if you want any support from the vendor.

If you come to them with a bug in their hardware but you’re not using their toolchain and BSP, it’s the end of the road. You have to recreate a minimal reproduction of the bug in their ecosystem before they’ll look at it.

When you’re working at company scale, paying $1000 for a compiler is a trivial expense.
by uokesita | 2025-07-08 14:18:27+00:00
SEEKING WORK | 100% REMOTE

Specialized in ReactJS, React Native, and Ruby on Rails. Prefer to work on small/medium size projects and close to business outcome.

Tech Stack: AWS, Bedrock, Amplify, AppSync, ReactJS, NextJS, Langchain, OpenAI, AI SDK.

- Email: osledy@alamedadev.com

- Web: https://alamedadev.com
by amval | 2025-07-08 14:18:46+00:00
> I was active in the Python community in the 200x timeframe, and I daresay the common consensus is that language didn't matter and a sufficiently smart compiler/JIT/whatever would eventually make dynamic scripting languages as fast as C, so there was no reason to learn static languages rather than just waiting for this to happen.

To be very pedantic, the problem is not that these are dynamic languages _per se_, but that they were designed with semantics unconcerned with performance. As such, retrofitting performance can be extremely challenging.

As a counterexample of fast and dynamic: https://julialang.org/ (of course, you pay the prize in other places)

I agree with your comment overall, though.
by pvg | 2025-07-08 14:18:57+00:00
I find the idea of removing the incentive to find the best time to post interesting.

That's, more or less, what the second chance pool attempts to do. As do subcategories like https://news.ycombinator.com/show which effectively extend the 'visible time in queue' for Show HN posts.

I think the underexamined assumption in a lot of these analyses is that it's hard to get a post on the HN front page. But in reality, it's relatively straightforward with a whole pile of backup mechanisms. The mystique of 'magical posting hour' draws people in but it's a lot simpler to just produce a post that matches HN's (fairly broad and loose) interestingness criteria.
by BeetleB | 2025-07-08 14:19:36+00:00
> patient privacy is actually a thing and they cannot record your sessions or store the recordings and analyze them at arbitrary places without your explicit consent.

So amongst the many papers you sign when you see a therapist/doctor is one where you provide consent.

> And you surely wont have the same resources as major publishers to fight against it.

HIPPA violations are taken much, much more seriously than your typical copyright violation.

> Even if you trust HIPPA or whatever to be useful and actually protect your rights, current chatgpt has no such certification (as far as I am aware).

The way is to use GPT via Azure, and ensure Azure's method of providing GPT access is HIPPA compliant. Azure runs GPT locally and doesn't send to OpenAI (or at least my company has such an agreement with MS). You can fill out a form asking Azure not to store any transcript - even for security/performance reasons.

Besides Azure, there are dedicated companies providing LLM access for healthcare where the companies are HIPPA certified and can provide all the guarantees (even if they use 3rd party LLMs). It's a simple Google search.

> When you give your data, its no longer in your control. Even if you get extremely lucky and laws actually work, and companies actually play along; in, say, ten years things may change and suddenly your old records may be fair game. Its out of your hands.

As I pointed out, LLMs are not unique about this problem. What you say is true for any tool used by therapists for record keeping.
by mxfh | 2025-07-08 14:19:55+00:00
Quite a few EU national libraries have legal desposits of cultural works extended to video games. It's not that far fetched for them to expect that their copies should be working. For ephemeral GaaS the libraries could require a video of a reference playthrough for any new game mode, if they don't want to leave it all inconsistent and spotty twitch and letplay youtube coverage.

Requiring GaaS Server binaries to made public is a bridge too far here to me, if the game is kept running with a minimum of two years after announcing EOL and shutting down purchases in shops after that. It should be encouraged, but mandatory? Playability is not everything if the experience is not reproducable to begin with.
by ysofunny | 2025-07-08 14:20:27+00:00
I have a legitimte question about mathematics. I feel as though:

- on one corner mathematics must be doable alone, by a single human mind; almost by definition of "being mathematics"

- on the other corner we have this article's stance. to never (e.g.) create a novel all on your own?

consider a work of literature. should we strive to avoid single-authorship? but then my point is that we would lose something. something core to the individual experience and something (possibly) core to the mathematical discipline?

but specifically in the case of maths, would we?
by vel0city | 2025-07-08 14:20:51+00:00
Which one is the gun and which one is the cancer in this scenario? Would the cancer patient survived the gun shot if they weren't already weakened from cancer treatments and disease progression? Would they have survived the cancer if they didn't experience the trauma of the gunshot wound?

I don't think we definitively have the answers to that question IRT what killed the dinosaurs.
by chatmasta | 2025-07-08 14:20:54+00:00
Yes, very strange and I was wondering why my comment which is on topic was added here…

There are other comments which are clearly on-topic, e.g. direct feedback about the app, which have been relegated to this weird sub-thread.

If this is a new feature, I’m not a fan of it. We have downvotes for off-topicness.
by behnamoh | 2025-07-08 14:21:32+00:00
Recently I've been shopping for cars and I really wanted to purchase an EV this time but because of the the lack of good infrastructure in the US for EVs, especially for non-Tesla vehicles, I decided not to go the EV route.

Also, I'm renting an apartment, which makes it more challenging to install a home charger. So buying an EV is not just about saving the environment, it also necessitates changing your lifestyle. For example, you should be okay with spending at least half an hour in charging stations. For some people it might be fine but I think that it just takes away some of the freedom that I want to have with my car. Not to mention that some charging stations have long queues and that adds to the waiting time.

But another issue that I ran into is the lack of control over my own car when most of its mechanisms are controlled electronically. I prefer physical buttons and there seems to be an anti-pattern in EVs where they move almost everything to a touch screen. Also, the company can update the car anytime they want. That means they can remotely shut down my car or do whatever the heck they want with it. That also doesn't give me the sense of freedom. It actually makes me feel like I'm borrowing a car from the company even after paying the full price.

And a Chinese company that is probably benefiting from government subsidies would freak me out because they might listen to the conversations I have in the car or track me or whatever.
Programming Language Switching Sociology: Be a Human
by ricecat | 2025-07-08 14:21:34+00:00
My last post, "Programming Language Switching Politics", got some pretty solid attention. Based on the traffic stats from our backend, it’s clear we had a lot of readers—really appreciate the interest!

So today, I want to wrap up the third part of this little series and complete my theory.

Now, here’s a fun bit: I never actually pointed to Rust in the post. The theory I laid out applies to any programming language and any dev team—it's meant to be general and language-neutral. But somehow, I still got a few unreasonable comments from the "Rust people". Maybe it was because I included a Twitter image that mentioned Rust? Anyway, seems like someone might’ve barked up the wrong tree.

Hey, I know some real Rust people, they are good. Don't pretend to be offended and make Rust community look bad.

Now back to our topic.

https://www.gizvault.com/archives/language-switching-sociology
by jchw | 2025-07-08 14:21:45+00:00
I think WebAssembly could be amazing for taking chunks of existing programs and making them super portable (and sandboxed!), and it kind of is already, but boy, I was pretty surprised to just recently realize it's not really as polished or complete as I think you'd hope for this use case.

If you want to build something like libpng (or a myriad of other C libraries,) you need setjmp/longjmp. Not really a huge problem: Emscripten can handle this, it just needs a tiny bit of help via host functions. You can also use Wasm Exception Handling instead, in which case you don't need any hacks on the host side.

So far this sounds pretty good, but actually it isn't, because:

- Wasm Exception Handling is still not part of the standard. They are supported by browsers and runtimes based on browsers, but they are unsupported by lots of other runtimes (Wazero doesn't seem to support them, for example.)

- When you're using Emscripten outside of a browser, you can use the Emscripten method for sjlj support even in a "standalone" build, calling into some simple host functions, which is handy. The problem is... standalone builds with Emscripten don't really work that well. A lot of the syscalls don't really go anywhere: https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/blob/main/syst...

A non-standalone build is possible, but even though Emscripten does use WASI for many things automatically, a lot of host support is required to make this work properly, so outside of a browser environment I reckon this will take a lot of work, and it seems also that it will be hard to properly implement those functions in many of the standalone Wasm runtimes.

You can compile with a Clang/WASI toolchain instead, which will implement much more of the syscalls via WASI, but I don't think this supports the Esmcripten method for handling Wasm Exception Handling, which means you need to have a runtime with Wasm Exception Handling support.

I guess the Clang/WASI toolchain is doing the right thing here, but it's still somewhat frustrating that Wasm Exception Handling is still not a part of the standard or many of the non-browser runtimes.
by avadhesh18 | 2025-07-08 14:21:52+00:00
It takes both yours and puzzle's rating in consideration while calculating. Just below the chessboard you can see "+12 -10" that means this puzzle will gain you 12 points if you solve this or you will lose 10 points if you fail.

The system is based on ELO with the main difference being that the K factor in OffChess is variable, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
by torginus | 2025-07-08 14:23:05+00:00
I will go on a record that I never really liked WebAssembly. Google's Native Client allowed people to run safety screened native assembly at like 95% native speed and virtually no startup time, while having a tiny fraction of the engineering complexity.

Accessing browser native classes is still an open issue - in fact, you have to go through JS to do anything, with all the associated performance issues. I don't get it why it's so bad - for every native JS class you find on MDN, there's an equivalent C++ class in the Chrome codebase, which somehow gets bound to the JS JIT. Couldn't we expose all the API through a marshalling/validation layer? Memory leaks are a non-issue, since you can leak native objects in both JS and in C, with the only difference being that in JS, the object is still reachable through a gc root.

Another huge issue is the crappy multithreading support. First, the multithreading solution of JS workers + SharedArrayBuffer is horrible, second you aren't allowed to do it without draconian and impractical security measures, due to the security theather around side channel attacks. Which makes running heavy apps, like modern video games, practically impossible.

I remember Epic demoing Unreal in the browser in the early 2010s and a lot of people predicted that in the future, most games will be playable via a website. Yeah, that didn't come to pass.

Instead of becoming the default way of writing and distributing web apps, with the convenience of web deployment and the power of real desktop apps, it became a curiosity and a way of gaining tech clout.
by deviation | 2025-07-08 14:23:30+00:00
Neat idea. I'm sure this will solve some friction for the neuroscientists/mathematicians out there with ~20+ windows open.

Personally (as someone with ADHD), this would just relentlessly grind my gears. My thoughts are unpredictable by nature and so I value the "reliability" of knowing my chrome is two alt+tabs away, etc.

If an algorithm started messing with this and changing throughout the day... Damn, I'd go crazy.
by micromacrofoot | 2025-07-08 14:23:41+00:00
> but up until recently it felt like only Google or Facebook had access to analysis capabilities strong enough to draw meaningful conclusions from disparate data points

Every advertiser can access data like this easily, when you click "yeah sure" on every cookie banner this is the sort of data you're handing over... you could buy it too.

Every time someone says "they're listening to your conversations" we need to point out that with a surprisingly small amount of metadata across a large number of people, they can make inferred behavioral predictions that are good enough that they don't need to listen (it's still much more expensive to do so)

On a macro level people are very predictable, and we should be more reluctant about freely giving away the data that makes this so... because it's mostly being using against us.
by lowsong | 2025-07-08 14:24:36+00:00
> The language of "generator that stochastically produces the next word" is just not very useful when you're talking about, e.g., an LLM that is answering complex world modeling questions or generating a creative story.

But it isn't modelling. It's been shown time, and time, and time again that LLMs have no internal "model" or "view". This is exactly and precisely why you should not anthropomorphize.

And again, the output of an LLM is, by definition, not "creative". Your saying we should anthropomorphize these models when the examples you give are already doing that.
by IAmBroom | 2025-07-08 14:24:55+00:00
If you've never seen the optical illusion, it is stunning.

You stare at the center (unmoving) dot in a moving field. The field remains; the dot fades away - and POPS back the second your eyes move.

Your unconscious, constant "jiggling" of your eyes is called saccadal movement. Without it, only moving things would be visible - which is true for frogs.
Show HN: SignMyPdf – Turn any PDF into an online form
by aqrashik | 2025-07-08 14:25:10+00:00
I made a site to add editable fields to any PDF and host it online, no signup or login required.

The created PDF forms stay online as long as they are actively filled. Inactive Pdfs are deleted after 30 days of inactivity.

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
by azonenberg | 2025-07-08 14:25:16+00:00
I don't think I've ever used a ST part without reporting a bunch of datasheet errors.

I haven't been bit by an undocumented silicon bug, but I step on documented STM32H7 bugs on a pretty regular basis and there are some poor design decisions around the OCTOSPI (in addition to bugs) that make me avoid it in almost every situation.

But at least they document (mostly correctly) the registers to talk to their crypto accelerator unlike the Renesas and NXP parts I looked at as potential replacements, both of which needed an NDA to get any info about the registers (although they did supply obfuscated or blob driver layers IIRC).
by Sesse__ | 2025-07-08 14:25:35+00:00
Python is also choosing to play with one hand behind its back; e.g., the “no extension API changes” rule which means any hope of a faster value representation (one of the most important factors in making a dynamic language fast!) goes out the window, refusing to change the iterator API (which means that throwing and handling exceptions is something that needs to be handled by the fast path of basically everything), and so on.
by roninthesky | 2025-07-08 14:26:20+00:00
Thanks.

> is it open-source? No, it isn't open source rn - it's most vibe coded so not in the best shape to be open source.

> which LLM are you using? LLM wise - it's configurable, I keep switching between Gemini 2.5 Pro, o3 and fine tuned 4.1. I switch models between different actions as well. The initial explanation vs getting more details/chatting. Generally I have found o3 to be better one with generating explanations e2e.
by tucnak | 2025-07-08 14:26:37+00:00
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+all+of+oregon+north+of+ne...

Show more -> Disclaimer and the feedback buttons are shown at the end. If you bothered enough to read the full response, you would have seen the disclaimer, but you never did, so you haven't. For something to be considered "misinformation," in the very least the subject of speech has to be asserting its truthfulness—and, indeed, Google makes no such claims. The claim they're making is precisely that its search result-embedded "[..] responses may include mistakes." In this specific case, they are not asserting truthfulness.

FWIW, Gemini 2.5 Pro answers the question correctly.

The search hints are clearly a low-compute first approximation, which is probably correct for most trivial questions which is probably the majority of user queries, and it's not surprising that it fails in this specific instance. The application doesn't allow for reasoning due to scale; even Google cannot afford to run reasoning traces on every search question. I concur that there's very little to discuss: you seemingly made up your mind re: LLM technology, and I doubt you will appreciate the breaking-up of your semantics to begin with.
by benreesman | 2025-07-08 14:26:38+00:00
Haskell/GHC gets this right without any hand-wringing and about 3-4x the practical historical burden and without relying on the runtime.

The Rust community is very adamant as a general thing that "you're holding it wrong" when people complain about e.g. BDSM passing semantics, but it's also got REIR/RIIR, which is kinda like "you're holding it wrong" for programming.

These two things together are a category error.
by xorvoid | 2025-07-08 14:26:45+00:00
Am I the only one who thinks this is perfectly fine?

The requirements for derive Clone are clearly defined. As with much in Rust, the type signature drives things, rather than the function body (contrast with C++ generics).

Occasionally, this results in perfectly reasonable code getting rejected. Such is the case with all static languages (by definition).

But in the few cases that happen, the solutions are quite straightforward. So, I don’t feel like it’s justified to add more complication to the language to deal with a few small corner cases.
by MangoToupe | 2025-07-08 14:27:16+00:00
IDK, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. The original rationale for restricting derive makes more sense to me than not restricting it. What you see as obvious strikes me as potentially dangerous.

Then again, I never had much respect for "obviousness" (as a concept, not in terms of code that is readable); the concept doesn't strike me as very useful except for papering over disagreement.
by SoftTalker | 2025-07-08 14:27:17+00:00
We have no classroom requirement, the new driver just needs to pass the written test, which covers basic traffic rules and signs, and a short (maybe 20 minutes) driving test with an examiner. This basically amounts to a few blocks out and back near the DMV office. As long as you stay in the correct lanes, don't speed, stop at stop signs, and use turn signals, you will almost certainly pass.

There is a requirement for some number of supervised hours behind the wheel but it's entirely self-reported on the honor system.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-07-08 14:27:22+00:00
If you are doing mathematics, you probably should be discussing your ideas with others, even if you are the sole author of the paper. They can contribute helpful ideas, some of which are wrong and should be ignored, but some of which can save you months.

Create a novel on your own? Go for it. (Though even there, other people can contribute interesting suggestions.) But then, if you're going to publish it, you're going to run it through an editor...
by 9rx | 2025-07-08 14:27:23+00:00
> That 1988 paper was a modification of the previous design,as an attempt to address criticisms

That paper is the criticism (of SQL). Is the contention here simply about not understanding that we're talking about what Codd thought, not what others thought/think? It seems abundantly clear what Codd thought. His language doesn't offer a whole lot of ambiguity as far as I am concerned.

> The concept of a relation as a data structure is far more abstract than it seems.

If you want to interpret that way, sure. You can imagine a relation any way you want. But that's not what we're talking about.

> From the platonic view, uniqueness is a trivial, syntax property, you make that choice

Absolutely. Akin to choosing to define your program constraints in tests instead of using a type system. The end result is effectively the same, but one offers certain guarantees out of the box, while the other relies on you to get things right. They, while effectively the same, are not identical. There is good reason why we have static and dynamic typed classifications, just as we have relational and tablational. There is not some kind of magic in there, it is merely a communication device so that others can figure out what you are trying to say.

> but there is a reason no one exactly implemented it

Right, because the relational model, as Codd saw it, isn't really all that good, at least not in real-world scenarios. Just as we've brought up many times before. There is good reason why SQL "won". Why embarrass SQL by calling it relational?

But, if you wish to — and fair enough if you do, I would still love to know what you would call a database that is built in the eye of Codd? It cannot also be relational if SQL is deemed as such. As you point out, there are clear differences. Calling them both relational would be confusing.
by RajT88 | 2025-07-08 14:28:04+00:00
Some people buy Apple products because they have succeeded in making it a minor status symbol. It's interesting, because one symbol is wealth (Apple devices cost more), but the other is a symbol of being a creative professional.

I would describe myself via metaphor: the redneck who likes to race cars, and doesn't care about the car as long as it has most of its wheels, and he'll drive the hell out of it.