MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by raigol | 2025-07-06 21:32:25+00:00
——————————————

SEEKING WORK | Remote (EU/US) | Senior Product Designer—Design Systems, Design-to-Code, Accessibility

—

Portfolio: https://raigo.design/case-studies

Email: hi@raigo.design

LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/raigolilleberg

—

Services:

UX/UI Audit Sprint - Fix inconsistencies before they scale (€2,800 (EU) / $3,200 (US) / 1-2 weeks)

Design System Starter - Component library + usage guidelines (€4,200 (EU) / $4,800 (US) / 3-4 weeks)

Design-to-Dev Workflow Tune Up - Reduce handoff friction and rework (€3,600 (EU) / $4,200 (US) / 2-3 weeks)

Accessibility Audit - WCAG/EAA compliance baseline (€1,200 (EU) / $1,400 (US) / 1-2 weeks, pilot pricing)—Note: This is a pilot service focusing on foundational accessibility issues for now. For comprehensive compliance auditing, consider partnering with specialized accessibility consultants.

Fractional Design Partner - Ongoing support without full-time commitment (€2,400 (EU) / $2,800 (US) monthly / 30–35h/month)

—

About me:

Product designer with 10+ years of remote experience, focused on reducing design-to-dev friction through systems thinking, audits, and clean handoffs. Currently expanding into frontend and accessibility to make design more inclusive—and easier to build.

Reliable, async-friendly, and focused on helping fast-moving teams ship with less friction.

—

Contact: hi@raigo.design

——————————————
by apparent | 2025-07-06 21:32:26+00:00
The most successful lawyers, doctors, and software engineers are upper class. High-earning lawyers make millions per year, and even moderately successful doctors in major cities make $500k+. I've heard doctors brag about making $800k, working part-time. The most successful software engineers make near or over a million.

Can you define "upper middle class" and "upper class" in a way that excludes all but "some of the most successful" doctors, lawyers, and software engineers? Because I sure can't.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-07-06 21:32:34+00:00
See also: Dwarkesh's Question

> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/02/dw...

> "One question I had for you while we were talking about the intelligence stuff was, as a scientist yourself, what do you make of the fact that these things have basically the entire corpus of human knowledge memorized and they haven’t been able to make a single new connection that has led to a discovery? Whereas if even a moderately intelligent person had this much stuff memorized, they would notice — Oh, this thing causes this symptom. This other thing also causes this symptom. There’s a medical cure right here.

> "Shouldn’t we be expecting that kind of stuff?"

I basically agree and think that the lack of answers to this question constitutes a real problem for people who believe that AGI is right around the corner.
by timr | 2025-07-06 21:32:40+00:00
See my reply to the sibling comment. I don't know what a "statistically accurate representation of society" would be, nor do I hold that up as my standard here.

> Such shows will not survive - not enough people will listen.

Well yes, exactly. TAL has an editorial voice, it's clear what that voice is (even if it's difficult to describe in conventional political terms), but it's not inaccurate to say that the voice is left of center. Moreover, it must be, because that is the market for the show.
by panpog | 2025-07-06 21:33:05+00:00
It seems plausible that this could be made efficiently doable byte-wise. For example, C3 xx could be made to uppercase to C4 xx. Unicode actually does structure its codespace to make certain properties easier to compute, but those properties are mostly related to legacy encodings, and things are designed with USC2 or UTF32 in mind, not UTF8.

It’s also not clear to me that the code point is a good abstraction in the design of UTF8. Usually, what you want is either the byte or the grapheme cluster.
by BeetleB | 2025-07-06 21:33:07+00:00
It truly is the best radio show I've heard. I've been listening on and off for over 20 years.

If you want some good episodes (do NOT read the summary on the linked pages - some contain spoilers).

The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/352/the-ghost-of-bobby-dunb...) - about a kid in the first half of the 20th century who was abducted and then returned to his family - except to this day people debate whether the kid who was returned really was the kid who was abducted, and how his descendants have grappled with the issue.

When Patents Attack! (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/441/when-patents-attack) - an inside peek into how patent trolls work.

Petty Tyrant (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/419/petty-tyrant) - how a school maintenance employee rose to power by bullying. It's not so much the facts themselves but the masterful storytelling - especially near the end.

Dr Gilmer and Mr Hyde (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/492/dr-gilmer-and-mr-hyde) - about a doctor in a small town who everyone loved. He committed a heinous crime and ended up in prison. The story involves great investigative journalism on exploring why he committed the crime, and they unearthed very relevant details that were previously unknown (even to the criminal himself).

The last two episodes above were by Sarah Koenig, who you may know as the person behind Serial.
by pvtmert | 2025-07-06 21:33:12+00:00
I am not sure if it's ironic or not, but this post itself is also AI related :). An it's getting quite a lot of votes & comments...

Meanwhile, I really liked the blog theme/design. (reading on an iPad) Simple, yet powerful, with a nice touch of the blinking underline at the end of the title. (It's a simple trick via CSS, but nice to see!)
by dangus | 2025-07-06 21:33:51+00:00
> it took Microsoft 22 years to reach $10 billion in revenue

You need to adjust this figure for inflation. Microsoft became huge decades ago when money was worth more.

It’s not being on the Internet that’s giving me AI fatigue. My employer is forcing me to use it. It’s being used at the drive-thru window even. “Touch grass” isn’t a valid argument here.

This idea that AI will improve after the AI companies’ inevitable exits is one that isn’t backed by history. I’d like to have one exited unicorn company named that has a better value and/or lower cost now than its pre-exit state. YouTube? Netflix? Facebook? Uber? MongoDB? Atlassian? Slack?

It is legitimately hard to find a tech company that is a more desirable company to patronize post-exit than pre-exit.

We are so obviously in the customer acquisition phase of AI…people in this thread are talking about spending hundreds per month on AI services and I think all of those will double in price soon after large private company players like OpenAI go public or get acquired. It happened with Netflix, it happened with YouTube (more ads, YouTube Premium), it happened with Uber, the list goes on and on.
by nicbou | 2025-07-06 21:33:52+00:00
I want to monitor specific sections of German law for changes. I used Wachete but Gesetze im Internet is now blocking it.

I would love to subscribe to changes for sentences, paragraphs or sections and get the a diff when it changes.

I would also like to get API-like access to certain values placed in those sentences, to use them as infrequently updated constants in my code.

There is an official initiative for a legal API but it's been in limbo for a while. It was supposed to be released last Spring but I can't find any updates nor get a response from the project lead.
by Tijdreiziger | 2025-07-06 21:34:29+00:00
Yeah, but you’re missing the specialization angle.

NVIDIA and Intel as companies are specialized in the design (and in the latter case, manufacturing) of chips. Board OEMs are specialized in making a consumer-ready product, maintaining worldwide sales and distribution channels, and consumer relations.

Of course, it wouldn’t be impossible for NVIDIA to start doing these things on their own (see Apple, who designs chips, designs computers around those chips, and operates retail stores where those computers are sold), but presumably NVIDIA prefers the current arrangement, where they can just focus on the chips and leave the rest to OEMs.

See also Intel under Gelsinger, who sold off the NUC and server lines (finished products) to focus on the core business (x86 chips).
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-07-06 21:34:59+00:00
...actually, I think it's mostly good for people to learn to code without AI first. AI is really good at simple things and often can't do hard things, but humans can't learn to do the hard things unless they learn the easy things first. This is a way in which AI is not like the internet!

I do feel AI impeding my own learning in this way and it's probably the aspect I'm most concerned about.
by majormajor | 2025-07-06 21:35:02+00:00
The investment makes sense even if you think there will be replacement jobs created because nobody wants to be left behind.

If you are spending X on payroll to do Y, and your competitor is now spending X on payroll to do both Y and Z, then they can (a) undercut you on selling Y, and (b) sell Z that you can't even compete with.

(Or, even if you aren't directly going to ever Z yourself, the replacement jobs could be somewhere else entirely. You actually hope this is the case - if there are no replacement jobs, the market for selling Y might shrink, if everyone has less money.)
by mmaunder | 2025-07-06 21:35:11+00:00
As does:

"(?i)\\bAnthony\\s+Albanese\\b", "(?i)\\bBoris\\s+Johnson\\b", "(?i)\\bChristopher\\s+Luxon\\b", "(?i)\\bCyril\\s+Ramaphosa\\b", "(?i)\\bJacinda\\s+Arden\\b", "(?i)\\bJacob\\s+Zuma\\b", "(?i)\\bJohn\\s+Steenhuisen\\b", "(?i)\\bJustin\\s+Trudeau\\b", "(?i)\\bKeir\\s+Starmer\\b", "(?i)\\bLiz\\s+Truss\\b", "(?i)\\bMichael\\s+D\\.\\s+Higgins\\b", "(?i)\\bRishi\\s+Sunak\\b",

https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_generative_model_safet...

Edit: I have no doubt South African news media are going to be in a frenzy when they realize Apple took notice of South African politicians. (Referring to Steenhuisen and Ramaphosa specifically)
by mrob | 2025-07-06 21:35:33+00:00
All prediction tasks can be better accomplished once all biological life is dead. It's trivial to predict the stock market when all the traders are dead. Weather is no longer chaotic when you remove the atmosphere. Biological life can't help ASI in any meaningful way but it can waste resources by complicating things. The very existence of biological life is a waste of resources to an ASI that hasn't been programmed to preserve it.

Any goal with "but don't kill everything" added is more complicated than the version without that stipulation (and that specific one only saves a single microbe). The simple goal is easier to accomplish, so free market competition guarantees we'll try it first. Biological life is not compatible with "make number go up" taken to its logical conclusion.

There is no need for the ASI to be conscious or to have any equivalent of human emotions to make the number go up.
by impossiblefork | 2025-07-06 21:36:14+00:00
I don't think that can be done. A whole lot of countries, even some quite small ones, so it won't be possible to directly bully them all.

Secondly, these technologies usually have stages developed by different people. Microchips are a chain: different components from Europe, Japan and the US are put together into actually usable factories in Taiwan, South Korea, the US etc. The whole chain is needed. Obviously the US recently succeded in some bullying against Taiwan, but I think it was mostly about demand, threats of tariffs, that kind of thing, and I think that kind of threat again matters only because exports are necessary because of the oil trade. It'll be harder to bully with tariffs when trade matters less.

I also think bullying countries capable of doing useful semiconductor work is less possible, and I also think countries like China will catch up, so that much will be commoditized.

I see thing as being like the end of the bronze age. With iron there's nothing to control, so there's no path to power, with decentralization and independence as the result.
by thedailymail | 2025-07-06 21:36:50+00:00
>While these actions were not a breach of any regulation, SEBI said that the “intensity and sheer scale” of their intervention, and the rapid reversal of their trades “without any plausible economic rationale, other than the concurrent activity in and impact on their positions in the BANKNIFTY index options markets,” was manipulative.

I don't get the basis for regulatory action if they weren't in "breach of any regulation." Not a fan of financial skullduggery, but it does seem important for government agencies to play by explicit, non-arbitrary rules. (Or maybe this article just got it wrong?)
by sealeck | 2025-07-06 21:37:05+00:00
> It's clearly not the case that you can just transliterate a program in language X to language Y and expect to get the same behavior, functionality, etc. in the end?

You most definitely can; if you have Turing complete languages A and B, you can implement an interpreter for A in B and B in A; you can implement a simple X86/aarch64 interpreter in either A or B and use that to run compiled/interpreted programs in the other; you can also write higher-level routines that map to language constructs in one or the other to convert between the two.
by witrak | 2025-07-06 21:37:30+00:00
If you substitute subliminal messaging with any other technique allowing:

- to influence human behavior, - to prevent an effective countermeasure, - to be controlled by a single issuer, you - use in a selective or mass scale mode against a freely selected population,

then you have an equivalent recipe without SF flavor, because the same analysis shows that humanity cannot defend itself.

Of course, you can ignore existing social media and some cybercrime threats... unless they get included in the military weapons arsenals.
by onedognight | 2025-07-06 21:37:48+00:00
> Shell and Exxon aren't forcing people to burn their product.

Is this a joke? They are lobbying against the subsidy of alternatives that are better for society. The repeal of subsidies was just successfully achieved in the OBBB. Yet, they continue to get subsidies themselves. Have you noticed the special exemption for oil and gas extraction on your tax forms? It’s in your face.
by ttoinou | 2025-07-06 21:38:17+00:00
Vectors in the way he talks about in the beginning. With indices (and then extending to "In higher dimensions, vectors start to look more like functions!"). Of course if you use the general meaning of every word, vectors are functions and functions are vectors, and this article shouldn't then have anything interesting to talk about.

how the above result is useful

It doesn't seem useful at all to me, the examples in the article are not that interesting. On the contrary it is more confusing than anything to apply linear algebra to real valued functions.
by BeetleB | 2025-07-06 21:38:28+00:00
They even joked about it in one episode (Bim below is British)

Ira: By the way, a very un-British way to organize her life, Bim says, to embrace delight wholeheartedly and un-self-consciously.

Bim: Fundamentally, I'm fighting against every urge in me, which is like, don't. Don't do that. Because I'm still British. I can't help that. So I'm always just thinking to myself, just going like, oh, is that too much? I feel very much like somebody's disapproving nanny. Stop that. That's too much emotion. You know, there's a reason why our national sound is a tut. [TUTS] Stop it.

It's an admonishment. It's like, stop it, you know? There used to be a talk show, and the theme song was a little child singing in this very sing-songy voice-- (SINGING) it'll never work. It'll never work. And that is how I feel about most things.

Ira Glass: That would never be a show here.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-07-06 21:38:42+00:00
I'm sorry, but removing barriers that stop people from creating their own computer programs, their own anime scenes, their own marimba jazz, or their own live action commercial for their used car is not going to make the world a worse place.

There will downsides and their will be people negatively effected, but democratizing ability has never been a net negative.
by Anamon | 2025-07-06 21:39:14+00:00
That was my main reason for having dropped LLM coding assistance completely for now. It wasted so much of my time and energy. I got the occasional helpful response, but not before four that were almost correct, which of course is a much bigger time sink than when it's obviously wrong. Another fifteen minutes spent investigating a solution that turns out to be bogus.

I got the usual gaslighting that I'm just using the wrong models, or using them wrong, etc. But when I watched others, I found that their results were just as iffy, they just usually didn't bother to check them once they looked plausible.
by echoangle | 2025-07-06 21:39:42+00:00
Not really related but similar situation and I found it funny when I realized it:

The Poynting-Vector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector) indicates the direction of the energy flow of a magnetic field, but it’s named after a physicist called „Poynting“, not because it is „pointing“ somewhere. I thought the „y“ in poynting was a typo when I first read it.
by sealeck | 2025-07-06 21:40:16+00:00
There's a difference between "letting" something happen and actively doing something – it shows very different intentions. The events of 2008 were also caused by a cascading system failure involving lots of different components, which are hard for a single human to fully understand. The actions of the Indian regulator in the Adani case are much simpler, and their motivation is straightforward.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-07-06 21:40:22+00:00
for the record (and disregarding how appropriate this is as an interview question): in JS you can (ab)use the event loop and promise chains to do this for you without managing any queues or lists manually. You have a single `let job = Promise.success();` as a global var, and scheduling a new job becomes `job = job.then(f, errHandler).then(callback, errHandler)`. It's a nightmare to debug (because you can't "see" the in-process queue) but it means you don't have to muck around with manual lists, queues, loops, shift/unshift, "isProcessing" flags etc, all of which is basically you reimplementing that native functionality in user space. It completely sidesteps the bug of TFAs naive implementation.

Not advocating for this in prod but in the context of a programming puzzle it can be neat.

late edit: ironically this is also a comment on the LLM talk in TFA: messing with the event loop like this can give you a strong mental model of JS semantics. Using LLMs I would just have accepted a loop and never learned about promise chains. This is the risk in using LLMs: you plateau. If you will allow a tortured metaphor: my naive understanding of SR is that you always move at light speed, but in 4 dimensions, so the faster you move in the 3D world, the slower you move through time, and vice versa. Skill is similar: your skill vector is always a fixed size (= "talent"?). If you use LLMs, it's basically flat: complete tasks fast but learn nothing. Without them, you move diagonally upwards: always improving, but slower in the "task completion" plane. Are you ready to plateau?
by XorNot | 2025-07-06 21:40:54+00:00
It would also substantially disrupt the generation process: a model which sees B0ris and not Boris is going to struggle to actually associate that input to the politician since it won't be well represented in the training set (and on the output side the same: if it does make the association, a reasoning model for example would include the proper name in the output first at which point the supervisor process can reject it).
by raigol | 2025-07-06 21:42:07+00:00
——————————————

Remote (EU/US) | Senior Product Designer—Design Systems, Design-to-Code, Accessibility | Long-term or freelance

—

Portfolio: https://raigo.design/case-studies

CV: https://raigo.design/cv_raigo-lilleberg.pdf

Email: hi@raigo.design

LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/raigolilleberg

—

Core skills:

- Product design & UX/UI

- Design systems & component libraries

- Design consultation

- Accessibility audits & WCAG/EAA compliance

- Async & remote collaboration

- Prototyping

- Figma, Cursor, Git, GitHub, LLMs

- Front-end (HTML/CSS) understanding

- AI workflow integration

—

About me:

Product designer with 10+ years of remote experience, focused on reducing design-to-dev friction through systems thinking, audits, and clean handoffs. Currently expanding into frontend and accessibility to make design more inclusive—and easier to build.

Reliable, async-friendly, and focused on helping fast-moving teams ship with less friction.

—

Contact: hi@raigo.design

——————————————
by ezst | 2025-07-06 21:42:16+00:00
> You can go and buy a framework laptop.

> In fact, now is the best time in the last 20 years for either

> having soldered RAM isn’t that big of a deal in reality to most people.

Precisely. This whole sub-thread is a response to sacralising Apple for their M chips, pretending there is no compelling alternative, and subsequently giving Apple a free pass for consumer-hostile/commercially-dubious practices.

At any point in time, Apple has the lead, there's no argument there, but if you can afford to wait 12/18 months, you get about the same performance in a repairable/extensible package. That makes Apple's performance less stellar, especially when the same people laud those devices' life expectancy (my daily-driver ThinkPad is specced from early 2017, in 2025 it wouldn't care having bought it "old" in 2018).

I get it, this is an affluent forum, people like the latest and greatest, and a lot of Apple's marketing strategy is about validation and status, that's not terribly rational and healthy, though.
by beeflet | 2025-07-06 21:42:16+00:00
Physical systems are different from information systems. You can make an impenetrable information system, but not an impenetrable physical system. Physical systems are inherently safe due to their locality, and can benefit from security-by-obscurity.

When you hook up a weak information system to a global network where anyone can interact with it, and someone finds a way to break it, perhaps it is worth looking into the systemic weaknesses instead of getting angry about a given attacker.
by gizmo686 | 2025-07-06 21:43:12+00:00
Your can replace the real numbers with the rational numbers and maintain all of the vector structure.

If you wanted something more quantized, you can pick some length unit, d, and replace the real numbers with {... -2d, -d, 0, d, 2d,... }. This forms a structure known as a "ring" with the standard notion of addition, subtraction, and multiplication (but no notion of division. Using this instead of R does lose the vector structure, but is still an example of a slightly more general notion of a "module". Many of the linear algebra results for vector spaces apply to modules as well.

> If it isn't possible, what similar construction on the fuzzy numbers would get you to the obvious endpoint of a "fourier analysis with a low pass filter pre-applied?"

If that is where you want to end up, you could pretty much start there. If you take all real value functions and apply a courier analysis with a low pass filter to each of them, the resulting set still forms a vector space. Although I don't see any particular way of arriving at this vector space by manipulating functions pre Fourier transform.
by owie829 | 2025-07-06 21:43:16+00:00
that is incorrect. 2023 US Payments to agriculture [1] were $10.972 billion. That is 0.04% of GDP or ~0.697% of the federal budget[2] for 2023. It spiked slightly in 2020, but has been a small portion of the budget for a long time.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M318191Q027NBEA

[3] https://imgur.com/a/dwgS0m6