MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by esperent | 2025-07-13 06:07:07+00:00
I've heard this said before, and I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's good enough. We should be aiming for equality at the start of a race, not giving the better people a head start. If qualifying races are broken in the way, then just randomize the starting order. Literally do a random draw as people are walking/driving up to the start. It would make the events far more interesting as well.
by lbreakjai | 2025-07-13 06:08:32+00:00
> Historically, Bitcoin can be and has been mined on consumer hardware. Whether this is profitable will depend on several factors, but it's one of the reasons that consumer grade graphics cards have increased in price lately. I'm unaware of any major economies of scale here.

Mining bitcoin with consumer grade GPUs hasn't been viable for a very long time. Any serious miner will be using ASICs. The reason why GPU prices exploded is the double hit of COVID supply chain disruption followed by the emergence of LLMs.
by WalterBright | 2025-07-13 06:10:33+00:00
Thank you. I've had commercial pilots email me telling me I was correct and to keep on the good fight :-)

The Wrights did a lot more than that to be successful. Their innovations were:

1. using a wind tunnel to correctly get lift and drag coefficients for various wing sections (as you wrote)

2. first aviation engine (high power/weight ratio) (as you wrote)

3. first propeller theory, enabling 90% efficiency (other aviation propellers were 50% efficient)

4. first 3-axis control system

5. identified and solved adverse yaw problem

6. first research and development program, where problems were identified in advance, and a machine was developed to solve each problem, then the solutions were put together to make the 1903 Wright Flyer

7. kept meticulous notes on all their work and preserved the evidence of their success, such as photographs and notebooks. Exacting replicas have been built, and their flight characteristics match the Wright's results
by biohcacker84 | 2025-07-13 06:11:37+00:00
I find it interesting ever more risky way to sequester carbon are invented.

Instead of making adding biochar to farm land an agricultural subsidy. A simple, extremely low risk policy, that is a local subsidy and does create international trade conflicts like other subsidies can.

And it does not affect any wilderness.

And in hot humid climates is proven to increase fertility.

Or a bit risky we could fertilize the open ocean, very significantly increase ocean life. And it has been proven that a significant percentage of fish poop sequesters carbon in the deep ocean.

Instead efforts seem to be focused on shading the sun. And new ideas using nukes....
by necovek | 2025-07-13 06:13:21+00:00
I believe the main reasoning why this is fair is that this advantage is earned.

Would it be fairer to use randomly assigned lane? Then you get almost equal competitors in advantageous and disadvantageous lanes?

Isn't the top result in a year also used for qualification purposes (and thus lane assignment) for top-level competitions? Basically, you earn a spot in the best lane throughout the calendar year.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-13 06:14:03+00:00
Because you're choosing not to see the obvious downsides. Wasn't this community the ones worried last decade about tech companies havesting their data for profit?

But sure, let's explain the downsides:

1. this isn't an all encompasing law. It's only for sites that host adult content. You know what people will do... remove adult content.

2. As we see this year, rules are useless without enforcement. I'm sure X or Reddit or whatever large companies will strike deals and be exempt. This will only harm the little sites who get harassed by vested interests.

3. There's been campaigns to try and assossiate LGBT to pornography for a while now. This will delve beyond porn and be used to enforce yet more bigotry. This "think of the children" rationale is always their backdoor to stripping away freedoms, and I sure don't trust it this time.

4. On a moral level, I care more about retaining my pseudo anonymity than about worrying over bots. I'm not giving my ID.ME in order to interact on a games forum, for instance. The better way to address this (if these people actually cared about it) is to force companies to disclose with commenters are being operated via bots. Many websites have API's so that would eliminate many of them, even if it's not perfect.

5. This execution sounds awful. On a general principle, I do not want people sued over state laws that they do not reside in. Why should California need to comply with Floridian laws? This is why porn sites impacted simply block those state IP's. The Internet is more and more connected, so you can imagine the chaos is this is generalized more, instead of actually taking hold and making federal laws. This is half hearted.
by perihelions | 2025-07-13 06:15:47+00:00
There's zero technical analysis in this paper. Is there no better source for this discussion?

edit: It doesn't even make much sense. It asserts, without any engineering rationale, that a large fusion bomb will efficiently pulverize 4 trillions tons of basaltic rock—the volume of a sphere of basalt 20 km (!!) in diameter—into a fine silt.

So many strange assumptions going into that.
by dwattttt | 2025-07-13 06:16:22+00:00
It seems trivial that it's better than option 1; in both cases a mentally ill person is flying the plane, and in one of them a health professional is involved in managing the condition.

For option 2 I'll confess to not being sufficiently familiar with the gamut of what can be considered a mental illness, such that I couldn't tell you whether a person under management for such is a safer pilot than someone undiagnosed, or the median pilot. I'd be mildly surprised if you were, but stranger things have happened.

As it stands, I expect these would be the same diagnostics that until ~2013 considered sexual preferences as mental health issues.
by mystraline | 2025-07-13 06:16:32+00:00
13th amendment explicitly permits slavery as a punishment for a crime. And, you can definitely buy time manufacturing with prison labor.

Now, you're probably confusing chattel slavery as the only form of slavery, of which you buy and sell humans as property. There are other types, now predominantly slavery by the state (as punishment of a crime).

As for children, it definitely looks like a slave-owner type arrangement.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-13 06:16:58+00:00
I don't care if they are 16 or 68, I discuss about topics, not necesarily with the person themself. the former can be insightful and the latter still be extremely close minded.

I also don't understand why the government should control who I can talk to in a digital space. Maybe start investigating the president's flight records if you suddenly care about children interacting with adults.
by sophiebits | 2025-07-13 06:18:19+00:00
This license with the custom clause seems equivalent to dual-licensing the product under the following licenses combined:

* Small companies may use it without attribution

* Anyone may use it with attribution

The first may not be OSI compatible, but if the second license is then it’s fair to call the offering open weights, in the same way that dual-licensing software under GPL and a commercial license is a type of open source.

Presumably the restriction on discrimination relates to license terms which grant _no_ valid open source license to some group of people.
by adrian_b | 2025-07-13 06:18:25+00:00
If you go deep enough in the details, everything is a "quantum effect".

However, in order to design and simulate a MOS transistor and most of the other semiconductor devices you do not need to use any quantum physics.

This should be made obvious by the fact that both the metal-semiconductor transistor (i.e. MESFET, patent filed on 1925-10-22) and the depletion-mode metal-insulator-semiconductor transistor (i.e. depletion-mode MOSFET, patent filed on 1928-03-28) have been invented at a time when quantum theory was just nascent, not yet applicable to semiconductors and certainly unknown to the inventor (Julius Edgar Lilienfeld; despite the fact that the FET operating principles were obvious, the know-how for making reproducible semiconductor devices has been acquired only during WWII, as a consequence of the development of diode detectors for radars, which generated the stream of inventions of semiconductor devices after the war ended).

For designing MOSFETs, you just need to use classical electrodynamics, together with several functions that provide the semiconductor material characteristics, like intrinsic free carrier concentration as a function of temperature, carrier mobilities as functions of temperature and impurity concentrations (and electric field at high fields), ionization probabilities for impurities, avalanche ionization coefficients, dielectric constants, and a few others.

It would be nice if instead of measuring experimentally all the characteristic functions for a semiconductor material one could compute them using quantum theory, but that is currently not possible.

So for semiconductor device design, quantum physics is mostly hidden inside empirically determined functions. Only few kinds of devices, e.g. semiconductor lasers, may need the use of some formulas taken from quantum physics, e.g. from quantum statistics, but even for them most of their mathematical model is based on classical physics.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-07-13 06:19:07+00:00
Oh, that's my bad, I re-read the privacy pass protocol to brush up and it does use signing without requiring the RP to necessarily make another call to the original approver server. I also see there's been work on hidden witness ZKP, so the RP may not even know who approved a given token.

Very cool! Always happy to be proven wrong with cool tech!
by eesmith | 2025-07-13 06:19:21+00:00
The "displeases us" you quoted is for "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself". For example, "No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk."

For actions "which concerns others" Mill writes:

"The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe. In the one case, he is an offender at our bar, and we are called on not only to sit in judgment on him, but, in one shape or another, to execute our own sentence: in the other case, it is not our part to inflict any suffering on him, except what may incidentally follow from our using the same liberty in the regulation of our own affairs, which we allow to him in his."
by necovek | 2025-07-13 06:21:02+00:00
Is it fair if we get the objectively fastest swimmers to go slower so competition is closer?

Note that the advantaged swimmers in middle lanes are really objectively faster: they earn their spot through year long competitions and in-event qualifications. Sure, they will be an odd case or two.

See https://www.quora.com/How-are-the-lane-assignments-chosen-in...
by biohcacker84 | 2025-07-13 06:21:16+00:00
Addictive tech in your hand is an evolutionary trap.

Much like cars are to squirrels, squirrels have evolved to run into a straight line to the nearest tree at the hint of any danger. And for all threats other than cars that is the correct thing.

But many squirrels are "trapped" by evolution to cross the path of a car when there is no need to do so.

Humanity's curiosity, sociability and OCDness have all been trapped by algorithms and smart phones.

And it is shortening lives and even more so reducing reproduction. A faint hope is, that with all such evolutionary pressure, we can evolve our way out of them.... eventually.
by marssaxman | 2025-07-13 06:22:23+00:00
> He says that it wasn't very hard to find people who were breaking the law,

I sure bet it wasn't! I accidentally happened to spend the fourth of July in LA last year, and that city's commitment to fireworks abundance was unparalleled. I have never experienced such a glorious, nonstop, 360-degree rumbling fireworks spectacle before, and I loved it.

It's interesting to ponder whether people equipped with large, powerful mortars launching explosive projectiles might find any way to disable loitering drones meant to spoil their fun.
by xethos | 2025-07-13 06:24:34+00:00
Equivocating child sexual abuse with the dude drawing consentual fan-fic or furry porn feels disingenuous at best, and more like bad faith though.

Because you're not wrong, the mainstream is fairly narrow, but to say the credit card duopoly excludes only the most heinous and vile imagery that can only barely be covered under "artistic expression" isn't exactly an entirely accurate depiction of reality.
by krackers | 2025-07-13 06:27:43+00:00
The same way it's done with V3, because no permission-level blacklist/whitelist is going to prevent the person from creating an interpreter within JS itself.

Looking at https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/troubleshooting#a... it seems most of the heavily lifting is done with some combination of static/dynamic analysis during extension review. The same analysis (plus trivially catching eval) could be done with V2 as well.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-13 06:28:35+00:00
I switched to Firefox, but I'm unfortunately stuck to Windows for professional work. I need several high profile software to get proper Linux support before I can make that jump.

When I eventually go indie, though: I am 100% making use of a Linux workflow.

>Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypasses" are just temporary bandaids?

Sadly, yes. The networkign effect is extremely strong. Twitter was complained about even before musk, but it still too 3 years before people really started considering the move. emphasis on "consider": because twitter still has a lot of foot traffic for what it is in 2025.
by biohcacker84 | 2025-07-13 06:30:00+00:00
On the other hand, the US is close to bankruptcy. And that's not all the current admin's fault.

And their cuts are trying to avoid that, although they have thrown out many babies with the bath water. It's hard to blame them for trying to avoid default, which would be far worse than anything.

The program apparently cost $900 million which is not a trivial cost.
by manquer | 2025-07-13 06:30:55+00:00
That doesn’t mean the cockpit will burn .

The wings hosts the engine and a good portion of the fuel is quite a bit back from the nose in a big plane like 787. The engines lost power and hit just 180 knots just 4 seconds after the plan lifted off. The plane could have just easily broken up differently where the nose crashed in a different spot than where the fire would likely start.

At such a slow speed and altitude they could even have well crashed inside the airport perimeter and got a quicker/ better emergency response from the fire units at the airport.

Attempting this during takeoff or landing when the pilot monitoring is fully engaged and closely observing would be most difficult to execute .
by chii | 2025-07-13 06:31:38+00:00
> use Linux

except that for a majority of users, windows is where their applications are at - such as gaming, word processing, or some other thing. Sure there are replacements (somewhat) for each of those categories, but they are not direct replacements, and require a cost of some kind (retraining, or a substitute quality). This is esp. true for gaming, and it's only recent that gaming has made some inroads via the steam deck (steamOS), which isn't available to a general PC (only handheld PCs with AMD processors iirc).

People who say "just switch" to linux hasn't done it for their family/friends.
by necovek | 2025-07-13 06:31:58+00:00
That's not true.

It's not just a tradition or conditioning out of nothing: it was also feasibility to do so. Eg. you don't get that gymnastics podium seven times over, you only get one. Whereas for bowling and darts, adding one extra spot is not that much extra space. You also completely ignored one reason GP brought up: safety (in rally driving). To save on time, they still usually start with a few minutes delay on the same track.

Where it is feasible to compare side-by-side, we do (swimming, running but not eg. discus throw or high jump), and we award medals on direct result. Where it isn't, we use other independently tracked scores (time, points...).
by sky2224 | 2025-07-13 06:32:51+00:00
I get what you're saying, but the problem is the software does 90% of what I want really well and I like that they do that 90% super well and I want to keep that.

In your Windows vs. Linux example, Linux just doesn't do a lot of things very well on the UI/UX side of things (e.g., window management, driver support, an out of the box experience). Knock Windows all you want, but it honestly does quite a few pretty important things very well.

So that's why I'll spend some time to resist the negative changes.
Show HN: Invoicesplitter – Split and Rename invoices in seconds
by Protonu3102 | 2025-07-13 06:34:34+00:00
I built InvoiceSplitter to help accountants and bookkeepers save time.

People get those huge PDFs with 50+ invoices in one big PDF, it is annoying to split and rename them manually.

My tool uses AI to detect where each invoice starts and ends, then splits and renames it with custom format (like VendorName_Invoice#_Date.pdf).

What used to take 30–40 minutes now takes 30–40 seconds.

Do let your Accountant and Bookkeepers Friends know about this. It would really help me a lot.

And if you have any feedback, please do share it.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-07-13 06:35:03+00:00
The issue with CO2 is that there's not a lot of it in air. The amount is usually expressed in parts per million. It's a bit over 400 these days. Way up from around 280 where it used to be. Only about 0.04% of air is CO2. Which means that by mass and volume, you need to process enormous amounts of air to get a meaningful amount of CO2. The main issue with that is that it requires enormous amounts of energy and large scale infrastructure that by itself is quite wasteful. Once you have it captured, processing it and up-cycling it is not that hard. It's nice that we have some new ways. But it's not like synthetic fuels and plastics weren't already doable for decades.

Carbon capture of course technically works. But you typically end up dumping the CO2 back in the air for things like fuels and plastics after they are expended. So, it's not that meaningful ultimately. You take fossil carbon, you burn it, you capture it, you create another fuel, and you dump it in the air. Because we simply don't capture the overwhelmingly vast majority of fossil carbon that we process and use. Using the carbon twice is a modest improvement. Three times even better. It's not that much of an improvement. Most carbon capture is stupid like that but it sounds nice if you are trying to green wash your CO2 intensive business. Optics and marketing are the main driver for carbon capture schemes. But technically it's just adding cost to things that are already quite expensive.

Keeping the CO2 captured permanently is a bit hand wavy usually and technically a bit of an afterthought usually. We might do this, we might do that. It's going to be amazing. We could have, and would have, and eventually might do some of it. Or none of it. Or somewhere in between. The real world effectiveness of carbon capture to date is generally piss poor. Some people would say it's a scam. And the real worlds amounts of carbon captured ever are so meaninglessly low that dumping all of it back in atmosphere right now would not have any measurable effects whatsoever relative to the still growing amounts we dump into the atmosphere directly.

Anyway we have great carbon capture machines readily available. All plants and trees do this naturally. Burning that stuff to create CO2 is a bit wasteful and not technically that useful if your goal is to process the carbon further. Wood is basically polymers. Much easier to use that directly. Either as a fuel or as a source of polymers (e.g. cellulose) and other carbo hydrates. Of course farming and forestry are hard work and not that cheap.
by biohcacker84 | 2025-07-13 06:35:43+00:00
Led, mercury, cadmium and arsenic are showing up in so many foods. In rice in spinach and obvious in fish.

Microplastics and PFAS in fruits and fish and everything else.

And the most recent TV report on cadmium in spinach, I watched, told me to have a diversified diet.

Diversified into WHAT?
by manquer | 2025-07-13 06:36:01+00:00
I just tried it out. It does feel better than CC for some tasks .

I think what Junie does differently it has better context on what the IDE knows or sees , from what files are open or typedefs are loaded, I could achieve some simpler tasks with lesser prompts and less tokens and cycles than with CC or even windsurf.

Jetbrains has the best incentive to integrate deeply I imagine, it has always been question of execution, it seems a fairly robust system.
by eviks | 2025-07-13 06:36:38+00:00
Will any other "just Chrome"allow you to run the full UBO post mv2 removal?

> Update: As of v1.81, we host the following Manifest V2 (MV2) extensions on Brave’s backend: AdGuard, uBO, uMatrix, NoScript. These extensions operate independently from the equivalent versions that are currently present on the Chrome Web Store, and have to be downloaded separately
by dcow | 2025-07-13 06:36:40+00:00
> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.

(1) Without addressing the general statement, specifically this isn't new. You’ve historically not been allowed to buy pornography or cigarettes or alcohol without age verification or watch obscene content between the nightly news runs. I don't see this specifically as parents wanting the government to raise their kids at all. It’s people without any other real options wanting to make it more difficult for inappropriate material to end up in the hands of minors. When I was 12 I remember getting online with AOL discs and having popups with porn appear in front of me as I’m playing neopets, because some unsavory ad got accidentally “clicked” many sessions ago. How can a parent “parent” that?

> If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should)

(2) These laws already exist, the internet was a loophole. If it’s done right you verify your age when you make your account and the site doesn’t bug you again. Not sure how frequently you’re visiting new porn sites, but I can’t imagine getting over prompted would be a real problem.

(3) There is a concept of using ZKPs to do more things client side. However I think currently people are more excited about selective disclosure. You just give the site a signed claim that you’re over 18 and that’s all they know. It’s more private than handing over your DL at the grocery store checkout.

> People should also be able to set their browser/computer to auto-send this for single-user devices, where it is all transparent to the user.

They should, shouldn’t they. But some privacy nut out there will say we can’t have nice things because an advertiser might use it to profile you.

Really though one aspect of digital identity is presence and liveliness checking. The states that issue your ID to Apple Wallet are only willing to do so because Apple ensures that the user presence is verified at time of use.

The question isn’t why should you have to jump through hoops, it’s why should we enforce age restrictions in person but not in the internet—why haven't you had to jump through all the existing hoops to watch internet porn until now?
by debugnik | 2025-07-13 06:38:58+00:00
> (steamOS), which isn't available to a general PC

Most of its secret sauce is either in Proton or upstreamed into Wine, DXVK, SDL, etc. All available to a general PC.

Unless your focus is competitive online games, which often come with Windows-only anti-cheats, you've got a huge catalogue of great games playable on Linux distros. I did the switch about four months ago and I'm not missing Windows, the only pain point has been Nvidia drivers and I'll be solving that by switching vendors.