MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by miningape | 2025-07-22 21:34:28+00:00
The study should tackle these questions in one form or another:

1. What specific, measurable phenomenon would constitute 'discomfort with uncomfortable truths' versus legitimate methodological concerns?

2. How would we distinguish between the two empirically?

I'd expect a study or numerical analysis with at least n > 1000, and p < 0.05 - The study will ideally have controls for correlation, indicating strong causation. The study (or cross analyses of it) should also explore alternative explanations, either disproving the alternatives or showing that they have weak(er) significance (also through numerical methods).

I'm not sure what kinds of data this result could be derived from, but the methods for getting that data should be cited and common - thus being reproducible. Data could also be collected by examining alternative "inputs" (independent variables: i.e. temperament towards discomfort), or by testing how inducing discomfort leads to resistance to ideas, or something else.

I'd expect the research to include, for example, controls where the same individuals evaluate methodologically identical studies from other fields. We'd need to show this 'resistance' is specific to sociology, not general scientific skepticism.

That's to say: The study should also show, numerically and repeatably, that there are legitimate correlations between sociological studies inducing discomfort, and that it is not actual methodological concerns.

This would include:

1. Validated scales measuring "discomfort" or cognitive dissonance

2. Behavioural indicators of resistance vs. legitimate critique

3. Control groups exposed to equally challenging but methodologically sound research

4. Control groups exposed to less challenging but equally methodologically sound research (to the level of sociology)

Also, since we're making a claim about psychology and causation, the study would ideally be conducted by researchers outside of sociology departments to avoid conflicts of interest - preferably cognitive psychologists or neuroscientists using their methodological standards.
by robomartin | 2025-07-22 21:35:39+00:00
Interesting project. I am sure it was a lot of work (and fun as well).

I was introduced to the general concept when the Shaper Origin came out a while back. Here's my problem with the idea:

What's the use case?

Any xyz gantry router will run circles around this approach, by far. They will be much faster, more accurate and, more importantly, hands off. There's a lot to say for clamping the material and mashing the "go" button. The pattern shown in the video on the YT channel literally takes three seconds to cut on a gantry router. And you can swap material and push go again, very quickly (or cut as many as possible out of one piece of material.

For around $1K you can have a much more capable machine. Unless the use case is cutting/engraving on items that cannot be cut on a traditional router, I am not sure what these would be used for. Then the question becomes: How many of those projects do DIY hobbyists have?

The other question is one of accuracy and repeatability. Having done loads of CNC metal machining, CNC and manual wood routing, I can tell you that nothing beats a rigid xyz machine.

So, if someone has just one or a few odd parts that cannot be cut on an xyz router, well, maybe that's a use case. Other than that, why would anyone guild one of these rather than a gantry?
by Eisenstein | 2025-07-22 21:35:43+00:00
I think that what they were saying was that in-groups are trusted because of familiarity which can be exploited in order to instill messaging which drives emotional decision making over reasoned contemplation. 'Scientists' were part of the exampled used which invoked a contemporary issue (anti-vax). They are attributing these messaging systems to be a component of organized right wing campaigns; an attribution which at this point in time is rather uncontroversial.

That they would see themselves as part of the rational group opposed to a campaign of weaponized social levers which turn people against evidence in order to further the goals of a different group which is not actually aligned with those they are manipulating is not insightful or provocative. It seems to reason they would.

The implication that it means there is some sort of political 'both sides'ism that degrades their point is incredibly weak.
by mauvehaus | 2025-07-22 21:36:01+00:00
The complete market failure of the Autobike suggests that the demographic of people not on bikes who would ride if they didn't have to shift is either not that large or wasn't reached by their marketing.

This was literally the only one I've ever seen. And I volunteered for a year and a half at a community bike shop that was infamous for attracting oddities and evolutionary dead-ends. For instance: a side-by-side bicycle built for two. If there were a gazillion Autobikes out there, we'd have seen a couple. People simply didn't buy them.
by tomcam | 2025-07-22 21:36:10+00:00
My instinct normally is to bat for a single or a double, not a home run. But we have different needs than most people. For us, owning our real estate outright and making mid 6 figures or below pretax in a HCOL area is the target. Any higher income and you spend too much time on business trips, emergencies, hiring people, HR issues, etc. Too old for that. Inflation and property taxes are running much hotter than we'd like but we assumed years ago it would happen at some point. It hasn't affected us at all on a day-to-day basis.

So when my wife and I evaluate business ideas, it never crosses our mind to assume it will be picked up by a VC and hit the front page of HN. We try to project the worst, best, and most likely scenarios. We project these same terms a few years out to understand where problems might arise.

Our businesses are always medium- to long-term plays that we can run with minimal to no staffing. We have about a 50% success rate, about 30% higher than we normally bet.
by JohnMakin | 2025-07-22 21:36:27+00:00
What was the take then? What has repeatedly been "proven wrong?" The original author's point was that it was a great tool for rapidly spinning up a prototype that quickly fell apart at any kind of scale or complexity. I've seen this pop up over and over, and in my own usage of it as well. They don't seem able to (yet) produce anything purely "vibe" coded at any kind of real complexity or scale. If it's happening, I'm extraordinarily interested in it, because I have a lot of projects I could get off the ground to make some additional money. So what apps are they?
by huksley | 2025-07-22 21:36:52+00:00
Tailwind is great for layouts. For configurable components, not sure. I also dislike the mess with colors.

Cursor IDE uses those navy-100, red-100 absolute colors, instead of using text-destructive, etc (for light/dark mode support), and it is also difficult to tell it does otherwise. So I need to fix this manually, and it is quite time-consuming.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-07-22 21:37:39+00:00
Or classes related to NP for which we also don't know the answer, such as TFNP

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFNP

"TFNP is the class of total function problems which can be solved in nondeterministic polynomial time", i.e. we don't consider decision problems (as for NP), but total functions.

This class contains quite some interesting subclasses, such as PLS (solution can be found via Local Search), PPA (solution exists because of a Parity Argument), PPP (solution exists because of a Pigeonhole Principle), PPAD (solution exists because of a Directed Parity Argument), CLS, ...

In interesting article which explains this topic quite well is https://inference-review.com/article/when-existence-is-ineff...
by SR2Z | 2025-07-22 21:37:51+00:00
The answer is YES, and this type of shifter is a favorite among mountain bikers whose reliability needs and "field conditions" are already much more challenging than your average biker.

There are plenty of examples of situations where a wireless setup simplifies things.

I used to put wired speed/cadence sensors on my bike. Now I just zip tied two BLE gyros to the wheel and crank and things are vastly simpler. I've had them there for years and still haven't changed the battery. I've also never tangled the cables or had to fiddle with the mounts for a magnetic sensor.
by onelli | 2025-07-22 21:38:00+00:00
I’m curious about the real value here. In my experience running founder communities, fully AI-generated forums quickly devolve into low-signal noise: i.e. lots of “summary,” little depth.

Anyone seen practical use-cases where LLM-moderated forums are actually better for busy users, not just more “efficient,” but more insightful?

Would love to hear real examples (not just theory).
by MiguelHudnandez | 2025-07-22 21:38:21+00:00
I'm unclear about a specific sensor, but it looks like the format you want to decode would be "Data Matrix ECC 200"

https://forum.digikey.com/t/digikey-product-labels-decoding-...

I think a smartphone and custom app would be the worst case scenario in terms of cost, and that could be pretty cheap.
by ath3nd | 2025-07-22 21:38:22+00:00
Evidence of what?

As soon as somebody tried to actually measure LLM productivity for devs, it became evident that it reduces it about 19% for experienced engineers:

https://hackaday.com/2025/07/11/measuring-the-impact-of-llms...

But you can believe any x-AI/e-acc bro (with 0 years of dev experience but dog-like obedience to their mind-influencers Musk or Sama) that suddenly became a self-proclaimed expert and have 319491% increase of productivity. It's Schrödinger's LLM gains: 1337% on X, -19% in a study.

Those are the same people that back in the day were proclaiming that NFTs, web3 and crypto were the next coming of Jesus. These are types of people who hang on every statement of Andrej Karpathi and take it as gospel, while failing to realize that's the same guy telling you self-driving cars are to be a reality in 2019. I sometimes wonder how they are not ashamed of themselves, but I realized shame requires critical thinking, and context/memory, something that is severely lacking in LLMs, but also seemingly in the LLM fanbase.

Funnily enough, these e/acc bros are the ones that do benefit the most from LLMs. That's because if you are used to offload your critical thinking to accounts on X, offloading to a fancy autocomplete instead doesn't seem to be such a big step down.

But in reality, the cold facts are that if LLMs actually helped with productivity, we'd have a noticeable impact on open source. And what do we have instead? It's either crickets or just slop, insane amount of slop.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/16/oss_llm_slop/

https://www.infoq.com/articles/llm-surging-pr-noise/

And AGI is juuust behind the corner, trust me.
by phoronixrly | 2025-07-22 21:38:29+00:00
And let me guess, the cache pool is suggested to be on an SSD?

> Increased perceived write speed: You will want a drive that is as fast as possible. For the fastest possible speed, you'll want an SSD

Great, now I have an SSD that is treated as a consummative and will die and need to be replaced. Oh and btw you are going to need two of them if you don't want to accidentally your data.

The alternative? Have the cache on a pair of spinning rust drives which will again be overloaded and are expected to fail earlier and need to be replaced while also having the benefit of being slow... But at least you won't have to go through a full rebuild after a cache drive failure.

Man, I am not sold on the cost savings of this approach at all... Let alone the complexity and moving parts that can fail...
by wongarsu | 2025-07-22 21:39:34+00:00
What I mean is that unraid, zfs and md all allow you to run a scrub over your raid to check for bit rot. That might happen for all kinds of issues, including cosmic rays just flipping bits on the drive platter. The issue is that unraid and md can't do much if they detect a block/stripe where the parity doesn't match the data (because it doesn't know which of the drives suffered a bit flip). Zfs on the other hand can repair the data in that scenario because it keeps checksums.

Now a fairly common scenario is to use unRaid with zfs as the file system for each partition, having Y independent zfs file systems. In that case in theory the information to repair blocks exists: a zfs scrub will tell you which blocks are bad, and you could repair those from parity. And a unraid parity check will do the same for the parity drives. But there is no system to repair single blocks. You either have to dig in and do it yourself or just resilver the whole disk
by reaperducer | 2025-07-22 21:39:43+00:00
Everything else was tested and either restored to working order and sold in bulk to organizations in need of cheaper computers, parted out on eBay, or scrapped.

Happy to say that my company shreds its old hard drives, then puts new ones in the old laptops and desktops and spruces them up for reuse.

We team up with a local organization to give them to poor children and families each Christmas. IT always sends around a bunch of photos afterward of kids who don't always know where they'll sleep from night to night clinging to a used computer like it's a life ring and they're in the middle of the ocean. I've been told that for some of them, it's the only present they'll receive the entire year.

We don't qualify for a tax break or any other renumeration for this. We do it because it's a nice thing to do.

(I have no idea what happens to servers. Not my department.)
by bigyabai | 2025-07-22 21:40:40+00:00
Yes. However, the PRC knows that this is how world wars start. I suspect that nobody outside the uber-old Politburo members will be clamoring for preemptive strikes when China's soft-power is this strong already.

There will come a day where American exceptionalism gets kicked in the face, but only once America overextends. China's blue-water navy is nowhere near as credible as their littoral forces, meaning that they're much better equipped to fight Taiwan than America. This is the fight they want, and they're overwhelmingly prepared to kill Americans until popular support collapses.

It's a mistake to get sucked into the "China strong" outward presentation of the PRC - they're much more cunning (and constrained) than they make themselves out to be. They're willing to play poker at the international table until the knives come out, which is smarter than what many countries can say about their foreign policy.
by zzo38computer | 2025-07-22 21:40:43+00:00
I think it makes sense to wire the video and audio separately, e.g. you might connect the audio to a speaker or amplifier, or to a audio recorder, etc. However, my idea was to be able to clip them together and to have a standard arrangement of them so that they can be used like one cable if you do not want to deal with two cables.
by hammyhavoc | 2025-07-22 21:40:47+00:00
Hit the comment depth limit (so annoying), but the comment about repairing blocks means that you can repair bitrot/corruption/malicious changes/whatever down to the block level of a ZFS dataset if you have a redundant replicated dataset.

The magic of ZFS repairs isn't in RAID itself, IMO, it's in being able to take your cold replicated dataset, e.g., from LTO, an external disk, remote server etc, and repair any issues without needing to resilver, stress the whole array, interrupt access, or hurt performance.

RAID can correct issues, yes, but ZFS as a filesystem can repair itself from redundant datasets. Likewise, you can mount the snapshots like Apple Time Machine and get back specific versions of individual files.

I wish HN didn't limit comment depth as these are great questions and this is heavily under-discussed, but it's arguably the best reason to run ZFS, IMO.

Another way of putting this—you don't need a RAID array, you can do individual ZFS disks and still replicate and repair them. There's no limits to how many replicas or mediums you use either. It's quite amazing for self-healing problems with your datasets.
by tguvot | 2025-07-22 21:41:51+00:00
he wasn't talking about forced migration. he was talking about giving people housing/etc in other countries while gaza been rebuild, and later if they want they can come back.

at no point he was saying that gazans will be rounded up and moved out.

the way that conversation is going now is (and i am not trump fan):

- everybody: gaza is destroyed and nobody can live there. conditions are inhumane

- trump: lets allow to people move out to different countries, provide them with housing/jobs/etc while gaza is rebuild

- israel: we will help to people who want to leave - to leave

- everybody: this is literal genocide and ethnic cleansing. gazans should stay in gaza
by weinzierl | 2025-07-22 21:42:21+00:00
"Interestingly, there are also some tasks that can take way longer to verify than to propose a solution. For example, it might take longer to fact-check all the statements in an essay than to write that essay."

I think this point is odd. If you could really come up with a proper solution (a correct essay in this case) faster than to verify it then why not produce the correct solution directly instead of verifying.

And if you argue, but I don't want a different correct essay but I want this one verified my answer is that the corrected essay without flaws is also a different one.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-07-22 21:43:00+00:00
> Have a parity drive fail, then have another drive fail during the rebuild (a taxing process) and congrats -- your data is now eaten

That's just your drive failure tolerance. It's the same risk/capacity trade as RAIDZ1, but with less performance and more flexibility on expanding. Which is exactly what I said.

If 1 drive failure isn't acceptable for you, you wouldn't use RAIDZ1 and wouldn't use 1 parity drive.

You can use 2 parity drives for RAIDZ2-like protection.

You can use 3 drives for RAIDZ3-like protection.

You can use 4 drives, 10 drives. Add and remove as many parity/capacity as you want. Can't do that with RAID/RAIDZ easily.

You manage your own risk/reward ratio
by joshka | 2025-07-22 21:43:08+00:00
jj squash allows you to move changes from a revision to another. Default is your working copy, but there's nothing preventing you from working on several semantic commits and moving changes from your working copy to those commits as you want.

jj squash --into -r <revset>

Where <revset> is @-, a change id, or perhaps a bookmark name if you want to give a semantic name to your changes.
by florianherrengt | 2025-07-22 21:43:11+00:00
> Prototypes should get burned [...] But they usually are not.

"There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution that works"

I loved reading this blog post[0]. Everything starts with a spreadsheet and then instead of replacing it, people just keep building on top of it forever.

While I found the post funny to read, honestly I'm fine with all the mess. I'm happy to embrace it instead of forever polishing something that I will never ship.

Vibe coded apps are next level of mess though and people don't seem to recognise that while betting on 'AI will fix it later'.

[0] https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-dropkick-you-...
by Marsymars | 2025-07-22 21:43:30+00:00
Consumer Reports currently has Audi and BMW ahead of any American manufacturer.

Brand average reliability is tricky though, on their 100-point scale, their top manufacturer (Subaru) has models that range from 38-98.

Looking at the model breakdown... I kinda suspect they don’t really have enough datapoints - VW’s reliability only includes 3 models (the Tiguan, ID.4 and TAOS) - Ford has a 25-point difference between the Escape and Maverick hybrids that share the same engine/powertrain (I can’t think of any reason why the Maverick would actually be notably more reliable than the Escape unless the PHEV escape is dragging down weighted reliability by that much over the mild hybrid), etc.
by prmph | 2025-07-22 21:43:40+00:00
Mazdas too. I find Toyota's suspensions and driving dynamics terrible. Mazda represents a perfect combination of good Japanese reliability and good handling dynamics. I also like that they still offer a proper automatic transmission in their cars (as opposed to the CVT epidemic in other makes), as well as naturally aspirated engine options (whereas many other makes only offer turbos now).

The days of their collaboration with Ford are long gone, and with it their body durability problems. They still collaborate with Toyota though.
by mauvehaus | 2025-07-22 21:43:44+00:00
Which tube are you talking about?

I agree with you that all this electronic stuff is doomed for the dumpster, but I suspect that in this highly specific situation, it prevents wires from getting chafed through and failing. And let's be serious: for the time being the people buying wireless electronic groupsets are replacing them every couple years when something sexier comes out. If it makes it three-five years, it'll be long enough.

We agree that there will be no present day equivalent of all the beautiful old Campy Record in the used bike shops of 30 years from now. All this shit will be long since busted.
by transcriptase | 2025-07-22 21:43:48+00:00
You’re allowed to just say I’m right. When Google puts enormous amounts of resources into something like Google Home, then acquires Nest, haphazardly merges the two ecosystems while co-opting the Nest brand for unrelated products, then effectively abandons it except for the occasional update that breaks prior functionality? Sure, no obligation. But I’m not being some sort of whiny brat by pointing out that your experience with Google is driven by what will eventually become forced updates meant to drive you away from a product so they can kill it, because the internal culture/incentives promote launching and not maintaining or improving.
by p_ing | 2025-07-22 21:44:01+00:00
Generally EA licensing didn't work like that. You still picked individual SKUs (Windows client, Windows Server, SQL Standard, etc), you simply got some level of discount, maybe eval licenses, some level of support, a TAM(CSAM), and paid when you tru-up (was three years, may be different now).

There wasn't, as far as I recall, "buy SQL Server Enterprise, get SharePoint Server Enterprise SKU for free" type licensing deals.
Show HN: How Claude Code Improved My Dev Workflow
by IgorGanapolsky | 2025-07-22 21:44:06+00:00
I've been using Claude Code for the past month and it's transformed my productivity.

Show HN: Hey there, fellow developers!

If you're like me, you appreciate the flexibility and productivity boost that comes with being a remote developer. But to truly optimize your work-from-home experience, you need the right gear. I learned this the hard way when my old setup just wasn't cutting it anymore. And that's when I stumbled upon the game-changer: the Samsung Odyssey G9 49" Monitor.

Before I upgraded my monitor, my productivity was plummeting. I was constantly switching between tabs and losi

What tools are you using to improve your coding workflow?

Disclosure: Post contains affiliate links.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-07-22 21:44:58+00:00
> MBAs or AI would make the same decisions as these are SYSTEMIC issues

Correct.

> which means its not up to individuals or orgs, but the entire system across the board has to change... [but it's] hard to change the underlying calculus without global coordination.

That's the hard way, and I mean, the extremely hard way that will never happen. The core systemic issues are local to the US and if they cannot be changed locally, there's no hope for global coordination. The EU is in the same boat but it would be considerably easier for them to change if the US led the way.

Once we cannot hide behind the back of "global coordination", a major question arises, where is the systemic analysis of the US economy and who is responsible for it? If parties and judges cannot agree even on the question "Can the US executive branch regulate the economy", what hope is there for a proper systemic analysis, unencumbered by partisan and lobbying influence?