MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Einswilli | 2025-07-03 19:53:16+00:00
FletX is a minimal reactive framework for Flet, designed to help Python developers structure larger front-end apps with better separation of concerns.

It brings reactive state management, declarative routing (inspired by Angular), a simple dependency injection system, and a modular project architecture — all built with a "Pythonic" mindset and keeping the Flet ecosystem in mind.

It's still early (v0.1.4.a0), and feedback is welcome. If you're using Flet or curious about Python UI frameworks, I'd love your thoughts!

Documentation link: https://alldotpy.github.io/FletX/
by antonvs | 2025-07-03 19:53:48+00:00
The same kinds of things that are wrong with all languages originally designed more than 50 years ago (75 years in Fortran's case) and that have accreted features since then. You end up with long-term fads like class-based object orientation embedded in the language, and that inhibits them evolving towards more principled designs. C++ is in a similar situation.

All of these languages are Turing complete. So ultimately, if you're happy writing code in some language and don't want to change, that's your choice. But the reason Fortran or C or C++ isn't many people's first choice for new projects are closely related to the reasons I've mentioned. There will always be people who want to stick to what they know, but it's not only science that advances one funeral at a time.
by JadeNB | 2025-07-03 19:54:21+00:00
> I am tilting at windmills, but I am continually annoyed at the sloppiness of mathematicians in writing. Fine, you don’t like verbosity, but for didactic purposes, please do not assume the reader is equipped to know that variable x actually implies variable y.

I am a practicing mathematician who felt the same way you did when I started, and who still writes their papers in a way that many of my colleagues feel is gallingly pedantic. With that as my credentials, I hope I may say that it can be much worse as a reader to read something where every detail is spelled out, because a bit of syntactic sugar begins to seem as important as the heart of an argument. Where the dividing line is between precision and obfuscation depends on the reader, and so inevitably will leave some readers on the wrong side, but a trade-off does have to be made somewhere.
by immibis | 2025-07-03 19:54:33+00:00
Spotify also doesn't have a right to unmodified client systems.

If their server sends you bits, why should you delete the bits? If you accidentally sent them the wrong bits, do you think they'd be nice enough to delete them? Pre-emptively before receiving any notification from you?

Terms are irrelevant and in most cases have no legal power at all. Fighting back with technical power (as YouTube has done) is fair game though.

The golden rule of capitalism is to do everything in your physical ability to improve your individual situation at the expense of others. Feel free to come to an agreement with Spotify, that neither of you will do capitalism against the other. Until then, you should probably play the game or you will lose by default. Spotify isn't that important but you should definitely get into the mindset of playing the hand you're dealt.
by djoldman | 2025-07-03 19:55:25+00:00
For kids with a guardian, the answer is enabling and empowering the guardian to control what the child can access.

Somehow we've inappropriately shifted responsibility away from parents/guardians in some areas like internet access.

In other areas, like letting your kid go outside by themselves, we've criminalized reasonable caregiver actions.

It's a wild world.
by gryfft | 2025-07-03 19:57:25+00:00
It's a little bit tongue in cheek; no one is seriously suggesting it's harder than P=NP or the problem of consciousness. But there's something a bit "death and taxes" to the inevitability that any large enough project is going to have some corner cases involving these old chestnuts.

Heck you can probably prove that any system for naming things is either inconsistent or incomplete.
by glitchc | 2025-07-03 19:58:32+00:00
The first and best place to build a permanent station is the moon. The wheel could spin on the surface at a very low rpm given the Moon's existing gravity, giving us the launchpad need to build and deploy a permanent space station.

Until we settle on the moon, our forays into space will always be limited by pesky things such as Earth's gravity and atmosphere.
by specproc | 2025-07-03 19:59:07+00:00
Yes, we take extreme behaviour, that is harmful to others, and prohibit it as a society.

Where we run into trouble is where we say, well here is an example of a case where this extreme behaviour may be countenanced.

There may well be such cases! If I had a gun (I don't) and someone was attacking a loved one (fortunately rarely if ever happened) with intent and ability to kill (definitely never) and the only way I could stop them because of the specific situation was to kill them (waaay down the tail now)... perhaps, I don't know how I would react in that situation.

Here's where ethics becomes like programming. I could sit down and come up with a list of cases in which I felt it appropriate to kill, and code all the edge cases. This is inefficient and sorta silly, and I guess how I chose to interpret the comment that started this thread.

I could come also up with a clever algorithm which balances harm done and harm prevented (or good caused) based on a range of parameters. I think this is more what GP was pointing to, a teleological ethics. But what model? What parameters? What loss function? Which libraries?

My position here, at least on violence is deontological. If everyone can write their own crufty (and inevitably closed-source) solution to the problem, then bad actors can (and do) code it so they get the results they want when they need them. The result is a violent world.

The cleaner, more elegant, and more ethical code simply prohibits harmful outcomes altogether. I suspect derivations from this initial simplicity in religious texts and interpretations are malicious code added in later updates.
by Tainnor | 2025-07-03 19:59:10+00:00
> There's a lot of stuff where, I know how to do it but I can't remember the parameter order or the exact method name and the LLM absolutely knows. And I really get nothing out of trying to remember/look up the exact way to do something. Even when I do know, it often doesn't hurt to be like "can you give me a loop to replace all the occurrences of foo with bar in this array of strings" and I don't need to remember if it's string.replace(foo,bar), whether I need to use double or single quotes, if it's actually sub or gsub or whatever.

I mean, I kinda get it in more complicated contexts, but the particular examples you describe (not remembering method names and/or parameter orderings) have been solved for ages by any decent IDE.
by cgh | 2025-07-03 19:59:23+00:00
Re your Gulf Stream comment: Whitehorse, Yukon is roughly at the same latitude as Bergen, Norway. Bergen’s climate is temperate and similar to, say, Vancouver: rainy, a bit of snow in winter, rarely staying below freezing for long. The coldest temperature recorded is -17° back in 1987.

Whitehorse’s average daily low in winter is close to -20°, with common drops to around -40°. When I was a kid up in that area, I remember walking to school at around -30 to -40°. We also played outside in those temps, which seems a bit mad now.

Here’s the fun part: Whitehorse has the warmest climate in the Yukon.

I get that there are other factors, like coastal vs inland environments, but regardless, any disruption to the Gulf Stream is bad news indeed for Europe.
by tuckerpo | 2025-07-03 19:59:38+00:00
Anecdotally I'd argue that it's not just "plenty", but the majority of people who only work one single job barely and/or pretend to work. I regularly see Principal+ engineers, VPs and Directors waddling around looking important or just staring at their monitors with a glazed over look.

Most corporations don't need nearly as many employees as they actually have, so if you can deliver exceptional results in 20 hours, why not dedicate the remaining 20 hours to another corp, and double your comp? Everyone wins.

HackerNews dudes claiming they do a true minimum 40 hours per week, every week, forever, of heads-down hard-work are deluding themselves. I really don't understand the overemployment hatred this forum has. There are plenty of folks who really do solid work at 2+ jobs, not half-assing and politicking.

Disclaimer: I am not OE.
by bigyabai | 2025-07-03 19:59:40+00:00
For internal hosting, it makes a lot of sense. For B2B sales, we already saw Apple's business model flounder in the datacenter with Xserve. Customers that want high-performance ARM hardware will almost always reach for Nvidia servers, simply for the software support. And I don't think many Graviton instances would get displaced by an Apple Silicon VPS offering.
by sharkjacobs | 2025-07-03 20:00:11+00:00
Of course not.

But the thrust of the article is that contrary to conventional wisdom, we shouldn't expect llm models to continue getting more efficient, and so its worthwhile to explore other options for cost savings in inference, such as batch processing.

The conclusion they reach is one which directly serves what they're selling.

I'll repeat; I'm not disputing anything in this article. I'm really not, I'm not even trying to be coy and make allusions without directly saying anything. If I thought this was bullshit I'm not afraid to semi-anonymously post a comment saying so.

But this is advertising, just like Backblaze's hard drive reliability blog posts are advertising.
by jameshart | 2025-07-03 20:00:13+00:00
If you hide caching away as an implementation detail behind an abstraction, it comes back and bites you as a leaky abstraction later.

Look at how CPU cache line behaviors radically change the performance of superficially similar algorithms.

Look at how query performance for a database server drops off a cliff the moment the working cache no longer fits in memory.

Hiding complexity can be a simplification, until you exceed the bounds of the simplification and the complexity you hid demands your attention anyway.
by BeetleB | 2025-07-03 20:00:27+00:00
Try with serious models. Here's what I would suggest:

1. Go to https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/ and pick one of the top (but not expensive) models. If unsure, just pick Gemini 2.5 Pro (not Flash).

2. Get API access.

3. Find a decent tool (hint: Aider is very good and you can learn the basics in a few minutes).

4. Try it on a new script/program.

5. (Only after some experience): Read people's detailed posts describing how they use these tools and steal their ideas.

Then tell us how it went.
by ryao | 2025-07-03 20:00:29+00:00
I had the same thought about haiku 3.5. They claimed it was due to the model being more capable, which basically means that they raised the price because they could.

Then there is Poe with its pricing games. Prices at Poe have been going up over time since they were extremely aggressive to gain market share presumably under the assumption that there would be reduced pricing in the future and the reduced pricing for LLMs did not materialize.
by apstroll | 2025-07-03 20:01:07+00:00
Extremely doubtful that it boils down to quadratic scaling of attention. That whole issue is a leftover from the days of small bert models with very few parameters.

For large models, compute is very rarely dominated by attention. Take, for example, this FLOPs calculation from https://www.adamcasson.com/posts/transformer-flops

Compute per token = 2(P + L × W × D)

P: total parameters L: Number of Layers W: context size D: Embedding dimension

For Llama 8b, the window size starts dominating compute cost per token only at 61k tokens.
by billybuckwheat | 2025-07-03 20:01:56+00:00
I've test driven two: the Atto 3 and the Dolphin. Both were some of the smoothest rides I've ever had in a car (electric or ICE), the interiors were comfortable, the infotainment system was very responsive. Also, the navigation system is one of the better ones I've seen.

The lack of physical buttons is one of the reasons I didn't buy one, though not a major reason. As for it looking too high tech, many EVs seem to be but really aren't.

Having driven or ridden in over a dozen EVs from several manufacturers, I have to say the BYDs that I test drove were probably the best of the lot.
by immibis | 2025-07-03 20:02:03+00:00
Neither is Spotify owed anything from you. They aren't owed money, unless you agreed to pay them money (actually agreed, not clickwrap). They aren't owed ad views, because clickwrap agreements to watch ads generally don't actually have any legal force. And if they think they do, let them sue you and find out. You don't owe them advance compliance according to what would benefit them the most, but they benefit greatly from you thinking you do.

This applies to a lot of things, not Spotify in particular.
by trollbridge | 2025-07-03 20:02:23+00:00
Isn’t that the same argument as “Parents should keep kids away from cigarettes” by tobacco companies who were simultaneously marketing to children?

And parents aren’t in control of children 24/7. Schools tend to provide tablets and laptops everywhere, and how much trust should parents have that things like a content filter are adequate to keep children from asking objectionable pornography, hate sites teaching misogyny and so forth?
by weinzierl | 2025-07-03 20:02:33+00:00
Sparkasse is not a word I had expected in a post like this, but here we are.

The Sparkasse network is not very well known outside of Germany but is actually Europe's largest financial services group by assets.

What is interesting is that until the 90s the membership banks were public institutions backed by municipal and state guarantees that made them virtually bankruptcy-proof, unlike private banks. EU competition rules then forced Germany to phase out these state guarantees, making Sparkassen subject to normal banking regulations and deposit insurance like other banks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe
by jasonthorsness | 2025-07-03 20:02:48+00:00
I think it did:

https://www.cbiz.com/insights/article/the-one-big-beautiful-...

"OBBBA permanently allows immediate deductibility of R&E expenses rather than five-year amortization for R&E beginning after Dec. 31, 2024. Businesses with annual gross receipts of $31 million or less are allowed to apply this change retroactively for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021."

However I couldn't find the actual bill text so take this source as you will.
by alganet | 2025-07-03 20:02:51+00:00
> To explain this, the company uses a quirky metaphor: imagine an AI’s knowledge is a block of Swiss cheese. The holes represent knowledge gaps. The more your content fills one of those holes, the more it’s worth to an AI company.

I predicted _this exact move_ months ago:

https://x.com/alganet/status/1922470667846328758 (don't follow me)

We should, therefore, hold knowledge. What was once free, now is not, and we can make it scarce.

Why make it scarce? Because it's insulting. Once you sell your content to AI, you also sell your name: AI will get recognition in the long run, you won't.

You should download wikipedia, all sorts of content, and use it offline. AI companies will trick you into using their products while they steal away the data, just don't let them.
by Valodim | 2025-07-03 20:03:13+00:00
In my experience, the larger the software you write, the truer these become. At some point all obvious names will have collisions, and getting caching right is crucial to do but difficult to achieve because it transcends the entire stack.

You could group these two things into "getting the data model right" as the single hard thing, perhaps that rings more true to you :)
by afinlayson | 2025-07-03 20:04:11+00:00
At some point the people who were laid off start competing against the company they used to work for at a fraction of the price. A company that only has a few real people and the rest AI that has cushy executive margins can be out priced by those who have access to the same AI features and just want a reasonable wage.

We could also see CEO wages fall as their job can be done by anyone because of AI.
by throw0101d | 2025-07-03 20:04:22+00:00
> […] a network connection using the VISCA protocol.

This seems to be a thing for the commercial broadcast space:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VISCA_Protocol

As opposed to the more security (residential?) camera protocol of:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONVIF

* Comparison: https://ikancorp.com/choosing-the-right-ptz-control-protocol...
Ask HN: How to create a more human-centric web?
by saubeidl | 2025-07-03 20:05:01+00:00
With the good ol' www dying an unfortunate dead internet theory death by drowning in AI slop, I think we need to start thinking about how to create an alternative that allows for authentic communication between actual humans without LLMs shitting it up.

The question is how.

One vague idea I've had is a system based on a web of trust [0], as used in PGP. We could bring back key signing parties and build a protocol that filters content by trust levels.

Just throwing stuff out there. Maybe anyone has a better idea?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
by Grenadingue | 2025-07-03 20:05:25+00:00
Location: Paris, France

Remote: Yes, 100% remote or hybrid (Europe)

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: C, C++ (<= 11), Java, C#, Python, Typescript, Angular, Dart, Flutter, Docker, Bash, Gitlab CI/CD, Linux, Windows

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-chauvin/

Email: nicolas-wants-to-be-hired [at] chauv [dot] in

Hi, I'm Nicolas, a versatile software engineer with 7 years of experience, looking to replace my current 4/5 part-time job with a more meaningful one. I’ve worked across various domains and stacks, often bridging core logic, infrastructure, and product-level concerns. I adapt quickly, enjoy learning, sharing, and value autonomy just as much as collaboration. I’m especially drawn to roles where engineering serves a larger purpose — whether societal, environmental, or otherwise impactful. I'm open to positions in software craftsmanship, devops, backend, fullstack, or any unexpected role where I can help build something that truly matters.
by philosophty | 2025-07-03 20:06:03+00:00
"Despite the generated code working, it was basically unmaintainable and 3x larger than the original C."

Which makes C2Rust seem pretty useless?

"I’ve recently reached a big milestone: the code base is now 100% (unsafe) Rust. I’d like to share the process of porting the original codebase from ~67,000 lines of C code to ~81,000 lines of Rust (excluding comments and empty lines)."

And yet somehow a hand-ported (and still unsafe) rewrite of a C program in Rust is still almost 20% larger?

If I recall, the Go gc compiler was automatically converted from 80K lines of C to 80K lines of Go. A hand-ported version would have been much smaller.
by nativeit | 2025-07-03 20:06:57+00:00
I suppose the deeper question I'd have would be, how would its no-cost distribution prevent better alternatives from being developed/promoted/adopted along the way? I guess I don't follow your line of logic. To be fair, I'm not experienced enough with either OS development nor any notable alternatives to Unix to agree/disagree with your conclusions. My intuition wants to disagree, only because I like Linux, and even sort of like Bash scripts--but I have nothing but my own subjective preferences to base that position on, and I'm actually quite open to being better-informed into submission. ;-)

I'm a pretty old hat with Debian at this point, so I've got plenty of opinions for its contemporary implementations, but I always sort of assumed most of the fundamental architectural/systems choices had more or less been settled as the "best choices" via the usual natural selection, along with the OSS community's abiding love for reasoned debate. I can generally understand the issues folks have with some of these defaults, but my favorite aspect of OS's like Debian are that they generally defer to the sysadmin's desires for all things where we're likely to have strong opinions. It's "default position" of providing no default positions. Certainly now that there are containers and orchestration like Nix, the layer that is Unix is even less visible, and infrastructure-as-code mean a lot of developers can just kind of forget about the OS layer altogether, at least beyond the OS('s) they choose for their own daily driver(s).

Getting this back to the OG point--I can understand why people don't like the Bash scripting language. But it seems trivial these days to get to a point where one could use Python, Lua, Forth, et al to automate and control any system running a nix/BSD OS, and nix OS's do several key things rather well (in my opinion), such as service bootstrapping, lifecycle management, networking/comms, and maintaining a small footprint.

For whatever it's worth, one could start with nothing but a Debian ISO and some preseed files, and get to a point where they could orchestrate/launch anything they could imagine using their own language/application of choice, without ever touching having touched a shell prompt or writing a line of Bash. Not for nothing, that's almost certainly how many Linux-based customized distributions (and even full-blown custom/bespoke OS's) are created, but it doesn't have to be so complicated if one just wants to get to where Python scripts are able to run (for example).
by carlmr | 2025-07-03 20:07:21+00:00
Nice, I do think fzf is a really good candidate for something that could be better if written in Rust. The fzy[1] C-rewrite is really fast, but I couldn't get it to give me as useful results when searching bash history.

[1] jhawthorn/fzy: :mag: A simple, fast fuzzy finder for the terminal https://share.google/TBp3pVaFngBTfaFyO
by amy214 | 2025-07-03 20:07:45+00:00
>Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off.

You forgot to mention, also the cost of everything doubles and maybe kicks off some good ole hyperinflation

Wealth inequality means all the investment and excess income goes to the top 0.0001%, rather than the average person. Whereas now this may support he average person's purchase of a home, or retirement, or similar, this now supports the billionaire's purchase of a million homes to rent to the common man, earn a fixed profit, to launch rocket ships with a head, two spheres at the base, and veins, where the billionaire with the biggest, longest, firmest rocketship is the winner! That, instead of people having houses and a retirement.
Euler's Theorem from Scratch
by AnotherGoodName | 2025-07-03 20:08:07+00:00
As a programmer i found a lot of tutorials on mathematics far too terse. This blog attempts to explain theories without using terse terminology but instead with numeric examples. This article proves Euler's theorem from scratch with minimal math knowledge required.

For those curious about the format of the blog; The above article was first created in Jupyter but then manually ported to a blog page format with Pyodide for running the Python in the browser itself. I recommend this approach to anyone publishing a notebook. It allowed me to host this as a free static web page. Hope you enjoy and find this useful!
by alberth | 2025-07-03 20:08:20+00:00
Slightly OT: it didn’t dawn on me until recently that terminal multiplier (like tmux) is a terminal itself.

And as a result, you could be running the greatest / fastest / most feature rich desktop terminal … but if your multiplier doesn’t support something - it hinders your fancy desktop terminal.

Short 3 min video explained by Ghostty creator

https://youtu.be/o-qtso47ECk