MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by teddyh | 2025-07-06 16:15:03+00:00
Any customer of, say, Microsoft, expects updates for Windows. If there was no such promise (implicit or explicit), customers would be much more wary of buying and using Windows.

The promise of updates is almost the entire thing nowadays. Anyone can find some random program to solve a problem today, but adapting yourself and your problem to the program has such a high cost that you don’t want to get a new program every time. Therefore, a user wants a program with future updates, so that the adaptation cost is a one-time cost. Updates may or may not cost money, but this is almost irrelevant. Users want to avoid the adaptation costs (and associated effort) of switching to another program.
by adastra22 | 2025-07-06 16:15:30+00:00
When I encounter a README/INSTALL that doesn’t provide docker instructions, I move right along. I’m not (1) using my precious time to figure out how to get your instructions for your machine to work on my custom configured environment (docker solves this), and (2) I’m not polluting my host machine with your crap (docker solves this too).

Docker is not about enterprise. It is about having a standard format for relaying configuration and install instructions to produce a reproducible dev or production environment on any hardware or OS.

If you don’t take the time to do that with your open source project… yeah I ain’t touching it with a 10ft pole.
by ivape | 2025-07-06 16:15:43+00:00
I think scale is the issue here. Our communities got too big and too virtual. In an intimate village, no one has the privilege to say "well I just don't want to interact with anyone outside" - this is uncompromising. Our society, via scale, affords you the ability to not be a part of. It's very self-reinforcing because the larger and robust you make the society, the more people want to secure privacy. The argument that a species that evolved and survived largely in part due to being highly social would suddenly seek privacy indicates something else is wrong in the environment imho (and it's really not hard to do evidence discovery here at all, you can find them via observation or following the money).
by willprice89 | 2025-07-06 16:15:48+00:00
> However they differ, the hyperpolyglots whom I met all winced at the question “How many languages do you speak?” As Rojas-Berscia explained it, the issue is partly semantic: What does the verb “to speak” mean?

When hearing about hyperpolyglots I always have some doubt. Some people believe they know a language when they have a vocabulary of a few dozen words. That might be enough to order food at a restaurant but I don't think is what most people would consider "speaking a language". How many of the 22 languages Rojas-Berscia "has command of" can he speak at a highly-proficient level like CEFR C2? I'm guessing not many.

The question of linguistic distance is also rarely touched upon in these articles despite being of critical importance. It's far easier to learn Italian when you already speak French, Spanish, and Portuguese. A quantitative analysis of hyperpolyglots ought to have some sort of "linguistic range" measure to capture the distance between the different languages you speak proficiently.
by AndrewPGameDev | 2025-07-06 16:15:50+00:00
AFAICT SKG doesn't really make a distinction between games bought with a one-time purchase and games that are subscribed to. In their FAQ, they explicitly say it would apply to MMOs too (see https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq "What about large-scale MMORPGs? Isn't it impossible for customers to run those when servers are shut down?) although they don't spell out whether they mean exclusively games bought with a one-time fee or games that are subscription-only.

Ross from Accursed Farms said this in a video FAQ on youtube:

" Would this initiative affect subscription games? Well, that's another question that depends on what the EU says. Personally, I think it's very unlikely because that doesn't fit well with other existing consumer laws. I think the only way you could even make that argument would be that this is necessary for preservation and most governments don't seem to care about that at all. However, I don't think this is a huge loss, since only a handful of games operate that way today. So if we can give up those but then save 99% of other games, I'm willing to make that bargain. "

so it seems like they actually are suggesting that they'd like for (a law that came out of) SKG to apply to subscription games but there's an understanding that it probably won't.
by codingdave | 2025-07-06 16:15:53+00:00
This doesn't compare the new bill, it compares to pre-2017. You also have a simple form to fill out, which could be skipped and instead show all potential results on a graph or two, which would be a far better visualization of how the changes really impact people. If you aren't comfortable with complex graphs, just show a graph with income on one axis, savings on another, then dupe it for each # of dependents.

Of course, the major complaints about the bill are the lack of funding for health care and the over-zealous funding for ICE, so I'm rejecting the implied premise of this site, that tax changes are the major concern. They aren't.
by hhh | 2025-07-06 16:15:54+00:00
hi, i haven’t made a video but i have some stuff set up for it:

https://youtu.be/AJ2Q12vYojY https://youtu.be/GoPWuJR6Npc

and i host https://dnsroleplay.club which lets you answer real people’s dns requests, there should be links to the github for how it’s done
by SpaghettiCthulu | 2025-07-06 16:15:59+00:00
> is an MMO “functional/playable” if you just release a localhost server? Are we forcing indie shops to pay for servers indefinitely now?

The man behind Stop Killing Games has made it perfectly clear that they do not want to force game developers to continue operating servers. Rather, as you suggest, releasing server binaries would be acceptable. Although a mere "localhost" server would likely not be sufficient, because (if I interpret your suggestion correctly) it takes away the multiplayer funtionality of the game. I think it would be reasonable to require developers to release online multiplayer capable server binaries.
by crote | 2025-07-06 16:16:16+00:00
> American trucks are high performance racing machines by comparison.

Only when you look at governed speed. If I remember the aforementioned Bruce Wilson videos correctly, his imported truck has something like 120 horsepower more than the local counterparts.

Weight-wise, American trucks are limited to 80.000 lbs. The EU allows 88.000 lbs everywhere, but heavier trucks are becoming more and more common. For example, short-distance transport to and from sea ports can be 97.000 lbs, they are exploring raising the EU-wide limit to 132.000 lbs, and Finland and Sweden already allow 165.000 lbs for long-distance transport with trials for 194.000 lbs. That's over twice as much cargo per truck as in the US!

And going fast is one thing, but you need to be able to do so safely. I've heard plenty of stories of American truckers complaining about it being "impossible to stop quickly". Meanwhile in Europe things like radar-assisted emergency braking are becoming the default, and the trucks are able to stop on a dime. Kid suddenly jumps in front of a truck? No problem, they'll live [0]. The driver is going to need a new pair of pants and the trailer is going to be an absolute mess, but that kid hasn't been turned into physics!

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOw8AjHfnoA
by layer8 | 2025-07-06 16:16:32+00:00
Programming languages are different because you don’t have the difficulties of matching pronunciation with writing systems, aspects like literal vs. metaphorical meanings and idiomatic expressions, irregular conjugations, and the usual n:m semantic relationship between words in different languages. Literal translation between programming languages often works, and in any case is independent of whether it’s idiomatic for the language or not, whereas in natural languages it quickly becomes unintelligible.
by Avamander | 2025-07-06 16:16:54+00:00
> The AI features in non-AI-first apps tend to be awkward bolt-ons, poorly thought out and using low quality models to save money.

The weirdest location I've found the most useful LLM-based feature so far has been Edge with it's automatic tab grouping. It doesn't always pick the best groups and probably uses some really small model, but it's significantly faster and easier than anything that I've had so far.

I hope they do bookmarks next and that someone copies the feature and makes it use a local model (like Safari or Firefox, I don't even care).
by GregorStocks | 2025-07-06 16:17:40+00:00
I've always thought that this article overstates the promise of CRDTs with regard to conflict resolution. For toy cases like a TODO list, yes, you can define your operations such that a computer can automatically reconcile conflicts - e.g. you only support "add" and "mark as complete", and if something gets marked as complete twice, that's fine.

But once you get past toy examples, you start wanting to support operations like "edit", and there generally isn't a way to infer the user's intent there. Like, if my cookie recipe starts with 100g of sugar, and I modify it on my phone to use 200g of sugar, and I modify it on my desktop to use 150g of honey instead of 100g of sugar, there are a bunch of ways to reconcile that:

1. Stick with 200g of sugar, drop the 1.5x honey substitution.

2. Stick with 150g of honey, drop the 2x.

3. Merge them - 300g of honey.

4. Merge them - 150g of honey and 50g of sugar.

There's no way for any automated system to infer my intent there. So you've got to either:

1. Ask the user to resolve the conflict. This means you have to build out the whole "resolve this merge conflict for me" UI and the promise of "conflict-free" has not been fulfilled.

2. Arbitrarily choose an option and silently merge. This risks badly surprising the user and losing changes.

3. Arbitrarily choose an option, but expose the fact that you've auto-resolved a conflict and allow the user to manually re-resolve. This requires even more UI work than option 1.

4. Constrain your data model to only allow representing intents that can be deterministically resolved. In practice I think this is too severe of a constraint to allow building anything other than toy apps.

IMO #1 and #3 are the least-bad options, but I don't think they're consistent with the expectations you'd have for CRDTs after reading this article.

(FWIW, https://automerge.org/docs/reference/documents/conflicts/ is the relevant documentation for their Automerge library. It looks like they've chosen option 3.)
by jagatp | 2025-07-06 16:17:57+00:00
Really appreciate you putting this together—super helpful to have a visual tool like this, especially when the media is all over the place with conflicting takes. Love the transparency about not being a tax expert; honestly, tools like this often spark the most productive discussions. The interactivity is a nice touch too.

One suggestion: maybe consider adding a side-by-side comparison for previous vs. new tax brackets to make the changes even easier to spot? Either way, awesome work—bookmarking this.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-07-06 16:18:54+00:00
> This is not an AI problem, this is a problem caused by extremely large piles of money.

Those are two problems in this situation that are both bad for different reasons. It's bad to have all the money concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of losers (and my god are they losers) and AI as a technology is slated to, in the hands of said losers, cause mass unemployment, if they can get it working good enough to pass that very low bar.
by general1726 | 2025-07-06 16:19:31+00:00
It is all fun and games, until people figure out that intelligence, has nothing to do with morality and what is good or bad.

Being run by AGI can be an utopia, or AGI will become pure eugenics state - Why are we keeping elderly or handicapped people alive? Waste of resources, terminate them. Why are we allowing something like love to exist? People should be selected for breeding based on <trait which AGI considers important>

Add to AGI superior intelligence and very likely an ability to manipulate humans, then people will wholeheartedly agree with whatever nasty stuff will AGI come up with.
by alganet | 2025-07-06 16:19:38+00:00
The major issue with AI technology is the people. The enthusiasts that pretend issues don't exist, the cheap startups trying to sell snake oil.

The AI community treats potential customers as invaders. If you report a problem, the entire thing turns on you trying to convince you that you're wrong, or that you reported a problem because you hate the technology.

It's pathetic. It looks like a viper's nest. Who would want to do business with such people?
by rainsford | 2025-07-06 16:19:45+00:00
It's even worse than that, because rationing makes driving an unreliable solution at any price point. Sure, a rich person can afford a car they only use part of the time. But if they regularly have a need to go into the city, they still need an alternative solution the rest of the time when they can't drive into the city for any amount of money. And having the ability to drive only some of the time is even more unhelpful for non-rich folks for exactly the reason you outlined.

The idea of rich people commuting by driving into Manhattan from their mansions in Connecticut while average people live closer and take public transit might bother some egalitarian sensibilities, but it's probably a better outcome than driving being so unavailable to everyone that the only people who really benefit from it are tourists or those who otherwise don't really need to drive into the city at all.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-07-06 16:21:19+00:00
As a lukewarm defense of their statement, mass immigration has indirect effects too, it's not merely a reflection on the immigrants themselves.

There is a global rise in far right populism, and a large part of the justification and rhetoric they use points directly to mass immigration policies. There's a myriad of things they blame: crime, demographic or culture shift, economy.

To be clear, that isn't to say they're right blaming immigration. But its existence has put an enormous burden on democracies in The West. Just look at what a promise to get rid of immigrants did to the US 2016+: a captured, sycophantic, authoritarian government that disregards the rule of law regularly. Leading to regular mass protest and public opposition to LEO.

In Europe it's common to see people point to token heinous crimes - that pregnant woman raped into a miscarriage and her attacker given 12 months, the pedophile gang in the UK - and then use the demographics involved to radicalize people (especially young men - see the Alt Right Pipeline).
by dinfinity | 2025-07-06 16:21:29+00:00
Yep. Just try recreating their results yourself. Not happening unless you explicitly select bad old models.

Note this wording: "Netcraft ran an experiment using a GPT-4.1 family of models."

Why GPT 4.1? Nobody uses that. Also 'family'? That just seems like a way to hide that they used GPT 4.1-mini rather than the full model.
by fleventynine | 2025-07-06 16:24:03+00:00
I've had a lot of success writing driver test cases against the hardware's RTL running in a simulation environment like verilator. Quick to setup and very accurate, the only downside is the time it takes to run.

And if you want to spend the time to write a faster "expensive mock" in software, you can run your tests in a "side-by-side" environment to fix any differences (including timing) between the implementations.
by genghisjahn | 2025-07-06 16:24:42+00:00
I’ve thought through this as well. I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but if I get to where I really need backups to all this, there are solutions available. And I’ve had to learn lot more about logging and alerting to make sure my services stay up. But that time spent is repaid many times over with solutions that I understand. There is a time trade off but it’s usually a few hours of me learning “oh this is how you solve this” and then I don’t worry about it anymore.

In my experience, cloud at scale has ALWAYS required someone with a pager willing/paid to get up at 3am on Christmas Eve. So someone’s time is being used no matter.
by pera | 2025-07-06 16:24:42+00:00
At work we started calling this trend clippification for obvious reasons. In a way this aligns with your comment: The information provided by Clippy was not necessarily useless, nevertheless people disliked it because (i) they didn't ask for help (ii) and even if by any chance they were looking for help, the interaction/navigation was far from ideal.

Having all these popups announcing new integrations with AI chatbots showing up while you are just trying to do your work is pretty annoying. It feels like this time we are fighting an army of Clippies.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-07-06 16:24:44+00:00
> Doesn't mean we should continue with the old ways.

The GP was claiming that it is "20th century myopic" to not notice that in the past the products of most human toil went mostly to a small elite. My very point was that that old way of doing things didn't generate much wealth, not that the way things have changed is all good. I'm not advocating for any of the old ways, I'm saying that having an economic system that brings benefits to all is an important component of growing the overall wealth of a society (and of humanity overall).
by adastra22 | 2025-07-06 16:24:47+00:00
I expect a reviewer using AI tools to query papers to do a half decent job even if they don’t check the results… if we assume the AI hasn’t been prompt injected. They’re actually pretty good at this.

Which is to say, if there were four selections to be made from ten submissions, I expect that humans and AI reviewers to select the same winning 4 quite frequently. I agree with the outrage of the reviewers deferring their expertise to AI on grounds of dishonesty among other reasons. But I concur with the people that do it that it would mostly work most of the time in selecting the best papers of a bunch.

I do not expect there to be any positive correlation between papers that are important enough to publish and papers which embed prompt injections to pass review. If anything I would expect a negative correlation—cheating papers are probably trash.
by mainde | 2025-07-06 16:25:06+00:00
IMHO the incentives are disproportionately in favour of everyone doing something that hurts consumers (= "something that I don't like"), thus regulation in favour of consumer rights is appropriate.

There isn't a scenario where, at scale, someone can offer a product that respects consumer rights and is successful, because it's too profitable to not respect consumer rights just like it wasn't in many other cases.
by csours | 2025-07-06 16:25:08+00:00
Yea, that group of people is insufferable and wrong about almost everything. Dating apps are the one place where they kind of have a point; which really raises the question "Are we (app developers) the baddies?" Dating apps are not a nature preserve, they are a created environment.

Also, there's all kinds of maxing stuff, and there's basic advise, like wash your face and get a haircut before you get your picture taken.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-07-06 16:26:45+00:00
He helped make it legitimate to doubt that there can ever be a politician who is not motivated by self-interest.

The fact that self-interest may play a role in the careers of many politicians doesn't undo the damage that this attitude has caused to our polity.

"They're all fuckers, they're the same" is the attitude that leads to people being unable to differentiate between one party that is subject to excessive corporate lobbying and donations, still starts too many wars, and frequently makes mistakes but nevertheless is fundamentally trying to improve most people's lives, and another that wants to destroy Medicaid.
by crote | 2025-07-06 16:26:48+00:00
> You'd literally need to build more roads

Not as much as you'd think, though. At higher speeds you need more distance between individual vehicles, as the vehicles need significantly more time to stop. The rule-of-thumb is that you should keep a three-second gap between vehicles - which if followed would mean speed is completely unrelated to road capacity [0].

The higher speeds are also going to lead to more frequent and nastier incidents, which means more traffic jams. Once the roads get full lower speeds might even result in a higher average throughput!

[0]: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/analysis-road-capacit...
by scott_w | 2025-07-06 16:27:18+00:00
I think even this point about seeing through all the abstractions being "real engineers" still limits you to, basically, people in their 60s at the youngest.

I just think it's a reductionist view and one that's not necessary. Practical example: beyond reading SQL ANALYZE, I have no idea how Postgres organises and queries data beyond a rough understanding of the model that it exposes. I guess I'm not a "real engineer" because I couldn't tell you how that data is laid out on the disk for efficiency. Yet I'm generally able to write pretty performant data models and query it.

I know engineers who can't even do that, yet their knowledge of DOM and browser logic is so fucking insane, they fixed a shitload of longstanding issues in our product. Where is the line on them being "real engineers?" Is that good enough, or do they need to go deeper into the browser?

I know engineers who don't have that level of depth in either, yet they're consistently able to write bug-free code that's extremely well tested. Do they understand how Python bytecode works? No, they don't have a clue (frankly, neither do I). Yet they solve every problem in their space.
by sillysaurusx | 2025-07-06 16:28:15+00:00
I can buy that humans can see at least 120hz at a minimum. 60Hz is the generally accepted threshold, but I’ve long suspected that 120Hz has mostly imperceptible effects that are still noticeable, if rarely.

I can’t buy this:

> I've also learnt I do benefit from the 8 kHz setting of my mouse, as even at 3200 DPI with fast & smooth motion, some frames still miss a pointer update

It may be true that pointer updates were being missed. But does that really affect anything?

It turns out that there’s a way to test this experimentally. Do a double blind experiment, just like in science. If you can tell which monitor is 240hz more than randomly, then it matters. Ditto for the pointer updates.

The corollary is that if you can’t tell with better than random chance, then none of this matters, no matter how much you think it does.

Experiments like this have decisively settled the “Does higher sampling rate matter when listening to music?” debate, among other questions. People still swear that they can tell that there’s a difference, but it’s expectation bias. They’re mistaken.

(10ms drops every few seconds would definitely be noticeable though; that wasn’t the point.)
by mtkd | 2025-07-06 16:28:21+00:00
For the trivial cases that's fine (just using LLM does same)

But this particular project is not like a standard site and the CSS is in small fragments across 100s files and uses constants for some things like color values in places too

In that Loopple example you can see the conversion uses the Tailwind arbitrary value notation, the -[], so background-color:#afa8af gets converted to bg-[#afa8af], but I wanted nearest pure tailwind class bg-zinc-400, the agent seems to work out color distance fine so does all that in one-shot too