MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lioeters | 2025-07-25 06:00:36+00:00
Comparison with Bash, from https://github.com/modernish/modernish/blob/master/EXAMPLES....

# Plain POSIX sh

#! /bin/sh git status >/dev/null || exit if ! git diff-index --quiet HEAD; then echo 'Working dir not clean' >&2 exit 1 fi find . -name .git -prune \ -o -exec sh -c ' # Ask Git for latest commit'\''s timestamp, # formatted for POSIX '\''touch -t'\''. timestamp=$(git log --format=%cd \ --date=format:%Y%m%d%H%M.%S \ -1 HEAD -- "$1") || exit [ -n "$timestamp" ] || exit set -x touch -t "$timestamp" "$1" ' dummy {} \;

# Modernish

#! /usr/bin/env modernish #! use safe #! use sys/cmd/harden #! use var/loop harden git harden -e '>1' -f wd_is_clean \ git diff-index --quiet HEAD harden -pt touch git status >/dev/null wd_is_clean || exit 1 'Working dir not clean' total=0 LOOP find repofile in . -name .git -prune \ -or -iterate; DO # Ask Git for latest commit's timestamp, # formatted for POSIX 'touch -t'. timestamp=$(git log --format=%cd \ --date=format:%Y%m%d%H%M.%S \ -1 HEAD -- $repofile) str empty $timestamp && continue # 'touch' is traced by 'harden -t'. touch -t $timestamp $repofile let "total+=1" DONE exit 0 "$total timestamps restored."
by pseudo0 | 2025-07-25 06:00:44+00:00
Would you want your children to be gay? As a straight person, given the choice I would want my children to be straight, so they could have biological children with their partner and a dating pool of ~48% of the population rather than ~2%. Those are pretty clear objective advantages, even putting aside the issue of societal acceptance.

It's completely understandable to have an attachment to one's own identity, but at a certain point trying to impose that identity on one's children becomes ethically questionable. A good example is the deaf community - would it be appropriate for a deaf couple to withhold medical treatment from their child that would allow them to hear? I would argue no, but some people disagree.
by bfg_9k | 2025-07-25 06:01:45+00:00
Absolutely. But on the flip side I can also recognise that frankly, governments are terrible at running things. I think a Singapore style model is best - a giant holding company like Temasek that is wholly government funded and owned, but companies owned by the holding company are still beholden to the free market forces, are the best way to go for things like payment processors, airlines, utilities, etc.
by bjackman | 2025-07-25 06:02:15+00:00
Yeah as others mentioned it's really all about open source.

If your project is open source but still interacts with the main body of Google code in a significant way, you can still be in the monorepo and then mirror it to Git via Copybara (or you can work primarily in Git and then mirror to the monorepo via Copybara).

The most common case of that is libraries that get imported into server binaries. There's a whole section of the monorepo for open source code, with special rules and processes around it.

But a that has setup and friction costs so it's only worth it if you see a pretty significant upside.

For stuff that's pretty standalone there's no point. Classic cases are Chromium and Go. Then of course there's Google's various operating systems...
by Eric_Riley | 2025-07-25 06:02:19+00:00
It started as a personal attempt to debug missed clicks on a cheap wireless mouse. I ended up building a minimal browser-based click tester using plain JavaScript — no frameworks, no libraries. Along the way, I learned a few surprising things about human perception, hardware quirks, and input latency.

The tool is now used by QA testers, gamers, and even accessibility folks. It was a fun, weirdly practical project that lives somewhere between a toy and a utility.

Would love thoughts/feedback.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-07-25 06:02:55+00:00
> The developers of Wayland (who are identical to the developers of Xorg) aspire to more of a Windows/Mac-like ecosystem for Linux, in which standardization, performance, and support for modern graphics hardware without hacks or workarounds are prioritized over proliferation of niche window managers and toolkits

Is that why they arranged things to ensure that the Wayland world would always be split into GNOME, KDE, and everything else (in practice, wlroots)?
by ipnon | 2025-07-25 06:03:40+00:00
LLMs need documentation for semantic instructions and testing for formal verification. In the past efficient human teams could forego both of these and rely on tacit understanding. But this does not exist with LLMs so we will continue to see proliferation of elaborate documentation bases and test bases.

It is very interesting to me how the differences in our intelligences is physically manifested in text. It is one argument against hard-takeoff: the bioneuron can encode information in a sweet spot that cannot be targeted by the perceptron, by the so-called neuralese, by any amount of distillation.
by ruined | 2025-07-25 06:05:03+00:00
modern consensus is that a manual safety is more of a liability than a feature - correct handling obviates it, and in the worst case a manual safety may prevent you from deliberately firing the weapon.

correct handling requires the use of a holster which completely covers the trigger. a properly-designed firearm is safe in a properly-designed holster.

the handgun that effectively established this concept (the glock) does not contain enough potential in the fire control at rest to discharge a round, but notably, the p320 does.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-07-25 06:05:28+00:00
> 90% of this corn isn't being eaten anyways

But it could be. I don't have to consume the canned food in my basement for it to provide food security in the event of a natural disaster.

I'm finding exact numbers difficult to come by but rice requires noticeably more water to grow. Dried corn kernels are approximately equivalent to dried rice when it comes to storage and transport.

There really isn't any sensible argument for switching from corn to rice in the US midwest.
by joegibbs | 2025-07-25 06:05:42+00:00
But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?
by phtrivier | 2025-07-25 06:06:48+00:00
I agree that the study is biased (it compared people unused to a tool with people not using the tool. Duh. The only person who was more efficient was the person... who knew how to use the tool. Duh indeed.)

However I don't see how hammock driven dev allows you to validate an idea with a prototype built in an hour as opposed to a month.
by reissbaker | 2025-07-25 06:07:31+00:00
Ironically, this is the least empathetic message in this thread.

You're also wrong: there were plenty of "anti-war protestors" during the Holocaust, who lost, and were wrong; plenty of radical feminists who were (and are) anti-trans; and the idea that the American Revolution was primarily about maintaining slavery has been debunked — for one thing, it was often led by Northeners who had already banned slavery. (The 1619 Project eventually conceded and issued corrections.) Environmentalist groups in the 70s doomed the planet by making it near-impossible to build nuclear energy in the US, and then later drove the US into spiraling inequality by making it near-impossible to build enough housing. Opposing eugenics was once a conservative opinion, whereas the "science" of eugenics was favored by academia — and most of the suffragettes! The largest anti-eugenics movement came from the Catholic Church.

Of course, new ideas that were better than old ideas usually came from people now termed "progressive" — the term is self-defining (if it wasn't "progress" no one would look back and call it "progressive.") But plenty of bad ideas have also come draped in the cloaks of people who term themselves progressive, and opposed by people who at the time were termed conservative: it's only in retrospect that we rewrite the people in the wrong as not-progressive, and consider the people then termed conservative as the true-progressives. Ultimately most people want good things for most people, and mainly argue — sometimes vociferously, and acrimoniously — about what the best way for that to happen is.
by geocar | 2025-07-25 06:07:59+00:00
> I write code in both ...

> If I look at Forth code I wrote a month ago I have no idea what it's doing.

Sometimes when we are learning a language, we plateau in our learning for so long we think we are done, however I assure you that other people can read Forth code written months or years ago, even written by other people, and can read it.

That's not you, at least not yet, and you should be cautious with your certainty about things you just don't know about.

Writing code is substantially easier than reading it, but reading is when it is possible for us to know the language.

> I could never bootstrap a Lisp compiler that way.

Don't be so hard on yourself: You can, but you would have to change and learn in order to do it.
by Anifun_AI | 2025-07-25 06:08:01+00:00
We're building Anifun AI, a completely free, browser-based toolset that helps anyone—artists or not—create manga with the help of AI.

With Anifun, users can:

Create manga panels using built-in panel layouts and speech bubble templates

Automatically color manga line art with style-adjustable AI coloring

Generate manga-style art from text prompts using Stable Diffusion pipelines

Convert real photos into anime-style portraits — useful for avatars, Vtuber content, or story characters

Our mission is to make manga creation accessible, fast, and fun — without requiring expensive software, drawing skills, or even an account.

No login required 100% free to use Lightning-fast generation (under 10 seconds in most cases) Works on desktop and mobile browsers

We’re currently focusing on use cases for indie manga artists, storytellers, and anime enthusiasts — especially those prototyping content or publishing to Webtoon-style platforms.

Try it out here: https://anifun.ai

We’d love your feedback on what features you'd like next (story engine, character design control, or animation preview?), and are open to collaborations with creators or devs working on AI + storytelling.
by abletonlive | 2025-07-25 06:08:03+00:00
This boring comparison keeps being made but you’re orders of magnitude off in terms of adoption and investment already in a few years time. What a lazy observation parroted by someone that literally can’t see the reality that they live in. To spout off such inane nonsense on hackernews of all places, the place where almost every project is now an AI project is incredible levels of mental gymnastics
by endominus | 2025-07-25 06:08:28+00:00
If you run a restaurant and a known dine-and-dasher walks in, can you not refuse to serve them?

If you're a consultant do you have no right to refuse a client? Even if you have other clients you'd rather work for, or that particular client is a bad fit for you, or any other reason?

If you run a transport company, and you think someone is trying to get you to move illegal goods, or goods that you have moral qualms about transporting (such as a vegan being asked to transport livestock for slaughter) do you have no right to refuse?
by pama | 2025-07-25 06:08:44+00:00
> If I make the plausible but not necessarily correct assumption that OpenAI's API prices reflect the cost of electricity, none of their models are even remotely that cheap

This assumption is very wrong. The primal cost factor in inference is the GPU itself. NVidia’s profit margins are very high; so are OpenAI’s margins for the API usage, even after taking into account the costs of the GPU. You can understand their margins if you read about inference at scale, and the lmsys blog in my parallel answer is a decent eye opener if you thought that companies sell tokens close to the price of electricity.
by sandreas | 2025-07-25 06:08:46+00:00
Happy long term user, great project. Here is a list of Open Source Apps, I use to replace Google stuff:

Aurora Store - Anonymized frontend for Playstore F-Droid - Open Source App Store Obtainium - App Store for other sources (e.g. github) Organic Maps - Open Source navigation (not as good as proprietary ones though) SherpaTTS - Text to speech for Organic Maps PDF Doc Scanner - Little Trickster, Open Source document scanner Binary Eye - Barcode reader K9 Mail / FairMail - Mail client LocalSend - Cross Platform File Transfer Syncthing Fork - Catfriend1 Syncthing fork to sync files VLC Media Player - media player KOReader - ebook reader Voice - Paul Woitaschek, local audiobook player AudioBookShelf - Remote audiobook player Immich - image backup Fossify File Manager - file manager Substreamer / DSub - Audio streamer for navidrome self hosted server OpenCamera - Open Source camera app

I wish I had this list from the start... Hope it helps someone :-)
by deelowe | 2025-07-25 06:09:30+00:00
Many modern guns for personal protection do not have manually actuated safeties and instead rely on other mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. For example, glocks have a "trigger safety." Without getting into minutia, these sort of features do a fine job of ensuring the gun does not fire unless the trigger is intentionally actuated.

The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. A long time ago there were quite a few major incidents involving police and manual safeties which resulted in most departments changing their policies such that they carry with the safety off or, typically these days, glocks which have no manual safety.

Regarding the p320. For one, the 320 does not have a trigger safety. In fact, there are numerous "innovations" on this firearm which were made to cut costs, improve trigger feel, and various other things. This rose a lot of suspicion when the gun first came out actually - especially the lack of a trigger safety which many consider essential for striker fire guns intended for carrying on your person. On top of that, sig did end up making a p320 with a safety as this was a military requirement. The thing is, it is possible that the "innovative" sear mechanism within the p320 may allow the gun to fire even when the safety is engaged. In fact, there have been reports of just that happening.

The gun that was being carried in Air Force incident is the military version of the p320 which does in fact have a manual safety. Also, the leaked reports state the incident happened whenever the gun was in the holster and the holster was removed and placed on a desk facing the victim. This is when the gun misfired striking the victim in the chest. There is speculation that the gun may have in fact had the safety engaged whenever this happened. If so, this would explain the prompt response by the AirForce.

Regardless, the purpose of manual safeties are not to prevent guns from discharging on their own (aka. "uncommanded"). Manual safeties are intended to protect against "accidental" discharges where the trigger gets pulled "accidentally." That's not what happened in the above video or the AirForce incident.

One more thing to note. The officer in this video was using a Sig Sauer holster so there should be no risk of the holster itself being the problem.
by sunrunner | 2025-07-25 06:09:37+00:00
> But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies.

For this kind of service (again leaning on a classification as 'public infrastructure') I suppose my answer is yes.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

I'm suggesting that regulation prevents them from _disallowing_ access to payments services for things that are not explicitly illegal. In this case I don't see 'Telling X what to do' and 'Telling X that they're NOT allowed to refuse to provide service in these cases' as the same thing, even though they're both essentially 'Mandating that X operate in a certain way'. The difference here being that refusal of service, while still being a choice about how to run, is explicitly a blocking choice for others in certain situations, and not just a choice to, for example, create a new credit product for the market.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

Is this not also just Collective Shout themselves pressuring the payment processors into refusing transactions from a third party for content that they themselves deem inappropriate?

> The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors

Is Visa not refusing a legitimate transaction (non-fraudulent, no rollback or refund) going to hurt these investors when part of their investment income comes from usage fees? And if an investor that has concerns about _how_ their investment makes money is that not now a different issue?

Edit: Added last point about shareholders.
by rachofsunshine | 2025-07-25 06:09:44+00:00
Because we know that not doing so leads to bad outcomes, and in some cases, to outright catastrophe.

A person who was not invested in subprime mortgages in 2006 had no skin in the game - yet the fact that others did invest in subprime mortgages created instabilities that threatened them. Virtually everyone agrees, in retrospect, that something should have been done then. But it wasn't, with precisely the justification you're articulating here. The problem is that that person did in fact have skin in the game, because the outcome had important ramifications for their life even if those ramifications were not in the form of direct financial losses.

Now, sure, your ability to buy furry porn is very different from sparking a global recession. But you're implicitly articulating a very strong claim here, that you cannot regulate economic activity to which you are not a party. That has a clear counterexample well within the memories of most people reading this thread.

------

I think we agree that private individuals should be able to purchase legal content from the people who produce it. Without action here, that will become either impossible or very difficult, to the point of having a major chilling effect. I think we also agree that businesses should generally have the right to conduct business as they see fit, both because it allows the exploration of new ideas and because market economics is a powerful force for increasing productivity.

To me, that says that there is a tension between two irreconcilable rights. On one side, we have the rights of businesses to act in their economic best interest (which is important!). On the other side, we have the rights of individuals to (actually and with reasonable effort) engage in lawful private microeconomic activity. And when you encounter such a tension, you need to consider:

- How important the rights are

- How much of one you get by sacrificing some of the other

In this case, I would consider the ability of individuals to conduct microeconomic activity more important than the ability of corporations to conduct what is effectively a PR campaign (since no one seems to be of the opinion that payment processors are actually taking a loss on people buying porn, they're just caving to political pressure). And I think the restriction of payment processors here is small compared to the potential restriction on private individuals. So to me, the trade-off has a clear winner.

If you disagree with this chain of reasoning, can you explain where?
by hunglee2 | 2025-07-25 06:10:16+00:00
Export controls are almost impossible to entirely control - narcotics are the direct analogy. Where there is demand, there will be supply - tons of money to be made in both trying to prevent it (customs officers, surveillance tech etc) and trying to facilitate it (smugglers). Still, the absolute volume of NVIDIA AI Chips accessible to China is likely to be substantially lower, so the chokehold is there, even though a knock out probably isn't
by hahn-kev | 2025-07-25 06:10:22+00:00
They way it works I don't receive a charge like you do with visa, the merchant presents a code, you scan it when your bank app and then the bank app asks if you want to send # of money to [merchant name], if you don't want to pay it then you don't approve the transfer in your app on your phone.

However after the fact there's less options, I've never gone through
by Animats | 2025-07-25 06:10:55+00:00
If a vehicle fails to stop at a base entrance, the gate guard hits the button that raises a barrier some distance past the entrance. Then they go for a weapon, if necessary. Post 9/11, that will be something with more power than a pistol.[1]

The barrier solves an old problem - what action to take when a vehicle fails to stop at a checkpoint. Most of the time, it's drunks or minor crazies. Lethal force is excessive and car chases on base are dangerous. Barriers became standard for DoD installations around 2005.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW79PLFuUGw
by dagmx | 2025-07-25 06:11:08+00:00
You can go to any point in Apple’s history and you’ll find people saying the exact same sentence: they haven’t innovated anything in 5 years.

Almost always exactly that number. Almost always dismissing any product in that period because they’re not normalized yet, and then once they’re normalized then they’re boring and not considered.

It is impossible for Apple to be considered innovative by their standards.
by asimpletune | 2025-07-25 06:11:50+00:00
This is terrifying. Imagine trying to explain to a relative the lesson of this post: always be suspicious, even if the email is from a trusted domain and dkim/dmarc/spf all pass… it doesn’t feel good to imagine their reaction.

This is still limited in what you can do though. For example you can’t use this to forge messages from other people’s Gmail accounts.

> When the message is forwarded, the original DKIM signature usually remains untouched as long as the email content and headers covered by the signature are not modified

It does seem surprising the To: header isn’t one of the headers that is covered by the dkim signature. They should just change how their signing is configured, and email clients should warn when the email is legit but the intended recipient could have been changed.
by gorset | 2025-07-25 06:11:52+00:00
In a previous project we used fixedint32/64 instead of varint values in the schema for messages where performance was critical.

That left only varint used for tags. For encoding we already know the size at compile time. We also don’t have to decode them since we can match on the raw bytes (again, known at compile time).

A final optimization is to make sure the message has a fixed size and then just mutate the bytes of a template directly before shipping it off. Hard to beat.

In a newer project we just use SBE, but it lacks some of the ergonomics of protobuf.
by kamil_gr | 2025-07-25 06:13:11+00:00
Hi HN, author here. I've always found debates about "what is consciousness?" in AI to be a dead end. This is my attempt to sidestep that by asking a different question: "who is aware?" This post links to my essay on the topic (translated to English). It proposes that consciousness isn't an object to be defined, but an elusive "blind spot" that appears when a system tries to self-observe. To explore this, I've created the "Vortex Protocol" – a prompt framework designed to push LLMs into a state of self-inquiry and hold them at their own logical limits. The protocol itself is included in the article. I'm not claiming this "creates" consciousness. I'm proposing it as a tool to test the boundaries of artificial subjectivity in a new way. Curious to hear what you all think.