MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ksk385 | 2025-07-07 20:38:17+00:00
Location: Greater New York Area Remote: Yes (US-based) Willing to relocate: No

Services - Web development, Data engineering, Cloud sysadmin + DevOps, Software consulting, Tech leadership

About Me: I’m Karan Krishnani, an independent software consultant with over 15 years of experience in full-stack development, cloud architectures, and AI integrations. I’m currently looking for projects as a fractional embedded team member (10–20 hours/week). My background includes building scalable solutions for industries like healthcare, government, and financial services.

What my last client had to say about my work: Karan is a reliable and results-oriented individual who consistently delivered high-quality work.

Technologies:

Languages: JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Python, Swift, PHP | Frontend: React/Redux, Next.js, Vue, Angular, TailwindCSS | Backend: Node.js/Express, Apollo GraphQL, Sequelize | Cloud: AWS, Azure, GCP, Heroku, Netlify | AI/ML: Hugging Face, Jupyter, DataBricks, Transformers.js | Observability: AppDynamics, Sentry, DataDog, Grafana | Other Tools: Docker, Terraform, Figma, Git, SST

Résumé/CV: https://karankrishnani.com/resume

LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/karan-krishnani

Email: karan.krishnani at gmail dot com
by op00to | 2025-07-07 20:38:19+00:00
It is “established” law because the Copyright Act itself and a string of unanimous or near-unanimous appellate decisions (google ReDigi on digital transfers and Sony and the first-sale for personal use and physical lending) uniformly apply the same principles, leaving no circuit split and no conflicting precedent for the Supreme Court to resolve. In the U.S. system statutory text interpreted consistently by the Courts of Appeals becomes binding law nationwide unless and until the Supreme Court or Congress says otherwise.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-07-07 20:38:26+00:00
I couldn't infer the platform from the article. Following the clues (TestFlight, XcodeGen, Swift) this seems iOS only IIUC.

Next thing to puzzle out: Is BlueTooth Mesh standardized in a way that 1) Android members are already a thing and 2) can propagate BitChat messages now - even before Android clients are developed?

I'm guessing not. Besides the BitChat app, this seems to be an early trial of BT Mesh.
by t_mann | 2025-07-07 20:39:47+00:00
What is it about traditional calculator UIs that you don't like on mobile? I think they work great, unsurprisingly, since the form factor is similar. I have several (paid) mobile apps that fully emulate a traditional calculator model and I regularly use them.

To give some positive feedback: I like your loan calculator. That's something that could really be useful for a lot of people. I think there's still more you can do there, eg let people figure out how much credit they can afford with a given monthly payment. Take a look at traditional financial calculators like the HP 12c, they're extremely versatile in that regard.

Personally, I don't see the need for separate calculators for things like percentage increase or rounding numbers. Most of those could be combined in 2-3 apps at most, imho, scientific, financial and unit conversion. The others are really separate apps that would need a lot more functionality than the pure calculation aspect to really be useful (eg time tracking).
by Reason077 | 2025-07-07 20:40:04+00:00
> ”Nor did a lack of movement from prey visually impair the great beast’s hunt for flesh … “Don’t move. It can’t see us if we don’t move.”

This seems to work with birds, though. They can be oblivious to your presence even at a short distance if you stay still. But any movement will startle them and they’ll fly off. I guess that’s where this idea comes from.

But of course, ancient predators with forward-facing eyes probably worked quite differently.
by colanderman | 2025-07-07 20:40:06+00:00
Yes, if the conductor is poor, it will have losses -- but still it is not the material by which power is conducted to the load. (Rather, because its resistivity creates an E field along its length and within it, you now have a nonzero Poynting vector within the conductor -- one which points outward into the environment!)

Poynting vectors are bizarre and magical.
by pcrh | 2025-07-07 20:40:10+00:00
That's only available to those with an undergraduate degree from Cambridge who, subsequent to their undergraduate degree, publish work worthy of a Ph.D. and pass a viva.

I'm not sure how common a route ot Ph.D. it is (I never heard of it before), but it sounds like an anachronistic extension of the MA's Oxbridge graduates feel entitled to.
by lq9AJ8yrfs | 2025-07-07 20:40:42+00:00
Have you tried BOSL2? [1] Adds a lot to openscad, enough to keep me going at least. Fillets, chamfers, rounding, common parts, anchoring options, and it makes use of parent-child relationships between parts.

Not entirely perfect and some compromises, for example faceting isn't always consistent and hashtag highlighting doesn't seem quite right, but overall still it's good enough for me. The wiki on GitHub is pretty good, and with the source in hand I have had an easy time understanding what it does and tweaking it as needed.

For openscad itself, there are nightly builds with the new geometry engine, which too mostly works for me and is a huge speedup over the older CGAL engine. Renders that took minutes in CGAL now take seconds with the new engine. I like to take faceting through the roof for nicely rounded curves, but that kills CGAL apparently.

[1] https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2
by whycome | 2025-07-07 20:40:49+00:00
How often does a link get posted here of content that is behind a paywall? If you bypass it to read it, didny't you just learn via illegal content? I'm not sure where the "official" comes in, but it's clearly widely accepted.

If you watch a YouTube video to learn something and it's later taken down for using copyrighted images, you learned from illegal content.
by const_cast | 2025-07-07 20:41:08+00:00
> Many configuration files in the Unix world were simply flat file tables, with colons, whitespace, or TAB as the field separator.

The main reason this was done was for shell scripting. Bash and Bourne, unlike newer shells like powershell, don't have any notion of structured input/output. It's string all the way down. So these simple table-like files with field separators were a way to put structure into those strings. It works out nice, because they play really well with awk.

But, such formats are a bit awkward now. You have to remember which program uses which field separators.
by JohnFen | 2025-07-07 20:41:26+00:00
Since "gamification" is just a fancy word for a strategy to make something as addictive as possible, this appears to be a method that, at best, is just substituting one addiction for another.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, if the substitute addiction is less harmful than the one being swapped out. But it's not actually addressing addiction itself.
by sansseriff | 2025-07-07 20:41:33+00:00
I wonder if there's a way to do diffusion within some sort of schema-defined or type constrained space.

A lot of people these days are asking for structured output from LLMs so that a schema is followed. Even if you train on schema-following with a transformer, you're still just 'hoping' in the end that the generated json matches the schema.

I'm not a diffusion excerpt, but maybe there's a way to diffuse one value in the 'space' of numbers, and another value in the 'space' of all strings, as required by a schema:

{ "type": "object", "properties": { "amount": { "type": "number" }, "description": { "type": "string" } }, "required": ["amount", "description"] }

I'm not sure how far this could lead. Could you diffuse more complex schemas that generalize to a arbitrary syntax tree? E.g. diffuse some code in a programming language that is guaranteed to be type-safe?
by killianlucas | 2025-07-07 20:41:33+00:00
Our goal is to build this locally— there's even some heuristics we've found (i.e clicking the same items in a row every time you visit a website) that can give really good completions without an LLM.

Chrome is even starting to ship a small Gemma model in the browser, but we haven't seen great performance from Gemma yet.

But yes, and I have the same concerns w/ this, code completions, Grammerly etc. Hopefully all these tools will follow the same trajectory (some usage with a cloud setup -> distilled into a small local setup).
by artemonster | 2025-07-07 20:41:42+00:00
are you sure it will do anything at all? I am not. The current setup, while objectively sucks for engineers is still quite capable and it *works*. we are far from reaching limits of what is capable to design and tape with current flows. frontend money aspect for tools is still peanuts in comparison to backend and actual fabrication, so it will not generate a renaissance era like gcc did for software
by int_19h | 2025-07-07 20:41:58+00:00
Languages usually have either the voiced/unvoiced distinction as phonemic, or the aspirated/unaspirated distinction. In the former case unvoiced consonants often have aspirated allophones as in English, and in the latter case unaspirated consonants often have voiced allophones especially between vowels, as in Chinese or Korean. Hence why it makes sense to map the two in this manner - if your native language uses aspiration as the primary feature, and you hear someone who uses voicing, your brain will generally map it "automatically" for you, and their speech will sound weird but understandable.

(But then you get Hindi with a four-way distinction, both voiced/unvoiced and aspirated/unaspirated in all possible combinations.)
by humblebeekeeper | 2025-07-07 20:42:03+00:00
There's:

1 header image

1 image showing in process

1 image explaining lightfastness

3 images explaining the importance of lightfastness

1 image explaining the measurement process

1 image linking to another article diving much deeper into the methodology

1 image linking to another article on a different color pencil concern (layering)

1 image representing each brand-line's lightfastness

Every single one of those images seemed relevant to the concept presented and clarified something that would have been difficult to articulate succinctly in writing. For example, the "how was this measured" is a lot easier to understand once you've seen the grid of squares before and after than it would be to try and articulate the fading of colors in small squares in text.

There's LOTS of individual images on specific brands, but given their wild degree of variance, I think it's really useful to perceptually see what's going on with each one.

I'm curious, where do you feel the images were "spammy"? It's a conclusion I heartily disagree with, but would love to understand.
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-07 20:42:46+00:00
You're still avoiding the conflation argument because you can't defend it. You conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." These are fundamentally different cognitive processes.

When I refer to English as a programming language, I mean using English to express programming logic and requirements while automating the syntax translation. I'm not claiming we've eliminated the need for actual code, but that we can express the what and why in natural language while handling the how of implementation mechanically.

Your "100% equivalent" standard misses the point entirely. Abstractions work by letting you operate at a higher conceptual level. Assembly programmers could have made the same arguments about C: "you don't really understand what's happening at the hardware level!" Web developers could face the same critique about frameworks: "you don't really understand the DOM manipulation!" Are you writing assembly, then? Are your handcoding your DOM manipulation in your prancing purity? Or using 1998 web tech?

The value of any abstraction is whether it enables better problem-solving by removing unnecessary cognitive overhead. The architectural insights you value don't come from the physical act of typing brackets, semicolons, and variable declarations; they come from understanding system behavior, performance characteristics, and design tradeoffs, all of which remain fully present in my workflow.

You're defending the mechanical act of keystroke-by-keystroke code construction as if it's inseparable from the intelligence of system design. It's not.

You've confused form with function. The syntax is just the representation of logic, not the logic itself. You can understand a complex algorithm from pseudocode without knowing any particular language's syntax. You can analyze system architecture from high-level diagrams without seeing code. You can identify performance bottlenecks by profiling behavior, not by staring at semicolons. You've elevated the delivery mechanism above the actual thinking.
by johnnyApplePRNG | 2025-07-07 20:42:53+00:00
You're skipping a lot of context here. Ancient Babylonian scribal schools were for a small elite—hardly universal childhood education. Medieval Europe's "regression" had a bit to do with the collapse of the Roman state, plagues, and centuries of instability, not just a lack of ambition. Comparing literacy rates across millennia without mentioning population size, language complexity, or what “schoolchildren” even means is a stretch.

History isn't exponential—it's bumpy.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-07-07 20:43:25+00:00
Coming from Spanish, with just the right diacritics to make pronunciation obvious, at first I didn't get the concept of a "Spelling Bee". Did it involve something besides spelling? Did "Bee" was a metaphor for the actual hard part of it?

I was first exposed to written English, so after trying conversational English, I learned why its pronunciation/writing is a national competition. It might as well be random.

English would have benefited a great deal from an equivalent to the Royal Spanish Academy.
by actinium226 | 2025-07-07 20:43:44+00:00
The most "refreshing" interview I had was one where the guy had a list of like 100 questions about C++, and he would just go through and ask "do you know what SIMD is?" or "are you familiar with smart pointers?" or "tell me about templates" (most were less open ended than the template one). If I responded yes, he'd follow up, and it was more of a discussion. If I said no he'd just move on to the next one (sometimes I'd ask what it was and he'd explain).

At one company I lobbied hard against standardizing our interview on a question designed to test the candidate's multi-threaded knowledge. I insisted that if we needed multithreading, we could just ask the candidate, and ask them to elaborate. Fortunately I won that little battle.

Sometimes in interviews you get tunnel vision and you can't see the forest through the trees, and you don't realize that the interviewer is asking you about multithreading because they're being coy. That's the kind of shitty interview we need to avoid, because it leads to the false conclusion that the candidate doesn't know about multithreading when actually you just don't know how to ask.
by jasonlotito | 2025-07-07 20:44:47+00:00
> the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading,

I never saw any of these. All the cases I saw were related to people using torrents or other P2P software (which aren't just downloading). These might exist, but I haven't seen them.

> It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

Every click on a link is a risk of downloading copyrighted material you don't have the rights to.

Searching the internet, it appears that it's a civil infraction, but it's also confused with the notion that "piracy" is illegal, a term that's used for many different purposes. I see "It is illegal to download any music or movies that are copyrighted." under legal advice, which I know as a statement is not true.

Hence my confusion.

I should note: I'm not arguing from the perspective of whether it's morally or ethically right. Only that even in the context of this thread, things are phrased that aren't clear.
by ben_w | 2025-07-07 20:45:00+00:00
There may be no admiration, but there definitely is an internalising of sweeping themes, and all the other things in your quotation, which anyone can fetch by asking it for the themes/substantive points/stylistic solutions of one of the books it has (for lack of a better verb) read.

That the mechanism performing these things is a network encoding data is… well, that description, at that level of abstraction, is a similarity with the way a human does it, not even a difference.

My network is a 3D mess made of pointy bi-lipid bags exchanging protons across gaps moderated by the presence of neurochemicals, rather than flat sheets of silicon exchanging electrons across tuned energy band-gaps moderated by other electrons, but it's still a network.

> We’re talking about a machine that accepts content and then produces more content. It’s not a person, it’s owned by a corporation that earns money on literally every word this machine produces. If it didn’t have this large corpus of input data (copyrighted works) it could not produce the output data for which people are willing to pay money. This all happens at a scale no individual could achieve because, as we know, it is a machine.

My brain is a machine that accepts content in the form of job offers and JIRA tickets (amongst other things), and then produces more content in the form of pull requests (amongst other things). For the sake specifically of this question, do the other things make a difference? While I count as a person and am not owned by any corporation, when I work for one, they do earn money on the words this biological machine produces. (And given all the models which are free to use, the LLMs definitely don't earn money on "literally" every word those models produce). If I didn't have the large corpus of input data — and there absolutely was copyright on a lot of the school textbooks and the TV broadcast educational content of the 80s and 90s when I was at school, and the Java programming language that formed the backbone of my university degree — I could not produce the output data for which people are willing to pay money.

Should corporations who hire me be required to pay Oracle every time I remember and use a solution that I learned from a Java course, even when I'm not writing Java?

That the LLMs do this at a scale no individual could achieve because it is a machine, means it's got the potential to wipe me out economically. Economics threat of automation has been a real issue at least since the luddites if not earlier, and I don't know how the dice will fall this time around, so even though I have one layer of backup plan, I am well aware it may not work, and if it doesn't then government action will have to happen because a lot of other people will be in trouble before trouble gets to me (and recent history shows that this doesn't mean "there won't be trouble").

Copyright law is one example of government action. So is mandatory education. So is UBI, but so too is feudalism.

Good luck to us all.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-07-07 20:45:25+00:00
> In the future we're going to regret breathing air. It's the accelerant for so many health problems.

A non-oxygen dependent energy system for the human cell is the only option moving forward. We need to utilize a clean energy source like sunlight and dump that oxygen dependency once and for all. Cyanobacteria was a crutch dependency that helped bootstrap that whole life thing pretty quickly for the demo. We have a proven concept now that we know work. Can we leave the idea to use oxygen back in the GOE era where it belongs now? Building all this complexity on top of a fundamentally flawed bases like oxygen reactivity was the main mistake.
by armcat | 2025-07-07 20:45:26+00:00
I've been looking at the code on their chat playground, https://chat.inceptionlabs.ai/, and they have a helper function `const convertOpenAIMessages = (convo) => { ... }`, which also contains `models: ['gpt-3.5-turbo']`. I also see in API response: `"openai": true`. Is it actually using OpenAI, or is it actually calling its dLLM? Does anyone know?

Also: you can turn on "Diffusion Effect" in the top-right corner, but this just seems to be an "animation gimmick" right?
by LeftHandPath | 2025-07-07 20:45:34+00:00
The other thing that differentiates Spielberg's original work from all that's followed is the way it explored the details. From the sourcing of the amber, to the need to have paleontologists, botanists, and lawyers check Hammond's work, to the inclement weather, to the social interactions and workplace frustrations of the staff -- it all felt like much more of a living, breathing park than any of the renderings since. Like someone took out a sheet of paper and said, "If someone actually built this thing, what problems would they have to deal with?"

The newer movies -- even Spielberg's own sequel -- don't capture that. They start with some park or island miraculously up and running, no explanation needed. They hand us predetermined good and bad guys whose motivations seem less complex, more contrived. Jurassic World didn't give me the sense that anyone struggled and triumphed in creating the park. It was just hand-waved into existence, in a way that cheapens the ensuing drama.
by badlibrarian | 2025-07-07 20:45:41+00:00
My fault for the hanging clause: nearly a dozen state laws preceded it and used pounds. Mostly because they were based on the British law and also because the war made a mess of the currency situation.

Statutory damages were added to reduce the burden on plaintiffs. Which encourages people to stay in line. How well this worked out and what it means when some company nobody heard of 4 years ago downloads a billion copyrighted pages and raises $3.5 billion against a $60 billion valuation...

Well suddenly $20/page still sounds about right.
by ta8645 | 2025-07-07 20:45:42+00:00
Define "actually matters".

Is there any reason to believe that humans are imbued with some mysterious magic, that silicone creatures lack? And even if you believe that we possess some such magic, is there any proof that it can't eventually be instantiated within a creature we create?

It may be that our ultimate achievement as a species is to give birth to a more intelligent and capable future species. And if we do, it will be the result of, and the next step in, natural evolution. We are part of nature, not something separate; ergo, everything we create, is natural. Everything we might achieve, was already provisioned in the fabric of reality.

Nothing that we do, or happens to us -- including the inevitable demise of our species, diminishes or jeopardizes anything fundamental.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-07-07 20:46:39+00:00
> If you give a book to a friend, they are now the owner of that book and can do what they like with it.

We're talking about lending rather than ownership transfers, though of course you could regard lending as a sort of ownership transfer with an agreement to transfer it back later.

> If you photocopy that book and give them the photocopy, they are not the owner of the book and you have reproduced it without permission.

But then the question is whether the copy is fair use, not who the owner of the original copy was, right? For example, you can make a fair use photocopy of a page from a library book.

> They were not the legal owners of the digital books, which means they can get prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Even if the copy they make falls under fair use and the person who does own that copy of the book has no objection to their doing this?