MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bobbiechen | 2025-07-20 18:49:36+00:00
So true. I recently wrote about how Merlin achieved magical bird identification not through better algorithms, but better expertise in creating great datasets: https://digitalseams.com/blog/what-birdsong-and-backends-can...

I think "harsh reality" is one way to look at it, but you can also take an optimistic perspective: you really can achieve great, magical experiences by putting in (what could be considered) unreasonable effort.
by rayiner | 2025-07-20 18:49:43+00:00
> Also, it seems weird to suggest that only women have the failings you’ve noted, as men can also have the same shortcomings.

Why would you portray these as “shortcomings?” E.g. my wife is probably counted as part of the income disparity between men and women, because after our third child she decided she didn’t want to keep working. The choice to do that wasn’t unweighted random coin flip as between the two of us. Indeed, she wouldn’t have married me if she perceived there was a possibility I’d want to quit my demanding full time job and be the primary caregiver.
by maxlin | 2025-07-20 18:49:57+00:00
Yes. They are disallowing themselves from using other sensors. To avoid complicating the software stack and ultimately to keep it higher performing, which will make it safer in any alotted time.

This is really no different from good code practices with a complex system. Most HN readers should be familiar with rot in codebases quite comparable to "adding a few extra features to make it better" which just became a maintenance burden and take away from core features.

If you knew the slightest of how Musk has actually stayed exactly the same since the beginnings of Tesla, you'd know his hard specs are always technology-based. People that know more have said that his capability of speccing systems relatively right deep in to the future is possibly his single greatest leadership feat.

>Once Musk is near-certain about one technology pathway over another, he’s not afraid to put massive amounts of resources into that path, while still staying flexible enough in the case that a new emerging technology disrupts that particular path. Because he’s willing to make enormous (and seemingly risky) bets on these pathways, he’s able to outpace his competitors. https://www.quora.com/Is-Elon-Musk-all-that-hes-cracked-up-t...
by kubb | 2025-07-20 18:50:03+00:00
Realistically, policy is the outcome of the political process. There is no single optimal policy because what's considered 'optimal' depends on what you want to achieve, and these goals will vary across individuals or groups.

Some people don't want anybody to come in, others want just the brain drain but nobody else, others want cheap unskilled workers, others want open borders. And this is just a small sample.
by perching_aix | 2025-07-20 18:50:24+00:00
I do not think they have a point that can be explored much, or that they're suggesting an exploration of anything to begin with. I further think that the fear is on their side: fear from being associated with a historically malicious movement (eugenics), fear from being the possible culprit of unintended suffering (gene editing going wrong downstream) and thus having that responsibility, and fear of the disruption of some higher balance they believe exists (religion).

For example,

> may well have some positive selection pressure and may be good to the population overall

How will we find this out if we espouse gene editing in general as bad?

From my perspective, like religious folks in general, they wish for leaving unknowns remain unknown and just being passive; unfortunately, I think this goes against the very essence of life, and our very fundamental biases that come from being alive and perceiving ourselves as sentient.

If I took their worldview to the extreme, I wouldn't be able to do anything: the smallest things would require a full and complete understanding of the entire state of the world, lest I might cause some unintended effect that may hurt me greatly, and so when I do do anything, I'm exhibiting hubris. This is also why I brought up healthcare in general being a best effort, because all active actions in life are at most a best effort due to the impenetrable wall between our perception of the world, and the world in its actuality.

To tie it back to your example:

> Consider a program stopping with segfault vs silently continuing with corrupt memory.

Think about how you can reset your graphics driver by pressing Win+Ctrl+Shift+B without having to restart your entire system. Or how you continue to write programs, despite not being able to guarantee that the code you write for those programs is actually what's going to execute, on the state you expect them to be executed on, in the environment you expect it to execute in, in a way you expect it to execute. You might get other programs inject themselves into your program, other programs manipulate the memory of your program, the system libraries you call into do something unexpected because 20 years have passed and now things are different, or simply being scheduled out and your program not even receiving CPU time, meaning if your program powered a real time experience, that now ceases to be that way.
by bee_rider | 2025-07-20 18:50:30+00:00
It isn’t even that unreasonable for the AI companies to not be profitable at the moment (they are probably betting they can decrease costs before they run out of money, and want to offer people something like what the final experience will be). But it’s totally bizarre that people are comparing the cost of running locally to the current investor-subsidized remote costs.

Eventually, these things should get closer. Eventually the hosted solutions have to make money. Then we’ll see if the costs of securing everything and paying some tech company CEO’s wage are higher than the benefits of centrally locating the inference machines. I expect local running will win, but the future is a mystery.
by Telemakhos | 2025-07-20 18:50:33+00:00
How is this a danger to "democracy?" The centralization of payment processing under a surveillance-friendly network that can debank people for socially unacceptable behavior was never on any ballot. Instead, surveillance capability is a regulatory requirement promulgated by governments that despise privacy, regardless of which party holds office. The mistake here is in thinking that there's "democracy" left to save.
by gruez | 2025-07-20 18:50:55+00:00
>In 10 years when robotaxi companies are short on cash and trying to IPO they will absolutely start speeding

Openly commit crimes when everything's being recorded and subject to discovery? What could possibly go wrong?

>They'll lock the doors and give you a paid presentation about Scientology during your ride.

Sounds like a good excuse for whoever's trapped to break open the side windows because he "felt he was in danger because of claustrophobia" or whatever. More seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with mandatory ads as long as it's disclosed ahead of time.

> "Accidentally" drive you to a competing store that paid for sponsored traffic, instead of the .

By your own admission "Google search has been enshittified", yet when was the last time google "accidentally" sent you to the competitor's site on the search results page?
Show HN: Easyfaq.io – Free SEO-Optimized FAQ Page Generator (LLM-Friendly)
by branoco | 2025-07-20 18:51:21+00:00
Hi HN

I built EasyFAQ, a free tool that helps you generate and embed SEO-friendly FAQ pages. It’s aimed at making structured content easy to publish, especially for small sites, blogs, and landing pages.

The generated FAQs include proper schema markup (JSON-LD), so they’re optimized for Google’s rich results and easier for large language models like ChatGPT to interpret accurately.

I made this after noticing how much well-structured FAQs can improve site clarity and search visibility. The tool requires no login, and you can export or embed the generated FAQs directly.

Would love feedback from the HN community — especially around UX, SEO usefulness, or other feature ideas.

link: https://easyfaq.io

Thanks!
by rdw | 2025-07-20 18:51:30+00:00
The bitter lesson is becoming misunderstood as the world moves on. Unstated yet core to it is that AI researchers were historically attempting to build an understanding of human intelligence. They intended to, piece-by-piece, assemble a human brain and thus be able to explain (and fix) our own biological ones. Much like can be done with physical simulations of knee joints. Of course, you can also use that knowledge to create useful thinking machines, because you understand it well enough to be able to control it. Much like how we have many robotic joints.

So, the bitter lesson is based on a disappointment that you're building intelligence without understanding why it works.
by conception | 2025-07-20 18:51:52+00:00
But you can just do it once with AI. It’s just a script process that you would set up for any project. It’s just an on boarding process.

And I’ll know by when I say do it once I mean, obviously processes have to be it on to get exactly what you want out of them, but that’s just how process works . Once it’s working the way you want to just reuse it.
by 3036e4 | 2025-07-20 18:51:56+00:00
I don't even bother with ad blockers anymore. I just use NoScript. That it removes some 99.999% of ads is just a nice side-effect, but if a site was just displaying some ads without the tracking nonsense I would be fine with that, within reason.

If I visit a site about some type of game and there is a generic ad banner for some such game, as on one or two sites I frequent, that can even be useful to me. It's all the sites that try to show personalized ads tracking me between sites I do not want to ever see. Luckily almost all those sites rely on client-side ad scripts served from some third-party server, which means they are blocked by default by NoScript, so rarely a need for more advanced blockers.
by dips2umar | 2025-07-20 18:52:01+00:00
Author here — happy to answer any questions!

One thing that surprised us: on an 8 GB M2 Air, peak RAM never exceeded 330 MB during a full 300-sample finetune (2 epochs) — thanks to gradient checkpointing, which reduces memory usage by recomputing activations instead of storing them.

If anyone tries LoFT on Windows or Linux, I’d love to hear your first-token latency with `loft chat`. On macOS we see ~145 ms/token with TinyLlama + GGUF.
by godelski | 2025-07-20 18:52:20+00:00
> You're missing the key point

They're nitpicking.

They also demonstrated knowledge of the very thing you're trying to explain to them. So if you think they are being rude or hostile to you, be aware that, even if unintentionally, you insulted them first. To be honest, even I feel a little offended because I don't know how you read that comment and come away thinking they don't know that 1) the 'x'nm number is not representative, 2) gains are coming from things other than literal physical size, 3) quantum tunneling. They actively demonstrated knowledge of the first two and enough that I suspect they understand the third. I mean it is a complex phenomena that few people understand in depth, but it is also pretty well known and many understand at a very high level.

From a third party perspective: it comes off like you didn't read their comment. I think you're well intentioned, but stepped on a landmine.
by toyg | 2025-07-20 18:52:34+00:00
You're basically correct, but this isn't due to a philosophical choice. Simply speaking, XSLT stopped evolving before Ajax really got popular, and it was eventually purged from most browsers altogether on security grounds. So nobody really tried to build XSLT engines that could address modern use-cases.

Somewhat ironically, the semantic web was initially supposed to be built on browsers making calls for XML data (the X in Ajax) to then be displayed via XSLT. This model failed to gain adoption mostly because, let's be honest, XSLT is just blooming hard.
by jfyi | 2025-07-20 18:53:05+00:00
The very first one states the mushroom was misidentified.

I'll assume from there you failed to read any of it.

Edit:

lol, here's the paper he cited and deleted:

https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/11/11/2324/190...

The 4th one is the one you already admitted had bad data.

At least one of the other two clearly states that the mushroom was unidentified. You will have to read or delete both.
by freedomben | 2025-07-20 18:53:07+00:00
Indeed. I've been a vim user for almost two decades, and it's been a long, long time since I"ve had to spend time solving problems/optimizing my tooling. Yes it was a big up front investment, but it's paid off immensely. I don't think I'm anything special so please don't misunderstand this as a brag, but I routinely have people enjoy "watching" me use vim because I can fly around the codebase with lightning speed, often times I can have already followed code paths through several files before VS code is even loaded and ready to work on my coworkers machine. The only problem is for whatever reason if I know somebody is watching, I sometimes get stage fright and forget how to use vim for a few seconds at at time :-D
by pdonis | 2025-07-20 18:53:39+00:00
The title is clickbait (as is unfortunately common now with Scientific American). This is not "mysterious"--CP violation is expected according to the Standard Model, it just hasn't been observed in baryons before, only in mesons, as the actual Nature paper [1] makes clear.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09119-3
by const_cast | 2025-07-20 18:54:28+00:00
> Other countries' unions are much more open minded about automation.

Other countries have social services outside of "fuck you, go die".

The US sucks major ass to be a working person, period. Your job is everything. If you lose your job, you can lose it all. Most people are one or two bad weeks away from being homeless here.

Yes, the stakes are higher. My job isn't just a job - it's my health insurance, it's the roof over my head, it's the food on my table, it's my reputation.

Want people to be less hostile to automation? Great, start by making automation less hostile to them. When automation threatens your actual life, people are going to oppose it. At the end of the day, we're animals. When a Gazelle sees a Lion, they run.
by willseth | 2025-07-20 18:54:39+00:00
Recreating whole documents is how XSLT has been commonly used, but that’s an implementation detail, and you can nearly as easily write XSLT to produce components. You can output XHTML components and update the vdom - kind of an abstraction leak but not a bad tradeoff if you want to reuse the rendering XSLT. Alternatively, XSLT 3.0 can produce (and consume!) JSON, so you can use it as way to bridge XML into a traditional React app or to simply process JSON.
Show HN: Weekly podcast about longevity studies from PubMed using automation
by ternovy | 2025-07-20 18:54:42+00:00
I built an automation with n8n that fetches new PubMed studies, filters them using a predefined longevity keyword set, and removes those that lack actionable outcomes or clear relevance to daily health routines.

Each remaining study is parsed for key findings, methodology, and practical applicability. The output is turned into a short script and recorded as an audio episode. The idea is to save time for people who want to follow longevity research without reading dozens of papers per week.
by asdff | 2025-07-20 18:54:46+00:00
When we look at the places that have experienced degrowth in this country such as the midwestern cities, it is hard to argue today that the effects were truly all that bad. They still have all the services, institutions, and plenty of the entertainment options you'd expect. Major hospitals and universities. They aren't full of derelict homes either, those have been all more or less razed by now.

The biggest benefit is far more people can actually afford a life of property ownership in these cities. Look at what 250k buys you in these places vs the places that didn't experience a degrowth period. We are talking a complete 4 bedroom home outright vs a 10% down payment on a comparable home.

This might seem perverse why it could be beneficial to experience degrowth. But the answer to that is simple: no where actually accommodates growth sufficiently to keep costs from going out of control. So a degrowth period really means prices are no longer being significantly influenced by an ever incoming class of high income earners, but are more in line with the actual median incomes found in the area.
by whazor | 2025-07-20 18:55:10+00:00
Correct, I think it is better to see it as multiple stages. Investigation stage might spin off tasks to read files, perform searches online, summarise the request. Then ‘main stage’ where it performs changes. Afterwards indeed the testing+fixing stage where it verifies the results and potentially performs a couple fixes. These plans are predictable and the models learn which steps are relevant first particular projects.

For context, relevant information from steps can be cherrypicked to next stage.

The math works differently because AI (mostly) ignores irrelevant results. So steps actually increase reliability overall.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-07-20 18:55:38+00:00
Well, yeah, obviously, somebody has to retain some state at some point. The nice thing about a good IMGUI is that it's easy to integrate with your own state-maintenance logic. It's all about separation of concerns.

In practice, every time I've built an IMGUI, it's always turned into some kind of hybrid immediate/retained-mode approach. There's nothing desirable about forcing the business logic to remember the state of a button on the screen, after all. It comes down to how easy it is to build and maintain the mixed-paradigm model that everybody inevitably ends up with anyway.

In the case of the last framework I put together, individual buttons can be treated as true immediate-mode controls, where hit-testing, labeling, and other interaction with the program takes place at render time, while button groups retain the necessary state to lay themselves out, handle mutual exclusion, and so forth. Nothing keeps the app from maintaining its own list of buttons and calling it a group or whatever, but if I don't need to do that myself I can let the GUI do it.
by dijit | 2025-07-20 18:55:50+00:00
Likely it was "Increasing Awareness"; "Increasing awareness favors women, and men don't have the legal support to see justice."

They're probably commenting on the idea that there is a stronger push to get women into companies for quota requirements, where the same is not true for men, and any injustice in hiring for women is likely rectified whereas it is not likely to be met charitably for men.

I'm not sure what I personally believe here.
by epistasis | 2025-07-20 18:56:03+00:00
I agree. But perhaps where we differ is that I don't think America is not a constant set of ideas, to establish an unchanging status quo. But rather the one constant in America is a vision for a different and better future than the present or past. And this is what MAGA is fighting against. MAGA is a vision for regression towards less equality, more hierarchy, and less universal freedom.
by ForOldHack | 2025-07-20 18:56:24+00:00
It is l33t. Luckily when the f3ds showed up at my door,the d1sks were buried and I was not home. My roommate figured they may want pr0n. They disembarked.

https://everything2.com/title/The+Lord%2527s+Prayer%253A+l33...
by PaulHoule | 2025-07-20 18:56:42+00:00
A big deal.

One of the outstanding mysteries of particle physics is why there is so much matter in the universe but practically no antimatter.

The mainstream explanation is that there is a big matter/antimatter asymmetry in the lepton sector, say involving neutrinos, and this imbalance is transmitted to the hadron sector through

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphaleron [1]

and it is the hadron sector that matters because it has almost all the mass. If there is a strong enough asymmetry between hadrons though, that might be sufficient to explain the imbalance.

[1] not "physics beyond the standard model" but something like the Higgs boson which is predicted by it!
by lumb63 | 2025-07-20 18:56:50+00:00
You and parent comment are not going to see eye to eye because of different definitions of “quality”. They are using the term synonymously with the economic idea of “utility”. To them, a higher-quality item is that which provides them the most value.

To the contrary, you are using “quality” to mean something else; maybe you could elaborate on what “quality” is to you, what characteristics make something “high quality”, and why the categories you’ve used to measure quality are the “right ones”.
by joshvm | 2025-07-20 18:57:45+00:00
There are usage limits, but the argument is that unless you're writing and modifying large swathes of code in YOLO mode, you don't hit them. At least for what I would call a small and tedious task. I'm thinking "write a docstring", "add type annotations", "write a single unit test for this case", "fill in this function". For a good prompt these are often solved in <10 interactions. Especially when combined with scoped rules that are pulled in on demand to guide output.
by recipe19 | 2025-07-20 18:57:59+00:00
The standard doesn't specify any serviceable parts, and I don't think there are any internals of the struct defined in musl libc on Linux (glibc may be a different story). However, on OpenBSD, it did seem to have some user-visible bits:

https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/b7f6c2eb760a2da367dd51...

If you expose it, someone will probably sooner or later use it, but probably not in any sane / portable code. On the face of it, it doesn't seem like a consequential change, but maybe they're mopping up after some vulnerability in that one weird package that did touch this.
by p0w3n3d | 2025-07-20 18:58:02+00:00
> They even killed the 500€ bank note, because it was almost exclusively used by criminals and most normal people never even touched one, much less used one for legit transactions

I wonder what is the source for this information?

In my country it's perfectly legal to request your payment in cash. And it should be paid to you in cash if you request it. Therefore, 500 banknotes make perfect sense, making however any payment with it really stressful for you and the teller
by const_cast | 2025-07-20 18:58:19+00:00
I already included this in my post - feeling unsafe is a different thing. I don't know how to solve people feeling unsafe, because it's a combination of human's irrational risk management and real-world limitations.

If you remove walls and sound barriers, i.e. you go public for transportation, I'm not sure there's any way around the "feeling unsafe" problem.
by zer00eyz | 2025-07-20 18:58:43+00:00
> Model efficiency is outpacing Moore's law.

Moores law is dead, has been for along time. There is nothing to outpace.

> That's what DeepSeek V3 was about.

This would be a foundational shift! What problem in complexity theory was solved that the rest of computing missed out on?

Don't get me wrong MOE is very interesting but breaking up one large model into independent chunks isn't a foundational breakthrough its basic architecture. It's 1960's time sharing on unix basics. It's decomposition of your application basics.

All that having been said, there is a ton of room for these sorts of basic, blood and guts engineering ideas to make systems more "portable" and "usable". But a shift in thinking to small, targeted and focused will have to happen. Thats antithetical to everything in one basket throw more compute at it and magically we will get to AGI. That clearly isnt the direction the industry is going... it wont give any one a moat, or market dominance.