MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by inkyoto | 2025-07-12 04:00:05+00:00
I am also of the opinion that we are heading towards the convergence, although it is not very clear yet what the designs are going to converge on.

Pretty much every modern CPU is a hybrid design (either modified Harvard or von Neumann), and then there is SoC, as you have rightfully pointed out, which is usually modified Harvard, with heterogenuous computing, integrated SIMT (GPU), DSP's and various accelerators (e.g. NPU) all connected via high-speed interconnects. Apple has added unified memory, and there have rumours that with the advent M5 they are going to change how the memory chips are packaged (added to the SoC), which might (or might not) lay a path for the unification of RAM and storage in the future. It is going to be an interesting time.
by dotcoma | 2025-07-12 04:02:04+00:00
Consume, drive, flush your hard-earned cash back into the system and eventually die, usually at a younger age than in countries where people can or have to walk.

I don't have a problem with people who are forced into this 'choice' -- I have a problem with a system that seems to force them to 'choose' this rather irrational lifestyle.
by theamk | 2025-07-12 04:02:30+00:00
The reliability is about variety of workloads, not amount of data or throughput. It's easy to write a filesystem which works well in the ideal case, it's the bad or unusual traffic patters which cause problem. For all that I know maybe that btrfs complete failure was because of kernel crash caused by bad USB hardware. Or there was a cosmic ray hitting memory chip.

But you know who's fault is it? It's btrfs's one. Other filesystems don't lose entire volumes that easily.

Over time, I've abused ext4 (and ext3) in all sorts of ways: override random sector, mount twice (via loop so kernel's double-mount detector did not work), use bad SATA hardware which introduced bit errors.. There was some data loss, and sometimes I had to manually sort though tens of thousands of files in "lost+found" but I did not lose the entire filesystem.

I only saw the "entire partition loss" only happened to me when we tried btrfs. It was a part of ceph cluster so no actual data was lost.. but as you may guess we did not use btrfs ever again.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-07-12 04:05:15+00:00
> still is the main company behind LLVM.

lol people really say whatever comes to their mind around here don't they? I'm pretty sure all of the companies associated with these targets would strongly disagree with you

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/llvm/lib/Targ...
by mparramon | 2025-07-12 04:05:55+00:00
I did, a few months ago when they disabled uBlock on my Chrome.

The experience has been a delight. It runs smoothly, I can customize it more than Chrome (compact mode being one example [1]), and with the official iCloud Passwords extension I get to use the same password manager I use on my iPhone.

I don’t think I’ll ever go back. Best part being, if I need something that Chrome provides and Firefox doesn’t, I can potentially implement it myself, and contribute to a proper open source project while I’m at it.

1: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/compact-mode-workaround...
by cpgxiii | 2025-07-12 04:07:06+00:00
The F-16 EPU is to keep the flight controls powered so the plane doesn't immediately become uncontrollable following engine failure. The EPU doesn't provide thrust of any kind.

The 787 and nearly every other commercial aircraft with powered flight controls [1] (fly-by-wire or traditional) has emergency power available via RAT and/or APU, and any fly-by-wire aircraft has batteries to keep the flight control computers running through engine failure to power supply being restored by the RAT and/or APU. Due to its unusually high use of electrical systems, the 787 has particularly large lithium batteries for these cases. There is no need for an additional EPU because the emergency systems already work fine (and did their jobs as expected in this case). You just can't recover from loss of nearly all engine thrust at that phase of takeoff. [2]

1. The notable exceptions to having a RAT for emergency flight controls are the 737 and 747 variants prior to the 747-8. In the 747 case, the four engines would provide sufficient hydraulic power while windmilling in flight and thus no additional RAT would be necessary. The 737 has complete mechanical reversion for critical flight controls, and so can be flown without power of any kind. There is sufficient battery power to keep backup instruments running for beyond the maximum glide time from altitude - at which point the aircraft will have "landed" one way or another.

2. There is only one exception of a certified passenger aircraft with a system for separate emergency thrust. Mexicana briefly operated a special version of the early 727 which would be fitted with rocket assist boosters for use on particularly hot days to ensure that single-engine-out climb performance met certification criteria. Mexicana operated out of particularly "hot and high" airports like Mexico City, which significantly degrade aircraft performance. On the worst summer days, the performance degradation would have been severe enough that the maximum allowable passenger/baggage/fuel load would have been uneconomical without the margin provided by the emergency rockets. I'm not aware of them ever being used on a "real" flight emergency outside of the testing process, and I think any similar design today would face a much higher bar to reach certification.
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-12 04:09:58+00:00
I know the novelty of what I'm working on. If it were in the training data, I'd have reached for a library. You can think what you want, but I'm not particularly interested in defending this debate by exposing the specifics of my own work. I know what is run-of-the-mill business logic, and I know what would be novel to the training data specifically because such systems did not exist when these models were trained nor exist now in public repositories that they could be scraped.

Also, you're contradicting yourself: you said LLMs aren't great at 'anything remotely novel,' then dismissed my novel inference as routine because 'everyone' does it with context windows. Which is it? Either novel input is challenging for LLMs or it's routine and expected: contradicting your claim that LLMs can't handle novel scenarios.
by pj_mukh | 2025-07-12 04:10:10+00:00
This is such a weird notion. Waves of immigrants have created some of the biggest most economically productive cities the world has ever seen. If Tokyo goes this route, only greatness lays in its future.

The rest is just nostalgia, and that's fine. But realistically, a big piece of Japanese culture will be well preserved in the new culture that will emerge. As it is, we've stopped lamenting the arrival of Buddhist influence on the island, so too will other immigration influences.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-07-12 04:11:10+00:00
it's like complaining about bad words in the dictionary

the bot has no agency, the bot isn't doing anything, people talk to themselves, augmenting their chain of thought with an automated process. If the automated process is acting in an undesirable manner, the human that started the process can close the tab.

Which part of this is dangerous or harmful?
by KingOfCoders | 2025-07-12 04:15:45+00:00
I once worked for a company that had a founder who was cancelling all contracts on a yearly basis, including renting the office. They were proud of cutting costs that way. After two times, the property owner said, "Great! I have a company that asked me about the space and is willing to pay much more" and the company of several hundred people had to move on very short notice.
by Veedrac | 2025-07-12 04:15:48+00:00
3% GDP over a single decade is certainly not a trivial amount, but it's worth noting the comparison here is spending more than that every year forever.

Similarly, 100 TWh sounds like a huge number, and it is, but it's like the equivalent capacity of one base Model 3 per 6 people globally. It's a lot in absolute terms, for sure, but it's by no means a crazy unachievable quantity of battery for a family of 6 to use.
by stale2002 | 2025-07-12 04:16:30+00:00
> . Apple is granting Spotify access

No. Those users control themselves. They are not Apples users. They own their own device and they are free to do whatever they want with the hardware that they own.

> the platform still belongs to Apple

No actually. The device is owned by the user.

> billions of Apple customers

They aren't Apples. They own their own device.

> e but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple.

Or instead of that, they can completely ignore apple's copntract, and force Apple by law to allow them access to this market. If apple doesn't like it, then they can leave the EU entirely, or accept 10s of billions of dollars in fines.

> Forcibly taking it

Its not Apples. The device belongs to the user.

> must be regulated from the first principles.

Ok, and what about the first principle of "A user owns there own device and should be free to pay Apple exactly 0 dollars for the ability to install spotify on the device that they own".
by const_cast | 2025-07-12 04:17:33+00:00
> anonymised product analytics?

They're not anonymous, they're just pseudo-anonymous. It's incredibly easy to collect pieces of data A thru Z that, on their own, are anonymous but, all together, are not. It's also incredibly easy to collect data that you think is generic but is actually not.

Do you query the screen size? I have bad news for you. But, all of this is besides the point: when that data is exfiltrated to a third-party service, you have no idea how it's being used. You have a piece of paper, if you're lucky, telling you the privacy policy, which is usually "you have no privacy dumbass".

Even if data appears completely anonymous to humans, it can be ingested by machine learning algorithms that can spot patterns and de-anonymize the data.

I mean, we have companies who's entire business model is "how do we string together bits of data and tie it to real-world identity?": namely Google. Turns out it's remarkably easy when you have your hands in a lot of different pots. Collect a little anonymous data here, a little there, and boom: now you know that Billy Joe who lives on First Street loves to go to Walmart at 1 AM and buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream in a moment of weakness.
by sugarpimpdorsey | 2025-07-12 04:18:12+00:00
> One of them moved the levers. It could've been an unplanned reaction, a terrible mistake, or it could've been intentional.

Fuel levers are designed to only be moved deliberately; they cannot be mistaken for something else by a professional pilot. It's literally their job to know where these buttons are, what they do, and when to (not) push them.

It's not arrogance to assume the most likely conclusion is true, despite how uncomfortable that outcome may be.
by gnabgib | 2025-07-12 04:18:34+00:00
Previously:

2023 (47 points, 5 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37329701

2021 (370 points, 101 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26930908

2019 (444 points, 63 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20611390
by maxbond | 2025-07-12 04:19:02+00:00
I just want to call out that, whatever the facts of this case, pilot heroism is way more common than pilot murder. This is off the top of my head, so don't quote me on the precise details, I'm probably misremembering some things. But a few of my favorite examples:

- British Airways 5390: An incorrect repair causes the windshield of a plane to be blown out mid flight. A pilot is nearly sucked out. The head flight attendant holds onto his legs to keep him in the plane. The copilot and flight attendant think he is dead, but they keep the situation under control and land the plane.

Everyone survives - including the pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwHWNFdOvg

- United 232: An engine explodes in the tail of an MD-10. Due to rotten luck and weaknesses in the design, it takes out all three of the redundant hydraulic systems, rendering the control surfaces inoperable.

There's a pilot onboard as a passenger who, it just so happens, has read about similar incidents in other aircraft and trained for this scenario on his own initiative. He joins the other pilots in the cockpit and they figure out how to use the engines to establish rudimentary control.

They crash just short of the runway. 112 people die, but 184 people survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7CgWvD-x4

- Pinnacle 3701: Two pilots mess around with an empty plane. They take it up to it's operational ceiling. While they're goofing off, they don't realize they're losing momentum. They try to correct too late and cannot land safely.

In their last moments they decide to sacrifice any chance they have to survive by not deploying their landing gear. They choose to glide for the maximum distance to avoid hitting houses, rather than maximizing how much impact is absorbed. They do hit a house but no one else is killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCMmCekKO_c
by tlavoie | 2025-07-12 04:19:07+00:00
Sure, years ago, and it's been great. I do keep Vivaldi around as a Chrome-variant for those sites that need it, and appreciate their general approach. However, Firefox has the things I need, e.g.:

- Various integrations, such as password managers. - uBlock Origin - Temporary containers - so even those sites that save cookies, are really saving them ephemerally until that container closes.
by alikatyc | 2025-07-12 04:19:35+00:00
Hey everyone,

I've been working on a Go port of jsmn, the minimal C JSON tokenizer. The goal was to create a version that leverages goroutines to parse large JSON files in parallel. It's part of a larger project I'm calling SafeHeaders-Go, where I'm attempting to create safe, concurrent Go ports of popular single-file C header libraries.

You can check out the jsmn-go implementation here: https://github.com/alikatgh/safeheaders-go/tree/main/jsmn-go

Currently, parallel parsing is performed by naively splitting the JSON input into chunks and processing them concurrently. It's showing a decent performance improvement (around 2x on larger files in my benchmarks), but I'm sure the chunking logic could be much smarter.

I have two main questions for the community:

1. How would you approach the parallel chunking more robustly? I'm concerned about correctly handling tokens that get split across chunk boundaries.

2. Are there other popular C header libraries you'd find helpful to have a safe, concurrent Go port of? I've been considering something like stb_image.

I'm open to any and all feedback, and pull requests are very welcome.
by 9rx | 2025-07-12 04:19:48+00:00
> Are you sure you are not a sociopath?

I have nothing to do with this. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. "Read the thread", as the saying goes, doesn't just mean look at the words on the screen. It also implies understand what is written. Reaching the point of logical fallacy proves that the words were not understood. Why keep replying before reading (meaning also understanding) the thread?

> Your reasoning here id quote off and if trulu fear and worry is the only reason for you to not be an asshole or jerk ...

Fear plays no part in this discussion. It is mentioned nowhere, aside from the inane ramblings that were pointed out earlier, and is unrelated to anything being discussed.

Worry is applicable. It may also manifest as concern. But either way, it is the awareness of others (or lack thereof) that is at least a precondition, if not a defining feature, of being an asshole. Again, the hermit in the forest isn't not an asshole just by virtue of not being unable to act out his assholish ways. It is quite possible said hermit actually is an asshole. But without a situation where worry/concern is applicable, there is no way for an outsider to be able to know, and thus nobody would label said hermit as such. To meaningfully introduce the concept of being an asshole (or to not be), worry/concern about other people also must necessarily be included.
by sandwichsphinx | 2025-07-12 04:20:54+00:00
I stopped using AI for code, everything it gives me requires manual checking and editing to work but now I have the overhead of not having the deep understanding I would otherwise have had if I figured out things myself from the start. I also stopped using AI as a sort of replacement for quick google searches in general, but I didn't go back to using google because now I feel those results are too shallow. I been trying to figure things out from primary sources as much as possible and thinking for myself since it seems to me the value going forward is having depth and breadth over the competition that you only get by doing things the very old and slow way.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-07-12 04:23:06+00:00
> Biological weapons are absolutely an extinction level threat

They may or may not be. That’s not why we banned them.

> simply not true and shows either a lack of understanding of history

Here’s an accessible summary: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

The contemporaneous sources are vast and point in one direction: these weapons aren’t useful for the winners of wars, are annoying to deal with, have a bit of a notion of novel horror to them, and so were bannable. Nobody was talking about extinction.

> their deployment in WWI wasn't asymmetrical, both sides used the weapons

Not what asymmetric warfare means.

> drones are far, far more useful for asymmetric warfare

Sure. But they’re also useful for large military states. So not going to be banned.

Like, someone is free to cosplay a ban. But the incentives to circumvent it are too great. There are no incentives to make illegal chemical or biological weapons because they’re just not that great as weapons.

(I’ll note that your reading of history, while wrong, is far from unique. It’s unfortunately counterproductive as it implies a moral crusade against a category of weapon can get it banned. It might be able to. But chemicals and biological arms aren’t a precedent for it.)
by Animats | 2025-07-12 04:23:20+00:00
That's what's supposed to happen. The Trump administration is shutting down FEMA. Emergency response is now a state responsibility. The interim head of FEMA who told Congress this was a bad move was fired the next day.[1]

Federal disaster relief is now a gift to be given at the whim of the President. Usually, only red states get it. See the list of major disaster declarations here.[2] More details.[3]

[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3405810/...

[2] https://www.fema.gov/

[3] https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/trump-disaster-policy-tr...
by khiner | 2025-07-12 04:23:56+00:00
Self plug: I made Jupyter notebooks for each chapter of this and the DFT and Physical Modeling books in this series, with Python animations/audio for some key concepts:

https://karlhiner.com/jupyter_notebooks/mathematics_of_the_d...

https://karlhiner.com/jupyter_notebooks/intro_to_digital_fil...

https://karlhiner.com/jupyter_notebooks/physical_audio_signa...
by burnt-resistor | 2025-07-12 04:25:23+00:00
Yep. Fan blade off, shroud separation, HP disc separation, compressor stall, FOD ingestion/bird strike, EGT rise, oil system issues. Very unlikely events but still possible events that need a prepared response to and capabilities to manage the aircraft. The presumption is that the crew is trained, diligent, disciplined, and concerned with survival. Without that, aircraft would need to be unmanned and flown by AI lacking in ability to handle any unforeseen events creatively.
by _0xdd | 2025-07-12 04:25:49+00:00
Is it perfect? No. But I have one of them in a Pentium 200 MHz system that I use a front-facing CF card slot as the primary means of storage, and I very much appreciate the audible feedback for disk activity. I just wish there was some mechanism to simulate more accurate sounds, but I digress.

P.S., Depending on the CF card, this machine runs Windows 9.x, Red Hat 6.2, OPENSTEP 4.0, or Apple Rhapsody DR2 hehe
by const_cast | 2025-07-12 04:27:55+00:00
You can export your passwords from chrome as a CSV and then import them into Firefox's password manager. Although, best would be using an external password manager that always keeps your passwords encrypted, like bitwarden. Remember to delete the file (shred even) and reboot so your passwords aren't hanging around in disk/memory. Same goes for bookmarks, although those are less sensitive.
by palmotea | 2025-07-12 04:28:09+00:00
Not necessarily. You could do it in a similar form factor, you'd just probably need a bigger speaker and more complicated acoustic model.

Though maybe instead of keying of an HDD LED, it should sit on the IDE/SCSI bus and generate sounds based on the actual access commands. That shouldn't be impossible, since the main market would be in retro-computing, and there are already devices that emulate those disks. Instead of figuring out what block to return, it would instead figure out of how long of a seek would have been needed and play the right sound.

If someone produces something that can simulate the sound of a 20MB Miniscribe drive, I'd buy it in a heartbeat:

https://youtu.be/9gTiBYEY02E?si=arGdgyI7hCnmJgN4&t=1866
by DiabloD3 | 2025-07-12 04:29:25+00:00
You can disagree all you want, but Ollama does not keep their llama.cpp vendored copy up to date, and also ships, via their mirror, completely random badly labeled models claiming to be the upstream real ones, often misappropriated from major community members (Unsloth, et al).

When you get a model offered by Ollama's service, you have no clue what you're getting, and normal people who have no experience aren't even aware of this.

Ollama is an unrestricted footgun because of this.
by osigurdson | 2025-07-12 04:30:59+00:00
>> also same is true the other way around, depending on you application you can go redis only

Really the primary reason not to try stuff like this is (at least for me), feel that I won't paint myself into a corner with Postgres. I can always add a table here or a join there and things will work. If I need columnar, I use ClickHouse and NATS for messaging. I know these well but still gravitate toward Postgres because I feel it can grow in whatever direction is needed. However, it is true, I have thought about trying to just use NATS KV and make all services stateful receiving notifications when things change. It does seem that it could massively simplify some things but expect there could be some sharp edges in the face of unknown requirements. If one could just design for exactly the problem at hand it would be different but it never seems to work out like that.
by Klaster_1 | 2025-07-12 04:31:55+00:00
Centered taskbar app indicators work well on 16:9 and wider screens. On such screens, UI elements placed at corners are less prominent, you have to extort a deliberate effort to look there, unlike on tiny, 4:3 of yore. Ever since I got my ultrawide, and long before Windows 11 made this a default, I've been using bottom centered app buttons and Start/widget in the left corner. On a narrower and smaller screens (like a laptop), I find vertical taskbar more ergonomic, and centered/top aligned app buttons don't matter as much there in practice.
by maxbond | 2025-07-12 04:34:05+00:00
Anyone who does on-call should look into aviation disasters. Crew resource management, the aviate-navigate-communicate loop, it's all very applicable. ('WalterBright is an excellent source of commentary on applying lessons from the airline industry to software.)

But I did burn out on Mentour Pilot after a while, I just had my fill of tragedy.
by jofzar | 2025-07-12 04:35:00+00:00
> A software conference that advocates for quality

I am going to keep saying this, if your main tagline/ethos is broken by your website you have failed.

* On mobile the topics are hidden without scroll over. You also can't read multiple of the topics without scrolling right as you read.

* The background is very distracting and disrupts readability.

* None of your speakers have links to their socials/what they are known for.

* > Who are the organizers? Sam, Sander and Charlie.

* * Ah yes, my favourite people.... At least hyperlink their socials.