MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by willguest | 2025-07-29 08:49:24+00:00
> Actually improving people’s financial wellbeing, for example, will require us to pursue real, slow, piecemeal, democratic solutions.

Democratic solutions are, imho, doomed to failure. In order for them to work a significant portion of "take back control" and "make my country great" brigade will need to have some kind of revelation about the direction of society as a whole. Given the amount of resources pumped into keeping people separate and fighting one-another, this seems like naive optimism.

I consider this to be a woefully inadequate response to a vast, complex and thoroughly embedded set of interconnected issues. Appropriate solutions will require a deep appreciation of complexity science, radically better system design and, frankly, a level of imagination, determination and competence that simply doesn't exist as a social norm, and will not emerge for at least a generation (or three), given that educational and political institutions are so deeply rooted in the current mode.

I don't think Bitcoin is revolutionary - it's just algorithmic scarcity - but I do think that distributed ledgers are an important piece of a future puzzle, as they provide transparency where previously it didn't exist. That said, there are no silver-bullets and not everything should necessarily be held on one.

My position is that, until we actually address the misconception of infinite growth within economic system design (i.e. not by external constraints, such as taxation), we haven't even started. Some may say that Bitcoin already does this, but its capture by the financial sector demonstrates that it is, at best, another asset class.

My anticipation is that this won't happen, so I am fully expecting a kind of looney tunes moment as we race off the side of the cliff. I am interested, not in preventing that from happening, since I think it is inevitable, but rather on planting bushes on the side of the cliff that might give us things to grab as we fall. Feel free to accuse me of either pessimism or optimism.
by emptysongglass | 2025-07-29 08:49:56+00:00
It's not clickbait. Many member states do support this. Much of the disagreement is on just how rights-violating the scanning should be.

The situation here in Denmark is dire: nobody in the Danish media reports on it, so everybody just shrugs. I've gone out of my way to educate my coworkers and most are unaware many members of our parliament want this. The number of parties that support it outnumber those who don't. Writing to our representatives is met with silence.

Everyone looking to Denmark as a model state should beware what happens when you have a population with such high trust in its government: the roots of autocracy are allowed to grow unfettered.
by sudopluto | 2025-07-29 08:51:53+00:00
Not really Palestinian to be fair. Jewish, Greek, Roman, Islamic, Ottoman, and finally British, in that order. Palestinians then started a war of aggression to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, and then lost that war. You can not lose what you never had. If you want to talk about occupying, why is the al-aqsa mosque built where it was, if not for trying to erase native ties to the land?
by TXTOS | 2025-07-29 08:52:14+00:00
hey — really appreciate that. honestly I’m still duct-taping this whole system together half the time, but glad it’s useful enough to sound like “tooling”

I think the whole LLM space is still missing a core idea: that logic routing before retrieval might be more important than retrieval itself. when the LLM “hallucinates,” it’s not always because it lacked facts — sometimes it just followed a bad question.

but yeah — if any part of this helps or sparks new stuff, then we’re already winning. appreciate the good vibes, and good luck on your own build too
by jibal | 2025-07-29 08:53:15+00:00
"What if the reason cyclists were able to glide up the Pyrenees mountains was because they weren’t pedaling unassisted?"

Ugh ... journalism. We know that's not why. At most some cyclists are "gliding" faster than others due to assistance.

"As electronic bikes — with motors that provide up to 1,000 watts of power — have become available for recreational cyclists, hobbyists began building lighter road bikes with more discrete motors."

Surely they mean "discreet".
by emptysongglass | 2025-07-29 08:53:37+00:00
Sometimes I think the HN contingent just willfully buries its head in the sand on issues of the EU, because they prefer to think of the EU as some idealist version of whatever they've lost as leftists in the US.

What this person is writing is correct. The reality of EU politics is anything but democratic. The EU is crowned by an unelected commission that does not serve the interests of the governed.
by murukesh_s | 2025-07-29 08:54:08+00:00
can think of all sort of use cases - imagine you integrating it with an automated agentic workflow - where at some websites you need to talk to a bot or real human to get the job done in realtime - because email takes a while and may not be available (for e.g. at a restaurant) - this service can do the job as instructed by the LLM and get back to you for status. For e.g. if you want to call 10 restaurants to find out if a seat for 20 is available - you can just instruct it via an agent or so..
by zeorin | 2025-07-29 08:54:11+00:00
React is easy, once you understand why

{} !== {}

and that it uses reference equality as a proxy for value equality.

This is why the absolute simplest thing to do is to just memoize all the things (see https://attardi.org/why-we-memo-all-the-things/ for a deeper dive into this approach).

I know that the conventional wisdom (e.g. https://kentcdodds.com/blog/usememo-and-usecallback) is not to do that, but it's worth noting that Kent doesn't actually bring receipts for his claims, and also the discussion is typically limited to toy examples, not huge applications that have the potential for huge cascading renders when anything changes. In my own profiling of real world applications I have found that memoizing everything is not actually a performance regression. And then also consider the React Compiler, which of course does the same, at an even more fine-grained level than any human could be bothered to consistently do by hand.
by adwn | 2025-07-29 08:55:14+00:00
> The standard way to avoid these problems is to use locks to prevent data updates from happening at the same time. This causes big performance hits […]

No. Modern mutex implementations [1] are extremely efficient, require only 1 byte of memory (no heap allocation), and are almost free when there's no contention on the lock – certainly much faster and much lower latency than sending messages between actors.

[1] Like the parking_lot crate for Rust.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-07-29 08:55:23+00:00
Settle it once and for all: C and POSIX should adopt the TAI64NA format for time_t with attosecond precision.[0] And no leap seconds.[1] ;@)

0. https://cr.yp.to/libtai/tai64.html

1. https://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-07-29 08:55:24+00:00
I mean, from what I've heard this is good for coding as the name suggests, I mean I don't know but these models are hyper optimized for coding and using them for other things will result in inferior results imo

Maybe try qwen 235 a32 or some other model for general purpose since imo glm is focused on coding.

The last task seems interesting, and yes maybe all of these are kinda the same in that aspect so idk.

I won't lie but I like the simonw pelican's test by the full glm 4.5 as compared to the air. It looks decent imo.
by salawat | 2025-07-29 08:56:00+00:00
>If that other half is stupid, the technology side will have to overcompensate or will maliciously abuse them.

And what I am saying is that this sentiment, right here? Is exactly what leads to your later observation below, because the only ones willing to pay someone to implement a technical system, are inevitably the greedy ones looking to extract value from the suckers, and pay a techie to o make the little blinkenlights do their thing. You can't look at the technical side as the "hero" in this encounter, because the technical is what is propping up the fintech dystopia in the first place.

>I am saying the solution to make people smarter or empower the people. Buy now pay later, credit cards, and all these bespoke algorithms is just an illusion to make people feel better when they get ripped of.

You are dead on with this observation, but again, the answer to this is not something the technical world can solve. It's a people problem. We have to start talking about how whether these practices around are fundamentally exploitive or not, and whether they have a place in our society. Whether we should even be trying the money lenders offering them. That set of questions is firmly in the realm of people problems (problems that are fundamentally questions of human interaction, and whether something should or should not happen), rather than the technical, to which most systems in the fintech basically boil down to being a CRM, a set of ledgers/accounts, an invoicing/bill payment system, and some email/login/account viewing screen.

As someone with over a decade having been wasted trying to find a way to genuinely help people through the financial/insurtech sector (I know, what an idiot, right?), you cannot use technology on the service provider side, without it morphing into a more efficient value extractor, and often the other side of the transaction, the ones being fleeced, are in the worst place to say no in the face of a tech enabled lender.

Hence, I know it sounded sort of glib, but I'll say it again. No using tech to solve people problems.
by fardinahsan | 2025-07-29 08:56:18+00:00
I love working with LLM text embeddings. The idea of a list of numbers being able to encode semantic information and being able to do math on them is magic to me.

Unfortunately, it seems like they are neglected other than being an afterthought in building semantic searches, and don't get the attention they deserve as tools to build things with.

I went ahead and embedded the entire The Online Plain Text English Dictionary (OPTED), using OpenAI's `text-embedding-3-large` and uploaded it to kaggle, but it seems to me it has no traction. Reenforcing my view that embeddings don't get the love they deserve.
by fxtentacle | 2025-07-29 08:58:40+00:00
It’s all great to buy cheap stuff until you notice that those stickers are poisonous, your hand soap causes cancer and the Wi-Fi broke down because cheap uncertified electronics are causing interference all over your building.

As someone living in the EU, I am happy that we have product safety regulations which are halfway reasonable. But as someone building hardware in the EU, I sure sometimes hope that I would be allowed to just skip all the environmental, safety, tax, and EMI rules. But that’s the price we have to pay so that we don’t accidentally get poisoned due to other people’s greed.

And that’s why, even though it negatively affects my business, I fully support those EU regulations.
by fstephany | 2025-07-29 08:59:18+00:00
I agree with you that dynamic query building can be tedious with a pure SQL approach. The use case you are describing can be solved with something alone the lines of:

WHERE organization = $1 AND ($2 IS NULL OR starts_with(first_name, $2) AND ($3 IS NULL OR birth_date > $3)

With SQLx you would have all the params to be Options and fill them according the parameters that were sent to your API.

Does that make sense?
by jamesblonde | 2025-07-29 08:59:36+00:00
Fabian Cancellera was widely suspected of mechanical doping in Paris Roubaix in 2010 (possibly also the tour of Flanders that year).

Since then, however, they x-ray bikes for motors. More importantly, riders aren't switching bikes they way they used to.

Greg LeMond claimed Chris Froome used on in the TDF.

References:

https://www.bennionkearny.com/the-hidden-motor-mechanical-do...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgbvuJCvfxg
by matthewshere | 2025-07-29 08:59:51+00:00
That's a very fair question. You're right—our initial approach wasn't balanced. We're still a new team and have been learning in public as we try to find the right model.

We believe we've found a better, more reasonable middle ground now, based on all the user feedback.

We now offer a no-login trial for a quick test, plus 5 free credits for anyone who signs up to try it more seriously. We hope this feels less like an extreme and more like a fair compromise. If you're interested, we'd welcome you to try it.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-07-29 09:00:05+00:00
For RTC storage in CMOS using a BCD byte, one could assume that the epoch was relative to, say the decade of manufacturing (suppose 1990) such that dates roll over from 99 to 00 could instead create a Y2090 problem:

Y = (yy < 90) ? (2000 + yy) : (1900 + yy);

This would have to be handled differently than something that was required to be IBM PC or IBM AT compatible with every compatible quirk. It's simply a way to save 8-bits of battery-backed SRAM or similar.
by Sesse__ | 2025-07-29 09:00:09+00:00
It's essentially research code, so it's getting uglier and uglier and faster and faster :-) It has stuff like “if I remove this assert(), then Clang does something stupid and 30% of CPU time is spent stalling on this single instruction, so meh, leave it in”. It's not going to be maintained once it's done its computation job. (https://oeis.org/draft/A286874 if you're curious.)
by ZeroGravitas | 2025-07-29 09:00:15+00:00
People act like Trump is this outsider taking on the elites when he's just an actor fronting for various backroom fascists that have been working on this for decades.

We had the whole pantomime about project 2025 for example. A cabinet full of billionaires. Musk funding. Trump delivering on abortion even though he could clearly not care less about it. Fascist judges chosen by the Federalist society.

None of his shit would work if there weren't powerful forces making sure that it did, falling over themselves to excuse or distract from Trump's many blunders. Or viciously attacking his rivals over made up shit.

I like to start from the Powell memo personally but there is a vast right wing conspiracy. It's not one amoral psychopath you're dealing with but a whole well-funded ecosystem of them.
by wk_end | 2025-07-29 09:00:33+00:00
If we assume good faith on the part of the Israelis, and believe that the GHF is genuinely an attempt to feed the civilian population of Gaza without food and money making its way to Hamas, it's clearly totally inadequate. There are too few sites operating for too little time; it's a recipe for chaos and panic. There's been countless reports of violence on way to the sites; the IDF has made several excuses for this, but even if we assume good faith on the part of the Israelis here too, the excuses aren't good enough: it needs to be taking proactive steps to fix the problem instead of denying, deflecting, and passing the blame.

It's a shame - if the GHF were being run well, it'd be a great first step in trying to win hearts and minds. But it's not.

The other extreme is that it's an elaborate ruse to, frankly, put Gazans in positions where the IDF will be able to claim justification for killing them. This seems paranoid, but no more implausible than the alternatives. The sites open at the crack of dawn, Gazans rush to get ahead of the crowds because there aren't enough sites, so they travel through the dark in areas controlled by IDF where movement is forbidden before daybreak; the IDF shrugs and says, "well, there were unknown targets travelling through off-limit areas in the dark, we had to neutralize the potential threat". And at the sites themselves chaos inevitably ensues - because, again, there aren't enough sites - and violence is deployed to keep the crowds under control.

But my suspicion regarding the GHF is that it's mostly just a half-assed attempt from Israel to try to get the international community off their back while they continue their siege effort to starve out the Gazans, and/or possibly a grift to enrich various friends of Bibi or Trump.
by scott_w | 2025-07-29 09:00:46+00:00
I think it's important to understand the context, which is where my initial reply was aimed at:

> Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019.

Taken with that context, it's important to understand the manifesto to realise they didn't really "promise" to reduce immigration.

> I was just pretty flabbergasted at the time by the blanket misunderstandings of the system

A lot of blame belongs with our media. Frankly, it's piss-poor, barely goes beyond surface level reading of things and attempts to get soundbites out of politicians. I get more out of random YouTubers and podcasters, which has its own problems because how do you know which ones know what they're talking about?
by Zacharias030 | 2025-07-29 09:01:18+00:00
Israelis are making horrible decisions.

That’s a pretty salient fact when you have the might of such a military on your side.

I find it funny how I am at the same time supposed to accept that Palestinian (leaders) are all terrorists and also that Israel justifiably act equally terrible. The whole point of being a respectable state is to not commit crimes (and kill family members „unfairly“).
by fifticon | 2025-07-29 09:01:19+00:00
I am probably an uneducated cretin, but I have my preferences anyway. I am in Denmark, and in Denmark, you can get "sharpie pens" () from the brand LYRECO, which I am very fond of, particularly of their high quality and durability. There is a personal story (for me at least..) regarding them. More than a decade ago, I worked for many years for a specific company, which had its good and bad sides. One major upside, was that their employee equipment supply included LYRECO pens. So I basically had free access to black/red/blue LYRECO pens. I am not a career criminal as such, but simply through basic negligence, occasionally one of those pens would wander in my pockets, briefcases or binders, back to my residence, through no active ill will, and be left lying around some random place. Mind you, these are "cheap" sharpie pens, so I am probably not going to jail anytime soon because of this. However you choose to interpret or describe it, in the end some number of those pens, larger than 1, but less than 10, ended up in random places in my house/possession.

Up until now, this is not a particularly ravishing story. But this is about to change (?). The issue is, those MF's won't stop writing! They ended up in my possession by now more than 10 years ago, but when I pull one of them out, they still write! So, a sharpie-style (sort of) pen, that still writes well more than 10 years later!

Of course, they eventually dry out, when I exhaust them of ink through use. But the 10 years of age has not dried them out. And further, they appear very well provisioned with ink. This story could end here, but there is another twist: Of course, I quite love these pens, and I really would like my own supply. But here is the kicker: They are not available to civilians/consumers :-(. LYRECO only wants to trade with companies. So to be able to buy my own, I would have to start or register a company. (In particular, to fill out their online order forms, I have to fill in mandatory fields with numeric codes only companies have). So, at various times, I have filled out most of their online ordering forms, and stared longingly at the empty fields I have no numbers for. I have also, on other websites, started to fill out the registration form to start my own one-man company. But never completed it, both because I don't have a valid business case other than "I'd really like some of those pens, man!", and because having a registerered company requires you to follow certain procedures, like filing specific tax forms regularly, IE I could get into trouble and bother by making a "fake company". The last issue is, that I also am paranoid, speculating that maybe the late-stage capitalism monsters have arrived at LYRECO's offices in the intervening 10 years, and whispered in some guy's ear "You know.. we don't really have to make our pens THAT GOOD, we could ship shit instead and charge the same!"

() I don't know what their actual type is. They are filt pens I guess, with the 'filt' sticking out of what I assume to be a steel tube.
by matthewshere | 2025-07-29 09:01:40+00:00
That’s a terrible first impression, and we are sincerely sorry. Failing to gratify your intellectual curiosity is the worst possible outcome for us.

You were right to flag it. The onboarding flow was broken, and we've since fixed it based on this feedback.

We've now introduced two key changes:

1. A no-login trial to let you test the tool immediately.

2. 5 free credits for every user who signs up, ensuring you can run several tests before seeing any paywall.

We understand if the ship has sailed, but if your curiosity remains, we would be grateful for a second chance.
by pornel | 2025-07-29 09:02:31+00:00
They are used for moving pixels around when used in Frame Generation. P-frames in video codecs aim to do exactly the same thing.

Implementation details are quite different, but for reasons unrelated to motion vectors — the video codecs that are established now were designed decades ago, when use of neural networks was in infancy, and the hardware acceleration for NNs was way outside of the budget of HW video decoders.
by 9rx | 2025-07-29 09:03:03+00:00
> You assume that null results are not worth it and are not the best of science.

No. I make no such assumption. That may often be true, but there is nothing to stop a useful null result from being published. We also get things wrong from time to time. It is very possible that the best baseball player in the world has been overlooked by Major League Baseball. We're pretty good at scoping out the best, but nothing in life is perfect.

If the best baseball player in the world ends up in the minor leagues instead, oh well? Does it really matter? You can still watch them there. Same goes for research. If something great doesn't make it into the formal publication system, you can still read it on the studier's website (if they put in the effort to publish it).

> You seem to be ignoring the issue where researchers collectively waste time redoing "failing" studies again and again because the null results are not published

I may be ignoring it, but if that's the case that's because it is irrelevant. There is no reason to not publish your "failing" studies. That's literally why the public internet was created (the original private internet was created for military, but next in line was university adoption — to be used for exactly that purpose!).

> We fundamentally disagree here and I'm not willing to put in the effort needed to try to convince you otherwise

Makes sense. There is nothing to convince me of. I was never not convinced. But it remains: Who wants to put in the effort? Unless you are going to start putting guns to people's backs, what are you expecting?
by burnt-resistor | 2025-07-29 09:04:08+00:00
That's not the home page and that's not what I'm talking about if you had bother to have read what I wrote that differs from a conventional and limited "try" playground. Also, I've used Pony before and gave up on it.

You also don't get to be the chief decider of what all of us may or may not talk about.
by bjornsing | 2025-07-29 09:04:22+00:00
If you are only capable of blind trust or distrust then there’s a huge difference between human experts and LLMs (and it’s of course wise to put your blind trust in a human, not an LLM). But if you have more of a ”trust no one” or ”trust but verify” mentality in general then it’s not so clear cut. The LLMs have their advantages. For example every chat with an LLM is an independent sample, whereas once a doctor has diagnosed you it’s very hard to get them to consider evidence contradictory to that diagnosis.
by dimava | 2025-07-29 09:04:24+00:00
Can you make a variant for relative passing time?

You probably barely remember anything up to around 10, and then each doubling of age adds one logarithmical unit

So 10 is 1, 20 is 2, 40 is 3 and 80 is 4 (or maybe 0, 1 and 2?)

20 is already half of life passed by -_-