MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jdietrich | 2025-07-30 18:11:19+00:00
>You could also say that "two-state solution" has been tried in 1948, but (for whatever reasons) didn't work out.

The Arab world overwhelmingly rejected the UN Partition Plan in principle, which led directly to the 1948 Palestine war and the first Arab-Israeli war. Likewise, the signing of the Oslo Accords (and the rejection of those accords by Hamas, PIJ and other factions within the PLO) led directly to the Second Intifada. Most of the Arab world has now conceded that Israel isn't going anywhere and huge steps have been made in normalising Arab-Israeli relations, but Palestinian politics is still dominated by a fundamentally futile anti-Zionist absolutism.

A credible option of full statehood and international recognition has been on the table for nearly eighty years, but Palestinians have consistently failed to establish a workable consensus on taking up that option. The PLO's intransigence has alienated most of their allies in the region, primarily because they instigated civil wars in both Jordan (1970) and Lebanon (1975).

A one-state solution is no solution at all while there remain extremists on both sides who are simply unwilling to coexist; unless Israel can reign in the religious right and the Palestinians can establish a political consensus in favour of coexistence, it's a straightforward path to war. There's no "poetic justice" in making people who hate each other live together, just an inevitable perpetuation of bloodshed.

The political debates about land rights are intractably complex, but the fundamental realpolitik question is about how much the Palestinians are willing to suffer for the principle of "from the river to the sea". Israel is militarily dominant and is likely to remain so regardless of how much international pressure is brought to bear. In simple practical terms, the ball is in the Palestinian court and it is for them to decide whether to seriously engage in a two (or three) state solution with international support, or whether to continue pursuing an unwinnable conflict. A post-Netanyahu Israel is highly likely to support a serious two-state solution, but simply isn't going to accept a one-state solution; even if you believe a one-state solution to be the only just outcome, it isn't a workable outcome.
by gizmo686 | 2025-07-30 18:11:30+00:00
There is. I'm not sure when it was added, but looking at https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf, page 106, note 13

> An implementation may allocate any addressable storage unit large enough to hold a bit-field. If enough space remains, a bit-field that immediately follows another bit-field in a structure shall be packed into adjacent bits of the same unit. If insufficient space remains, whether a bit-field that does not fit is put into the next unit or overlaps adjacent units is implementation-defined. The order of allocation of bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to high-order) is implementation-defined. The alignment of the addressable storage unit is unspecified.

In practice, I've been using this feature for ages (along with __attribute__((packed))). There comes a point where you can start depending on compiler specific features instead of relying solely on the standard.
by SalmoShalazar | 2025-07-30 18:11:34+00:00
The word “terrorist” is strictly a political designation, one that allows for dehumanizing and condemning one’s enemies. Israel’s pager attack on Lebanon has all of the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, but the west won’t call it as it is because it’s inconvenient. It was inconvenient to acknowledge that Israel is conducting a full on genocide, so not until very recently did major western news orgs start using the dreaded G word.
by bell-cot | 2025-07-30 18:11:37+00:00
If you look at history, this is an ancient pattern.

In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the prohibitions against anyone acquiring ownership of land go all the way back to the Torah.

Though like pretty much every religious prohibition on behaviors which the well-to-do want to do - those commandments fall under the "we never talk about that part" rule.

EDIT:

- Please note my "against anyone ACQUIRING ownership of" phrasing, above.

- Details are in Leviticus, Chapter 25
by yencabulator | 2025-07-30 18:11:37+00:00
> Just because we can measure a sales person’s contributions in dollar amounts does not mean we must measure it in dollar amounts.

I don't even know if we can.

Yes, you can measure the number of deals signed they called dibs on. But:

1. You don't know if the salesperson earned it, or the whole product. There's a baseline demand driven by the whole company. This is the whole old argument that nobody can prove that ads work; you just can't pinpoint the purchase decision to exposure to an ad. So yeah I guess you can make your salespeople compete against each other and reward the one who stochastically floats to the top while punishing others. Sounds like such a fun workplace, I thought everyone agreed Microsoft's rank system sucked.

2. Several times I have witnessed salespeople selling non-existent, non-planned, functionality and forcing the rest of the company into crunch mode to not have a major client semi-publicly end the contract early. You're often just rewarding the biggest liar while everyone else has to cover up for their shit. Once again, sounds like such a fun workplace.

It comes down to, competitive sales is a cancer, and you're choosing to have it.
by atonse | 2025-07-30 18:12:27+00:00
I wish we had a content rating system built into the HTTP protocol (via headers that say this page has an R rating, contains nudity, etc).

Like X-Minimum-Recommended-Age or X-Contains-Content-Themes: violence, nudity

Then website authors could flag those things and leave it at that. And parents could actually tell the browser to set allowed content ratings and just refuse to load a page if it gets a header that doesn't match.

That would preserve privacy and all websites would have to do would be to implement a few headers.

I think YT already makes you specify the audience for a video. that would allow us to block certain content without having to block youtube altogether, for example.
by impish9208 | 2025-07-30 18:12:30+00:00
This is hilarious!

Dan Crenshaw — U.S. Congressman from Texas Ni**as in Paris

Karoline Leavitt — White House Press Secretary Run the World (Girls)

Marc Benioff — Salesforce CEO Billionaire

I’m disappointed to not see any thelonelyisland listeners though.
by Apocryphon | 2025-07-30 18:12:32+00:00
During the times there was an external security guarantor, conflict would by definition go down (assuming the external power was sufficiently potent and stable). So you can't say that both chaos and dominion were happening simultaneously at all times.

> One could argue this history of chaos goes back to the Hittites and Bronze Age collapse.

And one could claim that the history of chaos in Central Europe goes back to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the Ostsiedlung, or perhaps even before the Romans made contact with the Germani.
by steveklabnik | 2025-07-30 18:12:44+00:00
> Or is Hardware performance not a main focus for Oxide but Software that came with it?

It's more of that we're a young company, so we can only do so much, so quickly. Plus, because we do so much custom work, that all takes time. As we grow and scale up, we'll be able to move forward more quickly on updates on the hardware front.
by tguvot | 2025-07-30 18:13:04+00:00
if you will read the article, you will see that it talks about IDF and settlers. PA in fact called in IDF to suppress hamas and pij in areas that PA tried to clear out but failed.

Articles like this on purpose blur lines of what happening and meant to generate outrage. Once I traced back article that talked about 48 (or something) palestinians killed by settlers by going through listed sources in the article. when I got to original article (twice removed), I discovered that it talked about 47 killed by IDF and 1 killed in clashes between settlers and palestinians
by labcomputer | 2025-07-30 18:13:31+00:00
I think that you have to actually watch the grand tours to understand why this seems plausible:

Both Pogacar and del Toro (UAE’s gc riders in the Tour and Giro, respectively) are able to keep up with (and even drop) the strongest climbers, and then look fresh as a daisy across the line. Like they aren’t even trying.

This was most obvious when del Toro lost to Yates on the last stage of this year’s Giro, but Pogacar does it too. They start the final climb a few minutes behind the leaders, then match the fastest rider up the climb and then magically have zero fatigue for the final sprint across the line to pick up a few spots. Yates only won because del Toro made a huge tactical mistake of focusing on Carapaz

Everyone else is dying and the riders from this one team look like they could do another stage… and we’re supposed to think that’s natural?
by yanovskishai | 2025-07-30 18:13:49+00:00
Played with Bayesian nets a bit in grad school—Pearl’s causality stuff is still mind-blowing—but I’ve almost never bumped into a PGM in production. A couple things kept biting us: Inference pain. Exact is NP-hard, and the usual hacks (loopy BP, variational, MCMC) need a ton of hand-tuning before they run fast enough.

The data never fits the graph. Real-world tables are messy and full of hidden junk, so you either spend weeks arguing over structure or give up the nice causal story.

DL stole the mind-share. A transformer is a one-liner with a mature tooling stack; hard to argue with that when deadlines loom.

That said, they’re not completely dead - reportedly Microsoft’s TrueSkill (Xbox ranking), a bunch of Google ops/diagnosis pipelines, some healthcare diagnosis tools by IBM Watson built on Infer.NET.

Anyone here actually shipped a PGM that beat a neural baseline? Would really love to appreciate your war stories.
by Sayrus | 2025-07-30 18:13:49+00:00
Thanks, I also edited the answer. That also gives context to the sentence in the article:

> Connecticut already uses the common three-class system that codifies legal e-bikes as up to 20 mph (32 km/h) and 750W (one horsepower) for Class 1 and 2, or up to 28 mph (45 km/h) for Class 3 e-bikes.

So these device are already not street-legal and not allowed to be sold as e-bikes, right? Even at 30mph they aren't classified as e-bikes. Were they previously in an undefined zone and are now classified as motor-driven cycle/motorcycle?

Then I don't understand the claim that this will change anything since "an electric motor of less than 750 watts" cannot provide anywhere near even 50MPH on a bike-sized device.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-30 18:13:51+00:00
>All those private estate's whims?

To do the least amount of work and get the most profit? I'd say so.

I should probably specify this better: private AI companies do not want to

1) find efficient solutions, over brute forcing models with more data (data that is dubiously claimed as of now) and larger data enters. Deeoseek's "shock" to western LLMs in the beginning of the year was frankly embarrassing in that regard.

2) introduce any transparency to their weights and models. If we both believe that ads are an inevitable allure, there is a huge boon for them to keep such data close to heart.

>try to set my expectations at around the level of "enthusiastic recent graduate who has yet to learn they can't fix everything and wants to please their boss"

I sure do wish the industry itself had such expectations. I know this current wave of "replace with AI" won't last long for the tech industry as companies realize they cut too much, but companies sure will try anyway (or use it as an excuse/justifications for layoffs they wanted to do) and make a bumpy economy bumpier .
by electroly | 2025-07-30 18:14:00+00:00
"dotnet tool exec" is not that feature; you're thinking of https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-dotnet-run-... which they added to "dotnet run". "dotnet run my-cool-thing.cs"

"dotnet tool exec" is so you can run third party command line tools like csharpier that previously required "dotnet tool install" before you could use them. For example, in https://csharpier.com/docs/Installation you can now simply do "dotnet tool exec csharpier". This is like "npx" in the JavaScript world.
by rekabis | 2025-07-30 18:14:23+00:00
> Just a decent WYSIWYG editor that can also manage uploads.

There is your problem.

Any such editor will invariably be heavily limited to what its developers envisioned the user’s use cases as being, and therefore WYSIWYG software is fiendishly complex as a result for even simple layouts and designs (as opposed to straight code editors).

Plus, web frameworks (HTML, CSS, JS, etc.) are still evolving on a yearly basis, requiring constant updates to any WYSIWYG that demand either a paid product or something that rides on the well-funded coattails of another service or product.

If you want a piece of software that lasts, learn how to code directly. If you can picture a soccer ball in your mind, you can (mostly) reliably envision what code will appear like on the screen before you even test it. It takes practice and experience, but building the WYSIWYG aspect into your own mind is eminently doable unless you have aphantasia.

And honestly, that’s how I view WYSIWYG editors: as accessibility tools for people whose legitimate disability is aphantasia.

For everyone else, WYSIWYG tools are a skills-nerfing crutch, as it isolates the user’s use of code from its direct consequences. By working directly with code, you are forced to envision the output of each element and its relationship to everything else on the page.

And honestly, the only major exception I can come up with is desktop publishing, where the underlying “code” is typically restricted to that master file on the designer’s computer, and has no effect beyond it… once the file is printed out (and the content leaves the designer’s control) everything is cemented ‘in stone’ and the underlying “code” no longer has any impact. Because the system is radically more constrained, with markup standards that are limited to the software and not world+dog, a WYSIWYG program makes sense. And yet… most are still paid products.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-07-30 18:14:26+00:00
> Inequality is based on random luck of birth.

We are each unequal to each other, yes. So what? Why is that bad? Why is equality good?

> It seems that you’re defending capitalism.

I'm not defending or attacking capitalism. I'm attacking the thoughtlessly repeated presupposition that inequality is bad as such. There is no justification for the claim that we should all be equally rich.
by autoexec | 2025-07-30 18:14:34+00:00
You might have some success with talking to them, or even dropping a leaflet or a print out in their mailbox explaining the problem and encouraging them to check their yard for breeding grounds. A lot of folks (especially young ones) just don't think about that kind of thing, but very few people actually like mosquitos, so a polite reminder every couple years or when someone new moves in might do some good.
by InsideThePadock | 2025-07-30 18:14:54+00:00
Not sure if anyone else does this, but I’ve started keeping a personal list of horses I avoid betting on — not because they’re bad, but because they consistently trap me into poor decisions.

Thought this might be useful or relatable to other punters (or maybe you totally disagree, which is also fair!). I break down some of the patterns I look for and why I stay away. Curious what others think.
by sevensor | 2025-07-30 18:15:05+00:00
My complaint about JSON is that it’s not minimal enough. The receiver always has to validate anyway, so what has syntax typing done for us? Different implementations of JSON disagree about what constitutes a valid value. For instance, is

{“x”: NaN}

valid JSON? How about 9007199254740993? Or -.053? If so, will that text round trip through your JSON library without loss of precision? Is that desirable if it does?

Basically I think formats with syntax typed primitives always run into this problem: even if the encoder and decoder are consistent with each other about what the values are, the receiver still has to decide whether it can use the result. This after all is the main benefit of a library like Pydantic. But if we’re doing all this work to make sure the object is correct, we know what the value types are supposed to be on the receiving end, so why are we making a needlessly complex decoder guess for us?
Reddit and Perplexity got us leads faster than Google ever did
by graveEra | 2025-07-30 18:15:35+00:00
We used to play the SEO game.

Write blog

Wait 3 months

Maybe rank

Maybe convert

What actually happened at 8 early-stage AI startups (Series A or earlier):

-Google Page 1 took ~94 days

- Organic CTR: 2.6%

- First qualified lead: 6–8 weeks

So we ditched the playbook.

We asked one question: How fast can we show up when someone asks ChatGPT or Perplexity what tool to use?

Turns out… faster than Google. And yeah, it brought pipeline.

What changed when we went LLM-first:

- Perplexity picked up our content in under 48 hours

- ChatGPT (with Browsing) indexed feature pages in 3 days

- 18.2% of sessions now come from LLM-originated paths

- Those leads convert 2.4x better than blog traffic

Then Reddit unlocked another level.

We posted no-link, technical breakdowns here.

One of them (about how we automated an AI agent pipeline) got quoted by Perplexity in:

- “UX AI Agent”

- “Best Firecrawl alternatives”

- “How to track LLM bots”

No push. No SEO. Just built in public.

3 days later:

- 9 Perplexity query quotes

- 2 inbound leads mentioned us directly

Reddit is training data goldmine for LLMs.

Here's what worked for us:

1. Add Q&A blocks to product pages (all <40 words)

Example: Q: How does FireGEO detect ClaudeBot?

A: It fingerprints known Anthropic headers and reverse-DNS matches IP blocks like 2600:1f18::/32

- Indexed by Perplexity in <48 hours

- 11 bot hits in 5 days

- 1 lead → trial signup in <1 week

2. Build an ai-sitemap.xml

Only high-signal pages: - API docs

- Feature comparisons

- Pricing breakdowns

- Tech specs

Crawl rate = 2.3x higher than default sitemap.

GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot show up daily in logs.

3. Treat Reddit as an input layer

We post raw content here before it hits our blog. In last 30 days:

- ~30,000 views across Reddit

- 9 quotes in Perplexity answers

- 2 leads directly from those mentions

If you’re shipping something real, try this:

- Install FireGEO or track LLM bots via reverse DNS + ASN logs

- Create llm.txt for structured answers

- Tag LLM traffic with UTMs and route to CRM

Curious to know what’s working for you around LLM visibility?

Any tactics or insights others here are seeing?
by wgwwgw | 2025-07-30 18:15:44+00:00
I'm an old scientist that did lots of computer simulations that ate up many many cpu cycles. I started with BASIC in the 70s, then learned machine language, and used Fortran throughout the 80s. My simulation programs ran for 24 hours or more. Once I learned C, the concepts of structures and pointers were tremendously useful for storing and passing information. I don't believe any other language could be as efficient when program run times are measured in hours.
by snarf21 | 2025-07-30 18:16:05+00:00
The problem is that they have bought all three systems of government so they can do whatever they want. They own all the media as well. Even something like PBS that is supposed to be more independent is highly dependent on "philanthropy" from these same billionaires and they've fallen victim to what I'm going to moniker as Sinclair's Law ("It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends upon not understanding it" -Upton Sinclair)
by pclowes | 2025-07-30 18:16:26+00:00
Highly Agree.

Speed of all kinds is incredibly important. Give me all of it.

- Fast developers

- Fast test suites

- Fast feedback loops

- Fast experimentation

Someone (Napoleon?) is credited with saying "quantity has a quality all its own", in software it is "velocity has a quality all its own".

As long as there is some rigor and you aren't shipping complete slop, consistently moving very quickly fixes almost every other deficiency.

- It makes engineering mistakes cheaper (just fix them fast)

- It make product experimentation easy (we can test this fast and revert if needed)

- It makes developers ramp up quickly (shipping code increases confidence and knowledge)

- It actually makes rigor more feasible as the most effective rigorous processes are light weight and built-in.

Every line of code is a liability, the system that enables it to change rapidly is the asset.

Side note: every time I encounter JVM test startup lag I think someday I am going to die and will have spent time doing _this_.
Show HN: We create visual codebase maps that scale (static analysis and LLMs)
by imilev | 2025-07-30 18:16:27+00:00
Hi all, I'm Ivan, and together with Alex, we're building a diagram visualization tool for codebases.

Alex and I are devs, and we've noticed that recently we've been super productive at writing code (prompting :D). But when it comes to understanding big systems, prompting doesn't work that well — for that, diagrams are best imo. Most tools out there don't scale to big projects (e.g. PyTorch), so we're building CodeBoarding — a recursive visualizer for codebases. It starts from the highest level of abstractions and lets you dive deeper. We use static analysis and LLM agents. The control-flow graph is our starting point, and we validate the LLM's analysis against the static analysis output. LLMs alone often hallucinate or apply familiar architectural patterns that don't actually exist in the code.

Since this is a concise representation of a codebase, we also added an MCP-server to provide our docs for the libs your project depends on — reducing hallucinations and avoiding blowing up the context window. The vision: With agents writing more and more code, we think we also need a concise representation for it — diagrams. But for that to work, the diagrams have to be accurate, and that's why static analysis has to take part in the fun ;d.

Would love to hear what you think about diagram representations for code, what problems you've run into with hallucinations while vibe-coding (even with tools like gitingest/context7), and any general feedback :)
by ryandrake | 2025-07-30 18:16:45+00:00
> Also: a team of 3 SWEs where each claims to be a tech lead of an area, purely for good performance reviews.

This kind of forced role inflation is infuriating, and happens at every company I've worked for, big or small. You can't just get by on technical mastery anymore--you always have to be seen as a "leader" of some group or "leading" some project. Even if you just want to stand still in your career and get cost-of-living raises, there is this widely held expectation that you're always cosplaying as a leader of something.
by roadside_picnic | 2025-07-30 18:16:51+00:00
Fair point, I've updated the post to highlight that even the original paper specifics "indiscriminate" use of model outputs.

Having spent quite a bit of time diving into many questionable "research" papers (the original model collapse paper is not actually one of these, it's a solid paper), there's a very common pattern of showing that something does or does not work under special conditions but casually making generalized claims about those results. It's so easy with LLMs to find a way to get the result you want that there are far too many papers out there that people quickly take as fact when the claims are much, much weaker than the papers let on. So I tend to get a bit reactionary when addressing many of these "facts" about LLMs.

But you are correct that with the model collapse paper this is much more the public misunderstanding the claims of the original paper than any fault with that paper itself.