MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cmurf | 2025-08-31 17:10:59+00:00
There's 100s of possible explanations but, without any evidence at all, you've selected one. It's simply not a compelling story.

Disaster recovery isn't obvious on any setup I've worked with. I have to RTFM to understand each system's idiosyncrasies.

The idea that some filesystems have no bugs is absurd. The idea that filesystems can mitigate all bugs in drive firmware or elsewhere in the storage stack is also absurd.

My anecdota: hundreds of intentional sabotaging of Btrfs while writing, single drive and raid1 configurations, and physically disconnecting a drive. Not one time have I encountered an inconsistent filesystem or data loss once it was on stable media. Not one. It always mounted without needing a filesystem check. This is on consumer hardware.

There's always some data loss in the single drive case no matter the filesystem. Some of the data or fs metadata isn't yet persistent. Raid1 helps with that, because so long as the hardware problem that affected the 1st drive is isolated, the data is written to stable media.

Of course, I'm no more a scientific sample than you are. And also my tests are rudimentary compared to the many thousands of synthetic tests fstests performs on Linux filesystems, both generic and fs specific, every cycle. But it is a real world test, and suggests no per se problem that inevitably means data loss as you describe.
by palmfacehn | 2025-08-31 17:11:08+00:00
>I am unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than improve the public’s health...

Okay, that's fine if he's the master of and exclusive license holder for "scientific reality", but I do take exception with his ability to divine malicious intent. Maybe I am missing something here. Did this person uncover a massive conspiracy? If documents were found where this malicious intent was outlined, I would like to see some citations. Perhaps it is more probable that this is a highly charged partisan issue and the statement is marred by hyperbole.
by Intralexical | 2025-08-31 17:11:24+00:00
> While a lifespan has no limits in theory if technology is advanced enough, the belief that it can be achieved by a living person is based on hope rather than evidence.

I would say it's based on fear. Ego. Maybe disconnection, bordering on solipsism, as if living in this world is only meaningful if you personally live forever.

Hope motivates aspirational curiosity. The attitude from some longevity enthusiasts here seems to lean more towards vitriol and tautology.
by turtletontine | 2025-08-31 17:11:26+00:00
I think the idea is the minimal implementation will be unstable and unreliable. I don’t know the details, but there’s much work and thought on quantum error correcting qubits - where you hook up N qubits in a clever way to function as one very stable qubit. Terms such as “decoherence time” make appearances. You can imagine this quickly expands into an awful lot of qubits.
by Ericson2314 | 2025-08-31 17:11:35+00:00
I want to read "Jutustsu for Git experts"

For example, will the committing of conflicts (a good idea I agree), mess up my existing git rerere?

Also I agree that the staged vs unstaged distinction is stupid and should be abolished, but I do like intentionally staging "the parts of the patch I like" while I work with git add -p. Is there a a lightweight way to have such a 2-patch-deep patch set with JJ that won't involve touching timestamps unnecessarily, causing extra rebuilds with stupid build systems?
by notherhack | 2025-08-31 17:11:49+00:00
V guvax gur vqRn jnf gb fcyvg guR uvtu seRdhrapl "r" gb gjb qvssReRag flzobyf r naq R ng yRffRe serdhrapvRf. Fvzcyl ercynpvat nyy r'f jvgu R qbrfa'g qb gung.
by bonoboTP | 2025-08-31 17:11:52+00:00
That's the negative side. The opposite is, which anyone who ran some kind of group activity or forum should have experience with, is when someone obnoxious plays rules lawyering to slip out of everything. In the end you just have to leave it at a vibes-based reasoning. Yes, it can be abused. The explicit, written rules variant can be abused in opposite ways. It's all tradeoffs.

I land on the point of the tradeoff spectrum where you have some "instructions" and rules, but it's also a "spirit of the rules" kind of thing, and someone has the means to exercise subjective judgment, instead of trying to fully eliminate subjectivity in favor of ever growing rules with ever growing exceptions that become a maze to navigate, and can become its own form of tyranny, especially if someone has the power to arbitrarily decide which set of rules to choose to apply for each case.

You can have the best processes and rules, if the people are bad. You can't compensate for that. And if you have good people, you can and should allow them some range of judgment.
by namibj | 2025-08-31 17:12:04+00:00
Lean does feasibly let you shard out verification work; i.e., you can take a huge proof tree, chop it into an assortment of independently-proven branches (trivial if it's a true tree), let those branches be verified in parallel by a simple cluster, inject the feedback information from the cluster tasks ("this theorem here (the open goals/interactive state at the point this branch was cut out of the full tree) is true; no need for you to actually be aware that it's proven with specifically this proof here (the branch of the tree)") into the main kernel's verification cache (or just declare those intermediate theorems as true), and write a "apply this_theorem_we_cut_out_here" in place of the cut-out branch when writing up the main tree.

Good thing that, as long as you verify the entire result and make sure your verifier orchestration doesn't have bugs of a "cheating" nature, you can let AI run pretty wild on transforming/translating/chopping a Lean proof tree, because the verifier is already presumed to be an oracle with no false positives.

E.g. here it could potentially help translating SageMath representations to Lean4 representations, with the only downside that a failed verification in Lean could be due to merely erroneous AI-assisted translation.

Overall, I'd think given the nature of proving that a polyhedron doesn't have Rupert's property, there should be fairly straight-forward (if not actually trivial) ways of sharding the proof. The paper seems to talk of a 5-dimensional search space; in more general I'd think it's 8 dimensions to account for the translation through the proposed hole (this is still assuming you want to not rotate the polyhedra as you're passing one through the other):

"attack direction (angle of the penetrated)" from any direction (3D; unit quaternion), while the penetrator is facing any direction (3D; unit quaternion), shifted sideways any amount normal to the direction of translation (2D; simple 2D point), valid at any translation/penetration depth (1D; simple distance/real), while cancelling one dimension worth of freedom because only mutual twist along the direction translation matters (not absolute twist).

There's some mirror/flip symmetries that each take a factor of 2 out, but that's insignificant as long as we keep the dimensions of our geometry fixed at 3.

Now having thought about it a bit more to write this, I think it'd be mostly (automatable brute-force type) mechanical once you translate the coarse proof structure and theorem definitions, because you're "just" sweeping 5 (or 8) degrees of freedom while partitioning the search space whenever your property definition hits a branch. A benefit of that being a possibly trivially parallel/flat certificate that's basically composed of 2 parts: (1) a list of intervals in the 5/8 dimensional search space that together cover the entire search space, and (2) for each listed interval, a branch-free verifiable statement (certificate) that the property definition applies in a definitionally uniform manner across said interval.
by mystraline | 2025-08-31 17:12:34+00:00
I would be a bit more careful how I would say compliance.

For example, a coffee maker does have software in there. But it does a job and does it well. There's no cloud garbage, no remote attestation, or much of anything.

To that end, I look at "who can control the device?" If the answer, as someone who paid money for it, and the answer is "the company", then I'm logically not the owner.

Alongside a fraudulent sale, there is also tax fraud by misclassifying these rentals as sales.

I've also seen nobody discussing the tax fraud angle either. We the public are getting cheated as well, from both directions. Its high time we start suing and pressing charges, and making us whole.
by kcplate | 2025-08-31 17:13:19+00:00
> There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel.

“Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes.

You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me.

You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it

No thanks.
by joshlemer | 2025-08-31 17:13:38+00:00
I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.
by nikolayasdf123 | 2025-08-31 17:13:51+00:00
> H1B unknowns

this. most countries have similar policies. been there, seen so many others going through this in UK, USA, Japan, Korea, Singapore. it really damages your life.

to everyone, check other countries (Portugal, Thailand, Japan) that give you residency for years and allow to work remotely

don't let your employer hold you and your family a hostage with your legal status
by maxbond | 2025-08-31 17:14:20+00:00
I think you're right, my mistake. I didn't find anything definitive but given they were developed around the same time by (on cursory inspection) different people and that Colossus was as secret as you say (it wasn't declassified until the 70s), it does seem unlikely. I thought that had been mentioned in a Computerphile/Numberphile video on the topic but I must be mistaken.
Show HN: Anonymous Age Verification
by jwally | 2025-08-31 17:14:21+00:00
So I'm not an expert in this area, but here's an attempt at cost effective, anonymous, age verification flow that probably covers ~70% of use cases in the United States.

The basic premise is to leverage your bank (who already has had to perform KYC on you to open an account) to attest to your age for age-restricted merchant sites (pornhub, gambling, etc) without sharing any more information than necessary.

Flow works like this:

1) You go to gambling.com

2) They request you to verify your age

3) You choose "Bank Verification"

4) You trigger a WebAuthn Credential Creation flow

5) gambling.com gives you a string to copy

-------------

6) You log into your bank

7) You go to bank.com/age-verify

8) You paste in the string you were given

9) The bank verifies it/you and creates a signed payload with your age-claims (over_18: true, over_21: false)

10) You copy this and go back to gambling.com

---------------

11) You paste the string back into gambling.com

12) You perform WebAuthn Auth flow

13) gambling.com verifies everything (signatures, webauthn, etc)

14) gambling.com sets a session-cookie and _STRONGLY_ encourages you to create an account (with a pass key). This will prevent you from having to verify your age every time you visit gambling.com

The mechanics might feel off, but it feels like this in the neighborhood of a way to perform anonymous age verification.

This is virtually free, and requires extremely light infra. Banks can be incentivized with small payments, or offer it because everyone else does and don't want to get left behind.
by simonh | 2025-08-31 17:14:43+00:00
By making the imports needed for domestic production and infrastructure development more expensive through tariffs, before there are domestic alternatives available, and expelling large swathes of the labour force necessary for such construction, no he really isn’t.

It would be possible to develop domestic supply capacity, starting with the inputs necessary to feed that development, and then nurture and encourage the process with a targeted ramp up of tariffs. That’s not happening though, instead domestic investment is collapsing.
by OutOfHere | 2025-08-31 17:14:54+00:00
The more you work, the more you will have to work. They will exploit you that much more.

Insufficient sleep is very bad for the heart. It is critically important for long-term health to to leave work on the dot at 5 pm, then get some exercise done in the evening if not in the very early morning. Also, stop relying on fast food for meals.
by the_af | 2025-08-31 17:15:03+00:00
> Soon we'll start having juniors who started out with this stuff.

But who will hire them? Businesses are ramping down from hiring juniors, since apparently a few good seniors with AI can replace them (in the minds of the people doing the hiring).

Or is it that when all of the previous batch of seniors have retired or died of old age, businesses will have no option but to hire juniors trained "the new way", without a solid background to help them understand when AI solutions are flawed or misguided, and pray it all works out?
by bonoboTP | 2025-08-31 17:15:16+00:00
It's the same in other aspects of life too. Like where the cool bars are with the cool people. Over time it gets popular, overrun with average people and tourists. Then the cool people move their cool parties to some new, more obscure place and the cycle repeats. Same with online platforms.

The people in those pockets will have to use their discernment to figure out where the next pocket is located. But it can't be something that everyone can easily do.
by lukeschlather | 2025-08-31 17:15:26+00:00
The only one of those things that is the fault of ACME is the first one, and are you really suggesting between that and your second bullet point that we should charge money for encryption so that people value it more? Encryption is free so people do it more. Paying money doesn't actually make people trustworthy. (Though you can totally charge people to prove they aren't malicious, but if you want to do that, why tie it to encryption? Encrypt regardless.)
by nextos | 2025-08-31 17:15:29+00:00
I agree with your point about politics. But marketwise, the N9 sold very well despite the project received no support, and also got glowing reviews [1]. The N900 still enjoys cult status. Posts about this device pop up in HN every now and then.

Maemo/MeeGo could have >10% marketshare in some EU countries, just like desktop Linux does right now. The N9 was a very elegant device, ready for the masses, and good enough to become a third mobile platform.

The N9 was incredibly elegant and easy to use. The hardware was well crafted, and the card-based UI was outstanding. All applications were well integrated. For example, any messaging application would add its protocol to your contact list, instead of having everything fragmented in apps. Offline maps were second to none. It took a decade for iOS and Android to catch up.

It shipped with native support for a variety of VoIP protocols, including Google Talk (Jingle) and Skype. The OLED screen was stunning on the dark mode UI. Mozilla provided a great mobile Firefox port, and there was a native terminal just in case you wanted to ssh to machines or do something from your phone. Tethering or even using Linux running on your phone from a bigger screen worked really well, in 2011.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2011/10/22/2506376/nokia-n9-review
by jameshart | 2025-08-31 17:15:32+00:00
Ah - this helped me understand the numbers in quantum computing a little more clearly. I had been under the impression (based on my naive interpretation of the naming) that the number of qubits in a quantum processor might be something analogous to the number of bits of register state in a regular CPU; that qubits should be thought of more as analogous to transistors or maybe even gates makes it a little clearer why you need so many more qubits to perform more complex operations.
by Arloste | 2025-08-31 17:16:06+00:00
Hey everyone.

I’m Arloste, I'm a 19 y/o, and this is my first MVP. It’s scrappy, it almost broke me, but it works!

The problem: Many entrepreneurs, coaches, and online freelancers spend tons of time trying to decrease churn rates. One method is to contact ex-clients regularly with a special offer or an update. Existing tools like MailChimp, Mailgun, or Sendgrid are overkill for small operations.

The solution: With Creamail, you can:

Easily contact old clients via email

Schedule Sequences with recurrence (weekly, monthly, etc.)

Even send recurring emails to yourself to track weekly progress across your projects

Built with Vercel (frontend), Render, Cronjob (backend), Supabase (storage), and a LOT of coffee and sleepless nights.

-> Try it here: https://creamail-final-mvp.vercel.app/

I’d love to know what you think about it <3
by ceejayoz | 2025-08-31 17:16:07+00:00
> It's an appointment in the FDA…

That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...

> Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left

lmao

Being on Loomer's shitlist is not "documentation".
by sdeframond | 2025-08-31 17:16:19+00:00
Pharmaceutics are so valuable because they can be sold.

A healthy lifestyle must be earned. It is a constant struggle against the fastfood industry.

Soon you'll see Coca-cola or Nestlé [0] selling both very unhealthy quasi-addictive food and drinks to kids and magic pills that cure obesity. Sounds scalable enough ?

[0] https://www.nestle.com/brands/healthcare-nutrition/medical-n...
by 8organicbits | 2025-08-31 17:16:31+00:00
I'm curious what the overlap is between people who use AI tools and people who use ad blockers. Personally, I've been a leech on the ad-funded web my entire adult life; I always block ads. I haven't adopted AI tools. They only seem to work well for content that's readily discoverable anyway, otherwise the risk of hallucination has been far too high in my testing. If I care about the answer, why risk it?

I believe there's strong overlap between technically minded people and ad blockers. Maybe the challenge is that AI search appeals to less technically-minded people, who would have otherwise been exposed to ads?
by JustExAWS | 2025-08-31 17:16:40+00:00
What banks only offer the best interest rates an offers through apps?

I’m very much a credit card point churner and I have an HYSA. The same rates and offers are on the websites and the apps.

And how would a bank know if you’re using a website on a rooted phone?

People are complaining about the app stores when they are choosing banks which are app only - which I would never do - you should be complaining about your bank.
by __turbobrew__ | 2025-08-31 17:16:55+00:00
See the part of my comment where the btrfs kernel driver paniced on Ubuntu 24 stable kernel.

We are using a fairly simple config, but under certain heavy load patterns the kernel would panic: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...

I hear people say all the time how btrfs is stable now and people are just complaining about issues when btrfs is new, but please explain to me how the bug I linked is OK in a stable version of the most popular linux distro?
Show HN: Kuvasz Uptime v3 – a major release for a flexible future
by akobor | 2025-08-31 17:17:56+00:00
We’ve just released Kuvasz v3, a major update for easier future expansion of new monitor types + new features:

- Integrations/Notifications UI + API (test your notification providers directly before enabling them) - Update notifications in UI + API that help keeping your instance up to date - Per-monitor metrics (uptime ratio, incidents, downtime) - A brand new incidents view + API endpoint - And a few important fixes

Changelog: https://kuvasz-uptime.dev/changelog/
by dlcarrier | 2025-08-31 17:18:22+00:00
I once borrowed my parents Tesla, and drove it across a toll bridge. They said the RFID tag was in the glove box, and to take it out befoire crossing through the toll gate. I spent far too long driving somewhat destracted, while looking through the manual, trying to find the button to open the glove box, and eventually gave up. (It's in the settings menu, which is opened by taapping a car icon, in the lower left corner of the screen.)

They didn't have staffed gates, so it used a picture of the license plate, and my parents said it bills them the same, in case the tag isn't successfully read.

That had me wondering, why bother with the tag at all? License plate reading technology is far more reliable, and it reads the license plates of every vehicle that passes through the gate, so there's no purpose in the tag.
by thramp | 2025-08-31 17:18:28+00:00
(disclosure: I started a jj company but I don’t have anything to sell yet.)

> Are there "central concepts" in the Jujutsu design?

I think a central concept in jj is that everything is a commit: there’s no staging index, stashes, or unstaged files, only commits. This has a few pretty neat implications: - changes are automatically to recorded to the current commit. - commits are very cheap to create. - as others have already said, rebases (and history manipulation in general!) are way cheaper than in git. It helps that jj as a whole is oriented around manipulating and rewriting commits. Stacked diffs fall out of this model for free. - Since everything is now a commit, merge/rebase conflicts aren’t anything special anymore because a commit can simply be marked as having “a conflict” and you, as the user, can simply resolve the conflict at your own leisure. While I’m sure you know already know thus, I’d rather make subtext text: in git and mercurial, you’d need to resolve the conflict as it got materialized or abort the rebase entirely. - because everything is a commit, jj has a universal undo button that falls out effectively, for free: `jj undo`. It feels so incredibly powerful to have a safety net!

> All other Git UIs I've used have been severely lacking, but Magit has made me significantly more productive with Git, and has convinced me of the "magic of git".

I can’t speak to this personally, but I’ve had friends who are magit users tell me that jj isn’t a big enough improvement (on a day-to-day, not conceptual, basis) over magit to switch at this time. It’d be really cool to have a magit-but-for-jj, but I don’t think anyone has written one yet.
by griffzhowl | 2025-08-31 17:18:30+00:00
> Godel showed that axiomatic systems beyond a certain level of complexity have a reality beyond that logic can investigate.

Godel's theorems are notoriously liable to misinterpretation, and to be honest this sounds like one.

What Godel actually proved is that given a consistent formal system capable of representing arithmetic, there are statements in the language of that system such that neither the statement nor its negation can be proved in the system.

The thing is these statements will be different for different formal systems. The theorem doesn't say that there are statements that are in general unprovable in any formal system, which is a common misconception. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I find it hard to relate the claims your making about Godel's theorem to the statement of the theorem itself.

Godel's proof itself can be formalized, so I don't see how it places a limitation on formalism in general