MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by godelski | 2025-08-16 22:41:00+00:00
I really appreciate the transparency, it says a lot. And I understand the self-promotion thing, I hate doing it myself but for some reason never have a problem promoting others haha.

I do think there is just a larger problem that we're just so bad at funding open source software despite their great utility and how much of our world is built off of these systems. My partner is studying economics and I always love to introduce her colleagues to OSS and it is definitely something they even have a hard time wrapping their heads around lol.

I know it doesn't pay the bills, but I am rooting for you and do want to say thanks for your work. Not just Anubis either. It's hard, but don't be afraid to ask for help. You're not being greedy and don't let people like rekabis bully you. People having it worse off doesn't make you or what you do any less valuable. The work speaks for itself, even if as a society we haven't figured out how to make that pay the bills.
by rendx | 2025-08-16 22:41:18+00:00
Original title, please edit: How Spain put up wealth taxes - without chasing away the billionaires

"What is clear is that, two years on, a predicted exodus of the rich, trumpeted in endless alarmist headlines, has not materialised. Forbes counted 26 Spanish billionaires in 2021. This year, it lists 34, with a combined net worth comfortably over $200bn."

"So far, there is no sign that it has affected growth. Spain was the world’s fastest-expanding major advanced economy last year, outpacing even the US, with GDP up 3.2%. By contrast, growth in the UK and France last year barely scraped above 1%."
by al_borland | 2025-08-16 22:42:25+00:00
This is still a massive problem.

> During a series of romantic chats on Facebook Messenger, the virtual woman had repeatedly reassured Bue she was real and had invited him to her apartment, even providing an address.

Let's say he didn't fall, where was he going to end up? There are other ways this plays out… he gets killed my someone, arrested, who knows. At the very least, this level of gaslighting is bound to drive a person insane.

Meta needs to get their act together. This isn't ok.
by sync | 2025-08-16 22:43:21+00:00
Awesome, I've been playing in the ebook space myself, will check it out. Particularly interested in digging into the code too see how you skip headers, footnotes, etc.

Just one quick note as I ran into this when setting it up:

╰─▶ Because the requested Python version (>=3.8) does not satisfy Python>=3.10,<3.13 and kokoro==0.9.4 depends on Python>=3.10,<3.13, we can conclude that kokoro==0.9.4 cannot be used.

Note I definitely disregarded your instructions and used `uv` to setup the project. Still, it seems like changing the `pyproject.toml` to `requires-python = ">=3.10"` would be good considering kokoro's Python version support.
by cryptonector | 2025-08-16 22:43:30+00:00
As the interviewee I'd use such a question to demonstrate my knowledge of the topic. For this question I'd point out that thread-per-CPU w/ async I/O designs w/ maximum live connections and clever connection pool acceptance & eviction policies, and limited buffering, together intrinsically limit oversubscription, but I would still talk extensively about health monitoring and external circuit breaking, as well as the use of 429/whatever and/or flow control (where available) at the protocol level to express backpressure. I would then use this to harp on the evils of thread-per-client designs, and also why they happen, as well as the various alternatives.

Make the interviewer tell you when they've had enough and change topics.
by shiandow | 2025-08-16 22:43:39+00:00
A steady supply of salty water doesn't help enough in the same way a steady supply of warm air cannot cool a house.

The problem with your system is that it you can power an engine with the flow of salt ions and that really isn't the kind of thing you are supposed to be able to do to something that happens spontaneously.

And really water spontaneously desalinating is about as clear a violation of the second law of thermodynamics as you can get. With the scale of latent energies involved it would be like water flowing up a 70 meter wall.

Look maybe I am missing something somewhere that secretly compensates for the apparent decrease in entropy but I am not seeing it. Brine will flow away e entually, the water returns to the ocean and in the meantime you can power your power plant by salinating the water, indefinitely.
by ajsnigrutin | 2025-08-16 22:43:43+00:00
Google + solved this issue with 'circles' or whatever it was called.

For me, facebook died when they replaced the user generated content with random garbage and links. Same with instagram, when photos of sunsets and plates of food turned to random videos of people I don't know.

The total number of people on the site never mattered to me, the user content getting replaced with random stuff made it.. well.. "unsocial", and we had other sites for that (digg->reddit, stumbleupon etc.)
by TheEaterOfSouls | 2025-08-16 22:45:12+00:00
I'm deaf-blind (as in, totally blind with cochlear implants) and a lot of what you're saying reminds me of myself. Any time I encounter someone new, I usually tell them right off the bat that I have major hearing loss, because it's like 95% certain that I'm going to mishear something they say and respond with something that doesn't make sense, and I figure that's the best way to try and avoid confusion. It's much worse if there's even a bit of background noise or echo, and more often than not I can't even tell someone is talking to me unless they go out of their way to get my attention, or we're the only people present. Totally relate to the 'asking questions to figure out who people are' thing, especially now; with the implants it's even harder to distinguish voices than it was with natural hearing. This has caused me to develop crazy social anxiety over the years, and I'm reading this thread with interest. Apologies if you didn't care to read all that, but I find odd social dynamics like ours super fascinating, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of info online about coping, or maybe I just haven't looked hard enough.
by libraryofbabel | 2025-08-16 22:47:08+00:00
I'm not a 10x-er. My job is working on a mature codebase. The results of AI in that situation are mixed, 1.2x if you're lucky.

My recommendation was that it's useful to try the tools on greenfield projects, since they you can see them at their best.

The productivity improvements of AI for greenfield projects are real. It's not all bullshit. It is a huge boost if you're at a small startup trying to find product market fit. If you don't believe that and think it would be faster to do it all manually I don't know what to tell you - go talk to some startup founders, maybe?
by FridgeSeal | 2025-08-16 22:47:10+00:00
The author complains about model picker drop “complexity”, then follows up with an example about how the insurance industry prices their products.

They conclude by asserting that ai-adjacent apps should “get rid of that damn model picker” and “be more like insurance”. As if the insurance industry wasn’t one of the most predatory, parasitic, scummy and user-hostile industries out there.

Please don’t follow this advice, we don’t need _more_ opacity and insurance-like companies.

I also personally think think that the “point it at the mosh of your choice” mechanism will only become _more_ popular, not less.
by timr | 2025-08-16 22:47:42+00:00
"Tech startups" that make enough money to be interesting [1], but do not have the property of being a winner-take-all market, are the truly magical unicorns of software. If you have one, you should covet it and guard it viciously, because otherwise someone with more money is coming to eat your lunch [2][3].

OP wasn't talking about this kind of thing, of course. The phenomenon of hobby projects being "startups" has always been a weird fit.

[1] I define this at least as "supports more than one person's salary in perpetuity," but would probably add some things like margin requirements if I thought about it more. Obviously you can exist as a consultant charging by the hour, and that's not what either of us is talking about.

[2] The only examples of this I've personally ever seen have been dominant players in niche markets with high bars to entry. So they weren't hyper-growth unicorns, but weren't really your definition of "companies", either. You don't get to these kinds of businesses by aiming to be one - you get there by trying for something bigger and topping out the market.

[3] Consider the phenomenon of the small vet clinic, which is rapidly ceasing to exist. Private equity has been steadily hoovering up these relatively high-margin, low-regulation businesses for the same economic reasons that software companies get big. If you try to create a vet clinic, you will be assimilated or crushed by a bigger player with a brand and the ability to undercut your prices.
by clwg | 2025-08-16 22:47:47+00:00
This argument mischaracterizes the notwithstanding clause. Invoking s.33 is highly visible and carries political consequences. It shields a law only from being struck down on certain Charter grounds and must still comply with all other federal and provincial legislation (like PIPEDA).

It’s not perfect, but it does provide some flexibility to accommodate provincial differences. And the concerns people raise about the notwithstanding clause can just as easily occur in countries without it. Personally, I’d be much more concerned if we had FISA courts.
by crdrost | 2025-08-16 22:49:05+00:00
I just want to clarify that, strictly speaking, Paxos is simpler than Raft. Like Paxos is Raft plus "delete the part where the new leader has to be fully caught-up" (which causes an extra weirdness in Raft when the leader got majority adoption of a new log entry but failed to commit it due to network partition) plus "delete the part where the leader election elects the leader, you can do that and it's called multi-paxos, but if your use case isn't big enough you can instead just elect the next log entry, but it doesn't have to have the form "this is our new leader, all hail" (but in practice this is what everyone does).

I think the Raft paper is more approachable for newcomers, but if you are finding Paxos hard to explain and Raft easy to explain, just use the Raft lingo to explain Paxos.
by bigyabai | 2025-08-16 22:49:43+00:00
> Expecting the same basic standards online as in the offline world isn’t authoritarianism — it’s putting children’s lives above the convenience of porn users.

You don't have to pay for the internet. This argument would be novel if it hadn't been refuted 50 years ago by congressmen responding to angry Catholic moms against television profanity.

Does the detestable moral standard of the internet make you angry? Are you horrified by the debauched zeitgeist the free market has converged on? Just Walk Away - It's Free!
by chc4 | 2025-08-16 22:50:00+00:00
It is darkly amusing to me that Paxos is still cited by people as a "good algorithm" to choose and understandable - including the cutesy island metaphor from the paper to appear approachable - and the Raft paper opens with a paragraph more or less going "ok we had a bunch of people try to understand Paxos and none of them could figure it out". Anytime I see someone recommend Paxos I silently am judging if they've actually ever read the paper or just parroting advice from when it was the only game in town.
by aledalgrande | 2025-08-16 22:50:26+00:00
I don't agree with the author. Where is the part about nondeterminism and hallucinations? Drawing a pretty chart doesn't make the argument true. All these benchmarks and competitions are on problems that have a _right answer_. I write most my code entirely through Claude at work and have Claude Max for personal, and I can see every day that even with the right context, it's not certain that the model is going to converge to a decent answer on complex real life issues. At least one thing I do agree on: model growth is not an exponential, like everyone thought when we were on the first leg of it, but a logarithmic.
by lvass | 2025-08-16 22:50:32+00:00
I think this will be very successful. The Rust community seems very hellbent in achieving success at all costs, this includes making every software permissively licensed, while a lot of foundational software is still copyleft. This will likely trigger Gresham's law soon, and the fact that the community is pushing the security argument forward, which is very difficult to measure, is also very powerful, whether security may be a legitimate concern or it's a think of the children situation.
by GeekyBear | 2025-08-16 22:50:37+00:00
> Potentially interesting, but it's not really clear whether this is anything new or not. valgrind + kcachegrind does this too.

Looking at the kcachegrind homepage, it doesn't sound like they are pulling their data directly from the CPU core itself:

> Callgrind uses runtime instrumentation via the Valgrind framework for its cache simulation and call-graph generation.

https://kcachegrind.github.io/html/Home.html

Apple seems to have modified it's core design so that it will stream data to a log file while the code is running.

> Recent Apple silicon devices can capture a processor trace where the CPU stores information about the code it runs, including the branches it takes and the instructions it jumps to. The CPU streams this information to an area on the file system so that you can analyze it with the Processor Trace instrument.
by skeledrew | 2025-08-16 22:50:58+00:00
There's already a lot of research happening for the next thing. The AGI race has been on among not only companies, but also between the largest nations. Everybody's doing their best and then some.

It could very well be that the highest intelligent functionalities requires a closely brain-like substrate. We don't know yet, but we'll get there eventually. And it is very likely to be something emergent, not specifically programmed features as you seem to be insinuating with "... checking [...] and storing results..."
by BuckRogers | 2025-08-16 22:51:37+00:00
Multiple things can be true at the same time you realize. Some problems, such as insufficient AI can have a larger effect on safety, but more data to work with as well as train on always wins. You want lidar.

You keep insisting that cameras are good enough, but it’s empirically possible since safe autonomous driving AI has not been achieved yet to say that cameras alone collect enough data.

The minimum setup without lidar would be cameras, radar, ultrasonic, GPS/GNSS + IMU.

Redundancy is key. With lidar, multiple sensors cover each other’s weaknesses. If LiDAR is blinded by fog, radar steps in.
by mjw1007 | 2025-08-16 22:52:09+00:00
There's still work being done on the Reference, which is being maintained in the same way as it has been since the Rust documentation team was disbanded in 2020. But it's a very long way from being either complete or correct enough to reliably answer questions about Rust-the-language.

After the "write a new spec" plan was abandoned in 2024 the next stated plan was to turn the Reference into the spec, though they never got as far as deciding how that was going to work. That plan lasted six months before they changed direction again. The only practical effect was to add the paragraph identifiers like [destructors.scope.nesting.function-body].

They're currently arguing about whether to write something from scratch or somehow convert the FLS[1] into a spec.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/fls
by kbolino | 2025-08-16 22:53:55+00:00
If you think of a commit as a Merkle tree, then a file's content is a leaf node, and thus has nothing to verify. It either exists or it doesn't. Non-existence creates usability problems, but not verifiability problems.

Of course, remote files can be used to sneak things in, but those things still have to get approved the same as any other commit content. You should not approve PRs etc. that reference remote files you haven't verified. And, while remote storage could be vulnerable to collision attacks in a way that git itself mostly isn't, git-lfs for example already uses SHA-256.
by starchild3001 | 2025-08-16 22:56:05+00:00
I’m baffled by claims that AI has “hit a wall.” By every quantitative measure, today’s models are making dramatic leaps compared to those from just a year ago. It’s easy to forget that reasoning models didn’t even exist a year back!

IMO Gold, Vibe coding with potential implications across sciences and engineering? Those are completely new and transformative capabilities gained in the last 1 year alone.

Critics argue that the era of “bigger is better” is over, but that’s a misreading. Sometimes efficiency is the key, other times extended test-time compute is what drives progress.

No matter how you frame it, the fact is undeniable: the SoTA models today are vastly more capable than those from a year ago, which were themselves leaps ahead of the models a year before that, and the cycle continues.
by giovannibonetti | 2025-08-16 22:57:01+00:00
According to [1], arena allocators provide low-latency high-troughput garbage collection riding on top of "practically unlimited" virtual memory implementations of 64-bit machines.

However, it requires changes in the language level, so no wonder so few languages like Zig implement it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403195
by roxolotl | 2025-08-16 22:57:54+00:00
I’d honestly say it feels better at most of them. It seems way more human in most of these responses. If the goal is genuine artificial intelligence this response to #5 is way better than the others. It is significantly less useful than the others but it also more human and correct of a response.

Q: “Ugh I hate math, integration by parts doesn't make any sense”

A: “Don't worry, many people feel the same way about math. Integration by parts can be confusing at first, but with a little practice it becomes easier to understand. Remember, there is no one right way to do integration by parts. If you don't understand how to do it one way, try another. The most important thing is to practice and get comfortable with the process.”
by ranger207 | 2025-08-16 23:04:50+00:00
A couple modern and related games to the ones in the article are

* War for the Overworld: a modern version of Dungeon Keeper

* KeeperRL: Dungeon Keeper but as a traditional roguelike

* Two Point Hospital: modern Theme Hospital

* Galacticare: Theme Hospital in space; the big mechanical difference is that different alien species have different requirements

* Project Hospital: Theme Hospital with realistic treatments and multiple floors
by positron26 | 2025-08-16 23:05:24+00:00
Circles was a killer feature. And then I never really used it. In hindsight, any SNS begins as a megaphone and if it can't make statements in culture, it doesn't exist. It's not actually about the individuals. Sure, people want to post things, but they want to be feeding into something that does stuff. I don't think Google ever made that case. It was pure chicken and egg with no ice breakers.
by keeda | 2025-08-16 23:05:32+00:00
>We've established nothing of the sort.

Oh no we have. Your original these was based on the premise that "just copying numbers" is not "victimless". So now why is there even a concern that money is being transferred out of bank accounts or data being decrypted without consent? Aren't they "just numbers"?

>The effort invested into creation of value is often completely irrelevant, even in copyright law. Many countries do not subscribe to the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, USA included. The ones that do seem to reserve its application for specific contexts.

I know. But even if you had inherited the money in your bank account through no effort of your own, you would prefer to not share your credentials.

So maybe you want to think about why you're OK with others' "numbers" being copied around but why you're so concerned about your numbers being copied around. I mean, "just numbers," right? :-)

You also seem to be misunderstanding what "publish" means. I hate that it has come down to dictionary meanings, but here's what https://www.dictionary.com/browse/publish says:

"1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public."

Note the bit about "for sale". Just because it's made available does not mean it's available for free.
by nkurz | 2025-08-16 23:05:36+00:00
As 'GeekyBear' implies in a sibling comment, valgrind works with an emulation of an ideal processor rather than directly on the actual CPU. Sometimes this gives you a good idea of how the program will actually run, and sometimes it doesn't. As processors became more complex, it got farther and farther from the truth. Personally, I started in the Valgrind era and stopped using it as soon as better tools using native instrumentation became available. If Apple's approach works as well as described, it is much better than anything from that era.
by empressplay | 2025-08-16 23:07:26+00:00
Despite having almost all of the prerequisite conditions (heart murmur, lazy eye, left-dominant, hernia, poor motor skills etc.) this was ruled out for me when I was a child due to exhibiting a high-IQ (~130), and I was repeatedly diagnosed with autism, despite being outgoing and high-EQ (and horribly naive!).

When I got older I began to develop connective tissue disorders and spasticity, which were incapacitating until I found treatment. I was diagnosed with EDS but that may also have been not-quite-correct, since apparently these issues are also common in WS.

Also, it apparently _is_ possible for people with WS to also have higher-than-average IQs. God, life is so frustrating sometimes!
by mananaysiempre | 2025-08-16 23:08:22+00:00
Finally, a processor manufacturer defects from the obfuscatory equilibrium. Granted, Apple’s processor people are not saints—I’ve yet to see even a full table of throughputs, latencies, and port loads from them, let alone an accurate CPU model—but I welcome anything that might maybe, hopefully, pretty please start a race of giving more accurate data to people doing low-level optimization.
by Macha | 2025-08-16 23:09:13+00:00
It used to link to Putty _and_ to the domain owner's competing software:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170822083048/http://www.putty....

The domain owner seems to feel he was providing a service to putty by providing the short domain name and feels slighted that they are moving to have their own now that he is taking actions that they find more objectionable than just also linking to his competitor, but to be honest it always seemed some unethical squatting to me, based on the Putty devs not having the time to complete a UDRP process.