MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Atlas667 | 2025-08-27 21:42:21+00:00
To laud Afghan mujahideen with their verified acid attacks on women is insane on your part. Afghanistan was a monarchy before the people overthrew their monarchs for socialism and before the americans funded their extremists, who you praise.

The Afghan socialists were fighting monarchies, warlords(tribal land lords) and even shitty socialist leaders. - Figures of Soviet deaths are overblown to include non-births and even Nazi deaths, that is the state of anti-communist propaganda these days (right now). There is no denying that Soviets made mistakes, I am no apologist, but the western narrative is wrong on so many accounts that it discredits itself. A country trying to industrialize while undergoing a civil war and foreign attacks had a hard time organizing their agriculture under a drought. It is objectively a massive failure, but it is not inherent to socialist democracy.

What you fail to mention about the world wars is that both world wars were caused by capitalist tensions between nations. Both world wars can be fully attributed to capitalists enrichment and their contradictions between nation states. These are the gashes in humanity caused by capitalist colonialism. -

Let me tell you, Socialism is not something you vote for, its something you do. Democracy takes the efforts of society to make happen.

Neighborhood councils are a fundamental part of socialist theory. Ask yourself why you've never heard of it? Who produces the media content that gets promoted and published? Is it your neighbors with their social interests? Or is it massive capitalist publishers with their interests? The censorship in capitalist societies is about monopoly control and volume/amplification.

Capitalists are a fundamental threat to mass democracy.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-08-27 21:42:32+00:00
>Well, if that's true then I wouldn't bother being a landlord. Being a landlord just means your name is on the title of a building such that it allows you to extract money from people who need a place to live.

And, I expect, as a point of fact... you haven't bothered to be a landlord.

>It's just how our economy is set up, and, like everyone, I plan to try and take advantage of it.

That's how you perceive it. But the reality of it is that while many are hustling, few are prospering, few enough even that reasonable people might wonder if the few successful ones are the result of luck more than having figured out the get-rich-quick thing that everyone's been trying to figure out for millennia. Good luck, I suppose.
by garthwebb | 2025-08-27 21:42:44+00:00
Small nit, I worked on TypePad directly and it was very influenced by Moveable Type (and maybe some copied code) but it wasn't an instance of Moveable Type. E.g. there was never a time where you could patch TypePad with a MoveableType update. The architecture transition was primarily to stop rebuilding pages after every edit, but that also ended up being a good excuse to try to clean up a bunch of other things too.
by kkfx | 2025-08-27 21:42:47+00:00
Essentially, Alphabet is launching its own blockchain for its own stablecoin. This wouldn't be a particularly interesting news if we only consider some current posts on HN about crypto's and Trump's announcement about scaling up in CRO/Crypto.com. However, it is interesting because of the text contained in the linked article: the admission that fractional reserve is madness, that makes people lose faith in fiat currencies, and faith is essentially the main underlying asset that holds them together, because States no longer have enough legitimacy in the eyes of the general population, and Hayek's idea of returning to nth private currencies competing with each other, with all the infrastructure, of course, to switch between them and the regulatory uncertainty surrounding them.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-08-27 21:42:50+00:00
My personal view is that there are broadly two groups of people, and thus two perspectives, related to the AI hype. I call them the Beneficiaries, and the Investors.

Beneficiaries are the ones who care about the actual tech and what it can do for them. Investors are the ones who care about making money off the tech. For the Beneficiaries, AI hype is about right where it should be, given the demonstrable power of the tech itself. For Investors, it may be a dangerous bubble - but then I myself am a Beneficiary, not an Investor, so I don't care.

I don't care which companies get burned on this, which investors will lose everything - businesses come and gone, but foundational inventions remain. The bubble will burst, and then the second wave of companies will recycle what the first wave left; the tech will continue to be developed and become even more useful.

Or put another way: I don't care which of the contestants wins a tunnel-digging race. I only care about the tunnels being dug.

See e.g. history of rail lines, and arguably many more big infrastructure projects: people who fronted the initial capital did not see much of a return, but the actual infrastructure they left behind as they folded was taken over and built upon by subsequent waves of companies.
by Mond_ | 2025-08-27 21:43:06+00:00
If someone else ships a 100% solution, or a solution that doesn't have the problems your potentially half-baked "80% solution" does, then you might be in trouble.

There's a fine line here: it matters a lot whether we're talking about a "sloppy" 80% solution that later causes problems and is incredibly hard to fix, or if it's a clean minimal subset, which restricts you (by being the minimal thing everyone agrees on) but doesn't have any serious design flaws.
by ranger_danger | 2025-08-27 21:43:13+00:00
> The statute apparently supporting Border Patrol’s authority within the border provides agents the authority to “board and search for aliens” on any “aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle” within a “reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” (later defined as 100 miles in 1953)

> The regulation also provides exceptions to the 100-mile rule whereby the Commissioner of CBP or the Assistant Secretary for ICE may declare a larger distance to be “reasonable” on a case-by-case basis

> The same regulation also authorizes CBP to enter private property, other than residences, within 25 miles of the border without a warrant.

I know that's not 100, but I think it's still "less protection" than people would reasonably assume there to be.

> In cases testing the Fourth Amendment limits of Border Patrol’s authority to conduct warrantless searches of those entering the country at ports of entry (including functional border equivalents, such as international airports), the courts have used a balancing test whereby the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of entrants are weighed against the sovereign’s security interests at the border.31 The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.

> Although nothing in the Fourth Amendment (or Constitution generally) provides for such a principle, this doctrine has become known as the “border search exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The precise limits to this exception are disputed and continue to be tested

How is this not clear that it is not a settled issue, and generally gives them greater permission to search (e.g. without a warrant) than say, a vehicle that's 500 miles away from any external boundary (at the least, a port of entry or international airport)?
by hungarianhc | 2025-08-27 21:43:19+00:00
Hey, we're launching a free tier for our new serverless vector search platform. It's also the fastest cloud based vector search platform. Here are some benchmarks.

- P95 Latency: 38ms with >90% recall on an e-commerce 10M vector dataset (2,688 dimensions) - P95 Latency: 32ms with >95% recall on MS Marco 138M vector dataset (1024 dimensions) - Indexing Speed: 48 minutes on the Deep1B 1B vectors dataset (96 dimensions)

Would love your thoughts. Give it a try. No credit card needed.
by bonoboTP | 2025-08-27 21:43:37+00:00
"What is or isn't art" didn't simply become a topic because people like to philosophize about the meaning of words. Over the 20th century the art world took fascination with the subversive, transgressive, the postmodern, rejecting authority and standards of beauty that were deemed limiting and oppressive etc. One direct contributing component was photography. Skill of realistic depiction became deemphasized, with mass production, plastic etc., the focus became abstract ideas. It was also a protest against the system that brought the two world wars.

It was considered "anti-art" at the time, but basically took over the elite art world itself and the overall movement had huge impact on what is considered art today, on performance art, sculptures, architecture that looks intentionally upsetting etc.

It's not useful to try to think of the sides as "expansive definitionists" who consider pretty much anything art just because, and "restrictive definitionists" who only consider classic masterpieces art. The divide is much more specific and has intellectual foundation and history to it.

The same motivations that led to the expansive definition in the personally transgressive, radical and subversive sense today logically and coherently oppose the pictures and texts generated in huge centralized profit-oriented companies via mechanization. Presumably if AI was more of a distributed hacker-ethos-driven thing that shows the middle finger to Disney copyrightism, they may be pro-AI.
by petralithic | 2025-08-27 21:44:09+00:00
Curious technology? People were foaming at the mouth about "license concerns" when GitHub Copilot was first announced, saying they're going to boycott Microsoft. But just like all things, over time people realize they're not as good or bad as initially thought. I noticed this too with media generation, people on Twitter were very mad about it and now many of them use Photoshop's AI features.
by jaybrendansmith | 2025-08-27 21:44:17+00:00
I had 20 leeches in the bottoms of both feet when I was a kid. They were borrowed in there...there was no removing them manually. Fortunately my quick-thinking parent had spray mosquito repellant - sprayed the bottom of my feet and the leeches all let go and crawled out in about 15 seconds. So use spray mosquito repellant is my personal recommendation.
by kenhwang | 2025-08-27 21:44:30+00:00
In theory, yes, if those shareholders each keep not attending the meeting called by the other shareholder, they could both independently pass or undo each other's actions.

In practice in a hostile situation, they'll be courting the remaining shareholders to gain majority and won't miss those meetings, which tend to also have rules about how quickly or often they can be called.

It is also legal and typical for the bylaws to include poison pill provisions that would automatically protect the existing >33% shareholder, preventing a second >33% shareholder from existing (thus requiring multiple smaller existing shareholders to join forces to overthrow the largest shareholder).
by jacobsenscott | 2025-08-27 21:44:53+00:00
I've only used circleci and github actions for this, but in both cases precompiled rubies are available. On circleci you run your tests on a ruby docker image with the right version of ruby installed. On Github Actions I use https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby, which installs an compiled ruby in a second or two, and also properly caches your gems. I think if someone's CI environment is building ruby from source they are doing it wrong.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-27 21:44:57+00:00
> it's still a human at the end of the day picking what to prompt

I think that 'dutch people skating on a lake' or 'girl with a pearl earring' or 'dutch religious couple in front of their barn' without having an AI trained on various works will produce just noise. And if those particular works (you know the ones, right?) were not part of the input then the AI would never produce anything looking like the original, no matter how specific you made the prompt. It takes human input to animate it, and even then what it produces to me does not look original whereas any five year old is able to produce entirely original works of art, none of which can be reduced to a prompt.

Prompts are instructions, they are settings on a mixer, they are not the music produced by the artists at the microphones.
by metalliqaz | 2025-08-27 21:45:08+00:00
I know!

From TFA:

Personally, Arial has always had a pretty positive connotation for me. In the late ’90s/early 2000s web design scene, there were no custom fonts, so your choices were basically Arial, Verdana, Times New Roman, and a few other default fonts. Arial always struck me as the most plain and the least snobby choice. You know, in the early 2000s Helvetica was the first font that I watched become very cool and then kind of cringey within a very short lifecycle. Helvetica was like an Eames chair or something — a shorthand for people to say “I'm interested in design,” which then became lame almost immediately afterwards. But Arial has always been kind of lame [laughs]. In that way, it’s stayed the same.

So he is apparently aware of the fart-sniffing cringe of certain design choices and yet... he does it anyway.
by ChadNauseam | 2025-08-27 21:45:26+00:00
> We need to fix the fact that you can't write `.into::<u64>()` to disambiguate types.

This confused me too at first. You have to do `u64::from(_)` right? It makes sense in a certain way, similar to how you have to do `Vec::<u64>::new()` rather than `Vec::new::<u64>()`, but it is definitely more annoying for `into`.
by m463 | 2025-08-27 21:45:38+00:00
I've listened to plenty of smart people who have what seems contrary viewpoints that seem to be reasonable after explanation.

for example:

1) more expensive energy of any kind is extremely harmful to society

EDIT: more expensive energy reduces prosperity for everyone. Renewable energy can and should be competitive and cost effective.

2) automatic filing of taxes is more harmful long-term than individuals filing taxes manually

EDIT: automatic filing will lead to silent frictionless automatic tax increases, forever.

3) government funding of internet/broadband/etc is harmful

EDIT: picking winners is more harmful that makeing good public policies.

it's just hard to reason though the details, though it is worth the effort.

My point is that there could be valid viewpoints that are not self-serving/greed-based.
by vlovich123 | 2025-08-27 21:46:09+00:00
If all you're doing is immutable access, you are perfectly free to immutably borrow the value as many times as you want (even in a multithreaded environment provided T is Send):

let v = SomeValue { ... } foo(&v); foo(&v); eprintln!("{}", v.xyz);

You have to take a reference. I'm not sure how you'd like to represent "I pass a non-reference value to a function but still retain ownership without copying" - like what if foo stored the value somewhere? Without a clone/copy to give an isolated instance, you've potentially now got two owners - foo and the caller of foo which isn't legal as ownership is strictly unique. If F# lets you do this, it's likely only because it's generating an implicit copy for you (which Rust is will do transparently for you when you declare your type inheriting Copy).

But otherwise I'm not clear what ownership semantics you're trying to express - would be helpful if you could give an example.
by Tuna-Fish | 2025-08-27 21:46:31+00:00
You can pass a value that is neither copy or clone, but then it gets moved into the callee, and is no longer available in the caller.

Note that calling by value is expensive for large types. What those other languages do is just always call by reference, which you seem to confuse for calling by value.

Rust can certainly not do what you would prefer. In order to typecheck a function, Rust only needs the code of that function, and the type defitions of everything else, the contents of the functions don't matter. This is a very good rule, which makes code much easier to read.
by qball | 2025-08-27 21:46:52+00:00
Humans haven't had agriculture for twenty thousand years yet.

Also, this line of inquiry is still just tilting at windmills; "somehow, future Fred Flintstone manages to get a hold of equipment capable of digging out a mile of concrete and yet somehow not know what radiation is" is not a productive line of thinking at best and a bad-faith argument at worst.

Humanity's mechanical capacity to dig that deep actually post-dates its discovery of radioactivity, too. If they have the technology for it for them digging it up to become an issue, they'll be able to identify, trivially, that it is an issue.
by thayne | 2025-08-27 21:46:59+00:00
> This is a bad direction, and we need to turn back now.

I don't deny there are some problems with package managers, but I also don't want to go back to a world where it is a huge pain to add any dependency, which leads to projects wasting effort on implementing things themselves, often in a buggy and/or inefficient way, and/or using huge libraries that try to do everything, but do nothing well.
by bonoboTP | 2025-08-27 21:48:07+00:00
Pollock was a part of a coherent intellectual movement across all of art. You can't productively discuss whether it's art without focusing on that. He didn't just wake up one day and think to himself that it would be fun to throw paint on the canvas like this and then people looked and wondered if that's art or not.

It was the intellectual statement conveyed through that medium that made him famous.
by int_19h | 2025-08-27 21:48:36+00:00
I'm not suggesting that tariffs are the answer here - especially as enacted - but at the same time, people defending "free trade" (which is anything but given that the movement of labor across borders is very much not free) should be cognizant of what it is exactly they are saying when using cliches such as "comparative advantage".

To answer the broader question, if you believe in markets at all, then demand creates supply, and supply for cheap (and therefore abused) labor is arguably at least in part responsible for economies like China being so shitty to your average worker. If all Western countries would e.g. slap tariffs on goods imported from places with poor labor rights, but they were specifically contingent on that (and not just a list of countries that our Great Leader has a problem with), that would put the pressure on the Chinese government to raise the standards to remain competitive. That would be the kind of tariff I would support, and I don't buy the argument that if we don't allow for such shitty jobs, the alternatives would be even worse - this is exactly the kind of attitude that creates a global race to the bottom that is the major driver for enshittification all around.
by arghwhat | 2025-08-27 21:49:00+00:00
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do this. Even if you know, probably don't. It works, and is a regular industrial process, sure, but you're trying to perform controlled melting of the protective housing of one of the many, tightly packed chemical energy bombs you're sticking together. Doesn't take too much of a mistake to go very wrong.

If you're building a battery pack in this day and age, use something like LiFePo prismatic cells and bolt-on busbars instead - way less dangerous chemistry, way less spicy process - but realistically speaking just buy the premade packs. For normal sizes, they're not more expensive (but don't buy the "too good to be true" ones) and means not having to deal with entirely unprotected battery terminals eager to give you a Very Bad Time.
by zahirbmirza | 2025-08-27 21:49:31+00:00
This app is really quite fascinating as well as amazing. I have been using it for a week now. I do like how it is so good with Swift and iOS; you have done a great job of removing so much of the confusion that LLMs must face when trying to develop for a demanding platform. The API insight the app has is a testament to your deep background and foresight into iOS development. I really love this.

Also, I have been taking the code and advice from Bitrig into Cursor, because it solves problems Cursor struggles with no matter what model it calls.

Your work is empowering, but more than that, it is inspiring, because I can now start to envisage what computer human interaction will look like in the near future.

You have taken away a layer of complexity to creation and that is to be applauded. I think your work is a landmark. I think Bitrig will unleash a new era of creative expression. I wish that I was part of your team.
by kstrauser | 2025-08-27 21:50:04+00:00
Since some idiotic courts have ruled a website’s Terms of Service to be legally binding, why can’t I just say no one from Mississippi is allowed to access my site and be done with it?

I’m not being glib. Honestly, why can’t I? There’s precedent for saying that’s unauthorized access, so the feds (not the state; “Interstate Commerce Clause” and all that) should prosecute the visitor for violating my ToS.
by vlovich123 | 2025-08-27 21:50:04+00:00
If you have an async lock that can be held across await points, your motivation to spawn_block decreases. Additionally, even though the long running lock would be a problem, APIs that aren't taking that lock continue to work vs the entire HTTP service being hung which is a huge difference (e.g. health monitoring would time out making the service seem unresponsive vs 1 highly contended task just waiting on a lock).
by neandrake | 2025-08-27 21:50:15+00:00
Rust caught the lock being held across an await boundary, but without further context I'd hedge there's still a concurrency issue there if the solution was to release the lock before the await.

Presumably the lock is intended to be used for blocking until the commit is created, which would only be guaranteed after the await. Releasing the lock after submitting the transaction to the database but before getting confirmation that it completed successfully would probably result in further edge cases. I'm unfamiliar with rust's async, but is there a join/select that should be used to block, after which the lock should be unlocked?
by Dylan16807 | 2025-08-27 21:50:17+00:00
> If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't.

As a response to someone talking about customers traveling and needing support. But yeah geoblocks can occur in different situations with different appropriate resolutions.

> In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.

If you provided zero service at all, they should get their money back. And calling a chargeback in that situation "friendly fraud" is ridiculous.

If they weren't even asking for a refund and using a chargeback out of spite, that's bad, but that's a different problem from fraud.

For someone that did sign up via VPN, would they be able to access the cancellation page via VPN?
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-08-27 21:50:44+00:00
That was the case for the company that I worked at.

The official QA organization was very powerful, and had no compunctions about stopping an entire product line, for one bug.

When that happened, the department responsible for the bug would find themselves against the wall.

As a result, all the software departments had pretty big teams of testers, who would validate the software, before it was released to the purview of the QA organization.

It could be pretty restricting, but we always felt confident that what we shipped, worked.