MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by BurningFrog | 2025-08-10 16:49:55+00:00
My claim is just that wages are prices which arise from the same supply vs demand dynamic as any other price. This important truth is sadly very controversial, which I think is really damaging to society.

Of course, I can't prove that from scratch in a HN comment. What I can do is point out that in the science studying this, it is an uncontroversial fact.

I didn't substantiate that, which made it less convincing, but here is an Economics textbook saying the same thing: https://pressbooks.oer.hawaii.edu/principlesofmicroeconomics...

I know, you can think of an externality. Trust me, Economists can also think of externalities, far more than you or me. In general, they just add interesting nuance to the supply/demand model. They don't completely invalidate it.

But I can't easily demonstrate that, so I suspect I have not changed your mind.
by da_chicken | 2025-08-10 16:50:20+00:00
I've thought a lot about this one. It really is the message that matters, not the grammar. It's the song, not the notes.

It's also that language is pretty inherently a very fuzzy, ambiguous, and imprecise thing. If I say, "I've left my cup on the table," then you know what I mean even though you've never seen my cup nor my table. Everyone reading that sentence is equally convinced that it's quite concrete, even though everyone is also imagining a completely different cup on a completely different table.

Even more fascinating, it's likely that nobody that ever reads this post will have met me in person. We have not specifically agreed in advance what our words mean, merely relied upon collective agreement based solely on historic usage.

Honestly, the idea that two people who have never met, never seen each other, maybe never even lived in the same hemisphere, might speak the same language and be able to converse freely is an astonishing feat of magic.
by jeroenhd | 2025-08-10 16:50:24+00:00
I don't think people expect one income to support a family anymore. Two working parents has become the norm for all but the highest earners.

But yes, two teenagers may very well need to support a family. All it takes is one broken condom and being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's not a lot of upward job mobility for most people. We can't all be CEOs. Even if that teenager has aspirations for a bigger career, they'll have expenses like college tuition, books, and travel.
by securesaml | 2025-08-10 16:50:33+00:00
For me, I don't think that the application is public exposed is really the problem (i.e. not in intranet).

I think the real problem is that these applications (Entra ID) are multi-tenant, rather than a dedicated single-tenant instance.

Here, we have critical identity information that is being stored and shared in the same database with other tenants (malicious attackers). This makes multi-tenancy violations common. Even if Entra ID had a robust mechanism to perform tenancy checks i.e. object belongs to some tenant, there are still vulnerabilities. For example, as you saw in the blog post, multi-tenant requests (requests that span >= 2 tenants), are fundamentally difficult to authorize. A single mistake, can lead to complete compromise.

Compare this to a single tenant app. First, the attacker would need to be authenticated as an user within your tenant. This makes pre-auth attacks more difficult.
by roscas | 2025-08-10 16:50:56+00:00
Only compared with qwen3-coder and it's very bad.

First comparison was a 500 line Python program that 5 minuts later, gpt-oss:20b was silent. Canceled.

Put the same program on qwen3-coder and in about 20 to 30 seconds it made the summary of what the program does. Just top!

But other examples were so bad, I did not removed yet so I can do a few more tests but I will remove it soon.

Qwen3.coder:30b is the best model I tested so far. Almost every prompt has output in one second or a little more.

Sometimes I put the same prompt in ChatGPT and Perplexity and almost everytime I get what I need from qwen3.

Since it is really fast and with quality output, that is almost my go to for help.
by throw10920 | 2025-08-10 16:51:06+00:00
> I see nothing in your link that indicates rational is the opposition of emotional, or that rational presupposes a lack of emotion, or that rationality is incompatible with emotion, or that rationality is inversely proportional to emotionality.

I guess I have to spell it out for you:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

> (of behaviour, ideas, etc.) based on reason rather than emotions

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/english-language-learni...

> 1. Rational decisions and thoughts are based on reason rather than on emotion.

> 2. A rational person is someone who is sensible and is able to make decisions based on intelligent thinking rather than on emotion.

Meanwhile, this incorrectly conflates emotional responses with using empathy to predict how people would respond:

> the most rational thing to do in that moment was apply empathy to understand the man's emotions and choose a good tact that takes them into consideration.

By separating them, you correctly stated that rational thinking is not the same as empathy. Using empathy to understand someone's feelings and how they'll respond to an action is a good thing, but it is factually (see above definitions) and categorically not the same as using your brain and being rational.

It's hard to understand how you read that story above and didn't realize that what's going on is that the observer uses empathy to obtain information to use as inputs to a rational decision process. The empathy is NOT part of rational thinking or analysis, any more than learning some information from a textbook and applying that logically makes textbooks part of rational thinking.

Above, you said:

> understand the critical nature of things like empathy in rational analysis

...stating that empathy and emotions are part of rational analysis. They're not, as proved by both my statements, and by the dictionary definitions I was able to find rather easily.

At this point, it'd be better for you to admit that you're wrong and do some self-reflection than continue to argue with the dictionary, because it's clear that either you're not speaking the English that the rest of the world is, or that you're using the words correctly but literally don't comprehend what they mean.
by magicalhippo | 2025-08-10 16:51:42+00:00
I was curious about the analog to digital converter stages, and how it would fare in the radiation.

Turns out they're a bit lucky I guess. As noted in the paper[1]:

Transient errors affecting one or a few data samples due to SEUs can be tolerated and corrected by offline data analysis since the LAr pulse shape is analytically known.

This was used in their design:

The architecture incorporates a 9-subrange (3.2 bits) MDAC before a 12-bit, two-stage SAR, with the MDAC used to relax the dynamic range requirement for the SAR.

The MDAC and SAR are memory-less and their states are determined by the 40-MHz precision sampling clock and an intermediate 80-MHz internal clock signal. Therefore, any radiation-induced upset will only affect an individual sample.

[1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11017335
by lossolo | 2025-08-10 16:52:25+00:00
> Neither are memory safe, so if you're going by the "safe in practice" definition then it has to be verified experimentally. Hence - maybe.

This is a ridiculous claim that it’s only "maybe". It’s so obvious, it’s like saying cars are not safe to drive, but if you use seatbelts and have airbags, then MAYBE they’re safer. I have verified this experimentally, like millions of other people. This argument is totally in bad faith, given the sea of CVEs caused by memory safety issues in C++ versus the almost virtually non-existent problem in safe Go in practice.

> Your [1] is an LLVM bug.

Yes, unfixed for two years. I don’t have this bug in Go, for example, so why, as a Rust user, should I care whose fault it is? If you buy a car and the engine doesn’t work as it should in some cases, do you accept the manufacturer saying, "Well, that’s the engine manufacturer’s issue, so all is OK"?

> As for [2] yeah there ARE bugs, wrong flags, bus they are fixing it and triggering most requires stuff like nightly, hitting bugs in specific hardware/LLVM, or very contrived trait constructions.

That went fast from "proven to be safe" to "yeah there are bugs".

> Honestly it goes like this. C -> C++ --> Zig ------> Go --------------------------------------------------------------------------> Rust --> Ada Core

And how did you arrive at these numbers of "—"? Did you "verify them experimentally"? Because I claim otherwise:

C --> C++ ----> Zig --------------> Go ----> Rust --> Ada Core

can you prove me wrong or prove you are right? You can't. It seems we can only agree on the ranking of the languages.
by kristjansson | 2025-08-10 16:52:35+00:00
To be clear I was comparing ggml-org/ggml to ggml-org/llama.cpp/ggml to respond to the earlier thing. Ollama carries an additional patchset on top of ggml-org/ggml.

> [ggml] is all the value

That’s what gets me about Ollama - they have real value too! Docker is just the kernel’s cgroups/chroots/iptables/… but it deserves a lot of credit for articulating and operating those on behalf of the user. Ollama deserves the same. But they’re consistently kinda weird about owning just that?
by reactordev | 2025-08-10 16:52:36+00:00
I’m in the same boat. It’s faster mentally to grok the type of something when it comes first. The name of the thing is less important (but still important!) than the type of the thing and so I prefer types to come before names.

From a parser perspective, it’s easier to go name first so you can add it to the AST and pass it off to the type determiner to finish the declaration. So I get it. In typescript I believe it’s this way so parsers can just drop types all together to make it compatible with JavaScript (it’s still trivial to strip typing, though why would you?) without transpiling.

In go, well, you have even more crazier conventions. Uppercase vs lowercase public vs private, no inheritance, a gc that shuns away performance minded devs.

In the end, I just want a working std library that’s easy to use so I can build applications. I don’t care for:

type Add<A extends number, B extends number> = [ …Array<A>, …Array<B>, ][“length”]

This is the kind of abuse of the type system that drives me bonkers. You don’t have to be clever, just export a function. I don’t need a type to represent every state, I need intent.
by fxwin | 2025-08-10 16:53:14+00:00
Then the "Examples" section should include a "How to build a simple MCP server using this framework" section. Instead, it contains an example for an "MCP client" (however the implementation has little to do with what the MCP spec says a client does), and an "example of a custom module for the MCP server" (which MCP server? we haven't built one yet), which (after checking implementation) does not conform to the MCP spec for tools (see https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-06-18/ser...).

Unless I'm missing something, this has very little to nothing to do with MCP.
by sudhirb | 2025-08-10 16:53:16+00:00
>Ah yes. An unverifiable claim followed by "just google them yourself".

Some agent scaffolding performs better on benchmarks than others given the same underlying base model - see SWE Bench and Terminal Bench for examples.

Some may find certain background agents better than others simply because of UX. Some background agents have features that others don't - like memory systems, MCP, 3rd party integrations, etc.

I maintain it is easy to search for examples of background coding agents that are not Jules or Copilot. For me, searching "background coding agents" on google or duckduckgo returns some of the other examples that I mentioned.
by zozbot234 | 2025-08-10 16:53:21+00:00
> Erlang, at least the programming model, lends itself well to this, where each process has a local heap.

That loosely describes plenty of multithreaded workloads, perhaps even most of them. A thread that doesn't keep its memory writes "local" to itself as much as possible will run into heavy contention with other threads and performance will suffer a lot. It's usual to try and write multithreaded workloads in a way that tries to minimize the chance of contention, even though this may not involve a literal "one local heap per core".
by cge | 2025-08-10 16:54:11+00:00
It’s possible that Apple really did a disservice to soldered RAM by making it a key profit-increasing option for them, exploiting the inability of buyers to buy RAM elsewhere or upgrade later, but in turn making soldered RAM seem like a scam, when it does have fundamental advantages, as you point out.

Going from 64 GB to 128 GB of soldered RAM on the Framework Desktop costs €470, which doesn’t seem that much more expensive than fast socketed RAM. Going from 64 GB to 128 GB on a Mac Studio costs €1000.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-10 16:54:14+00:00
This markup language isn't structure for prompts for LLMs, it is structure for conventional programs that need to construct prompts for LLMs.

Conventional programs using structured templates with deterministic rules to construct output is... not new.

(Jinja templates have been widely used for communicating structure to assemble conversation history, tool calls, etc., into promots for open models for a while.)
by nine_k | 2025-08-10 16:54:30+00:00
I personally find Go's bare syntax harder to parse when reading, and I spend more time reading code than typing it (even while writing).

An excessively terse syntax becomes very unforgiving, when a typo is not noticed by the compiler / language server, but results in another syntactically correct but unexpected program, or registers as a cryptic error much farther downstream. Cases in point: CoffeeScript, J.
by giulioco | 2025-08-10 16:54:30+00:00
yes, you're correct — in this case however, the platforms themselves do most of the work to define what a community is for them (some platforms, like bluesky, don't have the concept of communities _yet_) - I just collect them...

in general though, the goal of this tool is the one you're describing: aggregating communities that have the same topic/niche across different platforms
by snapplebobapple | 2025-08-10 16:54:43+00:00
I mostly agree with you but I do think the issue is a lot more complex than that. I do think there is a valid criticism based on market power abuse at the minimum wage in the food sector, for example, especially with the rise of chains over the last several decades and with labor markets at the low end being much more geographically constrained than most analysis of this situation appreciates. In my opinion there is a kernel of truth to the wage should be higher than minimum in many places if the market was functioning properly and had stronger competition but I kind of doubt that's more than a couple dollars and that is being used to push through bad leftist policies to push wages of their special interest groups up when their other policies are highly inflationary in the costs of basic needs like housing as well, which actively harms these people. it would probably help the low end a lot more having policy that generally pushes down the costs of basics (like getting rid of most of the zoning/approvals processes for building anything so people can build whatever fits the economics of the area on whatever land they want in areasonably short period of time, removing carbon taxes, sales taxes on basics, etc).
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-08-10 16:54:45+00:00
The most productive things I grow (temperate/cool climate in coastal BC) and then actually eat/enjoy:

- Zucchini always grows more than we can use, but they're really good. I pick them very small (~6") so the plant continues producing and growing more

- Chard grows year-round and is very resilient and low-maintenance. It's great in casseroles, soups, sautees, and other cooked formats

- Kale is similar. It'll just keep on giving

- Bush beans are amazing in summer, and if you've got vertical space, pole beans can be incredible producers too. My 8 foot raised bed has a single row of pole beans, and I've been harvesting from them for about 6 weeks with plenty more to come. This single row is very densely planted, but I feed it heavily and ensure it's fully exposed to the sun. With enough nutrients and water, you'll get pounds of beans. Again I pick them relatively small and often

- Nasturtiums make a beautiful flower but the leaves and flowers are incredible in salads, and their seed pods can be used to make a really delicious pickle/ferment as well. Throw them in hanging baskets and use them to make fun salads

- Scallions are a fun one that can be densely planted and only need 6" or so of depth. Bulb onions can be a bit more sensitive and demanding, but scallions are pretty easy going. I stagger the plantings throughout spring so I can harvest bunches of them every few weeks. They never seem to do poorly

I grow lots of other stuff but I don't always eat or enjoy them as much as these things. One exception is lettuces and other greens/herbs, but I grow those hydroponically indoors because it allows for a system that makes timing and harvesting much easier so I'm more likely to ensure it doesn't go to waste
by umanwizard | 2025-08-10 16:55:07+00:00
I don’t really get why one is in the wrong order? Maybe we’re parsing them differently somehow. The meaning reads identically to me although the parse tree is different.

Benzodiazepines have a similar effect to [the effect of] alcohol

Vs.

Benzodiazepines have an effect [which is] similar to [the effect of] alcohol.
by godelski | 2025-08-10 16:56:30+00:00
I think of language like a lossy encoder-decoder system.

You compress/encode your thoughts into words. The the listener/reader decompresses/decodes your words into thoughts. As long as we don't think thoughts and words are the same thing, then yeah, you're right.

I think this also helps with communication in general because it forces you to think more about what someone is saying. There's no way you can put all your thoughts into words. Decoding is highly affected by prior knowledge, culture, and all that jazz. It's why you can make a confusing array of unintelligible noises and gestures at a friend and they'll understand but everyone else around is left confused. I think this also explains a lot of fights on the internet, as it is easy to misinterpret and with no perfect encoding it's hard to write to an audience of everyone.
by aeonik | 2025-08-10 16:57:39+00:00
It's more like strapping on a exoskeleton suit with a jetpack.

It makes your existing strength and mobility greater, but don't be surprised if you fly into space that you will suffocate,

or if you fly over an ocean and run out gas, that you'll sink to the bottom,

or if you fly the suit in your fine glassware shop with patrons in the store, that your going to break and burn everything/everyone in there.
by snapplebobapple | 2025-08-10 16:57:42+00:00
That's not true. You are seeing a massive bubble in AI infrastructure unfold that is gobbling up gpus faster than we are increasing supply of gpus. That bubble will pop at some point (probably soon) and things will get more normalized int hat market too (unless that pop coincides with something really stupid happening like China invading Taiwan, which would take out massive amounts of production capacity)
by unstatusthequo | 2025-08-10 16:57:51+00:00
Yes. I tried to ask oss-gpt to ask me a riddle. The response was absurd. Came up with a nonsensical question, then told me the answer. The answer was a four letter “word” that wasn’t actually a real word.

“What is the word that starts with S, ends with E, and contains A? → SAEA”

Then when I said that’s not a word and you gave me the answer already, no fun, it said

“I do not have access to confirm that word.”
by derefr | 2025-08-10 16:58:00+00:00
Possibly-interesting comparison: in Japanese, the way to talk about trying to do some verb-phrase X, is "Xて見る" — which is usually literally translated as "we'll try [X]ing", but which breaks down into "[verb-phrase X in present tense] [the verb "to see" in whatever tense you mean.]"

Which means that the construction can be most intuitively framed (at least by an English speaker) as either "we'll see [what happens when] we [X]"... or, more relevantly, "we'll try [X] and see [what happens/how it goes]." Or, for short: "we'll try and [X]."
by mercable | 2025-08-10 16:58:22+00:00
I have GPT-5 pro. Every version I have used is helpful but underwhelming. The model gets lost in many conversations and overlooks a lot of what is requested. Then it apologizes in a way that makes it look stupid. For now it is just an over hyped piece of software that is basically a novelty. Maybe someday, just not yet is what I believe.
by fredophile | 2025-08-10 16:58:50+00:00
I'm not the poster you replied to but I appreciate your clarification. However, I still don't understand your argument. I don't think anyone has argued that supply and demand don't apply to the labour market. However, it seems that you do agree that there are externalities if workers are paid extremely low wages. Is your argument that the government shouldn't put in laws to mitigate or prevent those externalities? Are you saying that minimum wage laws don't actually address the externalities and should be removed? Are you trying to promote other solutions to solving those externalities? If so, what are they? Is there some other point you're trying to make that I'm completely missing?
by altcognito | 2025-08-10 16:59:10+00:00
So, add a profit layer on top of the process of collection, as well as open the process to all sorts of gaming by other companies (early access for large companies as an advantage over smaller companies). Additionally, with likely only one company as provider, a lack of competition means the government will be paying monopolistic prices.

That's how it was with the space program, the military, and many utility companies that were privatized, yet it seems we just continue to hammer the idea that "private companies will do everything better".
by umanwizard | 2025-08-10 16:59:41+00:00
Nobody has ever used “literally” to mean “figuratively”. That’s a common misconception and/or a strawman from people who want to stick to the original meaning of “literally”.

If that were the meaning, you would be able to say things like “I stubbed my toe and it hurts so bad I’m figuratively dying”, mirroring the colloquial meaning of “literally”. But nobody says this.

The actual new and non-traditional meaning of “literally” is as a generic intensifier, see e.g. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally

Oh, and by the way, the “traditional” meaning isn’t even the first one. According to my OED second edition, “literal” meaning “Of a translation, version, transcript, etc.: Representing the very words of the original; verbally exact.” is only attested since 1599.

The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475.
by pton_xd | 2025-08-10 16:59:43+00:00
As far as I know lambdas in C++ will not heap allocate. Basically equivalent to manually defining a struct, with all your captures, and then stack allocating it. However if you assign a lambda to a std::function, and it's large enough, then you may get a heap allocation.

Making all allocations explicit is one thing I do really like about Zig.
by ajross | 2025-08-10 17:00:05+00:00
Not sure I've heard that angle before. I'm tempted to agree, but then the choice of *xml* as the enclosing format argues strongly that efficiency wasn't at the forefront of the design criteria.

Also the dates don't work. HTTP/1.1 with gzip/compress/deflate encodints was live in browsers and servers with inline compression well before the standard was published in RFC 2068 in 1997. SVG's spec was four years behind that, and IIRC adoption being pretty glacial as far as completeness and compliance.