MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by chrismorgan | 2025-08-25 06:51:53+00:00
The “Better Gradients” thing is dodgy.

OKLCH is a polar coordinate space. Hue is angle in this space. So to interpolate hue from one angle to another, to get from one side of a circle to the other, you go round the edge. This leads to extreme examples like the one shown:

linear-gradient(in oklch, #f0f, #0f0)

You can also go round the circle the other way, which will take you via blue–aqua instead of via red–yellow:

linear-gradient(in oklch longer hue, #f0f, #0f0)

The gradient shown (in either case) is a good example of a way that perceptual colour spaces are really bad to work in: practically the entire way round the edge of the circle, it’s outside sRGB, in fact way outside of the colours humans can perceive. Perceptual colour spaces are really bad at handling the edges of gamuts, where slightly perturbing the values take you out of gamut.

Accordingly, there are algorithms defined (yes, plural: not every application has agreed on the technique to use) to drag the colour back in-gamut, but it sacrifices the perceptual uniformity. The red in that gradient is way darker than the rest of it.

When you’re looking for better gradients, if you’re caring about perceptual uniformity (which frequently you shouldn’t, perceptual colour spaces are being massively overapplied), you should probably default to interpolating in Oklab instead, which takes a straight line from one side of the circle to the other—yes, through grey, if necessary.

linear-gradient(in oklab, #f0f, #0f0)

And in this case, that gets you about as decent a magenta-to-lime gradient as you can hope for, not going via red and yellow, and not exhibiting the inappropriate darkening of sRGB interpolation (… though if I were hand-tuning such a gradient, I’d actually go a bit darker than Oklab does).

During its beta period, Tailwind v4 tried shifting from sRGB to Oklch for gradient interpolation; by release, they’d decided Oklab was a safer default.
by Hilift | 2025-08-25 06:52:07+00:00
eSafety is a joke. However, the Human Rights Commission has the funding to launch multi-year investigations into YouTubers that make people cry and poop their pants. That's power, although they do admit the investigations cannot currently proceed beyond investigations due to there aren't any punishments or remedies in the statute. But that's a clerical error that should be remedied some day.
by roguebloodrage | 2025-08-25 06:53:35+00:00
This is everything I have for AS132203 (Tencent). It has your addresses plus others I have found and confirmed using ipinfo.io

43.131.0.0/18 43.129.32.0/20 101.32.0.0/20 101.32.102.0/23 101.32.104.0/21 101.32.112.0/23 101.32.112.0/24 101.32.114.0/23 101.32.116.0/23 101.32.118.0/23 101.32.120.0/23 101.32.122.0/23 101.32.124.0/23 101.32.126.0/23 101.32.128.0/23 101.32.130.0/23 101.32.13.0/24 101.32.132.0/22 101.32.132.0/24 101.32.136.0/21 101.32.140.0/24 101.32.144.0/20 101.32.160.0/20 101.32.16.0/20 101.32.17.0/24 101.32.176.0/20 101.32.192.0/20 101.32.208.0/20 101.32.224.0/22 101.32.228.0/22 101.32.232.0/22 101.32.236.0/23 101.32.238.0/23 101.32.240.0/20 101.32.32.0/20 101.32.48.0/20 101.32.64.0/20 101.32.78.0/23 101.32.80.0/20 101.32.84.0/24 101.32.85.0/24 101.32.86.0/24 101.32.87.0/24 101.32.88.0/24 101.32.89.0/24 101.32.90.0/24 101.32.91.0/24 101.32.94.0/23 101.32.96.0/20 101.33.0.0/23 101.33.100.0/22 101.33.10.0/23 101.33.10.0/24 101.33.104.0/21 101.33.11.0/24 101.33.112.0/22 101.33.116.0/22 101.33.120.0/21 101.33.128.0/22 101.33.132.0/22 101.33.136.0/22 101.33.140.0/22 101.33.14.0/24 101.33.144.0/22 101.33.148.0/22 101.33.15.0/24 101.33.152.0/22 101.33.156.0/22 101.33.160.0/22 101.33.164.0/22 101.33.168.0/22 101.33.17.0/24 101.33.172.0/22 101.33.176.0/22 101.33.180.0/22 101.33.18.0/23 101.33.184.0/22 101.33.188.0/22 101.33.24.0/24 101.33.25.0/24 101.33.26.0/23 101.33.30.0/23 101.33.32.0/21 101.33.40.0/24 101.33.4.0/23 101.33.41.0/24 101.33.42.0/23 101.33.44.0/22 101.33.48.0/22 101.33.52.0/22 101.33.56.0/22 101.33.60.0/22 101.33.64.0/19 101.33.64.0/23 101.33.96.0/22 103.52.216.0/22 103.52.216.0/23 103.52.218.0/23 103.7.28.0/24 103.7.29.0/24 103.7.30.0/24 103.7.31.0/24 43.130.0.0/18 43.130.64.0/18 43.130.128.0/19 43.130.160.0/19 43.132.192.0/18 43.133.64.0/19 43.134.128.0/18 43.135.0.0/18 43.135.64.0/18 43.135.192.0/19 43.153.0.0/18 43.153.192.0/18 43.154.64.0/18 43.154.128.0/18 43.154.192.0/18 43.155.0.0/18 43.155.128.0/18 43.156.192.0/18 43.157.0.0/18 43.157.64.0/18 43.157.128.0/18 43.159.128.0/19 43.163.64.0/18 43.164.192.0/18 43.165.128.0/18 43.166.128.0/18 43.166.224.0/19 49.51.132.0/23 49.51.140.0/23 49.51.166.0/23 119.28.64.0/19 119.28.128.0/20 129.226.160.0/19 150.109.32.0/19 150.109.96.0/19 170.106.32.0/19 170.106.176.0/20
by gf000 | 2025-08-25 06:53:39+00:00
> the specific claim is that the Java GC lets you write higher throughput code than you would get with Rust or C++

No, that has never been the specific claim - you can always write more efficient code with manual memory management, given enough time, effort and skill. I wasn't even the one who brought up c++ and rust. Like literally I write this twice in my comment.

What I'm talking about is reference counting as a GC technique vs tracing as a GC technique, all else being equal - it would be idiotic to compare these two if no other "variable" is fixed. (Oh and I didn't even mention the circular references problem, which means you basically have to add a tracing step either-way unless you restrict your language so that it can't express circular stuff).

As for the atomic part, sure, if all it would do is non-atomic increments then CPUs would be plenty happy. And you are right that depending on how the tracing GC is implemented, it will have a few atomic instructions. What you may miss is how often each run. On almost every access, vs every once in a while on a human timescale. Your OS scheduler will also occasionally trash the performance of your thread. But this is the actually apples to oranges comparison, and both techniques can do plenty of tweaks to hide certain tradeoffs, at the price of something else.

And I also mention that the above triad of time, skill and effort is not a given and is definitely not free.
by haberman | 2025-08-25 06:53:43+00:00
I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing.

We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard.

We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration.

Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU
by kbrkbr | 2025-08-25 06:53:47+00:00
I am sure that's what you mean, but I think it is important to state it explicitly every now and then:

> Defence in depth means you have more than one security control

that overlap. Having them strictly parallel is not defense in depth (e.g. on one door to the same room a dog, and on a different unconnected door a guard).
by omnicognate | 2025-08-25 06:54:35+00:00
I want a recording of Spem in Alium done with a mic per singer, placed spatially using Dolby Atmos and arranged as they might have been in the octagonal banqueting hall of Nonsuch Palace: surrounding the audience (in the round) and with four of the eight choirs up on balconies.

(Say what you want about "spatial audio" on earphones - if you're lucky enough to have a good home cinema separates system it's awesome, and this would be the ultimate application for it IMO.)
by ginko | 2025-08-25 06:54:46+00:00
>I think it's a lot about economics, too. Choirs of any significant size have to be amateur. It's hard enough to do a 4 person band playing popular music full-time, with 20-30 people performing more niche music it just doesn't happen.

That really depends where you live. In Vienna you definitely get all-professional choirs of that size for instance.
by mwpmaybe | 2025-08-25 06:55:12+00:00
> The i7-4770 was one. It reliably outperformed later Intel CPUs until near 10th gen or so.

Per which benchmarks?

> At 13th gen, Intel swaps E for P cores.

One nit, Intel started adding (not swapping) E-cores to desktop parts with 12th gen, but i3 parts and most i5 parts were spared. More desktop i5 parts got them as starting with 13th gen.
by Terr_ | 2025-08-25 06:57:20+00:00
> I wonder why the West doesn’t just take it back

Speaking as an ex-HK resident, it's very simple: For the last 30+ years, it has not been in the UK's national interest to start a war with the PRC for HK, and I can't really blame them.

Independence? Forget troops, China need only close the valves on the pipes they use to sell HK water. Dress it up as false-flag sabotage.

I actually did the math once, and shipping in HK's water usage is the volume of the biggest oil-tankers in existence (which would somehow need to be converted to store/pump clean water) and making such an elephantine delivery every single day through a likely Chinese blockade.
by dijit | 2025-08-25 06:57:38+00:00
yeah, I agree with this.. all the work that goes into making it portable makes it much harder to read the script as well in most cases.

What I typically do is also have a version check for bash, just to make sure that nothing insane happens.

I also tend to litter asserts all about the beginning of the code in my compiled programs to ensure my environment is sane. because if I make an assumption, I don’t want it to land on someone’s head unexpectedly. (especially my own)
by energy123 | 2025-08-25 06:57:48+00:00
I'd add that PCA/OLS is linear in the functional form (linear combination), but the input variables can be non-linear (X_new := X_{old,1}*X_{old,2}^2), so if the non-linearities are simple, then basic feature engineering to strip out the non-linearities before fitting PCA/OLS may be acceptable.
by praptak | 2025-08-25 06:58:25+00:00
How did you choose where to get the IP addresses to block? I guess I'm mostly asking where this problem (i.e. "get all IPs for country X") is on the scale from "obviously solved" to "hard and you need to play catch up constantly".

I did a quick search and found a few databases but none of them looks like the obvious winner.
by bentocorp | 2025-08-25 06:58:31+00:00
I would say that currently for mobile, iOS still monetises a lot better than Android.

Once you've developed your brand and own your own distribution channel however, the best strategy seems to be to distribute via the App Store (which in many countries Apple doesn't give you any other choice) but monetise via your own site. Netflix etc do this and seem to not see much downside.

How well it works for smaller or new apps however is debatable.
by devoutsalsa | 2025-08-25 06:59:34+00:00
There are a lot of dumb questions, and I pose all of them to Claude. There's no infrastructure in place for this, but I would support some business model where LLM-of-choice compensates website operators for resources consumed by my super dumb questions. Like how content creators get paid when I watch with a YouTube Premium subscription. I doubt this is practical in practice.
by gnyman | 2025-08-25 07:00:43+00:00
Looks nice.

I would add a link to the gitlab to the page also, clicking the LICENCE brings me to the source code but other than that there did not seem to be a link .

Out of curiosity, did you use LLM's to code this? My gut feeling tells me at minimum the readme was written by one, or maybe it's normal to use emojis everywhere :-) Also I am not meaning to judge it as good or bad, I'm just curious.

I think one thing that LLM's and coding agents enables, is creating these customised solution which solve a specific problem, in a specific way. Some might consider it wasteful. I bet many thinks your effort would have been better spent contributing to one of the existing ones instead of doing yet another tool, but I find fascinating that we can finally tell our computers what we need and the will do it.

If you hand-wrote everything, then apologies for the unrelated rant :-)
by wiz21c | 2025-08-25 07:01:46+00:00
Yes! But there's code and code. Not to disrespect anyone, but there is writing a new algorithm, say for optimizing the gradient descent and code to display a simple web form.

The first one is usually short and requires a very deep understanding of one or two profound, new ideas. The second is usually very big and requires a shallow understanding of many not-so-new ideas (which are usually a reflection of the oroganisation that produced the code).

My feeling is that, provided a sufficiently long context window, an LLM will be able to go through the second kind project very easily. It will also be very good at showing that the first kind of project is not so new after all, destroying all people who can't find really new ideas.

In both case, it'll pressure institutions to have less IT specialists...

As someone who trained specifically in computer sciences, I'm a bit scared :-/
by ben_w | 2025-08-25 07:02:24+00:00
> Maybe grandpas and grandmas should get a different phone then, like a Doro

They did, they got an iPhone.

> my mother has been scammed by legitimate App Store apps that have charged extra-fees just because they could.

Did it empty her bank balance by abusing the private NFC payment APIs that Apple are being ordered to open up?

Did it cryptolock all her files?

Did it activate the camera and mic to spy on her for blackmail?

These are things that we need to worry about with random things we download on desktop these days. It's not 2007 any more, I have an entire spare computer for untrusted software.
by jaredklewis | 2025-08-25 07:02:38+00:00
> According to polling data, 62 percent of Americans favor the government being responsible for the health coverage of all people in the country. Sixty-five percent of Americans polled favored the infrastructure bill passed during Joe Biden’s presidency. In a poll taken just last year, 63 percent of Americans wanted to increase trade with other countries, and 75 percent worried that tariffs would raise consumer prices. Another poll found 83 percent of likely voters, including 80 percent of Republicans, supported providing federal housing assistance after a natural disaster.

> Yet in 2024, a near-majority of voters chose a president who would not only not improve medical access, but would adopt a policy to drop coverage for at least 10 million Americans who are currently insured. His other policies include neglecting infrastructure (with the exception of ICE detention facilities), and rescinding unspent funds from the Biden infrastructure bill. FEMA has been cut, and the president has imposed the highest tariffs since the Smoot-Hawley Act almost a century ago.

> What explains this behavioral disconnect on the part of voters?

I think there's only a disconnect because of the author's flawed theory of how the world works. It would be like an article wondering: "Why did Americans elect Barak Obama, a White Sox fan, when only a small minority of Americans are White Sox fans?" It's because people don't pick the president based on which baseball team they like. The author has lined up polling data on a long list of public policies, but doesn't present any evidence that these are deciding issues for voters.

Psychologists and social scientists have been explaining for decades that the model of voters casting their votes based on public policy positions is not an accurate reflection of reality. Instead, the modal voter aligns with a politician or party usually based upon what is socially expedient for that individual (i.e. what will help me be liked by my friends and family, which is why age and zip code alone get you most of the way to predicting someone's vote). Many voters don't have opinions on individual public policies, but to the extent they do, they usually adopt the policy choices of their chosen party. It's why you can pretty accurately predict someone's opinion on immigration based on their opinion on gender ideology or some other unrelated position.
by petre | 2025-08-25 07:03:02+00:00
It's really the bots and algorithms are the source of all of that, promoting somebody's agenda. Now AI too. Remember, Tay the Microsoft bot that they put on Twitter and it became nazi the next day? It's that multiplied by the number of stars in the visible universe.

The only safer places are heavily moderated hobby related forums with actual people. Anti vaxxing is not a hobby btw.
by dev0p | 2025-08-25 07:03:10+00:00
Have you considered parenting your children instead of letting the state do it for you? The latter means they can use the good old “for the children” rhetoric to control what adults can and cannot see: for example, they can choose that homosexuality is a sin and bad therefore any LGBT friendly website is bad. Apply freely as your government dictates, such as pro-Palestine content. We must protect our kids from terrorists, after all. :)

Meanwhile your children are absolutely going to find a way to get that content regardless, likely in darker corners of the internet, exposing them to much, MUCH worse content than if they would have just gone on the good old hub (plus actual predators) while also making it basically impossible for you to control instead of just making it a firewall rule away from locking it yourself instead of letting the government do it.
by PeterStuer | 2025-08-25 07:03:48+00:00
No. I'm talking about literally legitimate, information that has to be public by law and/or regulation (typically gov stuff), in formats specifically meant for m2m consuption, and still blocked by clueless or malicious outsourced lowest bidder site managers.

And no, I do not use those paid services, even though it would make it much easier.
by mwpmaybe | 2025-08-25 07:04:13+00:00
Devil's Canyon and Haswell-E were great overclockers. I had an i7-4790K re-lidded with liquid metal stable at 4.7GHz all-core and (a bit later) an i7-5960X stable at 4.5GHz all-core. But yes power consumption and thermal output were through the roof.
by albertzeyer | 2025-08-25 07:04:14+00:00
How much data do you have? I'm using git-annex on my photos, and that are around 100k-1M files, several TB of data, on a ZFS. In the beginning, everything was fine, but it starts to become increasingly slow, such that every operation takes several minutes (5-30 mins or so).

I wonder a bit whether that is ZFS, or git-annex, or maybe my disk, or sth else.
by danpalmer | 2025-08-25 07:04:25+00:00
> We also see a ton of re-compromised environments. Why? They don’t know how to use CICD and just recommit the vulnerable code.

This one sticks out to me. A while back the UK did a security assessment of Huawei with a view to them being a core infrastructure provider for the 5G rollout, and the conclusion wasn't that they were insecure, it was that they were ~10 years away from being able to even claim they were secure.

Contrasting this to my current employer, where the software supply chain and provenance is exceptional, it's clear to me that vibe coding doesn't get you far in terms of that supply chain, and is arguably a significant regression from the norm.

Third party dependencies, runtime environments/containers, build processes, build environments, dev machines, source control, configuration, binaries, artifact signing and provenance, IDEs, none of these have good answers in the vibe-coded ecosystem and many are harmed by it. It will be interesting to see how the industry grapples with this when someone eventually pushes back and says they won't use your software because you don't have enough context about it to even claim it's secure.
by sneak | 2025-08-25 07:04:40+00:00
Because the engineering involved in what has already been achieved with the whole Starship program (the stage0/OLM quick disconnect/chopsticks, as well as the full flow staged combustion Raptor: v1, and v2, and especially v3) is a far greater technological achievement than any part of the F9/FH stack.

Starship is a HARD project, and even the components that they have completed are insane levels of engineering, far beyond even the whole F9 program.

It’s not just a “does the rocket work” thing. Every working part of Starship so far has been a monumental breakthrough of unprecedented scale. The fact that they built the largest ever orbital launch system (it’s currently not yet reusable but it can indeed put a ~hundred tons into orbit in a single 15 minutes) is enough to classify it as an unqualified success. Their stated goal just happens to be significantly greater than even that.

It has already surpassed the (non-reusable) Saturn V in price/perf as well as payload capacity (and development program total cost).
by xelxebar | 2025-08-25 07:05:57+00:00
In my years of reading and writing bash as well as Python for sysops tasks, I'd say that bash is the more reliable workhorse of the two. Python tends to encourage a kind of overengineering, resulting in more bugs overall. Many times I've seen hundreds of lines of Python or Typescript result from the attempt to replace just a few lines of bash!

The senselessness I object to is not the conscientious choice of tooling or discussion of the failings thereof; it's the fact that every single bash article on here sees the same religious refrain, "Python is better than bash. Period." It's like if every article about vim saw a flood of comments claiming that vim is okay for light editing, but for any real programming we should use a real editor like emacs.

If you open vim expecting emacs but with a few different bindings, then it might just explode in you face. If you use bash expecting to be able to program just like Python but with slightly different syntax, then it's not surprising to feel friction.

IME, bash works exceptionally well using a data-oriented, text-first design to program architecture. It's just unfortunate that very little of the industry is even aware of this style of programming.
by jajko | 2025-08-25 07:07:08+00:00
Luckily corporate greed it not the only thing that matters in this world. If they want to sell in half a billion rich market of EU, they will soon need to start behaving more morally. If not they can fuck off, write off 20-30% of company value and EU will have better products, (almost) everybody wins.

Given how low morally they are, the room for improvement is massive and easy to move into. As you write, they didn't do it so far because they were not forced, and waiting for some good moral behavior 'just because it would be nice from them' is rather dumb.
by WA | 2025-08-25 07:07:20+00:00
> AI-is-hype people are delusional. The computer has never been able to do what it’s doing today. We could only dream of it.

Sure, but do the math. It doesn’t work out yet. This stuff burns money and energy. Either revenue has to go up A LOT or costs do have to come down A LOT (or quality has to suffer by using smaller models).
by Springtime | 2025-08-25 07:07:36+00:00
Youtube says this was done for select Youtube Shorts as a denoising process. However most popular channels on Youtube, which seem to be the pool selected for this experiment, typically already have well lit and graded videos shouldn't benefit much from extra denoising from a visual point of view.

It's true though that aggressive denoising gives things an artificially generated look since both processes use denoising heavily.

Perhaps this was done to optimize video encoding, since the less noise/surface detail there is the easier it is to compress.