MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by iLemming | 2025-08-06 18:56:02+00:00
> Should I be learning how to debug elisp better to understand how the commands interact with my environment?

Hell yeah, you should. I just don't understand how the heck people would claim to be using Emacs for decades and still not knowing how to use the built-in profiler, edebug, apropos, macro expansion, advising system, indirect buffers, etc.

They would complain how "fickle" Emacs is, without even realizing that they are literally operating a living, breathing, dynamic and malleable system. If there's a car that allows you to assemble some parts onto it and turn it into a submarine while you're still driving it, of course it would require you at least the knowledge of basic troubleshooting and the acceptance that shit may break at any point.

You have no idea how liberating the feeling is when you can pinpoint a problem, launch a gptel buffer and then ask Emacs to write some elisp for a hook or an advising function, you can even try the snippet in-place, without ever moving it anywhere.

These days I don't even try to strive for a "clean" config - it's modular enough and I can relatively easily navigate through it. Whenever I face a problem, I just add some elisp. When something breaks (usually due to upstream changes), I don't even get annoyed. Identifying a problem and finding a workaround doesn't take too long - typically minutes - and it doesn't even happen very often.
by Kranar | 2025-08-06 18:56:15+00:00
I won't elaborate too much, but consider a situation where the vast majority of of participants just bought a basket of diversified index funds and what the effect would be on the stock market... it would effectively entrench existing companies at their current levels. Regardless of whether Apple or Microsoft or whoever is profitable or not profitable, their relative market cap would basically remain static since people are not buying stocks on the basis of performance but simply buying stocks on the basis of their relative market cap as it existed at some moment in time.

Index funds work because not everyone buys them, they work because the majority of capital is allocated and constantly being rebalanced in a way that tries to reflect the performance of a corporation. It's only in this circumstance that an index fund, or any kind of passive investment, can be of any utility by leveraging the work of those who are actively trying to assess the genuine value of a corporation.
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-08-06 18:56:29+00:00
That feels like exactly what the article did. They disclosed that the thing broke and on what time frame, alongside details about the degradation of functionality. As far as say that this isn't the full picture, is it definitely not? If we owe someone the benefit of the doubt if their device breaks while being reviewed do we owe the reader the deficit of the doubt if it doesn't break? What if they just got lucky?
by themafia | 2025-08-06 18:56:38+00:00
The irony is that the thing the government was trying to fund, use of AI in medicine, was almost entirely unrealized by this project.

It's also apparent that Xerox's involvement and willingness to share it's new inventions in Ethernet with a University eager to form the early Internet played a huge part in driving this outcome.

It seems almost completely incidental that we got an early implementation of a protocol router out of this. The government certainly wasn't trying to create one and I'm sure if they had actually involved themselves in that effort we would have gotten something far worse and far more costly.

Since the administration wasn't capable and didn't create the innovation in the first place you probably don't need to worry about later administrations removing it.
by leptons | 2025-08-06 18:56:58+00:00
>Meanwhile: yes they in fact have the best mainstream browser, and it's not even close.

You have lost all credibility. I mean, you had very little to begin with using a 5-day old Apple-shill account, but now you have zero.

Safari is the absolute worst browser, by far, approaching Internet Explorer levels of wtf. On iOS it implements touch gestures completely differently than other browsers, because Apple does what Apple wants - forcing developers to buy a real iPhone just to debug their shitty browser. Their lack of webAPIs is absolutely to push developers to their App store - and I know this first hand because I have a web app that works on every other browser but Safari due to its lack of APIs. So if I want to support apple, I have to pay them for the privilege to develop said app, as well as pay them to buy their hardware to develop and test the app. Fuck all of that. I don't have to do that for any other browser or platform.
by Joel_Mckay | 2025-08-06 18:57:13+00:00
I would advise listening to Professor Thorsten Altenkirch brief introduction about the subject, and consider delaying argumentum ad hominem opinions a few minutes.

> "not really understood things"

Something currently impossible to prove is by definition confusing. lol =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ
by hansvm | 2025-08-06 18:57:47+00:00
At a practical level, most of the language doesn't care about the distinction between errors and other types. You mostly just have to consider `try/catch/errdefer`. Your question then, mildly restated, is "how do people deal with cases where they want to use `try/catch/errdefer` but also want to return a payload?"

It's worth asking, at least a little, how often you want that in the first place.

Contrasting with Rust as an example, suppose you want Zig's "try" functionality with arbitrary payloads. Both functions need a compatible error type (a notable source of minor refactors bubbling into whole-project changes), or else you can accept a little more boilerplate and box everything with a library like `anyhow`. That's _fine_, but does it help you solve real problems? Opinions vary, but I think it mostly makes your life harder. You have stack unwinding available if you really need to see the source of a thing, and since the whole point of `try` is to bubble things up to callers who don't have the appropriate context to handle them, they likely don't really care about the metadata you're tacking on.

Suppose you want Zig's "catch" functionality with arbitrary payloads. That's just a `union` type. If you actually expect callers to inspect and care about the details of each possible return branch, you should provide a return type allowing them to do stuff with that information.

The odd duck out is `errdefer`. IMO it's reasonably common for libraries to want to do some sort of cleanup on "error" conditions, where that cleanup often doesn't depend on which error you hit, and you lose that functionality if you just return a union type. My usual workaround (in the few cases where I actually want that information returned and also have to do some sort of cleanup) is to have a private inner function and a public outer function. The inner function has some sort of `out` parameter where it sticks that unioned metadata. The outer function executes the code which might have to be cleaned up on errors, calls the inner function, and figures out what to do from there. Result location semantics make it as efficient as hand-rolled code for release builds. Not everything fits into that paradigm, but the exceptions are rare enough that the extra boilerplate really isn't bad on average (especially when comparing to an already very verbose language).

Depending on the API, your proposal of having a dedicated `out` parameter exposed further up the chain to callers might be appropriate. I'm sure somebody has done so.

Something I also do in a fair amount of my code is let the caller specify my return type, and I'll avoid work if they don't request a certain payload (e.g., not adding parse failure line numbers if not requested). It lets you write a reasonably generic API without a ton of code complexity, still allowing callers to get the information they want.
by cnst | 2025-08-06 18:58:14+00:00
Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) Study: Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of a Randomized Control Trial of the MIND Diet on Cognitive Decline - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8042655/#T3 - Table 3. Intervention targets of the MIND Diet

Basically, the description for a healthy pescetarian diet that these studies are using.
by bruce511 | 2025-08-06 18:58:21+00:00
>> There is clearly a tension here where a bunch of people want to call their software open source without actually believing in what open source actually means.

So much this. If Open Source is a marketing term then companies are free to call whatever they do "Open Source" and the term becomes meaningless. You may as well call the software "Free Range".

On the other hand if Open Source is a defined thing, built around a specific definition, and the 4 freedoms, and so on, (hint: it is) then the marketing term could lead you places you don't want to go.

So there's a generation of programmers who want to "redefine" Open Source to suit their preferences. Dilute the definition until it's meaningless. I'm strongly against this.

To be clear everyone is welcome to use any license, with any restriction they like. But if it doesn't conform to the OSI definition don't call it Open Source.

Stop trying to turn a technical specification into a generic marketing term.
by com2kid | 2025-08-06 18:58:31+00:00
> Ease of use is nice for a start, but usually becomes technical debt.

The difference with the Express ecosystem is that you aren't getting any less power than with FastAPI or Spring Boot, you just get less overhead. Spring Boot has 10x the config to get the same endpoint up and running as Express, and FastAPI has at least 3x the magic. Now some of FastAPI's magic is really useful (auto converting pydantic types to JSON Schemas on endpoints, auto generating API docs, etc), but it is still magic compared to what Express gets you.

The scaling story of Node is also really easy to think about and do capacity planning for. You aren't worried about contention or IPC (as this thread has pointed out, if you are doing IPC in Node you are in for a bad time, so just don't!), your unit of scaling is the Node process itself. Throw it in a docker image, throw that in a k8s cluster, assign .25 CPU to each instance. Scale up and down as needed.

Sometimes having one really damn simple and easy to understand building block is more powerful than having 500 blocks that can be misconfigured in ten thousand different ways.
by sebazzz | 2025-08-06 18:58:46+00:00
> Before the "fat bike" phenomena the same demographic used to ride around in "snorfiets" scooters which were theoretically limited to 25 km/h, but pretty much everyone modified for speeds of up to 50 km/h.

The difference is, of course, that a snorfiets/bromfiets requires a driving license (AB) and a fatbike does not, nor does it have any age restriction. A classic case of the legislator not keeping up.
by nisten | 2025-08-06 18:59:03+00:00
If you want to have an opinion on it,

just install lmstudio and run the q8_0 version of it i.e. here https://huggingface.co/bartowski/Qwen_Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507....

you can even run it on a 4gb raspberry pi Qwen_Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507-Q4_K_L.gguf https://lmstudio.ai/

Keep in mind if you run it at the full 262144 tokens of context youll need ~65gb of ram.

Anyway if you're on mac you can search for "qwen3 4b 2507 mlx 4bit" and run the mlx version which is often faster on m chips. Crazy impressive what you get from a 2gb file in my opinion.

It's pretty good for summaries etc, can even make simple index.html sites if you're teaching students but it can't really vibecode in my opinion. However for local automation tasks like summarizing your emails, or home automation or whatever it is excellent.

It's crazy that we're at this point now.
by roywiggins | 2025-08-06 18:59:03+00:00
Sure, and people might enjoy that, but I'm saying that as much as people want to have fans, people also want to be fans, and that's not compatible with everyone consuming algoslop generated for them personally. Nobody is going to walk around with a T-shirt for an algoband that has an audience of just themselves. Maybe a virtual band gets famous in the same way Hatsune Miku is famous. But that's not personalized generation, that's just an old fashioned band with different tech.

A world without fandom is one without sports. That seems deeply unlikely to me! Anyone can generate personal podcasts with NotebookLM, which people enjoyed for a bit but doesn't seem to have made any impact on actual podcasts at all.
by CSP_Jobs | 2025-08-06 18:59:07+00:00
Always fun to see Multics pop up; the influence it had on computing is pretty impressive and its influence lives on in many projects. As just one personally relevant example, the SCOMP mentioned in the glossary [0] and described in more detail on the history page under 5.4.1 [1] became the STOP operating system which is still in active development and is what I still work on today. (Technically, the SCOMP was the whole machine, and STOP "SCOMP Trusted Operating Program" was its operating system). Up until pretty recently, we still had a Multician working on STOP, and have a guy from the Honewell days still plugging away on it.

[0]https://www.multicians.org/mgs.html#SCOMP [1]https://www.multicians.org/history.html
by BizarroLand | 2025-08-06 18:59:19+00:00
Nah, kids would have to wear armbands with tasers on them, required to put them on to enter the school building or open doors in the building. Their only human adult interaction will be with the guards that ensure they are banded up and who stay on campus to react to alarms from every kid who tries to remove their armbands.

Buses will be driven by AI as well, so they'll only see their parents for 10 minutes in the morning and for an hour or so during the occasional dinners they eat together, and otherwise kids will be entirely alienated and left alone.

But do not worry! There will be an AI companion for them to talk to at all hours, a nanny AI, or a nAInny, one that starts as a nanny when they are infants and will gradually grow into an educator, confidante, and true friend that will never betray them.

That nAInny will network with other nAInnies to find mates for their charges, coordinate dates, ensure that no hanky-panky goes on until they graduate college and get married, and will be there together to give pointers and instructions during the act of coitus to enhance the likelihood of producing offspring that their fellow nAInnys will get to take care of.

A truly symbiotic relationship where the humans involved never have any agency but never need it as their lives are happy and perfect in every way.

If you don't want to participate in that, you will be removed as an obstacle to the true happiness of the human race.
by echelon | 2025-08-06 18:59:22+00:00
This is great.

"Open" is too binary. You can't exclude companies that would harm you.

We need "fair", "equitable", or "sustainable" (as this one is termed) licenses.

You should be able to give your customers 100% the ability to use, modify, and redistribute so long as they don't resell you.

You should be able to cut off Amazon and Google from using you.

You should be able to prevent certain uses, like managed versions of your software.
by steventhedev | 2025-08-06 18:59:24+00:00
Temperature sensors are a great example for alerting because they fluctuate constantly, have multiple seasonalities, and failures can be subtle. In the end, you'll want:

1. If the sensor dies and there is no data at all

2. If the sensor gets stuck (giving same value)

3. If the sensor slowly drifts (adjusting for daily, weekly, and yearly seasons) - indicating a clogged filter or leaking refrigerant

4. Statistical spikes - this is the hardest to tune so you need to treat it as a model that detects anomalies and it takes a long time to label extremely rare events

5. Static thresholds, over varying windows to deal with sensor error and transient spikes.

It also raises questions like "if the sensor is reporting 400C then either the building is on fire or the sensor is broken", or "how do we get the alert if the building is indeed on fire" and the inevitable followup: do we even need to get an alert if the building is on literal fire?
by evilduck | 2025-08-06 18:59:34+00:00
Sure. The US isn't morally any better on this though. VC backed companies and the "get users, figure out profitability later" strategy that have made outside countries unable to compete have been enabled by the US government tweaking interest rates and the supply value of the dollar. And the US backs all sorts of unprofitable things through grants, contracts, and bail outs.

The US government just hasn't yet found a reason to directly pay for a domestic country to release open models. But it's not like we're above that at all.
by compiler-guy | 2025-08-06 19:00:09+00:00
All of this is an argument for version control--which I wholly support, and did from the first message. But not an argument for git, which even sucks at things like tracking where code is moved to and from. Yes, yes, you can use "-C -C -C" if you really want to know and have time to wait, but that is terrible compared to systems that track moves as first class happenings.

And no one was offering to run this experiment for free that I could see. You were proposing a law. If you are proposing a free experiment, great! more power to you. Now convince the government to actually adopt it.

And yes, the product is text, but the current workflow is not text-file based at all.
by waleedk | 2025-08-06 19:00:11+00:00
I think of context as something dynamic that you build as you need it. Part of getting something like Claude Code to the point where it can produce great results is selecting different parts to emphasize.

Intent is important, but so are goals, and I see the context as something that you collaboratively build with you filling in the gaps in the context the agent doesn't see.

It's almost like you repetitively ask the question: based on how the agent is behaving, what is the context I should add to help it perform better? If it's screwing up how to use an API, then I should ask it to read the docs and create a guide for itself or provide it with an llms.txt.
by sitkack | 2025-08-06 19:00:19+00:00
What you are describing is "bureaucratic collapse". Those extra rules are not meant to support outcomes for the ostensible goal, but a better outcome for the bureaucracy itself. Bureaucracy is not in and of itself bad, it is a very powerful tool, but when it is administered by non-aligned agents and not subject to the proper feedback loops it will always shift goals into protecting itself over its original mission.

Stockton Rush had the perfect storm of a personality that saw everything he hated in "rules" meant to constrain submersible engineering towards safe designs.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-08-06 19:00:26+00:00
Let's say I ask, "Why is it worth spending time in Baltimore?"

I could get answers about the national anthem, about Camden Yards, about good restaurants and bars. Those are "tourist" answers.

Or I could get answers about job availability and cost of housing. Those are "move there" answers.

It seems to me that this article (if you can call it that) gives mostly "tourist" answers, not "move there" answers. Well, that's all right in a way - for an academic topic, you probably have to get tourists before you get people moving there. But the problem is that mathematicians have a large number of areas that they could visit as tourists, and nothing here tells them why type theory is better to visit than, say, algebraic topology.

And that doesn't solve the original complaint. Why are so few people working in type theory? Because more of the action is in set theory and category theory, and type theory offers too little that the others don't, so nobody's going to switch.

I mean, most mathematicians aren't really in foundations anyway. They're in differential equations or prime numbers or complex analysis or algebraic topology or something like that, and making your foundation type theory instead of set theory makes no difference whatsoever to those people. Only the people working on foundations care, and as I said, most of those people already work in set theory or category theory, and type theory doesn't give them a good enough reason to uproot and move.
by maxglute | 2025-08-06 19:00:44+00:00
On paper, shaheed tier drones can be upgraded with better compute to fly much more complex (i.e. close terrain hug) which exponentially drops chance to intercept by forcing defender to increase/scale IADs density/complexity. Analogy cruise missiles -> LO/stealth cruise missiles with more complex compute and flight profiles, they're still subsonic and "easy" targets when detected, but make detection hard because scaling detection = scaling more nodes i.e. Same # of munition requires #^2 sensors to detect. Another analogy is urban tag, instead of slow player screamingly loudly at fast defenders, drone is sneaking to target quietly and defenders suddenly needs more eyes for same catches, perhaps not affordably more.

IMO the _current_ problem with subsonic / shaheeds tier munitions, at least the one's being being used is they seem to have very basic navigation capabilities field by forces that don't have ability to plan better missions. VS defenders being supported by US/NATO with high end ISR that dramatically improve intercept planning/chances. Again, IMO the latter is what makes or breaks, affordable theater level shaheed spam. These are glorified mopeds + smart phones. On paper most countries can have 100,000s of them. But to use them effectively and even _more_ economically, need highend ISR+killchain to employ fraction of munitions (or some other platforms) for initial SEAD / dismantle IADs and eliminate future intercepts. AKA closer to US/PRC tier of C4ISR which will ramp into another gear once mega-constellation based. Which is out of reach for most countries, unless they strategically align to "unlock" "smarter" munitions.
by kashunstva | 2025-08-06 19:00:47+00:00
This was a large multi centre prospective RCT; so I would say that it adds to evidence from other sources acquired in less rigorous ways. This was also a structured multidisciplinary intervention; so this study may add to what can be done in terms of implementation, because there is still work to be done on that front. But yes, at face value, it sounds like what we already know! (But which many/most are not implementing…)
by lqet | 2025-08-06 19:00:48+00:00
Very good points. I wonder what this means for real-world street network graphs. In my experience, m can be considered proportional to n in road network graphs (I would estimate m ≈ 2C n, with C being between 2 and 3). This would mean that the asymptotic running time of this new algorithm on a classic road transportation network would be more like O(Cn log^2/3 n) = O(n log^2/3 n), so definitely better than classic Dijkstra (O(n log n) in this scenario). On the other hand, the frontier in road network graphs is usually not very big, and (as you also said for grid graphs) you normally never "max out" the priority queue with n nodes, not even close. I would be surprised if the ^2/3 beats the additional constant overhead of the new approach in this case.
by stefap2 | 2025-08-06 19:00:50+00:00
Structured lifestyle intervention. Participants attended 38 facilitated peer team meetings over two years and were provided with a prescribed activity program with measurable goals for:

- aerobic, resistance and stretching exercise

- adherence to the MIND diet, a combination of the Mediterranean diet with the salt restrictions of the DASH diet

- cognitive challenge through BrainHQ training and other intellectual and social activities

- regular review of health metrics and goal-setting with a study clinician