MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bornfreddy | 2025-08-24 06:07:35+00:00
Very interesting, thank you for sharing!

Unfortunately it looks like sandbox mode [0] is not a goal, so it doesn't solve the main problem I have - running semi-trusted apps (e.g. Android Studio) and minimising their impact. Currently I just share X11 socket and run it in Docker.

[0] https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox/issues/28
by renegat0x0 | 2025-08-24 06:08:07+00:00
My Demoscene links

https://rumca-js.github.io/search?search=tag%3Ddemoscene

Amiga links

https://rumca-js.github.io/search?search=tag%3Damiga

Commodore links

https://rumca-js.github.io/search?search=tag%3Dcommodore
by brokegrammer | 2025-08-24 06:08:24+00:00
I've used Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot is Vscode and I don't "know" that Claude Code is better apart from the fact that it runs in the terminal, which makes it a little faster but less ergonomic than tools running inside the editor. All of the context tricks can be done with Copilot instructions as well, so I simply can't see how Claude Code is superior.
by schrodinger | 2025-08-24 06:08:44+00:00
Apologize for the poor formatting in the parent post; I can't edit it now, but here it is as intended:

Thanks -- totally agree that curation is essential, and I suspect my original point may have come across as advocating against curation, which I wasn’t. My goal isn’t to randomize the homepage or flatten quality, but to involve a broader swath of users in the curation process. It’s currently dominated by the few who browse “new”, essentially a self-selected minority of curators.

Concretely, I was thikinking something like:

* Every new post is shown to a small % of users as part of their regular homepage (not in a “new” tab they’d have to seek out).

* Posts that get engagement from that slice are shown to more users, and so on — a gradual ramp-up based on actual interest rather than early-bird luck.

So it’s not removing filtering; it’s just moving from a binary gate (past the goalpost = homepage) to a more continuous, probabilistic exposure curve. Curation still happens, but more people get to participate in it, and the system becomes more robust to time-of-day luck or early vote pile-ons.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to clarify that I’m not against filtering -- just having a thought experiment about how we might make it more adaptive and inclusive.

Does that clarify my point? Any thoughts? I appreciate your engagement!
by MilnerRoute | 2025-08-24 06:09:04+00:00
I'd like to see a mass movement that demands "100% human" content (in songs, movies, TV shows, books...)

That would protect more than just the careers of creatives. It would also protect that relationship -- between performers and audiences -- confirming that it's a human-to-human connection, with all of its special validation and honoring of what it is to be human.
by pfannkuchen | 2025-08-24 06:11:59+00:00
Maybe I’m just not good enough at paying attention, but for me it seems like you have to actually run into problems over and over and figure out how to avoid the problems. Then you end up being able to mentally simulate what problems you will run into, and design is basically all about avoiding future problems of various kinds (and balancing tradeoffs about which future problems to avoid and how much effort to put into each, whether you can solve multiple with one design play, etc).
by imiric | 2025-08-24 06:12:03+00:00
Right.

We can certainly get much more utility out of current architectures with better engineering, as "agents" have shown, but to claim that AGI is possible with engineering alone is wishful thinking. The hard part is building systems that showcase actual intelligence and reasoning, that are able to learn and discover on their own instead of requiring exorbitantly expensive training, that don't hallucinate, and so on. We still haven't cracked that nut, and it's becoming increasingly evident that the current approaches won't get us there. That will require groundbreaking compsci work, if it's possible at all.
by kragen | 2025-08-24 06:12:06+00:00
Holy shit, somehow I missed Trump trying to sell half of Intel to a Chinese company that doesn't want it. TSMC is a great company, but this sounds disharmonious with Trump's jingoist and xenophobic rhetoric.

The deal hasn't actually closed, though, has it? The linked page says, "However, TSMC is unlikely to agree to this proposal."
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-24 06:12:41+00:00
It's not decentralised. They also blocked a bunch of trans people criticising JK Rowling. They couldn't do that if it were truly decentralised.

IMO it's got all the bad things about centralisation and the bad things about decentralisation. The worst of both worlds. I don't bother with it.

Mastodon/fediverse and nostr (the latter despite being from the same founder) are much better.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-08-24 06:14:47+00:00
Claude code is the strongest atm, but roocode or cline (vscode extensions) can also work well. Roo with gpt5-mini (so cheap, pretty fast) does diff based edits w/ good coordination over a task, and finishes most tasks that I tried. It even calls them "surgical diffs" :D
by cm2187 | 2025-08-24 06:15:44+00:00
What the doctrine is and whether France would follow it in practice are two different things. But it shouldn't matter.

Nuclear weapons as an ultimate warning is the doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e

Whether it would be followed in practice is anyone's guess. But place yourself in the shoes of the invading country. You are basically facing the same question. Would France ultimately use nuclear weapons? You may think that they will likely not. But if they do, that's a path to having your cities and basically your civilisation wiped out. So at what percentage probability are you still happy to try your luck at invading France? Unless you are a Hitler or Stalin, who were happy to spend tens of millions of their own population without a second thought, there is no scenario where a rational leader will be taking that risk. And therefore deterence is achieved.
by vineyardmike | 2025-08-24 06:16:35+00:00
This might be true, it’s definitely repeated, but it’s generally not the real reason.

The real answer is just politics. Blue states have (generally) healthy economies, with a variety of economic actors and many businesses. Businesses often will shop around various states to build a factory looking for tax cuts. The politician can be associated with new jobs, and the business gets a discount, so it appears to be a win-win (if you ignore the lack of tax revenue). No one needs a tax break to start a business in NYC, LA, nor Silicon Valley, so you don’t hear about all the businesses that open there.

Nationally, policies like the IRA are big boosters for the economy, and democrats are focused on getting it done because it’s good for society and the national priorities. They won’t focus on where the money goes, and will allow the money to go to run down republican states as economic stimulus. But you’ll notice it’s usually capital intense factories that end up in these situations, not white collar jobs.
by badc0ffee | 2025-08-24 06:16:51+00:00
The initial network was built by tying underused lines into an existing Underground[1] line, the East London Line. Parts had to be upgraded, but the expensive bits were already done - there were existing stations, and existing, almost completely grade-separated, electrified double track. There were upgrades to platforms here and there, and some connecting track built, but basically what the Overground did largely was improve service patterns, frequency, wayfinding, and ticketing.

I don't know if many other cities have this kind of infrastructure sitting around and not being used to its full potential. Philadelphia's SEPTA Regional Rail is probably one. Toronto's GO has the trackage and the stations, but hundreds of route km need to be electrified.

[1] The ELL was a "subsurface" Underground line, like the District Line, Metropolitan Line, and others. Those lines use basically full size commuter trains, and have air conditioning. This is in contrast to deep-level tube lines like the Central Line and Bakerloo Line that have narrow trains with a round cross-section, in narrow tunnels.
by heod749 | 2025-08-24 06:17:24+00:00
> But that's exactly what they've done with the latest Model 3 and Y updates.

Still waiting for 2026 Juniper Model Y to implement any of the following:

- leather interior

- metal and wood trim options

- heads up display

- power sunshades

- cream/brown interior color

- rear ventilated seats

But I guess “ambient lighting” is ground breaking technology since it was not implemented in 2025 model Y.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-08-24 06:18:15+00:00
There's "swe re-bench", a benchmark that tracks model release dates, and you can see how the model did for "real-world" bugs that got submitted on github after the model was released. (obviously works best for open models).

There are a few models that solve 30-50% of (new) tasks pulled from real-wolrd repos. So ... yeah.
by finaard | 2025-08-24 06:19:27+00:00
I had the Vx with foldable keyboard dock. That keyboard was way better than a lot of notebook keyboard nowadays.

Slightly amusing - you only had about 5 keyboard layouts to chose from, and one of them was Dvorak (which I'm using).

I eventually wanted to carry only one device, and went for the Treo line of phones, which I stuck to until 2010.
by oliwarner | 2025-08-24 06:19:51+00:00
We already know: no exercise and a life targeting instant gratification does bad things to brain chemistry.

We need physical toil to stay fit and mental toil to stay sane. Together they won't guarantee a happy life, but without you'll never have the foundation for one.

We find this hard in the modern era because it's so very easy to sell dopamine hits. We are our own worst enemy and companies are only too willing to exploit us.

The article dribbles around these ideas, without actually connecting cause and effect. The lazy attack on STEM is bizarre. Learning to code isn't a problem because LLMs can code, it's a problem if we don't use it. An argument to instead study the Humanities rather undercuts itself if it means we all write like Stuart Whatley here. It's the toil, the engagement, the creativity we need, not specific knowledge.
by zmb_ | 2025-08-24 06:19:58+00:00
> we have to be honest that there is no unquestionable source of meaning in life

Think about what you would like to remain in the world after you are gone. Then think how you can connect with and advance those things, and act accordingly in your life. To me this has been a reliable way to find meaning in life. But obviously I don’t claim this is unquestionable or works for everyone.
by masklinn | 2025-08-24 06:20:14+00:00
> in New York and Chicago, Paris and Berlin, Tokyo and Beijing, people are being whisked through a network of tunnels, deep below the bustling city.

Paris’ RER is a mostly aboveground suburban rail network, it’s only underground when it reaches the city center. And it’s far from unique, that’s a common feature of commuter rail.

And while the metro is mostly underground, about 20km (out of 245) is aboveground.
by scott_w | 2025-08-24 06:21:49+00:00
That’s because Russia and Ukraine don’t have the capabilities of NATO. Russia is completely incompetent. Ukraine was incompetent and has spent most of the war trying to remedy that.

NATO doctrine is to start by controlling the skies. I can see a world where a lot of the strategies we see start to crumble when a jet or bomber can pick off key targets at will on and off the battlefield.
by lillecarl | 2025-08-24 06:22:26+00:00
In Stockholm we were a bit late to the party and dug our tunnels bigger, our teeny wheeny network has about 50% above ground stations and most new development is underground since it's easier to DnD (drill and dynamite) through a neighborhood than getting people to move.

Sadly we combine the worst of two worlds, in the summer the train takes on heat though radiation, but since track is tunneled they can't run AC which would heat up the tunnels (we haven't developed on/off switches in Sweden yet).

We only have 65 miles of track compared to Londons 225 but ours is uniquely cool by being bedrock excavation instead of dig & cover.
by Xevion | 2025-08-24 06:22:37+00:00
The whole thing uses Firebase (as all vibe coded garbage does), and the 'country' property inline displays HTML without any kind of validation, meaning you can insert script tags, images, or more excitingly: autoplaying videos.

There's tons of swastikas and fascist imagery that plays 10 of the same video all at the same time. It's really cringe, who has the time to make these videos in the first place?

Looks like something nuked through the rate limit though, because when I try to post anything, it says I'm rate limited by Firebase or whatever in the console.
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-24 06:22:45+00:00
Who cares about the tribe?

I have no issue saying I think religion is BS. I don't care if I lose friends over that tbh.

I just don't normally do so because a) it won't change their mind and b) I don't care what they believe. I still think it's crazy but that's fine. Everyone is a bit crazy anyway. And c) I prefer focusing on common ground than contradictions.

But tribes are overrated in this day and age. If you don't fit in you can just find another one that you do gel with. This changes over time too.
by sillysaurusx | 2025-08-24 06:24:08+00:00
Also for your own sanity, mostly. I always wonder if mine will come back each night. Thus far he hasn’t disappointed, but I’m braced for that day.

That said, some people vehemently argue that it’s abus{e,ive} to let cats wander the neighborhood, so thank you for not trying to tell others what to do. It’s become so common that I’m braced for it every time this topic comes up.
by andreasmetsala | 2025-08-24 06:24:43+00:00
> But seriously, I get why free will is troubleaome, but the fact people can choose a thing, work at the thing, and effectuate the change against a set of options they had never considered before an initial moment of choice is strong and sufficient evidence against anti free will claims.

Do people choose a thing or was the thing chosen for them by some inputs they received in the past?
by solatic | 2025-08-24 06:26:12+00:00
Ctrl-F -> emotion -> 0/0 not found in the article.

Trying to model AGI off how humans think, without including emotion as a fundamental building block, is like trying to build a computer that'll run without electricity. People are emotional beings first. So much of how we learn that something is good or bad is due to emotion.

In an AGI context that means:

Happiness: how do I build an unguided feedback mechanism for reward? Fear: how do I build an unguided feedback mechanism to instruct to flee? Sadness: how do I build an unguided feedback mechanism to instruct to seek external support? Anger: how do I build an unguided feedback mechanism to push back on external entities that violate expectations? Disgust: how do I build an unguided feedback mechanism to instruct to avoid?

Maybe building artificial emotions is an engineering problem. Maybe not. But approaches that avoid emotion entirely seem ill-advised.
by nubinetwork | 2025-08-24 06:28:22+00:00
It sounds like they've been having these issues for a while now, why is it that they had to get the attention of "the manager" in order for anything to be done?

Not just for this instance, but in general... should I start emailing bank CEOs every time I get rejected for a house loan, or Henry Ford's children every time my mechanic refuses to service my car because of a defect they refuse to acknowledge?
by crystal_revenge | 2025-08-24 06:29:17+00:00
My immediate reaction to this question is: "your team's". Nothing will teach you more about how to design software then really understanding why good and bad solutions were adapted to solve a certain real problem.

Software exists precisely because there is still a messy layer connecting user requirements to actions on a computer. If there was not messiness then we could just automate it all. Approaching software from some sort of Platonic ideal of what software should be will frequently lead to bad decisions on it's own.

When you start to see how certain pressures lead to certain paths you learn to recognize the wrong decisions that are often good at the time, and avoid them. At the same time, you need to learn to develop methods that work quickly and effectively. By far the biggest real challenge in real world software is time constraints. This is almost never discussed in theoretical views of software, but the truth is you're always going to be writing code under pressure to ship. You will come across situations where you do not have time to do what you want to do or think is best.

Good software is software that runs and solves the user need, but you will come to realize that there are design solutions that will make successfully running happen more often. The best way to find these is to study the real software you're writing.
by motorest | 2025-08-24 06:30:57+00:00
> With any decent backend implementation, idle connections should be really cheap (...)

Not exactly. With sync calls each server instance can handle only a few hundred connections. With async calls each instance can in theory handle tens of thousands of concurrent requests but each polling response van easily spike CPU and network loads. This means your "it works on my machine" implementation barely registers any load whereas once it enters operation your dashboards start to look very funny and unpredictable, and your scaling needs become far greater just to be able to gracefully handle those spikes. This is a radical departure from classic request-and-response patterns where load is more predictable.
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-24 06:31:44+00:00
I appreciate the nuanced response. France needs this capability to be publicly known for it to have the desired deterrent effect, and like most military expenditures, the intent to use it is somewhat independent from the capability to use it. I think France needed a new Maginot Line, and this is likely what that looks like in current year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
by ben30 | 2025-08-24 06:33:35+00:00
While studying well-designed codebases is incredibly valuable, there's an important "tip of the iceberg" effect to consider: much of good software design lives in the "negative space" - what's deliberately not there.

The decisions to exclude complexity, avoid premature abstractions, or reject certain patterns are often just as valuable as the code you can see. But when you're studying a codebase, you're essentially seeing the final edit without the editor's notes - all the architectural reasoning that shaped those choices is invisible.

This is why I've started maintaining Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) in my projects. These document the "why" behind significant technical choices, including the alternatives we considered and rejected. They're like technical blog posts explaining the complex decisions that led to the clean, simple code you see.

ADRs serve as pointers not just for future human maintainers, but also for AI tools when you're using them to help with coding. They provide readable context about architectural constraints and compromises - "we've agreed not to do X because of Y, so please adhere to Z instead." This makes AI assistance much more effective at respecting your design decisions rather than suggesting patterns you've deliberately avoided.

When studying codebases for design patterns, I'd recommend looking for projects that also maintain ADRs, design docs, or similar decision artifacts. The combination of clean code plus the architectural reasoning behind it - especially the restraint decisions - provides a much richer learning experience.

Some projects with good documentation of their design decisions include Rust's RFCs, Python's PEPs, or any project following the ADR pattern. Often the reasoning about what not to build is more instructive than the implementation itself.
by kragen | 2025-08-24 06:33:43+00:00
Well, you can inherit in Lua, right? In http://lua-users.org/wiki/InheritanceTutorial it's just

setmetatable(new_class, {__index = base_class})

because __index can be a table; it doesn't have to be a function.

I've never tried Roblox, so I have no idea how often people do such things in it.
by shkkmo | 2025-08-24 06:33:49+00:00
> Take any phenomena on a globe earth, describe the exact same thing in flat earth coordinates and then say that everything weird in the equations is a new physical effect you just discovered.

You can't actually do that in an internally consistent way. (Or atleast I've never seen it.) It isn't only interally incosistent but those theories also break down if you look at them too closely. That's why so much of flat earthism relies on conspiracy theories that are used to justify ignoring phenomena rather than actually investigating it.
by wiether | 2025-08-24 06:34:23+00:00
I understand both your point of views and I guess I see the confusion.

With Docker, usually you try to pick the base image that is the most closer to your usecase.

For instance, if you intend to run a Python 3.10 script in your final image, you'll start from a python:3.10 base image, since it contains your most important requirement.

But in the article, the author is starting from an "uv" image, and then in the creation process (described in their Dockerfile), they'll install their required version of python.

Which, for many people writing Dockerfiles daily (me included), feels weird: if you intend to run python, why not starting from an image including your python version?

Then, if we look at what uv actually is, it can of make sense: it's an app written in Rust (so not a python app) that can be seen as a _docker for python apps_.

And since the author's focus seemed to be about uv, we can see why they started from an uv image.
by emporas | 2025-08-24 06:34:53+00:00
But then it is a specialized intelligence, specialized to altering it's weights. Reinforcement Learning doesn't work as well when the goal is not easily defined. It does wonders for games, but anything else?

Someone has to specify the goals, a human operator or another A.I. The second A.I. better be an A.G.I. itself, otherwise it's goals will not be significant enough for us to care.
by nialse | 2025-08-24 06:36:39+00:00
Agreed. Looking forward to having this kind of performance at hand for next to no money in 10 years. (Not sarcasm.)

Consolidation has gone from having a data center with separate servers for all functions, to consolidating in a couple of racks, and will go on to being single server plus redundancy for most workloads you can imagine at some point in the future. Unless AI manages to convince us that we need the performance and cooling of 10:s of kWs per rack.

Some times I imagine that the IT of most companies, the part that is not ”in the cloud” that is, could run on a single server already. And maybe could even host the cloud functions if the admin know how hadn’t been lost to time.
by kelseyfrog | 2025-08-24 06:37:34+00:00
Deaths of despair?

The mid 20th century existentialists came to the conclusion that while life may not have an intrinsic meaning that it doesn't stop people from having a subjective, personal, and self-created meaning.

A bit earlier, Nietzsche, in The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra conceived as Life as a work of art - the conscious and deliberate shaping of one's life with creativity, style, and intention.

Surely there are other ways of grappling with the loss of meaning, but we aren't completely on our own. Even if we have to make our own meaning, believing that's an option is often the most difficult step.

Of course, no one has to make their life meaningful, but that takes us back to the beginning. No one else is going to do it for us. Without meaning, all we have left is despair.