MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jfarlow | 2025-08-14 15:55:44+00:00
Here's the full sequence of the protein, found in the supplement [1]

KSSEPASVSAAERRAETEQHKLEQENPGIVWLDQHGRVTAENDVALQILGPAGEQSLGVAQDSLEGIDVVQLHPEKSRDKLRFLLQSKDVGGSPVKSPPPVAMMINIPDRILMIKVSSMIAAGGASGTSMIFYDVTDLTTEPSGLPAGGSAPSHHHHHH

It is a protein encoding the PxRcoM-1 heme binding domain with C94S mutation and a C-terminal 6xHis tag (RcoM-HBD-C94S)

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501389122#supplementa...
by milesvp | 2025-08-14 15:55:53+00:00
I would argue that learning in groups is potentially exponentially more effective. There is a lot of individual interactions that go on when people are all learning something at the same time. Tidbits that they each share with one another. And emotion that social interactions evoke is a powerful motivator for mental rewiring.

But I don’t want to dismiss your insights. I’m curious what the difference is that I’ve experienced. Certainly just putting random people together isn’t nearly as beneficial as grouping by ability, or motivation to learn the topic is useful. Maybe that is a necessary requirement for effective group learning?
by danaris | 2025-08-14 15:55:56+00:00
So you're just claiming that the "attention economy" that's come into being since ~2010 is exactly the same as the way things have been for the past few hundred years? That nothing new is happening with microtransactions, and social media deliberately engineered to keep you scrolling, and hypertargeted advertising?

It's all exactly the same as print ads in a magazine that are selected because they're reasonably likely to be something the people who read that magazine would be interested in?

Because if that's your contention, then frankly, I'd say it doesn't make a lick of sense.
by lupusreal | 2025-08-14 15:55:57+00:00
The "political goals" are pretty fringe, to most people that enjoy FOSS, the goal is to get something that works for themselves and if other people don't like it, that's fine. Most people aren't RMS style revolutionaries trying to convert the global population to FOSS users. I admire that man, but his goals aren't my goals.

For that matter, if political victory were to be achieved in the way you've suggested, it would be utterly Pyrrhic. The only way to achieve a unified singular FOSS operating system that nobody forks or otherwise competes with would be to strip users of their freedoms to do so. So that's not a victory at all for the political side of FOSS.

You might conclude then that FOSS victory is impossible. I think so too, and that's fine. It doesn't stop FOSS from being useful to me and many other people. Some people will never use it, and that's fine.
by at-fates-hands | 2025-08-14 15:55:59+00:00
>> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors.

This has been an issue since the internet was invented. Its always been the duty of the lawyers on both sides to present the information in cases like this in a manner that is understandable to the jurors.

I distinctly remember during the OJ case, there were many issues that the media said most likely were presented in such a detailed manner, many in the jurors seemed to be checked out. At the time, the prosecution spent days just on the DNA evidence. In contrast, the defense spent days just on how the LAPD collected evidence at the crime scene with the same effect, that many on the jury seemed to check out the deeper the defense dug into it.

So it not just technical cases, any kind of court case that requires a detailed understanding of anything complex comes down to how the lawyers present it to the jury.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-14 15:56:00+00:00
I’ve had many headaches, some of which respond exactly like you’d expect if the source of pain was receptors in the scalp, others of which do not.

The meninges and periosteum, which I mentioned also have pain receptors which can be involved in headaches, are very much not the same thing as the scalp.

The idea that the brain doesn't have pain receptors implies that headaches are just hallucinated pain is just completely nonsense.
by stonemetal12 | 2025-08-14 15:56:17+00:00
When Using AI they say "Context is King". "Reasoning" models are using the AI to generate context. They are not reasoning in the sense of logic, or philosophy. Mirage, whatever you want to call it, it is rather unlike what people mean when they use the term reasoning. Calling it reasoning is up there with calling generating out put people don't like hallucinations.
by thewebguyd | 2025-08-14 15:56:17+00:00
Yep. There is no "Linux Operating System." There's the Linux Kernel, and that kernel is used in tons of different OSes. It's sounds like a small nitpick but its a huge deal and a common misconception for those outside of the Linux world anytime a topic of unifying something in the Linux world comes up.

A shared or central wiki sounds nice, but could quickly end up too messy. Arch having its own makes sense, as in the case of Linux - the distro is the operating system. Arch is a different OS from Fedora, which is a different OS from Ubuntu, etc. Sure, there's a lot of overlap but they are each their own unique OS.
by JohnMakin | 2025-08-14 15:57:00+00:00
Even more ghoulish, Zuckerberg is smart and savvy enough (more than most CEO's who have drank their own kool-aid) to be aware of the part he's played in creating this current hellscape. Social media almost certainly has played a big part in creating the current loneliness problem.

Provide the drug, then provide a "cure" for the drug. Really, really gross.
by Supermancho | 2025-08-14 15:57:12+00:00
> Using 2010 census population data, we select the urban areas from which data on prices are collected and choose the housing units within each area that are eligible for use in the shelter component of the CPI.

> Participation in the Consumer Expenditure Survey is voluntary. However, when you participate, you are representing thousands of other households like yours. In order to be able to create quality statistics, we rely on the participation of those who are randomly selected.

i.e. Volunteer census data from self-reporters.

It is the census, but one step away from outright unreliable information. This doesn't engender confidence.
by bunderbunder | 2025-08-14 15:57:18+00:00
This is such selective hindsight, though. We remember the small minority of products that persisted and got better. We don't remember the majority of ones that fizzled out after the novelty wore off, or that ultimately plateaued.

Me, I agree with the author of the article. It's possible that the technology will eventually get there, but it doesn't seem to be there now. And I prefer to make decisions based on present-day reality instead of just assuming that the future I want is the future I'll get.
by stuartjohnson12 | 2025-08-14 15:57:38+00:00
Will be blunt since I imagine you're fed up and don't want affirmations.

In the most common case where I see engineers who say they struggle with the soft skills parts of interviewing, the underlying issue is a lack of skill in communication - working out what's important, stating it clearly and concisely, and in a way appropriate to the audience. I read some of your blog and found it pleasantly chatty, well structured, and obviously technical. If you communicate like you do in writing, there is obviously no problem there. I have no doubt that your account of performing well on technical questions is correct. However...

After some quick google searches, what I did find in your digital footprint is:

- A relatively high number of online posts complaining about employers in general across several years

- A tweet from a few years ago where you say you're fed up of software engineering but are forced to stick with it

- (as you stated) a jumpy work history

My best guess is that you're failing the digital footprint check. If I was hiring and post interview was doing a little more digging on candidates to help do a final pick, I would look at the short tenures, the outwardly directed frustration at employers, the stated lack of desire to be a software engineer at all, and pass on you.

As for why this is happening after several technical interviews? Most likely that's when you undergo final background checks and get cut out of the process. If you are burned out, sick of workplace social narratives, and don't want to work as a software engineer, I sincerely empathise for you. However: don't let me, a random hacker news commenter, find that out in under 2 minutes of time spent on Google.
by duxup | 2025-08-14 15:57:55+00:00
The Soviet illustrations remind me of Samuri Jack.

I read my youngest The Hobbit recently and being familiar with Lord of The Rings and knowing there is a little disconnect between LOTR and the Hobbit ... I was still surprised by how much the Hobbit jumps from event to event and leaves things unsaid, but lingers other places a great deal. It feels almost unpolished.
by 9x39 | 2025-08-14 15:58:00+00:00
I've rounded lots of sharp edges off my personality over the years, having been rejected a lot and having made unforced errors.

The problem with advice here is that, if you're right and there's something personality-related and it's not just fierce competition or tiny sample size, we can't really tell through a post. I'm talking about the je ne sais quoi of you, the body language, the attitude, the unwritten vibe you give off, and posting videos here is uh, well, yeah, unlikely.

So, I'd echo the advice of others to talk to your friends and ask them to give you feedback. Hopefully they're observant and willing to be blunt.

I'll opine, though - have you tried a little masking and humility? I ask because if I had to guess based on probability, the archetype of the highly intelligent, technically excellent nerd tends to also run adjacent to underdeveloped social skills, or at least indifference to using them. Arrogance, defensiveness, ego abound. That's what I coach my team and friends on who have cracked this type of discussion open.

If you were going to mask for an interview, coming across humble/hungry/smart (smart is probably not a problem for most here, but humble?...). Consider mirroring with the interviewer. Stay detached and practice this, especially when a finger is pointed at you or you don't ace a question, or they disagree.

In all, it's probably the stuff you can't describe easily without being next to you. You may not even realize the signals you're putting off, if that is even what's going on.

I know the struggle - my wife has been turned down over and over and over, and she takes it personally, but she's also going for jobs that clearly have tons of great applicants. Is it her attitude? Did she make a mistake bringing up that experience? Or maybe...or maybe it's just out of our control, and we have to stick to the plan and stay in the market. The losing move is not to play.
by xorcist | 2025-08-14 15:58:12+00:00
> the left has a much smaller Overton Window

Above is a long text that completely rests on small statements such as the above, stated with full confidence. I could easily argue for the opposite. And historically speaking, where these terms originate, it's quite clear that the left had to build a larger tent, as the saying goes.

Without these small but confident statements of questionable veracity, the rest of the text sort of fizzles down to one big anecdote about Texas living. Which is nice, but Texas is big and while I have never lived there myself I understand there are large differences between big cities like Austin and the rest.

Much can be said about how forgiving the debate climate is, and how heterogenous different political groups are. But one observation I think can be made is that it shifts with where the center is, the center being the deciding socioeconomic group in a modern democratic society. The opposition needs to rally support and needs to be much more allowing and accepting, and their Overton window as you call it grows wider. The ones with the political wind in their backs, winning elections, will find the power to hone their political skills and sharpen their issues, thereby shrinking this window.

So I believe much of it can be explained by who are winning elections and whose questions are being heard. These are slow processes, society does not change every election, but we did have an almost decade long period where traditional leftist questions were being heard in mainstream media, but right now it's quite clear the wind is blowing in the opposite direction in most Western democracies.
by byteknight | 2025-08-14 15:58:25+00:00
I have to disagree. Anyone that says LLMs do not qualify as AI are the same people who will continue to move the goal posts for AGI. "Well it doesn't do this!". No one here is trying to replicate a human brain or condition in its entirety. They just want to replicate the thinking ability of one. LLMs represent the closest parallel we have experienced thus far to that goal. Saying that LLMs are not AI feel disingenuous at best and entirely purposely dishonest at the worst (perhaps perceived as staving off the impending demise of a profession).

The sooner people stop worrying about a label for what you feel fits LLMs best, the sooner they can find the things they (LLMs) absolutely excel at and improve their (the user's) workflows.

Stop fighting the future. Its not replacing right now. Later? Maybe. But right now the developers and users fully embracing it are experiencing productivity boosts unseen previously.

Language is what people use it as.
by decisionsmatter | 2025-08-14 15:58:37+00:00
No one is arguing that FB has not engaged in egregious and illegal behavior in the past. What pc86 and I are trying to explain is that in this instance, based on the details of the court docs, Facebook did not make a conscious decision to process this data. It just did. Because this data, combined with the billion+ data points that Facebook receives every single second, was sent to Facebook with the label that it was "consented and non-sensitive health data" when it most certainly was not consented and very sensitive health data. But this is the fault of Flo. Not Facebook.

You could argue that Facebook should be more explicit in asking developers to self-certify and label their data correctly, or not send it at all. You could argue that Facebook should bolster their signal detection when it receives data from a new apps for the first time. But to argue that a human at Facebook blindly built a system to ingest data illegally without any attempt to prevent it is a flawed argument, as there are many controls, many disclosures, and (I'm sure) many internal teams and systems designed exactly for the purpose of determining whether the data they receive is has the appropriate consents (which it did, that Flo sent to them). This case is very squarely #1 in your example and maybe a bit of #2.
by 1zael | 2025-08-14 15:59:02+00:00
> "when test fail, they are left guessing as to whether to fix the code or the tests"

I've one thing that helps is using the "Red-Green-Refactor" language. We're in RED phase - test should fail. We're in GREEN phase - make this test pass with minimal code. We're in REFACTOR phase - improve the code without breaking tests.

This helps the LLM understand the TDD mental model rather than just seeing "broken code" that needs fixing.
by exasperaited | 2025-08-14 15:59:07+00:00
I was talking about compact cameras there, because realistically that is all almost anyone was buying, even in corporate environments.

I think they sold in the low thousands of that DSLR (since it was a $15K camera). And the state of these partnership cameras was such that it was obvious they were something of a bridge to nowhere. Anyone could see that once Canon and Nikon began making their own things, Kodak would have trouble carrying on with their remodelled cameras.

Nikon had already shipped their first "conventional" in-house DSLR by then, and it was blowing people away.

Kodak should arguably have bought Sigma around then, but they didn't. They continued making these reworked/hybrid Canon/Nikon things until 2004 but when they quit making DSLRs they said the sector had "poor profitability". In 2005! Even Nikon was making a profit in 2005.

Back to the compact cameras:

This is the higher-end compact camera Canon shipped in 2000 (that all the real estate photographers were using):

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1

This is its Nikon competition, which was an incredible camera widely used in professional settings; they turned up in labs attached to microscopes, in rapid newspaper repro, in museums, web development agencies, all over the place:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990

Sony, Fuji and Olympus had great kit in this segment already. Kodak really just had nothing even close as far as enthusiasts and early adopters were concerned.
by zahlman | 2025-08-14 15:59:07+00:00
Notably, per TFA:

> Services inflation provided much of the push higher, rising 1.1% in July for the largest gain also since March 2022. Trade services margins climbed 2%, coming amid ongoing developments in President Donald Trump's tariff implementations.

Figuring out and applying the rules seems to be having more of an effect than the rules themselves. Which is a good reason not to expect a 0.9% monthly shock to translate into an 11.4% annualized inflation (even setting aside that core CPI is a much different measure from base PPI): they won't have to keep figuring out the rules.
by nerdjon | 2025-08-14 15:59:18+00:00
How we keep getting articles like this, that LLM's will flat out lie, and yet we keep pushing them and the general public keeps eating it up... is beyond me.

They even "lie" about their actions. My absolute favorite that I still see happen, is you ask one of these models to write a script. Something is wrong, so it says something along the lines of "let me just check the documentation real quick" proceeded by the next words a second later being something like "now I got it"... since you know... it didn't actually check anything but of course the predictive engine wants to "say" that.
by tossandthrow | 2025-08-14 15:59:26+00:00
I don't really know what the goal of this comment is?

This thread was not about understanding bitcoins - but banking.

> I own bitcoin precisely because it is not what economists, bankers and politicians want me to own.

It doesn't really make sense to own something just because someone else are saying you should not own it - but whatever floats your boat and as long as your own the consequences of your own actions.
by marcosdumay | 2025-08-14 15:59:26+00:00
The relationship between tariffs and inflation is very complex.

In a consumer-based economy, they shouldn't even have any. Society would just react to tariffs with some deflation elsewhere. But since the US economy is now investment-based (a WTF for some other post), there should be some, but I would still expect not much of it.

IMO, that's almost all due to the tax policy.
by worldsayshi | 2025-08-14 15:59:32+00:00
Personally my bet for the next fruitful step is something in line with what Victor Taelin [1] is trying to achieve.

I.e. combining new approaches around old school "AI" with GenAI. That's probably not exactly what he's trying to do but maybe somewhere in the ball park.

1 - https://x.com/victortaelin
by overgard | 2025-08-14 15:59:47+00:00
I'm not a fan of the argument that LLMs have gotten X times better in the past few years, so thusly they will continue to get X times better in the next few years. From what I can see, all the growth has mostly come from optimizing a few techniques, but I'm not convinced that we aren't going to get stuck in a local maxima (actually, I think that's the most likely outcome).

Specifically, to me the limitation of LLMs is discovering new knowledge and being able to reason about information they haven't seen before. LLMs still fail at things like counting the number of b's in the word blueberry or not getting distracted by inserting random cat facts in word problems (both issues I've seen appear in the last month)

I don't mean that to say they're a useless tool, I'm just not into the breathless hype.
by freehorse | 2025-08-14 16:00:00+00:00
At the same time, there have been expectations about many of these that did not meet reality at any point. Much of this is due to physical limitations that are not trivial to be overcome. Internet gets faster and more stable, but the metaverse taking over did not happen partially because many people still get nausea after a bit and no 10x scaling fixed that.

A lot of what you described as "sucked" were not seen as "sucking" at the time. Nobody complained about the phones being slow because nobody expected to use phones the way we do today. The internet was slow and less stable but nobody complained because they expected to stream 4k movies and they could not. This is anachronistic.

The fact that we can see how some things improved in X Y manner does not mean that LLMs will improve the way you think they will. Maybe we invent a different technology that does a better job. After it was not that dial up itself became faster and I don't think there were fanatics saying that dialup technology would give us 1Gbp speeds. The problem with AI is that because scaling up compute has provided breakthroughs, some think that somehow with scaling up compute and some technical tricks we can solve all the current problems. I don't think that anybody can say that we cannot invent a technology that can overcome these, but if LLMs is this technology that can just keep scaling has been under doubt. Last year or so there has been a lot of refinement and broadening of applications, but nothing like a breakthrough.
by btilly | 2025-08-14 16:00:14+00:00
It is rare for that message to be delivered to either side, for the simple reason that the reaction to it tends to be bad. It comes as no surprise that you would have never seen such messages delivered to conservatives if you don't spend a lot of time in places where this might happen.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJX28l54YxE for an hour-long interview between a well-known conservative Christian and a liberal atheist exactly on the topic of the importance of having conservative Christians treating those they disagree with with empathy.
by runako | 2025-08-14 16:00:14+00:00
> Phones sucked, pre 3G was slow, there wasn't much you could use them for before app stores and the cameras were potato quality

This is a big rewrite of history. Phones took off because before mobile phones the only way to reach a person was to call when they were at home or their office. People were unreachable for timespans that now seem quaint. Texting brought this into async. The "potato" cameras were the advent of people always having a camera with them.

People using the Nokia 3210 were very much not anticipating when their phones would get good, they were already a killer app. That they improved was icing on the cake.
by zamadatix | 2025-08-14 16:00:23+00:00
Those MBs are cheaper precisely because supporting this kind of bandwidth breakout adds cost (-> a fancier PCIe switch in a higher end chipset/southbridge). If you add the support to do this to them you end up with the more expensive motherboard. Some of the highest end motherboards actually have 2 chipsets/PCIe switches, more cost but a more bandwidth sharing for the same number of lanes coming from the CPU.

You can also buy external PCIe switches (just make sure you're not accidentally buying a PCIe bifurcation device). Most of the time it's cheaper to just buy the higher end motherboard though, e.g. I don't want to know what price "Request a quote" for this PCIe switch which can do x8 4.0 upstream and then quad 4x 3.0 downstream https://www.amfeltec.com/pci-express-gen-4-carrier-board-for... is. I do have a few 3.0 era cards which were more reasonably priced though https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256801702762036.html?gateway... and they've worked well for me.