MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by yakshaving_jgt | 2025-08-31 08:07:51+00:00
> This is nonsense. A standard parser takes one input and does processing of this data to give an expected output.

This appears to be the root of your confusion.

Here's a good example of a parser: https://entropicthoughts.com/parser-combinators-parsing-for-...

There are at least 16 paths through this function.

Not one.

16.
Ask HN: Would like your inputs on Hacked
by vednig | 2025-08-31 08:08:24+00:00
I built hacked.stream few months back, since then I've been busy, I also have a android and iOS app for the same client, I was wondering if you could take a look and express your feedback, suggest feedback to improve Hacked to act as a better HN client.

Currently Hacked supports: - Load as You Scroll (new pages load automatically) (a little buggy) - Markdown support for posts and comments. (some exceptions in execution) - Dark Mode (only one for hackers) - Comment Follow based Threading (expand and collapse comments) - HN like interface mechanism (link clicks in Show HN, posts etc.)
by jen729w | 2025-08-31 08:09:14+00:00
> Let's say I and a bunch or other people ask Claude a novel question

Not that ‘novel’ then, is it?

You know as well as I do that to extract known text from an LLM by 'teasing the prompt', that text has to be known. See: the NYT's lawsuit. [0]

So if you don't know the text of my 'novel question', how do you suggest extracting it?

[0]: https://kagi.com/search?q=nyt+lawsuit+openai&r=au&sh=-NNFTwM...
by toofy | 2025-08-31 08:10:00+00:00
If the tech industry and the wider "disrupting" industries haven't been laissez-faire since the 90s then what on earth do you consider laissez-faire?

Governments around the world have let these industries do whatever they want with almost zero oversight and almost zero repercussions for anything. For decades. These companies and industries do whatever they want. Its only in the last few years that a couple of governments have finally started to push back a teeny tiny bit.
by rixed | 2025-08-31 08:10:02+00:00
Most of what you just said makes sense to me, and I believe you are right to draw the attention toward the elephant in the room: quality and variety of ingredients.

The reason why I'm writting this reply is this bit:

> I’m talking about anything processed/manufactured (99+%) that comes from a factory.

No. If we want a chance of survival we have to stop assosiating "factory" and "industry" to "bad". First, despite some of the bad press the food industry regularly receive is probably well deserved, overall food safety out of a factory is very good; much better than anything we ever had in history, and especially safer (if not tastier) than the equivalent homegrown product.

Highly processed food is a problem, be it out of a factory or fried by grandma.

I've worked a bit in this industry, and I can attest that even the less regulated industry will self-regulate periodic biological tests and put in place germ control policies that are much stricter than anything your local farmer will ever be able to do; just because of economy of scale.

And the same goes for the environment: If we don't want to exhaust natural resources we have to resort to industry economy of scales. The quantity of energy and water that would be required to grow tomatoes in our gardens is stupidly wasteful compared to industrial norms. The quantity of detergeant and water needed to clean cooking pots for family-scale cooking is enormous compared to the quantity needed to clean tanks used in the industry.

I feel stupid to have to state the obvious but I'm starting to get really afraid of this trend that associates small scale with better safety, better variety and better economy of resources while the complete oposite is true.
by ehnto | 2025-08-31 08:10:17+00:00
Someone I know speaks in a reverse tree of sorts which actually does resemble a "weave", they start with various statements about the topic at hand without ever mentioning the topic, and eventually arrive at stating the topic near the end (hopefully). Sometimes I have no idea what they are talking about because they forgot to mention it until the very end when they have merged all their branches.
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-08-31 08:10:22+00:00
IQ is meant for population statistics. For that purpose it's a great scientific tool.

> socioeconomic status

No. A real IQ test tries to cancel out educational level from the score by comparing people in buckets of age, education and a few other importance factors.

A systematic deviation of education quality in the same "level" is not possible to cancel out, making IQ indirectly measure socioeconomic status. Hence why the us governments banned IQ on the basis or racism for government hiring.

You cannot measure two prople with 1/4th of a IQ test (logic puzzle is only one part of a full test) and make any useful statistical conclusions. A domain specific interview question or aptitude test a much clearer value to hiring prococess.
by Earw0rm | 2025-08-31 08:11:24+00:00
Yes, this!

A few Pakistanis moving in down the road doesn't stop British people practicing British culture. The reason they don't can be summarised as laziness and ignorance.

"The pub got turned into a mosque", maybe it did but it wasn't because the Moors invaded fgs. A successful pub gets to carry on being one - if it's not successful, maybe that's because people stopped using it.
by austin-cheney | 2025-08-31 08:12:23+00:00
There is attaining employment and then there is attaining employment that doesn’t suck and those are very different beasts.

If you are competing with child like people for a low quality position targeting child like people it’s going to suck. Yes, there are many positions like that but I found it’s so much better to wait for positions that don’t suck.

Before my current job I was unemployed for 6 months, so there was a lot of pressure to land any job. The reality is that some jobs require far less time and energy to attain than others and that cost is completely irrespective to the quality of work. As a result it’s so much better to be patient and target a desirable job than just any job.

Moving forward I look at the tech stack qualifications of job postings and if I see a bunch of tools and frameworks listed, as opposed to expectations and responsibilities, I just discard that opening. It signals the employer wants a candidate to be a disposable tool monkey instead of a problem solver with ownership of responsibilities.
by AngryData | 2025-08-31 08:13:10+00:00
I have read it, im not sure what your point is? The workers in the US do not own the means of production, labor rights are exceedingly poor compared to any peer countries, and it is even illegal to strike in solidarity with other workers unions. There are also many restrictions on how unions can be formed and utilized, some industries have to get government approval for a strike, our legal system is heavily biased towards capital, and our political system is largely based on who can raise the most capital for elections or bribe the most politicians for favors.

Im completely missing where average workers have significant control in either economic or political decisions that would make it socialist or communist or anything other than capitalist controlled.
by esseph | 2025-08-31 08:13:41+00:00
My great grandparents in the US were eating diets of ultra processed foods. Soda Shopes, hot dogs, sausages, hamburgers, Spam, boxed spaghetti, hamburger helper, Jello molds with canned fruit in them, etc.

My great grandfather in particular used to smoke a box of King Edward cigars a week, and lived mostly on a diet of plain bologna sandwiches on plain white bread, and candy corn.
by ACCount37 | 2025-08-31 08:14:18+00:00
That's consistent with what I said, yes.

Two decades of this kind of research spending add up to $100 billion. And most billionaires are closer to $5 billion rich than to $500 billion rich.

It would sure be nice to have an infinite money glitch billionaire who cares a lot about funding anti-aging research and lobbying for anti-aging efforts, the way Musk cares about space exploration and trolling people online. We're lucky that at least some neglected fields get billionaire attention like this. But we can't rely on that happening.
by simianparrot | 2025-08-31 08:14:37+00:00
And in those species there's other constraints that weigh up for it. I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of, but in every single one I know of there's other tradeoffs. And if there's some without them, I'm pretty sure we just haven't discovered them yet.

I find it peculiar that you interpret my statements as "whining". I specifically wrote:

> My point isn’t to stop researching and understanding and even treating, but it’s that life is a balance of tradeoffs

What's whiny about that? Modern medicine has for a while been in a position of treating symptoms of symptoms of symptoms, often of its own making. That doesn't mean we should stop treating symptoms! But it means we have to look at the bigger picture and stop thinking everything is a "problem" to be "fixed", and work harder to understand why things work the way they do, and what the costs of altering them truly are. Sometimes fixing one thing isn't worth the tradeoffs in other areas.
by 9dev | 2025-08-31 08:14:38+00:00
Couldn’t be further from Enterprise luckily, but it leaves me wondering if I’m missing the forest for the trees?

Maybe it’s just a difference in working style. I would feel exhausted by having to learn and maintain a bunch of tools instead of just one, sprinkled with occasional anxiety if there is a better or upstart competing tool that I should be using.
by tasuki | 2025-08-31 08:16:01+00:00
> I don’t see how it was a poor choice to literally copy and paste configs that result in hundreds of thousands of lines of yaml

Perhaps one day you will. I'm a dev who worked with infra people who had your philosophy: many copy pasted config files.

Sometimes I needed to add an env var to a service. Expressing "default to false and only set it to true in these three environments" took changing about 30 files. I always made mistakes (usually of omission), and the infra people only ever caught them at deployment time. It was hell.
by black_knight | 2025-08-31 08:17:34+00:00
Sometimes better ideas can be around for a really long time before they gain any mainstream traction. Some ideas which come to mind are anonymous functions and sum types with pattern matching, which are only recently finding their way into mainstream languages, despite having been around for ages.

What it might take is a dedicated effort over time by a group of believers, to keep the ideas alive and create new attempts, new projects regularly. So that when there is a mainstream opening, there is the knownhow to implement them.

I always include a lecture or two in my software security course (150 students per year), on capability based security. I am also on the lookout for projects which could use the ideas, but so far I have only vague ideas that they could be combined with algebraic effects in some way in functional programming.
by rsynnott | 2025-08-31 08:18:52+00:00
> This is how you know most economic theory is a total lie, if it wasn't they would just "price what people are willing to pay" and be forced to eat the loss

... Wait, why on earth would businesses do that? "Yeah, we're in the business of buying X for a dollar and selling it for 90 cents". What economic theory are you referring to that makes that in any way plausible?

When input prices go up, output prices go up, and usually consumption falls.
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-08-31 08:20:10+00:00
Im honestly not sure what you're trying to get across here. IQ is a dated but good scientific tool to measure cognitive differences across large samples of humans.

I never said they're not scientific. They're invaluable statistical tools. I'm saying their use outside of academia for hiring (among other things) is a fundamental missuse of both the tests and statistics.

Online versions of ICAR tests like these serve little purpose for anyone, and at worst encourage people to abuse ICAR in a similar way.
by bostik | 2025-08-31 08:20:35+00:00
I suspect you're conflating two things into one.

> Why is Amazon gobbling up failing studios on the cheap?

For their back catalogue. The audiences are after familiarity ("more of the same") and nostalgia. The studios in turn are terrified of taking risks, which is why nearly everything they release has been a sequel, prequel, reboot, or in-universe spinoff for more than 15 years. Buying up a studio gives access and control over their massive quantity of pre-chewed dough to feed their cookie cutter productions.

In this Amazon behaves like a PE entity: buy up for cheap, roll up what they can, reduce quality, and milk for as much money as possible before tossing the empty (& possibly toxic) husk aside.

> Why did Amazon, Apple, and Netflix offshore production to the UK, Eastern Europe, and Asia when the US has infrastructure and subsidies?

They have been following what the studios have been doing for decades. Even in 1990's a good chunk of US productions were often filmed in Canada. (To lower production costs, of course.) UK was known for some of their film studios even before then, so made a good early target when Canada started to become too costly and you needed to move elsewhere.

You can see where this is going. We're already seeing more productions filmed and located in/near China[ß]. As the costs there will eventually creep up too, expect to see locations shift to places like Indonesia, Pakistan and South-Eastern Africa.

ß: Part of China's visibility and increased footprint on films is due to a clear political drive. The CCP has set up structures where they strongly encourage their industry arm to fund film and TV/streaming production elsewhere in the world, buying up influence and dictating how Chinese get portrayed in the scripts.
by logicchains | 2025-08-31 08:20:52+00:00
>But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device

The societal losses of a vast amount of people having no private, uncensored means of communication, which this is leading to, are orders of magnitude greater. The largest cause of early death in the past century was governments murdering their own citizens, and the more power governments have over their citizens, the easier it becomes for this to happen again.
by brabel | 2025-08-31 08:21:18+00:00
You should not need to read every line of code in every file and function to understand what’s going on to the level you need to solve a particular problem. You must make a decision to NOT look deeper at some point on any non- trivial code base. A good program with good names and comments in the appropriate places is what allows you to do exactly that more easily . When you see sort(usernames) in the middle of a function do you need to dive into sort to be able to understand the code in that function?? Probably not, unless you are fixing a bug in how usernames are sorted!

With that said , get good at jumping into definitions, finding all implementations, then jumping back where you were. With a good IDE you can do that at the speed of thought (in IntelliJ that’s Cmb+b, Cmd+Alt+b, Cmd+[ on Mac). I only open more than one file at the same time when comparing them. Otherwise it’s much easier to jump around back and forth (you can even open another function inline if you just want to take a Quick Look, it’s Alt+Space). Don’t use the mouse to do that, things you do all the time can be made an order of magnitude faster via shortcuts. Too many developers I see struggle with that and are embarrassingly slow moving around the code base!
by brucehoult | 2025-08-31 08:21:19+00:00
> For instance, the article itself suggests to use early/premature returns

I like premature returns and think they reduce complexity, but as exclipy writes (I think quoting Ousterhout) 'complexity is defined as "how difficult is it to make changes to it"'.

If premature returns are the only premature exit your language has then they add complexity in that you can't then add code (in just one place) that is always executed before returning.

A good language will also have "break" from any block of code, such that the break can also carry a return value, AND the break can be from any number of nested blocks, which would generally mean that blocks can be labelled / named. And also of course that any block can have a return value.

So you don't actually need a distinguished "return" but only a "break" that can be from the main block of the function.

A nice way to do this is the "exit function", especially if the exit function is a first class value and can also exit from called functions. (of course they need to be in a nested scope or have the exit function passed to them somehow).

It is also nice to allow each block to have a "cleanup" section, so that adding an action to happen on every exit doesn't require wrapping the block in another block, but this is just a convenience, not a necessity.

Note that this is quite different to exception handling try / catch / finally (Java terms) though it can be used to implement exception handling.
by bluesign | 2025-08-31 08:21:40+00:00
If you consider developer has the right to determine who runs their software, it is actually.

My last 10 apk installs:

- 9 apps not available in the local store - 1 app I changed some setting in the manifest

For less technical people it will also include some shady apk's for example promising free La Liga match broadcast but then scraping everything from phone.
by kikonen | 2025-08-31 08:22:17+00:00
People get scammed over phonecalls all the time and we're not opening up for debate my freedom to accept calls from unknown users. Because why would you? Doing that is like using a nuke to kill a fly.

This reeks as a powergrab that restricts my freedom disguised with the classic "for the greater good". Same as the new UK age verification laws
by simianparrot | 2025-08-31 08:22:38+00:00
Their average life expectancy is around 70 years, and yes, cancer is rarer in elephants, potentially due to the species having extra copies of the TP53 gene.

Cancer is also a result of many other factors of which humans are more exposed to than elephants typically are, environmental and pollution being a major one, and food ingredients being another. A life expectancy of 70 years for a human isn't that great; in 2024 in Europe it was 79 years for males and 84 years for women, and that's with all the contributing cancer risk factors in society as mentioned earlier.

A more interesting species might be immortal jellyfish, but the simplicity of the organism might be a contributing factor in why it works the way it does.
by pmg101 | 2025-08-31 08:22:53+00:00
Somewhat true but let's also recognise all of us have a certain level of friction. Yes, Alice may be effective with using tool A, due to her knowledge and experience, but not have the higher context to realise that she's at a local maximum and could, after a period of confusion and relearning, become even MORE effective using tool B.

However this is a subtle and nuanced situation requiring careful people management and helping to nudge or lead people, letting them take risks, letting them fail, giving them psychological safety, and praising their attempts. Blanket mandates are just a very tone deaf and stupid way to try to achieve this.
by motoxpro | 2025-08-31 08:23:47+00:00
Neither the GP or this comment are viable in the real world.

Businesses/creators need continued distribution, see Nike as an example of what happens when you "take your audience elsewhere to monetize them better/more."

1. People buy the other option (in Nike's case they kept going to footlocker and buying other shoes rather than only buying Nike DTC, in Beato's case they would continue to go to YouTube to discover new guitar content)

2. The business can't get new customers because no one is on the new platform (Nike DTC/Peertube)

It's viable for a split second (covid, "stick it to Youtube cause they suck") then people just go back to living their lives.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-08-31 08:23:56+00:00
Can you quote where Friedman says “inflation [in America] started the year after the Fed was created”?

What you may be trying to say is until about 1900 there was little secular (i.e. fundamental long-term) inflation, given price levels oscillated more than they moved [1]. But the change to steady inflation pre-dates the Fed. And the secular shift to constant inflation starts in WWII, not 1914 or 1976.

[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/s...
by AlecSchueler | 2025-08-31 08:24:14+00:00
> As we saw multiple times, integration is the edge case and not the rule.

Is that true? Are you sure the edge cases where people didn't integrate aren't just bigger stories than the many many people who arrive and live normal boring lives?

> question the desire of immigrants to pay for the welfare of the senile of their respective state, given the fact that they are more than likely to feel mistreated and wronged

Maybe we could stop wronging and mistreating them? Or is that an important part of our European heritage?
by grues-dinner | 2025-08-31 08:24:18+00:00
Reminds me of a flash game (branch) or tool, art or general "thing" perhaps (branch) I suppose it depends how you see it(return)(return) that I cannot not find (branch)such is the state of the modern web(return) (branch) something in the flavour of a Jared Tarbell piece (return) where you could type and the text would be displayed in a spiral in 3D space (branch) there was a way to make a branch a thought (branch) like this (return) and then return to the parent level. but even that wouldn't handle the weave (branch) not sure if that's a good thing or not (return)
by pembrook | 2025-08-31 08:24:20+00:00
Huh?

The problem in Europe is not immigration, the problem is there being no European country with a vision of the future for immigrants to buy into.

Aesthetic Traditions ≠ Culture. Traditions are just one aspect, but as Nietzsche wrote about the death of God, traditions are not a substitute for values.

America for hundreds of years has offered a shared vision of the future and values to immigrants of every background, and within <1 generation most immigrants become fully integrated.

When European identities are all built around stories from the past, and the only vision of the future being offered is one of impending doom and urbanist intellectual memes (climate apocalypse, population decline, social welfare breakdown, economic malaise, technophobia), it's no wonder that immigrants wouldn't want to buy into your culture. I'll enjoy your aesthetic traditions and take your free social welfare, but I'll keep my own culture and values, thank you very much.

When your sales pitch is: "we don't like new things here so there's nothing to create, but life here is easy, you don't have to do much because the state will take care of you!" I don't think you're attracting the best citizens.
by 4gotunameagain | 2025-08-31 08:24:30+00:00
Apart from the complex topic of political complicity, I am talking about events and actions that the majority of the local population supported. I would of course have to reveal quite a bit about me in order to be more specific.

But even if I were an immigrant to the US from Venezuela or any of the tens if not hundreds countries that the US destabilised, I would indeed think of the majority of US's population as complicit. The people that are against such acts seem to always be the minority.
by simianparrot | 2025-08-31 08:26:09+00:00
Not a single British person I know has ever pursued the "American dream". In fact all of them have historically been far more negative towards America than I have, myself being Norwegian.

The UK is large, so maybe either of us are just looking into a small bubble not representative of the whole, but the times I've visited the UK in the past, I didn't see much of what you seem to describe. Perhaps in the very center of London and its shopping malls, but those are not representative of the UK whatsoever.