MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nebula8804 | 2025-08-14 15:16:08+00:00
Look im just telling you what they told me. I am not in the field of aerospace engineering but I do want to push back and state that if it was just about money and bullying suppliers, boeing would already be on Mars. You are providing an anecdote about your friend. Great, same as my anecdote when I questioned Starlink employees. It would be wonderful if there was some legit competitor to Starlink in the US so that everyone can just ignore Musk but right now many people can't.

Regarding the tesla link its crazy to see that post crop up again. I remember reading it the day it was posted. I was one of the first people on /r/realtesla. I genuinely believed that they were toast in 2018. That sub has been proven wrong time and time again and now they have devolved into whatever absurdity as long as it is negative of Musk companies. That post has not aged well at all. Looking back, I suspect a lot of corners were cut when the company was running on fumes. The model 3 rollout was so bad that not even the shorts could have anticipated the nonsense they pulled(for example: the famous tent) but they managed to survive and improve significantly since the early model 3 days.

Like I said in my initial post whether there is still enough talent remaining post-Trump remains to be seen.
by trod1234 | 2025-08-14 15:16:12+00:00
I think most people trying to touch on this topic don't consider this byline with other similar bylines like, "Why LLMs can't recognize themselves looping", or "Why LLMs can't express intent", or "Why LLMs can't recognize truth/falsity, or confidence levels of what they know vs don't know", these other bylines basically with a little thought equate to Computer Science halting problems, or the undecidability nature of mathematics.

Taken to a next step, recognizing this makes the investment in such a moonshot pipedream (overcoming these inherent problems in a deterministic way), recklessly negligent.
by skybrian | 2025-08-14 15:16:32+00:00
No, it’s encouraging competition and cost-cutting in a part of the market they don’t control. This can be a reason for companies to support open source, for example.

Meanwhile, the companies running data centers will look for ways to support alternatives to Nvidia. That’s how they keep costs down.

It’s a good way to play companies off each other, when it works.
by _verandaguy | 2025-08-14 15:16:46+00:00
There are highs and lows to the system, just like with any system. Pip overall was a great package manager like 15 years ago, and a big step up from easy_install for sure (n.b., I started programming around the time easy_install was going out of fashion, so my point of view is coloured by that timing).

That said, it'd be nice if pip (or some PSF-blessed successor) adopted a model more similar to that offered by poetry (and formerly, pipenv, and now, I guess, uv) at least for package locking. `pip freeze > requirements.txt` isn't fit for purpose in the age of supply chain attacks, unfortunately, and PyPI already offers a reasonably workable backend for this model, whether the community at-large agrees to this or not. There are objective benefits (biggest one being better code integrity guarantees) that outweigh the objective (largely, performance-related) drawbacks.
by venkii | 2025-08-14 15:16:49+00:00
Mmm interesting.

I'm not sure if it's possible in pure CSS, maybe it is? It relies on creating new SVG elements.

I think including the SVG in whatever website would usually be the simplest way to use it and it's super lightweight.

Feel free to take a look at the SVG generation function here [1] and lmk if you have any ideas to make it happen in pure CSS.

[1] https://github.com/venkr/gradient-gen/blob/main/src/EllipseG...
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-08-14 15:17:12+00:00
Correct: but giving them a thousand timeouts doesn't help, if you still need to give the thousand-and-first. It mitigates the immediate problem, but it also ties up your resources. Eliminating the problem at its root, if that's possible, is a more effective strategy: if we can take away the ability for the real bad actors to get loyal followers, by learning how to change those followers' minds, they won't have anywhere near as much power.
by tootie | 2025-08-14 15:17:21+00:00
Not really and none of the underlying data is hidden. Inflation can vary across regions and industries and durability. Things like food and energy are in a separate category because they can fluctuate very quickly based on exogenous factors (ie bird flu) outside the control of monetary policy. That doesn't mean policy makers ignore them. They scrutinize the data at every level. CPI, core CPI or PCE are just convenient indicators.
by bell-cot | 2025-08-14 15:17:30+00:00
It sure beats the obvious alternative:

https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-deta...

But the AMA and ACEP care far more about self-serving credentialism than about rural patients or communities:

> The American Medical Association, open to all medical students and physicians, and the American College of Emergency Physicians both support state and federal laws or regulations that would require ERs to staff a doctor around the clock.
by zahlman | 2025-08-14 15:18:06+00:00
> Now we'll all be 3%-10% poorer

We won't all, because we can invest savings instead of holding them in cash.

A positive inflation rate, around 2% per year, is deliberately targeted as a long-term average. This is because having a constant expectation of declining value pressures consumers to consume, which keeps money moving through the economy. (We aren't all entrepreneurs, so we can't all be motivated by the opportunity cost of not starting a business.)

> In fact, I see people pressuring the Fed to lower (!) rates

There have been such calls because the inflation problem that prompted spiking the interest rates appeared to have been mostly resolved, because interest rates at the current level are expected to continue exerting downward pressure on inflation, and mostly because high rates have other negative effects.

Boom-bust cycles are not inherently bad. In the long run, history shows that the booms more than outweigh the busts, and suggests (at least to me) that the net result is better than it would be with slower constant growth (which is hard to manage, since you never know when the next big technological innovation will come).

> the tariffs don't seem to be going anywhere

While high in historical perspective, the tariffs are not effectively as high as the headlines make them sound, and there is a lot more to the economy than foreign trade.

> government spending and debt are at all-time highs.

The system is largely designed to work this way — in all developed nations, not just the US.
by rozap | 2025-08-14 15:18:22+00:00
Your comment amounts to "no it won't"

Why. We used to have much higher tax rates on the super wealthy. That was when America was doing stuff rather than floundering.

I'd even argue it's in their own interest to have higher taxes. There is no guarantee the current structure of society will continue indefinitely. Without a more reasonable distribution of wealth, we may end up repeating the "let them eat cake" episode.
by wadadadad | 2025-08-14 15:18:40+00:00
When the top 5% makes 3x more than the bottom 50%? The top 5% makes 38% of the total, while the top 1% alone makes 22%, per the same sources you just quoted. Yes, the ones who make the most can afford to pay the most in taxes.

You didn't even cover GP's main point about getting the top to even pay taxes; the top 1%, per your own source, only pays 26%, while the top 50% pays 16%.

Top x% tax bracket should at least be 32%, per current brackets. So one could argue they aren't even paying what they 'should'. https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brac...
by throw0101a | 2025-08-14 15:19:09+00:00
Other posts in the 'series':

The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicea and the Bible The Great Myths 5: The Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria The Great Myths 6: Copernicus’ Deathbed Publication The Great Myths 7: “Hitler’s Pope”? The Great Myths 8: The Loss of Ancient Learning The Great Myths 9: Hypatia of Alexandria The Great Myths 10: Soviet Atheism The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism The Great Myths 12: Religious Wars and Violence The Great Myths 13: The Renaissance Myth The Great Myths 14: ‘The Inquisition’ – Myths and History The Great Myths 15: What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The Great Myths 16: The Conflict Between Science and Religion

* https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

He also has some good interviews (with authors) on his Youtube channel:

* https://www.youtube.com/@historyforatheists9363/videos

* https://historyforatheists.com/video-channel-2/
by _1tem | 2025-08-14 15:19:33+00:00
Something weird happens whenever someone tries to disrupt the Visa/Mastercard mob. Even in this post, the founders alluded to being "not well connected enough". Also look at how Plaid's acquisition by Visa was cancelled by the DOJ on antitrust claims but then Plaid dropped its plans to build a pay-by-bank network. Makes no sense when compared to the lawsuits filed and dismissed in 2024 and recently July 2025 claiming that Apple tried to build a payment network but were stopped by Visa/Mastercard.
by saghm | 2025-08-14 15:19:54+00:00
> Context omission: Models are bad at finding omitted context.

> Recency bias: They suffer a strong recency bias in the context window.

> Hallucination: They commonly hallucinate details that should not be there.

To be fair, those are all issues that most human engineers I've worked with (including myself!) have struggled with to various degrees, even if we don't refer to them the same way. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've certainly had times where I found out that an important nuance of a design was overlooked until well into the process of developing something, forgotten a crucial detail that I learned months ago that would have helped me debug something much faster than if I had remembered it from the start, or accidentally make an assumption about how something worked (or misremembered it) and ended up with buggy code as a result. I've mostly gotten pretty positive feedback about my work over the course of my career, so if I "can't build software", I have to worry about the companies that have been employing me and my coworkers who have praised my work output over the years. Then again, I think "humans can't build software reliably" is probably a mostly correct statement, so maybe the lesson here is that software is hard in general.
by zozbot234 | 2025-08-14 15:20:04+00:00
> These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity

Funnily enough, that's exactly what "obscene" means in popular parlance. On the other hand, the legal standard for what should be considered obscene is so inherently uncertain and varies so much across time and place that it's just meaningless to say anything that purports to be definitive about that.
by rayiner | 2025-08-14 15:20:07+00:00
There is a high likelihood this ruling gets overturned. The title and the article use the term “book ban” but gloss over what’s actually happening which is legally significant:

> HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book

Florida cannot ban private libraries from stocking books with sexual content. But librarians are government employees buying books and maintaining libraries with government money. The state can direct its employees what kinds of books to make available for the same reason any private entity can do so.

This might be different if libraries were neutral venues for authors to come present about their books. In that case you might have a case about viewpoint discrimination. But the first amendment can’t force the government to buy particular books and make them available to the public.
by taylodl | 2025-08-14 15:20:07+00:00
> Prices rose faster for producers than consumers last month, suggesting that U.S. importers may, for now, be eating the cost of Trump’s tariffs rather than passing them on to customers

Consumer prices lag producer prices. We can't really determine the impact of tariffs to consumer pricing until we've gone through a minimum of a full month with tariffs in place.
by jeroenhd | 2025-08-14 15:20:26+00:00
It was measured to have a performance impact of up to 10%, with even higher numbers for the nth percentile lows: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-vbs-harms-performa...

Overhead should be minimal but something is preventing it from working as well as it theoretically should. AFAIK Microsoft has been improving VBS but I don't think it's completely fixed yet.

BF6 requiring VBS (or at least "VBS capable" systems) will probably force games to find a way to deal with VBS as much as they can, but for older titles it's not always a bad idea to turn off VBS to get a less stuttery experience.
by terminalshort | 2025-08-14 15:20:34+00:00
That may be your preference as to how it should be done, and I see no problem with that. But if your approach is constitutional, so is Florida's. The librarian is an agent of the same government that is controlled by the legislature. If he can decide what books get in and which don't, so can the legislature.

> A few states publish a recommended or approved list of books that the librarian chooses from.

Well isn't that exactly what FL did?
by cmrdporcupine | 2025-08-14 15:20:40+00:00
Honestly it forces you -- rightfully -- to step back and be the one doing the planning.

You can let it do the grunt coding, and a lot of the low level analysis and testing, but you absolutely need to be the one in charge on the design.

It frankly gives me more time to think about the bigger picture within the amount of time I have to work on a task, and I like that side of things.

There's definitely room for a massive amount of improvement in how the tool presents changes and suggestions to the user. It needs to be far more interactive.
by dinfinity | 2025-08-14 15:20:43+00:00
LLMs don't learn, though.

The fundamental problem with social media (and many other things) is humans, specifically our biological makeup and (lack of) overriding mechanisms. One could argue that pretty much everything we call 'civilised behavior' is an instance of applying a cultural override for a biological drive. Without it, we are very close to shit-flinging murderous apes.

For so many of our problems what goes wrong is that we fail to stop our biological drive from taking the wheel to the point where we consciously observe ourselves doing things we rationally / culturally know we should not be doing.

Now the production side of media/content/goods evolves very fast and does not have a similarly strong legacy biological drive holding it back, so it is very, very good (and ever improving) at exploiting the sitting duck that is our biological makeup (food engineering, game engineering etc. are very similar to social media engineering in this regard).

The only reliable defense against that is training ourselves to not give in to our biological drives when they are counterproductive. For some that might be 'disconnect completely' (i.e. take away the temptations altogether), but having a healthy approach to encountering the temptations is far more robust. I am of the opinion that labeling the social media purveyors and producers in general as evil abusers is not necessarily inaccurate, but counterproductive in that it tends to absolve individuals of their responsibility in the matter. Imagine telling a heroin addict: "you can't help it, it's those evil dealers that are keeping you hooked to the heroin".
by shpongled | 2025-08-14 15:20:48+00:00
When I mean "use" them, I mean make heavy use of them, e.g. structs or functions annotated with multiple lifetimes, data flows designed to borrow data, e.g. You can often get by just with `clone` and lifetime elision, and if you don't need to eke out that last bit of performance, it's fine.
by taneq | 2025-08-14 15:20:53+00:00
> This is the result of policy decisions with well-understood outcomes.

All the things you mentioned, certainly, but there's a more direct, more obvious route for policy to control inflation. It is (at least in Australia) one of several artificial measures generated based on the weighted changes in pricing of a "basket of goods" selected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the specifics of which is altered unilaterally, somewhat regularly and relatively opaquely (the info is public but you have to go digging and general discussions tend to ignore it and just say "inflation" or "the CPI".

So inflation is literally defined by these decisions. And while I'm sure the majority are well-meaning, there are still so many very plausible, very easily defendable ways to influence the outcome. eg. iirc around 2021 they decided to count capital gains on housing against the CPI "because families' net worth was increasing" despite the fact that a whole bunch of people were struggling to buy groceries. Such an accountant-ish thing to do.
by empath75 | 2025-08-14 15:21:07+00:00
One thing that LLMs have exposed is how much of a house of cards all of our definitions of "human mind"-adjacent concepts are. We have a single example in all of reality of a being that thinks like we do, and so all of our definitions of thinking are inextricably tied with "how humans think", and now we have an entity that does things which seem to be very like how we think, but not _exactly like it_, and a lot of our definitions don't seem to work any more:

Reasoning, thinking, knowing, feeling, understanding, etc.

Or at the very least, our rubrics and heuristics for determining if someone (thing) thinks, feels, knows, etc, no longer work. And in particular, people create tests for those things thinking that they understand what they are testing for, when _most human beings_ would also fail those tests.

I think a _lot_ of really foundational work needs to be done on clearly defining a lot of these terms and putting them on a sounder basis before we can really move forward on saying whether machines can do those things.
Show HN: Accentless – Right-click to add native accents your writing
by boros2me | 2025-08-14 15:21:10+00:00
I built Accentless after not being able to find a simple way to quickly transform my accentless Hungarian text typed on an English keyboard (and found constantly switching keyboard layouts back and forth and holindg down keys annoying). As someone who frequently writes emails/posts in Hungarian (and wants them to not look awful), I was always hoping for a solution I could use and make my life easier. With ChatGPT, I started using it to copy-paste my text to it to add the accents, but I decided I'll make my life a bit easier.

Therefore I created a Chrome extension that lets me select any text, right-click and instantly transform it into native-quality writing with proper accents, capitalisation and punctuation. I tested with Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, German, French, Spanish but as you'd probably figured at this point, it simply uses OpenAI API behind the scenes, so all languages supported by OpenaAI are supported.

It's free to use if you bring your OpenAI API key and it directly talks with OpenAI API (so if you only use Grammarly for this, you can save some $$$ by using this method).

To get the extension just visit https://accentless.app/ (yes of course it's an AI generated landing page, it has blue/purple in it) OR visit the Chrome Web Store directly https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/accentless-right-cl... dowload the extension, add your API key (or sign up) and it's ready to use.

I'd love some feedback from the HN community, especially from anyone who uses English as the main keyboard layout but writes in multiple languages or deals with international communications. Do you find something like this valuable? What's your current workaround?
by sirwhinesalot | 2025-08-14 15:21:53+00:00
Sorry for the remark, it was indeed unnecessarily rude and I apologise.

That said your appeal to authority means nothing to me. I can simply counter with another appeal to authority like Yann LeCun who thinks LLMs are an evolutionary dead end (and I agree).

It matters not that we cannot comprehend them (in the sense of predicting what output it'll give for a given input). Doing that is their job. I also can't comprehend why a support vector machine ends up categorizing spam the way it does.

In both cases we understand the algorithms involved which is completely different from our understanding of the brain and its emergent properties.
by generalizations | 2025-08-14 15:22:00+00:00
These LLM discussions really need everyone to mention what LLM they're actually using.

> AI is awesome for coding! [Opus 4]

> No AI sucks for coding and it messed everything up! [4o]

Would really clear the air. People seem to be evaluating the dumbest models (apparently because they don't know any better?) and then deciding the whole AI thing just doesn't work.
by clan | 2025-08-14 15:22:02+00:00
Another illustrator from the 70's was Ingahild Grathmer[1] which was said to be a favourite by Tolkien himself[2]. Maybe he was polite because of the noteriaty (not sure if known at the time) but I do like them as well. Have a look at the documentary on YouTube: https://youtu.be/rNqVqzIxi3A&t=24m19s

(Go to 24:19 for Ingahild herself)

[1] a.k.a. Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Margrethe_II_of_Denmark) [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/66764/time-queen-denmark...
by Transfinity | 2025-08-14 15:22:16+00:00
> LLMs get endlessly confused: they assume the code they wrote actually works; when test fail, they are left guessing as to whether to fix the code or the tests; and when it gets frustrating, they just delete the whole lot and start over.

I feel personally described by this statement. At least on a bad day, or if I'm phoning it in. Not sure if that says anything about AI - maybe just that the whole "mental models" part is quite hard.
by nerdjon | 2025-08-14 15:22:16+00:00
I completely respect a personal choice of doing that, I mean I don't particularly want to engage with many of them either. Especially not when I can expect that I am going to likely be called a particular F word (I am a gay man).

My biggest issue is not the lack of contact, it is the demonizing. Using blanket terms like "if you voted for trump your racist, homophobic, sexist, etc" when I just simply don't think that is a valid blanket statement and is really just a "feel good" statement for us to justify not hearing why they might have done something.

I do think that we are actively pushing them to be more extreme with blanket statements like this and it isn't not actually helping.

We can keep calling them names all we want but the fact is they are still voters that are enabling what we all have to deal with. Either we acknowledge that or we just keep repeating the same pattern we have been repeating since at least the 70's. A little bit of progress followed by a regression.
by frankbreetz | 2025-08-14 15:22:46+00:00
yes, but "salaries and compensation" are people doing work, and profit gets paid to shareholders. Most people would agree that the bulk of taxpayer dollars should go to working people and not shareholders, these are two entirely different categories. All of it goes to people, is such a reduction. We could just cut a check to Elon Musk and claim "All of goes to people". It is important to establish the difference, between paying people for labor and giving people money in the form of profit.