MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: We built a better reranker and open sourced it
by ninalopatina | 2025-08-27 19:28:35+00:00
Hi HN, Our research team just released the best performing and most efficient reranker out there, and it's available now as an open weight model on HuggingFace. Reranker v2 was designed specifically for agentic RAG, supports instruction following (our v1 was the first to introduce this), and is multilingual. Along with this, we're also open source our eval set, which allows you to reproduce our benchmark results. By releasing these datasets, we are also advancing instruction-following reranking evaluation, where high-quality benchmarks are currently limited. Please give it a try and let us know what you think.
by mlyle | 2025-08-27 19:28:40+00:00
Yup. P=IV is really surprising when you get to high power parts at low core voltages. Needless to say, you need lots of transistors and phases on voltage conversion, and you need lots and lots of plane area.

(And,... 200A is the average when dissipating 200W. So how high are the switching currents? ;)
by JdeBP | 2025-08-27 19:29:09+00:00
The problem is that two pagers don't do everything that they should do in this regard.

They are supposed to do things like ul utility does, but neither BSD more nor less handle when a CR is emitted to overstrike the line from the beginning. They only handle overstriking characters with BS.

most handles overstriking with CR, though. Your output appears as intended when you page it with most.

* https://jedsoft.org/most/
by mbeavitt | 2025-08-27 19:29:43+00:00
what evidence do you have to back up this baseless claim? They openly publish their financial reports: https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports

$178 million might sound like an extremely large amount of money if you're a member of the general public, but for a global resource kept up to date that serves hundreds of billions of visitors per year this is actually not a huge quantity of money.
by derefr | 2025-08-27 19:29:44+00:00
If your code is plain C, then anyone can extend it with, or embed it inside, code of literally any other language; and in so doing, they will have full access/exposure to everything in your codebase — all the same stuff that they would if they were writing their host/extension code in C.

This is not true of C++ (or most other languages):

• C++ has a runtime (however minimal); and so, by including any C++ code in a codebase, you're making it much more difficult to link/embed the resulting code — you now have to also dynamically link the C++ runtime, and ensure that your host code spins it up "early", before any of the linked C++ code gets to run. (This may even be impossible in some host languages!)

• Also, even if there was no associated runtime to deal with, C++ isn't wholly C-FFI-clean. All the stuff that people like about C++ — all the reasons you'd want to use C++ — result in codebases that aren't cleanly C-FFI exposable, due to name mangling, functions taking parameters with non-C-exportable types, methods + closures not being C-FFI thunkable [and functions returning those], etc.

• And even if you bite that bullet, and write your library in C++ but carefully wrap its API to give it C-FFI-clean linkage (usually via a hybrid C / C++ project), this still introduces a layer of FFI runtime overhead. When another non-C language consumes your code, it's then getting double FFI overhead — a call from its code to yours has to convert from its abstractions, to C's abstractions, to C++'s abstractions, and back. (This is why you don't tend to see e.g. non-C++ projects embedding LLVM, or LLVM being extended with non-C++ passes, despite LLVM being designed in this "C wrapper around a C++ core" style.)

C is one of the only languages with a zero-impedance-mismatch, zero-overhead default or forced binding of external symbols to the C FFI (i.e. the C set of platform ABIs + C symbol naming standard.)

The others that do this are: C3 (https://c3-lang.org/); Zig, unless you do weird things on purpose, and... that's really it. Everything else has the same two problems as C++ outlined above.

Even Rust, even Odin, etc. only provide C-FFI linkage as an opt-in feature; and they do nothing to incentivize use of it; and so, of course, due to their useful non-C-FFI-clean features, developers are disincentivized from ever enabling it before they "need" it. So in practice, most libraries in those languages are not consumable from C [or other C-FFI-compatible languages] — and most software in those languages are not extendable in C [or another C-FFI-compatible language] — without extra effort on the upstream's part to add explicit support for doing that. And most upstreams don't bother.

Writing software in C itself, is essentially a way for a project to "tie itself to the mast" and commit to its ABI always being C-FFI clean; such that it can be consumed not only from C, but also from any other language a project might use that supports importing C-FFI libraries. (Which is most languages.)
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-08-27 19:29:45+00:00
OK, but I don't care. A unitary executive is not the system that we have. So it's a takeover of power that, under the current system, does not belong to the president. I don't care that it's a unitary executive move or a dictator move or a mobster move; it's a move that illegitimately expands the president's power.

And, the more he wants it, the more I don't trust him with it. He wants it to make moves that are not good monetary policy, and as someone who lives in dollar-land, I don't want him to be able to ruin my life in that particular way.
by emmanueloga_ | 2025-08-27 19:30:03+00:00
I wonder if anyone use https://verdaccio.org/ to vendor packages?

In theory for each package one could:

* npm install pkg

* npm pack pkg

* npm publish --registry=https://verdaccio.company.com

* set .npmrc to "registry=https://verdaccio.company.com/ when working with the actual app.

...this way, one could vet packages one by one. The main caveat I see is that it’s very inconvenient to have to vet and publish each package manually.

It would be great if Verdaccio had a UI to make this easier, for example, showing packages that were attempted to install but not yet vetted, and then allowing approval with a single click.
by vesinisa | 2025-08-27 19:30:06+00:00
Surely the S&P 500 index regularly closing at all-time-high levels while this "hurting" was unfolding is a valid counterpoint?

Meanwhile, all European stock indices continue to underperform their American counterparts. The return on STOXX Europe 600 index over the past 10 years has been about 58%. The S&P 500 in this same period returned 237%, and more importantly has continued to outperform STOXX Europe 600 throuhgout 2025. Surely investors would be abandoning the US stock market like rats on a sinking ship if Trump was wrecking the US economy?

> Things like that mean that in the future the US won't be able to bully for leverage like they are today.

I would fully applaud this, if it actually does happen. But so far European defence co-operation has been and continues to be weak and incoherent. It is most blatantly apparent in how Hungary and now Slovakia have been able to derail EU-level co-operation in supporting Ukraine.

However I must admit the recent €600 Billion defence package is one rare step to seemingly right direction.
by perihelions | 2025-08-27 19:30:10+00:00
> "not as safe as Europe"

French spooks once detained a randomly-chosen Wikipedia admin and coerced them into using their credentials to delete an article (about French spooks),

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5503354 ("French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into deleting a Wikipedia Article (wikimedia.fr)" (2013)—191 comments)
by schoen | 2025-08-27 19:30:11+00:00
UC Berkeley is a public university, so its administration is bound by the first amendment according to the incorporation doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

(Though maybe the actors you're referring to are students rather than the administration. It's true that students can't violate someone's first amendment rights, although they can interfere with their exercise in a way that the administration might have a legal duty to prevent.)
by bawolff | 2025-08-27 19:30:26+00:00
I think that is what happens to every large system that tries to have fair rules. Eventually it gets lawyered.

Either there are objective rules where people can get a benefit out of knowing the ins and outs of them better, or there are no objective rules and decision makers decide things on vibes.

I'd definitely prefer the objective rules case. [Of course in real life its a spectrum and Wikipedia is somewhere in the middle]

> I’ve visited “talk” pages for topics that seemed a bit off lately I found a whirlwind of activity from a handful of accounts who seemed to find a Wikipedia rule or procedure to shut down talk they disagreed with.

If you think legalese is bad on talk pages, try reading an arbcom case sometime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Ca... ) its a fascinating pseudo-legal system.
by fpoling | 2025-08-27 19:30:27+00:00
You do not need a black hole for the information loss. Just shout a flashlight into empty space. Any information encoded in photons will be lost from the point of view of the sender.

And then the classical notions like information or entropy are not really compatible with General Relativity. Richard Tolman almost 100 years ago proposed interesting extension to the classical thermodynamics that is compatible and can potentially explain apparent paradox of information loss, but it is not known if that extension matches reality.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-08-27 19:30:57+00:00
From Wikipedia:

Moravec's paradox is the observation that, as Hans Moravec wrote in 1988, "it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility". This counterintuitive pattern happens because skills that appear effortless to humans, such as recognizing faces or walking, required millions of years of evolution to develop, while abstract reasoning abilities like mathematics are evolutionarily recent."

If that's the explanation, it's crazy to think what abstract reasoning evolved through millions of years would be like. Thought with layers upon layers above ours.
by const_cast | 2025-08-27 19:31:19+00:00
But... It IS harmful. And we know it's harmful.

Because with each single person who decides to run a particular non free software, that's a tiiiiiny bit more vendor lock on, a tiny bit of control lost, of power, freedom, given up.

And when enough people do this, what happens? Look at Google. Look at the post you're on. You tell me - what happens?

He's not wrong at all - it's just uncomfortable. This is a side effect of capitalism or maybe humanity. Its nothing you or I can single-handedly solve, or cause. But we each contribute to it a tiny amount.
by tialaramex | 2025-08-27 19:31:22+00:00
So maybe a proc macro which lets you #[dummy(Clone,Eq,PartialEq)] instead of #[derive(Clone,Eq,PartialEq)] ?

Although you said "mode of operation" and I can't get behind that idea, I think the choice to just wrap overflow by default for the integer types in release builds was probably a mistake. It's good that I can turn it off, but it shouldn't have been the default.
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-27 19:31:24+00:00
> I’m thinking about implanting one into my hand :^)

On the one hand, I approve of self-administered biohacking.

On the other hand, you might need a Faraday glove to prevent tap to pay shenanigans by folks with a mobile card reader who bump check you.

I would not do this type of biohacking myself, but if you go down this path, look into how NFC skimmers work, because that and compromised card readers and unauthorized tap to pay events on portable card readers is a threat vector. I have heard that Google and Apple are working to roll out tap to pay from card to phone and phone to phone, which could allow folks to skim your NFC device to run an unauthorized transaction.
by bell-cot | 2025-08-27 19:31:46+00:00
From a skim, I see nothing about wealthier homeowners having broader political influence - to systematically (vs. one-off) encourage such less-than-fair assessments, and discourage reform.

Similarly, nothing about the incentives for residents (voters) in an area to use regressive property taxes as a poll tax - whether trying to prevent the less-well-to-do from living there, or to gear up gentrification for their individual benefit (higher real estate value).
by avarun | 2025-08-27 19:31:57+00:00
It’s 2 extra button clicks to generate a password and save it on 1Password, and you never have to leave your current context.

Versus for email OTP you have to switch to your email client, find the email, perhaps refresh a few times waiting for it to come in, click into the email once you see it, highlight the OTP, click copy, then switch back to the app and finally paste. I don’t understand how anybody could possibly prefer it.
by slg | 2025-08-27 19:32:32+00:00
>You're using media coverage to critique my point that media coverage is overblown.

That isn't what I'm doing. I pointed to an instance of a school shooting, asked you if any other shootings of that scale have occurred without receiving similar media coverage, and then pointed to reference material that indicates there have been any in this calendar year.

I truly don't know what point you think you are making. Yes, not every act of gun violence receives the same media coverage as a school shooting. But what is your desired alternative? Should any individual act of gun violence not be reported on because there is so much gun violence? Or are you demanding that every singular act of gun violence should receive national coverage? What is the specific change you want to see in the media coverage?

It is true that school shootings are only one facet of this country's gun problem, but I just don't know how you get from that point to the conclusion that they're "predominantly media hype".
by Sanzig | 2025-08-27 19:32:42+00:00
The Trump admin has a lot less leverage over Wikipedia, though.

The Wikimedia Foundation does not depend on US government funding and even if the US somehow made life difficult for donors, they are sitting on a substantial endowment fund that can float them for a long time.

And at some point, if the harassment gets to be too much, Wikimedia can just up and leave. There's no reason that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be headquartered in San Francisco, it could just as easily be in Oslo or Paris. That's a huge advantage that Harvard didn't have.
by turbodocx | 2025-08-27 19:32:48+00:00
We continue to maintain our html-to-docx to generate Word documents directly from HTML.

100% open source (MIT) honoring the original license. This started as a passion project of contributing and we continue to maintain it today with the rise of AI apps like our main platform. Check it out: npm install @turbodocx/html-to-docx

Works with AI workflows and templating engines

Repo: https://github.com/TurboDocx/html-to-docx
by stego-tech | 2025-08-27 19:33:01+00:00
That’s the point of all this polarization: the era of mass dissemination of information revealed the horrors, mistakes, and transgressions of past regimes and histories that some parties would rather not be widely publicized. The result is a group who wishes to reauthor facts and data to fit their narrative, and the rest who want to act on quality data in good confidence.

It’s not a partisan fight, it’s a fight over whether or not nations, parties, or groups have a right to re-author reality through data to fit their desires.
by mlyle | 2025-08-27 19:33:13+00:00
I buy stuff -- small circuit boards, electronic components, unusual milling cutters, bearings, etc. The existence of these things as commodities lets me do a lot of deep EE and ME work with high school students.

The US will not build a supply chain for these at any reasonable price. And shouldn't. These should be commodities and US labor should focus on higher value things.

(Not to mention that US suppliers don't really like selling at low quantities and most don't really love selling to education or hobbyists).

Tariffs just directly make my programs less feasible.

Note that de minimis-- which we're talking about here-- has something to do with what's at Amazon because of drop shippers, but basically nothing that is sold somewhere like Walmart.
by simonsarris | 2025-08-27 19:33:34+00:00
a bit nicer to see it here: https://are.al.are.na/

It's good its just, I don't know, its precisely what it says it is. A refresh of Arial. It's nice. If they didn't say anything I would think they just fussed with the letter spacing a bit and didn't create a new font at all. That seems like the biggest change.

The monospace is neat.
by uberman | 2025-08-27 19:33:42+00:00
No value is given. It is obfuscated. No "calculator" requires my email address to give an answer. What you have is a classic sales funnel that prompts users for information in the hopes that when they have done the work of providing that information they will continue on to provide personal information. Note as well that your initial post requires a "SHOW" tag. Please don't spam this kind of nonsense here.
by jacobx | 2025-08-27 19:34:04+00:00
Yeah, I think that whole area of dynamically generating UI is really interesting. And having a Swift interpreter like we're using would unlock doing that with native UI components.

Our background is more in making developer tools, so bitrig was the first product we were excited about, but I think there's a lot of overlap with dynamic UI generation, and we'd love to explore that too.
by KaiserPro | 2025-08-27 19:34:09+00:00
> There's no "proper safeguarding". This isn't just possible with what we have.

Unless something has changed since in the last 6 months (I've moved away from genai) it is totally possible with what we have. Its literally sentiment analysis. Go on, ask me how I know.

> and then essentially pray that it's effective

If only there was a massive corpus of training data, which openAI already categorise and train on already. Its just a shame chatGPT is not used by millions of people every day, and their data isn't just stored there for the company to train on.

> secondary model will trigger a scary red warning that you're violating their usage policy

I would be surprised if thats a secondary model. Its far easier to use stop tokens, and more efficient. Also, coordinating the realtime sharing of streams is a pain in the arse. I've never worked at openai

> The big labs all have whole teams working on this.

Google might, but facebook sure as shit doesn't. Go on, ask me how I know.

> It's not a binary issue of "doing it properly".

at no point did I say that this is binary. I said "a flaw is still a tradeoff.". The tradeoff is growth against safety.

> The more censored/filtered/patronizing you'll make the model

Again I did not say make the main model more "censored", I said "comb through history to assess the state of the person" which is entirely different. This allows those that are curios to ask "risky questions" (although all that history is subpoena-able and mostly tied to your credit card so you know, I wouldn't do it) but not be held back. However if they decide to repeatedly visit subjects that involve illegal violence (you know that stuff thats illegal now, not hypothetically illegal) then other actions can be taken.

Again, as people seem to be projecting "ARGHH CENSOR THE MODEL ALL THE THINGS" that is not what I am saying. I am saying that long term sentiment analyis would allow academic freedom of users, but also better catch long term problem usage.

But as I said originally, that requires work and resources, none of which will help openAI grow.
by joe_the_user | 2025-08-27 19:34:25+00:00
The key word is separate. If someone kills someone through negligence or intention they're liable.

Now, if someone acts in a risky situation and kills someone rather than saving them, they can be OK. But in those situations, it has to be a sudden problem that comes up or the actor has to get "informed consent".

Someone who, unleashed a gas into the atmosphere that cured many people of disease but also killed a smaller number of people, would certainly be prosecuted (and, sure, there's a certain of HN poster who doesn't understand this).
by wtallis | 2025-08-27 19:34:25+00:00
AMD's desktop CPUs are still running at a bit more than 1V; 1.3-1.4V is what you'll see at the high end of the clock speed range. But power draw can easily be in the 250–300W range if you turn on the "PBO" automatic overclocking mode, so 200A is not really the upper bound.
by 1718627440 | 2025-08-27 19:34:38+00:00
I don't see how you can use composition without eventually calling methods of the contained objects. Every method of the outer object either uses an inner object or it doesn't. Yes, using the inner object doesn't always means just delegating to a single call. You maybe would implement the outer by calling an inner objects method multiple times or different methods, but nothing stops you of doing the same thing with a super class. When you don't call to an inner object, it's the same as you adding another method to the subclass, without it being present in the parent class.

I think composition over inheritance is only about being explicit. That's it.
by gooseus | 2025-08-27 19:34:40+00:00
It is painfully obvious that this administration and their party do not care about the Constitution, or even the principles they were willing to die to defend just 2 years ago.

If Trump wants Wikipedia gone he'll just sue them or open an investigation that never needs to ever go before a judge. Then in return for dropping the suit/investigation all they need to do is make sure that a friend of MAGA sits on the board and can make sure that certain edits get approved and others don't.

People who are surprised by this or still assuming that he can't/won't do something because of the law or norms or "but then the Democrats will do X" need to wake the fuck up.

These people are going to do whatever the fuck they want under whatever justification they can cook up, and they don't fear any repercussions because they are not planning to turn over their new-found power to anyone else.
by contingencies | 2025-08-27 19:34:45+00:00
Similar situation here, ex POVray. After years of managing ME's on Solidworks, I still prefer OpenSCAD to anything else because it's cross-platform, small, always available, and frequently modeling a single part in isolation or a small number of parts in proximity is adequate to solve a problem. It really doesn't scale to complex projects yet. No measurement tools, no drawing tools are the kickers. Animation is meh, better to go to Blender for anything nontrivial. Intrigued by but haven't really given a fair go to SolveSpace. https://solvespace.com/
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-08-27 19:34:46+00:00
> You're working in embedded development (but somehow need a full-fledged dynamic string library).

The situation isn't all that implausible: e.g., many ESP32-based devices want to work with strings to interface with HTTP servers, and they do have C++ support, but the size limit is small enough that you can easily bump your head into it if you aren't careful.
by vlovich123 | 2025-08-27 19:35:23+00:00
I think that’s a dangerous recommendation and ignores the consequence of doing this within a single threaded reactor (your app will hang permanently if the lock is contended) or assumes you won’t have N threads trying to acquire this lock where N is the size of your thread pool which is entirely possible on a heavily accessed server if the core state that needs to be accessed by every request is locked with said mutex.