MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jedberg | 2025-08-31 18:25:37+00:00
> Do you think citizens of Hong Kong would choose the Chinese rule of today, or go back to British rule if they could?

I think the people that lived there in 1997 would absolutely want to go back to British rule. But you have to remember that it's been nearly 30 years since it went to Chinese rule. All the young people there prefer Chinese rule, because they grew up with schools teaching them that the British were bad and the Chinese were good.

And at the same time, the most pro-British people left, either going to the USA or Canada, or actually taking advantage of the UKs right-to-return programs and going to the UK itself.

So if you asked the people who lived there today, they majority say they prefer Chinese rule.

My prediction is that they will no longer operate as an SEZ within the decade and will be folded fully into China.
by BinaryIgor | 2025-08-31 18:25:37+00:00
What stands out for me, is that it was all possible thanks to the fact that the AI operator/conversationalist had enough knowledge to, more or less write, it all by hand, if he chose to.

Probably it was said many times already, but it will rather be the competition between programmers with AI and programmers without one, rather than no programmers with AI.

In particular, I love this part:

"I had serious doubts about the feasibility and efficiency of using inherently ambiguous natural languages as (indirect) programming tools, with a machine in between doing all the interpretation and translation toward artificial languages endowed with strict formal semantics. No more doubts: LLM-based AI coding assistants are extremely useful, incredibly powerful, and genuinely energising.

But they are fully useful and safe only if you know what you are doing and are able to check and (re)direct what they might be doing — or have been doing unbeknownst to you. You can trust them if you can trust yourself."
by JCM9 | 2025-08-31 18:25:46+00:00
The problem with trying to just throw money at a problem to hire a bunch of “top” talent and “leading visionaries” is that those egos rarely play well together under the same roof.

Culture, or the lack thereof, eats your unlimited budget for lunch. There are indeed problems that money can’t solve. That’s playing out painfully at Meta right now.
by andrepd | 2025-08-31 18:25:53+00:00
A "double-tap" strike refers to bombing/hitting a target, then after a crowd of rescue workers and other civilians/onlookers has assembled, hitting again. A notorious technique used by e.g. Al-Qaeda suicide bombers, it seeks to maximise casualties and/or ensure the primary target dies due to lack of aid. The IDF has been employing these tactics in Gaza https://www.972mag.com/double-tap-israel-gaza-airstrikes-res...

Israel has now killed at least 189 journalists in Gaza. No foreign press is allowed to enter.
by mercurialuser | 2025-08-31 18:26:07+00:00
Da vinci is great software but for long time vegas users it is not easy to adapt. I tried several times and failed. I used to edit a couple of my daughter theatrical performance with up to 5 cameras and wanted to use da vinci for its "sync-with-audio" feature and easier color correction for the various, different cameras.

I also use 2 pc to edit with vegas, with project and video on an external usb3 disk, moving it from home to office. It is not so easy with da vinci that uses an external database: doable but not easy.
by 9rx | 2025-08-31 18:26:11+00:00
> So it makes business sense to put the extra 10%

Does it actually? I'd buy that it makes silly arbitrary emotion sense to bask in the nonsensical feelings about an even bigger number. The actual business case is much less clear. There is obviously an opportunity cost associated with that extra 10% and 30-100% is not necessarily the best opportunity. I suspect it is often not.
by bccdee | 2025-08-31 18:26:28+00:00
> Where is the proof based system able to invent every possible thought paradigm of humans a priori?

Beyond the realm of feasibility, I'd imagine. The gulf between what is theoretically possible and what is realistically doable is gargantuan.

> I assumed that, because the resource limits of a very rich human (meaning for whom money is never the limit)

The resources of a very rich human are extremely limited, in the grand scheme of things. They can only mobilize so much of the global economy, and even the entire global economy is only capable of doing so much. That's what I'm getting at: Just because there's some theoretical configuration of matter that would constitute a superintelligence, does not guarantee that humanity, collectively, is capable of producing it. Some things are just beyond us.
by namibj | 2025-08-31 18:26:30+00:00
Sure atomic reads need to at least check against a shared cache; but atomic writes only have to ensure the write is visible to any other atomic read when the atomic write finishes. And some less-strict memory orderings/consistency models have somewhat weaker prescriptions like needing an explicit write fence/writeback-cache-atomicity-flush to ensure those writes hit globally visible (shared) cache.

There's essentially nothing but DMA/PCIe accesses that won't look at shared/global cache in hopes of read hits before looking at the underlying memory, at least on any system (more specifically, CPU) you'd (want to) run modern Linux on.

There are non-temporal memory accesses where reads don't leave a trace in cache and writes only use a limited amount of cache for some modest writeback "early (reported) completion/throughput-smoothing" effects, as well as some special-purpose memory access types.

For example, on x86, "store-combining": it's a special mode of mapping set as such in the page table entry responsible for that virtual address, where writes use a special store combining buffer (that's typically some single-digit-number of cache lines) local to the core used as a writeback cache so small writes from a loop (like, for example, translating a CPU side pixel buffer to a GPU pixel encoding while at the same time writing through PCIe mapping into VRAM) can accumulate into full cachelines to eliminate any need for read-before-write transfers of those cachelines and also generally to make those writeback transfers more efficient for cases where you go through PCIe/Infiniband/RoCE (and can benefit from typically up to 64 cachelines being bundled together to reduce packet/header overhead).

What is slow, though, at least on some contemporary relevant architectures like Zen3 (just naming because I had checked that in some detail), are single-thread-originated random reads that break the L2 cache's prefetcher (especially if they don't hit any DRAM page twice), because the L1D cache has a fairly limited quantity (for Zen1 [0] and Zen2 [1] I could now find mention of 22) of asynchronous cache-miss-handlers, with random DRAM read latency (assuming you use 1G ("giant") pages and stay in the 32G of DRAM that the 32 entries of L1 TLB can therefore cache) around 50~100ns (especially once some concurrency causes minor congestion at the DDR4 interface) therefore dropping request inverse throughput to around 5ns/cacheline i.e. 12.8 GB/s, a fraction of the (e.g. on spec-conform DDR4-3200 on a mainstream Zen3 desktop processor like a "Ryzen 9 5900") 51.2 GB/s per-CCD (compute chip; a 5950X has 2 of those plus a northbridge; it's the connection to the northbridge that's limiting here) that limits streaming reads (technically it'd be around 2% lower because you'd have to either 100% fill the DDR4 data interface (not quite possible in practice) or add some reads through PCIe (attached to the northbridge's central data hub which doesn't seem to have any throughput limits other than those of the access ports themselves)).

[0]: https://www.7-cpu.com/cpu/Zen.html [1]: https://www.7-cpu.com/cpu/Zen2.html
by mac-mc | 2025-08-31 18:26:59+00:00
Procrastination is not a time management problem; it's an emotional management problem.

What it comes down to is not having belief in what you do, so you do other things. You might feel trapped, so you pass the time with stuff like YouTube because that is the most compelling thing available to you. A man will walk on broken glass with a smile if he truly believes in what it will accomplish.

When I was younger, I was into video games because they gave me a sense of accomplishment and progress compared to high school, which I found relatively meaningless. I called it progress quest.

When there is a rare game or youtube topic that really obsessively catches your attention, like Factorio, pay attention to it! It helps show you what drives you, and you can try to leverage that into things you find healthier.

Also, it might be worth it to look into ADHD testing if this has been a persistent pattern your entire life.
by walterlw | 2025-08-31 18:27:00+00:00
highly recommend that as well. Disabling history greatly reduced my time spent in the app. UnTrap plugin for Safari helps as well. Can't say that I feel like I spend a reasonable amount of time on the platform still, but now it's mostly me having an urge to distract myself, opening the website and finding the videos I have seen already then closing the tab.
by chistev | 2025-08-31 18:27:04+00:00
My approach is slightly different. If someone offered you, say, 10k USD every day you put in efforts to achieve your personal goals, and they gave you a condition that there should be no days off, would you turn up every day for the 10k dollars or would you let your distractions win?

I bet you'd do what you have to do for the daily 10k dollars, like reading a book, going to the gym, etc.

But since nobody is offering us money we let our distractions win because we don't want to achieve our goals bad enough!

https://www.rxjourney.net/how-badly-do-you-want-it
by gjrq | 2025-08-31 18:27:21+00:00
Latest numbers are about 1e6 qubits with 1e-4 error rate: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15917. Gates (in the sense the OP means) is harder to quantify in the error corrected context once you compile to the operations that are native to your code. Total compute time of about a week assuming a 1MHz "clock" (code cycle time, for the experts). In some ways this is the harder metric to meet than the qubit numbers.

Note that the magic of quantum error correction (exponential improvement in the error rate goes both ways): if you could get another 9 in qubit fidelity, you get a much larger improvement in qubit numbers. On the other hand, if you need to split your computation over several systems, things get much worse.
by stackskipton | 2025-08-31 18:27:23+00:00
This is like saying I can fix global warming by recycling better and going vegan. You are not wrong but it's also like trying to stop a flood with few sandbags.

I've had managers who tried. None of them lasted at these companies that did not care. They were politely told they were not meeting expectations and since they had mortgages and other stuff, they took a hint and moved on.

Again, this fight is political and not corporate. Make tech workers hourly and this will stop. There will also be plenty of tech workers who will fight against this tooth and nail.
by znort_ | 2025-08-31 18:27:24+00:00
books will be around for a while.

but i wouldn't mind getting back to the internet of the 80/90s where you could easily find more genuine content and less aggregators, replicators, marketeers and clickfarms. if that's "killing the internet" then it couldn't happen soon enough (i guess marketeers will not go away no matter what, that's a given).

the fear of decline of original content doesn't seem serious. much of what there is now is endless regurgitation anyway. while most of the free stuff nowadays is indeed just noise, the most valuable, original and quality stuff is free, has always been, and it's there. people have been contributing interesting stuff for multiple reasons and in multiple ways for decades, and still do; it is just buried under tons of rubbish. i see no reason why they would stop. if anything, a less noisy internet could be an incentive, and if gaps in knowledge form that will be even more reason to share and contribute, and things like stackoverflow will come back once llms become obsolete enough.
by i7l | 2025-08-31 18:27:44+00:00
The current best one- and two-gate errors are well below 0.01% and going down with every generation of chips. See: https://ianreppel.org/quantum.html

There are no theoretical reasons QEC can't exist. In fact it already does. Is it already good enough for universal fault tolerance? No. But then again no one said it would. We are slowly getting closer every year.

In his book, Dyakonov offers zero solid reasons other than "it's hard" and thus likely not possible. That's just an opinion.
by huan42 | 2025-08-31 18:27:49+00:00
Yep, AGENTS.md exists Our goal with LLMS.md is narrower: think of it as the repo twin of llms.txt.

AGENTS.md says “here’s how any agent should behave here.” LLMS.md says “here are the files/dirs/tests that actually matter — in a format machines can trust.”

Services like gitingest show the demand: everyone wants a flattened, LLM-ready repo string. LLMS.md just gives those tools a canonical upstream spec instead of guessing.
by trod1234 | 2025-08-31 18:28:06+00:00
You are weak and aimless, because being aimless makes you weak.

When you look at life, ask yourself what brings you most joy in life, what makes you feel most alive, find your direction, and avoid the petty traps designed to enslave you.

Find your discipline, challenge yourself, and find like-minded people without your phone as a filter. The cost of social connection increases exponentially with malign influences as it becomes digital. Learn the education and related skills of discernment which have been purposefully withheld from recent generations. Seek and base your actions on actual truth, not rhetoric.

The first step is recognition of the compulsion traps that have been set for you to enslave you to addiction.

Read a book, Robert Cialdini's "Influence", and you will begin to recognize the subtle factors in your own psychology that allow others to manipulate you towards detrimental ends without your knowledge.

Learn about what specifically defines torture, so you can recognize and eliminate such torturous and vexatious things from your life as intolerable.

Most of the things people have been brought up to believe today are true only in the narrowest of respects, and in a broader perspective are lies of omission, designed to blind you.

Evil didn't stop existing, people were just induced to willfully choose to be blind to it with carefully crafted convincing lies, and technique, and systematic indirect interference to tie you down leaving you without agency.

Reclaim your cultural heritage whatever culture that may be, and prepare yourself for the dark times that are ahead, which may move slowly but are coming.

Without joy, partnership, children, a future, there is nothing. If you aren't moving forward towards that, you are moving backward.
by nchmy | 2025-08-31 18:28:13+00:00
nah, git was absolutely the right thing to squat on - its ubiquitous, so making it seamlessly powerful and easy to use makes for easy adoption. If it was built on pijul or whatever, I'd never have given it a try.

to the extent that niche things might not be supported (yet), so be it. It suits the needs of the vast majority of people. Moreover, if you need those things, I BET you can just do it via git and then carry on working in jj, since jj sits on top of git
by motorest | 2025-08-31 18:28:52+00:00
> My experience after 20 years in the hosting industry is that customers in general have more downtime due to self-inflicted over-engineered replication, or split brain errors than actual hardware failures.

I think you misread OP. "Single point of failure" doesn't mean the only failure modes are hardware failures. It means that if something happens to your nodes whether it's hardware failure or power outage or someone stumbling on your power/network cable, or even having a single service crashing, this means you have a major outage on your hands.

These types of outages are trivially avoided with a basic understanding of well-architected frameworks, which explicitly address the risk represented by single points of failure.
by huan42 | 2025-08-31 18:28:56+00:00
Anticipating a common question: “Uh… you mean AGENTS.md?”

Short answer:

• AGENTS.md = broad, freeform guidance for any agent (already supported by Copilot).

• LLMS.md = structured, schema-like spec tailored for LLMs (dirs, entry points, ignore, run/test).

They’re complementary, not competing. Think of it as:

• AGENTS.md → notes for agents (“how to behave here”)

• LLMS.md → metadata for models (“what matters in this repo”)

Why LLMS.md?

We’re aligning it with llms.txt on the web. Websites have llms.txt to guide LLMs to important pages. Repos now get LLMS.md to guide LLMs to important files. Together, they form a predictable convention across ecosystems.

Where tools fit in:

Services like gitingest already flatten repos into an LLM-readable string. LLMS.md gives them an upstream spec so they don’t have to guess what to include or ignore.

Big picture:

• llms.txt → websites

• LLMS.md → code repos

• gitingest & friends → renderers that consume the spec

• Agents/IDEs → benefit from curated, less noisy context

That’s the ecosystem we’d like to help build. Feedback welcome!
by aseipp | 2025-08-31 18:29:01+00:00
If you are already a heavy Magit user, then most of the basic ideas will probably be appealing and jj will let you bring those ideas to the command line. It will let you do some acrobatics you thought weren't possible before, ones that many users have come to love -- like rebasing a 5-way octopus merge with 2 extra leaves that result in conflicts you don't have to solve yet. (This is a technique known and popularized as "Mega Merge", which I suppose I am responsible for "inventing" along with its semi-silly name.)

I think Magit is an interesting parallel to jj. You say the "magic of git", but for both of them I think most of the "magic" has less to do with Git and more to do with the "design language" exposed to users, and by that I mean the tools that allow you to manipulate, navigate, and arrange commits (and diffs!) Git is more like a physical storage layer for both Magit and jj, but beyond that a lot of the special sauce is unique to their algorithms, their UX, and their "nouns and verbs".

In my experience, Magit users are generally harder to sell because for them jj isn't so revolutionary; die-hard Git powerusers who have been exclusively slugging it out on the command line to perform 10-stack rebases for the last 5+ years tend to be very easy to sell, in comparison. But all these users tend to understand and appreciate the power of a well-designed set of tools for commit graph manipulation. Git powerusers tend to be some of our most hardcore converts and advocates, really.

Full disclosure but I'm one of the jj maintainers and my opinion is that it's pretty good. Maybe try it out for a few days (perhaps without using Magit, if you can :)
by alepeak | 2025-08-31 18:29:11+00:00
Great question! We chose Convex for multiple reasons:

– We spin up isolated projects for each user. Convex handles this seamlessly with zero manual setup, while Supabase/Firebase have limitations and manual configuration needed – We abstract backend logic as visual nodes, so Convex's modularity makes it logical to find the right granularity for workflow representation. – Everything is reactive, so UIs and workflows stay in sync without bolting on listeners – Everything is end-to-end TypeScript with transactions by default, so generated code is predictable and maintainable
by koverstreet | 2025-08-31 18:30:00+00:00
I take a harder line on repair than the ZFS devs, then :)

If I see an issue that causes a filesystem to become unavailable _once_, I'll write the repair code.

Experience has taught me that there's a good chance I'll be glad I did, and I like the peace of mind that I get from that.

And it hasn't been that bad to keep up on, thanks to lucky design decisions. Since bcachefs started out as bcache, with no persistent alloc info, we've always had the ability to fully rebuild alloc info, and that's probably the biggest and hardest one to get right.

You can metaphorically light your filesystem on fire with bcachefs, and it'll repair. It'll work with whatever is still there and get you a working filesystem again with the minimum possible data loss.
by CorrectHorseBat | 2025-08-31 18:30:13+00:00
They could have done quite a lot to piss of the Chinese while still honoring the treaty. The lease was only for the New Territories, but they gave all of HK back. Or they could have tried to give it to the government in Taiwan.

Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
by Terretta | 2025-08-31 18:30:32+00:00
Just as in the linked article, these two statements make it pretty clear:

> A) It should be harder for non-technical users to accidentally install apps designed to harm them.

> B) It should also be possible for anyone to run whatever code they want on hardware they own

Require something in the neighborhood of:

C) It should be possible to prevent people who can run whatever they want from wanting* to intentionally or accidentally install apps designed to harm them; or, where these harms are either not harmful or are reversible.

If you consider things that help with (C), and apply this principle — “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — then a lot of iOS/iPadOS developer and app ecosystem can be understood as positive intentionality around flavors of C.

* By being scammed, persuaded, misled, confused, coerced, etc.
by tombert | 2025-08-31 18:30:35+00:00
Interesting; despite being chronically online I hadn't actually heard of Jujutsu before. I like the idea of a better VCS still using Git under the covers, if for no other reason so that I can continue to use Github or Gitlab to back up and share my code with people. I've never been able to stick with Fossil or Bitkeeper even though they are both very neat because they've never been "sufficiently better" to override the network-effect of Git's popularity.

I'll need to play with this. I don't know that I'll stick with it but I'd be happy enough to be wrong.
by hooper | 2025-08-31 18:30:36+00:00
Jujutsu has "first class conflicts", but it's different from Pijul's "theory of patches". As far as I know, the other big stuff like "working copy is a commit" and the "operation log" (which allows for `jj undo`, safe concurrency, etc) is not present in Pijul. The approaches to Git interop are very different.
by siilats | 2025-08-31 18:31:41+00:00
Or you just buy the largest stock in each one of the 7 largest sectors and it pretty much correlates to the sp500. ETF have some nasty hidden fees related to the etf price being more expensive than the basket when you buy and less than the basket when you sell.

Sector Company 1 Company 2 Information Technology Microsoft (MSFT) Apple (AAPL) Financials JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) Health Care Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) UnitedHealth Group (UNH) Consumer Discretionary Amazon (AMZN) Tesla (TSLA) Communication Services Alphabet (GOOGL) Meta (META) Industrials Boeing (BA) Caterpillar (CAT) Energy ExxonMobil (XOM) Chevron (CVX)
by baobabKoodaa | 2025-08-31 18:31:46+00:00
> Avi Verma, a former OpenAI researcher, went through Meta’s onboarding process but never showed up for his first day, according to a person familiar with the matter.

I don't get it. You voluntarily choose to leave a very highly paid job in favor of an extremely high paid job, and then you... just don't show up to work? What could possibly go so wrong between the time of signing the job contract and showing up to work on day 1?