MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dgacmu | 2025-09-17 12:57:59+00:00
I haven't driven through it much since it was completed - I moved out of Boston in 2005. As a now-just-visitor I find driving through the central artery tunnels even more stressful than on the old elevated 93, but that could just be a lack of familiarity thing -- I don't drive when I visit Boston, only if I'm flying in to Logan to head to the cape or something. It is, however, _really_ nice not having the freeway cutting through and the greenway is gorgeous.
by tialaramex | 2025-09-17 12:58:00+00:00
So, what programmers wanted (yes, already before C++ got this) was what are called "destructive move semantics".

These assignment semantics work how real life works. If I give you this Rubik's Cube now you have the Rubik's Cube and I do not have it any more. This unlocks important optimisations for non-trivial objects which have associated resources, if I can give you a Rubik's Cube then we don't need to clone mine, give you the clone and then destroy my original which is potentially much more work.

C++ 98 didn't have such semantics, and it had this property called RAII which means when a local variable leaves scope we destroy any values in that variable. So if I have a block of code which makes a local Rubik's Cube and then the block ends the Rubik's Cube is destroyed, I wrote no code to do that it just happens.

Thus for compatibility, C++ got this terrible "C++ move" where when I give you a Rubik's Cube, I also make a new hollow Rubik's Cube which exists just to say "I'm not really a Rubik's Cube, sorry, that's gone" and this way, when the local variable goes out of scope the destruction code says "Oh, it's not really a Rubik's Cube, no need to do more work".

Yes, there is a whole book about initialization in C++: https://www.cppstories.com/2023/init-story-print/

For trivial objects, moving is not an improvement, the CPU can do less work if we just copy the object, and it may be easier to write code which doesn't act as though they were moved when in fact they were not - this is obviously true for say an integer, and hopefully you can see it will work out better for say an IPv6 address, but it's often better for even larger objects in some cases. Rust has a Copy marker trait to say "No, we don't need to move this type".
by _heimdall | 2025-09-17 12:58:22+00:00
That's interesting. I take issue with companies that claim a level of security that doesn't match what they ship, but I never expect them to tell me how to do my job well.

I expect a company to put their current product in as good of a light as they can. They're going to over promise what it can do and show me the easiest "Getting Started" steps as they can. Its up to me to dig deeper and understand what they actually do and what the right solution is for my project.
by Ygg2 | 2025-09-17 12:58:47+00:00
> Standard libraries should include everything needed to interact with modern systems.

So, databases? Which then begs the question, which - Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, MS SQL, etc.? And some NoSQL, because modern systems might need it.

That basically means you need to pull in everything and the kitchen sink. And freeze it in time (because of backwards compatibility). HTML, HTTP parsing, and SHA1024 are perfectly reasonable now; wait two decades, and they might be as antiquated as XML.

So what your language designers end up, is having to work on XML parsing, HTTP, JSON libraries rather than designing a language.

If JS way is madness, having everything available is another form of madness.
by eviks | 2025-09-17 12:59:38+00:00
> it's easier to find in a tactile manner

It isn't because your resting keys require NO finding, so will always be easier.

> makes MUCH more sense to the brain than hjkl > Even the gaming community got this more correct with wasd, in terms of key positions that make sense to the brain

Don't repeat the ancient hjkl mistake? What does your brain say to this simple counter? But more importantly, how does any of the numpad+/F6 nonsense follow from the fact that you can improve within the letters?

> It's like 80ms travel

I bet you didn't really time anything in real use, especially not the return timing to go back to the base, which will take you longer. But more importantly, go convince the "every fraction of a second matters" guy first. To me the lack of design logic/convenience is enough.
by mark_l_watson | 2025-09-17 12:59:41+00:00
I think the answer to your question is ‘not for very long.’ I frequently have breakfast with a friend who is a retired math professor and he is an avid investor in the stock market. We talk a lot about how long the US stock market will keep increasing in value. We don’t know the answer about the stock market, but it is fun to talk about. We both want to start easing out of the stock market.
by Arcterus | 2025-09-17 12:59:50+00:00
> Standard libraries should include everything needed to interact with modern systems.

This is great when the stdlib is well-designed and kept current when new standards and so on become available, but often "batteries included" approaches fail to cover all needs adequately, are slow to adopt new standards or introduce poorly designed modules that then cannot be easily changed, and/or fail to keep up-to-date with the evolution of the language.

I think the best approach is to have a stdlib of a size that can be adequately maintained/improved, then bless a number of externally developed libraries (maybe even making them available in some official "community" module or something with weaker stability guarantees than the stdlib).

I find it a bit funny that you specifically say HTTP handling and JSON are the elements required when that's only a small subset of things needed for modern systems. For instance, cryptography is something that's frequently required, and built-in modules for it often suck and are just ignored in favor of external libraries.

EDIT: actually, I think my biggest issue with what you've said is that you're comparing Python, Go, and Rust. These languages all have vastly different design considerations. In a language like Python, you basically want to be able to just bash together some code quickly that can get things working. While I might dislike it, a "batteries included" approach makes sense here. Go is somewhat similar since it's designed to take someone from no knowledge of the language to productive quickly. Including a lot in the stdlib makes sense here since it's easier to find stuff that way. While Rust can be used like Python and Go, that's not really its main purpose. It's really meant as an alternative to C++ and the various niches C/C++ have dominated for years. In a language like that, where performance is often key, I'd rather have a higher quality external library than just something shoved into the stdlib.
by gchadwick | 2025-09-17 13:00:21+00:00
I'd say there's a mix of 'Chinese GPUs are not that good after all' and 'Nvidia doesn't have any magical secret sauce, and China could easily catch up' going on. Nvidia GPUs are indeed remarkable devices with a complex software stack that offers all kinds of possibilities that you cannot replicate over night (or over a year or two!)

However they've also got a fair amount of generality, anything you might want to do that involves huge amounts of matmuls and vector maths you can probably map to a GPU and do a half decent job of it. This is good for things like model research and exploration of training methods.

Once this is all developed you can cherry pick a few specific things to be good at and build your own GPU concentrating on making those specific things work well (such as inference and training on Transformer architectures) and catch up to Nvidia on those aspects even if you cannot beat or match a GPU on every possible task, however you don't care as you only want to do some specific things well.

This is still hard and model architectures and training approaches are continuously evolving. Simplify things too much and target some ultra specific things and you end up with some pretty useless hardware that won't allow you to develop next year's models, nor run this year's particularly well. You can just develop and run last year's models. So you need to hit a sweet spot between enough flexibility to keep up with developments but don't add so much you have to totally replicate what Nvidia have done.

Ultimately the 'secret sauce' is just years of development producing a very capable architecture that offers huge flexibility across differing workloads. You can short-cut that development by reducing flexibility or not caring your architecture is rubbish at certain things (hence no magical secret sauce). This is still hard and your first gen could suck quite a lot (hence not that good after all) but when you've got a strong desire for an alternative hardware source you can probably put up with a lot of short-term pain for the long-term pay off.
by maxdevai | 2025-09-17 13:00:34+00:00
I created VoiceMeetAI, a Chrome extension that provides real-time AI coaching during video interviews. It listens to questions and suggests structured responses.

Built it because I kept failing interviews due to anxiety, not lack of knowledge. The extension has genuinely helped—used it in 4 interviews and got 3 offers.

But I'm conflicted about the ethics. Is this: - A legitimate accommodation for anxiety (like noise-canceling headphones)? - Unfair advantage over other candidates? - Just leveraging available technology? - Crossing an ethical line?

The tool doesn't give answers to technical questions—it helps with behavioral questions and provides confidence during the conversation.

I'm curious what the HN community thinks. Are there guidelines for AI assistance in professional settings that I should consider?

You can see how it works: https://voicemeetai.com
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-09-17 13:00:53+00:00
Edit: I went and installed omarchy, i had some issues in the process due to my bootloader / bios options being a little finnicky but currently I am on omarchy

I have lots of thoughts if I am being honest, especially on minor nitpicks like neovim not working out of the box, and some other minor nitpicks like I had to install zen and I had to change the theme but it was hard so I went and installed an addon but then the addon doesn't show up so I had to go to github to see that there was a different way of doing it without addons :sob:

Its definitely customizable and has a lot of software that i used to use like signal/localsend but its definitely really opinionated with things like basecamp and hey and even a surprised amount of focus on things like chatgpt and ai

My keybinds were also different but minor nitpicks

It has btrfs I think so I am looking towards snapshots right now but overall its kinda cool. And I have my dotfiles etc. still in a backup

I might create a blog post about it but I think I would rate it a 7.5 / 10

Maybe I liked goofy colors (oglothenerd's rice) with my last rice :p

But I wouldn't recommend it to beginners maybe. idk.
by QuadmasterXLII | 2025-09-17 13:01:21+00:00
If such proofs exist that are checkable by a proof assistant, you can brute force them by enumerating programs in the proof assistant (with a comically large runtime). Therefore there is some small N where any proof of BB(N) is not checkable with existing proof assistants. Essentially, this paper proves that BB(5) was brute forcible!

The most naive algorithm is to use the assistant to check if each length 1 coq program can prove halting with computation limited to 1 second, then check each length 2 coq program running for 2 seconds, etc till the proofs in the arxiv paper are run for more than their runtime.
by potato3732842 | 2025-09-17 13:01:36+00:00
>have you ever wondered if it's a great idea to have former generals populate the defense department, procurement, and revolving door employment with defense contractors? what could go wrong? what could go expensive?

The real question is why are people who are capable of identifying the problem when it's generals sitting on the board of Lockheed or a telecom industry insider heading the FCC suddenly unable to do so when it's someone who's made their career engineering stormwater solutions taking a position at the EPA or the pharma industry funding research that the CDC will base its policy on.

The CDC, the DOD, etc, etc, these are all symptoms of the problem and a distracting sideshow.

As usual, the real evil is in the minds of the people who peddle double standards and the fact that we have architected society such that this behavior is mainstream and those who engage in it are not marginalized.
by mackeye | 2025-09-17 13:02:01+00:00
if you can't find rationality (or the root of ideology) in either side of the conflict, you haven't tried particularly hard.

israel's existence and industry is in the interest of the global bourgeoise. "what to do" with the palestinians they displaced has lingered until they were boldened enough by their utter impunity to enact the measures they've taken. israel is the final "classically" imperial nation: to proceed in any manner which favors the palestinians remotely strips the modern colonial empire of its credulity in its own eternal existence.

hamas is an anti-colonial bourgeois movement, of which we've seen many. their are less reactionary elements within the palestinian resistance as well. this pattern has emerged many times in e.g. north africa, what's unique about palestine is that its anti-colonial war has persisted 60 years past the ends of the others.

colonialism is suffocation. it serves only the u.s., israel, etc., to see it as a tit for tat and shield your eyes from any news out of the entire region.

...and, your last sentence is unreal, to be honest. it's a genocide, and you're curious why no one would like to take the unfortunate undesirables at the receiver's end? are you so immune to ideology?
by smaudet | 2025-09-17 13:02:23+00:00
I don't think things being libraries (modular) is at odds with a standard library.

If you have a well vetted base library, that is frequently reviewed, under goes regular security and quality checks, then you should be minimally concerned about the quality of code that goes on top.

In a well designed language, you can still export just what you need, or even replace parts of that standard library if you so choose.

This approach even handles your question: as use cases become more common, an active, invested* community (either paying or actively contributing) can add and vet modules, or remove old ones that no longer serve an active purpose.

But as soon as you find yourself "downloading the web" to get stuff done, something has probably gone horribly wrong.
by panick21_ | 2025-09-17 13:02:32+00:00
Trains are one part of a larger transportation system. And they are very good at what they do. But you also need metros, trams, buses and so on.

And with that you can build a system where most places, including 50 people mountain villages are well connected.

I can go from Genf to a tiny village deep in the Eastern mountains with 4-6h. I can make that journey with no planning ahead what so ever.

Cars are actually restrictive. What if you want to have a drink? What if you are in a place that is different from your car? What if you are old or disabled? What if you are a tourist? What if you are not allowed to drive because of a traffic violation? And there are also these people called 'kids'. When I was 15 I went from Switzerland to Czechia with the train, no problem.

True freedom is to have a good public transit and potentially car as an option.
by coldpie | 2025-09-17 13:02:54+00:00
I'm in the same boat. I've been looking at foldables, especially the latest Motorola Razr series. The outer screen is about 4" diagonal, which should serve most needs for one-handed use; and it expands into a modern phablet size if you need the extra space. Haven't got one yet (my 13 Mini is still going strong), but when I need to upgrade, I'll probably give a foldable a shot.
Show HN: da Vinci Codex-open physics sims of Leonardo's machines (w UQ and FMEA)
by hunterbown | 2025-09-17 13:03:13+00:00
Hi HN!

I got completely sidetracked during a patent law lecture & ended up building physics simulations of Leonardo da Vinci's 500-year-old mechanical designs with the new GPT-5 Codex.

I built an open repository that reconstructs Leonardo's machines as digital twins. Each invention links to folio-level provenance (original codex manuscripts), includes uncertainty quantification for key parameters, and ships with FMEA safety notes.

The repo has runnable Jupyter notebooks for: - Ornithopter: Flight dynamics with modern material upgrades - Parachute: Terminal velocity analysis (preliminary results ~7 m/s) - Self-propelled cart: Range/energy studies with spring mechanics - Aerial screw: Lift generation vs power requirements - Mechanical odometer: Measurement accuracy analysis

All simulations include parameter sensitivity studies and link back to original Renaissance manuscripts. Everything's open source with comprehensive documentation.

I'd love feedback on: (1) modeling assumptions and unit choices, (2) where reconstructions diverge from museum builds, and (3) which inventions to prioritize next.

Repo: https://github.com/Shannon-Labs/davinci-codex
by xyproto | 2025-09-17 13:03:22+00:00
I gave it a spin. First it complained about aspell dictionaries, then I tried installing a package in an effort to improve the prompt from simply saying "murex":

murex » murex-package install https://github.com/orefalo/murex-module-starship \* Getting package from 'https://github.com/orefalo/murex-module-starship'.... Error in `murex-package` (0,1): protocol handler for HTTPS has not yet been written. Please use git in the mean time (you can do this by specifying a git extension in the uri) .murex_modules » murex-package install https://github.com/orefalo/murex-module-starship.git \* Getting package from 'https://github.com/orefalo/murex-module-starship.git'.... Cloning into '/home/aroedset/.murex_modules/murex-module-starship'... Error in `murex-package` (0,1): \* Package 'murex-module-starship': Error loading module `starship` in path `/home/aroedset/.murex_modules/murex-module-starship/starship.mx`: > \* Missing required executable, builtin or murex function: `starship` .murex_modules »

And then the time I allocated for myself for trying out a random shell I found on the internet was up.
by jtmarl1n | 2025-09-17 13:03:58+00:00
I'm a little surprised to see this use case as so important, there are a couple other comments agreeing with you. Out of curiosity, why is this particular feature that important to you? Why is this flow better than double clicking the file or opening the program first and then opening the file?

Again, not trying to disagree, just curious to understand.
by rasz | 2025-09-17 13:04:22+00:00
Officially. Unofficially just use hacked Win11 installer.

'System Requirements are a SCAM' by Action Retro Sep 13, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuyC0y7Ahfg runs Win11 on 2005 Sun Ultra 20 powered by Athlon 64 x2.
by CaptainNegative | 2025-09-17 13:04:31+00:00
Only finitely many values of BB can be mathematically determined. Once your Turing Machines become expressive enough to encode your (presumably consistent) proof system, they can begin encoding nonsense of the form "I will halt only after I manage to derive a proof that I won't ever halt", which means that their halting status (and the corresponding Busy Beaver value) fundamentally cannot be proven.
by discardedrefuse | 2025-09-17 13:05:23+00:00
I believe the v5 is a Nooelec and is comparable to the RTL v3. The RTL v4 is the latest chip. They both have different strengths and weaknesses tho.

https://www.onesdr.com/rtl-sdr-vs-nesdr-which-one-should-i-b...
by Theodores | 2025-09-17 13:06:58+00:00
Dear Seabass,

One other reason for using the 'Dear [name]' salutation is that you can demonstrate that you can spell someone's name correctly. It takes time and effort to get this detail right and there can be consequences when getting it wrong. If I write to Stephen with 'Dear Steven' then nothing might be said, but you know it will be noted, albeit momentarily. There is also a level of familiarity to get right. Stephen might be 'Steve' in everyday conversation with just his mother using 'STEPHEN' when he is in trouble.

My mother could not spell so I have a common name with an uncommon spelling. I am not too fussed about that, however, it acts like a check word of sorts. If someone goes to the effort of spelling my name correctly then they have passed the test and I know, from the first line, that I need to take them a bit more seriously than those that are unable to pass the test.

The only times I have tried to correct anyone is when it is to do with bureaucracy as that is needed if you want things like your banking to work. I certainly would not try and correct anyone else as I would not want anyone to feel bad for getting this minor detail wrong.

As well as the salutation there is the way we close a message. As well as the standard 'Yours sincerely/Yours faithfully/Best wishes/Kind regards' there are interesting variants that people use.

The former British Prime Minister John Major used 'Yours ever', which I have not seen anyone else use.

Just for the lols, I might start my HN messages with 'To whom it may concern'. Not really. But I am glad that the people that don't use salutations have won. In the early days of email and the web, a considerable amount of bytes were wasted with salutations and, more notably, signatures.

Until next time,

Theodores
by fergie | 2025-09-17 13:07:12+00:00
> a lot of this is left up to developers, without security experts - this is dangerous

Although I see where you are coming from, dismissing unaudited libs as dangerous is slightly missing the point. In fact, the world is a safer place for their existence- the value lost by security exploits is insignificant compared to the value protected by the existence of the libs they exploit. Also, I suspect that you could replace "value" with "lives" in the previous sentence.
by donatj | 2025-09-17 13:07:13+00:00
Every day I feel more and more like Go mod's decision to use the lowest common version of a dependency rather than the highest was pure wisdom. Not only does it prevent code breaking at rest from poor semantic versioning, it's also served to prevent automatic inclusion of supply chain attacks.

npm as designed really aggressively likes to upgrade things, and the culture is basically to always blindly upgrade all dependencies as high as possible.

It's sold as being safer by patching vulnerabilities, but most "vulnerabilities" are very minor or niche, whereas a lot of risk is inherent in a shifting foundation.

Like it or not it's kind of a cultural problem. Recursively including thousands of dependencies, all largely updating with no review is a problem.

The thing I find particularly frightful and distinctive from the other package managers I regularly use is there is zero guarantee that the code a library presents on GitHub has anything to do with it's actual content in NPM. You can easily believe you've reviewed an items code by looking at it on GitHub, but that can have absolutely zero relation to what was actually uploaded to npm. You have to actually review what's been uploaded to npm as its entirety disconnected.
by Flatterer3544 | 2025-09-17 13:07:53+00:00
While the EU foundation was laid out in a time much different to our modern times and the faults that rise with it, especially that the majority of the EU doesn't have the sway as a union should and that a single state can block all others.

But at least when it comes to Chat Control, it is not EU level, it's member states pushing for it and at least for now EU blocking it, so at least for once it is a good thing and the minority of ~8 states can still block it for the majority, block it for all 27 states..