MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Fire-Dragon-DoL | 2025-09-22 19:21:24+00:00
I agree up to a point, I find nauseating the idea that somebody digged so deep into a person where the most likely explanation is that the goal is to generate outrage with every of their statement (doesn't matter what's the reason). Even social media websites realized that's the way to get traction.

Now if the problem shows up during a professional interaction in work on open source software, causing damage to somebody, I see the point in raising complaints, but that would be a very explicit problem. And even in that case, just fork Rails, they did that with Elm because of poor management, they didn't ask to remove the author of Elm from Elm, they just forked.
by mullingitover | 2025-09-22 19:21:45+00:00
It's fun to point and laugh in this scenario where the attorney just threw slop at the court. However, these stories won't be around long.

Tools like Lexis+ from LexisNexis[1] now offer grounding, so it won't be as simple to bust people cutting corners in the future because these prevent the hallucinations.

We're now closer to the real Butlerian Jihad when we see pro se plaintiffs/defendants winning cases regularly.

[1] https://www.lexisnexis.com/blogs/en-au/insights/hallucinatio...
by crowcroft | 2025-09-22 19:21:47+00:00
For some of these tech companies their valuations let them go to the market with their equity in way that is basically a ZIRP environment. In a way you could say this is a competitive advantage someone like Nvidia has at the moment and so they are trying to push that.

I'm also pretty skeptical, and could imagine this whole thing blowing up, but it's not like this a big grift that's going to end up like the GFC either.
by kragen | 2025-09-22 19:22:00+00:00
Very much the contrary! In C all the syntax and control structures have to be built into the language; this makes C a much more complex language than Forth, because in Forth the language and interpreter don't even have to support things like comments, string literals, variables, and control flow. Because of immediate words, all of that can be built on top of the base language in high-level Forth, and almost always is. This allows the language itself to be enormously simpler.

It's also generally the case that in a native-code-compiling Forth the mapping from the Forth source to the machine code emitted is very much simpler and more direct than in C; as Virgil implicitly pointed out, the machine code is generally more or less in the same order as the source code, which in C it is not, and you don't have a bunch of implicit type conversions, ad-hoc polymorphic arithmetic operators, and so on. (It doesn't have to be more direct, since you can do arbitrary computation at compile time, but it usually is.)
by mdasen | 2025-09-22 19:22:09+00:00
In C#, there's expression trees which handle things like this and it's how Entity Framework is able to convert the lambdas it's given into SQL. This means that you can pass around code that can be inspected or transformed instead of being executed. Take this EntityFramework snippet:

db.People.Where(p => p.Name == "Joe")

`Where` takes an `Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate`. It isn't taking the `Func` itself, but an `Expression` of it so that it can look at the code rather than execute it. It can see that it's trying to match the `Name` field to the value "Joe" and translate that into a SQL WHERE clause.

Since JS doesn't have this, they have to pass in a special placeholder value and try to record what the code is doing to that value.
by vodou | 2025-09-22 19:22:15+00:00
Also remember: Even though many of these articles/books/papers/etc. are good, even great, some of them are starting to get a bit old. When reading them, check what modern commentators are saying about them.

E.g.: What every programmer should know about memory (18 years old) [1]

How much of ‘What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory’ is still valid? (13 years old) [2]

[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/250967/

[2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8126311/how-much-of-what...
by littlestymaar | 2025-09-22 19:22:36+00:00
> As in, there are lots and lots of investment funds/pension funds/other such like financial entities which are very heavily tied to the "performance" of equity, and I'm talking about trillions (at this point) of dollars, and if that equity were to get a, let's say, 20 or 30% hair-cut in a matter of two-three months (at most), then we'll for sure be back in October 2008 mode.

Just curious, can you detail how it would fail exactly?
by bri3d | 2025-09-22 19:22:45+00:00
At large scale I'd say MySQL is still a competitor for a few reasons:

* Scale-out inertia: yes, cloud vendors provide similar shading and clustering features for Postgres, but they're all a lot newer.

* Thus, hiring. It's easier to find extreme-scale MySQL experts (although this erodes year by year).

* Write amplification, index bloat, and tuple/page bloat for extremely UPDATE heavy workloads. It is what it is. Postgres continues to improve, but it is fundamentally an MVCC database. If your workload is mostly UPDATEs and simple SELECTs, Postgres will eventually fall behind MySQL.

* Replication. Postgres replication has matured a ridiculous amount in the last 5-10 years, and to your point, cloud hosting has somewhat reduced the need to care about it, but it's still different from MySQL in ways that can be annoying at scale. One of the biggest issues is performing hybrid OLAP+OLTP (think, a big database of Stuff with user-facing Dashboards of Stuff). In MySQL this is basically a non-event, but in Postgres this pattern requires careful planning to avoid falling afoul of max_standby_streaming_delay for example.

* Neutral but different: documentation - Postgres has better-written user-facing documentation for user-facing functions, IMO. However, _if_ you don't like reading source code, MySQL has better internals documentation, and less magic. However, Postgres is _very_ well written and commented, so if you're comfortable reading source, it's a joy. A _lot_ of Postgres work, in my experience, is reading somewhat vague documentation followed by digging into the source code to find a whole bunch of arbitrary magic numbers. If you don't believe me , as an exercise, try to figure out what `default_statistics_target` _actually_ does.

Anyway, I still would choose a managed Postgres solution almost universally for a new product. Unless I know _exactly_ what I'm going to be doing with a database up-front, Postgres will offer better flexibility, a nicer feature-set, and a completely acceptable scale story.
by mrguyorama | 2025-09-22 19:22:55+00:00
It was never even published.

Also people vastly misunderstand the replication crisis. "Soft" sciences are harder to actually do science with. It's harder to measure things of humans vs an electron for example.

But even in chemistry, there's a very high chance that if you take a random paper, even from the 60s say, and try to do it yourself you do not get the result from the paper, but that doesn't mean the paper is wrong, it can just as easily mean that the paper did not include some important environmental condition or procedure or whatever.

NileRed and the guy from Explosions and Fire have both had difficulty reproducing random chemistry papers. Does that mean chemistry is this big lie and narrative propped up by lying academics?

No, it means science is freaking hard.

Every paper has a nonzero "failed replication" rate. Realms of science where it is harder to measure things and control the experiment have vastly higher expected rates of replication failure. People who do science every day understand this and work with it, and it is not a problem.

Consider this; China has a HUGE replication problem with their science, with significantly more actual fraud than we have in the US.

Has it hampered their advancement?

Science is usually self correcting in that, if you put out fraud, anyone trying to build off your work will fail. This is what happened with several past famous fraudsters in science.

Scientists do not even consider "peer review" to be a real quality signal of any sort. It basically wasn't a formal system until the 60s.

They just read the paper.
by dragonwriter | 2025-09-22 19:22:57+00:00
> But every optimization you make will allow you to run more inference with this hardware

Unless the optimization relies in part on a different hardware architecture, and is no more efficient than current techniques on existing hardware.

> there's not a reason for it to make it meaningless any more than more efficient cars didn't obsolete roads

Rail cars are pretty darned efficient, but they don’t really work on roads made for the other kind.
by tibbydudeza | 2025-09-22 19:23:37+00:00
I never thought he of all people would go there !!!

Yes Britian is changing -like the US will be where minorities will outnumber the white population - I am a minority living in a black country, the same one where Elon was born and really it is not as scary :).

Totally irrational fear - they need to think seriously about themselves.
by xnx | 2025-09-22 19:23:41+00:00
In addition to detecting the object, Waymo has to make some determination about the material. Rigid heavy metal = slam on the brakes and/or swerve. Piece of tire or plastic bag = OK to run over if swerving or hitting the brakes would be more dangerous. Really hard problem that they're concerned about getting right before they open up highway driving.
by cluckindan | 2025-09-22 19:23:43+00:00
Wow, diluting stock during a bull run is incredibly short-sighted. NVIDIA is betting there will never be a downturn. If there is, the dilution causes late investors to either be left holding the bag or be forced to sell (potentially at a loss), meaning the stock has the potential to drop like a stone at the first sign of trouble.

I guess that’s why they would be gaming their numbers: to convince the next greater fools.
by samlambert | 2025-09-22 19:23:47+00:00
it should be pretty much the same for aurora serverless and likely even cheaper. we see some astronomically expensive auorora serverless bills.

We have not made max_standby_streaming_delay configurable yet. What's your use case?

I don't fully parse your question about blue/green. can you expand your question please? is this for online updrades?
by jjav | 2025-09-22 19:23:58+00:00
> What if there is no debris the other 999 times, and the system works fine?

This argument makes no sense. I take it that you're saying that if we provide the Tesla a road which contains nothing to hit, it won't hit anything?

Well, sure. Also, not interesting.

In a real world drive of almost 3000 miles there will nearly always be things to avoid on the way.
by nixosbestos | 2025-09-22 19:24:06+00:00
You must not have read his blog post from last week. It was of coursed flagged off the front page earlier today. Wouldn't want people reading dhh's own words or anything.

You know the 10 paragraph+ rant about how Britain isnt white anymore. I mean "full of native Brits" which by his own words were based on appearances "walking down the street".

I'll take my licks now.

Nice first post, by the way!
by Terr_ | 2025-09-22 19:24:32+00:00
> There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

My brother in Jesus Christ paperwork, even now there are already 236 active and formally-registered trademarks which have been granted involving "Jesus Christ", 18 if you limit it to "wordmarks." [0]

Also, as per the concurrent(?) edited-in last paragraph, the basic idea remains even if the scope is, er, less-grandiose.

[0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/
by crowcroft | 2025-09-22 19:24:36+00:00
Yea this is speculation, you might be right. I'm not sure how exactly they're doing this but my thinking would be.

1. Selling equity (probably good).

2. Financed with actual profits over time showing up as lower margins on the income statement (probably good).

3. Issuing debt backed by their equity (possibly a dumpster fire).
by withinboredom | 2025-09-22 19:24:47+00:00
I make about half of what I did in the US, but take home more money. Insurance is cheap, no expensive healthcare, no car insurance, no car payment, childcare is subsidized and basically free, all other insurance is <4% of what I paid in the US, etc. Home is expensive, compared to what you get in the US, but payment is about the same.

All that in the US was over 7-8k a month of my paycheck, gone. I get all of that for less than 2k a month.

Let’s not even discuss how advanced the EU banking system is compared to the US… although it has been a few years since I’ve been back, so maybe it has gotten better?

In any case, the EU offers good jobs and a work/life balance you usually can’t find in the US, with smart people that you also usually can’t find in the US. It does have its warts, but it also isn’t candy mountain.
by _bent | 2025-09-22 19:24:52+00:00
Somewhat - Kling is explicitly 'apolitical' and this always attracts a certain ilk of people.

---

And - maybe this is a stretch, but you also have to consider that the competing product (Servo) is written in Rust, while Ladybird is C++.

From what you read on hn, I think Rusts community being very liberal sort of resulted in memory safety being perceived as a culture war thing by some; ("authoritarian big compiler is forcing you to not free this memory" vs "the handmade c programmer with his artisanal allocations"). So Ladybird not being written in a safe language might be part of the appeal.

And I know that Ladybird is supposed to adopt Swift, but I don't think any single LOC has been written yet?
by JoshGlazebrook | 2025-09-22 19:25:20+00:00
No one ever talks about the electricity demands for powering these things. Electric bills here in NJ via PSEG have spiked over 50% and they are blaming increased demand from datacenters, yet they don't seem to charge datacenters more?

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/new-jersey-utilit...
by ComputerGuru | 2025-09-22 19:25:24+00:00
Framing it in gigawatts is very interesting given the controversy about skyrocketing electric prices for residential and small business users as a result of datacenters over the past three years, primarily driven by AI growth. If, as another commenter notes, this 10GW is how much Chicago and NYC use combined, then we need to have a serious discussion about where this power is going to come from given the dismal status of the USA's power grid and related infrastructure and the already exploding costs that have been shifted to residential users in order to guarantee electric supply to these biggest datacenters (so they can keep paying peanuts for electricity and avoid shouldering any of the infrastructural burden to maintain or improve the underlying grid/plants required to meet their massive power needs).

I'm not even anti-datacenter (wouldn't be here if I were), I just think there needs to be serious rebalancing of these costs because this increase in US residential electric prices in just five years (from 13¢ to 19¢, a ridiculous 46% increase) is neither fair nor sustainable.

So where is this 10GW electric supply going to come from and who is going to pay for it?

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610

EDIT:

To everyone arguing this is how DCs are normally sized: yes, but normally it's not the company providing the compute for the DC owner that is giving these numbers. nVidia doesn't sell empty datacenters with power distribution networks, cooling, and little else; nVidia sells the GPUs that will stock that DC. This isn't a typical PR netnewswire bulletin "OpenAI announces new 10GW datacenter", this is "nvidia is providing xx compute for OpenAI". Anyway, all this is a segue from the question of power supply, consumption, grid expansion/stability, and who is paying for all that.
by edoceo | 2025-09-22 19:25:32+00:00
I work on a "complex" web-app stack that we want to be self-hostable.

Our docker-compose.yaml has Postgrs, Redis, OPA, Traefik and then our four services. Works a treat.

One thing we haven't solved for is how to have the PG upgrade work when we update major in the image. Nice that 16 should work for a long while.
by mapontosevenths | 2025-09-22 19:25:57+00:00
Not sure if anyone will see this - but I ripped the CD's at level 5 flac. Hopefully the share works. I haven't used limewire.com for this before.

Normally I wouldn't do this, but there's no way other reasonable way to acquire them now.

https://limewire.com/d/kyg1E#4nQ9kdF9g5
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-09-22 19:26:01+00:00
Murder is when you kill someone on purpose, when you had the option of not. Voluntary manslaughter is when you do a violence on purpose, and the target dies, but your intent was not to kill. Constructive involuntary manslaughter is when you take an action that's against the rules, and someone dies as a result, but you didn't realise you were doing violence. Negligence involuntary manslaughter is when you take an action that's not against the rules, and someone dies as a result, but you could've averted it.

Wartime killing of the enemy could be any of these (except probably not the last one), but it's probably going to meet the requirements for murder. The main reason it's not considered murder is that in war, we use a different classification system for violent acts, because the social context of violence in wartime is very different to the social context of violence in peacetime.

If you're taking the perspective that the social context is bundled up in the definition of the word (Later Wittgenstein's "use" theory of language), then killing an enemy soldier in war is not murder. If you're taking the perspective that a word refers to a meaningful proposition, i.e. a family of states of affairs (Early Wittgenstein's "picture" theory of language), then killing an enemy soldier in war is a non-central member of the 'murder' category, and just nobody calls it that. Personally, I'm a "use" theory proponent, so, uh… hm. Guess I was inaccurate.
by viridian | 2025-09-22 19:26:03+00:00
Oh we absolutely are, and it's not even close. I'd almost take pride in it were it not so ruinous for everyone.

We've gone from philosophers like DeBord and Baudrillard painting a somewhat manic vision of the future, to actually living in this hyper-real mirror of some actual society that no longer exists, mostly courtesy of a global American cultural hegemony. People are willing to risk being fatally shot, to engage in anti-social behavior, or to martyr themselves all in the name of some form of second order "engagement".

The current state of propaganda is such that even the more modern concepts taught in a polisci class on ideology & propaganda, such as banal nationalism, are completely outdated, and are about as quaint as a lot of soviet era concepts. Propaganda is now able to be delivered in the form of hyper-personalized content, where the content itself not even need be propaganda, control of the recommendation engine selecting what a person sees and doesn't see is more than enough.
by lapcat | 2025-09-22 19:26:03+00:00
I'm truly baffled by this reply.

rahimnathwani submitted the article. I personally replied to rahimnathwani, the submitter, suggesting that the year (2021) be appended after it was posted. So, your so-called "fun fact" describes the very situation that I already participated in. You're explaining something that is not only totally obvious to me already but in fact should be totally obvious to everyone, including yourself, since it occurred just a few comments earlier in this discussion thread!

Again, though, the publication date has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the information is out of date.
by oisdk | 2025-09-22 19:26:22+00:00
I mean, the program snippet that I gave above contains 3 first-class values. If you write `x = y + z + 0`, or any other statement that uses the group algebra (or any other algebra), you can use algebraic effects to describe the semantics. The “first-class values” here are the x, y, and z: there’s nothing fancy going on. You can even use the group laws to show that the statement is equivalent to `x = y + z` (or whatever). It’s just normal, value-level algebra.
by jjav | 2025-09-22 19:26:32+00:00
> This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial.

Statistically yes, but look at the actual facts of the case.

A large object on the road, not moving, perfect visibility. And the Tesla drives straight into it.

Not hitting static objects in perfect visibility is pretty much baseline requirement #1 of self driving. And Tesla fails to meet even this.
by glitchc | 2025-09-22 19:27:27+00:00
The article fails to demonstrate how code-tests result in objectively better code. Many comp sci programs have courses on testing that cover TDD, unit testing and fuzzing, among other topics.

Yet much of the safety critical code we rely on for critical infrastructure (nuclear reactors, aircraft, drones, etc) is not tested in-situ. It is tested via simulation, but there's minimal testing in the operating environment which can be quite complex. Instead the code follows carefully chosen design patterns, data structures and algorithms, to ensure that the code is hazard-free, fault-tolerant and capable of graceful degradation.

So, testing has its place, but testing is really no better than simulation. And in simulation, the outputs are only as good as the inputs. It cannot guarantee code safety and is not a substitute for good software design (read: structures and algorithms).

Having said that, fuzzing is a great way to find bugs in your code, and highly recommended for any software that exposes an API to other systems.
by 0xTJ | 2025-09-22 19:27:27+00:00
Stating compute scale in terms of power consumption is such a backwards metric to me, assuming that you're trying to portray is as something positive.

It's like selling steel by the average fractional number of mining deaths that went into producing it. Sure, at a given moment there will be some ratio between average deaths and steel, but that's a number that you want to be as low as possible.
by SloopJon | 2025-09-22 19:27:49+00:00
The article links to the opinion[1], which notes more than once that "the quoted language does not appear anywhere in the opinion," and "Goldstine appears to be a fabricated case." I don't know whether it's easy to get a copy of the complaint in question.

[1] https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B331918.PDF