MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by opan | 2025-09-06 20:02:23+00:00
One problem when people ask this is that my favorite channels are mode +s (secret, not on the public list or revealed when you whois someone and see what channels they're in) with a dozen or fewer active participants (but often 20-50 total members or more) and inviting new people would risk killing the vibe we have going in there. I found these channels basically by word of mouth or friends of friends. While it might sound like gatekeeping, I think everyone should probably find their own way, based on their interests and network. I will say I tend to hang out on Rizon, though.

I do also idle in a lot of the tech channels in Libera, but that's not where I spend most of my time chatting, I'm basically just in those for tech support. I like to already be in the ones for the programs/distros I use so I can read the last bit of conversation before (and after) posting. Both in case someone else had my problem recently, and because it gives me something to do while I wait, like reading a magazine in a lobby. Sometimes the tech support even goes both ways and I'll chime in on an old convo if I think I can help someone.

If an IRC channel gets too busy it'll be hard to have conversations in also, like the madness you see in Twitch chats with the text scrolling by rapidly.
by hyperman1 | 2025-09-06 20:03:16+00:00
Starting with the 386, the ISA got a lot more compiler friendly. Up to 286, each register had a specialised task (AX,CX,DX,BX means Accumulator, Count, Data,Base register). Instructions worked with specific regs only (xlat, loop). When 386 and 32 bits happened, the instructions became more generic and easily combinable with any register. I remember people raving over the power of the SIB byte or the possibility to multiply any pair of register. While not RISC, it got clearly more easy for compilers to work with the ISA, and I remember reading in magazines that this was an explicit design intention.
by bestthrowaway | 2025-09-06 20:03:34+00:00
I was overemployed from 2021 to 2024. I worked two full-time start-up jobs (well, a W2 job and a full-time contract position that was for all intents and purposes a full-time W2 job, just that it paid me without the deductions and such). One was an early stage start-up and the other was a growing startup that eventually got acquired.

During my tenure at both companies, my higher-ups liked my performance so much that when it was time to select people for raises/promotions/rate increases etc, I was among the few selected. I took this as a sign that my half-performance was valued enough to earn me more money so I wanted to stay like this forever.

I interviewed at a company that hid the fact that they wanted 996 until my first day there. It was 6pm my time, I was done for the day, eating dinner, and I got a call from the east coast team to review a PR. PR got merged and he asked, "what are you working on for the rest of the night?" and I was blunt. "I'm done for the night. Bye." sent my resignation in that same night.

I'm convinced that no one can ever be productive for 8 hours a day, let alone 12 hours a day. And indeed, I certainly wasn't productive for 8 hours a day when working two jobs. But I got stuff done.

At what point do we as a society agree that putting more hours doesn't necessarily create more results? We are in an era of increased economic output, but it's not trickling down. People aren't being paid more, they're being asked to work more. It just seems like the bar just keeps arbitrarily getting higher and higher, for the same financial benefit.

In my idealized society, we'd have universal basic income. That way no one would HAVE to work. When people work because they WANT to, they get to be more creative. I believe work output would increase. To say nothing of the non-economic outputs that would result (arts, music, etc).

Yes, I know the system wouldn't be perfect, and blah blah blah socialism, but a flawed great system would be better than our current flawed shitty system.
by toast0 | 2025-09-06 20:04:15+00:00
> Autopilot on a plane requires a pilot in the cockpit. Does that make it "not auto"?

Autopilot in a plane generally maintains heading and altitude. It certainly can do that with or without a pilot in the cockpit, and you hear about incidents from time to time where the pilot is incapacitated and the autopilot keeps the heading and altitude until fuel run out. Keeping heading and altitude is insufficient to operate a plane, of course; Tesla's choice of the word Autopilot was also problematic, because the larger market of drivers doesn't necessarily understand the limitations of aviation autopilot and many people thought the system is more capable than it actually is; an aviation style autopilot wouldn't be much help on the road, maintaining heading in that way isn't actually helpful when roads are not completely straight, maintaining speed is sometimes useful but that's been called cruise control for decades. (Some flight automation systems can do waypoints, and autoland is a thing, but afaik, it's not all put together where you put the whole thing in at once and chill, nor would that be a good idea).

> To me, it meant not needing to have your hands on the steering wheel and being able to have a conversation while maintaining some sort of situational awareness, although not necessarily keeping your eyes fully on the road for the more monotonous parts of a journey.

I mean, that's sort of what the product is, although there's real safety concerns about ability for humans to context switch and intervene properly. I see how that's supervised self-driving, but not how it's full self-driving.

If I paid 90% of your invoice and said paid in full, that doesn't make it paid in full.
by junon | 2025-09-06 20:05:25+00:00
I had the same thing happen on both Facebook and Twitter. The answer is: nothing.

In both cases for me, I had signed up and logged in for the first time, and was met with an immediate ban. No rhyme or reason why.

I, too, needed it for work so had no prior history from my IPs in the case of Facebook at least. So maybe that's why, but still. Very aggressive and annoying blocking algorithm behavior like that cost them some advertising money as we just decided it wasn't worth it to even advertise there.
by argiopetech | 2025-09-06 20:05:32+00:00
Governments are overthrown regularly (I count 13 such cases just in the 2010s). Mine hasn't yet made it to the point where such actions are needed --- if and when it does, you may judge me by my actions.

As for why we have government: the alternatives are unstable and devolve into government, or are weak easily brought to the submission of other states (those powers having a natural incentive in land, people [historically: slaves], and other natural resources to invade weak or disorganized neighbors).

Re. your other points, if we can have those discussions we're likely not in the grips of tyranny. Tyranny has a way of making you accept the potholes and the fact you don't have water 5/7 days (beats dying in a labor camp, and you probably don't have fuel for your car anyway).

Since you asked, though: Paving and water/sewage are not inherently tyrannical. Acquiring the right of way may be. Schools are not inherently tyrannical, but may be used subversively to produce a populace willing to be governed under tyranny. Protecting territorial waters it not inherently tyrannical, but military might can certainly be used in a tyrannical manner. Inspection of food and funding of science and medicine are not inherently tyrannical, but the taxation required for that funding may be, as could be e.g., requiring the use of the output of that funded medicinal research.

In summary, I'm saying that every government must be watched carefully by its citizens lest it devolve into tyranny. By assuming this trend (demonstrated time and again through history) to be indicative of future risk, I am prepared for that eventuality. By continued vigilance, I implicitly fight for the opposite. By continued discourse, I demand the same of my peers (and they of me, mitigating my own tyrannical traits).

Personally, I wouldn't trade my government (imperfect though it may be) for a 50% nominal tax rate and sub-arctic climate. That said, it's no surprise to me that the Kingdom of Norway, a parliamentary monarchy with 4% the land area and less than half the population density vs. USA, populated by 80% ethnic Norwegians, would have a very different form of and perspective on government than the third largest country (by land mass), de-facto world hegemon, a federated republic populated by 360 million children of colonists and immigrants. Horses for courses.
by shellsteady | 2025-09-06 20:06:04+00:00
Thanks! A full CLI is on my list, but you can use Greppers as a terminal app today with fzf:

# add to ~/.bashrc or ~/.zshrc gpr() { curl -fsSL https://www.greppers.com/data/commands.json | jq -r '.[] | [.title, .command, (.tags|join(","))] | @tsv' | fzf --with-nth=1,3 --delimiter='\t' \ --header='type to filter • Enter=copy' \ --preview='printf "⟪ %s ⟫\n\n%s\n" {1} {2}' \ --bind 'enter:execute-silent(echo -n {2} | (pbcopy || xclip -selection clipboard || wl-copy || xsel -ib || clip.exe))+accept' } # usage: run `gpr`, type to filter, Enter copies the command
by shrubble | 2025-09-06 20:06:28+00:00
First, the quote from the parent post is "people bring up the most extreme, outlier situations (500 mile trips) as a cudgel against EVs"

There are plenty of people, myself included, who routinely take trips in excess of 500 miles.

Next weekend I will be visiting family 1100 miles away - I will drive, stay 2 weeks, and then drive back.

I can fill up in about 15 minutes and drive 350 to 400 miles, so, over 1200 miles my total "recharge" time is 45 minutes.

The Leaf gets ~212 minutes and then takes 35 minutes (minimum) to charge to 80%.

To go 1100 miles will take at least 5 stops at 35 minutes each = 165 minutes; realistically, longer because you have to find your charging stations and drive to them; plus that only takes you to 80% instead of 100% (which I get when I fill up with gas) which reduces range. So I am being generous to the Leaf in my estimates.

So for 7.5 hours of actual drive time, I have to add in 2 hours (165 minutes minus 45 = 120 minutes) additional because of the EV. That's adding about 25% more time on the trip.
by tzury | 2025-09-06 20:08:51+00:00
I simply built a side table in the DB, whereas any expression was associated with a range of a 2 YEARS (numbers).

any time they enter and expression (auto complete), it they introduce a new one, they needed to add the range.

this did the job.

the time I spent the most was to sort the existing data and restore it in the new dictionary.
by toomanyrichies | 2025-09-06 20:08:52+00:00
“I think founders need to create incentive mechanisms and the right atmosphere - where people want to work hard because they believe this is the best way to spend their time. It should feel like contributing to a mission that can’t be matched by other things.”

- Gregor Zunic [1]

“A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.”

-apocryphally attributed to Napoleon

1. https://x.com/gregpr07/status/1964392101682303438
by manquer | 2025-09-06 20:09:05+00:00
This point is why I find series like Dune or even aspects of Foundation implausible .

At the scale of interstellar empires machines are have to do most of the administration. You cannot centralize so much bureaucracy without computers involved .

I understand the need for science fiction to focus on the human drama, but trying to have empires and be anti-machines is unrealistic.
by atcon | 2025-09-06 20:09:55+00:00
Your comments on sensor fusion seem to describe the weird results of 2 informal ADAS (lidar, vision, lidar + vision, lidar + vision + 4d imaging radar, etc.) “tournaments” conducted earlier this year. There was an earlier HN post about it <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44694891> with a comment noting “there was a wide range of crash avoidance behavior even between the same car likely due to the machine learning, and that also makes explaining the differences hard. Hopefully someone with more background on ADAS systems can watch and post what they think.”

Notably, sensor confusion is also an “unsolved” problem in humans, eg vision and vestibular (inner ear) conflicts possibly explaining motion sickness/vertigo <https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-025-00417-2>

The results of both tournaments: <https://carnewschina.com/2025/07/24/chinas-massive-adas-test...> Counterintuitively, vision scored best (Tesla Model X)

The videos are fascinating to watch (subtitles are available): Tournament 1 (36 cars, 6 Highway Scenarios): <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xumyEf-WRI> Tournament 2 (26 cars, 9 Urban Scenarios): <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJnNbm-jUI>

Highway Scenarios: “tests...included other active vehicles nearby to increase complexity and realism”: <https://electrek.co/2025/07/26/a-chinese-real-world-self-dri...>

Urban Scenarios: “a massive, complex roundabout and another segment of road with a few unsignaled intersections and a long straight...The first four tests incorporated portions of this huge roundabout, which would be complex for human drivers, but in situations for which there is quite an obvious solution: don’t hit that car/pedestrian in front of you” <https://electrek.co/2025/07/29/another-huge-chinese-self-dri...>
by abustamam | 2025-09-06 20:10:16+00:00
I go to the office once a week. We get stuff done. But we spend a lot of time just shooting the shit. Ironically (or not), our boss is the biggest shit-shooter. And we work 8 hour days.

I have no idea what we would do if we had to work 12 hour days. There literally isn't enough work to do. Probably just shoot more shit.
by johnisgood | 2025-09-06 20:10:34+00:00
That is an oversimplification, and there are many studies out there proving that people receiving opiates at the hospital do not get psychologically addicted to it, if you are talking about that.

And surely I am not alone with not experiencing euphoria from opiates. It is probably a low % of people though, I do not deny that.

> purity of the product

Overdoses and negative public perception does have to do with that though.
by wtbdbrrr | 2025-09-06 20:10:44+00:00
"Science leads to objective myth" or ...

"Science leads to mythological objectivity" comes to mind.

Culture and beliefs shape language and perception and thus influence the interpretation of the things that are logical only in the sense that they are unambiguously algorithmic, meaning any--even partial--change of the premise or it's order changes the conclusion.

But at the end of the algorithmic logic is the higher dimensional logic of purpose, and humans tend to disagree on why we big-banged ex nihilum and whether the code driving evolution has any return value or whether it's a recursive yield and any information previously yielded is neatly packed into all subsequent, proximate and peripheral yields--"the butterfly effect in 1/entropy*i or something" (someone scifi savvy probably has a cool term for that).

Some people say evolution just works and so it runs until it doesn't. I think objectivity in science is like an exploration of different paths at different angles.

It's a discussion, a conversation.

At the end, whoever understood additional angles, moves on a little more objective.
by iLemming | 2025-09-06 20:10:48+00:00
> you're competing against Lua

There's not exactly tiny community (but it's not huge either) that programs against Lua-based engines using Fennel - a Clojure-like Lisp. Jank, aimed to have one-to-one Clojure-parity, I think would be great news.

> the people in this space aren't dreaming of programming in a functional style.

IMO because they are extremely pragmatic and there still, doesn't exist a good, practical way to program games in a functional style. Jank may open that possibility.
by tialaramex | 2025-09-06 20:11:18+00:00
If Paracetamol was invented today it would likely never receive an OTC (over the counter sale, meaning you can just buy it from a retail outlet the way you'd buy cough medicine or toothpaste) license in the UK. Yes, it's safe (and for a bunch of people including me, effective) at the licensed dose, but it's useless at about half that dose, and it's toxic, leading to very nasty deaths in some cases, at just about 3-4 times that effective dose.

That's a very narrow efficacy window. There are modern drugs with a narrow efficacy window but they have pharmacy only licenses or require prescription, which both mean somebody who knows what the hell they're doing sold you the drug, not the automated checkout at a supermarket. That's a vital opportunity to spot that e.g. you're taking this every single day (so it's ongoing pain, probably needs a different intervention, paracetamol is contrandicated) or you have an obvious wound, which needs medical attention not painkillers. Or sometimes very dumb things, like, hey, the actual symptoms you have described mean you're likely pregnant did you even realise that? Would you like a pregnancy test instead ?
by javanonymous | 2025-09-06 20:12:23+00:00
> why would we ever want in Java to hold a variable that you can't read immediately what is the type

I can use my IDE to see the type if necessary.

> Everything that came after isn't really memorable nor helpful,

There are several improvements that are very helpful

One example is how multi line strings help me to read more clearly without the unnecessary string concatenations:

var sql = """ SELECT foo FROM bar WHERE last_updated > :lastUpdated """;

Another example is how switch statements have improved code readability, at least from my personal subjective viewpoint.

String dayName = switch (day) { case 1 -> "Monday"; case 2 -> "Tuesday"; case 3, 4, 5 -> "Other day"; default -> "Weekend"; };
by politelemon | 2025-09-06 20:12:35+00:00
> Yes, and I'm not exaggerating. Claude never missed a relevant E2E test.

I was waiting to see this part demonstrated and validated - for a given pr, whether you created an expected set of tests that would run and then compare it to what actually ran. Without a baseline, as any tester would tell you, the LLM output has been trusted without checking.
by littlestymaar | 2025-09-06 20:13:18+00:00
> Karpathy said in his recent talk, on the topic of AI developer-assistants: don't bother with less capable models.

Interesting because he also said the future is small "cognitive core" models:

> a few billion param model that maximally sacrifices encyclopedic knowledge for capability. It lives always-on and by default on every computer as the kernel of LLM personal computing.

https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1938626382248149433#m

In which case, a raspberry Pi sounds like what you need.
by consumer451 | 2025-09-06 20:14:50+00:00
> > If multiple sensor modalities disagree, even without sensor fusion, you can at least assume something might be awry and drop into a maximum safety operation mode.

> This is not always possible. You're on a two lane road. Your vision system tells you there's a pedestrian in your lane. Your LIDAR says the pedestrian is actually in the other lane. There's enough time for a lane change, but not to stop.

> What do you do?

Go into your failure mode. At least you have a check to indicate a possible issue with 2 signals.
by Arcuru | 2025-09-06 20:14:52+00:00
I understand why users get annoyed at "rugpulls", but if a company that is doing the vast majority of the work to develop and maintain a project is not financially sustainable they don't have that many options. An article like this really needs to include info about the financials.

I'm honestly curious since I've been considering how I license my large OSS projects lately [1], and I really do want to understand what would be "acceptable" here. Start more funding campaigns for the project? Work on it less? Sell merch? Openly communicate that they'll need to re-license without additional funding?

[1] - https://jackson.dev/post/oss-licensing-sucks/
by paulvnickerson | 2025-09-06 20:15:02+00:00
Here's the relevant study from earlier this year: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-acetaminophen-during-pre...

It's a meta-analysis that considered a bunch of individual studies, their effect size, and their quality. It claims that Tylenol use has increased alongside a 20-fold increase in autism rates, suggesting causation, and recommends immediate efforts to reduce Tylenol use during pregnancy.

One objection that I've seen is that the lead author, Dr. Baccarelli, has a conflict of interest because he was an expert witness in a lawsuit about acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders. If you think about it though, someone knowledgeable enough to write this paper is exactly the kind of person you'd want to serve as an expert witness.
by abustamam | 2025-09-06 20:15:05+00:00
Everyone thinks that they are special and that their take on X is special.

Once in a while, they're right. Most of the time, by the definition of the law of averages, most of them are not.

Maybe I just have no ambition to become the next trillionaire because I'm lazy or whatever, but I am under no illusion that me or my team are exceptional. We're good. We get stuff done. We make money. Investors like us. Our customers like us. Our business partners like us. And many people here on HN are likely in a similar boat. Many without working 996.
by terribleperson | 2025-09-06 20:15:42+00:00
I don't know if the day of reckoning will be anytime soon. I think a lot of major advertising firms are aware that they're mostly serving to bots, but if they tell their customers that, they don't get paid.

edit: This has definitely soured my already poor opinion of reddit. I mostly post there about video games, or to help people in /r/buildapc or /r/askculinary. I think I'd rather help people somewhere I'm not going to get blackholed because an AI misinterpreted my comments.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-09-06 20:15:58+00:00
How can an LLM model the world, in any meaningful way, when it has no experience of the world?

An LLM is a language model, not a world model. It has never once had the opportunity to interact with the real world and see how it responds - to emit some sequence of words (the only type of action it is capable of generating), predict what will happen as a result, and see if it was correct.

During training the LLM will presumably have been exposed to some second person accounts (as well as fictional stories) of how the world works, mixed up with sections of stack overflow code and Reddit rantings, but even those occasional accounts of real world interactions (context, action + result) are only at best teaching it about the context that someone else, at that point in their life, saw relevant to mention as causal/relevant to the action outcome. The LLM isn't even privvy to the world model of the raconteur (let alone the actual complete real world context in which the action was taken, or the detailed manner in which it was performed), so this is a massively impoverished source of 2nd hand experience from which to learn.

It would be like someone who had spent their whole life locked in a windowless room reading randomly ordered paragraphs from other peoples diaries of daily experience (also randomly interpersed with chunks of fairy tales and python code), without themselves ever having actually seen a tree or jumped in a lake, or ever having had the chance to test which parts of the mental model they had built, of what was being described, were actually correct or not, and how it aligned with the real outside world they had never laid eyes on.

When someone builds an AGI capable of continual learning, and sets it loose in the world to interact with it, then it'll be reasonable to say it has it's own world model of how the world works, but as as far as pre-trained language models go, it seems closer to the mark to say they they are indeed just language models, modelling the world of words which is all they know, and the only kind of model for which they had access to feedback (next word prediction errors) to build.