MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sublinear | 2025-09-26 20:49:31+00:00
Yeah my point was that without everyday challenges they lose meaning.

How does one create art without understanding struggle? How can someone find love without knowing how to keep it alive?

People need to make mistakes and then reflect deeply on them. We need to integrate our experiences with our beliefs and values in order to find meaningful expression.

I think the only exception to all of this might be abstract puzzles.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-09-26 20:49:47+00:00
> But Google takes you to another city?

This makes sense to this life-long Salt Lake Valley resident (unless you specified Orem in your query) because the grid in SL County doesn't extend past county lines. The grid in Orem doesn't even go that far: off the top of my head, Provo uses a different grid even though they're both in Utah County. If you just entered "716 w 629 s utah" without specifying a city, I'm not at all surprised that it put you in SLC because that's in SLC. It's also in Orem but it makes more sense (IMO) for Google to assume SLC if a city is not given.

The public library in SLC is between 200E - 300E and 400S - 500S (most things don't take up a square block, which is why I specify that it does), which would put it just a few blocks away from that address in Orem (716W 630S) but it's actually 30 miles away in SLC. (Its mailing address appears to be 210E 400S.)

FWIW, I read once that 8 city blocks (e.g. 100E to 900E) is a mile, which tracks with my own head-arithmetic when I want to "verify" if the distance the map gives me is accurate. I doubt it's exactly precise but it's pretty close, generally.
by parthdesai | 2025-09-26 20:50:34+00:00
> The other complaint I often see is immigrants' failure to assimilate to British norms, language, and culture.

I do get your point, as an Indian who migrated to Canada, it’s one of my pet peeves where some of my relatives live in their enclave only, i.e. surround themselves with like minded Indians, but this is pretty ironic when it is coming from Brits.
by jrm4 | 2025-09-26 20:50:36+00:00
"Sign up with a thing" -- but then what about after that? You've made a bunch of stuff, what happens to it?

Offloading THAT mentally to a different "service" or "account" I think is easier than this all-in-one thing.

Again, I like the IDEA a lot; if you'd presented it to me like in 2000 before a lot of this stuff took off I would have been all about it.

Today? No, I think it's reasonable to offload that to so-and-so-dot-com, each as a separate account. Like the phrase "I have a facebook" always sounds weird to ME, but I think that's "the way."
by sltr | 2025-09-26 20:51:36+00:00
Thanks for the valuable feedback.

I can add an option to disable notifications. In the meantime, On Windows 11, it's also possible to disable notifications per-app in System > Notifications. macOS has a similar mechanism.

I should also be able to add an option for Linklever read/write files in the exe folder.

It may take me a week or two to implement these features. I'll get back to you.
by self_awareness | 2025-09-26 20:51:53+00:00
I know that Mastodon is not the same as ActivityPub, but I don't know how can it be treated seriously if it allows disappearing replies. Whatever we write will disappear after some time. Sometimes. Because sometimes not. Maybe it's an implementation problem, I don't know, but it was one of my two reasons for my exit from Mastodon.
by throwaway150 | 2025-09-26 20:51:55+00:00
Do you know how much money the immigrants pay as taxes, health surcharge and National Insurance contributions in exchange for the right to live and work in the UK? Don't forget that the taxes, health surcharge and NI contributions of the immigrations are literally funding the NHS! I think it is fair to expect the contributors to get treatment when they are contributing so much to it.
by tripplyons | 2025-09-26 20:52:25+00:00
I was curious about what was released, and the parameters for AlphaFold V3 are only given to certain groups for non-commercial use: https://github.com/google-deepmind/alphafold3?tab=readme-ov-...

However, it seems like anyone can download the parameters for AlphaFold V2: https://github.com/google-deepmind/alphafold?tab=readme-ov-f...
by arp242 | 2025-09-26 20:52:25+00:00
As an aside on the GNU *sum tools, I found they're quite slow. A few months ago I wrote a simple replacement in Go for UX reasons and somewhat to my surprise, the Go implementation of most hash algorithms seems about 2 to 4 times as fast when using a simple naïve "obvious" single-threaded implementation. It can be sped up even more by using more than one core. Go has assembly implementations for most hash functions. I didn't really look at the coreutils implementation but I'm guessing it's "just" in C.

At any rate, small teething issues aside, long-term things should be better and faster.
by mrj | 2025-09-26 20:52:31+00:00
Hi! I like Zulip a lot and the tech team took to it easily. The main concern is silly but I think my folks will be thrown by a few UX elements. For example, uploading a file drops a bunch of markdown in the message editor.. which to them looks like an error or something weird and technical. I wish for a editing mode that showed preview instead.

I don't think it's a blocker and we can help people understand it. Its just really about how much time I want to spend with them on the phone :)
by Veserv | 2025-09-26 20:52:38+00:00
Encryption is unlikely to be relevant. As I pointed out, doing it on any modern desktop CPU with no offload gets you 25-40 Gb/s, 6-10x faster than the benchmarked throughput. It is not the bottleneck unless it is being done horribly wrong or they do not have access to AES instructions.

“It is slow because it is being layered over QUIC.” Then why did you layer over a bottleneck that slows you down by 25x. Second of all, they did not used to do that and they still only got 1 Gb/s previously which is abysmal.

Third of all, you can achieve QUIC feature parity (minus encryption which will be your per-core bottleneck) at 50-100 Gb/s per core, so even that is just a function of using a slow protocol.

Finally, CPU class used in benchmarking is largely irrelevant because I am discussing 20x per-core performance bottlenecks. You would need to be benchmarking on a desktop CPU from 25 years ago to get that degree of single-core performance difference. We are talking iPhone 6, a decade old phone, territory for a efficient implementation to bottleneck on the processor at just 4 Gb/s.

But again, it is probably not a problem with their code. It is likely something else stupid happening on the network stack or protocol side of which they are merely a client.
by aghilmort | 2025-09-26 20:54:11+00:00
Our ECC construction induces an emergent modular manifold during KVQ computation.

Suppose we use 3 codeword lanes every codeword which is our default. Each lane of tokens is based on some prime, p, so collectively forms CRT-driven codeword (Chinese Remainder Theorem). This is discretely equivalent to labeling every k tokens with 1x globally unique indexing grammar.

That interleaving also corresponds to a triple of adjacent orthogonal embeddings since those tokens still retain a random gaussian embedding. The net effect is we similarly slice the latent space into spaced chain of modular manifolds within the latent space every k content tokens.

We also refer to that interleaving as Steifel frames for similar reasons as the post reads etc. We began work this spring or so to inject that net construction inside the model with early results in similar direction as post described. That's another way of saying this sort of approach lets us make that chained atlas (wc?) of modular manifolds as tight as possible within dimensional limits of the embedding, floating point precision, etc.

We somewhat tongue-in-cheek refer to this as the retokenization group at the prompt level re: renormalization group / tensor nets / etc. Relayering group is the same net intuition or perhaps reconnection group at architecture level.
by nadis | 2025-09-26 20:54:23+00:00
I'm far from an expert, but I think depending on whether you have website designs or not already, you could use the Figma Dev Mode MCP Server + Claude Code as I did.

I've heard increasingly good things about Cursor and Codex, but haven't tried them as recently. Cline (as a VS Code extension) might also be helpful here.

If you need designs, something like v0 could work well. There are a ton of alternatives (Base44, Figma Make, etc.) but I've found v0 works the best personally, although it probably takes a bit of trial and error.

For SEO support specifically, I might just try asking some of the existing AI tooling to try to help you optimize there although I'm not sure how well the results would be. I briefly experimented with this and early results seemed promising, but did not push on it a lot.
by octoberfranklin | 2025-09-26 20:54:40+00:00
> What are actual things that crates.io or npm could do but aren’t to improve the security of the ecosystem?

Go back to the distribution/maintainer model. It worked. But it requires that developers slow down the rate of (non-alpha/beta/rc) releases until it matches the maintainer capacity of major software distributions. This is bitter medicine, but it's the solution.

Software distributions exist for a reason. They have maintainers, who are responsible for watching for stuff like this. Unmoderated language-specific registries have encouraged a massive degree of churn. This churn is incompatible with maintainer review, which is why a lot of distributions have basically given up on language-specific registries.
by thunky | 2025-09-26 20:54:50+00:00
A huge context is a problem for humans too, which is why I think it's fair to suggest maybe the tool isn't the (only) problem.

Tools like Aider create a code map that basically indexes code into a small context. Which I think is similar to what we humans do when we try to understand a large codebase.

I'm not sure if Aider can then load only portions of a huge file on demand, but it seems like that should work pretty well.
by ModernMech | 2025-09-26 20:55:21+00:00
> Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it.

I agree the legislature is bound to not create unconstitutional laws, but the sole power the executive has under the Constitution as to the constitutionality of laws is his veto power, which was intentionally limited by the Framers:

“But it is to be remembered that this qualified negative is in no respect a violation of the rule which declares that the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress. It is not a transfer of the power of legislation to the Executive, because it does not enable him to do any thing more than to suspend the passage of a law, and is a mere check upon the legislative body, by subjecting their resolutions to revision and consideration. The power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and this alone would furnish a complete answer to the objection, if any could be supposed to exist. But the principal answer is, that the veto is not absolute, and that it may be overcome by two-thirds of both Houses.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 73

You're saying that the President actually has an absolute veto; if he vetoes a bill, and Congress overrides the veto, you're saying the President gets the ultimate veto in that he can just claim the law is unconstitutional and refuse to implement it. So now you have to answer why the Framers would have limited the veto power if they had intended POTUS to have an ultimate veto through selective execution of laws.

> Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement.

The Sedition Act expired as soon as he entered office, so I'm not sure how you figure he "blocked" it in any sense. Whatever Jefferson had to say about the sedition act was his right, but he didn't use any unconstitutional powers to work against it.

> Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational).

The scope of POTUS' power over the DOJ is circumscribed by Congress; Article II gives the President general executive power, but the specific scope of prosecutorial discretion is grounded in statutory law -- whatever discretion he has over prosecutions is granted by Congress. You concede that POTUS have not stopped enforcement of the law entirely, which would be unconstitutional; but they have used persecutorial discretion to focus resources, which is constitutional.
by righthand | 2025-09-26 20:55:43+00:00
Interesting and agreeable.

Also hacking really doesn’t have anything to do with generating poorly structured documents that compile into some sort of visual mess that needs fixing. Hacking is the analysis and circumvention of systems. Sometimes when hacking we piece together some shitty code to accomplish a circumvention task, but rarely is the code representative of the entire hack. Llms just make steps of a hack quicker to complete. At a steep cost.
by EasyMark | 2025-09-26 20:55:52+00:00
Next comes sensors in said cards, if someone walks by an digital observation post without the card on them they will now be tagged by visual recognition and documented as illegal/possibly illegal until proven otherwise. Expect the database to record it and start drawing up statistics on said undocument individual. The undocumented police will be notified and be on alert to apprehend at first opportunity. Coming to you in 2030.
by nadis | 2025-09-26 20:56:36+00:00
Completely agree with all these areas for improvements! I feel like the less UI/UX frills and the easier it is to just see the relevant information whether it's my prompt, the agent's "thinking" or todos, or relevant code changes or commands, the better.

The speed and usability points you make are so critical. I'm sure these will continue to improve - and hope they do so soon!
by EasyMark | 2025-09-26 20:56:54+00:00
But that's -likely- what it means in the near future, along with 24/7 tracking via observation posts along streets and highways. I wonder when people will start realizing a smaller government is a better government and vote accordingly. When things make a task "easier for the government" your ears should prick up and you should start paying attention. Today's "more efficient democracy" makes for tomorrow's "more efficient autocracy" when everything is already in place
by lawlessone | 2025-09-26 20:56:54+00:00
>They show Musk as a potential visitor to Epstein's island, Little St James, on 6 December 2014 - six years after Epstein became a listed sex offender.

even Trump had supposedly broken contact with him long before then..

edit: considering Theil is also in there too. I wonder do they want to avoid revealing where Epstein's money went after he died?
by raggi | 2025-09-26 20:57:35+00:00
> which seems too high for a system call anyways

spectre & meltdown.

> you get 2 us of processing in addition to a full system call to reach 4 Gb/s

TCP has route binding, UDP does not (connect(2) helps one side, but not both sides).

> “But encryption is slow.” Not that slow.

Encryption _is slow_ for small PDUs, at least the common constructions we're currently using. Everyone's essentially been optimizing for and benchmarking TCP with large frames.

If you hot loop the state as the micro-benchmarks do you can do better, but you still see a very visible cost of state setup that only starts to amortize decently well above 1024 byte payloads. Eradicate a bunch of cache efficiency by removing the tightness of the loop and this amortization boundary shifts quite far to the right, up into tens of kilobytes.

---

All of the above, plus the additional framing overheads come into play. Hell even the OOB data blocks are quite expensive to actually validate, it's not a good API to fix this problem, it's just the API we have shoved over bsd sockets.

And we haven't even gotten to buffer constraints and contention yet, but the default UDP buffer memory available on most systems is woefully inadequate for these use cases today. TCP buffers were scaled over time, but UDP buffers basically never were, they're still conservative values from the late 90s/00s really.

The API we really need for this kind of UDP setup is one where you can do something like fork the fd, connect(2) it with a full route bind, and then fix the RSS/XSS challenges that come from this splitting. After that we need a submission queue API rather than another bsd sockets ioctl style mess (uring, rio, etc). Sadly none of this is portable.

On the crypto side there are KDF approaches which can remove a lot of the state cost involved, it's not popular but some vendors are very taken with PSP for this reason - but PSP becoming more well known or used was largely suppressed by its various rejections in the ietf and in linux. Vendors doing scale tests with it have clear numbers though, under high concurrency you can scale this much better than the common tls or tls like constructions.
by alexmerced | 2025-09-26 20:57:38+00:00
We’ll start beginner-friendly, clarifying what a table format is and why it’s essential, then progressively dive into expert-level topics: metadata internals (snapshots, logs, manifests, LSM levels), row-level change strategies (COW, MOR, delete vectors), performance trade-offs, ecosystem support (Spark, Flink, Trino/Presto, DuckDB, warehouses), and adoption trends you should factor into your roadmap.
by MegaButts | 2025-09-26 20:57:58+00:00
> I think people also like the idea that there can be these systems in place for hundreds of years, and an individual can come along and intelligence and hard work, can turn the systems upside down or develop something better.

That's what the Gracie family did with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Except they actually proved it worked by dominating the early years of UFC before they even introduced weight classes.
by Uehreka | 2025-09-26 20:58:30+00:00
I’ve been using Pop OS for several years and really like it. However while I think it’s cool that they’re doing some innovative DE stuff, the fact that it has come at such a huge cost to the stability of the OS is extremely frustrating.

I’ve been stuck on 22.04 for almost the entire 24.04 cycle at this point, and I occasionally have weird display issues or other bugs that I know are not going to get fixed.

At this point my hope is that Cosmic may be stable enough to release as 26.04, since from what I’ve been hearing it sounds like the beta still has a lot of rough edges.

I think I would be a lot less salty if they’d just explicitly called a mulligan on 24.04 back in early or mid 2024. I could’ve made an informed decision to switch to an Ubuntu flavor with slightly rockier Nvidia drivers support while I waited until 26.04 to rejoin Pop OS. But instead they just kept drip feeding PR updates saying that it was “coming soon!”, even though it was probably clear to folks working on it that they were over a year away.

Edit: To explain why I think it was clear to folks working on the project: I recently went back to look at the Alpha announcements from late last year. I wasn’t going to run an Alpha, so I didn’t read them in depth, but in those announcements they announce that they are BEGINNING work on a media player, which was available in a WIP state in the Alpha. If they were BEGINNING work on the media player in late 2024, then they probably could’ve said in April 2024 (when they hadn’t even started on it) that this was going to take at least another year.
by oblio | 2025-09-26 20:58:57+00:00
Predictability has value.

For example because "we need to make a change to the route" type people are around, your bus line can be taken away from you.

Because tracks aren't moved as easily, people rely on them, plan around them and you get things like increased property values because (and overall higher quality of life, especially around tram lines) due to that.
by Tobs40 | 2025-09-26 20:59:01+00:00
Ah, I see the misunderstanding.

I've always been solving the integer problem of course. But throughout the article, I improve the model formulation again and again through insights, which makes the LP relaxation tighter. Initially, it gave 305.0 as upper bound, but after tightening the model (addind constraints that cut off that 305 solution and others) it gives 271.666...

- which leads to insanely faster search. It's like brute-forcing through all passwords of length 20 and a wizard telling you that you're wrong when you reach character 7 instead of 13.
by runeblaze | 2025-09-26 20:59:08+00:00
idgi tho. The average working mathematician seldomly thinks about proof theory or how proofs "work". Proof theory if must be put in a single box it is an logician's art, and at that point it is niche enough in both CS and maths that it becomes meaningless to say mathematicians know more about it. Logicians are better at thinking about proofs than either maths people or CS people.

I mean I don't know what you mean by right, but given how type theory/ZFC/categorical foundations there is no clear winner (unless you can make a good argument for set theory as our foundation, because again, the average mathematician seldomly thinks in ZFC), I'd say type theory is quite nice in its computational interpretations so let's go with that.

I also don't want to go there, but obviously research drains manpower and money. If we can get CS people to write PAs we really should do that. They're filthy rich in the grand scheme of research.
by numb7rs | 2025-09-26 20:59:16+00:00
On a side note, this site reacts to window size changes (phone rotation portrait <-> landscape) with a really nice animated shuffle of the content. It's more visible on the "Sentences" page linked in another comment [0]. I've not seen that before, and certainly wasn't expecting it on a site that is otherwise pretty no-frills.

[0] https://laserpointersafety.com/sentences/sentences.html
by projectowba | 2025-09-26 20:59:32+00:00
A plugin that utilises DOM memory management to ensure there is no lag! If you’ve ever watched ChatGPT “type” word-by-word, you know the drag. It breaks your flow, ruins demos, and makes revisiting older threads painful. We built OWBA — GPT Lag Remover to fix that—so responses feel immediate and your old chats load smoothly again.

What it fixes (in plain English) • Major flaw, solved: ChatGPT streams tokens like a typewriter. OWBA smooths that experience so answers appear fast instead of dripping out. • Restore your old chats: Stalled or painfully slow threads? OWBA helps legacy conversations render cleanly so you can pick up where you left off. • Stay in the zone: Fewer progress bars, more thinking and iterating.

Why OWBA is different

OWBA works with the ChatGPT UI—no prompts to learn, no model changes, no weird hacks. Just install the Chrome extension and keep using ChatGPT as normal. As far as we’ve seen, it’s the only tool purpose-built to remove the lag without changing how you work.

Who benefits • Creators & teams recording screens or live demos • Researchers & power users who live in long threads • Anyone who’s tired of waiting for words to crawl across the screen

Try it now

Start a free trial and feel the difference in under a minute:

Chrome Web Store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpt-lag-remover-by-...

No training, no setup—just faster ChatGPT. If you love it, tell a friend. If you don’t feel the speed-up, tell us and we’ll make it right.