MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by treetalker | 2025-09-28 18:46:40+00:00
Lest the sheer irony escape even some HN readers, the political right tends to actively oppose, and has stymied past attempts at, the broad provision or even expansion of reasonable and either free or affordable healthcare that is real and could make a real difference in our citizens' health. But no! The real problem, somehow, must be that some cabal is holding out on their Star Wars bacta tanks.

Chalk it up to lack of education — then ask who puts a professional wrestling executive in charge of the Department of Education and then hobbles it.
Show HN: Data-Cent – Quick and free data analysis
by Daniel15568 | 2025-09-28 18:47:22+00:00
I built Data-Cent because I often need to explore CSVs quickly without firing up pandas or writing custom code. It’s a Streamlit-based web app where you can: • Upload CSV files (no setup) • Auto-filter and explore the data • Create interactive charts (line, bar, scatter, etc.) • Run quick stats (mean, median, std) • Download a PDF/HTML report of your analysis

Live demo: https://data-cent.streamlit.app/ Source: https://github.com/data-centt/Data-Analytics

Would love feedback on performance and UI/UX — especially from folks who explore data often or build Streamlit apps.

If you find it interesting please help me star the repo. TY
by drysine | 2025-09-28 18:47:28+00:00
Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod (Russia) that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches") after Ukrainian MLRS strike at the city: https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688

Here is the Ukraine targeting the same high-rise apartment building in Kazan with multiple drones: https://t.me/readovkanews/91042

Here is the Ukraine blowing a bridge in Russia exactly when a passenger train was passing under it leading to deaths of civilians including children: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/deaths-as-russ...

Here are a paramedic and an ambulance driver murdered by Ukrainian drone near Sudzha (Kurskaya oblast): https://t.me/readovkanews/85353

I could go on and on.

Which conclusions do you draw from that about the current Ukrainian regime or Ukrainian nationalists?
by mbreese | 2025-09-28 18:47:38+00:00
It’s more confusing. I thought the article was correct when they said -10 coming before -9. Why? Because they were talking about the strict alphabetical sort. They are already prepending zeroes to force the comparison to be 10 vs 09. So, yes, they were talking about ascending order, but not natural ascending order, but ascii sorting order where 10 is before 9 because the comparison isn’t 9 vs 10, but 1 vs 9.

It was only clear to me because I could guess where they were going. They were complaining about natural sort vs alphabetical sort, which is a case I’ve run into many times, so I could see the argument coming.

The irony to me was that they were already altering how they named files to fit what they thought the computer wanted by prepending a zero to get a proper alphabetic sort. And even after that, some computers didn’t follow their idea of what it should be doing.
by m0rde | 2025-09-28 18:48:20+00:00
Good points here, particularly the ends not justifying the means.

I'm curious for more thoughts on "will drive more and more people out of jobs”. Isn't this the same for most advances in technology (e.g., steam engine, computers s, automated toll plazas, etc.). In some ways, it's motivation for making progress; you get rid of mundane jobs. The dream is that you free those people to do something more meaningful, but I'm not going to be that blindly optimistic :) still, I feel like "it's going to take jobs" is the weakest of arguments here.
by alt227 | 2025-09-28 18:48:47+00:00
> There's anothing video of him setting up the ladder on a stack: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Keq-Lig-z74

At 16:20 in that video, it shows the camera crew in a cherry picker filming at the same height as him. Ive always thought that Freds chimney days were pre technology like this. but why would he not just put the scaffold platform up in a cherry picker to start with instead of spending days fixing a gazillion ladders to the side of a chimney?
by dartharva | 2025-09-28 18:49:27+00:00
Not an apples to apples comparison really. Amazon owns the entire user journey on its platform, which the "ads" are an integral part of. They are not analogous to Google showing you ads in banners and searches for target pages it doesn't own, on platforms it doesn't own. If you want to compare Google to those who actually advertise with the scatter-shot approach, you compare them with traditional advertising providers - ad spaces on TV & radio channels, billboard companies etc. That'd be a fair comparison because Google is also essentially a seller of ad spaces it "rents" from other websites - just in this case those ad spaces can simultaneously show different advertisements for different clients to each user, based on that user's best-match profile. It's a no-brainer that Google's approach will yield more leads.
by Taek | 2025-09-28 18:49:42+00:00
This is one of the big ways that LLMs are going to change the game for UX. Your operating system is going to have some sort of 'butler', which knows all of your preferences, and the butler will go through the APIs and man files and informational dialogs of every app you use and auto-configure them.

Then if you want something to change, just ask the butler. If the app is open source and doesn't support the requested feature, the butler might even be able to code it up.
by Xelbair | 2025-09-28 18:50:11+00:00
it's not about belief.

It's about rights - my personal right to privacy trumps any business reason they think they have to track me.

but to not be an ass - the issue is in accountability - how much of traffic to website is genuine? and no side wants to take on that risk so we end up with elaborate inefficient panopticon for advertisers profit.
by noirscape | 2025-09-28 18:50:33+00:00
I don't think they will. This is significantly less scary for upholding the DMA than the current US government threatening the EU with fines for having it in the first place. (And the DMA is the one thing the EU is entirely unwilling to negotiate on; it's seen as a key component to the EUs sovereignty from other major world powers.)

They didn't blink when it came to the GDPR either for big tech (most of the problems on the level of the EU for GDPR have been that they themselves are subject to it, leading to the occasional "egg on face" situation + the EU/US privacy laws being fundamentally incompatible.)
by jasonjayr | 2025-09-28 18:50:35+00:00
That is sadly, the biggest worry about it. Once I collect a few round tuit's, I wanted to see if I could build up a tool to build up the same mesh + routing, perhaps confined to a linux namespace so as to keep it contained, and try to reproduce the ease of configuration, on top of much better maintained core linux tools.

But the key has to be -- the configuration has to be just as simple as tinc to be effective. Like, almost just parse the configuration files and build it up with WG tunnels.

https://github.com/m13253/VxWireguard-Generator <-- this is what I use with a more serious "internal business" use case, so I know wireguard is in the sensitive security/encryption loop. It uses wireguard tunnels to make a broadcast/mesh Layer2 network with vxlan connections, and you then run OSPF/babel/your-favorite-routing-protocol over that.
by discreteevent | 2025-09-28 18:51:22+00:00
> Do you think that all managers and tech leads atrophy because they don’t spend all day “doing”?

People have argued for years that software architects must write code.

Regarding your second paragraph: When you write python you then debug it at the level of the abstraction. You never debug the python interpreter. You can try to treat AI like an abstraction but it immediately breaks down as soon as you go to debug. It would only be a complete abstraction if you never had to deal with the generated code.
by ClarkMarx | 2025-09-28 18:52:10+00:00
Imagine a 5/8"(16mm) cable running through 6"x6" (14cmx14cm) pressure treated blocks about 4 feet (1.2 meters) apart. The cable gets wrapped around the stack and connected to itself through a turnbuckle which is tightened to provide tension.

Now think of a steel right triangle with the legs being the vertical and horizontal aspect with the hypotenuse supporting the horizontal leg. The horizontal leg has a vertical tube welded where it meets the hypotenuse. The vertical leg as a hook curving down from the top away from the horizontal leg and a wooden pad at the bottom. We called these stackjacks but a Google search tells me that may have just been what we called them and not their actual name.

The hook hangs on the cable discussed above and the pad rests against the smokestack. 2 2"x12" (4cm x 29cm) walkboards are laid between these stackjacks. The vertical tube at the end accepts poles to which a railing is attached.

TLDR look at these photos of a company that does it exactly how we did. https://apexchimney.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/exteriori... https://apexchimney.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IMGP40400...
by treyd | 2025-09-28 18:52:18+00:00
Intellectual property as a concept wasn't designed for the age of LLM. You have to add a bunch of exceptions to copyright (fair use, first sale) to get it to not immediately lead to scenarios that don't make any intuitive sense. LLMs explode these issues because now you can mechanically manipulate ideas, and this forces to light new contradictions that intellectual property causes.
by wat10000 | 2025-09-28 18:52:18+00:00
I suspect the root of the disagreement is more about what kinds of work people do. There are many different kinds of programming and you can’t lump them all together. We shouldn’t expect an AI tool to be a good fit for all of them, any more than we should expect Ruby to be a good fit for embedded development or C to be a good fit for web apps.

My experience with low level systems programming is that it’s like working with a developer who is tremendously enthusiastic but has little skill and little understanding of what they do or don’t understand. Time I would have spent writing code is replaced by time spent picking through code that looks superficially good but is often missing key concepts. That may count as “thinking” but I wouldn’t categorize it as the good kind.

Where it excels for me is as a superpowered search (asking it to find places where we play a particular bit-packing game with a particular type of pointer works great and saves a lot of time) and for writing one-off helper scripts. I haven’t found it useful for writing code I’m going to ship, but for stuff that won’t ship it can be a big help.

It’s kind of like an excavator. If you need to move a bunch of dirt from A to B then it’s great. If you need to move a small amount of dirt around buried power lines and water mains, it’s going to cause more trouble than it’s worth.
by byroot | 2025-09-28 18:52:27+00:00
> not really about the current events?

It's exposing events that have been somewhat of an semi-open secret among Ruby maintainers for a very long time.

The link with the current events is that so far, neither Ruby Central nor Shopify have responded to Joel Drapper accusations, so the vast majority of people only have one side of the story.

Justin is just explaining why, based on what he knows of one of the main protagonists's character, he'd rather reserve judgment. Which also happens to be my stance ever since this thing started.

For multiple years now, I've heard more than one people involved in Ruby Central telling me they were very worried of the Ruby Central relationship with André. Whether they had reasons to be worried or whether they were blowing it out of proportion, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that there was massive trust issues.

Whether he actually did something that triggered the recent events, or whether RC or Shopify tried to act proactively I don't know either. But I can only suspect that RC and Shopify are not speaking out, or at least are slow at doing it, because of potential legal consequence.

NB: Until not long ago, I was employed by Shopify, if I still was today I wouldn't be writing this comment.
by Nevermark | 2025-09-28 18:52:46+00:00
I don't think I have ever seen a page on HN where so many people missed the main point.

The phenomenon of people having trouble understanding the implications of exponential progress is really well known. Well known, I think, by many people here.

And yet an alarming number of comments here interpret small pauses as serious trend breakers. False assumptions that we are anywhere near the limits of computing power relative to fundamental physics limits. Etc.

Recent progress, which is unprecedented in speed looking backward, is dismissed because people have acclimatized to change so quickly.

The title of the article "Failing to Understand the Exponential, Again" is far more apt than I could have imagined, on HN.

See my other comments here for specific arguments. See lots of comments here for examples of those who are skeptical of a strong inevitability here.

The "information revolution" started the first time design information was separated from the thing it could construct. I.e. the first DNA or perhaps RNA life. And it has unrelentingly accelerated from there for over 4.5 billion years.

The known physics limits of computation per gram are astronomical. We are nowhere near any hard limit. And that is before any speculation of what could be done with the components of spacetime fragments we don't understand yet. Or physics beyond that.

The information revolution has hardly begun.

With all humor, this was the last place I expected people to not understand how different information technology progresses vs. any other kind. Or to revert to linear based arguments, in an exponentially relevant situation.

If there is any S-curve for information technology in general, it won't be apparent until long after humans are a distant memory.
by ephbit | 2025-09-28 18:53:09+00:00
Looks like you yourself are dangerously wrong here.

You know which way we will not solve the problem?

By failing to recognize technologies that are going to help solve the problem.

It's the same with CCS.

The "green" mantra of "this is all just a strategy to help the fossil industry survive and we must boycott it" is shooting in one's foot.

As long as the world's energy infrastructure can not be built solely on renewables - which will still be the case in at least 2-3 decades - it makes sense to develop/use technologies that make the footprint of fossil energy smaller.
by HSO | 2025-09-28 18:53:20+00:00
Sure but then it also pays to be clear what you are doing: It it not about "truth" or epistemology but about influence/propaganda/persuasion/pick your own euphemism.

And the literature on this is completely difft and, more to the point, vastly more effective than the one on philosophy of science or striving for truth.

Not saying one is better than the other. My point is only those are difft and Sagan is not a good guide to make masses of people vote or act how you want.
by throwawayruby | 2025-09-28 18:53:24+00:00
In open source software, it is what is whispered behind closed doors that often matters most. The whispers in this dispute concern André. His behaviour, many quietly say, is the principal cause of the dispute with RubyCentral. His practical contributions over the past year have been scant, yet other maintainers suggest that if he were removed from the GitHub organisation’s ownership, they would simply reappoint him.

Few dare state as much in public, hence the anonymity. The reason is straightforward: André has previously threatened legal action, and appears to be pursuing it once again. RubyCentral, for its part, has bungled the handling of the matter. But André has managed — with the exception of this one post — to cast himself not as a long-time beneficiary of his open source work, drawing maximum financial gain from it, but rather as an aggrieved victim of institutional mismanagement.
by wellthisisgreat | 2025-09-28 18:53:31+00:00
Yeah it was really a magical moment. I think the recipe for such moments is:

1. one piece of technology fairly widely accessible at once

2. Technology MUST be physical (device etc.)

GenAI is certainly having its incredible moment now, but without a physical layer to connect people through it doesn’t have that same edge.

Compare with something as niche as Kinect - for the engineering crowd, at least in my experience, the excitement around it was maybe less intense (no promise of money), but more crystalline
by brainwad | 2025-09-28 18:53:33+00:00
Not much. They are moving from a regime where owner-occupier mortgage interest is deductible but you have to pay income tax on the imputed rental value of your owner-occupied home, to one where you don't pay the tax but also can't take the deduction.

For most Swiss people, who rent, it doesn't directly affect them. And even for most owner-occupiers, they never pay off their mortgages, and so the two effects currently cancel out. It's mostly a handout to rich people who can pay off a house (or inherited one).
by mjr00 | 2025-09-28 18:53:44+00:00
> This is a strange and aggressive bit of pedantry.

There's nothing pedantic about it. That's how Python works, and getting into the nuts and bolts of how Python works is precisely why the linked article makes type hinting appear so difficult.

> The entire point is that we have an intuition about what can be "added", but can't express it in the type system in any meaningful way.

As the post explores, your intuition is also incorrect. For example, as the author discovers in the process, addition via __add__/__radd__ is not addition in the algebraic field sense. There is no guarantee that adding types T + T will yield a T. Or that both operands are of the same type at all, as would be the case with "adding" a string and int. Or that A + B == B + A. We can't rely on intuition for type systems.
by Fezzik | 2025-09-28 18:53:52+00:00
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.

Assessing other peoples’ beliefs and ideas is, in my experience, one of the best ways to stay sane and learn. Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them. I feel like it is people with unfounded ideas (religions, historically) that try mightily to stop other people from critically assessing them.
by ceroxylon | 2025-09-28 18:55:25+00:00
It has always annoyed me that a huge online mega-mart (that starts with the letter A) will advertise things in the same category as ones that have been recently bought, even though they are definitely not frequent purchases.

It feels like the algorithm is saying "oh, they bought a mattress... they must really love mattresses and want more!", when much better ads could be suggested with the wealth of data they have on shopping habits.
by jacquesm | 2025-09-28 18:55:32+00:00
The input max is for most inverters on the market now a setpoint where they will simply disconnect, stop generating power and go into an error state that you need to hard-reset if you want to use the inverter again. It's pretty typical to have a 1000V hard limit on a nominally 800V or 600V system. If you're going to ride close to the limit then on some days you will see overvoltage and disconnects. So it is something you simply should not do. But people think that if the label says 1000V then 990V total nominal panel voltage should be fine, which it obviously is not. Panels are analog devices, they will produce an open circuit voltage much higher than their nominal use voltage and when you're on a switched mode inverter that means that the average voltage may well be 'in spec' but the voltage from one millisecond to another may well be outside of that if the system was built 'on the edge'. And because inverters have to take the grid side into account as well (they are not allowed to exceed certain voltages) there is always the risk of not being able to load the panels sufficiently to get the voltage to drop. So you should side your system so that the open loop voltage of your panels under ideal conditions is still comfortably lower than the max input voltage of the inverter. 800V nominal is pretty close to that limit, 700 is better and 600 is playing it safe.

I think one of the main reasons why installers tend to overprovision voltage wise is that they count on the inverters switching off the whole string every now and then versus being able to make more power without a lot of additional wiring under normal conditions. The net effect of that is positive.

Low quality inverters (the ones without the ability to disconnect the HV side autonomously) should be avoided like the plague anyway, those are simply unsafe and as far as I am concerned should not be allowed for re-sale at all.

My own system can make 17KW on a very good day in March at 1 pm or so, but normally it is closer to 12KW even in the summer. So those peaks are actually substantially over the normal output. Over a given day the average is about 5 KW or so from sunrise to sundown, and those first and last hours hardly contribute.
by cornholio | 2025-09-28 18:55:32+00:00
> nothing making passing organisms more "efficient". You can clearly observe it with flightless birds on small islands.

I'm not sure I follow this argument. Flightless birds happen on small island when those habitats are free of significant predators, for example after some extinction event or due to volcanic origin. Birds can still reach the islands, at least for some geological period, and evolutionary pressure favors some of them to grow in mass, bone density etc. to better control the available land food sources such as seeds, grasses, insects and other small critters.

Flight is not a useful trait in this environment and is expensive to maintain; a flightless bird will always win a fight against a flying bird for the same land source of food, since flight requires elongated and brittle bones, a low mass of muscles optimized for endurance etc. So flight is selected out of the land feeding niche very much for "efficiency" reasons.
by adrianmonk | 2025-09-28 18:55:45+00:00
I've always wondered if any CPUs have tried to reduce the branch penalty by speculatively executing both ways at once in parallel. You'd have two of everything (two pipelines, two ALUs, two sets of registers, etc.) and when you hit a conditional branch, instead of guessing which way to go, you'd essentially fork.

Obviously that requires a lot of extra transistors and you are doing computation that will be thrown away, so it's not free in terms of space or power/heat/energy. But perhaps it could handle cases that other approaches can't.

Even more of a wild idea is to pair up two cores and have them work together this way. When you have a core that would have been idle anyway, it can shadow an active core and be its doppelganger that takes the other branch. You'd need to have very fast communication between cores so the shadow core can spring into action instantly when you hit a branch.

My gut instinct is it's not worth it overall, but I'm curious whether it's been tried in the real world.
by MisterTea | 2025-09-28 18:55:56+00:00
Or two physical firmware chips: one writable, one with no write ability and is a fallback. Then a physical switch, could even be a jumper, to select the fallback. If compromised you flip the switch, boot from the clean firmware, flash the writable chip, flip switch and reboot. I am pretty sure Gigabyte offered this same setup with Dual Bios or something like that.