MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by myrmidon | 2025-09-26 13:40:15+00:00
In my view, this whole stance is completely indefensible, and it frankly shocks me every time I hear this from the progressive side of the political spectrum.

You want to introduce additional discrimination at every workplace in order to get rid of viewpoints you don't agree with?! This is honestly closer to Nazi ideology than the actual Nazi would probably be that you want to discriminate against.

How would you ever prevent policies like this from being leveraged against minorities? How could you ever make sure that you are never gonna be a "Catholic church against Galilei" equivalent?

You do realize that such a policy would've been used like 30 years ago to exclude every pro-LGBT person from hiring, after being used against anti-racial-segregation advocates in the decades before and everyone in favor of womans voting rights well into the 20th century?

If you want some totalitarian society that enforces state-sanctioned viewpoints I would kindly ask you to build your own, preferably as far away as possible, because that stands diametrally opposed to the principles the US was founded on.
by NemoNobody | 2025-09-26 13:40:15+00:00
All living people today have eons of practice of suffering under our belts right now - since the very moment we were born our cells provide a link from the newest baby to the very beginning of life here on earth. We've been prey animals. We've been predators. We've walked every road of life a human can walk - the good, the bad, the evil and unimaginable, the boring.

We've done everything before and we will do all of it again.

Every man a monster. Every man a Messiah.

Both are true. Exactly as a Good man can in an instant become a Monster - so too is the opposite exactly true.

Every person possess the innate ability, at a Cellular genetic level, to become a Messiah/Buddha and the ability to become that iteration of ourselves in an instant - bc we already are that iteration anyways. It's all about the point of view.

In the beginning there was only mind, no rules defined, no "alive/dead" - just the pitch black dark blank and empty universe - so, unstructured, unfettered, unbound, chaos as Mind.

Nothing has changed except our point of view. Like a basketball court, with a basketball and players but no rules - all that is necessary for a game to be played in exists already, but until the rules are set, people agree to accept them - no games of basketball can be played.

Only after enormous limits and constraints are placed upon players regarding everything else hey can do while playing - ONLY THEN can players "play" - before they were bound by the rules of the games, they had much more freedom and choices to do what and go where they please.

The Lebron James equivalent to life on earth - maybe isn't that big a deal, this could be like pre-school, we have no idea.

All I know for certain is that there are no rules - to limit is to lose. Do as thou will - the worlds wheel will work all our sins and misconceptions out, to do right is to do best by ourselves, in a very selfish sense, which is learned and understand with time.

So, don't let those 10,000 eons stop you, the worse thing would be to have to endure 10,000 eons again...
by sigseg1v | 2025-09-26 13:40:45+00:00
> Obviously commits like "fixed review comments" or "removed some left-over comments" or "fixed typo" should not be pushed into a PR you asked others to review.

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm having trouble visualizing the end to end process.

1. Someone has what they feel is a complete change and submits a PR for review.

2. The reviewers read part of it, first half looks good, and halfway through they have concerns and request changes.

3. The submitter now has to fix those concerns. If they are not allowed to push an additional commit to do this, how do you propose they accomplish this? Certainly they should not force push a public branch, right? That would cause pain to any reviewer who fetched their changes, and also break the features on GitHub such as them marking which files they have already read in the UI. But if we cannot push new commits and we cannot edit the existing commits, what is the method you are suggesting?
by noobermin | 2025-09-26 13:41:44+00:00
In keeping with the discussion here a few days ago, this article demonstrates exactly my point about developer types not being the target for computational codes. Their interpolation routine looks extremely verbose already, I cannot imagine them attempting to solve or compute any other more complex formula like that beyond a mere 2d interpolator writing so verbosely like that. The result would be unreadable, to my eyes.

Modern fortran has a bit more modern flavour to it, but formulae being so verbose would make the "formula" aspect of a code disappear.
by FridayoLeary | 2025-09-26 13:41:58+00:00
OT but i think the 747 story deserves a bit more nuance. First of all to be clear i'm dismayed by the idea. It's not great optics that Trump wants to keep the plane (library force one?) . Even accepting it in the first place is also odd. Add to that, using it as Air Force One seems to be impractical.

BUT, there is precedent for this move. They gifted an even more expensive plane to Erdogan. From what i understand they have been trying to sell the plane for a while. It seems even they have trouble affording it's upkeep. Turns out there isn't a huge market for luxury private jumbo jets. From their perspective it's a white elephant. Trump is aware of that.

I heard another explanation that this is a way of putting lateral pressure on boeing. Trump is frustrated with the progress of the new air force one. His current one is aging. It makes sense as it's a typical tactic of his.

I'm not coming to defend it, just to explain some of the rationale behind the decision.

(edit to reply to several comments. First of all air force one is well maintained but it's old already. Parts and repairs become more difficult and the amount of miles left on the airframe can't be too high. Replacement is necessary. As to building a new plane out of spares being faster... Just ask boeing how that's going for them. They even had the fuselages ready and waiting for quite some time. Boeing executives know they will face some actual consequences for murdering the POTUS, which is probably why it's taking so long. It's difficult to build a plane properly when you've gotten rid of everyone who knows how and you've sold half of your factories, some to even more bad faith actors then yourself.)
by mwigdahl | 2025-09-26 13:42:09+00:00
The article was good and goes into more detail than I expected it would about the particular perverse incentives in this case. But in general, isn't this a problem with all forms of commercial auditing?

Without a truly adversarial process (like, say, the US IRS), where there's a party that is actively incentivized to _find_ problems rather than to _not get caught overlooking_ problems, it is never going to drive quality beyond the bare minimum plausible deniability level.
by close04 | 2025-09-26 13:42:45+00:00
Carbon credits are one of the biggest scams in our attempts to "clean up". In the same spirit as some industries putting the "recyclable" symbol on everything end everything. "We planted a tree". No you didn't, you paid someone to tell you they planted a tree for you and you don't want to look any close than that.

Companies can keep doing what they do and pay off someone else on the other side of the world for the promise that this third party will do something to compensate for what the company is doing. This is never truly auditable and enforceable, and it doesn't need to be, the point is to have a compliance tick-box that you did your best to clean up your act.

They're just saddling someone else with that "debt", and much like with actual debt, usually it all ends up in a bankruptcy where none of that is ever recovered. Except it's worse with carbon credits where creative accounting is allowed from the start.
by venusenvy47 | 2025-09-26 13:42:46+00:00
The posted article starts off by claiming that the AI can take the lead. I don't believe their hype, but I think that it the basis for the above comment.

"Since ChatGPT launched, that's always meant coming to ask a question .... However that's limited by what you know to ask for and always puts the burden on you for the next step."
by igergg | 2025-09-26 13:43:20+00:00
Something similar happened to me recently. I was in Portugal for a year and a guy from the agency gave me fake electricity and water bills (he modified the bill PDFs). I found it out by using the pdf metadata too, but didn't go any further tha n that. We were able to make him pay back our money, but we didn't sue him.

I also found out that metadata can be overwritten. What is the best possible way to save yourself from these kinds of problems I wonder?
by WaltPurvis | 2025-09-26 13:43:20+00:00
The paragraphs on all pages are formatted quite narrowly, displaying only 3 - 6 words per line.

If this bothers people, it can also be changed with Stylebot or the like, using a rule like this to change the max-width, which is set to 400px, to a larger value:

p, ul, li { max-width: 800px; }
by kouteiheika | 2025-09-26 13:44:04+00:00
> That's no guarantee it would succeed though - AMD64 also cleaned up a number of warts on the x86 architecture, like more registers.

As someone who works with AMD64 assembly very often - they didn't really clean it up all that much. Instruction encoding is still horrible, you still have a bunch of useless instructions even in 64-bit mode which waste valuable encoding space, you still have a bunch of instructions which hardcode registers for no good reason (e.g. the shift instructions have a hardcoded rcx). The list goes on. They pretty much did almost the minimal amount of work to make it 64-bit, but didn't actually go very far when it comes to making it a clean 64-bit ISA.

I'd love to see what Intel came up, but I'd be surprised if they did a worse job.
by parpfish | 2025-09-26 13:44:04+00:00
i only have a burner FB account that i can use to check some local businesses and follow a local lost-pets group.

i have no friends and have never posted or liked anything, so my feed is almost exclusively algorithmically-pushed content. and there are a couple of thoughts about it:

- even though i haven't explicitly told you anything about myself except for looking at a couple local business, it's amazing how much it has been able to fine-tuning the feed to me. it has figured out my politics (not typical in my area), my favorite sports team (not local to my area), and my taste in standup comedy. all from watching me passively scroll.

- that being said, even though they've clearly learned some things about me, >90% of the feed is absolute clickbait shite. reposted reddit AITA threads meant to get rage-induced engagement, lots of cartoons/memes where the punchline is cropped out of the bottom of the image so you need to click to see it, lots of videos that implore you 'watch til the end!' so they can get over whatever view-time threshold is needed.

- for some reason, there are lots of people that are more than willing to actually engage with and comment on these threads. i know that i'm a bit of an outlier on the social media spectrum, but I cannot wrap my head around the logic that would lead to me seeing some engagement-farm meme roundup and then wanting to add in a comment like "LOL, so true! Very funny!". this isn't your friend where you want to tell them you liked their joke. why are you talking to the spam robot?!
by injidup | 2025-09-26 13:44:53+00:00
You are claiming the study is claiming something it doesn't and then claiming it is bogus because they can't claim what you claim they are claiming.

> A new study has found that US dog owners who harbor mistrust in the safety and efficacy of childhood and adult vaccines are also more likely to hold negative views about vaccinating their four-legged friends.

They didn't claim that 37% are not vaccinating due to mistrust. They claimed that people hold negative views about vaccines with regards to pets. It was a study about beliefs not about actions.

The abstract states clearly.

> Canine vaccine hesitancy (CVH) can be thought about as dog owners’ skepticism about the safety and efficacy of administering routine vaccinations to their dogs. CVH is problematic not only because it may inspire vaccine refusal

It is certainly important for public policy to understand the trajectory of anti-scientific thinking in the community ( not withstanding that this thinking is now running the USA ) If today a large percentage of people are expressing vaccine hesitancy then next week maybe they stop vaccinating. This is a worthwhile attempt to understand what is going on. Calling it bogus is just wrong. They are also aware of their own limitations.

> Limitations & discussion. We view this work as an important first step in understanding canine vaccine hesitancy and its public health consequences. We recognize, of course, that some measures employed in this study are imperfect. For example, our measure of canine rabies vaccine uptake is self-reported, and therefore may be subject to inaccurate and/or biased recall. Correspondingly, we see future efforts to clinically validate self-reported vaccine uptake measures (as is often done with human vaccines; see [2] as an

But you just did a drive by "It's bogus" without even trying to understand the context.
by bgwalter | 2025-09-26 13:45:11+00:00
UAE was engaged in crypto dealings instead:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/trump-uae-chi...

"Earlier this year, World Liberty, the crypto firm run by the Trumps and Witkoffs, announced an agreement with an investment firm backed by the ruling family of the U.A.E. The Emirati firm would conduct a $2 billion transaction using World Liberty’s digital coins, a deal that would provide a windfall to the Trump and Witkoff families."
by zahlman | 2025-09-26 13:45:24+00:00
> Because the link he posted shows that the third of London he calls Native British is just White British.

The table doesn't distinguish "British" from "non-British" for non-white people, so it would be rather hard to account for that.

But if he's referring to an ethnicity (really a narrow group of ethnicities) rather than a nationality then of course that would entail a range of skin tones what people would normally call "white". And yes, that thinking would necessarily exclude Idris Elba.

But then if this is really about worrying about "white people", then why is he also excluding the non-British white people from his figure? Can it really not just be that there exists an English ethnicity (and Scottish and Welsh) that has been there for centuries and has nowhere else to go?

> This isn’t about mass immigration, it’s just about immigration as such.

There is no such distinction.

You ask "after how many generations are you native British"; I can equally well ask "after how many immigrants is it mass immigration".

The point is that the rate of immigration has been sufficient to completely overwhelm the native birthrate, causing a rapid demographic shift.

When the UK colonized India in the first place, the population did not become minority-Indian at all, let alone within the space of a couple of generations.
by grishka | 2025-09-26 13:45:42+00:00
These paid offerings should include not only an ad-free experience, but also getting rid of all the dark patterns and other manipulative crap Meta loves doing in their apps and services. You know, preferences that actually stick forever, notifications that only notify you of things that actually happened, feeds that only contain content from accounts you follow and don't force-feed you recommendations, all that.
by wredcoll | 2025-09-26 13:45:43+00:00
I mean, like most tools they work when they work and don't when they fail. Sometimes I can use an llm to find a specific datum and sometimes I use google and sometimes I use bing.

You might think of it as a cache, worth checking first for speed reasons.

The big downside is not that they sometimes fail, its that they give zero indication when they do.
by saberience | 2025-09-26 13:45:45+00:00
The reality is that enterprises don't need 1000s of tools. I've worked for enterprises, and I've also been involved heavily with horizontal and vertical agent platforms.

The idea of 20000 MCP tools sounds good on paper, but the reality is that the enterprise wants an agent that just connects to Jira and ServiceNow and actually works. They don't care about 1000 randomly shitty MCP servers built by random people online which they can't trust.
by throaway5445454 | 2025-09-26 13:45:50+00:00
You guys are reading too much into my statement and unfortunately must not read the news much:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/south-koreas-president-l...

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Peti...

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-unite...

Honestly. HN has the most asinine commenter sometimes.
by ultropolis | 2025-09-26 13:46:11+00:00
I will tell you my cover letter secret*, which has gotten me a disproportionate number of interviews**:

Do NOT write a professional cover letter. Crack a joke. Use quirky language. Be overly familiar. A dash of TMI. Do NOT think about what you are going to say, just write a bunch of crazy-pants. Once your intro is too long, cut the fat. Now add professional stuff. You are not writing a cover letter, you are writing a caricature of a cover letter.

You just made the recruiter/HR/person doing interviews smile***. They remember your cover letter. In fact they repeat your objectively-unprofessional-yet-insightful joke to somebody else. You get the call. You are hired.

This will turn off some employers. You didn't want to work for them anyway.

* admittedly I have not sought work via resume in more than 15 years. ymmv

** Once a friend found a cover letter I had written in somebody's corp blog titled "Either the best or worst cover letter of all time" (or words to that effect). In it I had claimed that I could get the first 80% of their work done on schedule, but that the second 80% and third 80% would require unknown additional time. (note: I did not get the call)

*** unless they are using AI to read cover letters, but I repeat: you didn't want to work for them anyway.
by jawilson2 | 2025-09-26 13:46:14+00:00
We did this when I was in a band 25+ years ago. Record the song, quickly burn it to a CD, then drive back to campus in our shitty Honda Civic or band pickup truck and listen to it. It was 90% just to listen to what we made, but hearing it outside of the studio was good as well.

At this same time, this feels like No Speaker Left Behind. Now that I am middle aged and have a nice sound system at home and in my car, I sort of want a mix optimized for THAT! Like, don't hold me back just because we're still mixing for AM radio in a 1983 Pontiac Firebird!
by NemoNobody | 2025-09-26 13:46:42+00:00
Instantaneous transcendence is the reason humans are such a desirable birth according to the old school Hindu/Buddhist beliefs.

Better to be born a Human and live 100 years - it's the best chance at getting out of this trap. Being born a dirty would mean several hundred thousand millennia of divine life - thats going to manifest forgetting, by the end the next rebirth is almost always lower.

Animals have thousands of births per form.

Only a human can be born an ignorant savage animal person and in less than 100 years become a Buddha and transcend existence.

That's a lot of the fish analogies in early Christianity and earlier - we all get out, but it takes forever for some of us, God is always looking for the next one of us that's grown big enough to become "a big fish" - "chosen easily from all the rest"
by mystraline | 2025-09-26 13:46:55+00:00
It points out the failing of comparing an action (killing someone without cause), and passively receiving a picture.

That picture does NOT have enough information to determine if its legal or not. And even as simple as 1 day can be the difference between legal and not.

And of course, is also thethe hypocrisy of sex being legal at 16, but pictures are 'child porn', when they are demonstrably NOT children.
by ojosilva | 2025-09-26 13:47:13+00:00
Claude Code has been an awesome experience for me too... without ever subscribing to an Anthropic account!

I've never liked the free-tier Claude (Sonnet/Opus) chat sessions I've attempted with code snippets. Claude non-coding chat sessions were good, but I didn't detect anything magical about the model and the code it churned out for me to decide for a Claude Max Plan. Neither Cursor (I'm also a customer), with its partial use of Claude seemed that great. Maybe the magic is mostly in CC the agent...

So, I've been using a modified CC [1] with a modified claude-code-router [2] (on my own server), which exposes an Anthropic endpoint, and a Cerebras Coder account with qwen-3-coder-480b. No doubt Claude models+CC are well greased-out, but I think the folks in the Qwen team trained (distilled?) a coding model that is Sonnet-inspired so maybe that's the reason. I don't know. But the sheer 5x-10x inference speed of Cerebras makes up for any loss in quality from Sonnet or the FP8 quantization of qwen on the Cerebras side. If starting from zero every few agentic steps is the strategy to use, that with Cerebras is just incredible because it's ~ instantaneous.

I've tried my Cerebras Coder account with way too many coding agents, and for now CC, Cline (VS Code) and Qwen Code (a Gemini Code fork) are the ones that work best. CC beats the pack as it compresses the context just right and recovers well from Cerebras 429 errors (tpm limit), due to the speed (hitting ~1500 tps typically) clashing with Cerebras unreasonably tight request limits. When a 429 comes trough, CC just holds its breath a few seconds then goes at it again. Great experience overall!

[1] I've decompiled CC and modified some constants for Cerebras to fix some hickups

[2] had to remove some invalid request json keys sent by CC using CCR, and added others that were missing
by joshstrange | 2025-09-26 13:47:16+00:00
In July 2025 they raised the price for me from $10.60 to $13.04 (what was actually charged to my card), I know that is minor but I use essentially 0 emails 9 out of 12 months of the year and a pittance in those other months, not getting anywhere close to the limits.

My statement of "they keep bumping the monthly price" was incorrect, they only did it the one time it appears. However my plan is no longer available and the lowest plan they offer is now $15/mo which makes me concerned they will raise my prices again within a year or so.

Again, I know we are talking about a very small amount of money but I'm not super interested in staying with a provider that will just keep raising my prices while I have such low usage. I'd much rather switch to a pay-per-use-type service.