MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ipaddr | 2025-09-23 22:17:11+00:00
Supporting Canadian truckers was a straw? And that somehow broke the camels back because of misogyny in slides and booth ads (showing a pretty girl?).

Because of this they lost a 250,000 sponsorship from sideiq which then gave leverage to shopify to takeover the community because of a fear of this rv tool.

In the end their communities purity tests lost them everything.
by rmoriz | 2025-09-23 22:17:16+00:00
I've seen a lot of "formerly nice guys" falling. It's very hard to let people go and to deal with them if necessary (like using their project). To this date I can't understand why he went this route. He's successful, family guy, very rich. Why going after immigrants, poor, diverse people? Same with Musk. He's a prototype awkward guy yet he started a holy war against all DEI. WTF. Don't get it.
by failingforward | 2025-09-23 22:17:30+00:00
Yes, the article appears to be a short excerpt from a book and probably loses a lot of context because of that. I am interested in the questions raised by the author but will wait for the book to come out. The good news is that it appears the book will be open access - MIT Press seems to be encouraging this lately (at least by allowing this as an option for authors).
by logtempo | 2025-09-23 22:17:35+00:00
To me, the article just ask "Is it possible to simulate living organism features?" and say a small yes by saying "Simulations like these show how computation can produce lifelike behavior across scales".

I'm not expert to judge the result of "drawing a missing hand by using neural network on each pixels"(if it's what it's done? Again not an expert).
by dpc_01234 | 2025-09-23 22:17:39+00:00
> MESH is based on a simple principle: one component = one endpoint. This is a powerful idea - it allows us to write a HTML-first back-end in such a way that it feels like writing an SPA.

Yeah, I immediately could tell this is where the idea and HTMX collided.

In the worldview where HTMX shines, every page is just a document. HTMX is just a small library to add some capabilities for better interactivity. The goal is precisely to avoid what the author wanted.
by bombcar | 2025-09-23 22:18:15+00:00
It seems there has to be some amount of institutional supervision that would make them at least not as bad as freezing to death in the streets.

But one of the big problems is that almost all of them forbid drugs, the very high they want, so they're a non-starter.

You probably need something like "drug towns" in the California desert that provide comfortable places to overdose to death. Good luck running on that!
by rahidz | 2025-09-23 22:18:36+00:00
"Where's the limiting principle here?"

How about "If the content isn't illegal, then the government shouldn't pressure private companies to censor/filter/ban ideas/speech"?

And yes, this should apply to everything from criticizing vaccines, denying election results, being woke, being not woke, or making fun of the President on a talk show.

Not saying every platform needs to become like 4chan, but if one wants to be, the feds shouldn't interfere.
by 63stack | 2025-09-23 22:18:57+00:00
I had the same opinion and I am surprised by the amount of feelgood responses in this thread.

Anna needs to realize that the amount of people who have the time and willingness to invite someone out for _years_ while receicing no is very low. These friends need to be treasured and appreciated, and Anna needs to make an effort by saying yes sometimes, or at least expressing what she's going through. The friends are making an effort by keeping her in the group, she needs to do the same.
by Spooky23 | 2025-09-23 22:19:00+00:00
The only gotcha with the zip code reverse lookup is that there is a many to one relationship between city and zip. Look at Albany, NY (12201-12209) in the list you posted. There are a few with two cities, and iirc there are at least 3 other acceptable cities for 12203 that aren’t listed in that source.
by whakim | 2025-09-23 22:19:02+00:00
No, I don't; there are plenty of places you can't legally park that do not have painted curbs or "No Parking" signage. Do we also need curbs and signage near every fire hydrant? How about every driveway? Can drivers double-park anywhere they want? Should they yield to pedestrians in crosswalks? Etc. etc.
by gyomu | 2025-09-23 22:19:10+00:00
(this is from the original Blade Runner, for anyone wondering)

I love this being quoted here because while it superficially seems that this interaction is interacting with an AI in a conversational way, it shows tool use that is at the opposite end of what interacting with modern AI tends to be like/what AI marketing wants it to be.

In this scene:

- the user is guiding the tool step by step to a desired outcome, rather than giving a broad vague result that the tool gets to arbitrarily

- the user knows intimately the specific technical capabilities of the tool

- every command is phrased to be unambiguous and lead to a deterministic result

Imagine if instead all of the above, Deckard just gave a broad request, eg “can you help me find who the killer is by analyzing this picture”?
by AIPedant | 2025-09-23 22:19:27+00:00
Articles like this indicate we should lock down the definition of "computation" that meaningfully distinguishes computing machines from other physical phenomena - a computation is a process that maps symbols (or strings of symbols) to other symbols, obeying certain simple rules[1]. A computer is a machine that does computations.

In that sense life is obviously not a computation: it makes some sense to view DNA as symbolic but it is misleading to do the same for the proteins they encode. These proteins are solving physical problems, not expressing symbolic solutions to symbolic problems - a wrench is not a symbolic solution to the problem of a symbolic lug nut. From this POV the analogy of DNA to computer program is just wrong: they are both analogous to blueprints, but not particularly analogous to each other. We should insist that DNA is no more "computational" than the rules that dictate how elements are formed from subatomic particles.

[1] Turing computability, lambda definability, primitive recursion, whatever.
by kelnos | 2025-09-23 22:19:35+00:00
What a weird take. Family is important; I think it's a great thing that these people can maintain their family ties and even visit them. Hell, this is a great avenue to bring outside perspectives into the country.

Not sure how bringing a family member an iPhone is "benefiting the Mullah's system". It's a rounding error. And those family members are well aware that they can't get an iPhone in the usual way.

> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family

They might, though, despite the risk! And this isn't really a great comparison, since a Jewish person visiting Nazi Germany to visit family would run a high risk of being found out and sent to a camp (along with the family they're visiting) and killed. I don't think that sort of thing would likely be the case for an Iranian expat visiting family in Iran.
by bombcar | 2025-09-23 22:19:50+00:00
It's an almost immutable part of human nature to get into a position where you're "just getting by" - but if there's someone out there in a similar situation making less than you, you could match them dollar for dollar and have some to save.

Which means that for many it's not a financial problem, it's a self-control problem.

I can't afford to save, but I can afford to pay 10-20% extra on everything through credit cards.
by triceratops | 2025-09-23 22:19:57+00:00
> everyone else was on the same page

You can't know that though. Unless you hold a referendum to renew the rules every year and they pass by a 100% majority.

The only honest way to do it is without invoking government power. Move to a gated community. Have a neighborhood association, funded solely by residents, whose bylaws require that it gets to have any property up for sale in the community as long as it matches any other accepted offer on it.

If you want your "dream community" spend your own money. Don't go into other people's pockets.
by joecool1029 | 2025-09-23 22:20:12+00:00
> The J & J vaccine was approved at the time, but was later banned for causing chronic health effects.

That's not what happened. Authorities received rare reports of a clotting disorder and paused it for 11 days to investigate. That pause was lifted but the panic caused a crash in demand and J&J withdrew it from the market. Source: https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authori...
by sergiotapia | 2025-09-23 22:20:29+00:00
Thank you Qwen team for your generosity. I'm already using their thinking model to build some cool workflows that help boring tasks within my org.

https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-235b-a22b-thinking-2507

Now with this I will use it to identify and caption meal pictures and user pictures for other workflows. Very cool!
by kypro | 2025-09-23 22:20:54+00:00
I've argued this before, but the algorithms are not the core problem here.

For whatever reason I guess I'm in that very rare group that genuinely watches everything from far-right racists, to communists, to mainstream media content, to science educational content, to conspiracy content, etc.

My YT feed is all over the place. The algorithms will serve you a very wide range of content if you want that, the issue is that most people don't. They want to hear what they already think.

So while I 100% support changing algorithms to encourage more diversity of views, also I think as a society we need to question why people don't want to listen to more perspectives naturally? Personally I get so bored here people basically echo what I think. I want to listen to people who say stuff I don't expect or haven't thought about before. But I'm in a very significant minority.
by bsder | 2025-09-23 22:21:11+00:00
> I think the underlying question is why move to Zig from a C variant?

Null pointers disallowed by default. Slices. Superb cross-compilation. Easy C interop. Comptime instead of C preprocessor.

There are lots more.

The problem Rust is up against is that the number of people who want Rust simply because of "strict typing" far, far, far outnumbers those who care about safety or speed. And that leads to the issue that most people really should be using a GC language like OCaml rather than Rust.

Unfortunately, the OCaml ecosystem ... :(
by quickthrowman | 2025-09-23 22:21:16+00:00
You raise a number of good points, my example wasn’t as strong as I thought. I was attempting to contrive a scenario that was similar to a lawyer using an LLM and not reviewing the output, the civil engineering example isn’t a great due to the issues you raised.

> Someone would just take the plans exactly as listed, purchase the material as listed, and not one question ever would be raised? I would never trust a construction team that didn’t raise questions if not even to see if they themselves could skimp on material to pocket the difference.

You’re right, the contractor would likely catch the design issues if there were any, and possibly before that in the plan review/permitting process if the AHJ is on the ball.

I work in the electrical trade and I (and my electricians) find and correct errors frequently in engineered plans. We tell the engineer if it costs us more money to attempt to get a contract change order, but we keep it to ourselves if we can do it safely for cheaper. A common scenario I run into is a design with oversized feeders where you can use a smaller wire and still meet code, we just pull the smaller conductors and pocket the difference (assuming you bid the project using the larger wire size)
by faxmeyourcode | 2025-09-23 22:21:18+00:00
I've used this pattern on two separate codebases. One was ~500k LOC apache airflow monolith repo (I am a data engineer). The other was a greenfield flutter side project (I don't know dart, flutter, or really much of anything regarding mobile development).

All I know is that it works. On the greenfield project the code is simple enough to mostly just run `/create_plan` and skip research altogether. You still get the benefit of the agents and everything.

The key is really truly reviewing the documents that the AI spits out. Ask yourself if it covered the edge cases that you're worried about or if it truly picked the right tech for the job. For instance, did it break out of your sqlite pattern and suggest using postgres or something like that. These are very simple checks that you can spot in an instant. Usually chatting with the agent after the plan is created is enough to REPL-edit the plan directly with claude code while it's got it all in context.

At my day job I've got to use github copilot, so I had to tweak the prompts a bit, but the intentional compaction between steps still happens, just not quite as efficiently because copilot doesn't support sub-agents in the same way as claude code. However, I am still able to keep productivity up.

-------

A personal aside.

Immediately before AI assisted coding really took off, I started to feel really depressed that my job was turning into a really boring thing for me. Everything just felt like such a chore. The death by a million paper cuts is real in a large codebase with the interplay and idiosyncrasies of multiple repos, teams, personalities, etc. The main benefit of AI assisted coding for me personally seems to be smoothing over those paper cuts.

I derive pleasure from building things that work. Every little thing that held up that ultimate goal was sucking the pleasure out of the activity that I spent most of my day trying to do. I am much happier now having impressed myself with what I can build if I stick to it.
by rmoriz | 2025-09-23 22:21:56+00:00
This resembles the "monolith" vs "micro-services" discussion. If you spread the packages over thousands of domains, hosts, providers, reliability will be horrible. And it's uncontrollable. In theory, RubyGems could run code analyzers on all uploads to detected malware. Good look if you just haven an index of repositories/packages hosted elsewhere.
by bartread | 2025-09-23 22:22:03+00:00
That makes sense but, to put it mildly, I am not whatsoever a fan of corporate controlled and directed OSS. I'm even less of a fan of it when it's effectively controlled by only one corporation. The temptation to play high-handed with the community, and with the future, is overwhelming and not one that corporations seem able to resist. One example: Chromium, which is now effectively worthless as a serious web browser with support for MV2 removed, thus meaning that uBlock Origin (and the like) no longer work, due to Google forcing the issue with MV3.
by roenxi | 2025-09-23 22:22:14+00:00
That policy catches and bans any scientists studying the negative health effects of vaccines who later turns out to be right.

1) YouTube doesn't know what is true. They will be relying on the sort of people they would ban to work out when the consensus is wrong. If I watched a YouTube video through of someone spreading "vaccine misinformation" there is a pretty good chance that the speakers have relevant PhDs or are from the medical profession - there is no way the YouTube censors are more qualified than that, and the odds are they're just be random unqualified employees already working in the euphemistically named "Trust & Safety" team.

2) All vaccines are dangerous and can cause chronic health effects. That statement isn't controversial, the controversy is entirely over the magnitude. Every time I get a vaccine the standard advice is "you should probably hang around here for 5 minutes, these things are known to be dangerous in rare cases". I think in most countries you're more likely to get polio from a polio vaccine than in the wild. On the one hand, that is a success of the polio vaccine. On the other hand, the vaccine is clearly dangerous and liable to cause chronic health problems.

> This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause ... cancer ...

Cancer is such a catch all that we can pretty much guarantee there will be some evidence that vaccines cause cancer. Everything causes cancer. Drinking tea is known to cause cancer.

3) All policies have costs and benefits. People have to be able to discuss the overall cost-benefit of a policy in YouTube videos even if they get one of the costs or benefits completely wrong.
by ijk | 2025-09-23 22:22:15+00:00
I'm really just looking for a subset of XML so that's probably sufficient.

For me, the advantage that Pydantic AI has right now is that it's easy to do ingestion/validation of the generated text, since I've already got the typing information in place. If I had similar ways to create new specialized grammars on the fly (e.g., I want XML-ish tags with these fields, but also allow for arbitrary additional fields...) that would significantly sway my implementation decisions.
by deepdarkforest | 2025-09-23 22:22:44+00:00
The Chinese are doing what they have been doing to the manufacturing industry as well. Take the core technology and just optimize, optimize, optimize for 10x the cost/efficiency. As simple as that. Super impressive. These models might be bechmaxxed but as another comment said, i see so many that it might as well be the most impressive benchmaxxing today, if not just a genuinely SOTA open source model. They even released a closed source 1 trillion parameter model today as well that is sitting on no3(!) on lm arena. EVen their 80gb model is 17th, gpt-oss 120b is 52nd https://qwen.ai/blog?id=241398b9cd6353de490b0f82806c7848c5d2...
by 2muchcoffeeman | 2025-09-23 22:23:13+00:00
This highlights what’s so difficult with science communication.

Right here on what should be a technical minded forum, people don’t understand what science is or how it works. Or what risk is. And they don’t even challenge their own beliefs or are curious about how things actually work.

If the “smart” people can’t or won’t continuously incorporate new information, what are our chances?
by godelski | 2025-09-23 22:23:41+00:00
Quality public transportation

I don't mean just having public transport but make it be something people actually want to use. It has to be cheap, convenient, and useful. But even in the Bay these aren't all met. It can be hard to get to some places or quality can go down hill real quick.

I think there's these problems which are really self reinforcing. You don't build public transportation because no one uses it. No one uses it because it doesn't actually meet their needs. You don't maintain it because use usage is dropping but usage is decreasing because it's not maintained.

Then you have these external costs that are easy to ignore because you over simplify and think they are out of scope. Like you have to have more parking spaces for more cars. Less green spaces. This all raises the cost of the real estate. So on and so on. There's more complexity than we often think and we should start with our simplifications but to improve we need to consider the complexities we initially ignored
by ksec | 2025-09-23 22:23:51+00:00
>Ruby Central's collapse started because Sidekiq disagreed with them platforming dhh

I remember Ruby Central denied they ever tried to deplatform DHH. But now when they are platforming DHH Sidekiq wants out.

I honestly think it is may be way simpler. Shopify is willing to sponsor and put money into it but they also want it done ASAP, preferably now. They give a deadline and Ruby Central didn't think, plan or act until too late.

And the moment it was badly done, politics creeps in.
by ecoffey | 2025-09-23 22:23:55+00:00
Interesting! Reading the headline before the article, my brain immediately thought of "jitter".

I wonder if you could extend the `In-process synchronization` example so that when `CompleteableFuture.supplyAsync()` thunk first does a random sleep (where the sleep time is bounded by an informed value based on the expensive query execution time), then it checks the cache again, and only if the cache is still empty does it proceed with the rest of the example code.

That way you (stochastically) get some of the benefits of distributed locking w/o actually having to do distributed locking.

Of course that only works if you are ok adding in a bit of extra latency (which should be ok; you're already on the non-hot path), and that there still may be more than 1 query issued to fill the cache.
by dhorthy | 2025-09-23 22:23:56+00:00
Claude code is Claude code, whether you use in cursor or not

Codex and Claude code are neck and neck, but we made the decision to go all in on opus 4, as there are compounding returns in optimizing prompts and building intuition for a specific model

That said I have tested these prompts on codex, amp, opencode, even grok 4 fast via codebuff, and they still work decently well

But they are heavily optimized from our work with opus in particular
by lemmsjid | 2025-09-23 22:24:03+00:00
Interesting. Things I think of as quite reasonable, though certainly with counter arguments, are to him fundamentally preposterous and not even worthy of reasonable consideration.

My kid goes to a very liberal California school. The main difference between it and my school growing up is that it is no longer acceptable to ostracize or beat up lgbtq kids or kids who are different in other ways. Part of that is because, gasp, the school builds acceptance into the curriculum. I wish I grew up now, it’s such a nicer time to be a weird nerd.
by blincoln | 2025-09-23 22:24:04+00:00
I don't think so. His description was that it was speeder bikes in a forest, like Return of the Jedi, but it was mostly a demo of the graphics capabilities, not a complete game.

e.g. I remember he specifically said you could fly in any direction you wanted, but there was a wall at the edge of the forest, as opposed to it wrapping around or having a non-inmersion-breaking reason for being constrained to the one area.
by jjk166 | 2025-09-23 22:24:06+00:00
The Nazis in 1933 hadn't done anything within an order of magnitude of the evil they would perpetrate in 1943. They nevertheless were still Nazis, and everyone who did not actively condemn them then was in part responsible for what they did later.

Many evil people weren't Nazis; some Nazis weren't necessarily evil. Evil is not part of the definition of Nazism. Promoting authoritarianism, exclusionary nationalism, institutional racism, autarky, anti-liberalism and anti-socialism are the hallmarks of Nazism. Anyone who holds the beliefs of the Nazis is a Nazi, regardless of what level of success they have to date achieved in carrying out their aims.