MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lmm | 2025-09-07 00:39:51+00:00
> almost all software, especially if you don't really understand it, is crap, and probably the software you understand is also crap, you're just used to it. Good software is pretty tricky to make.

Most software has issues, but Colima is noticeably worse than most software I've used. And the complete lack of documentation is definitely not normal.
by Pocomon | 2025-09-07 00:40:47+00:00
The output of language models can be considered a form of hallucination because these models do not possess real understanding or factual knowledge about the underlying concepts. Instead, they generate text by statistically predicting and assembling words based on vast training data and the input prompts, without true comprehension.

Since the training data can contain inaccuracies, conflicting information, or low-frequency facts that are essentially random, models can produce plausible-sounding but false statements. Unlike humans, language models have no awareness or grounding in real-world concepts; their generation is essentially an amalgam of stored patterns and input cues rather than grounded knowledge.

Furthermore, evaluation methods that reward accuracy without penalizing guessing encourage models to produce confident but incorrect answers rather than admit uncertainty or abstain from answering. This challenge is intrinsic to how language models generate fluent language: they lack external verification or true understanding, making hallucinations an inherent characteristic of their outputs rather than a malfunction.

--

| a. What's with the -minus votes?

| b. I was only quoting ChatGPT :]
by wakawaka28 | 2025-09-07 00:40:50+00:00
If you hire someone to train them, you can pay less (say perhaps $70-80k) and also include in the contract some penalties if they stay a specific amount of time, say longer than 6 months and less than 2 years. And the so-called training is probably bullshit anyway. The problem here is probably not the pool of candidates. It's probably the wage not matching the market, the location of the gig, the gig itself, or the company being too picky.
by ninkendo | 2025-09-07 00:40:56+00:00
> First, one shouldn't use a moved-from object in the first place (except for, maybe, reassigning it).

It still requires you to come up with somethkng to do to the old value in the move constructor. What would you do in the ValidatedAddress case? Set a flag in the struct called “moved_from” and use that to throw an exception if it’s ever used? Wouldn’t it be nice if you just didn’t need to worry about it?

> Second, why can't the .street() method simply return an empty string in this case?

In this example I’m referring to a type that represents a “validated” address, so, one that has already passed checks to make sure the street isn’t empty, etc. (it’s the whole “parse, don’t validate” idea, although I’ve never understood why the word “parse” is used when I would’ve just called it “validate just once”.)

It is an extremely useful concept for your type system to represents invariants in your data like this. Having to make every type contain an “empty” case, just to make the language’s move semantics work, pokes an enormous hole through this idea.

> AFAIK, it only makes such requirements for standard library types, but not for user defined types

It makes the requirement because the compiler is not going to stop anyone from using the moved-from value, so you have to think of something to do in the move constructor. You can pinky-swear to never use the moved-from value in your own code (and linters can help here) but the possibility still exists, so it must be solved for.
by asdff | 2025-09-07 00:41:20+00:00
Why does it need to be complex? It is just managing temperature same as the analog one. Same wires to the furnace and ac. Setting a schedule shouldn't require a heavy OS on top of this. One way I came up with in 5 seconds, just have it sit on the network and take in emails with your schedule changes and you're done. Or just ping it, don't even need the mail setup. Should be pretty light and performant with not very many lines of code.
by h4ch1 | 2025-09-07 00:41:50+00:00
Thank you for the response professor, really appreciate it from one of the creators of the language itself;

I did give your document a read and my (naive) understanding is you basically create DSLs for each sub-part of the problem you're trying to solve?

>A LOP-based software system consists of multiple, cooperating components, each written in domain-specific languages.

and

>cooperating multi-lingual components must respect the invariants that each participating language establishes.

So basically you're enforcing rules/checks at the language level rather than compile time?

How would you recommend a complete novice attain this sort of state of mind/thought process while working in this language? Because my thoughts go simply to creating types and enforcing type-checking coupled with pure functions to avoid successful-fail at runtime programs.

Also how would one navigate the complexity of multiple abstractions while debugging?

The paper also mentions a web-server language (footnote 27), if I use racket will I be productive "out of the box" or is the recommended path to take is writing a web server language first.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond, and please do forgive me for these naive questions.
by skrishnamurthi | 2025-09-07 00:42:05+00:00
This isn't meant to be a good programming mechanism, it's meant to be an illustration of how to use the macro system.

But also, if you're processing non-linear data, you're going to want to do with a recursive function anyway. E.g., when dealing with a tree. Code below; can't seem to get multi-line code-formatting so it looks hideous:

#lang racket

(require "anon-rec.rkt") (require rackunit)

(struct mt ()) (struct node (v l r))

(define sum-tree (lam/anon (t) (cond [(mt? t) 0] [(node? t) (+ (node-v t) ($MyInvocation (node-l t)) ($MyInvocation (node-r t)))])))

(define t (node 5 (node 3 (mt) (mt)) (node 7 (node 9 (mt) (mt)) (mt))))

(check-equal? (sum-tree t) 24)
by walter_elias | 2025-09-07 00:42:20+00:00
Musk would look foolish if he backs down on No Lidar. But, buying PONY allows him to say,"We proved vision-only FSD works. But customers wanted robotaxi today, not tomorrow. So I added Pony’s lidar solution — now you have both.” And this allows him a genuine L4 robotaxi solution that works today ... without "safety operators" in the driver seat.
by AfterHIA | 2025-09-07 00:44:13+00:00
As a committed pragmatist of the, "Richard Rorty-Harold Bloom Book Snop Sort" I feel the world would be much better if every scientists and technician had as their required reading the works of James, Joyce, Dewey, and if they are North American Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Technical excellence flows from moral expansion.

"Ethics is transcendental" -Wittgenstein
by kens | 2025-09-07 00:44:21+00:00
Marilou Schultz asked me to suggest some chips that would make good weavings, and I suggested the 555, among other chips. She also had questions about the different colors and textures in the chip. She notices a lot more about the colors than I do; I look at a chip in terms of functionality and connectivity and don't pay attention to the colors.
by skrishnamurthi | 2025-09-07 00:46:16+00:00
These are great questions!

Yes, what you're describing is the "extreme" version of LOP. Of course you don't have to do it that aggressively to get working code.

Two references I like to point to:

https://www.hashcollision.org/brainfudge/

https://beautifulracket.com/

They will give you a sense of how one uses LOP productively.

You do not need to write a "web server language"! To the contrary, the Web server provides several languages to give you a trade-off between ease and power in writing server-side Web applications. So you can just write regular Racket code and serve it through the server. The server also comes with some really neat, powerful primitives (orthogonal to LOP) — like `send/suspend` — that make it much easier to write server-based code.
by OneMorePerson | 2025-09-07 00:46:36+00:00
My argument in support of the general immersion concept but against AJATT is that most people can't actually effectively use that method without hitting a wall. The amount differs for everyone but after some ratio (say around 50% of your waking hours) your brain will stop working as well and you need space to process what you learned. Finishing a long study session (say listening to a few YouTube videos then having a session on iTalki with a tutor, etc.) and having my phone in Japanese just sounds like hell to me.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-09-07 00:46:54+00:00
> If you find investors

It's a big if. Few can get funding especially without connections. In that case, the odds are heavily against you.

I'm not sure what is being argued here - if you have connections, can get the money and the opportunity is clear, go for it. However, you should be clear with the above before you put your assets at risk - a job, property, savings or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to follow hype into adventures with odds of success lower than gambling. That seems obvious, but what do I know.
by n4bz0r | 2025-09-07 00:48:12+00:00
> home.arpa is suggested

Thanks, didn't even know it existed.

> I didn't see a specific RFC that reserved .lan

There is no RFC AFAIK, but it has certainly seen some adoption over the past decade. Mikrotik devices use `router.lan` as a default domain name for their routers, for instance. Home labbers on YouTube seem to like to use `.lan`, too.

Would it be fair to think there is a chance `.lan` might get an RFC of its' own given the popularity? Or that's completely irrelevant in case with RFCs? Hard to tell what's the reasoning there - `.home.arpa` seems excessivly long and inconvenient.

Would be a real shame and a bummer if `.lan` ends up becoming public :')
by beefnugs | 2025-09-07 00:49:21+00:00
I thought it would be useful to know that the place you are about to buy was still the previous owner who bought the place for 3x less 20 years ago... (completely open knowledge anyone can access by the way)... Ok maybe they deserve a 2x price, I will offer that? Nope. Thats not how any of this broken thing works.

The rotting poorly kept wood box will always increase in price because we said so and created choke and control points for a reason
by saghm | 2025-09-07 00:49:25+00:00
I think I might be getting confused about the point you're making here. To me, pre-existing knowledge and the decades-long legacy of C++ feel like much stronger arguments against changing anything in a breaking way compared to making breaking changes to improve the language. I do agree with you around a lot of the new features being introduced not feeling super necessary, but I'm guessing that the stance of people in favor of them is that adding them doesn't feel like it's a huge problem either given that they can do them without breaking anything. My perception is that C++ has already been a fairly large language for a while, and that most codebases already develop a bit of a dialect of which features to use or not use (which you allude to as well), so I could imagine that they expect people who don't like the new features to just ignore them.

I think I'm most confused about the last part that you're saying. A significant overhaul to the language in a breaking way feels pretty much the same as saying "screw it" and starting from scratch, just with specific ergonomic choices being closer to C++ than to Rust. Several of the parts that you cite as the strengths of the language, like inline assembly and pointers are still available in Rust, just not outside of explicitly unsafe contexts, and I'd imagine that an overhaul of C++ to enhance memory safety would end up needing to make a fairly similar compromise for them. It just seems like the language you're wishing for would end up with a fairly narrow design space, even if it is objectively superior to the C++ we have today, because it would have to give up the largest advantage that C++ does have without enough unoccupied room to grow into. The focus on backwards compatibility doesn't seem to be that it would necessarily be the best choice in a vacuum, but a reflection of the state of the ecosystem as it is today, and a perception that sacrificing it would be giving up its position as the dominant language in a well-defined niche to try to compete in a new one. This is obviously a subjective viewpoint, but it doesn't seem implausible to me, and given the fact that we can't really know how it would work out unless they do try, sticking with compatibility feels like the safer option.
by cogman10 | 2025-09-07 00:50:18+00:00
> There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days

And what happened to them? Why did they go away?

It wasn't due to the government outlawing them.

> The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption

And 3rd party reviewers aren't easily corrupted? There are at least some mechanisms to address government corruption in a democracy (elections). What mechanism can be employed against a 3rd party reviewer that simply lies about a product it's reviewing?

That's the reason this has to be government ran. Corruption happens regardless of who's doing it, government at very least faces some accountability.
by yencabulator | 2025-09-07 00:50:37+00:00
> or, depending on who's doing the defining: every road a human could take a car on.

That's a distinction without a difference. Forest service and BLM roads are "roads" but can be completely impassable or 100% erased by nature (and I say this as a former Jeep Wrangler owner), they aren't always located where a map thinks they are, and sometimes absolutely nothing differentiates them from the surrounding nature -- for example, left turn into a desert dry wash can be a "road" and right not.

Actual "full" autonomous driving is crazy hard. Like, by definition you get into territory where some vehicles and some drivers just can't make it through, but it's still a road(/"environment"). And some people will live at the end of those roads.
by manoDev | 2025-09-07 00:52:24+00:00
There is a “better” painkiller than both Tylenol and Ibuprofen (Metamizol), but it has been forbidden on the US based on a study attributing strong side-effects to it, despite it being freely available over the counter on multiple countries for decades without issue.

If this study is true, it should be easy to compare prevalence of autism on these countries that don’t rely on Tylenol.
by h4ch1 | 2025-09-07 00:52:48+00:00
Understood. Will dive deeper into Racket to get a proper understanding since it's created an itch because I still don't understand it :)

Even if I don't go fully into it as a production language, hopefully it'll open some avenues of thought that I do not yet possess.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, have a great day!
by wakawaka28 | 2025-09-07 00:52:57+00:00
There are singular companies doing extremely specialized work for entities all over the country, so this kind of logic is not going to work. It would be more realistic (but similarly problematic) to apply the logic on a national level. But what that would look like is the government issuing licenses to import based on the percentage of the company's output made domestically. That is complex to figure out, as well, and not all products are made entirely in one country. Even if they can be made all in one country, it may not be what you want your countrymen working on. I would rather see my people make cars than, say, squeaky dog toys. But some of the same skills can be used for a variety of different products too.
by eliben | 2025-09-07 00:53:50+00:00
The Y combinator in Python: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/some-notes-on-the-y-combi...

(scroll down, after the concept is explained using Clojure)

A bit crazier, in Go with generics: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2022/the-y-combinator-in-go-wi...
by Nextgrid | 2025-09-07 00:54:19+00:00
> your ISP may have a problem with your set up (giving it's on the front page of HN and will be experiencing some traffic)

Does your ISP have a problem when your computer/phone/etc does a cloud backup? Or when you torrent? Because both of those will max out your upload bandwidth much more than hosting a static website.

I think the concerns about ISPs complaining are extremely overblown on HN, but happy to be proven wrong.
by indigodaddy | 2025-09-07 00:54:51+00:00
Pretty wild! I wonder how much high school teachers and college professors are struggling with the inevitable usage though?

"Do deep internet research and thinking to present as much evidence in favor of the idea that JRR Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy was inspired by Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast series."

https://chatgpt.com/share/68bcd796-bf8c-800c-ad7a-51387b1e53...
by deaddodo | 2025-09-07 00:55:04+00:00
Do you have an example? I can’t possibly think of a single idea that’s completely expressionless. Even drug-fueled hallucinations can eventually be given a description; albeit without being able to actually transfer the feeling/internalization of it.

You might have to be overly verbose and explicit in your language, but ultimately you can describe pretty much anything using “like”, “as”, and “akin to” with qualifiers.
by 3np | 2025-09-07 00:55:04+00:00
- Classic centralized social media with no story around decentralization or federation

- First-class experience only via walled and gated Google Play and Apple Appstore. They brand as "human first" but it's unclear if it will even be available/supported outside of human-hostile platforms. Looks pretty "corporate first".

- No public API

- No source

- External presence exclusively on: Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Tiktok

- https://docs.digg.com/privacy

- https://docs.digg.com/terms

Hard pass. The only possibly attractive thing would be the name.
by esbranson | 2025-09-07 00:55:32+00:00
ATProto labeling services and AppViews are admirable additions, but we know full well in reality Bluesky centralizes control and is basically a scheme to co-opt open-source principles for private gain. As just one example, while the use of DIDs is an admirable feature to be emulated, the did:plc DID method operated by Bluesky Social is a step down from ActivityPub identity URLs.

The real question, is the W3C Social Web Working Group and the Fediverse more focused on censorship than on feature and software development? That's the reason Bluesky is able to do this in the first place. I think the W3C SW WG (and the Fediverse) is a dead letter because we also know full well they won't implement labeling services and app views among others (use curl for RDF data without authenticating I dare you) because it would hinder censorship, and the EU will compliance burden them into oblivion. Bluesky drilled right into the political aspects that the Fediverse cannot escape.

It will be a fun toy project though. But my dream of a web client, DID, potentially Solid based (or just plain JSON-LD over HTTP) server-app years ago was dashed by the centrality of censorship in the Fediverse. I really was amazed how central it was and apparently still is.
by AfterHIA | 2025-09-07 00:56:20+00:00
Ethics and design guy here-- I think this is one of the most, "purposeful" articles I've seen in forever if you don't mind the pun. (I'm from Utah).

I'm asking myself the question of fundamentally why UI designers are making decisions to include the, "tasteful delay" and its ultimately as the article points out prioritizing, "delightful presentations" for, "tools that ultimately serve the users purposes most effectively." I don't think I have to preach to a converted choir here about that but I'm reminded of Thorstein Veblen's famous book and I wonder; at a deeper level isn't misanthropic to reduce software to, "tools?" Lumiere created motion pictures and we told stories. We invented the interactive motion picture and we jerry-rigged into an automated office suite. Outside of the very sexy Alan Kay-Dan Ingalls fringe computer interfaces of all stripes descended from that very idiosyncratic paradigm.

I wonder what crazy shit Ted Nelson is building with Claude right now. Sweet fuck.

https://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf
by snickerbockers | 2025-09-07 00:57:53+00:00
Well even if we assume there's a suitable 8-pin microcontroller which doesn't cost more than the 555, merely loading the firmware onto the microcontroller is going to add significant cost and complexity to the manufacturing stage. Also the microcontroller would be far more sensitive to power supply inadequacies because its state consists of much more than a capacitor and a flipflop.
by bullen | 2025-09-07 00:58:03+00:00
Netty has NIO... but back in 2000 there was no Netty. So 25 years back. JDK 1.4 with NIO came in 2002, Netty in 2004, but NIO only became usable live ~2010 with epoll and bugs got sorted end of 1.6!

Also Netty is one of those middleware "pretend to help but really bloat" libs.

I would sincerely recommend to avoid those as implementing on top of lower common denominators always is faster in the end after all the Netty bugs have been sorted.
by skybrian | 2025-09-07 00:58:29+00:00
Possibly of interest:

What heritability actually means https://dynomight.substack.com/p/heritable

> I couldn’t help but notice that there’s near-universal confusion about what “heritable” means. Partly, that’s because it’s a subtle concept. But it also seems relevant that almost all explanations of heritability are very, very confusing.

For example, they say speaking Turkish isn’t heritable but speaking English is. Weird!

> Heritability can be high even when genes have no direct causal effect. It can be low even when there is a strong direct effect. It changes when the environment changes. It even changes based on how you group people together. It can be larger than 100% or even undefined.
by josu | 2025-09-07 00:58:45+00:00
SPF is a Sun Protection Factor, meaning it multiplies the time it takes for your skin to burn. For example, if very light skin normally burns in about 10 minutes, SPF 20 stretches that to ~200 minutes, which is already over 3 hours. Since dermatologists recommend reapplying every 2 hours regardless, going beyond SPF 30–50 (which blocks ~97–98% of UVB) doesn’t add much practical benefit. Even for very fair skin, correct application and reapplication are far more important than chasing SPF 100.
by C-x_C-f | 2025-09-07 00:59:16+00:00
> A language model is made to predict language

<pedantry>Isn't a language model made to predict the next token in a series, which just so happens to be good for predicting not only natural languages, but also formal ones (code and math)?</pedantry>

Also, similar to what nelox said, as long as language (or sequences of tokens or what have you) can be "about" something (whatever that means), then it's possible that LLMs are encoding information about that "something". I'm being deliberately vague because I think that trying to be precise (by e.g. referring to latent spaces and so on) makes it sound like we've figured something out when in reality we haven't even found the right words to ask the questions.
by lazide | 2025-09-07 01:00:00+00:00
The outer core is 2,890 KM (~ 1800 miles) below the earths crust, and has the mantle in the way. The crust itself is only 30KM thick. [https://phys.org/news/2017-02-journey-center-earth.html] The crust is basically a thin layer of slag on top of a giant ball of molten everything.

Even at million+ year timescales, I can’t see any way the temperature of the upper crust could matter to the core at all - even if the crust was at absolute zero.

Dirt insulates relatively well, and the amount of thermal mass present is mindboggling.