MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xmonkee | 2025-09-07 03:25:53+00:00
>you woke up before dawn with your companions to go diving in the freezing cold ocean, in hopes of putting some mussels on your family's table. But suddenly, you die. A man you have never met and whose presence you did not know about has shot you with his rifle. His companions stab your lungs so that your body will sink to the bottom of the sea. Your family will likely never know what happened to you.

Man, fuck these people. Meanwhile hollywood will churn out another hundred films about how Captain America would never let something like this happen because murdering innocents is not a line America would ever cross.
by mmahemoff | 2025-09-07 03:27:06+00:00
A major advantage of pure models is testability. If your conception of a "model" is perversely a user-facing widget, congratulations, you'll need to write UI tests that simulate button presses and other such user actions, and maybe even inspecting pixels to check resulting state. Tests like that are a pain to compose and are fragile since the UI tends to evolve quickly and may also be vulnerable to A-B experiments. Juice ain't worth the squeeze in most cases.

In contrast, pure model components tend to evolve slowly, which justifies the investment of a comprehensive test suite which verifies things like data constraints, business logic, persistence. If automated testing were seen as a priority, this would be a no-brainer for any serious app. However, testing tends to be underappreciated in app development. This goes some way to explaining why frameworks carelessly fold in M, V, C to the same component.
by RyJones | 2025-09-07 03:28:17+00:00
Yes, my recent (last 10 or so years) experiences have gone from being shocked at seeing full-size F250s in Amsterdam (!) to no more raised eyebrows. I've driven from Tallinn to Kyiv five times over the last year, and I've seen plenty of American vehicles. I know in Ukraine it's popular to kit bash imported wrecked US cars into something drivable, and I've seen plenty of full-size Dodge and Ford pickups on the roads in Poland.

On 13 June 2025, I took a picture of a Honda with dealership plate frame from Bellevue Honda in Tallinn. I imagine many of the vehicles in Holland and Germany are owned by US military folks, but they can't all be.
by masonremaley | 2025-09-07 03:28:20+00:00
Good question. I don’t have any authored SDF content right now so take this with a grain of salt, but my thoughts are:

1. Fonts are a very small percent of most games’ storage and frame time, so there’s less motivation to compress them than other textures

2. Every pixel in a font is pretty intentional (unlike in, say, a brick texture) so I’d be hesitant to do anything lossy to it

I suspect that a single channel SDF for something like a UI shape would compress decently, but you could also just store it at a lower resolution instead since it’s a SDF. For SDF fonts I’d probably put them through the same asset pipeline but turn off the compression.

(Of course, if you try it out and find that in practice they look better compressed than downscaled, then you may as well go for it!)

[EDIT] a slightly higher level answer—you probably wouldn’t compress them, but you’d probably still use this workflow to go from my_font.ttf -> my_font_sdf.ktx2 or such.
by westurner | 2025-09-07 03:28:30+00:00
> How to submit? Make a pull request with your player, assumed performance and (short) description. I'll then re-run training and evaluation (with a random seed) and add the result to the leader board.

> Why 1000 neurons? Since It Takes Two Neurons To Ride a Bicycle, I decided that 1000 neurons should be more than enough to solve such a simple task.

[...]

Bot: radius, speed, camera, camera.depths, camera.values, position, direction, energy, move_penalty, hit_penalty Environment: energy, probability, quality, leak, refill
by m463 | 2025-09-07 03:29:01+00:00
> stating that cars must have a clearly marked mechanical release on the inside, and not just an electronic button.

I can totally get behind this one from earlier. Getting out of a car in an emergency should be completely obvious and work at all times.

I would go further and ban separate electronic and mechanical door releases, making them the same. the tesla model S does this -- pull the handle a bit and it releases electronically, and with a little more travel and you get a mechanical release.

I think the model Y has no mechanical release in the back seat?

Going further to outside door handles - I hope they figure a way to have flush handles.
by ranger_danger | 2025-09-07 03:30:36+00:00
> GPLv2 has the same requirements as GPLv3 around installation of modifications

I disagree:

> Stallman found this practice (using crypto lock-down to force the proprietary software to fail) illegitimate. He noted publicly that GPLv2 didn't prevent this behavior, and wanted (and wrote, as explained below) a GPLv3 draft that prohibited that behavior.

I think the author is sometimes (but not always) conflating software installation instructions with the ability to actually usefully install different versions of the software.

At one point he specifically claims that GPLv2 required "a functional installation method", but gives no citations of this in any actual clause of the GPLv2, nor cites any court cases where this was argued either way, and even admits that many lawyers believe that a working installation method is not required (and gives no evidence otherwise because saying he personally disagrees).

> there was a clear installation requirement in GPLv2 — the word “install” appears prominently

Except the only time the word "install" actually appears is in this part:

> scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable

And I would argue that it's going to be entirely up to every individual judge's 50/50 interpretation as to whether "scripts used to control installation" actually implies a working method of installation as well.

Not only that, but TiVo's "forcing the proprietary software to fail" practice is IMO a completely different legal issue from not even having a method of installing different software on a locked-down device in the first place.

TiVo happened to have a method to do that already, but many devices since then (which use Linux kernels) do not have a way to actually modify any software, and for good reason IMO (e.g. safety/regulation such as in aerospace/defense/medical/automotive industries). And they are not getting sued or called out by anyone to my knowledge... but please prove me wrong.
by keepamovin | 2025-09-07 03:31:30+00:00
Really polished! And it really captures that windows XP aesthetic, but also the spirit of that aesthetic.

If Windows XP had had some kind of super professional “create a portfolio” app that would output an executable binary that you could download it would’ve been lauded as amazing and beautiful if it looked like what you created.

This is great. It shows your skills, but also brings back the beauty of Windows XP, in a contemporary but historically accurate format.
by Spivak | 2025-09-07 03:31:52+00:00
I think ultimately you're trying to tell a river that it's going the wrong way. Programs have had required options for decades at this point. I think they can make sense as alternatives to heterogeneously typed positional arguments. By making the user name them explicitly you remove ambiguity and let the user specify them in whatever order they please.

In Python this was a motivating factor for letting functions demand their arguments be passed as named keywords. Something like send("foo", "bar") is easier to understand and call correctly when you have to say send(channel="foo", message="bar")
by avalys | 2025-09-07 03:33:08+00:00
Have you actually checked any of these numbers?

What do you imagine is the profit margin of a health insurance company?

According to this report by the national association of state regulators, the profit margin of the health insurance industry in 2023 was 3%, or $25 billion.

Compared to over $1T of premiums, and over $4T of total healthcare spending in the US, that doesn't seem "staggering" to me.

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/topics-industry...
by razzmatazmania | 2025-09-07 03:34:59+00:00
Confabulation is human behavioral phenomena that is not all that uncommon. Have you ever heard a grandpa big fish story? Have you ever pretended to know something you didn't because you wanted approval or to feel confident? Have you answered a test question wrong when you thought you were right? What I find fascinating about these models is they are already more intelligent and reliable than the worst humans. I've known plenty of people who struggle to conceptualize and connect information and are helpless outside of dealing with familiar series of facts or narratives. That these models aren't even as large as human brains makes me suspect that practical hardware limits might still be in play here.
by ajxs | 2025-09-07 03:35:19+00:00
It's really fortunate that the history of the 555 timer is really well documented. Its inventor, Hans Camenzind, wrote several books, and even had a Youtube channel in his later years[1]. It's a shame that so many iconic chips that have changed the world aren't so well documented. I went down a real rabbithole a while ago trying to find in-depth information about the Hitachi HD44780. I couldn't even decisively pin down exactly what year it was first manufactured. It's interesting to think of microchip designs as a kind of artistic legacy: Chips like the 555 have had an enormous impact on modern history.

1: https://www.youtube.com/@hcamen
by treis | 2025-09-07 03:35:29+00:00
That isn't how sunscreen works. If you put SPF 50 on and spend 8 hours in the sun you're coming back a lobster.

Say you burn in 5 minutes. SPF 50 means you burn in 250 minutes. But it's more like 100% protection for 245 minutes and then 0% for the last 5. It's not a steady cooking at 2.5% intensity.
by vandalism | 2025-09-07 03:36:53+00:00
This assumes that all users are informed enough to make such decisions.

You cannot expect the average player of an online game to have the technical knowledge necessary to discern whether a piece of software is safe to use or not. Even if you could, you'd also be expecting them to take the time to do a proper analysis of such software, which I do not think is a reasonable premise.

What's more, this is open-source software we're talking about and you can actually relatively easily perform meaningful security checks; imagine if this were not the case.
by lutusp | 2025-09-07 03:37:27+00:00
Wait, what? An email address harvester that expects people to volunteer? And that tries to get the sender's geographical position along the way?

The stated purpose could be served without requiring an email address. It could also be served without assuming people will prefer an AI-generated message over their own personally crafted prose ... do such people really exist?

The second goal presumes a person's illiteracy. The first presumes a person's stupidity. Based on those facts and my sampling of recent Internet dialogues, this plan should be a roaring success.

A warning to participants -- from a legal standpoint, you can't accuse someone of stealing your email address if you volunteer it in the first place.

> ... kindness may be the only medicine for the world’s pain.

On the contrary, education is the only medicine for the world's pain. And to avoid unintended consequences, kindness must be accompanied by wisdom.
by mindslight | 2025-09-07 03:37:42+00:00
It's straightforward fraud. Both the providers and insurers goal is to mislead people into thinking the "adjustment" represents a payment from the insurance company.

The pattern is even more flagrant when done with post-facto billed services, since the price hasn't even been assented to. The whole medical industry has essentially normalized many different types of fraud against patients, and yet the industry is so entrenched that state/county AGs don't bother going after them.
by saurik | 2025-09-07 03:38:26+00:00
> Meanwhile hollywood will churn out another hundred films about how Captain America would never let something like this happen because murdering innocents is not a line America would ever cross.

FWIW, Captain America's character arc throughout the MCU, at least (which is what I'd assume we mean by "Hollywood"), has largely been to realize that he can't actually trust the government and that not only is the government now corrupt (becoming so during his time skip), but it has always been just as bad: the "good government" he believed in from WWII was propaganda, it turned out SHIELD was a so deeply infiltrated with enemy spies that it was effectively an arm of HYDRA... even the UN's attempts at diplomacy inherently result in moral compromises that he refuses to accept, and, by the end, he ended up as a fugitive. I think you'd be hard pressed to watch these movies and think that Captain America's existence demonstrates that America would never cross such lines.
by highdevtalk00 | 2025-09-07 03:38:50+00:00
I’d recommend adding some type of model-based rating system, considering the variability of outcomes when using the same prompt with various LLM’s, would be useful to see some indicator of how well the prompt performed (based on user submitted ratings) with Claude code vs the experience of someone using the same prompt with Gemini, or Qwen, etc…
by whstl | 2025-09-07 03:39:51+00:00
This problem that MVC has is similar to the problem with OOP itself, with monads, or with some design patterns: the original/popular definitions were so incredibly abstract and disconnected from real life usage that they ended up being whatever the person implementing it wanted it to be.

And then, 10, 20 years after the fact, people will start attacking popular implementations that differ from the original using some "new canonic interpretation" that is either extremely recent, or an interpretation that is old but was lost in time.

This is especially common around Smalltalk and OOP for some reason. Smalltalk's OOP is nothing like what existed either before or after, but since Alan Kay invented the term, Smalltalk is weaponised against C++/Java-style OOP. Not that C++/Java OOP is the bees knees, but at least their definition is teachable and copyable.

Design patterns suffer because in most explanations the context is completely missing. Patterns are totally useless outside very specific contexts. "Why the hell do I need a factory when I can use new"? Well, the whole point is that in some frameworks you don't want to use new Whatever, you dummy. If only this was more than a two-sentence blurb in the DDD book (and the original patterns book totally glosses over this, for almost all patterns).

And monads became the comical case, because they are totally okay in Haskell, but once it gets "explained" and migrated to other languages they become this convoluted mostly useless abstraction at best, footgun at worst (thinking of the Ruby one here).
by garganzol | 2025-09-07 03:40:01+00:00
In general, it is even smoother than the real Windows XP. Kind of a magnetizing experience, and I do not know why. There is something attractive in this idea in terms of UI/UX, aside from the obvious nostalgia.

Another interesting aspect of this particular implementation is that it blends naturally with a browser tab hierarchy, it does not try to overrule it, it just blends in. Probably thanks to a distinctive taskbar, or maybe it is due to the startup screen/login/sound that set up a distinctive boundary "you are here now, and this is a friendly place to be".
by kldg | 2025-09-07 03:40:39+00:00
CEO was once annoyed with me while I worked IT (we handled facilities/security, too; was <100 employees) for testing how the camera worked for detecting human presence inside dev & design's room to unlock the double glass doors (for fire safety reasons, you must allow unrestricted exit). It acted like it was based on size of object in motion; if so many pixels were in motion from last frame, it triggers unlock without any other testing on if that object is a human.

It wasn't enough to just shove a folder through the gap of the doors; you had to ensure the folder opened up as it was falling, changing more of the pixels to get to the trigger threshold. It took me around 5 minutes to get it to consistently trigger. CEO was displeased dev & design team now knew how to bypass the door lock from the outside; he wasn't going to pay to fix it.

Maybe best to internalize Have It Your Way like BK's teams did.
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-09-07 03:41:26+00:00
Here are some links I found related to this

Pro-geothermal position: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/producing-clean-energy-ca...

Anti-geothermal position: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/05/lessons-south-kore...

My conclusion: Geothermal makes research into plate tectonics and earthquake mitigation considerably more valuable, so we can figure out how to do it in a way that reduces earthquakes rather than creating them.
by scrollaway | 2025-09-07 03:42:07+00:00
I think the world could use an “imprecise” data type, which would be a tuple (t, margin).

In your case: if you wanted a date plus minus 50yrs, that would be (date(d), range(years, 50)).

Some construction like this allows for I believe most use cases. You just need to be able to store: date, date time, date range, and the precise/imprecise versions of all of these.
by godelski | 2025-09-07 03:42:55+00:00
Look, I don't care if you pirate books. But we'd agree that it would be different if you downloaded millions of books and sold them, right?

Now they weren't selling and if it is transformative is still in question. But let's not worry about that. Let's say that you just made billions off of having illegally downloaded all those books.

I hope we can agree that this is a very different thing than a student pirating their school books. The big reason why this leaves a bunch of people with a bad taste in their mouth (even those who believe it is a transformative use) is because the result was dependent on access to those works. Billions were made and nothing was shared with those who built the foundation.

In fact, let's look at this from a very different lens. Do you not think it is a bit upsetting that there are trillion dollar companies that are highly dependent on open source software where there's a single developer who is making no money off of their work? Their work has clear monetary value, but they allowed it to be used for free. Is someone who makes millions, billions, or trillions off of that work obligated to give some back? Not legally, morally. What is fair? Would you give back? Why or why not? Are you grateful? Is it just their loss? What are your thoughts about this?
by pico303 | 2025-09-07 03:43:04+00:00
It’s not about swapping implementations, like the original poster suggested, so that you can later come in and swap out different implementations in a local sense. Interfaces are used to decouple parts of an application; for example mocking test interfaces. Another way to look at it is that interfaces are a contract that needs to be fulfilled.

Declaring a local variable as an interface to hide functionality so you can swap out functionality later is misunderstanding the fundamental theories around interfaces. Your variable should be whatever the function or method returns. If you want to abstract the type so it can be swapped out, create a function that returns an abstract type. Don’t tell the HashMap constructor it did the wrong thing. Now that I think about it, I’d recommend you use “var” in all cases, and not try to redefine the return values from a function.
by palmotea | 2025-09-07 03:45:42+00:00
> Is this the same Rational as Rational ClearCase etc as acquired by IBM back in the day? Crazy

Looks like it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Software

> Rational Machines is an enterprise founded by Paul Levy and Mike Devlin in 1981 to provide tools to expand the use of modern software engineering practices, particularly explicit modular architecture and iterative development. It changed its name in 1994 to Rational Software, and was sold for US$2.1 billion (equivalent to current US$3.59 billion[1]) to IBM on February 21,[2] 2003.
by mkoubaa | 2025-09-07 03:46:31+00:00
The reason MVC got so abused was because of RAD frameworks: rapid application development. Most of this started with visual basic.

Basically, the thinking was to let the programmer design the view and then implement the code-behind. I'll spare you from my rants about this, but it was popular.

Nowadays, with vibe coding, there is no need to use obtuse design patterns for the sake of RAD. Sensible architectures can easily by used by LLMs without sacrificing engineer or designer agility.
by keepamovin | 2025-09-07 03:48:08+00:00
What is the alternative, ask them not to tell?

If you had to make the decision in the moment how would you weigh compromising the chance to prevent thousands or millions of deaths for advanced warning of nuclear or other attack using your ability to install that monitoring equipment now or in future, versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area?

You have to live with the moral cost, and human conflict means these choices have to be made.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-09-07 03:48:28+00:00
I'm going to tell you straight up. I am a very intelligent man and I've been programming for a very long time. My identity is tied up with this concept that I am intelligent and I'm a great programmer so I'm not going to let some AI do my job for me. Anything that I can grasp to criticize the LLM I'm gonna do it because this is paramount to me maintaining my identity. So you and your rationality aren't going to make me budge. LLMs are stochastic parrots and EVERYONE on this thread agrees with me. They will never take over my job!

I will add they will never take over my job <in my lifetime> because it makes me sound more rational and it's easier to swallow that then to swallow the possibility that they will make me irrelevant once the hallucination problem is solved.
by bschwindHN | 2025-09-07 03:49:51+00:00
I'm not sure what you're using for the UI exactly, but on a typical app or web page in iOS, I can tap the top "status bar" on my phone (where the clock and battery/wifi indicators are) and it should scroll me to the top of whatever view I'm in. It doesn't seem to work on your app though. I tried using it after scrolling through a long list of kanji when I wanted to return to the top.
by alexey-salmin | 2025-09-07 03:50:50+00:00
Well neither can a human.

The whole premise of computers being unable to do shuffling as good as humans is ridiculous. 52! is huge but log(52!) is not.

If anything it's humans (unless specifically trained) who produce horribly biased shuffles. Whole chunks of sequences from the previous deal can show up, either directly or spaced 2x or 4x. Try ordering a deck first, then shuffle it, then open each card and see if you notice any patterns.
by famahar | 2025-09-07 03:50:53+00:00
It looks good, but it doesn't seem like a learning app and more like a practice app with just a big list of words. I was presented with multiple choices for things I wasn't taught. Closed sourced apps have a curriculum and guided learning steps. The cost is justified through original learning material integrated into studying and practice. I commend your effort and look forward to updates.
by ajxs | 2025-09-07 03:52:11+00:00
I did see this article when I was researching, but it's incorrect. You can find references to the HD44780 in earlier catalogs. The earliest reference I can find is 1981: https://archive.org/details/Hitachi-DotMarixLiquidCrystalDis...

It's also referenced in this catalog from 1982: https://bitsavers.org/components/hitachi/_dataBooks/1982_Hit...

Likely the first year of manufacture was 1981/82.
by vannevar | 2025-09-07 03:53:40+00:00
I drove both before I bought the Bolt. The Leaf does have a nicer interior. While I wouldn't say it's a huge gap, it was noticeable. But the Leaf also felt heavier and more sluggish. In the end, the extra range, the CCS charge port, and the better driving feel (at least to me) made me prefer the Bolt.