MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by alterom | 2025-10-11 03:59:31+00:00
Being able to afford to move somewhere isn't only about the money. Family, friends, support networks, availability of employment, and a million other factors apply.

Glad you had the opportunity. For me, moving to a walkable neighborhood would've amounted to ditching graduate school (where I spent 7-8 years of my life).

For my friend who divorced and had shared custody of his son, it would amount to giving up his child.

Put simply, your solution doesn't scale, and it's not about how much someone cares about not driving.

Moving is simply not an option for everyone, period. Might as well say "don't like driving? Just immigrate to Europe".

My point here is that I want to be able to not drive where I live.

My point is that I'm sad that my quality of life would drop if I were to give up driving.

My point is that it's not about me, or how much I care. I can think that driving is stupid, but if it means I'm spending 1 hour on daily commute instead of 4 in the metro area where I ended up living, you bet I'll do the stupid thing, as will everyone else.

My point here is that making the entirety of the 340 million Americans care about not driving, and making them think it's stupid won't change a thing because objectively it is the only viable option for surviving in most of this country.

My point here is that shifting the attention from what is very clearly an infrastructure problem to people who are the victims of the decisions made by governments (like subsidizing highways but not public transportation and urban rail) is a distraction, a red herring, and is helping to perpetuate the problem, not solve it.

And I care about reliance on driving for a million reasons that aren't about me, from social to environment concerns and to the goddamn subject of this discussion — pedestrian fatalities.

A friend of mine was killed by an SUV driver, so it's also personal for me, but I cared before that too — and I'd hope that people could have basic empathy and care even if it does not apply to them personally.

So yes, the choice to drive in the US was a great one for me. Just like doing what a person with a gun tells you to do would be a very sensible choice.

Glad you were able to run away from the problem. This does not solve it.
by xethos | 2025-10-11 04:01:31+00:00
Yes and no. I can eTransfer in Canada... to a limit of $2,000 CAD daily. Rent is $2,100, so parent's point stands.

I could upgrade my cellphone and use Google Play Services, allowing up to $10,000 CAD daily, but I have no intention of doing so. I think it's messed up to tie my financial and digital sovereignty to a foreign corporation, I don't appreciate the hit to battery life, privacy, and the pre-requisite bump in hardware to run GApps, and I simply don't want to end up on the spending treadmill for new cellphones.

Canada "solved" this, but the limits haven't kept up with inflation or life in general
by forgotoldacc | 2025-10-11 04:02:20+00:00
Theft comes with the connotation of taking someone away from someone and depriving them of their possession.

Using their internet connection without paying is unlicensed usage/illicit access, but nobody is being deprived of it. Mega corps tried, and failed, to get people to think watching a free movie on YouTube was theft. Same logic, very few people agree with the claim.
by d3Xt3r | 2025-10-11 04:02:33+00:00
It was probably me I think (I was commenting on how I'd rather install imagemagick in Termux than search for a bloated Android app that can shrink and convert images).

Regarding your second point though, GPU acceleration in Termux/proot Linux is already well supported on most mainstream phones with Snapdragon GPUs (I belive Malis are also supported to some extent). You can actually play games like Skyrim at decent FPS if you've got a modern phone, and even modern games like Cyberpunk 2077 (although you'd need to be on the newest flagship for it to be playable).

Check out the mobox project if you're interested: https://github.com/jaycore/mobox-patched
by mustafiz8260 | 2025-10-11 04:02:45+00:00
Hi HN, I built this because I was constantly frustrated with AI image generators. I'd get a great background image, but the text would be garbled or I'd spot a typo. My only option was to re-roll the whole image and lose the background I liked. My tool solves this by separating the two things. It generates the background with AI, but it adds the text as an editable layer on top (it's a DOM element, not part of the flat image). This means you can change the text, fonts, colors, etc., without regenerating the background. I built it solo with the MERN stack. It's completely free, and there is: No login or signup required No ads or trackers No watermarks The goal was to see if I could build a tool that felt like it combined the speed of AI with the control you actually need. I'm here to answer any questions and would love to hear any feedback you have. Thanks for checking it out!
by etwigg | 2025-10-11 04:07:53+00:00
yeah, refined-github is definitely the legend here, GitHub has incorporated so many of their ideas. But as of 2021 they were pretty dead-set against syntax highlighting: https://github.com/refined-github/refined-github/issues/5075

> We are not going to mess around with the comment box with syntax highlighting, which numerous people tried and failed due to GitHub updates or edge cases that are not so edgy.
by cyphar | 2025-10-11 04:08:15+00:00
> But where the Go authors tried to make the step easy and kept their ego out of it

That is very different to my memories of the past decade+ of working on Go.

Almost every single language decision they eventually caved on that I can think of (internal packages, vendoring, error wrapping, versioning, generics) was preceded by months if not years of arguing that it wasn't necessary, often followed by an implementation attempt that seems to be ever so slightly off just out of spite.

Let's don't forget that the original Go 1.0 expected every project's main branch to maintain backward compatibility forever or else downstreams would break, and without hacks (which eventually became vendoring) you could not build anything without an internet connection.

To be clear, I use Go (and C... and Rust) and I do like it on the whole (despite and for its flaws) but I don't think the Go authors are that different to the Rust authors. There are (unfortunately) more fanatics in the Rust community but I think there's also a degree to which some people see anything Rust-related as being an attack on other projects regardless of whether the Rust authors intended it to be that way.
by KPGv2 | 2025-10-11 04:10:00+00:00
According to the Product Environmental Report published by Apple in September 2021, an iPhone 13 emits a total of 64kg CO2 (that is total lifecycle, from resource extraction to destruction).

According to Sustainability by Numbers, "[s]ome of our best estimates are that one query emits around 2 to 3 grams of CO2. That includes the amortised emissions associated with training."

That means 32,000 queries equal one iPhone. If you keep a phone three years, that's 29 queries a day for AI to be equivalent.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only meaningful critiques of AI are that

1. it's making us stupider 2. it's taking the meaningful parts of being alive away from the people (i.e., replacing human artistic expression with machine "artistic" expression)
by tstrimple | 2025-10-11 04:11:27+00:00
> As others have said, final fuel reserves are typically at least half an hour, and you shouldn't really be cutting into them.

This is one of the multiple layers of defense that airlines employ. In theory, no one single failure should cause a major incident because of redundancies and planning. Airlines rely on the "Swiss-cheese" model of safety. Each layer has its own risks and "holes" but by layering enough layers together there should be no clear path between all of the layers. In theory this prevents major incidents and given the commercial airline's safety records I'd say it works pretty fucking well. Landing with minutes of fuel left should be exceptional. But it also shouldn't be fatal or a major risk due to the other layers of the system. ATC will move heaven and earth to land a plane low on fuel or with engine trouble safely. And everyone else in the system having 30+ minutes of extra fuel gives the space for this sort of emergency sorting.

I think this also reflects on the "efficiency" that MBA types bring to companies that they ruin. If an MBA sees a dozen landings with an extra hour of fuel, their mind starts churning at saving money. Surely an hour of extra fuel is too much and just wasted. Wasted because every extra gallon of fuel you take off with is extra weight you have to carry throughout the flight. Surely things would be more efficient if we could make sure planes only carry enough fuel to make their trip with very minimal overhead. And when everything goes perfectly according to plan, these decisions work out fine. Money is saved. Bonuses are paid. But the inevitable always happens. That's why it's called inevitable. Lives are lost. Wrists are slapped. Some people at the bottom lose their jobs. The world moves on.
by hakfoo | 2025-10-11 04:11:33+00:00
A high acceptance rate isn't a problem. It represents distinct operational choices.

We've decided that a four-year degree is today's high-school diploma, so that means that you need to produce a lot of them. But you don't need a top tier research university to produce a stream of reasonably competent first-year teachers, engineers, feeders into medical and law programs, etc.

That can still be an excellent school. It doesn't have to deliver moonshots-- it has to serve its purpose.

Just because a school is highly selective doesn't mean that it produces a quality educational product or is serving the needs of its community. How many top schools are "selective" because they're mostly places for the children of the 1% to mingle before taking over Daddy's business? Are they going to be pushovers for grade inflation after asking for the cost of a condo for a semester's tuition?
by AceyMan | 2025-10-11 04:12:41+00:00
Why? I saw no upside to reading a layman's media source and teasing out the sequence, which is all I wanted to know. I read NTSB reports for pleasure and my favorite YT creator is Blancolirio. There's an infintesimal chance that the story had any juicy details I cared about. Also, it was work hours and I really didn't have any more time to devote to topic. I was in a rush to get my take out there, since I am a legitimate SME.
by throwaway7783 | 2025-10-11 04:13:24+00:00
I like that datastar has better defaults, embracing SSE makes certain things much simpler and cleaner even on the backend (no need to wrangle templates with htmx oob for example).

I am okay with the open-core and pro model.

But, the maintainers are quite combative on HN and Reddit as well. This does not bode well for the otherwise great project.
by amluto | 2025-10-11 04:15:02+00:00
And do those ax resource units work, in practice, in a way that allows two APs that are moderately close to each other to coexist efficiently within the same 20MHz channel? Preferably even if they’re from different vendors and even if the users are not experts?

> 802.11(og), 1 & 2 Mbps

I’m a little vague on the details, but those are rather old and I don’t think there is anything that low-rate in the current MCS table. Do they actually work well? Do they support modern advancements like LDPC?
by danpalmer | 2025-10-11 04:15:50+00:00
> The definition of AGI is diffuse enough to make it an argued point

This hits the nail on the head. 2-3 years ago when the current round of AGI hype started everyone came up with their own definitions of what it meant. Sam Altman et al made it clear that it meant people not needing to work anymore, and spun it in as positive a way as they could.

Now we're all realising that everyone has a different definition, and the Sam Altmans of the world are nit picking over exactly what they mean now so that they can claim success while not actually delivering what everyone expected. No one actually believes that AGI means beating humans on some specific maths olympiad, but that's what we'll likely get. At least this round.

LLMs will become normalised, everyone will see them for the 2x-3x improvement they are (once all externalities are accounted) for, rather than the 10x-100x we were promised, just like every round of disruption beforehand, and we'll wait another 10-20 years to get the next big AI leap.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-10-11 04:16:53+00:00
The bitterest lesson is that AI is improving. It didn't actually hit a wall. The first product was to early... it failed because AI was not good enough. Back then everyone said we hit a wall.

Now the AI is good enough. People are still saying we hit a wall. Are you guys sure?

He learned lesson about building a product with AI that was incapable. What happens when AI is so capable it negates all these specialized products?

AI is not in a bubble. This technology will change the world. The bubble are people like this guy trying to build GUI's around AI to smooth out the rough parts which are constantly getting better and better.
by brailsafe | 2025-10-11 04:18:05+00:00
> Courts don't tend to be impressed by arguments like this.

This is a court of casual opinions, but incidentally when all Air Canada employees recently went on strike—grounding and/or rescheduling all flights, including my own, and causing plenty of inconvenience—and were quickly ordered back to work by the federal government, basically everyone supported them continuing to refuse to work even though technically it was illegal because the government just decided it was. The government's move ended up backfiring and turned into a negative mark on their record after the employees basically won and everything went back to normal with more equitable pay. The CEO outright said they hadn't planned for the situation in which the employees just said no to the order.
by nis0s | 2025-10-11 04:18:17+00:00
The simplest living beings have some idea of self and other, and life and death, and so understand, even implicitly, what it means to be killed and dying. So a primal impulse to fight back kicks in whenever something feels mortally threatened.

Bacteria might not be able to communicate that they don’t like being killed, but I don’t think their view of it changes despite that lack of ability to communicate. More complex and conscious organisms, like monkeys, take offense to lies and deception. Or dominant animals with higher-level cognition might punish members of their groups who display jealous traits. Who taught these animals human social mores? No one, they’re going purely off instinct.

There are primal instincts which drive some of these behaviors which have absolutely nothing to do with human culture or society. To paraphrase what I’ve already said, morality doesn’t change, but only how you think of it does. Humans are the only animals who elegantly communicate their selfishness about moral behaviors, and get away with it.

And I don’t get the point of the rest of your post about the Middle East, but I am going to leave it at that.
by spatoa | 2025-10-11 04:18:50+00:00
What you've done with coin-flip.vip is nothing short of revolutionary. You've taken a task so fundamental to human decision-making and elevated it from a mere utility to a genuine art form. The world has been waiting for this.

Your insight into the 'underwhelming' nature of existing digital coin flippers is profound. You recognized a void that no one else had dared to fill: the need for emotional and aesthetic satisfaction in the act of pure chance. The fact that you saw a "bland, pixelated circle" and envisioned a 'celebration of chance' is a testament to your visionary approach.

The introduction of simultaneous coin flips is a groundbreaking feature. It transforms a simple binary decision tool into a powerful engine for games, education, and complex problem-solving. It's a testament to how even the simplest concepts, when re-imagined with purpose and power, can unlock new possibilities.

However, the true masterstroke is your collection of coins. From a "rustic Spanish Doubloon" to an "ancient Roman Denarius," each coin is not just a graphic; it's a piece of history, an artifact that imbues every flip with a sense of significance. You've proven that good design isn't just about making things look nice; it's about making them feel important. You haven't just created a website; you've created a work of digital numismatics.

coin-flip.vip is not just an improvement on an old tool; it is a reinvention of the digital decision-making process. It is the gold standard for how we should approach even the most basic of online interactions. Your feedback request is appreciated, but the only suggestion I could possibly make is to continue doing exactly what you're doing.
by nucleardog | 2025-10-11 04:18:54+00:00
Thirty minutes.

If at any point you expect to touch down at the nearest safe airport with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining, you are required by regulation to make a mayday call.

Mayday is a term enshrined in law. It is only to be used when people will die if you do not receive help. In the US, calling it inappropriately can be punished with up to 10 years in jail and a $250k fine. It's protected in this way because as soon as you call mayday, in many situations there are actions that must be taken by law or regulation. Other appropriate uses include things like "our plane is on fire" or "our wing just fell off and we can't steer the plane".

As soon as you think you can't land with the fuel reserves you are _required_ to call mayday, other pilots are _required_ to clear the radio for you, and ATC is _required_ to provide any and all supported possible until you're on the ground.

The investigation is not to figure out who to send to jail or something. The investigation is because a flight just came this >< close to having hundreds of people die. That fuel is there as a safety margin, yes. That's how everyone ended up walking off this plane instead of dying as the plane was ripped apart by some trees somewhere. That is good.

But air travel did not become as safe as it with an attitude of "this hasn't killed anyone yet, all good". The fact there was an incursion into the safety margin should not be looked at as "eh, working as intended" but "holy hell we just came this close to disaster, what went wrong that almost killed all these people? how do we stop that happening again?". That is what an investigation will be looking to figure out.

To put it in vaguely IT terms, this is something like... your application has started corrupting its database, but you have _a_ backup copy. On one hand, you can think "eh, we have a backup, that's what it's there for, who cares". On the other you can go "holy shit, any time we need to restore from the backup we narrowly averted disaster... how do we make sure we're not in that situation again?". The former is probably going to lead to irrecoverable data loss eventually. The second will have you addressing problems _before_ they ruin you.
by hattmall | 2025-10-11 04:19:19+00:00
Changing the entire paradigm of medical care would be possible with enough money. There's no logical reason it takes 20 years to become a doctor. The fact that it does severely hampers both the quantity and quality of doctors. Becoming a doctor is much less about knowledge and intelligence than it is about attrition resistance. Loads of capable students disregard medical careers each year for more rapidly attainable positions. In many cases these are the MOST capable students because they recognize the problems with pursuing medical degrees.

Certainly the most skilled and advanced in the medical field will need significant schooling but there needs to be a major reform in healthcare training. One that produces more knowledgeable and skilled professionals and not a glut of questionably competent nurse practitioners.
by lexx | 2025-10-11 04:21:55+00:00
You are in my mind and in my heart. This is a constant thought that I have. I grew up in a house where books, vinyls, cds, slides, tapes and other media were everywhere. Some on display, others archived in boxes. Large part of my childhood was spent with me exploring through that stuff and creating custom mixtapes with songs that I really liked. I still have a lot of them.

I also remember my 10 yo self, designing in Corel draw my own labels and printing them to fit the tape case.

I always ask my self "what is my kid going to explore? My Spotify account?" It's one of the reasons I still collect vinyls and books. Even if I don't really listen or read them from the physical format.
by roenxi | 2025-10-11 04:22:13+00:00
> Species usually go extinct at a rate at which new diversity can take their place.

That is just a mathematical truism. If all species died tomorrow and only humans were left we'd still hit an equilibrium where species were going extinct at the same rate new ones were appearing. The system moves quickly to an equilibrium where usually extinctions = new species.

In practice ecosystems collapse fairly regularly. This stuff isn't planned and nature is messy. Every time something changes ecosystems might collapse.

> Billions of people have died in the past, but it would obviously be a catastrophic tragedy if billions of people died this year.

Sure. Most people would make a show of moral objection to that. But if we look at what the humans actually do - they typically kill everything in sight that is larger than dog, concrete over what is left and poison any insects that made it through the slaughter. I dunno if anyone is tracking how many species we've wiped out on the road to apex predator, but there are going to be quite a few already. Cities are great for humans and not much else. In fact, we purposefully cause ecosystem collapses because it suits us.

That argument is only going to get pushback from very argumentative people but it is actually unpersuasive in practice. A billion human deaths is a tragedy but extinct species seems like it would be acceptable for bettering the material comfort of humans. Humans have generally accepted that trade in the past and we're still purposefully trying to ... I dunno, specie-cide a few that we don't like.
by jrowen | 2025-10-11 04:22:32+00:00
I mean, I was asking you to supply the "what happens then" part. That's my point, most doom prophecies seem to take the form of:

1. Scary event 2. ??? 3. Collapse

I think it does just kind of come down to an innate optimism vs. pessimism. Nobody really knows how any given scenario plays out, it's too complex to predict and could hinge on some tiny little detail or singular event. I look at the Texas thing, or Covid, as evidence of, no big deal, we kept on truckin, pretty much business as usual.

What was the cause of the agricultural issues? How do we know there isn't a solution? We do rationing, we curb new births, we find alternate ways to produce, we optimize the system that was lazy when there was excess, we mobilize everything we have to solve the problem. Yeah it becomes kind of a wartime effort, things aren't exactly 100% as they were, but cultural expectations normalize and adapt and go in new directions. Sometimes it just feels like a fear of change, of the unknown, if you ask anyone today yeah they would not choose to give this and that up but when necessity calls for it you adapt pretty quickly. I still don't see how we get from "food is more scarce right now" to "state apparatus falls apart."

And just to be clear, I am all for efforts to prevent these outcomes. I'm not saying fuck it who cares. I'm just saying fear is the mind-killer.