MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ohman876 | 2025-10-31 13:14:41+00:00
I guess because various people believe different thing will happen to them when their life ends. The question is- which of those options (on what happens when life ends) is truly what's going to happen. Surely, if Bible is true you want to live such life so you are not ending up in hell, if Quran is true you do whatever it says to maximise the outcome, same for Hindu, Budha, and of course Atheism. I study this to have strong grounding on how to live, and there is scientiffic method to do this, though it requires time and effort.
by tw04 | 2025-10-31 13:15:31+00:00
I appreciate you’re responding personally and directly to people instead of running it through a corporate PR machine. That being said I’d also consider your tone, I have no doubt the topic pushes on a sore wound but the “I don’t care what you think” is probably not the attitude you want potential customers to stumble upon in the future.

I am not a customer and not in the market to be a customer anytime soon, I have no horse in this race, just an observation.
Show HN: Magiclip – AI that turns long videos into short clips
by kokau | 2025-10-31 13:15:37+00:00
Hi HN

I built a tool to automate the long-form → short-form workflow for video creators.

Features

Highlights detection in long videos

Automatic clipping into short vertical formats

Subtitle automation with motion/modern styling

Optional AI video generation (NanoBanana, Veo-3)

AI voice + image tools for creative content

Target users

YouTubers

Streamers

Podcasters

Short-form editors

Media operators

Link: https://magiclip.io

Feedback appreciated — especially on UX, workflow assumptions, and opportunities to improve. Happy to discuss technical/design decisions.
by qustrolabe | 2025-10-31 13:15:52+00:00
This thread is pure doomerism. Program became free and people made up tens of scenarios why this is bad, awful and literally the end. I mean I understand it's "too good to be true" and some "rug pull" is coming, but people acting like it's "over over".

So far what I've got is a new amazing photo editor that's unlike GIMP has "Inpaint brush" and "Patch tool" and even has free built-in image segmentation model and tons of other good features and even, seems, should support Photoshop plugins. Even if every single new feature going from now on will be gated behind some absurdly priced subscription I'm still totally fine with what i've been given already.

No way they bet entirely on AI thing popping off, unless they'll come up with their own "Nano Banana" idk who really needs simple "text to image" model, and even if they do it's still not that good to be worthy of subscription. On another note subscription right now also gives access to three local running models: upscale, depth map generation and colorizer, pretty cool small models in addition to segmentation that's given for free, I guess they might end up adding additional later there. Another thing I see is that several third party services baked in, for example Dropbox in linked services and two stock image providers Pexels and Pixabay, maybe that covers some cost for them. On mysterious ploy to gather all users data for Big AI I see one concerning thing: Right away program asked whether I want to share data and I selected option "no" but then in settings suspicious "Send usage and performance data to Affinity" was enabled, either I forgot that I pressed yes or it's a bug or something intentional.
by JanisErdmanis | 2025-10-31 13:15:57+00:00
It is discouraged to override internal internal functions, hence, one often only needs to monitor the public API changes of packages as in every other programming language. Updates for packages in my experience rarely had broke stuff like that. Updates in Base somrimes can cause issues like that, but those are thoroughly tested on most popular registered packages before a new Julia version is released.

Interfaces could be good as intermediaries and it is always great to hear JuliaCon talks every year on the best ways to implement them.

> Imagine you try to move a definition from one file to another. Sounds like a trivial piece of organization, right?

In my experience it’s most trivial. I guess your pain points may have come by making each file as a module and then adding methods for your own types in different module and then moving things around is error prone. The remedy here sometimes is to not make internal modules. However the best solution here is to write integration tests which is a good software development practice anyway.
by vladms | 2025-10-31 13:16:01+00:00
> Nothing wrong with Mac OS X

In fact, when I had a similar experience I ended up making a short list (which I since lost) of things that seemed terribly wrong UI wise.

True, overall Mac is just different. The issue that I have with that ecosystem is the too many people consider it "perfect" and don't even consider discussing issues and complaining about things. Every product has pluses and minuses, but if you the user "believes blindly" that "there is only one way" that is probably not good for anybody.

After a couple of weeks I adapted just fine to using the Mac, but I surely don't miss it either.
by array_key_first | 2025-10-31 13:16:19+00:00
Yes all their implementations are wildly different, however their motivation is the same: maintaining complex front end state and backend state and then syncing it via a manually defined API is too complex. That, combined with the problem of how do we solve SSR in such a way that minimizes complexity while still maximizing front-end reactivity.

Live view says "render it all on the server and then just constantly sync with an open connection". Now we have that reactivity, but we still have SSR AND we don't have to meticulously craft an API. Next says "render it on the server, or maybe the client, we'll figure it out and automap the data". Inertia says "okay kind of like next, but you have to define some stuff a little bit more. But we'll render react or vue on the server or client, too".

And, for the record, I hate next, and I think they're approaching it from the wrong direction. I think inertia makes more sense, and ultimately live view is the "end state" of this concept.
by riskable | 2025-10-31 13:16:52+00:00
My hypothesis: This is why AI is fantastic as a coding assistant but not so great at other things. A software developer—after watching an AI model fail over and over again, trying to say, fix a difficult bug—will stop and approach the issue from a different angle. They'll take a closer look at what's going on, fiddle things around by hand, and that's usually enough to get over that hump of complexity (that the AI model couldn't work its way through).

We (developers) do this because it's what we've always done with our own code. Everyone's encountered a bug that they just couldn't figure out. So they search the Internet, try different implementations of the same thing, etc but nothing works. Usually, we finally solve such problems when we take a step back and look at it with a different lens.

For example, just the other day—after spending far too long trying to get something working—I realized, "Fuck it! The users don't really need this feature." :thumbsup:
by bluGill | 2025-10-31 13:17:35+00:00
> You'll already retire at 56 with over 1.5M in the bank

That 1.5M isn't inflation adjusted. If there is 0 inflation between now and when you die 1.5M is plenty. However the more inflation there is between now and when you die the more money you will need, the later you need to retire, or the less spending money you have. (of course we need to asking how things like social security fits into your plans as well, but this is already complex enough).

If you 22 and used to a FAANG income even with saving $25k/year every year you need more than 3M to retire retire without losing quality of life (even though most of that is luxury).

Are you willing to live on less, or will you discover with your free time you want to spend more money (hobby supplies? Now you have time to travel - maybe first class). I can't answer this question for you, but you need to think about it. Worse, your answer is likely to change over time.
by ghaff | 2025-10-31 13:17:40+00:00
>If I recall correctly, historically, dialing the 1 was necessary for any long distance call (even if not international).

You recall correctly. I haven't had a landline for a number of years now but I think it was still required latterly when I still had one. Don't think it was ever needed on cell (or maybe even valid) when I first got one at some point in the 1990s.
by skwee357 | 2025-10-31 13:17:55+00:00
People on HN act like it’s so easy to reach all the addressable market.

Most software, especially in the world of mobile/desktop apps are usually feature-complete. The problem is that developers keeps redesigning and refactoring them to justify development, rather than focusing on another product or marketing efforts.

Free bug fixes are generally expected. But nobody forbids you from releasing v2 and charging for it again (for example with upgrade discount).
by andybak | 2025-10-31 13:17:59+00:00
What a weird top comment. It opens with some subtle name calling ("adherents"?), an unwarranted conclusion and then a statement about what LLMs lack (which is no surprise) that we're meant to draw a conclusion from?

I find the debate about LLMs rather exhausting. I find them useful and almost every day someone on social media tells me I'm mistaken, lying or merely deluded .
by jstimpfle | 2025-10-31 13:18:44+00:00
I've looked at a couple of these complaints by clang-tidy, and as it unfortunately often is, all of them were false positives and overzealous nitpicks. All the complaints about memcpy and memset for example, clang-tidy could easily be improved to see that these are just fine and being dogmatic about using the "new and right way" to do things is not helpful.

In practice I've found -Wall with GCC to offer a good warning level and clang-tidy to not offer a lot of constructive feedback (besides it being very slow). For more ambitious projects, it's possible to fine-tune GCC warnings.

You can also, you know, just _use_ a program and see if there are any anomalies when running it. With some discipline to code structure, many problems get hit on the first run, and extensive testing can come a lot closer to static verification than you would think. For non-real-time constrained stuff there is also valgrind and other run-time instrumentation.
by array_key_first | 2025-10-31 13:19:22+00:00
Right but those wildly overvalued companies become that way because millions of passive investors just mindlessly dump their money into them.

If you use big index funds, you're the primary people contributing to Nvidia, Tesla, and openAI. You didn't start it, no, but you certainly propelled that ball forward like a bullet.

And, well, that's fine, because we cant expect anyone really to actively invest. The problem is we don't know if this works. This definitely has the potential to blow up. You have to realize that what we're doing here is undermining the stock market at a conceptual level.
by everyone | 2025-10-31 13:19:26+00:00
The distance has no effect.. Its all about speed, you want to take the line that lets you get through the corner while maintaining the highest speed. If you are going faster and spend as little time as possible breaking and accelerating you will gain time. Also a higher exit speed means you will be going faster for the entire straight after the corner making a very big time difference.

Your car, depending on how much grip it has + other variables, will have a theoretical minimum diameter circle it can drive around at various speeds. The higher the speed the bigger the circle. Finding your racing line is just a matter of fitting the biggest circular arc inside the space available in the corner.

Ideally you want to break in a straight line before the corner and reach the speed your car can drive the circle at at just the moment you enter it.

Theres more nuance when it comes to compound corners, FR vs FF cars, oversteer understeer, hills bumps etc. But the basic theory is simply fitting circles.

https://ibb.co/VY11TpTM
by aarondf | 2025-10-31 13:19:35+00:00
Haha people have sent it to me! I'm currently trying to make it on my own in the wide world though.

I never disagreed with the decision to lay people off to become profitable. That's part of the implicit agreement when you take employment in the US. You can quit whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want! I knew that going in!

I agreed with it, but of course it stung. That's only natural!

Sam and I are all good though! To his immense credit he reached out to me directly a little while back to mend any hurt feelings, of which I had a few. We're friends. He even came on my podcast and we talked for over an hour like old buds.

I have a lot of feelings and sometimes they get hurt. Sam has a fiduciary responsibility to the company. Today PlanetScale is a going concern and I'm happy and doing great! All is well.

The podcast is good btw, y'all should listen!

PlanetScale Postgres with CEO Sam Lambert https://youtu.be/IB3mzON8Iyw
by Spooky23 | 2025-10-31 13:19:48+00:00
That's reductive and silly. Here's the scenario:

1. You work for AWS, probably in account management or billing operations.

2. Your "buddy" in legal tells you that a subpeona has been processed that effects an Israeli government affiliated account.

3. Your buddy is breaking work rules and the law. You don't report it, as you are required to do. You're now a party to a criminal conspiracy.

4. Instead, you arrange for a payment to be made from AWS to an account in some pre-determined amount to communicate the confidential or legally sealed information that you conspired to steal.

Let's review. You're engaging in a criminal conspiracy to share restricted, sealed legal information with a foreign government. You are doing so by fraudulently stealing/embezzling money from your employer in a predetermined amount.

If that's not clearly understandable to you as a "bad thing" and a fraudulent activity, you're overthinking, lack any sense of law and ethics, are lacking cognitive ability, are a troll, or are just a schill for whatever team you're rooting for.
by aljgz | 2025-10-31 13:19:54+00:00
From first person experience, once a society creates a surveillance state, to protect whatever, an inevitable avalanche starts.

A new game will emerge in which the best players are the ones who excel at finding secrets of others and use them as leverage. We had a president on national TV threating a challenging candidate that he will reveal their secrets... Think about that for a moment and you'll find so many wrong things that this implicitly admits to.

The disease was a blessing compared to the complications of the cure.

Nations like to hope things won't happen to them.
by gwbas1c | 2025-10-31 13:21:04+00:00
> I've often wondered if English native speakers feel the same when reading normal source code which is always in English.

I think that depends on if they understand how to program. For me, as a native English speaker, a computer program is not speech.

In a program, there's three areas where the spoken language influences:

1: The keywords in the language: IE, "if," "switch," "return," ect. These take on a meaning in my head that is distinct from the meaning of the spoken word. "class" is a good example: Its use in programming is shortened from "classification" which comes out of category theory; but its use in English means something very different. Likewise, "if" in my head has such a different meaning in code that if "si" were used, it wouldn't make a different.

IE, in code we use "class" as if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(programming), which came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(set_theory) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory; but in English it's commonly meant to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(education).

2: The API names: By convention, APIs typically are English. Learning these is like learning any kind of professional lingo. I've never tried using a non-English API, and would probably struggle significantly if I had to.

3: My code itself: A significant amount of my time spent writing a computer program is making sure that my code is understandable to me and the other people who have to maintain the program. There's always going to be an "other-worldliness" to a program until someone understands the conventions and style.
by ghaff | 2025-10-31 13:22:08+00:00
In the US, there was a period when phone numbers were getting scarce in some locales as faxes/modems/etc. were coming in. Additional area codes were added, as was lampooned in a Seinfeld episode at one point; some people got rather hot and bothered when they got migrated from the "main" metro area code to essentially a suburban area code.
by hiccuphippo | 2025-10-31 13:22:26+00:00
I think so. You don't know who might touch your code later, better to use English than for them to figure out what those words mean. It would be like using giberish for all your variables.

Another issue, even for other speakers of your language, we don't all translate english words the same, some words are just not translatable and some words look the same but mean different things, how can they tell if it was meant to be English or not?

For example in Spanish, "default" translates to "por omisión", two words, there's no single word for it, a lot of people translate it to "defecto" because it's similar but that means flaw, defect. It's so used, people say "por defecto" instead of "por omisión" now and some dictionaries added it as a translation already.

Another example, "cache", I know its meaning in computer lingo, the times I've had to use it is in the context of computers, so I have no idea what its translation to Spanish is or if there's even a word for it. If someone used the translation in code I would have no idea what I'd be looking at.

One more, "library" translates to "biblioteca" but some people use "libreria" (bookshop) because it sounds similar. You can find usages of both in documentation. People will probably understand both but it hurts searchability.
by u_sama | 2025-10-31 13:23:06+00:00
> Syria 2011 > Lebanon 1970s > Algeria 1990s > Afghanistan 1990s

A few simple examples of nations who have went through rather devastating wars and civil wars including Islamists who's main ideology is that anything pre-Islamic is to be destroyed as it might lead to heresy, and who go out of their way to destroy historical places and artifacts. And if not war, then the fact that the cultures of those areas traditionally dont value historical artifacts the same way the developped European, or Chinese influenced countries did in their times.

I am sorry but it is not defending colonization, it is a legitimate issue given that the middle east is stuck on an unresolved powder keg of issues, keeping the Pregammom in Britain instead of where it came from is a good thing.

Even during WW2 the UK, Germany and France set out programs to saveguard historical cultural treasures in protected areas.
by palmotea | 2025-10-31 13:23:28+00:00
> The anti-gay stuff? Uh, yeah

You're backwards here. IIRC, don't-ask-don't-tell was progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

> The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, ... This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces.

> ...the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate an investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors. ... Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".

And Clinton didn't have a choice on DOMA and criticized it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act:

> passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary". He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996.

tl;dr: Anyone who believes or defends the idea:

>>> Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now. That's what they're trying to conserve: always the very, very near past.

Doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't have their facts straight.
by mpeg | 2025-10-31 13:23:35+00:00
I've given you a list of options that you can use to cache your simple logo.jpg url: use a bundler that automatically appends a hash (it can be as a querystring if you want, you can do logo.jpg?h=xxxxx, you can use etags so that the client checks with the server if they have the latest version of a resource, you can also use the last-modified headers to instruct the client to send an if-modified-since

I'll give you an extra one I learnt about recently: you can use a custom compression dictionary, although this is only available in chrome right now, which means even when a file needs to be redownloaded the network size is tiny as it's compressed with a custom dictionary that matches a previous version of the file
by bluGill | 2025-10-31 13:24:05+00:00
You are generally not taking a perfect circle corner. You can/should be slowing down as you enter the corner and then speeding up even before you exit. In this way you can shorten the distance traveled while getting a higher exit speed - sometimes higher than the largest possible circle corner. Optimizing this for the car/track/conditions is what makes for a great driver.
by port11 | 2025-10-31 13:25:21+00:00
This would be a much better idea if journalism wasn't so behold to their corporate owners, all in a world where fewer and fewer media houses exist. I do agree that you might want to go to a news outlet first, which Snowden did well to do. But I do think we're setting up society for quite some trouble by weakening investigative journalism and disenfranchising an independent fifth estate.
by mannykannot | 2025-10-31 13:26:03+00:00
There seems to be more to it than that - in my experience with LLMs, they are good at finding some relevant facts but then quite often present a non-sequitur for a conclusion, and the article's title alone indicates that the problem for LRMs is similar: a sudden fall-off in performance as the task gets more difficult. If the issue was just non-determinism, I would expect the errors to be more evenly distributed, though I suppose one could argue that the sensitivity to non-determinism increases non-linearly.
by ralfd | 2025-10-31 13:26:27+00:00
I have a hard time imagining physics. For example take a train moving 100 kmh to the north which wants to reverse direction to the south. It has to break and then accelerate again, a very costly operation. Except when the tracks make a turn? But how can a northward momentum change to a southward momentum?

The same confusion I have when trying to imagine satellites going around Earth or slingshot maneuvers. Would an X-Wing turn in space differently than in the atmosphere of Hoth? Would it in space just rotate, but keep its forward (now backwards) momentum instead of turning like a fighter jet?
by Galanwe | 2025-10-31 13:27:01+00:00
So essentially he gives 2 arguments:

1) You get intermediate results visible in the debugger / accessible for logs, which I think is a benefit in any language.

2) You get an increased safety in case you move around some code. I do think that it applies to any language, maybe slightly more so in C due to its procedural nature.

See, the following pattern is rather common in C (not so much in C++):

- You allocate a structure S

- If S is used as input, you prefill it with some values. If it's used as output, you can keep it uninitialized or zfill.

- You call function f providing a pointer to that struct.

Lots of C APIs work that way: sockets addresses, time structures, filesystem entries, or even just stack allocated fixed size strings are common.