MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dang | 2025-10-31 20:29:33+00:00
Can you please make your substantive points without sneering at other people, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are?

This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Edit: we've had to ask you this before, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
by jaredklewis | 2025-10-31 20:30:08+00:00
Fair, this case fits the bill, but it’s interesting we have to go back more than 100 years to find one. Also worth noting that a major fact in this case is that Ford explicitly said and maintained that shareholder value was not his priority.

That’s a mistake that business leaders have long since learned from. Wanna drop a billion dollars to add legs to your metaverse characters? Do whatever you want and just present a plausible argument that it serves shareholders. You don’t need evidence, any rationale is fine as long as you don’t explicitly state that you don’t care about shareholder value.

Another similar case might by something like eBay v Newmark, in that to the extent shareholders got relief it was because of things the business leaders said about shareholder primacy, rather than any actual actions taken by the company.

I guess that’s the real influence of shareholders: boards and executives can do whatever they want as long as when they talk, they don’t speak ill of shareholder primacy.
by egberts1 | 2025-10-31 20:30:17+00:00
Ollama, 16-CPU Xenon E6320 (old), 1.9Ghz, 120GB DDRAM4, 240TB RAID5 SSDs, on Dell Precision T710 ("The Beast"). NO GPU. 20b (n oooooot f aah st at all). Pure CPU bound. Tweaked for 256KB chunking into RAG.

Ingested election laws of 50 states, territories and Federal.

Goal. Mapping out each feature of the election and deal with (in)consistent terminologies sprouted by different university-trained public administration. This is the crux of hallunications: getting a diagram of ballot handling and their terminologies.

Then maybe tackle the multitude ways of election irregularities, or at least point out integrity gaps at various locales.

https://figshare.com/articles/presentation/Election_Frauds_v...
by knuckleheads | 2025-10-31 20:31:14+00:00
Very nice! I had been wondering you constructed these. I've enjoyed playing them! A question I would have is how meta do you think can you get with these hints? In crosswords, you often see a lot of references to other clues in the crossword. And so I wonder, with bracket city puzzles, it seems like it would be hard to dip into that self reference, as the tree structure of the clues makes it hard to reference other clues and there's no labels like 2 across you could use.
by n1xis10t | 2025-10-31 20:31:20+00:00
Can you provide a link to these “taste tests”? Personally I could see preferring bing over google just for the UI up until maybe 2018, but back then Google was better too. As for the quality of results, I wasn’t paying attention back then.

I am guessing that these “taste tests” were done around that time or before, and I wonder how they would go today.
by jajuuka | 2025-10-31 20:31:45+00:00
These are all relatively simple TO YOU. You are not everyone though. Some people lack the mobility, strength or even time to do these things. Some people just don't want to get dirty working on their car. Some people don't have the space to do these kinds of maintenance.

Not everyone needs to know how to compile their own kernel, build their own furniture or clean their laundry perfectly. Everyone has their own interests and areas of expertise they want to delve in to. Now I can screw up a brake job working on it all day and rewatching YouTube videos wondering what I missed, or I can take it to a shop and get it done in an hour for cheap. That's just me though. I spent a lot of time working on cars in my youth and I'm just tired of spending my time on it. I don't like it and I am more than willing to pay someone who does like it to do it.
by Muromec | 2025-10-31 20:31:56+00:00
Passports and money are quote complex to be forgery-resistant. With internet existing it turns out, it's easier to discard the physical form altogether and only leave pure chain of trust digital form.

It already happened to money, it is slowly happening to passports and ids too.

> I’m wondering how they will manage to upgrade them - for future algorithms without breaking compatibility.

The same way as always -- introduce a new version of the passport, which can as well be verified through a completely different system altogether.
by bawolff | 2025-10-31 20:32:41+00:00
> Have we managed this with industrial and agricultural greenhouse gasses, despite the less-emissive alternatives to beef, to coke-reduction in iron refinaries, etc.? We emit despite the downside, we build AIs (and DCs to host them) despite the creators loudly discussing the downsides in exactly the way fossil fuel suppliers and beef farmers deny them.

Maybe not for carbon emissions, but we have for countless other things. The ozone layer isn't being depleted anymore, acid rain is no longer a concern, above ground nuclear tests are no longer giving children cancer, etc.

Its of course hard to say how AI would fit in all this, but it seems more similar to the category of things we have stopped when problems arise than it does to greenhouse gas to me.

> Can we unwind the internet, despite it enabling a panopticon in every pocket?

I think we could fairly easily if we wanted to. The issue is that most people don't view it as a problem but see it as a reasonable trade-off. And whose to say they are wrong?

> * I know some object to this anthropomorphisation, I don't care

I would think that you should care if this is a topic you care about as any solution to the problem (other than throwing the whole thing out) will require accurate understanding how AI is motivated and biases in our understanding could doom the entire enterprise.
by charcircuit | 2025-10-31 20:32:58+00:00
It is entirely reasonable, but these kind of comments are essentially wishing sites could cater to their knowledge level.

It's like complaining that the article is not written in French. It's noise in the comment section of an article. If someone wants such a thing, browsers have functionality to translate pages to French. Not every site needs to have their own French translation to suit such a person.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-31 20:33:11+00:00
> So, one big example is detatched HEADs: any changes you make to those, which still are contents of the repository, are not tracked in the reflog.

$ git checkout HEAD $ git commit --allow-empty -m "_" $ git checkout master $ git reflog a91 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) HEAD@{0}: checkout: moving from b94 to master b94 HEAD@{1}: commit: _ 28d (origin/feature, feature) HEAD@{2}: checkout: moving from feature to @

> Even for refs, there's differences: the reflog says "ref was in state x and changed to state y" without any more details. jj's oplog keeps track of not only the state change, but the reason why: "rebased commit <sha> with these args: jj rebase -r <sha> -d trunk"

> The reflog only tracks individual refs. Say we rebase multiple commits. The reflog still just says "the head of this branch was in state x and changed to state y" but the oplog says "a rebase happened, it affected all of these commits refs in these ways," that is, it's just inherently more rich in what it tracks, and does it across all relative commits, not only the refs.

68e HEAD@{15}: rebase (finish): returning to refs/heads/feature 68e HEAD@{16}: rebase (pick): message #6 7ff HEAD@{17}: rebase (pick): message #5 797 HEAD@{18}: rebase (pick): message #4 776 HEAD@{19}: rebase (pick): message #3 c7d HEAD@{20}: rebase (pick): message #2 f10 HEAD@{21}: rebase (pick): message #1 c0d HEAD@{22}: rebase (start): checkout @~6 a7c HEAD@{100}: rebase (reword): message ... 3b1 HEAD@{229}: rebase (reset): '3b1' message ... 4a4 HEAD@{270}: rebase (continue): message ...
by wubrr | 2025-10-31 20:33:22+00:00
I'm giving you a specific example of why it's not necessary to be in any particular location to work in tech, or network, collaborate, communicate with other tech people.

Directly contradicting your baseless assertion about how you have to be in SF for those reasons.

Literally a specific, physical example and you're talking about 'defining networking to a disingenuously generalization' ...

You are disingenuous.
by array_key_first | 2025-10-31 20:33:33+00:00
Okay, sure, but we are probably all interested in tech. I know I am! Being interested in tech, though, doesn't mean that I blindly trust any and all new tech and marketing.

I mean, what OpenAI is saying about their value is marketing. It's sales. It's not technical. Doubting them doesn't make anyone a luddite.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-31 20:33:35+00:00
Why go through all this effort just to enable an industry that does nothing but take a profit off of random chance?

Just fucking ban it.

Decriminalize low value bets between average people maybe but there's zero reason we need a gambling industry.

It is impossible for this industry to behave. Just kill it.

Your average Fent dealer isn't this predatory FFS
by 827a | 2025-10-31 20:33:59+00:00
No I haven't tested it, that's what I'm asking.

This piece of advice, to me, just feels like a piece of advice constantly repeated by a bunch of people, none of whom actually use the software for which the piece of advice is meant to benefit. That scares me; like we've all lost touch with the ground truth on this one; I'd love to re-sync with it, that's what I'm trying to do, I just don't have the first clue how to do it.
by martinvonz | 2025-10-31 20:34:00+00:00
Ah, I see, so you avoid interactive rebase and instead make all changes in the working copy and use `git commit --fixup` and `git rebase --autosquash` . Makes sense, but doesn't it break down when there are conflicts between the changes you're making in the working copy and the target commit? How do you adjust the steps if there were conflicts between the changes we wanted to make to A and the changes already present in B?
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-10-31 20:34:06+00:00
His take isn't new. It is deployed in part in the UK. Effectively, gambling companies adopt the role of the state conducting a full audit into your personal circumstances, income, assets, bank statement, utility bills to work out whether you can gamble.

I would hope that I don't need to explain why this isn't a good idea. But the one you may not have thought of: gambling companies love this because small companies are unable to audit, margins in the sector collapsed when activity moved online, that has stopped AND they are able to target customers who they don't want to deal with, before these rules it was difficult to identify customers who would take their money, now they have your passport, your address, your bank statements, they know where your money comes from (professional gamblers can still use beards but in the UK, students used to be very popular beards...that has stopped, regulators have also brought in rules to prevent beards being used as part of the changes above...the "neoliberal" US doesn't have rules anywhere close to this, it is complete madness).
by rdtsc | 2025-10-31 20:35:08+00:00
> October 23, 2023: They confirm receipt and are working on taking action. After this date and up until January 2, 2024, there were various back and forth emails trying to get Tata Motors to revoke the AWS keys. I am not sure if something was lost in translation, but it took a lot of pestering and specific instructions to get it done.

Wow, they had to go out of their way and plead with Tata Motors to fix their own shit. I can only admire their patience. Can't say I would be that patient.
by Muromec | 2025-10-31 20:35:37+00:00
>Can activists organize an election for all citizens of that country in some online form, asking the voters to scan their passports using their phones, so that

By the point said activists reach organizational capacity to do so, they have already won and can hold the vote basically with scanning a qr code with a simple app.

>only legitimate citizens (who have passports) can vote

this makes no sense as a requirement in a situation you described.
by heywoods | 2025-10-31 20:35:59+00:00
This reminds me of delirium tremens a bit. Same compensatory mechanism, different sleep process - or at least that's the pattern I'm seeing.

The MIT study shows CSF waves—normally a sleep-only process that flushes metabolic waste—intruding into wakefulness when you're sleep-deprived. Your brain is apparently so desperate for the cleanup that it forces the process to happen anyway. Cost: attention lapses.

From what I've read, delirium tremens during alcohol withdrawal seems to follow a similar pattern, except it's REM sleep intruding into waking consciousness instead of CSF flushing.

[Polysomnographic studies from the 1960s-80s](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7318677/) documented this. Patients in alcohol withdrawal exhibit what researchers call ["Stage 1-REM"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/delirium-t...)—a hybrid state where wakefulness and REM sleep characteristics get mixed together. Right before full-blown DTs, [some patients hit 100% Stage 1-REM](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-0632-1_...). The hallucinations appear to be [literally enacted dreams](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01651...) occurring while technically awake. The sleep-wake boundary just completely breaks down.

What strikes me is the system-level similarity here. Sleep normally maintains clean states: you're either awake (alert, reality-testing intact, no CSF flushing) or asleep (offline, dreams permitted, maintenance running). But when the system gets stressed enough—whether through sleep deprivation or the neurochemical chaos of alcohol withdrawal—it seems to start making desperate tradeoffs.

The brain apparently needs certain processes to run. Period. Total no-brainer! CSF flushing can't wait indefinitely. Neither can REM sleep, which serves its own critical functions. So when normal sleep architecture fails, the system appears to force these processes anyway, even though the conditions are completely wrong for them.

Maybe that's why the costs are so specific. CSF intrusion during wakefulness costs you attention. REM intrusion costs you reality testing, because REM is the state where your brain accepts impossible narratives without question. Same compensatory mechanism, different critical process forced into the wrong state.

What I find interesting is how the brain knows what lever it needs to pull and how it pulls it. Sleep deprivation forces waste removal. REM deprivation forces wakeful dream states; which might be a side effect not the actual goal. The brain seems to know what maintenance is overdue and attempts the repair, consequences be damned.
by mrtksn | 2025-10-31 20:36:05+00:00
Nope, it's not. Some of the big names in the current AI boom are also European but they go do it in USA because the money is in USA and they can just access the EU markets from there.

I don't know if you are familiar with coding or engineering but it's nor really a kind of a profession where you work all the time and the more hours you put in it the output increases linearly.

It's not like Europeans couldn't code Facebook because they were taking too many vacations, unlike Russians and Chinese that did. It's that Chinese and Russian markets had restriction and local clones or alternatives were able to flourish but EU had completely open market for US "tech".

Cut off Meta, double the vacations in EU and in a year there will be European social media. As it was demonstrated by Elon Musk, you don't need that many people to work in those "tech" companies anyway.
by docdeek | 2025-10-31 20:36:36+00:00
The author proposes three solutions: the GOP could change Senate rules to fund SNAP, the Republicans draw on the $5B fund that can sustain SNAP at least temporarily, or they can pass legislation in the House to fund SNAP.

Of course, a handful of Democrat Senators could also vote to end the shutdown and that would fund SNAP, and everything else, too, at least for a few more weeks.

Both sides seem dug in right now. It's still not clear who I'll blink first.
by BoorishBears | 2025-10-31 20:37:08+00:00
You can't let society keep inventing new vices for profit in an uninhibited way.

It feels like a bell curve topic, where the most naive people think you should just ban all vices and have a strictly better world, the middle of the road thinks it's all down to personal fortitude, and then people who know how the sausage is made realize the level of asymmetry that exists.

Weed isn't just weed anymore, it's fruity pebbles flavored.

Porn isn't just porn anymore, it tries to talk like a person and build a parasocial relationship.

Video games aren't just video games anymore, they start embedding gambling mechanics and spending 2 years designing the "End of Match" screen in a way that funnels you into the next game or lootbox pull.

You need to stop somewhere. Tech + profit motives create an asymmetric war for people's attention and money that results in new forms of old vices that are superficially the same, but realistically much much worse.

Gambling specifically online might just be giving tech companies too many knobs that are too easy to tune under the umbrella of engagement and retention.
by cogman10 | 2025-10-31 20:37:17+00:00
The ideas that have been batted around is called "async drop" [1]

And it looks like it's still just an unaddressed well known problem [2].

Honestly, once the Mozilla sackening of rust devs happened it seems like the language has been practically rudderless. The RFC system seems almost dead as a lot of the main contributors are no longer working on rust.

This initiative hasn't had motion since 2021. [3]

[1] https://rust-lang.github.io/async-fundamentals-initiative/ro...

[2] https://rust-lang.github.io/async-fundamentals-initiative/

[3] https://github.com/rust-lang/async-fundamentals-initiative
by no_wizard | 2025-10-31 20:37:30+00:00
I too have encountered this reasoning.

Then I write some basic CSS and show them they have nothing to fear.

Yet, I still remain irritated beyond belief that its such a common thing. In 2025. Hell, in 2017!

I don't know what to do about it, other than constantly remind people about things, but it gets tiring.

Though, its a great interview question. Its a quick way to understand if someone knows the fundamentals or not.

Kinda like how people got ".bind" wrong on functions for years.
by lostlogin | 2025-10-31 20:37:31+00:00
It’s an interesting paradox.

Imagine doing your best to help someone and they die as a direct result.

Then you get to go to work and deal with the next case.

Or the patient has life changing, negative outcomes. Damn, that bad. Next case.

Living in that mental state takes a pretty unusual character type. We can expect some extreme behaviour.

It’s also interesting watching the change over time. The trainee versus consultant, or the surgeon as they near retirement.

I’m not a surgeon or a doctor and so I see a small part of their world but see some of the perks (they get everything) and some of the downsides, and there are a lot.
by array_key_first | 2025-10-31 20:38:32+00:00
I agree with pretty much all of this, I think where the divergence is what to do about it. IMO, tool wise, nothing - this is an education issue.

And onto your point about CLI tools often making too little assumptions: this is 100% true, and also a superpower. There's a reason that a tool like ffmpeg can spawn 1000 GUI programs from it, each with their own draws. It's a generic tool, not necessarily an application. Many CLI programs are like this.

That can raise the complexity but it's a tradeoff. Many GUIs are too "happy path" centralized, and that happy path is different for different people, so they become cumbersome and unintuitive in too many use cases. A great example would be just about everything Microsoft makes.
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-10-31 20:39:11+00:00
Who do you think was buying options 30 years ago? Institutional demand, particularly for non-OTC options, was zero. Countries which have legalized gambling tend not to have large options markets.

There is no convergence. They have always been the same thing. The difference is that you can provide a venue where harm is reduced or one where harm is maximised.
by danielbln | 2025-10-31 20:39:37+00:00
I'm very bullish on AI, but low effort outputs just lobbed over the fence in my direction (be that code, music, text) irk me to no end. And that's not even considering if something is tasteful or kitsch. So yeah, for me it's definitely that. Someone who puts in real work, and produces output with intent, I might still not like because it's not my taste, but at least I don't consider it slop.

Funnily enough, slop AI video I still get entertainment value out of, just because it's often so bizarre and absurd.
by snuxoll | 2025-10-31 20:40:13+00:00
The problem is this: the house always wins. Casinos, online sports books, the lottery, all of it is designed such that all but quite literally a lucky few will lose money. If you understand this properly, then, yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being a form of entertainment, but that means you need to go in thinking about cost per hour instead of any notion of leaving with more than you began with.

This is why I have a huge problem with the recent development of online gambling outlets that you can access via your smartphone. In the past you had to go somewhere to gamble, it was a physical act that provided a barrier to entry. Now? You don't even need to think about it, your bank account is already linked, just spend away!

Personally, I'd rather states loosen laws and allow physical casinos be built and properly regulated than be in the current situation we have with these poorly regulated online money-siphons.
by tinfoilhatter | 2025-10-31 20:40:44+00:00
> re personal compiler development playground: I don't see this for Nim 2. Nimony/Nim3 is more of a "playground", but rightfully so: he is creating a new major version of the language and aiming to improve the architecture of the compiler.

Araq likes to work on the shiny flashy things he finds fun / interesting to work on. I'm not going to fault him for that, but things like atomics on Windows are still broken. People have been complaining about the stdlib and documentation + lack of a formal specification for at least a decade.

> From what I can tell the fork seems to be due to differences in direction of the language and w.r.t working together: differences in communication styles. But again, I don't know.

There was quite a bit of drama that caused the hard fork to materialize. Differences in communication styles is definitely describing the drama that unfolded, extremely mildly. I don't work on the fork or use it, but some of the more talented compiler developers who were previously contributing to Nim, left Nim to go work on Nimskull.
by oconnor663 | 2025-10-31 20:41:14+00:00
> FAQ: doesn’t future1 get cancelled?

I guess cancellation is really two different things, which usually happen at the ~same time, but not in this case: 1) the future stops getting polled, and 2) the future gets dropped. In this example the drop is delayed, and because the future is holding a guard,* the delay has side effects. So the future "has been cancelled" in the sense that it will never again make forward progress, but it "hasn't been cancelled yet" in the sense that it's still holding resources. I wonder if it's practical to say "make sure those two things always happen together"?

* Technically a Tokio-internal `Acquire` future that owns a queue position to get a guard, but it sounds like the exact same bug could manifest after it got the guard too, so let's call it a guard.