MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by quietbritishjim | 2025-10-31 09:18:12+00:00
Those are valid points to make, but they don't relate to the figure. The chart should just show the raw naked numbers, and then we can layer our understanding on top of it. Something like, "so the chart says air travel is x times more efficient, but given how bad it is for the environment I think..."

If the chart is already a mish mash of numbers with someone's subjective opinions of the sort you mention then it's useless.
by louthy | 2025-10-31 09:18:27+00:00
> They are hardly present in the public eye. Most people don't know them, except perhaps by name. Their music is probably too niche for the mainstream;

The OP talked about their importance, not their current popularity. They directly inspired many who went on to create what is now the electronic music scene. A good example is their influence of the Belleville Three [0] who invented Detroit techno, which inspired Belgian techno, that inspired the UK rave scene that brought the future of electronic music (jungle, drum n bass, grime, etc).

Of the four big electronic music genres of the 80s: electro, house, techno, and hip-hop - Kraftwerk were influences on two of them and arguably three with the more 808 led west-coast hop-hop, like Egyptian Lover.

They are the seed that modern electronic music grew from. Many who produce electronic music, including myself, consider them pioneers.

> However, it is difficult to compare Kraftwerk with the Beatles. Let's face it: rock music (in the broadest sense) has a much higher profile in the public eye than electronic music.

There are no bands in the charts any more [1]. Electronic music (and pop music, which is mostly electronic) has won (at least for now)!

Again though, let’s not confuse popularity with importance — even though Kraftwerk did have massive chart success and still tour to sell out stadiums today — their influence far outstretches the Beatles imho. I think, aside from some interesting recording techniques pioneered at Abbey Road by George Martin, they’re not that influential. Sure, their songs are catchy pop songs, but there wasn’t much innovation there. They’re less important than say Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath (in terms of the evolution of rock music, that is).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belleville_Three

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9hOyt2oSz1/?igsh=aHIwcG5lZnY...
by ben_w | 2025-10-31 09:18:36+00:00
> Do you really think consciousness lives in weights and an input vector?

So far as we can tell, all physics, and hence all chemistry, and hence all biology, and hence all brain function, and hence consciousness, can be expressed as the weights of some matrix and input vector.

We don't know which bits of the matrix for the whole human body are the ones which give rise to qualia. We don't know what the minimum representation is. We don't know what charateristic to look for, so we can't search for it in any human, in any animal, nor in any AI.
by sethaurus | 2025-10-31 09:19:21+00:00
I think it's simpler than that. Canva's primary competitor is Adobe, and Adobe's remaining advantage is with creative professionals. That's Adobe's core market and their core revenue stream.

It's a classic "commoditize your complements" play. Canva remains profitable without charging for Affinity, but Adobe can't stay profitable if they stop charging for Photoshop/Illustrator.

The business justification works without imputing any more sinister motives than that.
by BrenBarn | 2025-10-31 09:19:51+00:00
I basically agree, but I would say that that "lubricating" effect is still causal. I mean if something is stuck and lubricant is added and then it starts to move, well, the lubricant was at least one of the causes of its moving.

It's true that the major factor is the ideological shift away from caring about doing a good job. I'm not sure how to address that though.
by zeroc8 | 2025-10-31 09:20:13+00:00
The brutalist style also meant that I didn't need a UI designer for my applications. With Delphi I was able to create great apps in a matter of days. And users loved them, because they were so snappy and well thought out. Nowadays it seems I need a UI designer to accomplish just about anything. And the resulting apps might look better but are worse when you are actually trying to accomplish work using them.
by simianparrot | 2025-10-31 09:20:41+00:00
Except it doesn’t. If you’re poor, 10% directly impacts your life negatively. It means less (or lesser quality) food. It means less money set aside for yourself in the case you need it — and you will.

10% for middle class is fine. That’s just one less night out.

People should not give to charity if they themselves are likely to be dependent on charity.
by Argonaut998 | 2025-10-31 09:20:58+00:00
If you are so sure about that why wouldn’t they make it a domestic law instead of an EU wide law? I’m not American nor Danish and I certainly do not trust my government. Kind of naive - no one should trust their government in this day and age.

It’s also convenient that Denmark is essentially the US’ eyes and ears in Europe, who even spied on other nations for them.
by qnleigh | 2025-10-31 09:21:36+00:00
> Why include a script rather than a proof? One reason is that the proof is straight-forward but tedious and the script is compact.

Yes the script lets you check that the result is correct, but a proof lets you see why it's correct. A good proof might even give you a sense of how you could have discovered the result yourself, or how you might generalize it.
by xbmcuser | 2025-10-31 09:21:41+00:00
Oh I hope the price is low enough that this be a real media box chip competitor fir streaming devices. Nvidia Shield Tegra chip from 2015 is still one of the best in this space. And with nvidia making all the AI money is not interested in making a new device. Apple TV the only real alternative does not support audio passthrough so is not as open as android or Linux media boxes.
by 9dev | 2025-10-31 09:22:48+00:00
I think a lot of this is rooted in the basic world view people have. Those with a conservative mindset will think of humans as fundamentally flawed, misguided creatures that need to be contained and steered so they don’t veer of the path, which they are naturally inclined to; while those with a liberal mindset consider humans to be inherently kind and only misguided by circumstances and their environment.

Most people can pretty clearly relate to one of these perspectives over the other, and it’s pretty clear what actions follow from that.
by sirwhinesalot | 2025-10-31 09:23:03+00:00
> Most people don't even play with a grid and figurines (at least traditionally).

This is simply not true. If you want to play a pure roleplaying game, play a rules-light one. DnD is not that.

Everyone homebrews little bits so I'm not going to harp too much on that, but there's no point discussing the issues of DnD's design if we're not talking about DnD's design but rather whatever your homebrewed version of DnD is.

Did you know the game is balanced around 8 combat encounters per session? Do you know how many tables actually play that number of combats per session? It's a badly designed game.
by globular-toast | 2025-10-31 09:23:08+00:00
What you're used to is definitely a huge part of it. But I do think 10-15 years ago Linux was easier to break than Windows, because it didn't make any effort to hide away the bits that let you break it. This was mainly a matter of taste. People who know what they're doing don't want to use some sanitised sandbox.

Linux was like a racing car. Raw and refined. Every control was directly connected to powerful mechanical components, like a throttle, clutch and steering rack. It did exactly what you told it to do, but to be good at it requires learning to finesse the controls. If you failed, the lessons the were delivered swiftly and harshly: you would lose traction, spin and crash.

Windows was more like a daily driver. Things were "easier", but that the cost of having less raw control and power, like a clutch with a huge dual mass flywheel. It's not like you can't break a daily driver, any experienced computer guy has surely broken Windows more than once, but you can just do more within the confines o the sandbox. Linux required you to leave.

It's different now. Distros like Ubuntu do almost everything most people want without having to leave the sandbox. The beautiful part about Linux, though, is it's still all there if you want it and nice to use if you get there, because it's build and designed by people who actually do that stuff. Nowadays I tend to agree it is mostly just what you're used to and what you've already learnt.
by int_19h | 2025-10-31 09:23:48+00:00
> I did not know that. I'll have to figure out how this works and what it looks like.

They basically stitch together a dummy async stack based on causality chain. It's not really a stack anymore since you can have a bunch of tasks interleaved on it which has to be shown somehow, but it's still nice.

It's also not JS specific. .NET has the same async model (despite also having multithreaded concurrency), and it also has similar debugger support. Not just linearized async stacks, but also the ability to diagram them etc.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/debugger/walk...

And in profiler as well, not just the debugger. So it's entirely a tooling issue, and part of the problem is that JS ecosystem has been lagging behind on this.
by satisfice | 2025-10-31 09:25:24+00:00
Here is what my dog would say when I’m going out…

“What?!” “no no no no no” “hey HEY” “come back!”

I could not bear to hear that. Barking is better.

If you could talk to the animals— just imagine it— they would say things that were only boring, distressing, or bizarre. And they would have no comprehension of what we say to them.
by kakacik | 2025-10-31 09:26:26+00:00
I 'love' how we moved from 'AI will kill us all' terminator mindset where its obvious huge fuckup of stupid greedy mankind, to current state debating 'well skynet will anyway happen, no way stopping it now, lets try to be friends with it and show some respect'.

Like that Austin Powers part [1] where steam roller is coming in, still 50m far away, and the guy is just frozen and helplessly screams for 2 minutes till it reaches him and rolls over him.

I don't have a quick solution, but this is plain stupidity, in same way research into immortality is plain stupidity now, it will end up in endless dictatorship by the worst scum mankind can produce.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k
by veunes | 2025-10-31 09:26:48+00:00
This is so much more useful than synthetic benchmarks. The most important column here isn't pass/fail, it's attempts. In production a model that gets it right in 2 attempts is 10x more valuable than one that needs 20 iterations of prompt engineering. It's a direct measure of cost and predictability.

Seedream 4 won on points, but Gemini seems more steerable and required less fighting on many of the tasks
by high_na_euv | 2025-10-31 09:27:14+00:00
>Explain then what is your alternative to unit and integration tests.

Tests against real components instead of mocks.

>If your tests either leave out invariants that are behind bugs and regressions or have invalid/insufficient inputs, the problem lies in how you created tests, not in the concept of a mock.

Nowadays external components can be very complex systems e.g dbs, messaging queues, 3rd APIs and so on

A lot of things can go wrong and you arent even aware of them in order to get mocks right.

Examples? fuckin emojis.

On mocked in memory database they work fine, but fail on real db due to encoding settings.
by lordnacho | 2025-10-31 09:27:27+00:00
For anything vaguely technical, I use the English term. I don't feel comfortable in any other language, no matter how well I speak it. It just doesn't sit right with me to use eg a Danish term for density, or power, or eigenvalue, or anything programming.

Part of it is that even though I might know the term, it won't be long before I need to bring in something where I don't know the term. At that point I'll be inventing a local term, when I know what the English term is.
by yallpendantools | 2025-10-31 09:28:12+00:00
The difference is a lot of "computer education" (as opposed to computing education most in this forum have) has happened with GUIs. "Simple" CLI tools doesn't mean they're understandable or even user-friendly.

Heck, even computing education (and the profession even!) has been propped up by GUIs. After my first year in CS, there were like only three to five of us in a section of forty to fifty who could compile Java from the command line, who would dare edit PATH variables. I'm pretty sure that number didn't improve by much when we graduated. A lot of professionals wouldn't touch a CLI either. I'm not saying they are bad programmers but fact of the matter is there are competent professional programmers who pretty much just expect a working machine handed to them by IT and then expect DevOps to fix Jenkins when it's borked out.

Remember: HN isn't all programmers. There are more out there.

> But, if we assume the user has never seen a graphical application before, then likely all GUI tools will be useless too.

We don't even need to assume, we just need to look at history. GUIs came with a huge amount of educational campaigning behind it, be it corporate (i.e., ads/training programs that teach users how to use their products) or even government campaigns (i.e., computer literacy classes, computer curriculum integrated at school). That's of course followed by man-years upon man-years of usability studies and the bigger vendors keeping consistent GUI metaphors across their products.

Before all of this, users did ask the questions that you enumerated and certain demographics still do to this day.

> Of all of that, CLI tools rely on some of the least amount of assumptions by their nature - they're low fidelity, forced to be simple.

"Everything should be made simple, but not simpler." Has it occurred to you that maybe CLI tools assume too little?
by azangru | 2025-10-31 09:28:36+00:00
> As a developer who has learnt programming as a hobby, is it better to stick to some other safe ways to develop front end like thyme leaf or plain js or something else.

Oh, absolutely, there is no question about it. Fewer dependencies means less headache; and if you can get the number of your dependencies to zero, then you have won the internet.
by thefz | 2025-10-31 09:30:10+00:00
> I’m continually astounded that so many people, faced with a societal problem, reflexively turn to “Hmmm, perhaps if we monitored and read and listened to every single thing that every person does, all of the time…”

.. and stored! Which is the worst part, IMO, because once you have a record it's only a matter of time until it reaches the wrong hands.
by int_19h | 2025-10-31 09:30:29+00:00
OP didn't say that code looks like ordinary sync code, only that it's possible to write code that works equally well for both sync and async. If you RTFA, it looks like this:

var a = io.async(doWork, .{ io, "hard" }); ... a.await(io);

If your `io` is async, this behaves like an async call returning a promise and then awaiting said promise. If `io` is sync then `io.async` will make the call immediately and `await` is a no-op.
by donatj | 2025-10-31 09:30:43+00:00
I started compiling the Go compiler myself over well over ten years ago when you had to compile it yourself to enable cross-compiling. That has not been the case in almost as long.

I have not stopped. I really should stop. At this point it's just kind of fun, but I have an unbroken chain of self-compiled Go compilers going back to the days when Go was written in C and not Go.

I am frankly really curious if my Go binary lives up to the reproducible build, or if some sort of Reflections on Trusting Trust type flaw worked itself in 10 years ago.
by hermitcrab | 2025-10-31 09:30:43+00:00
I have questions.

Why have they animated the chart? It adds nothing, as far as I can tell.

Why all the tiny points? Is each one a data point (seems unlikely)?

Why is there only one swimmer?

Why is there a walker/runner area to the left and below swimmers? What is in that area?

Is this article just shilling for Big Velomobile? ;0)
by leiroigh | 2025-10-31 09:31:23+00:00
There is nothing counter-intuitive or julia-specific about it:

Fastest way is to have your datastructure in a (virtual) register, and that works better with immutable structures (ie memory2ssa has limitations). Second fastest way is to have your datastructure allocated on the heap and mutate it. Slowest way is to have your datastructure allocated on the heap, have it immutable, copy it all the time, and then let the old copies get garbage collected. The last slowest way is exactly what many "functional" languages end up doing. (exception: Read-copy-update is often a very good strategy in multi-threading, and is relatively painless thanks to the GC)

The original post was about local variables -- and const declarations for local variables are mostly syntactic sugar, the compiler puts it into SSA form anyway (exception: const in C if you take the address of the variable and let that pointer escape).

So this is mostly the same as in every language: You need to learn what patterns allow the current compiler version to put your stuff into registers, and then use these patterns. I.e. you need to read a lot of assembly / llvm-IR until you get a feeling for it, and refresh your feelings with every compiler update. Most intuitions are similar to Rust/clang C/C++ (it's llvm, duh!), so you should be right at home if you regularly read compiler output.

Julia has excellent tooling to read the generated assembly/IR; much more convenient than java (bytecode is irrelevant, you need to read assembly or learn to read graal/C2 IR; and that is extremely inconvenient).
by meowface | 2025-10-31 09:32:25+00:00
Could someone explain every term in this subthread in a very simple way to someone who basically only knows "transformers are a neural network architecture that use something called 'attention' to consider the entire input the whole time or something like that", and who does not understand what "quadratic" even means in a time complexity or mathematical sense beyond that "quad" has something to do with the number four.

I am aware I could Google it all or ask an LLM, but I'm still interested in a good human explanation.
by tooa | 2025-10-31 09:34:30+00:00
Identified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented. Oct 31, 2025 - 09:30 UTC

Update - We are continuing to investigate this issue. Oct 31, 2025 - 09:25 UTC

Investigating - We are currently investigating this issue. Oct 31, 2025 - 09:17 UTC
by nobody9999 | 2025-10-31 09:34:53+00:00
>The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?

Actually, that was Joe Lieberman, not Obama if memory serves. And apparently it does.

According to Wikipedia[0]:

The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance companies within the United States. The public option is not the same as publicly funded health care, but was proposed as an alternative health insurance plan offered by the government. The public option was initially proposed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was removed after the independent US senator for Connecticut Joe Lieberman threatened a filibuster.[1][2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
by wongarsu | 2025-10-31 09:34:56+00:00
Rust has a really big and comprehensive stdlib, especially compared to languages like C or JavaScript. It just decided that certain things won't be solved in the standard lib because there is no obviously-right solution and evolving towards a good solution is much easier in packages than in the stdlib, because the stdlib isn't versioned.

Some of the gaps feel huge, like no random, no time/date handling, and no async runtime. But but for most of them there are canonical packages that 95% of the ecosystem uses, with a huge amount of eyeballs on them. And sometimes a better solution does emerge, like jiff slowly replacing chrono and time for time/date handling.

Obviously this isn't the best solution from a security perspective. There would be less potential for supply chain attacks if everything was in the standard library. But that has to be weighed against the long-term usability of the language
by nailer | 2025-10-31 09:35:49+00:00
> libel against specific muslim children

One child. Jamal Hijazi.

> Regarding his libel that harmed a child

The interview with the girl Jamal Hijazi hit in her spine with a hockey stick starts at 21:49, and is followed by discussions with staff at the school, a student he spat at, other staff discussing him knocking a kid out by throwing him against a wall, school records of him bringing a knife and screwdriver to school, photos of the other girl he hit from text messages with the girl’s mother, an interview with the head teacher of the time about Jamal Hijazi bullying other children, and more:

https://youtu.be/h0z7rVP2glk

I think it’s fairly likely that Bailey, the boy that tackled Jamal Hijazi for saying something in that video - allegedly Jamal Hijazi said he would rape Bailey’s 9 year old sister - was telling the truth.

> Musk is, in the UK, supporting a man who identifies as "Tommy Robinson"

Good. Why aren’t you?
by iggldiggl | 2025-10-31 09:36:11+00:00
> Yes, if it was a measure of device security they would revoke attestation of devices that are behind on security updates.

The new attestation system Google introduced recently (which I think also more strongly forces hardware-based attestation for phones that support it and is therefore more difficult to bypass) actually does that – the very highest attestation level requires running a security update not older than one year if I remember correctly.

What remains to be seen how much that'll get used in practice – users with rooted phones or custom ROMs are rare enough that a lot of vendors seemingly have no qualms excluding them, whereas users with outdated phones are probably a somewhat more sizeable number.
by int_19h | 2025-10-31 09:37:04+00:00
Regarding recursive functions, would it really be that annoying? We kinda take the ability to recurse for granted, yet it is rarely used in practice, and often when it happens it's unintentional and a source of bugs (due to unforeseen re-entrancy). Intuitively it feels that if `recursive` was a required modifier when declaring intentionally recursive functions, like in Fortran, it wouldn't actually be used all that much. Most functions don't need to call via function pointers, either.

Being explicit about it might also allow for some interesting compiler optimizations across shared library boundaries...
by a96 | 2025-10-31 09:37:15+00:00
It's one of the main features, just incoherently rambled and backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...

> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Free software can be audited for backdoors. Closed can not. Their backdoors will stay there indefinitely.
by jorvi | 2025-10-31 09:37:19+00:00
They aren't inherently power efficient because of technical reasons, but because of design culture reasons.

Traditionally x86 has been built powerful and power hungry and then designers scaled the chips down whereas it's the opposite for ARM.

For whatever reason, this also makes it possible to get much bigger YoY performance gains in ARM. The Apple M4 is a mature design[0] and yet a year later the M5 is CPU +15% GPU +30% memory bandwidth +28%.

The Snapdragon Elite X series is showing a similar trajectory.

So Jim Keller ended up being wrong that ISA doesn't matter. Its just that it's the people in the ISA that matter, not the silicon.

[0] its design traces all the way back to the A12 from 2018, and in some fundamental ways even to the A10 from 2016.