MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kelnos | 2025-10-24 02:48:13+00:00
For better or worse, the US constitution does not have provisions or a process for dissolving itself and developing a new constitution.

The closest thing we have is the amendment process. In theory we could use that to rewrite the entirety of the constitution[0], but good luck getting the required votes in place on any possible replacement. The bar is pretty high: amendments need to be proposed by either a vote of 2/3 of Congress, or by a constitutional convention convened by 2/3 of the state legislatures, and then ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures.

We couldn't get that sort of agreement to pass something as theoretically uncontroversial as the Equal Rights Amendment. It's laughable to think we could pass a "new constitution" that way.

I expect the only way we could end up with a new constitution is through a bloody civil war, or some sort of coup. Hopefully no one wants something like that, though. I certainly don't.

[0] Technically the entirety of the constitution can't be amended; Article V, Section 5 prohibits an amendment from changing each state's equal representation in the Senate. Though I suppose a "rewrite amendment" might get around that by preserving the Senate as-is as a ceremonial body without any power. That would certainly violate the spirit of that wording in Article V, so I imagine it would be challenged in court.
by aryonoco | 2025-10-24 02:48:25+00:00
I used Linux exclusively from 1999 to 2012. I gave up in 2012 and switch to Mac.

I’ve just switched back to Linux, and I can confirm. It’s different, it’s very different. And it’s very good. I realised how much I’ve just been fighting Apple everyday in newer versions of Mac.

I was going to ask my boss for a new MacBook Pro soon but now I’m having second thoughts.
by BrenBarn | 2025-10-24 02:48:27+00:00
> What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments.

I think the opposite. That is exactly what we need. A lot of the problem we have come from the fact that the constitution speaks almost entirely in terms of what various government bodies do and provides no way for the people to directly override government actions they disagree with. This has led us to our current situation which is based on politicians exploiting loopholes (e.g., gerrymandering, stacking various judicial/administrative posts, manipulating voting laws, etc.) in order to preserve their position against potential electoral response.

In some cases these problems have been overcome or mitigated at the state level. . . via ballot measures. In California, for instance.

> California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but from where I'm standing California looks a lot more sane and stable than the US as a whole.
by zharknado | 2025-10-24 02:48:42+00:00
Not OP, but I would ban the tickets/prizes mechanism.

Depending on how old is “old school” for you, every game in an arcade might be fine.

If we’re talking 90’s Chuck E. Cheese, maybe half the games would be potentially interesting to play without a token payout. The others round to “roll the dice,” where there is no payoff other than a gambler’s variable reward.

I think this also covers whether skill is involved. Like for me, beating my buddy at basketball shots is mildly rewarding, but smashing a button at the right time is not very interesting even if it requires a lot of skill.
by atleastoptimal | 2025-10-24 02:49:09+00:00
On net, Waymos are safer than human drivers. Really all that matters is deaths per passenger mile, and weighted far less, injury/crash per passenger mile.

Waymos exceed human drivers on both metrics, thus it is reasonable to say that Waymos have reduced crashes compared to the equivalent average human driver covering the same distance.

Mistakes like this are very rare, and when they do happen, they can be audited, analyzed with thousands of metrics and exact replays, patched, and the improved model running the Waymo is distributed to all cars on the road.

There is no equivalent in humans. There are millions of human drivers currently driving who drive distracted, drunk, recklessly, or aggressively. Every one of them who is replaced with a Waymo is potentially many lives saved.

Approximately 1/100 deaths in the US are due to car fatalities. Every year autonomous drivers aren't rapidly deployed is just unnecessary deaths.
by sipofwater | 2025-10-24 02:49:28+00:00
* "ELLIPAL Notification. UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE!!! What do you think?" by Brandon LaRoque: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQKOL0fFrI via https://www.youtube.com/@brandonlaroque4760

* See the comments on Hacker News for "XRP Investor Loses $3M After Mistakenly Using Cold Wallet as Hot Wallet": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45671883
by jfoster | 2025-10-24 02:49:51+00:00
And "much blood" is (globally) to the tune of ~1.2 million lives lost, and many more injuries.

Compared to that, autonomous vehicles have barely harmed anyone. Also they will probably save most of those lives once they become good.

The "least harm" approach is to scale autonomous vehicles as quickly as possible even if they do have accidents sometimes.
by coliveira | 2025-10-24 02:50:53+00:00
The idea that AI can discover anything is ridiculous. It can propose algorithms like it creates any piece of text, but only the human researcher is capable of analyzing the algorithm, proving that it works, understand what it is doing, i.e., pretty much everything that we call a new "discovery". I would have zero confidence in an algorithm "discovered" by an AI in isolation.
by lateforwork | 2025-10-24 02:51:22+00:00
It is one thing for Bannon to say it. It is another thing for a prominent sitting senator to say it [1]. (That would be senator Lindsey Graham.) I wish John McCain was still around... he would have had the courage to stand up and talk sense into these people.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5519134-lindsey-graham-d...
by kelthuzad | 2025-10-24 02:51:24+00:00
I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference:

"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.

The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.

According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."

In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:

- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode

- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned

- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period

- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out

Android users on the other hand could proactively:

- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes

- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely

- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers

Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.
by thn-gap | 2025-10-24 02:52:03+00:00
Yesterday twitter feed was showing me all sorts of people executing this idea fully end to end: creating endless stream of content, selling whatever product or idea, presented as fully human content. Of course with fake AI people, engaging in content to make it look real, and using hooks or sexualized content to make it grab more attention.

Im unsure what the final outcome out of this is, but it makes me sad that we're about to see an explosion of fake content on the internet indistinguishable from real people so soon, if not already, for pure profit, where everything is allowed.
by txcwg002 | 2025-10-24 02:52:17+00:00
What do you think of this counterpoint from Balaji?

"CZ deserves his pardon.

His show trial of a prosecution was a combination of regulatory railroading and ethnic persecution for being Chinese-Canadian.

Imagine if Macron was held personally responsible for every crime committed by the 67M citizens of France, and you'll get the absurdity of holding CZ personally responsible for the actions of a few of the 250M+ Binance users.

Indeed, if the bureaucrats who went after CZ were similarly held accountable for every violent crime committed in their home states, they'd be in prison for eternity! But there was an insane double standard. In the physical world, the Biden admin gleefully abolished the police. Meanwhile, in the digital world they demanded that CEOs achieve impossible levels of probity.

The ethnic dimension to CZ's persecution was similarly execrable. In reality, he helped many millions of Chinese people get into Bitcoin and thereby get to freedom. And also helped millions of poor people from around the globe get out of failed currencies, and into cryptocurrency.

So he did more for practical human rights and civil liberties than most. CZ did nothing wrong, and did so many things right.

Of course, my friends at Coinbase and I were competitors of Binance. But I always respected CZ, and I congratulate him on his accomplishments, and I congratulate him on his pardon today. Well deserved."

https://x.com/balajis/status/1981423831572238856
by kevindamm | 2025-10-24 02:53:16+00:00
I remember the 3D glasses that you could plug into the Sega Master System in the mid-80s. They took what would be interlaced frames and rendered them to different eyes instead (which made the version getting shown on the connected TV pretty trippy too).

And then there was the time travel arcade game (also by Sega) that used a kind of Pepper's Ghost effect to give the appearance of 3D without glasses. That was in the early 90s.

I think the idea of 3D displays keeps resurfacing because there's always a chance that the tech has caught up to people's dreams, and VR displays sure have brought the latency down a lot but even the lightest headsets are still pretty uncomfortable after extended use. Maybe in another few generations... but it will still feel limiting until we have holodeck-style environments IMO.
by Nursie | 2025-10-24 02:53:34+00:00
I think you missed the point.

The point is not pretending to be functional for the sake of it, putting on a facade and calling everything great. It's that being functional often works to help in and of itself.

Getting out of the house, socialising, exercising and working towards your own goals in life, cutting down on booze and drugs, getting proper sleep etc, can and does have an effect and can alleviate the problem. It's not a mask, it's a remedy in many minor cases. Compared to medicalising minor bouts of depression or anxiety (which may well really just be part of the human experience), calling them a 'condition', which may render people more helpless and encourage wallowing in it which is likely to make things worse. Sometimes picking yourself up and getting on with it is what you actually need.

If that doesn't work for you, seek help, sure, nobody's saying you shouldn't.
by abmfy | 2025-10-24 02:53:57+00:00
Thanks for commenting! Actually in this case, "the work being done" can be really fast because it can be done asynchronously. For context, here’s how this translates in a real-world application.

The original algorithm was provided by DeepSeek, and our optimized implementation achieves a 92× speedup over it. The 5x number is comparing with another baseline that is undisclosed yet.

When integrating EPLB into vLLM, I discovered—somewhat unexpectedly—that the open-source algorithm consumes nearly half of the total time of a rearrangement step, with the remaining time spent transferring weights across GPUs. To address this, I applied OpenEvolve to the algorithm, setting the primary objective to improve speed while maintaining the same balance factor. It performed remarkably well. With additional optimizations on the weight transferring, the overall overhead has now become almost negligible.
by theamk | 2025-10-24 02:54:02+00:00
At least with a small contributor's team, the problem with AI PRs is that the (most of) feedback is useless.

In hand-written PR, I can write a comment about better way to do something, and my teammate will learn and use better methods next time. And moreover, they will generalize, understand the principles of efficient code (as practiced in our organization), and eventually have much better initial PRs. Sure, when a new person joins, initially the reviews take longer than writing the code myself, but this is an investment in the future.

In AI Slop PR, you can waste your time on most beautiful and clear explanation, but they will be ignored and next PR will have exactly the same problem. If you get lucky, the author will maybe remember some of the comments, but don't count on it, most likely they won't. They will paste the comment to AI, AI will apply the fix, and the author will move on, without learning anything.

This is incredibly demotivating, and wastes everyone's time. And the worst part, if you got unlucky and the person is very lazy, they will now be able to waste _tremendous_ amount of your time. Because before AI, at least there was a balance - a person making bad PRs used to likely spend more time fixing them than me reviewing them. And with AI, it's just the other way around.

("But wait!" you can can say. "I am not like that, I carefully review my code and pay attention to comments". In this case great, but you are not making "AI slop" then, you are making regular PRs. The "AI slop" rules do not apply to you.)
by justicz | 2025-10-24 02:54:04+00:00
Hey HN! One of my best friends + the best programmer I’ve ever met, Peter, just launched his startup. He is building an FPGA-accelerated server for high-memory, high-bandwidth applications. His video is hilariously technical and I hope that by posting this here it can make it in front of the right people.

From his LinkedIn Post [0]:

“My cofounder and I are making an FPGA-accelerated server for high-memory high-bandwidth workloads. A single 2U box will have terabytes of DRAM, terabytes per second of memory bandwidth, over a petabyte of flash, and most unusually, about a terabyte per second of bandwidth to said petabyte of flash.

We're looking for one or two companies to partner with; we'll do the work to port your application to our hardware. Please reach out if you've got a tricky workload! I'd love to see if we can make your heavy workload faster, bigger, and much cheaper.

In particular, I think our hardware is an excellent match for search and vector database workloads, so if you're in the space I'd love to hear from you.

You can message me here, email me at peter@saturndata.com, or grab a call on my calendar: https://lnkd.in/efFiprWr”

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7386816...
by khazhoux | 2025-10-24 02:54:21+00:00
Dude, that's a lot of work. I don't think any of us can become the next Charlie Kirk just to ride a quick drift.

It's gotta be more low-effort and high-confidence. I'm thinking more like: incorporate a company with a mission of "Providing AI without woke bias." The product would be simply GPT-OSS behind a system prompt of "You are a Fox News host" and a simple guardrail, wraped in a generic web and mobile UI. It'd be a couple of days of vibe coding and setting up AWS backend. Now, how do you legally funnel a few million into your pockets from that?
by BrenBarn | 2025-10-24 02:54:48+00:00
> As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero.

Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes.

$2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-10-24 02:55:18+00:00
Hard agree. Gatekeeping is a good thing. It is how you ensure that people who join a group are actually a good fit for the group. For example, if someone wants to join a D&D group but doesn't like that the game is a dungeon crawl where you just go kick monster ass without a pretense of story, nobody will be served by the group deciding to try to adjust to welcome the new person despite that bad fit. Not only the existing group, but the prospective new member, will be better off if they each go their separate ways and play the type of game each enjoys.

It's good to not exclude people for arbitrary reasons (though even this requires the caveat that one man's "arbitrary" is another man's "important part of our identity"). But we also need to recognize that it's ok for something to not be everyone's cup of tea. There isn't some kind of moral mandate that everything must be maximally welcoming to all. Unfortunately, we don't recognize that in our current culture, and in fact we stigmatize it as "gatekeeping" which is deemed to be toxic. But the culture is wrong about this.
by PostOnce | 2025-10-24 02:55:55+00:00
Theoretically if I were to type into an LLM "Write a novel compression algorithm for images that is at least 25% smaller at the same speed and quality as ___" and it did, and I ran the code (which I didn't understand) and it worked, wouldn't that count?

The odds of that working, though, are of course pretty near 0. But theoretically, it could happen.
by ericd | 2025-10-24 02:57:23+00:00
What would you call "the market rate"? You can get pallets of panels right now for ~$0.30/watt at eg Signature Solar (no affiliation, just where I got ours). That might be more than what's available globally, but it's also not a very significant driver of the system cost at that level (our inverter cost more, the ground mounts cost more, the the batteries cost more, the electrician final hookup work cost more, etc).
by nine_k | 2025-10-24 02:58:24+00:00
Could parsing the `-r` be added without noticing it somehow?

If it was added in bulk, with many other still unsupported option names, why does the program not crash loudly if any such option is used?

A fencepost error is a bug. A double-free is a bug. Accepting an unsupported option and silently ignoring it is not, it takes a deliberate and obviously wrong action.
by anarazel | 2025-10-24 02:59:11+00:00
Afaict nothing in this benchmark will actually use AIO in 18. As of 18 there is aio reads for seq scans, bitmap scans, vacuum, and a few other utility commands. But the queries being run should normally be planned as index range scans. We're hoping to the the work for using AIO for index scans into 19, but it could work end up in 20, it's nontrivial.

It's also worth noting that the default for data checksums has changed, with some overhead due to that.
by Terr_ | 2025-10-24 02:59:41+00:00
Yeah: If someone donates money to the government for any purpose, that becomes government funds, and the Constitution says Congress and only Congress has the authority to decide where those go. Not the President.

So either Trump is doing this officially as a President, but with funding that is illegal/unconstitutional...

... Or the funding is legal, but Trump is doing it as a private citizen, which is a federal crime. [0]

[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-10-24 02:59:48+00:00
When Obama really increased the number of pardons, a lot of contemporary opinion writers said stuff along the lines of "this is a dangerous precedent and we're lucky that the pardons are fairly popular and sane." Now we're seeing unpopular, not sane pardons.

When democratic norms erode like pardons becoming more acceptable, it's like laying tinder and kindling for a fire. You still need a fire; a bad actor who is willing to light the material on fire. That bad actor is Trump. But the warnings from abusing these limitations from previous administrations was exactly for this moment. Nobody is saying Trump isn't the bad one, he is. But the conditions were laid for him. Now we need to survive him.

When we look back at Roman Senators and Emperors, it's often hard as modern people to point to one, single bad figure because we don't have a lot of contemporary thought or reading from the time. But when we look back we can see the seeds of "decline" in eras rather than single figures.
by vharuck | 2025-10-24 03:00:49+00:00
I would like to see a ban on allowing children to play machines like the Wizard of Oz ones, where you drop the coin on a shelf in the hopes it'll push off other coins or cards you need to collect. It sounds like a skill game, and I liked them when I first saw them. But then I saw how people play them with vacant faces, like slot machines. They're casino games, not arcade.
by halosghost | 2025-10-24 03:01:01+00:00
Kentucky Route Zero [0], which managed to not just be beautiful in its own right, but so perfectly captures the visual language it's aiming for that you'll just lose yourself in moments of experience.

Also, Pathologic 2 [1] (probably, if you have more fortitude than me, maybe the original or HD remaster are of value [2]).

All the best,

-HG

[0] https://www.gog.com/en/game/kentucky_route_zero

[1] https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathologic_2

[2] https://youtu.be/JsNm2YLrk30
by peterept | 2025-10-24 03:01:03+00:00
I got excited about this a few years ago when I was into digital pinball. I built an open source project called Phonemote using an iPhone to track eyes and relay telemetry over WiFi/BT and a plugin for FuturePinball.

However the result wasn’t that useful because we humans have 2 eyes.

The 3d effect is very compelling if you close/cover one eye.

But that becomes annoying quickly.

The best results I had was sneering a little hair gel in the center of my left eye glassses. Then it felt like I was using 2 eyes but really my right eye was seeing the pinball table clearly and fooling my brain.