MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Jedd | 2025-10-31 14:07:32+00:00
> We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.

Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.

But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?

(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)
by sdellis | 2025-10-31 14:08:56+00:00
These AI tools are hyped as "look how easy and fast it is to build an app with no coding experience." But then I see posts like yours saying that the tools are so _hard_ to use that developers with advanced skills struggle to get it to do what they can already do faster and better and with more satisfaction on their own.

Both "it's so easy" and "it's hard, but believe me, worth it someday" are completely unconvincing arguments to me. I'd rather just do my job well than spend all my time chasing someone's overhyped fantasy down a rabbit hole.
by ghaff | 2025-10-31 14:09:39+00:00
There are tons of examples of course, but one that jumps to mind is Oath of Fealty by Jerry Pournelle where one of the plot points is an implant that gives the chosen few access to an encyclopedic database. Of course, today, a smartphone with cell access provides that (or at least a more chaotic version of same) to more or less everyone. You could also reasonably argue that the encyclopedia in Asimov's Foundation trilogy makes somewhat similar assumptions.

I do think some sort of AR interface is somewhere in the future but it's almost certainly a long way off for mainstream adoption.
by tsimionescu | 2025-10-31 14:09:56+00:00
I'm not asking why you'd need a new transport protocol, that much is clear. The question is what is the disadvantage of building this new protocol on top of UDP, especially if you don't expect to work with middlebox developers to add special features for your new protocol.

The only thing I get from that document that answers this question to some extent is the extra overhead of the checksum field in UDP headers. In other places, they generally don't seem to actually discuss the option of building a QUIC-like transport, that is a transport-layer protocol that still exists on top of the UDP skeleton.
by aurintex | 2025-10-31 14:10:26+00:00
Hey HN, Riccardo (founder) here.

The link goes to our GitHub Manifesto. It explains the 'Why' behind aurintex: I believe the future of 'always-on' AI companions must be built on a foundation of absolute trust.

The default "Cloud-First" model can't provide this. So I'm proposing and building a model based on two principles: *"Fully Functional Offline"* and an *"Open Core"* trust model.

The `README` on GitHub explains this mission in detail. (The landing page, aurintex.com, is linked from there.)

I've cleared my entire afternoon and evening, and I'm here for your brutally honest feedback on this approach.

Is this a trust model you could actually get behind for an 'always-on' AI?

(P.S. This is the reboot of my 'Show HN' from Tuesday. My original launch failed because my 0-day-old account got rate-limited and I couldn't post this context. My mistake, and I appreciate you giving this a second look.)
by westurner | 2025-10-31 14:10:28+00:00
ScholarlyArticle: "Rapid, low-temperature nanodiamond formation by electron-beam activation of adamantane C–H bonds" (2025) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw2025

NewsArticle: "Scientists just found a way to grow diamonds without heat or pressure" (2025) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251029002917.h...
by xethos | 2025-10-31 14:10:48+00:00
Some of the law professor quotes in Wikipedia's "Significance" section may be of interest as far as "Known For" vs "Means":

> Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

Or

> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
by augusto-moura | 2025-10-31 14:11:08+00:00
Downloading things that you don't know about its common for every modern package manager out there, from maven, to nuget, to pip and npm. This is the new norm and there are reasons for it.

I don't think the old C/C++ way of relying on distro package managers would allow for the fast ecosystems people work nowadays.

Things are changing though, and people are pushing for more secure package managers with the same feature set as the old ones, which is possible.

I think this is the missing piece on the first wondering part of your comment. But I don't think we should be bashing the means without understanding the reasons
by saubeidl | 2025-10-31 14:12:20+00:00
> they are being put back in their country of origin at lightning speed.

Sure, sure, people are just being deported. Where did I hear that story before?

Oh, thats right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

It's not like anyone's talking about rounding them up in camps where they would be killed, right?

Oh, wait, what was that? https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-joke-alligato...

Huh.
by sunscream89 | 2025-10-31 14:13:07+00:00
Fascinating.

Uh, there is a global secret state level private enterprise looting the world and even conventional governments are there pwn?

You know, when China “hacked” the US telco infrastructure, that back door is actually owned by a private intelligence community enterprise that rents it back to the FBI the CIA and NSA.

These purchased all of this and more using post 9/11 “debt cards.”

Who else understands information is the next black gold and has Americas’ complicity to back up their thirst for more everything?
by wtcactus | 2025-10-31 14:13:25+00:00
My work is much more valuable than moving a broom around and washing some dishes. Anyone has the basic skills to clean a house, very few people have the skills to do advanced maths or physics, or engineering or even some forms of Mechanical labor.

The cleaning lady is not some rocket scientist, she is someone that has very low skills and therefore does low skilled labor: cleaning houses.
by reify | 2025-10-31 14:13:53+00:00
more Frankenstein science that benefits no one.

The question on my mind is; How did the poor mice get Alzheimer's.

found it!

To test the therapy, the scientists used genetically engineered mice designed to produce high levels of Aβ and display cognitive symptoms similar to those seen in Alzheimer’s patients.

similar!

cruel bastards.

How about we all chip in a few quid and force one of those Frankenstein research zombies to undergo the same treatment they give to mice. Create a genetically modified scientist GMS.

Trust the science
by westurner | 2025-10-31 14:14:17+00:00
ScholarlyArticle: "Quantum-Grade Nanodiamonds from a Single-Step, Industrial-Scale Pressure and Temperature Process" (2025) https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.20...

NewsArticle: "A faster, more affordable way to produce quantum nanodiamonds holds promise for medicine and industry" (2025) https://phys.org/news/2025-10-faster-quantum-nanodiamonds-me...
by KoolKat23 | 2025-10-31 14:14:34+00:00
I feel the entire philosophical distinction is tainted to the point where it should be retired and no longer discussed. It was useful as a thought experiment but folks in general have shown they are completely unable to understand this and instead treat it as some tribal dogma to which they must choose allegiance. It's become harmful.

I say it should be kept in the university library under lock and key, something philosophy professors can sit and debate in their spare time behind closed doors. /s
Are you drowning in AI code review noise? 70% of AI PR comments are useless
by Jet_Xu | 2025-10-31 14:14:44+00:00
Most AI code review tools generate 10-20 comments per PR. The problem? 80% are noise. Here's a framework for measuring signal-to-noise ratio in code reviews - and why it matters more than you think.

https://jetxu-llm.github.io/posts/low-noise-code-review/
by colechristensen | 2025-10-31 14:14:55+00:00
To be more clear than my vague references, 60 to 70 senators cornered Caesar and stabbed him to death to protect the republic. They killed him but didn't succeed in protecting the republic.

An extended shutdown, an actually refusing-to-function House of Representatives, and a president with not even the slightest respect for the Constitution... the comparisons to first century BCE Rome exaggerated or metaphorical.

Trump got someone to donate $130 million as an obvious symbol to try to buy military loyalty by paying salaries (nevermind it's about enough to cover a single nice lunch)
by Jackpillar | 2025-10-31 14:15:01+00:00
Yeah except for it has always been a tech hub because the term "tech hub" didn't exist before the Bay Area? I mean the first message sent over the precursor to the internet was from UCLA to the Stanford Research Institute in 1969, and the SF Bay Area having some of the first infrastructure for high-speed internet was a key factor into its position as the tech hub. Mind you this is all preceded by Hewlett Packard 30 years earlier setting the stage for the semiconductor revolution, and even this is preceded by 100 years with Leland Stanford. To much to talk about here as to why there is a unique mix of private capital, industry/government collusion, university research and development, and more that are entrenched in the region.

The makeup of tech companies employees doesn't remotely tell the full story of the advantages of the UC system, Stanford, and other universities in CA through research that feed into SV as the leading tech hub that cannot be replicated (See example of the invention of the internet above). I mean hell, 4 UC alum won nobel prizes this year alone, one of which was the chief scientist at Google's quantum AI.

But yeah sure, if we're talking in the context of "anything is possible" then yeah I concede, it can happen anywhere. Kind of a boring insight. The point is that no - it hasn't happened anywhere else to the extent of the bay area despite cities trying to for the past 30 years- and it won't happen for a very long time because of the converging mechanisms that took place over the past 100 years.
by tene80i | 2025-10-31 14:15:08+00:00
It's a website UX issue. If it were an apple issue, every website for apple software would have this problem, and they don't.

Anyway, three equal priority options for Windows is also very bad, from a UX standpoint. Two is bad! The point is that there should be a recommendation. Unless it's fine to send many users away confused, in which case no problem!
by LogicHound | 2025-10-31 14:16:05+00:00
They updated the graphic to include HPV style vehicles that are more aerodynamic than bicycles (usually just a bicycle with an aero-shell). I am not sure why this has come up now because I have an old bicycle book my Grandmother bought for me back in the late 90s that discusses these vehicles and it was known then they were more efficient.

> This article is putting a metric of efficiency, while ignoring the reasons why things like a dog may have less efficent locomotion over perfectly flat terrain, because there are very few natural landmarks that have perfectly flat terrain.

You can't control for this stuff and measure it really.

> I'd love to see a deeper comparison, how does efficiency of locomotion compare between animals within different types of environments, obstacles, etc.

Again this is difficult to control for. Other than particular areas where bicycle won't work (and there are very few places where that would apply), the bicycle is still likely to win out. Even if you have to get off occasionally to navigate over/under/around an obstacle you get all the benefits of efficiency for the majority of the time.
by bediger4000 | 2025-10-31 14:16:24+00:00
The depressing part is that rolling the dice works good enough in a few domains.

Need a variant press release? Good enough. Roll the dice to create a video of a royal personage flying an F35 over a constitutionally guaranteed peaceable assembly. The king is wearing his oxygen mask on his chin? Good enough! Need a goth porno waifu image? Good enough!
Show HN: I'm 17, built a face-verified social network to fight fake accounts
by whitelotusapp | 2025-10-31 14:16:33+00:00
Hey HN

I’m Arun, a 17-year-old developer from India. I built WhiteLotus, a new kind of social platform focused entirely on authentic human connection.

Every user is AI face-verified — so there are no bots, no fake profiles, and only one account per person.

Core Features:

Face-verified signups only — no spam or fake accounts

1-on-1 private chats with approved friends

Photo-based posting — keep it visual and real

“Kingdoms” (Fire, Water, Earth, Air) — social tribes that compete weekly

“Moments” — instant camera-only posts (no uploads, no filters)

My mission is to build a space where people connect authentically, grow social trust, and have fun — without the noise of bots or fake personas.

I built it with Flutter (frontend) and Django (backend). It’s live on the Play Store: [Play Store link here]

I’d love your feedback on:

How to improve engagement and retention

Any product or UX suggestions

Thoughts on the “real people only” concept

Thanks for reading — I’m trying to learn, iterate, and build something meaningful.

— Arun
by zdragnar | 2025-10-31 14:16:44+00:00
To be honest, this is what has always confused me about the land acknowledgements that are popular at the opening of events in various circles... it's not like any of the people doing this have an intention of giving the land back and going back to Europe.

Instead of whatever they're trying to do, it sounds more like they're rubbing it in the faces of the descendants.
by hermitcrab | 2025-10-31 14:18:02+00:00
I was a bit surprised about the efficiency of swimming as well. Obviously, water has much higher viscosity than air. But, on the other side, pretty much 100% of the muscle movement can be translated into forward movement and no need to expend energy moving up and down against gravity. Also, a fish can glide a bit, unlike a walking animal (less than a bird, obviously).

Also the fastest fish (sailfish) is similar to the fastest land animal (cheetah) at somewhere around 110kmh.
by lentil_soup | 2025-10-31 14:18:18+00:00
you could, even though I disagree, use that argument for some artifacts, but surely not for the massive collection of things from Greece and Egypt. Those are pretty obvious you can return to the modern countries that sit on those lands.

Event if culture and religion has changed those artifacts are part of those peoples heritage, if it weren't then why would the UK care about Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall? Or Italians about the Coliseum?

Just a single anecdotal point but I'm from Latin America and while there's little indigenous blood in me I would still consider indigenous culture and artifacts as part of my culture and that's at the extreme end of colonisation as natives were pretty much wiped out.
by potato3732842 | 2025-10-31 14:18:53+00:00
It's Spiderman pointing at Spiderman. They're all guilty.

Healthcare is 17% of GDP. You literally can't do that without having a TON of people benefitting because if it were only a small number of people benefiting (e.g. "just doctors" or "just insurance companies") the politicians would have long since voted to throw them under the bus to reap the bajillion votes they'd get from everyone else.
by npilk | 2025-10-31 14:19:05+00:00
It's absolutely reasonable to criticize the decision and feel like you're losing an option in the future. I guess I would expect this to scan more as disappointment, rather than anger or the sense of being 'ripped off' which some people were expressing.

But these days I use (the free version of) Figma for a lot of what I would have used Affinity for, so I am surely not as sensitive to this change as people who use their tools every day.

I also wonder if the paradigm shift to SaaS has caused us to have more forward-looking perspectives about software in general (rather than focusing on what exists today).
by 9rx | 2025-10-31 14:19:10+00:00
> If something went wrong while initializing the GPU, then that'd be an exceptuion/bug/"programming error" most likely.

That depends if it is due to the programmer making a mistake in the code or an environmental condition (e.g. failing hardware). The former is exceptional if detected, a bug if not detected (i.e. the program errantly carries on as if nothing happened, much the dismay of the user), while the latter is a regular error.

> But then for example if there is no GPU at all on the system, it's neither a "programming error" nor something the user could really do something about, but it is exceptional

Not having a GPU isn't exceptional in any sense of the word. It is very much an expected condition. Normally the programmer will probe the system to detect if there is one and if there isn't, fall back to some other option (e.g. CPU processing or, at very least, gracefully exiting with feedback on how to resolve).

The programmer failing to do that is exceptional, though. Exceptions are "runtime compiler errors". A theoretical compiler could detect that you forgot to check for the presence of a GPU before your program is ever run.

The grey area is malfunctioning CPU/memory. That isn't programmer error, but we also don't have a good way to think about it as a regular error either. This is what "bug" was originally intended to refer to, but that usage moved on long ago and there is seemingly no replacement.
by jvanderbot | 2025-10-31 14:19:13+00:00
An interface is a library decision, not a language decision. The level of abstraction possible is part of a language decision. GP is saying that this adds "too much" possible abstraction, and therefore qualifies as "too high level". Another benchmark about "too high level" would be that it requires precisely the "guess the internal plumbing" tests that you describe.

Not really advocating anything, just connecting the two a little better.
by jongjong | 2025-10-31 14:19:19+00:00
Good to know that the brain finds a way to flush itself while awake. I think I've become pretty good at putting unused parts of my brain to sleep while awake. My brain is like that of a dolphin now.

But on rare occasions (like a couple of times a year), I get migraine auras and stuff disappears from my field of view. Can last about an hour. I feel like that's my visual cortex falling asleep.
by vmg12 | 2025-10-31 14:20:01+00:00
Here is a charitable perspective on what's happening:

- Nvidia has too much cash because of massive profits and has nowhere to reinvest them internally.

- Nvidia instead invests in other companies that use their gpus by providing them deals that must be spent on nvidia products.

- This accelerates the growth of these companies, drives further lock in to nvidia's platform, and gives nvidia an equity stake in these companies.

- Since growth for these companies is accelerated, future revenue will be brought forward for nvidia and since these investments must be spent on nvidia gpus it drives further lock in to their platform.

- Nvidia also benefits from growth due to the equity they own.

This is all dependent on token economics being or becoming profitable. Everything seems to indicate that once the models are trained, they are extremely profitable and that training is the big money drain. If these models become massively profitable (or at least break even) then I don't see how this doesn't benefit Nvidia massively.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-31 14:20:16+00:00
This is such a strange article -- there's nothing particularly unusual going on here.

The first example basically stands in for all of them -- Microsoft invests $13B in OpenAI, and OpenAI spends $13B on Azure. This is literally just OpenAI purchasing Microsoft cloud usage with OpenAI's stock rather than its cash. There is nothing unusual, illicit, or deceptive about this. This is entirely normal. You can finance your spending through debt or equity. They're financing through equity, as most startups do, and they presumably get a better deal (better rates, more guaranteed access) via Microsoft than via other random investors and then buying the cloud compute retail from Microsoft.

This isn't deceiving any investors. This is all out in the open. And it's entirely normal business practice. Nothing of this is an indicator of a bubble or anything.

Or take the deal with Oracle -- Oracle is building data centers for OpenAI, with the guarantee that OpenAI will use them. That's just... a regular business deal. What is even newsworthy about this? NYT thinks these are "circular" deals, but by this logic every deal is a "circular" deal, because both sides benefit. This is just... normal capitalism.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-10-31 14:21:12+00:00
The article appears to be conflating three different things:

1. The decline and eventual collapse of Gigablast

2. The decline of Google/Bing

3. The poor quality of other search engines like Chatnoir.

It's not clear that these three things are related. Gigablast seems as though it were a personal project, and indications are that it was mismanaged. (Posting bizarre political messages -- the sort of thing you'd see on novelty bumper stickers -- on your company's website does not inspire confidence.)

The decline of Google's search engine has been well characterized, e.g. in "Enshittification" and Ed Zitron's work, and it's quite well understood as the reflection of a perverse incentives problem.

Small search engines, e.g. Chatnoir, were never good. Bing, also, was never good -- outside a few narrow niches, like video search, and that very temporarily.
by btilly | 2025-10-31 14:21:38+00:00
What's going on here is that your momentum changes whenever you experience a force. Your energy changes whenever you experience a force towards or from the direction that you are traveling.

The force from the rails at all points is at right angles to the direction of motion. So your energy doesn't change. Your momentum is constantly changing. And you're doing it by shoving the Earth the other way. But the Earth is big enough that nobody notices.

Now to the orbital example. In the Newtonian approximation, an orbit works similarly. In a circular orbit, you're exchanging momentum with the planet, but your energy remains the same. The closer the orbit, the more speed you need to maintain this against a stronger gravity, and the faster you have to move.

In an elliptical orbit, you're constantly exchanging momentum with the planet, but now you're also exchanging between gravitational potential energy, and kinetic energy. You speed up as you fall in, and slow down as you move out. Which means that you are moving below orbital speed at the far end of your orbit, and above when you are close.

Now to this paradox. Slowing down causes you to shift which elliptical orbit you are in, to one which is overall faster. Therefore slowing down puts you ahead in half an orbit, and then you'll never stop being ahead.
by exe34 | 2025-10-31 14:21:56+00:00
I feel like none of the answers have addressed you train example correctly. The momentum is exchanged with the Earth. So the Earth+train still have the same total momentum. The energy is mostly conserved (ignoring the friction that's needed to stay on the track). You can do the same by running past a lamp post and extending a hand to grab it - you'll change direction.