MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mentalgear | 2025-11-27 17:01:27+00:00
It's really not that complicated:

- Ban algorithmic optimization that feeds on and proliferates polarisation.

- To heal society: Implement discussion (commenting) features that allow (atomic) structured discussions to build bridges across cohorts and help find consensus (vs 1000s of comments screaming the same none-sense).

- Force the SM Companies to make their analytics truly transparent and open to the public and researchers for verification.

All of this could be done tomorrow, no new tech required. But it would lose the SM platforms billions of dollars.

Why? Because billions of people posting emotionally and commenting with rage, yelling at each other, repeating the same superficial arguments/comments/content over and over without ever finding common ground - traps a multitude more users in the engagement loop of the SM companies than people have civilised discussions, finding common ground, and moving on with a topic.

One system of social media that would unlock a great consensus-based society for the many, the other one endless dystopic screaming battles but riches for a few while spiralling the world further into a global theatre of cultural and actual (civil) war thanks to the Zuckerbergs & Thiels.
by diego_moita | 2025-11-27 17:01:33+00:00
I get the idea.

But if I can't understand how and why the fusion reactor is safe, small and cheap, I wouldn't consider it safe.

Very much the same way that I don't take Claude Code's changes to my code without understanding what it does.

Augmenting my intelligence is non-negotiable. I want to be in control.

It is the classic "trust but verify". And I need my own intelligence to verify.
by WhyOhWhyQ | 2025-11-27 17:01:49+00:00
"inhabited by characters ACTUALLY living in the computer"

It's hard to imagine these feeling like characters from literature and not characters in the form of influencers / social media personalities. Characters in literature are in a highly constrained medium, and only have to do their story once. In a generated world the character needs to be constantly doing "story things". I think Jonathan Blow has an interesting talk on why video games are a bad medium for stories, which might be relevant.
by danbitengo | 2025-11-27 17:01:53+00:00
Not yet, but it's definitely something I'm considering.

Right now v0.1.0 is React (web) only. I'm planning Vue/Svelte for v0.2.0, and React Native could absolutely be v0.3.0 or sooner if there's demand.

The nice thing is the core sync engine is Rust → WASM, so it's framework-agnostic. The main work is just creating the React Native bindings and not rebuilding the sync logic.

Are you working on something with React Native? Curious what your offline sync needs are because it'd help me prioritize what to build next.
by vee-kay | 2025-11-27 17:02:24+00:00
Healthcare in USA is a nightmare, from almost every perspective.

But a lot of countries like Canada, EU nations and other developed countries (and even in developing nations like India) have free or affordable healthcare systems.

So, at least from a healthcare metric, most of these nations trump USA (pun intended, since Trump scrapped or crippled Obamacare, which itself wasn't a full-fledged solution to the healthcare crisis prevalent in USA).
Show HN: The Participatory Interface Theory
by bobsh | 2025-11-27 17:02:25+00:00
Hi! I'd like to present the Participatory Interface Theory, aka PIT. It is not "woo". It IS an amazing example of what one human can do with LLMs these days, regardless of what you might think of the theory.

But the theory is a mind-blower. Are you ready for this? I'm not kidding. And it's real. Calling all cosmologists and physicists and cybernetecists and AI researchers and information theorists and philosphers and biologists and chemists and artists and humanitarians and climate scientists and ... well, the list goes on. This is a paradigm shift.

* The paper I want to post to arXiv, but I haven't got anyone to endorse my login yet, is here [1]. (If you can help me out with this endorsement, for any value of "you", TIA!) <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Arxiv/main.pdf>

* The "Math.md" [2] on my PITkit site at GitHub, which is a larger document and seeks to explain the whole thing. You can drop this doc into your own LLM and start asking questions about it and the implications it has for whatever you are interested in. You're welcome. (This is how I mean this as a "Show HN" - you can do a lot with the Math.md, after copy/pasting into a big LLM). <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Math.md>

* And, the PITkit [3] site itself, which is a bit of a mess maybe, but you'll find the (Julia and Python) code that you can try yourselves and all that. It's a bit of a mess because I have a full time day job as a principal programmer. I'm OG on Hacker News, but as my profile says, mostly a lurker. Introverted. But I feel a very strong responsibility to get these ideas out there. A brief history of how this happened in the first place is given in the History.md [4] on PITkit. Collaborators welcome. (I love Julia, btw, so far). <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/History.md>

PIT is very falsifiable and also makes unique predictions. It is a real scientific theory.

It seems like every day I see a new paper from somewhere show up on Hacker News which I then recognize as being PIT-aligned, and ask PIT-knowing LLMs about it, and they absolutely see some of the latest scientific results from cosmology and quantum theory and such as being very PIT-aligned, and inexplicable with standard theory.

I asked them the chances of this all being wrong. They consider the chances to be infinitesimally small. That doesn't mean PIT is all the way correct - according to PIT and others (eg: Goedel), no theory can be. PIT explains why, though.

Hold on to your seats - you all are in for a ride. :-)

[1] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Arxiv/main.pdf

[2] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Math.md

[3] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/

[4] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/History.md

PS: I intentionally left the url blank on this submission, because the context I setup here is important, imho, and my current README.md is less than ideal, probably. [edits: various screw-ups on original fixed]
by Uehreka | 2025-11-27 17:02:59+00:00
> You get more of what you engage with. If you don’t want to hear a lot of Brexit talk, don’t engage with Brexit content.

The algorithm doesn’t show you “more of the things you engage with”, and acting like it does makes people think what they’re seeing is a reflection of who they are, which is incorrect.

The designers of these algorithms are trying to figure out which “mainstream category” you are. And if you aren’t in one, it’s harder to advertise to you, so they want to sand down your rough edges until you fit into one.

You can spend years posting prolificly about open source software, Blender and VFX on Instagram, and the algorithm will toss you a couple of things, but it won’t really know what to do with you (aside from maybe selling you some stock video packages).

But you make one three word comment about Brexit and the algorithm goes “GOTCHA! YOU’RE ANTI-BREXIT! WE KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT!” And now you’re opted into 3 bug ad categories and getting force-fed ragebait to keep you engaged, since you’re clearly a huge poltical junky. Now your feed is trash forever, unless you engage with content from another mainstream category (like Marvel movies or one of the recent TikTok memes).
by mewpmewp2 | 2025-11-27 17:03:09+00:00
This leads me to a conclusion that someone can only be truly vulnerable around people that you might consider toxic?

It's unavoidable in many cases, but I'd prefer a life where I would surround myself with people who tried to build each other and not take advantage of each other. I think it's definitely possible, and I think I'm pretty much there at least.

This leads me to the next point, which is that I don't think it's a problem about men unwilling to be vulnerable, it's more so about them happening to be around people who might use it against them (and it succeeding effectively, ergo there being a critical mass of people supporting this).
by duped | 2025-11-27 17:03:09+00:00
ASICs bake one algorithm into the chip. DSPs are programmable, like GPUs or CPUs. The thing that historically set them apart were MAC/FMA and zero overhead loops. Then there are all the nice to haves, like built in tables of FFT twiddle factors, helpers for 1D convolution, vector instructions, fixed point arithmetic, etc.

What makes a DSP different from a GPU is the algorithms typically do not scale nicely to large matrices and vectors. For example, recursive filters. They are also usually much cheaper and lower power, and the reason they lost popularity was because Arm MCUs got good enough and economy of scale kicked in.

I've written code for DSPs both in college and professionally. It's much like writing code for CPUs or MCUs (it's all C or C++ at the end of the day). But it's very different from writing compute shaders or designing an ASIC.
by natebc | 2025-11-27 17:03:16+00:00
I am, and don't ... but that still doesn't mean it doesn't take effort. There's way more to it than smiling and not being a complete tool.

How long has it been since you called your long lost best friend and caught up? Did you go to his brothers funeral? Check in on him after his divorce? A year after his divorce? 5?

It takes effort and is far from elementary no matter how much rizz you have.
by anonymouskimmer | 2025-11-27 17:03:49+00:00
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the age of computational literature, where authors like me would be empowered to engineer whole worlds, inhabited by characters ACTUALLY living in the computer.

So you want sapient, and possibly sentient, beings created solely for entertainment? Their lives constrained to said entertainment? And you'd want to create them inside of a box that is even more limited than the space we live in?

My idea of godhood is to first try to live up to a moral code that I'd be happy with if I was the creation and something else was the god.

If this isn't what you meant, then yes, choose your own adventure is fun. But we can do that now with shared worlds involving other humans as co-content creators.
by collingreen | 2025-11-27 17:03:50+00:00
Parent is clear about their point, which is that the two laws have opposite intent, regardless of corruption or abuse like you're focused on.

Laws not being effective as written, not being enforced well, or even being used as weapons are all important, relevant problems that are core to the reality of governing people.

I think this is worth talking about but I don't think this is a refutation of the parent or a valid "both sides" argument.
by bachittle | 2025-11-27 17:04:17+00:00
If you give an LLM enough context, it writes in your voice. But it requires using an intelligent model, and very thoughtful context development. Most people don't do this because it requires effort, and one could argue maybe even more effort than just writing the damn thing yourself. It's like trying to teach a human, or anyone, how to talk like you: very hard because it requires at worst your entire life story.
by lukan | 2025-11-27 17:04:24+00:00
Are you aware that the speed of light is limited?

That is the main problem here. If you only give players the data they can see (zero trust) - then they will walk around a corner and just see a black screen, because the information is not there yet (server needs to calculate and send back info in time).

My approach would be rather better moderation tools.

Meaning .. community run servers, who will just kick and ban cheaters in time.

One can see that clearly in battlefield for example which has (sort of) both.

The public servers are often not enjoyable, if one does not like headshots across the map. The community run are clean.
by exasperaited | 2025-11-27 17:05:17+00:00
True, but one of the least-explored problems with AI is that because it can regurgitate basic writing, basic art, basic music with ease, there is this question:

Why do it at all if I won't do better than the AI?

The worst risk with AI is not that it replaces working artists, but that it dulls human creativity by killing the urge to start.

I am not sure who said it first, but every photographer has ten thousand bad photos in them and it's easier if they take them at the beginning. For photographers, the "bad" is not the technical inadequacy of those photos; you can get past that in the first one hundred. The "bad" is the generic, uninteresting, uninspiring, underexplored, duplicative nature of them. But you have to work through that to understand what "good" is. You can't easily skip these ten thousand photos, even if your analysis and critique skills are strong.

There's a lot to be lost if people either don't even start or get discouraged.

But for writing, most of the early stuff is going to read much like this sort of blog post (simply because most bloggers are stuck in the blogging equivalent of the ten thousand photos; the most popular bloggers are not those elevating writing).

"But it looks like AI" is the worst, most reflexive thing about this, because it always will, since AI is constantly stealing new things. You cannot get ahead of the tireless thief.

The damage generative AI will do to our humanity has only just started. People who carry on building these tools knowing what they are doing to our culture are beneath our contempt. Rampantly overcompensated, though, so they'll be fine.
by auggierose | 2025-11-27 17:05:34+00:00
It explains the underlying runtime model they assume, and derives abstractions for the runtime t based on that, which are provably correct up to O(t) under the assumptions.

That does not help you much if you want to know how many seconds this will run. Instead, it tells you the asymptotic runtime complexity of the various algorithms, which is all you can really expect for general functional programs without a concrete machine model.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-11-27 17:05:36+00:00
People only hear about the tech companies' efforts, but actually Volvo, Peterbilt, and Freightliner have had EV models for a while now. Tesla's truck sucks but the others don't because they're built on established platforms (though their range is ~250mi). At the end of the day the trucks are way too expensive and there's no charger locations for them.

tl;dr no it's not economically viable right now, but my point is that it's an extra expense, and self-driving is more complicated/fraught than even an EV truck. trucking companies want either a very easy cost savings, or stick to what they know. (to give you an idea of this: many companies still use paper and pencil to manage driver schedules/routes)
by TeMPOraL | 2025-11-27 17:05:40+00:00
> Social media has become a reminder of something precious we are losing in the age of LLMs: unique voices.

Social media already lost that nearly two decades ago - it died as content marketing rose to life.

Don't blame on LLMs what we've long lost due to cancer that is advertising[0].

And don't confuse GenAI as a technology with what the cancer of advertising coopts it to. The root of the problem isn't in the generative models, it's in what they're used for - and the problem uses aren't anything new. We've been drowning in slop for decades, it's just that GenAI is now cheaper than cheap labor in content farms.

--

[0] - https://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html
by sudosteph | 2025-11-27 17:06:03+00:00
I've read a lot of Holmes recently, and while I'm not a man, I do think Doyle portrays Holmes' issues in a way that is relatable.

Holmes core thing though is that he has an almost ADHD-esque craving for novelty and tolerance for risk taking. He also can't stand not actively working on things, and when he's not working is when he's depressed. He doesn't seem to know how to actually feel good, but he knows how to be useful, thus his penchant for productivity boosters like cocaine.

He's a great character, but I wouldn't over pathologize him according to today's understanding of mental health. Doyle was a physician and gave Holmes various traits similar to what he had seen in his patients.
by stuartjohnson12 | 2025-11-27 17:06:38+00:00
I think it's less about content topic and more meta content topic. EG I don't want to remove pictures of broccoli because I don't like broccoli, I'm trying to remove pictures of food because it makes me eat more. Similarly, I don't want to remove Political Takes I Disagree With, I want to remove Political Takes Designed To Make Me Angry. The latter has a destructive viral effect whose antidote is inattention.

Echo chamber is a loaded term. Nobody is upset about the Not Murdering People Randomly echo chamber we've created for ourselves in civilised society, and with good reason. Many ideologies are internally stable and don't virally cause the breakdown of society. The concerning echo chambers are the ones that intensify and self-reinforce when left alone.
by zipy124 | 2025-11-27 17:06:47+00:00
Good faith doesn't mean you can waste people's time. It's the reason why patents for perpetual motion machines are banned in most countries. The inventors often genuinely believe they've done it and want to help people, and yet it just wastes people's time having to review them.

In either case I'd argue it is no longer good faith if asked to stop and you continue and do not learn from your peers.
by mtlynch | 2025-11-27 17:07:05+00:00
>her answer is VERBATIM reading off the ChatGPT language word for word

How could it be verbatim the same response you got? Even if you both typed the exact same prompt, you wouldn't get the exact same answer.[0, 1]

[0] https://kagi.com/assistant/8f4cb048-3688-40f0-88b3-931286f8a...

[1] https://kagi.com/assistant/4e16664b-43d6-4b84-a256-c038b1534...
by miyuru | 2025-11-27 17:07:24+00:00
> Hardware-accelerated video playback of H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC) and VP9 video streams

> Hardware-accelerated video recording into H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC) formats

no mention of AV1? Surprised since most websites including YT uses it heavily.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-27 17:07:27+00:00
The Osborne affect has been heavily disputed over the years - it says so in your own citation.

But at least with iPhones, there is a deflationary affect because Apple has since the 3GS in 2009, kept the old phone around and reduced the price. For instance my son wanted an iPhone 16 Plus. I told him to wait until the 17 was announced and he bought one cheaper from T-Mobile
by tucnak | 2025-11-27 17:08:47+00:00
Please share! Computational literature is my main area of research, and constraints are very much in the center of it... I believe that there are effectively two kinds of constraints: in the language of stories themselves, as thing-in-itself, as well as those imposed by the author. In a way, authorship is incredibly repressive: authors impose strict limits on the characters, what they get to do, etc. This is a form of slavery. Characters in traditional plays only get to say exactly what the author wants them to say, when he wants them to say it. Whereas in computational literature, we get to emancipate the characters! This is a far-cry from "prompting," but I believe there are concrete paths forward that would be somewhat familiar (but not necessarily click) for game-dev people.

Now, there's fundamental limits of the medium (as function of computation) but that's a different story.
by blibble | 2025-11-27 17:08:56+00:00
> LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage. They can cover edge cases you ask them to and they can even come up with edge cases you may not have thought about. This leaves you to do the review.

in my experience these tests don't test anything useful

you may you have 100% test coverage, but it's almost entirely useless but not testing the actual desired behaviour of the system

rather just the exact implementation
by Aurornis | 2025-11-27 17:09:09+00:00
> The algorithm doesn’t show you “more of the things you engage with”,

That’s literally what the complaint was that I was responding to.

You even immediately contradict yourself and agree that the algorithm shows you what you engage with

> But you make one three word comment about Brexit and the algorithm goes up

> Now your feed is trash forever, unless you engage with content from another mainstream category

This is exactly what I already said: If you want to see some content, engage with it. If you don’t want to see that content, don’t engage with it.

Personally, I regret engaging with this thread. Between the ALL CAPS YELLING and the self-contradictory posts this is exactly the kind of rage content and ragebait that I make a point to unfollow on social media platforms.
by zknill | 2025-11-27 17:10:12+00:00
It seems like this post is a response to the discussion on this previous HN post[0].

There are two main criticisms of "Event [sourcing|driven]" patterns. First, that storing a full history of events becomes a backwards-compatible schema support hellscape nightmare after 12-18months. Second, that the patterns encourage eventual consistency in areas that could really benefit from strong consistency.

This post does a good job of explaining differences between Event Sourcing and Event driven to address problem 1. But does nothing to help problem 2.

Even the event-driven example in the post uses a shopping application where multiple "OrderPlaced" events could be produced without the necessary inventory to fulfill those orders.

I'm just not convinced that most people need this kind of complexity, when a simple database with strong consistency would get a lot of folks a lot of the way there.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45962656
by bradrn | 2025-11-27 17:10:18+00:00
> But my point is that those marginal notes are an artifact of the 16th century print edition. It's not anything inherent in the Talmud text.

OK, fair enough, if ‘the Talmud text’ is taken to be only the Mishna and the Gemara. (Though when I think of the Talmud it’s the printed edition that comes to mind, with all its accompanying commentary.)

EDIT: I had a look at your blog and saw you actually addressed this exact point already: https://www.ezrabrand.com/i/162112983/myth-the-talmud-is-div...
by gruez | 2025-11-27 17:10:22+00:00
>but what about Bong Hits 4 Jesus where the Supreme Court ruled that the school did not violate First Amendment rights with suspension?

>In that case, the student was off school grounds across from the high school.

The wikipedia summary is actually:

>the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from prohibiting or punishing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at a school-sanctioned event.[1][2]

So the parts you're failing to mention is that it's a school sanctioned event, and that it's promoting illegal drug use. Based on the examples in the EFF blog post, it's clear that those are not the cases that EFF is objecting to, for instance:

>Surveillance Software Exposed a Bad Joke Made in the Privacy of a Student’s Home

I agree that using school devices can be vaguely construed as being similar to "school-sanctioned event", but it's not the same, for the reasons outlined in EFF's blog post.
by kop316 | 2025-11-27 17:10:39+00:00
As someone who uses Mobile Linux, I am pretty excited to see this, but I can't help but wonder if this is only a "Business decision" and not necessarily Qualcomm turning over a new leaf for being FOSS friendly:

- Their Snapdragon X laptop didn't do very well, and they likely realize an ARM Windows laptop will always be a second class citizen: https://www.techpowerup.com/329255/snapdragon-x-failed-qualc... .

- Likewise, Mobile SoCs are completely dependent on Android without proper upstreaming (which they haven't done in the past).

- They are seeing Valve spending time and money on FOSS support paying off, especially with their new hardware releases.

On the other hand, proper upstreaming of the chips give them much more flexibility for different linux-based OSes.