MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by h4kunamata | 2025-11-20 01:01:36+00:00
Gaming on Linux always sucked because of many factors:

1. Linux decades ago was not "new user friendly"

2. Wine and PLayOnLinux was all we had with endless problem, and heavy dependency on Windows files like DirectX and libraries

3. Windows dominated the gaming market

4. 3D GPU driver was non-existent

The single reason why gaming on Linux now is better than Windows, has one name: Valve

SteamDeck/SteamOS changed everything, the whole Wine process is managed by the OS and no longer by the user. You may need to change the Proton version, that is all. That also pushed GPU drivers to be better supported on Linux.

Valve single handled what gaming on Linux has become. I run Mint Cinnamon Linux, and even tho it is not "SteamOS", I can play Steam games just fine.

Microsoft terrible takes and AI, is also pushing gamers over to Linux, better FPS on Linux than Windows. The only restriction is kernel anti-cheat software that only runs on Windows, but many games do not use that and the ones that do use it like COD(dead game), BF, etc, isn't everybody cup of tea.

If it wasn't for Valve, Linux gaming would still be as dead as it has always been.

To make it more perfect, users that use their computer for browsing, writing docs (LibreOffice), etc, can be done on Linux for free.

You as a computer user in 2025, you have little to no excuse to try Linux, but try something good like Mint Cinnamon Linux that is extremely new user friendly, good for browsing, good for development work, solid for gaming, video editing is chef kiss, etc, etc. Avoid Ubuntu (they are going proprietary).
by array_key_first | 2025-11-20 01:02:44+00:00
Right, but there's also the competing religious zealots who are ideologically opposed to regulation... like as a concept.

What you need to realize is that of course companies hate regulations. Every company, anywhere on Earth, will tell you regulation X is bad. All of them. They will do everything they can possibly do to not have the regulation.

When slavery was outlawed in the US, you can bet your ass that every single bad-faith recreation of slavery was tried. Many of them highly successful, and some taking over 100 years (yes, really!) to be fixed.

What that means is that, just because a company puts up a cookie banner, or says "this law sucks", doesn't mean you should take that to heart. Of course, to them, it sucks, and it's too complicated, and it's all legalese, and la dee da. They would prefer to hire children, okay? And we know that, for a fact, because they did. So just, grain of salt.

Doesn't mean the law is good either, but just know these are the adversarial forces here.
by zdimension | 2025-11-20 01:02:58+00:00
57 is 3 times 19.

The standard divisibility rule for 3, 6 and 9 in base 10 is to sum the digits until you only have one left and check if it's one of those. Here, 5+7=12, 1+2=3, so 57 is divisible by 3.
by asacrowflies | 2025-11-20 01:04:56+00:00
Why not? As we get pushed more into a corner on this obviously self evident logic chain. Many of us WILL NOT EVER comply with this absurd oppressive tyrannical control of computing and communication and information. We might as well embrace the same non arguments of the over the top second amendment people.

It's literally the silly meme. You will take my gun/GNU from my cold dead hands lol
by afavour | 2025-11-20 01:04:59+00:00
> They are facinated by llms that they are pouring down money to AI related companies. Can you blame them? Can’t deny, I am also fascinated by llms.

I don’t think they’re fascinated by LLMs in the way the average Hacker News user is. They are fascinated by the pipedream (intended) of LLMs enabling them to lay off masses of workers and having AI do the work instead. It fascinates them the same way offshoring has fascinated them for years.
by rconti | 2025-11-20 01:05:36+00:00
> I suspect that the Model 3 headlights are often maladjusted as they have a user/driver-accessible headlight aiming menu and it looks to me like a lot of Tesla owners get in to that menu and do some freelance aiming.

There's just no way that more than 0.5% of drivers of any model are going to this level of tinkering. I have a Model 3, and I've never seen that menu. And I post here!

One contributing factor to people noticing "the blue light means you're blinding people" is that it's just a blue light outline on an already blinding white dash screen (and in the case of the tesla, an OFFSET dash screen).

"Back in my day", the blue high beam light was the brightest damn thing on the cluster, so you KNEW when your brights were on. Now you have to _look_ for the indicator.
by pimlottc | 2025-11-20 01:05:36+00:00
> Both Bill Gates and Linus understand backwards compatibility as a sacrosanct principle.

I will always bang the drum for Java for doing this well. Making changes to a heavily used language is _hard_. Sure, the speed of progress can be slow, but Java has managed to introduce major improvements (and deprecations) without causing a schism. That deserves respect.
by 0xWTF | 2025-11-20 01:06:00+00:00
I usually look at garage sales as displays of things you shouldn't buy. I feel like this is even more ... that. It would be helpful if Amazon posted to the return rates of this stuff.

Random samples being even more valuable than biased samples, it would be even more helpful if salvage services scanned all the barcodes and posted everything that's returned from everywhere.

But how do you make money on that? How does society recognize the value of that downward pressure on waste?
by bfkwlfkjf | 2025-11-20 01:06:02+00:00
Is this the ritual of getting together with a person and checking that their fingerprint match what you see on the app?

If this is that case what will happen is that people will start verifying everyone (because they might want to text to strangers that they can't bother verifying because the stakes are so low) and so verification will lose all meaning.
by j16sdiz | 2025-11-20 01:06:15+00:00
I am not saying this is impossible, but I am down voting this because this is _not an interesting discussion_.

The whole point of having an online discussion forum is to exchange and create new ideas. What you are advocating is essentially "maybe we can stop generating new ideas because we don't have to. we should just sit and wait"... Well, yes, no, maybe. but this is not what I expect to get from here.
by GuB-42 | 2025-11-20 01:06:21+00:00
I think what killed Perl is that no one wants to invest into it. And not because of Perl 6.

It is a great language for quick and dirty scripts, one liners... But no one wants to start a big project in Perl, and I think for good reasons. With only the "quick and dirty" use case remaining, people didn't want to invest into a language for that, it is throwaway, that's the point. So it was left to die slowly.

I don't think that Perl 6 took away the Perl community, I don't think the people on Perl 5 and the ones on Perl 6 were of same kind, the former just wanted to continue using their "Swiss Army Chainsaw", while the latter wanted to design an innovative language. It has created some confusion, but I believe it is minor.

If I want to point at one thing that killed Perl, I would go with PHP. Websites were a common use case for bigger Perl projects. Now that PHP does it better, what's the point of Perl for that application?
by array_key_first | 2025-11-20 01:06:23+00:00
It's also true.

Not every business model is viable, and that's life. I can't run a hitman business. Because that's illegal. Oh well, too bad, so sad. This is what makes the world a somewhat decent place.

If we make things that suck ass illegal and then, as a byproduct, a bunch of businesses can no longer make money - then good. That's the correct outcome. This is how a free market works. You want to win customers? Make a good product, have a good model, don't cheat by lying to customers, or doing shit without their consent.

We don't want scams, scams are bad. If those go away that's a net benefit for humanity.
by samename | 2025-11-20 01:06:23+00:00
This is deeply concerning. No parent should be letting their kids faces be scanned with this. They claim to “delete” the image a videos after the scan, but make no mistake, the signature is saved and will be used to track the child online for the rest of their life. We need to have better protections around biometrics. Surveillance is not the solution we want.
by totetsu | 2025-11-20 01:06:27+00:00
https://element.io/en/help#encryption-device-verification

> After Alice logs in on a new device, she uses her cryptographic identity to demonstrate to Bob that the new device genuinely belongs to her, rather than being added by someone else with access to her account. She can do this either by entering her recovery key (which gives the new device immediate access to her cryptographic identity ), or by carrying out an interactive verification from an existing verified device.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-11-20 01:09:05+00:00
There are parental controls that don’t seem to do much good at all. I set a filter so that my 6-year-old son would only see content that was rated for kids. The next thing I know I see he’s playing a prison riot simulator and having a shootout with the police. There were some appropriate games, but the screening just isn’t serious. When it’s game time, we pretty much stick to Mario and offline Minecraft.
by embedding-shape | 2025-11-20 01:09:30+00:00
I think DaVinci Resolve probably have the best, professional-grade usage of ML models today, but they're not "AI Features Galore" about it when it's there. They might mention it as "Paint Out Unwanted Objects" or similar. From the latest release (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/wha...), I think I could spot 3-4 features at least that are using ML underneath, but aren't highlighted as "AI" at all. Still very useful stuff.
by komali2 | 2025-11-20 01:09:38+00:00
> Evidence shows that it is not as inherent and built-in from birth as many people think, but is better characterised as a self-belief that can change over time.

I have a lot of evidence in front of me that shows the opposite. What are you reading to lead you to the opposite conclusion?

> Detransitioners are probably the best-known example.

Transgenderism is incredibly rare in populations: .1% to .6% of the population. Of that, detransitioners are also incredibly rare: about 1%, and it's not clear yet what percentage of those stop taking puberty blockers or hormones because of financial reasons. Doesn't exactly make the case...

> As well as that, there are the "gender-fluid" people whose identity fluctuates rapidly rather than being fixed.

Correct, because gender is indeed a spectrum. Again that just seems to be making my case for me...
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-11-20 01:11:35+00:00
> Many HNers probably wont (or cant) remember the world of desktop mail clients...

If there are people who have never used a desktop mail client, I will say you owe it to yourself to try one. Web clients suck compared to desktop clients, it's not even close between the two. Sticking with just the Gmail interface (or whatever) is so limiting; definitely give alternatives a shot if you haven't.
by carlosjobim | 2025-11-20 01:11:46+00:00
What argument are you making? LLM translating is available to anybody to try and use right now, and you can use services like Kagi Translate or DeepL to see the evidence for yourself that they make excellent translations. I honestly don't care what Google Translate does, because nobody who is serious about translation uses it.

> And as others have said, language is more than just "I understand these words, this other person understands my words" (in the most literal sense, ignoring nuance here), but try getting that across to someone who believes you can solve language with a technical solution :)

The kind of deeply understood communication you are demanding is usually impossible even between people who have the same native tongue, from the same town and even within the same family. And people can misunderstand each other just fine without the help of AI. However, is it better to understand nothing at all, then to not understand every nuance?
by 29athrowaway | 2025-11-20 01:12:09+00:00
Microsoft could have effortlessly made it easier for others to implement integrations with Microsoft Exchange but they won't. They needed to make sure as many people as possible get vendor locked.

Imagine going to work, and having a meeting about how you can make it harder for your software to interoperate with other software. Or waking up in the morning and spending your day designing a proprietary protocol designed to prevent interoperability. That's just another day at Microsoft.
by pksebben | 2025-11-20 01:12:16+00:00
There are some flavors of AI doomerism that I'm unwilling to fight - the proliferance of AI slop, the inability of our current capital paradigm to adjust such that loads of people don't become overnight-poor, those sorts of things.

If you tell me, though, that "We installed AI in a place that wasn't designed around it and it didn't work" you're essentially complaining that your horse-drawn cart broke when you hooked it up to your HEMI. Of course it didn't work. The value proposition built around the concept of long dev cycles with huge teams and multiple-9s reliability deliverables is not what this stuff excels at.

I have churned out perfectly functional MVPs for tens of projects in a matter of weeks. I've created robust frameworks with >90% test coverage for fringe projects that would never have otherwise gotten the time budget allotted to them. The boundaries of what can be done aren't being pushed up higher or down deeper, they're being pushed out laterally. This is very good in a distributed sense, but not so great for business as usual - we've had megacorps consolidating and building vertically forever and we've forgotten what it was like to have a robust hacker culture with loads of scrappy teams forging unbeaten paths.

Ironically, VCs have completely missed the point in trying to all build pickaxes - there's a ton of mining to do in this new space (but the risk profile makes the finance-pilled queasy). We need both.

AI is already very good at some things, they just don't look like the things people were expecting.
by mr_toad | 2025-11-20 01:12:22+00:00
> But I'm making the point that its not malicious compliance.

It’s totally technically feasible to have a non-blocking opt-in box.

But sites effectively make a legally mandated opt-in dialog into an opt-out dialog by making it block the site. Blocking the page loading until the banner is dismissed is definitely malicious, and arguably not compliant at all.

And lets not get started on all the sites where the banner is just non-functional smoke screen.
by ranger_danger | 2025-11-20 01:12:29+00:00
My understanding is that there's two different types of verification.

Self-verification means that any new secondary devices you log into your account with will need to be verified by an existing login by way of an automatic popup that asks if you trust the device. It used to just be a Yes/No button but I think now they've added QR codes and/or emoji matching.

The other kind is verification between two different people, like when starting a direct message conversation, you might get the same emoji matching window to verify each other.
by salawat | 2025-11-20 01:12:41+00:00
Been there, done that, hombre. Did the math, and at the last place I was at, our test data, if transcribed line by line into composition notebooks (our seed files were basically JSON), we'd be tossing 137 or so notebooks worth through the system every test run.

Can you get devs to care about what valid data looks like? Nigh impossible. Hell, I had a hard enough time keeping my testers authoring new test data in a reasonably spec compliant way. A proper data lifecycle is the key, but it will almost always be the least popular part of your process because most people just don't want to think about it.

At some point in your process someone has to know what they are doing. There is no machine that knows correct data for you. It's part of of what makes testing difficult. Everyone else can live in fantasy land, but you, as a tester, have to bring the hammer of reality crashing down. Won't make you many friends, but it is what it is. Your test data must reflect a reality. Someone has to do the footwork observe that reality. Only someone who has done so can then do the next step of authoring valid/representative test data.
by gerdesj | 2025-11-20 01:12:58+00:00
You'll recall how horrendous on prem Exchange updates could be. Surely the sheer amount of time involved was a nudge and nothing technical?

My tiny company had an on prem Exchange, migrated from GroupWise, and is now cloudy. I did all the migrations myself.

I have left things with our MX records pointing to on prem (Exim + rspamd + stuff) and relaying to MS 365 and a few IMAP daemons. If MS take the piss with licensing costs, I'll simply relay elsewhere and drop them.

Then I'll migrate my customers away. It'll take a while but it is not insurmountable.

FWIW: I use Evolution on my Kubuntu based gear to access M365 email. Wifey rocks Arch and I've deployed Evo on KDE there too.
by array_key_first | 2025-11-20 01:13:01+00:00
The reasonable position is that the state exists to propagate and protect itself, which is made up of it's citizens, you included. This is just like any organism or organization works.

Like a company, that doesn't mean they will always make decisions that coincide with what you want or what you think is best. But, it DOES mean they have some goal to keep their people, on the whole, happy, because otherwise they no longer exist.

For example, yes the US government sucks in a lot of ways. The US government ALSO wants you to get an education, and they give it away for free. Because more educated people means a stronger economy, which is good for everyone. You might take this for granted, but: there are many countries where the population, as a whole, cannot read or write. Your literacy is the result of hundreds of years of work and has, essentially, been GIVEN to you. That's not something you just have by nature of being human.
by fsckboy | 2025-11-20 01:13:02+00:00
i went to the trouble to search for the first known example to provide a historically salient version. I shortened it slightly because it had been written as a dialog with lots of quotation marks, but i kept the unique phraseology. google the wording I used and you will find it on books.google.com 1911 before any of the usual suspects could have said it.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-11-20 01:13:28+00:00
There's no cheap way of doing it without inconvenience for every user. Rather than age checks, they could just remove the CSAE distribution groups, appropriately moderate abusive conduct, and so on. HN has basically no restrictions whatsoever, and it's hardly a hive of scum and villainy: it's not fundamentally difficult to accomplish this, you just have to put the work in.
by jaza | 2025-11-20 01:13:40+00:00
The (only) people who pay for Windows are corporate managers. Therefore, the main purpose of Windows is to make corporate managers happy. Corporate managers want updates to install promptly, so they can tick their ISO compliance box saying "no insecure software running here". They couldn't care less about an annoying experience or slightly reduced productivity for their underlings. Therefore, Windows succeeds at its main purpose.
by rgarreta | 2025-11-20 01:13:55+00:00
I've been working on reproducing the UMI paper (https://umi-gripper.github.io/ ) and their code. I've been relatively successful so far (see attached videos): most of the time the arm is able to pick up the cup, but it drops it at a higher-than-desired height over the saucer. I'm using their published code and model checkpoint.

I've tried several approaches to address the issue, including:

Adjusting lighting.

Tweaking latency configurations.

Enabling/disabling image processing from the mirrors.

I still haven’t been able to solve it.

My intuition is that the problem might be one of the following:

Model overfitting to the training cups. The exact list of cups used in training isn’t published. After reviewing the dataset, I see a red cup/saucer set, but I suspect its relative size is different from mine, so the model may be incorrectly estimating the right moment to release the cup.

The model might need fine-tuning with episodes recorded in my own environment using my specific cup/saucer set.

My gripper might lack the precision the original system had.

Residual jitter in the arm or gripper could also be contributing.

Other thoughts:

Depth estimation may be a bottleneck. Adding a depth camera or a secondary camera for stereo vision might help, but would likely require retraining the model from scratch.

Adding contact information could also improve performance, either via touch sensors or by borrowing ideas from ManiWAV (https://mani-wav.github.io/ ), which uses a microphone mounted on the finger.

If anyone has been more successful with this setup, I’d love to exchange notes.
by nickserv | 2025-11-20 01:14:21+00:00
This matches my experience.

I started programming in the late 90s using Perl as my first "real" language. When I first saw some Python code (2.3 if memory serves), I found it much easier to understand. Not necessarily easier to write, but diving into a Python codebase 6 months later was a lot easier than doing the same than with Perl. Purely subjective, but I was far from the only one, even if quite a few people at the time preferred Perl.

Later, when the Web really took off, running PHP 4 was much easier to get going than either Python or Perl, so a lot of us went with that.

And yeah afterwards JS with node.js in particular. The millions pumped into it by Google certainly helped.

There was also a time a bit later with Ruby getting really popular. Not just for new projects, I heard of some codebases migrating from Perl to Ruby, when the writing was on the wall for Perl 5.

Go, I think when it became popular not many people were still using Perl. Also not really something you would use to bang out a quick script with. Probably more of a competitor to Java.

As for me, back to Python as my bread and butter. Probably haven't touched Perl in 20 years at this point. Looks like gibberish to me now...
by hekkle | 2025-11-20 01:14:53+00:00
> The cost of compliance also grows, and that disproportionately favors big established players.

Not true at all. Most of the harsher regulations only come into effect when the company hits a specific size. Examples from Australia (my country):

- Online shops that operate overseas, and import to Australia have to collect sales tax... but only if they make more than $75,000 from Australia per annum.

- Social media has to ban Australians under 16... but only if they make more than a billion per annum.
by abigail95 | 2025-11-20 01:15:19+00:00
I don't want to live in your hellscape where my government tells me I can't program a website without a license.

Grow up and tell someone you won't implement a feature because you don't like it. I do it all the time - "that's a bad idea, I'm not doing that". I still manage to eat, it's not either/or, you have agency, you can refuse without resorting to regulation saying you must.
by WD-42 | 2025-11-20 01:15:25+00:00
That is amazing news! My biggest gripe with Fedora has always been that it is recommended to new users and then 80% of the time they have an Nvidia card and you end up with "Linux sucks if you use Nvidia" even though the official drivers work well if you install them correctly (i.e using your distro-provided method, not going to nvidia.com and downloading a file which is what most people coming from Windows will do).