MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by veltas | 2025-11-02 12:11:58+00:00
Automatically translating C to unsafe Rust is pointless, the resultant code is harder to read and there's no improvement in understanding how to get the code maintainable and safe, that requires tons of manual work by someone with a deep understanding of the codebase.

Generally the Rust community as well don't seem to have an answer on how to do this incrementally. In business terms we have no idea how to do work slices with demonstrable value, so no way to keep this on track and cut losses if it becomes too much work. This also strongly indicates you're 'stuck' with Rust when you're done, maybe a better and less unidiomatic C++ killer comes later and sounds like you're either going to have to rewrite the whole thing or give up.

I'm definitely open to wisdom on this if anyone disagrees because it is valuable to me and probably most of the readers of this comment section.
by pezezin | 2025-11-02 12:13:23+00:00
> Nobody wants to play games on Linux given the small userbase compared to Windows.

According to the last Steam survey, 3% of players use Linux. Steam has 130 million active players, so that means there are 4 million people playing on Linux. Definitely not "nobody", and way bigger than the whole retrocomputing community.

By the way, I am also one of those retrocomputing guys, I have a Pentium 2 running Windows 98 right here. IMHO, trying to shoehorn modern software on old hardware is ridiculous, the whole point of retro hardware is using retro software.
by poetaster | 2025-11-02 12:13:58+00:00
The main distinguishing feature is that you generally lack a keyboar / mouse /pointer thing. Hence, the window manager and interaction in general are tuned for touch interactions, single handed use and the like.

It's for this reason I like SFOS. I've tried android and ios. But they suck.

As a developer, I also appreciate the flexibility even within the limits. Gradle and co. suck.
by consumer451 | 2025-11-02 12:14:06+00:00
I agree. However, if you I think of "business" as a drug addict looking for their next quick fix, then this makes perfect sense.

For another example of short-sighted addict behavior, look at the last 30 to 40 years of moving your own country's manufacturing base to a geopolitical rival. That's one heck of a long binge.

"Business" is not some oracle, with wise planning. It's a crack addict, planning 4 quarters ahead at most.
by _wire_ | 2025-11-02 12:14:43+00:00
tl;dr The browser itself is now a reader of what it browses and effects something like archive.ph.

The term 'copy' is now as meaningless as the term 'idea'--the device makes copies in the same sense that the reader's mind makes copies, or rather if you look at all the ways that computing devices work by copying, which is essential and ubiquitous to every computer's most basic functioning, there's no longer any discernible point of copy 'rights' outside of silos of access enforced by sworn secrecy, which secrecy is antithetical to the social values of publishing which copyright was designed to encourage.

The implications are staggering. Try to imagine a discourse that can address this. The staggering morphs into the horrifying when you imagine that AI will be used as the source of the needed discourse.
by acidburnNSA | 2025-11-02 12:15:17+00:00
I'm right in the middle of those groups. I think they're mostly crazy and will be hit on the head with the Rickover memo when reactor performance and economics become real considerations, but also I think the industry has been pretty stagnant and needs some new excitement and to split a few atoms with weird and fun reactors.

Main focus of the industry by far should be deploying more AP1000s or ABWRs right now though.
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-11-02 12:15:24+00:00
One of the best arguments in favor of ads is that high-quality ads act as an honest/credible signal that a firm is a serious business offering a serious product. Through making the production of high-quality ads cheap, people who are truly passionate about their small business will be "disrupted", and scammers/fly-by-night operations will be "supercharged".
by paulf38 | 2025-11-02 12:16:05+00:00
TBH most “false positives” that I investigate are wishful thinking or the result of ignorance of what is really happening. It looks like you are using Debian. That probably doesn’t help. Here is a typical Debian “bug” report:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=802778

10 years old. It never was a false positive. It was fixed a good few years ago. The fix did not involve suppressing the error.

Valgrind does need a lot of work, especially for missing CPU features and for Darwin. I’m not aware of many memcheck bugs that aren’t relatively obscure corner cases.

If you have encountered bugs please report them to https://bugs.kde.org.
by ozgrakkurt | 2025-11-02 12:16:12+00:00
For me it is the usage of macros and traits everywhere.

Good luck if you want to get into the code of a library to understand what a function does. You have to go through 3 macros and 5 traits across 5 files. When it could have been just a couple function calls.

People don’t stop and think if they really need that trait or macro for five seconds, they just have to use it every time
by soulofmischief | 2025-11-02 12:16:43+00:00
You're free to believe whatever fantasy you wish, but as someone who frequently consults an LLM alongside other resources when thinking about complex and abstract problems, there is no way in hell that Karpathy intentionally limits his options by excluding LLMs when seeking knowledge or understanding.

If he did not believe in the capability of these models, he would be doing something else with his time.
by pyrale | 2025-11-02 12:16:45+00:00
> Your link details building GHC with an existing non reproducible GHC compiler binary compiled by a single individual that must be blindly trusted.

You mean Hadrian? Its source is shipped with GHC.

Even if you were not to trust Hadrian, the doc also has info about building GHC using make.

> since day 1.

Could it be that languages made around 2010 have learned a thing or two from previous languages?
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-11-02 12:16:47+00:00
> What women want

There are 4 billions women on this planet.

The average women as a concept is meaningless for someone looking for a person to date. Even if you could only find someone far in the metaphorical tail, variance and population size are so high we are talking millions of people. Lesbian manages to find people to marry for god sake.

This kind of weird generalisation really needs to die. It helps absolutely no one.
by impossiblefork | 2025-11-02 12:17:46+00:00
Also, w.r.t. the politically connected thing: that's something the company tries to play at, but they aren't actually politically connected.

Thiel is, and if he is to realise something political with these guys, then he can only do so if they aren't fraudsters but are actually doing sensible things, or the political project fails. It can of course also be a fakeout for negotiations "we'll have an ASML clone tomorrow, you don't have any leverage" even though they don't, but I don't think so, because if you tried that fakeout on an EU politician, they'll talk to their guys 'is it true?' and those guys will actually ask people at AMSL "is this is a real competitor?"
by haskellshill | 2025-11-02 12:18:01+00:00
There's no law that you have to fix all bug reports. Isn't it better for users and developers alike that they can see the problems of the project. If they don't have resources that's fine, it's not like they are charging money for their product. But why not be honest and not request people sweep bugs under the rug for fear of looking bad?
by zozbot234 | 2025-11-02 12:18:13+00:00
> Generally the Rust community as well don't seem to have an answer on how to do this incrementally.

You can very much translate C to Rust on a function-by-function basis, the only issue is at the boundary where you're either left with unsafe interfaces or a "safe" but slow interop. But this is inherent since soundness is a global property, even a tiny bit of wrong unsafe code can spoil it all unless you do things like placing your untrusted code in a separate sandbox. So you can do the work incrementally, but much of the advantage accrues at the end.
by mariusor | 2025-11-02 12:18:38+00:00
It's weird that you get offended by something which was not directed at you.

"The work" is providing those better alternatives to anubis, that everyone in this thread except for Xe seem to know all about.

The humility is about accepting the fact that the solution works for some people, the small site operators that get hammered by DDoSes and unethical LLM over crawling, despite not being perfect. And if that inconveniences you as a user of those sites - which I imagine is what you mean by "user backlash", the solution for you is to stop going there, not talk down at them for doing something about an issue that impacts them.
by jrrrp | 2025-11-02 12:21:02+00:00
I would suggest you read the Gates report. I'm not sure how much to engage here, except to say emphatically that Gates said nothing of the sort. TL;DR - health and development funding should be considered as a more marginally impactful form of foreign and domestic government investment, but only because of the rapid (and ongoing) progress already seen in emissions reduction.

Here's a quote:

> To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.

Reducing sprawl is plainly a good strategy to reduce transportation and infrastructure needs, and preserve wildlife.
by haskellshill | 2025-11-02 12:21:22+00:00
What does it matter if it's AI generated if it's a real bug? The problem with AI reports is usually that they're invalid; in this case it was an actual bug.

> currently have zero real-world impact

So better we not talk about them until someone bothers to write an exploit for it?

> the "researchers" didn't even bother to write a patch/fix

If it has no real-world impact and thus shouldn't even be reported, then why does it need to be fixed?
by xena | 2025-11-02 12:22:10+00:00
No problem. I wish I had found it sooner, but between doing this nights and weekends while working a full time job, trying to help my husband find a new job, navigating the byzantine nightmare that is sales to education institutions, and other things I have found out that I hate, I have not had a lot of time to actually code things. I wish I could afford to work on this full time. Government grants have not gone through because I don't have the metrics they need. Probably gonna have to piss people off to get the bare minimum of metrics that I need in order to justify why I should get those grants.
by SadTrombone | 2025-11-02 12:22:41+00:00
I always find it fascinating that pretty much every time pro-Israel posters like yourself bring up Sudan, they only use it as a cudgel to deflect from the IDF's actions in Gaza, not out of any legitimate or sincere concern for the people of Sudan.

> The October 7 massacre passed with barely any notice in much of the Western world.

Verifiably false.

> Yet the moment Israel responded to recover the hostages—if not earlier—there were already demonstrations everywhere against so-called Israeli “atrocities.”

Because we've seen time and time again the brutal methods the IDF uses to retaliate against the entire population of Gaza, employing collective punishment against innocents. And the protesters were sadly proven very right yet again.

> Even with regard to the war in Gaza, Hamas’ use of human shields[1] has resulted in significant civilian casualties [...] Instead, the criticism overwhelmingly targets Israel for civilian deaths caused by Hamas’ human-shield strategy.

Surely even you realize that bombing a building when you know there are human shields held within is a bad thing, right? If you know there are innocent people in the blast radius of your bomb and you still fire the bomb, you are the villain in this story. The IDF has killed more civilians than Hamas has and it's not even remotely close, a difference of tens of thousands at minimum.
by potato3732842 | 2025-11-02 12:23:13+00:00
I'm not even debating the legality of the stop. It doesn't matter. Whether or not the stop is legit the whole system from there on is a kangaroo court rife with rights violations as well. That's the real problem here. Hair splitting over the specific reason for a stop is a distraction. Even if you fix it it won't change much. Whether or not they can make the stop doesn't really matter. They'll find other ways to force people to produce their papers.
by quadhome | 2025-11-02 12:23:40+00:00
It's desirable to be able to express the idea that we want to continually poll drive one asynchronous operation to completion while periodically checking if some other thing has happened and taking action based on that, and then continue driving forward the ongoing operation.

This idea may be desirable; but, a deadlock is possible if there's a dependency between the two operations. The crux is the "and then continue," which I'm taking to mean that the first operation is meant to pause whilst the second operation occurs. The use of `&mut` in the code specifically enables that too.

If it's OK for the first operation to run concurrently with the other thing, then wrt. Tokio's APIs, have you seen LocalSet[1]? Specifically:

let local = LocalSet::new(); local.spawn_local(async move { sleep(Duration::from_millis(500)).await; do_async_thing("op2", lock.clone()).await; }); local.run_until(&mut future1).await;

This code expresses your idea under a concurrent environment that resolves the deadlock. However, `op2` will still never acquire the lock because `op1` is first in the queue. I strongly suspect that isn't the intended behaviour; but, it's also what would have happened if the `select!` code had worked as imagined.

[1] https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/task/struct.LocalSet.html
by haskellshill | 2025-11-02 12:24:08+00:00
> you have 90 days to fix it

Or else what? They release the report? That's standard and ffmpeg is open source anyway, anybody can find the bug on their own. There's no threat here.

If you're mad about companies using your software, then don't release it with a license allowing them to use it. Simple as that. I don't understand how people can complain about companies doing exactly what you allowed them to do.
by division_by_0 | 2025-11-02 12:25:03+00:00
New time series data visualization experiments.

This includes a correlation matrix with rolling correlation charts, a minimap, hierarchical clustering, time series detrending, and more. I've improved its design and performance and I'm developing new features to better contextualize the visible subsection relative to the entire dataset.

I've also rewritten the entire project in Svelte 5 (there's still a lot of cleanup to do).

https://cybernetic.dev/matrix
by whynotmakealt | 2025-11-02 12:26:48+00:00
If I found em-dashes and other patterns like its just not X but Y and all the other things we correlate with AI, I might call a person using it.

I don't understand the purpose of using LLM's to write articles unless someone wants to be the middleman of slop and if that's the case, I'd rather cut middlemans and get slop directly from the AI models, instead of pasting the output of what chatgpt generated, give me the prompt and maybe temperature/other settings if need be to make it more reproducible but the prompt itself could be enough smh

I am not saying you should change your writing style, but at the same time, you have to understand, if someone writes like AI, Chances are that we are too tired of looking too deep into it to find if its written by AI or not, we are tired of it & so you must understand our or anybody's frustration if they call out someone's writing as AI.

For those using AI to write articles/etc. : If you are passionate about something, write about it, write what you want, how you want and you will be proud. But if you use LLM, you will constantly be called upon and frankly, it reduces the purpose of writing.

For code, there is a debate that code is just an means to an end (which is to do stuff like scripts etc.) but there is no end to writing, for what? for more views/etc., there is no point in getting such attention or anything considering it would just be negative attention if I or anyone found AI writing.

Not sure why people use AI text generation for articles etc. Idk.

This is my alt but when I had first started out on HN, I thought my english was fine but then somebody pointed it out and I try to fix my grammar and now its second nature to me writing.

I would be curious to know the reasons as to why people write text stuff with AI in the first place. It doesn't make sense to me since the other side would use their slop to counter your slop, at that point just create a tldr post, why strech an article in more words than unnecessary (I feel like I also write a lot of filler words / yap personally but alright, atleast you know a human is writing this), I don't get the point of writing longer if you aren't even writing it, is it to get SEO or, is the end goal money like all things?
by II2II | 2025-11-02 12:27:01+00:00
It would also depend upon what you are trying to accomplish. You have simple filesystems and complex filesystems. You have simple video drivers, and you have complex video drivers. Simplicity gets the job done, but complexity may offer better reliability or performance or features.

Then there is the question of what one means by an operating system. While I'm sure that most people would agree that much of the software shipped with Windows, Mac OS, or the typical Linux distribution isn't part of an operating system proper, few would agree upon where the boundary lies.
by tmtvl | 2025-11-02 12:27:22+00:00
SBCL is fantastic, but the resources being poured in GCC and LLVM combined with CPU manufacturers including architectural features to help C and related procedural languages work better make it a massive uphill battle. I suppose that with proper use of things like sb-simd and arena allocation you can get in the ballpark of C, but with some tweaking C, C++, and Rust can get insanely fast (of course Fortran's better, but nothing compares to it, so let's leave that aside for now).
by apothegm | 2025-11-02 12:27:31+00:00
No, I’m not talking about tipping points.

I’m talking about the fact that we’ve already released a ton of carbon and we can’t get it back out of the air. The carbon itself isn’t the global warming. The heat it traps is. Even if we stop emissions right this second, the carbon already in the air will continue trapping heat as long as it’s there. Natural cycles will take centuries to remove it.
by uecker | 2025-11-02 12:28:20+00:00
That you should be very careful about what you install. Cut&pasting some line from a website is the exact opposite of it. This is mostly about psychology and not technology. But there are also other issues with this, e.g. many independent failure points at different levels, no transparency, no audit chain, etc. The counter model we tried to teach people in the past is that people select a linux distribution, independently verify fingerprints of the installation media, and then only install packages from the curated a list of packages. A lot of effort went into making this safe and close the remaining issues.
by Esophagus4 | 2025-11-02 12:28:32+00:00
Huh? The loophole is already there.

Everything of their restructuring was signed off on by multiple states’ attorneys general. And their for-profit entity pays taxes like any other company.

Making them pay tax on stuff they did while a non-profit is making up laws on the fly - a strong, rule-of-law-based system is critical for the US to function properly.

You can’t just arbitrarily make decisions based on what you think should happen because it’s fair or unfair.

If you want OpenAI to pay back taxes, you need to change the laws first.
by devjab | 2025-11-02 12:28:40+00:00
I think it's more of an EU problem. We have so many public apps that rely on two big American tech companies solely because the EU has yet to figure out an alternative app store with enough security to make those apps available. This likely made sense 10 years ago, but today with all the talk about digital sovereignty it's frankly a little weak. It's not the OS that is the issue though, I could use graphene or similar just fine, but they wouldn't let me run a single of the apps that are the sole reason I have a smartphone. Well.. maybe the Microsoft authenticator?

I mean, I have to write exit strategies from Azure because the EU might demand our industry to leave non-EU infra. Yet ironically the digital company ID I would need to sign new contracts with within Europe aren't available without one of the two app stores. It's not that I can't sign those contracts without the ID, but I'd probably have to go to Germany in person.
by Cleonis | 2025-11-02 12:29:19+00:00
About transitioning from Classical Mechanics to QM, guided by observations.

There is a very interesting approach in the quantum physics book by Eisberg and Resnick, section 5.2

To arrive at the Schrödinger equation Eisberg and Resnick construct what they refer to as a plausibility argument.

The goal: to arrive at a wave equation that when solved for the Hydrogen atom will have the electron orbitals as set of solutions.

Eisberg and Resnick state 4 demands:

-1. Must be consistent with the de Broglie/Einstein postulates. wavelength=h/p, frequency=E/h

-2. Must be such that for a quantum entity followed over time the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy is a conserved quantity.

-3. Must be such that the equation is linear in \Psi(x,t): any linear combination of two solutions \Psi_1 and \Psi_2 must also be a solution of the equation. (Motivation: in experiments electron diffraction effects are observed. Interference effects can occur only if wave functions can be _added_.)

-4. In the absence of a potential gradient the equation must have as a solution a propagating sinusoidal wave of constant wavelength and frequency.

Eisberg and Resnick proceed to show that the above 4 demands narrow down the possibilities such that arriving at the Schrödinger equation is made inevitable.

To me the second demand is particularly interesting. The second demand is equivalent to demanding that the work-energy theorem holds good. The recurring theme: the work-energy theorem.

I have a (html)-transcript of the Eisberg & Resnick treatment that I can make available to you.

There is a youtube video with a presentation that is based on the Eisberg & Resnick plausibility argument.

https://youtu.be/2WPA1L9uJqo

In that video the presentation of the plausibility argument is in the first 18 minutes, the rest of the video is about application of the Schrödinger equation.