MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lutusp | 2025-11-19 04:59:53+00:00
> Open to suggestions for additional presets or features!

Anaglyphic (red/cyan) 3D rendering would be nice. I've created a lot of anaglyphic 3D apps over the years, but they're no longer very popular -- I suspect it's the goofy glasses one must acquire and wear.

But a true 3D view of an orbital simulator like this greatly increases its impact and tutorial value.
by edbaskerville | 2025-11-19 05:02:24+00:00
Oh man. It's not just Apple. I've had months of RCS not working on GrapheneOS, and have no idea who to blame. The first time it stopped working, I fixed it by switching carriers (AT&T -> T-Mobile). Maybe I'll try switching back! Or maybe I'll switch back to an iPhone and give in to iMessage. :(
by kstrauser | 2025-11-19 05:02:39+00:00
I think that’s kind of vacuously true. Like, good luck writing this in any language where the resulting assembler all the way at the bottom of the runtime has zero branch operations. And I bet even then that most CPUs’ microcode or superscalar engine would have conditionals underlying the opcodes.

I’d settle for just not writing conditionals in the user’s own code. Range doesn’t have to be implemented with branches. Hypothetically, Python could prefill a long list of ints, and range could return the appropriate slice of it. That’d be goofy, of course, but the main idea is that the user doesn’t know or really care exactly how range() was written and optimized.
by scoofy | 2025-11-19 05:03:46+00:00
Yea, I’d say we generally agree. Though I think noncompliance laws like sanctuary city laws are a significant escalation over just choosing a different allocation of resources.

My point is only that if the feds are going to go full agents in schools and shit, I think we ought to follow the harm reduction principles so people don’t actually get hurt when the violence kicks off. My concern is we’re nontrivially flirting with a genuine civil conflict.
by abalone | 2025-11-19 05:04:38+00:00
I’ve led multiple incident responses at a FAANG, here’s my take. The fundamental problem here is not Rust or the coding error. The problem is:

1. Their bot management system is designed to push a configuration out to their entire network rapidly. This is necessary so they can rapidly respond to attacks, but it creates risk as compared to systems that roll out changes gradually.

2. Despite the elevated risk of system wide rapid config propagation, it took them 2 hours to identify the config as the proximate cause, and another hour to roll it back.

SOP for stuff breaking is you roll back to a known good state. If you roll out gradually and your canaries break, you have a clear signal to roll back. Here was a special case where they needed their system to rapidly propagate changes everywhere, which is a huge risk, but didn’t quite have the visibility and rapid rollback capability in place to match that risk.

While it’s certainly useful to examine the root cause in the code, you’re never going to have defect free code. Reliability isn’t just about avoiding bugs. It’s about understanding how to give yourself clear visibility into the relationship between changes and behavior and the rollback capability to quickly revert to a known good state.

Cloudflare has done an amazing job with availability for many years and their Rust code now powers 20% of internet traffic. Truly a great team.
by popalchemist | 2025-11-19 05:05:29+00:00
Maya is the industry standard. Blender may offer most of what Maya offers from a features standpoint, but Maya had the first mover advantage / network effects advantage of an ecosystem of third party plugins sprouting up over the last 20 years which VFX / Mograph houses now depend upon, thus forcing vendor lock-in despite Blender now being on par.
by Moto7451 | 2025-11-19 05:05:47+00:00
My sister had an issue with RCS not working on her Samsung. It turned out she had a SIM card too old for AT&T to support RCS on it and some Samsung related software issues related to their SMS apps and Google’s SMS apps conflicting. A fresh SIM and a couple software tweaks netted her RCS.

I’d assume this isn’t the issue here but RCS seems to be a bit fickle.
by vecter | 2025-11-19 05:06:10+00:00
This is different. AI is an existential threat to Google. I've almost stopped using Google entirely since ChatGPT came out. Why search for a list of webpages which might have the answer to your question and then manually read them one at a time when I can instead just ask an AI to tell me the answer?

If Google doesn't adapt, they could easily be dead in a decade.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-19 05:10:03+00:00
And the difference is that drug dealing is a state and federal crime. Illegal immigration is only a federal crime. Has there ever been a state and federal partnership on federal tax fraud for instance?

I said in another reply that on Jan 6th of 2020, not electing Trump caused political escalation. Trump is going to find any excuse to escalate in Blue states - including sending the National Guard.
by littlestymaar | 2025-11-19 05:10:10+00:00
> Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long....

Not everything that count can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating.

> What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"?

Pick your favorite:

- wealth concentration (what share of wealth does the top, say 0.1% for instance but pick whatever you like best, of wealth distribution)

- media concentration

- number of years of average income spent in a political campaign

- effective tax rates on the wealthiest people

> Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies

The soviet union collapsed from their own issues (which were numerous, and growing), that doesn't change anything to my argument comparing today's West with peak USSR.
by aw1621107 | 2025-11-19 05:11:19+00:00
> because these thing called BEST MOVE and BAD MOVE there in chess

The thing is that there is no known general objective criteria for "best" and "bad" moves. The best we have so far is based on engine evaluations, but as I said before that is because chess engines are better at searching the board's state space than humans, not because chess engines have solved chess in the mathematical sense. Engines are quite capable of misevaluating positions, as demonstrated quite well by the Top Chess Engine Championship [0] where one engine thinks it made a good move while the other thinks that move is bad, and this is especially the case when resources are limited.

The closest we are to solving chess are via tablebases, which are far from covering the entire state space and are basically as much of an exemplar of pure brute force as you can get.

> "chess engines are still capable of making mistakes", I'm sorry no

If you think chess engines are infalliable, then why does the Top Chess Engine Championship exist? Surely if chess engines could not make mistakes they would always agree on a position's evaluation and what move should be made, and therefore such an exercise would be pointless?

> inaccurate yes but not mistake

From the perspective to attaining perfect play an inaccuracy is a mistake.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship
by vlovich123 | 2025-11-19 05:11:51+00:00
Supervisor is the brutalist way. But catch_unwind may be needed for perf and other reasons.

But ultimately it’s not the panic that’s the problem but a failure to specify how panics within FL2 layers should be handled; each layer is at least one team and FL2’s job is providing a safe playground for everyone to safely coexist regardless of the misbehavior of any single component

But as always such failures are emblematic of multiple things going wrong at once. You probably want to end up using both catch_unwind for the typical case and the supervisor for the case where there’s a segfault in some unsafe code you call or native library you invoke.

I also mention the fundamental tension of do you want to fail open or closed. Most layers should probably fail open. Some layers (eg auth) it’s safer to fail closed.
by 0xbitpulse | 2025-11-19 05:12:49+00:00
We’re excited to share something we’ve been building for a while. Maple Finance (>$5B in onchain AUM) has integrated Bitpulse, our real-time risk underwriting and monitoring system, directly into its credit and operations workflows. The context: Onchain credit markets still rely heavily on manual monitoring and delayed risk signals. Hidden borrower exposure, slow risk updates, and limited stress-testing have contributed to some of the largest losses in DeFi. What we built: Bitpulse aggregates: Onchain activity

Borrower wallet behavior

Offchain financial signals

And transforms them into: Continuous risk scoring

Exposure mapping

Real-time monitoring

Stress-test simulations

Automated underwriting checks (via API)

Why Maple integrated it: The integration gives Maple real-time visibility into portfolio health, lets credit teams quantify risk instantly, and strengthens internal controls during underwriting and ongoing monitoring. From Maple’s side: “Bitpulse helps us elevate our portfolio management toolkit with best-in-class risk metrics… ultimately enhancing efficiency and risk-adjusted performance.” — Luke Farrell, Head of Trading & Originations Technical highlights: Modular risk engine

VaR + scenario analysis applied to tokenized credit

Configurable simulation framework

API-driven underwriting automation

Designed for verifiable, transparent, onchain oversight

For teams working in DeFi infra, onchain credit, or institutional risk: Would love feedback on the architecture, data pipeline, or simulation framework. Full announcement:https://www.theblock.co/press-releases/379270/maple-expands-... Happy to answer any technical questions.
by tdeck | 2025-11-19 05:13:13+00:00
> Can someone explain to me the rationale of investing in a product, marketing it, seeing that it drives consumers away from your product and erodes trust, and then you continue to invest at an accelerating rate?

Hey now, Google Plus was more than a decade ago. I didn't like it either, but maybe it's time to move on? I think they learned their lesson.
by john_minsk | 2025-11-19 05:13:46+00:00
That's exactly what I think will happen. 3D is endgame for AI. 3D models are deterministic objects that provide continuity, while AI does non-deterministic abstract generation(thinking) + plans action plan for these 3d models.

Recent news on major AI scientists starting "world AI" companies confirm this trend.

So 3D soon will become a very important tech even compared to today.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-19 05:13:47+00:00
There was “real political violence” because people wanted Trump to be president in 2020 and more recently a state lawmaker was swatted in Indiana because he didn’t go along with Trump’s redistributing demands.

In fact Romney said that some lawmakers were afraid to go against Trump because they were afraid for their families and they couldn’t afford armed security like he could. Is that really how we want to make decisions in this country?
by PhilipGa | 2025-11-19 05:13:59+00:00
It started with checking my visa petition status online. Six months later, I was the #1 security researcher for the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for 8 out of 11 critical vulnerabilities found across their systems from October 2024 to April 2025. This is how it happened.

https://medium.com/@philipgarabandic/how-i-became-the-1-secu...
by echelon | 2025-11-19 05:16:34+00:00
Yes, I want that. I also want to be able to (1) statically apply a badge on every crate that makes and meets these guarantees (including transitively with that crate's own dependencies) so I can search crates.io for stronger guarantees and (2) annotate my Cargo.toml to not import crates that violate this, so time isn't wasted compiling - we know it'll fail in advance.

On the subject of this, I want more ability to filter out crates in our Cargo.toml. Such as a max dependency depth. Or a frozen set of dependencies that is guaranteed not to change so audits are easier. (Obviously we could vendor the code in and be in charge of our own destiny, but this feels like something we can let crate authors police.)
by dmitrygr | 2025-11-19 05:16:53+00:00
RCS issue on iPhone, reminds me of an old movie qupte... "Lex, this is Detroit. You think the cops are gonna waste city-dollars on a stolen Swedish car?"

https://clip.cafe/detroit-rock-city-1999/we-must-get-the-cop...

Now, if iMessage was broken, apple would surely care.
by yunwal | 2025-11-19 05:17:20+00:00
Here’s a chess stackexchange of positions that stump engines

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/29716/positions-th...

It basically comes down to “ideas that are rare enough that they were never programmed into a chess engine”.

Blockades or positions where no progress is possible are a common theme. Engines will often keep tree searching where a human sees an obvious repeating pattern.

Here’s also an example where 2 engines are playing, and deep mind finds a move that I think would be obvious to most grandmasters, yet stockfish misses it https://youtu.be/lFXJWPhDsSY?si=zaLQR6sWdEJBMbIO

That being said, I’m not sure that this necessarily correlates with brilliancy. There are a few of these that I would probably get in classical time and I’m not a particularly brilliant player.
by lutusp | 2025-11-19 05:18:20+00:00
> No physics expert but isn't this unpredictable (based on what I saw in series) ?

A three-body orbital problem is an example of a chaotic system, meaning a system extraordinarily sensitive to initial conditions. So no, not unpredictable in the classical sense, because you can always get the same result for the same initial conditions, but it's a system very sensitive to initial settings.

> Amd this does seem predictable, I saw this for almost a minute

The fact that it remains calculable indefinitely isn't evidence that it's predictable in advance -- consider the solar system, which technically is also a chaotic system (as is any orbital system with more than two bodies).

For example, when we spot a new asteroid, we can make calculations about its future path, but those are just estimates of future behavior. Such estimates have a time horizon, after which we can no longer offer reliable assurances about its future path.

You mentioned the TV series. The story is pretty realistic about what a civilization would face if trapped in a three-solar-body system, because the system would have a time horizon past which predictions would become less and less reliable.

I especially like the Three Body Problem series because, unlike most sci-fi, it includes accurate science -- at least in places.
by amiga386 | 2025-11-19 05:18:36+00:00
It's not personal, but Mastodon has DDoSed my website and many others, e.g.:

https://itsfoss.com/news/mastodon-link-problem/

https://kevquirk.com/blog/mastodon-is-ddosing-me/

https://chris.partridge.tech/2022/request-amplification-in-m...

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2022/11/mastodon-stampede/

https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/06/mastodon_delays_fix_d...

Mastodon servers' collective behaviour DDoSes the sites its users link to. They just do. They don't have to, they've never had to, but they do. And they've been in no hurry to fix it.

I've never used Mastodon and I'm not part of its community. But it irks me that its community has completely failed to remediate its collective bad behaviour, for years.

Having read the relevant discussions in Mastodon's issue tracker, my view is that it's Eugen Rochko's ideological belief that you can't just include the link preview details along with the post (which you totally could do, and it would solve the problem)... and that has led to years more DDoS than there ever needed to be.

[Admittedly, we now also have the problem of completely amoral "AI" scraping companies, who have zero qualms about pumping millions of requests into webservers, knocking them offline, completely eschewing all common indexing behaviour... but that doesn't make Mastodon's behaviour acceptable because it's no longer the worst source of callous DDoSing]
by perching_aix | 2025-11-19 05:18:44+00:00
Sounds like if nothing else, additional attention around (their?) use of unwrap() is still warranted from where you're sitting then though, no? I don't think there's anything wrong with flagging that.

It's one thing to not want to be the one to armchair it, but that doesn't mean that one has to suppress their normal and obvious reactions. You're allowed to think things even if they're kitsch, you too are human, and what's kitsch depends and changes. Applies to everyone else here by extension too.
by MathMonkeyMan | 2025-11-19 05:20:03+00:00
Here's my attempt:

# Multi-pass FizzBuzz n = 100 # [['1'], ['2'], ['3'], ['4'], ['5'], ...] seq = [[str(i)] for i in range(1, n + 1)] # [['1'], ['2'], ['3', 'Fizz'], ['4'], ['5'], ...] for i in range(3, n + 1, 3): seq[i-1].append('Fizz') # [['1'], ['2'], ['3', 'Fizz'], ['4'], ['5', 'Buzz'], ..., ['15', ''Fizz', 'Buzz'], ...] for i in range(5, n + 1, 5): seq[i-1].append('Buzz') # Arithmetic equivalent to: # len=1 -> the whole thing (from zero to end, because zero = -zero) # len=2 -> the length-1 suffix (just Fizz or Buzz) # len=3 -> the length-2 suffix (Fizz and Buzz) # The branch is hidden in the slice syntax: # Python has to check whether `x` is negative in `terms[x:]`. for terms in seq: print(''.join(terms[-(len(terms) - 1):]))

Here's a version that uses generators instead of multiple passes over a list:

# Single-pass FizzBuzz n = 100 def numbers(): for i in range(1, n+1): yield [str(i)] def fizzies(): nums = numbers() try: while True: yield next(nums) yield next(nums) yield [*next(nums), 'Fizz'] except StopIteration: pass def buzzies(): fzs = fizzies() try: while True: yield next(fzs) yield next(fzs) yield next(fzs) yield next(fzs) yield [*next(fzs), 'Buzz'] except StopIteration: pass for terms in buzzies(): print(''.join(terms[-(len(terms) - 1):]))

Edit: Can't resist -- unbounded without loops, but recursion blows the call stack (granted, well after 100):

def numbers(i=1): yield [str(i)] yield from numbers(i+1) def fizzies(source=numbers()): yield next(source) yield next(source) yield [*next(source), 'Fizz'] yield from fizzies(source) def buzzies(source=fizzies()): yield next(source) yield next(source) yield next(source) yield next(source) yield [*next(source), 'Buzz'] yield from buzzies(source) def main(source=buzzies()): terms = next(source) print(''.join(terms[1-len(terms):])) main(source) main()
by thomasm6m6 | 2025-11-19 05:22:52+00:00
https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/release/v0....

> For Google AI Ultra subscribers and paid Gemini and Vertex API key holders, Gemini 3 Pro is already available and ready to enable. For everyone else, we're gradually expanding access through a waitlist.

So, not available yet. Tried with a free API key and I did not have access. I do have access on a paid API key, but I'd rather not use that with an agent. The rate limits page the docs link to currently has no info on gemini-3-pro rate limits. Seems to me this is really only for users on the $200/mo subscription plan. Somewhat odd, given the model is already GA in every other coding agent as I understand
by shadowgovt | 2025-11-19 05:25:07+00:00
It looks like changing the permissions triggered creation of a new feature file, and it was ingestion of that file leading to blowing a size limit that crashed the systems.

The file should be versioned and rollout of new versions should be staged.

(There is definitely a trade-off; often times in the security critical path, you want to go as fast as possible because changes may be blocking a malicious actor. But if you move too fast, you break things. Here, they had a potential poison input in the pathway for synchronizing this state and Murphy's Law suggests it was going to break eventually, so the question becomes "How much damage can we tolerate when it does?")
by solomonb | 2025-11-19 05:25:12+00:00
I would like to expand and add a little nuance to my statement as apparently it was controversial.

From wikipedia:

> Business is the practice of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products (such as goods and services). It is also "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

So a business is an activity or enterprise engaged in by people for profit.

If a business exists to generate profit for its participants, it should maximize profit distribution to everyone involved in that business. This implies salary limits that maintain business sustainability. Otherwise, excessive compensation would eliminate profit for all participants.

My point wasn't about how to balance salaries between different employees. I'm arguing that companies should maximize compensation for all employees (at every level) to the extent that doing so doesn't threaten the business's viability. Without this, you get companies hoarding excessive capital reserves that sit idle rather than circulating through the economy.
by kylehotchkiss | 2025-11-19 05:25:17+00:00
My 30 year old neighborhood in CA is _just_ getting fiber laid now. I have cox over coaxial and my internet uptime is a mess. They don't care, where else am I gonna go? I welcome a federal effort to lay fiber and eliminate any reason a normal consumer would ever need to contact a coax cable for the rest of their lives.
by dboreham | 2025-11-19 05:25:22+00:00
Imho pre-commit is an antipattern. It tends to break (or rather the janky things it typically runs break) but more importantly whatever needs to be run to gate commits has to be run server-side anyway (people disable precommit, it sometimes produces false negatives, so can't be relied upon). So once you're running the checks server side now you have a second problem which is that the two checks don't always produce the same result. Better to enforce checks in CI, but also provide a way for the dev to run the same check themselves, manually.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-19 05:26:17+00:00
> There's not much to go off of on this subject in the US

The main problem is that things cost more per unit if you do them less. The first new reactor in decades is going to be stupid expensive because you have new people doing it who are learning things for the first time, which often means doing them over again, which is expensive. And then we didn't even get to see if the second unit at Vogtle could improve on the first because then COVID hit and made everything cost even more.

Whereas the interesting question is, how much do they each cost if you build them at scale?
by littlestymaar | 2025-11-19 05:26:31+00:00
> In production code an unwrap or expect should be reviewed exactly like a panic.

An unwrap should never make it to production IMHO. It's fine while prototyping, but once the project gets closer to production it's necessary to just grep `uncheck` in your code and replace those that can happen with a proper error management and replace those that cannot happen with `expect`, with a clear justification of why they cannot happen unless there's a bug somewhere else.
by lutusp | 2025-11-19 05:27:31+00:00
> Is this with Gemini 3?

An LLM couldn't provide results for a sim like this, compared to a relatively simple numerical differential equation solver, which is how this sim works. Unless you're asking whether a sim like this could be vibe-coded, if so, the answer is yes, certainly, because the required code is relatively easy to create and test.

Apart from a handful of specific solutions, there are no general closed-form solutions for orbital problem in this class, so an LLM wouldn't be able to provide one.