MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by RicoElectrico | 2025-11-02 16:07:37+00:00
Being not a programmed micro controller, the LM8560 is also a virtually eternal component. Many modern micro controllers incorporate a flash memory to store the software that let the controller work and execute the desired functions. Flash memories retain their content not for an unlimited lifespan. It may be several decades, but before or later it comes the day when they begin to lose their content, and the micro controller stops to work. This can’t happen to LM8560, because it doesn’t contain any flash memory.

That's a strawman, as the cheapest devices using microcontrollers use mask ROM.
by embedding-shape | 2025-11-02 16:08:23+00:00
> You can acknowledge the benefits of blockchain as an immutable ledger

For me that's not a benefit, where are you getting that I've said so from?

The only thing I said was that I understand why'd companies/governments would try to force cryptocurrencies on people, even though I personally wouldn't like that.

> but saying you’ll “get hate” signals you knew the post was inaccurate or provocative

I'm said that because I've been around on HN for more than a decade and know there are people just waiting to jump on anything where cryptocurrencies OR blockchain is mentioned, and they usually try to argue against points no one makes. If you've been around HN for a long time, you know this to be true too, it isn't exactly a secret.

> on a possibly throwaway account

Just a new account from a member who initially signed up around 2008 sometime :) Obviously not a throwaway account if you go through my comments, I've been using it exclusively since I switched.
by throw0101a | 2025-11-02 16:08:24+00:00
> Military industrial complex gets bored quickly.

Eisenhower coined that term. During the Korean War, defence spending was 12% of GDP; in the 1970s during the Cold War, it was 8%. It is currently about 3.5% of GDP:

* https://old.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/1o919po/why_i...

It's not a small amount, being the largest discretionary line programs in the federal budget, but it's no where near what it once was.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

And it should be noted that keeping that industry (and manufacturing in general) alive is important:

> Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car.

> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
by jarofgreen | 2025-11-02 16:09:00+00:00
Also to consider: bot traffic and SEO.

Depending on which mechanism you use to construct your state URLs they will see them as different pages, so you may end up with a lot of extra traffic and/or odd SEO side effects. For SEO at least there are clear directives you can set that help.

Not saying you shouldn't do this - just things to consider.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-11-02 16:09:17+00:00
Yes, it's a bit shocking to realize that all LLMs are doing is predicting next word (token) from samples in the training data, but the Transformer is powerful enough to do a fantastic job of prediction (which you can think of as selecting which training sample(s) to copy from), which is why the LLM - just a dumb function - appears as smart as the human training data it is copying.

The Math Olympiad results are impressive, but at the end of the day is just this same next word prediction, but in this case fine tuned by additional LLM training on solutions to math problems, teaching the LLM which next word predictions (i.e. output) will add up to solution steps that lead to correct problem solutions in the training data. Due to the logical nature of math, the reasoning/solution steps that worked for training data problems will often work for new problems it is then tested on (Math Olympiad), but most reasoning outside of logical domains like math and programming isn't so clear cut, so this approach of training on reasoning examples isn't necessarily going to help LLMs get better at reasoning on more useful real-world problems.
by marginalia_nu | 2025-11-02 16:09:38+00:00
> I could show you benchmarks and memory savings of using primitive collections instead of boxed collections. If you need to see these to be convinced of the benefits of primitive collection support in Java, then you probably don’t need support for primitive collections in Java. No need to read any further. Please accept this complimentary set of eight boxes for your collection travels.

This is intellectually lazy. The performance characteristics of boxed vs unboxed primitives isn't forbidden knowledge from the necronomicon that only the select few are ready to partake in. Even if you think it's obvious, if you can back up an argument, go back up that argument. It makes your case stronger, it shows you know what you are talking about.

If not for other people, do it for yourself. Things that are too obvious to bother checking is generally where we're most likely to be wrong about things. This is true in life in general but it's especially true with the JVM and it's continuously evolving performance characteristics.
by HenryAI | 2025-11-02 16:10:37+00:00
Zero-knowledge proofs now verify 13-billion parameter AI models in under 15 minutes with 200KB proofs, while GPU enclaves achieve 99% native performance. This deep dive covers the cryptographic infrastructure enabling trustless, privacy-preserving AI at scale - from zkML and Byzantine-robust federated learning to production TEEs cutting inference costs by 90%.
by zzzeek | 2025-11-02 16:10:43+00:00
huh? public figures should not speak out against things they disapprove of, particularly by people they are known to be closely associated with? at the very least they should do it for themselves, to publicly distance themselves from something they disapprove of. Otherwise, we assume they approve, and that is the actual point of my post, which is as long as they stay silent about their colleague, we have to assume YC types have no problem with this stuff. (which we knew anyway. but their silence confirms it).

like here's most of RFK Jr.s actual family saying he should resign: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/rfk-jrs-family-members... what losers! they should have said nothing and stayed silent. because what's the use right? The use is at the very least, we know that they, the immediate family members, do not approve of their sibling's actions.
by calebkaiser | 2025-11-02 16:11:02+00:00
Most of the inference techniques (what the author calls context engineering design patterns) listed here originally came from the research community, and there are tons of benchmarks measuring their effectiveness, as well as a great deal of research behind what is happening mechanistically with each.

As the author points out, many of the patterns are fundamentally about in-context learning, and this in particular has been subject to a ton of research from the mechanistic interpretability crew. If you're curious, I think this line of research is fascinating: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2022/in-context-learning-an...
by ta12653421 | 2025-11-02 16:11:14+00:00
By far absolutely _not_ true:

- i have worked in the space for some years for two of the biggest platforms in my country

- dating sites track a lot KPI and discuss them and test them thoroughly

- the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isnt even debated.

And here comes why: the most important thing to form a relationship are "technicals" which can NEVER be introduced into an app. There may be some advances in genomic matching, but no body deployed this so far and it wont happen unless Apple watch as a gene encoding module.

There are one night stands, there some marriges (we had a "winners board" in our office), but 99% of all cases when people met, its going to be "failure" (in a sense "no match")

Regardless how good your algo is - it doesnt matter when it comes to a reality check.

Therefore, Dating apps have absolutely no fear of you signing off because you fond someome - its very likely that you will come back soon, second: From operators perspective it would be a good thing if people would tell "i found my match on XYZ", but sine this does happen only super rarely, there are only few such stories.

So - NO: Dating sites do fear someone deleting the account.

(except: you are a startup and have to keep every profile to gain some size)
by blooalien | 2025-11-02 16:11:19+00:00
> Isn’t Marimo becoming the new standard for notebooks?

In my experience, sorta kinda for certain uses but not entirely replacing other options. Marimo is great for when you want to build a more "app-like" notebook that does a task repeatably (it really beats Jupyter at this, even given JupyerWidgets), but for pure experimentation and playing with code, Jupyter Labs still rules the roost for me. I keep both installed for the different purposes that each excels at. This one may fill yet another need. Dunno yet until I give it some play-time.
by jFriedensreich | 2025-11-02 16:12:58+00:00
Hot module replacement masks a lot of annoyances for end users. Yes its more instantaneous than reloading a page and relying on urls for all of the state and I am not advocating hard for abolishing HMR anymore, but it would be nice if we still used way more url state than currently the case. Browsers will also hibernate tabs to varying degrees, server sessions expire all the time, things are not shareable. The only thing that works as users expect is url state. One thing i absolutely hate about ios apps is how every state is lost if i just have the app in the background for a few seconds, this even applies to major apps like youtube, google maps, many email clients etc. Why do we live in this stupid world were things are not getting better, just because someone made things more convenient for developers?

PS: and i curse the day the social media brainwashed marketing freak coined the term "deep link" to mean just a normal link as its supposed to work.
by lacker | 2025-11-02 16:13:06+00:00
Dependent types are very useful for some things. For example, I wish Python had the ability to express "a 10 x 5 matrix of float32s" as a type, and typecheck that.

The Curry-Howard correspondence, using dependent type system to have "proofs" be equivalent to "types", is powerful, but it can be really confusing. From a human point of view, there is a huge difference between "Your proof is wrong" and "You wrote a statement that fails typechecking".

Intuitively, when you make an error with types, it should be something fairly trivial that you just read the error and fix it up. When you make an error in a proof, it's understandable if it's very complicated and requires thought to fix. The natural UI is different.

So I agree with the author that the greatest benefit of Lean is not its typesystem per se, but its community. Specifically the fact that Lean's library of mathematics, mathlib, is organized like an open source community with pull requests. Whereas Isabelle's library of mathematics, the AFP, is organized like a scientific journal with referees.

I'm working on a dependent type system at the moment for a new theorem prover - Acorn, at https://acornprover.org - and my hope is to combine the good points of both Lean and Isabelle. It's nice that Lean has the power to cleanly express the simple dependent types that mathematicians often use, like vector spaces or quotients. But if you use dependent types too much then it does get complicated to debug what's happening.
by valicord | 2025-11-02 16:13:12+00:00
The parent comment was "The author of that site assumes that scrapers will keep track of the access tokens for a week, but most internet-wide scrapers don't do so.". There's no technical reason why they wouldn't reuse those tokens, they don't do that today because they don't care. If anubis gets enough adoption to cause meaningful inconvenience, the scrapers would just start caching the tokens to amortize the cost.

The point of the article is that if the scraper is sufficiently motivated, Anubis is not going to do much anyway, and if the scraper doesn't care, same result can be achieved without annoying your actual users.
by jstimpfle | 2025-11-02 16:13:27+00:00
You took "safe" to be "100% safe, never breaks" but you could have understood it as just "relatively safe" or "a lot safer". They even hinted at the cost that comes with more heavy-handed approaches, which by the way aren't perfectly safe either.

Btw. kindly look at the other issue that I overconfidently waved away as "probably a false positive"?
by pron | 2025-11-02 16:14:05+00:00
It's interesting just how much of the debate in modern logic boils down to aesthetic preferences. On the other hand, I guess that if there were overwhelming practical advantages, there wouldn't be much to debate...

BTW, here's a "discussion paper" by Paulson and Leslie Lamport about typing in specification laguages from 1999: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/Reports/lamport-paulso.... Paulson represents the "pro-type" view, but note that since that paper was written, there have been developments in mechanised theorem proving of untyped formalisms, including in Lamport's own (TLA+).
by jitl | 2025-11-02 16:14:07+00:00
note that a DateTime w/ a UTC offset is significantly different from a DateTime w/ a TimeZone (+ optional Calendar), aka ZonedDateTime. ZonedDateTime(July 26, 2035 10:15:32pm in Instanbul) may not necessarily always be at today's value of Instant(July 26, 2035 10:15:32pm in Instanbul). If you are going to support date/time, you should not use the word "DateTime", "Date", "Time" in a way that is ambiguous (is it a ZonedDateTime, or an Instant?), or forget to include support for ZonedDateTime.

MDN page on JavaScript's Temporal library gives a good overview of the difference between the two; today's practice of encoding Instants as ISO 8601 strings in UTC (Z suffix) or at a UTC offset is okay for ephemeral data-in-motion that will be used right now, but is not a good practice for persisted data since time zones, DST rules, etc change all the time. Temporal is the JS-specific API, but these concepts apply to all handling of date/time/etc data in computer systems.

That said, v8 plans to use [temporal_rs][] as their Temporal backend.

Temporal: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

temporal_rs: https://crates.io/crates/temporal_rs

You can encode extended ZonedDateTime information to string following this RFC [Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps with Additional Information](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9557.txt)
by rossdavidh | 2025-11-02 16:14:12+00:00
The counter-argument would be that you can make excellent arguments for why we should understand what the compiler is doing, understand what the transistors are doing (e.g. to understand the limitations and risks of overclocking), understand how sort algorithms work (doing sort algorithms manually was at one time a typical interview question). It's not that these things aren't useful, but whether or not that learning would be useful is not the right question.

Is this _more_ useful than the other things, which I could be learning but won't because I spent the time and effort to learn this instead?

We have a finite capacity for learning, if for no other reason then at least because we have a finite amount of time in this life, and infinite topics to learn (and there are plenty of other constraints besides time). The reason given for learning this topic, is that it has hidden failure modes which you will not be on the lookout for if you didn't know how it worked "under the hood".

Is this a good enough reason to spend time learning this rather than, say, how to model the physics of the system you're training the neural network to deal with? Tough question; maybe, maybe not. If you have time to learn both, do that, but if not, then you will have to choose which is most important. And in our education system, we do things like teach calculus but not intermediate statistics, and it would have been better to do the opposite for something like 90% of the people taking calculus.

That said, I've implemented backpropagation multiple times, it's a good way to evaluate a new language (just complex enough to reveal problems, not so complex that it takes forever).
by pjdesno | 2025-11-02 16:14:22+00:00
> What would a system that rewards people for quality rather than volume look like?

Hiring and tenure review based on a candidate’s selected 5 best papers.

Already standard practice at a few enlightened places, I think. (of course this also probably increases the review workload for top venues)

To a lesser extent, bean-counting metrics like citations and h-index are an attempt to quantify non-volume-based metrics. (for non-academics, h-index is the largest N such that your N-th most cited paper has >= N citations)

Note that most approaches like this have evolved to counter “salami-slicing”, where you divide your work into “minimum publishable units”. LLMs are a different threat - from my selfish point of view, one of the biggest risks is that it takes less time to write a bogus paper with an LLM than it does for a single reviewer to review it. That threatens to upend the entire peer reviewing process.
by ta12653421 | 2025-11-02 16:15:15+00:00
Wrong claim: "There's an opposing network effect of *keeping customers unmatched, because this provides gossip and entertainment among friends, which gives them a reason to continue using a service."

No, this is implying they are doing it with intention - which they dont even have to insist on! They can keep the users, because matching based on an app does not work for 99.99% real cases. So if you treat them well, they will stay anyway, unless your product is shitty.
by pingou | 2025-11-02 16:16:35+00:00
We have a similar law in France. Something is unclear to me though:

"build a conceptually similar, 657 kW solar carport system across 12 parking lots (shown, above) that delivers more than 1.23 million kWh of clean, emissions-free power annually and offsets the equivalent of 185,000 vehicles’ worth of harmful carbon emissions."

Not sure what that means but that doesn't seem right.
by lurk2 | 2025-11-02 16:17:14+00:00
The majority of all successful civilizations on earth have done this and even those that did not have the usual patrilineal inheritance we associate with European cultures usually had a mechanism for the inheritance of land, title, and status. The idea that this would have bad outcomes only really emerges during the Enlightenment Era, and it only became a mainstream cultural attitude in the last hundred years. Even today, after 60 some-odd years of civil rights legislation, meritocracy is more of an idea than a reality. It conflicts with a cultural imperative to build legacy through one’s children, and the institution of private property that facilitates building this legacy. You could theoretically do away with these norms as they are not culturally universal, but then you probably are looking at living in the paleolithic era (which will also not be meritocratic) or utopian ideologies like communism.
by techblueberry | 2025-11-02 16:17:15+00:00
Look, I would love if this were true, but when digging into the data, it doesn’t seem to me like the promise of blue collar work matches the reality. Anyone have a good objective breakdown telling me I’m wrong?

This feels like a heavily political/ideological narrative designed to say both: see the economy isn’t terrible, you’re just doing it wrong, and, we could solve the rural-urban red-blue political divide with this one simple trick of realizing that the rural elite college people are wrong and real America gets it.

I would love this to be true! Really! It just seems like wishful thinking.
by ekrapivin | 2025-11-02 16:17:35+00:00
I've spent several last years solo-developing an ad-free website with over 50 different solitaire/puzzle games (https://inSolitaire.com). I've rewritten this project (almost) completely four times and tried my very best to make it work on both desktop and mobiles.

I would be incredibly grateful for any feedback – I'm looking to genuinely improve the experience. Specifically, I'm wondering whether it is easy to use and what it lacks.

I have a huge backlog to cover for this, but so far it has been great fun and I have learnt an incredible range of things!
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2025-11-02 16:17:38+00:00
My spouse works in the homelessness field and the correct metric to follow is number of homeless given housing. It’s the “housing first” approach. Harder to game counting amount of people directly placed into homes - someone is paying rent and maintaining a trackable occupied space that you can verify that the client is actually utilizing - and this approach cannot be gamed by “bus them somewhere else”

What many people don’t realize is just how many normal life hurdles are significantly easier to overcome with a stable housing environment, even if the client is willing and available to work. Employment, for example, has several precursors that you need. Often you need an address. You need an ID. For that you need a birth certificate. To get the birth certificate you need to have the resources and know how to contact the correct agency. All of these things are much harder to achieve without a stable housing environment for the client.
by embedding-shape | 2025-11-02 16:18:14+00:00
Yeah, maybe Python was a bad example, didn't really think specifically about the languages I made as examples, they were just examples with the hope of making it easier to understand what exactly I was talking about.

Some communities indeed are better at embracing multiple languages, Python, JavaScript and Java/JVM comes to mind, where it isn't uncommon to call out to other languages.
by altcognito | 2025-11-02 16:19:05+00:00
Yeah, not totally surprised. As in the other thread, this feature set was a pretty obvious outcome. But you have to implement it well. It doesn't look particularly well done. Probably slow, no pinch, etc...

I'm not sure what model you are talking about, maybe the S60, third edition. It is hard to get any background on it.

I'd like to say that companies missed out on the fact that a web browser would be really sellable, but it's clearly all about tying everyone to their platform, and more importantly their store.
by Ukv | 2025-11-02 16:19:23+00:00
> - That a person cannot own more than one of.

Exactly one seems hard to implement (some kind of global registry?). I think relaxing this requirement slightly, such that a user could for instance get a small number of different identities by going to different attestors, would be easier to implement while also making for a better balance. That is, I don't want users to be able to trivially make thousands of accounts, but I also don't want websites to be able to entirely prevent privacy throwaway accounts, for a false ban from Google's services to be bound to your soul for life, to be permanently locked out using anything digital because your identifier was compromised by malware and can't be "reset", or so on.