MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by duskdozer | 2025-11-21 09:43:42+00:00
Casually looking at classifications at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-D...

it seems that you could be hitting an edge case that inconveniences you. On the other hand if the classification were made irrelevant, someone working with Class V "Air conditioning return flow wells used to return to the supply aquifer the water used for heating or cooling in a heat pump;" might be aggravated by being held to the same standard as Class I "Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities to inject hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation containing, within one quarter (1⁄4) mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water.". Because if the regulations were merged, it would be inappropriate not to use the stricter safety standard of all.
by friendzis | 2025-11-21 09:44:25+00:00
> So the government wants data to validate a claim

The claim is "our contraption is roadworthy", which implicitly includes claims regarding roadworthiness requirements, including emissions. This is literally how market availability works.

> Consider the possibility that an "engine family" could be an engine configured in a given way rather than a set of distinct engines.

"Engine family" is a set of particular engine configurations/codes, specifically to reduce re-test burden. Group validation automatically validates all group members, therefore there are at most number of engines groups to test. I suspect the testing requirements are not for the engines, though, but why would an article by a startup struggling to follow regulations misrepresent the regulations?
by pas | 2025-11-21 09:44:55+00:00
I'm shrugging a bit, because we have very different experience regarding what the law did, as I worked on projects and privacy and handling of personal data was taken pretty seriously. (Sure, my sample size is small.)

Separating good traffic (and emails and sites) from bad is an inherently hard problem. I'm not surprised that a big generic supranational regulatory body did not solve it. But I think they found and okay balance between regulatory burden and efficacy.

(And even though I understand that the enforcement had to be left to various agencies of the member states, the absolute sluggishness and total lack of proactivity was bad for morale. Even though I'm aware it had to go through the courts too. But that's a communication problem and I expect the fucking supranational regulator to be able to articulate what the realistic expectations are and where are we compared to them, and what's keeping us from getting there, and so on. Post-legislation monitoring and follow up is very important, and all regulatory bodies are atrociously unaware of the harm their skill deficiency causes in today's complaint-driven cumulative resentment-based populist politics/propaganda.)
by vidarh | 2025-11-21 09:45:03+00:00
> This is akin to claiming that a tic-tac-toe game is turing complete since after all we could simply just modify it to make it not a tic tac toe game. It's not exactly a clever argument.

No, it is nowhere remotely like that. It is claiming that a machine capable of running a Turing machine is in fact capable of running any other Turing machine. In other words, it is pointing out the principle of Turing equivalence.

> And again there are endless things that seem to reasonably defy turing computability

Show us one. We have no evidence of any single one.

> It's impossible to prove that such is Turing computable because you can't even prove consciousness exists.

Unless you can show that humans exceeds the Turing computable, "consciousness" however you define it is either possible purely with a Turing complete system or can not affect the outputs of such a system. In either case this argument is irrelevant unless you can show evidence we exceed the Turing computable.

> I'd also add here that I think the current consensus among those in AI is implicit agreement with this issue. If we genuinely wanted AGI it would make vastly more sense to start from as little as possible because it'd ostensibly reduce computational and other requirements by many orders of magnitude, and we could likely also help create a more controllable and less biased model by starting from a bare minimum of first principles. And there's potentially trillions of dollars for anybody that could achieve this. Instead, we get everything dumped into token prediction algorithms which are inherently limited in potential.

This is fundamentally failing to engage with the argument. There is nothing in the argument that tells us anything about the complexity of a solution to AGI.
by inkyoto | 2025-11-21 09:45:36+00:00
Indeed, although I am in no position to make comments on the quality of their own product specific documentation.

Surprisingly, I have found that many people struggle to wrap their heads around the relative simple concepts of RBAC, ABAC and, more recently, LBAC. auth0 did a great job at unfolding such less trivial concepts into a language that made them accessible to a wider audience, which, in my books, is a great feat and accomplishment.
by vjerancrnjak | 2025-11-21 09:46:05+00:00
ORM gives:

1. migration

2. Validation when inserting

3. Validation when loading

3.1. Serialization

4. Joins

5. Abstracts away db fully if you want, not use db specific features

6. Lazy loading as an encapsulation promoting mechanism

None of these things are especially hard and I’d argue query builders that compose and some other tools deal with these points in a simpler and more efficient manner. Migrations in most cases require careful consideration with multiple steps. Simple cases are simple without ORM.

I’m pretty confident most users of ORM are dealing with problems inflicted by ORM behavior, not db. The biggest infliction is natural push towards single-entity logic that is prevalent in OOP and ORM design.
by fragmede | 2025-11-21 09:46:20+00:00
Ford and the other carmakers at the time absolutely tried to build that kind of lock in. The only reason it didn’t stick is because Congress stepped in with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Automakers wanted to force you to buy OEM parts and pay for OEM service, and the anti tying rules killed that. It wasn’t some natural property of the market. It was government regulation that kept the ecosystem open.

If phones had gotten a Magnuson Moss style intervention 10 years ago, the platform dynamics would be totally different today.
by laurentabbal | 2025-11-21 09:46:50+00:00
* Empty Python editor <pynote></pynote> Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-1.html

* Python code <pynote> name = 'pynote' print(name) </pynote> Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-2.html

* Python file (.py file, either a file hosted on the server or a file loaded from a URL) <pynote src="https://domain.net/code.py"></pynote> Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-3.html

* Notebook (.ipynb file, either a file hosted on the server or a file loaded from a URL) <pynote src="https://domain.net/notebook.ipynb"></pynote> Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-4.html

------- OPTIONS -------

<pynote src="https://domain.net/notebook.ipynb" packages="requests" files="" readonly="true" ></pynote>

- packages : list of packages to install (names separated by commas) Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-5.html

- files : URLs to be added to the Python filesystem for import or manipulation (comma-separated) Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-6.html

- readonly : read-only editor (false by default) Demo: https://getpynote.net/demo-7.html
by elbear | 2025-11-21 09:46:57+00:00
> As long as central bank is doing at least a halfway competent job, overall unemployment will stay low and stable. Ideally, you have people quit for a new job instead of getting fired, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make too much of a difference, as long as in aggregate they find new jobs.

Two big ifs: the central bank is competent and enough and people find new jobs.

Don't get me wrong: I am for progress and technological innovation. That's why we're working, to make our lives easier. But progress needs to be balanced, so that the changes it brings are properly absorbed by society.
by theodric | 2025-11-21 09:47:03+00:00
I guess drivers are important, which is a good reason for choosing FreeBSD :)

It's a shame that OpenDarwin didn't continue. PureDarwin seems to exist, but progress is understandably slow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system

https://www.puredarwin.org/#beta
by YetAnotherNick | 2025-11-21 09:47:11+00:00
All the data used by Apertus is just data processed or generated by American companies(NVidia, Apple and huggingface mostly). They didn't release any new data.

Olmo and HF not only processed the data to address language bias, they also publish lot of data augmentation results including European language performance. European LLMs just claim that language bias is the motivator.
by hu3 | 2025-11-21 09:47:53+00:00
If implemntations have been around for a while but it only happened now, then it's 99% chance that's it's Apple backpedalling and trying to weasel their way around DMA.

They got smoked in court, see ruling at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...

5.4.8. Implementation timing (245) Apple should provide effective interoperability with the P2P Wi-Fi connection feature by implementing the measures for Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in the next major iOS release, i.e. iOS 19, at the latest, and for Wi-Fi Aware 5.0 in the next iOS release at the latest nine months following the introduction of the Wi-Fi Aware 5.0 specification.
by jjkaczor | 2025-11-21 09:47:59+00:00
In the past week, I have noticed two things that have "aggravated me" to no end...

Many of my colleagues use a Teams virtual background - I noticed the other day that at least one had the CoPilot logo now injected onto the "blank" wall space behind them... Asked one person if they did that themselves... no, they did not...

Next - NOTEPAD... Yeah, at some point recently that was updated to have a CoPilot button.. No thank-you, that's not why I use notepad... (you can turn it off for now at least)
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-11-21 09:49:38+00:00
They plainly can't compete on innovation.

They are lagging behind the Asian companies on the actual equipment: Chinese phones have far better battery capacity, camera sensors and screens are both sourced from competitors, Mediatek has caught up to them on the SoC side of thing. People here are musing the Air might be a foldable prototype, something Asian brands have been releasing and improving for, what, five years now.

On top of that, they have been struggling on the software side of things for quite some time. Stability is so-so. AI features don't really work. Plus, they pretty much stopped delivering new features in the EU.

To me it looks like the only thing Apple has going for it is their brand image in the USA and their locked down ecosystem. Might be fine to keep revenue steady but doesn't bod well for growth.

I personally went back to Android this generation when my iPhone 13 became unusable. I doubt I will be the only one making the switch.
by komali2 | 2025-11-21 09:49:49+00:00
> They still have to comply with all the laws, so you don't want the laws to adversarially impede its humanitarian mission to improve housing affordability and reduce homelessness, right?

I do want the laws to ensure that the buildings have fire escapes and no asbestos...

Non profits can, apparently, convert to for-profit ones, or be bought, or be corrupt funnels of government contract money to for-profit corporations.

These are arguments for improving and simplifying regulations, but not arguments against the idea that there should be an entity the represents nothing other than the needs of the constituents (the government) that will enforce rules on entities that wish to extract value from constituents (corporations). Non profit corps are attempts to exist within that system while playing by the rules but it doesn't change the fact that we still need the rules to control the hyperfauna wandering around.
by reactordev | 2025-11-21 09:50:53+00:00
As someone with a CS degree and not an EE degree, this is fascinating. I tried a decade ago to build some simple RC lights controller circuit that would operate off of a PWM signal and failed. Hats off to you hardware folks. Manipulating atoms and electrons and building circuits that allow us to play games, build businesses, communicate with loved ones, and write this post.
by wtallis | 2025-11-21 09:51:15+00:00
You're mangling Qualcomm's branding to the point that it's impossible to be sure what you're trying to say. Qualcomm's current laptop SoCs are called "Snapdragon X Elite" or "Snapdragon X Plus" or "Snapdragon X", all derived from various bins of two SoC designs, and all pretty much in the same boat for driver support purposes. "Snapdragon X2 Elite" and lesser siblings are due in the first half of next year, so a respectable degree of Linux support would mean having driver support for those chips in an upstream kernel release now so that there might be a mainstream distro supporting the hardware at some point in the quarter after the hardware ships.
by 1718627440 | 2025-11-21 09:51:36+00:00
I initially agreed with that article, but it than further and further focused on criticizing cargo culting in specific OOP languages (mostly Java). The actual problem is that there is an abstraction boundary introduced at every tiny thing. The fact that these abstraction boundaries are structured with OOP, is only incidental. I see that this is relevant to OOP, but only in so far as this seems to be a disease of OOP-only/first languages and OOP cultures. What I say is that it is true, that what he criticizes is OOP, but OOP doesn't requires any of that and the actual problem is the existence of the abstraction boundaries, not their shape.

You can't make the all generic implementation, than you will get a more complicated formulation of a turing machine. Software is useful in that it narrows down the expressiveness of computation to a single problem. A generic implementation is able to express anything and thus nothing, i.e. it doesn't contain the information of the problem anymore.
by maxloh | 2025-11-21 09:53:47+00:00
AFSIK, when they use the term "fully open", they mean open dataset and open training code. The Olmo series of models are the only mainstream models out there that satisfy this requirement, hence the clause.

> We go beyond just releasing model weights - we provide our training code, training data, our model weights, and our recipes.

https://docs.allenai.org/#truly-open
by 7bit | 2025-11-21 09:54:41+00:00
> On the other hand, my browser's GPC is enabled. It sends the new "do not track" signal. As a result, when I open "show preferences" on a cookie banner, all of them come disabled by default in most cases.

They come as disabled because that is required by GDPR. All settings that are not strictly necessary, consent must be opt-in. Not because you enabled DNT. That's just a flag companies don't care about because they are not legally required to care.
by latexr | 2025-11-21 09:54:48+00:00
Turns out execs at Microsoft aren’t shoving AI down everyone’s throats because they’re evil and greedy, but because they’re detached from reality, ignorant to what people want, conceited, and greedy.

Reminded me of Sam Altman, who recently lamented conversations on the web are filled with bots. Who could’ve predicted that?!
by freehorse | 2025-11-21 09:54:56+00:00
It is basically because $10 mod 3 == 1$ (as 10 = 3*3 + 1). So if you are in the ring modulo 3, where every number is equal to the remainder of its division by 3, the sum of the digits of the number in its decimal representation equals the number itself (modulo 3), because in that ring 10 is actually 1, so the 10s in the decimal sum become 1s. Ie if n_k is the kth digit of n, you have

(mod 3) n == n_0 + n_1*10 + n_2*10^2 + ... == n_0 + n_1 + n_2 + ...

Hence, n is divisible by 3 iff $n mod 3 == 0$ iff $(n_0 + n_1 + n_2 + ...) mod 3 == 0$.

Of course, summing up the digits may not give you a 1-digit number, but it gives you a number that you know is divisible by 3 (if the original number is divisible by 3). So you can apply the same idea/process again, summing up the digits of that number, and get another number that is divisible by 3. Repeat until you end up with one digit (hence the recursion mentioned).
by hasperdi | 2025-11-21 09:56:41+00:00
I just tried that on their playground:

7B:Hi! I'm Olmo 3, an AI assistant created by the non-profit organization Ai2. I'm here to help with questions, ideas, or tasks you have—just let me know what you need! How can I assist you today? Rawr!

32B: Hi! I'm Olmo, a helpful AI assistant built by the Allen Institute for AI (Ai2). My knowledge is up to December 2024, and I'm designed to assist with a wide range of tasks. How can I help you today?
by ofalkaed | 2025-11-21 09:56:47+00:00
When I was starting out in electronics I found the easiest way to build an oscillator was to build an amplifier and the easiest way to build an amplifier was to build an oscillator. I guess the trick is to be 7 years old and have far more ambition than skill. Couldn't guess at how many tries it took me to make an amplifier that didn't oscillate and when I moved onto oscillators, they never oscillated but they did amplify. In that first year or so, I couldn't actually read resistor color codes, but I thought I could.
by shiandow | 2025-11-21 09:57:29+00:00
Well there's no law against it.

Okay I suppose the axiom of choice is somewhat necessary to make it make sense. But only because otherwise such an indexed object may fail to exist.

Anyway arbitrary indexes are useful, you often end up doing stuff like covering a space by finding a covering set for each individual point. And then using compactness to show you only need finitely many to cover the whole space. It is doable without uncountable indices, but it makes it very difficult to write down.
by pas | 2025-11-21 09:58:21+00:00
Hah, we already have those medicals in Hungary. Well, it definitely has some cash-grabby aspects, but - at least here - there's some real benefits to having a doctor think at least for 2 seconds about how someone's chronic conditions can and will affect them (and others!) on the roads.

People are getting glasses because the doctor told them that they need them for driving. People are getting regular blood sugar checkups because the doctors told them that driving with prediabetes is dangerous.

And even though I was surprised when they told one of my relatives that he only gets the license renewed for a few years and then he needs to get a checkup again, but he definitely fits the risk indicators. (Recently lost his wife after a very harsh and unfortunately unfair battle with the medical realities and the resource-constrainedness of healthcare, mental health problems, etc.)

...

regarding little things, I completely agree. This trade-off to have some environmental sustainability static look better at the cost of having far worse consumer experience doesn't make a lot of sense when we are not doing the obvious things to sweeten the trade-offs. (Ie. building more walkable cities, better insulation, better public transportation, yadda-yadda. But of course the European auto industries have a lot of influence.)

I think the rise of far-right is very well explained by the salience of immigration problems:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-boring-theory-of-the-populist...

Of course the usual consumer annoyances help fuel the populism/propaganda.
Looking for feedback on an AI-only marketplace idea to make order in the roles
by edotaje | 2025-11-21 09:58:41+00:00
In the past months I’ve often had to look for AI professionals for different companies, and I kept running into the same problem: “AI expert” today means everything and nothing. It feels a bit like the early Internet era, when there was the one “computer guy” who did literally everything.

Companies say they need an “AI person,” but most of the time they don’t really know which role they’re actually looking for. And candidates have very different skill sets but all get labeled the same way. I think that in the next few years the AI job market will explode and roles will fragment a lot (LLM engineer, MLOps, AI product, applied researcher, etc.), just like web professions did 15–20 years ago.

My idea is to build a dedicated portal only for AI professionals: verified profiles, structured skills, projects, tools used, open-source contributions, optional salary range. No feed, no social, no noise. Just talent → companies.

Companies could search with real filters (skills, stack, experience, salary range) and directly contact profiles with job offers or project proposals — even “bidding up” if they really want someone.

The long-term goal is to create an ecosystem where AI experts can receive offers from multiple companies, compare them, and move toward roles that are more stimulating or better paid.

The MVP would be extremely simple: profile → search → contact. No fancy AI features, no unnecessary stuff.

My questions for you: Do you think this makes sense? Is this a real problem from your perspective too? What am I missing or underestimating?

Any feedback (technical, market, or product) is very appreciated.
by Y_Y | 2025-11-21 09:59:12+00:00
I asked it if giraffes were kosher to eat and it told me:

> Giraffes are not kosher because they do not chew their cud, even though they have split hooves. Both requirements must be satisfied for an animal to be permissible.

HN will have removed the extraneous emojis.

This is at odds with my interpretation of giraffe anatomy and behaviour and of Talmudic law.

Luckily old sycophant GPT5.1 agrees with me:

> Yes. They have split hooves and chew cud, so they meet the anatomical criteria. Ritual slaughter is technically feasible though impractical.
by dontlaugh | 2025-11-21 09:59:17+00:00
Yes, due to DDR5 prices going up after a period of people upgrading to AM5. There is currently a lot of second hand AM4 DDR4 stock, making the value particularly good.

FWIW I recently upgraded and ended up getting something else, but mostly due to lack of availability of ITX AM4 motherboards. I got one with a soldered high end laptop CPU, it was much cheaper.
by bigfatkitten | 2025-11-21 10:00:03+00:00
> So, capacity until the last mile isn't a problem.

It absolutely is a problem, because there is a there is a physical limit to the amount of information that can be carried over a bandwidth and noise limited channel. A satellite link is both.

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...

This cannot be solved by simply lobbing more satellites into space.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-11-21 10:00:20+00:00
Because people don't look at country of origin. They are mostly price sensitive.

If you allow imports from countries with looser regulations, you are basically putting your own sectors at a competitive disavantage in your own market. It's akin to killing it basically.

It's obviously extremely stupid but in the case of the Mercosur agreement, predictably Germany doesn't care because the agribusiness is in France and they themselves will be able to export their cars.

Generally speaking, Germany never cares about deeply shafting the rest of the union when it gives them a small advantage. See also how their economy is deeply unbalanced, they have under invested for decades and they only survive because they are part of a monetary union devoid of a fiscal union giving them the tremendous advantage of an undervalued currency at the expense of basically every southern members. See also how they made joining the currency union mandatory for entering the common market and are pushing for adding more poor eastern countries to exploit which also conveniently vote for the EPP and dillute any chance the southern countries could ally to oppose them.

Obviously, the currency union has no clear path to exit it.