MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-21 00:19:38+00:00
> incremental improvements to the engine thrust is par for the course

Blue Origin is matching from Raptor 2 to Raptor 3. Comparing thrust at sea level, lbf:

Raptor 2 | 507,000 [1]

Raptor 3 | 617,000 [1]

BE-4 | 557,143

BE-4' | 642,857

BE-3U | 160,000

BE-3U' | 200,000

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton-force#Tonne-force
by dpark | 2025-11-21 00:19:59+00:00
> ETH's L2 ecosystem

How does this work? It feels like moving all of this off the blockchain loses a bunch of the supposed value.

If I move to a “side chain” do I get to keep the guarantees around settlement? I would assume no, not until this gets worn back to the block chain.

I think I understand (theoretically) how the side chain would increase throughput and reduce transaction fees, but these benefits as I understand them come specifically from making the side chain high volume. If I need to do one transaction with you, the side chain is redundant, right?

> RE: your last point, Solana is junk

Good to know. I only know what I learned in maybe 20 minutes of research.
by solsane | 2025-11-21 00:20:49+00:00
Scaling laws are irrefutable. There is no doubt that computers will be able to learn more than any humans, after all we're not outgrowing our skulls. The last mile is just tweaking how we define optimality and providing integration points. Everyone investing in this knows this at some level.

What's happening now is already pretty incredible given the understanding that we're basically still at the 'chat bot' stage for most people. The idea of agency is still very, very recent, but it's understandable that most people (particularly non SDs) are not impressed.

It's easy to look at the present and be cynical. If it is only able to solve your problem 95% of the time, you still can't trust it. I think the bets are really about how far we are from 99%, even for random stuff. The fact that a chatbot that was never explicitly trained to, just by predicting next probable tokens is wild. The pace of improvement in the past 5 years has been dizzying.

I'm not out here trying to put a dollar amount on it. But certainly, there is going to be a lot of money to be made. Of course it's a front for money and power. But like... isn't that the point of a corporation?
by jchw | 2025-11-21 00:20:59+00:00
Licensing your code under open source licenses does not nullify your rights under copyright law, and the license in this case does not waive any rights to attribution.

It would indeed be copyright violation to improperly attribute code changes. In this case I would absolutely say a force push is warranted, especially since most projects are leaning (potentially improperly) on Git metadata in order to fulfill legal obligations. (This project is MIT-licensed, but this is particularly true of Apache-licensed projects, which have some obligations that are surprising to people today.) A force push is not the end of the world. You can still generally disallow it, but an egregious copyright mistake in recent history is a pretty good justification. That or, literally, revert and re-add the commit with correct attribution. If you really feel this is asking too much, can you please explain why you think it's such a big problem? If it's such a pain, a good rule of thumb would be to not fuck this up regularly enough that it is a major concern when you have to break the glass.
by tremon | 2025-11-21 00:21:30+00:00
> how do you stop people from "taking it in"

Please take a moment to draw for us detailed faces of all the people you've "taken in" today while you were outside. Use a sketch artist if you need to. Now compare those results with what you'd have if you did the same with a photocamera. And for good measure, add in the amount of effort it took you to recall, and the effort it will take you to describe to every reader on HN who you saw today.

Do you really not see any difference between the human process and what a digital camera can do?
by scrubs | 2025-11-21 00:21:32+00:00
Agree - argue with customers at your own peril ... moreover sophisticated devs and companies want freedom from corporate control and the underlying attitude of entitlement ... a kind of campish behavior where customers buy-in to the corporate hustle which corps think customers are obligated to play along with.

Nah ah ...

I'll say the same thing another way: customers tell suppliers whether or not they're satisfied. They don't tell me. I tell them if I think the price is worth it. They don't tell me. Argue with me and they'll lose
by dangus | 2025-11-21 00:22:19+00:00
Emissions = safety.

I assume that out of 270 entire families that some are more popular than others? Why not pick the 20-30 most popular ones?

The tone of this article is that OP’s company has a savior complex. If they aren’t given expedient special treatment regulatory approval, the status quo is causing a bunch of fake make up dollar values of damage. It’s kind of a gross tone.
by endgame | 2025-11-21 00:22:41+00:00
This paper is up to Oleg's usual high standard, and is a very important step to read if you're catching up on the history of effect systems in Haskell.

As a user, I think effect libraries in Haskell trade off between five main constraints:

* Typelevel wizardry

* Boilerplate

* Performance

* Ability to handle "higher-order" effects (e.g., `bracket`)

* Safety (e.g., not accidentally leaking effects beyond their scope)

The most compelling libraries I've seen from the industrial perspective are the "IO-wrapper" libraries like `cleff`, `effectful`, and `bluefin`. These libraries tend to give good performance, can handle higher-order effects, but trade off a little safety to get the typelevel stuff down a bit. Of these, I currently favour `effectful` but am keeping an eye on `bluefin` (which is very close to `effectful` but with explicit handle-passing). The explicit handle-passing in `bluefin` seems to get the typelevel down a bit more in exchange for asking the user to write a little more boilerplate to explicitly pass handles around.
by shswkna | 2025-11-21 00:23:15+00:00
Its exactly this. And the majority of persons in powerful regulatory roles completely don’t get or comprehend this effect.

When regulatory efforts depart from reality,and fail to find the correct middle ground, this happens:

The reality still exists, and will always find its expression in one of the following:

- people circumvent rules and go criminal

- undesired behaviours move elsewhere where the regulation doesn’t exist

- sections of an economy die

- issues remain unaddressed with the over regulated issues becoming too taboo to even discuss in a sane way.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-21 00:24:00+00:00
> Check out the Smarter Every Day NASA talk

FYI, that talk was poorly received in the aerospace community.

Destin missed that the entire point of Artemis is not to one and done the Moon again but build towards getting to Mars. And the repeated "we're going, right?" shtick was condescending in the same way Hegseth wanting generals to cheer and holler for him was.

He acted like a petulant influencer. Not a science communicator.
by vunderba | 2025-11-21 00:24:10+00:00
Outside the time frame of being able to edit my original reply, but I've finally re-run the Text-to-Image portion of the site through NB Pro.

Results gpt-image-1: 10 / 12 Nano Banana Pro: 9 / 12 Nano Banana: 8 / 12

It's worth mentioning that even though it only scored slightly better than the original NB, many of the images are significantly better looking.

https://genai-showdown.specr.net?models=nb,nbp
by faidit | 2025-11-21 00:25:03+00:00
Meanwhile the established players with connections can break all the laws they want, and pay zero taxes to boot.

I think the problem isn't regulation (which the current admin is aggressively destroying, e.g. with the EPA) so much as corruption - which manifests partly as critical government functions being deliberately starved of resources. Regulatory bodies should get more funding to study and approve new technologies, and there should be more subsidies available for smaller innovators to offset the R&D investments and application waiting periods. That wouldn't be in the interest of big polluters and their captive politicians though.
by tim333 | 2025-11-21 00:25:13+00:00
yeah, dunno. My source was this https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/global-robotaxi-race-heats-u...

There's an ft article today saying "According to Goldman Sachs, China’s nascent robotaxi market is expected to rise from $54mn this year to $47bn by 2035." which would be a lot (https://archive.ph/U7R9a)
by gerdesj | 2025-11-21 00:25:24+00:00
Do this: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Upgrade_from_8_to_9 No need to overthink it too much. I've done several so far.

Run the pve8to9 script first to do some sanity checks (it should already be installed if the system is up to date).

Update the box to latest 8.x with apt update etc. Change the package sources to the new ones and update the system.

The packages databases can be a bit confusing: You have two lots - stock Debian and Proxmox (enterprise OR no-subscription).

Stock Debian is in the single file /etc/apt/sources.list - change "bookworm" to "trixie".

Proxmox sources is in a file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ Remove all of the Proxmox related ones you have there and run this (or do it yourself with an editor). This example is no-sub - the official doc notes the enterprise equivalent:

cat > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/proxmox.sources << EOF Types: deb URIs: http://download.proxmox.com/debian/pve Suites: trixie Components: pve-no-subscription Signed-By: /usr/share/keyrings/proxmox-archive-keyring.gpg EOF

Run apt dist-upgrade then the pve8to9 script again and then reboot. If in doubt choose Y for install the maintainer's version when prompted. There are notes in the doc about several packages.

Job done.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-11-21 00:27:02+00:00
I like this post. I was recently talking to a friend about using surveillance to improve recycling rates. The purpose of the discussion was not to advocate for more state-sponsored surveillance, but rather to imagine beneficial uses of surveillance. More to your point "more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad": Holy shit: Look at environmental protection laws. Consider the developed world in 1960 to today. The environment is night and day. It is so much cleaner and safer than ever. And, yes, most of those changes came about from regulations. I don't want to go back to a world where I come home from work in New York City and wipe my face clean in the mirror, and the tissue/towel comes away smudged with black & brown from soot in the air. (That is a true story that my mother told me from living in NYC in the 1970s.)
by Laremere | 2025-11-21 00:27:36+00:00
I agree, though I think the real winner here is the customers. The New Glenn 9x4 has a higher targeted payload capacity that an expended Falcon Heavy. Mission design takes years, and payload mass is the most important constraining factor. So it'd now be fairly reasonable approach to start building now for 9x4's constraints, and then fly on it or Starship depending on readiness and price. If customers start doing this now, that also means a quicker pickup on using the increased launch capability.

On a funnier note, the 9 in Falcon 9 is the number of engines. So blue origin is somewhat picking up on their naming scheme. Or, by BO's scheme, it'd be the Falcon 9x1, or the Starship 33x6.
by cultofmetatron | 2025-11-21 00:27:52+00:00
I'n incredibly impressed by valve's commitment to playing the long game. It makes sense to have the frame by arm since the system is lighter and its clear this is just the trojan horse to get arm linux into every gamer's house. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with an arm steamdeck 1-2 version from now when the tech is ready.
by ComplexSystems | 2025-11-21 00:28:42+00:00
A few things:

First, modern LLMs can be thought, abstractly, as a kind of Markov model. We are taking the entire previous output as one state vector and from there we have a distribution to the next state vector, which is the updated output with another token added. The point is that there is some subtlety in what a "state" is. So that's one thing.

But the point of the usual Markov chain is that we need to figure out the next conditional probability based on the entire previous history. Making a lookup table based on an exponentially increasing history of possible combinations of tokens is impossible, so we make a lookup table on the last N tokens instead - this is an N-gram LLM or an N'th order Markov chain, where states are now individual tokens. It is much easier, but it doesn't give great results.

The main reason here is that sometimes, the last N words (or tokens, whatever) simply do not have sufficient info about what the next word should be. Often times some fragment of context way back at the beginning was much more relevant. You can increase N, but then sometimes there are a bunch of intervening grammatical filler words that are useless, and it also gets exponentially large. So the 5 most important words to look at, given the current word, could be 5 words scattered about the history, rather than the last 5. And this is always evolving and differs for each new word.

Attention solves this problem. Instead of always looking at the last 5 words, or last N words, we have a dynamically varying "score" for how relevant each of the previous words is given the current one we want to predict. This idea is closer to the way humans parse real language. A Markov model can be thought of as a very primitive version of this where we always just attend evenly to the last N tokens and ignore everything else. So you can think of attention as kind of like an infinite-order Markov chain, but with variable weights representing how important past tokens are, and which is always dynamically adjusting as the text stream goes on.

The other difference is that we no longer can have a simple lookup table like we do with n-gram Markov models. Instead, we need to somehow build some complex function that takes in the previous context and computes outputs the correct next-token distribution. We cannot just store the distribution of tokens given every possible combination of previous ones (and with variable weights on top of it!), as there are infinitely many. It's kind of like we need to "compress" the hypothetically exponentially large lookup table into some kind of simple expression that lets us compute what the lookup table would be without having to store every possible output at once.

Both of these things - computing attention scores, and figuring out some formula for the next-token distribution - are currently solved with deep networks just trying to learn from data and perform gradient descent until it magically starts giving good results. But if the network isn't powerful enough, it won't give good results - maybe comparable to a more primitive n-gram model. So that's why you see what you are seeing.
by thewebguyd | 2025-11-21 00:30:02+00:00
> big tech

That's why.

TCP/IP was DARPA, so publicly (taxpayer) funded. The first HTTPd was public domain. WiFi was a bit of a combo of Vic Hayes & Bell Labs, IEEE and a research org so not exactly a public or public domain project.

Big tech and profit/rent seeking is literally the problem. Things don't interoperate because it's not profitable for them to interoperate.

We stopped undertaking large public works projects in tech and outsourced it all to private companies. Big tech is literally the problem.

This is why free and open source software is so important.

How different would things look if httpd wasn't public domain, and Tim instead started a tech company, made it proprietary, etc.
by layer8 | 2025-11-21 00:31:07+00:00
“Cursor” is a developer product. A non-dev is less likely to know Cursor-the-product or understand what it is, and will more likely think of a mouse cursor or a text cursor. So even disregarding whether the analogy makes sense, this is a strange slogan for a file browser that presumably is targeted at regular computer users. “ChatGPT for files” would make more sense.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-21 00:31:24+00:00
> In what sense?

Knowingly or negligently materially supporting violent crime creates criminal liability under conspiracy statutes. Plenty of states specifically regulate domestic terrorism [1]. And as we've seen with gun violence, by default being involved in acts of violence generates civil liability [2].

[1] https://www.icnl.org/resources/terrorism-laws-in-the-united-...

[2] https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/Laura-Hallas-Mas...
by northlondoner | 2025-11-21 00:31:48+00:00
Wigner-Dyson density or NNSD (Nearest Neighbour Spacing Distribution) of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system behaves in a certain distribution. This distribution is quite different than Poisson and distinctly differentiates chaotic behaviour in Quantum mechanics. It actually means, the quantum version of the classically chaotic system’s Hamiltonian matrix has this property.

Available on v0.2.11 of Leymosun package.
by hellojesus | 2025-11-21 00:31:53+00:00
Allow people to secure temporary plates that are just aliases to their normal plate so they can be swapped every x hours. Then people could use paper temp plates and change them frequently while the state still maintains the supeonable connection to the true registration.

Knowing the US dmv, this will cost $50 and only be doable twice per year, but it should be offered free of charge to be reprinted at least daily. It's not expensive to maintain a massive data lake of the records.
by Mawr | 2025-11-21 00:32:33+00:00
That's exactly the problem—vehicles may exist anywhere at any time and block arbitrary parts of your line-of-sight. That's why you have to learn to deal with it as a driver.

That said, obviously care should be taken to limit occurrences of view limiting obstacles whenever possible, especially in areas frequented by unskilled traffic participants—so pedestrians, really. A straightforward example would be disallowing street parking within a few tens of metres of pedestrian crossings. Street parking in general is horrible, especially on quiet residential streets—kids may dart around them onto the street at full speed.

The problem is not limited to large vehicles either.

——————

Anyways, here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

- Self-inflicted LOS issues by passing/filtering (motor)cyclists: https://youtu.be/qi6ithdYA_8?t=861, https://youtu.be/TRPYfHzQSFw?t=644, https://youtu.be/WgaWwWUYX64?t=200, https://youtu.be/WgaWwWUYX64?t=209, https://youtu.be/vYrxbdhLEN0?t=1083

- Cars obstructing view of an intersection: https://youtu.be/swmt44N9DJc?t=307, https://youtu.be/ejqpeFyqNz0?t=258, https://youtu.be/veLDLUXLrdQ?t=8, https://youtu.be/q46XoynHTpM?t=109, https://youtu.be/q46XoynHTpM?t=1016, https://youtu.be/m8jk2H7a-BI?t=70, https://youtu.be/9tgMe3CurNE?t=558, https://youtu.be/QCALZbDC_i0?t=172

- Cars obstructing view of a pedestrian/cyclist crossing: https://youtu.be/axCAi7Cjh2g?t=12, https://youtu.be/MReD5mieJ1c?t=1071, https://youtu.be/14c-iwZUh9M?t=5, https://youtu.be/Mzs0izUSoFo?t=14, https://youtu.be/vT7uI6EBQRM?t=238, https://youtu.be/O7UIACa35KY?t=366, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IQHWUEPEwcg, https://youtu.be/vYrxbdhLEN0?t=551 (watch the whole video, it's very instructive)

- Pedestrian behavior around buses: https://youtu.be/oxN0tqO9cSk?t=8, https://youtu.be/03qTXV4aQKE?t=709

——————

And counterexamples, showing proper driving:

- Obstructed pedestrian crossing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OThBjk-oFmk (I said proper driving, not proper cycling)

- Around a blind turn: https://youtu.be/86-qjb_m43A?t=294

- And to top it off, obstructed pedestrian crossing plus a bus: https://youtu.be/RpB4bx63qmg?t=439

——————

As you can see, LOS issues can pop up anywhere and there is no way to "fix" it. You have to adjust your behavior accordingly. You can't drive "optimistically", assuming nothing's there just because you can't see it. That's like closing your eyes and flooring it. Can't see nothing, therefore nothing is there!
by aerostable_slug | 2025-11-21 00:32:48+00:00
Look, you asked 'is my life better?' and the answer is yes. I haven't seen any of these supposed innocent people being deported everyone keeps bringing up. What I have seen is people with significant criminal records being deported from my county, something I am great with. Violent felons who beat women or work for cartels don't need to be here, and so far every single person apprehended here has ended up having a substantial record.

I have also seen effectively zero retractions, corrections, or updates on press articles about these supposedly innocent people once their criminal histories become publicly available. Well, CBP or HSI or ICE will put up an announcement, but little good that does. It's no wonder people think ICE are the forces of evil when they never learn the "local father" is a registered sex offender or a violent drunk.

I absolutely share your concern over profiling driving patterns, but I don't think hyperbole is useful, and for me it immediately puts a person's credibility near zero.
by martinpw | 2025-11-21 00:33:20+00:00
Wrote a mini adventure game in BASIC for the ZX-81. Since it only had 1K of RAM, each room in the game had to be a separate program (max around 25 lines of code or so), and at the end of the room, depending on what actions you took, it asked you to wind the cassette tape to a specific location to load a new room. When I could finally afford the 16K RAM pack, I rewrote it as a single application. Couldn't believe how nice it was to have that much memory.
by shswkna | 2025-11-21 00:33:31+00:00
From the article:

> They can also increase suicidal ideation.

A very close family member committed suicide, after Prozac dosage adjustments made his brain chemistry go haywire.

This happened 30 years ago, and it has been known to us that Prozac can cause this, since then.

The Guardians headline is way, way understating the real situation here.
by snailmailman | 2025-11-21 00:33:51+00:00
I just followed their guide last week and was surprised how smooth it went. Their documentation seemed very thorough. I kinda expected a few issues, but everything worked flawlessly. Seems like they do a pretty good job of detecting most of the edge cases that would cause issues. Granted, my installation hasn’t been modified too heavily outside the norm. I think I had one or two modified config files I had to edit, but the helper script found and told me about them and how to handle it.

I had put off the upgrade for a while figuring it would be a breaking change. But it went so smoothly I’ll probably be upgrading to 9.1 pretty soon.
by techblueberry | 2025-11-21 00:33:54+00:00
I feel like the biggest sin in American taxation is the idea of a wealth tax, but it does make me wonder, maybe index your property taxes on your wealth? I like the idea of old people not having to move out of their houses if they're poor, but like, isn't what we really want to do is tax wealth? Get more money moving around the system?

It feels like even on the right there's this growing knowledge that wealth is too concentrated, I thought this interview was interesting with Rory Sutherland where he basically says like "I'm right wing on income but not on wealth"

And to me when I look at the economy, it really feels like we're moving away even from right wing values on meritocracy. Like forget my left wing goals, can we just go back to the world where if you worked hard you did better, fuck equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, we just need opportunity.

'The “Magnificent Seven” companies now make up nearly a record 37% of the S&P 500’s total market capitalization.'

'Approximately 73% of all wealth in the U.S. is currently owned by Americans over the age of 55'