MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mikkupikku | 2025-11-04 17:17:00+00:00
I use a very customized emacs/evil setup, and before that a very customized vim/neovim setup, but I've never had trouble jumping onto systems where only plain Jane vi is available. I think it's because of the color scheme, or lack thereof, that I don't have any problem automatically switching. If I don't see my color scheme, by fingers just automatically use vi compatible bindings and I don't find myself expecting my other customizations to be present.

Maybe not everybody can switch so easily, but I think it's worth trying out. (One change that absolutely does trip me up is capslock->control. If I try using somebody else's computer, I constantly enable capslock by accident.)
by OkayPhysicist | 2025-11-04 17:17:08+00:00
Spoken like someone who's never worked on a large-scale LABVIEW system. A moderately sized codebase (equivalent to a project with a million-odd lines of code) ends up with a project containing tens if not hundreds of thousands of files. Each file opens up two windows, so if you're working on anything nontrivial you're going to have dozens and dozens of windows open at a time. Compiling such a project takes upwards of an hour, and you can't rely on the interpreter environment because it has observably different behavior than the resulting builds (oh, and the compilation process happens in the same process as the IDE, so that's completely bricked during that hour or two).

No one ever names their wires, so there's no variable names anywhere. To see the name of a subvi (think function), you have to hover over it. Sure there's a little picture, but that just means instead of just merely naming my functions I have to draw a little picture. Don't even get me started on wire routing, which is a crucial, manual process for any vi of non-trivial complexity.

Then there's the fundamental engine bugs, which National Instruments' response to hearing about is approximately "get fucked". Like, for example, the GUI rendering breaking in subtle ways when Windows has an update queued. Imagine getting a bug report that consists of "We can't do feature X", and trying desperately to figure out if your code is wrong, or if your customer's just an idiot, only to discover that 0.1% of the buttons in your project just... don't exist sometimes.

Then there's version control, which is rudimentary at best. In order to compare two files, you need to load both files, which even with lazy loading takes what feels like an eternity. Merges? No automation whatsoever. Every merge is manual.

Extremely useful features (like metaprogramming, which is important because of just how miserable writing LABVIEW is) are locked behind shoving obscure keys into ini files like "ABANDONALLHOPEYEWHOENTERHERE=1" or "SuperSecretPrivateSpecialStuff=true" (That second one is real).

Don't get me wrong, LabVIEW has its place as a way to hack together a little control panel to talk to some instruments. But anyone suggesting adding a subvi should be shot, and the project should be rewritten in a real programming language.
by nettalk83 | 2025-11-04 17:17:24+00:00
This project explores a simple but radical possibility — that philosophy itself could be expressed as executable code.

OntoCode.org is part of the OntoMesh ecosystem, which unites ontology, consciousness, and computation. It’s not about code that simulates thought — it’s about thought that structures itself as code.

What would happen if “Being” became logically runnable?
by Retr0id | 2025-11-04 17:17:37+00:00
I've been thinking about building an actually-ethical residential proxy system, for censorship-evasion purposes.

The internet in a growing number of countries is censored, but different content categories are censored in each jurisdiction. Many sites and services also block known VPNs (i.e. non-residential IPs), so that doesn't work as a bypass in all cases.

I have trusted friends in other countries, so by mutual agreement we could set up wireguard links for each other to use (subject to agreed terms). It just needs some way to intelligently route traffic depending on which jurisdictions will allow which requests (i.e. "which is the lowest-latency link that will allow this request").
by jmyeet | 2025-11-04 17:17:50+00:00
So this just glosses over several issues and ignores the big obvious solution.

The big obvious solution is a system like Vienna where ~60% of the housing is supplied by the government.

Oh and if no one wants to buy houses, great. Let the government take them over and then create rental stock, something the UK did until Thatcher came along [1].

You can also differentiate between personal home ownership and so-called "investment properties". That is, you punitively tax hoarding of housing as well as short-term speculation in hoousing. As one example, Switzerland (depending on canton) has pretty high capital gains taxes on housing that tend to decrease the longer you own the house [2].

We have a ton of shortsighted and downright destructive policy to increase house values (eg Prop 13 in California) that are often sold emotively. Prop 13 was sold as not kicking seniors out of their homes so we got a tax policy that essentially froze Disneyland's property tax to 1960s levels.

NYC builds a ton of real estate for no other purpose than allowing non-domiciled billionaires to park their wealth. I, for one, think that owning property in NYC (or anywhere) should make you resident for tax purposes. And the property tax system should be fixed but it's held hostage by upstate homeowners who like their subsidized tax rates on single family homes too much to let anything change.

Relying on private entities to provide houses by being landlords is an absolutely awful system.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-...

[2]: https://www.ubs.com/ch/en/services/guide/mortgages-and-finan...
by phantasmish | 2025-11-04 17:18:03+00:00
What's amazing is that these folks can straight-up publish what they plan to do, and then people still act surprised when they do it. It's so weird.

See also: Project 2025. Or various propaganda strategies that are proposed publicly, in specific detail, then used verbatim. They don't even have to hide it, and still get away with it. It's totally bizarre.
by epolanski | 2025-11-04 17:18:36+00:00
I don't think there's any regulation that can really help here. You can't force a plumber to do business with Rita, American Airlines to accept Steve who's been super rude to the stewards on board, you can't force anybody really to do business with you.

The only exception I know of, for which there is some regulation where they can't just say "no", legally, are banks. And trust me, if banks don't want you as a customer they will do everything in their power to maliciously comply to the point your account is useless and perma frozen.

What is this lunacy about Google regulation about? If Google doesn't want Enderman, you can't force them to have him.

I get what you really mean is regulating so companies are forced to process and communicate via non-automated, non-AI systems for whatever a, b, c issue or reason, but this doesn't change anything because of how simple and cheap is malicious compliance.

All Google needs to do is "yeah, okay, we'll also review it with human", and put some intern to press a green button manually.

Unless you can prove discrimination, it's their house, it's their business, they can and should do what they want.

The issue is that Youtube is one of the strongest and hardest to break monopolies on the internet. It's the hardest part of the degoogling process.
by netdevphoenix | 2025-11-04 17:19:06+00:00
> it is 4 billion years of evolution in a big and complex environment at molecular-level fidelity. Finding a tighter upper bound is left as an exercise for the reader.

You have great points there and I agree. Only issue I take with your remark above. Surely, by your own definition, this is not true. Evolution by natural selection is not a deterministic process so 4 billion years is just one of many possible periods of time needed but not necessarily the longest or the shortest.

Also, re "The human brain is not a 20-watt computer ("100 watts per day" is not right)", I was merely saying that there exist an intelligence that consumes 20 watts per day. So it is possible to run an intelligence on that much energy per day. This and the compute bit do not refer to the training costs but to the running costs after all, it will be useless to hit AGI if we do not have enough energy or compute to run it for longer than half a millisecond or the means to increase the running time.

Obviously, the path to design and train AGI is going to take much more than that just like the human brain did but given that the path to the emergence of the human brain wasn't the most efficient given the inherent randomness in evolution natural selection there is no need to pretend that all the circumstances around the development of the human brain apply to us as our process isn't random at all nor is it parallel at a global scale.
by tamnd | 2025-11-04 17:20:17+00:00
> Do you know if there's any experimental evidence of this?

As my knowledge, there is no direct evidence that Calabi Yau manifolds describe real extra dimensions. In string theory, these shapes are used because they fit the math and preserve symmetries like supersymmetry. Experiments have not found signs of extra dimensions or supersymmetric particles, so Calabi Yau manifolds remain a beautiful theoretical idea, not something confirmed by observation.
by littlestymaar | 2025-11-04 17:21:08+00:00
Pet peeve: Contrary to a persistent popular belief, inflation != currency debasement.

(You can have inflation while your currency go up relatively to all the others on the FX market, like what happened to USD in 2022-S1, or you can have massive inflation difference between countries sharing the same currency, like it happened in the Euro Area between 2022 and today).
by cldcntrl | 2025-11-04 17:21:11+00:00
SEEKING WORK | AWS Expertise | Remote (USA Based)

I've been working on production-grade AWS deployments for over 10 years, so it's a bit hard to frame my experience/skill set. That being said, if you need help with almost anything AWS - architecture, infrastructure, performance, scale - feel free to reach out. Although versed in Well-Architected/multi-region/multi-account, I strive to supply the simplest solution for your particular scenario.

Keywords: IAM, VPC, Cloudwatch, EC2/ASG/ELB, Lambda, API Gateway, RDS, Redshift, DynamoDB, CodeDeploy, Cognito, Athena, S3, Cloudfront, Kinesis, SQS, SNS, IoT Core, Sagemaker, ElastiCache, MediaConvert

$150 USD/hour, minimum 50 hours (rates are standard and listed on my website)

hn@cldcntrl.com
by mberning | 2025-11-04 17:21:14+00:00
Interesting. I am working on a project to integrate access management to iceberg/parquet files for sagemaker. Controlling what users logged into sagemaker studio have access to in s3. It’s fine using static policies for mvp, but eventually it needs to be dynamic and integrated into enterprise iam tools. Those tools generally have great support for managing sql grants. Not so much for s3 bucket policies.
by bob1029 | 2025-11-04 17:21:34+00:00
It looks like a layout/style/composition issue with the browser engine.

In Safari I'm seeing 91% CPU time on paint, 6% on layout, 2% on styles. It looks like it's taking somewhere between 100-200ms on my machine to chunk through a state change each time.

> Is there a way to know if the browser is using the GPU or CPU for rendering, and is there are way to see the milliseconds per frame?

For Safari, you would go to the Web Inspector and navigate to the Timelines tab. Chrome has a similar thing.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-11-04 17:21:42+00:00
There is no equivalency, only contributing factors. One cannot deny that our evolutionary history has contributed to our current capacity, probably in ways that are difficult to perceive unless you're an anthropologist.

Language is one mode of expression, and humans have many. This is another factor that makes humans so effective. To be honest, I would say that physical observation is far more powerful than all the bodies of text, because it is comprehensive and can respond to interaction. But that is merely my opinion.

No-one should be arguing that an LLM training corpus is the same as evolution. But information comes in many forms.
by mapontosevenths | 2025-11-04 17:21:44+00:00
> this kind of emotional appeal

It is not an emotional appeal. It is a statement of objective and provable fact that cutting off funding for food resulted in people not having food. It's also obvious that this would be the result. The grandparent posted a link to one study. There are others if you do a quick search.

> People are scratching the surface and following the money. Those who used such maudlin tactics to protect money laundering, war mongering and such things would do well to go and sin no more, lest more serious consequences come knocking.

I have no idea what any of this even means. I don't live in whatever bubble you do, but it sounds like you believe there is some kind of global cabal of "them" that profited by these children not starving and you're out to stop that?
by stefanos82 | 2025-11-04 17:21:51+00:00
I have tried to follow Hugo's development but lost track with its constant evolution and addition of features I do not need...therefore for now I follow a simpler path: I keep my data in markdown files and I plan to switch to asciidoctor for good; it's quite old, it's battle-tested, and offers me many options to produce various forms of output; be it HTML, PDF, ePub, etc...

If O'Reilly trusts it to produce its ebooks, then I'm sure it worthy of my time and effort!
by riskable | 2025-11-04 17:22:22+00:00
Hopefully this will put pressure on the market to produce much more efficient AI models. As opposed to bigger, then bigger, and then even BIGGER models (which is the current trend).

FYI: gpt-oss:120b is better at coding (in benchmarks and my own anecdotal testing) than gpt5-mini. More importantly, it's so much faster too. We need more of this kind of optimization. Note that gpt5-mini is estimated to be around ~150 billion parameters.
by bradchoate | 2025-11-04 17:22:28+00:00
The URL for the post includes "why" (en-why-is-python-ordereddict-ordered), so I suppose the title of the article was updated after the HN post was created. The site's native language is Chinese and I'm guessing the post was translated via automation. In fact, if you run the article through an automated translation service (Google Translate), it reproduces the "Why" title.
by batterylake | 2025-11-04 17:23:15+00:00
Very interesting topic. I also wonder why other signs of AI writing, such as negative parallelism ("It's not just X, it's Y"), are preferred by the models.

Also, I wrote a small extension that automatically replaces ChatGPT responses with em dashes with alternative punctuation marks: https://github.com/nckclrk/rm-em-dashes
by grayhatter | 2025-11-04 17:23:18+00:00
> You complain about UI not keeping up with key strokes. As a counterexample I point out Visual Studio Code. It's UI is not as snappy as native GUI frameworks, but we have a top notch user experience that's consistent across operating systems and desktop environments. That's a win, isn't it? How many projects can make that claim?

Is it a win? Why? Consistency across platforms is a branding, business goal, not an engineering one. Consistency itself doesn't specify a direction, it just makes it more familiar, and easier to adopt without effort. It's easier to sit all day, and never exercise.

It's what everybody does, or it's what everybody uses, has never translated into it being good.

Notably; the engineers I respect the most, and the ones making things that I enjoy using, none of them use vscode. I'm sure most will read this as an attack against their editor of choice, SHUN THE NON BELIEVER! But hopefully enough will realize that it's not actually an attack on them nor their editor, but instead I'm advocating for what is the best possible option, and not the easiest to use. Could they use vscode? Obviously yes, they could. They don't because the more experience you have, the easier it is to see that bloat get in the way.
by hatefulheart | 2025-11-04 17:24:20+00:00
Hey Delaney! Thanks for you and your teams work.

It doesn't put me off the project! I will happily pay for great software that enables me to make money just like I'd pay for good tools around the house (once I get started with D*).

I was just pointing out that in my mind the criticism is totally fair game because many OSS do not do this, that is all. By the looks of it you agree.

I think I want to just mention something here that is really important. The Datastar team have done more to push for performance, better UX and the ways of thinking around SPAs and MPAs than multi billion dollar companies have done in the last couple of years. Not forgetting HTMX, this cooperation has been incredibly fruitful and I am very excited about the future with you guys.
by afavour | 2025-11-04 17:24:22+00:00
> My contention is that this kind of emotional appeal has been exploited to the point of (quickly) diminishing returns.

That might apply to you personally, and if it does then it says a lot more about you than it does any broader societal point.

Personally, I’m able to distinguish between attempts to manipulate my emotions and the very real, very true fact that people are starving and dying as a result of cynical choices made by Musk and DOGE. There’s no reason to group that together with war mongering and money laundering, the only reason to do so is if you’re seeking to dismiss real documented suffering.

“People have cynically tried to manipulate my emotions so I don’t have any emotions any more” isn’t the retort you apparently think it is.
by eminence32 | 2025-11-04 17:24:32+00:00
Relevant links:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/retailer/retailer-notice/r...

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124

> Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons.

Obviously lawyers are going to be involved in interpreting these rules. But as a lay person, I wonder: a store cannot charge a different price to someone who is buying food with a SNAP coupon. But for someone who has SNAP benefits, but isn't using a SNAP coupon to buy food (you know... because the government isn't funding the program), do these rules still apply?
by hodgehog11 | 2025-11-04 17:25:06+00:00
We have an intrinsic (and strange) reward system for creating new things, and it's totally awesome. LLMs only started to become somewhat useful once researchers tried to tap in to that innate reward system and create proxies for it. We definitely have not succeeded in creating a perfect mimicry of that system though, as any alignment researcher would no doubt tell you.
by nickledave | 2025-11-04 17:25:26+00:00
> "thinking science"

If you are really curious, I invite you to read this cognitive science paper, "Modern Alchemy: Neurocognitive Reverse Engineering": https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25289/1/GuestEtAl2025.pdf

Note the quote at the top from Abeba Birhane: > We can only presume to build machines like us once we see ourselves as machines first.

It reminds me of your comment that

> [LLMs] seem to think more than most people I know

and I have to say that I am really sad that you feel this way. I hope you can find better people to spend your time with.

You might find other recent papers from the first author interesting. Perhaps it will help you understand that there are a lot of deeply curious people in the world that are also really fucking sick of our entire culture being poisoned by intellectual e-waste from Silicon Valley.
by tamnd | 2025-11-04 17:25:36+00:00
> Could you elaborate a bit on this?

Please correct me if I am wrong, I have not touched this subject in a long time and only have some intuition. Here is how I understand it:

A manifold is a kind of space that looks flat when you zoom in close enough. The surface of a sphere or a doughnut is a 2D manifold, and the space we live in is a 3D manifold. A Calabi Yau is one of these spaces but with more dimensions and extra symmetry that makes it very special.

In geometry there are several ways to describe curvature. The most complete one is the Riemann curvature tensor, which contains all the information about how space bends. If you take a specific kind of average of that, you get the Ricci curvature tensor. Ricci curvature tells you how the size of small regions in space changes compared to what would happen in flat space.

Imagine a tiny ball floating in this curved space. If the Ricci curvature is positive, nearby paths tend to come together and the ball’s volume becomes smaller than it would in flat space. If the Ricci curvature is negative, nearby paths move apart and the ball’s volume grows larger. If the Ricci curvature is zero, the ball keeps the same volume overall. So when I said “the space does not stretch or shrink overall” I was describing this situation: the Ricci curvature is zero, which means the space does not expand or contract on average compared to flat space.

The space can still have complicated twists and bends. Ricci curvature only measures a certain type of curvature related to volume change. Even if the Ricci tensor is zero, there can still be other kinds of curvature present. The curvature balances out is just an intuitive way to express that the volume effects cancel when you take the average that defines Ricci curvature. It does not mean the space has matching regions of positive and negative curvature in a literal sense, but rather that the mathematical combination producing Ricci curvature sums to zero.

Noe back to definition: A Calabi-Yau manifold is defined as compact (finite in size), complex), and Kähler (it has a compatible geometric and complex structure), with a first Chern class equal to zero. Yau’s theorem proves that such a space always has a way to measure distances so that its Ricci curvature is exactly zero. So when I said “the curvature balances out perfectly so the space does not stretch or shrink overall” I meant it as an intuitive description of this Ricci flat property. The space is not flat like a sheet of paper, but its internal geometry is perfectly balanced in the sense that there is no net expansion or contraction of space.
by t-writescode | 2025-11-04 17:25:50+00:00
Wouldn’t a heuristic score be AI? It could very probably *not* be an LLM or Stable Diffusion or similar which has coopted the overall term “AI”; but that doesn’t make it not an expert system, or an SLM used for categorization, or even A* search, all of which fell under the umbrella of “AI” for a long time.
by senderista | 2025-11-04 17:25:59+00:00
The problem is that this global coordinate system isn't a continuous mapping (see the discontinuity of both angular coordinates between 2*pi and 0). Manifolds are required to have an "atlas"[0]: a collection of coordinate systems ("charts") that cover the space and are continuous mappings from open subsets of the underlying topological space to open subsets of Euclidean space, with the overlaps between charts inducing smooth (i.e., infinitely differentiable) mappings in Euclidean space.

Colloquially, this means a manifold is just "a bunch of patches of n-dimensional Euclidean space, smoothly sewn together."

A sphere requires at least two charts for an admissible atlas (say two hemispheres overlapping slightly at the equator, or six hemispheres with no overlaps), otherwise you get discontinuities.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(topology)