MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ajdramos | 2025-11-22 15:22:09+00:00
Hi folks, I threw together a small tool as an experiment: why. It was 100% vibe-coded over a few late nights, but it already seems to work fine and I’d love your feedback on whether it feels useful.

GitHub: https://github.com/ajdramos/why

The main idea: type why <topic> and get the sort of diagnosis you’d expect from a seasoned Linux admin—no manual journalctl, smartctl, systemd-analyze, ss, or kubectl spelunking. It runs in ~200 ms, parses 113 rule-based checks, speaks EN/PT, and can even auto-generate JSON snapshots for incident reports.

Highlights right now: - why boot-critical → parses systemd-analyze blame + critical-chain and flags services over the threshold. - why storage → SMART health, mdraid status, Btrfs device stats, ZFS pool states in one go. - why security → SELinux/AppArmor posture, firewall services, listening sockets. - why rca → builds a root-cause timeline from journal/dmesg (OOM killer, kernel panics, GPU resets, thermal throttling). - why kube-node → kubelet/runtime status, PSI pressure, recent kubelet warnings, pods stuck in non-running states. - Plus the existing stuff: why slow, why wifi, why gpu, why gaming, TUI watch mode, dependency checker, etc.

It’s MIT-licensed, the binary itself only pulls in a handful of Rust crates, and it piggybacks on standard system tools (systemd-analyze, smartctl, ss, kubectl, etc.)—all rules live in rules.toml so you can add your own.

Would anyone actually use this? Which subcommands feel missing?
by nona | 2025-11-22 15:22:35+00:00
> I'd also really like to see affirmations that Matter is usable sans any big network, sans Google Apple and whomever else. That it really is something we can run ourselves.

I'm using Matter (over Thread, mostly) with Home Assistant – in addition to using it with Apple HomeKit, but I could have done it exclusively HA. My devices get an IPv6 ULA from the border router, HA can directly talk to them without any internet or cloud involved. Does this qualify?

It's true that certain non-standardized features are only available through "extensions" ie. the device vendor app. But both Thread and Matter get new revisions, and the devices get firmware updates in a standard way (again, installable via Home Assistant) to take advantage of new features and stability updates. All of this has gotten better with time.

But the best thing about Matter is that I'm not locked into a specific ecosystem or dependent on an app from the device vendor. So, in my view it has been a slow start but with steady improvement. And the right direction IMHO.
by postalcoder | 2025-11-22 15:22:44+00:00
If we expand this to 3 years, the single biggest shift that totally changed LLM development is the increase in size of context windows from 4,000 to 16,000 to 128,000 to 256,000.

When we were at 4,000 and 16,000 context windows, a lot of effort was spent on nailing down text splitting, chunking, and reduction.

For all intents and purposes, the size of current context windows obviates all of that work.

What else changed?

- Multimodal LLMs - Text extraction from PDFs was a major issue for rag/document intelligence. A lot of time was wasted trying to figure out custom text extraction strategies for documents. Now, you can just feed the image of a PDF page into an LLM and get back a better transcription.

- Reduced emphasis on vector search. People have found that for most purposes, having an agent grep your documents is cheaper and better than using a more complex rag pipeline. Boris Cherny created a stir when he talked about claude code doing it that way[0]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163011#43164253
by chipcomp | 2025-11-22 15:22:50+00:00
There are different types and combinations of ADD/ADHD/Autism/Parkinson’s/etc.

The closest to reality anyone tried to describe are Dr. Amen’s ADHD “types” and regions of the brain related to attention-deficit symptoms. But it’s much more complex. E.g. when you don’t process Folic Acid due to MTHFR mutations, chemicals can be generated that cause other genetic mutations in the brain over time, causing psychosis. And some stimulants with likely undiagnosed predisposition of paranoia can cause schizophrenic-like symptoms for years. If you just take what a psychiatrist or even the supplements that Dr. Amen would suggest, it may be a miracle for some people, but for others that miracle may turn into a nightmare. I didn’t recognize that I was having hallucinations and paranoia until years later.

I’ve found a set of things that I eat and natural supplements that work for me, and it took years of struggle. I miss the meds, but they didn’t make me better, they almost ruined my life.
by mahogany | 2025-11-22 15:23:14+00:00
Assuming you are in the US, consider that your perspective may be influenced by the modern (since second half 20th century) education system which so strictly stratifies by age. It actually is much stranger to me that we would expect peers to be exact age. There is a lot to learn from older kids, or even other (non-teacher, non-parent) adults.
by dgrin91 | 2025-11-22 15:23:26+00:00
If a journalist does not at least attempt to present their viewpoint as neutral I will immediate presume they have irrational bias and grow skeptical of what the journalist is telling me - no matter what side of the issue their bias is on. In other words, if you talk to me like a salesman I will presume you are trying to sell me and I wont want to buy.

Talk to me like an adult. Tell me what happened. That doesn't mean sugarcoating it. When I read the quotes and combine that with my existing knowledge of Roblox I can come to my own conclusions just fine.
by 7bit | 2025-11-22 15:24:15+00:00
1. Mining and processing are destructive Uranium mining leaves behind contaminated soil, groundwater problems, tailings, and long-term ecological damage. “Yellow Cake” shows this clearly. These impacts last far longer than any economic benefit.

2. Operation is low-CO₂, but not low-risk Severe accidents are rare, but the consequences are catastrophic when they do occur. Chernobyl and Fukushima are obvious examples. The U.S. history is full of near misses, leaks, hardware failures, and human-factor problems. Calling such a technology “safe” glosses over systemic vulnerability.

3. Waste cannot be neutralised High-level waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. No human institution has ever maintained stable responsibility for anything even close to that timeframe. Most countries still rely on interim storage because final repositories are politically and technically unresolved.

4. Long-term burdens are externalised The benefits (electricity, profits, political narratives) are short-term and local. The harms (contamination, risk, millennia of monitoring) are long-term and imposed on future generations who cannot consent.

5. “Clean” becomes a marketing word In lifecycle terms—mining, fuel fabrication, plant construction, decommissioning, and waste storage—nuclear energy cannot be “clean” in any holistic sense. It is at best low-carbon but high-burden.

This doesn’t mean nobody can argue for nuclear energy, but it does mean that calling it clean is a simplification that hides very real costs and risks
Ask HN: How do you balance creativity, love for the craft, and money?
by introvertmac | 2025-11-22 15:24:57+00:00
Considering with AI an experienced engineer can build anything much faster and we had a discussion around "single person unicorn". How are you balancing your love for the craft and creativity. I see copycats of copycats generating decent $ per month, sometimes I wonder I should I also do the same and leave my job to pursue the unicorn dream? As every 2 years there is layoff, AI taking over... not sure if this make sense or this is just me bored on a weekend.
by talkingtab | 2025-11-22 15:25:20+00:00
Complained about and already modified. However, what is "wrong" is that some "person" invented the internet. We live in a time of "followers" and in that paradigm we need some singular person to follow. But it was actually a bunch of original thinkers of whom TBL was one. But it was not a person. I suspect a closer answer is the IETF, but that is also a leaky abstraction.

The point is that if you want to do something, you are probably more likely to do it well with lots of other doers. Not followers.
by keyringlight | 2025-11-22 15:25:55+00:00
For a while I've been wondering if the push to DX12 or vulkan as the "better" APIs has been a factor in the big engines becoming a near monoculture with games development. Games are very varied in what they require, some push the limits but many releases are more modest yet lots of them are gravitating around full featured leading edge Unreal/Unity. Having a lower barrier to entry for graphics programming that lets them make something that's a closer fit to their requirements.

The other big push would be Epic cutting royalties until you're earning a significant amount, which would encourage studios not to hire or allocating as much resources to in-house.
by roody15 | 2025-11-22 15:26:48+00:00
I think you are correct here. If you want to look at the decline of the US ... this is perhaps a good place to start. Short term capital extraction little long term strategic planning. Maybe Cisco is a good example.. lets move all of our switch hardware production to China and still charge the consumer 3500$ per switch. Equals short term gain, makes lots of millinaires... and then just a few years later.. now Huawei makes excellent switches that are mostly on par with Cisco at a better price point.
by michaelcampbell | 2025-11-22 15:27:01+00:00
> Doing updates on a regular basis (weekly to monthly)

This lessens, but doesn't eliminate supply side vulns. You can still get a vulnerable new release if your schedule happens to land just after the vuln lands.

TFA proposes a _delay_ in a particular dependency being pulled in. You can still update every day/hour/microsecond if you want, you just don't get the "new" thing until it's baked a bit.
by dahart | 2025-11-22 15:28:11+00:00
Is it crazy? Clearly the value is the proof itself, not the item, right? Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very likely recoup and make a profit on. If I could buy one that’s proven, for a million, and I had a million sitting around, I would. That would be a smart move. The $30k non da Vinci, who knows, could be everything from love of art and total loss to perhaps a small profit. It depends on how good the remainder of the story is. Even for today’s working artists, the narrative is most often the important & valuable part, and the item is just a pretty artifact that backs up the story. For expensive collectible investment art, the importance of the narrative goes way up.

It’s interesting if you were thinking of the Salvator Mundi since the discrepancy between the initial appraisal and the restored sale price is two thousand times larger than your example. And it still goes to show the seemingly insane sale price was a good investment, first being sold for $80M by someone who knew he’d make a profit, then after that $120M, then $450M.
by mschuster91 | 2025-11-22 15:30:30+00:00
There's one reason not mentioned - habitat loss, be it caused by urbanization [1] or by land consolidation ("Flurbereinigung") [2][3].

It used to be the case that rural areas were splintered into many small farms, with bushes being used to mark borders, and these bushes in turn provided harbor and food for insects and cover for small rodents and other mammals.

"Thanks" to mechanisation however, which prefers large uniform land because thats easier for ever larger machines to process, a lot of these splinters were consolidated together and so there is nothing left to support any wildlife, be it insects or small animals, which in turn also causes bird populations to drop - when there are no mice because they don't have any place to build their nests, the birds don't have food as well.

[1] https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/news-and-events/news/detail/...

[2] https://www.riffreporter.de/de/umwelt/flugbegleiter-umfrage-...

[3] https://naturschutz-initiative.de/aktuell/neuigkeiten/landwi...
by calebh | 2025-11-22 15:30:53+00:00
Yes, you can relax logic gates into continuous versions which makes the system differentiable. An AND gate can be constructed with the function x*y and NOT by 1-x (on inputs in the range [0,1]. From there you can construct a NAND gate, which is universal and can be used to construct all other gates. Sigmoid can be used to squash the inputs into [0,1] if necessary.

This paper lists out all 16 possible logic gates in Table 1 if you're interested in this sort of thing: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.08277
by vidarh | 2025-11-22 15:31:55+00:00
> LLMs are not capable of simulating turing machines - their output is inherently and inescapably probabilistic.

This is fundamentally not true. Inference code written to be numerically stable and temperature set to 0 is all you need for an LLM to be entirely deterministic.

> And as I stated, you are assuming your own conclusion to debate the issue. You believe that nothing is incomputable, and are tying that assumption into your argument as an assumption.

This is categorically also false. Please do not make a position for me that I have at no point in my life claimed. I believe plenty of things are incomputable. That is provable the case. What I have repeatedly said is that we have no evidence to show 1) that there are computable functions that exceed the Turing computable, 2) that the brain are capable of computing such functions that exceeds the Turing computable.

If you have evidence of either of those two, please do feel free to provide it - it would be earth-shattering news. It'd revolutionise physics, as it'd involve unknown interactions, it'd revolutionise maths and computer science by forcing us to throw out areas of theory of computation.

> It's not on me to prove your assumption is wrong, it's on you to prove that it's correct - proving a negative is impossible.

That the Turing computable set of functions is the totality of computable functions is not a claim I've come up with.

If you want to make the extraordinary claim that there are computable functions outside that, despite no extant evidence, then since you've invoked a weird version of Russels teapot, that requires extraordinary proof.

And it is not impossible: A single example of a computable function outside the Turing computable would falsify the underlying claim. A single example of humans being able to compute such a function would falsify the claim that Turing equivalence has relevance here.

I've been very careful throughout to make clear that my arguments hinges on humans being unable to exceed the Turing computable.

I don't believe we should talk in absolutes when we can't prove it, hence my challenge to the people here who are so absolutely certain about the limitations of LLMs to show just a single example of humans exceeding the Turing computable.

Because you are so certain, the surely there lies something behind that certainty other than blind faith?

> And so now feel free to prove that consciousness is computable

At no point have I made claims about "consciousness". Before I'd do that, you'd need to define in an objective way what you mean. It is an entirely separate question from the ones I've addressed.

> Without that proof you must understand that you're not making some falsifiable claim of fact

As noted, my claims are falsifiable: Show a single example of a function that exceeds the Turing computable, that humans can compute.
by jonmagic | 2025-11-22 15:32:21+00:00
Great post. Re: frameworks, I tried a number of them and then found Pocketflow and haven’t found a reason to try anything else since. It’s now been ported to half a dozen or more languages (including my port to Ruby). The simple api and mental model makes it easy for everyone on my team to jump into, extend, and compose. Highly recommend for anyone frustrated with the larger SDKs.
by summa_tech | 2025-11-22 15:32:31+00:00
I mean, part of that is the difference between how easy it is to build a platform in Linux vs how hard it is to get into the tree. This is actually, in my mind, a major change in the Linux development process.

Nobody expected Intel to provide employees to write support for 80386 pagetables, or Philips to write and maintain support for the I2C bus. The PC keyboard driver was not sponsored and supported by IBM. Getting the code into Linux was really easy (and it shows in a lot of the older code; Linux kernel quality standards have been rising over time), because everyone was mostly cooperating on a cool open-source project.

But at some point, this became apparently unsustainable, and the expectation is now that AMD will maintain their GPU drivers, and Qualcomm (or some other company with substantial resources) will contribute code and employees to deal with Adreno GPUs. This led to a shift in reviewer attitudes: constant back-and-forth about code or design quality is typical on the mailing lists now.

This means contributing code to the kernel is a massive chore, which any person with interest in actually making things work should prefer to avoid. What's left is language lawyers, evangelists and people who get paid to sit straight and treat it as a 9-5 job.
by snvzz | 2025-11-22 15:33:04+00:00
>monopoly? Here is a list of major ARM licensees...

None of these companies is able to license cores to third parties.

Only ARM can do that. ARM holds a monopoly.

>this is from DeepSeek, ymmv

DeepSeek would have told you this much, given the right prompt. Confirmation bias is unfortunately one hell of a bias.
by sishabsb | 2025-11-22 15:33:43+00:00
While technically correct, painting these outcomes as so close to equally likely that we can’t make a call is sinister.

Locking people in their homes and away from social interactions for years amidst the background of a pandemic is almost certainly a net negative. We do similar things to violent prisoners, mentally insane, or humans we’re looking to break.

There should be an extremely high risk for the next pandemic - not just boomers/obese dying a year or two earlier - to justify what we did to the world. Years of people’s lives taken.
by PopAlongKid | 2025-11-22 15:36:23+00:00
> simple black drip coffee drinks

I visited London last year and was surprised & disappointed that the McDonalds across from the Trocadero did not have any such thing as simple black drip coffee (to which I could add half-and-half). The closest I could come was "flat white", which I never heard of before in the U.S.
by quickthrowman | 2025-11-22 15:36:38+00:00
If it collapses, lenders will own (in general) giant tip-up buildings with two separate substations tied to two different utility circuits, a shitload of generators and UPSes, a shitload of chillers and cooling towers, and miles of cable tray. Plus whatever computing hardware is inside.

I assume the excess electrical and HVAC gear would be stripped out and sold before converting the tip-up building into another yet another Amazon distribution center.

It’s not particularly useful infrastructure, unlike all of the dark fiber laid during the dotcom boom.
by vidarh | 2025-11-22 15:36:53+00:00
If your argument is that a system incorporating a model is not an LLM if there is a loop around it, then reasoning models are not LLMs.

They can do lookup in a table with 100% reliability, yes, because you can make then 100% deterministic if you wish by using numerically stable inferencing code and setting temperature to 0.

Finite context is irrelevant, because the context can be used as an IO channel.

A Turing machine does not have infinite state within the mechanism itself - it requires access to a potentially infinite tape. A Turing machine can be constructed with down to 1 bit of state (a (2,3) or (3,2) Turing machine are the smalles possible, where one number represents the number of states, and the other represents number of discrete symbols it can handle).

An IO channel is computationally equivalent to an infite tape, and unlike an infinite tape, an IO channel is physically possible.
by staticman2 | 2025-11-22 15:37:37+00:00
I've seen a post like this before on reddit.

We know SSRI's really do cause permanent sexual dysfunctional in a small minority of people, small enough that this side effect doesn't come up in traditional FDA tests.

If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.

Grandparent could be right or wrong about how the drug affected them, maybe their brain suffered from other issues and the timing of the medications was purelycoincidental, but if they are correct, your dismissive response is exactly what we'd expect given when they are saying sounds unusual/ improbable.
by garettmd | 2025-11-22 15:37:38+00:00
I always find these discussions about AWS NAT gateways interesting because I recall way back in the day, before AWS had a manages NAT gateway, the recommendation was to roll your own anyway. Or at least that's what I heard. I took an ACloud Guru course and one of the first ec2 lessons was to create a simple NAT gateway in your VPC so that your other instances could reach the Internet.
by coredev_ | 2025-11-22 15:38:36+00:00
There are a lot of voices against event sourcing in the comments. I'd just want to balance things a bit. For a mature domain (like when you rebuild an existing system), event sourcing can work really well and make so much sense. But yes, dicipline is a must, as well is thinking things through before you implement a new event.

Currently working on a DDDd event sourced system with CQRS and really enjoy it.
by hammock | 2025-11-22 15:38:39+00:00
If we can’t have a good faith discussion then maybe it is a good idea to hide nuclear and animal labs.

But with less oversight, that also invites abuse.

You can probably imagine abuse on your own in an anima lab, but I would also point out after Obama banned gain of function research in 2014 U.S. scientists moved their lab to China where it continued without the same oversight, and bad things happened.
by antirez | 2025-11-22 15:38:48+00:00
It was an attempt at using less plastic, in vase mode there is this absurd thing that the first few solid layers are accountable often from 30% or more of the whole object weight! However, yes, it would be more robust that way.

I have a long love affair with vase mode and abusing it, and always saving time/weight is my main goal, like in this other case: https://makerworld.com/it/models/840291-vase-mode-gear-phone...

Your blog post made me thing that we would almost need a specialized vase mode site for models of that kind :D Moreover, there is no reason why the top surface could not be closed with bridging. The slicers have a lot of odd limitations in the context of vase mode.
by tim333 | 2025-11-22 15:39:19+00:00
"instant access to near infinite data" is Google search.

AI if it gets better will be thinking / intellectual work which is a different category.

I remember in the 90s people would say the internet will bring instant conveyance of media including video and people were like yeah right I can just about get one page of crappy text in a minute over the unreliable dial up modem. It's like that now with AI thinking.
by throw0101a | 2025-11-22 15:39:52+00:00
> Are internet routers that do ipv4 NAT usually also doing an IPv6 firewall (meaning they only let incoming connections in if they are explicitly allowed by some configuration)?

Consider the counter-factual: can you list any home routers/CPEs that do not do SPI, regardless of protocol? If someone found such a thing, IMHO there would be a CVE issued quite quickly for it.

And not just residential stuff: $WORK upgraded firewalls earlier in 2025, and in the rules table of the device(s) there is an entry at the bottom that says "Implicit deny all" (for all protocols).

So my question to NAT/IPv6 Truthers is: what are the devices that allow IPv6 connections without SPI?

And even if such a thing exists, a single IPv6 /64 subnet is as large as four billion (2^32) IPv4 Internets (2^32 addresses): good luck trying to find a host to hit in that space (RFC 7721).