MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kibwen | 2025-11-01 20:00:43+00:00
> it has turned out to be a much smaller use-case than anticipated

Well, no, at the time of the design of Rust's async MVP, everyone was pretty well aware that the vast majority of the users would be writing webservers, and that the embedded use case would be a decided minority, if it ever existed at all. That Embassy exists and its ecosystem as vibrant as it is is, if anything, an unexpected triumph.

But regardless of how many people were actually expected to use it in practice, the underlying philosophy remained thus: there exist no features of Rust-the-language that are incompatible with no_std environments (e.g. Rust goes well out of its way, and introduces a lot of complexity, to make things like closures work given such constraints), and it would be exceptional and unprecedented for Rust to violate this principle when it comes to async.
by anigbrowl | 2025-11-01 20:01:26+00:00
Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

Evidence suggests that about 30% of people will accept being worse off in order to inflict a greater loss on someone else. They form a plurality, with the other groups being win-win types (~20%), loss-averse pessimists (~20%), selfless volunteers (~15%), and inconsistent folks who may be confused (~15%).

Now this is just empirical observation rather than proof, but it's a good quality observation, enough that it has heuristic value. If you admit the possibility that about 1/3 of people are mean, then an awful lot of ongoing political phenomena become much easier to understand.
by euroderf | 2025-11-01 20:01:55+00:00
> What is discouraged is using tables as invisible layout grids - and that was their primary de-facto usecase before CSS and grid layouts.

After too.

I've seen enough "Introduction to CSS"s filled with caveats and hemming & hawing to know that it's all to be avoided when+if possible. I know, I know, there's a whole wide wonderful world out there full of aligns and borders and containers and insets and margins and masks and offsets and paddings and positions oh my. Bleccch..
by stego-tech | 2025-11-01 20:02:21+00:00
I think I get what Powell’s laying down, here, from an economics perspective. His data shows that a non-zero number of major players in the AI space are posting earnings, not just revenue, and that this is a sign of healthy economic activity. He’s also saying that while CAPEX investment today is coming primarily from corporate books (and not major banks), he’s also stressing that these investments have a long, uncertain tail - and that at present, between lofty promises from AI companies and executives eager to hoard capital, that the job market is seeing significant negative impacts that have zeroed out job growth while capital growth remains on a rocket ship to the stratosphere.

As someone who follows the man’s speeches and comments, I’ve always found that the real message is between the lines of what he says, especially for things he cannot say explicitly. So reading his comments here, my takeaways are:

* Zero job growth is a serious concern, especially as companies and business elites continue to demand a return to ZIRP

* Inflation also remains a concern in that same context, as it continues to skyrocket for essential goods

* Even if this AI investment is highly speculative and collapses, its “blowback” is broadly contained vis a vis the AI “sphere” being a handful of companies in circular investment schemes, not mass public buy-in like prior bubbles

* His immediate concern remains trying to figure out how to address rising inflation, stagnant wages, and negative/zero job growth in the face of a red hot securities market and continued trade uncertainties. The only levers left to pull will disproportionately hurt the working class even further, and he seems to continue suggesting that this isn’t an issue the Fed can solve absent Congressional intervention (which, let’s face it, ain’t happening)

That’s my takeaway from his comments this year, and it fits my own perspectives on the AI Bubble (in that yes it’s a bubble, but it’s a highly concentrated bubble that’s painting over broader harms and misleading public officials about the state of the economy). Being head of the Fed, he can’t come right out on either side of the fence and call AI a bubble or a real boost, hence why he’s couching comments deeply within economic terms alone.

Just my two cents, anyway.
by Strilanc | 2025-11-01 20:02:25+00:00
> The precision in phase needed to perform an accurate QFT scales EXPONENTIALLY with the number of qubits you're trying to transform.

This is false.

The gates that appear in the textbook QFT circuit (such as the one shown on wikipedia [1]) do mention angles that are exponentially small in N (the number of qubits being operated upon). That may be what's confusing you. But it's well known that the tolerance on those rotations is high, meaning that simply skipping all the exponentially tiny rotations introduces negligible error [2][3].

Here's a simple model. Each time you get a rotation off by an angle of X, add X to the "total algorithm rotation error" R. The chance of an algorithm failing is at most R^2. For example, if R is less than 1 degree then the chance of algorithm failure will be less than 0.03%. That's an acceptable retry chance for Shor's algorithm. The QFT circuit on N qubits performs less than N^2 rotations. So, for R to be less than 1 degree, it's sufficient for each rotation's error X to be less than (1°)/N^2. Therefore the required precision only increases polynomially (like N^2) instead of exponentially (like 2^N). Note the required precision can be improved from O(1/N^2) to O(1/N) using techniques like the qubit recycling QFT [4].

Actually, even if the required precision scaled exponentially, that still wouldn't be an insurmountable problem. Quantum error correction achieves exponentially tighter tolerances from polynomially increasing resources. For example, Ross and Selinger proved that continuous rotations can be approximated to a target error of epsilon using O(log(1/epsilon)) gates from the discrete gate set Clifford+T [4]. And Clifford gates with error below epsilon can be achieved in the surface code using O(log(1/epsilon)^2) noisy qubits for O(log(1/epsilon)) time [5]. And T gates can be achieved by using those reliable Clifford gates to perform magic state distillation of log(1/epsilon)^O(1) T states [6]. Since everything scales polynomially in log(1/epsilon), making epsilon exponentially smaller adds polynomial resources.

There is no part of Shor's algorithm that requires resources growing exponentially in n (the number of digits of the number being factored). The practical scaling is more like n^3: factoring a number that's twice as large can be done with ~two times as many qubits running for ~four times as long. Even if the qubits are noisy [7].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform#/med...

[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306018

[3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9601018

[4]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903071#page=12

[5]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928

[6]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2426

[7]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09749
by meowface | 2025-11-01 20:02:48+00:00
Unpopular opinion here but I don't see any benefit in breaking up goliaths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, OpenAI.

OpenAI (optically) came out of nowhere and took over everything in a few years. A future company also could. We should punish violation of regulations and the law when it occurs. We don't need to be interfering just because we feel a company is too good at being a company.

If OpenAI violated anything with the recent non-profit stuff, sue or charge them.
by skissane | 2025-11-01 20:03:06+00:00
Recompile (or at least relink) the kernel to change drivers (or even system configuration) is a bit of a blast from the past - in the 1960s thru 1980s it used to be a very common thing, it was called “system generation”. It was found in mainframe operating systems (e.g. OS/360, OS/VS1, OS/VS2, DOS/360); in CP/M; in Netware 2.x (3.x onwards dropped the need for it)

Most of these systems came with utilities to partially automate the process, some kind of config file to drive it, Netware 2.x even had TUI menuing apps (ELSGEN, NETGEN) to assist in it
by patriceckhart | 2025-11-01 20:03:46+00:00
Over the past months I've been working on Genesis DB an GDPR-ready event-sourcing database built for simplicity, performance, and real-world use.

One piece of feedback that kept coming up: "Docker is great, but for local dev it can feel heavy, especially when I just want to spin up an event store and start building."

So I built Genesis DB LocalStack. A native macOS experience for event-sourced development:

What it does

- Runs Genesis DB locally, natively, no Docker daemon needed

- Launch instances in milliseconds

- Each project gets its own isolated DB + domain (*.genesisdb.local)

- Run multiple instances for microservices workflows

- Export/Import environments for fast team onboarding

- Config lives in plain text: version control friendly

Why?

Local dev today often means container orchestration before first code. Genesis DB LocalStack tries to remove friction: install app > click > build.

Sometimes the fastest developer experience is still the simplest:

Real processes on your machine, predictable ports, zero orchestration overhead.

Is a native, Docker-free local event-store helpful to you?

Appreciate any feedback, especially from folks doing event sourcing and CQRS, perhaps even with Genesis DB, in production.

Many thanks!
by toomuchtodo | 2025-11-01 20:03:46+00:00
Lots of posts on this lately due to broad population GLP-1 uptake. I expect this to accelerate as Lilly’s production facility north of Indianapolis comes online next year for their small molecule oral protocol orforglipron.

https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/eli-lilly-invests...
by i-con | 2025-11-01 20:04:50+00:00
If you are looking for an open-source compiler, many distros (e.g. Archlinux, Debian and derivatives) bootstrap a full GCC (GNU compiler collection). Sometimes you have to install a particular packet, e.g. `gnat` or `gcc-ada`. There's also a language-specific packet tool `alire` that seems to aim to be somewhat like cargo. It can also install toolchains, IIRC.
by Animats | 2025-11-01 20:05:38+00:00
The article mention EAI's SIMSTAR, a real software reconfigurable analog computer from the 1980s. Here's a description of how that worked.[1] This was pretty good. They had a crosspoint of FET analog switches to pass signals around, so they managed to do this in solid state, without relays. They had a M68000 as a control machine to set up connections. It all worked well enough to allow a real time man-in-the-loop simulation of the F-16 control system.[2] Just barely. The USAF paper says that the biggest problem was keeping the SIMSTAR analog computers alive.

Analog FPGAs have been made, downsizing this sort of thing to chip size. But not recently. The problems seem to be 1) lack of a use case, and 2) noise.

Analog computing is all about noise minimization. This is Not Fun.

There's interest in this stuff for neural nets, which do a lot of clipping and may be less noise-sensitive.

[1] https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/simstar_technology.pdf

[2] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA189675.pdf
by fuzzfactor | 2025-11-01 20:05:48+00:00
I love this example.

This is pretty advanced, and who knows if anybody else is doing it exactly like this or not, but it is exactly what the hardware is supposed to be easily capable of, just as easily as what the vast mainstream users are getting out of the hardware by "default".

This type versatile performance is built-in just like the mainstream arrangement is built-in, the thing is you have to figure it out for yourself through the complex web of capabilities that have been long bypassed in order to make the default experience seem like it is actually simpler or more reliable, when it is not.
by Avamander | 2025-11-01 20:06:04+00:00
> If coding is careful and the code is review - there is no technical debt, or perhaps I should say no more than the unsafe parts of a rust codebase or the standard libraries. And the safety of critical infra code written in C gets _better_ over time, as such technical debt is repaid.

How many decades have we tried this? How many more to see that it just hasn't panned out like you describe?
by EA-3167 | 2025-11-01 20:06:06+00:00
In a bleak sense I suppose I can understand, it's not as though they can have a big, "By the way, we greedily assisted the Nazis with the worst act of industrialized murder in modern history, profited from it, were never held to meaningful account, and we're still successful," room.

And examples such as "de-Baathification" in Iraq show that even the best-intentioned actions can have wide-reaching and truly devastating unintended consequences. I won't pretend that I have some neat and clean answer to any of this, but there's a persistent sense of moral outrage that feels earned around all of this.
by lukan | 2025-11-01 20:06:09+00:00
Hm. Russia really tries to show the world, that they are a major player and they do not seem to care about it at all.

And China does produce and installs tons of solar panels, windparks and batteries, but they also build as much coal plants as they can. African leaders all in all seems loud to use climate change as a means to get more developement funds/compensation and that's it. The arab world gets angry if the oil output gets reduced. Then there is south america, where from what I know of personal interactions, climate change is largley a unknown term, unless it is used to somehow attack the "west".

But yes, what to expect if the richtest country does not lead by example.
by stego-tech | 2025-11-01 20:06:26+00:00
The pop will be nasty for everyone that’s heavily exposed to the public players involved, which is a sizable amount of the public given their outsized impact on indices.

That said, it’s the sort of bubble pop that’s far more constrained than, say, the dotcom bubble (with tons of IPOs) or subprime mortgage bubble (when a variety of financial instruments and securities obfuscated risks to investors). It’ll hurt for the highly-paid folks working for the companies who suddenly have to downsize, and it’ll hurt for investors who are all-in on AI without diversification, but for everyone else? It’ll be a gloomy year, but nothing as spectacular as prior collapses.
by NobodyNada | 2025-11-01 20:07:12+00:00
I was sloppy with my wording, I should have said "it doesn't run all the futures to completion".

> making them all tasks means that they are all polled and therefore continue progressing until they are dropped. It doesn't mean that select! would have to run them all the way to completion.

This is exactly correct, but oftentimes the reason you're using select is because you don't want to run the futures all the way to completion. In my experience, the most common use cases for select are:

- An event handler loop that receives input from multiple channels. You could replace this with multiple tasks, one reading from each channel; but this could potentially mess with your design for queueing / backpressure -- often it's important for the loop to pause reading from the channels while processing the event.

- An operation that's run with a timeout, or a shutdown event from a controlling task. In this case I want the future to be dropped when the task is cancelled.

The example in the original post was the second case: an operation with a timeout. They wanted the operation to be cancelled when the timeout expired, but because the select statement borrowed the future, it only suspended the future instead of cancelling it. This is a very common code pattern when calling select! in a loop, when you want a future to be resumed instead of restarted on the next loop iteration -- it's very intentional that select! allows you to use either way, because you often want either behavior.
by nostrademons | 2025-11-01 20:07:16+00:00
Increasingly a human can't be held responsible for their decisions either.

Accountability literally means "being forced to give an account of your decisions", i.e. explain the reasons behind why you made the choices you did. The idea is that when you have a public forum of people with common values, merely being forced to explain yourself will activate mechanisms of shame, guilt, and conformism that keep people inline. Otherwise you'll face the judgment of your peers.

This mechanism breaks down when your peers don't hold common values. If nobody agrees on what right and wrong are, you just find different peers until somebody thinks that what you're doing is right. Or you just don't care and figure solipsism vs. the status quo is just a matter of degree.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-11-01 20:07:29+00:00
GHC (the Glasgow Haskell Compiler, after its original host university) is the de facto Haskell compiler and simultaneously the main research vehicle for the language and the neighbouring design space in general.

And frankly, while the compiler is awesome and so is the research, the constant churn and seeming inability to settle on what the good programming style and set of features actually is is what eventually turned me away from the language and to the more stable (if near-abandoned) pastures of Standard ML. (That was during the type families upheaval, so, about ten years ago? Don’t know how well it reflects the current state of the project.)
by epistasis | 2025-11-01 20:08:24+00:00
> because you are the only one living on your property.

This makes me think you don't actually live in a rural area. It's not like you're pioneering, no connection to the rest of society. There's still school for the kids, church, stores, and yes, even neighbors.

Plus, most humans find having a social life to be one of the greatest joys in life.

I find it fascinating that you think it's acceptable to call cities centers of madness, filth, and ugliness, but think it's completely unacceptable to think that of rural areas. Have you actually lived in a city? Or are you just basing it off of perceptions you get from media?
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-01 20:09:29+00:00
> It's a completely fair question to ask why, when people are so vocal for Palestine? Why not Sudan?

The simple truth is a lot of, if not most, such vocalised outrage in any country is nine parts vanity. Remember #StopKony? About as effective for the people being harmed as students at Columbia barricading themselves into a building.

I’m not sure I condemn moral vanity. It is a genuine intellectual exercise. But it’s one that doesn’t particularly benefit from repeat unless one seeks to become a student of atrocity, and one that has strong viral effects.

What about the minority who actually try to help those harmed, e.g. by fundraising for victims or volunteering? They’re far and few in between. Moreover, their efforts benefit from economies of scale.

As a result, in any community, the people actually being helpful will tend to pick their battles. And the people flipping out for fun will cluster around whatever is trendy to flip out about in public.
by asciimov | 2025-11-01 20:09:51+00:00
Are you looking for an ide experience or just a text editor with some options?

If a full IDE is what you are seeking go with DOOM. It will give you a fully put together experience.

If you just want a text editor that you want to slowly add to go vanilla.

Doom is like getting a fully furnished apartment where you can choose the furniture and curtain colors. Vanilla is an empty plot of land that you need to build a foundation, house, and connect to city services all on your own.
by finnborge | 2025-11-01 20:10:05+00:00
My most charitable interpretation of the perceived misunderstanding is that the intent was to frame developers as "the user."

This project would be the developer tool used to produce interactive tools for end users.

More practically, it just redefines the developer's position; the developer and end-user are both "users". So the developer doesn't need to think AND the user doesn't need to think.
by cardanome | 2025-11-01 20:10:11+00:00
So a change to the worse.

The GPL protects the freedom of the users while MIT-licensed software can be easily rug-pulled or be co-opted by the big tech monopolists.

Using GitHub is unacceptable as it is banning many countries from using it. You are excluding devs around the world from contributing. Plus it is owned by Microsoft.

So we replaced a strong copyleft license and a solid decentralized workflow with a centralized repo that depends on the whims of Microsoft and the US government and that is somehow a good thing?
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-01 20:12:03+00:00
> What we have to do is keep the Emirates onside with Israel and onside against Iran

This is so incredibly dumb.

The UAE is a spigot of oil and money. (Secondarily, a massive buyer of American goods, services, weapons and financial assets.) Sudan isn’t on our to-do list because it doesn’t directly affect American voters. Oil prices and capital do.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-11-01 20:12:08+00:00
Because a large number of "preprints" that are really blog posts or advertisements for startup greatly increase the noise.

The idea is the site is for academic preprints. Academia has a long history of circulating preprints or manuscripts before the work is finished. There are many reasons for this, the primary one is that scientific and mathematical papers are often in the works for years before they get officially published. Preprints allow other academics in the know to be up to date on current results.

If the service is used heavily by non-academics to lend an aura of credibility to any kind of white paper then the service is less usable for its intended purpose.

It's similar to the use of question/answer sites like Quora to write blog posts and ads under questions like "Why is Foobar brand soap the right soap for your family?"
by teamonkey | 2025-11-01 20:12:48+00:00
As mentioned elsewhere, researchers have done brain scans while asking people to imagine something, and for the majority of people the visual cortex lights up, but for a small number of people the visual parts of the brain are not so active.

This is very much a real thing, but largely goes unnoticed because it doesn’t really affect anything, except for people going about their lives thinking that the word ‘visualise’ is a metaphor.
by anigbrowl | 2025-11-01 20:13:07+00:00
In Germany and Italy it was defeated by the military loss of a total war. In Span it was defeated by the eventual death of Franco and the assassination of his designated successor, after decades of right wing rule.

You are in such a rush to be sarcastic that you're accusing the GP of wanting to cooperate with fascism, when they're simply stating the reality of the problem. You're saying naying nice words about the outcome you want to see, but ignoring the horrors between the institution of fascism and its eventual defeat. That suggests to me that you don't really have any idea or plan about how to overcome it, you're just wishcasting. The danger of this is that many people will advocate waiting for the next election to decide if it's really fascism (because that's an unpleasant thing people would prefer to avoid), but don't have anything in reserve if the election is subverted, and in any case are giving away the political initiative for a year.

Instead of trying to rally people with WW2 tropes (which the non-fascists are in no position to wage) it'd be better to build momentum toward general strikes, which have a rather successful track record in the US and have been quasi-outlawed as a result (eg by the Taft-Hartley act, which bans solidarity and political strikes by labor unions).