MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Nextgrid | 2025-11-29 21:31:55+00:00
The scale where throwing more hardware to run your CPU-intensive Python part (and not the part that just wait on a DB, IO or other networked service - that won't change with Golang) starts costing more than paying developers to write it in a new language and incurring the downside of introducing another language into the stack, throwing away all the "tribal knowledge" of the existing app and so on.

Modern hardware is incredibly fast, so if you wait for said scale it may never actually happen. It's likely someone will win the push for a rewrite based on politics rather than an actual engineering constraint, which I suspect happened here.
by tecoholic | 2025-11-29 21:32:21+00:00
> Converts an image to a single-page PDF with a hidden text layer using Tesseract. This is the 'State Preservation' step.

Does this mean the text only pdf page is transformed into an image that covers the full page, but the text is still under there. So, any machine based extraction would still get the text, but would probably loose all the bounding box information and regular users cannot just use their mouse to select text anymore?
by GlibMonkeyDeath | 2025-11-29 21:33:01+00:00
FTA:

"When asked if linking things like blue eyes, blonde hair, and IQ could be interpreted as eugenics, he clarified with a laugh, 'I said brown hair!'

Then, miming the same hand motion that Elon Musk performed following President Trump’s inauguration, Asparouhov joked, 'My heart goes out to you.'"

Uhhh, _what_?
by drdeca | 2025-11-29 21:34:48+00:00
I think a definition of the security of a signature scheme is that a computationally limited attacker should not have a non-negligibly better than chance guess of the secret key.

I think some of the “ZKP” techniques are supposed to only be “ZK” for a computationally limited observer? Though I may be mistaken, and maybe non-interactive ZKP schemes are only assuming that the prover has limited computational resources, not that the observer/attacker hoping to get information from them does?
by jstanley | 2025-11-29 21:34:53+00:00
They're not my arbitrary requirements, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Specifically:

> In light of the fact that one should be able to generate a proof of some statement only when in possession of certain secret information connected to the statement, the verifier, even after having become convinced of the statement's truth by means of a zero-knowledge proof, should nonetheless remain unable to prove the statement to further third parties.
by anonymous908213 | 2025-11-29 21:35:15+00:00
Other than the silly design, the website's cookie banner is actively malicious. It proclaims to be legally required and directly blames the President of the European Commission. If Posthog is being truthful about its cookie usage, the cookie banner is in fact not legally required. Consent banners are only required if you're trying to do individual user tracking or collecting personally identifying data; technical cookies like session storage do not require a banner. That they then chose to include a cookie banner anyways, with explicit blame, is an act of propaganda clearly intended to cause unnecessary consent banner fatigue and weaken support for the GDPR.
by wacper | 2025-11-29 21:36:46+00:00
This is a great approach! After every opportunity that closed on me another arose, and it always was the better one.

Through these experiences I totally agree, and try to apply it to life, but it's hard, even knowing that it's true. How cool is it for every college, person, job offer, scholarship to want you?

Even though we're looking just for "the one" it's very hard for me to mitigate the feeling of getting rejected, even knowing it was not "the one". Rejection generally hurts, when you care about the goal
by prmph | 2025-11-29 21:37:03+00:00
Exactly, usually the companies know what's coming up, like you said. But, properly shifting gears to play a new game requires that you act like a startup again. It likely requires foregoing the fat margins you were used to. And it likely requires going back to the drawing board and actually learning from the market.

And this is what companies find it hard to do. To be fair, I think that is not so bad a things. Companies should rise and die naturally. A few companies monopolizing markets forever does not seem good.
Show HN: A neuro-symbolic manufacturing engine built in 1 week with Gemini 3.0
by knightbat2004 | 2025-11-29 21:37:04+00:00
Last week I challenged myself to test the new Gemini 3.0 to see how far its reasoning capabilities could push actual engineering tasks. The result is OpenForge: a Neuro-Symbolic Manufacturing Engine that translates user intent into flight-proven hardware designs and generates a physics-based simulation to test them.

I’ve built complex systems before, but the reasoning performance of Gemini 3.0 cut my development time by roughly 70-80%. It allowed me to go from concept to a working Digital Twin pipeline in less than a week.

The Architecture (Neuro-Symbolic): We know LLMs hallucinate. In hardware design, a hallucination leads to parts that don't fit or drones that fall out of the sky. To solve this, I used a neuro-symbolic approach: The Neuro Layer (Gemini 3.0): Handles the semantic reasoning. It translates vague intents (e.g., "I need a drone to inspect fences on a cattle ranch") into engineering constraints, selects components from scraped data, and acts as the Systems Architect. The Symbolic Layer (Python/Deterministic): The guardrails. We use trimesh for geometry collision, cannon.js/Isaac Sim for physics simulation, and rigid math for Thrust-to-Weight ratios. How it works: Recon: Agents scrape real e-commerce sites for parts (Motors, FCs, Frames). Fusion: Gemini reads spec sheets (even from images) to build a structured component database. Assembly: An Engineer agent creates a Bill of Materials. Validation: Python scripts mathematically verify voltage matching (6S vs 4S), physical clearance, and electronic interconnects (preventing the Pixhawk without an ESC error). Simulation: The system generates OpenSCAD models -> USD files -> runs a flight sim to test the build. The Gemini 3.0 Factor: The standout feature wasn't code generation, but context adherence. By front-loading heavy architectural context and strict schemas, the model avoided the Garbage In, Garbage Out cycle that usually plagues complex AI workflows. It acted less like a chatbot and more like a junior engineer following a spec sheet.

The project is open source. I’m curious to hear what others think about using newer reasoning models for hardware constraint solving.
by impossiblefork | 2025-11-29 21:37:16+00:00
It starts off with a pretty major error.

I'(t)=\int_0^1 \partial/(\partial t)((x^t - 1)/(ln x))dx = \int_0^1 x^t dx=1/(t+1), when it is actually equal to \int_0^1 x^{t-1}/ln(x)dx.

These two are definitely not always equal to each other.
by lovich | 2025-11-29 21:37:31+00:00
You can’t do both things. Humans want to engage in certain kinds of conversation that companies try to prevent happening.

Sometimes you just want to vent and call your boss a fuckhead and it only takes one time in a persons life to see HR punishing/firing/admonishing someone for conduct on company communication channels that would have been perfectly fine in any other setting, for that person to never trust in the “company culture”

There is no environment where messy human beings fit into the perfect set of rules and behavior that companies demand
by jsight | 2025-11-29 21:37:36+00:00
TBH, those tests are mostly marketing failures. EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range.

Multiple tests have shown this by showing 50% or more range reduction from pulling lightweight, non-aerodynamic loads.

The marketing failure is that the companies have allowed consumers to incorrectly extrapolate from this to thinking that heavy loads in the bed have the same issue. They actually don't as weight is a minimal impact on range.

Unfortunately, every thread about carrying sheetrock, rocks, mulch, etc shows how misinformed the average consumer has become in this space. It has to be a significant impact on sales, given that in the US these are the only heavy loads carried by >50% of the half ton pickups sold here.
by jeremysalwen | 2025-11-29 21:38:04+00:00
To be honest I feel like I have seen much better expositions of zero knowledge proofs. The playing cards example is nice in some ways, but people are often exposed to trickery regarding playing cards. The recipient of the proof needs to verify that the deck of cards is a normal deck of cards, that no cards have been swapped out or altered, etc. These are all precisely the things that magicians are regularly able to fool people about. So really you have to make an additional assumption of "no funny business", which distracts from the mathematical core of what you are trying to demonstrate.

Likewise, the example of compositeness is a bit off because even though there is knowledge about the composite number that the proof does not reveal, that knowledge is in fact not known the to person constructing the proof either! The proof is not really zero knowledge either, since it gives the reader knowledge of a specific witness to its compositeness.

Even the wikipedia example of going into the cave (which used to be featured more prominently in the article) I think is terrible. Why wouldn't you just walk a loop to prove you know the way through the secret door? Also, it's clearly not zero knowledge, as it reveals some information about how quickly they can pass through the gate.

In general I think avoiding physical examples is necessary, since reality is complicated, and in the real world some information always leaks.

I think the best example for teaching about ZKPs is the graph isomorphism problem: Given two large graphs, you can prove that you know a isomorphism between two graphs by generating a new randomly labeled graph that is isomorphic to both of them and showing it to the provee, who can then ask you to demonstrate that this new graph is isomorphic to either graph A or graph B. Since you don't know ahead of time which one they will ask for, the only way you could consistently pass this test is if you actually do have a graph that was isomorphic to both A and B simultaneously. But since you only reveal one of the isomorphisms, it really is zero knowledge.
by 317070 | 2025-11-29 21:38:09+00:00
The paper I cite is for sea level rise. IPCC models from 1990 and 2011 have made forecasts on sea level rise. When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made.

We're worse than their worst case scenario, so their models were significantly too optimistic.

In the same paper, they also note that for temperature, the models have been accurate.
by ewoodrich | 2025-11-29 21:38:34+00:00
I've been using an old Pixelbook for 3 years that I had laying around for an always on Home Assistant control panel (but with adaptive dimming that defaults so extremely low brightness to reduce heat until approaching it).

I noticed a few months ago that the battery has started to significantly swell pushing the back panel apart, but I haven't worked up the motivation to try removing it yet. From what I can ascertain from user experiences, it actually does boot sans battery but haven't confirmed, it would be awesome if that worked and would probably give me 5+ more years of usage.

So in my case, data point is that 3 years of 24/7 use/charging of an old laptop/tablet was enough to push it over the edge and finally swell. It's really a shame how so many otherwise usable devices that could be wall mounted turn into e-waste because they won't run without a battery. With USB-C PD a well-designed device should be able to get whatever power is needed on demand but manufacturers don't really have any incentive to future proof for the .01% of users like me who would benefit.
by icedchai | 2025-11-29 21:38:45+00:00
Later Mac ROMs were 512KB, same with the later Amiga Kickstarts (3.x) That was a lot of space for the late 80's and early 90's. Interrupts were supported (8, if I recall.) And 68000 machines didn't support virtual memory until the 68010 and later, so no issues with page faults.

I still remember the day teenage me got an Amiga 500 with a whopping 512K of RAM, and witnessed the power of multitasking, way back in 1988.
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-29 21:40:07+00:00
Clippy was definitely hostile. It would constantly monitor user actions just so that it could interrupt us. Wasted CPU cycles and our time when CPUs weren't very fast. Clippy was hated by everyone. It was not just useless. It was intrusive, wasteful, and hostile. I can't believe my eyes that anyone could think that Clippy is an appropriate mascot for anything good. If anything, Clippy would be a perfect mascot for the trillion dollar companies that exploit our data.
by jh00ker | 2025-11-29 21:40:50+00:00
Taking a break from studying for my interview in two days at a FANG company, I checked Hacker News and this article was at the top. I've been studying for this interview harder than any of the others in the past. I feel well-prepared, but there's always the luck factor. I hope this is a sign that this interview will be the one to work out!
by beached_whale | 2025-11-29 21:40:57+00:00
My understanding that this is like that but both libstdc++/libc++ have been doing more since. Additionally, Google did a blog not to long ago where they talked to actual the performance impact on their large C++ codebase and it averaged about 0.3% I think https://security.googleblog.com/2024/11/retrofitting-spatial...

Since then, libc++ has categorized the checks by cost and one can scale them back too.
by radarsat1 | 2025-11-29 21:41:08+00:00
Maybe what they should do in the future is just automatically provide AI reviews to all papers and state that the work of the reviewers is to correct any problems or fill details that were missed. That would encourage manual review of the AI's work and would also allow authors to predict what kind of feedback they'll get in a structured way. (eg say the standard prompt used was made public so authors could optimize their submission for the initial automatic review, forcing the human reviewer to fill in the gaps)

ok of course the human reviewers could still use AI here but then so could the authors, ad infinitum..
by pessimizer | 2025-11-29 21:41:23+00:00
> propaganda is easier than ever.

It is so much harder now. There are people who are willfully ignorant now, almost proud to be; snooty about it. But it's impossible for governments and institutions to lie like they used to be able to. People are trading primary source documents online within the day.

It's why the popularity of long-ruling institutional parties is dropping everywhere, and why the measures to stop people from communicating and to monitor what they're saying are becoming more and more draconian and desperate.
by sllabres | 2025-11-29 21:41:57+00:00
Space shuttle had five.

Four of them operating in a redundant set and the fifth performing non critical task, as descripted in [1]. The fifth is also programmed by a different contractor in a different programming language: #1-4 running the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS) programmed by IBM in HAL/S and #5 programmed by a different team of Rockwell International in assembly. [2]

[1] https://people.cs.rutgers.edu/~uli/cs673/papers/RedundancyMa...

[2] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110014946/downloads/20...
by godelski | 2025-11-29 21:41:59+00:00
> update thats infected by some government trojan?

Or even just a hacker!

Unfortunately you don't. But this is true for ANY app.

Fortunately, Signal is open source. So you can go read the lines of code. Unfortunately this is a lot of work. But fortunately if you believe a certain checkpoint is secure (your current install) you only need to read the new things. You can also build from source if you don't trust the app store.

Fortunately with open source you also get the benefit of others. Maybe you don't look through everything, but there's definitely other people looking through some things. And with something like Signal, you can be pretty certain that there will be a big uproar if something devious is pushed.

You always need trust, unfortunately. But with closed source you have to trust one entity and get no way to verify. With open source you have to trust very few and can even verify yourself.
by WCSTombs | 2025-11-29 21:42:17+00:00
Look, I think it's pretty hard for most of us to read long math arguments in plain text, so I wrote in the simplest language I could, leaving the simple details for the reader to fill in.

I will add that in the vast majority of mathematical literature, both in pedagogy and in research, the active participation of the reader is assumed: the reader is expected to verify the argument for themselves, and that often includes filling in the details of some simple arguments. That's exactly why math literature uses the plural first-person "we," because it's supposed to be as if the writer and reader are developing the argument together.

In contrast, listening to music can be purely passive (but doesn't need to be).
by pizlonator | 2025-11-29 21:42:23+00:00
> Almost all uses of unsafe in Rust are either for FFI

Which makes Rust less safe than Fil-C.

Consider that you have a dependency like libc, PAM, openssl, or the like.

In Rust: you will `unsafe` call into the unsafe versions of those libraries. Hence, even if your Rust code is safe in isolation, your program is not safe overall because you're pulling in unsafe code.

In Fil-C: compile those dependencies with Fil-C, and then the whole process is safe.
by machomaster | 2025-11-29 21:42:29+00:00
Personally I don't think

Not willing to change your citizenship is a sign of not integrating fully, in not being completely loyal to the country and to its citizens.

Imagine that both countries start a war between each other - who are you going to support? Whoever you choose does not matter, the fact remains that you would have to choose, legally speaking. Why should your current living country give the strongest possible leverage to an untegrated potential agent/supporter of the foreign country?

Highest privileges should be given to people who decided to be fully in, in both good and bad. You can't be allowed to only cherrypick the good stuff: "I want to vote, but I don't want to be drafted to be killed in a war".
by gochistuff | 2025-11-29 21:42:50+00:00
I wanted to build a open to all chat room place where people can just hope in and start using. So I build this platform . and too keep it fresh I added the time factor, Each live room ( thread ) starts with a 24 hours as default time. When user buzz it , it adds 5 mins to the timer. so when users keep buzzing the thread don't die. And when the time is over the thread die forever.
by temp0826 | 2025-11-29 21:44:03+00:00
I assure you this is mostly a set/setting problem and why it's recommended to do with experienced (and more importantly, grounded) facilitators. It can leave you pretty open and suggestable, drinking with a group of lost souls and escapists is not recommended especially if you're new to it. (I've worked at traditional retreat centers and have drank hundreds of times; it's a little funny when someone comes in expecting to be able to build a story and further their escape then have their bubbles burst by a grounded point of view)
by Aurornis | 2025-11-29 21:44:33+00:00
This always sounded intuitively correct to me, but looking back over the past two decades basically all of the successful entrepreneurs and business owners I know didn’t come from families with a lot of resources and didn’t have much of a safety net. They just went all in on their goals when they were young and had many years ahead of them to start over if it all went wrong.

Contrast this with some of the people I grew up who came from wealthy families: A lot of their parents pushed them toward entrepreneurship and funded their ventures, but to date I can only think of one business from this cluster of friends that went anywhere. When you come from such resources and wealth that you don’t need to succeed and you can drop the business as soon as it becomes difficult, it’s a different situation.

I don’t know exactly what to make of this, other than to remind myself to keep pushing through the difficult times for things I really want even when I could fall back to an easy path and give up.
by josephg | 2025-11-29 21:45:46+00:00
> What is the actual catch with Fil-C?

It sounds like Fil-C combines the ergonomics of C with the performance of Python.

It might have a beautiful niche for safely sandboxing legacy code. But I don’t see any compelling reason to use it for new code. Modern GC languages are much more ergonomic than C and better optimised. C#, Java, JavaScript and Go are all easier to write, they have better tooling and they will probably all perform as well or better than Fil-C in its current state.
by electroly | 2025-11-29 21:45:48+00:00
This project is brand new to me but I have a use case I'm immediately considering, when combined with the "shiny" dashboard library as seen here: https://shinylive.io/r/examples/

At work we have analysts who sometimes produce web-based dashboards for the business to consume. When we had Python folks, they used Plotly Dash and we had to host a server for them. It's a bit silly--the dashboard just accesses APIs and static data, crunches a bit, and renders some HTML. There's no inherent need for it to require its own server. There is "WebDash" [1] but I have not gotten it to work and it says it's alpha quality.

Now that we're getting into R, I don't have any path to production for dashboards. I want to avoid getting into another Plotly Dash situation where every analyst with a one-time idea ends up creating long-term IT burden. Enter WebR: now we only need to serve static files. That's a lot easier; I can serve essentially an unlimited number of dashboards from existing infra this way. Our client machines are beefy with tons of headroom and our EC2 instances are as small as possible, so shifting work from the server to the client makes sense here. I'm gonna try it and see if I've missed something.

[1] https://github.com/ibdafna/webdash
by EdNutting | 2025-11-29 21:46:07+00:00
Unfortunately, the "one" which accepts you, is no guarantee of it being the one which "works out" (in the short or long term). My experience is now 4x "found one that ultimately doesn't work out" (each lasting 2 to 3 years).

I'm now taking time out to try to figure out how to escape the confines of the career path I've taken to find something different.

Open to suggestions of entirely different careers that I could switch to that might have higher odds of not being toxic rat-races full of people telling lies and bullshit just to survive.

But broader experience suggests the world of work just sucks these days (and yes, it's these days - our parent's generation had a brief period of doing 9-to-5 jobs which paid well enough to afford homes, have families and social lives and holidays. We don't get that now.). No wonder large numbers of my generation are dropping out of the workforce...
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-29 21:46:59+00:00
Obviously the article is voted to the top. So the the lurkers at /newest and the general HN audience must like this. Still I wish though that upvoters stuck to the HN guidelines of upvoting stuff that really gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, not just some feel-good piece. There is no shortage of other places where I can find feel-good articles. I want HN to stick to HN guidelines.

This is all the more sad for me because among all the spam, many high effort articles get posted to /newest but many don't get the upvotes. These shallow, feel-good articles always get the upvotes. I guess it takes more time to read and appreciate a high effort article. So I understand why this happens. But ...