MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jay_kyburz | 2025-11-05 23:11:26+00:00
> Each year over the last 20,000 years has been hotter than the last, on average. The "chart has gone up" every single year since when campfires were the height of human technology.

If you look at the chart in the link above, it's very clear there has been a dramatic change in the last 50 years. There has also been a dramatic rise CO2 emissions in a similar period. I don't think its unreasonable to assume the two are linked.

Even if you were to concede we cannot prove that our emissions are causing the change, we should at least acknowledge that there is some chance that they are. We can't do anything about the earth naturally warming itself, so there is no action required in that scenario, but we can reduce our emissions in the chance they are damaging the earth.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-11-05 23:11:27+00:00
The bullying is still there, it's just moved online. If anything it's easier for the perpetrators, because they can hide behind anonymity, or create humiliating deepfakes - and so on.

The problem isn't phones, it's the addictivisation of social media and gaming. Being able to stay in touch with friends and family is potentially a good thing.

But it's currently implemented as a hook for psychological and chemical addiction, so that user attention can be sold to advertisers.

That is a problem, and I think we're starting to see a movement which will eventually end with these platforms being banned, or strictly regulated at the very least.

It's basically casino psychology applied to all social interactions. That is clearly not a good or healthy thing.
by degamad | 2025-11-05 23:11:43+00:00
Of course, my mind glossed over the point that the factor is being applied to the speed, so 300% faster than 20 items per hour is 80 items per hour. That makes sense. It's also analogous to "300% more than 20 is 80".

But then it's hard to make sense of the idea that 300% slower is 5 items per hour (if I'm understanding correctly), since it works differently from "75% less than 20 is 5".
by _heimdall | 2025-11-05 23:12:29+00:00
That's one way, true. I've mostly been considering the ACA here and those getting coverage that can't get it through an employer.

Employer health insurance rates fan still get wonky for small businesses though. It probably can't happen today, but I was at a small business where everyone's rates went up shortly after one person was diagnosed with cancer and another one or two with diabetes.

That is an example of it not really being individual insurance though. The insurance company is just lumping the employees together and setting rates based on the relative risk of the whole group, not dissimilar from getting an individual policy where the rates are based on a group of one.
by stonemetal12 | 2025-11-05 23:12:36+00:00
What would be the point of the second language if it was basically the same language as the first?

In general you want a solid engineering language with a focus on correctness, and a second "scripting" language focusing on quick development.

Second if the languages are very similar but not the same it seems like you would see "confusion" errors where people accidently use lang 1 in lang 2's context or vice versa.
by mfrye0 | 2025-11-05 23:12:44+00:00
I've been keeping an eye on this space for awhile as it matures a bit further. There's been a number of startups that have popped up around this - apart from Temporal and DBOS, Hatchet.run looked interesting.

I've been using BullMQ for awhile with distributed workers across K8 and have hacked together what I need, but a lightweight DAG of some sort on Postgres would be great.

I took a brief look at your docs. What would you say is the main difference of yours vs some of the other options? Just the simplicity of it being a single sql file and a sdk wrapper? Sorry if the docs answer this already - trying to take a quick look between work.
by m463 | 2025-11-05 23:13:21+00:00
I think the model s, model 3 or the previous model y look great.

The recent model y looks terrible, like a duck.

And the ergonomics are cheap and dangerous.

Removing turn signal stalks, drive select stalks is dangerous. I like the idea of buttons, but turn signal buttons? buttons on a moving steering wheel? and the rest of the critical controls buried on a touchscreen? inside door handles? ugh.
by BrenBarn | 2025-11-05 23:13:33+00:00
You say "redefine what happiness is", but I'm not sure there's any "re"-definition necessary, it can just be about how you define it. I wouldn't say that the things you mention (satisfaction, purpose, etc.) are alternatives to happiness, but rather that they're particular forms of happiness. And maybe the hedonism of the heroin addict is another form.

I'm not entirely sure it's incorrect to say that the heroin addict's life isn't a valid and desirable form of happiness in theory. The problem is that in practice pursuing that type of happiness has a high risk of plunging into extreme unhappiness. The same might be said of various other forms of happiness that we see as at least somewhat less objectionable. For instance, people who do BASE jumping may find a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from doing it, but still many people might view that skeptically as a path to happiness, because again it has high risks of bad outcomes.

I tend to think in terms of aiming for what I call "robust happiness", which means a form of happiness that's resistant to changes in circumstance, and in particular to the awareness of other people's happiness. When you're happy in a way where you can look at other people being happy and not wish to have their life or their form of happiness instead of yours, your happiness is robust in a certain sense.
by dpark | 2025-11-05 23:13:34+00:00
I’m not entirely sure what your point is. You say you don’t care about this but seem very invested in defending Intuit’s lobbying.

You also seem to be simultaneously claiming that the US tax system is too complex for the government to feasibly automate and that filing taxes is trivial.

Either you hold contradictory viewpoints here or you have some undisclosed interest in this area.
by brailsafe | 2025-11-05 23:13:46+00:00
"Ya but... how does that make me money?" is the question I can imagine many superficially smart people literally or internally asking themselves when confronted with the possibility of that reality.

If anything about intelligence favors optimizing for performance in systems that aren't intrinsically tied to any actual happiness metric, then they'd have to be smart enough to recognize that their inclination to seek those rewards isn't as worth pursuing as their instincts would have them believe, before they've wasted too much time avoiding the opportunity to cultivate those traits.

None of our hierarchical systems reward those traits at all. We've convinced ourselves that it's worth spending our entire lives working to pay for shelter and food at whatever the price may be, instead of just getting that by default and earning your keep through contribution to actual people you know and abiding by agreed upon core values.

The inverse of cultivating happiness is often the normal case, where you might be told to leave because the goalposts of success shifted when you weren't looking, and it's your fault you weren't smart enough, born early enough, or stepping on people to win at a game that should be totally redundant.
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-05 23:15:16+00:00
If you had a company whose core business proposition was Quite Obviously Shady, would you expect them to be scrupulously legit in other areas?

Quick question for you - rhino poaching is a huge problem in Africa, with poachers getting a surprisingly small amount of money per rhino they shoot, because the buyers only want the horns. Do you think paying the poachers more to not shoot the rhinos would solve that problem?
by nvarsj | 2025-11-05 23:15:21+00:00
> To a large extent you get to decide which universe you live in.

It's a naïve view of the spectrum of human experience.

I'm a believer in the HSP theory. Some of us are wired to feel things more strongly at a low level. There's only so much the thinking part of the brain can do before getting completely exhausted and overwhelmed.

Not to mention the vast difference in life experiences. From the yuppie that has everything in life, to the person from a broken home who had to fight for everything. Or simply someone that has children vs the childless adult.

I have friends who are like what you describe. From my pov, they seem to lack much depth of emotion at all. And they don't even realise it. But I think it's also just how each of us are.
by mysterypie | 2025-11-05 23:15:22+00:00
> $600 in the 1920s (1930s?), not inflation adjusted

I consulted the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator:

$600 in 1925 would be $11,264 today

$600 in 1935 would be $14,329 today

A lot of money, but I've heard that it can easily cost $10-20K today to erect a couple of poles to bring power a hundred feet to your property in a rural area these days. Do you know what distance was being covered to bring power to your grandfather?
by azan_ | 2025-11-05 23:15:36+00:00
Not true at all: 1) more intelligent people are happier (author of the blogpost cherrypicked 2 studies, one of which in fact showed that iq is positively correlated with hapiness. 2) IQ negatively correlates with neuroticism. 3) In fact IQ correlates positively with almost every positive facet of human experience - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212794120
by bsder | 2025-11-05 23:15:41+00:00
> As much as I want independent EU software ecosystem, I don't think using public funding can breed anything but more corruption.

Well, you described what happens when you outsource everything.

Governments used to ... gasp ... employ people to do tasks so that you didn't have to outsource every single piddly task. And since those employees could do the tasks, there was a floor such that selecting nobody and doing it in house was always an option.

Yes, that has different failure modes. However, you have more levers over those failure modes as opposed to a single lever of "Head to court and try to win a legal case."
by nobody9999 | 2025-11-05 23:16:20+00:00
>It doesn't look like there _are_ any Walmarts in NYC? Are supermarkets in NYC actually offering the same prices as supermarkets in places where there are Walmarts?

That's true. There are a couple of Costcos, but since I don't own a car (like most New Yorkers) it's not all that useful.

And supermarkets in NYC (in car-centric places some NYC supermarkets are smaller than gas station convenience stores) are definitely more expensive than supermarkets outside NYC.

What's more, the "food deserts" that Mamdani's proposal is trying to address don't have any supermarkets and folks are forced to take the bus or the subway to shop for groceries. I'd also note that most subway stations do not have elevators, making it much more difficult to shop for any length of time, especially for older, less mobile folks.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-11-05 23:16:21+00:00
Banon doesn't seem to have many friends or powers backing him. The whole would be technofuedal regime travels through Trump & Vance, and there's no other place that real economic interests strongly align. You're either sitting on the electric edge of these energy streams blasting through this locus of power, or you are just a regular human.

Sure MTG is reading the will of the people, has opened a couple eyelids to see the Wide Awake attitude that actually exists across America (& which opposed the broad scale looting of its institutions & now ai-powered Black Hawk jade helm incursions). But the people are poor and have no power, and Bannon is a leech on a the side of the most bloodthirsty corrupt political interest shark on the planet. It's unclear whose gonna be a benefactor alike the well paid for constructed alternate-reality maximum-grift maga-verse & the conservative purchased media / 4th estate they've so successfully hollowed out to keep the reality distortion field operational with.

None of these people have the faintest littlest rock of legitimacy to cling to. There's nothing here, & they can only just keep the bespoke reality they've sworn to going; there's no exits off this ship. It's a blunt reality they've created & threading their way out of this nightmare construct isn't really possible. You have to hard break. And there's no meaningful way for Bannon to keep his own identity, to be an "interesting" person with notable point of views, except that he can speak for this abominable falsity, provide unique rage to fuel it.
Show HN: Reverse Engineer Web Apps
by rayruizhiliao | 2025-11-05 23:16:44+00:00
Hi HN! I’m Ray; Alex, Dima, and I built an open-source tool that turns web interactions into deterministic, repeatable flows you can invoke again via API or MCP: https://github.com/VectorlyApp/web-hacker

Why we built it: many web sites/apps don’t provide open APIs, and pure GUI automation is fragile. Our tool captures interactions, converts them into reliable, replayable flows, and exposes them programmatically so your integrations don’t depend on brittle screen-scraping scripts.

Quick demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFVQSuiaWmM.

We’re three engineers coming from healthcare AI. We’d love feedback, issues, star(s), and feature requests. Happy to answer questions here.

— Ray (and Alex & Dima) Repo: https://github.com/VectorlyApp/web-hacker
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-05 23:16:44+00:00
Does this read like AI slop to anyone else?

That whole "Profiles don't/aren't just $THIS; they're also $THAT" construction is classic LLM output. Then you've got the weird confusing inconsistencies like calling profiles a new feature when they aren't and there's also the rule of 3 ("avatars, colours, naming", "set boundaries, protect your information and make the internet a little calmer"). It all feels machine-written. Even the comparison of tidying your tabs to setting boundaries seems meaningless. It's just the sort of empty parallels AI loves to make.

It's a short article but I really had to power through it because with every sentence I kept thinking, this is not written by a human. If it is AI-generated slop, that'd explain why some parts of it doesn't make any sense.
by jjk166 | 2025-11-05 23:17:20+00:00
> It implies enough capacity to store everything. But what you describe is not storing everything.

I am describing what GP is describing. The original comment does not imply storage any more than mine. The comment didn't say anything about storage, you inserted that yourself.

> Which means you're not storing all the information. You're not storing everything.

Again, storing everything was never a requirement. If someone pulls up a JPEG of the Mona Lisa and asks you what it is, you say it's the Mona Lisa, despite the compressed format. Put a gaussian blur over it, make it black and white, reduce it to an 8 by 8 grid, it's still the Mona Lisa. You remember what it looks like, even if you can't perfectly recreate it. Loss of data associated with a memory is not the same as loss of the memory.

> In other words, each time you store a new memory, you throw some old information away.

No, that is not equivalent. Paint a canvas. Then paint more on the canvas. Keep doing it again and again, each brush stroke smearing those beneath. Eventually you won't be able to see your original brush strokes, but at no point in time did you remove any paint from the canvas. Your first brush strokes are still there. They contribute to the final form, even if they've been radically transformed such that their individual contribution could not possibly be isolated.

> Which the person I was responding to said does not happen.

And it doesn't. The original comment stated very clearly that memory does not work like a computer filing system. That doesn't mean the brain works like a computer filing system with unlimited storage capacity, it means the brain uses a fundamentally different architecture without analogues to storage and deletion.
by rmunn | 2025-11-05 23:17:43+00:00
I may have given a misleading impression. Each property test took milliseconds to run, and FsCheck defaults to generating 100 random inputs for each test. Running the whole test suite took 5-10 minutes depending on whether I ran the longer tests or skipped them (the tests that generated very large lists, then split and concatenated them several times, took longer than the rest of the test suite combined). What I was doing that ran overnight was the stress testing feature of the Expecto test runner (https://github.com/haf/expecto?tab=readme-ov-file#stress-tes...), where instead of running 100 tests for each property test you define, it keeps on generating random input and running tests for a fixed length of time. I would set it to run for 8 hours then go to bed. In the morning I would look at the millions (literally millions, usually between 2-3 million) of random tests that had been run, all of which were passing, and say "Yep, I probably don't have any bugs left".
by quickthrowman | 2025-11-05 23:17:56+00:00
Entering a 1099-B for stocks is dead simple, you enter in a few numbers (cumulative buys, sells, and wash sales) and you’re done. You transmit your trade history to the IRS digitally.

It takes me about 20-30 minutes to enter a W2, 1099-INT, 1099-B, 1099-B (futures) and a 1256 (straddles and index options) into FreeTaxUSA every spring.
by rawgabbit | 2025-11-05 23:18:06+00:00
I like this quote:

With a stupid person all this is absolutely impossible as explained by the Third Basic Law. A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy.
by PlunderBunny | 2025-11-05 23:18:28+00:00
Do you have consistent gaps between all your teeth, and/or other conditions like strong enamel, or a good diet? If so, congratulations - flossing might not do much for you. But it's ridiculous to suggest that - if you don't floss and get food stuck between your teeth for days on end - that doesn't have a negative effect. Arguments about correlation/causation be damned.

> Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop?

Moderate exercise after not exercising for a while causes pain - is that a signal to stop?
by davnicwil | 2025-11-05 23:18:52+00:00
I think the operative word here is 'let'.

The actual levers of control available to those in charge in schools are limited, in the end.

The rules that exist are routinely broken and can only be enforced selectively. Many of the rules are unpolicable frankly and are only kept to or only marginally broken as a matter of social norms, and understanding so there is not total choas. An equilbrium is found.

With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.

It was always going to creep to the current status quo. Again this would have been true even if a rule were ostensibly set.

Society is learning, slowly, that this isn't ideal, and the pendulum seems to be swinging back. It may settle at phones being completely banned in schools, but in practice this will also obviously be moderately chipped away at all the time in various surprising and unsurprising ways. Especially as the hardware itself evolves.
by kderbyma | 2025-11-05 23:19:08+00:00
It’s because everyone else is dumber than them…. So they constantly see avoidable mistakes and misunderstandings that could have been avoided…. Yet they cannot make the other people understand….because they think differently about it, and the people who don’t have that intelligence will not necessarily even be able to reorient their brains for the new information to be absorbed correctly.

I constantly get demoralized by stupid people….. it’s truly horrific. It’s a disability as far as I can see…I am disabled by others stupidity….
by wtallis | 2025-11-05 23:19:15+00:00
"a+b+c" doesn't describe a unique evaluation order. You need some parentheses to disambiguate which changes are due to associativity vs commutativity. a+(b+c)=(c+b)+a should be true of floating point numbers, due to commutativity. a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c may fail due to the lack of associativity.
by cyberax | 2025-11-05 23:20:25+00:00
Because it's technically not "audit". They just send you an automated letter if they find any discrepancies: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/understanding-your-cp2000-se...

And they _will_ find them. For example, one year I forgot to add a line from one of 1040 forms to my return. I got a notification from the IRS about a year later that I have under-reported taxes.

And with the defunding of the IRS, they'll severely limit the complex audits.
by FredPret | 2025-11-05 23:21:12+00:00
I applaud this man's commitment to dishwashers.

But you can buy a large box of generic and very cheap no-bullshit pods at Costco, and simply put two or even three of them in a load.

If you're going the multi-pod route, you can put one in the dispenser and one or more right in with the dishes.
by the_mitsuhiko | 2025-11-05 23:21:21+00:00
> I took a brief look at your docs. What would you say is the main difference of yours vs some of the other options? Just the simplicity of it being a single sql file and a sdk wrapper? Sorry if the docs answer this already - trying to take a quick look between work.

It's really just trying to be as simple as possible. I was motivated by trying to just do the most simple thing I could come up with after I did not really find the other solutions to be something I wanted to build on.

I'm sure they are great, but I want to leave the window open to having people self host what we are building / enable us to deploy a cellular architecture later and thus I want to stick to a manageable number of services until until I can no longer. Postgres is a known quantity in my stack and the only postgres only solution was DBOS which unfortunately did not look ready for prime time yet when I tried it. That said, I noticed that DBOS is making quite some progress so I'm somewhat confident that it will eventually get there.
by tobyjsullivan | 2025-11-05 23:21:56+00:00
Rather than too sensitive, I think you’re making up AI signals. Poor writing (or, in this case, slightly less than perfect writing) is not a phenomenon to which humans are immune.

If you like the idea of human-written content on the Internet, I recommend against joining the chorus of voices baselessly accusing humans of being AI bots - an unfortunate trend lately which only serves to disincentivize future contributions.
by degamad | 2025-11-05 23:22:04+00:00
Also possible: he's unaware of a change implemented elsewhere that (intentionally or unintentionally) has resulted in a change of behaviour in this circumstance.

(e.g. are the terms of service, or exerpts of it, available in the system prompt or search results for health questions? So a response under the new ToS would produce different outputs without any intentional change in "behaviour" of the model.)
by echelon | 2025-11-05 23:22:31+00:00
> But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful.

Next let's ban kids from social media.

Or better yet, let's tax social media as a negative externality. Anything with an algorithmic feed, engagement algorithm, commenting/voting/banning, all hooked up to advertising needs to pay to fix the harm it's causing.

They're about as bad as nicotine and lung cancer. They've taken people hostage and turned society against itself.

> I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.

Chatbots aren't smart and AR glasses are dorky. They're going to remain niche for quite some time.

iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire. You can tell those other two don't have the same spark. I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.