MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrguyorama | 2025-11-21 20:41:18+00:00
>In some motorsports you want tires with no tread (slicks)

You are wrong.

Laws prohibit selling used tires because the consumable part of the tire that contains the part engineered to safely interact with the road is used up. That part happens to contain the tread.

A "slick" for racing is not a tire that has had the tread worn down FFS. A "slick" still has a significant quantity of rubber engineered to wear down over use as you drive on it.

If you are using a used up tire in place of an actual racing tire, what you are doing is cheaping out on safety.

A tire worn down to the tread wear indicator or similar is only useful as a burnout tire.

Cheaping out on safety in auto racing is so damn stupid that even the 24 Hours of Lemons race, which bans cars that cost more than 500$ with all upgrades, excludes safety equipment from that calculation and requires thousands of dollars of safety equipment.

Exactly because of situations like this, where people who say they "Know what they are doing" just don't.

>ut the law prohibits the sale because it takes no account of the context.

The law prohibits it because every dumb asshole who thinks the government is an evil bogeyman like this will insist on buying worn out tires "For racing" and putting them on their daily driver and people will die. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro... for what happens when tires are even just a little messed up, and how it killed 238 people in the US alone. Both companies involved BTW neglected to inform the NHTSA about the issues they knew existed, because people dying in their vehicles while they point fingers around is more profitable than doing a recall
by tecleandor | 2025-11-21 20:41:37+00:00
>Why doesn’t someone else create a competing app that’s better and thereby steal all their business?

Oh, they do. But Match Groups buys it and either:

a) they get to cover certain niche of the market they weren't monetizing (Indiamatch, Chispa, Ldsplanet...)

b) they leave it to die so people move to other apps (Like OKCupid, the only app I know that has less features with every update)

Just check their brands [0]: Match, Tinder, Hinge, OKCupid, Plenty of fish, Our time, The League...

--

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group#Dating_services_owned
by WesleyJohnson | 2025-11-21 20:42:32+00:00
I would add that there is psychology at play as well. Someone might scoff at a $200 ticket, thinking it's ridiculous to pay that much, even if you could then eat at the venue for $20.

But they'll pay $100 for a ticket, feeling it's reasonable, and then end spending $120 on concessions and beer anyway. The smells, sights, atmosphere and wanting to "just enjoy it" are compelling forces to reach for your wallet IMHO.
by hamdingers | 2025-11-21 20:42:43+00:00
Unsurprisingly this thread has become a battleground on the merits of homeschooling.

Something to keep in mind: "Homeschool" is a useless descriptor. It covers a spectrum from complete educational neglect to world class private tutoring. It includes cohorts almost indistinguishable from school, and cohorts that engage in cultish indoctrination.

Any criticism you might have for your idea of homeschool, there exists a type of homeschooling that addresses that criticism, and there will be someone in the replies ready to tell you about it.
by cxr | 2025-11-21 20:43:06+00:00
Mm, no.

The practice I described is neither "never upgrading" your dependencies nor predicated upon that. And your comment ignores that there's an entire other class of problem I alluded to (reproducibility/failure-to-reproduce) that normal, basic source control ("vendoring") sidesteps almost entirely, if not entirely in the majority of cases. That, too, is without addressing the fact that what you're tacitly treating as bedrock is not, in fact, bedrock (even if it can be considered the status quo within some subculture).

The problem of "supply chain attacks" (which, to reiterate, is coded language for "not exercising source control"—or, "pretending to, but not actually doing it") is a problem that people have to opt in to.

It takes extra tooling.

It takes extra steps.

You have to actively do things to get yourself into the situation where you're susceptible to it—and then it takes more tooling and more effort to try and get out. In contrast, you can protect yourself from it +and+ solve the reproducibility problem all by simply doing nothing[1]—not taking the extra steps to edit .gitignore to exclude third-party code (and, sometimes, first-party code) from the SCM history, not employing lock files to undo the consequences of selectively excluding key parts of the input to the build process (and your app's behavior).

All these lock file schemes that language package manager projects have belatedly and sheepishly began to offer as a solution are inept attempts at doing what your base-level RCS already does for free (if only all the user guides for these package managers weren't all instructing people to subvert source control to begin with).

Every package manager lock file format (requirements file, etc.) is an inferior, ad hoc, formally-specified, error-prone, incompatible re-implementation of half of Git.

1. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25623388>
by estearum | 2025-11-21 20:43:06+00:00
It’s incredibly embarrassing to be an asshole to someone while smacking down an argument they didn’t make.

The empirical demonstration is that LLM output is certainly not random. Do you disagree?

If no, then you agree with my empirical observation that the text they’re trained on has some degree of coherence. Or else the structure of LLM output is just emerging from the silica and has nothing at all to do with the (apparently coincidental) appearance of coherence in the input text.

Let me know if you disagree.

I never suggested this means anything at all about whether the system is conscious or not, GP did, and it’s a position I’m arguing against.
by isoprophlex | 2025-11-21 20:43:07+00:00
What a neat trick. I'm thinking you can abuse polynomials similarly. If the goal is to print the first, say, 100 elements, a 99-degree polynomial would do just fine :^)

EDIT: the llm gods do recreational mathematics as well. claude actually thinks it was able to come up with and verify a solution...

https://claude.ai/share/5664fb69-78cf-4723-94c9-7a381f947633
by robertakarobin | 2025-11-21 20:43:17+00:00
I was very young when my mom started Prozac but do remember how angry and sad she was before compared to after.

Years later there was a time when me and my sister noticed our mom was acting a bit strange -- more snappish and irritable than usual, and she even started dressing differently. Then at dinner she announced proudly that she had been off Prozac for a month. My sister and I looked at each other and at the same time went, "Ohhhh!" Mom was shocked that we'd noticed such a difference in her behavior and started taking the medication again.

I've been on the exact same dose as her for 15 years, and my 7-year-old son just started half that dose.

If I have a good day it's impossible to day whether that's due to Prozac. But since starting Prozac I have been much more likely to have good days than bad. So, since Prozac is cheap and I don't seem to suffer any side effects, I plan to keep taking it in perpetuity.

What I tell my kids is that getting depressed, feeling sad, feeling hopeless -- those are all normal feelings that everyone has from time to time. Pills can't or shouldn't keep you from feeling depressed if you have something to be depressed about. Pills are for people who feel depressed but don't have something to be depressed about -- they have food, shelter, friends, opportunities to contribute and be productive, nothing traumatic has happened, but they feel hopeless anyway -- and that's called Depression, which is different from "being depressed."
by neoden | 2025-11-21 20:43:26+00:00
I don't think we should be surprised by this. A creature that needs to operate its body in 3d environment, perform complex manipulations with objects, participate in social interactions, probably use some sort of planning to optimise pollen harvesting activities has very good chances to be acquainted with the concept of time in one way or another.

What is indeed fascinating is how scientists invent all these experiments
by 93po | 2025-11-21 20:43:28+00:00
I highly recommend Robert Fuller on Youtube for anyone who wants to better understand the shared experiences between humans and animals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQb-badp1s

This video made me change my approach to consuming animals - I realized that just because animals are dumber than humans doesn't mean they don't have real, meaningful life experiences. And I'd be a dick to deprive them of those experiences.

There's also some hypocrisy in us wanting hyper intelligent AI to have compassion for humans and the human experience even though we're dumber than it, but us not doing the same for animals.
by quotz | 2025-11-21 20:43:43+00:00
The assurances made by western leaders were made verbally, but not codified into treaties or agreements, as per the famous line "not one inch eastward". Does that make western leaders lying twofaces?

At the 2008 NATO meeting in Bucharest, NATO gave open invitation to both Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO sometime in the future, without any MAPs. Not that MAPs are very important here on a timescale basis, since both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in matter of months, without the consent of the population, but by corruption of the leadership. What is an open invitation stated publicly, also consists of thousands of conversations in private.

Hence, Russia would not allow this to happen at any cost. Would the US tolerate Russia meeting up with Canada and Mexico behind closed doors and offering them nuclear protection, first covertly, then even publicly?
by billy99k | 2025-11-21 20:43:57+00:00
"..a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?"

School isn't their only exposure to life. You will get exposure to other people and non-healthy people outside of school.

"Kids in public school are exposed to society at large, in both good and bad ways. My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in th"

When I was a kid, I was exposed to kids that should have been in prison..and many of them ended up there. My life probably would have been better if they weren't there.

"My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in there."

This can still be done with home schooling.

"The sad reality of parenting is that you're never going to be able to hand-pick your child's experience all the way through life. Sooner or later they're going to be exposed to the "hostile flowers" you describe."

I disagree. If someone is hostile and aggressive all the time, I wouldn't be around them as an adult. I hand pick my friends, and you probably do too. I also still get exposed to the assholes of the world.

"Personally I think learning to be around those people and still thrive is a part of childhood that prepares you well for adulthood. It may be more valuable than some of the academic work kids do."

If you are at work and someone is sexually harassing all of the women there or generally causing issues for everyone around them (preventing most other people from getting their work done). Do you think they should stay, so everyone can learn to be around them?

You seem to think everyone is a reasonable person that might just have a few issues. This is far from the truth and many times, public schools will just keep these kids there, preventing everyone around them from learning.

It's also a burden to the teachers and staff.
by DANmode | 2025-11-21 20:44:00+00:00
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/glymphatic-system

PS Thanks for keeping this a good place to be!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

More for the avid reader:

1.) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7698404/

2.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40012567/

3.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36498538/
by o11c | 2025-11-21 20:44:00+00:00
From the Conservative part of my social group, the main one applicable here is pushing elementary school kids to identify as trans. Because young children are very impressionable, and it is forbidden for staff to push back on on it at all, despite the science saying "there is absolutely no such thing as trans before age 12, and much possibility of social trauma from attempting it".

Left-ish people tend to say "this doesn't happen in the real world, it's made up for internet arguments" - and I even said that for a while on this and a few other subjects - but that denial cannot survive extensive contact with the real world.
by afavour | 2025-11-21 20:44:37+00:00
> No where else in life are people forced to mixed with the general unfiltered public

I think "forced" is doing a lot of work there. No, you're not forced to work alongside someone problematic. But quitting your job is quite an escalation to deal with the issue. Same with a troublesome neighbor. To say nothing of public transit, taking flights, interacting with other drivers on the road...
by suby | 2025-11-21 20:44:47+00:00
The reason Wayland progress is slow is not technical. We have a coordination problem, people have differing priorities and views on what should be allowed.

There are people opposed to things like a allowing windows to specify their own bounds, and unless all the stakeholders agree to implement such protocols in their respective projects, the ecosystem will remain fragmented. Multiply this against every feature that people want.
by seneca | 2025-11-21 20:45:03+00:00
> My job isn’t the totality of my life and you have very strange ideas about how quickly disruptive people actually get fired. You get plenty of unfiltered interaction in life.

In what environment are you, as an adult, forced to interact with everyone who happens to show up? The only instances I can think of are other government-run institutions like the military or prison, and I don't think anyone would argue those are standard modes of "real life".

> If anything I’d say the sort of thing you describe sounds more like an insular cult.

Name calling isn't an argument.
by usefulcat | 2025-11-21 20:45:08+00:00
There are certainly tradeoffs, but it's not all negative. In my experience, what it boils down to is that home-schooled kids tend to have more experience with adults and less experience dealing with a wide variety of other kids, particularly assholes.

When I was a kid in public school, there was no shortage of assholes and I definitely would have preferred to not have to deal with them. OTOH, I don't doubt that there is also some value in that experience, not to mention interacting with all the other people. Also, we didn't have social media or semi-regular school shootings when I was a kid. So yeah.. to me, it's not at all obvious which set of tradeoffs is preferable nowadays.
by gunnarmorling | 2025-11-21 20:45:22+00:00
I'm still swinging back and forth which approach I ultimately prefer.

As stated in the post, I like how the proxy approach largely avoids any API dependency. I'd also argue that Java developers actually are very familiar with this kind of implicit enrichment of behaviors and execution semantics (e.g. transaction management is weaved into applications that way in Spring or Quarkus applications).

But there's also limits to this in regards to flexibility. For example, if you wanted to delay a method for a dynamically determined period of time, rather than for a fixed time, the annotation-based approach would fall short.
by skeeter2020 | 2025-11-21 20:45:27+00:00
It's going to depend greatly on your geo location and socioeconomic circumstances, but a homeschooled kid who interacts a lot in the neighbourhood (big "if", IME; those kids all have a lot of school friends) is still going to miss out on broader social, cultural, racial and financial exposure. Example: my white, middle-class kids have a lot of people exactly like them in community groups and sports clubs, but lots of eastern european & asian immigrants in their school classes. This is super-important in elementary school when they're far less aware and insular about interacting with people who are "different" IMO
by quinnjh | 2025-11-21 20:46:09+00:00
It (thinking steps) has moments of brilliance, and generally convincing looking steps and improved outputs. Wether that is reasoning seems to be a matter of interpretation.

From skimming the log > After popping the 2, the stack is [X11, then pushing X2 would make it [X2, X1]? No, because pushing adds to the top. So after popping 2, the stack is [X1],then pushing X2 adds it on top → [X2, X1].

Wait, no, when you push, you add to the top. So after popping the 2, the stack is [X1], then pushing X2 would make it [X2, X1]? No, wait, the stack is LIFO. So pushing X2 would put it on top of X1 → stack becomes [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, after popping the 2, the stack is [X1]. Then pushing X2 would make the stack [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, when you push, the new element is added to the top. So after popping the 2 (so stack is [X1]), then pushing X2 gives [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, the stack was [X1], then pushing X2 would make it [X2] on top of X1 → so stack is [X2, X1]? Yes, exactly.
by comex | 2025-11-21 20:46:16+00:00
Note that while the authors themselves purport to release the training data under a permissive license, it includes scraped webpages, with the only rule being "don’t collect from sites that explicitly disallow it, including paywalled content". So the original text is mostly not freely licensed by its authors.

However, the use of this text for training might be transformative enough to constitute fair use, in which case a license from the authors would be unnecessary. For now this is an unsettled legal question, but it's not going to stay unsettled for long, at least not in the US. In fact, we've already seen two judges address the question in summary judgement rulings and reach roughly opposite conclusions [1]. One of those cases has since been settled, but inevitably, some of the many ongoing AI copyright cases will make their way to appeals courts, and probably the Supreme Court.

In the long run, I suspect that this will be allowed one way or another. Either courts will make a finding of fair use, or Congress will step in and create some kind of copyright carveout. Both have their limitations: court rulings tend to draw fuzzy lines around what conduct is allowed and what isn't, while legislation draws sharp lines that tend to be too sharp (with random restrictions and carveouts based on negotiations).

If so, what happens next? Some free software purists will never accept this type of use, and they'd have reasonable grounds for not doing so (legal uncertainty in the rest of the world, or moral/ethical grounds). But I think it would be a mistake for the free-software world broadly to reject it. This type of model is as open as is physically possible, and represents a real improvement in user agency compared to mere open-weights models, let alone compared to the closed models that seem to be getting increasingly dominant.

Anyway, we'll see.

[1] https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/07/fair-u...
by hereme888 | 2025-11-21 20:46:53+00:00
I don't agree with all of Piotr's writings, but here's an extensive list of famous educators, maybe yours is among them.

John Locke, John Holt, Peter Green, and:

https://supermemo.guru/wiki/The_Greatest_Minds_in_History_Op...

https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Tom_Durrie
by esseph | 2025-11-21 20:47:13+00:00
If we could already do it with some loadbalancer changes, I don't understand your comment that it was an incentive to move to containers.

Containers are separate from their deployment method. To be able to do those things with containers, some will go to docker, docker swarm, hashicorp nomad, or kubernetes.

So if people could already do these deployment methods, and given the HUGE organizational lift in training and platform investment for Ops to do that shift, your comment about those reasons being incentives to move to containers doesn't make sense.
by steveklabnik | 2025-11-21 20:47:13+00:00
By using some proof tools, you can find some of it.

It is technically impossible to find 100% of it at compile time because some of the finer details about what is UB are not nailed down 100% yet. But those are generally pretty fine corner cases, and one of the goals of those definitions is to not invalidate code as written.

Formal verification is very hard.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-11-21 20:47:15+00:00
My vibes on the community are the exact opposite, actually. Even if it leads towards the same conclusion. Older folk who lived in an industry completely unregulated and saw it rise into a trillion dollar empire. No government involved (or at least, that's what it looks like on the surface).

Unfortunately, most industries cannot cheaply and quickly break things to iterate upon it like code. moving fast and breaking buildings costs lives.

I suspect there's a similar mentality here with regards to unionization. Many older folk will only have seen the riches of tech and not the abuse of labor in nearly every other sector.
by BrenBarn | 2025-11-21 20:47:35+00:00
My understanding is that part of the problem is that many banks do not provide that kind of "direct connect" functionality anymore. Some used to provide OFX but no longer do. Also, financial regulations aimed at "open banking" (like PSD2) bizarrely seem oriented towards enabling middlemen like Plaid. They don't require anything like "each individual customer must be allowed to access their individual data by using an API however they want"; it all has to go through a "third-party provider".

So the holy grail is really "Banks must be required to provide all customer info in a machine-readable format, via a programmable API, directly to their customers." :-)
by IanCal | 2025-11-21 20:47:54+00:00
You don’t have to do all that.

If you have a+b and a-b you’ll get 2a when added together.

So knowing just the sum we can say that a is 9 in this setup.

Now we need to figure out b.

Multiplying out those you get

a^2 + ab -ab - b^2

And I get a longing for not having started this a phone.

Cancels and fill in what we know and we get 81 - b^2 = 37

b = sqrt(44) = sqrt(4)*sqrt(11) = 2sqrt(11)
by BobaFloutist | 2025-11-21 20:48:20+00:00
You're forgetting that public school also exposes you to more adult assholes, including ones with direct power over you that can screw you over for no reason.

It's important to know how and when to advocate for yourself and others, when to escalate through proper channels and when to escalate outside of proper channels, and when to back down and let them be an asshole because they're frankly not worth your time.
by JuniperMesos | 2025-11-21 20:48:33+00:00
I also think there's room for taking some inspiration from more modern cryptographic-key-based identity systems like blockchain identities and AtProtocol and Urbit - your primary identity as a user is an asymmetric cryptographic key, which you keep extremely secure; and then you can use this key to authenticate and encrypt messages over a public network or on a public data store, and you can derive sub-keys for use in various contexts. Instead of having to have different authorities keep track of usernames, what if every user in the system was identified with a public key from a global, cryptographically-large key-space?