MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Podrod | 2025-11-01 09:40:54+00:00
Yeah it was 100% hereditary peers plus some bishops before the 1999 reform act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

Labour had campaigned for years to abolish the Lords but when they got the chance Tony Blair decided on a watered down reform instead. Now the bloody place is just packed with political stooges and party donors. Over 800 of them. It's corrupt as hell.
by Xcelerate | 2025-11-01 09:41:18+00:00
> Eliminate redundant matrix operations (like two transposes next to each other)

In 2016, I was trying to construct orthogonal irreducible matrix representations of various groups (“irreps”). The problem was that most of the papers describing how to construct these matrices used a recursive approach that depended on having already constructed the matrix elements of a lower dimensional irrep. Thus the irrep dimension n became quite an annoying parameter, and function calls were very slow because you had to construct the irrep for each new group element from the ground up on every single call.

I ended up using Julia’s @generated functions to dynamically create new versions of the matrix construction code for each distinct value of n for each type of group. So essentially it would generate “unrolled” code on the fly and then use LLVM to compile that a single time, after which all successive calls for a specific group and irrep dimension were extremely fast. Was really quite cool. The only downside was that you couldn’t generate very high dimensional irreps because LLVM would begin to struggle with the sheer volume of code it needed to compile, but for my project at the time that wasn’t much of a concern.
by zozbot234 | 2025-11-01 09:42:03+00:00
m68k has a LLVM port already, so Rust can be implemented for that platform.[0] It would be nice to have LLVM backends for alpha, hppa and sh4 - these older architectures tend to be quite simple so a working LLVM has plenty of value as a reference and for educational use.

(LLVM even used to have an in-tree DEC Alpha backend, though that was back in 2011 and not relevant to any version of Rust.)

[0] Looks like there is basic initial support but no 'core' or 'std' builds yet. https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/platform-support/m68k-unknow... This should potentially be fixable.
by chrismorgan | 2025-11-01 09:42:53+00:00
On the off chance that by “canvas” you didn’t mean all rendering (which is a terrible idea for reasons addressed by others) but only what is currently covered by <canvas>—the frame buffer approach is incompatible with GPU acceleration, so 3D would basically not be possible. For better or for worse, WebGL is pretty close to the minimum acceptable for that kind of functionality.
by sho | 2025-11-01 09:43:10+00:00
It's not about which of your computers you run it on, it's about the relative capability of any system you're likely to own vs. what a cloud provider can do. The difference is hilarious - probably 100x. Knowing that, unless you have good reasons (and experimenting/playing around IS a good reason) - not many people would choose to actually base their everyday workflow on an all-local setup.

It's sort of like doing all your work on an 80386. Can it be made to work? Probably. Are you going to learn a whole lot making it work? Without a doubt! Are you going to be the fastest dev on the team? No.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-11-01 09:43:41+00:00
Makes intuitive sense for this form of introspection to emerge at higher capability levels.

GPT-2 write sentences; GPT-3 writes poetry. ChatGPT can chat. Claude 4.1 can introspect. Maybe by testing what capabilities models of certain size have - we could build a “ladder of conceptual complexity” for every concept ever :)
by edgineer | 2025-11-01 09:45:19+00:00
One F-35 costs around $100 million. I count two that perhaps theoretically, with a clever autopilot, could have landed on their own after pilot ejection. At the scale of $200 million I'm not certain that the additional engineering of the already-clever jet would really have cost more than that.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/10/pilot-error-blame...

https://simpleflying.com/f35-pilot-troubleshooting-lockheed-...
by tripzilch | 2025-11-01 09:45:25+00:00
get an ESP32, costs about $1-3

you can program it with the USB and the Arduino IDE

most dev boards (that means the MCU is put onto a PCB and you can do stuff with its pins) already have a LED on it so you can blink that without any soldering

they also usually have two tiny buttons one of which doesn't do anything/much and you can use those as input

ESP32 also has built in Wifi and you can make it host a supertiny webserver, or even be its own AP. It also has Bluetooth but I haven't tried that yet.

You can do all these things by asking ChatGPT for the code and instructions :-)

It can do a lot more than this though, but it might inspire you to try other things.

Oh one more very cool thing if you're just getting started is that the ESP32 has 10 pins which are "capacitive touch" sensors and attach a wire to that pin and if you touch the wire, your program gets a signal. This works very well and makes that you can do interactive stuff without even having to solder buttons on anything.
by lock1 | 2025-11-01 09:47:12+00:00
Where do you draw the line then? Stopping at `tau` just because `$future_maintainer` might get confused feels like an arbitrary limit to me.

What about something like `gamma`? Lorentz factor? Luminance multiplier? Factorial generalization?

Why not just use the full sentence rather than assign it to an arbitrary name/symbol `gamma` and leave it dependent on the context?

And it's not that hard to add an inline comment to dispel the confusion

const tau = 2*pi; // Alternate name for 2pi is "tau"
Current ETL/ELT tools solve one problem, but seems lacking on E2E solution
by vivekburman | 2025-11-01 09:47:47+00:00
I looked onto Talend, Alteryx, dbt, fivetran... They are all in etl/elt space but seems to be solving one problem and lacking on another. If a business needs a streamlined solution, there seems to be a lack of it.
by mrweasel | 2025-11-01 09:48:17+00:00
For me it actually is the language. While a little pushy at times I think the arguments for rewriting certain things in a safer language is well founded. If the apt tool chains is one of those places I'll leave for the Debian developers to determine, but for decompression tools I can see a benefit.

If Rust should be the language of choice, preferably not. The syntax is awful, the language is complicated and Rust programs seems to collect dependencies at the same rate as JavaScript. Where I might agree with you is that Rust seems to attract a certain type of people. They write absolutely brilliant software, but like the Rust compile, they are rather particular with what input they'll accept.

In the end I don't really care what apt is written in, I'm not the one writing the code. I just use the tool. It would be sad if some platforms are left behind, because the Rust developers don't care about them and not because they're no longer useful.
by testdelacc1 | 2025-11-01 09:48:55+00:00
Acolytes being the people talking positively about their experience using a language and the strengths they think it has. So the people with positive opinions should say nothing at all, and the people with negative opinions should be free to share. And somehow, you think this will lead to faster adoption.

That’s an interesting thought. It would run counter to everything we know about human nature, but interesting nevertheless.

Rust is already pretty successful adoption wise. It’s powering significant parts of the internet, it’s been introduced in 3 major operating systems (Windows, Linux, Android), many successful companies in a variety of domains have written their entire tech stack in it. Adoption as measured by crates.io downloads has doubled every year for the last 10 years.

Now I’m imagining how much more widely Rust would be used if they had adopted your visionary approach of never saying anything positive about it.
by gojomo | 2025-11-01 09:50:42+00:00
No, I can't, because all I've seen from Loeb is pretty clear about what is fact, and what is speculation.

I don't know, and there's no way to find via "Google search", what HN user ~dylan604 is specifically alleging has been improperly "pushed as fact".

If it's clear to you, can you share a representative quote from Loeb? He's got a lot of writing to choose from!
by delusional | 2025-11-01 09:51:49+00:00
> "Blood and earth"

I'm no expert, but I thought the "Blood and Soil" mantra was referencing how the "real Germans" was of "German blood" and "German soil". It was a calling for nationalism, for kinship based on blood connections.

The expansionism used the "lebensraum" mantra. That the "real German people", as identified by their clean pure blood and soil heritage, needed more space to live.
by ukFxqnLa2sBSBf6 | 2025-11-01 09:53:27+00:00
You were going to claim the “win” on this one no matter what anyone says. That’s one of the features of being arrogant.

I have zero desire to get into a semantic argument over this. That would be very boring and is a poor refuge for anyone trying to have an honest discussion.

It’s not a coincidence that nearly all the people today with actual artistic talent universally despise AI. Meanwhile it’s all the talentless tech bros who won’t shut up about how they’re now incredible “artists” that love AI.

I don’t see prompting an AI as creating art in the same way that commissioning a painting doesn’t make you an artist. In this example, it’s the AI model that is the artist creating the “art”, but since AI models aren’t sentient (yet) then what they create isn’t art anymore than a sunset is despite being aesthetically beautiful.

Your “it’s just a tool” argument is especially ridiculous when you consider that the “tool” can create the same “art” in its entirety without you. It would be like if I googled the Mona Lisa and copy pasted it into Paint and then called myself an artist because I used Google and Paint as my tools.

In the case of AI models anything you can think to prompt is already embedded in the model so it’s not like you’re even creating anything. It’s already there. If you have infinite monkeys on a keyboard prompting AI they can generate every single possible image an AI is able to generate. Where is the artistry again?
by nh43215rgb | 2025-11-01 09:55:02+00:00
> Chinese models spying and so on.. is simply not true.

They all must be doing a great favor to humanity in a good will then.

Sorry, but seriously -- Chinese government, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), can effectively seize or shut down internet services and infrastructure at will within its borders under its national security laws.

No need to read the TOS; it's in the law.
by robenkleene | 2025-11-01 09:55:15+00:00
I'm not sure what part of this you think I'd disagree with, if just looking at the microcosm of Sketch to Figma. In other words, the ease of sharing and collaborating via a URL I think is the underlying reason office suite software has become successful.

But I suspect you're arguing against the wider arch of the point I'm making (that design no longer requiring as sophisticated features helped facilitate the transition to the web-based software). If I have that right, I suggest making sure that your hypothesis about motivations behind the market transitions also incorporates the transition from Photoshop to Sketch. Because that transition (which preceded the transition to Figma) made every problem you're describing worse. Which means for example that you can't attribute the transition from Photoshop to Sketch to Figma just to the URL.
by hulitu | 2025-11-01 09:55:42+00:00
> The reason is actually incredibly clear

There is no guarantee that other bugs do not flurish in the rust echosystem. There are no publicly known quality code checks of rust programs except a big "trust us"(see firefox with all its CVEs, despite "rust"). And combined with the Cargo echosystem, where every malicious actor can inject malware is a big warning sign.
by tsimionescu | 2025-11-01 09:56:20+00:00
It's much more common to find businesses running on very old hardware in developed countries, not in developing ones. Developing nations basically didn't use computers 20-30 years ago, there's no random remnants from that era beyond some extreme tail end. And, given how the PC & server market evolved in the 2000s and 2010s, it was cheaper to buy a then-current x86 than to import some ancient Alpha system from wherever. Especially so since software licenses didn't really exist in those days in developing countries - even government institutions often ran pirated software without a second thought.
by littlestymaar | 2025-11-01 09:57:23+00:00
We already know AI is a very serious threat:

- it's a threat for young graduates' jobs.

- it's a threat to the school system, undermining its ability to teach through exercises.

- it's a threat to the internet given how easily it can create tons of fake content.

- it's a threat to mental health of fragile people.

- it's a gigantic threat to a competitive economy if all the productivity gains are being grabbed by the AI editors through a monopolistic position.

The terminator threat is pure fantasy and it's just here to distract from the very real threats that are already doing harm today.
by ripped_britches | 2025-11-01 09:58:37+00:00
This is a horribly written article littered with logical fallacies. Nearly every point is just a random fact about gambling that doesn’t add to the argument.

- fanduel owns networks. So what?

- gambling taxes = corporate taxes in MD. This is misleading as state level corporate are effectively $0

- 20% of Americans have placed a bet. So?

I have never done sports gambling myself but this article fails to convince that it’s a problem
by fph | 2025-11-01 09:59:11+00:00
Are you affiliated with the project? I see all your posts are about Graphene OS. On HN it is customary to state it: you often see "author here" in discussions where the author joins. If you are part of the team I would suggest against using the third person ("they have a team...").

I know strcat is the lead Graphene OS developer, and it seems you and Andromxda are very knowledgeable about the project and very active on this thread.
by nis0s | 2025-11-01 09:59:13+00:00
If there truly was any introspection in these models, they wouldn’t hallucinate. All these cognitive processes are not just philosophical artifacts, but have distinct biological purposes. If you don’t find them serving any purpose in your model, then you’re just looking at noise, and your observations may not be above a statistically significant threshold to derive a conclusion (because they’re noise).
by mirashii | 2025-11-01 10:00:00+00:00
> Dependencies will be added, for very basic system utilities, on (parts of) a software ecosystem which is still a "moving target", not standardized,

This is the status quo and always has been. gcc has plenty of extensions that are not part of a language standard that are used in core tools. Perl has never had a standard and is used all over the place.
by crote | 2025-11-01 10:00:03+00:00
> I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong.

Well, what's the alternative? The memory safety problem is real, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

C/C++ is a dead end: the community has thoroughly rejected technical solutions like the Circle compiler, and "profiles" are nothing more than a mirage. They are yet again trying to make a magical compiler which rejects all the bad code and accepts all the good code without making any code changes, which of course isn't going to happen.

Garbage collection is a huge dealbreaker for the people still on C/C++. This immediately rules out the vast majority of memory-safe languages. What is left is pretty much only Zig and Rust. Both have their pros and cons, but Rust seems to be more mature and has better community adoption.

The way I see it, the pro-memory-safety crowd is saying "There's a giant hole in our ship, let's use Rust to patch it", and the anti-Rust crowd yells back "I don't like the color of it, we shouldn't repair the hole until someone invents the perfect solution". Meanwhile, the ship is sinking. Do we let the few vocal Rust haters sink the ship, or do we tell them to shut up or show up with a better alternative?
by alt187 | 2025-11-01 10:00:33+00:00
People are (understandably) sick of the fact that for whatever reason, the biggest proponents of Rust are insufferable.

Personally, I'm simply bothered by the fact that (one of?) the most famous figure of Rust on Linux and Rust Forever consumes and advocates for pornography that's illegal in my country, without being held accountable by the community.

From what I could piece together, the only group who ever cried wolf about this is a forum full of contemptious little angry men who spend weeks researching people they hate on the internet. No one seems to want to touch the subject from fear of being associated with them.

I'll give it to you, this is not a great time.
by sgt | 2025-11-01 10:02:46+00:00
I was wondering when someone would bring up Zig. I think it's fascinating how far it has come in the last couple of years and now the new IO interface/async implementation.

Question is - when will Zig become mature enough to become a legit choice next to say, Go or Rust?

I mean for a regular dev team, not necessarily someone who works deeply along with Andrew Kelley etc like Tigerbeetle.
by einpoklum | 2025-11-01 10:03:35+00:00
I'll first say that 32-bit CPUs, including x86-based ones, are not retro computing. They still carry the load of all sorts of important computing systems, today. They are still being produced (IIANM, also by Intel and AMD). Sure, with much more limited use cases, and it's definitely not the mainstream, but it's there. Not a hobby and not for a 'retro' experience.

But you are also completely ignoring limited-capabilities hardware, like embedded systems and micro-controllers. That includes newer offerings from ST Microelectronics, Espressif, Microchip Technology etc. (and even renewed 'oldies' like eZ80's which are compatible with Zilog's 8-bit Z80 from the 1970s - still used in products sold to consumers today). The larger ones are quite capable pieces of hardware, and I would not be surprised if some of them use Debian-based OS distributions.
by owenversteeg | 2025-11-01 10:04:03+00:00
Absolutely. A lot of it is upsettingly simple; make a given population wealthy, well-educated, with a strong community and you will slash rates of these issues tenfold. My home state of New Hampshire is one of the wealthiest, best-educated states in the US and despite easy access to tons of dangers (unlimited gun access, some of the cheapest vodka prices in the Western world, legal gambling, et cetera) we have low rates of the associated disorders. The NH homicide rate is on par with much of Europe, for example, nearly unheard of for a US state.
by kaoD | 2025-11-01 10:05:04+00:00
I might be misunderstanding here but... what you're saying is that Rust programs can still have bugs? Isn't that the same as other programs except Rust prevents the most disastrous and common bugs that lead to most CVEs?

If I got that right, how is "it's still not perfect" an argument?

Agree with the Cargo objection.
by Hamid213 | 2025-11-01 10:06:06+00:00
Chopdi AI is an AI‑native note‑taking workspace designed to do much more than just store text. It brings together smart writing tools, context‑aware suggestions, and conversational AI features so that your notes aren’t just a log of what happened, but a living, interactive record. You can draft, edit, polish and even chat with your notes — ask questions, pull out decisions or action items, translate or improve your writing—all in the same workspace.
by microtherion | 2025-11-01 10:06:18+00:00
I took several car mechanic classes from De Anza college. Great instructor, and I did do some hands on stuff.

But my primary takeaway was that this is hard & dirty work, and there are numerous ways in which you can make mistakes that ruin the car and/or endanger your safety, so generally paying a professional to do it is a more sensible way.

Of course, if you enjoy doing this, or have a very old car, or more time than money, the trade-offs are different.
by lchoquel | 2025-11-01 10:06:32+00:00
We get this question of comparison to BAML often, so let me take the time to clarify the differences:

Positioning:

• Pipelex is an AI workflow orchestrator. You declare multi-step pipelines (.plx) with LLM calls, OCR/PDF extraction, image generation, custom Python/tool steps, conditionals, and parallelism, then run them via CLI or Python, FastAPI/Docker, MCP, or n8n node.

• BAML defines typed, single-call “AI functions” (primarily LLM interactions) and compiles them into SDKs you call from your app; you typically orchestrate multi-step flows and any non-LLM work in your own code.

Developer experience:

• Pipelex feels like writing a readable pipeline spec you can iterate on or auto-generate and then execute end-to-end. Non-LLM ops (OCR, PDF, image gen, API calls) are first-class pipes you compose with LLM steps.

• BAML feels like writing typed prompt functions with templates and getting a clean, generated client API. Non-LLM work (OCR, PDF parsing, external APIs) usually sits in your app code or tools around those generated functions.

Structured output:

• Not exclusive to BAML. Pipelex’s PipeLLM supports strongly typed structured generation (based on the instructor package). Define schemas directly in .plx (simple concept syntax) or in Python with Pydantic v2, including custom validators and arbitrary validation logic.

Where each fits:

• If you want to design and run full workflows (extract → analyze → generate, with branching/parallelism) and keep that logic declarative and shareable, Pipelex is a great fit.

• If you mainly need reliable, typed “AI functions” embedded in an existing codebase, Pipelex also works well (define structures in Pydantic and call steps from Python). BAML is likewise a good fit when you prefer generated SDKs and you’re comfortable orchestrating steps and non-LLM work in app code.

Why Pipelex’s higher abstraction matters:

• It captures business logic and domain know-how in a structured, unambiguous language. Instead of burying intent across scattered prompts and glue code, a .plx file centralizes the specification (data concepts, pre/post-conditions, step semantics). That makes workflows easier to review, version, audit, and hand off, by humans and by AI, while remaining extensible to new AI/software operations.

TL;DR:

• Pipelex = declarative workflow engine/standard for multi-step AI pipelines, with first-class non-LLM ops and strongly typed outputs.

• BAML = typed prompt/function language that generates SDKs; you assemble and extend around it in your app.
by zozbot234 | 2025-11-01 10:07:34+00:00
Basically correct, but Zig is not a memory safe language. It may be an improvement wrt. syntax over C, and its standard library facilities may be genuinely better than Rust's wrt. writing unsafe code, but it's simply not interesting from a safety perspective. I'm sure that even the most rabid Zig advocates would readily acknowledge this point.

> Garbage collection is a huge dealbreaker for the people still on C/C++.

The problem is not so much GC itself, but more like pervasive garbage collection as the only memory management strategy throughout the program. Tracing GC is a legit memory management strategy for some programs or parts of a program.
by einpoklum | 2025-11-01 10:08:14+00:00
It is not retro-computing. New 32-bit and x86 CPUs are produced, sold, and used today.

See (relatively recent) list of manfuacturers here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_manufacturers

and scroll down for other categories of x86 chip manufacturers. These have plenty of uses. Maybe in another 30 years' time they will mostly be a hobby, but we are very far from that time.