MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by skissane | 2025-11-21 10:23:53+00:00
> You can't guarantee that with ai because who knows which training data was used

There are no guarantees in life, but with macOS you can know it is rather unlikely any AI was trained on (recent) Apple proprietary source code – because very little of it has been leaked to the general public – and if it hasn't leaked to the general public, the odds are low any mainstream AI would have been trained on it. Now, significant portions of macOS have been open-sourced – but presumably it is okay for you to use that under its open source license – and if not, you can just compare the AI-generated code to that open source code to evaluate similarity.

It is different for Windows, because there have been numerous public leaks of Windows source code, splattered all over GitHub and other places, and so odds are high a mainstream AI has ingested that code during training (even if only by accident).

But, even for Windows – there are tools you can use to compare two code bases for evidence of copying – so you can compare the AI-generated reimplementation of Windows to the leaked Windows source code, and reject it if it looks too similar. (Is it legal to use the leaked Windows source code in that way? Ask a lawyer–is someone violating your copyright if they use your code to do due diligence to ensure they're not violating your copyright? Could be "fair use" in jurisdictions which have such a concept–although again, ask a lawyer to be sure. And see A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, L.L.C., 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009))

In fact, I'm pretty sure there are SaaS services you can subscribe to which will do this sort of thing for you, and hence they can run the legal risk of actually possessing leaked code for comparison purposes rather than you having to do it directly. But this is another expense which an open source project might not be able to sustain.

Even for Windows – the vast majority of the leaked Windows code is >20 years old now – so if you are implementing some brand new API, odds of accidentally reusing leaked Windows code is significantly reduced.

Other options: decompile the binary, and compare the decompiled source to the AI-generated source. Or compile the AI-generated source and compare it to the Windows binary (this works best if you can use the exact same compiler, version and options as Microsoft did, or as close to the same as is manageable.)
by Voultapher | 2025-11-21 10:24:09+00:00
> And more importantly, we can provide a better environment for them to mature socially.

Citation needed.

Every perspective I've heard personally - and mirrored in comments here as well - from the non parent side of things, is quite negative in terms of learning how to behave and socialize with your peers. To you the children might seem polite and servile, and you might see this as something positive - as you state in another comment - but you are likely setting them up for life of social awkwardness and ostracization.
by lukan | 2025-11-21 10:25:26+00:00
Nope, main reason is lack of trust.

" but such is the direction being taken by Mozilla that I am not anxious to sit idly by and constantly keep an eye out for new hidden privacy and AI features to turn off with obscure checkboxes. "

But here I can attest at least, that nowdays firefox after a fresh install shows a banner saying they collect data by default. And when you click that, you get directly to the options to turn it off. It is just, that I also don't trust that with those toggles now everything is switched off, or if there is a hidden other toggle or there will be one shipped with the next update.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-21 10:25:27+00:00
> The claim is "our contraption is roadworthy", which implicitly includes claims regarding roadworthiness requirements, including emissions. This is literally how market availability works.

You can't get around the government demanding that someone else pay an unreasonable amount of money for data that only the government wants. If they think the value to the public of the testing is worth the cost then why aren't they paying for it? If it isn't worth the cost then why are they forcing someone else to pay for it?

> Group validation automatically validates all group members, therefore there are at most number of engines groups to test.

Unless the state requires you to test all 270 engine groups regardless of how many you're actually using.
by badenglish | 2025-11-21 10:25:46+00:00
The sheep-people were suddenly given freedom of choice, and they immediately rushed to choose their own shepherd. This is where the enormous amount of trust in cheaftans, national leaders, and other autocrats came from. This explains the outbreak of fascism and the cult of force.

Previously, parasites on society had to compete for resources among themselves. Now they can draw them directly. In other words, the existing system of "checks and balances" has collapsed, and there is no new one yet.
by vidarh | 2025-11-21 10:28:40+00:00
No, I am not assuming anything about the structure of the human brain.

The point of talking about Turing completeness is that any universal Turing machine can emulate any other (Turing equivalence). This is fundamental to the theory of computation.

And since we can easily show that both can be rigged up in ways that makes the system Turing complete, for humans to be "special", we would need to be able to be more than Turing complete.

There is no evidence to suggest we are, and no evidence to suggest that is even possible.
by rnhmjoj | 2025-11-21 10:29:33+00:00
Yes, the L^p spaces are not vector spaces of functions, but essentially equivalent classes of functions that give the same result in an Lebesgue integral. For these reason, common operations on functions, like evaluating at a point or taking a derivative are undefined.

If you care about these you need something more restrictive, for example to study differential equations you can work in Sobolev spaces, where the continuity requirement allows you to identify an equivalent class with a well-defined function.
by marianoguerra | 2025-11-21 10:29:37+00:00
Co-author here.

if you are interested in tail calls you just need to understand the call instruction which we cover in the book and then replace it with either:

- return_call <funcidx>, the tail-call version of call

- return_call_indirect <tableidx> <typeidx>, the tail-call version of call_indirect

More info here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/tail-call/blob/main/proposals...
by croon | 2025-11-21 10:29:43+00:00
In your case you wouldn't have needed a popup/bar.

In all other cases, a "Decline All" option should be a the most prominent option (or defaulted to would be fine). The current implementations are either non-compliant (if hiding the decline option behind more clicks than the "Accept All" option), or malicious compliance in making their own products worse to shift blame to regulations, because the unregulated previous status quo was extremely user exploitative on tracking data. Of course (exploitative) companies would like to continue selling data on top of whatever their main business supposedly is.

No company needs a cookie bar, unless they have no other business than selling user data.
by cassepipe | 2025-11-21 10:29:52+00:00
> CO₂ captured in farm & forestry plant residues, convert it into a carbon-rich, BBQ sauce-like liquid

How much carbon do forestry residues (dead branches, leaves and wood chips ?) take to release their carbon back to the atmosphere through rotting ? How much of that carbon woudl have stayed in the ground (unless there's wildfire) ?
by teecha | 2025-11-21 10:30:55+00:00
I’ve stuck with chatgpt and do dump screenshots, spreadsheets, etc. in there with some regularity. Screenshots are mostly for convenience and spreadsheets when I’m still stuck on something. Didn’t even think about loading in different things. I can see potential for this in the future but I’ve been with ChatGPT for so long exactly because it does so well with accepting files to work with.
Show HN: FOSS De-googled Compass and Nav app with live location tracking
by nativeforks | 2025-11-21 10:32:40+00:00
MBCompass: A popular modern FOSS Compass and Navigation app without Ads, IAP, or Tracking

New Release: MBCompass v1.1.12

This release and upcoming ones follow the feature roadmap proposed in the v2 design proposal.

Features:

- Shows clear cardinal direction and magnetic north as well as true north. - Displays magnetic strength in µT. - Live GPS location tracking on OpenStreetMap. - Sensor fusion for improved accuracy (accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope). - Light and dark theme support is controlled via Settings. - Keeps the screen on during navigation. - Landscape orientation supports - Runs on Android 5.0+ - No ads, no in-app purchases, no tracking.

Note: This app doesn't use any GMS (Google mobile service framework) or any third-party dependencies, only uses AOSP API, so it can be installed on any degoogled or custom ROM devices

What's new in v1.1.12

True North Support: Easily switch between True North and Magnetic North using the new toggle in Settings.

AMOLED True Dark Theme Added a pure-black AMOLED mode for improved contrast and better battery efficiency on OLED displays.

Heading Status Indicator: A new on-screen indicator now clearly shows whether the compass is currently using True North or Magnetic North.

Fixes & Improvements in v1.1.12

Sensor Status Dialogue Fix: Resolved an issue where the dialogue content was getting cut off on smaller screens.

General UI & Stability Updates: Minor interface refinements and performance improvements for a smoother experience.
by vjerancrnjak | 2025-11-21 10:32:49+00:00
It’s interesting that Hellen Keller describes her experience, before language acquisition as timeless, no perception of time at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40466814

I’m curious if this experiment actually tests for time perception at all or if it’s a very different effect that we attribute as being actual experience of time.
by netdevphoenix | 2025-11-21 10:33:06+00:00
>It just doesn't add to my life in any useful way.

Most products don't add value into our lives imo. They are the means by which we get money flowing which is needed to keep the economy alive. Some might argue that they actually subtract from it hence the need for dopaminergic products. The question for the tech CEOs is how to make LLMs reliably dopaminergic in the way Instagram/Tik Tok and the like are.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-21 10:33:15+00:00
> I do want the laws to ensure that the buildings have fire escapes and no asbestos...

The classic retreat into the subset of the rules that make sense.

But do you also want to ensure that they're no more than two stories tall and supply housing for no more than one family per lot?

> Non profits can, apparently, convert to for-profit ones, or be bought, or be corrupt funnels of government contract money to for-profit corporations.

Which one of these is the concern justifying that a house of a particular size not have a finished basement?

> These are arguments for improving and simplifying regulations, but not arguments against the idea that there should be an entity the represents nothing other than the needs of the constituents (the government) that will enforce rules on entities that wish to extract value from constituents (corporations).

You're back to that assumption that the government represents nothing other than the needs of the constituents. That one's the broken one.

The government has a monopoly on force and anyone who seeks power will work to capture it. It's not a loyal pet and its teeth have blood on them.
by terminalshort | 2025-11-21 10:34:20+00:00
But by what definition do you say that is bureaucratic and regulation heavy? It sounds like the opposite to me. The decision to build was made by a single authority and then executed. In the US there would have been at least 3 different levels of government involved, and possibly multiple agencies at each level. And then after they have made their decision, which would take years, they would be sued by many different private organizations that are against the project. All those lawsuits would have to be resolved before work could start, which would take even more years and require modifications to be made to the plan to appease these organizations. To me it sounds like your system is very light on bureaucracy and regulation compared to ours.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-11-21 10:34:24+00:00
No offense but you could have checked before accusing me of bias. Here is a summary of the benchmarks. [1]

The Dimensity 9500 scores above the A19 Pro in AnTuTu 10 and Multicore GeekBench 6. A19 Pro has better Single Core Geekbench 6 results but that only around 10%. The Dimensity 9500 GPU scores are also better but that was already the case for the previous generation.

Apple used to have a significant lead on the SoC side of things. That's over. Both Mediatek and Qualcomm are competitive nowadays.

And before people come back explaining to me that it hardly matters because the A19 Pro is more power efficient, my current Chinese phone battery is 1.5 times larger than the one in the Iphone 19 Pro Max and I have more than two full days of use between charges, which are obviously significantly faster than on the iPhone.

[1] https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/mediatek-dimensity-950...
by jacquesm | 2025-11-21 10:35:14+00:00
Even if it was an inspection or maintenance issue (which given the kind of failure and available data looks increasingly doubtful, though it can not yet be ruled out) this part failed in a catastrophic way when it should have had ample engineering reserve over and beyond the load to which it was subjected. It just snapped clear in half those breaks are indicative of a material that has become brittle rather than that the part deformed first and then broke due to excess stress.

In other words, a slow motion video of a camera aimed at that part during the accident would have shown one of the four connections giving way due to fatigue cracks and then the other three got overstressed and let go as well, in the process damaging the housing of the spherical bearing.

The part at the bottom of page 9 is the key bit. Now I very much want to see the state of the mirror part on the other wing, that will show beyond a doubt whether it was maintenance or an over-estimation of the design life of that part.

It would also be interesting to have a couple of these pulled from the fleet and tested to destruction to determine how much reserve they still have compared to the originally engineered reserve.
by KaiserPro | 2025-11-21 10:35:58+00:00
THe problem is that the main argument for this assertion is: "we are trying to dispose of large amount of industrial waste, the regulator is slowing us down"

Now, we are told that this waste is actually going to benefit us, as its taking all of those nasty CO2 and PM2 emissions and locking them away. Great. but what's the chemical make up of those captured emissions? When you inject them into old wells, are they sealed against leakage?

I assume its capturing raw exhaust from things, and that has a non-negligible heavy metal content. Can you guarantee that those aren't going to leak into the ground water?

So yeah that kind of regulation probably is quite onerous, mainly because for the last ~60 years people have been taking the piss.
by vanderZwan | 2025-11-21 10:36:32+00:00
> I find that WASM has a beautifully readable spec. One of its best features!

Disclaimer: I'm one of the guys whose face is advertising this book, as someone who bought the early access version and loved it enough to help a bit with proofreading.

I'm a self-taught programmer who essentially started from the lowest level with Z80 assembly on the TI-83+. I just wanted to know how to fit the bytes together directly without dealing with the rest of the toolchain.

I've tried reading the spec multiple times and what it revealed to me is that my lack of formal training in the subject matter is really holding me back here. I feel like I can follow 90% of it, but that doesn't matter really. It's the remaining 10% I don't understand that does.

The spec is written as a reference and gives you all the pieces, but doesn't really do a great job at fitting all the pieces together.

Everyone I know who does have some relevant background to compiler writing agrees with you though. So I think that for them it's obvious how to fit the pieces together.

Speaking for myself though, this is the first book that made the bytecode "click" as a whole.

Having said that, I think this book and the spec together are the real combo to go for. The book covers the core, and understanding that foundation makes all the extensions easy to grasp from spec alone.
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-21 10:37:14+00:00
> There’s an old electronics joke that if you want to build an oscillator, you should try building an amplifier

It's funny, I was just thinking this morning about an old article in (I think) Television magazine that I read in the 80s when I was getting into electronics. The author was talking about some service notes he'd received for a particular model of Philips radio, which had just come out, and it was when shops tended to have their own service department that would repair things right there in the shop - and also, apply any "factory fixes".

One such fix was described as "Fix VIUPS", and involved changing a couple of resistors and adding a couple of capacitors. Not really any difference, but the author did think it seemed to make the amp a bit more stable and less inclined to make squealy ploppy noises at high volume when the battery was low. But, curiosity got the better of him, so he rang the Philips rep - what's this "VIUPS"?

No idea. But I'll get hold of someone at head office you can ring. Okay, what's this "VIUPS" thing? No idea, said the head office guy, but I can put you in touch with one of the factory engineers in Eindhoven.

So, a call came in, an international call! Quite a big deal in the 80s. "What's this VIUPS Fix thing in the service notes?" he asked the guy.

"Aha yes", he said in a heavy Dutch accent, "the VIUPS is the noise the set makes when the fault is present."

VIUPS VIUPS VIUPS. Yup.
by whstl | 2025-11-21 10:37:47+00:00
This is such a tired HN cliche response and it comes up as a negative whenever people mention things that actually improve users privacy, even ad blockers.

It honestly boils down to this:

If some website is breaking GDPR regulations, sure, you might get somehow fingerprinted. (EDIT: Because, surprise, fingerprinting also requires consent under GDPR!)

But for websites actually following the law, DNT is effective at best, ignored at worst. Because fingerprinting is also PII.

Sure: saying "people might fingerprint you" is technically correct. But virtually everything else in your browser, from the size in pixels of your browser tab to your IP address can be used for fingerprinting by malicious actors.

So yeah, if you have to use TOR (which actually has actual anti-fingerprinting measures), go ahead and remove the DNT bit. If you don't need TOR, get an ad-blocker ASAP so it at least protects you from AdWare and Tracking stuff that might fingerprint you.
by phplovesong | 2025-11-21 10:39:01+00:00
> And who really cares about bloat anyway? Hardware is super cheap nowadays.

That told me all i need to know. When you work on missing critical software bloat is usually THE killer in disguise. And its really hard to get rid of after a certain point.

> So why not use a framework that enables you to be (in your terms) 100x more productive?

Because i can be just as productive, and even more so by vetting, and choosing my dependencies with some hindsight. I dont cowboy pick some hype of the day thing, i take a real close look at the code and want to actually understand whats happening.

> On top of that, you’re arguing about languages and frameworks you’re not even familiar with.

I am indeed familiar with the PHP ecosystem, been there and done that.
by nis0s | 2025-11-21 10:39:29+00:00
Your 40-50% variance range isn’t supported by recent literature, as far as I can tell.

Secondly, per my understanding you can only get a sense of embryonic PGS via PGT, and that doesn’t necessarily relate to intelligence.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8280022/
by terminalshort | 2025-11-21 10:40:08+00:00
The argument you will hear from Americans and Europeans is that in order for it to be a "democracy" that anybody has to be able to vote. This is, of course, hypocritical because not a single one of those countries allows everyone to vote. And, just like China, every one of those countries has powerful government officials that are appointed by other government officials rather than elected by the public. And in many of them there is a parliamentary system where the public does not get to vote on the head of state, but rather the head of state is elected by the parliament.

In fact, the US republic at its beginning was more similar to China. The president and Senate were elected by the state legislatures, not the public.
by conartist6 | 2025-11-21 10:40:47+00:00
I am still puzzled by how you can be a human being in this world and not be impressed by people.

The more we study AI, the more we discover one fundamental truth above an the others: people are really, really, really, really impressive.

A human being still absolutely melts an LLM like a Salvador Dali clock if the challenge is to innovate. In the race between human potential and LLM potential it isn't even close. Not a little close. Not remotely close. About as close as we are to each other compared to how close we each are to the sun.

And yet somehow there's always some fucking moron who apparently never considered this for a fraction of a second and runs around screaming that a fucking program will replace a fucking person
by m000 | 2025-11-21 10:40:48+00:00
This was a rant at best for the sake of ranting, if not for some more insidious ends. What's the point made here? Abandon Firefox because it's market share is 2%?

"I can finally say I'm Firefox-free."? Like if Firefox is the plague or something.

"Just What Went Wrong?": You went wrong, dear TFA author. Choosing hype over substance? Too desparate to meet your hackaday post quota? Who knows.

Let me anecdotally recap the state of Firefox as of 2025:

- Handles 100s of open tabs with no sweat.

- Allows ad blockers.

- Firefox tab sync. Send a tab from my phone to my desktop. See my laptop's open tabs from my desktop.

- PiP videos. Keep a video playing without obstructing you from other tasks.

- Tab containers cleanly separating work and private sessions.

- Free.

Yes, there are things to be desired from the Mozilla Foundation management end. Yes, at some point (optional) integrations were shoehorned into the browser. Yes, newer browsers may offer a friendlier out-of-the-box experience for the average user (e.g. Brave has ad blocking built-in). But all-in-all, Firefox is a fantastic browser and a real workhorse. For free.

And to be fair, the dip in Firefox popularity around 2010-2015 was deserved. The experience kind of sucked at the time, compared to the rising Chrome. Also the decision to drop XUL was in retrospect the technically correct choice. It was the main reason that Firefox managed to catch up in terms of speed and security with Chrome. Unfortunately, the change was not reflected back to the browser's market share.

/EOR