MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by codedokode | 2025-11-20 15:47:58+00:00
I don't like Unix filesystem structure in general. What's the point of having directories like /usr or /lib in the root directory, when they could be all under for example, /ubuntu24? And the user could keep files in the root directory and not in /home with lot of system files.

Also I don't like that some distributions suggest partitioning a drive. This is inconvenient, because you can run out of space at one partition, but have lot of free space at another. It simply doesn't make sense. And if you have swap as a partition, you get slightly faster access, but cannot change the size!
by marstall | 2025-11-20 15:48:24+00:00
> You guess it is a small percentage?

Well I am operating within a space where his doctors are setting the parameters in terms of the pathways targeted, the therapies offered, etc. And I'm asking, how does this therapy work? How is it related to X and Y? How strong is the evidence? Questions like that. I think I can throw the appropriate grain of salt on it, but yeah, some fake facts could creep in. It's stuff that will be validated, but super valuable to just synthesize the lay of the land and give me context for understanding what the docs are saying.

> Curious why do you think you not have gotten these insights that too even from textbooks no less?

Partly just how tailored and conversational ChatGPT is. It gets right at my needed level of explanation. It knows how much education I have. It remembers salient details about my son and his condition. It really explains things well. It knows so much. It's quite remarkable.

[note, i didn't read the article so am not opining on its content in any way. An AI college education sounds terrible in many ways]
by DeathArrow | 2025-11-20 15:48:43+00:00
In a shadowed alley, near the marketplace’s light,

A wanderer whispered softly in the velvet of the night:

“Tell me, friend, a secret, one cunning and compact —

How does one steal money, and never be caught in the act?”

The old man he had asked looked up with weary eyes,

As though he’d heard this question countless times beneath the skies.

He chuckled like dry leaves that dance when autumn winds are fraught,

“My boy, the only way to steal and never once be caught…
by saltyaom | 2025-11-20 15:49:19+00:00
Hi! I'm a maintainer of Elysia, the framework you claim to have outperformed.

First of all, I admire you for taking the hard way of learning to build your own stuff, especially at your age.

However, I have a concern to believe that the benchmark result is a false positive, and inaccurate.

From my experience working and maintaining the Bun HTTP framework for 3 years since the first release of Bun 0.1.0. Bun.serve is extremely fast that autocannon (the benchmark tool you're using) cannot keep up with the performance, causing the report to be skewed from hitting the limit of the benchmark tool instead of an actual framework.

This is mentioned in Bun documentation. https://bun.com/docs/project/benchmarking#benchmarking-tools

- For load testing, you must use an HTTP benchmarking tool that is at least as fast as Bun.serve(), or your results will be skewed. Some popular Node.js-based benchmarking tools like autocannon are not fast enough.

It would be nice if you could update the benchmark with the tools that can report is faster than autocannon for the most accurate result.

Other than that, I'd say great job!
by wpm | 2025-11-20 15:49:33+00:00
The difference is that I don’t use standard XDG directories because I loathe dot-files, loathe hidden directories, and so I declare my own environment variables to put everything where I want.

Then Firefox (and ansible, and many others) comes barreling in dropping an unconfigurable dot-directory in my fucking home folder ignoring the perfectly good XDG variables I have set.

It is a constant struggle to stop my home folder from not feeling like my home. Developers ought to learn some fucking respect.
by maxbond | 2025-11-20 15:49:44+00:00
> (summing up their digits recursively gives 3 6 or 9)

My fun fact is that this type of operation (repeatedly applying a child operation until you reach a fixed point) is called persistence.

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

The fixed point here being that if you add up a list of 1 digits, you'll always reach the same number (`sum([1]) = 1`). The best known is probably the hailstone sequence.

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

I'm partial to multiplicative persistence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wim9WJeDTHQ [15m]
by jlokier | 2025-11-20 15:49:55+00:00
> /usr/bin/env and /bin/sh are part of the POSIX standard, this is why NixOS has those available.

Contrary to popular belief, those aren't in the POSIX standard.

The following are not in the POSIX standard, they are just widely implemented:

- "#!" line. - /bin/sh as the location of a POSIX compliant shell, or any shell. - /usr/bin/env as the location of an env program. - The -S option to env.
by virgil_disgr4ce | 2025-11-20 15:50:00+00:00
> Some shows and movies seem harmless, initially, but then we noticed in so many kids movies (e.g., Zootopia, Sing), they're always yelling at each other, expressing anger, frustration, and hostility towards one another.

Although there are definitely a ton of kids shows that I find 100% garbage and would never let my kids watch under any circumstances, none of the 'name-brand' kids movies I've seen in the past 10 years struck me as unacceptably negative in the way you describe.

On the contrary, I get the impression that at least some of these movies are attempting to depict feelings and situations that some kids are feeling in a way that helps them understand 1) they're not alone and 2) their feelings or situations aren't wrong or abnormal.

Like, I took my kids to see Elio when it came out. BAM, right off the bat, dead parents. Anger. Frustration. Fear. Power struggles with parental figures.

This is all intentional—to the point that it's formulaic. A 2021 study found that slightly over 61% of the 155 animated kids features of the last ~80 years had no mention of the child protagonist's biological parents. There are a lot of reasons for this. The simplest are that it's way easier to come up with challenges and conflict for the protag(s) when their parents aren't around.

A more charitable reason is that there are all too many kids who, well, do have absent or fucked up parents. But it doesn't have to be that specific case either—any kid eventually has feelings of anger, fear and frustration, and seeing depictions of this in stories is important (for everyone, of any age, at any time).

I overall doubt that watching those stories causes kids to act angry and frustrated even when they're not angry and frustrated. I'm well aware of how profoundly mimetic human children are (and why that's important), but it doesn't happen with everything 100% of the time.

But this is also age-dependent in various ways. An 8-year-old can absorb a movie depiction of a fight between child and parent in a way that a 3-year-old can't. Are some toddlers going to act out because they watched that? Maybe? Probably?

Anyway, it's tricky to have these discussions because every child is different, even though there are broad anthropological patterns to humanity. But I've been more impressed than annoyed with lots of animated kids movies that I expected to loathe.
by dcchambers | 2025-11-20 15:50:12+00:00
I was born in 92 and thus didn't start reading them until after the original run of Calvin and Hobbes, but I discovered these comics via book collections at the library and became OBSESSED.

I am so incredibly happy that Watterson never "sold out" and gave away film/animation rights to his characters. They are perfect the way they are.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-11-20 15:50:31+00:00
That's because LLMs are optimally designed for tasks like coding, as well as other text-prediction tasks such as writing, editing, etc.

The mistake is to project the same level of productivity provided by LLMs in coding to all other areas of work.

The point of TFA is that LLMs are an excellent tool for particular aspects of work (coding being one of them), not a general intelligence tool that improves all aspects (as we're being sold).
by etruong42 | 2025-11-20 15:50:53+00:00
That's presuming a healthy culture. In an unhealthy culture, some people will feel pressure to uphold some comment that someone "senior" made offhand in a meeting several months ago, even if that leader is no longer attending project meetings. The people who report to this leader may otherwise receive blowback if the "decision" their leader made is not being upheld, whether such a leader recalls their several-month-old decision correctly or not, in the case they recall it at all. I have found it frustratingly-more-common-than-I-would-like where people, including leaders, retroactively adjust their past decisions so that they claim "I-told-you-so" and "you-should-have-done-what-I-said".

In response to your comment, yes, I would largely be in favor of moving forward only with whatever is said in the relevant meetings with the given attendees of a meeting. That assumes a reasonably healthy culture where these meetings are scheduled in good faith reasonable times for all relevant stakeholders.
by takinola | 2025-11-20 15:50:55+00:00
C&H was the first time that I realized how authenticity resonates with people. I think people love C&H because they recognize Calvin, Hobbes, Suzie, Biff, the parents (or even Rosalyn) in themselves. Calvin often said the things that we thought only ourselves were thinking (remember the strip where Calvin is selling swift kicks in the pants for 10c because the world clearly needs it?).

Now, I see this technique work so well for business and political leaders, comics, social commentators, etc. It is a very effective technique to capture the hearts of your audience.
by pavel_lishin | 2025-11-20 15:50:58+00:00
There's a downside to the conference room angle; the camera is far away, and the image of the room occupies the same amount of space on my monitor as the seven other heads in the call who are calling in remotely.

So unless I know the voice of everyone in the conference room, I have no idea who's speaking at any given point unless they're also gesticulating wildly.
by chemotaxis | 2025-11-20 15:51:07+00:00
You mostly don't. Household plumbing and wiring is nowhere the near of complexity of, say, a lawnmower engine. It's mostly "the p-trap is leaking", "the faucet is leaking", "the toilet's flush valve is broken", "the wiring nut is loose". The kind of stuff you don't need skill to fix properly.

There are situations where you do want to call a pro, but it's not what you usually call them for. Most of it is one notch above "my trash can is full, can you come over and empty it".

Besides, your argument applies to the AI case too. You're not paying for AI output. You're paying for my expertise in prompting and my ability to evaluate the output and say "yep, that's right".
by dahart | 2025-11-20 15:51:15+00:00
This article has good info, but is the overloading premise slightly contrived? Maybe I don’t talk to enough CUDA beginners. I work with CUDA a lot but I’m not exactly a CUDA expert, and from my perspective, in practice there are default assumptions one can safely make for the base terms, and people do qualify the alternatives almost always. For example, if someone says “CUDA version”, they always mean the toolkit, and never mean compute capability, runtime, or language. The term “driver” when used without qualification always means the display driver, and never means the driver API, there really is no overload there.
by aqme28 | 2025-11-20 15:51:26+00:00
I don't think it will be easy to just remove it. It's built into the image and thus won't be the same every time.

Plus, any service good at reverse-image search (like Google) can basically apply that to determine whether they generated it.

There will always be a way to defeat anything, but I don't see why this won't work for like 90% of cases.
by froobius | 2025-11-20 15:51:34+00:00
> There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality"

Actually yes there is; I have come across many people who believe this, specifically saying that IQ is fixed.

> that intelligence is an innate fixed quality

I would also disagree with this — intelligence can be increased, (e.g. through education, training, and practice), and also decreased, (e.g. by lifestyle / environment).
by skocznymroczny | 2025-11-20 15:52:49+00:00
Could be they are specifically training against it. There was some controversy about "studio ghibli style". Similarly how in the early days of Stable Diffusion "Greg Rutkowski style" was a very popular prompt to get a specific look. These days modern Stable Diffusion based models like SD 3 or FLUX mostly removed references to specific artists from their datasets.
by bena | 2025-11-20 15:53:09+00:00
Tangent: It's interesting that the author linked to an article that linked to Sirlin's article about "scrub mentality" rather than linking directly to Sirlin's article.

But I agree with what the author is trying to say: Intelligence is not enough to be successful. No one is going to pay you to "be smart". You have to do something with that intelligence that is worthwhile.

Which is why you have people like Richard Feynman who famously had just "an above average" IQ while contributing greatly to several fields of math and science.

Now, it could be that Feynman just didn't care about the test when he took it. Because he intuitively knew that "being smart" wasn't enough. You had to apply yourself. You have to put in the work and there are no real shortcuts.

Being successful is a multifaceted thing and there are many pitfalls. And the real trick seems to be avoiding as many pitfalls as possible. Being smart helps, but it's not a guarantee.

lordnacho mentioned people think of intelligence as magic, and that's a good way to put it. Every other quality we have as people is not really disputed. If you're taller, we acknowledge it. If you're faster, we can test it. If you're stronger in your arms, we can test it. Etc. And we accept the results. And we accept that if we want to change things, we have to do the work.

But not intelligence. For some reason, no one can be smarter than anyone else. And everyone has to be smart in something. And if you're smart in one thing, you can't be smart in others. We invent things like EQ, street smarts, book smarts, etc to try and put everyone on equal footing. But a lot of times, people who have higher IQs also have higher EQs. And when people talk about "street smarts", what they're really describing is a sort of institutional knowledge that can only be gained by living in an area as often these "street smarts" are highly local to a certain subset of streets. And people often mistake trivia for intelligence. They think knowing a fact makes one smart. It makes one knowledgeable. And often having a lot of knowledge can be beneficial to those with higher intelligence. But high intelligence is often apparent even in those with little knowledge. For instance, my wife is a special education teacher and she has a non-verbal autistic child in her class. He clearly does not have a lot of knowledge, but he's apparently very intelligent. He can work things out. He can make references. He grasps concepts quickly. He gets frustrated by his own inability to articulate his thoughts.
by pansa2 | 2025-11-20 15:53:35+00:00
> Copying large objects like lists […] can be costly in both time and memory.

> modify[ing] objects in place […] improves performance by avoiding the overhead of allocating and populating new structures.

AFAIK the poor performance of list copies (demonstrated in the article by a million-element list taking 10ms) doesn’t come from memory allocation nor from copying the contents of the list itself (in this case, a million pointers).

Rather it comes from the need to chase all of those pointers, accessing a million disparate memory locations, in order to increment each element’s reference count.
by phplovesong | 2025-11-20 15:53:48+00:00
Precisely. PHP has tools for this too, but lack the syntax. Right now you need to to all typings in comments, and thats just as bad as jsdoc was in 2005.

This could be the way PHP could go, they just need the lexer to handle types, and not do any runtime checking at all.

But i guess that goes against what the php devs want, but it sounds so wasteful, to typecheck the same code time after time even if it passed some sort of initial "compile time step".
by echelon | 2025-11-20 15:53:55+00:00
Your use case doesn't even make sense. What customers are clamoring for that feature? I doubt any paying customer in the market for (that product) cares. If the law cares, the law has tools to inquire.

All of this is trivially easy to circumvent ceremony.

Google is doing this to deflect litigation and to preserve their brand in the face of negative press.

They'll do this (1) as long as they're the market leader, (2) as long as there aren't dozens of other similar products - especially ones available as open source, (3) as long as the public is still freaked out / new to the idea anyone can make images and video of whatever, and (4) as long as the signing compute doesn't eat into the bottom line once everyone in the world has uniform access to the tech.

The idea here is that {law enforcement, lawyers, journalists} find a deep fake {illegal, porn, libelous, controversial} image and goes to Google to ask who made it. That only works for so long, if at all. Once everyone can do this and the lookup hit rates (or even inquiries) are < 0.01%, it'll go away.

It's really so you can tell journalists "we did our very best" so that they shut up and stop writing bad articles about "Google causing harm" and "Google enabling the bad guys".

We're just in the awkward phase where everyone is freaking out that you can make images of Trump wearing a bikini, Tim Cook saying he hates Apple and loves Samsung, or the South Park kids deep faking each other into silly circumstances. In ten years, this will be normal for everyone.

Writing the sentence "Dr. Phil eats a bagel" is no different than writing the prompt "Dr. Phil eats a bagel". The former has been easy to do for centuries and required the brain to do some work to visualize. Now we have tools that previsualize and get those ideas as pixels into the brain a little faster than ASCII/UTF-8 graphemes. At the end of the day, it's the same thing.

And you'll recall that various forms of written text - and indeed, speech itself - have been illegal in various times, places, and jurisdictions throughout history. You didn't insult Caesar, you didn't blaspheme the medieval church, and you don't libel in America today.
by MichaelZuo | 2025-11-20 15:54:16+00:00
It’s probably even simpler… they simply don’t have that much “intellectual horsepower” in the first place.

It just’s an artifact of testing methodologies that can’t resolve very lumpy or spiky intelligence.

And therefore ends up being confused with genuine supergenius which is more correlated to the total area under the curve, so to speak.
by zeven7 | 2025-11-20 15:54:24+00:00
I think you missed the joke. The thing that was funny about it to him when he said it was he knew it was a natural extension of his public position, yes an extreme version of it, but he knew it was also true and’s logical and it was funny to get away with saying it behind closed doors. An honest person would recognized the truth behind the joke and change the position that it stemmed from because they cared about making the world better. The fact that he recognized he was making the world worse AND continued in that path is what is so blatantly evil and revealing about this memo.

If Kevin Spacey had written a private note to Woody Allen that said, "Now that we've been chased out of the film industry, let's become day care workers," then it would be a very different kind of "joke" than The Onion writing the same as a headline.
by znort_ | 2025-11-20 15:54:38+00:00
funny no mention about the texas instruments explorer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_Explorer

i barely got to play with one for a few hours during an "ai" course, so i didn't really figure much of it out but ... oh yeah, it was "cool"! also way-way-way over my budget. i then kept an eye for a while on the atari transputer workstation but no luck, it never really took off.

anyway, i find this article quite out of place. what hordes of romantically spoiled lisp machine nostalgia fanatics harassed this poor guy to the extreme that he had to go on this (pretty pointless) disparaging spree?
by mbreese | 2025-11-20 15:54:52+00:00
> ended up not being convincing enough

From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine.

My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.
by e40 | 2025-11-20 15:55:16+00:00
I worked on Franz Lisp at UCB. A couple of points:

The ".obj" file was a binary file that contain machine instructions and data. It was "fast loaded" and the file format was called "fasl" and it worked well.

The issue of building an application wasn't an issue because we had "dumplisp" which took the image in memory and wrote it to disk. The resulting image could be executed to create a new instance of the program, at the time dumplisp was run. Emacs called this "unexec" and it did approximately the same thing.

Maybe your discussions with my group predated me and predated some of the above features, I don't know. I was Fateman's group from '81-84.

I assume your source control comments were about the Lisp Machine and not Franz Lisp. RCS and SCCS were a thing in the early 80's, but they didn't really gain steam until after I arrived at UCB. I was the one (I think... it was a long time ago) that put Franz Lisp under RCS control.
by neuralkoi | 2025-11-20 15:55:32+00:00
This reminds me of Liu Zhiyu who won a gold medal for China at the IMO in 2006 and was offered a full scholarship to MIT but turned it down to become a monk.

I think wisdom and peace is more valuable than raw IQ and I think Zhiyu and Ung-yong and even Langan realized this, wanted nothing to do with "The Machine", and chose their life trajectories accordingly.
by rdm_blackhole | 2025-11-20 15:55:52+00:00
I agree with you partially.

My hot take is that this is a signal for Trump. We play nice with you, you play nice with us.

Big tech is well connected to the current US administration so if the EU were to make theses changes, then they will appease big tech (a little bit) and therefore by extension Trump.

I (like you) don't think that these regulations are the reason the EU doesn't have home grown hyper-scalers a la AWS or GCP or Azure.

I think the EU just fell asleep at the wheel for too long. It basically outsourced its defense to NATO, its tech needs to the US and its manufacturing to China and for a while it worked perfectly.

However the world is changing and the EU is simply in my opinion not up to the task. It's too slow, bureaucratic and messy to be able to adapt rapidly and it lacks the vision necessary to remedy to its weaknesses.
by bewo001 | 2025-11-20 15:56:00+00:00
IQ tests are a bit absurd if one looks at the changing definitions of intelligence over the past century.

Someone in the 1920s/30s would call the ability to solve equations or play chess well as signs of high intelligence. Not so long ago, translation of natural languages was considered a task requiring a good level of intelligence.

Each progress in AI changes the definition of intelligence as we realize that a machine finally able to do task X is not really as intelligent as we thought it had to be.

And today the AI/robotics industry struggles to build a machine that can perform the job of a room cleaner. Beating grand masters at chess was far easier.