MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hunterpayne | 2025-11-03 20:21:33+00:00
Because his first experience with this debate was forcing PHP on engineers who knew that would be a bad choice. No matter what you are doing, PHP isn't the right choice for it if more than 1 person will ever use or depend upon the software.

PS I've seen PHP destroy billions in value in my career. It and Brainfuck are the only 2 languages you should never use to make software for other people. Every other language has a core use it is good at. JS in the browser, Python for scripting, Java when you need good observability and 3rd party libraries, etc...
by advisedwang | 2025-11-03 20:22:04+00:00
Meta's goal is to stop OpenAI, Google and/or Anthropic from shutting them out of whatever AI ends up delivering. This is why they went with open weights for LLama - it prevents the other players becoming gatekeepers.

This is part of a pattern of tech leaders investing in order to avoid getting shut-out of whatever the next paradigm of computing is supposed to be.

- Google building Google+ and stuffing social into everything to avoid getting shut out of social networking. (The fear Larry/Sergey felt about this is why Vic Gundotra could bully and survive scandals until it became clear that Facebook wasn't an existential threat/Google+ was not going to really compete)

- Meta attempting to build an AI assistant because they were afraid Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri would be how everyone accessed computers in the future (due to technical failure, this product only ever launched as control mechanism for Oculus, but the ambition was larger)

Of course this always come alongside other factors that lead others to follow when a new concept is proven; however a tell-tale sign that leadership is worried about market dominance rather than a mere new line of business is that they spend or throw weight around above and beyond what the new line of business alone would justify.
by hamdingers | 2025-11-03 20:22:20+00:00
That friend is not the only moderator who can impact your account though. Someone else on the instance you're on might do something silly that gets it defederated from a ring of 100+ other instances that share a blocklist. You might have friends on those instances you can't communicate with now. Do all 100 of those servers expose the admin's email? Do they respond? Are you going to go through that work in the first place? Obviously not.

It's weird to have to explain this to someone who's used Fediverse services for nearly a decade.

After a ban, it's no easier or harder to make a new account on a new mastodon instance than it is to make a new account on reddit/google/fb/etc. You're never fully frozen out of anything, that's not the point. The point is that gmail will never stop accepting emails from yahoo addresses regardless of how many badly behaved yahoo users there are.
by localtoast | 2025-11-03 20:22:28+00:00
I have found adding the following four lines to the immich proxy host in nginx proxy manager (advanced tab) solved my immich syncing issues:

client_max_body_size 50000M;

proxy_read_timeout 600s;

proxy_send_timeout 600s;

send_timeout 600s;

FWIW, my library is about 22000 items large. Hope this helps someone.
by anonzzzies | 2025-11-03 20:22:31+00:00
I cannot imagine people (or at least tech people) didn't have life altering experiences at the dot com bubble times. I was 9 when I logged onto my first bbs begin 80s and in coming years I started to believe that was far more important than plumbing. You could make friends, exchange software, plan meetups etc all without leaving my desk. When internet came, I definitely would've had that, if this was needed, if it meant crapping in the bushes.
by myrmidon | 2025-11-03 20:22:38+00:00
How is it a false dichotomy? If you want consciousness to NOT be simulateable, then you need some essential component to our minds that can't be simulated (call it soul or whatever) and for that thing to interface with our physical bodies (obviously).

We have zero evidence for either.

> does not mean that the essential thing gives rise to consciousness is only approximate

But we have 8 billion different instances that are presumably conscious; plenty of them have all kinds of defects, and the whole architecture has been derived by a completely mechanical process free of any understanding (=> evolution/selection).

On the other hand, there is zero evidence of consciousness continuing/running before or after our physical brains are operational.
by atmavatar | 2025-11-03 20:22:39+00:00
For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically

All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights. It's not uncommon for right-leaning individuals to suddenly discover the humanity of groups they previously hated once they spend significant time with one of their members.

However, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints that do not hinge on prejudice, so I'll wait for more evidence before believing he went full vegan hippie liberal. A picture of the guy in a drum circle or animal cruelty protest while wearing a Che Guevara or tie dye and peace sign shirt would do ;)
by pyrale | 2025-11-03 20:22:40+00:00
> I've seen it. There are definitely incorrect language choices for certain projects.

I guess we can all agree that writing your web application using a fortran framework to generate JS code is a bad idea.

But if you pick tfa's second example, picking Go vs. Rust for a new project, the language choice is secondary. Both languages were likely fine unless the project as a specific library requirement.

The main criteria to make the choice was likely whether the team had developers with some experience in that language, and whether using that language would make them feel dead inside in the morning when they check in ; and I'm pretty sure developers can be found that make either choice a great choice.

The point tfa's making, that picking a language defines culture, the hiring pipeline etc. is fitting neither the first example (team already there, and a rewrite is almost always a bad choice) nor the second example (team also already there, and the culture with them. Pipeline therefore irrelevant).
by mrguyorama | 2025-11-03 20:22:42+00:00
Jimmy Wales does what?

From the very article itself:

> Others said that Wales did not have control over Wikipedia, and was only an editor like anyone else, but had been “trying to pull an authority-based argument while promoting a book”.

>“I'm not sure Jimbo's plea needs to be entertained much beyond demonstrating that current consensus is something different than what he thinks it should be,” one user said.

Wikipedia editors do not actually consider Jim to be an authority on the matter. They ask him to substantiate his claim that the "Gaza genocide" article is not "neutral" in voice. They don't really seem to care about what he thinks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

The page is currently only protected until November 4th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrato...

Wikipedia has over 400 active accounts who can turn on article protection. They include such diverse people as current CS professors and someone who wants you to know on their page that soccer is more important than life and death, and a person who's personal page opens with a picture of their feet. In fact, the Jimbo Wales account is not currently an administrator. Jimmy could not have locked the article.

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of those accounts spend more time and effort espousing wiki editing philosophy than any other topic.
by idid | 2025-11-03 20:22:57+00:00
Speckle | Backend (Engineering), Founding Account Executive (Growth) | Full-Time | REMOTE | US East, London, EU | https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/speckle

At Speckle [0], we’re on a mission to shake up the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and Construction) industry. To do that, we're building the OSS data layer for AEC to operationalize how the built environment industry works with data and automation. Think of us as a cross between Github and Palantir, with an opportunity to significantly impact a $10 trillion industry. Our platform already powers workflows on billion dollar projects at leading firms like Suffolk, Multiconsult, Pomerleau, and Stantec.

I'm the CEO/founder and I can honestly vouch that we're tight knit team that values autonomy and shipping cool product on top of our data layer (me included - and this might be a red flag for some, but it's my therapy) over hierarchy, politics, levels and complexity (my spirit animal is the grug brained developer). We love working together with our customers - construction is truly a unique place where each project is its own micro universe.

We have multiple roles open across engineering and growth (sales & marketing) [1]

[0] https://speckle.systems/about [1] https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/speckle
by standardly | 2025-11-03 20:23:07+00:00
I don't see a good argument being made for what headline claims. Much of the article reads like a general commentary on LLM's, not a case for AI "thinking", in the sense that we understand it.

It would take an absurdly broad definition of the word "think" to even begin to make this case. I'm surprised this is honestly up for debate.
by jonathanlydall | 2025-11-03 20:23:13+00:00
Had a similar incident in my teens.

I was at scouts and we’d set up a monkey swing on a branch next to a river.

While I was on it, I somehow realised the knot on the branch was coming undone and was able to witness its unravelling in slow motion.

The fall was also slow, as I hit the ground I cried out, but more from shock than any pain.

Very luckily I had landed on the soft sandy riverbank rather than the rocks in the river I had been above just moments before.
by amarant | 2025-11-03 20:23:20+00:00
Huh, they really do solve that now!

Well, I'm not one to back-pedal whenever something unexpected reveals itself, so I guess I have no choice but to declare current generation LLM's to be sentient! That came a lot sooner than I had expected!

I'm not one for activism myself, but someone really ought to start fighting for human, or at least animal, rights for LLM's. Since they're intelligent non-human entities, it might be something for Greenpeace?
by ryandrake | 2025-11-03 20:23:24+00:00
This is actually a really good "bright line" distinction between something being a forum and something being "social media". On any site (forum, S.M. or otherwise), comments or articles must necessarily be ranked top-to-bottom, where top usually is the most visible. How this ranking happens often is the main driver of what the site is like.

- Chronological (either first on top or last on top): Not social media

- Site-moderator curated: Not social media

- User-voted: Social media

- Algorithmic (usually based on some opaque measurement of engagement): Social media
by gr4vityWall | 2025-11-03 20:23:51+00:00
> htmx 2.0 (like htmx 1.0 & intercooler.js 1.0) will be supported in perpetuity, so there is absolutely no pressure to upgrade your application: if htmx 2.0 is satisfying your hypermedia needs, you can stick with it

This is commendable, specially during times when libraries and programs aren't afraid of breaking changes and API churn.
by richard_todd | 2025-11-03 20:24:01+00:00
If you think a situation where everyone had access to ipchains for 3 years to figure out how to migrate is similar to a situation where some architectures will be killed in six months without ever having had access to the new product then I don't know how to help you. What can affected ports do? Implementing a toolchain backend is a tall order.

We didn't talk about your gcc-to-c++ example, but if you read up on it you will know they took the pulse of affected developers, started experimental branches, made presentations, and made sure no architectures were left behind. All of which this Debian developer is failing to do.

Look I don't even disagree with the ultimate result... I don't think Debian needs to indefinitely support every strange port it has built up over the years. The way it's being done, though, doesn't sit right. There are far more mature ways to steer a big ship. Your own examples are showing the way.
by eikenberry | 2025-11-03 20:24:02+00:00
On a decent hill you can get a regular bike going >60mph. A dirt bike will let you ride off road at nice speeds over random terrain (no licensing required when not on public roads). In the realm of bikes, these are not an outlier. Limiters are easily overcome and speed limits are barely enforced on cars, let alone bikes. When you get a bike like this you deal with the danger and wear protective gear just like you would with any other bike (motorized or not).
by nosianu | 2025-11-03 20:24:07+00:00
I see barely any Israel discussions on this site, so if it is not symmetrical the main reason for that has to be that the submissions favoring one side or the other are very uneven, which is nobody's fault and not a problem. Especially since even being very generous, those discussions are not a good fit for this site. It's not like you don't have enough places to go if you really want to have one, it really does not have to be a heavily tech-focused site.
by kazinator | 2025-11-03 20:24:17+00:00
Sometimes, the difficulty begins only when you've identified the bad commit.

You may have to further bisect the space to find the culprit.

The following situation can occur in a compiler: something is changed (e.g. optimizer). The commit breaks as a result. But you have no idea where. Obviously, something is wrong with the optimization change, but from looking at the code, it's not obvious. The compiler is self-hosting, so it compiles itself as well as the library of the language, and then tests are run with everything. The optimization change miscompiled something in the compiler. That something then broke the compiler in a way that is miscompiled something in a run-time function, which then broke something else.

To find the first miscompile, you can do the following binary search.

Have the compiler hash the names of all top-level definitions that it is compiling across the system, say to a 64 bit value.

Then in the code where the change was introduce, put an if/else switch: if the low N bits of the hash code are equal to a certain value, then optimize with the new logic. Otherwiwse use the old logic.

We start with N=1 (1 bit) and the value 0. All definitions whose hash code ends in a 0 bit are subject to the broken new logic; those with 1 are subject to the old logic.

Say that the bug reproduces. Then we keep the 0, and raise N to 2 for a two-bit mask. We try 00: all hashes ending with 00 use new optimization. Those ending in 10, use old. This time the problem doesn't reproduce. So we stick with 10. (And can validate that the problem now reproduces). We raise N to 3, and follow the same procedure.

By doing this we reveal enough bits of the hash code to narrow it down to one definition (e.g. function): when that one specific function is subject to the compiler change, all hell breaks loose, otherwise not.

From there we can analyze it: see how that definition is compiled before and after the mod, and what makes it break. From there, it is still hard work, but much easier to deduce why the optimization change is wrong and possibly how to fix it.

I've successfully employed this technique several times on the TXR Lisp project to debug compiler issues.
by arp242 | 2025-11-03 20:24:35+00:00
Location: Ireland (Galway)

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: yes

Technologies: Go ("Golang"), Python, Ruby, JavaScript, Linux, Unix, PostgreSQL

Résumé/CV: https://www.arp242.net/cv/cv-martintournoij

Email: martin@arp242.net

I've been using Go as my primary language for the last nine years, although I don't overly care about the specific language and have experience with a wide variety of tools and languages such as Python, Ruby, PHP, C, JavaScript, Lua, and probably some more. While I've mainly focused on backend in the last few years, I also have written plenty of frontend code over the years, from the "pre-jQuery" days to VueJS.

In the last few years I mainly focused on GoatCounter (https://www.goatcounter.com) with the occasional contract job, but I'm keen to start working on something new for the longer term.

I've got quite a bit of code on my GitHub, so you can take a look at that if you want: https://github.com/arp242
by usrusr | 2025-11-03 20:24:50+00:00
So that you can flip over in an uncontrolled wheelie at an even lower fraction of the throttle? Even if there was infinite energy throughput (aka power) at zero mass, the main limiter for power per total system mass would still be the battery. In any practical setup, even in super short runtime designs, getting, say, twice the power would not all that dramatic a runtime hit if it was achieved by scaling the same motor technology and paying for the extra mass with a little battery capacity. Unless of course you want to actually use that power increase for any meaningful fraction of the runtime, then you'll obviously drain the battery fast. But a zero-mass power increase would not change that a lot either.

Increasing power density (of the motor) just isn't worth much when it does not happen to coincide with an increase in efficiency (and then the battery mass saved for achieving the same range will quite literally outweigh the mass saved by a smaller engine for achieving the same power)

The good news is that those striving for power density aren't really at liberty to completely ignore efficiency in the process because cooling is a key issue for them.
Show HN: Russet – Private AI companion using Apple's on-device foundation model
by nullnotzero | 2025-11-03 20:25:23+00:00
I built Russet, a chat app that uses Apple's foundation model (the same one powering Apple Intelligence) to run completely on-device.

Everything is private and offline. No internet needed, no account, no tracking. Your conversations never leave your iPhone/iPad/Mac.

Features:

- Privacy-first: Your data (prompts & responses) never leaves your device

- Uses Apple's foundation model sitting at the core of Apple Intelligence

- All processing happens locally on-device

Why "Russet"? Named after the humble potato because it's resilient and self-contained. After all, what good is intelligence without access?

Feedback welcome!

Requires Apple Intelligence to function
by fabian2k | 2025-11-03 20:25:37+00:00
It's not an issue as long as you use a mainstream language, but using a language or framework that will be perceived as a dead end can hurt your chances to hire and retain people. If you're a large or prestigious enough employer you can probably compensate that as long as you're willing to train people.

Programming language alone should almost never be a big enough issue to force a rewrite, but if you already have serious other issues that force huge changes you might as well look at it at the same time.
by laxd | 2025-11-03 20:25:42+00:00
I've worked for a company with a large code base in Visual Basic .net. Product been in development since the 90's, with rich customer that only cares about their software doing its job. It's a surprisingly productive language combined with Visual Studio. Even though, as a language enthusiast, I barfed a bit now and then. Dev team would like to switch to C# but it would have been a multi-year effort taking away from lucrative feature requests.
by theshackleford | 2025-11-03 20:26:01+00:00
> you're given an amnestic to help reduce immediate anxiety and avoid remembering going into the OR and getting prepped - which people don't generally enjoy.

In that case, they don’t seem to work that well for me. Or maybe they do it differently here.

I always remember going into the OR and being prepped.

My anxiety for my last surgery was huge up until the moment I passed up. The best I got was the anaesthesist telling me it was normal for someone in my circumstances (I’d not had anxiety the last few times, so was very confused as to why I had so much this time, I was freaking for some reason)
by publicprivacy | 2025-11-03 20:26:14+00:00
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Current)

Remote: Yes — fully remote preferred

Willing to relocate: Flexible — open to relocating for the right high-impact opportunity (especially LA → Louisiana timeline aligned)

Technologies: Security Engineering • Python • Bash • Node.js • Express • Docker • Kubernetes • AWS • Rapid7 • Splunk • SIEM/SOAR Automation • Vulnerability Management • DevSecOps • JWT Auth • Automation (n8n / Zapier / custom scripts) • LLM / AI Agent Dev • REST APIs • CI/CD • Zero-Trust Architecture

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb

(Full resume available on request — includes Fortune-level security roles at Tinder, Verizon Media/Yahoo, UCLA Health + startup CTO)
by dunb | 2025-11-03 20:28:13+00:00
Location: Alabama, USA Remote: Yes — hybrid and office roles okay Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: Python, Tensorflow, PyTorch, scikit-learn, OpenCV, seaborn, MLflow, R, LaTeX, Linux, Git, Bash Résumé/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1akzgKAz7gElVsIBpHNA6hdcZQucDqPC2 Email: See résumé

I'm Ella. I'm currently a neurobiology researcher, but I want to get back to my machine learning and computer vision roots. I have experience with building deep learning models, object avoidance, and data visualization. I tend to be a quick learner, and I have good communication skills.

I would be excited to hear about positions where I can model data for hard problems. ML Engineering and Robotics would be good fits, and I've gotten a better understanding of biological systems in my current position. Reach out by email if anything here catches your eye, and I would be happy to talk. My current role is tentatively wrapping up around the holiday season this year.
by roadside_picnic | 2025-11-03 20:28:21+00:00
> our belief that only biological entities can think

Whose belief is that?

As a computer scientist my perspective of all of this is as different methods of computing and we have a pretty solid foundations on computability (though, it does seem a bit frightening how many present-day devs have no background in the foundation of the Theory of Computation). There's a pretty common naive belief that somehow "thinking" is something more or distinct from computing, but in actuality there are very few coherent arguments to that case.

If, for you, thinking is distinct from computing then you need to be more specific about what thinking means. It's quite possible that "only biological entities can think" because you are quietly making a tautological statement by simply defining "thinking" as "the biological process of computation".

> thinking is a core part of our identity, unlike swimming.

What does this mean? I'm pretty sure for most fish swimming is pretty core to its existence. You seem to be assuming a lot of metaphysically properties of what you consider "thinking" such that it seems nearly impossible to determine whether or not anything "thinks" at all.
by ffwd | 2025-11-03 20:28:26+00:00
That's a good point and I agree. I'm not a neuroscientist but from what I understand the brain has an associative memory so most likely those patterns we create are associatively connected in the brain.

But I think there is a difference between having an associative memory, and having the capacity to _traverse_ that memory in working memory (conscious thinking). While any particular short sequence of thoughts will be associated in memory, we can still overcome that somewhat by thinking for a long time. I can for example iterate on the sequence in my initial post and make it novel by writing down more and more disparate concepts and deleting the concepts that are closely associated. This will in the end create a more novel sequence that is not associated in my brain I think.

I also think there is the trouble of generating and detecting novel patterns. We know for example that it's not just low probability patterns. There are billions of unique low probability sequences of patterns that have no inherent meaning, so uniqueness itself is not enough to detect them. So how does the brain decide that something is interesting? I do not know.