MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dkdcio | 2025-12-19 15:05:35+00:00
In my experience, people who bombard threads with insults based on the technology people use (a specific set of neural networks in this case) are…well, don’t have much better to do in life. you openly advocated for insulting and bullying people in your other comments. don’t back down with this “it’s just an observation” bs, own it! be you!

…or change your behavior and be a better person, whatever works

btw I’ve been doing “the AI” stuff since 2018 in industry and before in academia. I find your worldview displayed in your comments to be incredibly small and easily dismissible
by the_pwner224 | 2025-12-19 15:05:58+00:00
And the 285H is lower performance than a 275HX.

Their laptop naming scheme at least is fairly straightforward once you figure it out.

U = Low-TDP, for thin & light devices

H = For higher-performance laptops, e.g. Dell XPS or midrange gaming laptops

HX = Basically the desktop parts stuffed into a laptop form factor, best perf but atrocious power usage even at idle. Only for gaming laptops that aren't meant to be used away from a desk.

And within each series, bigger number is better (or at least not worse - 275HX and 285HX are practically identical).
by halapro | 2025-12-19 15:06:13+00:00
Love it but no one would understand this. I bet most people would just be "stuck" in the "picked" state and not know how to exit it, with an item covering the screen.

Something similar but less obtrusive would be to show "drop here" buttons after you "pick" an item. No sticky element on screen, clear followup action that doesn't require exact scrolling position.
by myrmidon | 2025-12-19 15:06:18+00:00
What I mean is: This ringbuffer implementation (and its simplicity) relies on the index range being a multiple of the buffer size (which is only true for powers of two, when the index is e.g. a 32bit unsigned integer).

If you swap bitmasking for modulo operations then that does work at first glance, but breaks down when the index wraps around. This forces you to abandon the simple "increment" operation for something more complex, too.

The requirement for a power-of-two size is more intrinsic to the approach than just the bitmasking operation itself.
by staticman2 | 2025-12-19 15:06:49+00:00
It's okay that we disagree.

However I don't believe I misunderstand your point. The dialogue is almost certainly scripted, presumably by an advertisement professional. You believe you know why the advertisement person wrote it that way. You think the man was scripted to be "polite" to the woman he was watching in the context of the scene and that particular line. You think your understanding of the society of the time explains the line.

I offered an alternative interpretation. The advertisement professional wanted to begin with something winkingly sexy so had a bunch of guys say a woman was attractive.

I don't even know what to make of the statement that "for politeness is not a thing easily turned on and off." A stock character in an IBM ad doesn't have an internal life so does not struggle to be polite or impolite.

This whole framing would make more sense to me if we were talking about a male game show host (a real living breathing person) trying to be polite to a real life female contestant in an old game show.
by tombh | 2025-12-19 15:06:56+00:00
Of course, I have to assume that you have considered more outcomes than I have. Because, from my five minutes of reflection as a software geek, albeit with a passion for history, I find this the most surprising thing about the whole project.

I suspect restricting access could equally be a comment on modern LLMs in general, rather than the historical material specifically. For example, we must be constantly reminded not to give LLMs a level of credibility that their hallucinations would have us believe.

But I'm fascinated by the possibility that somehow resurrecting lost voices might give an unholy agency to minds and their supporting worldviews that are so anachronistic that hearing them speak again might stir long-banished evils. I'm being lyrical for dramatic affect!

I would make one serious point though, that do I have the credentials to express. The conversation may have died down, but there is still a huge question mark over, if not the legality, but certainly the ethics of restricting access to, and profiting from, public domain knowledge. I don't wish to suggest a side to take here, just to point out that the lack of conversation should not be taken to mean that the matter is settled.
by phplovesong | 2025-12-19 15:06:56+00:00
The boring stuff like crud always needs design. Else you end up with a 2006 era PHP-like "this is a rest api" spaghetti monster. The fact that AI cant do this (and probably never will) is just another showstopper.

I tried AI, but the code it produces (on a higher level) is of really poor quality. Refactoring this is a HUGE PITA.
by busfahrer | 2025-12-19 15:07:40+00:00
Slightly related, Video Chess is a Chess game for the Atari VCS/2600, very technically impressive since the VCS only has 128 bytes(!) of RAM. Another technical limitation are the VCS's rudimentary sprites, that wouldn't even allow to draw all of the pieces' symbols in the same row, the had to interlace the game pieces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Chess
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-12-19 15:08:14+00:00
Can you use user namespaces to create a network namespace with the VPN active and stick applications in that namespace?

From a quick search, https://blog.thea.codes/nordvpn-wireguard-namespaces/ sees to have at least the bones of a decent solution, though I've not had a chance to dig very far. A lot of results use root to set up the namespace, but I was pretty sure that shouldn't be needed with a new kernel and user namespaces enabled
by wibbily | 2025-12-19 15:08:16+00:00
Seems like it could work in the other direction... mandate that adult sites etc. include a standard, relevant flag in the response, so that parental control software can detect it if it's installed. Sites don't have to know anything about their users, parents can reliably filter out naughty sites.

To op's point, age verification is really a surveillance measure, so this won't happen.
by alexfoo | 2025-12-19 15:09:24+00:00
Complete digression I know...

Driving on public roads is prohibited until a certain age.

That age is 17 here in the UK but me and many of my friends growing up in a rural area learned to drive from the age of 14 or 15 on private land. Our parents would take us there/back, provide the car and be our "instructor". Some friends who lived on farms had cars/trucks/etc of their own that they could use to drive around and their parents were fine to let us try too. But we knew that we were never allowed on public roads.

By the time we all got to 17 we applied for our tests and had a few lessons with an real instructor on real public roads. We still had to learn all of the rules/etiquette/etc but most of us where completely happy with the physical aspects of controlling the vehicle, that saved us a huge amount of time.

My kid is 15 and if a suitable opportunity arises I'll let them have a go behind the wheel (not illegally obviously). Unfortunately I live in a city not a rural area, and don't own a car, so there hasn't been the chance yet.

(In the UK land like a supermarket car park is still considered as public roads despite being privately owned. Generally anywhere where the public can access it easily is not considered "private" in terms of the Road Traffic Act.)
by gonational | 2025-12-19 15:09:37+00:00
Yeah it's crazy, people use Django and they think the things that are making them productive are all these little contribs and built-ins, but the reality is it's the solid foundation that is the ORM. BTW, I discovered after writing my comment that tortoise ORM is essentially Django ORM, but written on asyncpg, making it way faster. So, if you're stuck in some other non-Django framework and would like to use the Django ORM, that's probably your closest bet.
by EvgeniyZh | 2025-12-19 15:09:55+00:00
It's worth noting that this is "compute-bound optimal", i.e., given fixed compute, the optimal choice is 20:1.

Under Chinchilla model the larger model always performs better than the small one if trained on the same amount of data. I'm not sure if it is true empirically, and probably 1-10B is a good guess for how large the model trained on 80B tokens should be.

Similarly, the small models continue to improve beyond 20:1 ratio, and current models are trained on much more data. You could train a better performing model using the same compute, but it would be larger which is not always desirable.
by buellerbueller | 2025-12-19 15:10:16+00:00
I don't care about people's values, unless I am evaluating them; that's their own business, and I am not the value police or thought police. Goodness knows there are people (hi, mom!) who are appalled by some of my values.

Roman Polanski and Woody Allen: terrible humans, but they have still made some of the best films that exist.
by DrScientist | 2025-12-19 15:10:20+00:00
It's still very political - with a small p.

For example the recent nobel prize for Chemistry being awarded to David Baker, Dennis Hassabis and John Jumper.

Why the hell is David Baker on that list? He was just the head of a very big lab that was working in the traditional way using largely physics based approaches, making incremental progress.

AlphaFold blew that whole approach out of the water.

They cite the design of Top7 back in 2003 - it's not at the level of impact as Alphafold.

The impact of Alphafold is obvious to all - the importance of the 2003 Baker paper doesn't stand out to me from 1000's of other possible candidates - that's where self-promotion, visibility and politics plays a part.

The 2003 Baker paper has 2249 citations over 22 years. The 2021 AlphaFold paper has had 43876 citations in 4 years..........
by tjr | 2025-12-19 15:10:25+00:00
That's what it really all comes down to, isn't it?

It doesn't matter if you're using AI or not, just like it never mattered if you were using C or Java or Lisp, or using Emacs or Visual Studio, or using a debugger or printf's, or using Git or SVN or Rational ClearCase.

What really matters is in the end is, what you bring to market, and what your audience thinks of your product.

So use all the AI you want. Or don't use it. Or use it half the time. Or use it for the hard stuff, but not the easy stuff. Or use it for the easy stuff, but not the hard stuff. Whatever! You can succeed in the market with AI-generated product; you can fail in the market with AI-generated product. You can succeed in the market with human-generated product; you can fail in the market with human-generated product.
by jackling | 2025-12-19 15:10:38+00:00
Sean has been on Jon's stream, and there's a good video where briefly Sean states that he have Jon some syntax advice for Jon's language Jai.

I assumed they were friends as there are several videos of them conversing. The parent comment pointed out that Sean agree's with the negatives about Jon, which could not mean much, but the fact that Jon's negative as described in the Dreknek are really bad indicates to me that Sean likely doesn't view Jon as a good friend anymore. This is surprising to me because I really did enjoy one of their videos where they try and solve a problem together.

The fact that Sean agrees with this critical take of Jon is further evidence of how much Jon has changed since the pandemic.

STB Is the intial's for Sean T Barrett, who also created a software library with the same name.
by WackyFighter | 2025-12-19 15:11:17+00:00
As a British Citizen I've just decided I don't care what the law is and I will just circumvent any of these laws. The current government have basically told everyone that OSA, Mandatory Digital ID etc. is going to happen whether the electorate like it or not.

I suggest people put their energy to not trying to convince anyone and instead put their energy into protecting themselves and learning how circumvent these measures. People who understand the issues of these ID checks don't need convincing and those that don't you are unlikely to change their mind.

Sooner or later it will become apparent that these laws are unenforceable (via VPNs, Tor or similar tech) and eventually they will be repealed or more likely no enforced like most piracy laws are now. The UK (as well as many of other countries) already lost the war against banning torrent sites (as they are effectively a hydra) and I don't think it get enforced anymore because I can to the big torrent with out issues.
by noirscape | 2025-12-19 15:11:26+00:00
Firefox fell behind Chrome because of aggressive marketing from Google in a way that probably violates some antitrust laws if they were actually being enforced, combined with a couple of own-goals from Mozilla.

Basically Google exploits their market dominance in Search and Mail to get people to use Chrome (and probably their other services too). When you search in a non-Chrome browser, you'll be constantly informed by Google about how much better their search is with Chrome through pop-ups and in-page notifications (not browser notifs). If you click a link in the Gmail app on iOS, rather than opening the browser, you get a Chrome advertisement if they detect it isn't your default browser.

This goes hand-in-hand with Chrome being the default Android browser (don't underestimate the power of being the default) and Mozilla alienating their core audience of power users by forcibly inserting features that those power users despise.

Chrome never won on features, it won on marketing and abuse of a different monopoly.
by IAmBroom | 2025-12-19 15:11:32+00:00
> I'm not following. If things have gotten this far, the victim has already been duped into buying the card and intends to send it to the scammers anyway... ?

Yes, the mark has essentially fallen for the scam, but not yet arrived for the goods... which don't actually exist.

> But also, how could the card possibly work that way? What are the other digits even for; and wouldn't they quickly run out of valid "last few digit" combinations for issued cards?

Exactly why I hate that Ebay uses their insipid coding schema. I'm not explaining why they do it, because I can't.
by robotstxtwasbad | 2025-12-19 15:11:49+00:00
RFC 8820 section 2.3, also known as BCP 190, is not a theoretical argument. That's why we call it a "best current practice".

You, nor any other standard like you, are not entitled to declare what a root URI means in my Web namespace, and you are up against an IETF MUST NOT by fighting for this. This is a _very_ philosophical argument, not a practical one, and it's why I'm firmly against your standard out of the gate (and would work to reject it as, say, an RFC).

The same paragraph takes you to RFC 8615, which is the .well-known you are being told to use. That is not your "secondary location" for v1.1. That is the only path you are permitted to consider as someone with intent to standardize a portion of the HTTP URI namespace. The decades-old precedent you are citing here, and leaning on as foundational, was rejected at the philosophical level by the IETF, and it is completely rejected as appropriate precedent for the writing of standards going forward.

You are being told how the Web works. It's not about you, the magical universe of agentic, or your community. You are attempting to standardize a part of the technical commons. If you want the public to obey your standard, this isn't the way to engage while selling it -- despite it being CC0, you're phasing in and out of "my" standard and "our" standard a little oddly, and you're a little standoffish to (correct) feedback, feedback that in this case is existential to your project making it to a dozen stars and a discussion.

Wix and Shopify have zero bearing on the standardization of the Web. Companies in general shouldn't, in fact (har har), which is useful background for an aspiring standards writer.
by username223 | 2025-12-19 15:11:55+00:00
> Things that have fallen out of fashion isn't the same thing as eradicating a technology.

That's true. Ruby still exists, for example, though it's sitting down below COBOL on the Tiobe index. There's probably a community trading garbage pail kids on Facebook Marketplace as well. Ideas rarely die completely.

Burning fossil fuels to turn heat into kinetic energy is genuinely better than using draft animals or human slaves. Creating worse code (or worse clothing) for less money is a tradeoff that only works for some situations.
by teeray | 2025-12-19 15:12:05+00:00
> This task is not easily idempotent; it involves writing a ton of intermediate state and queries to determine that a step should not be repeated

The problem with durable execution is that your entire workflow still needs to be idempotent. Consider that each workflow is divided into a sequence of steps that amount to: 1) do work 2) record the fact that work was done. If 2) never happens because the worker falls over, you must repeat 1). Therefore, for each step, "doing work" happens at least once. Given that steps compose, and each execute at least once, it follows that the entire workflow executes at least once. Because it doesn't execute exactly once, everything you write in a durable execution engine must be idempotent.

At that point, the only thing the durable execution engine is buying you is an optimization against re-running some slow tasks. That may be valuable in itself. However, this doesn't change anything about good practices writing async worker tasks.
by ReluctantLaser | 2025-12-19 15:12:26+00:00
> There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to.

Is there not? I don't feel this makes sense to me, as the conclusion seems to be "if everyone (or perhaps a large amount of people) do it, then it's not immoral". My immediate thought goes to moral systems that universalise an action, such that if everyone did it and it makes the world worse, then it's something that you should not do. That would be an example of a system that goes counter to what you say. Since morals are personal, you can still have that conclusion even if other people do not subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs that you have. Something can be immoral to you, and you will refuse to do it even if everyone else does.

> But if nobody ever agreed to it [...] there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too.

Why not? I don't quite understand your conclusion. Why could the conclusion not be "I feel what everyone else is doing is wrong, and I will not do it myself"? Is it because it puts you at a disadvantage, and you believe that is unfair? Perhaps this is the "reasonable" aspect?
by nrds | 2025-12-19 15:13:26+00:00
That's the traditional answer parroted in the Wireguard documentation but a few hours' serious thought and design is enough to reveal the fatal flaw: any encapsulating protocol will have to reinvent and duplicatively implement all of the routing logic. Perr-based routing is at least 50% of wireguard's value proposition. Having to reimplement it at the higher level defeats the purpose. No, obfuscation _has_ to be part of the same protocol as routing.

(Btw, same sort of thing occurs with zfs combining raid and filesystem to close the parity raid write hole. Often strictly layered systems with separation of concerns are less than the sum of their parts.)
by ColinWright | 2025-12-19 15:13:59+00:00
The geometry means it's not so bad. The 'plane is going horizontally, but your initial acceleration is effectively vertical. Thinking of the triangle of forces, the 'plane is going in the sin(θ) direction (therefore with speed) whereas you are going in the cos(θ) direction ... therefore not travelling much.

So the geometry works in your favour, and the forces on you aren't that bad.
by huijzer | 2025-12-19 15:14:19+00:00
I'm also particularly skeptical of Amazon because our Kindle Direct Publishing account was banned also for no reason. They said something about me having had a previous account before, but I'm not sure that was true and I think it was a very extreme measure. We were actually selling books at the time until we got banned. They obviously also "forgot" to pay out the most recent month.
by freedomben | 2025-12-19 15:14:23+00:00
I've talked to a lot of engineers building DRM technology, and most of them are just a combination of swept up in the fun of the challenge, and also deeply bought into the idea of protecting intellectual property. I would say probably 90% don't see any philosophical issues with what they're building at all. If you can convince them of that, quite a few of them would probably try to get out, but it's quite an uphill battle. I forget who said the quote and the exact words, but something along the lines of it's very difficult to disabuse somebody of a belief when their livelihood depends on believing it.

As someone who was in an industry that I later discovered was doing things I wasn't personally ethically okay with, I would advise them to do similar to me. Start looking for a new gig and just get out as soon as you can.

Unfortunately as an individual there just isn't much you can do. There will always be someone willing to do the job that you aren't willing to do. Just get out and find something you can sleep at night doing
by rasz | 2025-12-19 15:14:46+00:00
Semi by hand got out of hand (HA!) in the nineties. There is simply too much work for humans (millions of transistors) so we swallow performance hit. Synthesis puts stuff together from human optimized basic building blocks. Same reason FPGA tools quickly advanced from schematic input to hardware description languages.

With PCB its all still quite manageable, even something like whole PC motherboard is easily doable by two-three EEs specializing in different niches (power, thermals, high speed digital design).
by rchaud | 2025-12-19 15:15:55+00:00
Ad blocking proliferates, yet Google continues to make more ad revenue than they did the year before. How does that happen?

It happens by improving margins by paying site owners less per ad than they did before. This resulted in mass-produced blogspam that site owners could jam more ads into to make up the loss in revenue. Google rewards these types of pages by upranking them in their search algorithm, then extinguishing them by summarizing the content in the search result ("zero-click searches"), thereby paying site owners nothing while profiting off the ads in the search result page.

This would have happened regardless of ad blocking, where they were already paying nothing to site owners due to zero impressions and clicks. Google is a publicly traded company, so the line needs to go up every quarter by any means necessary.
by bartread | 2025-12-19 15:15:57+00:00
In future this will be cited as a canonical example of enshittification.

They’ve extracted 80% or whatever of the value out of customers in the current markets and now, rather than figuring out a new value adding product or service they can offer to make another 80% in a slightly different market, they’re going to expend a completely disproportionate amount of effort to slowly and miserably grind out that last 20% in the markets they already operate in.

Honestly, screw all of this.
by caratamba | 2025-12-19 15:16:13+00:00
Edit: this is the worst ui/ux I have ever seen. You click something. It is working? Is it doing something? Who knows?

People who are too narcissistic or too selfish to think of others and their expereience should not be designing a ui/ux.

Update the progress bar under "InkBox" fo god's sake. It looks like it's sitting there frozen for minutes at a time. Are you a sadist?

And then the progress bar goes away and it just sits there. What is happening? A traditional linux boot log screen would be better. Are you trying to make us miserable?

Than I click on a book and the screen changes a bit but it just sits there. You're presumably a sadistic person who just wants to make everyone miserable. WHAT IS HAPPENING?