MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by steveklabnik | 2025-12-08 15:05:21+00:00
Sure, my point is just that if you don’t want history re-written, you just don’t re-write it. If you have multiple descendant branches and for some reason you don’t want the children to move as well, you can move them back. It’s almost the opposite of what the article describes; instead of needing to choose to move children, children move automatically and you move ones you don’t want to back. I’ve never wanted to do this but if it happened it would be easy enough to fix.

It looks like this: when a git rebase would pause the rebase to make your resolve a conflict, jj keeps going. When the rebase finishes, if there are any conflicts, they’re displayed in the log with ?? after their ID. jj won’t let you push a branch with conflicts until the conflict is resolved. You can fix the conflict by either editing that commit directly, or my preferred way, which is to make a new change on top and then squash the resolution back in after you read it over.

So there’s a few thins about why this is useful: because children are also rebased, you can see immediately how much work, if any, you have to do. I have an alias to rebase all open branches on top of trunk, and will often pull trunk, run it, and see if I have any work to do to update them. “Oh, only one of my three branches needs work, I’ll work on the two that are fine first” can happen, and that third can just sit there. Or, as I said before, I could move it back on top of its old base, and the conflict disappears. Or, say I suspected none of them conflict, but all three do, and I don’t want to do it at all right this moment, I’ll just jj undo and they’re all unconflicted and back in place.
by ttul | 2025-12-08 15:05:37+00:00
Type-safe message-passing is such a wonderful programming paradigm - and not just for distributed applications. I remember using QNX back in the 1990s. One of its fabulous features was a C message passing library allowing you to send arbitrary binary structs from one process to another. In the context of realtime software development, you often find yourself having one process that watches for events from a certain device, modify the information somehow, and then pass it on to another process that ends up doing something else. The message-passing idiom was far superior to what was available in Linux at the time (pipes and whatnot) because you were able to work with C structs. It was not strictly type safe (as is the case with FoundationDB’s library), but for the 1990s it was pretty great.
Pyversity with Thomas van Dongen
by CShorten | 2025-12-08 15:05:45+00:00
I am SUPER EXCITED to publish the 132nd episode of the Weaviate Podcast with Thomas van Dongen, head of AI engineering at Springer Nature!

Thomas is the creator of Pyversity, a fast, lightweight open-source python library for diversifying retrieval results!

Diversity is such an underrated topic in AI and Vector Databases. Whether searching through e-Commerce products or Scientific papers, we often want serendipity from our search engine, results that we were not expecting to find!

For example, say you ask "Who has accomplish the most in professional sports?". A relevance optimized search system might return 10 results all about Michale Jordan... whereas a diversity enhanced system would produce information about Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, ...

Rather than just return the relevance ranked search results, Pyversity uses methods such as Maximal Marginal Relevnace (MMR) or Determinantal Point Process (DPP) to achieve diverse results.

I learned a lot from this conversation exploring the general topic of diversity in vector spaces, diversification strategies from Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) to Determinantal point process (DPP), and more, as well as Thomas' work and thoughts on AI in Scientific Literature!

I hope you find it interesting!

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2N1qvfP7tg

Spotify: https://spotifycreators-web.app.link/e/FBaEZ9b5UYb
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-12-08 15:05:46+00:00
True, although that's a tough call for a company like Google.

Even before LLMs people were asking Google search questions rather than looking for keyword matches, and now coupled with ChatGPT it's not surprising that people are asking the computer to answer questions and seeing this as a replacement for search. I've got to wonder how the typical non-techie user internalizes the difference between asking questions of Google (non-AI mode) and asking ChatGPT?

Clearly people asking ChatGPT instead of Google could rapidly eat Google's lunch, so we're now getting "AI overview" alongside search results as an attempt to mitigate this.

I think the more fundamental problem is not just the blurring of search vs "AI", but these companies pushing "AI" (LLMs) as some kind of super-human intelligence (leading to uses assuming it's logical and infallible), rather than more honestly presenting it as what it is.
7.6 earthquake off the coast of Japan
by LadyCailin | 2025-12-08 15:05:49+00:00
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/multi/quake/quake_detail.html?eve...

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/weather-disaster/tsu...

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?currentFeatureI...

https://www.tsunami.gov/?p=PHEB/2025/12/08/25342050/2/WEPA40
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-12-08 15:05:52+00:00
dollar tree seems to have found a new way to do this which may or may not be legal. Everything is priced at "$1.25 unless otherwise marked" but the markings don't actually tell you the price, only that it's not the $1.25 default price. There are price checkers throughout the store, but unless you're stopping and prescanning all of your stuff there's no actual way to know what you'll be paying until you get to the register. My partner is a regular there for cheap craft supplies and has seen what essentially amounts to dynamic pricing there, with the price varying up and down on the same item week by week.
by lm28469 | 2025-12-08 15:05:56+00:00
> I've never understood the initial arguments about Bitcoin, no matter how many times they've been explained to me.

Because it's a cult, like the "AGI is coming in 2027" cult thinks we're on the brink of skynet level world destruction, it'll come and go and 99% of the people who fell for it will tell you they never really truly actually believed
by arw0n | 2025-12-08 15:05:58+00:00
You are getting downvoted, but it is true that young people are getting a very rough deal, and a lot of the people in my circle are looking to emgirate. Friends from other countries and students (mostly know them through academia), are also not looking for long-term opportunities here anymore, which was different 15 years ago.

I would be far less annoyed with paying very high taxes and social contributions (around 50% of my income), if the services provided worked. But this just hasn't been the case for me. The healthcare system is close to breaking apart, and after moving to a new city 6 months ago I have been unable to find doctors willing to take me in. Childcare is constantly closing down due to staff shortages, buying a house is unrealistic unless both partners have good jobs or you inherit, and the jobs market is incredibly rigid and inflexible.

Every single one of these points are worse for young people then for older ones, and the only thing the government seems to get done is giving weapons training to young people and gifting pensioners 180b$/year extra.
by GlibMonkeyDeath | 2025-12-08 15:06:12+00:00
Again, forget about who "needs" what. The basic problem is that you don't have a written agreement. Time to negotiate with your co founder and get something signed. I obviously don't know anything about each of you, but if you are truly each contributing 50% to the success of the company then your angel investor co-founder is not getting 50% of the value at present, so has, in this scenario, a point.

I've seen lots of best friend co-founders end up not being able to be in the same room together eventually. Most of these situations boil down to fundamental misunderstandings that could have been addressed at the beginning. That's why signed employee agreements (where compensation, equity, vesting, and expectations are clearly laid out in black and white) are a must.
by Ray20 | 2025-12-08 15:06:21+00:00
> what you're arguing for is a system that you understand and can verify, but not other people.

I don't think people really need it. We're used to using and trusting systems we don't understand. So, I think if the system is open, people will readily accept it. They'll be content with knowing that all the experts say the system is reliable, and they themselves, theoretically, can, if they want, understand its structure and confirm its reliability.

And the real reason for its non-use is somewhat different: The elites believe that the introduction of such a system would almost immediately lead to demands for real direct democracy, and the stupid masses, using this democracy, would make decisions that would destroy society and civilization.
by foldor | 2025-12-08 15:06:41+00:00
There isn't enough detail for me to know how serious is was in regards to stores not being able to accept payments, but a date of this blog being 2010, and it being written about a time when every megabyte of filesize matters makes me think it was possibly much earlier, like maybe 2001-2005. If that's the case, maybe not being able to process cards wasn't as big of a deal as it would be today because you could likely assume most if not all customers could pay with cash if card payments were down.
by quesomaster9000 | 2025-12-08 15:07:06+00:00
Graviton with Nitro 4 has been quite pleasant to use, with the rust aarch64 musl static target and rust-lld I can build monolith ELFs that work not just on my android via `adb push` and `adb shell` but also on AWS.

AWS with Nitro v3+ iirc supports TPM, meaning I can attest my VM state via an Amazon CA. I know ARM has been working a lot with Rust, and it shows - binfmt with qemu-user mean I often forget which architecture I'm building/running/testing as the binaries seem to work the same everywhere.
by skeledrew | 2025-12-08 15:07:07+00:00
There's a lot of function and utility in improving on LLMs though, and I don't think they're actually reining in anything. Releases may sometimes slow since discoveries in research are never predictable, but they're pushing. See DeepSeek v3.2[0] which was just released a week ago.

And yes, humans always hunger for power, when there's some kind of value to be had. It's a bit hard to think of any human data which hasn't already been siphoned off in some way and stored somewhere, so there's just going to be nothing more to be gained after full automation. What happens then is whoever has or can gain access to means of production will survive, and those who can't, won't.

[0] https://xcancel.com/deepseek_ai/status/1995452646459858977
by steveklabnik | 2025-12-08 15:07:10+00:00
Yeah your parent is being combative all over this thread, there’s just no reason for it.

For whatever it’s worth, the general stance of the project and most of the community is “git is good, we like jj more, but you should use whatever you prefer.” Lots of us loved git before jj came along, and there’s a lot of cross pollination between the two projects. I hope your parent takes the feedback and chills out.
by herf | 2025-12-08 15:07:24+00:00
Training data is quite literally weighted this way - long responses on Reddit have lots of tokens, and brief responses don't get counted nearly as much.

The same goes for "rules" - you train an LLM with trillions of tokens and try to regulate its behavior with thousands. If you think of a person in high school, grading and feedback is a much higher percentage of the training.
by theta_d | 2025-12-08 15:07:32+00:00
I worked for IBM Cloud about 6+ years ago. While there, we had to connect to a Softlayer VPN to get into our Jira instance. My VPN account and Jira account never got provisioned so I couldn't connect nor see the Jira board. My team-mates couldn't even assign a ticket to me b/c of this. They would just put my initial's in the ticket summary and send me a slack of the details.

It was right before I left that we got our own Jira instance. This was all around the time of the Red Hat acquisition. I remember the announcement b/c we used SuSE for everything IIRC.
by dceddia | 2025-12-08 15:07:37+00:00
> That's how it's always been only now you can buy the cert through Azure.

Where can you get an EV cert for $120/year? Last time I checked, all the places were more expensive and then you also had to deal with a hardware token.

Lest we talk past each other: it's true that it used to be sufficient to buy a non-EV cert for around the same money, where it didn't require a hardware token, and that was good enough... but they changed the rules in 2023.
by redserk | 2025-12-08 15:08:21+00:00
Since when does any organization factor in inflation for renewals from vendors?!

All the purchase renewal decisions I've been part of have been:

1) Will they budge on renewal rates?

2) Does an alternative vendor exist?

3) Is the increase reasonable compared to the cost of switching to an alternative?

4) Do we anticipate future price increases, and if so, how can we prepare ourselves to consider a switch in the future?
by afavour | 2025-12-08 15:08:39+00:00
No matter how you might view the topic I hope we can all agree that this is vacuous nonsense:

> “We are not doing a traditional report this year as we’ve evolved beyond that to formats that are more dynamic and accessible — stories, videos, and insights that show inclusion in action,”

Oh, you wanted hard numbers? What about a TikTok video instead?

Just be honest about this stuff. It’s insulting to the intelligences of all involved to pretend that you just coincidentally happen to be making these shifts.
by nickdothutton | 2025-12-08 15:09:16+00:00
I was experimenting with Claude Code and requested something more CPU efficient in a very small project, there were a few avenues to explore, I was interested to see what path it would take. It turned out that it seized upon something which wasn't consuming much CPU anyway and was difficult to optimise further. I learned that I'd have to be more explicit in future and direct an analysis phase and probably kick-in a few strategies for performance optimisation which it could then explore. The refund request was an amusement. It was $15 well spent on my own learning.
by Revisional_Sin | 2025-12-08 15:09:29+00:00
My toddler was playing with my Kindle the other day, and he bought a £600 (yes, six hundred) volume of books. I was unable to refund them automatically, and when looking for help I was confronted with a "fuck off" contact page. After finding the option to talk to a human, I was put through within 5 seconds, and the woman had the item refunded in about 1 minute.

Was pleasantly surprised.
by jcalvinowens | 2025-12-08 15:09:37+00:00
Amen. Bitcoin barely manages to continue to function, while currently handling 0.0000001% of the worlds money transfers. The idea that we could base any substantial part of our financial system on a globally serialized transaction ledger is a laughable joke.

As a technical experiment, I love bitcoin, and I have thoroughly enjoyed wasting some of my own time on it. But it's not mainstream, and it never will be.
by Aurornis | 2025-12-08 15:10:21+00:00
> but even Claude, which is huge for coding and arguably the best model right now, is tiny. I've had an interaction with someone nontechnical who, after seeing the Claude logo bounce, asked me why my ChatGPT had fireworks

So they had used ChatGPT enough to recognize that you were using a different tool?

I don’t see this as contradicting anything. Even the nontechnical people in your life are familiar with these tools because they’re using them.
by user34283 | 2025-12-08 15:10:40+00:00
A viable alternative to the financial system is also just a dream.

If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals, enemies, or even terrorists.

It seems like a clear non-starter, yet many proponents of crypto seem to think it would be an obvious improvement.
by sarchertech | 2025-12-08 15:10:44+00:00
I worked at Geek Squad almost 20 years ago and here’s how it went.

We would preinstall office on say 80% of the door buster laptops for something like $29. Most people used office so they’d pay it. Occasionally some people didn’t want it so they’d buy a bare laptop.

If all the bare laptops had been sold, we’d remove office from one of the preinstalled laptops. Then we’d take the box and send it back to the inventory guys to process and get credit back from the vendor. As part of that process we were supposed to verify to Microsoft that the product wasn’t installed on any machines.

So they weren’t tracking keys, but the manager wasn’t doing it to spite the OP, he was just doing what the vendor asked for.
by CharlesW | 2025-12-08 15:11:09+00:00
Snowflake uses it: https://www.snowflake.com/en/blog/how-foundationdb-powers-sn...

Tigris uses it: https://www.tigrisdata.com/blog/building-a-database-using-fo...

A good collection of papers, blog posts, talks, etc.: https://github.com/FoundationDB/awesome-foundationdb
by SatvikBeri | 2025-12-08 15:12:32+00:00
"When is jj useful" is a different question from "when are workspaces/git worktrees useful"

I find jj overall most useful for separating the concept of a machine-level commit history that saves every change from a human-readable commit history . jj has really nice tools for cleaning up your commits for review while still retaining all the mechanical changes in case you need to get more granular. (Of course, there are many other tools to do this, like magit – I just find jj to work best with my brain.)

Workspaces/worktrees are best when you have long-running tasks where the state of the disk is important. Local "CI" is a good example – kick off a long test run on one workspace while starting a new task in another. Another example these days is stuff with Agentic LLMs, e.g. I might create one workspace and ask Claude Code to do a deep investigation of why our AWS costs went up.
by quesomaster9000 | 2025-12-08 15:12:47+00:00
Yup, Amazon supports the 6.11? kernel on aarch64. Most toolchains if you target linux aarch64 static they, they will produce executables that will run on Amazon Linux aarch64 and Android, set-top boxes with 64-bit chips and Linux 3+ it's surprising how many devices a static aarch64 ELF will run on.
by Zaskoda | 2025-12-08 15:13:21+00:00
There's a lot of talk these days about the enshitification of the Internet. What I rarely see mentioned is that the Internet's first steps towards enshitification started when we attached the banking system to the Internet.

Before you could make transactions online, if your infrastructure was hacked, it was your fault and your responsibility to implement better security. But once money was involved, you could complain to the police about a hack and involve the authorities - because now actual property was involved. This changed everything.

This was also about the time we started seeing spam, scams, and other negativity suddenly spring up. It's hard to believe that we used to post to usenet with our email addresses publicly exposed... and never worry about being added to a spam list.

Money attracted bad actors to the Internet. Bitcoin was money from the start. So of course the whole cryptocurrency scene is a magnet for bad actors - like we've never seen before. This was inevitable. And 95% of the cryptocurrency scene are some flavor of bad actors.

But Bitcoin mostly sits outside of the legal frameworks of the world. So it's much harder to call the authorities when your cryptocurrency is stolen. You can. It happens. But not much. And for this reason, the only path forward for this new technology/money is right through the middle of the hoard of bad actors. That means we have to create technological and social solutions for security instead of relying on the monopoly of violence (the police) to protect us.

The bad acts and just general greed in the scene are holding it back. But this is, unfortunately, necessary. This is a wall of resistance that has to be pushed through for a better tomorrow. It's part of the process.

The future that decentralized technology will bring us will be different from whatever we are imagining now. But we still have to keep imagining and building. Because even though it will be different than the fantasy, its still the right direction.
by voidhorse | 2025-12-08 15:13:53+00:00
Thanks for the links! I'll have to dig into this more for sure. Looking at the bulleted summary, I'm not sure your argument is sufficiently nuanced or being made in good faith.

The article argues that the brain "predicts" acts of perception in order to minimize surprise. First of all, very few people mean to talk about these unconscious operations of the brain when they claim they are "thinking". Most people have not read enough neuroscience literature to have such a definition. Instead, they tend to mean "self-conscious activity" when they say "thinking". Thinking, the way the term is used in the vernacular, usually implies some amount of self-reflexivity. This is why we have the term "intuition" as opposed to thinking after all. From a neuronal perspective, intuition is still thinking, but most people don't think (ha) of the word thinking to encompass this, and companies know that.

It is clear to me, as it is to everyone one the planet, that when OpenAI for example claims that ChatGPT "thinks" they want consumers to make the leap to cognitive equivalence at the level of self-conscious thought, abstract logical reasoning, long-term learning, and autonomy. These machines are designed such that they do not even learn and retain/embed new information past their training date. That already disqualifies them from strong equivalence to human beings, who are able to rework their own tendencies toward prediction in a meta cognitive fashion by incorporating new information.
by liampulles | 2025-12-08 15:14:10+00:00
The problem with these agent loops is that their text output is manipulated to then be fed back in as text input, to try and get a reasoning loop that looks something like "thinking".

But our human brains do not work like that. You don't reason via your inner monologue (indeed there are fully functional people with barely any inner monologue), your inner monologue is a projection of thoughts you've already had.

And unfortunately, we have no choice but to use the text input and output of these layers to build agent loops, because trying to build it any other way would be totally incomprehensible (because the meaning of the outputs of middle layers are a mystery). So the only option is an agent which is concerned with self-persuasion (talking to itself).
by yoda222 | 2025-12-08 15:14:15+00:00
> Ada didn't prevent the Ada code in Ariane 5 from being a disaster

That's a weak argument to say that Ada could not lead to a better place in term of software. It's like saying that it's not safer to cross at a crosswalk because you know someone who died while crossing on one.

(But I guess that's fair for you to say that, as the argument should probably be made by the people that say that Ada would be better, and because they made a claim without evidences, you can counterclaim without any evidence :-) )

There are no programming language that can prevent a software for working correctly outside of the domain for which the software is written, which was the case for Ariane 501. Any language that would have been used to write the same software for Ariane 4 may have led to the same exact error. Ariane 501 failure is a system engineering problem here, not a software problem (even if in the end, the almost last piece in the chain of event is a software problem)