MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hashstring | 2025-12-23 10:30:32+00:00
Watch the video or read this report from Human Rights Watch [1].

> The Trump administration claimed that the majority of Venezuelans sent to CECOT were members of the Venezuelan organized crime group Tren de Aragua.

> Only [3.1% of the 226/252 Venezuelan prisoners in CECOT] had been convicted of a violent or potentially violent offense.

> Human Rights Watch reviewed documents in 58 of the 130 documented cases of people held in CECOT, and all indicated that they did not have criminal records in Venezuela or other countries in Latin America.

CECOT was already found to violate the UN’s minimum treatment of prisoners rights (aka “The Nelson Mandela Rules”) [2] by a report of the US.

Trump’s administration blatantly violates human rights.

Finally, here is a report investigating why the US can use the El Salavador prison [3].

> It has been clear from the beginning what Trump wants from El Salvador: an ally who would accept, and even imprison, deportees. Less clear has been what Bukele might want from the United States. In striking the deal with the Salvadoran president, Trump has effectively undercut the Vulcan investigation and shielded Bukele from further scrutiny, current and former U.S. officials said.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/11/12/you-have-arrived-in-he...

[2] https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Ne...

[3] https://www.propublica.org/article/bukele-trump-el-salvador-...
by yrand | 2025-12-23 10:30:54+00:00
Encountered one specific example about a month ago here on HackerNews - All about automotive lidar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46110395

Blog posts where I find quality really shows are usually about something I know next to nothing about how it works. A badly written article usually either goes really shallow or skips some facts when going into depth and requires catchup elsewhere to actually understand it. The lidar article from Main Street Autonomy goes beyond basics and explained everything from the ground up in such a connected way that it was a real pleasure reading it.
by malmeloo | 2025-12-23 10:31:01+00:00
Ha yeah, I agree the website isn't great. I set it up a while ago just so we have something to fill up the void. Right now it's just me and a professor of previously mentioned course who are actively involved in the project, so we've been mostly focused on the technical part.

That said, functionally speaking the extension is 90% of the way there. Synthesis, PnR, simulation, visualization and more all work for ECP5 & iCE40 FPGAs, and to limited extent some others as well. We have a few more features that we're working on, but a very solid basis already exists.

For technical reasons we have a bit of a deadline on finishing the project, which is likely in around ~6-7 months. So by then we intend to have a 1.0 release and very solid documentation out.
by Rochus | 2025-12-23 10:31:54+00:00
Raymond argues in the referenced book that while OOP has value in specific domains, its benefits have been oversold and its typical usage often conflicts with the core Unix philosophy of simplicity and transparency. I think that's a valid position, and hyping and overselling is a continuous fad in the programming industry, which is famously susceptible to what Fred Brooks called the "Silver Bullet" syndrome: the desperate search for a single magical technology that will solve the inherent difficulties of software engineering. The "simplicity and transparency" Raymond champions are indeed virtues, but they are also slogans used to rally a specific community. Just as "Memory Safety" is the rallying cry for Rust today, "Small is Beautiful" was the rallying cry for Unix in the 1970s.

The industry seems to advance not by finding a static "truth," but by lurching between opposing philosophies, each powered by its own wave of activism. I recommend to ignore the "moral" arguments, but to focus on the engineering trade-offs. Most "revolutions" are just rediscoveries of old ideas. Functional Programming is largely Lisp (1958) re-branded. The "Anti-OO" movement is partly a return to procedural modularity (Pascal/C). Our job is not to be "pure"; your job is to build working, maintainable software using the best tools we can find for the specific problem at hand.
by fsh | 2025-12-23 10:34:34+00:00
But Vivado doesn't get the job done. The intended workflow is to click around in the GUI until it (hopefully) synthesizes something. The state is then recorded in some proprietary project file that cannot be version controlled or shared with other developers. The workaround is to generate some unholy mess of tcl scripts that automate the clicking, such that one can start from scratch for each synthesis. The scripting mess breaks with each minor release of Vivado, so you need to either never update, or have a separate (~100 GB) Vivado installation for every single project. And if your chip is more than a home-gamer ZYNQ, you hopefully like paying subscription fees for the experience.
by mschuster91 | 2025-12-23 10:36:41+00:00
> You can get AtomiChron as an optional subscription with the SparkPNT GPSDO, for instance (https://www.sparkfun.com/sparkpnt-gnss-disciplined-oscillato...).

That's one hell of a healthy profit margin there O.o

The SiTime MEMS oscillator is about 100€ for one single chip, the mosaic-T GPS receiver is about 400€. Add 50€ for the rest (particularly the power input section looks complicated) and 50€ for handling, probably 600€ in hardware cost... sold for 2.500€.

The real money I think went into certification and R&D for a low-volume product - even though most of the hard work is done by the two ICs, getting everything orchestrated (including the PCB itself) to perform to that level of accuracy is one hell of a workload.
by ju2ez | 2025-12-23 10:38:38+00:00
Yann LeCun has long argued that current LLM-centric approaches are a dead end for AGI, advocating instead for world models grounded in richer representations of reality.
With his recent decision to build his next venture in Paris rather than Silicon Valley—alongside the rise of companies like Mistral and Hugging Face—Europe seems to be gaining credibility as a place for foundational AI research.
Is this an isolated personal move, or an early signal of a broader Silicon Valley → Europe shift driven by research culture, regulation, and geopolitics? What would need to change for Europe to sustain such a transition?
by hollow-moe | 2025-12-23 10:39:02+00:00
Got a MacBook for work recently, paired it to my AirPods I had for months, and it was funny noticing you could enable FindMy for them from the settings but they wouldn't show up in my devices on the map. Indeed, for this you need to pair with an iPhone or iPad. However it did enable the beacon on the airpods as the next day AirGuard notified a device was following me. And since, I can't disable it, the switch in the settings doesn't disable the beacon AirGuard still detects them. Even within their ecosystem they'll punish you for not being fully "part of the familly".
by nchmy | 2025-12-23 10:39:23+00:00
You're probably looking for something that is more focused on specific software decisions/implementations, but https://infrequently.org is the best web development blog out there.

It's not "technical" so much as it just educates you on how to be a good web developer/run a team. There's zero fluff and considerable detail (footnotes are practically blog posts themselves).
by KurSix | 2025-12-23 10:39:49+00:00
The most terrifying part here is the synergy between the AI feature and the security hole. An open stream from a static camera is one thing, but it's entirely different when you have an open-access AI agent that autonomously finds "interesting" targets, zooms in on faces, and tracks people between cameras. This transforms a passive data leak into an active, real-time stalking tool
by DrScientist | 2025-12-23 10:39:53+00:00
> If you cannot suppress air defense networks, you do not have anything close to air superiority. If you cannot fly missions in an airspace, you do not have superiority.

Isn't that my point? The balance has shifted.

BTW I did't say planes or aircraft carriers are not useful - just that they are not useful for the political reasons that are given. ie they are useful in bullying second rate countries - however that's not how defence spending is justified - it's all about existential threat of Russia/China etc.

>in order to keep the peace is madness.

Sorry that sentence was unclear - I didn't mean they are dismantling to keep the peace, I'm saying the organisation were set up to keep the peace post WWII.

My reading of why they are dismantling them is because they think these organisations and treaties constrain them - which is of course true - and by and large a good idea.

Bottom line if you build up weapons because you fear somebody, you create fear in the other and create a vicious cycle - good for the arms industry - no good for anybody else. The only way to break that is to talk, do deals, build trust.
by llmslave2 | 2025-12-23 10:40:10+00:00
It's a totally reasonable position that both regulation and companies exploiting users are wrong. And it's also entirely a moral assertion that markets should resolve to outcomes judged by members of some political apparatus. Likewise, the idea that a third party should interfere with economic relations between two consenting parties is also a moral judgement, not an absolute fact.

Most arguments in favour of regulation cherry pick what they feel are success stories and ignore everything else. Interfering with highly complex and dynamical self-regulating systems has a cost. There are many examples of regulation leading to negative outcomes, and it's also telling that large corporations push for regulation because it's one of the most effective obstacles for competition in a market.
by 15155 | 2025-12-23 10:40:20+00:00
So just use Google to obtain the documentation? Or a fake email? The PDFs are pretty easily obtainable by title:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gowin+user+guide+filetype%3A...

https://www.google.com/search?q=gowin+primitives+filetype%3A...

https://www.google.com/search?q=gowin+gw1n+filetype%3Apdf
by amelius | 2025-12-23 10:41:01+00:00
I agree but I think that writing yet another IDE extension is not going to solve the problems. An IDE will bring you one step further away from the actual hardware, and makes it more difficult to solve unexpected problems. Also, not everybody likes IDEs, some just prefer Vim and the commandline. An IDE is not the magical solution here.

Instead of focusing on the IDE, maybe focus on a build system. Look at how PlatformIO does it.
by timr | 2025-12-23 10:41:04+00:00
Yes, I understand your claim that things are tighter now; I've repeatedly acknowledged that fact, and in any case, I have no personal basis to dispute the argument. But again, that's not related to the point I'm making.

One last time: OP was complaining that the group has to spend all of it's time raising funding, but that's always been true in my lifetime. There's never been a magical age where being a PI (or even a senior lab member) wasn't a perpetual process of raising funds, and anyone going into science should know this. Hence my comment: welcome to academia.

For whatever it's worth, this is basically reason #1 that most PhD grads I know voluntarily jumped off the hamster wheel. Anyone who gets a PhD and expects to be doing labwork as a PI is deeply deluded, and it needs to be shouted for the folks in the back: you are signing up for a lifetime of writing grants, teaching classes, and otherwise doing bureaucratic schleps. The current administration did not suddenly make this true.
by tclancy | 2025-12-23 10:41:05+00:00
> Frankly, I wish Apple had the non-binary balls to simply just cut off all iPhones in Europe rather than bend to EU despot dictates

Perhaps you should come back when you’re less emotional. Suggesting incredibly poor value for shareholder decision while also being hateful (non-binary balls, indeed) is showing the whole ass. Never go whole ass.
by attila-lendvai | 2025-12-23 10:41:28+00:00
a gift? isn't that the result of all your past efforts?

i mean, if you want it, then do it. if not, then there's nothing to be sad about.

IOW,

"I am I, and you are you. I do my thing, and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
If by chance we meet, it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped."
— Fritz Perls (1893–1970), 'The Gestalt Prayer' (rephrased)
by withinboredom | 2025-12-23 10:41:43+00:00
Nagles algorithm does really well when you're on shitty wifi.

Applications also don't know the MTU (the size of packets) on the interface they're using. Hell, they probably don't even know which interface they're using! This is all abstracted away. So, if you're on a network with a 14xx MTU (such as a VPN), assuming an MTU of 1500 means you'll send one full packet and then a tiny little packet after that. For every one packet you think you're sending!

Nagle's algorithm lets you just send data; no problem. Let the kernel batch up packets. If you control the protocol, just use a design that prevents Delayed ACK from causing the latency. IE, the "OK" from Redis.
by pzmarzly | 2025-12-23 10:42:06+00:00
With homebrew, you can have Brewfile that can serve as declarative source of truth.

I try to install all software via homebrew, mise (https://mise.jdx.dev/), and scoop (https://scoop.sh/), and setting up a new machine now takes me minutes. Meanwhile I don't need to deal with Nix language.
by liampulles | 2025-12-23 10:42:26+00:00
What I've wondered about is whether there is a use in having an LLM that operates on AST symbols (or some IR representation) as input and/or output. It would be language specific of course (though maybe using something like MLIR is somewhat portable), but I would think it would result in a higher quality neural network, a reduction in tokens, etc.
by rplnt | 2025-12-23 10:42:43+00:00
I used to use GIMP as an example of OSS desktop applications having bad UX, I mean back around 2010 maybe. The UX felt plain horrible. Anything I every tried there was pain to achieve. And there was plethora of desktop applications having the same issue back then. "Geeks can't do UI".

I feel like that has changed? Even Blender felt good the last time I used it, Firefox became kinda fine, though these are probably bad examples as they are both mainstream software. But what about OSS that is used primarily by OSS enthusiasts? What about GIMP now?
by deepintodev | 2025-12-23 10:42:53+00:00
I wrote a book about the inner workings of the V8 engine. It's around 50 pages, and every page contains valuable information, there’s no bs or AI slop. I explain how your JavaScript engine turns human-readable code into bytecode and eventually into 1s and 0s, and how JavaScript manages its single-threaded behavior without breaking.

I wrote everything in a way that anyone can understand. It’s the kind of book I wish I had when I was trying to learn how JavaScript really works and executes code.

It’s free for 4 days. I’m not asking you to read the whole book, but I would really love to get your feedback.

(I’ll delete this post after 3 days since after that it might look like I’m promoting a paid product.)
Show HN: Tessera Designer – Generate beautiful, seamless patterns
by SwiftedMind | 2025-12-23 10:43:08+00:00
Hey,

A few weeks ago I randomly decided to build a seamless pattern engine for Swift/SwiftUI projects. I called it Tessera (GitHub link). It’s an open-source framework that lets you generate endlessly repeatable, seam-free patterns from pretty much anything you can build in code: shapes, SF Symbols, emojis, text, custom icons, etc.

While working on it, I also built a demo app so developers could see how to use the framework. However, that demo turned out to be so much fun to play with that I decided to turn it into a full app.

## Introducing Tessera Designer

Tessera Designer is a Mac app that wraps my Tessera engine in a UI that anyone can use. It comes with lots of symbols you can customize, and you can also add text, emojis, or your own images. The app then lays everything out to fill your canvas with a pattern.

There are 2 modes available:

Tile mode lets you design a single tile (a small square) that can be repeated endlessly without visible seams. Exporting gives you a small image you can use anywhere.

Canvas mode lets you create an export of a fixed size (great for wallpapers, postcards, etc.). In this mode, you can pin images/text to specific positions, and the app fills the remaining space with a pattern, so that they "flow" around your pinned elements.

You can then export tiles or canvases as PNG or as vector-based PDF (so it scales cleanly, as long as the elements you used are vector-based too).

## Roadmap

I’m actively working on new updates. For example, the next version will add a new placement mode for grid-based patterns, and I’m also working on bringing the app to iPadOS and iOS in the near future.

## AI Disclosure

The app itself does not use AI to generate anything. It's based on "traditional" algorithms that can generate these patterns.

However, I am using OpenAI's Codex CLI to collaboratively build this app. While I let Codex write most of the code, I am still deeply involved in and knowledgable about the code it produces. I am a professional software engineer, and coding is a passion of mine. I still make sure the code is clean, correct and well structured. I spend a lot of time refactoring, organizing and verifying the code. I still do most of the thinking and decisions on "how" I want a feature to be implemented, I just let Codex do the typing part that slows me down.

This is the first project I have worked on that is mostly written by AI. It's an experiment. I wanted to see how much faster I could build something I imagined. Traditionally, an app like this would have taken me much much longer to develop.

And I do believe the app is nicely built and well structured. I put a lot of care into making the user interface as well as the user experience as best as I can. This is also the first time I've worked on an app for the Mac, so it's a new experience for me as well.
by r0x0r007 | 2025-12-23 10:43:40+00:00
We, as developers are currenty using a technology where:
- we add things like 'You are an expert developer/DBA/{whatever}'
to improve its performance
- we add things like 'please' to make it work better
- we no longer code, we write novels that describe code(features)
- we pretend to be doing technical work, when all we do is write english,
often yelling and cursing at the technology
From the wannabe millionaire perspective that looks at devs and engineers like expenses, I get it.
You write what you want and you are promised to get it.

But as developers we need to push back and point out few things, beacuse of professionalism and safety:
- To describe a feature and get it, there are only 2 ways:
- LLM is soooo amazingly good and knows not just to code,
but what you need, what you meant and what you didn't mean,
it knows your business, knows your clients it knows everything,
it works alone it is amazing.
This will never happen, and certainly not with this technology.
- You are a technical user that is able to describe to llm exactly what you want,
all the important steps, and all the edge cases and important stuff.
Then you review it's code, fix it, prompt it more and so on.
In this case, there are several big issues:
- you already need to be a fairly experienced technical person
(which kind of beats the whole LLM point)
- you need to prompt the shi* out of it to make it work
- you need to spend many a hours debugging issues around code you didn't write
- you don't remember the code cause you didn't write it
- how can you add new features if you didn't write the code? Tests?
If LLM wrote them what's the point?
These are pretty serious roadblocks, why aren't people talking about them? Why the fuc* are we doing todo apps instead?
If llm's do everything what about new concepts, programming languages,paradigms?
Are we supposed to use same forms, code block for everything forever?
That might even be a good thing if the code was well written!
But the crux of it is, programming is technical, if you don't write code you
are not programming and are not meant to be churning out code. People could get hurt.
And llm is not at fault, you are, check the contracts and warnings.
If you are not programmming and are instead prompting, you
should think about switching to alternate carrer like a novelist or scriptwriter.
All is good, I just kind of wanted to ask you, did you actually buy the ticket and board the AI train?
by CraigJPerry | 2025-12-23 10:43:42+00:00
>> You could argue that NixOS hides a lot of complexity

They both have the same complexity in that scenario. Underneath it's very comparable configuration for both but Nixos provides an easy abstraction for that specific case.

If you can stay on the happy path with nixos then it's pretty lovely. I've even adopted nix-darwin for my mac's too.

I'd still deploy Redhat/Fedora over nixos on anything revenue generating though. The problem is when you have to come off the happy path in nixos and now you're debugging some interestingly written c++ code that evaluates a language that has a derivation expressing what you wanted done. Contrast with the redhat situation, it's simpler but less convenient in the general case.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-12-23 10:44:25+00:00
You're offering a dichotomy:

1. Qualia exist as something separate from functional structure (so p-zombies are conceivable)

2. Qualia don't exist at all (Dennett-style eliminativism)

But I say that there is a third position: Qualia exist, but they are the internal presentation of a sufficiently complex self-model/world-model structure. They're not an additional ingredient that could be present or absent while the functional organization stays fixed.

To return to the posthuman thought experiment, I'm not saying the posthuman has no qualia, I'm saying the red "TOXIC" warning is qualia. It has phenomenal character. The point is that any system that satisfies certain criteria and registers information must do so as some phenomenal presentation or other. The structure doesn't generate qualia as a separate byproduct; the structure operating is the experience.

A p-zombie is only conceivable if qualia are ontologically detachable, but they're not. You can't have a physicalism which stands on its own two feet and have p-zombies at the same time.

Also, it's a fundamentally silly and childish notion. "What if everything behaves exactly as if conscious -- and is functionally analogous to a conscious agent -- but secretly isn't?" is hardly different from "couldn't something be H2O without being water?," "what if the universe was created last Thursday with false memories?," or "what if only I'm real?" These are dead-end questions. Like 14-year-old-stoner philosophy: "what if your red is ackshuallly my blue?!" The so-called "hard problem" either evaporates in the light of a rigorous structural physicalism, or it's just another silly dead-end.
by fsniper | 2025-12-23 10:45:08+00:00
I only checked it with a mdr-zx770bn. And it was OK. But as I did check that with a breadboard, any noise could be attributed to bad connections/emi.

Now I'll check it when I work on this next time. Probably in the upcoming days. ( Still my current protoboard would be only a tad bit better )
by Rochus | 2025-12-23 10:46:09+00:00
Ada follows another philosophy than C and many developers. The 1979 Ada Rationale explicitly states "Readability is more important than writability". Jean Ichbiah, the creator of Ada, explained in an interview that "even if it takes a little longer to write it, it is far more important that a program be readable than writable. For 20 years after the program is written, programmers will have to read it to maintain it." This contrasts with the "fire and forget" attitude of many developers, which often manifests as a "write-once" culture, where the primary goal is to get the logic into the machine as quickly as possible, with little regard for the human who must read it later.