MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by LorenPechtel | 2025-12-07 23:20:13+00:00
Sounds like a very good idea. I never got a math error notice but I've gotten a few that were fundamentally a case of transposed digits--and it was not one bit clear. You didn't report interest from ABC--but looking at my return it clearly shows interest from ABC. It would have been much easier if they said their files show more interest from ABC than you are reporting.
by __d | 2025-12-07 23:20:20+00:00
At a certain size (and government departments are absolutely large enough) it makes sense to manage software deployment centrally, from an internal package repository/cache.

Once that’s in place, the process for populating that repository can easily adopt locally modified versions of upstream software: defaults changed, bugs removed, features added, etc.

No one in a big business/government blinks at changing group policies for internal deployment. Changing the code is really very little different once the ability to do so is internalized.
by bawolff | 2025-12-07 23:20:33+00:00
I think the (overly utopian and unrealistic) ideological basis was not that students would neccesarily do better in traditional learning environments, but that they would become better self-learners and be able to teach themselves things that are relavent to their own needs which may differ from the official curriculum.

I doubt that happened, but i don't think this study would capture that if it did.
by crdrost | 2025-12-07 23:20:38+00:00
I'm not entirely sure what algebraic property you would prove with this, but you probably could prove something about it. The issue is that they have repeating continued fraction representations, and large numbers in the continued fraction correspond to very good rational approximations, and so you'd find that a bunch of these chosen at random have pretty good rational approximations, which assuming the denominator is co-prime to 10, probably means that it explores the space of digits too uniformly? Something like that.
by aetherspawn | 2025-12-07 23:20:45+00:00
> the generation of >400 milliwatts per square meter of mechanical power with a potential for >6 watts per square meter.

Keep in mind the power is fully mechanical so no electricity or control circuit is required. And based on the simplicity it seems like a good candidate to power something that you need to last 100 years with no maintenance for example.
by karmakaze | 2025-12-07 23:20:52+00:00
Or PReV. Amazing project!

I remember trying to get NeXTSTEP 3.3 running on x86 hardware, it was so fussy with the hardware it supported that I had to take apart 3 computers from the office as well as a personal (not mine) Everex cube PC. (That's just for what was used, I'd taken apart way more to try and fail with so many cuts on my hands.) Then there were so many precise moments where you had to hit keys, eject floppy, or other hardware shenanigans that it felt like playing Dragon's Lair.

Was finally able to get it to boot to 2-bit grayscale on a DECpc with a LocalBus video card and some kind of SCSI drives. [After a few days, I had to return the parts to the users' PCs]

The NeXTSTEP desktop was nice. Interface Builder though blew my mind.
by Subtextofficial | 2025-12-07 23:21:16+00:00
Essentially the title. I need testing on a scale I can't do on my own currently. Its a work in progress but I've been been utiliZing it with my limited capacities. Let's you connect any API account or ai service into an AGI precursor that builds itself towards each level of AGI determined by deep mind. It also has a full feature list and I'm happily open to open sourcing this for the betterment of humanity. It acts as n types of users would. If anyone has recommendations on implementing a proper setup for tracking, developing, and releasing updates with community support please reach out. Current cb rank: 8. (For my metrics).
by throwaway2037 | 2025-12-07 23:21:52+00:00
You raise a good point. No trolling: I wonder what languages they seriously considered? Example: I am sure the analysis included C in the mix. Also, I wonder if they considered compiler extensions. Example: Since C doesn't have destructors, maybe you could add a compiler extension to add the defer keyword to allow people to schedule object destruction. Even when they decided upon C++, I am sure there was a small holy war to decide what features were allowed. When they started the JSF programmed in the 1990s, C++ compilers were pretty terrible!
by rokob | 2025-12-07 23:22:48+00:00
As a reviewer I at least skimmed the papers for every reference in every paper that I review. If it isn't useful to furthering the point of the paper then my feedback is to remove the reference. Adding a bunch of junk because it is broadly related in a giant background section is a waste of everyone's time and should be removed. Most of the time you are mostly aware of the papers being cited anyway because that is the whole point of reviewing in your area of expertise.
by teleforce | 2025-12-07 23:23:36+00:00
My point is that the article is devoid of the significant contributions made in the so called dark ages as so many technical and technology articles with historical background posted in HN [1].

>What your [3] says is that he was first "to present the concentric spheres model", it points out how it "was a modification of the system of planetary motion proposed by his predecessors, Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) and Ibn Tufail (Abubacer). He was unsuccessful in replacing Ptolemy's planetary model, as the numerical predictions of the planetary positions in his configuration were less accurate than those of the Ptolemaic model" .

Imagine if in the future scholars were dismissing Newton's novel contributions to astronomy because his physics model is not that accurate compared to Einstein's. Or even more ridiculous if their future articles point to Ptolemy and straight to Einstein skipping Newton.

>Making incorrect claims of primacy tarnishes that glory.

We can debate about the accuracy later but your comments were missing the forest for the trees, of western biased scholars making their scientist/engineers/technologist contributions even more significant or using your own word "more primacy". The idea is that they (Renaissance scholars) came up with the so called novel and great ideas (pardon the pun) that were originated from the Greek very simple elementary ideas and jump straight into Renaisance era sophisticated ideas, and conveniently skipping the true lineage of knowledge and scholarship in between them.

In research and scholarship this mentallity is frowned upon and illegal. The proper name of this immoral activities is plagiarism by not mentioning the prior reseachers who are you doing the same work and proposing valid ideas even if their work is less accurate than yours [2]:

"Plagiarism is the representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work."

[1] The Myth of the ‘Dark Ages’ Ignores How Classical Traditions Flourished Around the World [1]:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-myth-of-the-dark-...

[2] Plagiarism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
by fastball | 2025-12-07 23:24:17+00:00
You are reading too much into choice of term. The author explains their rationale for using "vanity" quite clearly:

> In business, a “vanity metric” is a statistic that sounds good but is not very useful.

It's not about you being "vain" for reading the newspaper, it's just a parallel to another widely used term the author co-opted.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-12-07 23:24:39+00:00
> Has private equity ever done anything good for anyone outside of the investors?

Yes. Productivity typically goes up [1]. Its reputation for job cutting is overblown [2], as is its record on price increases [3]. And historically, it's tended to decrease concentration in the industries it operates in. (The conglomerate break-ups of the 1980s were fuelled by new entrants and carve-outs.)

Instead, what I think we have is a category error. Berkshire Hathaway is a private equity shop as is all venture capital [4], and most family businesses of any scale are structured identically to sponsor-owned firms. Meanwhile, LBOs have been unable to shake the private-equity label for decades, unless they're lead by a founder, in which case they're "take private" transactions. In essence, we brand failed alternative asset strategies as private equity ex post facto.

Moreover, transaction size is negatively correlated with returns, particularly for leveraged buyouts. So the biggest private equity deals, which represent a minority of transaction activity, are disproportionately (a) bad and (b) public.

Finally, we get a lot of false conflation of market failures to private equity per se. Private-equity owned hospitals are bad [5]. But I haven't seen great evidence they're worse than other privately-owned hospitals with similar scale. The problem is hospitals probably shouldn't be run for profit or on-locally. But because nobody in particular is defending private equity, that's easier to attack.

[1] https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67233

[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/43495362

[3] https://centers.tuck.dartmouth.edu/uploads/cpee/files/Is_Pri...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_private_equit...

[5] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2813379#go...
by Full_Clark | 2025-12-07 23:24:47+00:00
Requirements about surcharge notifications and displaying all-up prices are nice, but the gap here will still be about enforcement and not regulation. The core problem for dollar-store shoppers in the US is about getting the retailers to honor the sticker price, not whether the sticker price shows all state and local taxes.

Is the Australian shopper protected simply by a stronger culture of adherence amongst retailers or is it because regulators inspect more often and take stronger action against failures?
by tracker1 | 2025-12-07 23:24:55+00:00
You don't use all it's feature, but if you need part of the 10% of features that Calc doesn't support, then your in a world of hurt.

When Calc gets the other 90% of the features Excel has, you also need to contend with word, Outlook, Visio and all the rest that Libre Office has a 0% solution for.

I support FLOSS... But pretending that anything else does enough for many orgs is delusional. There is work and pain to get through to even have a workable solution... And it won't be as good for a long while.

Massive cost savings are one of the bigger motivators... But that will be offset by the need for more internal staff.
by pron | 2025-12-07 23:25:12+00:00
Those of us who were programming in the nineties and before remember there was a lot of competition [1]; not less than today. It's just that not much of it survived to this day in any popular form. Also, C++ didn't have any stronger backer than Rust, at least not at first. (BTW, Go's introduction was closer in time to Python's or Java's than it is to today; both Go and Rust are already fairly old languages)

[1]: In the application space, there were VB, Delphi, Smalltalk, and a host of other so-called "RAD languages". In the scripting space, Perl was dominant. In the low-level space, we had the entire Pascal family, with Ada and, to a lesser extent, Oberon.
by dgroshev | 2025-12-07 23:25:23+00:00
Hey fellow failed applicant!

I had a very similar experience, except I got the automated email after two months, not three — you sound like a stronger candidate, so maybe that's why I got rejected sooner, which'd be fair enough. Still, spending about a week's worth of evenings between the suggested materials, reflecting, writing, and editing 15 pages for one job application and having zero human interaction feels uniquely degrading.

I disagree with your point about that being fine. I think it's not good enough to replicate the bare minimum of what the rest of the industry does while asking for so much more from candidates.

A standard custom, well researched cover letter takes an order of magnitude less effort. When it's cookie cutter rejected by someone spending a few seconds on the CV, it's at least understandable: the effort they'd spend writing a rejection (or replying back) is higher than the amount of effort they spent evaluating the application.

With Oxide however, Brian made a point that they "definitely read everyone's materials" [1]. Which means reading at the very least five pages per candidate. If that's still the case, having an actual human on the other side of the rejection would add a very small amount of time to the whole process, but the company decided to do the absolute least possible. It's a choice, and I think this choice goes against their own principle of decency:

"We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor."

I wish Oxide best of luck. They have lots of very smart, very driven people that I'd love to work with, and I love what they are doing. Hope this feedback helps them get better.

[1]: https://youtu.be/wN8lcIUKZAU?t=1400

P.S. Don't you dare, dear reader, consider the emdash above an LLM smell.
by literalAardvark | 2025-12-07 23:27:33+00:00
Cows are very safe for their herders, assuming there are no bulls (and there never are, those require containment). They can get defensive or spooked and then they're very numerous very large animals with hooves and horns, but their herders won't be the target of their aggression even if the herders are very mean. At least not intentionally.

Pigs are extremely dangerous to children in all cases (they will eat body parts with no hesitation and no effort, like carrots).

Goats are incredibly awesome and accept you as part of their pack and defend you from predators. They can also be assholes but playfully. As with cows, female only herds, as males are dangerous.

I've never herded sharks so I'll go with your opinion on those.
by jasonpeacock | 2025-12-07 23:27:33+00:00
OTECs are amazing, and step 1 of "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the galaxy in eight easy steps"[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project

There's a shore-based research OTEC in Hawaii, but the best is a floating, closed-loop OTEC in the ocean.
by gruez | 2025-12-07 23:27:35+00:00
Your original idea of "paying the marked (lower) price, walking away, even if the cashier corrected you with the higher price" certainly is novel. Otherwise can you link any sort of judicial ruling or even a random lawyer that agrees with you?Otherwise this looks suspiciously similar to all the spurious legal theories that sovereign citizens have, about how they don't need a drivers license because they're "traveling" or whatever.
by monerozcash | 2025-12-07 23:27:44+00:00
I don't doubt for a second that the S-400 has been used to shoot down some drones. The idea that it would be used to shoot down thousands of drones as you originally claimed is preposterous to anyone familiar with the S-400 system, that's simply not it's purpose.

The question is not whether or not the S-400 is capable of doing that, of course it is. It's not going to be very good at it, but if someone was willing to waste absurd amounts of money by using the wrong equipment they could certainly reach numbers like that.

Russia isn't stupid, they're not using the S-400 to shoot down thousands of drones. They have equipment better suited for that purpose. Russia does not currently, and will likely never have sufficient numbers of S-400 interceptors to routinely intercept cheap little drones with them.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-12-07 23:28:31+00:00
My slightly trollish reply: If you have infinite money, it is hard to fail.

Ok, joking aside: If it is considered a failure, what 100B+ military programme has not been considered a failure?

In my totally unqualified opinion, the best cost performance fighter jet in the world is the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. It is very cheap to buy and operate, and has pretty good capabilities. It's a good option for militaries that don't have the infinite money glitch.
by trueno | 2025-12-07 23:29:07+00:00
It is very much this, your types are insanely valuable to how quickly and effectively we can blast through massive bodies of work that are well beyond the scale of personal-hobby-project. We're in the annoying HR-involved process of revising the role internally to actually include the word 'Technical _' & the bullet points of expectations will demand such capacities. It's been an exciting shift for us and we've reappropriated non-technical product owners/managers to roles they are happier in (and believe it or not we are happy for them).

We didn't get it right the first, second, third, fourth or fifth time. I'd say as an org we are learning lessons that other orgs may have learned a decade ago, but it's just nice to come to these conclusions on our own & really understand how our setup came to be. We hope we remember that things can evolve again in the future, but are grateful that we journeyed together and didn't just throw in the towel and fire people when things didn't work out. We believe sending people through some fires of hell, reassessing, then reattempting is sort of a cycle that levels people up.

We hope to have more technical product guys on board up ahead cause it's a dream setup that really organizes and harnesses velocity in all the right places, but also effectively stops unnecessary side-quests. It's so nice to have a technical product guy step in and say "no" to some absurd executive request because he/she is well aware of what such an implementation would look like. They can actually be vanguards and stewards over development personnel in their own way and it seems to go hand in hand with a lot of mutual respect for each other. Always get a kick out of nerding out over possibilities with our technical product dudes.
by chongli | 2025-12-07 23:29:12+00:00
From what I've seen, they take a terrible business and liquify its valuable assets for their investors, freeing up capital to be invested more productively elsewhere in the economy. Of course those investors could take the money and commission a bunch of statues of themselves, but frequently they do something more productive than that.

A lot of the negative reaction to them seems to me to be mostly emotional. They'll dismantle a business that holds a lot of nostalgic value for people, even though it's long since ceased to be a viable and productive company. But it wasn't their fault that the business was in that situation in the first place! Years of mismanagement and neglect or perhaps disruption from a competitor left the business in zombie-like state. PE came along and put it out of its misery rather than allow it to slowly crumble while depreciating the value of its illiquid assets.
by phil21 | 2025-12-07 23:30:16+00:00
First few dozen cuts would suck.

After that it gets pretty easy, just time consuming. Keeping an old school saw sharp would be far more challenging.

I grew up in a household without power tools, and helped gut rehab a few friends houses. Certainly not exactly comparable, but you learn pretty quick sawing is at least as much about technique and skill vs brute strength and stamina.
by acjohnson55 | 2025-12-07 23:30:26+00:00
> it's a language made by academics for academics to play with language design. It was a little weird it blew up in industry for a while.

Yep. They have always been pretty honest about this.

I think that it blew up in industry because it really was ahead of its time. Type systems were pretty uncool before Scala. It proved that you could get OO and FP in a single type system.

Actually, a big part of reason for doing Scala 3 was rebasing the language on a more rigorous basis for unifying OO and FP. They felt that for all their other big ideas, it was time to rethink the fundamentals.
by hollow-moe | 2025-12-07 23:30:42+00:00
I'd bet they could absolutely proxy large parts of people and make use of these certs. I wonder how much are CT logs scrutinized, would these "rogue" certs be found easily because we can't find traces of them being generated by letsencrypt ? Browsers checks CRLs but are they checking CT logs to be ensure the cert they're checking was logged ?
by SilverElfin | 2025-12-07 23:30:49+00:00
I think the idea of digital sovereignty is important in a world with one or two superpowers. There are the national security reasons, like losing access to digital infrastructure or having content changed/amplified/censored can undermine other countries (the TikTok risk). But it’s also about having the room to compete. Countries outside the US cannot compete with existing winners like Amazon or Google or Microsoft unless they have help - and digital sovereignty campaigns can give any small competitors a captive set of customers to build with.

All that said, this post is from January and I think it isn’t really relevant anymore. The “WEF” brand is already poisoned, since it looks a lot like a big web of control, and in that sense it is no different than being controlled by American digital tech overlords or whoever else. This article also feels dated - the term has caught on already and countries are aware of risks after Trump betrayed numerous allies with unjustifiable tariffs and vile rhetoric.
by monerozcash | 2025-12-07 23:31:40+00:00
Multiple people who have seen the entire Snowden dump claim that various files leaked by specific sources were not contained within the Snowden dump.

Yes, the idea that the "second source" and TSB are the one and the same is necessarily based on conjecture. Nobody is presenting it as a fact, but as a rather likely option based on analysis of data released by TSB and NSA leaks which cannot be attributed to Snowden.

Both TSB leaks and "second source" leaks originate from the same time period, and the same locations within the NSA. That does not mean that they were leaked by the same person(s), but it is a fairly likely option.
by fastball | 2025-12-07 23:31:42+00:00
The article explained it fairly well. Re-iterating the credit card churning example: people will spend a lot of time optimizing their credit card spend, to end up with maybe a few hundred dollars in savings per year. Working 10 hours of overtime a year nets more and takes less time/mental capacity, for example. But it is fine to do this anyway if you let go of the "I'm saving money" schtick and just embrace that you like maximizing points on spend.
by JSR_FDED | 2025-12-07 23:31:46+00:00
Taxes in the US are unnecessarily stressful. I remember going to H&R Block and being sent home to find some piece of supporting documentation because it was “really important”. I turned the whole apartment upside down but wasn’t able to find it. Went back to the tax preparer in a state of high anxiety. When I asked what would happen if I couldn’t find the document and was told the impact on the final assessment could be as high as $80. Would have gladly spent 10x that to avoid the stress.
by mroche | 2025-12-07 23:32:15+00:00
I gave Notes/Plume a try a year or so ago, it was an interesting experience. I ended up falling back to Joplin as I could use it on macOS, iOS, and Fedora with synchronization via Dropbox.

I've always been curious about productizing apps like these, from a financial/business perspective have you found Daino worthwhile or enough of a success (by your standards) to continue developing it as a proprietary application?
by bluerooibos | 2025-12-07 23:32:33+00:00
> governance by elected officials is not democratic.

I'd agree that this is the case.

When billionaires, or the ruling class, own the media, and when you have media and capital lobbying influencing everything in government, who is actually in control of people being elected?

A great example is what happened when Jeremy Corbyn (socialist) did well in the UK elections. The media absolutely crucified him and made sure he didn't become the next PM. That's not a democracy.

It's a real hell of a mess we're in and I'm not sure how we go about changing it.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-12-07 23:32:35+00:00
Inspired by the computer in the wall in 1999 Sugata Mitra in which yes, just having a computer exist as a local curiosity lead to kids teaching themselves

https://waack.org/2010/04/27/put-more-computers-outside-the-...

https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_kids_can_teach_themse...