MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by chrisweekly | 2025-12-24 00:55:14+00:00
Related tangent: it's remarkable to me how a given jpeg can be literally visually indistinguishable from another (by a human on a decent monitor) yet consist of 10-15% as many bytes. I got pretty deep into web performance and image optimization in the late 2000s and it was gratifying to have so much low-hanging fruit.
by dmurray | 2025-12-24 00:55:21+00:00
> States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong

This is wrong. It's particularly wrong in the way that you draw a distinction between theory and practice. It's so wrong that it's backwards.

In theory, the states set age related rules. In practice, they must set them to what the federal government tells them to. This was established in the specific case in 1984 [0] when Congress realised that it could withhold funding to states based on how quickly they agreed with it, and in the general case in 1861 [1] when the United States initiated a war that would go on to kill 1.6 million people after some states asked it only to exercise the powers derogated to it in its constitution.

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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
by fuzztester | 2025-12-24 00:55:26+00:00
>How much publicity have you received?

Plenty. More than you ever will, in multiple lives.

One final telling point, for everyone here, not just for you, because, over time, I've detected a good deal of wimpishness, and ironically, at the same time, entitled attitude, along with racism and other forms of prejudice, among some/many of the HN echo chamber crowd around here:

If you're scared of downsides, you don't deserve the upsides, and probably have not got, and will not get many of the latter, ever.
by irishcoffee | 2025-12-24 00:55:31+00:00
Ignore meth. Do it again with wire fraud.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s ok to be wrong.

Daww, edit:

The seed for this thread was:

> It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example.
> What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling.

I pointed out that "unconstitutionality" wasn't accurate, because it isn't. You went on about jurisprudence whathaveyou. You moved the goalposts. I suppose I moved with them to try and make my point.
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-12-24 00:55:39+00:00
You don't entirely get to opt out.

If you crash into a BMW, you'll still have to pay for the now-inflated cost of the repair - most likely through the mandatory liability insurance. Insurance premiums have gone through the roof, to a big part not just due to insurance company greed but because cars and repairs to them became more expensive.
by martinald | 2025-12-24 00:55:42+00:00
In fairness VNC-style approaches are bloody awful even over my 2.5gbit/sec lan on very fast hardware. It just cannot do 4K well (not sure if they need 4k or not).

I spent some time compiling the "new" xrdp with x264 and it is incredibly good, basically cannot really tell that I'm remote desktoping.

The bandwidth was extremely low as well. You are correct on that part, 40mbit/sec is nuts for high quality. I suspect if they are using moonlight it's optimized for extremely low latency at the expense of bandwidth?
by xracy | 2025-12-24 00:56:05+00:00
Calling Bari Weiss "Center-Right" has got to be one of the more dishonest characterizations I've read. Or, you're going to need to claim that the Overton window has gone off the far-right deep-end such that the mere presence of a confounding social factor is enough to pull people from being "extreme" to being "Centrist."

I'd love to know what policy/opinion you think is "Moderate" from Bari Weiss, and which opinion piece of hers demonstrates it when compared to the sheer volume of Deep Conservatism she espouses in all of the rest of her work.

> It's worth noting, I guess, that she's also a lesbian...

This bit is solidly poisoning the well, because it gives you the ability to claim that any legitimate criticism about Bari Weiss Kowtowing to the current administration is because she's a lesbian, and not because she's legitimately censoring free speech like everyone claimed the news was doing before she started actually doing it.
by epistasis | 2025-12-24 00:57:32+00:00
Musk being a "bad guy" or "good guy" has zero to do with my comment, that's not adding any nuance. Also, "betrayal" of views has noting to do with my comment.

I think you were reaching for the word "nuance" without even reading my comment for what it says and the claims within.

> I don't believe it is possible to change anyone's deep set ideas. I have come to the conclusion that trying to is hurtful/spiteful.

That is a deeply pernicious belief. People change their deeply held views all the time. I have mostly consistent values, but those values lead to changing my views quite often.

Anybody that doesn't change their views is not worth talking to on any matter. What's the point? If a person's views can't change they can't share anything true because the chances of happening across the right views from the start is zero, so there's practically zero that can be learned from the person. And there's no changing their views either!

Strong views, loosely held...
by socalgal2 | 2025-12-24 00:57:51+00:00
> We already have android on that level.

You're missing the point. Apple isn't in trouble beacuse of user's choice between iPhone and Android. They're in trouble because of 20-50 headphone makers who Apple prevents from truely competing Apple for 2 billion iPhone users.

It's the same with all of these issues Apple (and Google) are running into. It's not about the user's choice to buy iPhone or Android. It's about 100s of thousands of businesses ability to reach those billions of users without a gatekeeper.
by nathan82 | 2025-12-24 00:58:08+00:00
It's not an extraordinary claim, it's a mundane and plausible one. This is exactly what you get when you ask an LLM to write in a "engaging conversational" style, and skip any editing after the fact. You could never prove it but there are a LOT of tells.

"The key insight" - llms love key insights!
"self-contained corruption-free" - they also love over-hypenating, as much as they love em-dashing. Both abundant here.
"X like it's 2005" and also "Y like it's 2009" - what a cool casual turn of phrase, so natural!
The architecture diagram is definitely unedited AI, Claude always messes up the border alignment on ascii boxes

I wouldn't mind except the end result is imprecise and sloppy, as pointed out by the GP comment. And the tone is so predictable/boring at this point, I'd MUCH rather read poorly written human output with some actual personality.
by kerkeslager | 2025-12-24 01:00:20+00:00
I don't think you're wrong per se. This is a "correct" way of thinking of the situation, but it's not the only correct way and it's arguably not the most useful.

A more useful way to understand the situation is that a language's major implementations are more important than the language itself. If the spec of the language says something, but nobody implements it, you can't write code against the spec. And on the flip side, if the major implementations of a language implement a feature that's not in the spec, you can write code that uses that feature.

A minor historical example of this was Python dictionaries. Maybe a decade ago, the Python spec didn't specify that dictionary keys would be retrieved in insertion order, so in theory, implementations of the Python language could do something like:

>>> abc = {}
>>> abc['a'] = 1
>>> abc['b'] = 2
>>> abc['c'] = 3
>>> abc.keys()
dict_keys(['c', 'a', 'b'])

But the CPython implementation did return all the keys in insertion order, and very few people were using anything other than the CPython implementation, so some codebases started depending on the keys being returned in insertion order without even knowing that they were depending on it. You could say that they weren't writing Python, but that seems a bit pedantic to me.

In any case, Python later standardized that as a feature, so now the ambiguity is solved.

It's all very tricky though, because for example, I wrote some code a decade that used GCC's compare-and-swap extensions, and at least at that time, it didn't compile on Clang. I think you'd have a stronger argument there that I wasn't writing C--not because what I wrote wasn't standard C, but because the code I wrote didn't compile on the most commonly used C compiler. The better approach to communication in this case, I think, is to simply use phrases that communicate what you're doing: instead of saying "C", say "ANSI C", "GCC C", "Portable C", etc.--phrases that communicate what implementations of the language you're supporting. Saying you're writing "C" isn't wrong, it's just not communicating a very important detail: what implementations of the compiler can compile your code. I'm much more interested in effectively communicating what compilers can compile a piece of code than pedantically gatekeeping what's C and what's not.
by brailsafe | 2025-12-24 01:00:27+00:00
> But the client said we (consultants) had done in two weeks what they couldn’t do in six months.

I think this is more of a consultant vs employee thing than it is senior vs not-senior. There's this weird dynamic that happens where BizOps defaults to trusting and spending more on consultants, granting them more autonomy, such that they're wildly more empowered to take any risk. Employees are to be delegated to by BizOps, and BizOps doesn't like taking risks. It's paradoxical, because unless you come in with that authority or you were there extremely early, you're unlikely to acquire it, much more-so after the company's been around a few years.

This seems to me where the term "hired gun" comes from. You pay someone who's incentivized to solve a discrete important problem with their expertise quickly, whereas all of your employees are incentivized to do things for amounts of time reliably over however long, answering to product managers, implementing whatever crap to get the sale, answering to useless managers every two weeks, planning, reviewing, retrospectiving, blah blah. The consultant isn't about to go doing a broad-scale refactor if they're not paid to, and there's no reason an employee should either.
by ironking | 2025-12-24 01:00:30+00:00
Hey guys, we have created a discord-like in-app chatrooms. BudgetPixel is a one stop generation platform. Users now can engage with others, chat with other users and friends and share the creations, too.
you can do that while waiting for your generations, especially video to come out, what do you think of this idea?

good or bad?
by xracy | 2025-12-24 01:01:37+00:00
The wider claim doesn't actually change anything about the discourse. You have not contributed to the discussion, because you've provided no additional information about whether or not the underlying claim is true. We are no closer to truth because of your comment. So you have not "dispelled the mistaken belief that stereotypes are mostly false in general" because we can't make an active assumption about this stereotype without directly proving it.

So... Their original point stands without direct evidence against it. As you have not provided direct evidence, your point is moot.
by YmiYugy | 2025-12-24 01:02:18+00:00
I think it's fair to say that Safari is no longer late.
That comes with 3 caveats.

1. Safari isn't updated independently of the OS, so users who don't update or whose iPhones don't get updates anymore will be forever stuck on old Safari versions.

2. Being timely on new features does little to alleviate the pain that comes from all the old messiness.

3. Different priorities driven by economic incentives of protecting their 30% cut. Fair enough. But shutting out alternative web engines on iOS is definitely a dick move.
by temp0826 | 2025-12-24 01:03:23+00:00
I would often ask questions I knew the answer to (or mostly knew the answer to) just to get insight into someone's point of view, or to give insight into my point of view (usually coming from ops/administration/devops pov), and sometimes as a way to subtly point out that they are doing something terribly inefficient from the 10000 ft view (usually to more junior devs who have tunnel vision on their cog).
by martinald | 2025-12-24 01:03:46+00:00
The problem is I think that they are using moonlight which is "designed" to stream games at very low latency. I very much doubt that people need <30ms response times watching an agent terminal or whatever they are showing!

When you try and use h264 et al at low latency you have to get rid of a lot of optimisations to encode it as quickly as possible. I also highly suspect the vaapi encoder is not very good esp at low bitrates.

I _think_ moonlight also forces CBR instead of VBR, which is pretty awful for this use case - imagine you have 9 seconds of 'nothing changing' and then the window moves for 0.25 seconds. If you had VBR the encoder could basically send ~0kbit/sec apart from control metadata, and then spike the bitrate up when the window moved (for brevity I'm simplifying here, it's more complicated than this but hopefully you get the idea).

Basically they've used the wrong software entirely. They should try and look at xrdp with x264 as a start.
by gmane | 2025-12-24 01:04:30+00:00
One of my favorite interview questions for senior positions is "Tell me about a decision you made that you would change in hindsight." Junior level people and people who are otherwise unfit for the role will try to give answers that minimize their responsibility or (worst case) have no examples. Senior level people will have an example where they can walk you through exactly how they messed up and what they would have done differently. Good senior level candidates examine their mistakes and are honest about them.
by ksymph | 2025-12-24 01:04:42+00:00
Lua's nature as a primarily embedded language means backwards compatibility is not guaranteed between any version. If 5.2 was a language fork then so was 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, etc. (5.2 did have some more significant changes though)

For that reason luajit staying at ~5.1 actually works in its favor. Rather than trying to follow the moving target of the newest version, it gives a robust focal point for the lua ecosystem, while modern versions can be developed and continue to serve their purpose in embedded systems and whatnot where appropriate.
by EGreg | 2025-12-24 01:04:51+00:00
Better to have systems in place to stop people stockpiling weapons, than not have it. Just because not all murders can be prevented doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws and systems in place to try to prevent as many as we can. The FBI and Interpol does all kinds of stuff, but when it comes to AI they are letting the horse leave the barn. In any case, I prefer to have systems that prevent all kinds of problems (e.g. blockchain-based smart contracts, yes I know LOL) than let them happen and try to clean up the mess after the fact.

In general, cleaning up a mess is easier when the mess isn't self-preserving and being grown at an exponential scale by swarms of agents running on dark compute.
by DebugDruid | 2025-12-24 01:05:47+00:00
I think criticizing JavaScript has become a way of signaling "I'm a good programmer." Yes, good programmers ten years ago had valid reasons to criticize it. But today, attacking the efforts of skilled engineers who have improved the language (given the constraints and without breaking half of the web) seems unfair. They’ve achieved a Herculean task compared to the Python dev team, which has broken backward compatibility so many times yet failed to create a consistent language, lacking a single right way to do many things.
by bsimpson | 2025-12-24 01:06:01+00:00
That was originally what Dart was created for.

Beside all the rabblerousing that it came from the same company as Chrome, there was a real concern about compatibility and spreading the platform too thin, if every engine had to maintain multiple VMs in parallel.

It seems like the only language browsers will ever have is JavaScript (although it's still up to us to decide how that language evolves over time).
by criddell | 2025-12-24 01:06:06+00:00
Even phones these days have pretty good scripting environments (thinking of Shortcuts on iOS).

I’ve had really good luck with Claude helping me write shortcut scripts. For example, I wore a CGM this year for a bit and I couldn’t find an easy way to get the raw data. It did log everything to Apple Health and a shortcut was able to extract it and append it to a spreadsheet where each row was a reading.
by anonymous908213 | 2025-12-24 01:06:47+00:00
Interesting article which reinforces my decision to never engage with web development in any manner other than throwing WASM paint on a Canvas.

> But a purpose-built game framework like Unity would have polyfill to protect you from more of these layout and audio problems

Unity doesn't polyfill, it just relies on WASM for everything which results in significantly more consistent behaviour provided your browser supports WASM to begin with.

> Unity and Godot might be better choices, but I have no experience with them and I assume they only make sense for games.

Unity has been used for non-game purposes successfully, and there are also other WASM-compatible frameworks specifically targeting non-game GUI use cases.
by vegabook | 2025-12-24 01:07:09+00:00
Lua has been a wild success considering it was born in Brazil, and not some high wealth, network-effected country with all its consequent influential muscle (Ruby? Python? C? Rust? Prolog? Pascal? APL? Ocaml? Show me which one broke out that wasn't "born in the G7"). We should celebrate its plucky success which punches waaay above its adoption weight. It didn't blindly lockstep ALGOL citing "adooooption!!", but didn't indulge in revolution either, and so treads a humble path of cooperative independence of thought.

Come to think of it I don't think I can name a single mainstream language other than Lua that wasn't invented in the G7.
by Daub | 2025-12-24 01:07:41+00:00
I used to demonstrate PS1 in my digital painting class. I would show that without a layer-based system it was still possible to create a composite using calculations feature. The process is incredibly simple… an alpha, a foreground and a background plus some addition and multiplication. Even art students understand it. I’m still blown away by how much functionality they managed to squeeze into an executable small encounter to email to someone.

FYI.., the version I used was registered to Apple. Apparently, the Knoll brothers demoed PS to apple and they promptly shared it amongst themselves and their buddies. Almost all illegitimate copies of it are derived from that pirated copy.

Fun fact… John knolls wife was the founding member of the Photoshop ‘Widows’ club… a home to people who have lost loved ones to software.
by BanazirGalbasi | 2025-12-24 01:07:43+00:00
> either way, at least you can't toggle between indexes starting at zero and one

You can, you just have to explicitly assign something to a[0]. Lua doesn't have real arrays, just tables. You have to do it for every table you use/define though, so if you mean "toggle" as in change the default behavior everywhere then I believe you are correct.
by malmeloo | 2025-12-24 01:08:07+00:00
Yes! YoWASP is fantastic. In fact, that extension came to be after we contracted the dev to create NPM packages for the WebAssembly bundles they're maintaining. We use the exact same bundles if the extension detects that it is running in a browser (or if the user explicitly wants to use them). However, if possible we prefer to download and maintain native tool bundles for performance reasons.

Their VSCode extension is a lot more basic than ours, but it might be more suitable for advanced users. It's basically just a wasm tool runner that you pass command line options into, whereas we also include things such as project management and various visualization options. Which one to use depends on what your needs are, really.
by stevenjgarner | 2025-12-24 01:08:15+00:00
A single dose of psilocybin restructures mouse brain connectivity by strengthening inputs from perceptual and medial networks while weakening cortico-cortical loops, a process driven by drug-evoked neural activity that can be modified by silencing specific presynaptic regions.

Interesting video about this paper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3_GUilpnk
by macintux | 2025-12-24 01:08:31+00:00
You’re talking about Trump who is publicly demanding certain people be prosecuted, so point 1 is wildly invalid.

Point 2 is highly debatable, and the mass cruelty of the current administration is considered by many to be worse than what it’s replacing. It’s certainly a stretch to call that corruption.

Point 3: again, with Trump you’re talking about a 79 year old man who can’t stay awake through a recorded meeting.

Point 4: there’s nothing, nothing in 21st or 20th century U.S. presidential politics compared to the vast sums of money being directed into Trump’s family pockets.
by overfeed | 2025-12-24 01:09:49+00:00
> Many gays (or “non-heteronormative” as you say) are anti-woke.

That doesn't mean other conservatives dont see gay rights and marriage equality as "woke". You just proved my point though, "woke" is the bespoke set of things you don't like.

Do you want links to the numerous instances of conservatives lumping the existence of gays with being "woke"? Or before they hijacked the term, derided the "gay agenda"? Even the Log Cabin Republicans cried uncle[1]

1. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-fl...
by jibal | 2025-12-24 01:10:10+00:00
What exactly does "open" mean when used as a qualifier for "source"?

The fact is that your claim "“open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean ==>that<== when combined into one phrase" is simply false, as there is no "that".

> Same with free software, in a way.

This is a much more supportable argument, but note the change in wording: "free software" is not the same as "free source". The latter suggests that one doesn't have to pay for the source, but says nothing about what one can do with the source or one's rights to software built from that source.

As for "free [as in freedom] software", I think there would have been less contention if RMS/FSF had called it "freed software" or "liberated software", and it would have been more consistent with their stated goals.

> Programmers really are terrible at naming things.

This is silly sophism based on one anecdote that you didn't even get right. Naming things well is hard, and names in software have conditions that don't exist in more casual circumstances. The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.