MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 93po | 2025-12-17 05:19:23+00:00
Electrek notoriously lies and fibs and stretches the truth to hate on Tesla and Elon as much as possible when it serves their own best interests.

This one is misleading both in that 8 "crashes" is statistically insignificant to draw conclusions as to its safety compared to humans, but also because these 'crashes' are not actually crashes and instead a variety of things, including hitting a wild animal of unknown size or potentially minor contact with other objects of unspecified impact strength.

They make other unsubstantiated and likely just wrong claims:

> The most critical detail that gets lost in the noise is that these crashes are happening with a human safety supervisor in the driver’s seat (for highway trips) or passenger seat, with a finger on a kill switch.

The robotaxi supervisors are overwhelmingly only the passenger seat - I've never actually seen any video footage of them in the driver seat, and Electrek assuredly has zero evidence of how many of the reported incidents involved someone in the driver seat. Additionally, these supervisors in the passenger seat are not instructed to prevent every single incident (they arent going to emergency brake for a squirrel) and to characterize them as "babysitting to prevent accidents" is just wrong.

This article is full of other glaring problems and lies and mistruths but it's genuinely not worth the effort to write 5 pages on it.

If you want some insight on why Fed Lambert might be doing this, look no further than the bottom of the page: Fred gives (sells?) "investment tips" which, you guessed it, are perpetually trying to convince people to sell and short Telsa: https://x.com/FredLambert/status/1831731982868369419

Feel free to look at his other posts: it's 95% trying to convince people that Telsa is going bankrupt tomorrow, and trying to slam Elon as much as possible - sometimes for good reasons (transphobia) but sometimes in ways that really harms his credibility, if he actually had any

Lambert has also been accused of astrotrufing in lawsuits, and had to go through a settlement that required him to retract all the libel he had spread: https://www.thedrive.com/tech/21838/the-truth-behind-electre...

That same source also touches on Fred and Seth's long history of swinging either side of the bandwagon in attempts to maximize personal gain off bullshit reporting. And basically being a massive joke in automotive reporting.

The owner of Eletrek, Seth Weintraub, also notably does the same thing: https://x.com/llsethj/status/1217198837212884993
by aw1621107 | 2025-12-17 05:19:29+00:00
Woah! Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective and thoughts! It's a lot of food for thought. I wish I had the background and knowledge to discuss things on equal footing :(

Just a few additional questions/comments:

> Specifically, Haskell, the language as defined, achieves ad-hoc polymorphism by passing a dictionary parameter to functions using overloaded function names. This is done using the standard terms in Haskell and has a clear denotaional semantics for such terms. Rust usage of traits is talked about and reasoned about as a more primitive part of the language, not just a pretty piece of sugar with a more basic existence in the formally defined core of a programming language.

Would it be accurate to say that Swift's non-monomorphized generics are more along the lines of the Haskell approach you prefer (i.e., single function implementation with a separate parameter for additional type info)?

And a bit more hand-wavey, but IIRC Rust's generics were defined in such a way that monomorphization is technically an implementation detail; in other words, I want to say a Haskell-like approach isn't strictly ruled out. I'd take that with a large grain of salt, though.

> If ad-hoc polymorphism is something a language designer wants to incorporate into the usage of a language, my position is that defining a typeclass style sugar over a clearly defined set of terms in the core, formally defined language would be at least a method of prohibiting issues with the resolution, definition, and various methods of implementation of ad-hoc polymorphism polluting the syntax and semantics of the language itself. But the above requires a firm definitional boundary between what is the language and what is syntactic sugar to be built into the definition of the language and built into the compiler infrastructure.

Might MiniRust [0] be something along the lines of what you would desire? It seems to fit the general idea of a smaller formally-specified "core" language. There's also this bit about traits specificlaly from the readme:

> That translation [from Rust to MiniRust] does a lot of work; for example, traits and pattern matching are basically gone on the level of MiniRust.

[0]: https://github.com/minirust/minirust
by nathanlied | 2025-12-17 05:20:53+00:00
I'm by no means defending throwing the baby out with the bathwater - which is what's happening when someone abandons a less-aligned company for a completely unaligned one - but I have a somewhat different perspective on what, exactly, ticks these people off so much with Framework but not Dell, even though Dell is ostensibly worse (from their perspective), and it's not all that unreasonable emotionally, but it leads to bad outcomes, and it is very much not rational.

For them, it's a problem of (perceived) hypocrisy. You see, Dell never claimed to be good. Nor did HP. They're big corporations, they've got contracts with the military, IDF, what have you. Their appeal, as it were, is the product/service itself. Their only ideal is the Capital, and they never pretended otherwise.

In comes Framework; claiming to be sustainable, different from the others, caring about society/the world/etc., instead of just in it for the Capital, like all the others - regardless of whether they really claimed this or not, it is how they're perceived by these people - and then they go and "do something like that", so they go back to Dell/HP, because at least those didn't lie about who they were. This is exactly what happens with Mozilla vs Google/Microsoft.

This is very much a reflection of a fair few Leftist political spaces. Two people may agree on pretty much everything in how a society should be ran, but one of them believes that private property is inherently theft, and another one would like to maintain private property. That singular difference, one that could be set aside until all other goals are achieved - if ever - will cause endless debate, drama, and ultimately a schism which will leave both sides weaker.
by rickcarlino | 2025-12-17 05:21:25+00:00
I hear this often but haven’t seen too many translation-free alternatives for the non-immersion tasks (eg: memorizing vocabulary for a standardized exam, daily study in a non-immersive environment). Have you seen any good monolingual techniques beyond “just get tons of exposure”?

I’ve been experimenting with monolingual vocab this month but it is too soon to say if I like it or not: https://rickcarlino.com/notes/korean-language/monolingual-vo...
by soxfox42 | 2025-12-17 05:21:52+00:00
This domain was registered today, yet the website claims "10,000+ Apps Created" and lists a copyright date of 2024. None of the links in the site footer work, nor does the "See How It Works" button. There's nothing to show that this site can even do what it claims, and it immediately requests payment without allowing you to verify that any given site will work with it.

Basically, I'm saying that this looks like a simple AI generated scam.
by ghqqwwee | 2025-12-17 05:22:00+00:00
Github, i.e. MSFT will of course adjust their offer if they would start seeing an significant exodus. They could afford being a loss leader indefinitely.

There’s also a large bunch of projects that will never leave, some of which ms have influence over. I mean, some high profile open source projects hasn’t even left source forge yet, even though it has been malware infested shithole for decades.
by _heimdall | 2025-12-17 05:22:07+00:00
You're not the only one raising that concern here - I get it and am not recommending what anyone else should do.

I've been driving for decades now and have plenty of examples of when I was and wasn't paying close enough attention behind the wheel. I was raising this only as an interesting different take or lesson in my own experience, not to look for approval or disagreement.
by gloryjulio | 2025-12-17 05:22:14+00:00
Wang is not Zuck's first choice. Zuck couldn't get the top talents he wanted so he got Wang. Unfortunately Wang is not technical, he excels in managing the labeling company and be the top in providing such services.

That's why I also think the hiring angle makes sense. It would actually be astonishing if he could turn technical and compete with the leaders in OAI/Anthrpic
by jsight | 2025-12-17 05:22:36+00:00
Yeah, I'm glad that they are trying to do a rate, the problem is that the numerator in the human case is likely far larger than what they are indicating.

Of the Tesla accidents, five of them involved either collisions with fixed objects, animals, or a non-injured cyclist. Extremely minor versions of these with human drivers often go unreported.

Unfortunately, without the details, this comparison will end up being a comparison between two rates with very different measurement approaches.
by Aloisius | 2025-12-17 05:22:46+00:00
Spelling it center provides the significant benefit of removing foreign orthography from English, making it easier to learn to read and write.

I see no value spelling it centre. That some other languages spell the word doesn't matter as they're pronouncing it without a vowel between the t and r which is rather different than English.

In French it's pronounced santr. In Italian it's sen-tro. In Czech it's tsen-troom. In Swedish it's sen-trum.

Languages that, like English, pronounce it with a vowel between the t and r? They spell it that way.

In Albanian it's qendër pronounced very close to rhotic English sen-ter.

In Norweigian it's senter (sen-ta) which is pretty close to non-rhotic English.

In Croation, it's centar (sen-tar).

In Lombard it's center.

In Swedish, the other word for center (meaning a center (place) or sports position) is spelled... center.

And even Czech, which spells it centrum, changes the spelling to center in the genitive plural, to match the pronunciation.

So even if we're going to choose spelling based on other languages, there's plenty that spell it similarly to center to argue for it in English - though I would still argue that other people are doing it isn't a compelling argument.
by okushigue | 2025-12-17 05:22:50+00:00
Transient Node Integration (TNI) allows launch vehicles and Starships to temporarily integrate with the Starlink laser network to achieve navigation <30 mm / <1 mm/s in real time, eliminating almost all orbital insertion correction budget (8–73 m/s savings per mission). TNI-R extends the concept to autonomous orbital rendezvous and refueling with docking accuracy <3 cm and a 40–63% reduction in total Δv. Implementable today with just a software update on the existing constellation + laser terminal.
by reactordev | 2025-12-17 05:22:51+00:00
>A 2025 Linux kernel with all recent features is able to boot on a system from 2006.

Because no one on the kernel team likes deleting code, specifically because someone will try to install it on their old ass work laptop from a decade ago.

Microsoft choosing not to support that old ass laptop is a company choice. There are costs involved with maintaining the support structure. Whereas Linux is primarily funded by enterprises who use it on servers, which may not be updated hardware wise in a longer period of time.

If Linus Torvalds or Miguel De Icaza introduce copilot, I swear I’m going to go all in on BSD.
by almosthere | 2025-12-17 05:23:51+00:00
Everyone seems to suggest the above narratives, but in truth this is just not the case. Maybe for 0.0000001% of the time it is the narratives above. But the truth is, if Putin or Jay Jones wants someone dead he will get the right spy and do it without a massive surveillance net.

No, the vast majority of the use case is stopping crime that today we can't stop. I want the crime to stop.
by ssl-3 | 2025-12-17 05:24:54+00:00
I thought the point was about baking bread?

I've never baked a loaf of bread.

I've never baked anything more complex than a pre-packaged cornbread mix, or a frozen pizza.

Baking has always been someone else's problem.

But having now skimmed through this bit of weirdly-formatted writing, I might give it a shot.

(Oh, and of that formatting: It reminds me a bit of what suck.com looked like in the mid-late 1990s. I still have the sticker they sent me stuck to a thing ~30 years later, but the suck-branded Gold Circle Coin condom they sent with it got mangled pretty bad in the mail.)
by furyofantares | 2025-12-17 05:25:22+00:00
> This seems like a weirdly high number to me, it's very rare to find any vehicle that reaches 100k miles without at least one bump or two requiring repair.

It goes seem like a high number to me - in 30 years of pretty heavy driving I've probably done about 500k miles and I've definitely had more than one incident. But not THAT many more than one, and I've put 100k miles on a few vehicles with zero incidents. Most of my incidents were when I was a newer driver who drove fairly recklessly.
by euroderf | 2025-12-17 05:25:23+00:00
You don't see many cops in Finland. You just don't.

Firstly because the social benefits system keeps a lot of people out of trouble ' call it bribery if you like, but it meets basic needs. Secondly because there's a lot of private "security" types around - for example in the supermarkets, keeping out drunks and dealing with shoplifters - letting the police focus on the real stuff.
by ashton314 | 2025-12-17 05:25:24+00:00
Right. The problem is that those languages are relatively permissive in their type systems. Obviously Rust can capture more in its type system than C can. You would probably want a type like “decreasing unsigned integer” for Rust and some way to enforce monotonic decreasing, which Rust doesn’t give you.

(Any experts on formal verification please correct any inaccuracies in what I say here.)

The upshot of it is that C, C++, and Rust permit too much behavior that isn’t capturable in the type system. Thus, the properties that you’re interested in are semantic (as opposed to syntactic; type systems turn semantic properties into syntactic ones) so Rice’s theorem applies and there’s no computable way to do the analysis right.
by typs | 2025-12-17 05:25:30+00:00
I grew up in a very warm place, then moved to a very cold place and was miserable. I’d never done a winter and every year I was deeply unhappy for huge spans of the year.

But then I moved to Denmark from that cold place and found myself very happy! Of course circumstances change and a single account means little but I definitely believe some societies lend themselves to greater happiness than others, even in the very developed world.
by Sam6late | 2025-12-17 05:26:05+00:00
I would like to rewrite it, replacing desires with hormones, since they are the drivers for desires, when young one could jump a wall, risking his/her life to see the one we desire, then in their fifties on a nude beach everybody looks and feels mundane. The defining experience of our age seems to be biochemical hunger. We're flooded with hormones that tell us to crave more, even when we already have more than we need. We're starved for balance while stimuli multiply around us. Our dopamine peaks and crashes without reason; our cortisol hums in the background like faulty wiring.

We live with a near-universal imbalance: the reign of thin hormones. These thin hormones promise satisfaction but never deliver. They spike and vanish, leaving behind only the impulse to chase the next hit. Philosophers once spoke of desires that change the self; today, our neurochemistry is being short-circuited before the self even enters the conversation.

A thick hormone is slower, steadier. It reshapes you in the process of living it—like the oxytocin that comes from trust, or the endorphins that build with persistence. But thin hormones—those dopamine flickers from notifications, likes, and swipes—do nothing but reproduce themselves. They deliver sensation without transformation, stimulation without growth.

Modern systems have perfected the art of hijacking our endocrine circuitry. Social media fires the neurons of connection without the chemistry of friendship. Porn delivers the hormonal spike of intimacy without the vulnerability that generates oxytocin. Productivity apps grant the dopamine signature of accomplishment with nothing actually achieved. We’ve built an economy not of meaning, but of molecules. And none of it seems to be making us more alive.
by visarga | 2025-12-17 05:27:03+00:00
I think the only non-slop parts of the web are: open source, wikipedia, arXiv, some game worlds and social network comments in well behaved/moderated communities. What do they share in common? They all allow building on top, they are social first, people come together for interaction and collaboration.

The rest is enshittified web, focused on attention grabbing, retention dark patterns and misinformation. They all exist to make a profit off our backs.

A pattern I see is that we moved on from passive consumption and now want interactivity, sociality and reuse. We like to create together.
by xvector | 2025-12-17 05:27:03+00:00
compensation for previous products just hasn't been the norm, and if it becomes the norm, countless humans will suffer due to the slowing of progress.

we will never be able to automate anything because the risk:reward ratio simply won't be there if you have to pay off millions/billions of people. progress will grind to a halt but i guess we'll have preserved some archaic jobs while our children are denied a better world

certainly the Industrial Revolution would never have happened with this mindset
by est | 2025-12-17 05:28:02+00:00
> An API you rely on changes, is deprecated, etc

Formal verification will eventually lead to good, stable API design.

> Users use something in unexpected ways

> Complex behavior between interconnected systems

It happens when there's no formal verification during the design stage.

Formal verification literally means cover 100% state changes and for every possible input/output, every execution branch should be tested.
by wraptile | 2025-12-17 05:28:25+00:00
There are several features that are only available if you self host github runners like this concurrency issue[1] that has been open for 3 years with the only solution being to use self hosted runners. So you'd expect at least a new product release that fixes these issues before they start rug pulling people.

1 - https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/32376
by prng2021 | 2025-12-17 05:29:29+00:00
That’s much older than when Zuckerberg founded Facebook. Also older than when Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google. We’re talking about running a tech company, not being a politician. Clearly there’s no need to be 50+ and have a bunch of “life experiences” to be successful.
by reactordev | 2025-12-17 05:29:35+00:00
The biggest culprit is the ad network script. Whether it’s a script tag, an iframe, an image pixel, it’s basically allowing the browser to send your visit event and user agent information (or the chrome updated headers) to that 3rd party and if it’s using jsonp, can callback a function on the page to inject malware that can take over your browser. Ask me how I know.

You think that’s base64 you’re reading? Hmm. :)
by jsight | 2025-12-17 05:30:22+00:00
I spent a little bit of time poking at Gemini to see what it thought the accident rate in an urban area like Austin would be, including unreported minor cases. It estimated 2-3/100k miles. This is still lower than the extrapolation in the article, but maybe not notably lower.

We need far higher quality data than this to reach meaningful conclusions. Implying conclusions based upon this extrapolation is irresponsible.
by signa11 | 2025-12-17 05:30:27+00:00
one of us, one of us ! there are literally hundreds out there !

i for one have migrated to fvwm3 (https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3) almost everywhere i can. i don't think i am ever switching to anything else. reason: nothing better exists :o) not for the lack of trying mind you !

heck, even at work, where i log into a aws machine, i have it running with x-forwarding over an ssh session (using x2go) from within my mac. it looks something like this: https://ibb.co/DHYbM45J

unfortunately, i just realized, that on github, my config is not up to date, will update in a couple of days.

i would be remiss to not mention my huge thanks (fwiw) to mr. thomas-adam the current maintainer + project-lead of fvwm3. thank you !

ps-01: for folks getting into it, this: https://www.zensites.net/fvwm/guide/index.html is not-too-shabby a launch point.

ps-02: deep wiki has fvwm3 indexed here: https://deepwiki.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3
by cameldrv | 2025-12-17 05:31:06+00:00
Honestly I think it's more that he was backed into a corner. The Teslas from ~9 years ago when they first started selling "full self driving" as an option, had some OK cameras and, by modern standards, a very crappy radar.

The radar they had really couldn't detect stationary objects. It relied on the doppler effect to look for moving objects. That would work most of the time, but sometimes there would be a stationary object in the road, and then the computer vision system would have to make a decision, and unfortunately in unusual situations like a firetruck parked at an angle to block off a crash site, the Tesla would plow into the firetruck.

Given that the radar couldn't really ever be reliable enough to create a self driving vehicle, after he hired Karpathy, Elon became convinced that the only way to meet the promise was to just ignore the radar and get the computer vision up to enough reliability to do FSD. By Tesla's own admission now, the hardware on those 2016+ vehicles is not adequate to do the job.

All of that is to say that IMO Elon's primary reason for his opinions about Lidar are simply because those older cars didn't have one, and he had promised to deliver FSD on that hardware, and therefore it couldn't be necessary, or he'd go broke paying out lawsuits. We will see what happens with the lawsuits.
by bruce511 | 2025-12-17 05:31:08+00:00
This is going to be a terribly cynical comment, but I've noticed a trend here on HN to introduce laws to fix problems.

The short version is that, no, you can't law yourself out of this (or pretty much anything. )

Firstly, laws have national jurisdiction. There are no "all the countries agreed to this" laws.

Secondly, the US can't actually pass any laws anyway. Congress is deadlocked. It can't even get around to killing daylight saving clock changes (which passed the senate with unanimous support.)

Plus any laws (or, more recently executive orders) just end up in court forever. And when passed may, or may not, be enforced (or enforceable. )

And that's before I point out that big tech buys (sorry, "lobbies") govt in the first place. Apple, Meta, Google would all pay to make this bill go away.

Lastly, everyone seems to forget that interoperability leads to spam. Email is open and completely flooded. SMS is open and basically unusable. Whatsapp grew their user base in part because the experience was spam free. So even if laws declaring openness were proposed they would be far from universally supported.