MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by eigenspace | 2025-12-28 17:52:20+00:00
Julia isn't for everyone, but it certainly is for me. I find it to be a very flexible, interesting, and powerful language with a vibrant, developer community.

If you are just programming using pre-existing libraries, and using those libraries the way the author intended them to be used, then for most cases Python is probably fine, but if you are doing something relatively novel that some big framework doesn't cover for you, that's where I think Julia really stands out and makes a big difference relative to Python.

I really recommend giving it a try.
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-28 17:52:33+00:00
Yeah, that's not how technology deployments work, nor ever worked. Basically, there is a "cat is out of the bag" moment, and after that, it's basically a free-for-all until things get organized enough for someone to eventually start pushing back on too much regulation. Since we're just after this "cat is out of the bag" moment and way early for "over-regulation", companies of course ignore all of it and focuses on what they always focus on, making as much money while spending as little money as possible.

Besides general strikes, there isn't much one can do to stop, pause or otherwise hold back companies and individuals from deploying legal technology any way they see fit, for better or worse.
by ClipNoteBook | 2025-12-28 17:52:35+00:00
Thanks for the reply. To be honest I love the coding part, but getting users or even testers to actually try the tool is a nightmare for me. I am still trying to figure out a clean way to commercialize my projects without getting flagged as spam everywhere.
And yeah the building in public idea is exactly what I just started doing. If you are curious, I have a blog page for the tool where I am writing what I am learning. Happy to share the link: https://clipnotebook.com/blog
by promptfluid | 2025-12-28 17:53:20+00:00
Good questions. Records aren’t public by default — they’re decoupled from accounts, not from access control.

The benefit is durability and reuse: records can persist, move, or be re-associated without being owned by a single app or login. Identity is layered on top rather than baked in.

Tools operate on records they have explicit access to (by Star / capability), not global visibility. Spam is constrained by identity cost and rate limits, same as any system — decoupling doesn’t imply openness.

If this ends up being a bad abstraction, I want that to fail visibly rather than hide behind a conventional model.
by dingi | 2025-12-28 17:53:27+00:00
I have a lot of nostalgia for Canonical. I still remember the excitement of receiving those free "ShipIt" CDs in the mail; Ubuntu 8.04 was my gateway drug into the Linux ecosystem, and I'll always be thankful to them for making Linux feel accessible back then.

That said, I find myself increasingly at odds with the direction they're taking. The whole Snap vs. Flatpak debacle is exhausting, and personally, I'm not a fan of either. I'd take a standard apt repo over containerized desktop apps any day. Seeing core applications migrate to Snaps and the recent decision to move coreutils to alternate implementations feels like a bridge too far for my taste.

There's also the creeping Proprietary integrations to consider. To be honest, this is more of a philosophical stance than a practical one. Ubuntu is still a fantastic "get work done" distro, and I still use it on my office laptop because it just works and it's the only destro that got my employer's stamp of approval.

But for my personal setup? I've moved on. It's Arch for the desktop and Debian for servers. Nothing else really hits that sweet spot of control and simplicity for me anymore.
by caseysoftware | 2025-12-28 17:53:31+00:00
> If that's true, then 12-15k miles in an EV would be equivalent to 27-33k miles in a gas car in the externalities of road wear & tear.. so "taxes equivalent to 35k miles" is at most 25% higher in a "damage per mile equivalent" but could be as little as 6% using the averages.

^ As you quoted, I used the formula to estimate 12k would be equivalent to 27k and said paying taxes equivalent to be 35k miles is "at most 25% higher", neither of which is "12 = 35". My analysis (using their approach) calculated it to 15625 specifically, again, not 12k.

If the underlying approach is wrong, we should replace it with something better.

Alternatively, the OTHER reasoning of "the rich should pay more" still applies, so I assume that's a factor here. Hoping States charge rich people (or high income earners, if you prefer) less isn't likely to work right now.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-12-28 17:53:33+00:00
> marquee tags were a missed opportunity to implement horizontal scrolling often used on shopping websites. Now it uses JS to achieve the same.
I have been trying to find other more commonly known UI patterns that could be done natively.

Are you sure you are talking about the functionality of the marquee tag? What exactly do you mean by "implement horizontal scrolling often used on shopping websites. Now it uses JS to achieve the same"?

For a banner-type text "Sale: 50% off until New Year" I can imagine this. And this is possible without JS, by using a CSS animation on translateX (I think you need to pass the initial width of the content one time from JS to CSS via a custom property IIRC, and update that variable on resize, for example using a ResizeObserver).

But – sorry if this a misunderstanding – I have a sneaking feeling that you might also have things in mind like swipable horizontal lists etc?

This is also possible using CSS in theory (scroll-snap and overflow-auto, and CSS to hide the scrollbars). But last I tried to use it, it simply wasn't good enough to sell it, compared to a fat JS library that did the trick, perfectly, on mobile and desktop.

When it comes to UX niceties, I feel it's pretty common to have HTML+CSS solutions that are good enough in theory, but suck in practise.

For the horizontal scrolling with "snap", I would also like a good JS-free solution. But I feel that the more interactive and complex the UX patterns become, it would be senseless bloat to build a specific implementation into the platform.

I think that "autocomplete" inputs are a good example for this, as discussed in another thread.

I once tried to implement a custom autocomplete using datalist (including dynamically updating the list with xhrs). In the end, the native element had so many issues that it was a waste of time and a JS solution was way better. At the time, that JS solution was Alpine.Js, because it was a b2b app with minimal a11y requirements and JS-allergic developers.

Within an hour, I was polishing keyboard use while the "near-native" solution using datalist was broken in a thousand different ways in every browser and in the end didn't work well at all.
by 578_Observer | 2025-12-28 17:54:29+00:00
That's a fair point.

In banking terms, you are treating AI code as "OPEX" (Operating Expense) rather than "CAPEX" (Capital Expenditure).
As long as we treat these $60 quick-fixes as "depreciating assets" (use it and throw it away), it’s great ROI.

My warning was specifically about the danger of mistaking these quick-fixes for "Long-term Capital Assets."
As long as you know it's a disposable tool, not a foundation, we are on the same page.
by Espressosaurus | 2025-12-28 17:54:29+00:00
A simple PID wants to keep it at a setpoint, but it’s easy enough to layer a target change on top of it, some hysteresis so it’s not pulsing on and off, perhaps with control authority depending on the the target, etc. but then that gets complicated and usually manufacturers aren’t going to expose those sorts of tunings to the user.

For most people a fan curve is more obvious to work with and it’s largely good enough without the irritating behaviors insufficiently tuned control loops can exhibit.
by jdietrich | 2025-12-28 17:54:35+00:00
Most things in the Chinese military system are numbered rather than named. Military units are numbered twice - a public cover designator and a private true unit designator, originally four and later five digits. Factories got a three digit number - 296 for the small arms factory in Jiangshe, 816 for the uranium enrichment plant in Fuling and so on. Everyone in and around Factory 404 would have known it as such, but the mere existence of Factory 404 was a state secret.

The existence of such a large and conspicuous secret might seem bizarre to the post-cold-war mind, but it was fairly common in the West too. For example, the British Telecom Tower in central London stands at 189 metres tall and had a revolving restaurant that was open to the public, but was also a designated site under the Official Secrets Act.
by somenameforme | 2025-12-28 17:54:42+00:00
Can you rephrase that? Because I think you have it exactly backwards here unless I'm misunderstanding you.

In inflationary systems money becomes worth less, but 'things' tend to hold their value. This is precisely why the very wealthy are accumulating massive amounts of 'things' - it's simply because under inflation the holder of 'things' is basically making money, even if they do nothing with those things. So this creates a system where you're motivated to buy up a bunch of stuff and then rent it out. This is precisely how you get the WEF saying things like, 'You will own nothing, and be happy.'

By contrast in a deflationary system the value of things tends to decrease over time, all other things being equal. That is to say that obviously things like land can still increase in value over time if demand, in an area, significantly outpaces supply, but relative to inflationary systems - the 'natural' direction for prices is down. And so in this system there's much less motivation to hoard things, in exchange for a greater motivation to hoard money.
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-28 17:54:51+00:00
Again, I agree that it sounds plausible, but it doesn't guarantee anything, and the lack of hard data usually indicates things aren't as confidently profitable as you believe. Otherwise the companies would be bragging about it.

Probably in the end it'll be profitable for the companies somehow, but exactly how or what the exact prices will be, I don't think anyone know at this point. That's why I'm reserving my "Developing countries can now affordably use AI too" for when that's reality, not based on guesses and assumptions.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-12-28 17:55:03+00:00
Employee headcount is not a good proxy for actually accomplishing the tasks government is expected to do. Your DOT has a huge number of employees, but I can say from first hand knowledge that none of the staff engineers actually design anything. They manage and administer projects, and they attend a lot of meetings and spend a lot of hours in the office, but they probably don’t actually do the things you care about as a taxpayer: deliver infrastructure improvements. Contractors manage the programs, plan the jobs, design the jobs, build the job, and inspect the job. State employees might do maintenance, and they will do it with 3-5X the headcount of the contractors.
by jwr | 2025-12-28 17:55:20+00:00
It has become fashionable to s*t on GnuPG. I just wish all the crypto experts doing that would point me to an alternative that is functionally equivalent.

Something that will encrypt using AES-256 with a passphrase, but also using asymmetric crypto. Oh, and I want my secret keys printable if needed. And I want to store them securely on YubiKeys once generated (https://github.com/drduh/YubiKey-Guide). I want to be able to encrypt my backups to multiple recipients. And I want the same keys (stored on Yubikeys, remember?) to be usable for SSH authentication, too.

And by the way, if your fancy tool is written using the latest language du jour with a runtime that changes every couple of years or so, or requires huge piles of dependencies that break if you even as much as sneeze (python, anyone?), it won't do.

BTW, in case someone says "age", I actually followed that advice and set it up just to be there on my systems (managed by ansible). Apart from the fact that it really slowed down my deployments, the thing broke within a year. And I didn't even use it. I just wanted to see how reliable it will be in the most minimal of ways: by having it auto-installed on my systems.

If your fancy tool has less than 5 years of proven maintenance record, it won't do. Encryption is for the long term. I want to be able to read my stuff in 15-30 years.

So before you go all criticizing GnuPG, please understand that there are reasons why people still use it, and are actually OK with the flaws described.
by DonHopkins | 2025-12-28 17:56:08+00:00
Are there even enough active Vision Pro users to make the $3500 back selling an app for it, not even considering the cost to develop it, or Apple's 30% app store tax?

Maybe you could port "I Am Rich" to it, and sell a few copies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
by pmdr | 2025-12-28 17:56:10+00:00
For me, earlier versions of macOS/OS X and Windows Vista/7 were the right mix of eye candy and usability. Apple's just showing off with this liquid glass thing. Yeah, it's cool that they attempted it, but it should've remained entirely opt-in. Apple being Apple, there's no opt-in -- once they like it, it's the default.
by MontyCarloHall | 2025-12-28 17:57:17+00:00
Doesn't Dune take place in ~22k AD? Wiki says "the Butlerian Jihad is a conflict taking place over 11,000 years in the future (and over 10,000 years before the events of Dune)." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(franchise)#Butlerian_Jih...
by kldg | 2025-12-28 17:57:30+00:00
it strikes me as a dangerous time to try going to court over this as politics are currently aligned to fight back with new laws overriding court interpretations, at least in the US. God knows what's happening in China; afaik, it's a free-for-all outside requirements to avoid "sensitive topics". Between US and China, you have nearly all of the "top 100" LLMs.
by saltwatercowboy | 2025-12-28 17:57:42+00:00
> It's the kind of unverifiable story that we would like to believe, but there's almost zero way of having independent confirmation. The photos could be from anywhere. The author seems likeable and writes an interesting story, but who knows how much of it is true.

My thinking too. The second photo is also strange. The building in the background blends in this ghostly sort of way but the overall low quality of the photo means a degree of plausible deniability.
by XzAeRosho | 2025-12-28 17:57:59+00:00
>2. How do you handle the semantic gap? LLMs operate in natural language/fuzzy logic space, while formal methods require precise specifications. What's the translation layer like?

From what I understood, this validates the output correctness, not that the output aligns with the user goals, so there's still room for the LLM to get the user goals wrong, and this is only to validate the mathematical consistency between the output code and the formal specification (in this paper, within the ESBMC framework for C++ code).

So it's kind of tight scoped, in this case, but I think it points in the right direction for coding assistants, which usually get some language primitives wrong.
by scoofy | 2025-12-28 17:58:57+00:00
> If by use you mean 18-wheelers, then by all means, tax away. I am pretty sure highways would last for decades with a minimum of maintenance if there were no large trucks on them.

I mean, this is magical thinking. Yes, weight should be taxed, but the vast majority of states restrict trailers to the rightmost lanes. You can see the extra wear and tear. That doesn’t mean that autos aren’t contributing non-trivially.

As truck taxes rise, more of that freight will move to rail, so it’s not an infinite tax base.
by tptacek | 2025-12-28 17:59:02+00:00
There isn't an alternative that is functionally equivalent because what PGP does is dumb. It's a Swiss Army Knife. Nobody who wants to design an excellent saw sets out to design the Swiss Army Knife saw. Nobody who needs shears professionally buys a Swiss Army Knife for the scissors.

The cryptographic requirements of different problems --- backup, package signing, god-help-us secure messaging --- are in tension with each other. No one design adequately covers all the use cases. Trying to cram them all into one tool is a sign that something other than security is the goal. If that's the case, you're live action roleplaying, not protecting people.

I'd be interested in whether you could find a cryptographer who disagrees with that. I've asked around!
by tremon | 2025-12-28 17:59:07+00:00
any reasonable definition of "text" should include musical notation

Then many a dictionary must be unreasonable [0]:

text
1. A discourse or composition on which a note or commentary is written;
the original words of an author, in distinction from a paraphrase, annotation, or commentary.

6. That part of a document (printed or electronic) comprising the words [..]

7. Any communication composed of words

n 1. the words of something written

Musical notes do not form words, and therefore are not text. (And no, definition 1 does not refer to musical notes).

[0] e.g. http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=text
by wdbm | 2025-12-28 18:00:21+00:00
>What benefit is there to keep this antiquated method around, aside from just as an historical reference?

Analogue clocks are, by design, also visual progress bars. Digital clocks just give you the time. There's a little video talking about this by Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeopkvAP-ag
by UniverseHacker | 2025-12-28 18:00:28+00:00
Solids and liquids mostly don’t compress so as a general rule most can handle those pressures without experiencing any real mechanical stress, as they instantly provide a perfectly matching internal pressure that balances out the forces to zero.

It’s mostly things that contain gases that can get crushed by high pressure. Almost any type of closed cell foam for example, will either collapse to a small size or crack and crumble apart depending on how rigid it is.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-28 18:00:52+00:00
I 100% agree that AI data centers are bad for people.

In my opinion, Compute-related data centers are a good product tho. Offering up some gpu services might be good but honestly I will tell you what happened (similar to another comment I wrote)

AI gave these data centers companies tons of money (or they borrowed) and then they brought gpus from nvidias and became gpu-centric (also AI centric) to jump even more on the hype

these are bad The core offering of datacenters to me feels like it should be normal form of compute (CPU,ram,storage,as an example yabs performance of the whole server) and not "just what gpu does it have"

Offering up some gpu on the side is perfectly reasonable to me if need be perhaps where the workloads might need some gpu but overall compute oriented datacenters seem nice.

Hetzner is a fan favourite now (which I deeply respect) and for good measure and I feel like their modelling is pretty understandable, They offer GPU's too iirc but you can just tell from their website that they love compute too

Honestly the same is true for most Independent cloud providers. The only places where we see a complete saturation of AI centric data centers is probably the American trifecta (Google,azure and amazon) and Of course nvidia,oracle etc.

Compute oriented small-to-indie data centers/racks are definitely pleasant although that market has raced to the bottom, but only because let's be really honest, The real incentives for building softwares happens when VSCode forks make billions so people (techies atleast) usually question such path and non-techies just don't know how to sell/compete in the online marketplaces usually.
by dijit | 2025-12-28 18:01:21+00:00
Yeah, we do those things.

1) they’re not foolproof

2) there is a delay in aggregating the data

this has annoying effects when the game has a trial period/goes on sale/has lots of cheap CD keys floating around.

3) if you weren’t delayed then the cheaters get better at adjusting to how you catch them.

We actually do a lot of statistical analysis, but it works in tandem with endpoint anti-cheat, and would hardly work at all alone.
by brokencode | 2025-12-28 18:02:27+00:00
For a major revamp, you should either do it or not do it. Making it opt-in or even opt-out means every app then has to try to support both different UIs, which is a longterm maintenance cost. Not only for Apple, but the entire ecosystem.

I personally sort of like the liquid glass, but it's also kind of a mess in a lot of edge cases. I feel like it was an interesting idea that didn't really pan out fully and should have been scrapped. It's just too controversial for pure eye-candy.
by westurner | 2025-12-28 18:03:01+00:00
From the PEP: https://peps.python.org/pep-0761/#support-for-offline-verifi... :

> During the pre-PEP discussion, there was a question of whether offline verification was supported by Sigstore. Using a Sigstore bundle (.sigstore) file, Sigstore clients support verifying the artifact completely offline.

> Using offline verification with Sigstore requires disabling root of trust updates and “pinning” a root of trust in a file to use during verification.

> [...]

> Offline verification also makes revocation checks impossible, but this is similar to PGP’s model where revocation of keys requires an online lookup.

How does this compare to CRL and OCSP for key revocation?

Fairly certain this just reinvents the wheel with less years of review

Synchronizing CT Certificate Transparency logs to browsers is apparently considered infeasible. Merkle Certificates may help with this too?
by 6510 | 2025-12-28 18:03:17+00:00
They are the new Microsoft, if the web died it would be good for them. We've also tried to have elected bureaucrats make the decisions. Systems giving everyone one vote also turned out terrible as expertise and thoughtfulness drowns in superficial noise. It is kind of embarrassing how well the dictator model works. Personally I prefer to do everything alone. There are no meetings, barely any paperwork, I get to own the bad choices. So far I get along well with my past self and my future self. I do consider it a temporary hack until figuring things out in groups is solved. Robot overlords sounds increasingly appealing.
by tialaramex | 2025-12-28 18:03:46+00:00
> Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement.

To the extent this anything more than circular it's false. Although psychopaths exist, on the whole compliance to a lesser or greater degree is a normal human trait. So you can tell people what the rules are and they'll obey to some extent. How much varies from person to person.

So the creation of specialist law enforcement bodies is a distinct and relatively modern change to civilisations. Before this, there is either no actual enforcement or it depends on whether a powerful person knows you broke a rule and cares to enforce it.
by stefanfisk | 2025-12-28 18:04:19+00:00
I feel so old saying this, but back in the days both Apple and third party developers would follow the HIG closely enough that something felt off right away when an app wasn't behaving 100% native. Running something like a Java app was jarring to say the least even if they were supposedly using a "cross platform" UI library.

But then Gruber said that the HIG was dead and the decline gained more and more momentum...