MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fsckboy | 2025-12-12 22:17:20+00:00
>That's probably aimed at reducing consumption.

it's aimed at not encouraging consumption which is slightly different. you can have a "hungry hour" where you entice people with food bargains and sell them alcohol, but you can't have a "happy hour" where you entice people with alcohol bargains.

it is also in keeping with other laws intended to create a competitive/collusion free market (not saying the crafting of those laws was not influenced by incumbents trying to maintain their share)
by Duanemclemore | 2025-12-12 22:17:34+00:00
Legend.

My sway setup is everything as all black as I can get but with any accents as small and bright - neon green and eye bleeding magenta - as possible. So Fluorescent speaks to me.

I remember as a kid using 3.11 and win 95 and cycling through the themes, trying them all out for a day or two to decide which I wanted to use. You know, important decisions. Anyway, in an eternal black mark on my character I didn't even consider Hot Dog Stand.
by circuit10 | 2025-12-12 22:17:55+00:00
I don’t understand why people say the Chinese Room thing would prove LLMs don’t think, to me it’s obvious that the person doesn’t understand Chinese but the process does, similarly the CPU itself doesn’t understand the concepts an LLM can work with but the LLM itself does, or a neuron doesn’t understand concepts but the entire structure of your brain does

The concept of understanding emerges on a higher level from the way the neurons (biological or virtual) are connected, or the way the instructions being followed by the human in the Chinese room process the information

But really this is a philosophical/definitional thing about what you call “thinking”

Edit: I see my take on this is listed on the page as the “System reply”
by rayiner | 2025-12-12 22:18:40+00:00
> know you're not trying to convince me, and fortunately many of us see and have taken note of the ambient racism in your position.

Culture is not race. Children should be required to write that 100 times on a chalkboard. The third world is the way it is because of the culture of the people who built those societies. Nobody would be more thrilled than me if the only difference between Iowans and Bangladeshis was that we don’t need to spend money on sunscreen. (Except a little for my feet, which burn easily.) But that’s a fantasy world. It’s a fantasy that persists because most Americans have little personal contact with immigrants and can’t see how Bangladeshi mothers raise their children differently than Iowan mothers. Immigrants, meanwhile, actually have limited insight into the inner mechanics of Americans—they can see the results, the institutions, the rule of law, the order. But can’t see the inputs that lead to that. And obviously they have a vested interest in believing flattering falsehoods about what makes societies the way they are.

> I am more concerned that the people I live around think that I should be prevented from drinking as I choose.

You can drink as you choose. What I’m trying to avoid, because we’re all in this cup together, is drowning in the lukewarm coffee that my parents worked so hard to escape. We’re both trying to prevent the world from burning, we just disagree about where the fire is coming from.
by ogogmad | 2025-12-12 22:18:48+00:00
> But there are such experiments. String theory says that the result of such experiment is: Lorentz invariance not violated.

This is not a new prediction... String theory makes no new predictions, I hear. I don't understand why you need to be told this.

To your point, there exist various reformulations of physics theories, like Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics, which are both reformulations of Newtonian mechanics. But these don't make new predictions. They're just better for calculating or understanding certain things. That's quite different from proposing special relativity for the first time, or thermodynamics for the first time, which do make novel predictions compared to Newton.
by softwaredoug | 2025-12-12 22:18:53+00:00
LLMs don't really think, they emulate their training data. Which has a lot of examples of humans walking through problems to arrive at an answer. So naturally, if we prompt an LLM to do the same, it will emulate those examples (which tend to be more correct).

LLMs are BAD at evaluating earlier thinking errors, precisely because there's not copious examples of text where humans thinking through a problem, screwing up, going back, correcting their earlier statement, and continuing. (a good example catches these and corrects them)
by daheza | 2025-12-12 22:18:53+00:00
I've always wanted to do some small business, maybe an app but to get started feels so daunting. This information you provided is great and makes me feel like there's room to know more.

Are there any good places to grow this kind of knowledge? How to use payment processors? How to actually setup a business and get paid yourself?

I don't want to get into the whole founder ethos, I just want to make something and get paid for it.
by oliverc1622 | 2025-12-12 22:18:54+00:00
I vibe-coded a weekly mileage planner for running. As an avid runner, I always balance my week between running and work. Some workdays are just jammed pack and I only run 2 miles. Other days are freeing, motivating me to tackle 10 miles. I built this app to help people plan their runs adaptively. Hope people find this useful!
by positron26 | 2025-12-12 22:19:37+00:00
I do believe it was just poor wording.

I don't feel strong disagreement with the four freedoms, but the biggest reason I've gone fully _OSS and intentionally avoid "free/libre" is because I don't want to endorse the FSF tactics and because I want to encourage others to demand more radical innovations instead of forty more years of the same.

What I find most disappointing when I talk to the FSF is that if I bring up social finance and technically enabled social decisions that can make social finance a lot more effective, it is rather as if I have spoken some alien language. I believe the non-programmer needs a lever to choose the development model used by programs they rely on. To the FSF insiders, such thinking is so orthogonal as to generate no reaction. If I say "a billion users are important," they refute the necessity. They are content to be monastic, conveniently propped up by donations for saying nice things. I find such abandonment inexcusable, and I get fired up talking about it.
by billforsternz | 2025-12-12 22:19:42+00:00
I know it's silly, but I just want to fix his first version with the minimum possible changes;

/* Copyright 2023. All unauthorized distribution of this source code will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law*/ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <string.h> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { uint8_t number = argc>1 ? argv[1][strlen(argv[1])-1]-'0' : printf("Usage: odd-or-even number\n"); if (number == 0) printf("even\n"); if (number == 1) printf("odd\n"); if (number == 2) printf("even\n"); if (number == 3) printf("odd\n"); if (number == 4) printf("even\n"); if (number == 5) printf("odd\n"); if (number == 6) printf("even\n"); if (number == 7) printf("odd\n"); if (number == 8) printf("even\n"); if (number == 9) printf("odd\n"); if (number == 10) printf("even\n"); }

This way it basically works. It's a shame that it doesn't call out a non numeric argument but that's about the only problem. It relies on a trick, printf() returns the number of characters printed, so the error message string needs to be longer than 10.
by sublinear | 2025-12-12 22:20:13+00:00
The part that's most infuriating is that we don't have to speculate at all. Any discussion or philosophizing beyond the literal computer science is simply misinformation.

There's absolutely no similarity between what computer hardware does and what a brain does. People will twist and stretch things and tickle the imagination of the naive layperson and that's just wrong. We seriously have to cut this out already.

Anthropomorphizing is dangerous even for other topics, and long understood to be before computers came around. Why do we allow this?

The way we talk about computer science today sounds about as ridiculous as invoking magic or deities to explain what we now consider high school physics or chemistry. I am aware that the future usually sees the past as primitive, but why can't we try to seem less dumb at least this time around?
by nodesocket | 2025-12-12 22:20:49+00:00
I don't think so. Windows 11 has a HDR calibration utility that allows you to adjust brightness and HDR and it maintains blacks being perfectly black (especially with my OLED). When I enable HDR on macOS whatever settings I try, including adjusting brightness and contrast on the monitor the blacks look completely washed out and grey. HDR DOES seem to work correctly on macOS but only if you use Mac displays.
by richardfontana | 2025-12-12 22:21:13+00:00
I'm pretty sure it's not why it was rebranded; the timing doesn't make sense since the rebranding occurred several years after the trademark coexistence agreement.

The curious question though is why 389 was formerly called Fedora Directory Server. From what I've been told by someone who was around at the time (as I wasn't), it's because Red Hat went through a very brief period where it experimented with using the "Fedora" brand as a sort of general "upstream of Red Hat, sponsored by Red Hat" sort of community brand. This was I think quickly rejected as a bad idea but Fedora Directory Server was apparently the one (for a while) surviving example of the experiment. I imagine that the reason for the rebranding was that it was confusing to use the "Fedora" name at a certain point because the directory server project never really had anything particularly to do with Fedora (apart from the connection to Red Hat).
by geerlingguy | 2025-12-12 22:21:23+00:00
From my discussions with Raspberry Pi, and with a few companies who integrated CM4/5 into their products, the board to board connectors were a massive pain to automate in a production line (not necessarily soldering the connectors, but in inserting Compute Modules.

It's surprising how good human fingers can be at getting the alignment, the push, and the slight 'pop' and the feedback required to know when it's seated properly.

That, mixed with requiring extra standoffs and screws to secure the CM to boards for any kind of vibration/mobile use cases probably informed the decision to go to castellated / solder-on.

It's not as friendly for quick swaps or upgrades, but it also reduces the total board height when it's all put together.
by wlesieutre | 2025-12-12 22:21:31+00:00
For #2, OWC puts a screw hole above their dock's thunderbolt ports so that you can attach a stabilizer around the cord

https://www.owc.com/solutions/thunderbolt-dock

It's a poor imitation of old ports that had screws on the cables, but should help reduce inadvertent port stress.

The screw only works with limited devices (ie not the Mac Studio end of the cord) but it can also be adhesive mounted.

https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/CLINGON1PK/
by pdimitar | 2025-12-12 22:21:37+00:00
RE: make/CMake, consider yourself in a somewhat privileged bubble and IMO let's leave it at that. Every single time I had to deal with make or CMake, I regretted it: every time when I used them in anger and to more of their capacity, with barely any exceptions. The only safe usages of make were like 50-line files max. And even there I had to manually eyeball the .PHONY targets to make sure I know which sub-commands I can invoke that don't depend on file timestamps because of course somebody decided it's a good idea to liberally mix those with the others. Sigh. Don't ask.

I don't _hate_ them or anything. They are super solid tools and I have derived a lot of value out of them in a previous life. But they leave a lot of room for overly clever humans to abuse them and make life hard for the next guy. Which is exactly how I was exposed to them, dozens of times.

The downfall of all flexible tools or PLs is that people start using them in those obscure and terrible ways. Not the fault of the tools or the PLs.

If you can control 100% of the surface where you are exposed to make/CMake then that puts you in a fairly rare position and you are right to make full use of it! Go for it. Deep work and deep skills are sorely needed in our area. I am rooting for you. :)

> The issue is that I think it (Rust) is going to worm it way everywhere and I will be forced to deal with it.

Help me understand the actual technical criticism buried in the "worm its way everywhere", please. And in the "it's good for CV/Resume padding" statement as well.

It's a strange thing to say and it smells like a personal vendetta which is weirdly common on HN about Rust and to this day I have no idea why even though I have asked many people directly.

Rust has objective technical merits and many smart devs have documented those in their blogs -- journeys on rewrites or green-field projects, databases, network tools (like OP), and even others. Big companies do studies and prove less memory safety bugs over the course of months or years of tests. The Linux kernel devs (not unanimously) have agreed that Rust should no longer have experimental status there recently -- and people are starting to write Linux drivers in Rust and they work.

I am honestly not sure what would satisfy the people who seem to hate Rust so passionately. I guess it announcing full disband and a public apology that it ever existed? Yes this is a bit of a sarcastic question but really, I can't seem to find a place on the internet where people peacefully discuss this particular topic. (I have seen civil exchanges here on HN of course, and I love them. But most of the civil detractors ultimately simply admit they don't have a use for Rust. Again, that is very fair and valid but it is not an actual criticism towards any tech.)
by johnnyanmac | 2025-12-12 22:21:44+00:00
>Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.

I don't think phones and PCs compete against each other, though. A phone can act like a general computer, but a PC can't act like a phone.

>Today there are many phones to choose from.

We had Linux, mac, BSD and a few other OS's back in the day as well. If we're saying Windows is 95% of PCs back then, I don't think it's controversial saying Apple and Android are 95% of phones. Especially in a day and age where phones are now needed to act as verification for work and school and chat communications are expected to be snappy (so it's not like I can just opt out and go back to dumb phones).

>locked-down stores are what the market prefers.

That's why anti-trust isn't left to "what the market prefers".

Yes, society will always waiver towards idyllic destruction if left ubchecked. People generally "like" monopolies. People yearn for that society on WALL-E where they do minimum work and get maximum dopamine. It's a quirk genes that benefitted us 1000 years ago that haven't adjusted to modern realities.

Governments and non-monopoly businesses alike hate it, though. Don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. Don't want to have a single businessman hold the country hostage later and shift to a plutocracy as they abuse your citizens who work.

That's why it's best to stop it much earlier and not when the company becomes a trillionaire. But now is the 2nd best time.
by stoltzmann | 2025-12-12 22:21:56+00:00
It certainly feels like we are being squeezed from all sides. I think the push to require ID verification for websites is also part of the plot - it all feels too coordinated, like governments all over the world have the same exact agenda to destroy our privacy. At some point you will have to verify your ID to use any computer system, and it will act just as a terminal to the cloud.

I guess we will get the future that was seen in Sun Microsystems with their Ray thin clients after all, but in a way that will provide complete control over population rather than mobility.

What is in cards for us is complete slavery to digital systems.
by 56J8XhH7voFRwPR | 2025-12-12 22:22:00+00:00
I’m no trump supporter but where were these articles and comments by Powell during the Biden presidency when the BLS was constantly revising job numbers downward after the fact? In 2024 they revised numbers over 800,000 jobs downward (coincidentally, also comes out to a bit over 60k jobs a month) The reason for that is that BLS issues “preliminary” job numbers that they then later updated as more information becomes available. Isn’t that possible, and some may argue likely, the same thing happening here?
by tptacek | 2025-12-12 22:22:18+00:00
I apologized for correcting a comment from someone who I believe isn't in a place to discuss the issue, and who would predictably contest the claim --- since we'd already had the same disagreement elsewhere, bringing it up again, however valid my concern was, was bad for the thread. The apology was in no way whatsoever a reflection of my beliefs about what actually happened.

"Goybucks" is absolutely not OK here.
by AshleyGrant | 2025-12-12 22:23:17+00:00
> Please read the rules.

You made a low effort post, and I pointed out how if you had put in the effort to read the article prior to commenting you would have gotten the answer to your question.

Would you like me to be more patronizing to you and say, "The article clearly states which of the font changes was the performative one and which was meaningful."?

But sure, buddy, run off to hide behind a site rule the moment you get called out for a low effort post you made that is breaking at least two rules itself:

- Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

- Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Is screen readability the only value to consider?

Whether it is "the only value to consider" or not is beside the point, and you know it. The Trump Administration's only value they considered is "Biden did it, so we're going to undo it." They considered nothing else. You know. I know it. Everyone knows it. Why do we know it? Because they have made it abundantly clear that they have no idea what "DEI" actually is, so they just slap that label on anything the previous administration did, put out an order rolling it back, and use it as a wedge issue.

If he was actually worried about whether a san-serif typeface was worse for printed documents, he could have simply ordered that all printed documents must use TNR or any of the other better options that exist. But he isn't. He's simply concerned with killing "DEI," where "DEI" just means whatever they decide it means today.
by jacobgkau | 2025-12-12 22:23:40+00:00
> Whole generations aren't being addicted to and made impotent by porn.

They literally are. Mostly men, though, so you might not really get it.

> There is an increase in ED prescriptions among young people but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to porn and is much more plausible that there's just less stigma about it,

Yes, just like cancer rates and mental illnesses. The number increases aren't real, we're just getting better at detecting it. Surely, nothing ever gets worse in the world. /s

You're right, though, that most of this is pseudoscience. Most of the "problem" with porn is psychological, rather than strictly physical, and psychology is generally pseudoscience.
by jdprgm | 2025-12-12 22:23:49+00:00
Are you actually selling some of the RAM though?

I was curious with this spike and while the amazon listing for 2x48GB DDR5 that I bought a year or so ago has indeed almost tripled the ebay resale value for similar packages sold recently is all over the map with some close to what I originally paid and some as much as double but probably on average 30-50% increase which is nowhere near the amazon listing.
by awnihannun | 2025-12-12 22:23:55+00:00
For a bit more context, those posts are using pipeline parallelism. For N machines put the first L/N layers on machine 1, next L/N layers on machine 2, etc. With pipeline parallelism you don't get a speedup over one machine - it just buys you the ability to use larger models than you can fit on a single machine.

The release in Tahoe 26.2 will enable us to do fast tensor parallelism in MLX. Each layer of the model is sharded across all machines. With this type of parallelism you can get close to N-times faster for N machines. The main challenge is latency since you have to do much more frequent communication.
by charcircuit | 2025-12-12 22:24:35+00:00
If your users are not engaging with your app, you can't deliver user value to them. If you are unable to provide value to their lives because they happened to accidently changed a font that is an unfortunate circumstance where the user is losing out on value they could have had.

It's not that users are helpless, but that they just don't want to spend their time dealing with stuff they don't want to. Users like it when things "just work."
by andy99 | 2025-12-12 22:25:11+00:00
I’m hoping this isn’t as attractive as it sounds for non-hobbyists because the performance won’t scale well to parallel workloads or even context processing, where parallelism can be better used.

Hopefully this makes it really nice for people that want the experiment with LLMs and have a local model but means well funded companies won’t have any reason to grab them all vs GPUs.
by ChuckMcM | 2025-12-12 22:25:18+00:00
Why do people call is "Artificial Intelligence" when it could be called "Statistical Model for Choosing Data"?

"Intelligence" implies "thinking" for most people, just as "Learning" in machine learning implies "understanding" for most people. The algorithms created neither 'think' nor 'understand' and until you understand that, it may be difficult to accurately judge the value of the results produced by these systems.
by fsckboy | 2025-12-12 22:25:27+00:00
>There's a lot of old laws that special case alcohol in the US

yes there are, but the anti happy hour laws are only from the 1970-80s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, raise the drinking age campaigns.

the previous round of laws like that were from the Temperance, Prohibition, lifting of Prohibition periods.

then before that, yes the Puritan Blue Laws.
by nosianu | 2025-12-12 22:25:44+00:00
That's what this is for, in general: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/trans-euro...

Also, Germany currently has the problem of much more and more reliable wind generation in the north, but not enough network capacity to send it all south when needed. It is being addressed, but as expected, it is very complicated because infrastructure across the whole country touches the interests of a lot of groups with very different interests.

We might need much better tunnel building equipment and a deep sub-terranean network... (useful sci-fi idea, needs to be able to cope with mild earth quakes in some regions).
by Yoric | 2025-12-12 22:26:18+00:00
> I think the chance that your Rust application is going to be more performant or efficient than C, is whether you are focused on writing performant and efficient code.

I believe that depends on the sophistication of algorithms. High-level algorithms (especially if they involve concurrency or parallelism) are much easier to write in Rust (or in C++) than in C, which gives them a pretty good chance to be at least as fast as any reasonably safe C implementation.

For low-level algorithms, of course, it's really hard to beat polished C code.

> Out-of-the-box, I’m guessing people will use too many cargo packages, each that are over-engineered or written by less-experienced developers, so it will be less efficient and less performant.

I don't think that this is going to be a problem. The Tor Project developers I've interacted with sounded quite serious about security. Forbidding non-blessed cargo packages is pretty trivial.

> In addition, you could more easily inadvertently introduce security problems.

What do you mean?