MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by perihelions | 2026-01-22 22:13:26+00:00
More discussion,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46633574 ("Found: Medieval Cargo Ship – Largest Vessel of Its Kind Ever (smithsonianmag.com)", 54 comments)

edit: Also, I think this domain (medievalists.net) is suspect. This article has no author byline; and its text is highly similar to other published articles (like [0]), with only minor word changes. Here's an A/B of an excerpt:

> [vikingeskibsmuseet.dk] "Dendrochronological analysis shows that Svælget 2 was built around 1410 using timber from two regions: Pomerania, which is modern-day Poland, and the Netherlands. By comparing tree-ring patterns with reference data, researchers were able to date the wood and determine its origin. The planks were made of Pomeranian oak, while the frames – the ship’s ribs – came from the Netherlands. This construction pattern suggests that the heavy planking timber was imported, while the frames were cut locally at the building site, reflecting a practical approach and a complex trade network where large quantities of timber moved across Northern Europe."

> [medievalists.net] "One of the most striking results so far comes from dendrochronology (tree-ring dating). Researchers report that Svælget 2 was built around 1410 using timber sourced from two different regions: Pomerania (in modern-day Poland) and the Netherlands. The planks were made from Pomeranian oak, while the ship’s frames (ribs) came from the Netherlands—an arrangement the team interprets as evidence of complex material supply and specialised shipbuilding capacity."

[0] https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/news/archaeologists-rev... (author byline Rikke Tørnsø Johansen)
by Metasyntactic | 2026-01-22 22:13:49+00:00
> Hmm, the strong reason could be latency and layout stability. Tree-sitter parses on the main thread (or a close worker) typically in sub-ms timeframes

One of the designers/architects of 'Roslyn' here, the semantic analysis engine that powers the C#/VB compilers, VS IDE experiences, and our LSP server.

Note: For roslyn, we aim for microsecond (not millisecond) parsing. Even for very large files, even if the initial parse is milliseconds, we have an incremental parser design (https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/main/docs/compilers/De...) that makes 99.99+% of edits happen in microseconds, while reusing 99.99+ of syntax nodes, while also producing an independent, immutable tree (thus ensuring no threading concerns sharing these trees out to concurrent consumers).

> you introduce a flash of unstyled content or color-shifting artifacts every time you type, because the round-trip to the server (even a local one) and the subsequent re-tokenization takes longer than the frame budget.

This would indicate a serious problem somewhere.

It's also no different than any sort of modern UI stack. A modern UI stack would never want external code coming in that could ever block it. So all, potentially unbounded, processing work will be happening off the UI thread, ensuring that that thread is always responsive.

Note that "because the round-trip to the server (even a local one)" is no different from round-tripping to a processing thread. Indeed, in Visual Studio that is how it works as we have no need to run our server in a separate process space. Instead, the LSP server itself for roslyn simply runs in-process in VS as a normal library. No different than any other component that might have previously been doing this work.

> Relying on LSP for the base layer makes the editor feel sluggish.

It really should not. Note: this does take some amount of smart work. For example, in roslyn's classification systems we have a cascading set of classifying threads. One that classifies lexically, one for syntax, one for semantics, and finally, one for embedded languages (imagine embedded regex/json, or even C# nested in c#). And, of course, these embedded languages have cascading classification as well :D

Note that this concept is used in other places in LSP as well. For example, our diagnostics server computes compiler-syntax, vs compiler-semantics, versus 3rd-party analyzers, separately.

The approach of all of this has several benefits. First, we can scale up with the capabilities of the machine. So if there are free cores, we can put them to work computing less relevant data concurrently. Second, as results are computed on some operation, it can be displayed to the user without having to wait for the rest to finish. Being fine-grained means the UI can appear crisp and responsive, while potentially slower operations take longer but eventually appear.

For example, compiler syntax diagnostics generally take microseconds. While 3rd-party analyzer diagnostics might take seconds. No point in stalling the former while waiting for the latter to run. LSP makes multi-plexing this stuff easy
by crazygringo | 2026-01-22 22:14:23+00:00
I just want to say this isn't just amazing -- it's my new favorite map of NYC.

It's genuinely astonishing how much clearer this is than a traditional satellite map -- how it has just the right amount of complexity. I'm looking at areas I've spent a lot of time in, and getting an even better conceptual understanding of the physical layout than I've ever been able to get from satellite (technically airplane) images. This hits the perfect "sweet spot" of detail with clear "cartoon" coloring.

I see a lot of criticism here that this isn't "pixel art", so maybe there's some better term to use. I don't know what to call this precise style -- it's almost pixel art without the pixels? -- but I love it. Serious congratulations.
by fragmede | 2026-01-22 22:14:24+00:00
Real talk though, how much would such a tool be worth to you? Would you pay, say, $3,000/license/year for it? Or, after someone puts in the work to develop it, would you wait for someone else to duct tape something together approximately similar enough using regexps that open source but 10% as good, and then not pay for the good proprietary tool because we're all a bunch of cheap bastards?

We have only ourselves to blame that there aren't better tools (publicly) available. If I hypothetically (really!) had such a tool, it would be an advantage over every other SRE out there that could use it. Trying to sell it directly comes with more headaches than money, selling it to corporations has different headaches, open-sourcing it don't pay the bills, nevermind the burnout (people don't donate for shit). So the way to do it is make a pitch deck, get VC funding so you're able to pay rent until it gets acquired by Oracle/RedHat/IBM (aka the greatest hits for Linux tool acquisition), or try and charge money for it when you run out of VC funding, leading to accusations of "rug pull" and development of alternatives (see also: docker) just to spite you.

In the base case you sell Hashimoto and your bank account has two (three!) commas, but worst case you don't make rent and go homeless when instead you could've gone to a FAANG and made $250k/yr instead of getting paid $50k/yr as the founder and burning VC cash and eating ramen that you have to make yourself.

I agree, that would be an awesome tool! Best case scenario, a company pays for that tool to be developed internally, the company goes under, it gets sold as an asset and whomever buys it forms a compnay and tries to sell it directly and then that company goes under but that whomever finally open sources it because they don't want it to slip into obscurity but if falls into obscurity anyway because it only works on Linux 5.x kernels and can't be ported to the 6.x series that we're on now easily.
by drafkind | 2026-01-22 22:14:29+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator_projection#Advant...

This is done to optimize for computer display. Also makes each discrete zoom level 2x of the previous one, and makes nice square map tiles.

Other projections are possible but end up with wierd map tiles, defeating smooth scroll on the draggable map.
by mmooss | 2026-01-22 22:15:21+00:00
> I'd estimate maybe 20-30% of the stock offers I see have a lot of front matter materials saying something to the effect of "if you come from the US you aren't even allowed to read this, go away".

That is interesting. I wonder why. It seems like they could offer a combined prospectus that addresses all major sets of requirements. I do know that the US an (much of?) the EU use different accounting standards; maybe the numbers are for one region or the other.

> That logic doesn't hold. If it made sense supermarkets wouldn't work because they have to hold bilateral negotiations with hundreds of thousands of customers. In practice, they just offer a take-it-or-leave-it deal and people either accept it or they don't.

This isn't buying a can of soup at retail.
by irishcoffee | 2026-01-22 22:15:23+00:00
Sure isn't.

I annihilated the SATs. My grades were only good in high school because I was just "gifted" enough to get As without studying. I do not have and never had ADHD. I also never learned how to study.

I almost failed out of college. I didn't know how to study. I didn't have the habits. I sure had a lot of fun in high school and college though.
by wewewedxfgdf | 2026-01-22 22:15:25+00:00
The future (the PRESENT):

You are only allowed to program computers with the permission of mega corporations.

When Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini have banned you, you must leave the industry.

When you sign up, you must provide legal assurance that no LLM has ever banned you (much like applying for insurance). If true then you will be denied permission to program - banned by one, banned by all.
by KaiserPro | 2026-01-22 22:16:16+00:00
Indeed, in the same way that solar has now peaked in spain/portugal in its current config. They are moving to solar+battery to absorb solar mid day and replay that in the morning/evening. (that doesn't really apply in the UK because of the rain)

As more renewables come on stream and the grid gets more complex, batteries are going to plug holes.

Energy Arbitrage is usually a good thing, so long as its regulated to for the customer, not the battery people. the point is that battery capacity is being deployed to even out the 5-9pm peak, which means that we are much much less dependent on gas turbine generators (which means less price pressure linked to LNG prices, if you're not into the co2 aspect)
by ai_critic | 2026-01-22 22:16:28+00:00
> In particular, the Valley incarnates the ability to “do things,” to iculate and achieve long-range projects, which has all but disappeared from other sectors of the economy and most glaringly from politics.

The author then goes on to observe that these folks are all right-leaning or working with the Republicans.

The reason for this--and the beatings will continue until the progressives, liberals, and Democrats figure this out--is that the right is not fundamentally opposed to economic and technological progress.

If you keep rigging the game, you lose good players, and they'll stop playing for you--and the fans will stop coming.
by jandrewrogers | 2026-01-22 22:17:03+00:00
When I was working for the automotive industry their models and projections suggested that ubiquitous self-driving cars would reduce the total market for cars to ~15% of its current size. As in, sales would drop by 85%. The addressable market for automotive OEMs is set to undergo a dramatic reduction in size.

Few automotive companies have a coherent plan for how they were going to survive that existential risk.
by zdp7 | 2026-01-22 22:17:05+00:00
Not really, unless you are just guessing. A quick read shows that solar gained popularity because of an unreliable grid and a removal of subsidies on diesel. Solar ended up being the cheaper and more reliable option. Labor costs for installation are also lower. In remote areas you may not even have a grid option. Simple general assumptions don't hold across vastly different geopolitical circumstances.
by kmajid2 | 2026-01-22 22:17:08+00:00
Spot on. We categorize that <5s window as tactical fade mitigation.

Our current 3-5m window is for topology/routing, but the sub-5s window is for Dynamic Link Margin (DLM). If we can predict fast-fading signatures—like tropospheric scintillation or edge-of-cloud diffraction, we can move from reactive to proactive ACM.
by greggoB | 2026-01-22 22:18:09+00:00
My best interpretation is that the apparent craziness of everything we're seeing reflects the level of how much the social order has really broken down.

We saw similar (albeit somehow tamer by contrast) things in South Africa during the excesses of the State Capture [0] years - people (mostly those complicit in trashing the country) started to do and say bonkers things. Jacob Zuma (like Trump) also acted as a lightning rod for these types of crazy characters. Genuinely sensible members of the public started to fabricate or grasp at wild explanations for what was going on. It took a major toll.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zondo_Commission
by userulluipeste | 2026-01-22 22:18:15+00:00
"UI wise there is the same issue. Someone used to Windows 10 or 11 would find a transition to Windows 2000 more jarring than to say Linux Mint. ReactOS is no longer a «get the UI you know» proposition, it's now «get the UI of a system from twenty five years ago, if you even used it then»." "A perfectly working ReactOS would already be incompatible with what current Windows users expect."

That look and feel is the easy part. That can be addressed if it's really an issue. The hard part is the compatibility (that is given by many still missing parts) and stability (the still defective parts). The targeted kernel matters, of course, but that is not set in stone. In fact, there is Windows Vista+ functionality added and written about, here: https://reactos.org/blogs/investigating-wddm although doing it properly would mean rewriting the kernel, bumping it to NT version 6.0

I'm sure there will indeed be many users that will find various ReactOS aspects jarring for as long as there are still defects, lack of polish, or dysfunction on application and kernel (drivers) level. However, considering the vast pool of Windows desktop users, it's reasonable to expect ReactOS to cover the limited needs for enough users at some point, which should turn attention into testing, polish, and funding to address anything still lacking, which then should further feed the adoption and improvement loop.

"No, people will never be switching to ReactOS. For some of the same reasons they don't switch to Linux, but stronger."

To me, this makes sense maybe for corporate world. The reasons that made them stick with Windows has less to do with familiarity or with application compatibility (given the fact that a lot of corporate infrastructure is in web applications). Yes, there must be something else that governs corporate decisions, something to do with the way corporations function, and that will most likely prevent a switch to ReactOS just as it did to Linux based distributions. But, this is exactly why I intentionally specified "for individual use" when I said "switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer". For individual use, the reason that prevented people to switch to Linux is well known, and ReactOS's reason to be was aimed exactly at that.
by MontyCarloHall | 2026-01-22 22:18:22+00:00
Correlated attributes can still lead to the paradox, so long as the error measured parallel to the cutoff line (the "fuzziness" of the correlation) is greater than the slope of the cutoff line. Here are a couple cartoons to demonstrate. Denote each datapoint with I or E, depending on whether it's included or excluded in the region x + y > z.

Uncorrelated attributes:

y
│ ∙
│ ∙∙ IIIIIII
│ E∙∙IIIIIIII
│ EEEE∙∙IIIIIII
│ EEEEEE∙∙IIIII
│ EEEEEEEE∙∙III
│ EEEEEEEEE∙∙
│ EEEEEEE ∙∙
│ ∙
└───────────────────x

Looking at just the Included points shows clear (spurious) negative correlation.

Correlated attributes:

y
│ ∙
│ ∙∙ IIII
│ ∙∙IIIIII
│ E∙∙IIIII
│ EEEE∙III
│ EEEEEE∙∙
│ EEEE ∙∙
│ E ∙∙
│ ∙
└─────────────────x

The Included points still have a negative spurious correlation, though it's smaller than for the uncorrelated cartoon.
by derektank | 2026-01-22 22:19:23+00:00
> Prerequisite required by who, and why is that entity motivated to design such a requirement?

Grant awarding institutions like the NIH and NSF presumably? The NSF has as one of its functions, “to develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences”. Encouraging the replication of research as part of graduate degree curricula seems to fall within bounds. And the government’s interest in science isn’t novelty per se, it’s the creation and dissemination of factually correct information that can be useful to its constituents.
by Chance-Device | 2026-01-22 22:19:27+00:00
Strictly speaking, there is no privileged position here to argue for. If the Ptolemaic model gives the same observable results as the heliocentric model, then it’s just the same system but modelled from our perspective on Earth.

Indeed, this might even be more valuable to you if you wanted to show the motion of the planets and constellations relative to Earth directly, rather than the sun. Here I’m thinking about a physical model than might cycle through the zodiac for example.

If this complexity costs you nothing to build and maintain, and is automatically validated, then the mechanism under the hood probably isn’t something you care about very much.
Ask HN: Claude Down?
by emschwartz | 2026-01-22 22:19:58+00:00
From Claude Code:

`API Error: 500 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"api_error","message":"Internal server error"},"request_id":"req_..."}`

Not currently seeing anything on https://status.claude.com/ but also seeing "This isn't working right now" on https://claude.ai
by gond | 2026-01-22 22:20:05+00:00
There are so many subsets of the theory and I have no idea what would interest you and what you already know. Have you seen this paper?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origi...

It leans a bit more on the cybernetic side but gives an overview and has what is possibly equally important as the text itself: some 7 pages of references.
I started with openly accessible academic papers instead of books. If you find something interest there, you will surely have the direct reference to proceed further into that direction right at hand. Papers are shorter, you can switch the direction more easily. The price to pay is to miss the bigger picture a couple of times (which a book may convey) until some loose ends come together and create an aha moment.

(given what you said I would stay clear of all reinterpretations/popular science books. I would read something straight from the source, the people in the field, in whatever form it may show up.)
by rpdillon | 2026-01-22 22:20:10+00:00
Only if you focus on the form instead of the content. For a long time my family has had secret words and phrases we use to identify ourselves to each other over secure, but unauthenticated, channels (i.e. the channel is encrypted, but the source is unknown). The military has had to deal with this for some time, and developed various form of IFF that allies could use to identify themselves. E.g. for returning aircraft, a sequence of wing movements that identified you as friend. I think for a small group (in this case, loved ones), this could be one mitigation of that risk. My parents did this with me as a kid, ostensibly as a defense against some other adult saying "My mom sent me to pick you up...". I never did hear of that happening, though.
by egonschiele | 2026-01-22 22:20:42+00:00
I've been using a Wispr equivalent I made myself since 2023. It's wild to me that people pay for it, and I've wondered if I should try to monetize what I use. It is not as slick and polished, but provides essentially the same service: better speech-to-text than the built-in speech-to-text for Macs.
by lapsed_lisper | 2026-01-22 22:20:57+00:00
A while ago I stumbled across a technique for improving stream buffering that I wish more I/O library implementors knew about. Korn and Vo's sfio library (circa 1991) had a feature called "pooling", whereby distinct streams could be linked together. Any read or write operation to any stream in a pool implicitly synchronized all the other streams in the pool first. This way, when stdio and stderr were pooled, which was the default when both went to ttys, a write on stderr implicitly flushed stdout. I've implemented this feature for myself a couple times; it's fairly easy to do and basically eliminates the need to explicitly flush streams in client code.

Citation: https://archive.org/details/1991-proceedings-tech-conference... but note that the explanation of stream pools there is a little less precise and more general than really necessary. I believe that later versions of sfio simplified things somewhat, though I could be wrong. (I find their code fairly hard to read.)

Anyhow, ISTM a missed opportunity when new languages that don't actually use libc's routines for something reinvent POSIX's clunkier aspects.
by rvz | 2026-01-22 22:21:18+00:00
That is a 50% discount, which isn't great for those who got into the latest round.

Seems like Capital One is very excited on the deal and announced it earlier while Brex hid the announcement and made it hard to find. (It's on the Brex [0] journal directory, but you cannot see it featured on its front page)

What (really) happened?

[0] https://www.brex.com/journal
by overfeed | 2026-01-22 22:21:33+00:00
> Your 'cope' accusation has no place here

I will rephrase my statement and continue to stand by it: "Denying the volume of original AI research being done by China - a falsifiable metric - betrays some level of cope."

You seem to agree on the fact that China has surpassed the US. As for quality, I'll say expertise is a result of execution. At some point in time during off-shoring, the US had qualitatively better machinists that China, despite manufacturing volumes. That is no longer the case today - as they say, cream floats to the top, and that holds true for a pot or an industrial-sized vat.
by mberlove | 2026-01-22 22:23:12+00:00
Everybody's got a party and if you leave, you ruin the party -- apparently. Isolated "walled gardens" are a kind of Intranet. Ingress requires buy-in (sign up, log in, identity proof, human proof); leaving means breaking out to the more transparent, connected internet, which is a big problem when data is dollars.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. More and more patterns seem hostile, antagonistic to the user, and it seems like it's an adopted practice that's taken as a standard. I hope I'm wrong.
by ofalkaed | 2026-01-22 22:23:13+00:00
My use is considerably simpler than GP's but I use it anytime I get bogged down in the details and lose my way, just have Claude handle that bit of code and move on. Also good for any block of code that breaks often as the program evolves, Claude has much better foresight than I do so I replace that code with a prompt.

I enjoy programming but it is not my interest and I can't justify the time required to get competent, so I let Claude and ChatGPT pick up my slack.
by fragmede | 2026-01-22 22:24:08+00:00
> I am working on a high-performance game that runs over ssh.

Step one, run https://www.psc.edu/hpn-ssh-home/introduction/ instead
Step two, tune TCP/IP stack
Step... much later: write your own "crypto". (I'm using quotes because, before someone points out the obvious, packets-per-keystroke isn't, itself, a cryptographic algorithm, but because it's being done to protect connections from being decrypted/etc, mess with it at your own peril.)