MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aziaziazi | 2026-03-02 00:42:48+00:00
Internal gear hubs are pricy but great. I’ll strongly advise against a conventional derailleur with a mid-drive motor: the derailleur needs a thinner chain which wear faster, especially with a motor that apply more torque than a normal human. Internal hubs allow to use a 1s chain or better: a belt. Then you’re good to go for a loooong time. There’s also the (super expensive) Pignon mid drive with integrated speeds, a bit like the Schlumpf’s but for e-bikes.

Pro of derailleur’s e-bikes: their price.

[waited long time to do that] - a former bike mechanist

edit: the problem with faster wear isn’t the risk to break but the decease in efficiency which will affect your motor health (heating) and batterie capacity. If you’re on a budget there’s a compromise: find your favorite gear and replace the derailleur and cassette with a single speed front and back sprockets (and chain). Beware that might not be adapted to hilly roads as GP environment.
by spot5010 | 2026-03-02 00:42:53+00:00
What you said here makes sense. Forgive me, but I have trouble even articulating what it is that I don’t understand correctly.

Maybe what I meant was this: if I perform a quantum experiment where the spin measurement of an electron could be spin up or spin down, the future me would end up in one of two branches: I measure spin up, or I measure spin down. There wouldn’t be any possible world where I measure a superposition of spin up and spin down, because such a a state is going to decohere rapidly. This makes sense. What I’m unable to grasp is that even though the wave function of the universe contains both branches, “I” somehow experience only one of the two branches.

The answer to that I guess if that the two branches are nearly orthogonal they will merrily evolve independent of each other. But somehow “I” only experience only one of them.

Sorry for the rambling. I’m not able to articulate what I don’t understand.
by collapseindex | 2026-03-02 00:43:09+00:00
I built this because Windows Notepad added AI rewrite and I just wanted to write without juggling .txt files everywhere.

5 MB single binary, Rust + egui + SQLite. Everything stays local. no cloud, no accounts, no telemetry. ~10 MB RAM idle.

happy to answer questions about the stack or the design decisions.
by bumby | 2026-03-02 00:43:35+00:00
>Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce.

The problem with this statement is that it implies all calories are equal in terms of nutrition. Meat is very protein dense compared to most plant foods and that can be important. That’s not to say it’s impossible to live healthily on only plants, but it’s not as simple as swapping calorie sources.
by nickstinemates | 2026-03-02 00:43:49+00:00
AI Agent's like Claude Code are an arms race to the bottom. Just like frontier model quality, they all converge on feature sets over time (plan mode, skills, remote execution, sandboxing, etc.,) and opencode is holding its own, preferred even, in a lot of cases.

The real differentiated value comes from the environment the AI Agent operates in, the runtime.

The runtime is agent agnostic but provides a stable interface to your domain. People tried this with MCP, but MCP is a dead end. Local tool calling is so much better. Being able to extend integrations autonomously is the way, instead of being forced in to a bloated bag of tools.

This is why we built swamp - https://swamp.club. We can integrate with any technology with an API, CLI, or code base and build repeatable, typed, validated automation workflows. There are no providers to wait for. No weird tool call paths trying to get the right concoction of MCP. The agent builds the integration itself, on the spot, in minutes.
by davidw | 2026-03-02 00:44:22+00:00
You don't think a family of four buys 'food' ? I also get beer occasionally, although sometimes I get it from the corner store a few blocks away.

I do get kitty litter with the car on the occasional trip to Costco because I'm not set on using the bike for every last thing. Just that the eBike makes a lot of things a lot more convenient.
by solaire_oa | 2026-03-02 00:44:42+00:00
We should definitely feel trepidation at the prospects of any LLM guided browser, in addition to WebMCP (e.g. Claude for Chrome enters the same opaque LLM-controlled/deferred decision process, OpenClaw etc).

Just one example: Prompting the browser to "register example.com" means that Google/Anthropic gets to hustle registrars for SEO-style priority. Using countermeasures like captcha locks you out of the LLM market.

Google's incentive to allow you to shop around via traditional web search is decreased since traditional ads won't be as lucrative (businesses will catch on that blanket targeted ads aren't as effective as a "referral" that directs an LLM to purchase something directly)... expect web search quality to decline, perhaps intentionally.

The only way to combat this, as far as I can conceptualize, is with open models, which are not yet as good as private ones, in no small part due to the extraordinary investment subsidization. We can hope for the bubble to pop, but plan for a deader Internet.

Meanwhile, trust online, at large, begins to evaporate as nobody can tell what is an LLM vs a human-conducted browser. The Internet at large is entering some very dark waters.
by perching_aix | 2026-03-02 00:45:10+00:00
This made me reflect on online interactions.

Agreeable comments will draw comparatively fewer replies, while disagreeable ones achieve the opposite.

But this then results in a "false experience" for the individual, where unlike in real life, the bad exchanges do not end up outweighed by the good ones, as you simply don't go on to have those. You just upvote and move on.

Maybe if the two were tied together (voting either up / down & sending a reply), communities would work healthier? I don't know. Not like it's easy to have this tried out.
by lynndotpy | 2026-03-02 00:45:21+00:00
> And to enforce tolerance, indeed it may be needed to view those who fail at this as childish.

No, it's not necessary to denigrate other people under the belief you can police others by proxy.

"Is this derogatory or offensive?" is a basic localization question that is constantly asked in many languages. Yes, including Arabic.

I generally agree about the evils of linguistic imperialism. But I'm describing the world I live in, not the one I want to create.

But that's beside the point. "Linguistic imperialism" is the wrong lens to use here to defend the name. GIMP is not a sordophone, it's the opposite.

GIMP was named by American-born English speakers with the intent to have an edgy name. GIMP was chosen in reference to the full-body sex garment, because they were college kids and that's funny when you're 23.

The intent was offense. It worked well. It's no surprise that GIMP is only well-adopted where the word doesn't carry its offensive meaning.
by Nevermark | 2026-03-02 00:45:30+00:00
I am not sure why you are being downvoted.

The use of "random" as explanation or characterization in science has certainly spanned everything from "we don't know", to "there is inherent indivisible physical randomness".

And I would agree, in the latter case it is a crutch. A postulate that something gets decided by no mechanisms whatsoever (randomness obeying a distribution still leaves the unexplained "choice").

It is remarkable that people still suggest the latter, when the theory, both in theory and experiment, doesn't require a physical choice at all (even if we experience a choice, that experience is explained without the universe making a choice).
by cogman10 | 2026-03-02 00:45:54+00:00
> I don't have it bookmarked but he did teach that and had his friend Lajevardi whom he supported and praised carry it out.

Look, I'm simply not going to believe this claim without evidence.

You are presenting terrible practices in Iran that I disagree with, but that wasn't your original claim.

From the links you've given, rape was because political prisoners were believed to be slaves. That's a despicable and gross practice. It is not, however "school girls should be raped before they are executed for not wearing hats so that they can't get into heaven". The reason for the rape of prisoners was because the prisoners were viewed as slaves, not to keep them from heaven (from what I've read).

> If this is moderation then what does fundamentalism look like?

Relative to the region. Iran has been brutal to it's dissidents and enemies of the state.

However, if you compare the rights of women under Iran vs Saudi Arabia, you'll end up finding that women in Iran have more rights and freedoms. That's what relative means.

I'm not here to defend Khamenei. The reason I pushed back was because, as I said, you don't need to lie about someone you don't like. These are the facts you should present and represent. Talk about how Iran rapes political enemies. That is a horrible practice. But the extreme "He said to rape girls without hijabs and then kill them to keep them from heaven" is just a lie. Hell, you can pretty accurately say "He taught that political prisoners are slaves, which his government used to justify raping female prisoners". That's a true statement that makes him look horrible.
by loeg | 2026-03-02 00:46:14+00:00
> thinner chain which wear faster

This gets repeated a lot, but isn't true. Cheaply made single-speed and 6/7/8 chains aren't any more robust than nice modern 10 and 11-speed chains. Shimano CUES (11-speed) works fine for ebikes.

Belts are fine, but less efficient than well-maintained chains. And they require special frames with some way of breaking the rear triangle.
by aftbit | 2026-03-02 00:47:20+00:00
This is reminding us something that we should never have forgotten - modern war has an insatiable demand for munitions.

To take just one example out of dozens, the US fired somewhere from 100 to 150 THAAD interceptors - about ¼ of the stockpile - during the 12 days war in 2025. We produce just under 100 per year. There are plans to raise that number to 400 per year.

The Ukrainians were expending somewhere around 10,000 drones per day in mid 2025. Russian numbers are likely broadly similar.

Many historical conflicts have featured a substantial bottleneck on multiple munitions during ramp up. World War 1 had artillery shell crises across Britain, France, Russia, and Germany. World War II had similar, especially for the Russians and Germans. The US was short on ammo early in the Korean war.

Modern mechanized combat demands an insane manufacturing and logistics chain. It can burn through stockpiles incredibly fast, especially of high capability expensive munitions. War production levels are utterly unsustainable during peace time.

This is why peer and near-peer conflict is as much an economic and productive game as it is a military one. Shock and awe takes a tremendous amount of resources to accomplish at all, let alone sustain.
by spaqin | 2026-03-02 00:50:41+00:00
It used to be better.

I've been running Android custom ROMs since Gingerbread days, on HTC HD2. At that time, I'd be flashing nightlies, switching between CyanogenMod and Paranoid Android, kernels, getting bootloops.

Setting up the phone was no big deal - most apps could be backed up with Titanium Backup, few that couldn't (e.g. banking) would just get redownloaded and I'd log in immediately. I was also still a student back then and had more time to tinker, but if it was anything like it is now, I would've given up much quicker.

In the last year I had to do few clean flashes with changing my phone, then updating LineageOS, and once the phone just wiped itself for no reason. Backups don't work for most apps - even if you can get one, they'll crash without a specific reason. 2FA everywhere is mostly security theater, with apps that have no business keeping my data but insisting on it, using SMS, email, authenticators, selfies. Banking apps needing two layers of root detection circumvention (because a custom ROM is already problematic, so you need root to stop them from detecting an unlocked bootloader, and then again not to detect root). Google insisting on sending a security check notification to a phone that's just been wiped with no ability to confirm that it's really you from your PC (but if you give it few minutes, it will give in and let you verify with SMS), always feels like hacking yourself.

It's a massive pain already on a clean, bloatware-free custom ROM, with a truly minimum app list. Once you need to start debloating the official OS, it's another hour or three, depending if they're nice and let you uninstall things or if you need adb access to disable offending packages.
by yieldcrv | 2026-03-02 00:51:13+00:00
why does the article say it would be difficult to liquidate those tokens instead of just posting the address so we can see what they did?

I think this is a symptom of general ignorance and decade-plus-long aversion to understand crypto. Its a choice and it works extremely well for the person that now has custody.

okay lets narrow it down, it mentions the token name - approximately 4 million Pre-Retogeum, or PRTG - so we can just look up that token on the network its deployed on, and look for large recent transactions

Edit: I’m looking at this address now, based on receiving the 4,000,000 tokens 1,000+ days and sending them out 2 days ago

https://etherscan.io/address/0x8efa52827c229c434fe9c915b2d99...
by staticassertion | 2026-03-02 00:51:16+00:00
It is not incomplete to say that something does not require explanation, nor is it saying it's "magic". It is a cost that your model might incur, that's it.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15776

In this paper a plurality of physicists stated that they felt that the initial conditions of the universe are brute facts that warrant no further explanation. This is not "our model doesn't yet account for it", it's "there is no explanation to be given".
by notepad0x90 | 2026-03-02 00:52:31+00:00
you're right, and those companies are traitors. But even then, I'm pretty sure they can't buy data enmasse to target a large number of americans without reason, but they could get around it by saying it's "just analysis of data", but they can only get around it that way because the judges are bought and paid for. When it suits them they interpret the constitution in the spirit it was written, when it doesn't according to the specific letters. The wording is clear on this:

"""

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"""

It doesn't matter how the right of the people to be secure against searches and seizures is implemented. If the government manages to cause that, they're in violation. For other amendments it is written with wording like "congress shall not" indicating the restriction is on the government, preventing it from doing specific things. In this case, any violation of search and seizure is unlawful.
by cal_dent | 2026-03-02 00:52:44+00:00
>"the biggest excuse"

Most important line in this article. People will always find an excuse (and i'm including myself in this at times) but that is all it is, an excuse. Talking to people is what makes us human and its innate. You might not be the best conversationalist or whatever but you can still talk to people, no need to put any pressure on it.
by gruez | 2026-03-02 00:53:22+00:00
Going through each of the cases:

>Twitter is creating CSAM

It's unclear whether generated CSAM is illegal, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn.... Moreover x/x.ai wasn't intentionally generating the images. Yes, someone intentionally set up grok to generate images, but nobody at x/x.ai was like "yes, let's generate some CSAM". That adds an additional layer of obfuscation that makes it harder to compare to a "regular person".

>Meta & OpenAI pirate millions of books

Give me a break. People on /r/datahoarders pirate millions of books all the time. Use a VPN and basically nobody bothers going after you. If anything Meta/OpenAI are getting harsher treatment than the average person because they're juicier defendants.

>Nvidia is playing some sort of shell game to pump their stock price

That's not even something that's illegal.
by fuzzfactor | 2026-03-02 00:54:36+00:00
Good point, maybe things would be more friendly if the prevailing reasoning were not as isolating.

I think the default is sociability too, but for reasons it does seem to be on the retreat.

> Would you be bothered

>basically anywhere there are other people,

Seems like a perfectly legitimate prerogative to me anyway. Actually more "popular" than ever from some of the comments.

>They just can't understand that people wouldn't want to talk to them.

This however does not follow completely logically.

More like "They just can't realize that of all the people who would want to talk to them, you aren't one of them."

No harm done regardless.
by Nevermark | 2026-03-02 00:54:39+00:00
Good questions.

> The future me would end up in one of two branches: I measure spin up, or I measure spin down.

The future "you's" would each see spin up, and spin down, respectively.

We are just as quantum as what we measure. There isn't a scale where entanglement and superposition turn into something else. No classical vs. quantum atoms.

Just as an up-spin qubit touching an up/down qubit results in an up-up qubit pair in superposition with an up-down superposition, conserving the qubit, when we touch a qubit we get "us"-up and "us"-down versions.

No information is created. None is destroyed. We experience a correlation = "collapse" (both versions of us), but the quantum information just continues on as before, qubit conserved.
by orangecoffee | 2026-03-02 00:54:40+00:00
Your getting unnecessarily down voted by devs who want to feel morally superior, but don't have any concrete answer to the conundrum you've posed.

It's about money, and the actual solution would be to lower pay at senior level and give it to juniors, with some lock in agreed by the junior in exchange for this grace.

I doubt the vast majority will agree to this.
by krackers | 2026-03-02 00:56:01+00:00
No, this statement is not true for anything except a base model. Benchmaxxing during RL phase is how you get the advertisement style "punchy" writing, because even though people don't usually write that way it is eye catching and people will vote for the bullet-point emdash slop. I wonder if some lab will be bold enough to do "anti rlhf", lmarena score be damned.
by danbruc | 2026-03-02 00:56:15+00:00
But isn’t it conceivable, because the original quantum state contains probabilities of different outcomes, that one imprint might correspond to “up” and another to “down,” [...] [Zurek’s theory] predicts that all the imprints must be identical.

Does this not imply that there is an asymmetry, one half of the state gets imprinted, the other half neglected? This however also raises the question about the basis, what is a superposition and what is not depends on the choice of basis. Is there a special basis just as pointer states are somehow special?
by mijoharas | 2026-03-02 00:56:23+00:00
Just for the record, I don't at all think they're similar. I just don't think it's correct to call the moomins entirely whimsical (though they are a bit I guess.)

Mostly just trying to contextualise the moomins with some info I found interesting and unexpected given that it looks like a children's show about anthropomorphic hippos.
by thesz | 2026-03-02 00:56:42+00:00
Most of the software engineers out there do the support, augmenting source code behemoths the least possible way to achieve desired outcome. I believe that more than 90% of software development was support roles as early as 2K or so.

Not that I had an opportunity to write new code, but most of my work through my experience was either to fix bugs or to add new functionality to an existing system with as little code as possible. Both goals mean reuse and understanding of the existing code. For both "reuse" and "understanding" you have to thoroughly read existing code a dozen or so times over.

Tests (in TDD) can show you presence of bugs, not the absence of them. For the absence of bugs one has to thoroughly know problem domain and source code solving the problems.
by fdgg | 2026-03-02 00:57:08+00:00
Its a disaster.

Remember this simple fact - if you dont use it, you lose it. The cognitive damage these tools will create wont be largely visible on a macro-perspective for a few more years yet. But people are eventually going to realise, all this work (pre off-loading to LLMs) once geared the brain to work in a particular kind of way that results in the generation of ideas for inventions to yield innovations and so on...

Personally Im only strictly hiring people who have not been exposed to the LLM-virus / people who are extremely disciplined with their use about it (which is difficult to determine).
by Jonhvmp | 2026-03-02 00:57:46+00:00
Yeah, those selective hits scream custom scrapers or AI data hunters. To track 'em:

- Parse logs: zcat access.log.* | awk '{print $1,$7}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20

Shows top IPs/paths. Whois suspicious ones.

- Add JS fingerprinting (canvas hashing, WebGL) to log real vs headless.

- Bait pages with unique content.

Set up alerts on anomalies. Caught some sneaky ones that way!
by chrisaycock | 2026-03-02 00:58:35+00:00
Indeed, my very first attempt used numpy.searchsorted:

https://numpy.org/doc/2.2/reference/generated/numpy.searchso...

I couldn't figure-out how Arthur's bin matched on symbol though, so I switched to a linear scan on the right table to record the last-seen index for each "by" element. While it worked, my hash table was messy because I relied on Python to handle a whole tuple as a key, which had some issues during initial testing.

The asof join I wrote for Empirical properly categorizes the keys before they are matched. That approach worked far better.

https://www.empirical-soft.com/tutorial.html#dataframes
by ajb | 2026-03-02 00:58:41+00:00
The only language I'm aware of that's a bit like that is rpython, but it's the other way round: designed for python to compile to it. If you think about it, you get more benefit from the typed language being the base one, as the compiler or JIT can make more assumptions, producing faster code . Typescript had no alternative but to do it the other way, since it's a lot harder to get things adopted into the browser than to ship them independently.
by lynndotpy | 2026-03-02 01:00:25+00:00
I think it might be muscle memory. I started using GIMP in 2005 or so before the single window mode, and my muscle memory is tailor-fit to it. It felt like an extension of myself.

With GIMP 3, there are a lot of improvements! But it also breaks my muscle memory a lot. GIMP 3 is objectively better, but I find myself opening 2.10 regularly.
by cal_dent | 2026-03-02 01:00:26+00:00
I echo this so much.

I'd add also that learning to hear someone tell you no and not taking it to heart and getting on with your life. So many people walk through life being afraid of hearing someone reply "no" to them, like its some existential rejection of them and that stops them from doing many things.

I'll make chit chat with anyone, and people who dont want to chat with are generally pretty explicit about saying they dont want to chat or don't have time, or pretty obviously implicit about it by not engaging or looking for ways out.