skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Searchable library of free audiobooks
I noticed that many websites offering free audiobooks tend to have clunky search functionality, making it harder to find what you're looking for. To address this, I’ve created a site that aggregates audiobooks from multiple platforms—complete with book reviews and ratings—making it easier to discover and explore new titles.

At the moment, I've included audiobooks from popular sources like Librivox, Project Gutenberg, and Lit2Go.

I'm open to suggestions on additional free audiobook sources I could integrate into the site to expand the collection!
> even more efficient are smaller scale and fairly disruptive.

your tiny powerful PC "against" data centers running tickytackytock style brainwashing, priming rythms over days, weeks, months, personalized and perfectly timed with all that IoT you pass every day everywhere, just for the sale, the vote, disrupting your cognitive processes, watching you react and act, testing and quantifying your interactions and their (crawling:) psycho-social envelopment of your development... berry undisruptive, if you ask me, all while you think you're so very normal, thank you very much.

not much to hope for except "uuuuh you can makes animes and animations for bluestergram and threats" and ADverse content for le Tube and run automated companies whose supply chains will be just that and maybe maybe maybe train a wAIfu to post on XXX to hopefully find an accelerating ( or exhilarating) and adequately perverted one made of flesh and so on ...
What are “parrot people”? And what do you mean by “doomers are probably wrong?”
Yeah, their stock is WAY over inflated. I know their data wells are drying up fast. The long bets aren't working out. The AI stuff is neat, and certainly disruptive, but it isn't a paying bet.

The writing is on the wall, and his "falling in line" with theb political climate speaks volumes on his effort to keep Meta afloat.
You don’t find it at all concerning how quickly this is happening? How have they learned so much in such a little amount of time? It’s incredibly naive to just trust that they’re this efficient.

I mean at least make it look like this is what you’re accomplishing. They’re not even trying to convince anyone, we’re just supposed to trust.
There are no Rust bits anywhere outside drivers, and hopefully that will continue to be the case. This means that mainline Linux kernel has no hard dependency on Rust whatsoever, which also means that Rust can be excised at any point with a minimum of effort.

I'm 100% behind Christoph, the last thing Linux needs is the extra complexity that Rust brings. I'm fairly optimistic that Rust will never be a hard dependency for the foreseeable future.
If you could add some sort of hint to the object pool instance that it should always be in the new generation, then you wouldn’t have this problem. This could probably be provided generically as a class named something like NurseryCollection.

However, I thought the people that really were serious about performance would allocate the pool in memory the GC doesn’t control (back in the day using internal APIs, but I think there are new official APIs for this) such that the object pool and every object in it would just be ignored by the GC.
> So in 2008, the wise and good-humored manager (who retired in 2014), did what no other airport manager in the world thought to do: he invented a word and a concept, "recombobulation."

Except that Piers Anthony used it in a book in 1983.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:recombobulate
OpenAI's First Fear
I recently wrote an article exploring how OpenAI's fear of public perception has shaped their decisions and branding. It breaks down OpenAI’s actions, especially on May 13, 2024, and how their naming decisions and hesitation reveal a deeper fear of public perception. It's not just a critique, but a lesson for all of us—to be bold and overcome fear.
> 1. The intelligence of an AI model roughly equals the log of the resources used to train and run it.

We are burning cash so fast and getting very little in return for it. This is a death spiral and we refuse to admit it.

> The cost to use a given level of AI falls about 10x every 12 months, and lower prices lead to much more use.

We are entirely unconcerned with accuracy and refuse to see how the limitations of our product will not allow us to follow this simple economic aphorism into success.

> The socioeconomic value of linearly increasing intelligence is super-exponential in nature.

You see, even though we're burning money at an exponentially increasing rate, some how this /linear/ increase in output is secretly "super-exponential" in nature. I have nothing to back this up but you just have to believe me.

At least Steve Jobs build something worth having before bullshitting about it. This is just embarassing.
Having been an avid net user since the early 90s, I can’t think of a time where that assertion wasn’t specious. In 2005— the year Gmail debuted and people stated using the term “web 2.0”— most of the content on the net was still from traditional media sources— PR garbage and all. Most blogs were still people just rattling off their opinions which was more likely based on the available content than their own high-quality research. And lack of oversight is a double-edged sword: sure you might have been less likely to get pure unfiltered marketing dreck but you were way more likely to get straight-up bullshit, which is a different, but serious problem. I think he was trying to champion the idealistic anti-establishment soul from the early net despite it essentially being an anachronism, even in 2005.
because you can make descriptions of useful human cognition without specifying the implementation. When you’re reading python code, do you ask, “wait, which hard register is this local variable stored in??”
all math leads to cryptography; all media leads to ads (?)
You're right of course.

In the original drafts I had a long section on this, including some of the history of the GUI, the development of the mouse, etc. It was way too much for the main text when the point is just to set up a metaphor for students who have seen a Mac 128.

That said, we can and should do better in the instructor guide. Thanks for the reminder. I'll add some context there.
That’s not the same guy clearly
I'm not familiar with vector::reserve_at_least but assuming that's an API which reserves capacity without destroying the amortized constant time of the exponential growth built in to the type, yes, that.
Fine, that's your opinion (it's not mine), so please discuss the document you brought up, that you've auspiciously avoided mentioning for the past two replies.

The document you brought up says "Unfortunately, on August 1st, Luna publicly: Doxxed me with a real-world identity". On that day, Luna said Asahi Lina was Hector Martin. Discuss.
At first AI models/systems/agents help employees be more productive.

But i can't imagine a future where this doesn't lead to mass layoffs, or hiring freezes because these systems can replace tens or hundreds of employess, the end result being more and more unemployed people.

Sure there's been the industrial revolution and the argument usually is: some people will lose their jobs but many other jobs will be created. I'm not sure this argument gonna hold this time given the magnitude of the change.

Is there any serious study of the impact of AI on society and employment, and most importantly is there any solution to this problem ?
This is a key point. Given current overall levels of economic productivity, we should all be working 3-4 day weeks, at most.

To whom do the benefits of all this newfound efficiency accrue?
Meta deeply comprehends the impact of GPT-3 vs ChatGPT. The model is a starting point, and the UX of what you do with the model showcases intelligence. This is especially pronounced in visual models. Telling me SAM2 can "see anything" is neat. Clicking the soccer ball and watching the model track it seamlessly across the video even when occluded is incredible.
Oh sure, I'm not one of those "the world is so awful" people. We've made immense progress on a lot of very important dimensions.

Fair point on the current output not producing enough to really give people their time back.

And yes I agree, we should continue pushing productivity forward. My point is only that productivity growth by itself does not necessarily yield anything close to the optimal distribution of its benefits. In fact we have good reason to believe that higher tiers of technology which produce more technological leverage owned by fewer and fewer people are naturally antagonistic to optimal distribution of its benefits.

I'll take a fairly expansive definition of "optimal distribution" here to just say we should shoot at least for a distribution of wealth that is socially and politically stable for a free society in the long run.
They add up.

Private plane: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/executives-at-pg-e-h...

You hire your buddy’s company as a consultant or contractor, too. At a sweet rate.
Yeah, immutable collections have to use structure-sharing to be implemented efficiently and this frequently results in common operations allocating lots of small objects rather than updating some object in-place.
So why did the bankers that finance the loan write it down by nearly 80%? They have access to all the financial data and yet decided to take a major loss on their loan due to?

From what it appears, Late 2024, Fidelity wrote down their loans by 79% [1] and then sold it early 2025 for 97 cents on the dollar (of the reduced value) [2].

I really struggle to believe that the banks are just taking this massive loss by mistake and that the value is actually still there.

[1] - https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/29/fidelity-has-cut-xs-value-...
[2] - https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/business/banks-sell-5-5b-of-x-...
Post-scarcity can work if everyone can say "here are me needs, they are now fulfilled, I have a happy and satisfying life". The issue is some people have a deep need to have more than others so they will always strive to have more, including power. AI, if it's ever created will be just another tool they'll use to get it.
"flying in from time to time"?

I'm sorry but what are these guys working on that's taking precedence over this?
This isn’t some random GitHub discussion thread. This is a discussion about Intels business interests in Israel and why they keep investing in Israel.

You won’t find a more appropriate place to discuss their overall ideology. And it’d really telling that administration here keeps flagging those comments.
Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that OpenAI may be starting to feel desperate if they feel the need to drive the hype like this.
"rare earth metals" aren't "rare" to the USA

They are "rare" per ton of earth in general

So it's just that mining them is so labor intensive and so toxic (uranium and other radioactivity) that it is expensive outside of places like China.

Automate that with bots or whatnot and maybe we don't have to invade Canada and Greenland and start WW3
I wonder what this is going to do to the value of the dollar in the next couple years...
> not a team of financial auditors

There is a claim that many federal payments do not have information necessary for traditional financial audits. Maybe a team of forensic auditors would be more apt?
I would argue that the same could be said that "from the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country" it's evident that the government has been recklessly spending money. The reality is Americans voted this in, they wanted it. Both sides have made historical voting points for claiming to clean up corruption and cut the fat, none of them really did. This time it's being cut for everyone to see. They don't like it. People will fight it. Some good programs will be impacted. Once the dust settles we'll fix it, but for now I have yet to see any good arguments for some of the excess spending programs. I've seen little or no justification for billions going to foreign countries while Americans are in need of help.
Interesting. I was SO into the Simpsons at one time, but somehow I'd never seen that episode (as best as I can remember anyway). Now I feel the urge to go back and rewatch every episode of the Simpsons from the beginning. It would be fun, but man, what a time sink. I started the same thing with South Park a while back and stalled out somewhere around Season 5. I'd like to get back to it, but time... time is always against us.
That's been a non-issue for several years now.
That's a bit different than complete access to the complete payments database isn't it?
> When compared to encoding a value directly in binary, base64 has about a 25% overhead (6 bits /8 bits, 3/4).

The original data take ≥25% less space than the base64-encoded data, but the base64-encoded data take ≥33⅓% more space than the original data. The overhead is about 33⅓%.
This comment is a good distillation of my frustration with Unix ideologues. Unix and the CLI can never fail, they can only be failed; any possible unhappiness is a "skill issue"; it's your job to memorize a thousand arcane and badly-systematized program names and flags, created in an era of RAM and disk space limitations which have no relevance today, etc. And going "many of the same problems exist in GUIs" is a "no u" tier of response.
It's probably not the only input you want but, generally, I agree with your comment especially across a number of posts.
Never used F#. Looked it up for thread cancellation and it is syntactic sugar similar to defer in Go. Kind of like an await return is a wrapper around f(x) callback.

Been years since I wrote Go code, until last week. Daily has become C#, python, and powershell. Took a day to fall back in and write a tool while learning a new GUI framework. Found the strengths and weaknesses of the GUI.

Personal, I find Go more pleasurable to work with than python and C#. Reality, the project requirements dictate the languages that maybe used. This is the reason why Go was chosen over the others listed and unlisted C, C++, Swift, rust, ...

Which would be a better experience with developing for iOS, Swift or C# or Go? If it was company's main solution or product, Swift, even when I will need to learn it.

>Take a transport, like an HTTP client, send two/three/n requests concurrently

That is business logic. Back end maybe embedded and this could become a DOS attack.

.NET implemented the code to manage task pools so you don't have to. N aysnc is really a set of Z handlers. With syntax sugar.

>Context propagation issues are known

Doesn't a context need to exist for two entities to communicate and no system can exist where context is not shared?

This is the adapter pattern in GoF, which in can be reduced to function g controlling the interactions between function a and b, where function a or b may act upon the agreed upon return type, callback type, or memory type. Address of the return, callback, and memory must be shared either with-in g() or a() and b() .. from CPU register up to system memory address.

>And why would anyone need to bother with explicit synchronization anway?

Dependent on business logic. Including which 3rd party libraries must be used for the solution. Software might be architecture for using Reactive objects which mimic async / await with more well defined and shared behavior. A custom managed thread maybe needed for more accurate time limits or an event loop is needed.

>sleek one-liner.

Be warned, one liners may seem useful, until they need to be debugged. There is a great difference between the two C# Reactive objects:

{

doing.Where(x => x.CanDo()).Subscribe(x => x.ExtensionDigestion());

doing.Where(x => {

#if DEBUG
// Set ID_WITH_ISSUES_OR_TESTING to the proper ID when developing new user experience or interface. Use for debugging single issue bug that just happens with the same ID or same line of 3rd party product tie-ins.

if (x.Id == ID_WITH_ISSUES_OR_TESTING) {
var i = DateTime.UtcNow();
}

#endif

return x.CanDo()
}
.Subscribe(x => {
x.ExtensionDigestion();
});
}
I think it was this paper?

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800478115
Link to ETA release and pdf https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv
i guarantee you that PG&E is nothing like an efficient company.
a ton of replies to dang's adminsitraviata comment are highjacking his "sticky" to coattail all their comments to the top, and the comments are generally right on the edge of being what dang's comment is trying to warn against.

I'd flag them all but fear that would appear heavy handed
Vetting might be a better word, and a more general term, than clearance.

Nearly all the jobs I’ve had working with data have required vetting - including a criminal background check. This is not the same thing as obtaining a security clearance.
I would trust 19 years old soldier with an assault weapon more then trusting him with what DOGE is supposed to do. Soldiers passed training literally designed to make them obey orders and not randomly shoot that gun. And there is whole hierarchy designed to keep their use of assault guns in check.

I would not trust a random 19 years old with assault gun, I would not trust that guy if we were alone in the room where his superiors do not see. But, I would be afraid of him raping me more then him using that gun without order.
You can use a borrow checker to replace immutable objects with update-in-place ("ephemeral") ones where feasible.
Security clearance will include family members, and it's entirely possible someone will be denied clearance because of something they've done that makes them susceptible to coercion. The candidate would need to disclose things like this.

Reddit is full of examples where someone's family impacted their clearance (either denying it or requiring disclosure):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/4d4xd8/possib...

https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/11pkjew/will_a_f...

etc
I believe it was a 50% refund on the (purchased) battery; not a 50% off coupon on another. That's how I read it anyway.
I believe for the same reasons that Latin helps develop a foundation in language, the people who designed it were looking at the problem from many different levels all at the same time. The first language I encountered with split behavioral / code components was Mesa at Xerox, and then Modula 2. (later VHDL but that's different?)

I think at the other end are lisp/forth list/stack languages which made this particular crate: https://github.com/BrentSeidel/Ada-Lisp-Embedded/tree/main/s... getting an award interesting to me. The combination of the two languages has an expressibility that individually they don't possess.
Ada/SPARK can be memory safe, in part because they borrowed ideas from Rust.

[0] https://blog.adacore.com/using-pointers-in-spark
Definitely the right way to approach this. You already need to know what you're doing (for validation and error checking), but if you do it can be faster. As long as P != NP the validation is faster than coming up with the solution. My only concern is how far away from a "good" solution is the quick LLM + check vs expert solution. It may be worth using human expertise in 2 weeks than validated LLM solution in 2 hours. (And i'd question good validation of traditionally 2 week work in 2 hours.)

There's going to be a lot of moving fast and breaking things coming. Hopefully less breaking than moving.
This is something we've given serious consideration, having taught a course called "Calling Bullshit" (http://callingbullshit.org) for almost a decade and having authored a book by the same name that gets downranked on various Amazon features because of its title.

But the bullshit is a term of art here, after the seminal 1986 article "On Bullshit" by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt (later published as a little book). We strongly feel that it is exactly the right term for what LLMs are doing, and we make the case for that in lesson 2 of the course. (https://thebullshitmachines.com/lesson-2-the-nature-of-bulls...)

We're also concerned about accessibility for high school teachers etc., and thinking about what to do in that direction.

I'm curious: do you find "bs" to be any less offensive?
I don't see how this isn't hacker news: "What is the technical education of the teenager with security clearance to the network of the org that is responsible for nukes"

That sounds *literallyf like the plot for any 80s hacker movie out there. You know, when hacking was political and hackers were people interested in undermining structures of authority and bending the rules.

That is the origin of hacking, and as such it is totally in order to discuss such topics here, IMO.

I'd rather read stuff like this than another CEOs musings that are entirely marketing and make believe (cue Sam Altman). Just because it affirms billionairs viewpoints of the status quo doesn't make it apolitical. If it feels apolitical to you that probably says something about your political biases.
I'd be happy if they dropped both taxes and regulations
Companies have the ideologies, as put forward by their board.

They’re not random creations.
I refuse to listen to anyone who has done nothing in life but maximize their wealth and power, play corporate political games, and grift investors for all they're worth. Shame the actual innovators don't blog much, usually because they're too busy doing the actual work.
Note to the above: I am wrong. My license plate back then was C++HACKR, with the actual "+" signs. NC license plates do allow that, although while the +'s are on the tag, they don't show up on your registration card or in the DMV computer system.

I mixed up the tag and my old domain name, which was "cpphacker.co.uk" (and later, just cpphacker.com/org).
I am not sure that the internal process could not work through conceiving «temporary harmony[...] rhythmic, tonal, timbral [etc.]».

Furthermore, the sound itself is crucial, so perfect calibration of a perfect sound is definitely a part of what can be clearly be sought (when you do not want to leave that to a secondary human process in the workflow).
But it's possible that the compiler is smart enough to optimize the step() version down to the same code as the conditional version. If true, that still wouldn't justify using step(), but it would mean that the step() version isn't "wasting two multiplications and one or two additions" as the post says.

(I don't know enough about GPU compilers to say whether they implement such an optimization, but if step() abuse is as popular as the post says, then they probably should.)
The original grocery store that invented the shopping cart had to hire actors to pretend to use them before customers "got it".

I wouldn't read too much into customers knowing what they want.
I do this but at the end: some_table_vw
Google Pay Study Finds It Underpaid Men for Some Jobs (2019)