skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No you are yet again missing the point.

No black person chooses to be born black. Casting judgement on any individual black person for the actions of other black people is unethical for that reason.

Every single cop chose to be there, chooses to continue being a cop every day despite constant and repeated examples of blatant corruption, bad behavior, literal thuggery, planting evidence, and the Good Ol' Boys network endemic to the institution. They are culpable for that choice. Continuing to be a cop in this environment (specifically where there is zero chance to "reform it from the inside" due to structural problems). Ask any ex-cop why they left. The system is completely broken and designed to empower cops to be thugs without consequence.

"Good cops" don't stay cops because they get bullied by literal cop gangs to either become a bad cop and do thuggery or to get the fuck out. There are no Good cops.
Yep, the colors come from the PC System Design Guide [1] developed by Microsoft and Intel in the late 90s after IBM completely lost control of the PC market.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_System_Design_Guide
Are they? Every foundation model release includes benchmarks with different levels of performance in different task domains. I don't think I've seen any model advertised by its creating org as either perfect or even equally competent across all domains.

The secondary market snake oil salesmen <cough>Manus</cough>? That's another matter entirely and a very high degree of skepticism for their claims is certainly warranted. But that's not different than many other huckster-saturated domains.
They are basically lacking the experience and have limited knowledge of the world around them. And us adults often fail to understand their mental model, since we usually won't connect the same dots, but there is definitely logic to their reasoning. It's best to try and ask more questions to know how they've come to some ridiculous idea, and they usually reveal one or two steps that I wouldn't think about.
Time between disengagements: the rise of the software conductor
Creating an effectively physical representation of a neural net appears like a major step forward, even if this is just the first part of that step. I am surprised that this is the first instance of this kind of attempt, but maybe it's just the newest? It's hard to keep track of the progress from outside the industry!
Yea, I think that "self-regulation" is one of the most important things we should be encouraging kids to learn and feel confident in.
US for a long time literally didn't want Europe to build a military/nuclear power ( and compete... )

Learn history :)
Making plastics out of sodium, phosphorus, and guanidinium ions [1] which the link characterizes as a "strong organic base", which is designed to break down and so will do so not just in the ocean, suggests to me that there are enough engineering disadvantages the article is not talking about that we'll probably never see this in real life.

It's chemically quite distant from traditional plastics.

The ocean may not care about some extra sodium and phosphorus... and then again, if we made enough, maybe it would... but I'll graciously assume for now it wouldn't, but the other places this would inevitably end up breaking down would probably not appreciate the resulting mess. I have to imagine any quantity of this in a fire near humans would be a fairly substantial problem of some sort. I don't know exactly what would pop out but it's got some awfully "exciting" feedstock going in to it with that sodium and phosphorus.

[1]: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/guanidinium#sectio...
I've been buying third party silicone lids on Amazon that are compatible with pyrex and anchor glass storage.
It doesn't seem like the state of being under construction would have been the problem. It's a reinforced, poured-in-place concrete building. It should be as strong in that state as it would ever have been. Suggests a design error.
Here's my process:

1. Use ChatGPT-4o, upload a picture (for me I had a Titanic poster, you know..) with prompt "convert this photo to studio ghibli style anime."

2. Visit Movii.ai, log in with Google, upload the generated image as the first frame, pick a model (e.g. Wan/Vidu), choose 720p resolution, and set the duration to 5 seconds. I generated over 10 videos, totally free, no cc needed

3. Wait about a minute and voilà!

Check out what I got! (was very excited about this!!) =]

https://movii1s1.mai-cdn.com/projectt/video/655635988205062_...

I have tried AI tools like Freepik and Pollo.ai in the last couple months, Movii.ai is very new but feels cleaner and has no hidden tricks.

LGTM so far.
Im in Europe where ISO standard borosilicate glassware is common. However it is softer and more easily scratched by sand grains than soda-lime glass. Sand can get into food from vegetables or herbs. I had such scratched borosilicate tea kettle which shattered completely shortly afterwards. So this might be the core issue and now I take the disclaimers "never use if scratched" seriously.

Lab reagents are much less likely to contain sand grains so it won't happen there.
Executive order slams Smithsonian for recognizing race is not biological reality
I blame the laws applying children for why this misconception is so widely spread. If companies hired children more people would realize how capable they are. Instead now they have to segregate and start their own companies or work for free where they won't coexist with adults. Adults have a superiority complex over children and don't want them to compete with them as it would shatter their ego.
I wonder if meta and xai are doing this level of in depth analysis of their LLMs. Feels like they're just throwing compute at it. I can only imagine what anthropic has that they don't publish.
It's interesting to see the slow rehabilitation of XML and its tooling now that there's a new generation of developers who have not grown up in the shadow of XML's prime in the late 90s / early 2000s, and who have not heard (or did not buy into) the anti-XML crowd's ranting --- even though some of their criticisms were legitimate.

I've always liked XML, and especially XPath, and even though there were a large number of missteps in the heyday of XML, I feel it has always been unfairly maligned. Look at all the people who reinvent XML tooling but for JSON, but not nearly as well. Luckily, people who value XML can still use it, provided the fit is right. But it's nice to see the tides turning.

Most fashions really are cyclical.
>> It is really a head scratcher that it is so hard to find quality food storage in 2025.

We're living in a disposable society. As companies have found out. its better to sell something that lasts for a few years and then (as you have pointed out) force your customers to buy a replacement or a "new and improved" version.

I remember growing up durability and longevity was always a part of the marketing of specific products. I vividly remember in the 70's watching commercials for cookware and the tagline that was used was, "The last mixer you'll ever buy!" or "Commercial grade blender! The blender that your children will use!" that sort of stuff. Nobody really touts the durability or longevity of their products any more.
> Turns out all the big ones with strict architectural (n=3) pattern usage, although “clean”, the code is waaaay to complex and unnecessarily slow in tasks that at first glance should had been simple.

My last job had a Python codebase just like this. Lots of patterns, implemented by people who wanted to do things "right," and it was a big slow mess. You can't get away with nearly as much in Python (pre-JIT, anyway) as you can in a natively compiled language or a JVM language. Every layer of indirection gets executed in the interpreter every single time.

What bothers me about this book and other books that are prescriptive about application architecture is that it pushes people towards baking in all the complexity right at the start, regardless of requirements, instead of adding complexity in response to real demands. You end up implementing both the complexity you need now and the complexity you don't need. You implement the complexity you'll need in two years if the product grows, and you place that complexity on the backs of the small team you have now, at the cost of functionality you need to make the product successful.

To me, that's architectural malpractice. Even worse, it affects how the programmers on your team think. They start thinking that it's always a good idea to make code more abstract. Your code gets bloated with ghosts of dreamed-of future functionality, layers that could hypothetically support future needs if those needs emerged. A culture of "more is better" can really take off with junior programmers who are eager to do good work, and they start implementing general frameworks on top of everything they do, making the codebase progressively more complex and harder to work in. And when a need they anticipated emerges in reality, the code they wrote to prepare for it usually turns out to be a liability.

Looking back on the large codebases I've worked with, they all have had areas where demands were simple and very little complexity was needed. The ones where the developers accepted their good luck and left those parts of the codebase simple were the ones that were relatively trouble-free and could evolve to meet new demands. The ones where the developers did things "right" and made every part of the codebase equally complex were overengineered messes that struggled under their own weight.

My preferred definition of architecture is the subset of design decisions that will be costly to change in the future. It follows that a goal of good design is minimizing architecture, avoiding choices that are costly to walk back. In software, the decision to ignore a problem you don't have is very rarely an expensive decision to undo. When a problem arises, it is almost always cheaper and easier to start from scratch than to adapt a solution that was created when the problem existed only in your head. The rare exceptions to this are extremely important, and from the point of view of optics, it always looks smarter and more responsible to have solved a problem incorrectly than not to have solved it at all, but we shouldn't make the mistake of identifying our worth and responsibility solely with those exceptions.
The actual MCP server is linked in the blog, I'll save you some scrolling by pasting it here: https://github.com/getzep/graphiti/tree/main/mcp_server
This looks interesting but somewhat complicated or not obvious how to get going in a classic "Show HN" style.

The requirement for an OpenAI key may also be a little off-putting, or at least, could do with some indication of realistic costs; most Cursor users will likely need a significant motivation to add to the subscription they already have.

Don't get me wrong, this could be a really worthwhile addition to the LLM coding toolset but I think it needs some work on the presentation as to how to get quickly up and running.
Simulated annealing works great for placing map labels. Lets say you have to label POI with flags, you do not want the flags to overlap and you can only place the labels NSEW of the POI.

1. Plop the labels down in random* directions.

2. Calculate the total overlap.

3. Randomly* move 10% of the labels.

4. Calculate the total overlap again,
If the overlap is improved, keep your changes,
If things got worse, then backtrack.

5. Sometimes you randomly keep changes that make things worse, this is the annealing part. This is how you escape local minima.

* The randomness does not have to be 100%, you can try smartly avoiding nearest neighbors 2/3 of the time and then do a random move 1/3 of the time. If you always try and be smart you will tend get trapped in a local minima.
Trump wants to disrupt global trade so people making their own small disruption is an odd way to protest that, although I understand the sentiment. Shipyard Brewery are not my enemy and I hope I will continue to be able to buy their beer in the UK.
Please provide examples
I love this. The more people that say "I don't get it" or "it's a stochastic parrot", the more time I get to build products rapidly without the competition that there would be if everyone was effectively using AI. Effectively is the key.

It's cliche at this point to say "you're using it wrong" but damn... it really is a thing. It's kind of like how some people can find something online in one Google query and others somehow manage to phrase things just wrong enough that they struggle. It really is two worlds. I can have AI pump out 100k tokens with a nearly 0% error rate, meanwhile my friends with equally high engineering skill struggle to get AI to edit 2 classes in their codebase.

There are a lot of critical skills and a lot of fluff out there. I think the fluff confuses things further. The variety of models and model versions confuses things EVEN MORE! When someone says "I tried LLMs and they failed at task xyz" ... what version was it? How long was the session? How did they prompt it? Did they provide sufficient context around what they wanted performed or answered? Did they have the LLM use tools if that is appropriate (web/deepresearch)?

It's never a like-for-like comparison. Today's cutting-edge models are nothing like even 6-months ago.

Honestly, with models like Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking mode) and OpenAI o3-mini-high, I'm not sure how people fail so hard at prompting and getting quality answers. The models practically predict your thoughts.

Maybe that's the problem, poor specifications in (prompt), expecting magic that conforms to their every specification (out).

I genuinely don't understand why some people are still pessimistic about LLMs.
Highly recommend listening to the 70s country gem that the title is an homage to: Take This Job And Shove It [1] by (the aptly named) Johnny Paycheck

[1] https://youtu.be/gj2iGAifSNI
According to Google Maps "measure distance" tool it's ~630 miles, or ~1000 km. I am very surprised it was felt so strongly at such a distance.
There’s a reason we don’t want Germany and Japan arming themselves, see world history from 1933-1945 for why.
It's true though. Talk to any teacher or childcare provider.
This will be helpful to learn from, unsure how parents might feel if they need a study to validate what they have suspected in their lives.

Little humans seem to get smarter from generation to generation.
Consumers in the countries mentioned do not have to ''sound threatening'' when they look at the country of origin label on products and actively choose a non-U.S.A. alternative. Your reaction to that is of no concern to them when their sovereignty and jobs are threatened. This leads me to strongly believe that your exposure to current events in those places seems to be quite limited.
> If a solution like this can reduce global hard plastic usage by even 1%, that would be a massive impact.

I would understand if it reduces plastic pollution, but how could it reduce usage?
If an alternative is more expensive, it seems like we should at least consider whether it’s also wasting more resources? I would want to see the comparison done well, rather than simply assuming that plastic must be worse.
> Sprinted out of the building, watching our rooftop pool collapse and rain down debris and water.

Drowning multiple floors above sea level due to an earth quake. That’s insane!
Yeah. I was using numbers and it's not serious software.

I needed "true" or "false" in certain cells. When typing in a cell, sometimes it would capitalize it to TRUE and you would need to type "'true" to avoid that; and sometimes it randomly would accept typing "true". I simply couldn't figure out which would happen at any time.

The whole program is riddled with things like that.
You add some additional instructions to the Cursor rules here: https://github.com/getzep/graphiti/tree/main/mcp_server#inte...

I think the difference is that Cursor doesn't update its rules automatically as you work, while this might?
So, a super-basic one I saw recently, in relation to Irish tax. In Ireland, ETFs are taxed differently to normal stocks (most ETFs available here are accumulating, they internally re-invest dividends; this is uncommon for US ETFs for tax reasons). Normal stocks have gains taxed under the capital gains regime (33% on gains when you sell). ETFs are different; they're taxed 40% on gains when you sell, and they are subject to 'deemed disposal'; every 8 years, you are taxed _as if you had sold and re-bought_. The ostensible reason for this is to offset the benefit from untaxed compounding of dividends.

Anyway, the magic robot 'knew' all that. Where it slipped up was in actually _working_ with it. Someone asked for a comparison of taxation on a 20 year investment in individual stocks vs ETFs, assuming re-investment of dividends and the same overall growth rate. The machine happily generated a comparison showing individual stocks doing massively better... On closer inspection, it was comparing growth for 20 years for the individual stocks to growth of 8 years for the ETFs. (It also got the marginal income tax rate wrong.)

But the nonsense it spat out _looked_ authoritative on first glance, and it was a couple of replies before it was pointed out that it was completely wrong. The problem isn't that the machine doesn't know the rules; insofar as it 'knows' anything, it knows the rules. But it certainly can't reliably apply them.

(I'd post a link, but they deleted it after it was pointed out that it was nonsense.)
Yes. Very much. My brain refuses to focus on harder problem by default. Seems to rely more on AI first before accepting the fact that some problems require deep thinking even to frame to the AI
Not worth trying to drag folks with this mindset into the future. The way I see his workflow(and I do get it, I’m stubborn with some financial stuff), is same way he sees using uv and other new stuff. I agree uv is real deal and will be around for awhile. It has totally reignited my love of writing python. I will say, the love of uv on hacker news has surprised me. I was expecting a lot more replies like theirs.
I'd expect some out of Meta, but comparatively little out of "xAI".
Very cool! I recently wrote an XSLT 2 transpiler for js (https://github.com/egh/xjslt) - it's nice to see some options out there! Writing the xpath engine is probably the hard part (I relied on fontoxpath). I'm going to be looking into what you have done for inspiration!
And sampling from a (now fixed) distribution can be made deterministic...

So the total generation of text from an LLM can be made fully deterministic. The problem for scientists is that we cant do that in the deployed systems...
Agreed - the article about the study gives very basic examples, for example.

Children seem to demonstrate when given support to explore their curiosities as a gateway to learning (Similar to Reggio Emelia approaches).
> Pretty sure anyone who knows anything about viruses would say they are alive

Whilst I don't doubt that, viruses don't abide by typical definitions of life that would include self-replication. Obviously, they do replicate, but not by themselves.
Ironically both Westlaw and Lexis have integrated AI into their offerings so it's magic robots all the way down.

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw-edge
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/protege.page
Non-paywall link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/business/rainbowex-crypto...

> Many were irate about bidding farewell to their massive RainbowEx “holdings,” as fictional as they were. Federico, a musician in his 30s, who was eager to maintain his privacy and spoke only on the condition that his last name was not used, was on the verge of pocketing a few thousand dollars when RainbowEx shut down.

> He participated even though he figured out months earlier that RainbowEx was a sham, he said one afternoon sitting at a restaurant in San Pedro. All of the “trading” happened on the exchange and on some evenings, Federico would look at real-world movement of crypto that La China had recommended buying. On the blockchain — which is to say, in reality — the coins were not budging. The bump that La China fans saw was bogus. Still, he clung to the thoroughly irrational hope that the profits in his RainbowEx account were real.

Utterly bonkers story, even within the genre of crypto scams. It’s almost easier to believe that the NYT published a fictional story than to think an entire town could fall for a Ponzi, in this age of ubiquitous internet access
It’s only $40B, Myanmar is exceptionally poor. For example, AAPL’s net profit is higher than Myanmar’s GDP.

I’m pretty sure China can dig around in their couch cushions and help them out, the military junta is heavily reliant on China already.

Probably the ‘shadow GDP’ of Myanmar from heroin and scam call centers is higher than the official GDP, but that’s pure speculation on my part.
Oh, a shame. Is there any way to track browser version adoption on caniuse, or any other site?

Also, is it up to browser implementations, or does WHATWG expect browsers to stay at version XSLT 1?
This, thirty years later, is the best pitch for XML I’ve read. Essentially, it’s a slow moving, standards-based approach to data interoperability.

I hated it the minute I learned about it, because it missed something I knew I cared about, but didn’t have a word for in the 90s - developer ergonomics. XML sucks shit for someone who wants to think tersely and code by hand. Seriously, I hate it with a fiery passion.

Happily to my mind the economics of easier-for-creators -> make web browsers and rendering engines either just DEAL with weird HTML, or else force people to use terse data specs like JSON won out. And we have a better and more interesting internet because of it.

However, I’m old enough now to appreciate there is a place for very long-standing standards in the data and data transformation space, and if the XML folks want to pick up that banner, I’m for it. I guess another way to say it is that XML has always seemed to be a data standard which is intended to be what computers prefer, not people. I’m old enough to welcome both, finally.
Not without investing in figuring it out:

> "If you don't have R&D in the US, you will not have semiconductor leadership in the US," Gelsinger said, according to a report this week in the Financial Times.
> I’m not sure what your problem is

All I'm saying is that "it’s actually Stadia that made linux gaming the most feasible" statement is at best contentious because in reality gaming on Linux was already made (more) feasible when Stadia had only just launched.

And Stadia used the same tech without ever giving back to Proton at all (atl least nothing I can quickly discover). So the absolute vast majority of work on Proton was done by Valve which you dismissed as "when Proton came around" (it came around before Stadia) and "quite a lot of heavy lifting had gone away" (Valve did most of the heavy lifting).

That's the extent of my "problem".

> at least some of the AAA games I worked on would not function at all on Linux without Stadias commercial interference.

So, not "actually Stadia that made gaming feasible on Linux" but "because Stadia used all the same tech, and there were possible commercial incentives early on until Google completely dropped the ball, bigger studios also invested in compatibility with the tech stack"
> The inverted pyramid is almost always the correct format for your text.

Do you find this conflicts with "offering an interesting story that resonates with the reader"?

For example: Using inverted pyramid to describe a problem and my solution, I'd structure my writing as "here's a problem, I found this solution, using this method". Whereas a story would usually be told in chronological order: "here's a problem, I tried these methods, and came to this solution".

Or is it possible to both have your cake and eat it? Tell a good story after giving away the ending?
No it doesn't. I don't ask my colleague "Would you care to go to the bar and drink a beer after work?" I say "Grab a beer later?" As does every other normal person I know. "Get lunch?" Etc.