throwaway150

Yep, and it's not just Clojure. This will end up flagging projects across all non-mainstream ecosystems. Whether it's Vim plugins, niche command-line tools, academic research code, or hobbyist libraries for things like game development or creative coding, they'll likely get flagged simply because they're often maintained by individual developers. These devs build the projects, iterate quickly in the early stages, and eventually reach a point where the code is stable and no longer needs frequent updates.

It's a shame that this tool penalizes such projects, which I think are vital to a healthy open source ecosystem.

It's a nice project otherwise. But flagging stable projects from solo developers really sticks out like a sore thumb. :(

I'm not sure that your inability to recognize satire is something worth broadcasting here. It's not something to be proud of.

For someone like me who isn't very well versed with US politics, could someone explain like I'm a layperson what Obama's universal healthcare is like and what it was meant to do.

Was it anything like the universal free healthcare of Canada, UK, European countries? Or was it still paid healthcare but Obama wanted to integrate all of the healthcare in a universal system? Did it get implemented or is still in the works?

How can you be so sure? How do you know that our brains don't work like transformers too, except for having the advantage of having more types of sensory data? How can you settle this debate without defining what "thinking" and "reasoning" is and how what LLMs do is not similar to what a kindergarten level kid may be capable of? I think we all agree kindergarten kids can think and reason, don't we?

Are you sure? Could it be confirmation bias because you do understand the CSS?

From what I've seen across multiple teams, it's very common for developers to just slap Tailwind onto their project, copy-paste classes they found online and call it "done." Maintainability and reusability are treated as someone else's problem.

So happy to see CSS Zen Garden on HN today! Those were the days!

But I've also got to rant now.

What I find most troubling about Tailwind and CSS "frameworks" like it (and modern software development in general) is the growing pride in not understanding the underlying systems.

Tailwind offers a quick, surface-level solution: you can slap some utility classes onto a page and get something that looks "good enough" without ever learning how CSS actually works. Nevermind that the HTML is now a mess where you've got more CSS classes than content!

The attitude is, "Who cares how it works? I got my pretty page. That's a win!"

But this isn't just a Tailwind problem. It's part of a larger trend in the industry: celebrating ignorance, rushing for results without building real understanding.

When did not knowing become something to be proud of? Isn't it sad that depth and mastery are now treated as optional, even undesirable?

/rant

Absolutely! There are so many problems with Tailwind.

The HTML is littered with styling information. Reading HTML should be about content and meaning, not knowing that "pl-16 pr-8 bg-olive-500 text-gray-700" means "this is probably a card header". But... you might argue that people do not read HTML anymore. Yes, people don't read HTML anymore. Who would when the devs using this framework turn the HTML into a horrible mess! If you litter your HTML with so many framework classes, there is more noise than content in HTML. Is it a surprise that reading HTML has fallen out of fashion? And since nobody reads HTML anymore, devs are totally unhinged with cluttering it with more and more classes and styles. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

Webdevs do style duplication rampantly. Instead of something like ".button", you'd find stuff like "text-white rounded bg-gray-aaa" littered throughout hundreds of places. I'm not sure if this is a Tailwind problem or dev problem but the problem definitely is there. A large project would soon reach a situation where if you want to make a style change across all similar UI elements it's a whack-a-mole game to find out which inline styles in which elements you need to look at.

So everyone now wants a configuration file format named after them, isn't it?

+1

Yeah. I've got no idea what your parent comment is talking about.

> When config files were written not to be easy to parse, but to make it easier for human beings to configure software.

*eyes rolling*. All I can remember is the hundreds of hours I've spent trying to figure out how to configure something in Apache httpd, BIND, iptables, and god forbid, Sendmail!!

Config files were written not to be easy to <anything>. There was no rhyme or reason. Every project had their own bespoke config. All from the whims and fancies of the devs of the project.

Good thing that was all in the past and I had no job and no responsibilities. If software today made configuration like they did 40 years ago, I'd just give up!

This post confusingly conflates "cells" with "self" resulting in a muddled and pseudoscientific message. It reads more like feel-good content than facts and would be better suited for other social media platforms.

> That is the literal definition of a world record here, my guy.

I don't dispute that. If you read my comment carefully, you'll find that I'm calling them "world records" too. My point is that nobody in the math community uses "world record" for finding trivial non-counterexamples like this. There are infinitely many such "world records" and each one is trivial to surpass in under a second.

Compare that to something like the finding a new Mersenne prime or calculating more digits of pi. Those records hold weight because they're difficult to achieve and stand for years.

This post could've been one of the infinite, uninteresting "world records" if the OP had applied more rigor in the implementation. But due to gaps in verification, this post is not a world record of any kind because the correctness of the results can't be confirmed. The OP has no way to confirm the correctness of their data. You'd get better context by reading the full thread. This has already been discussed at length.

> If you’d read the article... ;)

If you'd read the article carefully, he hasn't. For all we know one client (or worse, several) found counterexamples but didn't report them back to the server. Without verification on the server side, there's no way to claim the entire range has been reliably checked.

What he's shown is that many volunteers have checked a large portion of the numbers up to a certain bound and found no counterexamples. But he hasn't shown that all numbers within that range have actually been verified. It's entirely possible that some block results were falsely reported by bad clients. Meaning counterexamples could still be hiding in those falsely reported gaps, however improbable! This kind of lapse in rigor matters in math! This lapse in rigor invalidates the entire claim of the OP!

> Server side validation is trivial. What makes you believe that is not happening? That code is not available.

Please read the full thread. This has all already been discussed at length.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735397

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735498

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735483

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735555

From the OP himself, an admission that there's no mechanism to ensure clients aren't submitting false results:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736281

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736558

Don't get me wrong. I've said before. This is a good project. But the claims made in the post don't hold up to scrutiny.

> a world record is still a world record

This isn't particularly relevant at the moment, since OP can't confirm the correctness of the results!

That's not comparable to finding Goldbach NON-counterexamples.

With Goldbach, claiming a "world record" just means checking one more number and seeing if it is still NOT a counterexample. It's easy. Contrast that with computing a new digit of pi - something you can't achieve by simply incrementing a value and running a check.

Finding each new digit of pi (the ones very far out) is not a trivial task. The computational effort increases by a lot as you go deeper. Something like O(n (log n)^k) for some k (usually k = 3).

That makes sense in sports. But in math? It's trivially easy to generate thousands of so-called "world records" every second.

Here's one:

4*10^18 + 7*10^13 + 1.

Boom! New world record. Now add 1 and you've got another. Try it. Keep going. World records like this will be surpassed by someone else in milliseconds.

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard "world record" used for NOT finding a counterexample. The whole thing feels absurd. You can keep checking numbers forever, calling each one a record? It's silly, to be honest. Never heard anyone calling these world records, before today.

OP has a nice project. But the wording is so deceptive and so silly that it harms the credibility of the project more than it helps.

Your project is not bad. It's the way you've worded this post and your article that comes across as misleading and deceptive.

There's no definitive proof that a world record has been set. Nor that every individual block has been processed and reported honestly. What is known is that the system provides a mechanism for volunteers to submit counterexamples if they choose to. That's something.

It's possible for clients to act dishonestly and withhold counterexamples. There's an incentive to claim independent credit. So the clients have incentive to lie.

So your project doesn't ensure that every block has been verified, it allows honest participants to report findings. That's the reality and you should frame it that way in the post and article.

> people are just not nice on the Internet

That's not what's happening here. People in this thread are simply asking in good faith how the server-side verifies the results submitted by the client. It’s a fair question. And an important one. In fact, it might be the most important question when making such a bold claim.

If this isn't addressed, there's no way to know that a client didn't cheat by withholding a valid counterexample. And if even one client cheats, the entire claim made in this 'Show HN' thread falls apart.

I truly hate to bring this up, knowing how much passion has gone into this project. But there's an important thread got buried due to arguments! That thread raises serious concerns about the validity of this bold claim.

As highlighted by @tromp and @oefrha (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43734877) it is clear, clients can cheat. So we can't be 100% sure that none of the clients cheated. What if a counterexample to the conjecture exists, but a dishonest client simply failed to report it? Math results require rigor and without rigor no claim can be trusted. Without rigor, this bold assertion remains just that. A claim, not a fact.

OP! On top of that, you're being evasive in threads where you're being asked how your validation works and you went so far as to flag a pertinent thread. That definitely doesn't inspire confidence. Addressing the validation questions is absolutely 100% necessary if you want this to be seen as more than just a claim.

> jay_gridbach: @oefrha I am afraid I had to flag your comment.

OP! This isn't cool. @oefrha basically did a free security audit for you and instead of being grateful for that, you get defensive and flag them? How is this cool?

I also had the same question as tromp about how you're validating that clients aren't cheating. @oefrha's analysis shows you aren't validating. How can we be 100% sure that none of the clients cheated? What if there is a counterexample to the conjecture but one of your clients didn't report it because they cheated? Math results require rigor and without rigor the bold claim is only a "claim" right now, not a fact!

> And from my brief experience on this planet I don't believe that premise.

A lot of things that humans believed were true due to their brief experience on this planet ended up being false: earth is the center of the universe, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, time ticked the same everywhere, species are fixed and unchanging.

So what your brief experience on this planet makes you believe has no bearing on what is correct. It might very well be that our mind can be reduced to a probabilistic and deterministic system. It might also be that our mind is a non-deterministic system that can be modeled in a computer.

> When you post on HN it becomes public data.

Sure but the public data is still protected by copyright laws. That's why journalists cannot reproduce your blog post verbatim or take your photos and use them in their articles without your explicit permission unless you've released your articles or photos under a Creative Commons license.

Don't get me wrong! I do think that this whole thread is a massive overreaction. A judge might even see this use of data as "fair use". I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that "public data" != "can do whatever you want with it".

I'll be brutal. There is nothing brutal about what you said. It's just an ordinary fact that not all tools are going to be useful to everyone. Heck, I can bet that 90% of the tools that come on Show HN are not useful to you. They aren't useful to me either. The value of Show HN posts is in that many of these tools are useful to many, not that these tools aren't useful to some (which is really an obvious thing to say). So I don't understand what's "brutal" about what you said and why you even need to say something as obvious as this!

What is "20% on Go"? What is it 20% of?

Looks cool. But please help me understand. What's to stop AI companies from solving the challenge, completing the proof of work and scrape websites anyway?

> This is concerning that in order to have a properly functioning open source hosting we would have to archive regularly.

This has been the case always. Remember when SourceForge would inject adware into the installers? It's just a fact that when you're using a thirdparty's server to host your stuff, you cannot completely control what you're hosting. You're at the mercy of the thirdparty.

It's no excuse for GitHub deleting something you took the time and effort to write and share with the world for free. But with enshittification and all, I don't know if we can ever expect fair treatment anymore.

For total control you're going to need to host stuff on your server or put everything like issues, pr comments, wiki into your Git repo. Fossil does it. But git doesn't, at least not yet.

Fair enough! Throwaway because for some meta discussions like this I cannot identify myself for reasons.

You're on a discussion forum. Where you express your opinion. Then the other party expresses their opinion. That's what makes this discussion forum great. Sometimes the opinions of the other party aren't going to agree with yours. It's a normal part of discourse on online forums.

> In Japan right now and I see a ton of automation everywhere, self checkout at grocery stores and restaurants, but what you also see is a live humanbeing assigned to the machines to help you if you have issues.

Isn't that how self checkout happens in every part of the world that has self checkout? I'm failing to see what's special about self checkout in Japan.

> The idea that you can’t train on copyrighted materials is ludicrous, imho.

Let us for a minute accept that it is ok to train on copyrighted materials. I don't believe that but I'll humor you. So let's accept it.

To train on copyrighted materials, they need to purchase the copyrighted materials, correct? If you wanted to train a model on all O'reilly books, you'd purchase the O'reilly books first, wouldn't you?

Do you think it is ok to make illegal pirated copies of the book to do your training?

> Why would being a derivative work not be OK?

That's not even the real problem. It's a problem, yes, but not the real problem. The problem is that before they could train the model on the book, they had to copy the book from somewhere. Is it ok to make illegal pirated copies of a copyrighted book to train your model? I think that's the issue we are dealing with here.

Whether it is ok to create a derivative work or not is beside the point.

Commendable work but note that this is not a terminal emulator. This is a terminal renderer.