MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Swizec | 2025-04-13 04:27:12+00:00
A lot of nuance in that question. The web doesn’t work quite like native – you generally don’t think about threads and blocking in the same way.

Anything CPU-bound blocks the JS-based UI thread on web, but not necessarily the browser’s native UI thread. However you would have to do pretty egregious things for this to be a noticeable problem, you almost certainly won’t get there with tracking scripts.

The issue is I/O-bound work. This doesn’t block the UI, but you aren’t guaranteed that the user will stick around for you to make those requests. So you generally want to flush them immediately, or in critical cases even wait for them to complete.

As soon as you’re waiting for API requests to complete before updating the UI, you add 10s to 100s milliseconds of lag to every interaction. But this doesn’t block natively rendered interactions (like form inputs), just the parts you control via JavaScript (like what’s on the page).

Ah but you could just not render things with JavaScript and let the browser handle it! Yes. Except now you are almost guaranteed to lose tracking events because you trigger page-level navigation before even firing your asynchronous events. The browser bails on all requests the page was making as soon as you leave the page.

But once you build up enough of those background waiting tasks, you can actually cause enough CPU-bound work to be noticeable. Kinda like a garbage collection cycle. On top of that you’re limited to how many concurrent API requests (10 I think) the browser can make so if you’re sending requests to 10 different services, now the requests your user cares about are waiting in line.

tldr: on the web a user may hard close your app at any point, so people make things feel slow in an effort to work around this. There are also some hard limits you may run into if not careful
by strcat | 2025-04-13 04:27:26+00:00
GrapheneOS has various features requiring hardware integration. Our hardening features also uncover bugs across the code especially in drivers, especially the hardware memory tagging integration in our hardened_malloc project and the standard Linux kernel hardware memory tagging support we use in the kernel. Pixels are very similar to each other though so this work is largely but not entirely done for them.

Adding new Pixels including whole new generations tends to be quite easy. When we still supported Snapdragon Pixels in the official GrapheneOS branch, it would have been fairly easy to add support for a theoretical Sony or Motorola device meeting our security requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices). Now that we don't have a Snapdragon device, we'd need to deal with fixing or working around all the bugs uncovered in Snapdragon drivers, integrating support for the USB-C controller into our USB-C port control feature (https://grapheneos.org/features#usb-c-port-and-pogo-pins-con...), adding back our code for coercing Qualcomm XTRA into being privacy respecting, etc. Snapdragon doesn't have memory tagging yet like Tensor (and recent flagship Exynos/MediaTek now), but pretending it did, we'd need to solve a lot of issues uncovered by it unless Qualcomm and the device OEM heavily tested with it.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43669913 for more info including about kernels. 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th generation Pixels share the same Linux 6.1 source tree and kernel drivers since Android 15 QPR2 in March 2025.

Pixel 9a is still using a branch of Android 15 QPR1 due to how device launches work so most of the work involved taking our last Android 15 QPR1 release from early March and rebasing it onto the Pixel 9a device branch tag where they forked off from an earlier Android 15 QPR1 release and backported current security patches to it. We then had to backport our changes since early March. The device branch will go away in a couple months and it will be on the same branch as everything else until it's end-of-life as usual. We could spend more time to integrate it into our main Android 15 QPR2 based branch ourselves but we can also simply wait a couple months. As an earlier example, the Pixel 8a was released in May 2024 based on Android 14 QPR1 rather than the current Android 14 QPR2. It was incorporated into mainline Android 14 QPR3 in June only a few weeks later. We know Android 16 is already going to deal with this so spending our time on this instead of implementing new privacy, security, usability and compatibility improvements would be a waste.
by toast0 | 2025-04-13 04:30:03+00:00
I bought an atsc 3 tuner, and the experience turned me off of OTA tv. Since then, things managed to get worse as when I was poking around, DRM wasn't in use, but now it is.

I was hoping to get better fidelity between the roughly 2x bitrate per channel, and the video codec update. And probably overly optimistically was hoping the 1080p feed source was progressive so there wouldn't be a deinterlacing step.

Otoh, local broadcasters use an audio codec I can't easily use, integration with mythtv is poor, and there's no sign anything is going to get better soon.

Maybe if I had a tv with an atsc 3 tuner, live tv would be an option, but I'm not buying a tv for that.

ATSC 1.0 took a while before gathering momentum, so maybe that's going to be the same here, and in another few years, it might make sense to consider a transition. OTOH, maybe the writing is on the wall and OTA broadcasting will die on this hill. I was an OTA enthusiast, but between ATSC 3 being terrible, and the reallocation of spectrum that means cellular base stations sometimes overwhelm my pre-amp, it's not much fun anymore. (I have a filter post-pre-amp but it'd be better if I got on the roof to put it pre-pre-amp, but roofs are scary) Maybe I'm just getting curmudgeonly though.
by emacsen | 2025-04-13 04:32:03+00:00
I've been thinking about this myself. I have a few questions for you.

The first is how you organize them. With 10k videos, do you organize the files in some way?

Secondly, aside from this project, have you found a nice way to browse/watch these videos?

Thirdly, any chance you could throw your scripts up somewhere?
by fweimer | 2025-04-13 04:32:13+00:00
The post was written two days ago, but the allocator versions are between three and six years old.

Nowadays, there are at least two different versions of tcmalloc: the one from https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/ is newer (it has rseq support, for example), and the version bundled in https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools.
by HDThoreaun | 2025-04-13 04:32:33+00:00
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.

Straight from the 2017 version, calling for the genocide of israelis. I think the israeli version of the slogan is genocidal too, as I said originally.
by martin-t | 2025-04-13 04:32:52+00:00
> Interesting that "psychotic disorders" can be replaced with "tribalism" and still be true

That's because both are defects of rational reasoning.

I view it this way: The only difference is "disorders" are generally harmful to both the individual and society while "tribalism" is often beneficial to the individual (making allies, strenght in unity, status as you said, ...) even if it's harmful to society as a whole.
by SuperNinKenDo | 2025-04-13 04:33:30+00:00
That's the point. An individual user doesn't lose sleep over using a full browser, that's exactly how they use the web anyway, but for an LLM scraper or similar, this greatly increases costs on their end and partially thereby rebalances the power/cost imbalance, and at the very least, encourages innovations to make the scrapers externalise costs less by not rescraping things over and over again just because you're too lazy, and the weight of doing so is born by somebody else, not you. It's an incentive correction for the commons.
by tpmoney | 2025-04-13 04:35:18+00:00
> Yes, why didn't Democrats change our system and model of governance that was working fine, anticipating the Republicans. It's a shame they didn't stop them in... check 1789. 39 years before their party was founded.

Was it working fine? Was there really no possible way anyone could have seen the potential for all of this unchecked executive power to be abused before 2024? No warnings about presidential overreach until 2024? No signs at all that perhaps the right wing was getting a little off their rocker and maybe thinking about the consequences and precedents set by the actions we take might be in order?

I'm pretty sure the DNC has been complaining about the GOP "not following the rules" since at least Bush II. Certainly they felt that the election at that time had been stolen, so it should have been clear that it was entirely possible for an unsavory and even unwanted person to ascend to the highest office in the land. And then of course they lost the second time, meaning it was also possible for said unsavory and unwanted person to win a subsequent election. But I guess for the DNC, none of that was a sufficient warning about the dangers of consolidating large amounts of unchecked and uncheckable power in the majority party and the executive branch.

It's not always the DNC's fault. That is of course ridiculous. Trump decides for himself to abuse the powers he's been given. The choice to abuse the power isn't on the DNC. But the DNC's complicit behaviors, both in granting those powers in the first place and strengthening them or doing nothing to roll them back, is absolutely on them. Everyone is all up in arms that Trump decides he's just not going to enforce a law. And yet, a headline feature of the Obama administration was the executive decision to not enforce federal laws on marijuana. Rather than actually use the legislature to solve the problem, we just decided that yes indeed, the president does have the authority to pick and choose the laws they will enforce. Of course the GOP made plenty of hay at the time since "tough on drugs" plays well to their base, and then has subsequently abused that same authority for their own ends. But that's my point. Either the DNC wants to grant people like Trump these powers, or they are so blindingly stupid as to believe that someone like Trump could never hold office, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

> Did you send them letters or calls demanding these actions?

Yes, yes I have because I actually am legitimately angry about this shit and have been for decades.
by csnate | 2025-04-13 04:35:47+00:00
This has been my experience when using Zepbound, one of the new-ish weight loss drugs. Since I am not hungry all the time or having strong cravings, I think much more carefully about what I eat and how much. “I can only eat this much, so I better eat something with protein/fiber.” Before I would not feel sated until I gave into a craving.

Downside though is that sometimes I end up “wanting to want.” Like, having a date night with the wife, social gatherings with food, or just the occasional indulgence.
by eru | 2025-04-13 04:38:17+00:00
Yes. And there's also no bans on equivalent 'insider trading' for foreign exchange nor commodities. And markets in these work just fine.

Some economists suggest that insider trading is good for public markets, because it disseminates information. (However fiduciary duties would still apply. But they would only allow the company to sue the vice president who told her golf buddy about the upcoming earnings, but could not sue the golf buddy.)
by fnordpiglet | 2025-04-13 04:41:22+00:00
My point is the opposite of this point of view. I believe generative AI is the most significant advance since hypertext and the overlay of inferred semantic relationships via pagerank etc. In fact the creation of hypertext and the toolchains around it led to this point at all - neural networks were understood at that point and transformer attention is just an innovation. It’s the collective human assembly of language and visual interconnected knowledge at a pan cultural and global scale that enabled the current state.

The abilities of LLM alone to do astounding natural language processing beyond the ability of anything prior by unthinkable Turing test passing miles. The fact it can reason abductively, which computing techniques to date have been unable to is amazing. The fact you can mix it with multimodal regimes - images, motion, virtually anything that can be semantically linked via language, is breathtaking. The fact it can be augmented with prior computing techniques - IR, optimization, deductive solvers, and literally everything we’ve achieved to date should give anyone knowledgeable of such things shivers for what the future holds.

But I would never hold that generative AI techniques are replacements for known optimal techniques. But the ensemble is probably the solution to nearly every challenge we face. When we hit the limits of LLMs today, I think, well, at least we already have grand master beating chess solvers and it’s irrelevant the LLM can’t directly. The LLM and other generative AI techniques in my mind are like gasses that fill through learned approximation the things we’ve not been able to solve directly, including the assembly of those solutions ad hoc. This is why since the first time BERT came along I knew agent based techniques were the future.

Right now we live at time like early hypertext with respect to AI. Toolchains suck, LLMs are basically geocities pages with “under construction” signs. We will go through an explosive exploration, some stunning insights that’ll change the basic nature of our shared reality (some wonderful some insidious), then if we aren’t careful - and we rarely are - enshitification at scale unseen before.
by jlev1 | 2025-04-13 04:42:50+00:00
I have always found this response to the hungry judges study much more compelling than the study itself:

http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-hungry-j...

> […] I want to take a different approach in this blog. I think we should dismiss this finding, simply because it is impossible. When we interpret how impossibly large the effect size is, anyone with even a modest understanding of psychology should be able to conclude that it is impossible that this data pattern is caused by a psychological mechanism.

> If hunger had an effect on our mental resources of this magnitude, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45. Or at the very least, our society would have organized itself around this incredibly strong effect of mental depletion. Just like manufacturers take size differences between men and women into account when producing items such as golf clubs or watches, we would stop teaching in the time before lunch, doctors would not schedule surgery, and driving before lunch would be illegal.
by jibal | 2025-04-13 04:43:55+00:00
Um, the "something" is the person reading the LLM's output. I'm afraid that you have completely missed the context and point of the discussion, which was not about LLMs understanding things--they understand nothing ("LLMs have no cognitive states"). But again, "because of how extremely well the statistical apparatus works", their outputs are useful to intelligent consumers who do have cognitive states--us.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-13 04:44:47+00:00
> Why is no one highlighting how this is repeating history 8 years ago?

Because it’s not? The tariffs which are currently in effect or soon to go into effect are so far out of line with anything in modern history that there is no comparison.

The reason everyone is panicking is because people expected more of the same as 8 years ago but instead we got something massively worse, without a hint of cohesive strategy, and that has gone into effect rapidly and on the whims of one person who can’t even appear to get on the same page as his advisors.

Everyone knows there’s some element of bluffing going on, but that’s also the problem; This administration knows their bluffs would be transparent this time so they decided to go extra big to make a point. This becomes a problem for all of the people and companies whose business was suddenly upended by out of control tariffs with little time to prepare (compared to the smaller tariffs everyone was preparing for)

They’re banking on the damage either not being directly noticed by their voter base, or being able to convince their voter base that the damage is actually a good thing. I’m already seeing people applaud these actions as if they were narrowly targeted at cheap Chinese goods on Amazon or fast fashion, without realizing how much of the inputs to our economy go through one of the countries with tariffs ranging from 25-145%.

Some people are determined to adopt contrarian positions and act like they’re above it all, but the people who have to deal with the consequences of this stuff (myself included) are taking a lot of damage from these supposedly no big deal negotiations. It’s not being handled well. Even if they were to disappear tomorrow, a lot of damage has been done and they’re hoping people like you will find a way to rationalize it away as not a big deal
by Const-me | 2025-04-13 04:44:57+00:00
> Sharing of data structures between CPU and GPU is nice too

How they did it? Hard to do because GPU hardware can convert data types on the fly, e.g. you can store bytes in VRAM, and convert them to 32-bit floats in [ 0 .. +1 ] in the shader. GPUs can do that for both inputs (loaded texture texels, loaded buffer elements, vertex attributes) and outputs (rendered pixels, stored UAV elements).
by tomcam | 2025-04-13 04:45:14+00:00
Having been involved in some big projects my first instinct is that someone had to make a decision fast. IIRC the PC was designed in an 18-month skunkworks project.

I assume that someone had to meet a deadline, they were probably responsible for half a dozen other more important features, and there was a bleary-eyed team meeting where Chet asked “Any idea better than Dave’s house thing?” A bunch of people disagreed, no one had a markedly better idea than house thing, and it was memorialized with no one in the room remotely comprehending it would affect billions of PCs for the next 40 years.
by tzs | 2025-04-13 04:46:09+00:00
They were also seen as a safety win [1][2]. Horses and horse drawn carts were a lot more dangerous than most people here probably think they were.

From the second link:

> It is easy to imagine that a hundred years ago, when cars were first appearing on our roads, they replaced previously peaceful, gentle and safe forms of travel. In fact, motor vehicles were welcomed as the answer to a desperate state of affairs. In 1900 it was calculated that in England and Wales there were around 100,000 horse drawn public passenger vehicles, half a million trade vehicles and about half a million private carriages. Towns in England had to cope with over 100 million tons of horse droppings a year (much of it was dumped at night in the slums) and countless gallons of urine. Men wore spats and women favoured outdoor ankle-length coats not out of a sense of fashion but because of the splash of liquified manure; and it was so noisy that straw had to be put down outside hospitals to muffle the clatter of horses’ hooves. Worst of all, with horses and carriages locked in immovable traffic jams, transport was grinding to a halt in London and other cities.

> Moreover, horse-drawn transport was not safe. Road traffic deaths from horse-drawn vehicles in England and Wales between 1901 and 1905 were about 2,500 a year. This works out as about 70 road traffic deaths per million population per year which is close to the annual rate of 80 to 100 deaths per million for road traffic accidents in the 1980s and 1990s, although we must not forget that many people who died from injuries sustained in road accidents in 1900 would probably have survived today thanks to our A&E departments.

> Motor vehicles were welcomed because they were faster, safer, unlikely to swerve or bolt, better able brake in an emergency, and took up less room: a single large lorry could pull a load that would take several teams of horses and wagons – and do so without producing any dung. By World War One industry had become dependent on lorries, traffic cruised freely down Oxford Street and Piccadilly, specialists parked their expensive cars ouside their houses in Harley and Wimpole Street, and the lives of general practitioners were transformed. By using even the cheapest of cars doctors no longer had to wake the stable lad and harness the horse to attend a night call. Instead it was ‘one pull of the handle and they were off’. Further, general practitioners could visit nearly twice as many patients in a day than they could in the days of the horse and trap.

[1] https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-p...

[2]https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horse...
by nandomrumber | 2025-04-13 04:46:34+00:00
I call this intuitive eating.

You're hungry and you feel like carrot sticks with, say, a honey-soy-sauce-tahini based dip, maybe some beetroot hummus <- that's intuitive eating. OR whatever wholesome foods one may prefer at any given time.

You're hungry and you feel like a chocolate bat <- somethings probably misaligned.

Regarding satiation, I tend not to agree with the idea that we're all different. There's eight billion of us, we must have something in common. Having said that, different people are going to find different ratios of the macronutrients more or less satisfying at different times, both proximal and through the human lifecycle.
by 64848374 | 2025-04-13 04:46:34+00:00
I feel like GrapheneOS shot itself in the foot, being exclusive to Pixel phones. Pixel phones were great, in the past, but now they're mediocre offerings for their price range and the removal of the 3.5mm jack pushed many of the more techy users away — GrapheneOS's target audience.

Not sure if I'd use GrapheneOS even if it was available on other devices though. Really not a fan of the hostile attitude towards rooting when it's needed for basic functionality like backups — actual, reliable backups for every app, unlike those provided by the built-in solution.
by Terr_ | 2025-04-13 04:46:57+00:00
> the policy

The evidence is "incoherent" because the hypothesis is wrong. A policy for America isn't there.

In contrast, everything becomes exceptionally coherent if you instead ask what the policy is for Trump's personal goals: punishing disagreement, amassing wealth, rewarding apparatchiks, and always being in a room full of flattery.
by pmarreck | 2025-04-13 04:49:05+00:00
It seems like every new language community and generation of developers needs to re-learn a set of the same lessons (why declarative instead of imperative config is the way to go, why functional is superior to imperative, why immutable is superior to mutable, why TDD (or just unit testing) is important, why hexagonal design is the best organization of logic, why static typing is important, why Nix is the only valid global package manager, etc. etc. etc.) and I suspect it's because these problems all share the same attributes:

1) the inferior solution seems easier at first (but won't be in the long run)

2) the people blithely picking the inferior solution have not yet encountered enough of the thorny nastiness that the initially-harder option completely prevents

the end result being that all the "greybeards" have settled on the "initially harder" solutions for things because they all learned the hard way that it just causes less headaches in the long run