MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bennettnate5 | 2025-04-23 19:20:16+00:00
> All engineers used fuzzing to test for panic safety, and as a result, no Rust implementation has a red mark.

I'm curious how they decided whether an implementation had a vulnerability. Did they use formal methods to test for the absence of panics (maybe something like Kani)? Or was it manual code inspection and/or fuzzing? If the latter, this comparison is unfair in that the developers got to test their code on its evaluation criteria before it was evaluated and correct their mistakes (similar to training an ML model on the test set).
by pyuser583 | 2025-04-23 19:20:25+00:00
If you mean Presidential primaries, they're a mix of both popular selection and insider selection.

Parties always have a favored inside candidate, but they have to actually convince folks of the candidate.

This happens a lot in American politics, especially at the local elections where we elect positions that are non-political. The governor appoints a Sheriff or Coroner, but they have to face an election in a few weeks.
by kelnos | 2025-04-23 19:20:35+00:00
> coding isn’t about the finished product. its a lot like writing. its about the process.

Well... sorta. If you're working on a personal project or open source project, then sure, yes, absolutely. If you're doing coursework or have explicitly set out to learn something new, then sure, yes, absolutely.

But when you're working at a job, they want you to use whatever tools will get the work done the fastest, and they usually don't care all that much about quality[0]. They don't care about your journey or process. They just care about the final product, and whether or not you met their arbitrary deadline.

[0] In my experience, the vast majority of "quality initiatives" at software companies are about fixing existing stuff that's broken, not about putting processes in place to ensure quality for new stuff. Even when the latter does happen, inevitably those processes will be short-circuited when there's a tight deadline.
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2025-04-23 19:21:22+00:00
Yep, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's valuable. E.g. a lot of art is extremely difficult to create but not desired by anyone other than the artist. The value is not proportional to the difficulty.

Likewise just because something is potentially worthwhile doesn't mean it's valuable in a specific instance. E.g. drinking water is required for survival and thus extremely worthwhile, but so cheap that restaurants give it away for free when you order anything else.
by programd | 2025-04-23 19:21:37+00:00
> You're still reading and writing emails, but the selling feature isn't "less email," it's "Get through your email faster."

The next logical step is not using email (the old horse and carriage) at all.

You tell your AI what you want to communicate with whom. Your AI connects to their AI and their AI writes/speaks a summary in the format they prefer. Both AIs can take action on the contents. You skip the Gmail/Outlook middleman entirely at the cost of putting an AI model in the middle. Ideally the AI model is running locally not in the cloud, but we all know how that will turn out in practice.

Contact me if you want to invest some tens of millions in this idea! :)
by aurizon | 2025-04-23 19:22:06+00:00
State and Federal employee organisations might interpret the use of an AI as de-facto 'slavery'- such slave might have no agency, but acts as proxy for the human guiding intellect. These organisations will see workforces go from 1000 humans to 50 humans and x hours of AI 'employment' They will see a loss of 950 human hours of wages/taxes/unemployment insurance/workman's comp.... = their budget depleted. Thus they will seek a compensatory fee structure. This parallels the rise of steam/electricity, spinning jennies, multi spindle drills etc. We know the rise of steam/electricity fueled the industrial revolution. Will the 'AI revolution' create a similar revolution where the uses of AI create a huge increase in industrial output? Farm output? I think it will, so we all need to adapt. A huge change will occur in the creative arts - movies/novels etc. I expect an author will write a book with AI creation - he will then read/polish/optimize = claim as his/her own. Will we see the estate of Sean Connery renting the avatar of James Bond persona to create new James Bond movies? Will they be accepted? will they sell. I am already seeing hundreds of Sherlock Holmes books on youtube as audio books. Some are not bad, obviously formulaic. I expect there are movies there as well. There is a lot of AI science fiction - formulaic = humans win over galactic odds, alien women with TOF etc. These are now - what in 5-10 years. A friend of mine owns a prop rental business, what with Covid and 4 long strikes in the creatives business = he down sized 75% and might close his walk in and go to online storage business with appointments for pickup. He expects the whole thing to go to a green screen + photo insert business with video AI creating the moving aspects of the props he rented(once - unless with an image copyright??) to mix with the actavars - who the AI moves and the audio AI fills in background and dialog. in essence, his business will fade to black in 5-10 years?
by rkagerer | 2025-04-23 19:22:35+00:00
Is there any easy and effective way to permanently disable that? (Without having to be logged in)

I've found it at least 10X more distracting than useful.

EDIT: There are some browser extensions, or simply change your search URL to include udm=14 as a query parameter: https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=%s
by Lammy | 2025-04-23 19:22:45+00:00
It's one of the most obnoxious things I've seen in a while, but a good excuse to test my uBlock rule skills:

jonathanalland.com##*:matches-css(transform: /.*/):style(opacity: 1 !important; transform: none !important; transition-property: none !important; transition: none !important;)
by fragmede | 2025-04-23 19:23:15+00:00
When it's a simple data transfer, like "2 pm at shake shack sounds good", it's less useful. it's when we're doing messy human shit with deep feelings evoking strong emotions that it shines. when you get to the point where you're trading shitty emails to someone that you, at one point, loved, but are now just getting all up in there and writing some horrible shit. Writing that horrible shit helps you feel better, and you really want to send it, but you know it's not gonna be good, but you just send it anyway. OR - you tell ChatGPT the situation, and have it edit that email before you send it and have it take out the shittiness, and you can have a productive useful conversation instead.

the important point of communicating is to get the other person to understand you. if my own words fall flat for whatever reason, if there are better words to use, I'd prefer to use those instead.

"fuck you, pay me" isn't professional communication with a client. a differently worded message might be more effective (or not). spending an hour agonizing over what to say is easier spent when you have someone help you write it
by Moru | 2025-04-23 19:23:16+00:00
> Latest estimates indicate 32–38 wolf packs and 18–25 pairs of wolves in Finland as of March 2021. [0]

> Finnish Lapland has a reindeer population of about 200,000. That’s 20,000 more reindeer than people! [1]

[0] https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/19376-fin...

[1] https://www.lapland.fi/visit/meet-reindeer-ailo/year-of-the-...
by hurutparittya | 2025-04-23 19:23:45+00:00
So if I understand the last comment correctly...

It's possible to get unauthenticated streams if you know the media paths. Media collections, at least in my experience, usually adhere to a few common organization schemes. This would allow someone with a list of common titles, which are available in various public databases, to leak data by brute force from a public facing Jellyfin instance quite efficiently.

Discounting this as merely "suboptimal behavior" sounds like a mistake.
by kayodelycaon | 2025-04-23 19:23:56+00:00
> "Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content. Just enough to keep it without bacteria.

You need closer to 40% alcohol.

> Nobody cared what they liked.

Not in the British Navy. Food was very important to morale and they got a lot of it with the best quality they could manage. Meat every day was luxury few people could afford.

Mutiny was a very real risk. That's why warships carried so many marines. Good food goes a long way to preventing this.
by rhet0rica | 2025-04-23 19:23:57+00:00
The engineers that worked on it thought so, too. So they saved them: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saved-avro-arrow-bl...

After this news broke there was, briefly, a campaign to convince the government to consider revisiting the Arrow, but it was rebuffed on the grounds that it was rather unstealthy: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/one-decade-ago-canada-alm...

The most likely reason for scrapping the program so thoroughly was to benefit the US aerospace industry; they wanted to ensure there was no chance of competition, and encouraged the notion that ICBMs had made interceptors obsolete, as an excuse: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-avro-arrow-jet-...
by imenani | 2025-04-23 19:24:20+00:00
They fix the temperature at T=0.6 for all k for all models, even though their own Figure 10 shows that RL model benefits from higher temperatures. I would buy the overall claim much more if they swept of temperature parameter for each k and model like they did in the Codex paper [1].

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374
by nopelynopington | 2025-04-23 19:24:26+00:00
> * Humans tell you how they think, but it seemingly is not how they really think.

> * Humans tell you facts they believe to be true but are false.

Think and believe are key words here. I'm not trying to be spiritual but LLMs do not think or believe a thing, they only predict the next word.

> * Humans often need to be verified by another human and should not be trusted.

You're talking about trusting another human to do that though, so you trust the human that is verifying.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-04-23 19:25:07+00:00
> expecting compensation for value you create through labor -- profit seeking

You're right

The term I was looking for was more along the lines of "profit maximizing" or "profit motive":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive

My mistake

I hope people generally understood what I meant even if I didn't use the precisely correct term for this
by bambax | 2025-04-23 19:25:41+00:00
It is indeed a working demo, hitting

https://llm.koomen.dev/v1/chat/completions

in the OpenAI API format, and it responds to any prompt without filtering. Free tokens, anyone?

More seriously, I think the reason companies don't want to expose the system prompt is because they want to keep some of the magic alive. Once most people understand that the universal interface to AI is text prompts, then all that will remain is the models themselves.
by doctorpangloss | 2025-04-23 19:26:02+00:00
It's true, I stopped paying attention to the AVP after I returned it.

At the time it was released, which is not that long ago, AVP didn't support what I see is now called "mixed immersion mode." Unity's rendering was built upon the cockamamie scheme Apple had at launch and is the one I was describing in my comment, which is all I was familiar with.

Broadly speaking, you caught me, I don't stay up to date about stuff where everyone knows ahead of time that there is no audience. That's not your fault or my fault, it's Apple's fault.
by mrguyorama | 2025-04-23 19:26:27+00:00
Russia's weapons exports have cratered (because their products aren't living up to the hype) and US exports will be shakey since countries can't trust us anymore.

South Korea was already finding export success in Europe for general military equipment. Eastern Europe is paying big bucks to not be Ukraine 2. The market is ripe for new entrants.

Meanwhile NATO has been stuck with 80s equipment with a hundred upgrade packages for quite some time. It's a great time to offer brand new products. Specifically tanks and AFVs are an open market right now. Anti-Air is also an open market, since Russian units are all exploded in Ukraine so they don't exactly have any stock to export and the Patriot is good but expensive and from an untrustworthy partner.
by susam | 2025-04-23 19:27:07+00:00
I use Common Lisp (CL) for some of my small personal projects. A few publicly available examples I can share include my website [1] and a now-defunct mathematics pastebin [2]. My CL projects are usually text-oriented, not graphics-oriented. What keeps me coming back to CL is how convenient the live coding environment is.

When I am exploring ideas that are not fully concrete yet, I can begin by writing a small set of functions with very basic functionality. Then as the ideas evolve, I can refine existing functions or add new ones, then quickly "reload" them (with say, C-M-x in Emacs), and see the effects immediately. There is no separate compile or rebuild step. I don't have to restart any service or application. The effects are truly immediate -- what previously did X, now does Y.

In the Python or JavaScript ecosystems, similar live reloading capability is often provided by frameworks (e.g., FastAPI, React, etc.), which monitor file changes during development. In CL, it's just part of the language implementation itself.

Of course, at the end of the day, everything is committed and pushed to a version control system. Sometimes I restart the application too just to be sure it reflects the actual source, especially, after hours of live reloading. The stereotype of Lisp programmers making all of their modifications in an ephemeral image and then dumping it all to disk is not something I have actually seen in practice, at least not among the people I know.

So the rest of the software development practices happen to be typical. But during exploration, debugging, or troubleshooting, the live coding experience in Common Lisp is so seamless, it feels like programming at the speed of thought.

[1] https://github.com/susam/susam.net

[2] https://github.com/susam/mathb
by MichaelDickens | 2025-04-23 19:27:15+00:00
Reminds me of the robot voice from The Incredibles[1]. It had an obviously-robotic cadence where it would pause between every word. Text-to-speech at the time already knew how to make words flow into each other, but I thought the voice from The Incredibles sounded much nicer than the contemporaneous text-to-speech bots, while also still sounding robotic.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dxV4BvyV2w
by n8cpdx | 2025-04-23 19:27:44+00:00
What I saw in school was a lot of foreign masters in CS students with zero experience with coding and often with very little interest in learning. Big cheating issues. The school liked it because they were paying full price, and IIRC the students liked it because they got residency while studying and they could turn that into work permits and longer term status by getting a job after graduating. Definitely not an automatic ticket, but a relatively low barrier way to enter, assuming you have money.

There were plenty of local masters students as well, but it just didn't make a whole lot of sense to do masters in CS at the time, not a lot of value there beyond undergrad unless you were on your way to PhD or maybe decided to study CS after completing some other undergrad discipline.
by siva7 | 2025-04-23 19:28:14+00:00
> When I use AI to build software I feel like I can create almost anything I can imagine very quickly.

Until you start debugging it. Taking a closer look at it. Sure your quick code reviews seemed fine at first. You thought the AI is pure magic. Then day after day it starts slowly falling apart. You realize this thing blatantly lied to you. Manipulated you. Like a toxic relationship.
by karussell | 2025-04-23 19:28:37+00:00
And if you don't want to host Photon on your own you can have it hosted from GraphHopper: https://docs.graphhopper.com/openapi/geocoding

This request/response format is a bit different than the native Photon format, but with GraphHopper Geocoding it is possible to easily switch between different "providers" (like Nominatim, OpenCage etc.), which are all usable under the same contract.

disclaimer: I'm a co-founder of GraphHopper
by hylaride | 2025-04-23 19:29:03+00:00
By that argument we should do that with everything. Maybe...with tariffs? /s

Doing that is more expensive and means we get us less for more - and we'd almost still rely on other countries for components and resources. All being equal, it is better to buy foreign goods cheaper and then have money leftover to focus on investing what you're good at. Canada is too small to economically fully design and build a modern plane, engines, missiles, radar, etc to compete with the US, China, etc. We certainly can't afford to do that with everything else, as well.

There are absolutely overriding strategic and security reasons you may want to do some of this anyways, but as a general rule we'd be far better diversifying our defence alliances (eg buying a mix from France, Korea, Japan, US, UK, etc) plus having something really good to offer said allies so we can be interdependent. Countries (including the US as we're learning) are not more powerful when they go it alone.

Protected industries almost always get lazy and noncompetitive. Canada is building our own version of the Type 26 frigate for almost double the cost per boat of Australia and the UK (which already ate the design costs!) despite the fact that we're going to be building the most of them so we should in theory scale cheaper. There are some reasons for that (they will be the most capable type 26's afloat), but it's mostly just because the government wants to subsidize Irving and east coast shipbuilders and there's no real scale or expertise because they literally can't market their work outside of Canada.
by namaria | 2025-04-23 19:29:20+00:00
You make some very strong claims and presented material. I hope I am not out of line if I give you my sincere opinion. I am not doing this to be mean, to put you down or to be snarky. But the argument you're making warrants this response, in my opinion.

The examples you gave as "magical", "100 years into the future", "literally earth shattering" are very transparently low effort. The writing is pedestrian, the timing is amateurish and the jokes just don't land. The inflating tea cup with magically floating plate and the cardboard teabag are... bad. These are bad man. At best recycled material. I am sorry but as examples of why using automatically generated art they are making the opposite argument from what you think you're making.

I categorically do not want more of this. I want to see crafted content where talent shines through. Not low effort, automatically generated stuff like the videos in these links.
by reverendsteveii | 2025-04-23 19:29:26+00:00
I have a UX rule that I try to implement: if I'm in a workflow and the app interrupts with something that is not immediately related to that workflow, I uninstall the app and never use it again. No, I don't care about that new feature. I care about the feature I'm currently using. No, I don't want to allow notifications. You don't choose when we interact, I do. You're the machine and I'm the human. No, I don't want to join your discord, or follow you on social media. I assure you that if you prompt me to give you a rating in the app store that you do not want my rating. Let me do the thing I installed you to do and otherwise fuck entirely off.
by JadeNB | 2025-04-23 19:29:31+00:00
> Another colloquial saying to back this up is that "Oh, that house is five acres down the road" or, for a non-standard unit, "The store is three blocks away". We often use area measurements for length if it's convenient.

I have never heard someone use the first instance, and I wouldn't understand what it meant. I mean, I could buy that it meant that there is a five-acre plot between that house and where we are now, but it wouldn't give me any useful idea of how far the house is other than "not too close." Perhaps you have in mind that, since the "width" of an acre is a furlong, a house 5 acres away is 5 furlongs away?
by ofrzeta | 2025-04-23 19:30:25+00:00
Goodisplay says "Although the refresh rate of monochrome e-paper displays is faster than that of color e-paper, we still recommend allowing at least a 180-second interval after completing a set of display updates. Frequent updates can negatively impact the lifespan of the ePaper."

https://www.good-display.com/news/80.html

So I guess playing Space Quest a lot will rapidly kill that screen.
by xena | 2025-04-23 19:30:34+00:00
Most scrapers don't run browsers. Making the scrapers run real browsers changes the economics of scraping and makes it less cost-effective.

I am working on making it allow more traffic by default and then applying challenges based on request pressure or other factors like system load. I also need to finish the WebAssembly PR and a few other important things.

It's a work in progress, but it's used by the United Nations so it can't be that bad :)
by khedoros1 | 2025-04-23 19:31:09+00:00
> JSON is 25 years old

And in 2004, didn't have a published specification, or much use outside of webdev (which hadn't eaten the world yet).

> and SAX parsers are 22

And, especially at the time, pretty much exclusive to Java, right?

Put another way, which are the high-quality open-source implementations of those formats that the developers should've considered while working on SA in 2003 and 2004? Or for that matter, in the 2001-2002 timeframe, when the parsing code was probably actually written for use in VC?
by tlogan | 2025-04-23 19:31:13+00:00
At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: knowing what you want. And AI can’t solve that for you.

We’ve experimented heavily with integrating AI into our UI, testing a variety of models and workflows. One consistent finding emerged: most users don’t actually know what they want to accomplish. They struggle to express their goals clearly, and AI doesn’t magically fill that gap—it often amplifies the ambiguity.

Sure, AI reduces the learning curve for new tools. But paradoxically, it can also short-circuit the path to true mastery. When AI handles everything, users stop thinking deeply about how or why they’re doing something. That might be fine for casual use, but it limits expertise and real problem-solving.

So … AI is great—but the current diarrhea of “let’s just add AI here” without thinking through how it actually helps might be a sign that a lot of engineers have outsourced their thinking to ChatGPT.