MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dooglius | 2025-04-25 20:01:01+00:00
Maybe this is just arguing semantics, but I don't agree with the definition you've given, and I don't think that your definition is what TFA means. "Exploiting undefined behavior" I think refers narrowly to the implementation assuming that undefined behavior does not occur, and acting on that assumption. Undefined behavior naturally resulting in unpredictable behavior is not exploitation in the same sense. For example,

printf("A"); bool x; if ( x ) {printf("B");} else {printf("C");} printf("\n");

If at -O0 "AB" is printed and at -O2 "AC" is printed (due to the vagaries of whatever was left on the stack), then that would meet your definition, but I would not regard that as "exploiting undefined behavior", merely as the manifestation of the inherent unpredictability of UB. If the compiler didn't print anything (i.e. the whole block was removed due to UB detection) then that _would_ be a case of exploiting undefined behavior.
by mcbuilder | 2025-04-25 20:01:17+00:00
It definitely means something, probably an app designed around being interacted by with an LLM, upon first hearing it. Browser interaction is one of those things that is a great killer app for LLMs IMO.

For instance, I just discovered there are a ton of high quality scans of film and slides available at the Library of Congress website, but I don't really enjoy their interface. I could build a scraping tool and get too much info, or suffer and use just clicking through their search UI. Or I could ask my browser tool wielding LLM agent to automate the boring stuff and provide a map of the subjects I would be interested in, and give me a different way to discover things. I've just discovered the entire browser automation thing, and I'm having fun have my LLM go "research" for a few minutes while I go do something else.
by yencabulator | 2025-04-25 20:01:23+00:00
Not just cheaper. It's also significantly less risky than trying to rewrite their whole stack.

(Many IBM customers likely are piece-by-piece moving to Linux, which runs fine on the zSeries hardware, with the same blazing fast interconnects for enterprise workloads etc. I would expect the migration off the mainframe hardware will happen only after the gradual software rewrite. Give it a decade or five.)
by ssl-3 | 2025-04-25 20:01:34+00:00
Sure. I remember that marketplace very well.

And until a couple of days ago, I never heard anyone mention an "XT clone" as being an emulated 80186 on an ESP32 with almost none of the IO or expansion capabilities of an XT.

That appears to be a new usement of the term; an invention, if you will, or a perversion if you won't.

(I can emulate an XT with my pocket supercomputer. It's fun to play with that kind of thing sometimes. But to call it a "clone" is going too far.)
by fullshark | 2025-04-25 20:01:56+00:00
There's many incentives encouraging people to work in America. Many of them are positive ones (pride, a sense of community, ambition) and many of them are negative (inability to pay rent, health insurance, food otherwise).

A lot of terrible jobs are required in our society to be done by people from negative encouragement. The belief that all jobs can be done purely through positive encouragement I think is potentially naive. Maybe nurse was a bad example but people who work from this negative encouragement are in many ways "forced" to.

For illustration some of the worst farm labor jobs in America are done by illegal immigrants, and it's not obvious legal citizens would do those jobs at any rate that makes economic sense. The economic engine that gets us food in our grocery store runs on their desperation.
by lolinder | 2025-04-25 20:02:08+00:00
Another key point is that generally speaking the charge of obstruction of justice requires two ingredients:

1) knowledge of a government proceeding

2) action with intent to interfere with that proceeding

It doesn't especially matter in this case whether ICE was entitled to enter the courtroom because she's not being charged for refusing to allow them entry to the room. The allegation is that upon finding out about their warrant she canceled the hearing and led the defendant out a door that he would not customarily use. Allegedly she did so with the intent of helping him to avoid the officers she knew were there to arrest him.

The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
by drdaeman | 2025-04-25 20:02:11+00:00
But isn't the problem is that one shouldn't ever trust an LLM to only ever do what it is explicitly instructed with correct resolutions to any instruction conflicts?

LLMs are "unreliable", in a sense that when using LLMs one should always consider the fact that no matter what they try, any LLM will do something that could be considered undesirable (both foreseeable and non-foreseeable).
by 2-3-7-43-1807 | 2025-04-25 20:03:54+00:00
Interesting theory - but wouldn't there have to be some gas involved (bubbles, cavities) as water isn't impacted by pressure (at least not at a level experienced while scuba diving)? The pressure though will certainly impact the (pressure) sensor in the bladder signalling that it is full. But my impression (no pun intended) is - as you also suggest - that the bladder actually fills up faster due to some physical / physiological effects while diving. Even at the surface at some point the lower part of the belly is palpably tense. My hunch would be that something speeds up reverse osmosis (mineral/colloidal concentration of two regions separated by a membrane evening out by water moving into the region with higher concentration); as I'd assume that the already present urine has much higher concentration in salts and proteins compared to the surrounding tissue.

I just had the idea that it might be due to water entering the body and blood stream through the skin (by means of reverse osmosis). The kidneys then excrete the excess water into the bladder.
by SonOfLilit | 2025-04-25 20:05:10+00:00
I don't agree. WAFs usually add more attack surface than they remove.

https://www.macchaffee.com/blog/2023/wafs/

Of course, Wordpress is basically undefendable, so I'd never ever host it on a machine that has anything else of value (including e.g. db credentials that give access to much more than the public content on the WP installation).
by const_cast | 2025-04-25 20:05:29+00:00
The difference is that "liberals" never even attempted to censor conservatives. Rather, what happens is that conservatives pretty much can't articulate their views without employing slurs. And, well, that gets you censored.

The reality is that if I talk like Kamala at work then nobody gives a flying fuck. If I talk like Trump, I'm going straight to HR.

It's not that conservative voices are incapable of being rational or are being purposefully targeted or anything. It's that American conservatives are far-right populists so of course their messaging follows that notion. They appeal to emotion, they berate, they gloom and doom, and they have very Nazi-like rhetoric just by their nature. That's how populist messaging works - it wouldn't be populism if you weren't trying to convince people that monsters are coming to eat their babies or something.

Point being, yes conservatives are obviously targeted more by censorship. It can be very easily avoided by not lying, not saying slurs, not calling for the decimation of peoples, etc.

Our own President cannot meet that standard. So, predictably, outrage populists on places like Twitter certainly cannot. It seems to be that conservatives have no voice of reason, no person to look up to.
by bsder | 2025-04-25 20:06:17+00:00
> Hell, go watch Youtube Chemists who have Phds fail to reproduce old papers. Were those papers fraudulent? No, science is just difficult and failure prone.

Agreed. Lab technique is a thing. There is a reason for the dark joke that in Physics, theorists are washed up by age 30, but experimentalists aren't even competent until age 40.
by parpfish | 2025-04-25 20:06:20+00:00
depending on the rurality of that part of new england, they might have a legitimate claim to need the ground clearance and 4wd in the winter.

sometimes backroads aren't plowed well. or they. are plowed well and you need to scale a giant snowbank to get into your driveway.

(although my personal preference would be for the industry to make more rally-inspired high-clearance AWD sedans/wagons to fit this niche)
by toomuchtodo | 2025-04-25 20:06:22+00:00
I’m demonstrating patterns. Ecobee supported its first thermostat for 16 years [1]. They do because they have to, it’s their core business (like Apple does for hardware, again, a core business), Google doesn’t, these are not core businesses. If you want to argue “Google does care and provides reasonable periods of consumer hardware device support,” I don’t believe that’s what the evidence shows.

I’m not mad at the lawnmower [2], it just is what it is. Google doesn’t care and likely never will, because of the incentive structure and culture of the org. “Does it hyper scale? Can we ignore the customers? Ship it.”

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147154/ecobee-smart-ther...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170246
by jandrese | 2025-04-25 20:06:26+00:00
This is just my opinion, but reading about Bertrand Russell my impression is that he dedicated his life to Pincipia Mathematica partially because he expected to find God in the foundations of the mathematics, and when that didn't happen it drove him rather insane. And then Gödel shows up and basically knifes him on stage with the Incompleteness Theorm.
by taurath | 2025-04-25 20:07:03+00:00
The purpose of the app is to sell ads via engagement, recommendation is at least a partial (majority?) driver of engagement, so it’s part and parcel of the purpose of the app.

People want what they’re providing, companies want to sell ads, and increase people’s tolerance of ads. Until the next platform without ads comes out (note - tiktok didn’t have ads almost at all for the first year)
by edaemon | 2025-04-25 20:07:39+00:00
Yeah, it's interesting that their FAQ [1] just says it can fit "full size sheets of plywood" and their specs page [2] also does not list the actual dimensions, only the volume. A 60"x43" bed would technically fit a 96"x48" sheet, but you would have to lean one edge against the side of the bed.

That said, the article you linked appears to list the bed width at the wheel wells. They say the Maverick's bed is 42.6" wide but above the wheel wells it 53" wide or so. You can find plenty of pictures of people hauling plywood with one. I suspect the Slate is similar.

[1]: https://www.slate.auto/en/faq

[2]: https://www.slate.auto/en/specs
by Alex-Programs | 2025-04-25 20:08:38+00:00
> One neat thing that the average college professor won't be able to do for you: because the model understands multiple disciplines at once, you can make analogies between what you know well and what you're asking about — and the model knows enough about both subjects to tell you if your analogy is sound: where it holds vs. where it falls apart. This is an incredible accelerator for learning domains that you suspect may contain concepts that are structural isomorphisms to concepts in a domain you know well. And it's not something you'd expect to get from an education in the subject, unless your teacher happened to know exactly those two fields.

I really agree with what you've written in general, but this in particular is something I've really enjoyed. I know physics, and I know computing, and I can have an LLM talk me through electronics with that in mind - I know how electricity works, and I know how computers work, but it's applying it to electronics that I need it to help me with. And it does a great job of that.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-04-25 20:08:46+00:00
> systematic obstruction

It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?
by const_cast | 2025-04-25 20:09:16+00:00
It's not unconstitutional, it's already been done and the supreme court says it's fine.

They decide what is and is not constitutional, not you. And, contrary to what Internet armchair "textualists" will proclaim, most of the constitution is up for interpretation and actually quite vague.

We've been debating the constitution since the moment we lifted the pen. Or, er, quill. Have some humility.
by nwellinghoff | 2025-04-25 20:09:33+00:00
I also Love the direction of this truck. It would be nice if they installed speakers…two door and a small sub and just left a space in the dash for a standard radio of your choice. Or at the very least cut out the spaces and run wire so installing a proper stereo isn’t a nightmare. I don’t need “infotainment” but I do consider a radio with decent sound to enjoy the ride standard equipment.
by MegaButts | 2025-04-25 20:09:35+00:00
> both shittier and more expensive

> Some examples: turbochargers

I disagree that turbochargers are shittier. For most people, hell even for a large subset of people that only want to race their cars on a track, turbochargers provide huge benefits. Yes, they add complexity and cost; they also vastly improve fuel efficiency, create the best torque curve possible on an ICE vehicle, and substantially improve power output. Sometimes you actually need more complexity to build a better system. I think turbochargers are a marvel of modern engineering.

And while it's subjective and admittedly more enthusiasts prefer naturally aspirated to turbocharged, I personally prefer the character of a turbocharged engine. I'd rather hear turbo whistles than a whining V10.
by yencabulator | 2025-04-25 20:10:12+00:00
Part of the problem is that it's quite hard to realistically create "aged data", so running such a competition in a way that actually informs the decision is hard.

Mainframes come from a mindset where degradation in performance is something that requires a scheduled maintenance window. Not just for hardware, but also for software. Compare that to the more modern world of "oh we'll just VACUUM the database in the background". The surrounding ecosystem of software might not even tolerate a rare spurious glitch delaying response an extra second.

That and all the software stacks on them are huge complex custom monsters, and reimplementing the whole thing from scratch on a more common SQL database is not exactly easy, while maintaining data integrity, performance and not being able to pay Silicon Valley salaries.
by gopher_space | 2025-04-25 20:10:24+00:00
As we learned in the 90s with email, an elegant solution that doesn't take human nature into account isn't worth pursuing. There used to be a joke checklist we'd send to each other about this.

> I read "trivially fixable" as "there is an elegant solution to this," not that "it is easy to get it politically passed."

The huge problem with this line of thinking is that it's easy to identify a half-dozen key players standing in the way of your elegant solution and it would be easier to remove them from the situation than change their minds. It's an attractive idea that can become a fixed idea.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-04-25 20:10:25+00:00
Because the man was in court for his alleged crime, the judicial system working as intended.

But ICE showed up without a legal warrant and attempted to subvert the judicial system by whisking him away, and then arrested a judge.

Accused of a crime? Go to court, be found guilt or innocent, and serve your sentence if convicted.

If we don't hold up the rule of law we become a dictatorship.
by dekhn | 2025-04-25 20:10:37+00:00
We already culture and DNA test cancers. Sometimes we can point at a secondary tumor and say "it came from this primary tumor". And we already know viral and bacterial infections can increase the likelihood of people getting malignant tumorws.

Most scientists wouldn't call the hallmarks of cancer "evolution". I think instead most would say that cancer is an almost certainly unavoidable outcome of the complexity of eukaryotic organism's control of cellular replication.

There's a series of papers organized around the "Hallmarks of Cancer" which help explain why nearly all tumors show the same properties- and how they are effectively due to dysregulation of evolutionary checkpoints and signalling. generally, an organism with a malignant tumor is less likely to reproduce. However, it's really far more complex than that ,
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-04-25 20:11:18+00:00
Oh good, a comment I can reply to:

If there is an invasion of millions of people, are you suggesting the federal government would have to merely say that you are one of them in order to pack you and your family into an airplane to a foreign slave camp for the rest of their lives, without even giving you an opportunity to argue that you're not one of those "invaders"?

Give a direct answer please.
by SkipperCat | 2025-04-25 20:11:43+00:00
I've been using Redpanda for a few years now and here's what I've noticed.

Its a compiled binary - no JVM to manage. Java apps have always been a headache for me. Plus, no zookeeper - one less thing to break.

The biggest benefit I've seen is the performance. Redpanda just outperforms Apache Kakfa on similar hardware. Its also Kafka compliant in every way I've noticed, so all my favorite tools that interact with Kafka work the same with Redpanda.

Redpanda, like Kafka, writes to disk, so you'll always be limited by your hardware no matter what you use (but NVMe's are fast and affordable).

YMMV, but its been a good experience for me.
by BoorishBears | 2025-04-25 20:12:33+00:00
I do? I spend a ton of time post-training models for creative tasks.

The effects of model quantization are usually qualified in terms of performance on benchmaxxed tasks with strong logit probabilities, temp 0, and a "right" answer the model has to pick. Or even worse they'll be measured on metrics that don't map to anything except themselves like perplexity (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.09141)

I agree Q8 is strong but I also think the effects of quantization are constantly being underappreciated. People are often talking about how these models perform while fundamentally using 10+ variants of a single model with distinct performance profiles.

Even knowing the bits per weight used isn't enough to know how exactly a given quant method is affecting the model: https://docs.unsloth.ai/basics/unsloth-dynamic-v2.0-ggufs
by nitwit005 | 2025-04-25 20:12:44+00:00
I don't see it as particularly social media related. That's just the cheapest way to get attention these days. I recall Benjamin Franklin famously pushing paper around town in a wheelbarrow to seem like a hard working young printer:

> I sometimes brought home the paper I purchased at the stores thro' the streets on a wheelbarrow. Thus being esteemed an industrious, thriving young man, and paying duly for what I bought, the merchants who imported stationery solicited my custom

He went out of his way to get positive attention, and it worked.
by dgrunwald | 2025-04-25 20:13:00+00:00
> But if i is indeed put immediately after, then the function should indeed return 5 for n=3.

That's not how compilers work. The optimization changing `return i;` into `return 0;` happens long before the compiler determines the stack layout.

In this case, because `return i;` was the only use of `i`, the optimization allows deleting the variable `i` altogether, so it doesn't end up anywhere on the stack. This creates a situation where the optimization only looks valid in the simple "flat memory model" because it was performed; if the variable `i` hadn't been optimized out, it would have been placed directly after `arr` (at least in this case: https://godbolt.org/z/df4dhzT5a), so the optimization would have been invalid.

There's no infrastructure in any compiler that I know of that would track "an optimization assumed arr[3] does not alias i, so a later stage must take care not to place i at that specific point on the stack". Indeed, if array index was a runtime value, the compiler would be prevented from ever spilling to the stack any variable that was involved in any optimizations.

So I think your general idea "the allowable behaviors of an out-of-bounds write is specified by the possible actual behaviors in a simple flat memory model for various different stack layouts" could work as a mathematical model as an alternative to UB-based specifications, but it would end up not being workable for actual optimizing compiler implementations -- unless the compiler could guarantee that a variable can always stay in a register and will never be spilled (how would the compiler do that for functions calls?), it'd have to essentially treat all variables as potentially-modified by basically any store-via-pointer, which would essentially disable all optimizations.
by const_cast | 2025-04-25 20:13:25+00:00
> Many of us are very happy with the direction things have been moving.

No, you're not, and yes I am telling you how you feel.

This is, for lack of a better word, "cope".

Even if you think some of this stuff is cool, you can't be so stupid as to just ignore all the economic damage around you. That does affect you, whether you have the conviction to admit it or not. At the end of the day, you _will_ suffer. There is no pride in being both a loser and a coward.

It would be best to just be a loser.
by neonsunset | 2025-04-25 20:14:28+00:00
Roslyn language server is OSS too: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/tree/main/src/LanguageServe...

There was never an issue with Omnisharp OSS-ness itself nor what replaced it. It was always about debugger and then "Dev Kit" extension which builds on top of the base one - "Dev Kit" is what isn't OSS and what requires an account.

There is also an alternate open debugger: https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg / https://github.com/muhammadsammy/free-vscode-csharp (extension fork which swaps vsdbg out for this one)
by justinnk | 2025-04-25 20:14:38+00:00
I can second this, even availability of the code is still a problem. However, I would not say CS results are rarely reproducible, at least from the few experineces I had so far, but I heard of problematic cases from others. I guess it also differs between fields.

I want to note there is hope. Contrary to what the root comment says, some publishers try to endorse reproducible results. See for example the ACM reproducibility initiative [1]. I have participated in this before and believe it is a really good initiative. Reproducing results can be very labor intensive though, loading a review system already struggling under massive floods of papers. And it is also not perfect, most of the time it is only ensured that the author-supplied code produces the presented results, but I still think more such initiatives are healthy. When you really want to ensure the rigor of a presented method, you have to replicate it, i.e., using a different programming language or so, which is really its own research endeavor. And there is also a place to publish such results in CS already [2]! (although I haven‘t tried this one). I imagine this may be especially interesting for PhD students just starting out in a new field, as it gives them the opportunity to learn while satisfying the expectation of producing papers.

[1] https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-an... [2] https://rescience.github.io
by SkipperCat | 2025-04-25 20:14:39+00:00
I've used Redpanda and I like it. Its Kafka compliant so all the tools that work with Apache Kafka also work with Redpanda. Plus, no JVM and no zookeeper.

Redpanda most importantly is faster that Apache Kafka. We were able to get a lot more throughput. Its also stable, especially compared to dealing with anything that requires a JVM.