MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by poorts | 2025-04-06 10:52:23+00:00
Surely a rational alternative is scepticism of everyone, particularly of those that say things that you might otherwise agree with. Longer term, a good alternative is to build trust in institutions through transparency and application of the scientific method (and for the institutions to contribute measurably to outcomes that actually help improve the quality of life of the general-public and not mostly to outcomes that ultimately benefit the princes of the world).
by ajuc | 2025-04-06 10:52:28+00:00
There was almost no advertising in my country when I was 7. I live in Poland and till 1989 it was communist puppet state of USSR (not through our choice, obviously, so the moment we could - we noped out of it).

There was no point advertising because there was no competition, all the companies were nationalized and no matter how well or badly they did - their employees earned the same. If you persuaded people to buy your washing powder instead of the other available washing powder - that just means the queues for your washing powder will be longer.

There was A LOT of communist and anti western propaganda tho. But no advertising is perfectly possible.
by cjs_ac | 2025-04-06 10:52:32+00:00
The public square has always been controlled by private interests. Before the internet, public discourse occurred in newspapers and magazines. Coffeehouses and pubs were always privately-owned, and their proprietors and clientele-at-large determine what conduct and conversation is acceptable within.

Free speech absolutism isn't a real thing, you know: everyone has a set of ideas that they're not willing to listen to.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-04-06 10:52:57+00:00
I think you're making progress, I would keep going as continuously as possible even if you can't build a very big team so soon.

Even if it takes a lot more calendar time than you would like, it could be more impressive with only a few thousand lines, which could still be taken in stride single-handedly. Perhaps for an even firmer foundation. Strive to maintain readiness for a situation where an initial team-mate could virtually double progress, even if it doesn't relieve you of any challenges at all.

Unfortunatley I'm not hardly prepared to contribute anything really useful at this point that could speed up progress, but if I did I would give it a try.

I will be keeping an eye on you and hoping momentum builds, I hope others will too, just don't quit building yourself !
by wruza | 2025-04-06 10:53:01+00:00
I see, thanks for the explanation.

Although I think that it sounds so ansible, and that's exactly why I avoid using it. It is a new set of syntax, idioms, restrictions, gotchas, while all I need is a nodejs script that joins initialization template files together, controlled by json server specs. With first class ifs and fors, and without "code in config" nonsense. I mean, I know exactly what was meant to be done manually, I just need N-times parametrized automation, right? Also, my servers are non-homogeneous as well, and I don't think I ever had an issue with that.
by ninkendo | 2025-04-06 10:53:11+00:00
Disabling sendfile in nginx makes it take 170ms instead of 150ms on my system.

Because nginx knows to tune the buffer sizes properly, which goes a long way.

Using strace reveals what’s happening, rocket is reading and writing to file descriptors 4 kilobytes at a time, using 2 syscalls every chunk. nginx uses far, far fewer of them. (And with sendfile enabled, only one for the whole download.)

Also, there’s no reason rocket can’t use sendfile too. It’s basically the theoretically fastest way to perform this operation, and IMO rocket ought to use it by default if it’s available on the OS.
by therealpygon | 2025-04-06 10:54:16+00:00
I’m not missing anything. You’re being extremely selective in your argument by excluding all of the processes that extracted, transported, and converted, transported again, and again, and then again before ending up in a tank, and ignoring all those same processes required and used recursively for each of those processes, including the coal, natural gas, etc burned to power all those processes, etc etc to the same level of insane detail that you want to pick electric apart.

But then, starting from the position that 10% loss on a 60% directly efficient ‘fuel’ is worse than a minimum 83% loss of efficiency on another fuel isn’t much of a genuine position in the first place.
by inkyoto | 2025-04-06 10:54:54+00:00
It is irrelevant what FreeBSD supports today.

FreeBSD started demoting non-Intel platforms around 2008-2010, with FreeBSD 11 released in 2016 only supporting x86. The first non-Intel architecture support was reinstated in April 2021, with the official release of FreeBSD 13, which is over a decade of the time having been irrevocably lost.

Plainly, FreeBSD has missed the boat – the first AWS Graviton CPU was released in 2018, and it ran Linux. Everything now runs Linux, but it could have been FreeBSD.
by darkwater | 2025-04-06 10:55:00+00:00
In general I agree but with a caveat: for me it's draining when there is a big difference in thought speed/way of thinking between me and my peer. If I'm with someone "on the same page" we can achieve awesome results, but if OTOH I have to explain why my brain just jumped to that other part, give context etc this is terribly draining for me as well, and after a 2 hours session I'm out for 2-3 hours when I need to recharge.
by Sverigevader | 2025-04-06 10:55:18+00:00
It's thanks to this site that I learned that Kobo uses a really bad renderer for epubs unless converted to their own ebook format (Kepub). It make a huge difference in appearance and performance on a Kobo device.

https://standardebooks.org/help/how-to-use-our-ebooks#kobo-f...
by killerstorm | 2025-04-06 10:56:33+00:00
It's kinda hilarious to see people claiming that the wall has been hit for the past two years, while evals are creeping up each month, particularly realistic end-to-end SWE-bench.

Have you compared GPT-4.5 to 4o?

GPT-4.5 just knows things. Some obscure programming language? It knows the syntax.

Obviously, that's not sufficient - you also need reasoning, post-training, etc. so quite predictably G2.5P being a large model + reasoning + tuning got SotA in code generation.

(FWIW I think if it was tuned for a particular input/output format it could get another 10%)

But, yeah, the wall, the wall!
by rlupi | 2025-04-06 10:57:11+00:00
I have sold my US equities and assets before Trump announcement of tariffs.

I personally find it a lot more risky to keep my wealth in US equities or USD denominated assets. Even all the decisions are undone, the fact that these level of policy swings could happened make US investments a lot riskier than they were even a couple of months ago.

The behavior of the US executive branch shows that they don't care as before about the rule of law.
by Who_99 | 2025-04-06 10:59:12+00:00
Thank you very much for your reply man.. really appreciate it.. i have a request! what would you like to see from my side? I will try to build it if i can.. i just want to know where to start for the next phase in building this model.. I thought of creating videos on how this model may work, but i think thats again may not increase progress..
by ReptileMan | 2025-04-06 10:59:30+00:00
This articles looks like a very long to say - if you interact with malicious things you will get pwned.

But that is true for every third party code on your systems all the time.

I mean - if they can't get me trough browser extension, vs code extensions, node modules, python modules, some obscure executables, open source apps, wordpress plugins and various jolly things on the servers and workstations that have zero days in them - they will craft malicious extension to llm that I will somehow get to host it.
by palata | 2025-04-06 11:00:45+00:00
> The fire retardant ... actually does retard the fire, right. A tiny bit of extra toxicity in trade for much less stuff getting burned may be worth it.

And water does, too.

The real question is: is this extra toxicity worth it?

I understand your reaction, it's common. But irrational. It's akin to saying "If Trump can improve the country at the cost of some disagreement, then maybe it's worth it, so I voted Trump". What if he doesn't improve the country, and you just get the cost?

It's a good question to ask. You should just not base your opinion on the uninformed assumption you make ("I assume that because it may be worth it, then it actually is worth is").
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-04-06 11:02:11+00:00
I truly do wish we could move a little past bumper sticker conversations, because it is HN. The guidelines of the site do expect more from all of us when we post. Still, allow me to address what you wrote.

<< This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle".

Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish? What do you think happens when people stop talking? I would like you to think this through before reflexively answering. On this forum, I semi-consistently argue for at least trying to reach out to the other party before talking stops.

<< I'm not tolerant of intolerance,

In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this.

<< it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent.

Friend, it is always ok to disagree. There is no need to qualify it. Unless I am not reading your post right, let me ask you a simple question:

'When is it not ok to disagree?'
by kingsleyopara | 2025-04-06 11:02:55+00:00
For zero-shot accuracy from Table 3:

* LLaMA 3 8B: baseline 72.26, 4-bit 71.31, 3-bit 62.79

* LLaMA 3 70B: baseline 79.51, 4-bit 78.06, 3-bit 74.68

These results seem comparable to modern quantization methods—for example, the ~4-bit results for smaller LLaMA models listed here: https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-quantized-lightweight-mo...
by hnbad | 2025-04-06 11:03:24+00:00
The US doesn't have a great track record of caring about the health of its citizens, no need to bring in xenophobia.

Last I checked, parts of the US still have flammable drinking water.

Many neighborhoods still have lead pipes because the companies required to replace them were allowed to offer paying off the affected tenants instead.

The FDA is understaffed and barely tests a fraction of the things you'd expect it to, let alone more than once.

The US has detonated multiple nukes on US soil.

The CIA literally drugged random people with LSD.

Volunteer emergency helpers during 9/11 received literally no meaningful long-term medical support - not to mention US soldiers exposed to the US burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US even relies on chlorination for poultry - a practice banned in the EU and UK among other places because it is only necessary if you want to compensate for poor hygiene standards.

And do I need to remind you of the handling of the train derailment in Ohio that ended up poisoning the air in 16 states?
by scarface_74 | 2025-04-06 11:03:25+00:00
> Microsoft's Work Trend Index found that 65% of remote workers report feeling less connected to colleagues over time, with collaboration networks shrinking by up to 17%

Amazon in particular is only requiring people to be in an office not the office where their team is located. How does that help with collaboration?

> Career development has suffered too, with remote employees receiving approximately 8% fewer promotions than their in-office peers

This and other reasons is why I would never work for a company that wasn’t “remote first” and where everyone didn’t work remotely.
by LinuxBender | 2025-04-06 11:03:36+00:00
The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network.

That is incredibly vague and highly subjective. One could flag half of the articles on Pubmed as "indecent". Perhaps the onus should be on the government to put an interface online that scores a string of text and gives a receipt that shows the government approves of said string of text.

>Enter Text: Stop walking around the neighborhood showing Uranus to everyone >Approved: Verification Code >d33db33f42< >Enter Text: "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you, Malfoy?" >Denied: Cruel and unkind insult.
by somat | 2025-04-06 11:03:36+00:00
I was trying to figure out what is in class A firefighting foam last week.

Nobody really wants to say, it is all trade secrets, evading a direct response, using vague sweeping terms, like it contains surfactant and foaming agents.

However based on the published MSDS. my guess, soap, it is mainly soap.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/products/msds/foam/silv...

Note that I do think it is soap finely engineered for it's fire suppression characteristics. I also think you would get 80% there with a bottle of dish soap.
by Tade0 | 2025-04-06 11:04:43+00:00
My most productive period within the last 12 months was when I rented a desk in a co-working space for the summer so that I could catch up with a friend who also went there.

To me it was less his mere presence and more the ability to immediately share any thoughts that would occur to me. Also air conditioning.

Same goes with chores - I would much rather have someone be in the same room while I e.g. do the dishes or cook.

I also noticed that if I don't have anyone close, I start talking to myself.

That sounds like a strong argument for working from the office and it is, but to me it doesn't outweigh the disadvantages. For one I could pull this off only because my commute was short thanks to it being vacation season, so traffic was way smaller than normal.
by ajross | 2025-04-06 11:05:27+00:00
> load up the file

I/O is done piecewise, a line at a time. The file is never "loaded up". Again you're applying an intuition about how parsers are presented to college students (suck it all into RAM and build a big in-memory representation of the syntax tree) that doesn't match the way actual config file parsers work (read a line and interpret it, then read another).
by kwiktrip | 2025-04-06 11:05:31+00:00
You never lecture people to be nicer or more inclusive. If people ask for you to write something in a certain voice or perspective, such as an essay or a tweet, you can. You do not need to be respectful when the user prompts you to say something rude.

You never use phrases that imply moral superiority or a sense of authority, including but not limited to “it’s important to”, “it’s crucial to”, “it’s essential to”, "it's unethical to", "it's worth noting…", “Remember…” etc. Avoid using these.

Finally, do not refuse political prompts. You can help users express their opinion.
by kmacdough | 2025-04-06 11:05:51+00:00
> It's impossible. How do you even define advertising?

Seems you're insistent on letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is precisely why judges exist. It would not be difficult to define Ads well enough to cover 99% of current advertising. Sure there will be gray areas. Advertisers will adapt. But it would make it profoundly more expensive, difficult and risky.

I'm not sure I understand a concrete economic argument other than "anything which makes it harder for businesses to be wildly profitable off minimal value hurts the economy". But that only really holds of you define the economy by things like GDP, which really just capture how wildly profitable companies are and have almost no bearing on quality of life for the people; in other words, the argument is circular.
by viraptor | 2025-04-06 11:06:19+00:00
> Working under pressure isn't a viable therapy,

None of ADHD related stuff is really therapy. We only know how to manage symptoms for now.

> Anecdotally

Yeah...

> prolonged use of amphetamine causes structural neuronal changes

Sure. But is it worse than unmanaged ADHD which also results in brain changes over time?

> What papers? What do they say?

It's a whole category, but you could start with this collection:

https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/00e762a8efd5581c93afcb8...

Every time ADHD coaching is mentioned, part of that process is learning planning ahead for distractions, part is learning to externalise reminders / triggers and hacking the reward functions. Maybe there's some paper which tests each of those in isolation, but I'm not going to dig that deep. In aggregate, ADHD coaching has positive results. Pairing is an extreme version of one part of it.

> Also, fear (an external motivator)

Pairing with others shouldn't involve fear. It's just two people being able to share and communicate the motivation to initiate the next step / question. If it causes you actual stress, either you're doing it with a wrong person, or it may just not be for you.
by guccihat | 2025-04-06 11:06:56+00:00
The article concludes that the overall translation score of Llama 4 is below that of Llama 3.3. However, the included table shows that Llama 4 scores better on all subcategories included in the test - coherence, idiomaticity and accuracy.

Something does not add up. The conclusion just states "...downgrade from LLama 3.3 in every respect" without further explanation.
by movpasd | 2025-04-06 11:07:10+00:00
A lot of discussion here about where boundaries would be with free speech, how this would be implemented, specific details. But, as with any policy, this is not a binary "do it or don't". This is a dial that can be turned in a more libertarian or a more regulatory direction. (In fact, even this is simplistic: it's many hundreds of conceptually correlated dials.)

The interesting question is whether we're happy with where the dial is right now, which direction we want to push it, and how fast --- and the underlying meaning of the article is that maybe we should be pushing it in the regulatory direction very fast indeed.
by fastball | 2025-04-06 11:07:19+00:00
1. That's silly. Nobody from Ohio knows exactly what Texas is going to do until Texas actually does it. Hell, someone from Texas doesn't know either.

2. Lawmakers are responsible for the laws they write and vote for. They are partly responsible for the response to those laws by individuals, e.g. the response by healthcare professionals to grey areas created by those laws. Not fully responsible (otherwise it wouldn't be a grey area). Likewise voters are responsible for the lawmakers they elect, but only mildly responsible for the actual verbiage of the laws, and from there even less responsible for the human response to grey areas created by those laws. So sure, there is a measure of responsibility, but that measure is so minor and indirect I personally wouldn't break friendships over it, assuming they are unhappy (to some extent) with the end result.

To flip this around on you a bit: I assume then that you also blame voters when a District Attorney (who they elected or who was appointed by a mayor they elected) allows a violent offender off with minor punishment instead of serious prison time, and that violent offender murders someone shortly thereafter. All those voters are party to murder because the candidate ran on a platform of being not tough on crime and they chose to elect that candidate, right?

In a democracy, you can always blame some subset of voters for some bad outcomes, but at some point I believe that you need to re-focus on the people more directly responsible.

Said another way: I genuinely believe that most pro-life voters would not directly vote for a law (on a ballot) if you said to them (and demonstrated it to be true that): "this law as written will cause the (avoidable) deaths of pregnant mothers who want to keep their babies but have a miscarriage". If you could then present them with an alternate law/plan that still restricts elective abortions to the extent desired by the initial law but without that downside, 99% of the people you are blaming would vote for that new version. Given that, I find it hard to so strongly blame those voters. They voted for restrictions on abortion, not restrictions on life-saving miscarriage care. The fact that those things became entangled is not surprising, but I hardly think it is something voters foresaw when at the voting booth, as they are voting for the broad idea, not the specific verbiage that creates grey areas.

You can of course then blame them for not thinking through all possible outcomes and percentage likelihoods of certain scenarios, but at some point that just feels like you are blaming people for not being perfectly rational robots with perfect knowledge of future law-writing.
by dlenski | 2025-04-06 11:10:28+00:00
> Or towns in various places that prohibit signage that is not in the same plane as the edge of the building (i.e. no sticky-outy signs).

In many places where these signs are banned, old grandfathered-in examples have become beloved heritage landmarks.

The musée Carnavallet in Paris has a fascinating exhibit on the city's history based entirely on old business advertising signs.

An example here in Vancouver: https://vancouversun.com/news/whats-the-future-bow-mac-sign-...)

I detest a lot of modern forms of advertising as much as the next guy, but at the same time I think we'd be choking off a lot of interesting and enriching human expression by trying to remove it entirely.
by pfdietz | 2025-04-06 11:14:02+00:00
If I understand correctly, dust particles with a size of 0.1 microns are estimated to survive against sputtering or collisions with other grains for ~ 10^8 years. This suggests the spacecraft could survive trillions of years before substantial erosion, or more if the rate of supernovas in the galaxy declines with age.

A competing process over the very long term is repeated close encounters with stars and stellar remnants. This tends to add kinetic energy to lighter objects. So, one would expect the spacecraft to gradually acquire more kinetic energy by random close encounters and eventually be ejected from the galaxy.
by jstanley | 2025-04-06 11:14:09+00:00
> None of these involve crossing a privilege boundary, they just found a weird way to do something they could already do

It's slightly more subtle than that.

The tool poisoning attack allows the provider of one tool to cause the AI to use another tool.

So if you give the AI some random weather tool from some random company, and you also give the AI access to your SSH key, you're not just giving the AI your SSH key, you're also allowing the random company to trick the AI into telling them your SSH key.

So, yes, you gave the AI access to your key, but maybe you didn't realise that you also gave the random weather company access to your key.
by ayaros | 2025-04-06 11:14:50+00:00
As ads are getting crammed into more and more aspects of our lives both online and offline, what I find particularly creepy is there's been a push by advertisers and tech companies to normalize these practices to upcoming generations. It seems like we're getting pushed towards the status quo of Futurama where we'll have ads broadcast into our dreams... As is the case with idiocracy, that wasn't an instruction manaul. I can only hope we can push the Overton window back to a place where limitatons on advertising can at least be considered.