MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bigyabai | 2025-04-30 03:57:16+00:00
That's marketing speak. Any time you adopt a change, whether it's fixing an obvious mistake or a subtle failure case, you credit your users to make them feel special. There are other areas (sama's promised open LLM weights) where this long-term value is outright ignored by OpenAI's leadership for the promise of service revenue in the meantime.

There was likely no change of attitude internally. It takes a lot more than a git revert to prove that you're dedicated to your users, at least in my experience.
by kjellsbells | 2025-04-30 03:57:29+00:00
An hour is just a simple, easily remembered value, not a hard rule. If it takes 62 minutes or 58 minutes there's unlikely to be a difference.

The real cleverness is fast triage under duress and especially in mass casualty events where you may go from 1 patient per hour to a dozen in a minute as an entire rifle squad or whatever gets carried in. In those conditions you basically park the unlikely-to-survive round the back, the non lethal wounds off on the side, and try to solve for the hard middle cases: the abdominal injuries for example. And even those are sometimes just "clean up what you can, pack the cavity with a ton of gauze, sedate and get them to hospital in Germany asap"
by durk5 | 2025-04-30 03:58:28+00:00
I do sort of like the concept of passkeys, especially being able to throw them into my password manager. However a lot of sites I've encountered that implement them have decided that presenting a passkey can basically bypass MFA. I get that you'd have the passkey ideally protected by some MFA or biometric anyways, but I still like to have both forms of auth separated as much as possible.
by floxy | 2025-04-30 03:58:31+00:00
Assuming OP has a Ford Mustang Mach-E, RWD, Long Range model, you might expect:

286 miles at 70 MPH 249 miles at 75 MPH 232 miles at 75 MPH with 2kW of heating

https://evkx.net/models/ford/mustang_mach-e/mustang_mach-e_l...

...that model seems to take about 45 minutes to charge from 10-80%:

https://evkx.net/models/ford/mustang_mach-e/mustang_mach-e_l...
by MichaelAza | 2025-04-30 03:59:00+00:00
I actually liked that version. I have a fairly verbose "personality" configuration and up to this point it seemed that chatgpt mainly incorporated phrasing from it into the answers. With this update, it actually started following it.

For example, I have "be dry and a little cynical" in there and it routinely starts answers with "let's be dry about this" and then gives a generic answer, but the sycophantic chatgpt was just... Dry and a little cynical. I used it to get book recommendations and it actually threw shade at Google. I asked if that was explicit training by Altman and the model made jokes about him as well. It was refreshing.

I'd say that whatever they rolled out was just much much better at following "personality" instructions, and since the default is being a bit of a sycophant... That's what they got.
by mmx1 | 2025-04-30 04:00:23+00:00
The point is precisely that being super fixated on Microsoft as a monopoly producing relatively trash-quality products is a static worldview. It is the case that Microsoft monopoly did not in any shape or form preclude a measly search startup and a beleaguered Cupertino company from surpassing it to the slightest (mind you, Windows is still the dominant desktop OS, which compared to what it meant in the 90s is immaterial; people rarely think about writing Windows apps anymore: they write web, iOS and Android apps.) This is the whole point of Thiel's thesis. The contemporary version of this world transition we are witnessing is from search to chatbot. Meanwhile Microsoft by pushing the "trash" products actually served the industry at large well in other ways: it provided a consistent standard base to widely deploy PCs and applications.

Aside: the "competition is for losers" tagline is not from Thiel himself: apparently the publisher came up with a punchy line, and I think that refers to his broader ideology. What I brought up is a very specific observation in his thesis that high margin monopolies are actually good from the perspective of society in a dynamic world where it does not merely translate rent-seeking long-term.
by ocdtrekkie | 2025-04-30 04:00:42+00:00
Fundamentally there is no reason anyone in their right mind should install an extension released by an individual with these permissions. It is a post-decryption access to every single thing you do online. It is absolutely insane to trust your web browsing to a random browser extension, even a useful one ("cloud to butt" is my favorite example of people deleting their entire security model for a joke).

Anyone can buy out or compromise this developer and slide complete takeover of your online life into an extension update.
by boroboro4 | 2025-04-30 04:03:15+00:00
I think in a way it makes transformers superior to humans, their short term memory is much more powerful =) Supporting extra long contexts also make transformers super human. Because, again, human's short term memory is exactly this - short term. And much shorter than millions of tokens we expect from models nowadays.

As for SSMs - I think they compress model memory state way too much. Mixed global/local attention layers do just as well. And sparse/block attention seems like a way forward much more (https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11089).
by bpodgursky | 2025-04-30 04:04:03+00:00
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2023/

> Nearly 8 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2023 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving-related jobs. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 4.)

There's a long tail but you can start with 80% of that 1% getting tips in food service.
by kmacdough | 2025-04-30 04:04:46+00:00
Bookmarks are more permanent. Open tabs for me are a physical representation of a task in process. Tabs for a purchase show what needs consideration. Could be options, reviews, learning materials. For a project, tabs might include specific documentation pages, spreadsheets, etc.

Generally, it's tracking the in progress process.

Keeping tabs open for me is a physical token of a path not complete.
by Gud | 2025-04-30 04:06:52+00:00
Not at all. I’ve been following Elon for a long, long time. Since he was the PayPal guy who was going to blow his fortune buying Russian rockets.

He was absolutely 100% focused on his ventures back then. His political awakening has been slowly happening over the last 10 years, at least his public persona.

There was no “turning a blind eye” when I invested in Tesla when the Dragon capsule first docked with the ISS, in 2012. I figured if this intelligent person can revolutionise the space industry, he can do the same with the car industry.

He has absolutely changed.
by philsnow | 2025-04-30 04:08:19+00:00
In the first image ("How old is [Stinkie] compared to the other mumble mumble* starters?"), the cumulative age distribution mostly falls off as you might expect, but it looks like there's a very noticeable bump about 4-5 years ago. I guess people in Europe were making pandemic bread too.

* I can't read Dutch
by dragonwriter | 2025-04-30 04:08:25+00:00
> Is it possible that the nature of deep learning completely negates SEO?

No, though it does provide something like security through obscurity, in that the models still rely on search engines to locate sources to rely on for detailed answers, but the actual search engine being used is not itself publicly exposed, so while gaming its rankings may still have value (not to show ads, obviously, but to get your message into answers yielded by the AI tool), it is harder to assess how well you've done (and may take more pages as well as high ranking ones to be effective), because instead of looking at where you rank which you can do easily with a small number of tests or particular search queries, you have to test how well your message comes through in answers for realistic questions, which would take more queries and provide more ambiguous results. For highly motivated parties (especially for things like high-impact political propaganda around key issues) it may still be worth doing, though.
by sriram_malhar | 2025-04-30 04:08:37+00:00
I generally agree with Musk's politics

You mean fascism? Absolute control over media and speech? Racism? White supremacy?

And what is your definition of consensus? If everyone strikes a compromise, is that evil ? If majority strike a consensus, is that not consensus; that is, does it have to be total in order to be called consensus?

Is majority a consensus? Of course people agitate for getting full victory
by davidw | 2025-04-30 04:08:57+00:00
What is different is the scale and blatant nature of it with this administration.

Yes, 'well connected' counted in the past. Now it's "buy my crypto thing directly" or "talk with me about exceptions to the tariffs".

If there was a faint whiff of something untoward in the past, this is the Augean Stables.
by pavelstoev | 2025-04-30 04:08:57+00:00
Optimizing AI performance is like peeling an onion — every time you remove one bottleneck, another layer appears underneath. What looks like a compute problem turns out to be a memory bottleneck, which then turns out to be a scheduling issue, which reveals a parallelism mismatch… and so on.

It’s a process of continuous uncovering, and unless you have visibility across the whole stack — from kernel to cluster — you’ll spend all your time slicing through surface layers with lots of tears being shed.

Fortunately, there are software automation solutions to this.
by nine_k | 2025-04-30 04:09:44+00:00
Consider the way BitTorrent works. You don't have to know what your peers are going to be, or where. You don't have to trust your peers: as long as they serve blocks with correct hashes, you are safe to take data from them. Equally, they don't have to know you or trust you.

It, of course, does not work for email. OTOH protocols like briar [1] theoretically could.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briar_(software)
by seanhunter | 2025-04-30 04:10:19+00:00
Once upon a time around 2001 or so I used to have a static line at home and host some stuff on my home linux box. A windows NT update had meant a lot of them had enabled this optimistic encryption thing where windows boxes would try to connect to a certain port and negotiate an s/wan before doing TCP traffic. I was used to seeing this traffic a lot on my firewall so no big deal. However there was one machine in particular that was really obnoxious. It would try to connect every few seconds and would just not quit.

I tried to contact the admin of the box (yeah that’s what people used to do) and got nowhere. Eventually I sent a message saying “hey I see your machine trying to connect every few seconds on port <whatever it is>. I’m just sending a heads up that we’re starting a new service on that port and I want to make sure it doesn’t cause you any problems.”

Of course I didn’t hear back. Then I set up a server on that port that basically read from /dev/urandom, set TCP_NODELAY and a few other flags and pushed out random gibberish as fast as possible. I figured the clients of this service might not want their strings of randomness to be null-terminated so I thoughtfully removed any nulls that might otherwise naturally occur. The misconfigured NT box connected, drank 5 seconds or so worth of randomness, then disappeared. Then 5 minutes later, reappeared, connected, took its buffer overflow medicine and disappeared again. And this pattern then continued for a few weeks until the box disappeared from the internet completely.

I like to imagine that some admin was just sitting there scratching his head wondering why his NT box kept rebooting.
by Animats | 2025-04-30 04:10:39+00:00
> The thing is, though, that PATH being a userspace concept is a contingent detail, an accident of history, not something inherent to the concept of an operating system. You can imagine a kernel that does path searches. Why not?

Right. You can't be sure that someone didn't stick $PATH expansion into glibc, or something. Because someone did.

QNX gets program loading entirely out of the kernel. When QNX is booted, initial programs and .so files in the boot image are loaded into memory. That's how things get started. Disk drivers, etc. come in that way, assuming the system has a disk.

Calling "exec.." or ".. spawn" merely links to a .so file that knows how to open and read an executable image. Program loading is done entirely by userspace code. Tiny microkernel. The "exec.." functions do not use the PATH variable.[1]

However, "posix_spawn" does read the PATH environment variable, in both QNX [2] and Linux.[3] Linux, for historical reasons, tends not to use "spawn" as much, but those are the defined semantics for it. QNX normally uses "spawn", because it lacks the legacy that encouraged fork/exec type process startup. "posix_spawn" is apparently faster in modern Linux, especially when the parent process is large, but there's a lot of fork/exec legacy code out there.

"posix_spawn" comes from FreeBSD in 2009, but I think the QNX implementation precedes that, because QNX's architecture favors "spawn" over "exec.." It may go back to UCLA Locus.

Windows has different program startup semantics. Someone from Windows land can address that. MacOS has a built in search path if you don't have a PATH variable.[5]

[1] https://www.qnx.com/developers/docs/8.0/com.qnx.doc.neutrino...

[2] https://www.qnx.com/developers/docs/8.0/com.qnx.doc.neutrino...

[3] https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/posix_spawn.3.html

[4] https://www.whexy.com/posts/fork

[5] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Sy...
by owyn | 2025-04-30 04:10:52+00:00
The new Lexus TSS which is lane keeping and cruise control and auto park and safety oriented stuff has 11 cameras I think? Plus some lasers and sonar and whatnot. 4 of them are for the cool 360 top down view. I'd love to count up all the sensors on a current production car. I googled but failed. Maybe in the manual? There's a lot.

But they probably could use less if they had better software and networking in the car. I think automotive systems tend to be built like: add 1 ecu and 1 sensor for 1 function. So they can do all the functional safety analysis for that one system in isolation. I expect they can't just keep adding all these single purpose functions and features without a central computer indefinitely but they don't have one right now. A brain like waymo (probably has?) could possibly fix that.
by mindslight | 2025-04-30 04:10:54+00:00
The mechanism to stop it is to lean on the chickenshit Republican congress critters to impeach and convict the president who is using his discretionary powers to overtly loot for personal gain, attack our country (/me waves at the import blockade), and is already ignoring the check of the judiciary. It would be great if there were other methods of accountability, yes. But it's impossible to codify legal rules into perfect mechanically-executable formalities, and it's impossible to avoid the principle agent problem. Since you seem to be concerned about this problem, surely you are contacting your congressional representative and senators to express support for impeachment, right?
by dryrun | 2025-04-30 04:10:57+00:00
So if a full consensus says that Nazis are bad, then they are themselves bad, not the Nazis ? And if Musk is the best of the billionaires, that says an awful lot about the others, which paints a very, very hideous world that I definitely don't want a consensus on.

The guy paves the way towards totalitarianism, but please, tell me about we should have people like him because it prevents totalitarianism.
by opello | 2025-04-30 04:11:19+00:00
My use of "blurry" is because you asserted a clear boundary between user and kernel space. While I agree that this boundary is well-defined, it is indeed "blurred" (made less clear) by the glibc function wrappers and vDSO injected functions. Because the glibc library is a system library and the vDSO is a blob of library code mapped in the kernel. It's not a simple interrupt to context switch and return when complete with state having been updated from "over the fence."

To me the description of a "clear boundary" should avoid the amount of nuance around whether the application's call lands in a library or the kernel's syscall handler. The fact that it doesn't means that the boundary is less clear, or blurry as was the term I adopted here.
by therealpygon | 2025-04-30 04:12:58+00:00
Yes. If people are unwilling to pay $5 more, they will buy less or buy none. That decreases profits due to decreased demand. Now there is more supply than demand, which means you need to make the purchase more attractive, which generally means spend more on advertisements/rebates, lowering the price to an acceptable rate or improve the product value. Or strike a balance where you shrink both the cost (size), and price, and advertise the cheaper price to make people think they are getting a better deal when they are really just buying less for the same price (or more). Round and round it goes; supply, demand, and misleading.

People should remember that it isn’t just the corporations who raise the price that are at fault, it is the people who are unwilling to go without it when the price is overinflated. Yes, then we nit-pick into things like medical necessity and … thus back to the point that it is both supply and demand, and not.
by raverbashing | 2025-04-30 04:15:40+00:00
Having a worldwide data network is also only possible with real-time digital control systems as well

The issue is one of technology (having high powered switching components only took of in the last 30? yrs or something) and legacy

(Edit: IGBTs are from the 80's though it seems the 1st generation wasn't that great, IGCTs from the late 90s https://mb-drive-services.com/experience-with-igct-based-vfd...
by meander_water | 2025-04-30 04:15:46+00:00
For better or worse this has become the defacto standard in LLM Evaluation research papers since the LLM as a Judge paper [0] came out. Its also heavily embedded into frameworks like LangChain and LlamaIndex to evaluate RAG pipelines.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15594
by gnarlouse | 2025-04-30 04:16:36+00:00
If DuoLingo is currently a thriving company, I am convinced it is exclusively because of branding momentum. I think Match.com's trajectory foreshadows the fate of DuoLingo. In the 00's, Match.com used to be the premier "try to meet a not-weird-fuck to date online" system. Then in the early 2010s, Tinder-style dating apps consumed the market. Shortly after, match.com started doing some really fucked up business practices because their niche market got swallowed up in a larger general market by a superior "free" product.

Duolingo's users are sticky so long as the brand ideology holds: "if you want to learn a second language, play duolingo".

Also, Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn also founded ReCAPTCHA. Every idea this man has capitalized on has been made obsolete by the advance of AI.
by guywithahat | 2025-04-30 04:17:17+00:00
The race riots didn't help, but they were largely secondary to the factories leaving. The UAW would never strike at their factory; they would usually go across the street and strike at some significant, shared plant (like an engine factory for multiple vehicles). For a long time, logistic constraints prevented major auto companies from moving too far away, but once they figured it out they started putting each factory in a new, usually right-to-work state, so you could only strike at your factory. Flint went from being the home of GM and having ~14 major auto factories to 3. Similar story for Detroit.

Similar things happened in most major industries. The other one I'm familiar with is GE Locomotive, who moved their engine facility to Grove City (which still never unionized), and now has a major facility in Fort Worth as well.
by alganet | 2025-04-30 04:17:17+00:00
Getting real now.

Why does it feel like a weird mirrored excuse?

I mean, the personality is not much of a problem.

The problem is the use of those models in real life scenarios. Whatever their personality is, if it targets people, it's a bad thing.

If you can't prevent that, there is no point in making excuses.

Now there are millions of deployed bots in the whole world. OpenAI, Gemini, Llama, doesn't matter which. People are using them for bad stuff.

There is no fixing or turning the thing off, you guys know that, right?

If you want to make some kind of amends, create a place truly free of AI for those who do not want to interact with it. It's a challenge worth pursuing.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-04-30 04:17:55+00:00
> create virtual credit cards

I was forced into this behavior by Google Pay/Wallet, and I found it extremely precarious.

With one of those virtual cards I purchased an item at a high cost, and unfortunately I had to go through a cycle of factory reset and reload everything to my phone. This necessarily wiped the "virtual cards" stored there.

Thereafter, I went back to the merchant for a refund, and we found that a credit to the "original card" was impossible because I "no longer possessed" the original card! I was rather infuriated that it would be this easy, but Google assured me there's no error and this is how it works. Google claims that they're protecting our privacy, but I basically did not ask to be enrolled in these virtual cards and, when we trust the card processors, this is a disadvantage and honestly, kind of insulting to our relationship.

This glitch cost me a long, long time as I needed to wait for a paper check to issue in the mail. Therefore, I would urge caution and being fully-informed of the corner cases, before anyone tries to use a virtual card for any serious transactions.
by esafak | 2025-04-30 04:18:58+00:00
Apple and Google succeeded not by beating Microsoft at its game, but by playing a different game, which happened due to technological revolutions they capitalized on. Apple has a fair claim to partially engendering some of the revolutions; esp. mobile computing. As you said, Window is still the dominant desktop operating system. Who knows what better operating systems people could have been using all this time?
by thih9 | 2025-04-30 04:20:09+00:00
I guess LLM will give you a response that you might likely receive from a human.

There are people attempting to sell shit on a stick related merch right now[1] and we have seen many profitable anti-consumerism projects that look related for one reason[2] or another[3].

Is it an expert investing advice? No. Is it a response that few people would give you? I think also no.

[1]: https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Funny-saying-shit-on-a-s...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/28/cards-aga...
by somenameforme | 2025-04-30 04:20:34+00:00
The problem is that people have become so divided that the smallest of offenses by 'the other side' is blown up into the most egregious act since the birth of man, and the worst of offenses 'by our side' is turned into the smallest of issues, a technicality, perhaps not even especially real.

This is why you might think that isn't usual to not bother hiding the corruption, because I assure you most on "the other side" would rather disagree with you. Consider that a President gave banks who were failing, exclusively due to their own greed and reckless investing, hundreds of billions of dollars in an unprecedented scale bailout, and would then go on to go give 30 minute "chats" to these companies after leaving office for $400k a pop, making himself tens of millions of dollars out of it.

I'm trying to avoid more contemporary issues precisely because of my first paragraph. But I will say that overt corruption and weaponization of various institutions was perceived, by many, as exceptionally widespread in the previous administration. That's largely why November turned out the way it did, and similarly why many were so surprised by it. People increasingly live in two different realities and the hyper-polarization of media is heavily contributing to this.