MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwanem | 2025-04-16 12:36:15+00:00
AI isn't manipulative? It can be said to have ethics?

The most dangerous animal on this planet by far is the one that doesn't think of itself so. Even still, I would rather face an armed and angry human than an LLM with a goal best served by ending my life. I can smell how likely the human is to kill me in the next thirty seconds. The machine, not so much, nor will it face even the briefest moment of emotional difficulty at the prospect.

It isn't that I don't get what you're saying, goodness knows. Sharing this species with a planet is no bed of roses. Still, I've spent decades learning to understand the animal. No one has spent nearly that long learning to understand the machine.
by codedokode | 2025-04-16 12:36:15+00:00
While I like the joke, Russia is actually making its own original microcontrollers, for example see K1921VG015 (RISC-V 32/50 MHz/1M flash/256K SRAM/square 100-pin package). The $6 price tag seems a little bit expensive to me but well the developers want to eat something too. There are also ARM-based microcontrollers (much more expensive), and of course (even more expensive) famous Elbrus CPUs with unique VLIW architecture.
by codr7 | 2025-04-16 12:36:39+00:00
This approach is also common in C:

https://github.com/codr7/hacktical-c/tree/main/list

One pretty big advantage is you get some help from the compiler making sure you mean what you say. As opposed to just blindly casting items and assuming no one forgot to put the list in their struct. Also the possibility to be part of multiple lists.
by hummusisdata | 2025-04-16 12:37:18+00:00
Organizations waste hundreds of hours re-checking data they don't trust. In this final newsletter of my data strategy series, I share the five pillars of data trust and practical implementation techniques that reduced "Is this data correct?" tickets by 78% in three months. The centerpiece is the "Morning Confidence Dashboard" concept that transformed how teams interact with their data. If you've ever struggled with data mistrust killing your ROI, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this approach.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-16 12:37:24+00:00
> it confronts the audience with the uncomfortable situation where the machine is more humane than humans.

Ironic given how many HN commenters were tricked into upvoting this LLM junk article. Read the statement at the end - It was AI generated. It’s on a new substack. It’s posted by a new HN account. It’s LLM content mill junk from top to bottom and people were eating it right up.
by AlexandrB | 2025-04-16 12:37:36+00:00
> Hopefully these 4 years energize people to vote.

This euphemism has to end. I think you mean: "Hopefully these 4 years energize people to vote Democrat".

Why not just say it plainly instead of using supposedly non-partisan language? This neutral phrasing seems to be an appeal to a "silent majority" that agrees with you and disagrees with Republican leadership. What if that silent majority doesn't exist?
by hobofan | 2025-04-16 12:38:10+00:00
To all the comments doubting the legitimacy:

Here is a LinkedIn post by one of the CVE board members (literally the first one on the list here[0]): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterallor_cve-foundation-act...

I'm sure if you look at some of the contact information of other CVE board members and their broadcasting platforms you will also find something.

[0]: https://www.cve.org/programorganization/board
by strgcmc | 2025-04-16 12:38:46+00:00
I'm sorry but your take is just too stupid to ignore, and I apologize in advance because ad hominem is not my goal.

I'll boil this down to the simplest possible explanation of why your statement is idiotic -- children who are trained to prefer AI, will never learn how to form friendships with their peers (aka other children, who won't always give perfectly timed emotional responses or always be calm or always answer what they need to hear). Other children are not able to "rethink their behavior" yet because they are children still.

A world in which, I ask my child "do you want to play with Timmy next door, or stay inside and play with Alexa/Siri/etc." and my child always prefers to pick Alexa, is one of the most dystopian outcomes I could possibly imagine for childrearing.

Forming friendships and human connections is a skill. Learning new skills is hard and not always fun. A soothing AI companion that always says what you want to hear, is going to trap children in a dopamine loop that prevents that kind of social skill development from ever happening.
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-04-16 12:39:48+00:00
I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ir...

Abortion rights in Ireland are OK, I was living with old prejudices. The number of doctors that perform it is still low, but fair enough - I was all wrong.

(unfortunately I cannot update my comment)
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-04-16 12:39:53+00:00
I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ir...

Abortion rights in Ireland are OK, I was living with old prejudices. The number of doctors that perform it is still low, but fair enough - I was all wrong.

(unfortunately I cannot update my comment)
by taylodl | 2025-04-16 12:40:31+00:00
Even so, it's a hop neither you nor I are likely to ever get to make in our lifetime. Besides, there's no destination. Think of this as the barnstormers from the 1910s and 1920s who would go to county fairs and offer people a ride in their plane. You took off, did a loop, and landed. It was another 40 years before commercial aviation became mainstream. These space hops are an encouraging development.
by axus | 2025-04-16 12:40:35+00:00
7. Oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single 'general car default' warning light. ...

10. Occasionally, for no reason, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed the radio antenna.

11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of road maps from Rand-McNally (a subsidiary of GM), even though they neither need them nor want them. Trying to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 per cent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department. ...

13. You would press the 'start' button to shut off the engine.
by EncomLab | 2025-04-16 12:40:44+00:00
Kids (and humans) are wired to follow individuals who express themselves with authority and confidence - hence the long history of "confidence-men" and politicians throughout history.

If you place that ability to communicate with confidence and authority in an individual with male gender traits who is tall, fit, socially attractive, and has a deep voice - nearly everyone around them will do what they say; even to the extent that doing so many be against the best interest of the individuals listening.

AI speaks with utmost confidence in every interaction - not just kids, but all humans will have a preference for it.
by acdha | 2025-04-16 12:41:11+00:00
> Even then, we want the subset of bans that were for political reasons (i.e., supporting Labour is fine, supporting Reform is hate speech).

Do you have any examples was banned for supporting Reform? I ask because I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard someone say they were banned for their political views and then checked to see that what actually got them banned was something like targeted harassment of a political opponent.
by ty6853 | 2025-04-16 12:41:23+00:00
You're doubtlessly correct.

You could of course just use the tablet to show slow riding trains. At some point though you end up on an 8 hour car ride or flight, and without an army of novel toys it's just far more practical to hand the tablet than have the child screaming bloody murder the whole time because they are bored. This is one of those things that makes the parent sound bad but parenting is 24/7 365 days a year and sometimes people need a low-effort break for an hour, even the child.
by hilbert42 | 2025-04-16 12:41:38+00:00
I'm old enough to remember when many of these words and phrases weren't in common usage or they just wouldn't have made sense (certainly not in the way we currently understand them). Society was very different back then.

I think this list is solid confirmation of something we already know which is that cultural and social mores have changed so much and so rapidly over the last 60 or so years that many have failed to adjust. For them, change has outpaced their ability to adapt and it has left them feeling alienated and culturally isolated.

For society, change has been a two-edge sword: those who felt oppressed under the old order have been liberated whilst many of the old guard now feel oppressed. Thus perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the extent of the backlash.

This current backlash seems to indicate there's an actual limit to the rate that societal norms can change and still meet with agreement or consensus for the majority of the population. Observation suggests that in recent decades that not only has this rate been exceeded but also the disruption it's caused is increasing without any sign of abating (society is now more polarized than ever).

I'm not a sociologist so I'd like to know what current research says about this. (It seems to me we cannot properly address the problem until we're fully conversant with the facts.)
by vmatouch | 2025-04-16 12:41:46+00:00
Regarding "to sound intelligent," I've recently begun distinguishing between two forms:

1) Saying something correctly but unnecessarily complicated - for example, when a project manager says, "We do not have financial resources for that," instead of simply, "We don't have money for that," when declining a team dinner (a CFO's report is another story).

2) Saying something incorrectly - for instance, "It is really flustrating."

I've started to dislike the latter more. The former involves people who at least use correct phrases, even if they're trying too hard to impress others. The latter indicates people who simply don't read.
by marcusverus | 2025-04-16 12:41:52+00:00
> There's nothing "vague" about the past couple of weeks of news, court-cases, admissions, and flat-out bragging by the administration. Stop feigning ignorance.

Pretending not to know what "vague" means isn't an argument.

> The real pro-deception stance is yours: Demanding that known falsehoods and propaganda be repeated verbatim.

Expecting honest quotations is pro-deception. Got it. Good chat, Beelzebub.
by beezlebroxxxxxx | 2025-04-16 12:42:09+00:00
> Whole article is just authors screaming insecurity.

I have yet to see a single AI proponent commit to giving their kid over to AI, if they even have one. SV CEOs are sending their kids to hardcore techfree schools and limiting their own kids access to their tech, all while insisting AI and their tech poses no risk at all to kids and that any reservations are "fear mongering."
by nailer | 2025-04-16 12:42:10+00:00
There is absolutely basis to say that you prefer an ideologically uniform college campus and are campaigning against plurality of thought. For example, your comments in this thread arguing against efforts to support a diverse range of viewpoints in higher education.

Accusing people that support diversity of thought as being authoritarian is more projection and also quite funny.

There are no Republican commissars. That is the conspiracy theory you made up.

There is no privilege for Republican students or workers. That is a conspiracy theory you made up.

The Trump administration is not a regime (in the traditional sense this word is used, ie for dictatorships) because you dislike it winning an election.

I am not a republican. I would desperately like the Democrats to become electable again. Advocating for admissions racism and brainwashing children into racist conspiracy theories about Jewish people doesn’t seem to be a good way to do that.

I accuse you of gaslighting because you speak well enough that you are probably not stupid, but rather completely aware of what you are saying is false. I suspect you think your righteous anger makes what you say true. It does not.
by doright | 2025-04-16 12:43:34+00:00
When it comes down to childhood abuse, I wonder how many people would opt for an AI parent if they were able to in the future. Because in my mind it's less about the world takeover of supercomplex intelligences, and more the obsolescence of a flesh-and-blood person you rolled the dice to be bonded with that failed to so much uphold the bare minimum. That would get into major questions of consent I imagine few people have ever considered yet...

I can only imagine what that would say about the nature of dysfunctional childhood if society ever reached the point where the preference for personal liberation through AI arose.
Show HN: Open-source load balancer for distributed MCP server architecture
by mlenhard | 2025-04-16 12:43:45+00:00
Like many others, I’ve been hacking on MCP servers lately. The issue I ran into was that running multiple MCP servers behind a unified backend was hard. I needed a way to combine all the tool calls from different MCP servers so the client got a unified view, route requests to the correct server based on the tool call, and maintain session affinity for SSE requests. This led me to build CATIE, which solves the above issues.

CATIE is a lightweight proxy that routes MCP requests to the appropriate backend services based on their content.

Key Features

- Content-Based Routing: Routes requests based on tool call. This allows server operators to use a micro-service architecture, with the user only installing one server. This separation allows server operators to scale tool calls independently.

- Unified Tool Call Response: Combine the tool list response from multiple MCP servers. - Session Stickiness: Maintains client connections to the same backend

- Pattern Matching: Uses regex patterns to route tool requests

- Real-time Monitoring: Simple dashboard to see traffic patterns and performance with built-in Prometheus integration.

- Backend Switching: Change where requests go without client reconfiguration

How It Works

CATIE sits between your clients and your MCP servers. When a request comes in, it:

- Parses the JSON-RPC request to understand what it's trying to do

- Applies your routing rules to determine the appropriate backend

- Forwards the request to the backend

- Maintains session stickiness for ongoing conversations

- Has a built-in UI for monitoring statistics and integrates with Prometheus

CATIE is fully open source under the MIT license. Contributions, feedback, and feature requests are all welcome!

- GitHub: https://github.com/mclenhard/catie-mcp - Docs: https://www.catiemcp.com/docs/
by dimal | 2025-04-16 12:44:31+00:00
I think you’re overestimating how much needless animation helps sales and underestimating how many people are negatively affected by it.

20% of the population has high sensory sensitivity. Many of these people have issues with needless animation. Some people with ADHD also have issues. When you add them all up, it becomes a significant customer base. And even for neurotypical people, excessive animation is distracting. They’re able to tolerate it, but it’s still adding cognitive load.

And it’s been shown through usability studies that carousels are terrible across the board. Marketing people like them for some reason, but there is almost never a good reason for a carousel on the web. Marketing people and some designers like animation because it grabs your attention, and it gets a “wow” in a presentation to executives, but I’m not convinced it actually increases conversions.
by wongarsu | 2025-04-16 12:44:34+00:00
The content of the article isn't worth your time, but the central thesis is still interesting. This kind of AI blog spam is just the modern iteration of the self-help book that could be summarized on a single page but is fluffed out to 200 pages with pointless anecdotes, or the scientific paper that contains three pages of pointless math that doesn't actually add anything. For some reason we expect worthy ideas to have a certain volume of text behind it, even if the author doesn't actually have that much to say
by ryao | 2025-04-16 12:44:55+00:00
Perhaps he wants to jump through hoops to avoid function pointers, even when doing that in C++ for optional functions like is done in the VFS requires gymnastics:

https://godbolt.org/z/4GWdvsz6z

That is the closest I can get it to implementing an optional function via a C++ class member function instead of a function pointer. It is not only insane, but also masochistic in comparison to how it would be done via function pointers:

https://godbolt.org/z/qG3v5zcYc
by strogonoff | 2025-04-16 12:45:01+00:00
> getting into these discussions has a high risk of becoming an HR issue as tempers flare and conversations become vitriolic.

Here we can forget that IRL face to face people are much less likely to be offensive to each other. If they get to literal name calling and aggression, sure, that’s an HR issue, HR gets paid to sort this out, doesn’t it? I don’t see how politics is different from any other topic on which people can have strong opinions.

> There's also the issue that the company founders and leadership have political opinions of their own that might inform company policy and any political opinion to the contrary may be perceived as pushback from a "troublemaker".

That is why “no politics” is somewhat dishonest. In my view, either blanket forbid all off-topic talks, or don’t censor by topic and handle fights if they arise. There can also be softer guidelines about how to behave at work without an actual ban of any topic.
by myrmidon | 2025-04-16 12:45:18+00:00
Completely agree with your main point.

I do disagree somewhat with point 4. I think this is frequently overstated:

Building and operating automated factories is just as wage-dependent as anything else (just the coefficients are a bit smaller). You still need engineers, construction crews, supervisors, repair crews, etc. (and those could all be doing something more profitable as well).

You can see this very clearly in the EU, where there is a pretty smooth wage-gradient, and even the super highly automated automotive manufacturing has moved down that gradient towards Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, despite language/culture barriers.

> Bringing back a big chunk of manufacturing is sustainable; bringing back jobs is not.

I think a decent sized manufacturing industry is a realistic goal long term. But longer term US global supremacy in it is not even a realistic goal to begin with, because not only are you gonna fight against the wage gradient now, you are also gonna face the fact that the US is only ~5% global population, and manufacturing will naturally drift towards the very biggest markets for its goods, which the US probably won't be in half a century or so, simply because of demographics and economical growth in China/India generally.
by phyzome | 2025-04-16 12:45:19+00:00
It's not like a water-cooled computer that just uses water for heat transport. In a datacenter, I believe it's generally just evaporated off and lost to the atmosphere. This allows you to dump the energy into the vapor's latent heat.

So yeah, it's treated fresh water that is then lost. (It's not great, but I think the electricity waste is more compelling.)
by testing22321 | 2025-04-16 12:45:35+00:00
> How we get that level of prosperity back?

It’s so simple it hurts. Stop the ruling class hoarding all the wealth.

Top tax bracket used to be 94%.

Have a VERY steep wealth tax, an inheritance tax and whatever else is needed. The fact individuals exist with many hundreds of millions of dollars while so many in the same society are struggling so bad is a disgrace.
by spacebanana7 | 2025-04-16 12:45:43+00:00
> It so happens that the UK population would have started to decrease naturally I believe around 2024 without immigration

I think it would've been much earlier than that. Cumulative net migration since 2000 is around 8.5 million people. So the UK's current population would be radically lower today without immigration.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-fig... (annoyingly the per year figures need to be summed up manually on both this and ONS reports)
by simiones | 2025-04-16 12:46:02+00:00
It is literally impossible to securely talk to a different party over an insecure channel unless you have a shared key beforehand or use a trusted third-party. And since the physical medium is always inherently insecure, you will always need to trust a third party like a CA to have secure communications over the internet. This is not a limitation of some protocol, it's a fundamental law of nature/mathematics (though maybe we could imagine some secure physical transport based on entanglement effects in some future world?).

So no, IPSec couldn't have fixed the MITM issue without requiring a CA or some equivalent.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-04-16 12:47:18+00:00
> Most issues are small nudges or selective data (e.g, retesting when data doesn't support your expectations), not blatant lies.

Yeah you missed it. When you do small nudges or selectively report data that's even worse than faking data. Not all villains twirl their mustaches. It's the ones that don't that are the most dangerous, these are the ones that are going to suck time and effort away from the collective endeavour the worst. Everyone knows that leclair can't do synthesis. But how certain are we that Phil Baran's Xenon oxidation really worked?
by bestouff | 2025-04-16 12:48:00+00:00
> the vast bulk of sanitizer complaints came from invoking undefined or implementation-defined behavior in harmless ways

This is patently false. Any Undefined Behavior is harmful because it allows the optimizer to insert totally random code, and this is not a purely theoretical behavior, it's been repeatedly demonstrated happening. So even if your UB code isn't called, the simple fact it exists may make some seemingly-unrelated code behave wrongly.
by throwanem | 2025-04-16 12:49:26+00:00
I don't really recall that the people pushing the Satanic panic narrative were the same ones making nuanced arguments for the social benefits of video games and D&D.

If anything, the existence of an Internet supporting direct discussion like this between strangers like we should make vastly more nuance available at the median now than then.

What a shame we all seem to spend so much time making such poor use of it! I grew up on the dream that global communication would lead to global understanding. Imagine my disillusionment on discovering at last the besetting, lethal flaw in this beautiful revel: that we've nothing better than humans to give the job of doing it.
by amiga386 | 2025-04-16 12:49:45+00:00
The spicy soundbites on their own are scary and do suggest the state wants to destroy intellectuals.

The speech they're from doesn't.

The speech defends and praises universities and their role in society. Vance even claims some academics prefer to ignore evidence that refutes their positions, and he's against that; that would be a valid pro-intellectual position if true (but it's completely nebulous and unsourced)

The thesis of his speech was he doesn't like the content of what academics profess and he thinks they ought to teach his political views (and his audience's political views) instead. That's not anti-intellectualism, i.e. "don't trust those book-learning types, look to the common man for answers". This guy still wants ivory towers provided his cronies are in them.

Also it's interesting to see where his quote came from. He clearly picked an on-theme Nixon quote just to appeal to his audience, and he seems to miss the context of the Nixon quote in that Nixon is a paranoid nutter saying it, not coming from a rational place like Vance thought he just did.