MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by powvans | 2025-04-12 20:59:01+00:00
I have shifted the majority of my search for products to ChatGPT. In the past my starting point would have been Amazon or Google. It’s just so much easier to describe what I’m looking for and ask for recommendations that fit my parameters. If I could buy directly from the ChatGPT, I probably would. It’s just as much or more high intent as search.
by raluk | 2025-04-12 21:00:11+00:00
Websocket is not ment to be sent as streams (TCP equvalent), but as datagrams aka packets (UDP equivalents). Correct me if I am wrong, but websockets api in Javascript libraray for browsers is pretty poor and does not have ability to handle backpressure and I am sure it can not handle all possible errors (assertions about delivery). If you want to use websockets as TCP streams including seasson handling, great care should be taken as this is not natively availabe in neither rfc6455 and in browser.
by uejfiweun | 2025-04-12 21:00:44+00:00
If Google is able to ignore the pressure to bring in revenue from AI and is able to outcompete the others at automating AI research itself, I think they will win the war. It seems that they certainly have an advantage, with limited pressure from outside investors, their own hardware stack, a constant flow of cash through the other lines of business, and a head start against most of the other giant tech companies.
by wqaatwt | 2025-04-12 21:02:05+00:00
> We should wait for all the facts to come out.

Like indefinitely? Trump’s administration is ignoring the courts and there is no real oversight. Also whatever facts come out they will be drowned by all the other insane idiocy that the US government is doing so nobody will pay attention anyway..

When they start sending US citizens to El Salvador nobody is going to care about some guy whose green card got revoked.
by jcranmer | 2025-04-12 21:02:22+00:00
The subject matter may not have changed very much, but pedagogical techniques certainly have. A modern textbook is generally much easier to actually read and learn from than a 100-year-old textbook.

There's also going to be minor stuff like you probably don't need to have a section on "how to integrate by using tables of antiderivatives" anymore.
by ZeroTalent | 2025-04-12 21:02:41+00:00
Not with 0DTE options at this scale at multiple strikes. highly improbable. This wasn't the only trade. It was a sweep of hidden trades across different strikes on SPY and QQQ. Occam's Razor says this is insider trading. This has never happened before to this degree. The cool thing is that all of the historical data is transparent and cannot be removed from the ledger, and we can ask and know who made the trades it will just take a few weeks.

And looking at the options flow, it was billions across all the unusual 0DTE trades.
by madeofpalk | 2025-04-12 21:04:11+00:00
Sorry, I was unclear.

Using a library like zod requires you to trust that Zod will correctly validate the type. Instead, I much prefer to have schema validation code that typescript proves will work correctly. I want the build-type checks that my runtime validation is correct.

Typia generates runtime code that typescript can check correctly validates a given schema https://typia.io/docs/validators/assert/ . I've never actually used it, but this is closer to the realm I prefer.
by crazygringo | 2025-04-12 21:04:43+00:00
Celluloid film from 1939 is good, but not that good.

I mean it's perfectly watchable on a 1080p display, but in 4K it's nowhere near the kind of 4K quality you get with modern digital cameras with modern lenses. Sure you can watch it its 4K scan (heck, they scanned it in 8K), but most of those pixels above 1080p are just showing you film grain and blur. Which is nice in terms of looking like it would with a real projector! But it's not "4K quality" in terms of resolvable detail.
by filmgirlcw | 2025-04-12 21:05:04+00:00
Ok, but imagine you’re in a situation where you don’t have the ability to install apps, or you’re temporarily on a platform you’re unfamiliar with and so you don’t know what GUI tools exist. This is why people wind up using web-based converters, which as another commenter noted, can be hijacked for malware.

A WASM solution might not be the most performant but it will be an option.

As for the web not being a good application platform, that ship sailed 20+ years ago and at this point, it’s hard to find any “native” apps that don’t share at least some similarities or core components as web apps, even if it’s just for UI. Although I personally would rather have a good native Mac app than a mediocre web app, I’d rather have a well-written web app than a mediocre Mac Catalyst app, and in many cases, than running an iOS app on the Mac. And I often prefer a web app or app built with web technologies to “native” apps built with GTK or Qt.
by bickfordb | 2025-04-12 21:05:45+00:00
It's a similar effort. Flutter is a cross platform Dart UI framework that compiles to WASM for the web and also has Android/iOS build targets. The web version can be laggy on trivial examples. I would guess this younger Rust framework is less featureful than Flutter but is more efficient/faster (one of the stated goals in the article).
by svara | 2025-04-12 21:06:07+00:00
Sure, but if that's your reason to do that you're not being reasonable.

The point is that relative to everything else you need to get right to build a successful company in any country, taxes, payroll and accounting in Germany frankly don't even register.

Like I said, it's 1-2 days out of a year for me.

If that seems like a big hurdle, it wasn't the reason you didn't build a business.

There are challenges with building a business that are specific to Germany that actually matter.

By contrast, the concerns about bureaucracy are a tired stereotype. There's a grain of truth to them, but if they really pose a challenge to you, you didn't want to do this in the first place.
by geye1234 | 2025-04-12 21:06:08+00:00
Catholicism teaches that Divine Revelation is God's Self-Revelation and therefore can't change because God can't change. Again, if it changes, then it isn't true. I'm not (here) arguing that it's true; only that in order to adhere to it, one must hold that it doesn't change. That, obviously, doesn't imply that every member of the Catholic Church believes the same thing. Nor does it imply that practice will look different in various times and places, although practice will always have the same goal (Union with the Divine Essence) and therefore be in essence the same thing.

EDIT: "will look different" should obviously be "will not look different"
by tikhonj | 2025-04-12 21:06:13+00:00
That's certainly true!

But based on my holistic experience using Emacs—more than a binary "it works"—I'm convinced that the conceptual design carries most of the weight.

Would namespaces, lexical scoping, etc be better? Almost definitely. But it would be a marginal improvement, a difference in degree not kind. Other "best practices" like more aggressive information hiding would go against Emacs's design and make it worse as a whole.

Most "best practices" are neither necessary nor sufficient and, in most cases, not even particularly effective, even when they offer strict improvements over the status quo.
by dang | 2025-04-12 21:06:24+00:00
You can "rebut bullshit" without being aggressive or nasty. If someone else is wrong, it's enough to provide correct information respectfully. Putting others down, or slamming their work in a hostile way, doesn't help and degrades this community badly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Btw, it's quite common for commenters to underestimate the provocation in their own posts and overestimate the provocation in other people's posts. Those two factors can multiply into quite a skew in perception (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). I wonder whether this might be a bit of a factor here, if you really don't see how aggressively your comments were coming across.
by sva_ | 2025-04-12 21:06:35+00:00
It is sort of funny to me how the sentiment about whoever seems to be leading in ML changes so frequently (in particular here on HN.) A couple months ago it felt like people were sure that Google completely fucked it up for themselves (especially due to the fact that they invented the transformer but didn't productize it themselves at first.)

For a short while, Claude was the best thing since sliced cheese, then Deepseek was the shit, and now seemingly OpenAI really falls out of favor. It kinda feels to me like people cast their judgement too early (perhaps again in this case.) I guess these are the hypecycles...

Google is killing it right now, I agree. But the world might appear completely different in three months.
by Latty | 2025-04-12 21:06:48+00:00
> i.e. the business was impossible? Then don't do it. That's like saying I can't do the exam reliably sir, so I cheated and you should accept.

Sure, I think that's also a potential option, like I say we need to ask what the benefit to society is and if it is worth the cost.

> Charge differently / appropriately. This has already been done, e.g. there are different prices / licenses for once-off individual use, vs business vs unlimited use vs SaaS etc.

If we are just bundling it into copyright, you can't retroactively set that up, people have already given away copyright licenses, and their work will then be sold/used to train and they can't change that.

> Isn't this currently the case? Who can afford the GPUs? What difference does that make? These AI companies are already getting sky high valuations with the excuse of cost...

Right, but currently they get to own the models. If we forced the models to be public domain, anyone could run inference with them, inference hardware isn't cheap, but it's not anywhere near the barrier paying the rights for all the data to train a model is.

> How is that even enforceable? Companies just don't have to even announce there is a new model or the model they used and life progresses.

Patents require a legal framework and co-operation and enforcement. Yeah, enforcing it isn't trivial but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you want to have a product relying on an ML model, you have to submit your models to some public repository, if you don't, then the law can force you. Of course a company can claim their product isn't using a model or whatever, or try and mislead, but if that's illegal, no company is watertight, a solid kickback to whistleblowers you pull from the hefty fine when it's found out, etc... This is off the top of my head, obviously you'd apply more thought to it if you were implementing it.
by wqaatwt | 2025-04-12 21:07:52+00:00
> Equating Russia and the US is an extreme take.

Perhaps currently. How long do you think we should wait until we can start doing that? At the current pace probably a year or two?

I mean.. Putin wasn’t that bad in the early 2000s, nazis or fascists weren’t that awful in the 20s or 30s either (in relative terms compared to everyone else at the time) either. Waiting until its too late do change anything is maybe not the smartest thing, though..
by PathOfEclipse | 2025-04-12 21:08:11+00:00
> Ah, so now you're just pivoting to "left-leaning means untrue/ propaganda".

No, I said far-left goes hand-in-hand with being ant-Israel. Do you know what words mean? I actually do think the far-left is wrong about just about everything, but they do often mix falsehoods with things that are true, so of course not everything they say is untrue.

> And since you just ignored BI and GSSR, I assume you don't have anything to counter that.

No, I'm just not going to take the time to address every article in particular, which you have no room to complain about, given you completely ignored every article I linked.

Looking at the BI article, for instance, they talk about "proportionality", which is a completely bogus and corrupt idea of warfare. You don't fight to respond proportionality; you fight to win and to win decisively. I have no interest in kowtowing to morally bankrupt leftwing morality.

> In the end, you're nothing but a propagandist pushing pro-Israel narratives through opinion pieces and actual propaganda sites like Daily Wire.

Every pro-Hamas rally is filled with people who hate America and the west. I know I am on the side of good and you are on the side of depraved evil, and I will fight to defend what is right.

> and publicly discussed removing all Palestinians from Gaza (ethnic cleansing)

That's not what ethnic cleansing is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

There has to be intent to make the area homogenous. The people of Gaza voted in Hamas and have been working to destroy Israel ever since. It is well within Israel's right to remove them, and I fully support them if it comes to that.

> Look at the comments here if you doubt that people have wisened up.

I actually I saw other comments, that were not downvoted, of people explaining how HRW is biased and conflicted. And, HN has always been deeply-left leaning. I'm happy to trade away some karma to speak the truth to people like you.
by sonofhans | 2025-04-12 21:08:32+00:00
Oh wow. I remember the first time I played on an Amiga, freshman year college, 1988. Growing up on Commodores and Apple II and DOS, it looked like science fiction. I thought a 3.5” floppy was a hard drive.

We played a lot of a split-screen air combat game that was fun. And a racing game that was unreasonably hard.
by corimaith | 2025-04-12 21:09:30+00:00
The problem is the many cities in the West are objectively terrible compared to cities elsewhere in the world, so many people who don't have that global perspective come to China and think "it's so futuristic" or so, when in reality it's something that has been achieved elsewhere decades ago and China is just one in the line of a common trend. Even when others in this thread say cities like Singapore or Hong Kong are "futuristic", Singapore has been like that since the late 90s, that's not futuristic, it's rather the norm since the 2000s. Certainly those from Asia, even Southeast Asia aren't finding those cities paticularly revolutionary, if not a bit shinier.

Some Chinese Cities may try to "integrate" tech more like in Shenzhen with drone delivery, flying taxis here, or qr-code scanning or whatnot, but that's just more of gimmicks for a select few rather than fundamental lifestyle changes. Far as I would say, Tokyo is still likely the most "developed" of cities in terms of quality of life.
by grepexdev | 2025-04-12 21:10:55+00:00
Pike didn't write it, he said it. (1) It is a talk about how Go was created to make concurrency simple. The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides.

Your argument that Go is a step backward because it was intentionally designed to be simple for novice programmers seems flawed. It's design was a deliberate tradeoff to address a specific problem. While I don't think it is a language that should be used for everything, it is good at the things it is good at.

What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically?

1. Around the 20 minute mark: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-...
by Xiaozaa | 2025-04-12 21:10:59+00:00
Just read the latest paper of MetaQueries. Have some thoughts and list here. Building AI that gets images and creates them in one go (unified models) is the dream. But reality bites: current approaches often mean complex training, weird performance trade-offs (better generation kills understanding?), and clunky control. Just look at the hoops papers like ILLUME+, Harmon, MetaQuery, and Emu3 jump through.

So, what's next? Maybe the answer isn't one giant model trained from scratch (looking at you, Emu3/Chameleon style). The trend, hinted by stuff like GPT-4o and proven by MetaQuery, looks modular.

Prediction 1: Modularity Wins. Forget monolithic monsters. The smart play seems to be connecting the best pre-trained parts:

Grab a top-tier MLLM (like Qwen, Llama-VL) as the "brain." It already understands vision and language incredibly well.

Plug it into a SOTA generator (diffusion like Stable Diffusion/Sana, or a killer visual tokenizer/decoder if you prefer LLM-native generation) as the "hand." MetaQuery showed this works shockingly well even keeping the MLLM frozen. Way cheaper and faster than training from zero.

Prediction 2: Pre-trained Everything. Why reinvent the wheel? Leverage existing SOTA MLLMs and generators. The real work shifts from building the core components to connecting them efficiently. Expect more focus on clever adapters, connectors, and interfaces (MetaQuery's core idea, ILLUME+'s adapters). This lowers the bar and speeds up innovation.

Prediction 3: Generation Heads Don't Matter (as much). Understanding Does. LLM Head (predicting visual tokens like Emu3/ILLUME+) vs. Diffusion Head (driving diffusion like MetaQuery/ILLUME+ option)? This might become a flexible choice based on speed/quality needs, not a fundamental religious war. ILLUME+'s optional diffusion decoder hints at this.

The real bottleneck isn't the pixel renderer, it's the quality of the control signal. This is where the MLLM brain shines. Diffusion models are amazing renderers but dumb reasoners. A powerful MLLM can:

Understand complex, nuanced instructions.

Inject world knowledge and common sense (MetaQuery proved this: frozen MLLM guided diffusion to draw things needing reasoning).

Potentially output weighted or prioritized control signals (inspired by how fixing attention maps, like in Leffa, boosts detail control – the MLLM could provide that high-level guidance).

The Payoff: Understanding-Driven Control. This modular, understanding-first approach unlocks:

Truly fine-grained editing.

Generation based on knowledge and reasoning, not just text matching.

Complex instruction following for advanced tasks (subject locking, style mixing, etc.).

Hurdles: Still need better/faster interfaces, good control-focused training data (MetaQuery's mining idea is key), better evals than FID/CLIP, and faster inference.

TL;DR: Future text-to-image looks modular. Use the best pre-trained MLLM brain, connect it smartly to the best generator hand (diffusion or token-based). Let deep understanding drive precise creation. Less focus on one model to rule them all, more on intelligent integration.
by UtopiaPunk | 2025-04-12 21:12:59+00:00
I agree with the sentiment that "most people want entertainment, not art," or at least they do a lot of the time. I have a pretty wide definition of what is art, in that almost anything created by a human could be appreciated as art (whether that's a novel, a building, the swinging of a baseball bat, or even a boring sidewalk). But a lot of people, a lot of the time engage with movies and books and the like as merely "entertainment." There's art there, but art is a two-way interaction between the creator(s) and the audience. Even in the pulpiest, most corporate creations. I'm not engaging with cat food commercials as art, but one genuinely could. I agree that AI can generate stuff that is entertaining.

"The idea that only humans can make that kind of work has already been disproven." That I disagree with, and it ultimately is a matter of "what is art." I won't pretend to offer a full, complete definition of what is art, but at least one aspect of defining what is and is not art is, in my opinion, whether is was created by a human or not. There is at least some legal precedent that in order for a copyright to be granted, the work has to be created by a human being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

"I suspect future generations of AI will be better at creating compelling original art because the AI will have a more complete model of our emotional triggers - including novelty and surprise triggers - than we do ourselves."

Again, by my definition at least, AI cannot create "original art." But I'll concede that it is conceivable that AI will generate entertainment that is more popular and arousing than the entertainment of today. That is a rather bleak future to imagine, though, isn't it? It seems reminiscent of the "versificator" of 1984.
by amarcheschi | 2025-04-12 21:13:40+00:00
I did my undergrad internship on federated learning. I was tasked with implementing in a simulator different federated algorithms, so to have a way to compare them in a meaningful way. The last that had to be implemented was FedMA. We didn't manage to do it. That algorithm is absolutely devilish. Every issue that I solved made other two issue arise, and neither my supervisors could help. The sheer idea of matching neurons in different networks might (and does) make sense, but the way the approximate costs are calculated require other 2/3 math papers that I could follow for only the first lines of the abstract. I'm happy for the time I spent in my internship there. I'm also happy it's over

The general understanding of how it works is surprisingly easy though, you can find the paper here https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06440
by ajxs | 2025-04-12 21:14:49+00:00
I posted elsewhere in this thread that when I tried to cancel, and discovered that I was actually paying for an annual plan on a monthly basis, I told their support person I'd be speaking with the local consumer affairs regulator[1]. They instantly waived the cancellation fee. I'm tempted to think they've had some trouble with regulators on this issue before.

1: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/
by CRConrad | 2025-04-12 21:14:49+00:00
1) The comment I replied to said you had to type a long freaking incantation. I know nothing of this new place you're moving the goalposts to.

That's actually my only real point; the following are bonus:

2) WTF does VSCode have to do with anything?!? Did I write "VSCode is so much better!" anywhere? Funny, can't recall that I did.

3) I took ten-finger-typing in högstadiet, ~"junior high" in Americanese, so about 1977-78. Cool IBM Selectrics, some of them with a built-in Tippex ribbon IIRC. (Didn't really take; I still use ~4-6 fingers.) Before that, I taught myself to type (with at least two fingers, maybe up to four) on a manual typewriter I got for Christmas in... 1975, 6? According to Wikipedia, Vi was first released with BSD in February 1978; Emacs was used internally at MIT from 1976. So pretty much a dead heat.

Now you can go on playing your games, kiddo.
by Whoppertime | 2025-04-12 21:15:21+00:00
Project 2025 is not what he is implementing. It had nothing to do with his campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47 He's implementing Agenda 47. That's his campaign manifesto. Project 2025 is something that nobody believes in. In the same way Abortion as an issue is divided between Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers. Nobody is carrying banners saying they are Anti-Life, or Anti-Choice.