MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tmnvix | 2025-05-10 20:40:58+00:00
> I'm curious why people don't just extend this to everything then?

I think because there is a difference between being required to participate in systems controlled by a democratically elected government (or society in general in the case of cultural systems like language) that are at least purportedly put in place for your benefit compared with being required to participate in privately controlled systems that fundamentally prioritise extracting something from you.
by to11mtm | 2025-05-10 20:41:09+00:00
You're 100% right that the 386 had a huge amount of changes that were pivotal in the future of x86 and the ability to write good/fast code.

I think a bigger challenge back then was the lack of software that could take advantage of it. Given the nascent state of the industry, lots of folks wrote for the 'lowest common denominator' and kept it at that (i.e. expense of hardware to test things like changing routines used based on CPU sniffing.)

And even then of course sometimes folks were lazy. One of my (least) favorite examples of this is the PC 'version' (It's not at all the original) of Mega Man 3. On a 486/33 you had the option of it being almost impossible twitchy fast, or dog slow thanks to turbo button. Or, the fun thing where Turbo Pascal compiled apps could start crapping out if CPU was too fast...

Sorry, I digress. the 386 was a seemingly small step that was actually a leap forward. Folks just had to catch up.
by archon1410 | 2025-05-10 20:41:26+00:00
I had the same impression, but apparently not.

> Many data centers rely on evaporative cooling, or “swamp cooling,” where warm air is drawn through wet pads. Data centers typically evaporate about 80% of the water they draw, discharging 20% back to a wastewater treatment facility, according to Shaolei Ren, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside.
by keithwhor | 2025-05-10 20:42:05+00:00
I think this is a cop out. OpenAI literally published a better integration spec two years ago, stored on `/.well-known/ai-plugin.json`. It just gave a summary of an OpenAPI spec, which ChatGPT could consume and then run your functions.

It was simple and elegant, the timing was just off. So the first shot at this problem actually looked quite good, and we're currently in a regression.
by KennyBlanken | 2025-05-10 20:42:12+00:00
It absolutely has to do with your entirely unsupported claim that chatting with an uncensored LLM will cause people to commit violent acts.

Books, music (NIN was a popular target), movies, and video games are all things hand-wringingers have said would make people do bad things and predicted an outbreak of violence from.

Every single time they're prove wrong.

Hand-wringers said rock and roll / Elvis thrusting his hips was going to cause an explosion of teenage sex/pregnancies. Never happened.

> General content versus personalised, targeted, actionable and specific content.

What the hell does any of that mean? You just vomited a bunch of meaningless adjectives, but I think you're trying to make the same exact argument people used against shooting games; that it was somehow different because the person was actually involved. And yet the mass violence never materialized.

LLMs are easily jailbroken and have been around for ~2 years. Strange we haven't seen a single story about someone committing violent crime because of conversations they had with an AI.

You're just the latest generation of hand-wringer. Stop trying to incite moral panic and control others because something makes you uncomfortable.
by mondrian | 2025-05-10 20:42:28+00:00
It's a read/write protocol for making external data/services available to a LLM. You can write a tool/endpoint to the MCP protocol and plug it into Claude Desktop, for example. Claude Desktop has MCP support built-in and automatically queries your MCP endpoint to discover its functionality, and makes those functions available to Claude by including their descriptions in the prompt. Claude can then instruct Claude Desktop to call those functions as it sees fit. Claude Desktop will call the functions and then include the results in the prompt, allowing Claude to generate with relevant data in context.

Since Claude Desktop has MCP support built-in, you can just plug off the shelf MCP endpoints into it. Like you could plug your Gmail account, and your Discord, and your Reddit into Claude Desktop provided that MCP integrations exist for those services. So you can tell Claude "look up my recent activity on reddit and send a summary email to my friend Bob about it" or whatever, and Claude will accomplish that task using the available MCPs. There's like a proliferation of MCP tools and marketplaces being built.
by eastbound | 2025-05-10 20:42:54+00:00
On every Kagi comment, there is “Have you used Kagi recently? It’s improved a lot!” — to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image, at least to search which comments to respond do.

I’m saying that because yes, I’ve used Kagi recently, and I switch back to Google every single time because Kagi can’t find anything. Kagi is to Google what Siri is to ChatGPT. Siri can’t even answer “What time is it?”
by ori_b | 2025-05-10 20:43:06+00:00
Most of the Bell Labs fundamental breakthroughs had no path to commercialization at the time of their discovery. The transistor was discovered 12 years into Shockleys research on fundamental properties of semiconductors.

If commercialization had been considered before funding, the project would have never been approved.

Instead, Bell management took the view that they could find everything, and some of it might become a new market, maybe.
by RVRC | 2025-05-10 20:43:21+00:00
Paul!!!

I first made a scripting tool of aider that I didn't open source: (https://cloudcoding.ai)

Scripting with aider gives lower level control but this is also its shortcoming to why I prefer scripting Claude code.

Claude code is like a better architect mode and people want higher and higher levels of abstraction away from the coding and more towards the vibing.
by syrak | 2025-05-10 20:44:36+00:00
You need very little to make a Prolog-like language Turing-complete (lists and recursive predicates). And so Haskell's type system only needs one (or two) extensions to be Turing-complete, `UndecidableInstances` (and maybe `FlexibleInstances` or `MultiParamTypeClasses`). It is no accident. The name "undecidable" shows that the authors of that extension were well aware that it enables Turing-completeness.
by ttfkam | 2025-05-10 20:45:31+00:00
Excluding conversations about MongoDB compatibility, PG16 added bidirectional replication for multiple writers and there are Postgres-compatible options out there for a distributed database including Citus, EDB Postgres Distributed, Yugabyte, CockroachDB, Aurora Limitless, etc.

The choices require some nuance to figure out a best fit, but then again so does any MongoDB installation (despite the marketing hype to the contrary as there are no free lunches).

You might be surprised how far most folks can typically scale with just read replica(s) on a reasonably sized writer. Add in bidirectional replication for multiple writers, and you can go even further. Beyond that, even vanilla Postgres can do it, but you'll need to do some combinations of partitioning and foreign tables.
by jrapdx3 | 2025-05-10 20:45:39+00:00
Back in the ancient 80s Prolog made a splash for a time. There was Turbo Prolog (Borland) that I used for a couple of years, wrote some useful programs with it. I also have "The Art of Prolog" and pull it out once in a while. My Prolog skills seem subject to rapid decay with disuse. While the appeal of declarative programming is still there, the most that can be said is Prolog's influence is evident in subsequent languages. The incorporation of pattern matching is one example that comes to mind.
by secure | 2025-05-10 20:45:43+00:00
Thanks for the advice. I try switching to Wayland every year, but it has never worked without heavy graphics artifacts / flickering / glitches on any of my machines (I use an nVidia GPU so that I can drive my Dell UP3218K monitor).

Meanwhile, X11 works really well for me. No tearing, no artifacts, no breakages on upgrades. Really can’t complain.

Maybe next year.
by sofixa | 2025-05-10 20:45:51+00:00
Because we're still in the "get them hooked" stage where AI startups and Google/Meta are losing money on AI.

Once they start properly monetising (aka making users pay for what it actually costs them to train and run), it will be a different story. The vast majority of people won't pay $20-30€/month for an LLM to replace their search engine. (And an analysis I saw of OpenAI's business model and financial indicated they're losing money even on their paid tier, per query).
by sillywalk | 2025-05-10 20:49:04+00:00
There are more articles about by Fabien Sanglard:

A quote from [1]:

"The introduction (resource 0x1C), 3 minutes long weights only 57,510 bytes once compressed."

[0] https://fabiensanglard.net/

[1] https://fabiensanglard.net/anotherWorld_code_review/index.ph...
by timewizard | 2025-05-10 20:49:09+00:00
> 2023 is ancient history in the LLM space.

Okay, what specifically has improved in that time, which would allay the doctors specific concerns?

> do certain core aspects

And not others? Is there a delineated list of such failings in the current set of products?

> given the right prompts and framework

A flamethrower is perfectly safe given the right training and support. In the wrong hands it's likely to be a complete and total disaster in record short time.

> a weak prompt that was not written by a subject matter expert

So how do end users ever get to use a tool like this?
by mindcrash | 2025-05-10 20:49:30+00:00
That's quite unfortunate because due to a screen capture through Snipping Tool I got evidence of my org planning to fire me before even making announcements through a shared PowerPoint deck with a slide containing a org chart which shouldn't really be there at the time in the Teams meeting.

So from a employee POV it has its uses.

But people who will get in the same situation like me could simply use the camera on their phone pointed at the screen and be done with it, I guess.
by ldubost | 2025-05-10 20:50:34+00:00
Disclaimer: I'm the CEO of the company doing CryptPad.

The problem I have, is that you say the word "vulnerability" for CryptPad when we never promised to protect you from a badly configured computer.

If there is a vulnerability, it's unsecured browser syncing which would be exposing your browsing history to Google. Google Docs has anonymous links which are in that history too.

BTW I could not find any info about browser companies exposing the synced browser history. As far as I know It's encrypted on Chrome and Firefox. But maybe I'm wrong as I believe if people want to be sure why would they use browser sync ?

Note that in addition to passwords there are also Access configs where the server can block access to documents to specific users. This is an additional security which mitigates the issue of links that would be opened on a bad browser. Sharing links through CryptPad as also the recommended way to never have URLs opened by your browser.

When I mentioned PR, you could also fork and run your server with higher security settings.

If a team does not respond to your vision, you can indeed bitch about that team, or you can come and give more proof of your vision. Documentation also help ? Why not document that browser syncing would be risky for activists ?

So take this as a call to be constructive. Make a github issue and propose something that helps. Maybe indeed add a message and a link to more documentation about good and bad ways to use shared links.

About "> empower laypeople to collaborate on documents with reasonable confidence that nation-state actors won't be able to passively surveil those documents", did you read our white paper ?

Ludovic
by cherry_tree | 2025-05-10 20:50:43+00:00
“I want to contribute to society, but if I earn more than X Millions of dollars 1% of my wealth will be taxed”

I guess don’t try to contribute to society then.

What you are describing isnt a hacker mentality, it’s one of an MBA graduate whose sole purpose in life is to maximize their own wealth. The idea that such a mentality is linked to this forum shows how far hacker culture has fallen and is deeply sad.
by fendy3002 | 2025-05-10 20:51:48+00:00
Opinion aside (still reading),

> Simply put, it is a JSON-RPC protocol with predefined methods/endpoints designed to be used in conjunction with an LLM.

Is a spot on / simplest explanation of MCP, wonder why nobody use that or insist that it's usb-c for AI on their tutorials! Seeing this early can makes me understand MCP in 5 minutes
by like_any_other | 2025-05-10 20:52:35+00:00
> The people who work in Safety teams I am sure don't consider themselves liars

Then they should call it censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship if it's done for a good cause, or has good effects. It makes as much sense as calling every department in a company the "Department of Revenue" because its ultimate goal is generating revenue.

> and now we've had multiple suicides and countless traumatic incidents because of them

And how many suicides and how much trauma have we had because of not lying about censorship? Because that's all I'm asking.
by bogwog | 2025-05-10 20:52:52+00:00
> It started with a simple frustration: why do I need 50 lines of CMake or Conan config just to use a GitHub library?

I'm on my phone, and doing this entirely from memory, so I might get some details wrong (although its not too far off), but heres a minimal example of using a lib with Conan+CMake:

conanfile.txt:

[requires]

somelib/1.0.0

[generators]

CMakeDeps

CMakeLists.txt:

find_package(somelib)

...

target_link_libraries(target somelib)

Done. That's 6 lines of code, not 50. Sure, you can't use the full power of Conan with the simpler conanfile.txt, but it's a tradeoff that's fine for most simple cases.

So my question is: if we're comparing Conan's simple mode with your build system, what does yours do better?

(I definitely don't consider myself a CMake black belt)
by simplyinfinity | 2025-05-10 20:53:15+00:00
Even today, leading LLMS Claude 3.7 and ChatGPT 4, take your questions as "you've made mistake, fix it" instead of answering the question. People consider a much broader context of the situation, your body language, facial expressions, and can come up with unusual solutions to specific situations and can explore vastly more things than an LLM.

And the thing when it comes to therapy is, a real therapist doesn't have to be prompted and can auto adjust to you without your explicit say so. They're not overly affirming, can stop you from doing things and say no to you. LLMs are the opposite of that.

Also, as a lay person how do i know the right prompts for <llm of the week> to work correctly?

Don't get me wrong, i would love for AI to be on par or better than a real life therapist, but we're not there yet, and i would advise everyone against using AI for therapy.
by BuyMyBitcoins | 2025-05-10 20:53:30+00:00
Anecdotal, but I wanted to give Edge a chance. I found out that it is quite possibly the most feature-creep rich browser on the market. Its sole purpose seems to be “let Microsoft monitor your entire browsing experience”.

I also feel like Microsoft’s heavy handed dark patterns trick less computer savvy people into using it, and those people probably aren’t aware of how much info Microsoft is collecting about them. As a result, I seriously question that Edge’s market share is organic because people actually like it.
by sofixa | 2025-05-10 20:54:05+00:00
Google didn't kill the Edge browser, Microsoft gave up. If Mozilla can have an independent from scratch browser, Microsoft of all companies could have one too. It's just easier and cheaper for them to rebrand Chromium and call it a day.

And I'm not buying the argument that progress on the Web (tech stack) should stop so that it's easier to make/maintain a browser.
by ocdtrekkie | 2025-05-10 20:54:30+00:00
Google collapsing would be an incredible gift to the economy. Some companies are paying 30% in their advertising budget, before we even talk about the Play Store tax. We all pay an incredible amount for Google's existence, and a massive renaissance of technology development would occur if it stopped sucking all of the air out of the room.

Apart from all of the illegal things, it's just bad that it exists.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-05-10 20:55:39+00:00
I'm not sure how useful it is in practice but even C++ templates are turing complete. https://rtraba.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cppturing.pdf

> I don’t know if Haskell’s type system is Turing complete with enough GHC extensions enabled, but if it is, then it’s by accident.

Undecidable instances? I don't think that's an accident. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42356242/how-can-undecid...

Also see. https://github.com/seliopou/typo
by guhcampos | 2025-05-10 20:57:45+00:00
Let me add more: crawling the web is costly for EVERYONE.

The more crawlers out there, the more useless traffic is being served by every single website on the internet.

In an ideal world, there would be a single authoritative index, just as we have with web domains, and all players would cooperate into building, maintaining and improving it, so websites would not need to be constantly hammered by thousands of crawlers everyday.
by rollcat | 2025-05-10 20:57:53+00:00
Either that, or a dead end. X11 stayed afloat thanks to the endless extensions, in particular Xcomposite. Windows and OSX have had full modern graphics stacks for 20-25 years, by default. OSX in particular has provided backwards compatibility in a similar fashion as XWayland does (via Carbon).

Every developer who cared about X11 has moved on; it receives little to no maintenance. We already have hardware/software where X11 is entirely unsupported. It's likely we'll see more in the future.
by anthk | 2025-05-10 20:58:14+00:00
With Forth (Starting Forth and Thinking Forth) and Lisp (especially CLOS or Scheme with SICP) you cover them all.

Even Subleq+Eforth it's fine, you'll learn EForth (it can be set at muxleq.fth/subleq.ftj with some compatibility with do...loop and floats) and Subleq as a VM. It's highly documented and it even has a book to play with.

EDIT: as a nice example, I had some pas.f example with a Pascal triangle. In order to get it working under eforth, I just had to define .r as u.r on top like:

: .r u.r ;

and that was it. It ran on both PForth and EForth. Eforth on a subleq (muxleq for performance) under an n270 Atom netbook.
by malfist | 2025-05-10 20:58:41+00:00
Maybe you see different comments than I do, but I don't see many comments saying it's improved a lot lately.

As a Kagi user, I would not say it's improved a lot lately. It's a consistent, specific product for what I need. I like the privacy aspects of it, and the control to block, raise or lower sites in my search results. If that's not something you care about then don't use it.

Is it better than Google at finding things? I don't think so, but then, Google is trash these days too
by guiambros | 2025-05-10 20:59:09+00:00
Garbage clickbait article.

Buried down the text, they have the plausible deniability disclaimer:

"As Lee notes, the presence of an individual’s credentials in such logs isn’t automatically an indication that the individual himself was compromised or used a weak password. In many cases, such data is exposed through database compromises that hit the service provider. The steady stream of published credentials for Schutt, however, is a clear indication that the credentials he has used over a decade or more have been publicly known at various points."

Of course "credentials have been exposed": the vast majority of sites have been hacked. It doesn't mean this person used the same credentials everywhere, AND that they didn't use 2FA, AND that the credentials matter in the first place. And, of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with malware.

Shame on you ARS for publishing purely speculative posts.
by hobbitstan | 2025-05-10 20:59:11+00:00
I pity those who missed out on those tech golden decades of the 80's and 90's. The very idea of email was revolutionary. Getting news on demand while others waited for newspaper deliveries or set time TV shows was thrilling.

This is probably why Weird Science is one of my favorite films, because it captures that period where imaginations ran wild. The simple video games were fine as we used our imagination to fill in the gaps.

Tech these days has long lost it's magic. The 'AI' boom tried to recreate the buzz with nonsensical claims that it has failed to deliver. It's all smoke and mirrors these days.

I think the last time I was truly wowed was when Shazam appeared. That was 23 years ago.
by healsdata | 2025-05-10 21:00:16+00:00
Have you considered you have cause-and-effect backwards? Any human advancement hurts the planet and then the burden is on environmentalists to bring awareness?

Why would a for-profit not hurt the environment for more profit if it isn't illegal and won't get them sued (for more than they profited)? There's a rich history of them doing exactly that. Similarly, governments have done horrific environmental damage and it was up to environmentalists to create the awareness to make it stop.

I honestly don't know how you can look at a world with record numbers of wildfires, communities fighting over water supplies, and for-profit companies say that water beyond subsistence levels isn't a human right and think "oh yeah, environmentalists are looking for a reason why this water-consuming thing is bad".

Especially when the same technology could be powered in a way that doesn't pollute as much and cooled in a way that doesn't consume as much water -- if only the environment was more important than shareholders.
by nradov | 2025-05-10 21:00:34+00:00
I don't think anyone is seriously making the argument that private investment in drug development is making things cheaper or more available. So that's a strawman argument.

The primary claim in support of the current system is that it encourages greater levels of innovation than would happen under a socialized central planning system where government bureaucrats allocate funding for all trials. We don't have any solid evidence about that one way or the other. But year after year, US pharma companies do consistently release more new drugs than any other countries on a per-capita basis. We don't want to wreck that just because of high prices on a few patent protected drugs. Let's take a longer view and consider possible second-order effects before making any drastic changes.
by ck425 | 2025-05-10 21:00:57+00:00
Where in the NHS is that? Maybe just an English thing. I had to go private on my own dime and thankfully my GP took over prescribing, which is uncommon and becoming increasingly so. They also put me on the NHS waiting list, back when you could still get on it without being severe, and it was only last week I had my appointment almost 4 years after being put on the list.
by the_mitsuhiko | 2025-05-10 21:01:02+00:00
> So that’s an argument about a protocol preference not an open ness one.

Just to make sure the differences are clear: with username and password and IMAP I can use an RFC standardized protocol to sign into an inbox and I do not need Google's permission. The oauth flow they have is neither standardized (XOAUTH2 is not a standard as far as I know at least), requires provider specific logic (Outlook is different to Google) and most importantly requires me to get Google's permission to sign in. I need to get a client_id with the necessary scope, and that is only granted after a review by Google. [1]

[1]: asterisk is that a development only app can authenticate up to 100 users, and those users need to be explicitly whitelisted in the dev panel.