MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bntr | 2025-05-23 05:16:38+00:00
Thanks — your method makes more sense now. I’m not very familiar with architectural design problems, so I didn’t fully grasp how this technique helps build a more complete understanding of the internal structure of composed objects. The final image reminds me of a kind of holographic source.

When I think in that direction, it seems more appropriate not to add spatial dimensions (like 4D), but to add animation to your method (shifting or rotating the original composed object). That might help an untrained viewer better understand the usefulness of the final projection.
by throwanem | 2025-05-23 05:17:18+00:00
> This applies to any depiction of a real person, regardless of context or rating - including PG and PG-13 content. Whether it’s a public figure, celebrity, influencer, or private individual, if a model or image is based on a real human being, it will be removed. This includes fan-art depictions of characters portrayed by a celebrity - e.g. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford).

It is the second or third paragraph in the link.
by nayuki | 2025-05-23 05:17:27+00:00
> "Plain" decibels are simply (power) ratios. / "Flavored" decibels are in reference to some power quantity.

I think this is analogous to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space . If I understand correctly, an affine space has absolute points and relative vectors.

In terms of types: point ± vector = point; point + point = illegal; point - point = vector; vector ± vector = vector.

Similar with datetimes - you have absolute datetimes (e.g. 2025-05-23T05:16:35Z) and relative offsets (+1 minute, -1 day, etc.). You cannot add two datetimes together.

A plain decibel would be a vector, and a flavored decibel would be a point.
by eternityforest | 2025-05-23 05:18:25+00:00
At USB voltages, one or two volts of drop is significant. You need very heavy cables, and for every voltage USB-PD allows you'd need another set of cables.

Also, some devices run directly on AC, or need more than USB can do, even with EPR. Since we already need AC for that, why add more wires when USB chargers are cheap and efficient and reliable these days?
by rtpg | 2025-05-23 05:20:13+00:00
I think so much about how Catan showed up, got really popular, and then more or less right after that two of its huge characteristics (open trading + dice rolls as the primary decider of things) have almost completely disappeared from modern game design.

There's still dice rolls in some games of course, but open trading in particular feels like something that people really don't want in games anymore. And I totally get why
by eli_gottlieb | 2025-05-23 05:20:33+00:00
>And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.

When you put it like that... should I make some popcorn?
by BillyTheMage | 2025-05-23 05:20:34+00:00
Can't stand people who go out of their way to own animals. If an animal befriends you or you rescue one, that's great. But being a "dog person" and when your old dog dies you feel the need to go out and "get" another dog... no different than those Victorian era rich folk throwing bread crumbs on the ground so they could watch hungry colony children scraffle around for it, and then act like they're doing them a good deed. Just letting you feel superior. That or you're just selfish and feel entitled to own people. Either way it's evil.
by godelski | 2025-05-23 05:21:12+00:00
I more mean we need more people placing attention in the direction of alignment. I definitely agree this extends well past researchers (I'd even argue past AI and ML[0]). It is a critical part of being an engineer, programmer, or whatever you want to call it.

You are completely right that we're all involved, but I'm not convinced we're all taking sufficient care to ensure we make alignment happen. That's what I'm trying to make a call of arms to. I believe you are as well, I just wanted to make it explicit that we need active participation, instead of simply passive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
by nayuki | 2025-05-23 05:21:59+00:00
> Sure, and 10db means "10x more power". But: 1. 10x more power than what? It changes, and you Just Have to Know.

That gives me an idea - explicitly state the basis and multiply. So the current notation "3 dBm" should instead be "1 mW × 3 dB".

Furthermore, any addition in the logarithmic domain must be grouped, like: "3 dBm + 5 dB" --> "1 mW × (3 dB + 5 dB)".
by palmotea | 2025-05-23 05:23:40+00:00
> Yeah. Sure. Let me know how your wife will feel if someone was living in your crawl space as an art project, “slipping an envelope of cash” under your door every month.

No. That's apples and oranges, especially when you're talking about feelings. "Your crawl space" is part of a very intimate and personal space: your home. This space (a void of the type where construction workers don't clean up their trash) was part of a impersonal and pseudo-public space: a shopping mall. Your analogy doesn't hold up.
by motorest | 2025-05-23 05:24:00+00:00
> Isn’t this a NOP?

I think that's the point: conceptually it's a co-op, but the implementation forces each character to be individually removed following a ctrl-x, and then individually inserted back (after issuing a new UUID) following a ctrl-v.

Now, the outcome of neither a Ctrl+x nor a Ctrl+v is atomic, which means communicating each character operation through the wire takes time. In turn this means that this is a scenario where conflicts will take place (someone is editing text midway through another user does ctrl-a,ctrl-x) and where the choice of operation will result in important user impacts.

This is a basic test scenario of CRDTs, and why research focuses on higher-level operations instead of atomic character-level operations.

It should be noted that ctrl-a,ctrl-x,ctrl-v is an extreme case of a very frequent operation: copying and pasting text. Editor-level undo/redo can manifest the same way, too.
by TomK32 | 2025-05-23 05:24:07+00:00
The Battle of Clontarf on April 23rd 1014 springs to mind. While the high tide was of favour for the invading Vikings (who had already founded and still ruled Dublin) at 5:30 in the morn, the battle lasted all day and the next high tide at 17:55 cut off their way to a nearby wood and many killed or drowned as their were pushed against the tide. The times were calculated in 1860 by Samuel Haughton.

There is of course an In Our Time episode https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0029qh3
by AlotOfReading | 2025-05-23 05:24:23+00:00
Denormals are consistent, but there's hardware variability in whether or not they're handled (even between different FPUs on the same processor in some cases. Depending on codegen and compiler settings you might get different results.

NaN handling is ambiguous in two different ways. First, binary operations taking two NaNs are specified to return one of them in IEEE-754. Which one (if they're different) isn't defined and different hardware makes different choices. Second, I'm not aware of any language where NaN propagation has simple and defined semantics in practice. LLVM essentially says "you'll get one of 4 randomly chosen behaviors in each function", for example.
by dlnovell | 2025-05-23 05:24:51+00:00
Beautiful and witty prose to say "vibe coding sucks". He's not at all wrong about the state of AI coding in May of 2025. The 3 hours I just burned trying to get it to correct output bugs in a marimo notebook (which I started learning this week) is demonstrable evidence.

But it completely ignores the fact that AI generated code is getting better on a ~weekly basis. The author acknowledges that it is useful in some contexts for some uses, but doesn't acknowledge that the utility is constantly growing. We certainly could plateau sometime soon leaving us in the reckless intern zone, but I wouldn't bet on it.
by Arnavion | 2025-05-23 05:25:41+00:00
It doesn't have to be gated by "the people who run the distro". I started packaging a few pieces of software for a distro I use because I wanted to use that software, and I don't "run" the distros in any capacity. Package maintainers aren't born that way, they become that way by volunteering, just like most everything in Linux.

If you don't have even one user willing to do that for the distro they use, you probably weren't going to have users on that distro anyway.
by cies | 2025-05-23 05:26:07+00:00
I had this one up the wall (giant print) at a place I worked:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cies/haskell-fractal/refs/... [17MB, sorry Github]

It contains the Haskell code that produced it: https://github.com/cies/haskell-fractal

Especially the `sharpen` function was interesting to come up with (I used some now-offline tool to do curve fitting for me): https://github.com/cies/haskell-fractal/blob/master/fractal....

Fun little project. :)
by godelski | 2025-05-23 05:28:08+00:00
> as originally envisioned

This was never the core problem as originally envisioned. This may be the primary problem that the public was first introduced to, but the alignment problem has always been about the gap between intended outcomes and actual outcomes. Goodhart's Law[0].

Super-intelligent AI killing everyone, or even super-dumb AI killing everyone, is a result of the alignment problem when given enough scale. You don't jump to the conclusion of AI killing everyone and post hoc explain through reward hacking, you recognize reward hacking and extrapolate. This is also the reason why it is so important to look at it from engineering problems and from things happening on the smaller scales, *because ignoring all those problems is exactly how you create the scenario of AI killing everyone...*

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

[Side note] Even look at Asimov and his robot stories. The majority of them are about alignment. His 3 laws were written as things that sound good and have intent that would be clear to any reader, and then he pulls the rug out on you showing how they're naively defined and it isn't so obvious. Kinda like a programmer teaching their kids to make and PB&J Sandwich... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN2RM-CHkuI
by frollogaston | 2025-05-23 05:30:47+00:00
Our large team had a problem with long weekly standups. To alleviate the pressure to list tons of details in standups, we designated certain senior team members (I'm one) as owners of certain pieces and gave them their own optional weekly standups. These had agendas people added to throughout the week. This isn't a startup with quick reflexes; we're all busy with many things in parallel and like predictable schedules, or so we thought.

That was even worse. It encouraged people to delay important discussions until the next meeting for that part. The meetings had generic names and sometimes very small agendas, so people started skipping, and then important topics would come up with the wrong set of people present. Guess what, the main meeting was still long too.

We tried async reports too, like the author said. I dunno, it doesn't sound like a bad idea in general, but it didn't work for us. People are too busy to read things they're 75% not involved in.

Eventually I deleted my own standup meeting and told everyone I'd call same-day or next-day meetings only as needed. That worked perfectly. Everyone we needed was in the right place (or video call) at the right time, nobody was just passively there, and there was a clear and important agenda. It more than made up for the short notice. And I do realize writing this that it probably sounds painfully obvious to anyone in a more nimble company.
by miladyincontrol | 2025-05-23 05:31:01+00:00
>Who are the users that are buying and using Workstation licenses?

Sometimes institutes and businesses that insist on support contracts, and ones from the vendor publishing the software itself. Sometimes there is actual legal red tape requiring them of such, usually its just management doing management things. That requirement immediately cuts down the majority of their options, even if what I would describe as more sensible options exist under such a criteria.
by motorest | 2025-05-23 05:33:32+00:00
> This is technically a CRDT. It's just that the "order of operations" to apply over the doc is now resolved using a central server.

This is not true. One of the most basic traits of CRDTs is that updates are performed without coordination. Relying on a central server to coordinate conflict resolution rejects two of the main traits of CRDTs.

There is a name-drop, but there is no substance.
by frollogaston | 2025-05-23 05:34:02+00:00
This is hard in big teams/departments because people end up getting pinged constantly to unblock random stuff. They want to batch up and schedule things. People work on 2-3 things in parallel anyway so they can switch tasks when blocked, like Javascript. So 24hr can be the sweet spot, but as I said in another comment, I've seen the mistake of picking 7d instead!
by eth0up | 2025-05-23 05:36:14+00:00
I'm enjoying the throes of salmonella presently and it all seems unappealing. The fucking pain. But even in this wretched state, I have some memory of desire for Paldo, but none for Maruchan.

Yeah, I'm in genuine agony, probably preparing to puke from all holes, and I'm reading HN... while writhing and moaning.

I guess you could say I'm sick. And so is la choy
by randomor | 2025-05-23 05:36:30+00:00
My plan is to keep everything free and work on value generating features that will focus on organization and consumption. Think of it this way, most features we have so far are just making it easy to capture, which is just step one. The users are giving us a chance to keep their content. We don’t really generate any value until they later search it or consume it. I’m hoping to align to that value.

Practically speaking, I’m planning to keep existing features free with no limits. I’ll be working on these truly value generating features with a bit more limits at a fair price so it can sustain the development.
by eitland | 2025-05-23 05:36:47+00:00
I haven’t had much chance to use NetBeans in recent years, as every role I’ve taken on has involved Kotlin to some extent. But back when I did use it, it felt like the Toyota Hilux of IDEs—sturdy, no-nonsense, and reliably got the job done. That was a big part of why I loved it.

Unfortunately, I’m a bit concerned it may have gone downhill since. It used to have dedicated full-time staff behind it, but now that it’s been handed over to the Apache Foundation, I suspect the budgets are tighter than they were under Oracle.
by anonzzzies | 2025-05-23 05:38:52+00:00
Omnivore is open source, bit weird people insist on open source because 'future proof' and then when the commercial entity disappears, it's 'dead'. Why do people make their own instead of making an entity around what is already there if it was liked and open? Very much a validation for not open sourcing anyway. But then again, I cannot possibly use Obsidian or so because when they sell the place (not if, when), sure I have the open format, but not the nice tooling. I rather struggle with inferior open source products and contribute on those than having to go through these 'Google bought us, you have 2 months to export your data' kind of thing.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-23 05:39:27+00:00
Hahaha, oh that is a hilarious attitude, you really believe that F/OSS means that implicit trust can be granted all across the supply chain. That I have access to the source makes a lick of difference in terms of vulnerabilities or exploits that can be found.

Once in college I cited Linus's Law in an impassioned apologia for Open Source. And I was duly corrected. Because Linus's Law really has no basis in reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_law

The reason Linux has such a model of blind trust in system services and applications is because it was based on Unix, which had an even more naïve model, because mostly, it was administrators and authorized users installing that stuff, there was more top-down monitoring and control, and just a smaller incidence of naked malice.

It's the same thing we see in earlier versions of Windows, or macOS, or the Internet. Look at the Internet in the mid-90s. Was it secure, with all the open source running on it? Hell naw. Every OS and protocol is vulnerable and attacked, and every OS and protocol revises security models based on modern-day threats. F/OSS saves nobody and mitigates virtually nothing.

To answer the GP, sandboxing has to be bolted-in to Linux after the fact. Linux's POSIX model is so old and needs to be so compatible. The only sandboxing in SVR3 Unix was chroot(2), you know? The Docker support and cgroups and virtualization are all new layers, and need careful integration. Nobody says that F/OSS doesn't need sandboxing. Nobody says that F/OSS is so secure that it can deviate from better-secured models. Quite the opposite.

Android and iOS are clean starts, mostly; didn't need to be backwards compatible, so they're tuned to the latest threat models of adversarial computing as you describe. But every single app you install on Linux could be a malware, too. I have no idea what "trusted security" or "untrusted security" are, but they aren't real terms of art in Cybersecurity, and they do nothing to describe the provenance or evolution of Linux security (which often has a lot of unused mitigations such as AppArmor or SELinux that get turned off right quick.)
by nick3443 | 2025-05-23 05:39:44+00:00
This brought tears to my eyes:

But you—at your most frazzled, sleep-deprived, raccoon-eyed best—you can try. You can squint at the layers of abstraction and see through them. Peel back the nice ergonomic type-safe, pure, lazy, immutable syntactic sugar and imagine the mess of assembly the compiler pukes up.

Amazing
by godelski | 2025-05-23 05:40:43+00:00
It's a much greater existential threat. An entity with intent, abductive reasoning, and self-defined goals is more interpretable. They can fill in the gaps between the letter of an instruction and the intent of an instruction. They may have their own agendas, but they are able to interpret through those gaps without outside help.

But machines? Well they have none of that. They're optimized to make errors difficult to detect. They're optimized to trick you, even as reported by OpenAI[0]. It is a much greater existential threat than the overworked grad student because I can at least observe them getting flustered, making mistakes, and have much more warning like by the very nature of over working them. You can see it on their face. But the machine? It'll happily chug along.

Have you never written a program that ends up doing something you didn't intend it to?

Have you never dropped tables? Deleted files? Destroyed things you never intended to?

The machine doesn't second guess you, it just says "okay :)"

[0] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/34f2ada6-870f-4c26-9790-fd8def563...
by Braxton1980 | 2025-05-23 05:40:46+00:00
>If there are reprisals for voting

That's what's happening now..

>"hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them"

You make it sound simplistic. I mean calling them out, demanding an explanation. You have friends who support this then let them know you think they are wrong.

All these horrific regimes throughout history, how did it happen? The majority of people agreed with it or was a vocal minority left alone because most people just wanted to avoid conflict?

I call this selfish. It's like hoping the problem gets solved later that way you get to maintain your relationships.
by palata | 2025-05-23 05:40:47+00:00
You're saying the exact opposite of the original point, which is: you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources.

You are a good candidate to package for your distro, so there's that. And then for a random distro, if nobody feels like packaging for it, then it's just not there. Either there is not enough interest in your project, or there is not enough interest in the distro itself.
by khasan222 | 2025-05-23 05:40:49+00:00
That codebase definitely leaves much to be desired, I’ve already had to fork it for work in order to fix some bugs.

1 such bug, find a foreign language with commas in between numbers instead of periods, like Dutch(I think), and a lot of prices on the page. It’ll think all the numbers are relevant text.

And of course I tried to open a pr and get it merged, but they require tests, and of course the tests don’t work on the page Im testing. It’s just very snafu imho
by AlotOfReading | 2025-05-23 05:40:54+00:00
The point is that if you run the simulation with seed X, you'll get the same results I do. This means that all you need to reproduce my results is the code and any inputs like the seed, rather than the entire execution history. If you want to provide different inputs and get the same result, that's another matter entirely (where numerical stability will be much more important).
by protocolture | 2025-05-23 05:41:10+00:00
>Regulated

Well humans are regulated so I dont know what you are driving at here.

>Traceable

The core concept was built on traceability. Privacy coins are the aberration. Like crypto was developed by people who want provable auditing of banks online.

Actually if you compare Bitcoin to later standards, Bitcoins biggest weakness is that it wants to track coins individually instead of just balances. Literally invented by goldbugs.

>Slower

Depends on both parties. I can go Crypto -> Crypto -> Fiat in like 15 minutes. Osko can be faster.

>History can and has been rewritten

Thats a fail state but its done rather less than traditional currency

>Seems like bad currency, but maybe you're aware of something meaningful that crypto contributes.

My fondest memory was watching a whole bunch of libertarian crypto guys using it to donate to Venezuelans who would pop up in crypto spaces to talk about how hard their lives were and how bad government had screwed up their lives. I liked to think the libertarians were getting scammed but it didnt really matter, because there werent many other onramps into VZ at the time.

Really its best feature is that its largely unpreventable. Sure you can police the on and off ramps to an extent. But if I need to evade financial censorship, I can. Mostly I see people against crypto throw up a big smokescreen but at the end of the day they tend to be in favor of the financial censorship that crypto is avoiding at the moment. Be that donations to wikileaks, purchasing services without a credit card or what have you.
by BoorishBears | 2025-05-23 05:41:46+00:00
I mean we're in the comment section of a provider removing models primarily used to make non-consensual porn of celebrities (https://arxiv.org/html/2407.12876v1), then talking about how crypto is the answer.

Visa and co are a cartel, a lot of the pressure Civitai is facing is unreasonable, but even a broken clock is right twice a day: and they had a lot of problematic content.

Even if they turn to crypto, this is a change they shouldn't walk back, or other providers are probably going to turn on them too.
by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe | 2025-05-23 05:41:46+00:00
Be careful: they have super short context length AND silently crop if the text is too long. To me there is really no reason to use them.

I recommend ollama to run the artic-embed-v2 model, it also is multimingual and you can use --quantize when loading the modelfile to get it even smaller.