MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by julied1250 | 2025-05-30 21:28:35+00:00
A group of us (female founders) are launching a new dating reality show here in SF, focused on startups, founders and VCs. If you're interested in being part of the show, join our waitlist here! https://www.romanceaccelerator.com/

I'm also running a concierge dating/matchmaking service helping busy professionals find high-quality matches. I am a tech founder and an ex-Waymo/Google engineer. More details here: https://forms.gle/D5VwcMud8n29mNGe7
by Retric | 2025-05-30 21:28:39+00:00
It only needs a 100 year lifespan because part of the new safe confinement project is to “facilitate the disassembly and decommissioning of the reactor.” That’s unrealistic for the entire zone, but I think we can safety assume people in 100k years aren’t going to randomly stumble upon the elephants foot.

> death and mutation

Even fairly recent studies are showing the legacy of past exposure in animal populations who lived through higher than current radiation levels and often carry that legacy through genetic damage across generations. Thus they overstate the exposure risk today.

Obviously even 1/1,000th of the current risk isn’t zero but it’s swamped by other considerations.

> No amount of inhaled Pu-239 is going to be fun for anyone.

There’s no benefit, but start talking individual atoms and you’ll have trouble detecting it.

I can’t find a paper on the topic but for a rough estimate, ~5-30% of the fuel was released, but not all of that remained local and some was removed etc. If something like 1/3 the fuel was nuclear waste and 0.8% of that was Pu-239 and 5% of that remains in 10k years. We’re talking well under 1kg Pu-239 across 2600 km^2. So your digger in 100k years is only inhaling and coughing up incredibly dilute material, we’re talking 10^-15 to 10^-20 kg Pu-239 in someone’s lungs depending on assumptions but even the high end is going to be swamped by normal background radiation.
by rfoo | 2025-05-30 21:29:25+00:00
Well, I don't know kCFI being enabled on any distro besides Android, cause it requires building the kernel with Clang.

The previous in-kernel CFI implementation (before the kinda joint effort - kCFI) was upstreamed by Google, too: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Clang-CFI-Linux-Patches and https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches. Pixel devices also had this long before. Given that the entire Linux kernel feature was developed out of Android I find it a little bit unfair to call it "using a vanilla kernel feature".
by IshKebab | 2025-05-30 21:29:33+00:00
That sounds like it would be quite a pain to implement and program. E.g. what happens if there's an interrupt between the IF and the following instruction? You need to add a CSR to read/write the conditional state, similar to the vector control CSRs (vstart etc.). Hard to see how that extra complexity would be worth it.

Modern branch predictors are very good and most branches are very predictable.
by itishappy | 2025-05-30 21:29:44+00:00
Honest question: Anybody have a use-case for this in mind? I can't remember the last time I read an email for longer than about 5s and didn't fully care about the content. Business emails should already be formatted for efficiency, and I'm going to want to be sure I catch each point of the long-form ones. Maybe vacation updates from family?
by PaulHoule | 2025-05-30 21:30:15+00:00
Eager instead of lazy but how about: pull all the comments in chronological order starting from the beginning and then build the tree downstream of the database as items come in?

See also the nested set representation of trees which makes it fast to get subtrees.

[1] https://github.com/etrepat/baum [2] https://www.amazon.com/Hierarchies-Smarties-Kaufmann-Managem...
by alephnerd | 2025-05-30 21:30:25+00:00
It's a monetary issue at the end of the day.

AI/ML and Offshoring/GCCs are both side effects of the fact that American new grad salaries in tech are now in the $110-140k range.

At $70-80k the math for a new grad works out, but not at almost double that.

Also, going remote first during COVID for extended periods proved that operations can work in a remote first manner, so at that point the argument was made that you can hire top talent at American new grad salaries abroad, and plenty of employees on visas were given the option to take a pay cut and "remigrate" to help start a GCC in their home country or get fired and try to find a job in 60 days around early-mid 2020.

The skills aspect also played a role to a certain extent - by the late 2010s it was getting hard to find new grads who actually understood systems internals and OS/architecture concepts, so a lot of jobs adjacent to those ended up moving abroad to Israel, India, and Eastern Europe where universities still treat CS as engineering instead of an applied math disciple - I don't care if you can prove Dixon's factorization method using induction if you can't tell me how threading works or the rings in the Linux kernel.

The Japan example mentioned above only works because Japanese salaries in Japan have remained extremely low and Japanese is not an extremely mainstream language (making it harder for Japanese firms to offshore en masse - though they have done so in plenty of industries where they used to hold a lead like Battery Chemistry).
Show HN: Glyde – MCP based AI website builder that uses 21st.dev
by AdewoleJasper | 2025-05-30 21:30:41+00:00
Hi HN, I’m building Glyde – an AI landing page builder that makes really cool pages in one shot.

It uses 21st.dev’s MCP (Model Composition Protocol) to build awesome pages with clean layouts and smooth animations — without needing to be a pro at writing prompts.

Most tools like Lovable or Bolt.new feel kinda templated or boring unless you know how to write long, tricky prompts. Glyde fixes that.

Glyde – Landing pages that don’t feel AI-made

Goals:

Help creators and devs launch fast

Make pages that feel real and unique

No prompt gymnastics — just type a few words

Supports fun stuff like animations and effects

Great for product launches, portfolios, and more

You get a working landing page in one shot — no coding needed. It just works.

Website: https://glyde.world

Demo Landing page built with Glyde in One Shot: https://www.loom.com/share/e129591c4e334983b82954a1b0154cb7

Would love your feedback and ideas!
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-05-30 21:30:59+00:00
>At my old company, we trained Japanese interns. They would often relocate to the US, for 2-year visas, and became very good engineers,

Damn, I wish that was me. Having someone mentor you at the beginning of your career instead of having to self learn and fumble your way around never knowing if you're on the right track or not, is massive force multiplier that pays massive dividends over your career. It's like entering the stock market with 1 million $ capital vs 100 $. You're also less likely to build bad habits if nobody with experience teaches you early on.
by amelius | 2025-05-30 21:31:16+00:00
For my taste, container technology is pushing the OS too far. By typing:

mount

you immediately see what I mean. Stuff that should be hidden is now in plain sight, and destroys the usefulness of simple system commands. And worse, the user can fiddle with the data structures. It's like giving the user peek and poke commands.

The idea of containers is nice, but they are a hack until kernels are re-architected.
by diogolsq | 2025-05-30 21:32:21+00:00
You’re right that AI is fast and often more efficient than entry-level humans for certain tasks — but I’d argue that what you’re describing isn’t delegation, it’s just choosing to do the work yourself via a tool. Implementation costs are lower now, so you decide to do it on your own.

Delegation, properly defined, involves transferring not just the task but the judgment and ownership of its outcome. The perfect delegation is when you delegate to someone because you trust them to make decisions the way you would — or at least in a way you respect and understand.

You can’t fully delegate to AI — and frankly, you shouldn’t. AI requires prompting, interpretation, and post-processing. That’s still you doing the thinking. The implementation cost is low, sure, but the decision-making cost still sits with you. That’s not delegation; it’s assisted execution.

Humans, on the other hand, can be delegated to — truly. Because over time, they internalize your goals, adapt to your context, and become accountable in a way AI never can.

Many reasons why AI can't fill your shoes:

1. Shallow context – It lacks awareness of organizational norms, unspoken expectations, or domain-specific nuance that’s not in the prompt or is not explicit in the code base.

2. No skin in the game – AI doesn’t have a career, reputation, or consequences. A junior human, once trained and trusted, becomes not only faster but also independently responsible.

Junior and Interns can also use AI tools.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-05-30 21:32:26+00:00
One of the central purposes of RCU is to decouple the updater/writer(s) from the reader(s). It doesn't matter to the writer if there is still a reader "out there" using the old version. And it likewise doesn't matter to (most) readers that the version they have is now old.

What is delayed is the actual destruction/deallocation of the RCU-managed objects. Nobody cares about that delay unless the objects control limited resources (in which case, RCU is likely a bad fit) or there are so many objects and/or they are so large that the delay in deallocating them could cause memory pressure of some type.
by quantified | 2025-05-30 21:32:31+00:00
Though we poetically think of humans as somehow divinely designed, or flawless in someway, after many millions of years of evolution we are a big bunch of hacks and compromises. Highly variable build quality. Waste disposal and procreation packed into one small space. Spine still getting used to walking and running. Birth itself is hazardous.

And our cognition is horribly skewed based on ancestry with primates. The social systems that drive our incentives (including quality) are hacked up. So much of that could be enormously different by now and isn't. So how do we expect more quality as an output?
by TeMPOraL | 2025-05-30 21:32:38+00:00
Both GenAI and that database could exist - they'd complement each other perfectly. You could use generative models in the privacy of your home, for reference or inspiration or to quickly explore possibilities, and then paint like you normally do - or even use generated images as they came out. When the time comes for you to publish your work, you could use the database with an image search engine, to compare your work against already published works, and determine if you haven't accidentally violated copyright, or created something that could be seen as plagiarism.

Similarly, other people could use that database to check newly published work, making it easier to detect and stop obvious copyright infringement.

Problem is, the copyright system - both as a body of laws and as a spirit and mindset behind them - prevents the database from ever being created. At least in any form other than "yes / maybe?" responses from comparing perceptual hashes; go beyond that, someone comes out of the woodwork, seeking royalties. Reverse image search engines exist, but are barely helpful because of that.

Anyway;

> And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me.

Ultimately, you're still the one making the decision. No one forces you to publish whatever a generative model produced in response to your prompt. It's up to you what to do with the output. You also exercise creative control - both during and after generation.

The legal situation of GenAI in general is still uncertain - but at the very least, you're still in control of whether you're referencing or plagiarising in a moral sense.
by neilv | 2025-05-30 21:32:41+00:00
> [...] to offer a polished, differentiated UX lacking in traditional banks’ platforms.

It's not even always legacy systems, but rather, not hiring and empowering the right ICs and management.

Latest anecdata is from 2 days ago. I was trying to use a fairly new banking service feature of a major bank's Web site, and it had a superficially modern-looking UI, but I quickly found a few outright bugs in it.

In a banking transaction...

* A box with the summary breakout of subtotal, transaction fee, and total... had a very wrong total, based on the other numbers right there.

* At some point during a use case, the currency indicator on the total changed to that of the wrong country, though the total was of course in USD (for which the number was correct).

* In line items, some of the numbers previously entered would change. I can only guess that this might've been part of a flawed implementation, to respond to frequent exchange rate updates every few minutes, but if so, they did it poorly. (The changing number then caused some rounding down of what would've been the stable number in the item, so both numbers changed, and caused the transaction value of the stable numbers to fall below a transaction threshold. Even guessing at the cause, several times I had to go fix these numbers, before I decided that, even if I could get them to accept it with the correct numbers from the UI, I didn't trust this implementation to submit and process the transaction correctly.)

If those defects were going to be coded at all, then they should've at least been caught in testing, not pushed into production for banking.

Something critical like banks should really be paying for small teams of some of the best software ICs and management. Which (since the business is banking, not saving baby seals, nor building quantum AI spaceships) probably means paying like FAANGs do.
by pitust2 | 2025-05-30 21:32:56+00:00
> They definitely could have made avx512 instructions trigger a switch to p-cores

Not really, no. OS-level schedulers are complicated as is with only P vs E cores to worry about, let alone having to dynamically move tasks because they used a CPU feature (and then moving them back after they don't need them anymore).

> and honestly probably could have supported them completely by splitting the same way AMD does on Zen4 and Zen5 C cores.

The issue with AVX512 is not (just) that you need a very wide vector unit, but mostly that you need an incredibly large register file: you go up from 16 * 256 bit = 4096 bits (AVX2) to 32 * 512 bit = 16384 bits (AVX512), and on top of that you need to add a whole bunch of extra registers for renaming purposes.
by susam | 2025-05-30 21:33:12+00:00
A little game for all of you: On Firefox or Chrome, go to Developer Tools (F12) > Console and execute:

document.querySelectorAll('p').forEach(e => e.style.opacity = 0)

Now without the text visible anymore, try and guess which musical instrument each picture represents. Then reload the page, enjoy the article, and check how many you got right. What's your score out of 8? I scored 5.
by Veserv | 2025-05-30 21:33:53+00:00
You mean the back and forth where I demonstrated that FSD was literally engaged during tests in that round of tests demonstrating it would hit child mannequins while FSD was engaged using the raw video footage of those tests where the "reporter" then admits, upon actually bothering to view the raw video footage, that FSD did hit child mannequins while it was engaged in those test runs. That same back and forth where they are clearly moving the goalposts upon realizing their initial position that FSD was never engaged in any of those tests was dead wrong.

I am amazed that your take-away was that it was "brazen dishonesty" on part of the people who produced the raw video footage supporting their claims instead of the "reporter" who jumped the gun without bothering to check their sources and was proven wrong.

Let me spell this out for you:

The claim was that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged. The video footage presented in the report, drawn from a single round of testing, shows FSD running down a child mannequin while it was engaged. There exists additional video footage showing FSD not engaged also running down a child mannequin. That is irrelevant to the claim, supported by video evidence, that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged.

Your claim only makes sense if there was no video footage of any test in that test run where FSD ran down a child mannequin while engaged. That is clearly and demonstrably untrue as seen by the raw footage of videos from that test run included in the report. The claim that, at the time, FSD would not run down a child mannequin at the time while engaged is clearly false. Anybody claiming otherwise is a brazen liar without even a shred of trustworthiness and propagating that lie is a whistleblower smear campaign.

To elaborate more specifically on the content of the advertisement. In this context where we see that there are tests that demonstrate the truth of the underlying claim, the only valid point of contention is whether the advertisement is a accurate representation of the tests being advertised. The video content of the advertisement is not materially different than the contents of the tests, which are the actual ground truth being used as evidence, therefore the advertisement is perfectly fine on all accounts.

Care to try again? Show me a single video where the claimed manipulations are clearly visible in such a way that resulted in you having no doubt that they were manipulated. Please try not to cite the same people who made that first false claim as they do not even have a shred of trustworthiness.
by dylan604 | 2025-05-30 21:34:01+00:00
I really think the loss of a mentor/apprentice type of experience is one of those baby-with-the-bath-water type of losses. There are definitely people with the personality types of they know everything and nothing can be learned from others, but for those of us who would much rather learn from those with more experience on the hows and whys of things rather than getting all of those paper cuts ourselves, working with mentors is definitely a much better way to grow.
by nickysielicki | 2025-05-30 21:34:35+00:00
> That said, I do not immediately agree with either of your points here. On changing the SLR, to the best of my knowledge it gives the bank an option, not places a requirement on them.

It's hardly just an option, when the other alternative is for it to sit idle while we have 2% inflation. It's scary because it betrays the fact that they're already needing to relax a set of totally reasonable regulations put in place after the GFC to ensure that there is adequate demand in long-dated treasuries.
by UncleEntity | 2025-05-30 21:34:39+00:00
If I'm poking around in a FLOSS lib and I encounter a bug I'll either submit a fix or a bug report if I can't quite figure out the problem.

About 15 years ago I used to contribute to Blender and did it just because it was something fun to do. The documentation wasn't all that good and if I wanted to figure out what some random button did the easiest way was to read the code and, in the process, I'd find bugs. Also, the Python API wasn't completely comprehensive (this was right in the transition between python 2 and 3) and I took it upon myself to fill in a bunch of holes. Other times some artist would ask for a feature and if it was something within my capabilities I'd oblige. Mostly I'd just try different things and if it were viable I'd submit a patch (where the devs had a different definition of "viable") or horrible fail and just move along to the next shiny thing. Eventually I was given contributor status but would almost always go through the regular patch submission process and/or pester one of the main devs before committing anything.

I started out just learning Blender, because it was interesting, then started hacking on Blender because that was more interesting. In the process I learned a bunch about how python does it thing, which I still use to this day, and got really, really good at hunting down segfaults due to not being the best C programmer.

So, yeah, like everyone else is saying, just find something you enjoy and contribute to that... or don't contribute and just submit good bug reports.
by xp84 | 2025-05-30 21:35:42+00:00
My friend's company (he was VP of Software & IT at a non-tech company) had a habit of meetings with no particular agenda and no decisions that needed making. Just meeting because it was on the calendar, discussing any random thing someone wanted to blab about. Not how my friend ran his team but that was how the rest did.

Then they had some disappointing results due to their bad decision-making elsewhere in the company, and they turned to my friend and said "Let's lay off some of your guys."
by observationist | 2025-05-30 21:35:42+00:00
Each time you define another task well enough for the system to work, you generalize the system just a little bit - repeat enough times and you can start to expand, develop taxonomies of functions, precisely define function spaces and metrics for improvement. This might not be a bootstrap for recursive self improvement generally, but it could definitely inform the theory or design of a system that does bootstrap rsi.
by tossandthrow | 2025-05-30 21:36:00+00:00
I have a rather new experience with customer service: they don't understand my questions, and they don't appear to have read the questions.

My theory is that a lot of companies are starting to use Ai to draft up responses. These Ais don't understand the question, but picks the closest in concept space, and assumes that question.

It is horrible, because I need to all caps and explicitly ask customer service to read my messages, and I need to become incredibly rude to break out of it.
by alephnerd | 2025-05-30 21:36:25+00:00
CoL in London or Dublin is comparable to much of the US, but new grad salaries are in the $30-50k range.

The issue is salary expectations in the US are much higher than those in much of Western Europe despite having similar CoL.

And $120k for a new grad is only a tech specific thing. Even new grad management consultants earn $80-100k base, and lower for other non-software roles and industries.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-05-30 21:36:33+00:00
>Also, no one has less than a Master's, over there.

I feel this is pretty much the norm everywhere in Europe and Asia. No serious engineering company in Germany even looks at your resume it there's no MSc. degree listed, especially since education is mostly free for everyone so not having a degree is seen as a "you problem", but also it leads to degree inflation, where only PhD or post-docs get taken seriously for some high level positions. I don't remember ever seeing a senior manager/CTO without the "Dr." or even "Prof. Dr." title in the top German engineering companies.

I think mostly the US has the concept of the cowboy self taught engineer who dropped out of college to build a trillion dollar empire in his parents garage.
by einpoklum | 2025-05-30 21:36:35+00:00
> Why hire an intern or a recent college-grad when they lack both the expertise and experience to do what an AI could probably do?

1. Because, generally, they don't.

2. Because an LLM is not a person, it's a chatbot.

3. "Hire an intern" is that US thing when people work without getting real wages, right?

Grrr :-(
by oparin10 | 2025-05-30 21:36:40+00:00
That tracks. Intel's updated AVX10 whitepaper[1] from a few months back seems to confirm this. It explicitly states 512-bit AVX will be standard for both P and E cores, moving away from 256-bit only configs. This strongly implies AVX-512 is making a proper comeback, not just on servers but future consumer CPUs with E-cores too. Probably trying to catch up with AMD's wider AVX-512 adoption.

[1] - https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/784343 (PDF)