MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by itake | 2025-05-15 07:04:05+00:00
I think you might be missing the point of the blog post. The author is frustrated that he followed standard engineering practices (by submitting a proposal for approval). This proposal was perceived to be as accepted and then when they delivered.

The issue isn't his solution is incorrect. The issue is the company's said his solution was correct and then they rejected him anyways.

This is the equivalent of the interviewer telling you the brute force solution on a leetcode is good enough, but then rejecting you after the interview.
by pjmlp | 2025-05-15 07:04:08+00:00
Not sure about Unity in particular, I would say that is already part of .NET given its linage, don't forget J++ was going to be the main language of what became .NET, had it not been for Sun's lawsuit.

Many of the Unity capabilities are built on top of Mono, and the reference implementation alongside Visual Studio has more capabilities still.

If you mean the game editor experience itself, yes the interactive development ideas are there, but so are they in any game engine reasonable modern worth using.
by BlackFly | 2025-05-15 07:05:36+00:00
If you understand how it will work then that is just a decision to be made and a decision (although design is not necessarily easy) isn't what I would call hard: it is the ordinary work. By difficulty I mean bugs and bugginess, and bugs happen in this area because there are unintentional race conditions on the mutability. Total immutability is merely one way to force yourself to understand it, if those two clients need to observe the modifications then you have to propagate the changes manually instead of relying on shared memory semantics. But worse than that, even if you decide that they should observe the changes, then you can often end up with tearing if you are changing multiple properties non-atomically. That is a lifetime issue: the mutable reference is allowed to coexist at the same time as an immutable reference. In rust you cannot share an ordinary reference to have runtime observability like that, once shared the object becomes immutable. This forces you to use internal mutability via a RefCell and the exclusive/shared reference is enforced at runtime to eliminate tearing. Lifetimes of these borrows matter and how they matter depends on the choice of semantics, but I wouldn't call the choice the hard part.
by littlestymaar | 2025-05-15 07:05:43+00:00
It's not a tired argument, and not just a semantic one it's a foundational characteristic of LLM.

> A token-predictor could still be trained to predict the tokens “I’m not sure what you mean because of points x, y, and z; could you elaborate?”

This is entirely true, and the key insight is even right in your sentence but you don't seem to grasp it. “could still be trained”: you can train an LLM into doing whatever you want it to, but you have to train it specifically for that!

In the beginning of LLM we witnessed this impressive phenomenon where the LLM exhibited emergent capabilities (I'm particularly thinking about LLMs being few shots learners about stuff that wasn't in their training corpus). And these emergent capabilities legitimately raised the question about “how intelligent these things are, really”.

But for the past three years, the key lesson is that this kind of emergent effect is too small to be useful, and the focus has been put towards creating purposely built datasets (with tons of “artificial data”) to train the model to explicitly do things we want it to do. And it works pretty well, as models' capabilities kept improving at a fast pace (and in particular, I don't see would we couldn't overcome the problem highlighted by this paper, with more synthetic data specifically designed for multi-turn conversation). But their progress is now strictly limited by their makers' own intelligence. You cannot just scrap the web throw compute at the problem and expect emergent intelligence to occur anymore. It's more “simulated intelligence” than “artificial intelligence”, really.
by ActorNightly | 2025-05-15 07:05:53+00:00
Because you have no way of computing how "far" you need past the array length to access, because you have no idea where the first value is in memory, and you can read backwards from the memory location assigned to you by the JS engine. So if you get INSANELY lucky and make cache eviction of arbitrary memory addresses work, and you can get around other applications accessing the memory and putting values back in the cache, you are still left with a bunch of random hex values, and you have no idea where the key is, or even if its in those values (in case the memory of the target process is "behind" chrome)

With C code, you can pretty much reference any memory location, so you can make things work.
by azthecx | 2025-05-15 07:06:51+00:00
If you're looking at the CLI there are specific man pages for it.

You can find creation here https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug/blob/master/doc%2Fmd%2Fgi...

And status update here https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug/blob/master/doc%2Fmd%2Fgi...
by jqpabc123 | 2025-05-15 07:06:54+00:00
"Personalized" advertising isn't good for anyone except the ad networks.

It isn't good for consumers whose privacy is being violated as they are being annoyed with unwanted, irrelevant ads and they get charged higher prices due to the cost of the advertising.

It isn't good for companies buying the ads by participating in sham "auctions" with no real insight into or control over the process. They are literally begging to be ripped off.

It doesn't have to be this way. "Context sensitive" advertising is more privacy respecting, easier to implement and monitor and can be more cost effective.

Example: The fact that I recently shopped for and bought a car is no reason to show me auto ads on a web site devoted to pet supplies. There is a logical disconnect here because context is ignored in favor of "personalization".

Those paying for these dumb "personalized" ads are wasting their money and my time and bandwidth because I already made a purchase. I'm not making another one any time soon.

By the way, this doesn't really happen to me any more because I now block these "personalized" ad networks. And you should too --- it's the only logical recourse to this stupidity.
by franga2000 | 2025-05-15 07:07:42+00:00
This is not about tinkering. My phone is a toolbox, the apps are the tools and Google keeps breaking them in order to make their tools seem better. I need to get real work done using my phone and being able to sync files with a server is a critical part of that. I can't use Google Drive instead for many reasons, but that's besides the point, because this is illegal anticompetitive behaviour.

As far as I know, Apple also doesn't let you sync folders like this, so that's not a solution. And regardless, Apple cripples many other tools that I rely on.
by casenmgreen | 2025-05-15 07:08:11+00:00
A mixture of approaches.

Sometimes, places I've been to before, where the owners and I know each other.

Another approach is to look on AirBnB and if there is anything, use the images n reverse image search to find the listing on other sites - and often places are on other sites.

Other times, a more general search for the location of interest and see what's there which is simply not on AirBnB, and negotiate discount for long stay.

For the now considerable number of cities where AirBnB has been or has effectively been banned by State, you have to use these approaches anyway - that's how I got into Paris.
by albertzeyer | 2025-05-15 07:08:18+00:00
Just by the mathematical definition of interpolation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation), any function which approximates the given regression points (training data), and is defined for values in between (unseed data), will interpolate it. Maybe you think about linear interpolation specifically, but there are many types of interpolation, and any mathematical function, any neural network is just another form of interpolation.

Interpolation is also related to extrapolation. In higher dimensional spaces, the distinction is not so clear. In terms of machine learning, you would call this generalization.

The question is more, is it a good type of interpolation/extrapolation/generalization. You measure that on a test set.

And mathematically speaking, your brain also is just doing another type of interpolation/extrapolation.
by cyberax | 2025-05-15 07:09:03+00:00
I've seen that myself, and not just one time. Our bus _drivers_ were protesting having to inhale the meth and fentanyl smoke.

The response of the city was that it's perfectly fine, and that the research shows that it's safe. I kid you not: https://komonews.com/news/local/drug-addiction-opioid-king-c...

I'm no longer using buses in Seattle, partially because of this.
by sulam | 2025-05-15 07:10:40+00:00
Full disclosure, I worked many years at Fitbit, in a very senior role.

The reason you want Whoop to have a subscription (and why I wear a Whoop now) is because it incentivizes the company to ship great hardware _and_ software. If you don’t have a subscription, your company becomes stuck on the treadmill of needing to have a new device to sell to the public every year (or even twice a year) so that you can continue to fund your business. Pebble found this out, too, and it led to their sale eventually.

Worse, the launch dates are not movable. People are largely not going to wait and buy your new watch in January if they wanted to get a Christmas gift for their spouse. The same goes for Mother’s Day. The scope is also not movable, because it has to have certain things for people to be interested vs last year’s model. We all know what happens when you fix scope and date in the iron triangle — quality suffers.

The subscription model has a great property — you can ship the device to your customers when it’s ready and meets your quality bar, and you can theoretically do it for free, because they are already paying a subscription. I realize Whoop did not take this path with their latest device release, they are clearly trying to goose their revenue for a quarter or two. That said, at the end of the day, their full product offering will either earn your subscription or not, which means that you can be confident that they are aligned with your interests. You generally cannot say that about a pure hardware company, unless they are remarkably disciplined with respect to hiring. I have not seen an example of this in the wearable/health space.

I think you can derive a general principle from this, which is that if a company is incented to sell you crap, they will eventually do so. If instead they are required to repeatedly earn your business, they will either maintain high standards for their products or they will go out of business. I mostly choose to spend my money on products made by companies with the latter model.
by speedbird | 2025-05-15 07:12:09+00:00
Lots of things went wrong.

ParcPlace acquired competitor Digitalk and tried to create a Frankenstein hybrid - jigsaw? - that royally screwed things up.

Around the time, the industry was very exercised about a number of features that alledgedly made PP Smalltalk bad:

- non-native widgets (emulated) for windows - who cares now;

- principal deployment as a single process, not natively multi-threaded, using internal virtual threads - which actually scales better;

- must be able to run in the browser like java applets - :-)

- can't get my head round "image" model, must have individual files

This was all FUD. Developing in VisualWorks with Envy (Gemstone) centralised version control was a blissful experience I haven't seen bettered.

But yes, Smalltalk and C++ faced off in industry for a number of years for the crown and then along came Java on the OSS tidal wave that effectively destroyed the business model for VisualWorks that relied on expensive licences.
by kossTKR | 2025-05-15 07:14:57+00:00
"This is one possible characteristic of complex systems: they behave in ways that can hardly be predicted just by looking at their parts, making them harder to debug and manage."

To be honest this doesn't sound too different from many smaller and medium sized internetprojects i've worked on, because of the asynchronous nature of the web, with promises, timing issues and race conditions leading to weirdness that's pretty hard to debug because you have to "playback" with the cascading randomness of request timing, responses, encoding, browser/server shenanigans etc.
by ezst | 2025-05-15 07:15:18+00:00
This is such a non-argument. Every non-toy XMPP client supports OMEMO¹, so it makes no practical difference. Signal only supports one single official client and will cut you from your account if you happen to have ergonomics, accessibility or platform preferences that are not supported by Signal. That's the price to pay for Signal's "universal defaults", and that's a tough one if you ask me.

¹: https://omemo.top/
by southernplaces7 | 2025-05-15 07:15:50+00:00
A nice example of the kind of HN response comment that completely flies past being in any way useful, thoughtful or realistic.

As the other response here mentions, even if one has the financial means to just uproot and "move to another country with public healthcare", there's a whole bureaucracy around doing such a thing that makes it hard in the best of circumstances and absolutely grueling if you need medical support for anything resembling a serious and pressing problem.

Even if you're from a country with universal healthcare, but live overseas long enough to be a non-resident of your home country, going back can involve obligatory wait times for rejoining the system. In Canada, for example, i've known this wait time to be something like three months. Imagine managing that while sick and unable to pay for pricey medical assistance.
by globular-toast | 2025-05-15 07:17:20+00:00
Except active record can barely be considered an ORM IMO. Doing a literal one to one mapping between records and objects is not that impressive. A real data mapper ORM at least gets you true entities that are decoupled from the db. That way you could totally swap out your data layer without affecting your domain layer. Active record leads to big ball of mud architecture.
by stuaxo | 2025-05-15 07:17:52+00:00
Reading one of Dr Sarnos books sorted mine after over ten years.

I don't think agree entirely with the model he puts forward in his book for why RSI happened, I'm naturally sceptical so it took a lot of effort to read with an open mind; perhaps it works a little like hypnotism.

I'd read that some people can get an improvement just reading reviews of his book, so I read a load of them.

Then something strange happened - the RSI started flipping from one wrist to another.

I already knew some slightly odd things could happen: at some point my girlfriend had massaged my arm from the hand to the shoulder and the pain had moved up right with it - then gone back to the end.

So I knew the mind was part of the issue.

After the pain could flip from one wrist to another I bought the book.

After that I could sort of talk to myself internally giving reassurance when the wrist pain happened and it would go away.

This evolved into just thinking about the area in pain.

Sometimes the pain would turn into a anxiety, but I can pretty much make that go away.

Part of his ideas are about the body and mind being linked (which makes sense), so the RSI is a manifestation of stress.

The book I read was The Mindbody Connection.

I find it weird to recommend as the cover makes it look dodgy, and the thesis is a bit new age seeming for me, but it did work for me.

I recommend reading a load of reviews of his stuff and seeing if anything changes.
by godelski | 2025-05-15 07:18:28+00:00
> it's very rarely applied to non-monarchs

I take your point but highly disagree that it's disingenuous to view this metaphorically. The crown has always been a symbol of the seat of power and that usage dates back centuries. I've seen it commonly used to refer to leadership in general. Actually more often.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lies_the_Crown - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Is_the_Head

Notably even in the usage of Henry IV that the idiom draws from is using it in the metaphorical sense, despite also talking about a ruler so would wear a literal crown. There's similar frequent usage in widely popular shows like Game of Thrones. So I hope you can see why I really do not think it's fair to call me disingenuous. The metaphorical usage is extremely common.

I'll buy the king price relationship. That's fair. But it also seems to be in disagreement from the king queen one.
by overfeed | 2025-05-15 07:18:29+00:00
> ...many of the most common complaints about LLM coding (most notably hallucination) are essentially solved problems if you're using agents

Inconsistency and crap code quality aren't solved yet, and these make the agent workflow worse because the human only gets to nudge the AI in the right direction very late in the game. The alternative, interactive, non-agentic workflows allow for more AI-hand-holding early, and better code quality, IMO.

Agents are fine if no human is going to work on the (sub)system going forward, and you only care about the shiny exterior without opening the hood to witness the horrors within.
by PaulKeeble | 2025-05-15 07:21:28+00:00
Docganda is no less prevalent in the media but I don't think it's remotely as often recognised. While there is a significant worsening in the services provided there are now multiple shows of hyper competence and capabilities despite the funding challenges putting the issue on hospital admin not on funding streams. Still no recognition of the really big problems with treatment of certain disease classes and insurance denial. It's hard not to see it in the same light as copganda.
by keiferski | 2025-05-15 07:22:18+00:00
Great comment on the Chinese room. That idea seems to be dismissed nowadays but the concept of “cascading failure to understand context” is absolutely relevant to LLMs. I often find myself needing to explain basic details over and over again to an LLM; when with a person it would be a five second, “no, I mean like this way, not that way” explanation.
by jcattle | 2025-05-15 07:22:57+00:00
I think you're all missing a bit of the point.

With TOTP (as well as passkeys) you as a consumer are safe from a vendor being hacked and your credentials being leaked from their side. You're also safe from fishing attacks.

On the other side using passkeys or password+TOTP a vendor is safe from credential stuffing of credentials a malicious actor gained through the above.

Sure you can say that it's both the same factor. But even so it has real security benefits which are much more important than just fitting in authentication factor categories that were thought up more than a decade ago.

There's a big difference for a malicious actor to gain access to millions of devices to steal the TOTP crypotgraphic string of users vs gaining access to a single vendor. TOTP doesn't save you from the first case but it sure as hell saves you from the second being disastrous.
by thaliaarchi | 2025-05-15 07:23:24+00:00
I was talking about the performance, not the feature set. Russ Cox's re1 and the re1.5 fork have several engines for different implementation strategies. re1 was written for primarily pedagogical reasons, so its minimality comes from that.

The engine chosen by MicroPython is vulnerable to catastrophic backtracking and switching to the Pike VM implementation would fix that. Instead of backtracking in the text when the pattern doesn't match, the Pike VM iterates each char in the text only once, visiting the states valid for that position in lock step. Consequently, it allocates a list of “thread”s, proportional in length to the number of states in the pattern (though usually patterns have relatively few states). Many security issues have resulted from regexp denials of service, so this slight memory tradeoff might be worthwhile.

Since recursiveloop.c has been changed by MicroPython, those changes would need to be ported to pike.c. The fixes are small and none of the extra features exploit the backtracking, so this should be easy.
by lazide | 2025-05-15 07:24:04+00:00
That’s why you often end up with ‘cities within a city’ (ala wards, boroughs, districts, etc) and in those cases it’s easier to mentally model the overall city more like a small state.

If you’re sensitive to commute time, you’ll want to live in the same ‘city’ as you work, for instance, or at least nearby. But it will cost you a lot of money, and you’ll get a closet.

If you want the ‘big house with a lawn’ experience, you’ll pick a distant ‘city’ or even another ‘state’ (in this case, a city in a nearby suburb).

Typical case, it’s an hour+ end to end from one side to the other even on the fastest transit for Tokyo or London, and they have really good transit systems.

Singapore similar when it’s busy (which is actually quite a feat considering how small of an island it is).

It’s been awhile since I’ve been in Manhattan, but I remember it being roughly 1-2 hrs too.

Mega cities like Mumbai? Double that.
by TonyTrapp | 2025-05-15 07:24:23+00:00
I'm not just thinking of trust in terms of whether the device will tamper with the data, but also stuff like: What happens if you just put the parcel in the locker and in that exact moment the internet connection cuts out? Normally the parcel locker would send some data to DHL servers (as made evident by the fact that the lockers can send a confirmation mail), how do you get that information out now? Of course you could queue it up until the next person arrives, but all of that seems... suboptimal to me.
by godelski | 2025-05-15 07:25:18+00:00
Btw, I'm not talking deep CUDA knowledge. That takes years. I'm specifically talking about novices. The knowledge you get from a few weeks. I'd be quite hesitant to call someone an expert in a topic when they have less than a few years of experience. There's exceptions but expertise isn't quickly gained. Hell, you could have years of experience but if all you did is read medium blogs and stack overflow you'd probably still be a novice.

I get that you profile. I liked that part. But even as the other commenter says, it's unclear how to evaluate given the examples. Showing some real examples would be critical to sell people on this. Idk, maybe people blindly buy too but personally I'd be worried about integrating significant tech debt. It's easy to do that with kernels or anytime you're close to the metal. The nuances dominate these domains
by richardw | 2025-05-15 07:25:21+00:00
Yup. And OpenShift. And Red Hat for Linux. And SAP. And IBM. But you know what? Tiny group of people relative to the impact, revenue and competitors. If we needed skills we clicked “buy”, 100 consultants would arrive who are experts, sort it and we’d move on. Not scratching around looking for people who know what we use and needing to learn 50 different open source tools. Coming from a much looser universe I learned to appreciate the principles for that context.
by bravetraveler | 2025-05-15 07:26:50+00:00
Yet, from every fan, I hear more about how they love the show than how it reflects on reality. In the end, normalizing deviance. Diet propaganda.

My ire is more at the box usage than the content, honestly. The second oldest profession also involves sales. Just snake oil instead of self.

Heed Kendrick: turn the TV off.
by franga2000 | 2025-05-15 07:27:01+00:00
I have yet to see a real case of "binary blob for regulatory reasons". What law prevents open source RF firmware?

The device needs to operate in spec and if someone reflashes it with out of spec firmware, that's no different than someone soldering a different resistor onto the PCB or feeding the output of the chip into an amplifier and large antenna. It's a modification by the user and so the user is liable for operating out of spec. And all of this really unrelated to source code, just to reflashablitiy. The code could easily be open, but the productions device could be made unflashable if the law really required it. Yet this is not what we see here.

It's IP reasons, and that's fine, but let's not make up additional excuses for them.