MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vt240 | 2025-05-15 19:49:19+00:00
Yeah, I agree that is pretty glaring omission. To myself at least, Altavista was a huge part of that small slice of time, where it seemed instantly, the whole world finally got online with dial-up PPP, opposed to earlier when we might have been accessing the internet through gateways at a BBS, or dialup shell access from the local library or ISP.

I'm sure things seemed quite different if you were on a college campus at the time.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-15 19:50:20+00:00
Flouridating drinking water is like homeopathy because it's like having hemorrhoids and you go to a physician, who hands you Preparation H and instructs you to shampoo with it twice a day. That is what it's like to flouridate drinking water. Shampooing your hair with Preparation H.

I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but at least calm down about flouride: https://m.xkcd.com/463/
by kelseyfrog | 2025-05-15 19:51:02+00:00
The cybernetic psychology idea of comparing sensed vs. desired states maps cleanly onto a PID controller: P reacts to the present error, I accumulates past errors, and D anticipates future ones.

It's not just a comparator, it’s how long I’ve been off (I), how fast I’m drifting (D), and how far I am right now (P).

In this framework, emotional regulation looks like control theory. Anxiety isn't just a feeling—it's high D-gain ie: a system overreacting to projected errors.

Depression? Low P (blunted response), high I (burden of unresolved past errors), and broken D (no expected future improvement).

Mania? Cranked P and D, and I disabled.

In addition to personality being setpoints, our perceptions of the past, present, and future might just be PID parameters. What we call "disorders" are oscillations, deadzones, or gain mismatch. But like the article pointed out, it's not really a scientific theory unless it's falsifiable.
by _ncyj | 2025-05-15 19:53:09+00:00
Personal anecdote but the reason there's so much money laundering done by the Chinese is due to how difficult it is to legally convert from CNY to USD. The government has a ton of limits in place to limit outflows. People that work in China with families outside almost always have to resort to going through money laundering services that take Yuan and send you other currencies through front shops inconspicuously named like "Yao Repair Shop" or "Lim Tyre Company".
by vessenes | 2025-05-15 19:53:12+00:00
NYT isn’t super specific here, but they made it sound like the disease treated is liver related. My understanding is that the liver is a good place to start with CRISPR-type gene treatments, in that the liver normally deals with anomalous shit in your bloodstream, say, like CRISPR type edits. So anywhere outside the liver is going to be significantly harder to get really broad uptake of gene edits.

It’s crazy encouraging that this worked out for this kid, and I’m somewhat shocked this treatment was approved in the US - I don’t think of us as very aggressive in areas like this. But to me, really hopeful and interesting.
by panick21_ | 2025-05-15 19:53:32+00:00
This is a massive oversimplification of the Windows and OS/2 story. Anybody that has studied this understands that it wasn't just marketing. I can't actually believe that anybody who has read deeply about this believes it was just marketing.

And its also a cherry picked example. There are so many counter-examples, how Sun out-competed HP, IBM, Appollo and DEC. Or how AMD in the last 10 years out-competed Intel, sure its all marketing. I could go on with 100s of examples just in computer history.

Marketing is clearly an important aspect in business, nobody denies that. But there are many other things that are important as well. You can have the best marketing in the world, if you fuck up your production and your supply chain, your company is toast. You can have the best marketing in the world, if your product sucks, people will reject it (see the Blackbarry Strom as an nice example). You can have the best marketing in the world, if your finance people fuck up, the company might go to shit anyway.

Anybody that reaches for simple explanations like 'marketing always wins' is just talking nonsense.
by MBCook | 2025-05-15 19:53:34+00:00
Honestly who else would use it but Apple and Google (Android)?

There is no one else with enough market share for any automaker to even begin to think about. They already have what’s needed for those two so implementing a hypothetical standard only wastes time.

The other stuff that could use that interface (video game consoles, etc) don’t need to work while driving or be integrated in any special way. So the existing USB-C or HDMI video standards would be fine since they’d just use the car as a pseudo-TV screen and maybe Internet connection.
by ignoramous | 2025-05-15 19:54:07+00:00
> rather than the goal on only having to trust the design & chip-manufacturer

If you'd rather self-host, then the HazyResearch Lab at Stanford recently announced a FOSS e2ee implementation ("Minions") for Inference: https://hazyresearch.stanford.edu/blog/2025-05-12-security / https://github.com/HazyResearch/Minions
by autoexec | 2025-05-15 19:54:14+00:00
> Honest question, why won't competition come to the rescue?

Why hasn't competition come to our rescue in any other product category or industry.

There will always be more money in selling out your customer base at every opportunity and as long "everyone" is already doing it "everyone else" will be at a disadvantage if they don't. Since shareholders demand endless growth and won't tolerate huge piles of cash being left on the table they'll eventually insist on it.

A company starting out looking to attract a userbase might be able to hold off for a while, but inevitably enshittification will start and then accelerate until we're all worse off than we were.

As just one example: when I first signed up for netflix it was $5.00 a month and there were zero ads. There isn't a single competitor that offers anything close to that today. I can't even think of one without ads.
by _dain_ | 2025-05-15 19:54:15+00:00
Wonderful Borgesian pastiche; though this part in particular rhymes so strongly with the end of Tlön, Uqbar that I fear he overdid it:

>Here, at the end of history, mankind has been disillusioned of ideology and symmetry, and unable to look forward, looks back. How could men not fall under the sway of the 30th, to the coalescence of its minutely detailed reality (in 1,440 equitable parts)? It would be futile to reply that today, as every day, is as detailed and real as the 30th—for where is the Institute of Today, and who its Maecenas⸮ It is no-one and no-where and no-when; and men cannot live in a utopia.

>The 30th may be a maze, but it was one lived by men, and destined to be solved by men. Its dialectical rigor enthralls the mind, though it is the dusty rigor of the chronologist. Already September 1939 (or “Zeroth of 0 AE”) looms larger in the imagination, other months and years decaying before it, as the textbooks are rewritten; Poland is remembered, while France is forgotten as merely an inevitable sequel. A Palo Alto recluse has changed the earth—and the great work goes on.

>If Trente’s exponential bibliometric projections are correct, by “152 AE”, no publication on the 20th century will fail to mention the 30th. We shall be remembered solely by scholars (of the 30th) for this autumnese review. The mere langue & parole of 52 AE will perish from the earth. The world of the Twentieth will be the Thirtieth.

>It makes little difference to us, as we go on revising, in our quiet countryside retirement, an encyclopedia of Casares we shall never publish.

Compare to:

>The contact and the habit of Tlön have disintegrated this world. Enchanted by its rigor, humanity forgets over and again that it is a rigor of chess masters, not of angels. Already the schools have been invaded by the (conjectural) "primitive language" of Tlön; already the teaching of its harmonious history (filled with moving episodes) has wiped out the one which governed in my childhood; already a fictitious past occupies in our memories the place of another, a past of which we know nothing with certainty-not even that it is false. Numismatology, pharmacology and archaeology have been reformed. I understand that biology and mathematics also await their avatars ... A scattered dynasty of solitary men has changed the face of the world. Their task continues. If our forecasts are not in error, a hundred years from now someone will discover the hundred volumes of the Second Encyclopedia of Tlön.

>Then English and French and mere Spanish will disappear from the globe. The world will be Tlön. I pay no attention to all this and go on revising, in the still days at the Adrogue hotel, an uncertain Quevedian translation (which I do not intend to publish) of Browne's Urn Burial.

And of course, that fraudulent encyclopedia of Casares is what started the whole foul business ...
by os2warpman | 2025-05-15 19:54:39+00:00
I think you may be operating under the assumption that the extremely expensive price tag will need to be repeated for each patient.

In reality, as this process becomes more mature it is going to become inexpensive.

The reduction in cost will almost certainly be similar to reduction in cost needed to sequence an individual's genome, which has fallen from tens of millions to hundreds of dollars.

The only catch is that we have to spend money to get there.

Another catch is that the nations who underwrite this research will turn millions in investments into trillions in dividends and the stingy or poor will be left in the cold.

Seeing that private enterprise is only good at taking publicly-funded work and patenting it, and that in the absence of public funding nothing ever gets invented, we should be all-in on this.

edit: it's apropos that you mentioned obesity because GLP-1 drugs are the direct, irrefutable, product of spending at government labs.

edit2: specifically, a single government scientist playing around with lizard saliva in the 1970s because he thought it was interesting.
by pavel_lishin | 2025-05-15 19:54:44+00:00
> For every unique survival like these, there are many millions that are lost. Children are continually making creative marks (as any parent with young kids knows all too well — cleaning them up has been a central preoccupation of my life over the past couple years).

When mine started producing art in large amounts, as children are wont to do, I started photographing them all and putting them into an album to preserve them, instead of being buried under mountains of papers.

I hope some day in the future, my kid will be able to go through the artwork and get something neat out of it.
by wanderingbort | 2025-05-15 19:55:19+00:00
> Neglecting such contributions because the authors might not do it for a marketable product

If you look at the other thread you sill see that I am not neglecting these contributions. I am simply not valuing them MORE than what they actually represent which is only a subset of the skills I'm hiring for in a good software developer.

> We compare the usual corporate grind or corporate experience with these contributions.

That's a false dichotomy and one I do not support.

> The requirement of a product is an economic necessity but not something intrinsic to good engineering.

I disagree, good engineering is about making the best decisions given the requirements of the whole problem and the resources available. You cannot discard some of the requirements because they are inconvenient to your preferred solution. The correct solution has to take the whole picture in to account. Your work may be at a level where the economic viability is a very small part of the requirements but fewer people actually have that luxury than think they do.
by femto2151 | 2025-05-15 19:55:43+00:00
I think the major contribution that can be made to TLA is in the field of divulgation. Sofware engineers don't know modern formal methods because for years they were pidgeonholed into safety critical systems. Universities are not teaching them anymore despite having being successfully applied since the 2010s to the development of so many cloud systems that other companies can rely on.
by Gibbon1 | 2025-05-15 19:56:22+00:00
A while ago saw someone who was working in the tracking space said the following.

For stolen items you don't want to track them. You want to be able to ask them where they are. The advantage is you can make a locator that doesn't reveal itself by transmitting. And it doesn't waste power receiving gps signals. You could literally have a device that runs for years on a AA battery.

The reason you don't see these on the market is because the people that fund products want to sell location data.
by PaulHoule | 2025-05-15 19:56:41+00:00
My wife is in the experience business of running a riding academy but she's always been low key about marketing and she sure as hell would not want to be on a platform like AirBNB. Her current customers, of all ages, races and creeds, see what she offers as something really special and if it was some fungible "experience" that you could choose from a list. It has an impact, she thinks, on whether people will sue you if they fall off, whether they will no show or be late and whether they will make it right if they do.
by sequoia | 2025-05-15 19:57:31+00:00
I've tried to suggest what people are suggesting here to google (start 10 min late). I'll post it here in case google cal eng are present.

Speedy Meetings, meet Tardy Meetings. I want 50 minute meetings & time to transition, but our culture of "let's wait a few minutes for people to arrive" is way too deeply engrained at my company to shift it. Solution: Speedy Meetings, but instead of end 5/10m early, start 5/10m late. We could turn this on company wide without a revolt.

Alright google cal eng: Go get that promo!
by kccqzy | 2025-05-15 19:58:55+00:00
A Chinese scientist claimed that he did CRISPR on twins back in 2018. https://www.science.org/content/article/crispr-bombshell-chi...

He was jailed for illegal medical practices but it seemed like he established a proper lab after serving the sentence and hopefully he is focused on less objectionable practices. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he...
by zck | 2025-05-15 19:58:55+00:00
I understand implementing words as you think they should be. However, you need the core first, and that's where I'm working right now. I'm trying to get the central loop, dictionary, and threading model functional.

Which brings up another complication -- the threading model. There are multiple, of course. But sometimes I want to figure out, for example, what the `w` variable does. Is it different between indirect threading and subroutine threading? Maybe!
by wanderingbort | 2025-05-15 19:59:40+00:00
I find it easy to hold these two thoughts in my head:

Some FOSS projects are unable to extract a "fair" share of the economic value their product creates.

Some FOSS projects have marginal or non-existent economic value.

Looking at the article, I see more of the latter than the former. If this had been an opinion piece from Fabrice Bellard, I probably wouldn't have the same critical read. Also, Fabrice has had no problem finding gainful employment. Coincidence? Who knows.
by dylan604 | 2025-05-15 20:00:34+00:00
From my reading of naval strategy, the carrier wouldn't want to be sending out that much radar for SigInt purposes. Radar can be detected much further away than what can be detected by the carrier. That's one reason why they use the E2s. The E2s can fly off and see over the horizon, and then just link their data back to the fleet.

So why would the carrier need this additional expense?
by thegrim33 | 2025-05-15 20:00:46+00:00
I love how you can have articles with titles confidently claiming "Intelligence on Earth Evolved Independently at Least Twice", stating it as if it's fact, then immediately contradict themselves within the article by inserting weasel words like it "likely" happened, all based on an underlying paper that states that it's "unclear" whether it evolved independently, claiming they have some amount of evidence for it, but that evidence is behind a paywall and thus I just have to trust a random online magazine "journalist" to interpret the paper and evidence for me. A+ effort for all involved.
by pdimitar | 2025-05-15 20:00:53+00:00
True. I am simply wondering -- is the resistance from executives' so powerful that it can be never overpowered? Can't we ever just tell them "Look, this is like your car with plastic suspension -- it will work for a few days or even months but we can't rely on it forever; it's time to do it proper"?

Especially when the car's plastic suspension is costing them extra money? I don't get it here, for real. I would think that selfish capitalistic interests would have them come around at one point! (Clarification: invest $5M for a year before the whole thing starts costing you extra $30M a year, for example.)

And don't even get me started on the fact that GitHub is written in one of the most hardware-inefficient web frameworks (Rails). I mean OK, Rails is absolutely great for many things because most people's business will never scale as much and as such the initial increased developer velocity is an unquestionable one-sided win. I get that and I stopped hating Rails long time ago (even though I dislike it; but I do recognize where it's a solid and even preferred choice). But I've made a lot of money from trying to modernize and maintain Rails monoliths; it's just not suited for one scale and on -- without paying for extremely expensive consultants that is. It's like, everything can be made to work but it does start costing exponentially more from one scale and further up.

And yet nobody at GitHub figures "Maybe it's time we rewrite some of the hot paths?" or just "Make more aggressive caching even if it means some users see data outdated by 30 seconds or so"? Nothing at all?

Sorry, I am kind of ranting and not really saying anything to you per se. I am just very puzzled about how paralyzed GitHub seems under Microsoft.
by _bin_ | 2025-05-15 20:01:25+00:00
I've found sonnet-3.7 to be incredibly inconsistent. It can do very well but has a strong tendency to get off-track and run off and do weird things.

3.5 is better for this, ime. I hooked claude desktop up to an MCP server to fake claude-code less the extortionate pricing and it works decently. I've been trying to apply it for rust work; it's not great yet (still doesn't really seem to "understand" rust's concepts) but can do some stuff if you make it `cargo check` after each change and stop it if it doesn't.

I expect something like o3-high is the best out there (aider leaderboards support this) either alone or in combination with 4.1, but tbh that's out of my price range. And frankly, I can't mentally get past paying a very high price for an LLM response that may or may not be useful; it leaves me incredibly resentful as a customer that your model can fail the task, requiring multiple "re-rolls", and you're passing that marginal cost to me.
by ceejayoz | 2025-05-15 20:02:36+00:00
A challenge for our likely opponents?

Per your article:

> China appears to be working hard to deal with this problem, and it’s very possible that they can locate the carriers reasonably effectively, but they have dozens of satellites and large, expensive over-the-horizon radar systems, which any other power is unlikely to be able to match.

Seven years after this article's writing, "dozens of satellites" doesn't seem like that high a bar given Starlink's many thousands. (And we've seen huge bandwidth increases, too, which makes real-time imaging and analysis looking for ship wakes etc. far more doable.)
by immibis | 2025-05-15 20:03:39+00:00
AIs don't. AI companies do.

Well, maybe. As far as I can see, the overt ones are using pretty reasonable rate limits, even though they're scraping in useless ways (every combination of git hash and file path on gitea). Rather, it seems like he anonymous ones are the problem - and since they're anonymous, we have zero reason to believe they're AI companies. Some of them are running on Huawei Cloud. I doubt OpenAI is using Huawei Cloud.
by harpiaharpyja | 2025-05-15 20:03:52+00:00
I don't use numpy much, but based on the documentation for that function and the fact that you can index by None to add another dimension, it seems like the correct call is:

y = linalg.solve(A,x[:,:,None])

The documentation given says that A should be (..., M, M), and x should be (..., M, K). So if A is 100x5x5 and x is 100x5, then all you need to do is convert x to 100x5x1.

Is that right? It doesn't seem that bad.
by yodsanklai | 2025-05-15 20:04:04+00:00
Sorry to say that, but this sounds a bit like a fantasy. I think the vast majority of Google employees don't see themselves as particularly brillant or special. Even there, lots of people have imposter syndrome.

Actually, I've found this is a constant in life, whatever you achieve, you end up in a situation where you're pretty average among your peers. You may feel proud to get into Google for a few months, and then you're quickly humbled down.
by yaky | 2025-05-15 20:04:10+00:00
Check out the simpler Internet through the gemini protocol [0]. It's lightweight on purpose, and the capsules (gemini "sites") are mostly text. There are aggregators [1] and even search [2].

0: https://geminiprotocol.net/

1: gemini://warmedal.se/~antenna/

2: Gemini://kennedy.gemi.dev/
by ceejayoz | 2025-05-15 20:04:37+00:00
And we do precisely that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

> AN/SPY-6(V)1: Also known as the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).[21] It is 4-sided phased array radar, each with 37 RMAs... planned for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

> AN/SPY-6(V)2: Also known as the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR).[23] Rotating and scaled-down version with 9 RMAs estimated to have the same sensitivity as AN/SPY-1D(V) while being significantly smaller.

Same tech, just fewer modules.
by godelski | 2025-05-15 20:04:38+00:00
Sorry, I'm not the CUDA expert you should be looking for. My efforts are in ML and I only dabble in CUDA and am friends with systems people. I'd suggest reaching out to system people.

I'd suggest you use that NVIDIA connection and reach out to the HPC teams there. Anyone working on CUTLASS, TensorRT, cuTensor, or maybe event the CuPy team could give you a lot better advice than me.
by xp84 | 2025-05-15 20:04:39+00:00
Agree - and it can come about out of positive intentions -- "I know you care about the XYZ Component and we didn't want to leave you out of the loop about our plans for it"... but if in fact your inclusion was primarily just to keep you apprised, it may have been better to send you the briefly summarized agenda ("We plan to add a reporting feature to the XYZ Component which will store data in ... and be queryable by ... and are discussing how to build that and who should do it") and if you decline because you have no input to provide, just send you an "AI Summary" or transcript after the fact so you know what they ended up settling on. That's what I hope the addition of AI stuff to tools like Zoom will lead to, ultimately.
by caycep | 2025-05-15 20:05:02+00:00
I want to say, maybe it's better to say first human under proper IRB/regulatory compliance. Some rogue academic in China tried it a few years ago, if I recall, but with absolutely no oversight and he was pilloried. Also I don't think there is much details about what he actually did...

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1178695152/china-scientist-he...