MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by strogonoff | 2025-05-22 08:35:28+00:00
Intuitively, there’s quite a big difference between a situation where some ‘artist’ may be sneakily repurposing preexisting work (I don’t think you’ll find a reputable artist doing that, and even a not-so-reputable repurposing artist would at least check that the license allows it), and a situation where a household name corporation only repurposes preexisting work without any regard for licensing.
by topspin | 2025-05-22 08:35:33+00:00
This is the correct take. These logarithmic scales, in all their various forms, reduce the math involved to something tractable. The reduction is so great that there is no substitute. Griping about the numerous arbitrary reference values and their obscure and ambiguous notations is fine, I suppose, and perhaps fixing this has some value. But ultimately, logarithmic scales are a tool that will be utilized regardless of whatever frustration they create among amateurs. Also, there is certainly the risk that whatever "fix" one might imagine will only produce yet another, parallel "standard."

Since you deal in RF, I thought I'd mention an interesting device frequently found in such systems: the logarithmic amplifier, or log amp. I'm certain you are familiar with these, but others might find this interesting. These devices are often used in Automatic Gain Control (AGC). Real signals in RF span a very wide range of power, and stages of an RF system need the power to fall in a narrow range to function optimally. A log amp computes an output signal that is some logarithmic function of its input. The output typically serves as feedback to control the gain of an amplification or attenuation stage. The latter stage can then maintain tight control over the level of the source signal as it rapidly fluctuates in real world conditions.

So there you have a logarithmic solution in a physical device, as opposed to some model abstraction.
by procaryote | 2025-05-22 08:35:33+00:00
So "found my nephew's name" is in practice: "searching my email, given my brothers name, it found a mail from my brother that mentioned a name in the subject and lacked content it could read. It assumed without further evidence this was my nephew's name and happened to be correct."

If you asked a human assistant to do this and it came back with that level of research, you'd be pretty disappointed
by thaumasiotes | 2025-05-22 08:35:37+00:00
> "Other names for the metric horsepower are [...]"

I'm not clear on what point you think you're making. Is it interesting that the same thing might have different names in different languages?

That subsection of the article, by the way, is obviously lying:

> The various units used to indicate this definition (PS, KM, cv, hk, pk, k, ks and ch) all translate to horse power in English.

cv and ch translate to steam horse, which isn't hard to see even if you only speak English. What does "vapor" mean to you?

The opening of the article does suggest some problems, though not problems that wouldn't apply to the word "ounce". But you seem to have pulled an extended quote describing a completely expected state of affairs, while ignoring this:

> There are many different standards and types of horsepower. Two common definitions used today are the imperial horsepower as in "hp" or "bhp" which is about 745.7 watts, and the metric horsepower as in "cv" or "PS" which is approximately 735.5 watts. The electric horsepower "hpE" is exactly 746 watts, while the boiler horsepower is 9809.5 or 9811 watts, depending on the exact year.

I don't get it.
by severusdd | 2025-05-22 08:36:13+00:00
Neat little tool! I like that it gets out of the way and just lets you type.

A couple of ideas that might be cool to add on:

1. Option to paste in your own text (or pull from a URL?)

2. Stats breakdown by word length or common typos

3. should the accuracy be 100% when nothing has been typed in the input box?
by adrian_b | 2025-05-22 08:36:46+00:00
I have no doubt that China has stolen IP whenever they had a chance.

For example, Huawei was famous for draconic rules imposed to its employees in order to ensure that they could not take out any information from their computers and also that no information could be accessed by any visitor or by anyone outside working hours.

Presumably they were very careful with this because that is how they would have attempted to exploit a competitor.

Nevertheless, the many Americans who still believe that the Chinese success is based on stolen IP are completely delusional.

China has bought most of the IP with which they have started developments and not stolen it. Reckless companies from USA and EU have sold all that IP. Talking about "stealing" is just a tactic used to obscure who are the culprits, who have obtained nice financial gains from selling IP to China.

Moreover, in recent years China no longer has much to steal from USA, more the opposite becomes true.

If I look at recent research papers, even if there are also many published Chinese papers that are garbage, there also many that are very innovative, and such innovative Chinese research papers have become much more numerous than the innovative research papers coming from USA. The reason appears to be that the Chinese seem now willing to assume more risks, in searching paths that are uncertain to lead to useful results, while the research in USA seems to have become more conservative, striving to obtain immediate and guaranteed results, which however may not be able to exit a local optimal point in the space of solutions.

I assume that as research financing becomes more difficult, the research in USA will become even more conservative, diminishing its chances to compete successfully in innovations with China.
by roelschroeven | 2025-05-22 08:37:22+00:00
> If you use dB to describe the power of a signal that is slightly different (you use 10 instead of 20 as multiplier/divisor)

This is the part I don't get. This is the part where "dB is just a multiplier" falls short. It's there to "so that the related power and root-power levels change by the same value in linear systems" (that's how Wikipedia formulates it). Why is that even something you would want? Isn't it much more logical, intuitive, consistent and useful to reflect the fact of power being proportional to the square of the signal in it having double the dB value?
by kumarvvr | 2025-05-22 08:37:58+00:00
> Don't blame ChatGPT for human laziness

I thought the very nature of technology and progress is to allow humans to be lazy.

We build technology to reduce our own burdens.

And most of the AI marketing is revolving around giving you the luxury to think less and do more for a price.

> The way I would look at the LLM-centered future is to consider LLM agents assistants and suggestion makers, personal consultants even

I find this highly dubious. All the names (agents, assistants, suggestion makers) are synonyms. They are just pieces of text that come off a screen, for inputs given to them. I am highly skeptical of intelligence emanating from them, mainly because real innovation and insight seems to come from a brains ability to devolve something into its abstract self, mush it around other abstract ideas and find a link in the abstract level, that is then applied to the problem at hand. (Andrew Wiles solution to the Euler's problem comes to my mind)

Even problem solving ability or the ability to plan or the ability to anticipate, is not part of the regular content that you find on the internet.

For example, I may read about something a farmer does in Arkansas, and then relate it to something completely different, in a different domain.

Nowhere in the content on internet would I find those two things together.

Most of the agentic systems, the MCP stuff, seems to be a pseudo-deterministic system that is harder to debug.
by iLoveOncall | 2025-05-22 08:38:36+00:00
That's my reaction to the article too. I'm not sure what's exactly impressive here.

I've had to find emails about a particular thing in my girlfriend's mailbox with tens of thousands of spam emails and it takes just a few minutes.

It's not like search doesn't already exist. OP evens lays out the exact methodology to follow in the prompt itself...
by tialaramex | 2025-05-22 08:39:07+00:00
Technically TLS 1.3 doesn't encrypt the Client Hello, and indeed the first stanza of the Server Hello isn't encrypted either, although it deliberately doesn't say anything you could use as a third party to make decisions and the rest of a TLS 1.3 Server Hello is encrypted.

The in-progress Encrypted Client Hello (was Encrypted Server Name Indication hence esni in the name of the document) fixes that and you probably have software which uses it though the work to tie up all the loose ends up and publish a document might take some time yet.

Because the middlebox vendors are _so_ incompetent not only does TLS 1.3 need to work around their nonsense, thus proving that it was never useful security (an attacker could always have just done what TLS 1.3 does and it would have bypassed this worthless garbage) some of them screwed up badly enough that the anti-downgrade feature trips, to their credit Google refused to ship a permanent workaround for this, the workaround they shipped in Chrome sunset in about a year & required an explicit key setting, so basically "I acknowledge that I have defective middleboxes and must remove or upgrade them soon" by the local administrators.

But yes, it's noticeable that it was much easier to sell some engineers on "Thanks to TLS 1.3 now this stupid middlebox product won't be able to make your service slower" than say, "Thanks to TLS 1.3 now this stupid middlebox product won't report to the government if you read a Wikipedia article which contradicts its dogma".
by aredox | 2025-05-22 08:39:44+00:00
Except that it does it by statistics. It does not understand, it gives the most likely answer. If Gemini had failed to give the answer or hallucinated anything else, the original author wouldn't have written a blog post: this is in effect Publication Bias.

You see this every time you ask an LLM to give an answer several times to a question with only one right answer, such as math.
by severusdd | 2025-05-22 08:40:52+00:00
From my experience of working with YT influencers in tech/ software development: many of their audience do prefer watching longer videos on YT.

They go to tiktok/ instagram/ YT shorts to binge-watch short videos. And come to YT either to have learn something from longform content (e.g. deeper tutorials), or find the interesting parts on their own, or just to have something longer to run in the background. Most Youtubers worth their salt would have fairly impressive engagement on their longer videos.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-05-22 08:41:31+00:00
I'm not an expert but, E=MC², so take the weight what they're moving around, multiply it by the speed of light squared, that's the amount of joules of energy you have, assuming perfect conversion.

It doesn't say how much material they moved though. If it was exactly 1 gram and they cancelled each other out perfectly (according to a quora answer, I refuse to trust AI but a random internet commenter is fine lmao), you've got 2 grams of mass converted to energy which is 180 terajoules or about 43 kilotons, which is about equivalent to 3 Hiroshima bombs.

Punching that into https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ gives a blast radius (of window destroying power) of 5.79 kilometers, or just over 100 km² of affected area.
by rusk | 2025-05-22 08:42:33+00:00
That would be dishonest. You don’t adjust input power - you adjust attenuation

EDIT if you did let’s say approximate power, or measure and present the consumed power (as some systems do) you would still be in a situation about how to present this data. Do you present your users with a simple 1-10 (logarithmic) or a 10 digit display which sweeps over vast ranges of uninteresting values.

If you opted for a more compact scientific notation … well guess what that’s also logarithmic but in two parts LOL
by rocqua | 2025-05-22 08:43:40+00:00
The point of a paper isn't "I had this idea" nor is it "I have this evidence". It is "I had this idea, and it turned out to work! (btw here's the evidence I found that convinced me it works).

The value lies in getting true ideas in front of your eyeballs. So communicating the idea clearly is crucial to making the value available.
by alias_neo | 2025-05-22 08:43:52+00:00
As a native (British) English speaker, I was also unclear until reading the article.

Personally, I believe s/change/modify would make more sense, but that's just my opinion.

That aside, I'm a big fan of Debian, it has always "felt" quieter as a distro to me compared to others, which is something I care greatly about; and it's great to see that removing of calling home is a core principle.

All the more reason to have a more catchy/understandable title, because I believe the information in those short and sweet bullet points are quite impactful.
by kumarvvr | 2025-05-22 08:43:56+00:00
> value out of AI (specifically ChatGPT and Midjourney)

The one area I would agree that AI and ML tools have been surprisingly good, art generation.

But then, I see the flood of AI generated pictures and overall, feel it has made a already troublesome world, even more troublesome. I am starting to see the "the picture is AI made, or AI modified" excuses coming into mainstream.

A picture now, has lost all meaning.

> be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing

This, I am highly skeptical of. If you train an LLM with words of "trains can fly", then it spits that out. They may be good as summarizing or search tools, but to claim them to be "thinking" and "analyzing", nah.
by rr808 | 2025-05-22 08:43:58+00:00
1) Yes Scala and JVM is fast. If we could just use that to clean up a feed on a single box that would be great. The problem is calling the Spark API creates a lot of complexity for developers and runtime platform which is super slow. 2) Yes for the few feeds that are a TB we need spark. The platform really just loads from hadoop transforms then saves back again.
by kukkeliskuu | 2025-05-22 08:44:04+00:00
Around 20 years ago I was working for a database company. During that time, I attended SIGMOD, which is the top conference for databases.

The keynote speaker for the conference Stonebraker, who started Postgres, among other things. He talked about the history of relational databases.

At that time, XML databases were all the rage -- now nobody remembers them. Stonebraker explained that there is nothing new in the hierarchical databases. There was a significant battle in SIGMOD, I think somewhere in the 1980s (I forget the exact time frame) between network databases and relational databases.

The relational databases won that battle, as they have won against each competing hierarchical database technology since.

The reason is that relational databases are based on relational algebra. This has very practical consequences, for example you can query the data more flexibly.

When you use JSON storage such as MongoDB, when you decide your root entities you are stuck with that decision. I see very often in practice that there will always come new requirements that you did not foresee that you then need to work around.

I don't care what other people use, however.
by timewizard | 2025-05-22 08:44:04+00:00
> 3^5 (=243)

Three to the power of five.

> 3 x e^5

Three times the fifth power of e. Or Three times e's fifth power.

> 3 x 10^5 (=300,000).

Three to the exponent of five.

A calculator user once suggested "decapower." I think exponent and "EXP" are comfortable and easy to say and are ingrained to most old school calculator users. Which is also why I think "e's fifth power" can be a more natural sequence.
by pjmlp | 2025-05-22 08:44:46+00:00
Not everyone worships InteliJ.

As for the one year, last release was on 2018, Kotlin was announced as main Android language in May 2017.

Now re-read my comment.

The three years predating it was JetBrains trying to find a way to sell Kotlin adoption, then they went big and closed shop.

Now they are stuck with Kotlin being seen as an Android language for the most part, and Fleet isn't taking off.
by blixt | 2025-05-22 08:45:07+00:00
My list of uses of AI includes:

- Turning a lot of data into a small amount of data, such as extracting facts from a text, translating and querying a PDF, cleaning up a data dump such as getting a clean Markdown table from a copy/pasted HTML source of a web page etc (IMO it often goes wrong when you go the other way and try to turn a small prompt into a lot of data)

- Creating illustrations representing ephemeral data (eg my daily weather report illustration which I enjoy looking at every day even if the data it produces is not super useful: https://github.com/blixt/sol-mate-eink)

- Using Cursor to perform coding tasks that are tedious but I know what the end result should look like (so I can spend low effort verifying it) -- it has an 80% success rate and I deem it to save time but it's not perfect

- Exploration of a topic I'm not familiar with (I've used o3 extensively while double checking facts, learning about laws, answering random questions that would be too difficult to Google, etc etc) -- o3 is good at giving sources so I can double check important things

Beyond this, AI is also a form of entertainment for me, like using realtime voice chat, or video/image generation to explore random ideas and seeing what comes out. Or turning my ugly sketches into nicer drawings, and so forth.
by guappa | 2025-05-22 08:45:19+00:00
In theory you want all patches sent to upstream, but if they're for some specific debian reason then you can not send them.

Patches are maintained separately because debian doesn't normally repack the .tar.gz (or whatever) that the projects publish, as to not invalidate signatures and let people check that the file is in fact the same. An exception is done when the project publishes a file that contains files that cannot legally be redistributed.
by potato-peeler | 2025-05-22 08:45:38+00:00
Slightly meta, this entire article is filled with quotes from other speakers to highlight a point the author is trying to make, in many cases too hard.

It’s as if the author himself didn’t have his own thoughts, and borrowed some sentences others made to write this piece.

I don’t know what kind of writing style this is.

If you are writing an opinion, why not devote some effort to articulate your own thoughts, or at the very least, provide reasons why other people which the author relies on to make their point, is correct?
by strogonoff | 2025-05-22 08:45:49+00:00
The number is not unbounded, the more mods you have the more difficulty you will have upgrading, the more they conflict with each other, and consumer hardware cannot handle the load.

Also, paid mods usually have a free version. You pay for early access for latest and greatest version, which only makes sense for specific important mods. You wouldn’t do it for all of the mods.
by AndrewDucker | 2025-05-22 08:46:10+00:00
It's so high because we eradicated so many other things that used to kill us off early.

Looking at the leading causes of death in the UK[1] they're: dementia, heart disease, strokes, lung cancer, flu. If you lowered any of those then the rates of the others would go up.

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
by modernerd | 2025-05-22 08:47:04+00:00
Some expensive jackets:

https://www.moncler.com/en-us/sir-jony-ive-collaboration

Compostable red noses:

https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/30-january-3-february-20...

King Charles' new seal:

https://www.wallpaper.com/design/terra-carta-seal-design-lov...

Ferrari’s first electric car (not yet released):

https://www.independent.co.uk/cars/electric-vehicles/ferrari...

Something vague with Airbnb:

https://news.airbnb.com/designing-the-future-of-airbnb/
Ask HN: AI agent platform that runs locally
by EnthusiastShiv | 2025-05-22 08:47:09+00:00
llms are powerful now, but still feel disconnected.

I want small agents that run locally (some in cloud if needed), talk to each other, read/write to notion + gcal, plan my day, and take voice input so i don’t have to type.

Just want useful automation without the bloat. Is there anything like this already? or do i need to build it?
by Ukv | 2025-05-22 08:47:32+00:00
> [...] that mentioned a name in the subject and lacked content it could read. It assumed without further evidence [...]

It did read the email's content, using it to support its conclusion, and it frames its answer as "strongly suggests"/"likely" opposed to assuming it for certain:

> > This email discusses the reading preferences of “he” and mentions “Monty” in the subject line. This strongly suggests that Monty is Donovan’s son.

Within the given domain (access to emails only - can't also view the author's Facebook connections or reach out to ask people) that seems to be the best answer possible, unless there was another email mentioning the name more directly that was missed.
by ludicity | 2025-05-22 08:48:16+00:00
I've made this point many times and the only possible answers are:

1. The people promising AGI are lying 2. The people promising AGI don't know what they're saying 3. The people promising AGI are hedging against AGI not eventuating but some intermediate value emerging. This is the most charitable read, but also totally at odds with getting people to invest, since the investment is predicated on AGI achievement

The correct answer is almost certainly "some people are silly, some people are grifting, some people think AGI is coming, but all the investment certainly benefits from people conflating AGI with a very good product instead of a world-changing achievement".

Eric Schmidt imagining AGI and then speculating that people will like, still be churning out apps, as if humans will need to do that sort of menial labour, just blew my mind and made me question many of the stories I had heard about his intelligence.
by lukejkwarren | 2025-05-22 08:48:54+00:00
Sorry to squeeze you for even more feedback, but my application has a pricing structure of:

9 USD - Hobby 19 USD - Grow 49 USD - Pro 149 USD - Agency

Each plan unlocks more features and targets but pro includes branded compliance reports + active scanning and a few other features, including high limits.

Does this align with what you think is fair? What is the biggest factor/feature that made you willing to pay more and/or pay at all for such a tool?

https://penzen.app for reference
by alexliu518 | 2025-05-22 08:49:53+00:00
Very critical question. Excel is indeed more complex. Before analysis, Capalyze first preprocesses the data, which is crucial. We have designed a set of preprocessing algorithms that essentially focus on how to better identify the data suitable for analysis in Excel and clean and repair it. This process also leverages LLMs, as we found that LLMs perform quite well in recognizing table structures.
by pjmlp | 2025-05-22 08:50:06+00:00
To be fair, before Linux taking off, most UNIX shops where code-on-development-server and run-on-deployment-server stage.

Cloud is only the rebranding of timesharing, clear with different technology stacks, however the approach to development is exactly the same as working on an UNIX shop back in 1975 - 1990's.
by alexliu518 | 2025-05-22 08:50:19+00:00
Two main aspects: 1. How to handle the data related to the target problem; 2. Choosing suitable charts to present this data. #1. By leveraging the increasingly powerful coding capabilities of LLMs, we can appropriately process raw data to obtain a dataset that closely aligns with our goals; #2. We expanded echart and utilized its rich chart types already supported, along with the Univer SDK from the Univer team, ultimately creating tables.