MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by masaishi | 2025-05-20 00:39:33+00:00
As a Machine Learning Researcher at Noxx, I developed a method to extract structured data from complex resume PDFs. Noxx builds AI-driven Applicant Tracking Systems that help companies hire overseas talent within budget and time zone constraints by using LLMs that understand resume meaning, not just keywords.

Resumes with their multi-column layouts and varied formatting styles present significant challenges for standard text extraction methods. Our approach preserves both text content and spatial information to maintain logical connections between resume elements.

“The key to success, as with any LLM features, is measuring performance and iterating on implementations.” — Anthropic Engineering Blog, Building Effective Agents

The evaluation framework described here has helped us create more reliable AI systems and can be applied to many LLM-based applications beyond resume parsing. Whether you’re working with documents, images, or structured data, the techniques for combining OCR with LLMs outlined in this article will provide valuable insights for your own projects.
by tarvaina | 2025-05-20 00:41:05+00:00
Stray thought: Why 4 and 9? Because the joke is funniest if the number is completely ordinary.

0 and 1 are special and so are all prime numbers. 6 is out because it's the maximum die throw. And one figure is more ordinary than two figures, or negatives, or decimals. That leaves 4 and 9.
by perrygeo | 2025-05-20 00:41:18+00:00
I like WSL for this single reason too - it gives me space to run isolated experiments without touching my primary OS. So if that's what windows users get out of it, cool.

You can do the same thing with many other technologies on most other operating systems. I've used, in chronological order: FreeBSD jails, VMs, Cloud-hosted VMs, Docker, K8s, and Nix flakes. WSL is probably somewhere in around K8s.

My point is, we've had the ability to run "subsystems" for decades, by different names, on every OS. WSL is cool but quite late to the game, far from being "more powerful than linux".
by Havoc | 2025-05-20 00:42:43+00:00
Big part of anti trust is because it crushes healthy competition so don’t think that is necessarily incompatible with winning tech races.

> China will eventually route around every road block, so the question is whether or not any of this will help America keep an edge

I’d say the lead is so slim it’s basically already gone. At least in the practical sense. If you were to isolate both right now. Cut them both off from the outside. One would be able to produce a modern cellphone the other would not.

Any sort of residual technical lead in the pure IP/knowledge sense is good for 3 years max I reckon.
by convolvatron | 2025-05-20 00:42:44+00:00
doesn’t have to be a legal enforcement if vendors just don’t work with bodies that insist on this counterproductive notion of standards as a profit center.

unfortunately i think there us some degree of collusion here. it’s easier to get your existing proprietary standards ratified if there are fewer players in the room and the palms that need to be greased are clearly marked
by nulld3v | 2025-05-20 00:43:06+00:00
It also inspired this similar Rust project: https://github.com/ilai-deutel/kibi#comparison-with-kilo

Although it does cheat a bit in an effort to better handle Unicode:

> unicode-width is used to determine the displayed width of Unicode characters. Unfortunately, there is no way around it: the unicode character width table is 230 lines long.
by gruez | 2025-05-20 00:43:35+00:00
>Prior to stakeholder capitalism, industrialization was downright inhumane.

When did stakeholder capitalism magically pop up and made industrialization not "downright inhumane"? The end of stakeholder capitalism can be traced to Milton Friendman's works, what evidence is there of stakeholder emerging after the "downright inhumane" period before?

> After stakeholder capitalism, it's trending toward social and political instability.

>During stakeholder capitalism: considered the glory days of the American society.

Again, rose tinted glasses: the same period had Cuban Missile crisis, Vietnam war drafts, and the Kent State shootings. Granted, most of them probably didn't have anything to do with stakeholder capitalism, but it's laughable to call it "the glory days of the American society". Moreover have things really fared better in places with "stakeholder capitalism"? For all the talk of "common prosperity", China isn't doing too hot either, with its cratered housing market, high youth unemployment, and low consumer confidence.
by wkat4242 | 2025-05-20 00:45:38+00:00
> DEI trains people to be aware of those feeling and thoughts and double-check them. Most people don't want to make decisions in that way and appreciate the training.

Exactly this. It's all about awareness.

IMO companies that enforce quotas are not really trying to fix the problem but just forcing the numbers to look good. Because quotas are not solving the mindset that causes this. It's a quick fix. Trainings and workshops are hard work but they actually improve people's self-awareness over time.
by SilasX | 2025-05-20 00:48:19+00:00
>Human learning doesn't involve fixing anything,... AI training does involve fixing something into a fixed medium, which makes it disanalogous to human learning.

No, it breaks one part of the analogy, which has never been considered relevant: how long the learning persists. Yes, computers can store weights of a AI model much longer than any human could. But storing this "impact of having viewed a copyrighted work" has never been a factor in considering something infringing, regardless of how long it's stored. Courts don't consider it infringement if you simply use what you have learned from reading previous novels (the updates to your brain's neural weights) in producing new content.

Your argument is saying that the "fixedness of storing model weights" (aggregated high level understanding) can cause it to be infringement. That's without precedent. It would imply that if you're really good at "fixing" (remembering) the style of an author you read 50 years ago, it somehow crosses over into infringement because you "fixed that understanding into a medium" (your brain). That's not how it works at all.

>Among the reasons that Google removed outside access to its cached copies

I wasn't referring to the cached part of a site that Google serves to users, but the undistributed cache that they hold merely to know which sites to point you to, so you're not addressing the analogy. Here Google does store an exact copy (of at least some portions) and even then it's not considered copyright infringement until they start redistributing that content (or at least, too much of it).

My point was that acceptance of this practice even further bolsters the case that AI models aren't infringing, because, even if they did store exact copies, that generally not considered infringement until they start serving close-enough copies of the original copyrighted content.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-20 00:49:02+00:00
Wikipedia doesn't have anyone called "moderators", at least not in English nor in any sense of userrights. "Mods and admins" is usually something an ignorant non-community-member resorts to appealing when something is wrong there.

The truth is that Wikipedia content is not governed by a hierarchical administration, and all ordinary editors collaborate there to achieve consensus.

Administrators on Wikipedia have the responsibility for administrative tasks, privileged things, and disciplinary actions. Not content, not choosing what sort of articles to delete, not cleaning up articles.

See, I tried to give benefit of the doubt and a favorable interpretation, and someone who isn't the GP chimes in to perpetuate the myth. I'm curious about the myth: where does it come from and how do so many people sincerely just believe this is how Wikipedia works? Is "mods and admins" the default "go-to group" that cleans up other websites? Is it a specific meme from Reddit or some other forum type place? "Moderators" are usually the ones who execute discipline on forum discussions and users. That's not even a relevant role in terms of Wikipedia. But even within the noticeboards and talk pages, newbies come in all the time to appeal to "mods and admins", please address our problem. It's interesting how uniform the myth becomes!
by b-man | 2025-05-20 00:49:15+00:00
Lots of peole got hung up on the example, which I thought would be be helpful on the discussion, but certainly should not replace the main point, which is:

Relations, attributes and tuples are logical. A PK is a combination of one or more attributes representing a name that uniquely identifies tuples and, thus, is logical too[2], while performance is determined exclusively at the physical level, by implementation.

So generating SKs for performance reasons (see, for example, Natural versus Surrogate Keys: Performance and Usability, Performance of Surrogate Key vs Composite Keys) is logical-physical confusion (LPC)[3]. Performance can be considered in PK choice only when there is no logical reason for choosing one key over another.

https://www.dbdebunk.com/2018/04/a-new-understanding-of-keys...
by idoubtit | 2025-05-20 00:49:22+00:00
Just a side note about the historical anecdote at the bottom of the post, which is related to Notre-Dame de Paris:

> 28 statues that portrayed the biblical Kings of Judah. [...] They didn’t portray French kings

That's wrong. Several texts from the revolution and before still exist that prove that these kings were identified as both Judea kings and France kings. For instance, David was Pépin le bref. On one of the gates of the cathedral, the List of the French kings was engraved, starting with Clovis. That glorification of the monarchy, with parallels to the bible, was common at the time: other French medieval cathedrals show the same analogies.
by jethro_tell | 2025-05-20 00:50:00+00:00
Given a situation in which you have a decent way to guess user names, such as ‘first-initial-lastname’ how much entropy does this take away?

It seems like I’ve seen several of these over the years when a patch to parse comments would probably be simpler and less of an anti-pattern. What am I missing here?

Edit: or a config dir that allows multiple key files.
by kristopolous | 2025-05-20 00:50:52+00:00
Their terminus approach is petty similar to my "dui mode" here: https://github.com/day50-dev/llmehelp ... it's still not great except for basic investigations. I think a hybrid approach would be better.

There's certainly some litellm hacking that will improve things. I'm absolutely convinced of that. The proxy is pretty hard to use though. I keep making glacial progress on it.
by d_watt | 2025-05-20 00:52:06+00:00
I'd think this would work, as the 4 tools listed are about retrieving information to give agents more context of correct providers and modules. Given terragrunt works with terraform directly, I'd think that it would help with it as well, just add rules/prompts that are explicit about the code being generated being in terra grunt file structure / with terragrunt commands.
by arianasiv | 2025-05-20 00:52:07+00:00
DEF CON hackers — 6 days — $10,000 in prizes

Hackers online & in-person were invited to attempt to:

- Vote multiple times: Not accomplished

- Change someone else's vote, without detection: Not accomplished (Although no one successfully accomplished this, one submission got partway by identifying a weakness in one of the anti-malware defensive layers. 2 solutions now identified.)

- Destroy a vote already confirmed submitted: Not accomplished

- Learn how someone voted, without their help: One person showed impressive ways to directly install spyware on-device.

(The SIV Protocol defends against vote tampering by on-device malware, but it does not protect vote secrecy from compromised devices themselves. If an attacker controls the device, they can see everything a person does with it, including using SIV. While this was previously known and documented, the Voter Interface failed to clearly warn users.)

- Learn other personal info about voters: Not accomplished

We also tested a new mechanism to prevent vote-selling.

SIV's core philosophy: even if Darth Vader is running the election infrastructure, anyone — especially voters, but also independent observers — can verify for themselves whether an election was run fairly and correctly, or not.

The protocol is designed to achieve software independence (meaning we don't need to rely on computers to check for correct results) and allows checks against server-side fraud or malware-on-device changing votes.
by h4kunamata | 2025-05-20 00:52:17+00:00
When you prevent somebody from accessing what is out there, they release their own. The problem with that?? Well, only they mastered it since it was developed with local tech, by the time the goods are sent worldwide, you are blindfolded.

Still, I would never buy a Chinese tech device, you are buying a surveillance system to allow its government to spy on you.
by john-radio | 2025-05-20 00:52:21+00:00
I have a personal convention for books like that - I don't have any Dilberts on the shelf but a lot of Neil Gaimans, plus an artsy TTRPG book ("Maze of the Blue Medusa") that's also made by someone who is now widely considered a serial sexual assaulter - I don't (always) remove them from my shelves but I turn them upside down, like a flag indicating distress.
by koolba | 2025-05-20 00:52:50+00:00
I’ve want a physical one of these that changes both the CVC and the entire 16-digit number. Heck let the name submitted with the number be a longer checksum that can be verified at point of sale to figure out who’s actual account it is.

Plus then my gibberish name on my card number will match the gibberish secret question answers.
by conradev | 2025-05-20 00:53:12+00:00
Utilities already have mandates to buy X% of their power from renewable sources. They primarily do this by building/buying utility scale renewables because that is more cost effective than paying homeowners retail rates for their electricity.

Distributed generation is great because generation and consumption are next to each other, and this can theoretically reduce peak load on the grid. The problem is that the sun goes down every day at the same time, and we're back to the same peak load.

The lowered rates in NEM 3.0 actually incentivize homeowners to buy batteries and load shift, which does actually help reduce peak load. Batteries are still too expensive, though, and the hope is that falling battery costs make it economical.

Externalities exist, yes, but they only matter when they get priced in. Capital moves energy markets, not vibes.
by rglullis | 2025-05-20 00:55:08+00:00
> I would definitely feel "icky" hiring a personal shopper or hiring a chauffer to drive me everywhere.

Do you feel "icky" by going to a supermarket and having a cashier scanning your products? Do you feel "icky" by taking a taxi? How about by taking a public bus, train or plane?

Do you go to restaurants or bars? Do you feel "icky" about someone taking your order, cleaning up your table, pouring out drinks for you?

Do you have kids? Have you ever hired a babysitter? Do you feel "icky" about someone else being temporarily responsible for the well-being of your child?

> I know there are other less visible areas (...) where people are exploited and yet I am part of society. I don't have an answer or solution to this that is politically feasible.

I'm honestly more concerned about people who think that they should have "an answer to this" than all the exploitation that exists.

I can tell you what it's *not* the solution. Eliminating all sort of manual labor is *not* a solution. Eliminating manual labor will lead to even more isolation and atomized individuals. It will put us all in different bubbles and make us completely unable to relate to other people and it will make us even more susceptible to be defined by what we consume.

If you are part of a society, it will be better for everyone if you start participating in it. Instead of looking down on people whose work is not as valuable as yours (because that's what honestly your "feeling icky about it" seems to boil down to), look at these interactions as opportunities for mutual, voluntary help. If you think their work is worth more than what they are getting, tell them so and back it up with your generosity. There is no point in "feeling bad" about it.
by exiguus | 2025-05-20 00:56:30+00:00
Actually, I have considerable experience setting up and running various CI/CD tools such as Jenkins, GitLab CI, and Travis CI.

In my experience, GitHub Actions work quite well, especially for smaller projects or when you can avoid using public templates and actions. While shortcuts like third-party libraries or actions can be convenient, they often come with trade-offs.

For scenarios where having your own runners and build images is beneficial, I would recommend GitLab CI.

Jenkins is a great choice if you need to run builds on dedicated hardware or within a virtualized environment.

When discussing the challenges of CI/CD, I often notice that many issues stem from complex chains of dependencies within the software or product itself. For example, consider a release pipeline that typically takes six hours to complete but fails after four hours. In such cases, having to restart the entire pipeline instead of just the failed job can be quite inefficient.

Additionally, debugging can become much easier when you have your own build images on runners, as you can run them locally for testing and troubleshooting.

What specific aspects of CI/CD do you find broken or challenging?
by justinator | 2025-05-20 00:56:56+00:00
I'll take your suggestion to heart and look into this term myself and see if I can't learn something new to better work within the present world. I'm more than happy to admit that I could very well have a blind spot for a sensitive term which I do not currently know about. I apologize to anyone if this was used offensively and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
by danielheath | 2025-05-20 00:57:21+00:00
I have a few friends working at CultureAmp (who - amongst other things - do anonymous employee surveys).

Management can 'drill down' to get information on how specific teams responded.

One of the things they mentioned doing is using a statistical (differential privacy?) model to limit the depth, to prevent any specific persons responses being revealed unless it was shared with a substantial number of other responses.

Surprisingly difficult when you consider e.g. a team lead reading a statement like "of the 10 people in your team, one is highly dissatisfied with management" - they have personal knowledge of the situation and are going to know which person it is.
by twodave | 2025-05-20 00:57:40+00:00
Is there support for dynamic sign in provider urls? One of the deal breakers (in addition to federated sign in/sign out being a pain) for us with next-auth was that we have certain customers whose security requirements include pointing subdomains that they own at our servers. So we would need to be able to use some logic to determine where the sign-in redirect should take a given user.
by amalcon | 2025-05-20 00:57:42+00:00
In your scenario, I have made a mistake in assessing which two candidates are most likely to win -- because I took vote shares as win probabilities. This is also a mistake, and it is a mistake no matter the voting system or the next step in your strategy.

You're also assuming that everyone axiomatically uses the same strategy as me. If A-voters use your strategy and B-voters use my strategy, then B is straightforwardly favored to win. This results in a prisoner's dilemma, with its well-known Nash equilibrium in favor of defection.

> you've devolved back into first past the post

Correct. The potential for this to happen is one of the drawbacks of rated voting systems. It's also, through a different mechanism, one of the drawbacks of ranked systems. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, since both alternatives give some ability to hedge against incorrect assessments.

> By contrast, if you assign 10/10 to A, 5/10 to B and 1/10 to C, you've given A a significant advantage over B without assigning B such a low score that you could deliver the election to C if C defeats A.

I can accomplish the same mathematical thing by assigning 10/10 to A, 1/10 to C, and flipping a coin to determine whether to give B 1/10 or 10/10. Both give the same odds of winning to A and B (well, mine gives B slightly higher odds because its average is 5.5 -- but you get the point). The only difference is that your method outsources the randomness to the rest of the electorate, rather than generating it yourself.
by Spivak | 2025-05-20 00:58:23+00:00
Ya know, reading this I start to understand the backlash against DEI programs when real life, presumably educated, people such as yourself seem to genuinely believe in such a cartoonish narrative. That's not even what redistributive justice means— welfare and public education are redistributive justice, progressive taxation is redistributive justice. It's a political and economic theory supported by the well known woke anti-white and anti-male institution The Catholic Church.

You don't need a whiteness tax or other nonsense, when you have equitable systems (like heating assistance programs) the benefits naturally flow to disadvantaged groups because they'll be the ones disproportionately qualifying for aid.
by sodra9000 | 2025-05-20 00:58:28+00:00
This package should be updated to use the newer gpt-4o-mini model, rather than gpt-3.5-turbo.

Its 3x cheaper, twice as fast, and supports cached input just in case you need to double check if the last number you entered was even. It also has a knowledge cutoff of September 30 2023, which helps for any newly discovered even numbers since gpt-3.5s launch!
by latentsea | 2025-05-20 00:58:37+00:00
I sort of kid, I sort of don't. There's a process seniors go through when approaching problems that vibe coding short circuits by removing some of the elements that act as triggers to the critical thinking process. Without those cues, less critical thinking winds up happening.

Personally, I think it's more a matter of remapping those triggers onto this new process, but for now I think it's a real phenomenon.
by Terr_ | 2025-05-20 00:59:44+00:00
> getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating

That reminds me of some game-theory stuff, a relatively simple "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" approach does pretty well. It matches a lot of our intuition too: Be nice, punish betrayal, but not too disproportionately.

Not the thing I was thinking of, but found this fun little interactive presentation that goes into some other factors/approaches: https://ncase.me/trust/
by mcmcmc | 2025-05-20 01:01:03+00:00
If your ideal is a perfect society where everyone follows the all rules all the time you are going to be sorely disappointed. The ideal collection amount is the size of the fine multiplied by the actual occurrence of the offense. And that revenue should be strictly used for rehabilitative or restorative justice. For example, speeding fines should go to road improvements that deter speeding making roads safer. If no one’s speeding, there’s no need for that. But people will always break the law.
by rizalp | 2025-05-20 01:01:04+00:00
It's because WSL2 is using HyperV behind the scenes, and HyperV is a Type 1 (Native Hypervisor), running directly on top of hardware.

When you activate it, it also makes you host windows OS virtualized as well, albeit with native access for some components like GPU etc.

That's why all other Windows Hypervisor (Virtualbox, VMWare Workstation) will experience one issue or another when WSL2 is activated, because more abstraction is happening and more things could go wrong.