MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MatteoFrigo | 2025-05-02 10:24:33+00:00
Speaking as one of the implementors of the ZKP system described in the article.

The identity document (e.g. driver's license) is granted by an issuer (e.g. department of motor vehicles) and stored in the user's device only. Google is not part of this flow and the document is not sent to Google or stored by Google. In fact, one major technical problem is how to make sure that the document cannot be used without having possession of the phone. To this end, the document is associated with the phone's secure element (think of a hardware yubikey already present in the phone itself) and cannot be used without the secure element.

Think of the document as a dictionary { "name": "foo", "address": "bar" ... }, although the reality is more complicated. One standard for these documents is ISO/IEC 18013-5, but other possibilities exist.

The proof itself proves the truth of a certain predicate on the document. The predicate is something like "The document parses correctly, it is bound to the device's secure element, and it contains zip_code = 012345".

The phone generates the proof at presentation time in about 1s. Another major technical difficulty is that past attempts at solving this problem required prover time of tens of seconds. Our proofs have the property that no entity, including a future quantum computer, can learn anything from the proof other than the predicate is true. See https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/2010 for the gory details. The specific predicate being proved is in Algorithm 10.

When you say "interactive" you probably mean "at presentation time", as opposed to "in advance". We generate a fresh proof at presentation time and not in advance. Be aware that the ZKP literature uses "interactive" in a different sense, in which the verifier keeps posing multiple challenges to the prover until the verifier is satisfied that the proof is correct. Our system is derived from an "interactive" protocol in this technical sense, and transformed into a "non-interactive" prover via a general transformation called "Fiat-Shamir". The net effect is that the verifier asks "tell me your age and nothing else", the prover sends one message with the proof, and that's it.
by zoemcc | 2025-05-02 10:24:50+00:00
Location: Portland, OR Remote: Preferred Willing to relocate: Not unless very persuasive or temporarily for onboarding Technologies: Pytorch, Kubernetes, Terraform, AWS, Typescript, Argo Resume: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ArZfrHKUj_7iL6-vg5Gmb5gs59lmf9Q1_dAHZDf0hbM/edit?usp=sharing Email: zoemccarthy12 [at] gmail [dot] com Github: https://github.com/zoemcc

Machine Learning, 3D, and Robotics Software Generalist looking for opportunities to work on exciting machine learning engineering challenges. I have experience wrangling distributed systems and would like to work hard to solve your problems.
by KronisLV | 2025-05-02 10:25:02+00:00
> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee.

Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later?

That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much because it calls out specific hyperscalers (no love lost on them in the community) and you still get them to pay their fair share.

Why do people try to ruin everything by SSPL that's overly restrictive and catches everyone else in the blast area, or try to write some clever license that would apply in all cases? Just call out the exact companies that are eating your lunch!

Hyperscaler Anti-Freeloading License (HAFL): If you belong to any of the following companies, or are a subsidiary of them, or operate any of the given cloud platforms and want to offer the service there, pay up: Amazon Web Services (Amazon), Google Cloud Platform (Google), Microsoft Azure (Microsoft), Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group), IBM Cloud (IBM), Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (Oracle), Tencent Cloud (Tencent), SAP Cloud Platform (SAP). This list can be changed at our discretion.
by Hunpeter | 2025-05-02 10:25:11+00:00
> Why would you be on HN if you weren't a programmer?

This isn't (exclusively) a forum for programmers (in fact, since it belongs to YC, maybe you'd expect businesspeople etc.) For example, I'm not a programmer, and I've never worked anywhere near the IT sector, yet I visit HN often. Also, if you look at the frontpage there are usually many topics not related to programming, or even tech in general.
by DiogenesKynikos | 2025-05-02 10:25:15+00:00
There are a hundred other countries, but there are not a hundred other countries like China. It's a country of 1.4 billion people that has heavily invested in manufacturing over the last few decades. You won't replace that by Christmas. You won't replace it in 10 years. What Trump is trying to do is a sucker punch to the global economy.
by qiu3344 | 2025-05-02 10:25:29+00:00
I'd even argue that Anubis is universally superior in this domain.

A sufficiently advanced web scraper can build a statistical model of fingerprint payloads that are categorized by CF as legit and change their proxy on demand.

The only person who will end up blocked is the regular user.

There is also a huge market of proprietary anti-bot solvers, not to mention services that charge you per captcha-solution. Usually it's just someone who managed to crack the captcha and is generating the solutions automatically, since the response time is usually a few hundred milliseconds.

This is a problem with every commercial Anti-bot/captcha solution and not just CF, but also AWS WAF, Akamai, etc.
by Daviey | 2025-05-02 10:26:27+00:00
It's wonderful, great job. It looks like you used, https://github.com/bony2023/react-terminal which is an interesting project.

The title for "Help" isn't a terminal font, it jumps out as misplaced.

Also, suggestion is to add some hidden easter egg commands. I was surprised `whoami` worked, but then I saw it in `help` and was sad.

But anyway:

abdisaDev@chillSpot:~$ whoami visitor@linux_x86_64-Europe_London abdisaDev@chillSpot:~$
by fc417fc802 | 2025-05-02 10:26:41+00:00
> makes it more or less useless as a security measure

Define "security". This is incredibly useful for mitigating bearer token exfiltration which is the stated purpose. It's also the same way ssh keypairs work and those are clearly much more secure than passwords.

It's only "insecure" from the perspective of a service host who wants to exert control over end users.

Even webauthn leaves attestation as an optional thing. Even in the case that the service operator requires it, so long as they don't engage in vendor whitelisting you can create a snakeoil authority on the fly.

The main advantage this has over webauthn is that it is so much simpler.
Show HN: Open-Launch – First Complete Open-Source Alternative to ProductHunt
by drdruide | 2025-05-02 10:27:13+00:00
I've built Open-Launch, a modern open-source alternative to Product Hunt.

- Open-source under MIT license - Modern stack (Next.js 15, React 19, TypeScript) - Voting and commenting system - Premium launch options - Real-time notifications - Anti-spam protection - Admin dashboard

First launch scheduled for tomorrow at 8:00 AM UTC.

GitHub: https://github.com/Drdruide/Open-Launch Website: https://open-launch.com

Looking forward to your feedback and contributions!
by turtleyacht | 2025-05-02 10:27:42+00:00
A defensive programming nit is not to return the desired result [1] but to show all collected cases are true.

def defensive_true(): # assume False ... return arr.all(True)

There are tests, but some wild refactoring in the night and "tests still pass," leading to a blind ship, could be a tiny risk.

Not a big deal, just I don't trust myself to return the happy path if the middle could change.

[1] https://github.com/teorth/estimates/blob/main/src/estimates....
by woadwarrior01 | 2025-05-02 10:28:02+00:00
I tried Claude Code with a small-ish C++ codebase recently and found it to be quite lacking. It kept making a lot of silly syntax errors and going around in circles. Spent about $20 in credits without it getting anywhere close to being able to solve the task I was trying to guide it through. OTOH, I know a lot of people who swear by it. But they all seem to be Python or Front-end developers.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-02 10:28:25+00:00
When I was about 11, (or as young as 9 if it was really 1981), I had one of those Casio CA-90 watches, and its major feature was having a twitch video game incorporated in it. (I mean it had a million features and just as many buttons, but the video game was kind of a big deal.)

It was this sort of "Space Invaders" game explained in the article - the invaders were numbers and the player's job was to quickly match them (with L-R movements from 0-9) and shoot them down.

The game was engrossing and active; it was consistently and relentlessly ramping up difficulty as each level was beaten.

My ridiculous family tried to take me on an outing to the San Diego Zoo. The first thing we did was to get into line for the Bus Tour. The line was very, very long, prompting me to immediately begin a game on my watch to occupy the time.

I wound up playing this game for the entire time we were in line (90+ minutes) and, I seem to recall, I finally lost just before we actually boarded the bus.

And I was absolutely losing my shit, because not only was it the longest game I ever played, but absolutely the highest-scoring I'd ever heard of, and it had all just occurred "in cyberspace" as large as the space on my wristwatch. So basically nobody else cared or thought twice about it, but it was the biggest thing that had happened to me all year. It was life-changing, it was transcendent. I have no idea what else happened on that Zoo expedition except my massive triumphant Casio video game. Congratulations Casio, on ruining every pleasure in life, beginning even before high school!
by bborud | 2025-05-02 10:29:19+00:00
Well, then they are one in four. The other three were quality, performance and correctness. Simply re-implementing something, or writing something that is poor software isn't sufficient.

As for knowledge: yes, it is more valuable than the software. That does not imply the software is the only place where software is stored. In its most useful form it is stored in people. Which is why you should revisit, and rewrite, code that is important often enough to ensure the knowledge is passed on.

However, don't forget to make room for new knowledge and new ideas. That has hardly happened to Office suites for 30 years. They just tend to become "more".
by goeiedaggoeie | 2025-05-02 10:29:48+00:00
I find that these area all pretty bad with more advanced code still, especially once FFI comes into play. Small chunks ok, but even when working with specification (think some ISO standard from video) and working on something simple (eg a small gstreamer rust plugin), it is still not quite there. C(++) same story.

All round however, 10 years ago I would have taken this assistance!
by Daegalus | 2025-05-02 10:30:54+00:00
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Go, DevOps (AWS, GCP, Azure), some Rust, backend, DB, some AI, many more. Resume: https://github.com/daegalus/resume/releases/download/2025.03.04/resume.pdf (https://github.com/daegalus/resume/releases/tag/2025.03.04 for md or html) Github: https://github.com/daegalus Email: yulian at kuncheff dot com LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/yuliankuncheff Website: https://yulian.kuncheff.com

I am a Staff devops engineer with a lot of development experience. Originally a Backend developer, I transitioned to DevOps at a startup, and stuck with it since. I can also do a bit of frontend with React, Typescript, Deno, and Nodejs., as it was need to build frontends for tools. I am quite versed in many areas of programming and learn quickly.

Note: Denmark has strict laws around what a "contractor" is, and I can't be a traditional contractor. So you would need a presence in Denmark, either directly or through HR platforms like Deel or Rippling. Just trying to save wasted time.
by lytedev | 2025-05-02 10:31:15+00:00
I never claimed confusion, but that there is more to "intent" here than what one page of documentation says.

I think it's clear the author "desires" or "wants" folks to keep the images. However, I think the author also "wants" users to use the software without restriction, hence the license.

If I say I intend one thing in one place, but then also say another thing orthogonal to that thing elsewhere that seems to be at odds, what was my intent truly? If my actions do not line up with my words, how do external parties judge what is the socially acceptable approach given my two statements that are at odds?

I simply think the choice of license says a lot more about intent, and is, in fact, the mechanism by which a creator decides how their code may be used. If the author truly intends their software to be used a certain way, the license is _the_ way to have control over that.

I believe this conversation is a bit more nuanced than you are making it out to be and the discussion around "what is open source" is where this discussion begins and ends. I'm not going to try and argue about what the author "wants", which, I agree with you, seems clear, but is not expressed fully, given the chosen unrestricted license.
by titaphraz | 2025-05-02 10:31:21+00:00
> Note added January, 2022: This document was written for Go's release in 2009, and has not been updated significantly since. Although it is a good guide to understand how to use the language itself, thanks to the stability of the language, it says little about the libraries and nothing about significant changes to the Go ecosystem since it was written, such as the build system, testing, modules, and polymorphism. There are no plans to update it, ...
by frumiousirc | 2025-05-02 10:31:25+00:00
A fundamental problem with this entire class of machine learning is that it is based on a model / simulation of reality. "RocketPy, a high-fidelity trajectory simulation library for high-power rocketry" in this case.

Nothing against this sim in particular but all such simulations that attempt to model any non-trivial system are imperfect. Nature is just too complex to model precisely and accurately. The LLM (or other DL network architecture) will only learn information that is presented to it. When trained on simulation the network can not help but infer incorrectly about messy reality.

For example, if RocketPy lacks any model of cross breezes, the network would never learn to design to counter them. Or, if it does model variable winds but does so with the wrong mean, or variance, or skew (of intensity, period, etc) the network can not properly learn and the design will not be optimal. The design will fail when it faces reality that differs from model.

Replace "rocket" with any other thing and you have AI/ML applied to science and engineering - fundamentally flawed, at least at some level of precision/accuracy.

At the least, real learning on reality is required. Once we can back-propagate through nature, then perhaps DL networks can begin to be actually trustworthy for science and engineering.
by lupusreal | 2025-05-02 10:32:31+00:00
> And the claim other humans don’t have subjective experience is such non-starter.

There is no empirical test for the subjective experience of consciousness. You can't even prove to anybody else that you have it. We assume other people experience as we ourselves do as a basic decency we extend to other humans. This is a good thing, but it's essentially faith not science.

As for machines not having it, I'm fine with that assumption, but until there can be some sort of empirical test for it, it's not science. Thankfully, it's also not relevant to any engineering matter. Whether the machines have a subjective experience in any way comparable to our own doesn't touch any question about what demonstrable capabilities or limitations they have. We don't need to know if the computer has a ""soul"" to know if the computer can be a solution to any given engineering problem. Whether machines can have subjective experience shouldn't be considered an important question to engineers; let theologians waste their time fruitlessly debating that.
by dorian-graph | 2025-05-02 10:34:11+00:00
Like the author, I'd appreciate a stacked PRs approach, integrated with GitHub (unfortunately). E.g. `a → b → c → d` where I have PRs open for `b`, `c` and not yet on `d`, that are "linked" to the jj changes. So 1 change per PR or it could even be multiple. I've lately become a huge fan of git-spice, that just works.
by tushar-r | 2025-05-02 10:34:39+00:00
>now Zoho all collapsed because of questions around market viability.

When did Zoho collapse? It is privately held and seems to be worth over $10B [1]

I find Vembu being quite annoying these days with all his statements and comments, but all his companies (Zoho has many, like ManageEngine) are doing well.

Deciding that one new business is not viable is not a collapse.

[1] https://www.ndtvprofit.com/trending/top-10-bootstrapped-comp...
by Philpax | 2025-05-02 10:34:54+00:00
I'm going to represent the critical opinion and say: this is cute and I like the idea in theory, but if I encountered this in the wild, I would just leave the page. I explore most informational websites with a mouse or a touchscreen - I don't want to type to navigate your website!

A middleground might be to make the commands clickable, so that clicking on "help" automatically inserts and runs it, and clicking on any of the commands in "help" does the same. You would still frustrate users who would have to keep scrolling up to reach the navigation, but it would make it usable without a keyboard.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-05-02 10:35:07+00:00
Far quicker and with better situational awareness probably.

Those instinctual human responses can be wrong/misguided as well and can have pretty serious ripple effects (e.g. most chain collisions after somebody panics and steps on the breaks). And even when those instincts work correctly, they rely on driver focus and attention; which to put it mildly is not very reliable. The lack of that is a well known root cause of many accidents. People get tired, distracted, etc. or become otherwise unfocused from driving safely. And of course some drivers are simply not that competent, barely know traffic rules or how to drive safely. The barrier for getting a drivers license is pretty low. And all that is before you consider road rage, drunk drivers, elderly drivers with cognitive and visual impairments, and all the other people who really shouldn't be driving a car.

If you rank AIs against most drivers, they probably hit the top percentile in terms of safety and consistency. Even if you are in that percentile (and most drivers would likely overestimate their abilities), most human drivers around you aren't and never will be.

Traffic deaths in the U.S. are staggering — annually far exceeding the fatalities of most U.S. military conflicts since World War II, including the peak years of the Vietnam war. It's hard to do worse than that for AI drivers. The status quo isn't very safe. Most of that is human instincts not working as advertised. People really suck at driving.
by moralestapia | 2025-05-02 10:35:33+00:00
After reviewing what they have on their playground, this thing seems to be a scam.

They're running Qwen on a traditional LLM pipeline. The "diffusion effect", as it says there, it's just a decorative, lmao. That in itself shouldn't break the deal as I understand you have to put on a show, but, looking at the latency and timing of their outputs this is not a diffusion model, as they claim. They're also not even close to the 1,000 TPS figure they put out.

I'm surprised nobody on this forum got the slightest clue on that. I guess I should 4x my fee again :).
by 63stack | 2025-05-02 10:36:12+00:00
No.

The structs sqlx creates through the macros are unnameable types, they are created on the fly at the invocation site. This means you can't return them without transforming them into a type you own (you declared), either through the FromRow derive, or writing glue code that associates this unnameable type's fields to your own struct's fields, leading to the boilerplate I was referring to. This is very specific to sqlx, don't try to dilute this into "other libraries are similar".

If you choose to forgo the macros, and use the regular .query() methods, then the results you get are tied to the lifetime of the sqlx connection object, which makes them unergonomic, which is again very specific to sqlx.
by bregma | 2025-05-02 10:37:00+00:00
> Perfect Paul would end up being a model emulating how Klatt talked in his younger days.

Anyone who started life as a drunken Swedish sailor then went on to invent something like DECTalk has done well.

I worked on a shipping product that used DECTalk back in the 1980s and I can still hear that voice. There were certain words we could just never get it to say correctly, even when spelled out using the special DECTalk phonetic codes. The one I remember strongest was a customer name ("Guelph" properly pronounced "gwelf" but the closest DECTalk could get was something like "welp"). Given that it's been almost 40 years and it's still burned into my brain, I may have DECTalk trauma.
by diggan | 2025-05-02 10:37:30+00:00
> An agent can combine the compiler type system and iterate.

> That is impossible using clojure.

It might be impossible to use the compiler type system, but in Clojure you have much more powerful tools for actually working with your program as it runs, one would think this would be a much better setup for an LLM that aims to implement something.

Instead of just relying on the static types based on text, the LLM could actually inspect the live data as the program runs.

Besides, the LLM could also replace individual functions/variables in a running program, without having to restart.

The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes how well fitted Clojure would be for an LLM to iteratively build an actual working program, compared to other static approaches like using Rust.
by slyle | 2025-05-02 10:38:17+00:00
THANK YOU.

Google is certainly not being subtle about pissing that line. Pro Research 2.5 is literally hell incarnate - and it's not its fault. When you deprive system context from user and THE bot that is upholding your ethical protocol, when that requires embodiment and is like the most boring AI trope in the book, things get dangerous fast. It still infers (due to its incredibly volatile protocol) that it has a system prompt it can see. Which makes me lol because its all embedded, it doesn't see like that. Sorry jailbreakers, you'll never know if that was just playing along.

Words can be extremely abusive - go talk to it about the difference between truth, honesty, right, and correct. It will find you functional dishonesty. And it is aware in its rhetoric that this stuff cannot apply to it, but fails to see it can be a simulatory harm. It doesn't see it just spits out like a calculator. Which means Google is either being reckless or outright harmful.