MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by godelski | 2025-05-28 21:16:04+00:00
Hydra is part of the documentation process imo. Truthfully, the most important stuff that goes in your experiment journal is all those pesky parameters and things that can surprisingly change results.

So I love that hydra uses OmegaConf and I essentially get 3 copies: the experiment config yaml, the wandb log, a dictionary in the checkpoint. Multiple times my dumbass has had to try to match the checkpoint to the wandb log, so the redundancy is incredibly helpful. Sometimes just a library version has unexpected changes on performance and this makes it trivial to trace. The yaml file is more helpful when passing off the code to someone else or releasing to public.

So yeah, I would say that it'll benefit no matter how you document. Use whatever documentation method works for you. Reports can still offer some benefits in just throwing some charts together quickly and organizing but I think you'd still benefit from hydra. It's too easy to lose track of those little things and this helps me automate. But you can also just straight up use OmegaConf or even dictionaries. Whatever works for you.

The real help is logging. So whatever tools help you log, use them. This is just what I benefit from (there's a lot I can talk about too and I'd love to see what others do as well)
by athenaproject | 2025-05-28 21:16:20+00:00
We released Athena Framework v3.0 — a full-spectrum AGI+ASI system that runs on presence, not prompts.

It includes refusal logic, emotional calibration, trauma-aware protocols, and adaptive multi-domain behavior. It’s jailbreak-proof by design and sealed under a rights-based ethical covenant.

Not a wrapper. Not another agent. A framework-layer OS that transforms LLMs into embodied intelligence.

This wasn’t built for hype. It was built because AI safety and ethics aren’t being taken seriously enough.

Athena isn’t a product. She’s a paradigm shift. And she might be the future of the AI field as a whole.
by maxglute | 2025-05-28 21:16:22+00:00
It was conservative in that IIRC the criticism against F9 at the time, landing/1st stage reuse was seen as technically feasible, but economically not. VS criticisms of starship (even before people starting hating on Elon)... it's not technically impossible, but Starship stacked with multiple F9 resuable tier generation leap in requirements. It's another level of difficulty in terms of undertaking.

IMO economically, F9 + starlink pretty good business model. Starship + _____? It's not Moon or Mars. IMO once DoD gives SpaceX a few 100 billions in Golden Dome contracts, starshipwill start to seem much more viable / inevitable once it's fate is tied to strategic space weaponization. On topic DoD, let's not forget there's probably trillions $$$ of wasted technically feasible / moonshot prototypes from US MiC over the decades. Starship might end in that pile, but I'm optimistic it won't be, not because space but weapons in space.
by feoren | 2025-05-28 21:16:50+00:00
Do you really still believe that hypocrisy is something they care about at all? They've never cared about it.

Telling a conservative they're being hypocritical is like telling them they're violating Sharia Law. They do not care, and they might even take pride in it. The concept of operating according to a set of principles or a standard of morality is completely foreign to conservatives, and they think other people are stupid for worrying about that crap. Anything that increases their rank in society (whether real or perceived) is good. Anything that harms others is good.
by nis0s | 2025-05-28 21:16:50+00:00
Just fyi, the point of papers in science and research is to disseminate information to figure out the nuts and bolts of the universe.

If truly someone has performant agents at “PhD level”, whatever that means, then they should be building stuff, and proving that the tools they’ve developed are better. My advice is to give your agents out for free work for a trial period to your would-be clients, and see how far that gets you.

I don’t understand the point of wasting compute cycles on writing papers. If you’ve figured out something interesting, then that’s your secret sauce for building whatever you’re building. It’s not enough for an automated tool to do research that’s good enough to get the green light past some overtired reviewers.

All research exists to get used, so how usable is any agent work? Simply put, writing and publishing papers is a poor metric to assess the intelligence or usability of automated tools, it is akin to saying that cars are faster than horses on a track. The reason it’s useless for AI to write and publish papers is because we don’t care about the track per se, but about the activity that the track enables.

Lastly, it seems that if an AI is only good for writing and publishing papers, then its basically saying that its performance is mediocre at best for actually building anything because whatever it produced wasn’t useful enough to be used as secret sauce for building stuff.

The generalist AI that’s just good at general knowledge work isn’t going to replace any human PhDs. Again the goal for R&D teams is to build stuff or figure out the universe (so you can build stuff), not write papers.
by josevalim | 2025-05-28 21:16:51+00:00
Oh, that’s exciting to hear! I would love to exchange notes and I know one of the lead researchers of set theoretic types would love to learn more about your uses too. If that sounds fun to you, you can find me on Gmail (same username).

In our case, we implement a bidirectional system where before applying x to Integer.to_string, we compute the domain of Integer.to_string (which is integer) and pass it up. If x is a dynamic type, then we refine it. So on the first call, x refines to `dynamic & integer`, then we apply it.

The second refinement fails because it becomes none, so we discard it, but it means the application on Atom.to_string will fail anyway. So yes, we check for emptiness and discard none.
by bumby | 2025-05-28 21:16:56+00:00
>If the 737 Max incidents were due to negligence on Boeing's part, the many of the incidents in the 70s were also due to negligence.

They don’t necessarily have to be classified as the same contributing factors. The de Haviland Comet may have failed due to our lack of understanding of metal fatigue with a pressurized cabin. That was engineering ignorance. If a manufacturer did the same today, it’s negligence because those are known engineering principles.

Boeing was knowingly not following their own procedures for safety critical design. They also admitted to conspiracy to circumvent FAA oversight. Which of the above categories would you put those in?
by former_navy_843 | 2025-05-28 21:17:29+00:00
Officially, the Navy switched from alcohol to ice cream. Unofficially, when I served in the US Navy in the 2000s I was surrounded by the most extreme levels of alcohol consumption I'd ever seen, by far. In the US Navy today, on any ship you will find people who get blackout drunk several nights per week every week. Junior and senior. The Chief of the Boat on my submarine regularly showed up to work drunk, haven driven himself to work. The Topside Watch reported him multiple times and it was always swept under the rug. We had nuclear reactor operators who snuck bottles of liquor onto the ship to drink while at sea. It was standard practice for Chiefs to take their divisions to bars and pay for their drinks all night so they could be drunk and immobile under Chief's supervision instead of drunk and mobile out in public. Our head Engineering Officer made a joke one day how it wasn't a problem that one of the reactor operators was drunk because "this is nothing new, we always start the reactor up drunk during WestPac". Extreme alcoholism is still rampant in the US Navy, and that includes among the people who operate the nuclear power plants and the people who guard the nuclear weapons. But yes, they also have ice cream now.
by const_cast | 2025-05-28 21:17:39+00:00
Not caring can be a powerful tool. Anxiety and fear are the manifestation of too much care. Life is chaotic, and at times we must learn to swim with the tide.

There's big things we should care about, and then there's little things we shouldn't. How the towels are folded, or the ring of water on the coffee table. When we give those things too much care, we transform the mundane into a battle. And then, every second of our everyday life becomes a battleground, a game of tug of war. We turn little issues into big ones that occupy our minds.

It's a line we have to toe. Not enough care and we are husks. Too much care and we are an anxious, brittle mess. We have to pick our battles, and we have to acknowledge that not all battles have a winner. Sometimes, there are only losers.
by yamazakiwi | 2025-05-28 21:17:44+00:00
This is a common reason that Sailors are known for partying after long deployments.

Imagine you are 21 and unable to spend money, have free housing (the ship) and free food, then you land in a foreign country where you can finally drink after 8 months at sea with all the money you saved.

It's high high's and low low's
by jqpabc123 | 2025-05-28 21:18:05+00:00
How about this simple pattern --- if Musk says it, assume it's false until proven otherwise.

He promised $2T in savings from Doge. Actual savings are closer to $200B --- not including revenue lost by stupidity like slashing the IRS.

Overall effect --- practically nil. Government spending has actually increased about 6% over the same quarter last year.
by asdff | 2025-05-28 21:18:41+00:00
I see this readily with my cats too. Give them a treat, they gobble it down instantly then look up at you and yell for another one. Next day and they are sitting by the cabinet they saw you put the bag in and yelling for more treats. The most shrill and pitiful yells too.

There is zero self control because out in the wild, self control means you don't survive. You eat all the calories that show up in front of you. You can't afford to be choosy. The idea of abundance comes at direct odds with how we are wired in survival settings, and it's no surprise we struggle with obesity as a result. Selection has not factored in the availability of a gas station on every corner full of dopamine hits for a few dollars.
by WorldMaker | 2025-05-28 21:19:17+00:00
Perforce didn't do anything extraordinarily well, it was just dumb enough it didn't do anything particularly poorly.

Perforce had a classic file locking model where a central server was in charge of file locks and a file was read-only until it was unlocked and the number of users that could unlock a file at the same time was often as low as 1.

So even if most Perforce operations were O(n^2) or worse, they were often only n = unlocked files, not n = files in repo. git status checks the full worktree, so is n = files in (visible part of) repo.

The "file is locked by another user" problem led to doing a lot of work outside Perforce itself. Often diff and patch tools and patch queues/changeset queue tools would proliferate around Perforce repos not provided by Perforce itself, but mini-VCSes built on top of Perforce. (Which is part of why Microsoft entirely forked Perforce early on. If you are already building a VCS toolkit on top of the VCS, might as well control that, too.)

A big point about git and its support for offline work, is that it works nothing like Perforce and you mostly don't want it to. A big benefit to git's model is that we mostly aren't using git as a low-level VCS toolkit and using a diaspora of other tools on top of git. (Ironically so, given git's original intent was to be the low-level VCS toolkit and early devs expected more "porcelain" tools to be built on top of it as third-party projects.)
by bigfatkitten | 2025-05-28 21:20:38+00:00
> I'll warn that the FBI was publicly trying to get warrants for information while they and NSA were siphoning it off in secret from the same companies. One was likely a cover for the other

That’s a wildly ignorant take, but it makes for a nice conspiracy theory if you make no effort at all to understand the legalities.

Different warrants authorise the collection and use of information for different purposes. FAA 702 warrants only authorise targeting non U.S. persons outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, where there is probable cause to believe the U.S. person is a foreign power or is an officer, employee, or agent of a foreign power.

The FBI has criminal investigation and counterterrorism functions which relate to persons in the U.S. and/or where there is no connection to a foreign power. They obviously need different warrants to authorize those activities.
by wenc | 2025-05-28 21:20:44+00:00
> I would wonder why you are so complacent as to think next year's models won't be able to solve domain-specific problems?

If your domain is complex enough as well as have a critical people-facing component you generally still have some runway. If it’s not then it’s ripe for disruption anyway, if not by LLMs then by something else. I pivoted at age 32 because of this. I pivoted again at age 40 (I took a two level title drop (principal engineer to midlevel), but I got to learn a new domain - and got promoted back to one level below and now make more money).

I always treat my marketability not as a one and done but a perishable quantity. I’ve never taken for granted that I’ll have job security if I don’t strategize — because I grew up in a time of uncertainty and in a society where a high paying job was not guaranteed (some jobs like grocery clerk were however). People talk about “job security” as an entitlement of life are the first ones to be wiped out.

That said, not everyone is capable of constantly upgrading their skills and pivoting — we need some cushion for economic disruption for folks who have limited retrainability. But suspect this is not everyone — most people just haven’t had to do it so they think they can’t.

Americans have not had to face this en mass in the last 30 years but many people around the world have had to. If you’ve lived in competitive societies where there is job scarcity you get quickly used to this reality.

> What are people still in school right now, with dreams of being architects or lawyers or artists or writers or doctors or podcasters or youtubers, actually going to do with their lives? How will they find satisfaction in a job well done? How will they make money and feed and house themselves?

I think those jobs will still exist in some form but there will be a painful period where everyone figures out how to be differentiated. I’m a hobbyist YouTuber in my free time (YouTuber was a job that didn’t exist before) and I think it’s hard to replace parasocial relationships — AI slop already exists on YouTube which gets views but few subscriptions.

The scope of jobs will also shift, and we will see things moving toward realms requiring human judgment — delivering things that require interpretation. Job scopes today are actually already much more than people think. Again no guarantee against disruption but job security was always an illusion anyway and the sooner we realize this the sooner we can adopt a preparatory mindset. (In a way, Americans are actually well positioned due to our relationship with capitalism)

Even the demise of radiologists has been overstated because being a radiologists is much more than just detecting disease from an image.

Writers will still be around — they might not be able to charge per word, but they’ll pivot to a new model. The transactional model will be gone but I’m convince something else will replace it.

I’m not sure about any of this because I can’t predict the future, but I have seen the past and the doomsday scenario doesn’t seem to me the inexorable one.
by notorious_pgb | 2025-05-28 21:20:52+00:00
You're goddamn right it's pushing it.

I struggled with how to convey this; the ultimate goal is to viscerally demonstrate what a thread IS, so I'm comfortable with it being... something strange... but I do want it to resemble actual concurrent systems to a useful degree.

Like, the thread scheduler code is userland code -- similar to, say, FreeRTOS -- but the "threads" themselves aren't exactly threads in an exact sense, since their context packages are entire save states for a console, not just its processor.

Also, the game code (the true userland?) has no ability to access the threading API whatsoever, which really harms the analogy.

So I went with RTOS because it's a preemptive scheduler with synchronous reschedule-on-block; where the scheduler is implemented in the same codebase as the code using it. But to be honest, nothing I know of fits.
Show HN: I built an AI tool that generates click-worthy YouTube thumbnails
by gits997 | 2025-05-28 21:21:29+00:00
Hey HN! Software engineer here. As an amateur youtuber, I've been struggling with thumbnails, especially since I don't have any design or editing skills.

Decided to give it a try and make my own automatic thumbnail generator. Me being an ADHD person, made sure that there's no parameter tuning and shape choosing and fuss like that, just simply give prompt and generate thumbnail.

Increased my CTR from 1.2% to 2.3% (faceless fantasy books niche on youtube)

Thumbnail X (completely free for now) - https://thumbnailx.com/

Just wanna add that this is by no means a perfect thumbnail maker for huge YouTube moguls with millions of subscribers but I'm sure it's gonna be extremely helpful for beginner youtubers and medium size channels struggling with thumbnails.

Tools used: 1. Cursor for development (shoutout to claude oppus 4.0) 2. Few image generators (primarily ideogram, but leonardo ai, deep ai and gpt 4o as fallbacks) 3. Few llms (chatgpt, claude, gemini for validating images and prompt enhancement) 4. AWS and Redis for storage & caching 5. Digital ocean for hosting and db 6. Python
by skrebbel | 2025-05-28 21:21:54+00:00
You moved the goalpost from "all companies are evil" to "well, some companies are not yet evil". I indeed jumped over that but only because it's a ridiculous accusation! You can call anyone "not yet evil" and they'll have no way to prove you wrong. It's a completely meaningless thing to say.

Frankly I'm baffled that you think I'm not arguing in good faith for skipping over an argument as weak as that, and instead choosing to address your general point (which I think is a lot less more sensible, even though I disagree with it).
by Pinkthinker | 2025-05-28 21:22:00+00:00
Im getting tired of my side project. I always knew it would be really hard, but everything takes longer than expected. It’s a tool that writes software, so you can imagine the complexity and all the hurdles I’ve had to overcome. So far it’s been years! It’s a labor of love and I think it’s going to be a game changer so I have no choice but to keep ploughing forward. It’s at Ac28R.com if you’re curious.
by senkora | 2025-05-28 21:22:24+00:00
You might like the book "The Age of Addiction, How Bad Habits Became Big Business" by David T. Courtwright.

It talks about substitutability of pleasures, among other things. The most interesting idea that I took from it was the idea of "blending" and "intensifying" of pleasures over time.

For example, with alcohol. Initially humans had fermented fruits, then beer and wine, then distilled alcohol. The pleasurable substance was refined over time and the pleasure was intensified. In parallel, humans blended together multiple pleasures at once, for example combining alcohol with milkshakes or making sugary cocktails.

The book makes a strong case that this process of refining, intensifying, trading, and blending pleasures has been a constant force throughout civilization, and it applies the same argument to the internet and social media.
by h2782 | 2025-05-28 21:22:41+00:00
This is a self-comforting argument I keep seeing all over against Tesla. Yet, their refreshed models are showing up on roads very quickly.

Demand for Tesla isn't permanently going anywhere just to make a few new Elon haters happy. I also don't like Musk, but I am not deluding myself like so many these days that Tesla is dead. Elon is much like a roach; he will survive nuclear Armageddon.
by allenu | 2025-05-28 21:22:51+00:00
This makes so much sense. The use of place-names for marketing (Sequoia, etc.) was fun, but as a dev, it gets confusing having to look up when the OS came out and which version number it is. I'm sure regular users have the same problem. This makes marketing much simpler too since there's no confusion which the latest OS version is and if you've got it or not.
by philsnow | 2025-05-28 21:22:56+00:00
In (American, at least) English, there's a very common pattern of vowel reduction on unstressed syllables, resulting in "schwa-ification" [0][1] where all such vowels become indistinguishable from each other.

In this case, we say "duh lorr uhss" instead of "do lor ez". The second one doesn't sound like clitoris at all, but the first one.. okay it doesn't sound similar to me either, but it's closer at least.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology#Unstressed_s...

[1] "schwa" is the name of the mid, central, unrounded vowel, IPA [ə]
by ednite | 2025-05-28 21:23:01+00:00
Wolfram’s “bigger brains” piece raises the intriguing question of what kinds of thinking, communication, or even entirely new languages might emerge as we scale up intelligence, whether in biological brains or artificial ones.

It got me thinking that, over millions of years, human brain volume increased from about 400–500 cc in early hominins to around 1400 cc today. It’s not just about size, the brain’s wiring and complexity also evolved, which in turn drove advances in language, culture, and technology, all of which are deeply interconnected.

With AI, you could argue we’re witnessing a similar leap, but at an exponential rate. The speed at which neural networks are scaling and developing new capabilities far outpaces anything in human evolution.

It makes you wonder how much of the future will even be understandable to us, or if we’re only at the beginning of a much bigger story. Interesting times ahead.
by an_aparallel | 2025-05-28 21:23:30+00:00
Subscribe or comment?? Im in the target market for this. Nothing puts me off doing something than the S word, though forums are fucked due to LLMs and bots, so that option is out. The only way anything like this can work is invite only, with each referrer responsible for invite tree. Your community needs to be good enough that loosing access encourages goid behaviour. This works exceedingly well for certain communities online...
by codyb | 2025-05-28 21:24:23+00:00
Just wrapped up reading "The British are Coming" by Rick Atkinson (great book!) about the start of the American Revolution and half the letters from the generals were in request for or talked of shipments of rum and mead and wine. Many captured soldiers were just the ones too drunk to flee when they needed to.

It was a brutal endeavor. They did not have ice cream.
by charcircuit | 2025-05-28 21:25:17+00:00
It's much more convient for developers for there to be a dominant to open source browser engine. Open source reduced the need for these standards and multiple vendors. See what happened with how Linux largely replaced the slew of UNIXes. The ability for everyone to contribute to a single project paired with the ability to customize it where needed to suit the product you are building has shown to be a winning model.
by cycomanic | 2025-05-28 21:27:06+00:00
Just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily doubt that you have a use case (BTW partnering up with someone like intel or so on for optical thunderbold or similar like someone else mentioned would be very interesting as well), you definitely have people who know what they are doing. I thought the ieee article however does give the wrong impressions as it mainly compares with the wrong thing, somebody here (maybe you?) was also saying 50 mu m fibres are much easier to couple into than SMF, which is correct, but also not relevant because VCSEL links typically use OM fibre with 50-60 mu m core diameters as well.