MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by UncleMeat | 2025-05-10 22:22:05+00:00
For years?

I have seen this in a very small number of places and never with the idea that actual merit is racist but instead that systems that promote a shallow understanding of individual meritocracy can perpetuate inequality.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that the alternative to "meritocracy" in the corporate world is not a sort of affirmative anti-racism but is instead the old-boys club system. Moving from that system to one focused on individual merit will produce greater representation for underrepresented groups.

O'Keefe is a remarkable person to cite here, given his history.

There are cases of corporations violating Title 7. Duh. They violate it by discriminating against black people or women too. But if you want to claim that when people working at corporations hear about goals to increase representation that they just decide to violate Title 7 at scale, you've got some splaining to do.
by jdietrich | 2025-05-10 22:22:23+00:00
>none of the companies are tuning their model to be better at therapy

BrickLabs have developed an expert-fine-tuned model specifically to provide psychotherapy. Their model has shown modestly positive results in a reasonably large preregistered RCT.

https://trytherabot.com/

https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIoa2400802
by noworriesnate | 2025-05-10 22:22:39+00:00
"Technicalities?" 70% does not round to 0%. That's not a "technicality," that is a blatant misrepresentation.

If a boy was watching the sheep, saw a wolf, and cried "Dragon! Dragon!" and then the king and his army came to fight the dragon, and when he was criticized for lying, he said, "You're talking in technicalities, there was indeed a wolf," that is what this feels like to me. But then if he refused to ever call the wolf a wolf, and this happened over and over again, and he always called it a dragon--well, a lot of people would just ignore him.

Like, why not just say "Yeah, it's not true. Not sure what this guy's agenda is, but easily-disproved exaggeration doesn't help make the case. There IS a problem though, and let's try to have that conversation while ignoring obvious alarmism." You would sound reasonable and mature, and possibly even convincing.
by aurizon | 2025-05-10 22:22:40+00:00
Reminds me of when a fellow student asked me why I did so well on tests? I said I take AI Smart pills. His eyes bulged and I said, sure, they are $10 each - how many do you want? He said 10 and gave me $100. I said OK. BTW - I have a pet rabbit, so I went home and got 10 - and gave them to him = he gulped them down - gagging a little. Hm, tasted like rabbit shit - I said, see, smarter already...

That said, when I was in College we had test tables about 8 feet apart set up in the numerous gyms, they started the exams at the set time. They had about a dozen invigilators walking about looking for crib sheets, whispers etc = I think these will make a comeback. We also need to make Faraday shields on the walls/windows/roofs/doors. They have a clear RF shield for windows with a very thin tin layer allowing about 85% light and zero RF. These can be set up as panels, laid down and taken up. This would block iphones/Android from accessing remote resources. These bright AI enabled fools would be 'cut off at the knees' when their AI ubermenchen failed the task = smarter already....
by Jtsummers | 2025-05-10 22:22:42+00:00
The submission title comes from one sentence near the end, here's the paragraph containing it:

> Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.

The encyclical he references, Rerum Novarum, can be found here [0] and is much more interesting since it's more than just a single sentence.

[0] https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docum...
by jawns | 2025-05-10 22:22:48+00:00
The relevant quote:

> In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.

I don't think he's suggesting that AI is inherently bad, but that (like any tool) it can be abused by those with wealth and power in a way that violates human dignity.

In fact, one of the problems the previous Pope Leo warned about in "Rerum Novarum" was not just the intentional abuse of power through technological advances but the unintentional negative consequences of treating industry as a good in itself, rather than a domain that is in service to human interests.

For those who are interested in how this social teaching informed economic systems, check out the concept of distributism, popularized by Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton.
by holuponemoment | 2025-05-10 22:23:05+00:00
Zoho certainly isn't American but you choose your datacentre region on signup, including US locations.

Think it's a nice option to be able to get EU data protections without actually being a resident.

That said I don't get the objection? There's a high likelihood that the person sending you email is using a US service anyway, Apple, Gmail and Outlook have 90% marketshare between them.
by lifthrasiir | 2025-05-10 22:23:08+00:00
Yeah, also it doesn't compare actual implementations, just plain checkboxes. I'm aware of two specific substantial performance regressions for musl: exact floating point printing (it uses Dragon4 but implemented it way slower than it could have been) and memory allocator (for a long time it didn't any sort of arena like pretty much every modern allocator---now it does with mallocng though).
by jcranmer | 2025-05-10 22:23:14+00:00
The way glibc's source works (for something like math functions) is that essentially every function is implemented in its own file, and various config knobs can provide extra directories to compile and provide function definitions. This can make actually finding the implementation that's going to be used difficult, since a naive search for the function name can turn up like 20 different function definitions, and working out which one is actually in play can be difficult (especially since it's more than just the architecture name).

Math functions aren't going to be strongly impacted by diverse hardware support. In practice, you largely care about 32-bit and 64-bit IEEE 754 types, which means your macros to decompose floating-point types to their constituent sign/exponent/significand fields are already going to be pretty portable even across different endianness (just bitcast to a uint32_t/uint64_t, and all of the shift logic will remain the same). And there's not much reason to vary the implementation except to take advantage of hardware instructions that implement the math functions directly... which are generally better handled by the compiler anyways.
by juancn | 2025-05-10 22:24:11+00:00
The disk drive uses a serial protocol and it actually has 8k of RAM and a 6502 CPU.

There's no drive controller in the C64, you send serial commands to the drive and it answers.

Due to a hardware bug on the CIA on the 64, the protocol is much slower than it should, which was corrected in later computers, but they messed up with the graphics and a bunch of stuff.
by lamename | 2025-05-10 22:24:27+00:00
Nice writeup. F1, balanced accuracy, etc. In truth it depends on your problem and what a practical "best" solution is, especially in imbalanced scenarios, but Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) is probably the best comprehensive and balanced blind go-to metric, because it guarantees that more portions of the confusion matrix are good [0,1].

I made a quick interactive, graphical exploration to demonstrate this in python [2].

[0]: https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...

[1]: https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...

[2]: https://www.glidergrid.xyz/post-archive/understanding-the-ro...
by buildfocus | 2025-05-10 22:25:09+00:00
> On every Kagi comment, there is “Have you used Kagi recently? It’s improved a lot!” — to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image

Odd to dismiss a point purely because it's consistently made, especially without much apparent disagreement. Perhaps more likely: there are just _many_ happy Kagi customers in the HN community.

As one data point: I use Kagi, and agree with GP, and I am not a bot (activity of this HN account predates existence of Kagi by many years).

That doesn't dismiss your experience of course, lots of people use search engines in different ways! Personally, I found the ads & other crap of Google drowned out results, and I frequently hit SEO spam etc where site reranking was helpful. I'm sure there's scenarios where that doesn't make sense though, it's not for everybody (not everybody can justify paying for search, just for starters).
by lolinder | 2025-05-10 22:26:22+00:00
> the documentation is poorly written (all LLM vendors seem to have an internal competition in writing confusing documentation).

This is almost certainly because they're all using LLMs to write the documentation, which is still a very bad idea. The MCP spec [0] has LLM fingerprints all over it.

In fact, misusing LLMs to build a spec is much worse than misusing them to avoid writing good docs because when it comes to specifications and RFCs the process of writing the spec is half the point. You're not just trying to get a reasonable output document at the end (which they didn't get anyway—just try reading it!), you're trying to figure out all the ways your current thinking is flawed, inadequate, and incomplete. You're reading it critically and identifying edge cases and massaging the spec until it answers every question that the humans designing the spec and the community surrounding it have.

Which means in the end the biggest tell that the MCP spec is the product of LLMs isn't that it's somewhat incoherent or that it's composed entirely of bullet lists or that it has that uniquely bland style: it's that it shows every sign of having had very little human thought put into it relative to what we'd expect from a major specification.

[0] https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-03-26
by WalterGR | 2025-05-10 22:26:35+00:00
“You’re going to have to maintain that code.” (Or maybe: “You show great promise as a dev, but one day, someone less skilled than you is going to have to maintain it.”)

“Are there any security vulnerabilities?”

Edit: But in general, this sort of thing happens during any transition. I suspect that engineers double-checked what CAD output when CAD was new, and the kids-those-days just trusted it, can you imagine?
by rs186 | 2025-05-10 22:28:28+00:00
Let them die. The world will be a better place.

Some of the services you mentioned are already very irrelevant:

* Fitbit -- no explanation necessary

* Google translate -- I don't know about if people use their APIs, but for me personally, I have not used translate for a few years. ChatGPT has been my go-to.

* Google Pay -- it has a smaller market share than Samsung Pay.

Then next tiers of services -- they are doing ok but there are plenty of competitors in the field:

* Gmail, Drive, Docs, Groups, Forms, Cloud, Flights, Fi

I even use some of them, but I really don't care if they go away.

Life gets a bit more difficult if Maps, Chrome and Android are gone all of a sudden. Maybe we'll be back to using Garmin. Heck, I love the idea that everybody uses Nokia, Bing or Garmin for navigation, and we actually have a decent website -- like the Yelp or Zagar in the old days -- for restaurant reviews. I still see "#1 Rated Zagat" stickers from near two decades ago at many restaurants.

Anyway, personally, for the vast majority of the things listed here, I don't see them going away being a bad thing that would even affect as many people as you think.
by kureikain | 2025-05-10 22:29:11+00:00
Thank you. I build this.

Originally every time I had a domain and start a project, I have to setup email. Other services always lack something that I want. So I ended up building my own and has been growing it since 2021.

We also had a RayCast extension developer by Xmok https://www.raycast.com/xmok/mailwip

We had some very advanced routing rule based on regex, and wildcard domain, work in progress to support sieve filter. Had web-hook and API so you can do some cool thing with emails.
by saurik | 2025-05-10 22:29:14+00:00
I'm confused by the "old timer" comment, as SSE not only predates WebSockets, but the techniques surrounding its usage go really far back (I was doing SSE-like things--using script blocks to get incrementally-parsed data--back around 1999). If anything, I could see the opposite issue, where someone could argue that the spec was written by someone who just doesn't want to learn how WebSockets works, and is stuck in a world where SSE is the only viable means to implement this? And like, in addition to the complaints from this author, I'll note the session resume feature clearly doesn't work in all cases (as you can't get the session resume token until after you successfully get responses).

That all said, the real underlying mistake here isn't the choice of SSE... it is trying to use JSON-RPC -- a protocol which very explicitly and very proudly is supposed to be stateless -- and to then use it in a way that is stateful in a ton of ways that aren't ignorable, which in turn causes all of this other insanity. If they had correctly factored out the state and not incorrectly attempted to pretend JSON-RPC was capable of state (which might have been more obvious if they used an off-the-shelf JSON-RPC library in their initial implementation, which clearly isn't ever going to be possible with what they threw together), they wouldn't have caused any of this mess, and the question about the transport wouldn't even be an issue.
by tom_m | 2025-05-10 22:29:46+00:00
Copilot indexes too. Cursor doesn't let you adjust temperature. Claude gives random results. Ask the same thing a few times and see. That's why I like Roo Code, it gives you more options.

But here's the thing. You CAN make these tools do cool things, but you're going to be fiddling around a lot to do so.

...so are they really that productive? That depends. A newer engineer or if it's a new language or framework or library to a seasoned engineer? Absolutely. It shortens the whole RTFM loop. But in some cases screwing around with these tools is slowing people down.

Use them responsibly and for educational purposes. They're handy. They can help with productivity or hurt.
by rsynnott | 2025-05-10 22:30:23+00:00
I mean, 'hallucination' as applied to LLMs has _never_ referred to actual hallucinations. For better or for worse, it has become a blanket term for whatever old nonsense the stochastic parrot vomits forth.

(Personally I never liked the term; it's inappropriate anthropomorphism and will tend to mislead people about what's actually going on. 'Slop' is arguably a better term, but it is broader, in that it can refer to LLM output which is merely _bad_.)
by habinero | 2025-05-10 22:30:57+00:00
I think it's pretty self-apparent? He's saying it occasionally happens but it's rare and the fact that it's happening now is a concerning data point.

It's like climate change: sure, historically you naturally get years with lots of hurricanes or really strong ones.

But if you get, on average, more and more hurricanes and the hurricanes themselves are stronger? That's a trend.
by jasonlotito | 2025-05-10 22:31:11+00:00
> The fact that with a simple mobile having a camera you can copy whatever is being presented (or with slightly more technical ways) is irrelevant for laws and procedures ;-)

That you think the only attack vector here is a 3rd party device means you haven't really considered everything. Consider screenshots that might happen for many reasons, including malicious software, or even normal software someone might be using, and accidental exposure.
by kureikain | 2025-05-10 22:31:46+00:00
Most of the time these service works. But when it doesn't work you just don't know how to debug it.

Mailwip.com has a mail log with the detail so you can debug delivery issue. Also, manage email with namecheap ui dns is something I just don't want to deal with.

I want some nice UI, that also enable a few member of family to self-manage the domain and forward rule.

Sometime I also want to have webhook to parse receipt email from the bank. So I ended up building all of this.

If gmail and namecheap works for you, no need to look further.
by hosh | 2025-05-10 22:31:47+00:00
Let's be clear. This post describes an architecture that is offline-first, not local-first.

One of the main goals of local-first is so that the user of a local-first application owns their own data. (See Martin Kleppmann's paper on this).

As such, local-first applications don't necessarily have a concept of a central server. `git` is local-first, though most teams synchronize to a hub such as Github or Gitlab. This is a design principle to get away from having to sync to the cloud, making it more difficult to monetize as a SAAS. There seems to be a growing trend of people promoting offline-first applications as local-first, but structuring it to still lock people's data into their SAAS. (If you want to lock them in, then say so -- call it offline-first).

A true local-first mobile app would allow me to collaborate with someone in the same room using Bluetooth, even out somewhere where I don't have wifi, cell service or Starlink

See:

- https://martin.kleppmann.com/papers/local-first.pdf

- https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/ (Same, but in html)
by moritzwarhier | 2025-05-10 22:31:50+00:00
This is the same with "schlecht" in German, but the common translation of the title is still "Die Blumen des Bösen"

So "schlecht" also means both things.

I think it's probably common for languages to have a word that covers both.

But it seems the "evil" connotation is common or maybe even canonical in translations.

So Baudelaire certainly knew the meanings of the words he was using, enjoying the ambiguity. Maybe it's even intended for the translation to remain ambiguous? Just speculation here though.
by rsynnott | 2025-05-10 22:32:08+00:00
> Our brain does it better. That tells you AI models could do it better.

... I mean, this is likely strictly true, if you define 'AI model' to mean 'any conceivable AI model'. If you're talking about LLMs, though, it's not a reasonable conclusion; LLMs do not work at all like a human brain. LLM 'hallucinations' are nothing like human hallucinations, and the term is really very unhelpful.
by Xcelerate | 2025-05-10 22:32:30+00:00
I have two lines of thought on this:

1) Chatbots are never going to be perceived as safe or effective as humans by default, primarily due to human fiat. Professionals like counselors (and lawyers, doctors, software engineers, etc.) will always claim that an LLM cannot do their job, namely because acknowledging such threatens their livelihood. Determining whether LLMs genuinely provide therapeutic value to humans would require rigorous, carefully controlled experiments conducted over many years.

2) Chatbots definitely cannot replace human therapists in their current state. That much seems quite obvious to me for various reasons already argued well by others on here. But I had to highlight point #1 as devil's advocate, because adopting the mindset that "humans are inherently better by default" due to some magical or scientifically unjustifiable reason will prevent forward progress. The goal is to eliminate the (quite reasonable) fear people have of eventually losing their job to AI by enacting societal change now rather than denying into perpetuity that chatbots are necessarily inferior, at which point everyone will in fact lose their jobs because we had no plan in place.
by elcritch | 2025-05-10 22:32:44+00:00
He really was involved. As I understand it Obj-C was championed by him. NextSTEP was largely software related:

https://youtu.be/Hu-jvAWTZ9o?si=PalSP6POofiRuj3a

I still feel like GUI programming hasn’t progressed in the years since this. Actually they’ve regressed in many ways.
by MyPasswordSucks | 2025-05-10 22:32:45+00:00
> We aim to assist and grant access to people within the games industry, researchers, schools, and other institutions. While the archive is not open to the public, we hope our website and social media channels will offer insight into the work being done by our team. [1]

Then maybe people within the games industry, researchers, schools, and other institutions can provide those needed contributions. Very poor form to be coming to the public, hat in hand, asking them to help finance your private vidya collection.

1: https://embracergamesarchive.com/#faq
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-10 22:32:52+00:00
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do.

It's not “just what people do” in some kind of simple, automatic, no-conscious-action-required sense, it’s a difficult process that often requires violent conflict between those empowered by the new development and those they exploit (that was certainly the case after the Industrial Revolution), a major part of which is people looking for and publicly calling out the problems.
by jchw | 2025-05-10 22:33:08+00:00
This is of course, incredibly stupid, due to the analog hole (which to be fair, is mentioned in passing by the article, but doesn't seem to be addressed at all by MS*.) Having this feature just guarantees it will get used, and possibly made into a standard compliance theater feature, hurting legitimate users for very little practical gain.

The only real practical gain is that it might prevent malware from being able to capture visible data, but what's funny about that is one of the desktop systems that can prevent unwanted screen capture by design (Wayland) also intentionally doesn't have any support for DRM/HDCP features, so it will likely be stuck on audio-only mode. High five, Microsoft!

* I wanted to go to the source directly to check if maybe they just left it out, but the link that they currently have seems to be non-sense. It seems to point to something about "Co-pilot" audio transcription. In Romanian, for whatever reason.

https://www.microsoft.com/ro-ro/microsoft-365/roadmap?id=490...
by unyttigfjelltol | 2025-05-10 22:33:26+00:00
I still remember my first Internet search-- Phineas Gage-- and bewilderment at where this information came from. The recursive beauty is the story itself has been transformed by the Internet, and has been filled in very differently than was reported back in the mid 90s.[1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
by k310 | 2025-05-10 22:33:27+00:00
You can hear "Beneath the southern cross" at the archive, part of Victory at Sea. Track #7.

https://archive.org/details/VictoryAtSeaVolumeI/07_Beneath+t...

BONUS: No Other Love - Richard Rodgers (same tune)

https://www.irealb.com/forums/showthread.php?20230-No-Other-...

> The tune for No Other Love was originally part of Richard Rodgers' score for the acclaimed 1952 TV war documentary series Victory at Sea. In the orchestral suite compiled from the score the piece was titled Beneath the Southern Cross.

> In 1953, Rodgers "borrowed" his own tune and included it in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Me and Juliet as No Other Love, with lyrics by Hammerstein.

> It was a hit tune for Perry Como:

> It was even recorded by Jay and the Americans:

About "Me and Juliet"

https://www.classicalsource.com/concert/rodgers-hammersteins...

https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/me-and-juliet-synopsis/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_and_Juliet