MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by yegg | 2025-05-11 13:17:19+00:00
We are not just a "reskinned rebranded Bing." I know we're talking about search here, but to be clear DuckDuckGo is way more than search at this point and that is a large part of why we are popular. For example, we have a browser, duck.ai, VPN, email protection, app tracking protection, etc. We were first known for search (and maybe mostly on this forum since that's where I started), but we're now popular for all this other stuff as well that works to keep you more generally protected (see https://duckduckgo.com/compare-privacy).

In search in particular, search results have been more than web links since the early 2000s when instant answers started to appear on Yahoo. Since then, more and more of the page is instant answers of one kind or another (aka search modules, oneboxes, etc.) and less and less of it is traditional web links.

AI-assisted answers has accelerated this even more in the past two years, and we get 0 of that from Bing. Same with knowledge graph answers before that (e.g., info from Wikipedia and other quick facts, which became the most prevalent search module on desktop), again, 0 from Bing. And same for the most prevalent search module on mobile too — local results — 0 from Bing.

That is to say, a lot of our search results content is not coming from Bing. We have hundreds of team members and millions of lines of search code at this point. We’re constantly working on search, and looking to improve it. We post updates quarterly to https://duckduckgo.com/updates (along with updates on our other products and services).

In terms of traditional web links, yes, we primarily use Bing as an input in the same way Kagi primarily uses Google as an input. As Vlad has said publicly (most recently heard him on The Talk Show) and has been made clear from this US v Google case from Google/Bing/Apple/OpenAI/etc. testimony, it costs upwards of a billion dollars a year to maintain a competitive index of web links. Only the biggest companies can afford that. Nevertheless, we still work on actively crawling and indexing, but the reality is small companies cannot do it all themselves. In fact, that's true for most products in most industries -- they rely on a supply chain for various components, some of them critical.

Finally, even if you have the same traditional links, but you put instant answers above or beside or in between them, change the design significantly, or otherwise add to them (all of which we do), then the actual user experience of the search results ends up being significantly different in terms of how it is perceived and what people click on. For the latter, people engage with a section above another section about twice as much, so for example, if you just put a different box/answer on top you've drastically changed the experience of the search engine.
by ninjin | 2025-05-11 13:18:20+00:00
Patched in OpenBSD 5.5 [1] which was released in 2014. Patches were upstreamed into software in the ports tree, so hopefully that made life a little bit easier for other operating systems. Linux seems to have followed around 2020.

[1]: https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#55
by kergonath | 2025-05-11 13:19:04+00:00
> The point is that people are spoiled and still complaining.

No. Google is making money, it is not a charity. More than that, they do everything they can to obfuscate that fact and brainwash us into thinking we just get it for free thanks to their generosity. It is not the case at all. All these services are data funnels for the actual main business of Google, which is to sell ads.

If they make money off our backs, it is not unreasonable to have some expectations.
by nozzlegear | 2025-05-11 13:19:23+00:00
IMO the AI players are only hooking the power users and technically inclined (in regard to AI replacing search), but there's a long, long tail of people who are going to be using Google as their search engine until the end of days. Think the type of person who types "facebook.com" into Google instead of their address bar — they're not switching over to ChatGPT or Kagi any time soon.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-05-11 13:19:55+00:00
Hardware manufacturers consistently ship out the worst softwares in existence. It's just a cost center to them. They've already sold the thing, it doesn't matter anymore.

My laptop has a fan and keyboard LED application that requires kernel access and takes over a minute to display a window on screen. Not to mention being Windows only.

Words can barely describe just how aggravating that thing was. One of the best things I've ever done is reverse engineer that piece of crap and create a Linux free software replacement. Mine works instantly, I just feed it a configuration file. I intend to do this for every piece of hardware I buy from now on.
by chuckadams | 2025-05-11 13:20:06+00:00
Repeating verbatim a post on a Haskell forum, someone talking about the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence and saying "you can write arbitrary Prolog in Haskell types". Seems most advanced type systems are already Turing-complete and based on unification matching, so I didn't see much reason to disbelieve it, though I realize that might be a little oversold.

Obviously it doesn't look like Prolog, and you don't necessarily even want the Turing-completeness in your type system -- or at least not to have to rely on it anyway. But I still think the parallels are clear enough that it'd make for a pretty relevant piece of a course in logic programming.
by lelanthran | 2025-05-11 13:20:10+00:00
> Have people tried combining it with better-supported languages like Python or Go or Rust, leaving only the GUI to Pascal? Any guides out there?

I do it with C, using opaque pointers for C objects. Painless because everything is statically compiled in.

If you want a more dynamic solution (i.e. Python), you'll need to find a way to link every component in (or at least the ones your Python would use).
by bawolff | 2025-05-11 13:20:21+00:00
Tl;dr: Factoring numbers is usually hard, but its only hard for some combinations of numbers. There are some types of numbers where its pretty easy. E.g. 15506 is easy to factor because it ends in a 6 which tells you its even and divisible by 2. So 2 is one of the factors.

When people talk about the factoring problem or RSA, they generally don't mean the super easy cases. They mean the hard cases which you would actually use in crypto.

Anyways this paper factors numbers where the two factors are super close to each other. This is generally very easy to factor as you can just take the square root and try guesses around there. Its so easy that you could probably do it in 15 minutes with a paper and pencil if you were so inclined (and were familiar with how to hand calculate square roots)

[I didnt actually read the paper]
by ang_cire | 2025-05-11 13:20:36+00:00
Yep. People keep pushing this false dichotomy that it's either company-directed 'responsible disclosure', or it's "release full working POC and complete writeup publicly, immediately", and there's no middle ground.

Yes, limited disclosure will make people start hunting for the vuln, but it's still more than enough time for me to revoke an API key, lock down an internet-facing service, turn off my Alexa (no, I don't/won't own one), uninstall the app, etc. And it's better than me not knowing, and someone is intruding into my system in the meantime.
by conartist6 | 2025-05-11 13:21:09+00:00
That was basically my whole point.

Would you want to insure people who think they have no responsibility because they've delegated it to an AI? They might as well have delegated the responsibility to a child or a dog. To sell them insurance, you as the insurer are making a financial bet on the ability of the dog to take care of anything that does go wrong.

And still as the insured, using the AI imbued with your responsibility risks horrible outcomes that could still ruin your life. The AI has no life to ruin. It was never really responsible.
by carlosjobim | 2025-05-11 13:21:22+00:00
> You said people should leave their jobs if they weren't stimulating

If you have dominated your work completely, generally you are looking for a promotion. And if you can't get it, then you start looking for another place to work. You don't have to leave your current job before you've found your next job. But it doesn't matter that I explain this, because spiritually negative people will find just another negative perspective to latch on to. Because life to them is only suffering and misery from birth to death, no matter what.

What's your advice to those who don't have the "privilege"? Can you help them? Or do you think that is my duty?
by analog31 | 2025-05-11 13:21:46+00:00
Indeed, and there are interactions that I avoid, such as dealing with sales people. Why would I even want something that's sold to me via the best angle?

I think there's a matter of degree, and if it's excessive, then it's creepy. Maybe the purpose matters. Getting into my head in order to manipulate me is immoral.

And I never experienced a "first date." People avoid that too if their culture allows it. At least by the time something emerged that could be called a "date," I already knew her from casual interaction. She knew I was nuts.
by SoraNoTenshi | 2025-05-11 13:21:49+00:00
I am not entirely sure what the Author is criticizing? It looks like a comparison to Odin rather than any critic.

And also: I don't quite understand most of the Arguments. UB is often a way to ensure that certain optimizations can be made (if i remember correctly.) Also there just are certain facts that when you have full control over memory, some things can just not be predictable. (Accessing invalid pointers as an example)

Verbosity is mostly subjective. Most of Author's concerns were path lengths, which can easily be "fixed" by redefining the path into a constant. `const debug = std.debug;` I also think the Argument towards "it looks like java's println" full on is a bad argument. Especially because `std.debug.print` does something completely different.

The whole "critic" towards `build.zig` also seems like it's done with without good faith. Yes it's daunting at first. Yes it requires to learn about the build system in the beginning. Sure those are all very real Arguments, author just doesn't want to mention the benefits of it.

Then half of the arguments about comptime i also don't quite understand. It seems like it is building up the main point of the argument, but then you just get hit by a statement. So no explanation no nothing. Talking about lazy evaluation and a little bit of how SoA makes things worse (which i have no clue how that matters in this context) and then saying it's violation "no hidden control flow" is not really getting the point i feel like.
by Tade0 | 2025-05-11 13:22:09+00:00
Hailing from a popular outsourcing destination I think the GP missed the mark somewhat.

Outsourcing isn't just grunt work. It's almost all work, but cheaper and with less control over the outcome. There will be no "guiding people/LLMs".

You have talented people all over the globe and to date what the best of the best were doing is move to the US. Those were the people guiding/managing outsourced teams, not Americans. You see this now with the "Indians hiring Indians" phenomenon.

Trump put the brakes on that, so currently the only thing that's certain is uncertainty.

My take is that there will be an attempt to replace at least the bottom end of outsourcing with LLMs, so more pressure on offshore labour to perform and, over time, fewer positions overall, as junior roles have already evaporated around here and eventually that will translate to fewer seniors.
by avs733 | 2025-05-11 13:23:37+00:00
There’s a strong history of useful signals from single lead ecgs.

Detection of ecg anomalies(especially episodic ones with intermittent recording) was the subject of the physionet cardiac computing challenge almost 10years ago[0].

It’s amazing how far machine learning has come. I know teach a version of this challenge as a one day in class activity in my department’s physiology class. They actually get to train multiple models on a gpu cluster (and compare that to trying to train models on their laptops).

One thing we reinforce in the lesson is human vs. computer “interpretation”. They/clinicians can look at ecgs and make some sense of them. An LTSM is worse than random chance/a medical student. However moving to the frequency domain makes the LTSM more accurate than cardiologists, but neither they nor clinicians can “see” afib ina spectrograph. It’s a great way to talk about algorithmic versus human reasoning and illustrate that to students.

That then gets reinforced with other case studies of the ying and yang of human and machine decision making throughout our curriculum- like alpha fold working great until you ask it about a structure in the absence of oxygen, because that’s not in its training data.

[0] https://physionet.org/content/challenge-2017/1.0.0/
by jaybrendansmith | 2025-05-11 13:23:54+00:00
His entire argument rests on the foundation that he lives in a just society. It's kinda funny. The entire reason for these philosophies and government at large is to solve for externalities: Kingpins, Terrorists, Cancer-causing chemicals, Violence, Street Gangs, Sudden death by falling cranes, madmen with AR-15s, the list goes on forever. You only have the pleasure of being a punk when you have solved for all of these externalities and live in a peaceful and just society.
by sgbeal | 2025-05-11 13:24:04+00:00
> the link to gmvault in your readme is now a dead end, is this it https://github.com/gaubert/gmvault.

Funnily enough, the gmvault.org domain _that_ page points to is simply a parked GoDaddy placeholder. It's also not been updated in 10+ years except for two non-source files.
by neilv | 2025-05-11 13:24:19+00:00
I think the solution involves raising children to have integrity, and then not then discouraging that with tons of artificial gatekeeping theatre on the way to good jobs.

The first obvious thing I'd destroy is LeetCode interviews. Maybe the protagonist in the article would've thought differently about school and jobs and integrity, if he hadn't had to spend 600 hours on LeetCode rehearsals.
by jmclnx | 2025-05-11 13:24:34+00:00
I saw this a few days ago, nice, especially since Linux is dropping support for older hardware. Even OpenBSD is slowly limiting i386 (32bit) support:

https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html

NetBSD so far has no plans to drop 32bit x86 support, and it is always nice to be able to run a modern UN*X on older hardware. IIRC, porting NetBSD to a new platform is quite easy when compared to other systems. This is due to how their HAL (hardware abstraction layer) is designed.

Today I saw in the OpenBSD @misc mailing list one of the issues they are having with i386 is rust is too large for them to compile on a i386 system. That means software packages that need rust are being removed from their packages.

This does not affect NetBSD because they allow cross-compiling of everything on their systems.
by nozzlegear | 2025-05-11 13:26:11+00:00
> As you have just acknowledged in your own comment.

I didn't acknowledge that. Instead you told me to check the dictionary which is not at all relevant to what I said. If somebody holding a dictionary came up to you and told you they're American, would you assume they meant they're from the US, or somewhere across two vast continents? Which is more likely? I think you know the answer even if you want to be pedantic about it.
by stephc_int13 | 2025-05-11 13:26:20+00:00
I've been closely following and evaluating the train of C replacement languages that was (I believe) started by Jonathan Blow and Jai.

Zig is one of the strong contenders, but Odin is IMO following a saner path, Carbon and D should be mentioned and I think there are a few others.

My initial reaction to new programming languages is naturally skeptical, but I really liked the way the designers behind those efforts approached it, trying to solve frequent C/C++ pain points and adding a few fresh ideas.

But overall, after a few years, I am sticking with C and orthodox C++, the cost/benefit ratio is simply not worth the effort, none of them are really mature and the problems they try to solve are not painful enough.

My current take on this is to view Jai/Zig/Odin/etc. as attempted C forks, quite often motivated by hubris and coming with the usual inconvenience of forks, a lot of wasteful/redundant efforts put into small islands, each ruled by their own "benevolent" kings.

An other analogy that can be made is the many attempts at replacing keyboards layouts. Dvorak etc. They probably have their merits, but the adoption was limited to a few enthusiasts for the same reasons that C is unlikely to get replaced by any of those forks.
by haswell | 2025-05-11 13:26:34+00:00
> you would've been much less careless about shipping the vulnerability, if you knew you'd be held accountable for it

I have a problem with this framing. Sure, some vulnerabilities are the result of recklessness, and there’s clearly a problem to be solved when it comes to companies shipping obviously shoddy code.

But many vulnerabilities happen despite great care being taken to ship quality code. It is unfortunately the nature of the beast. A sufficiently complex system will result in vulnerabilities even a careful person could not have predicted.

To me, the issue is that software now runs the world, despite these inherent limitations of human developers and the process of software development. It’s deployed in ever more critical situations, despite the industry not having well defined and enforceable standards like you’d find in some engineering disciplines.

What you’re describing is a scenario that would force developers to just stop making software, on top of putting significantly more people at risk.

I still believe the industry has a problem that needs to be solved, and it needs a broad culture shift in the dev community, but disagree that shining a bright light on every hole such that it causes massive harm to “make devs accountable” is a good or even reasonable solution.
by gcanyon | 2025-05-11 13:26:42+00:00
> Never give away "unlimited" anything

This is resonating very much with me, but perhaps for a different reason. I'm launching a product within a business that is already successful. I get to give demos to potential customers, and I've been making a point of saying, "And this aspect of the product is unlimited" about many things in the product. On the one hand, related to the above, it's potentially possible that a whale user could cost us, but it's frankly unlikely. But it occurs to me that if I put a limit on certain aspects of the offering, it will likely make it seem worth more -- it's a scarce resource if we treat it as such.
by prmph | 2025-05-11 13:27:05+00:00
> If AI handles all the technical skills what’s left?

This is a view utterly out of touch with reality. AI handling all technical skills? And who defines where technical skills start and end?

Will AI development/innovation stop in the future? And if not, will the engineers working on AI not be applying technical skills? Will AI eliminate the technical skill of plumbing? Of doctors? What about systems analysis and architectural design, a technical skill. Will AI read the minds of people, anticipate their every tech need, and eliminate that too?

Maybe some have a weird understanding of the "technical". Its meaning is much broader that they think.
by bgentry | 2025-05-11 13:27:08+00:00
Definitely not! Jobs in River are enqueued and fetched by worker clients transactionally, but the jobs themselves execute outside a transaction. I’m guessing you’re aware of the risks of holding open long transactions in Postgres, and we definitely didn’t want to limit users to short-lived background jobs.

There is a super handy transactional completion API that lets you put some or all of a job in a transaction if you want to. Works great for making other database side effects atomic with the job’s completion. https://riverqueue.com/docs/transactional-job-completion
by layer8 | 2025-05-11 13:27:45+00:00
> The way this should work is that the researcher discloses to the company, and the company reaches out to and informs their customers immediately. Then they fix it.

If that was common practice, bad actors would make sure to be a registered customer of all interesting targets, so that they get informed early about vulnerabilities before there is a fix. And it would create a black market for that information.

When someone gets the information “Asus BIOS has an RCE vulnerability related to driver installation”, they’ll be able to figure out the details quickly with high probability, like OP did.
by tuna74 | 2025-05-11 13:29:31+00:00
As always, framing the problem as a "Linux" problem really makes it difficult to properly discuss it. If I understand the article correctly, Linux actually is accessible enough. The problem is that Fedora Workstation, Ubuntu etc are not. But if the actual problem is that Fedora WS is not accessible enough, then you can actually start iterating the things that do not work and maybe even think about how that can actually be fixed.

But the "Linux desktop ecosystem" is a too fluffy thing to even be able to discuss in any coherent way.
by closewith | 2025-05-11 13:29:37+00:00
> There’s a strong history of useful signals from single lead ecgs.

But to be clear, a single lead ECG requires two electrodes at a minimum and commonly a third as ground. So a single lead ECG will have minimum two cables attached to electrodes on the patient. The placement depends on which lead (eg lead I, lead II, etc) but there's always two minimum.
by shawnz | 2025-05-11 13:31:09+00:00
> It will work because honest people aren't trying to get around it.

I think this makes the counterargument even stronger.

Let's take for granted that this isn't intended to stop a determined leaker and is just meant to prevent honest, unintentional mistreatment of sensitive data.

The question is whether the false positives outweigh the true positives. This feature will impede people from getting things done in subtle but annoying ways (making it more difficult to take notes, hurting accessibility, etc). It's likely that when this is widely deployed, many big orgs are going to overuse it and enable it as a matter of course to prevent liability. Those scenarios where honest people are blocked from doing honest things for which there's no harm are the false positives in this scenario -- there was no need to prevent those scenarios, but they were prevented anyway.

Now consider the true positives: we've agreed that intentional malice is not covered by this feature, and so the true positives are limited just to the smaller subset of scenarios in which honest people unintentionally mistreat sensitive data, and don't include any scenarios where data is being intentionally leaked.

I suspect the number of scenarios that fall into the false positive category will be much greater than the number of scenarios that fall into the true positive category, especially so after intentional malice is excluded. So is this really a net win for anyone?
by rsyring | 2025-05-11 13:33:08+00:00
> A useful non-bullshit response from an A"I" would start with "For what kind of aircraft?"

FWIW, I gave ChatGPT the size of aircraft as discussed in the OP article. But I didn't grill it for details, just wanted a general idea if the article's statement was even close to accurate.

I was hoping someone would come along and bring more nuance and knowledge to the discussion. So, thanks. :)
by Peter5 | 2025-05-11 13:34:14+00:00
2.5 MB is for most of the Lazarus Component Library (LCL) with minimal size increases even as program complexity grows. For example, Dadroit JSON Viewer EXE is less than 6 MB while having complicated tree views, JSON handling, networking, and more. By the way, an empty CLI EXE on Windows is less than 50KB.