MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ozgune | 2025-06-28 09:32:00+00:00
I think that's unlikely.

DeepSeek-R1 0528 performs almost as well as o3 in AI quality benchmarks. So, either OpenAI didn't restrict access, DeepSeek wasn't using OpenAI's output, or using OpenAI's output doesn't have a material impact in DeepSeek's performance.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=gpt-4-1%2Co4-mini%2Co3...
by SiempreViernes | 2025-06-28 09:32:27+00:00
When asked, in an representative online, poll, 47% percent of Israeli agreed that the IDF should kill all the inhabitants of cities it conquered[1].

So sure, workers at Haarez probably don't, but when the extermination feeling is widespread enough that 47% feel they can openly agree to a question proscribing the killing women and children, then insisting on the insistence on precision comes across mostly as an attempt at distraction.

[1] https://theconversation.com/in-israel-calls-for-genocide-hav...
by keysdev | 2025-06-28 09:32:53+00:00
I recently recovered about 3TB of data from over 15 years ago. It was just on a hard drive with a friend that we thought was lost. I dont really miss the data, but oh it was nice to see some old photos and notes!!

So what I recoomend is put on a hd and hide it some where. Go check it in 15 years
by senko | 2025-06-28 09:32:57+00:00
If you’re not appearing, you’re disappearing.

Now they are firmly on the map, which presumably helps with hiring, doing deals, influence. If they stop publishing something, they run the risk of being labelled a one-hit wonder who got lucky.

If they have a reason to believe they can do even better in the near future, releasing current tech might make sense.
by Ancapistani | 2025-06-28 09:33:00+00:00
My understanding on this topic has progressed quite a bit. Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403323

> Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies

I’m unsure whether or not being on embassy grounds changes anything here in a general sense, but a child born to a foreign ambassador is not a US citizen regardless of birth location. The fact that the parents are foreign nationals working on behalf of a foreign nation means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, now I’m curious how things would shake out if, for instance, a foreign state appointed a US citizen as their ambassador to the US…

> The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.

This makes sense, but I want to know more about the specific legal process happening here.

I believe we can agree on the following. Let me know if you disagree with any of these bullet points:

- Ambassadors to the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US - Children of ambassadors to the US who are born in the US are not citizens of the US, barring extenuating circumstances such as at least one parent being a US citizen themselves. - The only available remedy in most cases for an ambassador violating US law is ejecting them from the country (deportation).

In light of the above, if we assume in good faith that this administration believes that these people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then deportation is consistent with how similar cases are handled when the person in question is a foreign diplomat.

To put it another way, if the US could not deport people without jurisdiction we would not be able to eject foreign diplomats. Given that we have done that in the past, _clearly_ the US does not require jurisdiction to for at least _some_ deportations.
by ulfw | 2025-06-28 09:34:24+00:00
> offering something genuinely unique in a market where exclusivity matters

That's the biggest joke for everyone who has ever dealt a tiny bit with the tech market over there. If China is me-too of US tech companies, South East Asia is me-too of Chinese companies and the Middle East is me-too of South East Asian companies.

Think Uber -> Didi -> Grab -> Careem

there is nothing 'genuinely unique' or 'exclusive' by having the same product and business idea implemented four times over. Yes each one has added significant local touch and flavour to it but... unique? Exclusive?
by bryanrasmussen | 2025-06-28 09:35:08+00:00
I don't think you need to write the code to develop a deep mental model of what's going on, but you do need to think about it a lot and intensely to develop that model and coding forces you to slow down, spend a lot of time thinking about the problem, and generally trying out different ways of looking at it.

Coding in this way is like having a personal Socrates to help walk you through the problem and achieve enlightenment.
by rcxdude | 2025-06-28 09:35:32+00:00
No, they aren't. C++ codebases, even those who make quite a big effort to use as many analysers and checkers and sanitizers as they can, are still plagued by memory safety issues. Rust has a measurably lower incidence of security bugs due to this (not zero, but lower). People have tried (and are still trying) to retrofit memory safety onto C++ and they have not in general been successful. There's too many sharp edges built into the current language and library design, and these tools cannot catch all the ways in which you can mess up.

(What's more, Rust is substantially nicer to use than C++. The language, package manager, and compiler are all so much more straightforward than C++ that I would use it for that alone)
by moktonar | 2025-06-28 09:36:16+00:00
Unfortunately the correct simulation hypothesis not only can explain how, but also why. There are many wrong formulations of the sim hypothesis, but when done right it can explain almost everything. For example, Constructor Theory is in fact an instance of the simulation hypothesis done quite right, as it avoids the computational problem by stating that the universe is not computed but is itself a “constructor”, which is a computer that can manipulate matter (simplified). Although I agree that Quantum Physics is incomplete, I also don’t think there has to be an underlaying classical picture. But, yeah, we have the wrong point of view on it. The simulation hypothesis (if, again, done right) offers a far better insight on what QP is and why it works like it does. It can explain easily what is Entanglement and why it works like it does. It also offers a pretty good insight on what General Relativity actually describes, and why it works like that. Also offers a very good explanation of the “God plays with dice” problem, and the BH information paradox. That’s all IMHO, of course.
by dang | 2025-06-28 09:36:17+00:00
We've asked you several times to stop breaking the site guidelines. You've continued to do it anyway. That's not cool.

Moreover, your account has been using HN primarily for political/nationalistic battle, which is also a line at which we ban accounts, quite separately from individual violations.

If you keep doing this, we're going to ban you. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended going forward, we'd appreciate it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177567 (Nov 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39151611 (Jan 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36472783 (June 2023)
by bilvar | 2025-06-28 09:36:26+00:00
I'm not sure I can relate to the author. My Zettelkasten is not a todo list or project binder or whatever personal life management function they use it for.

Mine is for consolidation of knowledge. For instance, when I study math and I write a pen and paper proof as an exercise I then write a clean note from scratch and link to other theorems or corollary notes I have etc. Similar stuff for computer science or programming. I find out that this process solidifies the work I'd already done and make it less likely to forget.

I also think people get a bit too dogmatic about the ways to use technology to help improve your life. Like, what the heck complex rules about Zettelkasten? I don't know what kind of expectations they have going into this. Do these "influencers" telling you how to use it sell the promise of the ultra-intelligent god from the popular meme? Just open the damn editor and write, you will find what works for you through tinkering and iteration.
by uncircle | 2025-06-28 09:37:04+00:00
When I first looked at OCaml 15 years ago, it felt so complex and couldn’t wrap my head around it.

Now after almost a decade with Elixir, used to functional patterns and immutable data access, I followed a course on compiler construction in OCaml [1] and it felt surprising easy and straight forward, while my attempts using regular imperative languages feel like I’m wasting time on bureaucracy and boilerplate (i.e. in C, Rust or Python) - pattern matching is such an amazing feature.

1: https://cs3110.github.io/textbook/cover.html
by tveita | 2025-06-28 09:38:56+00:00
You can't kill 2.1 million people by bombing them.

That's why Israel has systematically taken out every hospital in Gaza: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd25d9vp2qo

Has blocked and sabotaged aid at every turn, including bombing UN food trucks: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1158746

And when allied countries got too uneasy about them just blocking all aid trucks at the border, they set up their own aid organization to trickle out nominal amounts of food while they take pot shots at people desperate enough to show up: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74ne108e4vo

They didn't just make this up as they go, presumably the plans have been sitting around for a long time waiting for a suitable moment.
by octachron | 2025-06-28 09:38:58+00:00
You are misreading the quantification, a value l of type List a means that for all type a, the element of the list has type a. In other words, this is an universal quantification whereas your interpretation is an existential quantification.

This is obviously only possible if the list itself has no elements, and indeed a simple proof is that the statement above is valid for the empty type: all elements of a list of type List a have type empty (among other types). Thus there are no elements in this list.

And both Haskell or OCaml can prove it:

type empty = | (* this is defining a never type *) type polymorphic_list = { l: 'a. 'a list } (* OCaml require to explicit construct polymorphic type *) let polymorphic_lists_are_empty ({l} : polymorphic_list ) = match (l:empty list) with | [] -> () (* this is the empty list *) | _ -> . (* this clause requires to the OCaml typechecker to prove that the remaining cases are unreachable *)
by elmolino89 | 2025-06-28 09:39:28+00:00
Re science: yes and no. Meaning: the old way of compiling programs from sources on HPC systems while not dead is becoming rare. I can only speak about bioinformatics: the majority of programs one can get up and running in no time using either conda environments or apptainer containers. It may take few weeks for the brand new shiny version to get packaged by the maintainers, but this is seldom the problem.

Even if you want to compile some program you will save yourself the time and frustration using either conda env or a container with a required toolchain/libraries. Even on a box with root access you need to avoid conflicting system wide installed library versions where program A requires lib version X and program B lib version Y.
by dang | 2025-06-28 09:41:19+00:00
Please don't take HN threads into hard-core ideological and/or nationalistic flamewar. I realize this topic tends strongly in that direction, but that's not a reason to go there, it's a reason not to go there.

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Other commenters are doing it too, but it's a matter of degree, and the rhetoric in your post here is a degree worse. You can make your substantive points without resorting to "cult", "stamped out", "criminal ideology" and so on. Fortunately it doesn't look like your account has a habit of doing this, so it should be easy to fix.
by diggan | 2025-06-28 09:41:44+00:00
> If you exceed the context window the remote LLM endpoint will throw you an error which you probably want to catch

Not every endpoint works the same way, I'm pretty sure LM Studio's OpenAI-compatible endpoints will silently (from the clients perspective) truncate the context, rather than throw an error. It's up to the client to make sure the context fits in those cases.

OpenAI's own endpoints do show an error and refuses if you exceed the context length though. I think I've seen others use the "finish_reason" attribute too to signal the context length was exceeded, rather than setting an error status code on the response.

Overall, even "OpenAI-compatible" endpoints often aren't 100% faithful reproductions of the OpenAI endpoints, sadly.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-28 09:42:45+00:00
The way this ad is worded strikes me as hitting at the heart of some deep trouble though.

You can vibe code an app and if it doesn't compile, you tell the AI to fix it, and often it does. If it isn't doing some obvious thing you want it to do, you ask it to fix it, and often it does. It gets you far enough to put it into production.

The things novices don't know to even ask it are things like "is this a race condition that could corrupt the database" and "is it vulnerable to remote code execution" and "is this system doing backups properly (or at all)". But if you wait until you notice those problems before trying to address them, you are right screwed.
by perlgeek | 2025-06-28 09:43:23+00:00
It would be really cool to have an array of space-based telescopes spaced out evenly in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and use each as relay for the others that cannot directly communicate with Earth, because the path is blocked by the Sun.

Then you could do observations outside the solar system's orbital plane with a 2 AU synthetic aperture. And maybe even do double duty as a gravitational wave observatory.

(And yes, this is currently more science fiction than science, but it's at least plausible that we can build such a thing one day).
by motorest | 2025-06-28 09:43:25+00:00
> The problem with hoarding is that, on the whole, the hoarded items are worthless. There’s too much noise and too little signal.

I don't think that's a problem. What turns logs into a problem is misplaced expectations on what is their purpose and how you should use them.

Logs are collected with the express purpose of being ignored, and as a safeguard in case in the future you need to check an audit trail of what you were doing. After a while, once the odds of those logs providing any value drops enough, you can safely delete them.

Your tool is only as good as you make it out to be.
by fzeroracer | 2025-06-28 09:43:32+00:00
Well, there is actually a reasonable reason. Typically you'd want the government to hold people accountable so you could have the thin veneer of operating by the rules of warfare and not committing war crimes. That's usually been a popular strategy of the US for when someone goes a little too far (or gets caught).

As far as I can tell Israel doesn't particularly care for even looking like it's trying to behave responsibly. I don't think they've held anyone responsible for even some of the most obvious war crimes we have evidence of being committed.
by metalman | 2025-06-28 09:43:50+00:00
,.............the ancient greeks, correctly identified nostalgia as a disease.That said ,deap personal memories do serve a central place is familial and tribal/cultural knowledge, but the ......."insignificant bits (and bobs)" are poison this is something that I have experienced on a number of occasions when knowledge keepers have......inserted, very short statements that serve to turn a great deal of other myth and trivia into a cohearant whole containing actionable instructions. a list can never,ever, serve this function
by gtsop | 2025-06-28 09:44:50+00:00
> I don’t want to manage knowledge. I want to live it.

This is the essence!

Very good post. I think the nuclear action was perfect, it was neede to get out of the loop.

You should write your thoughts, not copy paste others'. This way you help reorganise your brain to adapt to the subject. Some thoughts should be written as a tool and then thrown away, others (more important) should be kept
by fredfish | 2025-06-28 09:45:25+00:00
The "satanic panic" was certainly an extreme example, but in general the entire industry spent a few decades inducing false memories. Because of the nature of trust in authority few people question when they are pressured to have a trauma and psychological effects from events that never occurred.

On the lesser end, I think many of the consumer oriented psychologists will take you in this direction with events that did occur but are probably typical experiences and only actually effect specific personalities.
by tfrutuoso | 2025-06-28 09:45:25+00:00
There's a palestinian guy living in the US making the rounds on tiktok, talking to random israeli people on something like omegle. The amount of hate he gets is nothing short of depressing. Children cursing at him, IDF soldiers saying they want to kill every single person in Gaza, calling them sub-humans... sounds like the fourth reich is here already.

All this to say you're right, but the government is indocrinating more and more people for these views.
by diggan | 2025-06-28 09:45:49+00:00
+ temperature=0.0 would be needed for reproducible outputs. And even with that, if it's actually reproducible or not depends on the model/weights themselves, not all of them are even when all those things are static. And then finally depends on the implementation of the model architecture as well.

I think the tricky part is that we tend to think that prompts with similar semantic meaning will give the same outputs (like a human), while LLMs can give vastly different outputs if you have one spelling mistake for example, or used "!" instead of "?", the effect varies greatly per model.
by d4rkn0d3z | 2025-06-28 09:46:02+00:00
Why does a cat being both alive and dead sound like nonsense? It seems to me to be the most accurate description of nature. The "cat" is some kind of soup of cells and other more primitive life forms engaged in a pitched battle for resources that results in the experience we categorize as "cat". To us at scale, we create the ontological notion 'cat" but reality does seem not care about our ontology. That is all you need to accept in order for the quantum mechanical formalism to lose its mysteriousness.

I have a gold medal in theoretical physics and I find quantum mechanics presents no difficulty or mysticism. There is however significant lament that the reductionist paradigm has failed to produce a deterministic universe from the decidedly probabilistic one we inhabit.
by whism | 2025-06-28 09:46:31+00:00
Hi, I don’t fully disagree with you, but a gentle reminder that for many “contribution” is itself out of reach.

An aside: I remember when I was a child, my dad’s favorite coffee mug was black ceramic with a white monotype slogan “Life’s a bitch and then you die”. If that made you chuckle, maybe you’re in a pretty good spot :)
by dang | 2025-06-28 09:46:37+00:00
I don't disagree with that.

From a moderation point of view, it's a question of the effect that these bits have on other people in the community, and therefore the quality of the discussion. It's obviously near-impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about a topic like this across the vast differences (ideological, national, emotional) that separate people. In such a context, even provocations that feel small and justified can set the neighborhood on fire.

If the discussion devolves into just another internet screaming match where people hurl pre-existing talking points and just get even more riled up in rage, then the HN thread is a failure. Maybe it's too much to hope for anything better on this topic, which is probably the most divisive and emotional one we've ever seen, but I think we have to try. That's we allow the topic to appear on the HN front page from time to time. Not to allow it would be easier, at least in the short term, but inconsistent with the intended spirit of the site.

The bulk of your post wasn't doing anything like flamewar at all, so the swipey bits were particularly unfortunate.

p.s. I don't mean to pile on, but "please stop pretending" is also a swipe. You can't know whether someone else is pretending, and there's no reason to suppose that people aren't sincere in their convictions about a highly-charged topic (separately from whether their beliefs are true or false). If you lead by denying that, the rest of what you have to say will have little chance of being heard.
by lordofgibbons | 2025-06-28 09:46:56+00:00
This genocide has, for many people, burst any illusions of a "rules based world order".

There multiple EU signatory countries of the Rome Statute (pledging to cooperate with ICC) that have welcomed these war criminals... who have warrants out by the ICC.

And the same war criminals are invited to give a speech at the U.S Congress to near unanimous applause. It really makes you wonder if we're the "good guys".

-- edit -- If you're curious how much your congressperson receives from AIPAC (Israeli lobby) this website is a great resource: https://www.trackaipac.com/congress
by futurisold | 2025-06-28 09:48:21+00:00
It's subjected to randomness. But you're ultimately in control of the LLMs's hyperparams -- temperature, top_p, and seed -- so, you get deterministic outputs if that's what you need. However, there are downsides to this kind of LLM deterministic tweaks because of the inherent autoregressive nature of the LLM.

For instance, with temperature 1 there *could be* a path that satisfies your instruction which otherwise gets missed. There's interesting work here at the intersection of generative grammars and LLMs, where you can cast the problem as an FSM/PA automaton such that you only sample from that grammar with the LLM (you use something like logits_bias to turn off unwanted tokens and keep only those that define the grammar). You can define grammars with libs like lark or parsimonious, and this was how people solved JSON format with LLMs -- JSON is a formal grammar.

Contracts alleviate some of this through post validation, *as long as* you find a way to semantically encode your deterministic constraint.
by somafet | 2025-06-28 09:48:59+00:00
An "aha moment" in user onboarding isn't just a feature demonstration. It's the moment when three things align:

The user understands what your product does They see how it solves their specific problem They experience immediate value or progress

The key word here is "specific." Generic product tours rarely create aha moments because they show features without context. Real aha moments are personal and relevant to the individual user's situation.
by diggan | 2025-06-28 09:51:22+00:00
> I don't think any of these companies are aiming at long term goal of making money from inference pricing of customers.

What is DeepSeek aiming for if not that, which is currently the only thing they offer that cost money? They claim their own inference endpoints has a cost profit margin of 545%, which might be true or not, but the very fact that they mentioned this at all seems to indicate it is of some importance to them and others.
by gtsop | 2025-06-28 09:52:12+00:00
> He has gone from one extreme (categorizing all notes obsessively) to the other extreme (wiping all notes, to start fresh).

No, he went from extreme to "in the middle", if you find yourself in their place you should do EXACTLY what he did.

> I’m planning on using it again. From scratch. And with a deeper level of curation and care - not as a second brain, but as a workspace for the one I already have.

You can't categorize a gazillion notes you obsessively picked up over years. Do anything required to become functional again, in this case, delete it all if it is psychologically weighing on you