MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by seadan83 | 2025-06-05 18:30:26+00:00
(1) Depends on the society. We perhaps agree based on which society we are discussing, and who the terrorists are.

(2) "Defending" soft targets I posit is just an impossible task unless society becomes so locked down that it is unrecognizable. Lots of Sci-Fi has been written on this topic, eg: 'thought crimes', 'judge dredd'.

Sticking to the theme of point (1).. The French revolution was lead by terrorists. They terrorized the aristocracy (and arguably had no other outlet): "cede power or you'll keep getting your heads chopped off." The aristocracy then ceded power. Whether society is forced to change or voluntarily changes is almost an immaterial difference at that point.

OTOH, consider if someone started blowing up libraries in the US. If the response is to shut down libraries, then the population has been terrorized. Bombings in subways were common at a point, if the subways shut down - the population has been terrorized.

In the 1960s, (US) police used dogs against voter registration organizers. To have been terrorized would have been to stop voting, stop voter registration. That terrorism was not successful.

OTOH, lynchings in the US were a prevalent form of terrorism. IE: "this is what happens when you 'don't know your place'". It worked. I recall there is data showing a large change in regional population dynamics for _decades_ following a lynching.

Timothy McVeigh could have done stuff within the libertarian party, but instead chose a path of violence. Timothy McVeigh failed, he blew up a building and that is all that happened.

The 9/11 hijackers chose a path of violence as well. The 9/11 terrorism OTOH was arguably massively successful - a huge wedge developed between cultures & religions, US society radically changed and the US government was successfully baited and began fighting wars that drained its diplomatic, military and financial power.

So, I think for repressed societies, one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In 'open' societies, the terrorist is trying to change the society in some way, through violent means (a shortcut). Changing the society in that way is achieving the aims of the terrorist.
by theodric | 2025-06-05 18:30:50+00:00
The flexibility afforded by sideloading, which allows that that an Android phone is still for the most part a pocket-sized computer that can operate in a mode not intended by its creators (as opposed to a restricted consumption appliance like the iPhone) is what has kept me on the platform for 16 years and counting. If they take that away, then I really don't see a compelling difference between the two platforms.

Android has been getting markedly more flaky for me ON MULTIPLE GOOGLE PIXEL DEVICES since 2018. My current Pixel 8a on Android 15 regularly has the underlying UI controls (separate from the launcher) crash and force me to restart if I want to use the app overview switcher since day 1. I also have no app overview button in the stock Android calculator since Android 14, the shipped OS, so if I want to switch between a calculation and another app I must first return to the home screen. Wasn't like this in previous releases! Furthermore, the day/date is routinely cut off in the statusbar and its pulldown. This product passed multiple reviews and 2 major OS releases with these (and many other) obvious and irritating bugs and shows no signs of improvement. If they left these holes in the surface, I can only imagine what's underneath. It's ridiculous, but I guess we're cranking out complexity at a rate that exceeds our ability to manage it (or our ability to manufacture new fucks at a rate exceeding their consumption).

If Purism is shopping for new users, all they would eventually need to do is not get worse at a rate as fast as Android, or more expensive at a rate as fast as iOS devices. Based on what I've seen from them so far...they're not at that point yet: meager specifications, high prices. I will continue to cling to my Android device, but I'll cheer them on from the sidelines.
by groby_b | 2025-06-05 18:31:21+00:00
> add some missing destructors to a working but leaky C++ project.

That's amazing, given C++ provides default destructors. They don't "miss" unless you or the AI omitted them deliberately. So I'll guess you meant custom destructors that clean up manual resource management.

Which likely means you ran into the classic failure mode of AI, you underspecified constraints. It's C++. Humans or AI, as soon as there's more than one, be prepared to discuss ownership semantics in absolutely nauseating detail.

You don't fix broken ownership semantics by telling a junior "try to get it to compile" and walking away for a couple of hours, either.

And LLMs are interns, juniors at best. That means for a solo C++ project, yeah, you're probably better off not using them. The core issue being that they're incapable of actually learning, not the lack of skills per se - if you're willing to spec the hell out of everything every single time, they still do OK. It's soul-deadening, but it works.

> If LLMs could just lack confidence in themselves for even a moment and state that they don't know what the problem is but it's willing to throw spaghetti at the wall to find out, I could respect that more than it marching through with absolute confidence that its garbage code did anything but break the project.

As I said, juniors. This is a pretty common failure mode for fresh grads, too.
by TimTheTinker | 2025-06-05 18:31:53+00:00
I think you may be missing my point. I'm not conflating products and engineering tools, but talking about how art and beauty (as Platonic ideals) can hopefully be preserved or resurrected in the current environment. Engineering "for the sake of it" without a view to business needs does carry pitfalls like you mentioned - that's not what I'm promoting. Leave that to universities and hobby projects (which are very important -- absent wealthy patrons of the arts, the best of culture in a civilization arises from small communities of learning and creative leisure).

But just like an architect designing a beautiful bridge that becomes a landmark, with the right management and product-market fit, it can be possible to profitably build beautiful software products for people. There are real, profitable businesses that do this, and people love their software.

People enjoy and value beautiful things; as a software business culture we ought to value creating them.
by joshmlewis | 2025-06-05 18:33:13+00:00
I have the Max $200 plan so I set it to Opus until it limits me to Sonnet 4 which has only happened in two out of a few dozen sessions so far. My rule of thumb in Cursor is it's worth paying for the Max reasoning models for pretty much every request unless it's stupid simple because it produces the best code each time without any funny business you get with cheaper models.
by cyberax | 2025-06-05 18:33:16+00:00
> A full 84 percent of the apps in the App Store pay nothing to Apple when you download or use the app. That’s not discrimination, as Spotify claims; it’s by design

This is a bald-faced lie. To develop an app for the App Store, you need to spend:

1. $100 a year on the certificate.

2. Around $500 a year on Apple hardware (amortized).

This is way more than you need to develop for Microsoft, even with their official tools.
by metamet | 2025-06-05 18:33:18+00:00
I don't have the reference study on hand, but I believe the brain requires approximately 600 calories a day, or 150g of carbs. Switching over to use ketones requires going into ketosis, which most people never do.

When you look at how our hormones are affected by different types of macronutrients, there are dietary ways to restrict calories, prevent hunger from becoming an issue, and still maintain a decent level of mental acuity.

I've found that aiming for 150g of carbs a day and .7-1g protein/pound of body weight to be fairly self-regulating. I have to eat more carbs on days I do BJJ (pretty glycogenic sport, but, admittedly, has become less demanding the closer I got to my black belt), but using that target as a rule of thumb has worked out well for me over the years.

When we talk about CICO, there is the reality of our hormones that we have to consider--at least in terms of human behavior. There are ways to diet with ease and no discomfort, but yo-yoing between binging on snacks and trying to not eat anything isn't very feasible.
by 0x457 | 2025-06-05 18:33:51+00:00
I think storing JWT in cookie is madness. You got every downside of JWT without any upside at all.

Use a normal session, since you already assume there is a db for authentication.

That JWT token takes much more space on a client (and sent with every request!) than a proper session cookie would.

That JWT refresh token would also take more space than what you store in claims would take up even if you naively stored it in DB (i.e. not via relation between user and session).

IMO, the only way to correctly use JWT for authz (authn is handeled somewhere else as it should):

- authenticate user somehow (not JWT probably, unless it's a federated login)

- issue a short-lived JWT with required claims

- pass that JWT with requests to other backends

- now backends can validate that JWT by themselves
by add-sub-mul-div | 2025-06-05 18:34:01+00:00
Before Musk bought it Twitter was broadly disliked here and there were regularly calls in the comments to disallow submissions from there. Given how it's degraded in completely non-partisan ways (blocking of alternative clients, features removed from free tier, paid subscription tiers below $40/month still have ads, proliferation of spam from paid placement bots in comments) I can't understand how positive sentiment comes from a place other than virtue signaling alignment with Musk and his values.
by HeatrayEnjoyer | 2025-06-05 18:34:03+00:00
I am legitimately glad for devs of graphene os and for it graphene working in your case but it is not functional if a user needs banking orr streaming apps, or any number of other impacted apps such as mcdonald's or pokemon go.... that is after installing the optional play services, reducing the privacy benefits of graphene.

I own no firsthand experience but read many users require app 2FA to make card payments.

The solution must be social-legislative. The London smog and terrifying auto deaths at 30 KPH were solved but not by niche enthusiast projects.
by marcosdumay | 2025-06-05 18:34:27+00:00
If you need an activity log as complementary information, you can send it into another stream. You can have more than 1.

Logs should be readable. What that means you should get the relevant information by reading the file after maybe searching for something a few times. That requires that the information there should be about a single topic. If that's too much, it should be tagged so that your tooling can make it readable, but this is for huge services.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-06-05 18:34:56+00:00
I wish someone would update and use PG19 for 7-30B+ model:

https://github.com/google-deepmind/pg19

That gives us a model that's 100% open and reproducible with low, legal risk. It would also be a nice test of how much AI's generalize from or repeat behavior in their pretraining data.

Then, a new model using that, The Stack, and FreeLaw's stuff (by paying them to open source it). No Github Issues or anything with questionable licenses or terms of service violations. That could be the next baseline for lawful models with coding ability, too. Research in coding AI's might use it.
by anentropic | 2025-06-05 18:35:15+00:00
Yeah I meant just within the individual text blocks, the canvas itself can't be Markdown of course

It's such a more convenient way of "styling while you type" and has become the de facto way to do that... in Slack, Reddit comments, GitHub, Jira, Confluence etc... even MS Teams, they all allow Markdown "styling while you type"
by mindslight | 2025-06-05 18:35:20+00:00
Yes. A "basic level" of safety doesn't suffice when you could be expected to take over a car already going 75mph on the highway.

Let's say you were parked, taking a nap in the drivers set - when you woke up, would you immediately start driving or would you wait a minute to get your bearings? How about at a highway rest stop? It feels like trying to push back on that by asserting "the driver is supposed to always be alert and ready to be attentive!" is another bout of fanciful fiction like L2. Being outright asleep would seem to be derelict, but I can imagine many fuzzy mental middle grounds, especially in a droning car.

(Somewhat related, if I haven't driven in a month I would say it takes me tens of minutes (maybe 20?) to get back up to the usual groove. Obviously the only way to do it is to do it, but I drive much differently until then)
by fifteen1506 | 2025-06-05 18:35:28+00:00
It can be a non-binary option.

I have never installed OpenWRT on an home router -- too afraid to brick it, to deal with somewhat manual updates [I think].

I bought a GL.iNet. Totally normie, automatic updates. And then, "Hey look, this is... OpenWRT with a GUI!"

There are some [mobile] brands going on similar direction [albeit one that doesn't seem right to me]. Volla & Fairphone. They provide alternatives. I don't like them [the software options available for them], but alternatives exist, working out of the box.
by CuriouslyC | 2025-06-05 18:35:35+00:00
"Despite this plethora of negative experiences, executives are aggressively mandating the use of AI6. It looks like without such mandates, most people will not bother to use such tools, so the executives will need muscular policies to enforce its use.

Being forced to sit and argue with a robot while it struggles and fails to produce a working output, while you have to rewrite the code at the end anyway, is incredibly demoralizing. This is the kind of activity that activates every single major cause of burnout at once.

But, at least in that scenario, the thing ultimately doesn’t work, so there’s a hope that after a very stressful six month pilot program, you can go to management with a pile of meticulously collected evidence, and shut the whole thing down."

The counterpoint to this is that _SOME_ people are able to achieve force multiplication (even at the highest levels of skill, it's not just a juniors-only phenomenon), and _THAT_ is what is driving management adoption mandates. They see that 2-4x increases in productivity are possible under the correct circumstances, and they're basically passing down mandates for the rank and file to get with the program and figure out how to reproduce those results, or find another job.
by dylan604 | 2025-06-05 18:35:40+00:00
If you don't want it, don't buy it. The problem is that things are too cheap, so people don't hesitate to ask themselves if they really want it. It's just too cheap to not try it. It's also one of those things where the picture doesn't match the actual item similar to fast food advertising. If the shopper was looking at the item in person, most things would not be purchased.

Dumping it directly in the ocean is just skipping a few steps as much of it does end up there. It would be better to just dump it into a landfill instead of the ocean though
by vharuck | 2025-06-05 18:35:54+00:00
This isn't a new concept in law. It's similar to buying goods that were stolen or procured through illegal means. Here's the US law that applies when it happens across state lines:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2315

Note that it requires the defendant to know the goods were illegally taken. Can be hard to prove, but not impossible for companies with email trails. The fun question is, what will the analog be for the government confiscating the illegally "taken" data? A guarantee of deletion and requirement to retrain the model from scratch?
by tuckerman | 2025-06-05 18:36:32+00:00
It's not entirely unlike the qualified/accredited investor rules which won't let you invest in unregulated securities without income/net worth/certification requirements. No form exists which would allow someone to say "hey, I get why these wall are here, but I understand and am opting out of your protection".

I personally think there should be (I value individual rights/freedom over preventing someone from harming themselves), but I also see why we ended up here. When bad things happen, people demand action and government wants to be seen as doing something.
by MagicMoonlight | 2025-06-05 18:36:40+00:00
>If I put all the seats down the boot is bigger in the Y than with the seats up in the Ioniq

That’s great but you’re missing the fact that the Ioniq has a HUD. What does the Tesla have? Everything you’ve mentioned is irrelevant. The Ioniq has CarPlay so you don’t touch the software.
by alistairSH | 2025-06-05 18:36:50+00:00
Nope, I hate returning things.

But, brick & mortar stores rarely have clothes that fit me* AND I somehow end up between sizes, so I tend to order two of everything (in S and M, or whatever) and return the one that fits worst.

From an environmental standpoint, I have no idea if this is better or worse than having fully-stocked brick & mortar shops. But, fact is, those don't exist any more, so this is what I do.

* At 5'7", I'm slightly on the short side for an American male, and at 150lbs, I'm smaller build than most as well. IME, clothes are either cut for skinny teenagers or for dads with 38" waists. And I'm neither, leaving to try on and return many items.

Edit - since maketheman's post got killed... I've yet to find a clothing brand that lists thigh or arm diameter, which tend to be the problem. The "slim-fit" stuff you mention usually fits my waist or torso, but will not go over my bicep or quad. And the normal cut from the same brand fits like a trash bag. I'm fine getting tailored clothes for suits and suchlike, but I'm talking about jeans and casual shirts here. Anyway, it's a totally first-world problem to have, I can deal with it.
by 93po | 2025-06-05 18:37:05+00:00
i've noticed with ChatGPT is will 100% ignore certain instructions and I wonder if it's just an LLM thing. For example, I can scream and yell in caps at ChatGPT to not use em or en dashes and if anything it makes it use them even more. I've literally never once made it successfully not use them, even when it ignored it the first time, and my follow up is "output the same thing again but NO EM or EN DASHES!"

i've not tested this thoroughly, it's just my ancedotal experience over like a dozen attempts.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-05 18:37:09+00:00
Hey, I cannot even begin to describe the thrill I got when I first found my way to the AF.MIL anon-ftp server! It was probably sparsely populated with public domain software and a couple boring games, but it felt like I'd just walked in the front gate of Miramar and witnessed the Blue Angels doing barrel rolls.

Sure, it was basically "a poster on the wall" for the US Air Force, and the US Army guy on Usenet shared nothing about his actual Ballistics Research Labs experiments, but for a college freshman kid, I'd never been on a way k00ler bboard, doodz!!1
by wat10000 | 2025-06-05 18:37:49+00:00
It's in the ideal orbit for Baikonur. It's much, much easier for a low-latitude launch site to reach a high-inclination orbit than vice versa. This is especially true for Baikonur, where the available inclinations are restricted by human habitation and foreign countries downrange. Hence the minimum inclination is 51.6 degrees (which is where the ISS is) despite the launch pads being at 46 degrees latitude.
by shams93 | 2025-06-05 18:37:59+00:00
During the boomer's art hayday of the late 1970s, conceptual art became king. Look at Jeff Koonz who came up with art ideas and then had minimum wage workers build the actual pieces. We used to think of art as something made by human hands, but even decades before our digital era, very few famous artists did more than sketch out a concept which is executed by manual workers (never unionized labor either).
by Ancapistani | 2025-06-05 18:38:18+00:00
> I really like how Open AI said this is rare in real world use cases. That isn't good enough for enterprise to trust using AI.

No, but it's likely good enough to develop a more complex system that _is_ good enough.

> We’re building a governance layer (called Promethios) that wraps LLMs with decision-level constraints: agents are required to reflect, check for ethical violations, and pause or defer responses when appropriate. No fine-tuning or RLHF — just structured cognitive scaffolding.

Ah, cool. I'm working on something similar in use case but different in approach on the side, and am working on yet another "similar but different" system at work :)

> What we’re seeing in these failures isn’t just hallucination. It’s a lack of internal accountability.

Right.

I'm coming to really dislike the word "hallucinations" w/r/t AI. They aren't hallucinations. They're "bullshit". Here's the report where I first saw that term used in this context: https://philpapers.org/rec/HICCIB

The simplest applicable definition for "hallucination" is "a false or mistaken idea". That can't apply in the context of an LLMs because LLMs do not have a concept of "truth".

They aren't lies for the same reason. You can't lie if you lack the ability to discern truth.

LLMs bullshit you. They make statements, without factual support, clearly and confidently. In fact, I think it's a mistake to consider _any_ LLM output as anything other than bullshit. If it's working well, the bullshit is true as often as your situation requires.

In that context, "internally accountability" has no real meaning that I can see.

> Governance won’t solve everything, but it gives agents a way to say, “I shouldn’t answer that.” And that alone prevents a lot of harm.

Yep.

In practice, right now I'm using two layers for stuff like this. One on input to ask "does this prompt comply with our usage policy?". If that fails, it never gets to the target model. There's another on output that asks "does this response comply with our policies?". If that one fails, the response is removed from the conversation, clarifications on permissible output placed just before the user's last message, and is sent back to the target model. If the second attempt fails, a different flow is triggered to return an error to the user.

> Happy to share more if you're curious. We've been running benchmark comparisons that show meaningful behavioral shifts with this kind of wrapper.

Yeah, I'd really appreciate that.

The system you describe sounds interesting enough to justify the time reviewing it thoroughly, but I'm at least as interesting in seeing how you structured your benchmarks and measured outcomes.
by colordrops | 2025-06-05 18:38:35+00:00
I can relate. I was overweight most of my life. I had to peel away layers of bad narrative and misunderstanding, and also train my discipline circuits to get "lean". And it's still a struggle every day. I'm one of those people who gain weight on a lot less calories than other people. My wife is 2 inches shorter and weighs 50 lbs less than I, and eats twice the calories per day. Mind you, we track every gram of food and weigh it on a scale, and enter it into a diet tracking app (Cronometer in our case). So I am SUPER familiar with everything you are saying.

What I am getting at is that most people are not able to initially grasp this nuance, and the fundamental fact is that there IS a threshold of calories where you WILL lose weight no matter what. It's up to every individual to work on their motivation, but frankly that's orthogonal to the facts of the matter, and it's better to be direct rather than tell half-truths because it's "complicated". I almost never see discussions of motivation and differences in metabolism in these types of threads elsewhere, and to just assume the average person understand these factors is a mistake. The first thing people need to learn is that cutting down food will lose weight, point blank. Then you can add on layers about metabolism and motivation as the journey continues.