MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by simonw | 2025-06-13 15:23:37+00:00
My favorite line from this paper:

> The design patterns we propose share a common guiding principle: once an LLM agent has ingested untrusted input, it must be constrained so that it is impossible for that input to trigger any consequential actions—that is, actions with negative side effects on the system or its environment.

This is the key thing people need to understand about why prompt injection is such a critical issue, especially now everyone is wiring LLMs together with tools and MCP servers and building "agents".
by sensanaty | 2025-06-13 15:23:58+00:00
Is this the same company that has their recruiters (or whatever the hell they're called) spamming me incessantly via all my emails, even the throwaway ones I've used literally one single time that they presumably got via some unscrupulous means, about "annotating" data for training AI? And their rate is something laughable like 20 euros an hour?

We truly live in a clown world when a casual $14B is being chucked at garbage like this, I hope those Iranian nukes turn out to be real this time and I get to be the first in line to be cleansed via nuclear fire, 'cause I'm tired boss.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2025-06-13 15:24:32+00:00
There are dozens of your type out there that I don’t understand. The “I don’t want no commit hooks running on my machine. I and only I control what happens on my local machine” purists. There’s at least one in every job I work.

If the thing is going to block in ci anyway, why are you opting for a push and pray approach? Why arbitrarily increase your feedback loop time and add waiting time for each loop in ci? Chances are the time to get feedback is at least a couple orders of magnitude faster locally, you’re paying not only the startup time to register the runner and bring it online, get dependencies installed etc but also the manual time to context switch to the CI window etc. Just do all your linting and auto formatting and whatever on commit. It’s all work you’re going to have to do anyway, why introduce some extra less efficient step on yourself to slow yourself down?
by lukas099 | 2025-06-13 15:24:43+00:00
This reminds me of what Jordan Peterson does, which is to define "God" as something that we know exists. He defines it as the fundamental value upon which other values are built; you define it as consciousness.

I've always thought arguments like these are unnecessarily applying a term loaded with human conceptions and biases in a way that doesn't shed any further light on the thing it's applied to. Like, what do we gain by defining "God" as consciousness? Why can't we just say "consciousness"? And is it worth the added confusion that when we say "God", we now don't mean what most people think "God" is?

The only reason I can come up with to do this is discomfort at saying, "I don't believe in God."
by daft_pink | 2025-06-13 15:24:46+00:00
I think the criticism is there is no way for the user to access their own passkeys. For example, if you go into 1password, you cannot export your passkey, you cannot view your passkey.

You’ve essentially walked into a form of vendor lockin without that ever being explained to the user and it looks like they are building a way to move from vendor to vendor, but you never get direct access yourself for whatever reason.
by calebhailey | 2025-06-13 15:24:56+00:00
Thanks for this feedback!

I agree with your analysis re: good/better/best approaches – or more like unacceptable/acceptable/good – and I shipped a website in the unacceptable state.

Let me see if I can fix that today.

I personally prefer the Safari browser, and I use an extension (Noir) for forcing dark mode. So where you rely Chromium's "force dark mode", Noir detects if a website has a built-in dark mode available and uses that, otherwise it just applies its own dark mode. This has been working well on hypertemplates.net, and that was acceptable during my documentation sprint over these past few weeks, but I'd rather not leave my visitors UX up individual browser configurations (via extensions or chrome flags).
by Plasmoid2000ad | 2025-06-13 15:25:08+00:00
Something not touched on by others. The standard Microsoft contract outlawed any moonlighting for years, any code you created was potentially going to be claimed by Microsoft - so you didn't feel safe working on side projects or contributing to open source. Open source code was a pariah - you were warned unless you had an exception to never look at any open source code even vaguely related to your projects, including in personal time, for fear of opening up Microsoft to legal trouble.

In the context of this, when and why would the average dev get time to properly use git - no just get a shallow understanding, but use it at the complexity level needed for an large internal mono-repo ported to it.

I've used git Microsoft for years, but using git with Office client is totally different. I believe it's used differently, with very different expecations in Windows.
by Intralexical | 2025-06-13 15:25:22+00:00
Some people are stimulating themselves with opioids too. Outside the Hacker News bubble, which statistically has elevated incentives to push "the future is AI", the consensus I've seen is revulsion towards fully algorithmically generated content streams.

This is like seeing Frito-Lay's stock price rise, and concluding that restaurants are doomed in the future. There's about the same amount of equivalence.
by jasperry | 2025-06-13 15:25:23+00:00
So if I understand the claim of this correctly (I'm a spectator of logic research and haven't tried to follow the proofs), there is a constructive version of AoC that is obviously true, but it's not the same as Zermelo's axiom because that one is extensional. Zermelo's axiom can be formulated in constructive mathematics but gives you things you don't want (like excluded middle.)

Is this close to a correct statement of the paper's result? Is all this agreed on today? Have there been any significant refinements?
by tialaramex | 2025-06-13 15:26:08+00:00
Hmm. Let me first check that I've understood what you care about

struct First(this: i8, that: i64) struct Second(this: i8, that: i8) struct Third(that: i64, this: i8) struct Fourth(this: i8, that: i64) struct Fifth(some: i8, other: i64)

You want First and Fourth as the same type, but Second and Third are different - how about Fifth?

I see that this is different from Rust's existing product types, in which First and Fourth are always different types.

Second though, can you give me some examples where I'd want this? I can't say I have ever wished I had this, but that might be a different experience.
by Bjorkbat | 2025-06-13 15:26:14+00:00
It's a smart purchase, it's just that I don't see how these datasets factor into super-intelligence. I don't think you can create a super-intelligent AI with more human data, even if it's high-quality data from paid human contributors.

Unless we watered-down the definition of super-intelligent AI. To me, super-intelligence means an AI that has an intelligence that dwarfs anything theoretically possible from a human mind. Borderline God-like. I've noticed that some people have referred to super-intelligent AI as simply AI that's about as intelligent as Albert Einstein in effectively all domains. In the latter case, maybe you could get there with a lot of very, very good data, but it's also still a leap of imagination for me.
by M2Ys4U | 2025-06-13 15:26:18+00:00
It's not about first vs third party, or tracking or non-tracking cookies, or adverts.

Any data storage on the end user's device (cookies, local storage etc.) that is not strictly necessary to provide the service requires consent. So even basic and (relatively) privacy-friendly analytics cookies are covered by this.

When the new ePrivacy regulation is finally adopted[0] the rules will be relaxed a little to allow things like analytics cookies to be used without consent.

This is the full text of the law:

"Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC,[1] inter alia, about the purposes of the processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service."

[0] it was originally going to be adopted in 2017/8 and come in to force a year or two later but that whole process has been a mess

[1] That's the Data Protection Directive, which has been repealed and replaced by the GDPR.
by dwrodri | 2025-06-13 15:26:19+00:00
Formal methods = “this software cannot do things it shouldn’t do”, I have formally proven it ALWAYS EXECUTES THE WAY I CONSTRAINED IT TO.

Contrast with

Testing = “My tests prove these inputs definitely produce these test outputs”

IME Formal methods struggle making contact with reality because you really only get their promise “it always does what it is constrained to do” when every abstraction underneath provides the same guarantee, I wager most CPUs/GPUs aren’t verified down to the gate level these days.

It’s just faster to “trust” tests with most of the benefit, and developing software faster is very important to capturing a market and accruing revenue if you are building your software for business reasons.

EDIT: My gate-level verification remark is a bit extreme, but it applies to higher layers of the stack. The linux kernel isn’t verified. Drivers are sometimes verified, but not often. There is an HN comment somewhere about building a filesystem in Coq, and while the operations at the filesystem layer are provably correct, the kernel interfaces still fail. The firmware still isn’t proven. The CPU itself running on has undisclosed optimizations in its caches and load/store mechanisms which just aren’t proven, but enabled it to beat the competition on benchmarks, driving sales.
by moralestapia | 2025-06-13 15:27:53+00:00
Yeah, also the industry could come up with their own Scale if they were forced to.

But probs. it just makes sense on paper, Scale's revenue will pay this for itself and what they could do is to give/keep the best training sets for Meta, for "free" now.

Zuck's not an idiot. The Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were phenomenal in hindsight.
by a_e_k | 2025-06-13 15:27:54+00:00
This is explicitly called out in the canvas spec's best practices section with a laundry list of things you'd have to re-implement [1].

> Authors should avoid implementing text editing controls using the canvas element. Doing so has a large number of disadvantages:

> [...]

> This is a huge amount of work, and authors are most strongly encouraged to avoid doing any of it by instead using the input element, the textarea element, or the contenteditable attribute.

[1] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/canvas.html#best-prac...
by hermannj314 | 2025-06-13 15:28:40+00:00
I was told to never give unsolicited advice, and saying thank you out of the blue is a type of unsolicited feedback.

Helping others is also a form of elitism as it assumes you know what is best for others and most of us don't.

It is best to live alone, die alone, thank no one, and stick to yourself. Leave improving the world to the 1%, most of us aren't worth the air we breathe and the smaller the footprint we leave when we die the better humanity will be for it.
by tombh | 2025-06-13 15:29:27+00:00
Intenser flames the more you type, great idea!

Plugins can't currently get the shader pixels. But that's just because I haven't added them to the plugin protocol yet. But interestingly shaders actually have access to the terminal contents in the form of a pixelated version of the text. And the mouse and cursor position too. So maybe there's something you could do purely in a shader.
by GuinansEyebrows | 2025-06-13 15:29:28+00:00
speaking as a former professional pearl diver, you soak your big stuff (or anything burnt or covered in melted cheese) while you wash the small stuff. then you can almost just rinse the big stuff unless it's really burnt on.

other good tips for home dishwashing: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48594284-how-to-wash-the...
by rancar2 | 2025-06-13 15:29:53+00:00
My best friend is spending 100 days writing hand written letters of love to those who contributed to her life’s journey. There’s humanity and connectedness with writing that no other medium offers both the writer and the reader. Her writing has been received with such love, tears of joy, and mutual appreciation. This includes book authors that she’s found herself meaningfully influenced and inspired by. She’s half way through the project, and I’m sure she’d be happy to connect if you’d like any tips.

One big tip is make sure your hands are ready with the proper pen and hand exercises.
by londons_explore | 2025-06-13 15:30:24+00:00
> HVDC lines can have up to 10% ripple

That's exactly why one uses a high switching frequency, MOSFETs and has a tiny ripple (perhaps 0.1%). This can be obtained cheaply with multiphase convertors.

Mosfets are now cheaper than IGBT's where you are paying for power losses and plan to run at full load for more than a few days to months. That's why nearly all EV's use MOSFETs - (and will use GAN MOSFETs at MHz switching rates when the patents run out)

Remember that the cable acts like a capacitor/inductor pair to ground. Ripple currents that are lost through it are not wasted money - merely wasted capacity and resistive losses in the cable. At these currents, you can assume earth is a perfect conductor, so no losses there either.
by const_cast | 2025-06-13 15:30:59+00:00
I think everyone is greatly overestimating VR.

The thing is, I can imagine some futuristic version of AI that transforms humanity. But with VR, even in my wildest dreams with all the problems solved, it’s still just second best to smartphones and computers.

Imagine the perfect headset. Tiny, battery lasts forever, photo-realistic. I would still rather browse the Internet on my phone. I’d rather do my work on my laptop. I’d rather watch movies on my TV. What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done.

The only usecase that makes any sense is gaming. But only some games. It’s just too niche.
by peckemys | 2025-06-13 15:31:16+00:00
Some people prefer to manage (or simply test) CLI tools, as simple or complicated they are, with Docker. You can setup an alias like 'alias qrkey=docker run --rm ghcr.io/techwolf12/qrkey:0.0.1' and run it as it was normally installed. In this example, as the image is created from scratch, the size would only be marginally bigger than the executable.
by OkayPhysicist | 2025-06-13 15:31:24+00:00
I literally just implemented an Okta integration with an internal tool yesterday, so let me offer a little insight on why this happens. I have an existing tool. The guy in charge of it doesn't want me breaking anything, but we want to add an SSO flow to avoid having to login.

So I need a "SSO login page", which fetches some configuration data, stores it, generates some shared tokens, hands them to the browser, and then redirects the user to an Okta endpoint. Okta, for some reason, doesn't directly serve the login screen at that endpoint, so it captures the tokens I gave the browser, then redirects to its login page. The user logs in on the Okta page, which then redirects the user back to a page that I specified, which (since I don't want to touch the fragile 10,000 line php document that is the application's home page, is a separate page, which gets some information from the browser, makes a request to another Okta endpoint, at which point the user can be authenticated, logged in, and then sent to the home page of the app.

Basically, the most standalone way of handling the problem involves 4 redirects.
by kirandas_reload | 2025-06-13 15:31:53+00:00
We’ve been building Reload - think of it as a PayPal for AI tools and agents.

If you’re using tools like Cursor (AI code editor), Bolt (AI dev agent), UX Pilot (AI for UX research), or any other niche AI app, you’ve probably noticed the problem:

Each tool has its own credits or token system, subscription, and billing system. You end up with:

• Scattered spending

• Unused credits that expire each month

• Multiple subscriptions that don’t scale

Reload is an interoperable wallet designed to simplify that:

• One wallet → works across multiple AI tools

• Auto credit or token conversion (no manual exchange rates)

• Set spend limits, get usage insights, auto top-ups

• Avoid unused credits and subscription fatigue

• Only pay for what you use

For AI builders, it’s a usage based payments layer, that could significantly reduce the churn rate and an easier way to convert more users into paid tier even eliminating the need for free trials.

Would love your thoughts on if you'll use something like this?

If you’re building an AI agent or tool, we’d love to talk and see if Reload could support you.

Thanks HN - excited to hear what this community thinks!
by pflenker | 2025-06-13 15:32:11+00:00
It’s entirely possible to come up with artistic choices which precisely aim to be impossible to capture. So at times it’s not due to falsehoods someone believes, but rather the opposite - artists deliberately breaking the limits of what’s currently possible. Not a direct CD example, but one vinyl (was it by Pink Floyd?) has a special last track, where the needle is redirected endlessly, making the last track effectively endless. Or double grooved vinyls, Track 0s on CDs and so on.

But to stay with my example of the stabbed heart - even if the DB supported it, you’d still have to make choices when converting the icon as printed into the database, such as coloring.
by ethbr1 | 2025-06-13 15:33:06+00:00
The reason we were able to ban chemical weapons and nuclear weapons, to the extent we did, is that it was in everyone's self-interest.

In contrast, there's a reason major militaries haven't ratified the land mine treaty: they work.

Unfortunately, AI driven weapons are going to effective in terms of decreased response time and increased automomy.

Ergo, the best we can aim for should be enforced guidelines around its use. Especially with regards to human authority/responsibility.
by epsilonthree | 2025-06-13 15:33:07+00:00
I work at Meta. Scale has given us atrocious data so many times, and gotten caught sending us ChatGPT generated data multiple times. Even the WSJ knew: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/alexandr-wang-scale-ai-d7c6efd7 https://archive.is/5mbdH

We intentionally didn’t use them at all for Llama 2 and mostly avoided using them for Llama 3, but execs kept pushing Scale on us. Total mystery why until now, guess this explains it.
by DougN7 | 2025-06-13 15:33:18+00:00
I’m trying to decide how outraged to be about this. When I walk through my yard or the forest I’m also likely crushing bugs, ant hills, etc. Is it the same thing if that ant hill is old or big? Is it a big deal because it’s a cruise ship but OK if it was a fishing boat?

Sure, let’s try not to destroy any living thing on purpose, but some realism is also needed.
by johnnyjeans | 2025-06-13 15:33:19+00:00
Is light slow? Or is the human perception of time just scaled down as a result of our rapid metabolism and infinitesimality? People historically mistake plants for being inanimate things with no reactivity, that they are far more simple and stupid than they truly are. Outside of a few exotic examples, plants simply operate on a wider timescale that's basically imperceptible without careful and particular observation. It becomes much more apparent how alive plants are when we observe them in a time-lapse. Now realize that plants are still relatively short-lived. The absolute oldest ones only go back to the early neolithic, that's only 14000 years or so. 1000 years is a long time for humans, but probably not for the trees where a single one can live 10x that.

From the hypothetical perspective of a star, with a lifespan measured in billions upon billions of years, the entire ecoscape of the world changes in a blink. From the sun's perspective, MENA was green just a very short while ago. Hell, Pangea wasn't that long ago. At this timescale, continental drift would be as apparent as the movement of boats are to humans. Anything that's working at the cosmic scale where the seemingly low speed of light sounds exhausting is most definitely working at this stellar perspective at the minimum. 14000 years of travel might as well be the equivalent of a 10 minute commute to the store.

Philosophically speaking, of course.
by reify | 2025-06-13 15:33:46+00:00
Fucoidans are senotherapeutics that enhance SIRT6-dependent DNA repair.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40502774/

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

TLDR

big words, very little meaning to the rest of the worlds population.

The use of jargon kills people's interest in science.

For the people without a brain the size of an elephant and those who think that by having an elephant size brain automatcally makes them more clever than your basic ordinary human being, you are not, so stop trying to drown everyone out with technical jargon language. Muppets!

simply put:

how to live to 100 by eating tons of seaweed.

Now that is not scientific at all

now get peer reviewing you muppets
by edanm | 2025-06-13 15:34:01+00:00
As you allude to in your story, Palestinians being friends with Israelis was the norm thirty years ago - there was less separation and Israelis and Palestinians more freely interacted.

But you seem to blame Israel for the situation no longer being this way. You say:

> People move on if you let them

So why is the situation worse now than it was before?

The reason, from an Israeli perspective, is that Israel started a peace process with the Palestinians in which it tried to arrive at a reasonable solution, but the Palestinians eventually refused every offer, including very generous offers, and walked away. Not only that, they launched the second intifada, the deadliest wave of terror attacks on Israel.

Israel tried a different way with Gaza - we can't reach a deal, so fine - we'll just leave Gaza completely. It uprooted all Jewish citizens of Gaza, dismantled all settlements, and left. Gaza then proceeded to elect Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, and started almost immediately shooting rockets at Israel.

So as an Israeli liberal - I absolutely prefer peace and want to get to a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians. But it's honestly unclear to me that we have any partner on the Palestinian side that is willing to live side-by-side with Israel.

>And when a Palestinian militant group tries to resist with violence again don’t start murdering civilians. Just treat with them.

You know that this is precisely what Israel did with Hamas - just dealt with them with them. This is what many people are now criticizing Israel for.