MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-06-13 14:51:43+00:00
These recommendations live in a mythical world, but not in a company.

In a company, you have individual passwords known by many people. They are written here and there. They are passed to other orgs because something.

In this ideal world of a non company, you have MFA everywhere, systems with great identity management wher you get bearers to access specific data, people using good passwords and whatnot.

This is not true in a company. If this is true in yours, you are the lucky 1%, cheers (and I envy you).

A good cybersecurity team will try to find reasonable solutions, a password rotation is one of them, in a despaired move to mitigate risks.

And then you have trauma that will say "we cannot change the password because we don't know where it is used".

Armchair cybersecurity experts should spend 24h with a company SOC to get an idea of the reality we live in.
by papower | 2025-06-13 14:51:53+00:00
I suspect that will be news to most (97%) of Irelands population :-) Ireland is very much an English speaking country with Irish coming a distant second despite both being 'official' languages and the latter being our traditional tongue.

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

https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2023pressr...
by marcosdumay | 2025-06-13 14:52:38+00:00
Online office suites are office suites.

If legal is deeply entrenched into Word, it means your company has a problem with legal. Complex rich text is really not an adequate format for legal documents, they should really be generating HTML through some system.

(When legal is deep into Word, there is almost always somebody that takes their results and turn them into HTML or PDF. The later group has 2 problems.)
by jeroenhd | 2025-06-13 14:54:35+00:00
Because it's very useful.

You don't call any OS level API from a website. The browser makes and shapes the notification for you. If the notification cannot be traced back to your browser, blame your browser vendor for their bad design.

That said, no amount of good browser design can protect a computer from people who don't know what they're doing. I recall a recent malware campaign where a similar mechanism was used, but instead of "click this button, go to site settings, click notifications, click allow", it'd show "copy this, hit windows+r, hit ctrl+v, then press enter to confirm you're human".

As computers continue to be dumbed down, I don't expect computer literacy to rise to a safe level any time soon. It's a matter of time before executing downloads from the internet becomes impossible.
by bdcravens | 2025-06-13 14:54:36+00:00
I came from a pretty terrible situation, and by the time I was 17, was living on my own, in the local housing authority apartments. In high school, a local businessman, who later became mayor, helped me out. I was on the debate team, and needed a suit, so he took me shopping, and not only bought the suit, but an entire wardrobe and other assistance. We communicated off and on as I went into college etc (he passed a few years later)

He told me that when I was successful, to do the same.
by yawboakye | 2025-06-13 14:55:26+00:00
what seems to have worked for me:

- speak to them frequently and deliberately remind them of how immense their help has been to me. i try to share important updates with them as well.

- gifts

- paying it forward. easiest, kind of natural responsibility though (even if no one helped you). hence least emphasized as a way to show gratitude.
by ben_w | 2025-06-13 14:56:18+00:00
> ChatGPT is nothing more than a better Google.

It's not even trying to be a search engine. It can use them, but if that's what you think of them as, you're missing most of the cool stuff they can do.

> Perhaps we should first clarify whether dolphins and elephants are equipped with it before we do ChatGPT the honor.

Before either of those, we need to understand the question. Humanity uses the word "consciousness" for far too many things right now: some of these things, AI have had for a long time; others of which can never be had by anything, including humans.
by jeroenhd | 2025-06-13 14:56:22+00:00
iPads don't support notifications unless your family figures out how to use PWAs (they won't, Apple made sure of that). Also, there are various content blockers for iOS.

Unfortunately, because real alternative browsers are only supported in the EU (and even then with big asterisks), you won't see a normal browser engine powerful content blocking any time soon. The content filters you can download from the app store help, but they're not as powerful as uBO and friends.
by Eduard | 2025-06-13 14:56:37+00:00
> A fast, distributed and resilient DNS infrastructure that's 100% European.

> dns0.eu is a French non‑profit organization founded in 2022 by Romain Cointepas and Olivier Poitrey — co-founders of NextDNS.

-> https://help.nextdns.io/t/y4hmv0n/who-is-behind-nextdns

> Who is behind NextDNS?

> NextDNS was founded in May 2019 in Delaware, USA by two French founders Romain Cointepas and Olivier Poitrey. Olivier has been working on Internet infrastructures for the last 20 years. In 2005, he founded Dailymotion, the largest video sharing service after Youtube and the most popular European website in the world at the time. He is currently Director of Engineering at Netflix, working on Open Connect, Netflix's home CDN also known as the CDN moving about 30% of the total US Internet traffic. Romain and Olivier closely worked for years at Dailymotion on many different projects. Romain ended up leading the mobile & TV department.

Brain gymnastics at work.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-06-13 14:56:57+00:00
You have no recourse and it is a lesson in being mindful what you share in corp comms. Assume anything you share is going to be in the most public channel in the company. Consider how and what you say accordingly.

If you want something to stay private, non corp comms, and in a format that has legal consequences if shared (two party consent laws, etc).
by patcon | 2025-06-13 14:57:00+00:00
Can't assess content beyond amateur attempt, but am curious.

Second author seems very established, so some social proof there: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Geom...

EDIT: yesterday's video on the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7See8OhtN-k (h/t user naasking below)
by bko | 2025-06-13 14:58:02+00:00
Cash is the least concern. I listened to a podcast about the history of Microsoft and there were times where Gates said "at least it was only money" or something to that effect.

Microsoft floundered an entire decade on mobile and Windows Vista when they were going to lose out on Google that was literally paying OEMs to use their software and Apple, who had a vertical stack and made money off hardware. Huge setback in terms of focus that took them a long time to recover from.

The main constraint is focus of talent to work on one thing. This is a huge move in terms of coordinated effort into this space that may or may not pay off.
by hoofhearted | 2025-06-13 14:58:12+00:00
No, those were entirely different user experiences when the services you mentioned were gaining traction and finding product market fit.

UberCab and Palo Alto Delivery were both services that had great success at user experiences for everyone involved including drivers, riders, small businesses, people ordering food. These experiences created brand champions who went out and raved about these technological innovations nonstop.

I don’t see any mentions of any positive experiences with Scale Ai here on HN or Reddit.. maybe that’s the reason behind the acquisition?
by chasd00 | 2025-06-13 14:58:36+00:00
I think this is lost on many people. There's no authority overseeing sovereign nations, no real law or consequence to law-breaking even if there was one. There's only allies, treaties, pacts between nations, military might, and the consequences of aggression that keep the peace. Russia would be bombing all the supply lines of weapons flowing into Ukraine if the consequences weren't so high. There's certainly no law that is preventing them from doing so, only the consequences of their actions.
by xtracto | 2025-06-13 14:59:18+00:00
Right, likewise the way science works is by publishing studies. Here we have a published peer reviewed study, "versus" a one paragraph anonymous dude trying to discredit the study.

Wake me up when this dude gets a paper accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Then I will read what he has to say and add it to my list of "worthwhile" sources to form my conclusion on Erythritol.

Other than that, online forum comments are just mental candy floss to read while taking my morning caffeine fix.
by grafmax | 2025-06-13 14:59:37+00:00
I guess my concern is about the living standards of workers not creation of wealth. I think your argument is that growing wealth helps the working class as it creates more wealth, and thus a bigger pie. My argument is that a bigger pie does not benefit the working class without external forces pressuring the capitalist class.

I agree markets can be beneficial in some ways but they also have pathological behaviors left on their own. In capitalist countries the capitalist class more or less runs the government, even in so-called democracies. This is because wealth and thus power sits with the capitalist class. In our society market effects over time have produced a wealth disparity so great that the capitalist class is pushing austerity measures that will likely succeed in further enriching itself at the expense of the working class - lowering living standards while increasing profits. In the meantime existential risks to the human race like climate change or nuclear war are not only neglected but actively stoked.

I also would caution against the use of the term “free” market; China directs its markets; even the “Asian tigers” story was the outcome of state policies deliberately building a manufacturing base including measures such as education and land reform - admittedly a much freer hand given was given to markets compared to China; yet in neither case would I characterize these gains as the result of markets operating truly independently or freely; in both cases market effects were guided and channeled toward specific desired outcomes.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-13 14:59:37+00:00
You wouldn't need a sudden jump. If you had a rocket that accelerated at a pleasant 1G forever, you could reach and stop at the center of the milky way in about 20 (your time) years, and you could reach and stop at the Andromeda galaxy in about 28 years. Play around with some of the online space travel relativity calculators--it's wild!

Of course building and fueling such a rocket is what's totally out of reach.
by math_comment_21 | 2025-06-13 15:01:03+00:00
In topology, if you have a continuous surjective map X --> Y, then it might have a continuous splitting (a map the other way which is a "partial" inverse in the sense that Y ---> X ---> Y is the identity) e.g. there are lots of splittings of the projection R^2 ---> R, you could include the line back as the x-axis but also the graph of any continuous function is a splitting.

On the other hand, there's no continuous splitting of the map from the unit interval to the circle that glues together the two endpoints.

So the category of topological spaces does not have the property "every epimorphism splits."

As the article mentions, the axiom of choice says that the category of sets has this property.

So we can think of the various independence results of the 20th century as saying, hey, (assuming ZFC is consistent) there's this category, Set, with this rule, and there's this other category called idk Snet, that satisfies the ZF axioms but where there are some surjections that don't split, and that's ok too.

Then whatever, if you want to study something like rings but you don't like the axiom of choice, define a rning to be a snet with two binary operations such that blah blah blah, and you've got a nice category Rning and your various theorems about rnings and maybe they don't all have maximal ideals, even though rings do. You're not arguing about ontology or the nature of truth, you're just picking which category to work in.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-13 15:01:06+00:00
>I’m curious if there are any exotic materials that would be way better dielectrics?

There are, but like glass they tend to be rigid crystalline structures, and not necessarily formable into what you need. There also is the problem that the dielectric needs to be perfect, as any imperfection becomes a pressure point and once you get even a microscopic breakdown, the whole thing is junk. Any practical repair is going to be very imperfect on the molecular level, so see what I said earlier. Also gaps are imperfections, so usually layering layers of dielectric is a non-starter too (but can be done, it's just very engineering intensive). The HV will "leap" from imperfection to imperfection until it finds it's ground. Insulating HV is a totally different world than your typical 240V, 480V, even 1kV insulation.

>Also are there ways to step down really high voltages? I can’t picture how the electronics would work without shorting

Yes, they basically use stacks of thyristors or IGBTs to actively switch the DC "phases" which get fed into a transformer to step down. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good article on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_converter
by n4r9 | 2025-06-13 15:01:28+00:00
> the spin matrices were built to deal with three spatial axes

If I understand correctly, it kinda happened the other way around. First the Pauli matrices were introduced to explain unexpected degrees of freedom in experimental observations; then the term "spin" was proposed because the operators related to each other in the same way as classical angular momentum operators. See e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13552...
by ben_w | 2025-06-13 15:01:43+00:00
> Normal biological processes don't seem to do it, it's something particular about the brain. So it's either something that only the brain does, which seems to be something at least vaguely like computation, or the brain is just a conduit and consciousness comes from something functionally like a "soul."

Another option is hidden the first sentence: "Normal biological processes don't *seem* to do it." — emphasis on "seem", because not only is it currently beyond us to have meaningful two-way conversations with dogs about their experiences and as them if they're conscious, we absolutely can't do it with trees or bacteria or our own livers.

We can talk with LLMs, but we also know they're making stuff up, so we can't trust that they're not just saying what got them an up-vote in RLHF training.
by parsimo2010 | 2025-06-13 15:02:16+00:00
Sure, but this is a different value proposition. FB paid $1B for Instagram, which was trendy, growing fast, and already had 30 million users. FB paid $19B for Whatsapp, which was already established worldwide with ~400 million users. These acquisitions were very much in-line with FB's core product. The people saying it was risky were mostly just saying that it was a waste of money and that FB could have just beaten their competition instead of buying them.

And bringing up VR is probably not the best comparison to make- sure, Meta is a leader here, and they are competitive with their AI team too. But "I'm sure it will have huge ROI in the near future" is just saying that it hasn't paid off and they don't have an obvious path to getting there. Shoving VR and the Metaverse into everyone's face hasn't paid off for several years, and the VR segment as a whole has remained niche despite being around for decades.

This acquisition is different- AI is not Meta's core product, it's just something hot right now and CEOs are trying to figure out how to stuff it into their products and hoping they can figure out how to make money later. Plus, they paid a pretty big chunk of money for a company that does, what? Cleans data for LLM training? Meta's Llama team clearly has a good data group already. They paid for a few employees that are clearly popular amongst the executives in the tech industry, but I don't know how this will go in terms of attracting other talent. Unless Wang is bringing something secret along with him, I think this one is an overpayment- Meta will need to both figure out how AI makes them money and Wang will have to attract several billion dollars worth of talent to the team. I'm skeptical that people will talk about this the same way they will about Meta getting Yann LeCun to work for them for a lot less money.
by HauntedKiwi | 2025-06-13 15:02:17+00:00
If only everyone involved with security compliance could learn the lesson that John learned in The Phoenix Project, developers and ops folks would experience a lot less pressure to treat the pantry like Fort Knox. There is not only evidence that goes against the expectations of many auditors, but there's also no requirement that compliance of everything be implemented through costly software and network changes, because physical security and process can be used for compliance as well.
by 2c2c2c | 2025-06-13 15:03:00+00:00
>"The wrong game"? What about the game they want to play..? the fleeting circumstances that impact a user's ability to play a particular title don't outweigh the hundreds of thousands of dollars of theft. your examples don't even make sense

>Or what if they want to play the game they bought on different computers they own? this is not an issue with steam/denuvo

>Or what if they're troubleshooting something? what?

>What about when I wanna play the game again in 10 years and your activation servers are down? denuvo style drm isn't intended to be permanently used on a game. eventually the cost of licensing per year exceeds the extra revenue (usually after one year). You don't even understand what you're talking about
by troad | 2025-06-13 15:03:14+00:00
> Why didn't people address God with "you"?

Even today, this tends to be the case in European languages that distinguish familiar and polite pronouns (what linguists call the T-V distinction). God tends to be an exception to the usual T-V rules.

The reason for this is that in all these languages, thou started out as simply the singular and you as the plural, with no politeness dimension at all. Using the plural pronoun (or third person pronouns, etc) for politeness was a fad that only spread around Europe in the Middle Ages (give or take).

Religious formulae, however, are generally extremely resistant to language change. This is a very consistent finding across the world; some of our best evidence in historical linguistics comes from religious texts (such as the Rigveda, the Avesta, etc). Religion tends to be, not surprisingly, a highly conservative and ritualised domain.

Thus, prayers in European languages with the T-V distinction generally retain the use of T forms when addressing God. There are all sorts of lovely folk explanations for this, but the real reason is basically just because prayers predate the T-V system altogether.
by fakedang | 2025-06-13 15:03:42+00:00
Give back to others who are in your position as you were when young.

I always go through every cold contact email or message from any university student who messages me out of the blue, simply because a McKinsey Senior Managing Partner took the same chance for me. He even recommended me to the McKinsey recruiting, even though I was ridiculously off-cycle, even though my profile was kinda shit lol, just after one meeting. But because of him, I got my first exposure to whiteshoe recruiting (eventually joined a place where McK people dream of going to). So now I give back the opportunity to anyone who asks me politely for a meeting or for advice.
by andytratt | 2025-06-13 15:03:47+00:00
i don't know Alex directly that well but i believe his "freshman year" skipped all GIRs and was spent polishing off the most advanced graduate courses in CS theory (18.404), machine learning (6.867), algorithms (6.854), etc.

so basically he did MIT at the PhD level in 1 year.

As a classmate myself who did it in 3, at a high level too (and I think Varun - of Windsurf - completed his undergrad in 3 years also)...

Wang's path and trajectory, thru MIT at least, is unmatched to my knowledge.
by afavour | 2025-06-13 15:03:55+00:00
This is an interesting set to browse through. I feel genuinely conflicted about the decisions the Webkit team makes: I appreciate that they have a far stricter standard around privacy and security that others do, but also feel like they go too far at times and potentially use those as excuses to keep the web an inferior platform.

As an example, they oppose the ability to attach screenshots to a Progressive Web App manifest for use in an install prompt:

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/49

The stated reason is because the screenshot could be malicious and made to look like native UI. Which... yes, I can't disagree that it could. But that's true of every image on the web. So is it genuine concern or is it a resistance to improving the state of App Store alternatives?

(not that it matters a ton, Safari doesn't even support those install prompts anyway!)
by mock-possum | 2025-06-13 15:04:11+00:00
That doesn’t make sense - if you were traveling at the speed of light, it would take you 5000 years to travel 5000ly - longer if you were just ‘very close’ to C. Time wouldn’t advance slowly for you, it wouldn’t advance perceptively different at all - you’d still live every second of those 5000 years.
by xtracto | 2025-06-13 15:04:23+00:00
I am partial to Allulose [1] and Stevia [2]. A lot of people find their taste bad, but I've grown used to them, so much that I don't "taste" them anymore.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.2904
by andrepd | 2025-06-13 15:04:51+00:00
Anonymous labeled structs and enums are some of my top wished-for features in programming languages! For instance, in Rust you can define labelled and unlabelled (i.e. tuple) structs

struct Foo(i32, i32); struct Bar{sum: i32, product: i32}

But you can only e.g. return from functions an anonymous tuple, not an anonymous labelled struct

fn can() -> (i32, i32) fn cant() -> {sum: i32, product: i32}
by Breza | 2025-06-13 15:04:53+00:00
I'd be really interested in evaluating the evaluations of different models. At work, I maintain our internal LLM benchmarks for content generation. We've always used human raters from MTurk, and the Elo rankings generally match what you'd expect. I'm looking at our options for having LLMs do the evaluating.

In your case, it would be neat to have a bunch of different models (and maybe MTurk) pick the winners of each head-to-head matchup and then compare how stable the Elo scores are between evaluators.
by JohnFen | 2025-06-13 15:04:57+00:00
10% is the standard I follow. It's built into my budgeting at that level. There's nothing magical about the 10%, though, it's just what works for me and is easy to compute. But I also follow the "pay yourself first" rule -- I take 10% off the top of every dollar that I receive, and put that aside for future me. Then I set aside 10% of the remainder to pay back my community. So, it's really 9%.
by c0nsumer | 2025-06-13 15:07:55+00:00
Did any of you submit this successfully? I first tried in Firefox and it seemed to just not work when clicking the final submit. Then I tried again in Safari and the same, but the UI worked a little differently (a dropdown for the product model) and the submission still didn't work. So I tried one more time in Safari and it said the serial number was already submitted.

But never got an email affirming my submission so... I dunno.

This power bank is actually an old one that I don't really use anymore, but if I get a chance to get a replacement, I sure don't mind. So hopefully it went through?