MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-06-24 23:00:54+00:00
> Random “I want a donut from 711 at 1am” where I’m sure fees/tip were multiples of the actual food cost.

Obviously I can’t say if this was the case for your family but a friend of mine pays for the premium dash pass subscription and this is exactly the kind of thing he would do, knowing that he won’t be charged the delivery fee. Dunno about tips but that’s optional anyway.

(Man, I sure hope that individual delivering the donut was paid for their time, though. No clue if the economics of Doordash’s subscription model actually allows for that but I can’t imagine how it would, with 3+ deliveries per day at [$10/mo](https://help.doordash.com/consumers/s/article/What-is-DashPa...). Gotta be a combination of some drivers getting screwed, Doordash losing money, and/or dash pass subscribers who rarely order. The order minimum does not apply everywhere. Maybe there are different payment tiers but that’s not detailed on their help page.)
by Avamander | 2025-06-24 23:00:59+00:00
> I don't like their suggested approach "copy&paste example you like and tinker it", I never do that, so I had to untangle their Makefiles, I had to research their defines (app_config.h, what's a monstrosity), I had to write my own linker scripts, but in the end I have my application under control and it's all standard gcc toolchain, no fancy stuff.

Sounds very similar to ST.
by pwinkeler | 2025-06-24 23:01:26+00:00
Why surprised? Didn't US taxpayers pay for the collection of all this information? Now only those with "legitimate" interest can get access? I would very much like to know what the reasoning behind this move is. Although I suspect that as per usual, a reason will not be forthcoming. But who knows, perhaps the Epstein files are now being kept there, LOL?
by BearOso | 2025-06-24 23:01:49+00:00
I think having any kind of "scaling" preferences focuses too much on the technical aspect. It could be narrowed down to one setting like "zoom level" or just "size." This would mean that all UI elements change size exactly proportionately to one another. Ideally, rendering should happen at the exact resolution of the display, and scaling, as in resizing a bitmap using bilinear interpolation or whatever, doesn't need to be part of the pipeline except for outdated legacy programs.

In the past, the problem with UI toolkits doing proportional sizing was because they used bitmaps for UI elements. Since newer versions of Qt and Gtk 4 render programmatically, they can do it the right way. Windows mostly does this, too, even with win32 as long as you're using the newer themes. MacOS is the only one that has assets prerendered at integer factors everywhere and needs to perform framebuffer scaling to change sizes. But Apple doesn't care because they don't want you using third-party monitors anyway.

Edit: I'm not sure about Apple's new theme. Maybe this is their transition point away from fixed asset sizes.
by eru | 2025-06-24 23:01:56+00:00
As far as we can tell, all the known laws of nature are computable. And I think most of them are even efficiently computable, especially if you have a quantum computer.

Quantum mechanics is even linear!

Fun fact, quantum mechanics is also deterministic, if you stay away from bonkers interpretations like Copenhagen and stick to just the theory itself or saner interpretations.
by sho_hn | 2025-06-24 23:02:28+00:00
You're overthinking things a bit and are also a bit confused about how font sizes work and what "scaling" means in a windowing system context. You are thinking taking a bunch of pixels and resampling. In the context we're talking about "scaling" means telling the software what it's expected to output and giving it an opportunity to render accordingly.

The way the terminal handles the (literal) edge case you mention is no different from any other time its window size is not a multiple of the line height: It shows empty rows of pixels at the top or bottom.

Fonts are only a "exact size" if they're bitmap-based (and when you scale bitmap fonts you are indeed in for sampling difficulties). More typical is to have a font storing vectors and rasterizing glyphs to to the needed size at runtime.
by tines | 2025-06-24 23:03:49+00:00
IMO we are going to see a large class of people who have cognitive deficits brought on by AI tool usage.

I've been wondering lately about how to distinguish between tools that enhance your cognitive ability, and tools that degrade it. Jobs called a computer a "bicycle for the mind," and it seems like LLMs are an easy-chair for the mind. I'm not sure a priori how to distinguish between the two classes of tools though. Maybe there is no other tool like an LLM.
by okanat | 2025-06-24 23:04:10+00:00
Still? It is the best and the most mature cross-platform toolkit. Among both open-source and proprietary ones. It is the default for embedded / industrial UIs and automotive. At least in Europe but I think many US companies like Autodesk also use Qt. Its programming paradigms are a bit outdated. However, it is quite performant and supports many 2D and 3D acceleration drivers / APIs.
by quantadev | 2025-06-24 23:04:13+00:00
There's as much variability in LLM AI as there is in human intelligence. What I'm saying is that I bet if that guy wrote a better prompt his "failing LLM" is much more likely to stop failing, unless it's just completely incompetent.

What I always find hilarious too is when the AI Skeptics try to parlay these kinds of "failures" into evidence LLMs cannot reason. If course they can reason.
by old_man_cato | 2025-06-24 23:04:25+00:00
Sometimes I feel like I'm losing my mind with this shit.

Am I to understand that a bunch of "experts" created a model, they surrounded the findings of that model with a fancy website, replete with charts and diagrams, that website suggests the possibility of some doomsday scenario, the headline of the website says "We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution." WILL be enormous. Not MIGHT be, they went on some of the biggest podcasts in the world talking about it, a physicist comes along and says yeah this is shoddy work, the clap back is "Well yeah it's an informed guess, not physics or anything"?

What was the point of the website if this is just some guess? What was the point of the press tour? I mean are these people literally fucking insane?
by jaybrendansmith | 2025-06-24 23:04:28+00:00
Big companies are not faceless organizations, they are made up of people, and quite specialized. This was a freaking Leather Goods and retail Electronics parts business. Building a computer is no joke, and the handful of people at Tandy that pulled this together are quite impressive. And it is absolutely crazy that the person responsible did not get a VP role for creating 1/3 of the business, irrespective of the fact that it did not ultimately survive.
by ahaucnx | 2025-06-24 23:05:04+00:00
Running a positive pressure system in my house since many years, I agree that sucking in fresh air from outside and filter it with a HEPA filter makes more sense.

You probably need to make sure you use a fan that creates enough pressure to get the air through the trickle vent as well as a filter. A duct fan might be more suitable than a PC fan for this.
by int_19h | 2025-06-24 23:05:20+00:00
> When the encoding acts as a bulk archive, does the responsibility shift to those who choose what to extract from the archive?

If you take many gigabytes of, say, public domain music, and stick them on a flash drive with just one audio file that is an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted song, distributing that drive would constitute copyright infringement, quite obviously so. I don't see why it'd matter what else the model can produce, if it can produce that one thing verbatim by itself.

(If you could only prompt the model to regurgitate the original text with a framing of, say, critical analysis of said text around it, and not in any other context, then I think there would be a stronger fair use argument here.)
by fuzztester | 2025-06-24 23:05:21+00:00
good option.

i like that too.

metal ones are also available in india, made of stainless steel and maybe other metals instead.

traditionally, people in india used a thick flat wide stone and a thick cylindrical stone grinder applied back and forth on top of the lower stone, to grind spices, onion, ginger, chilllies, turmeric, etc., into a paste or masala, which was then used in making curries, sambar, and other dishes.
by atrettel | 2025-06-24 23:05:46+00:00
I've been to NARA 2 in College Park several times. I'm reading this as meaning that only researchers who will request records can enter the building now. The statement seems to be clumsily worded.

It suffices to say that it would be hard to justify closing down NARA 2 for researcher access. Room 2000 is the main reading room and it is one of the largest reading rooms I have ever been in. The building was built for people to come and visit and do research.

NARA 2 is a high security facility as it is. The last time that I visited was in 2019. You are searched one time upon entering the building. You (as a researcher) enter and go down to a large basement locker room where you can place most of your items in a locker. You can take a laptop and a scanner/camera to the first floor, get searched another time, then go up an elevator to the Room 2000, get searched again, and then take a seat and request materials (using triplicate forms, the last time I was there). You are searched again upon leaving the reading room.

Based on my experience, it sounds like they are going to remove one of the searches and put it at the entrance rather than at the elevators for the second floor, though I admit this is speculation.

The more difficult aspect would be having no parking access at the facility itself and having to take a bus there. I've taken the Metrobus to NARA 2 before and it was quite complicated the last time I went there, and I generally like public transportation. Every time I visited after that, I drove and parked in the garage, usually on the roof. That said, I can learn to manage the bus.
by tailrecursion | 2025-06-24 23:05:46+00:00
I saw a video where a mechanic replaced a pack on his Model S with a 100Wh pack. There were some minor issues of fit, which he had all figured out. There was a connector change and some sheet steel around the edges that needed changing out to make it physically fit. The procedure was to keep a table under the vehicle, lower the vehicle so that the pack rested on the table, remove the last retaining bolts on the bottom, and lift the car back up. Reverse for install except he had to align it first. He estimated it would take 2 hours total. This car was designed for fast pack exchange. The coolant connections were self connecting and disconnecting.

Then came the software. The amount of complexity and jargon and issues and roadblocks that come out of nowhere is extraordinary. You have to dive several layers deep in a menu system to do step 1, then get hung up on opening a "gateway", then dive down the same menu to do step 2 of a 2-step process. He had another problem that kept him busy but what impressed me is the amount of time and complexity to do the simplest things. He wasn't performing many steps, but just getting to the step required rebooting, waiting, pressing the brake pedal to see when it was time to move the right turn signal stalk, didn't work, go back, do something else for 10 minutes, try again, it seemed endless.

German automotive companies have historically been terrible at software. Just because Tesla hasn't simplified or integrated their various software components yet, doesn't mean others can't do it nicer. But any company that doesn't value software like the Americans do is going to have a real tough time with the EV software problem.
by jabiko | 2025-06-24 23:05:55+00:00
I'm not sure whether Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT use different system prompts or if there's something else behind it, but Copilot tends to have this overly cautious, sterile tone. It always seems to err on the side of safety, whereas ChatGPT generally just does what you ask as long as it's reasonable.

So it often comes down to this choice: Open https://copilot.cloud.microsoft/, go through the Microsoft 365 login process, dig your phone out for two-factor authentication, approve it via Microsoft Authenticator, finally type your request only to get a response that feels strangely lobotomized.

Or… just go to https://chatgpt.com/, type your prompt, and actually get an answer you can work with.

It feels like every part of Microsoft wants to do the right thing, but in the end they come out with an inferior product.
by eru | 2025-06-24 23:06:55+00:00
> Insights of quantum physics have shattered this idea.

Not at all. Quantum mechanics is fully deterministic, if you stay away from bonkers interpretations like Copenhagen.

And, of course, you can simulate random processes just fine even on a deterministic system use a pseudo random number generator or you can just connect a physical hardware random number generator to your otherwise deterministic system. Compared to all the hardware used in our LLMs so far, random number cards are cheap kit.

Though I doubt a hardware random number generator will make the difference between dumb and intelligent systems: pseudo random number generators are just too good, and generalising a bit you'd need P=NP to be true for your system to behave differently with a good PRNG vs real random numbers.
by bonoboTP | 2025-06-24 23:07:48+00:00
It surely matters whether people actually use the thing for copyright violations or not. Summaries are not even copyright violations so that's irrelevant. Long verbatim copies would be, but one would have to demonstrate that this use case is significant, convenient enough to provide a viable alternative to otherwise obtaining the particular text chunk etc.

----

> But for authors of newer technical material, yes, I think LLMs will make it harder for those people to be able to afford to spend the time thinking, writing, and sharing their expertise.

Alright, you're now arguing for some new regulations though, since this is not a matter for copyright.

In that context, I observe that many academics already put their technical books online for free. Machine learning, computer vision, robotics etc. I doubt it's a hugely lucrative thing in the first place.
by int_19h | 2025-06-24 23:08:13+00:00
I think it's a valid question. Suppose you have two LLMs interacting with each other in a loop, and one randomly prompts the other to reproduce the entire text of Harry Potter, which the other then does. However, the chat log isn't actually stored anywhere, it's just a transient artifact of the interaction - so no human ever sees it nor can see it even in principle. Is it a copyright violation then? If it is, what are the damages?
by cranky908canuck | 2025-06-24 23:08:28+00:00
Seems backward: carry-on capacity is a scarce resource. Allow charges for that. There's value in that you 'just walk out of the airport', vs wait (and, maybe wait and wait, and wait, at the carousel).

But ban checked baggage fees, that's what's driving the carry-on mania.

Or, mandate fee-free one but not both...?
by ijk | 2025-06-24 23:08:40+00:00
In theory, couldn't you distill a non-infringing model from an infringing one? Just prompt it for continuations and give it a whack every time the output matches something in your dataset of copyrighted works.

You'd need the copyrighted works to compare to, of course, though if you have the permissible training data (as Anthropic apparently does) it should be doable.
by eru | 2025-06-24 23:09:06+00:00
> Maybe OP should have looked at a dictionary for what certain words actually mean before defining them to be something nonsensical.

Making non-standard definitions of words isn't necessarily bad, and can be useful in certain texts. But if you do so, you need to make these definitions front-and-centre instead of just casually assuming your readers will share your non-standard meaning.

And where possible, I would still use the standard meanings and use newly made up terms to carry new concepts.
by ndiddy | 2025-06-24 23:09:07+00:00
> But can I ssh to my remote server and run emacs or another program completely transparently yet with Wayland? Nope.

Yes, you can! Waypipe came out 6 years ago. Its express purpose is to make a Wayland equivalent to ssh -X. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mstoeckl/waypipe/
by nickff | 2025-06-24 23:09:17+00:00
The airline industry is famously unprofitable; it is commonly said that on net, the sum total of airlines have made $0 over the course of their history. It is true that there are periods where they do make a profit, but these periods are offset by times when they make massive losses (such as during COVID, after the Great Recession, and after 9/11).
by chatmasta | 2025-06-24 23:09:17+00:00
I’m surprised that Google hasn’t integrated Gemini more natively into their workspace apps like Google Sheets or Google Slides, and has instead been developing a more ringfenced NotebookLM. I think they have some very basic integration in sheets but it feels like they’re keeping it intentionally subdued for now.

I suppose they want to take their time to get it right, but there are some killer use cases for LLMs in spreadsheets. Of course, the typical corporate idiot will make a giant mess of this when they use it in the wrong scenario… and I’m dreading the day I need to look at LLM-generated slides. But it still feels like Google is keeping Gemini in its own little box, rather than letting it seep more naturally into the rest of their products.
by stephen_g | 2025-06-24 23:09:49+00:00
They're not just moving packets around, they're producing streams of data that pass through dozens of stages and end up being spit out into a DAC to produce radio signals (and vise-versa, signals into an ADC and then through many demodulation stages).

All the modulation, demodulation, framing, scrambling, forward error correction coding/decoding, etc. has to all happen continuously at the same time.

There are some open source software defined radios that can do that for one or two stations on a CPU at low data rates, but it's basically impossible with current CPUs for anything like the number of stations (phones) that are handled in one FPGA with decent data rates, latency etc.

You'd probably need a server rack's worth of servers and hundreds of times the power consumption to do what's happening in the one chip.
by creatonez | 2025-06-24 23:10:18+00:00
Is this a sign that

A: Cloudflare is feeding the trolls because they think that they are invincible. Or: These post-mortems don't establish any proof that the attack was successful, especially if they are covering DDoSes that were barely even noticed by the public until CF publishes a blog post 1 month later -- so it's actually embarrassing for them and hurts their ability to market botnets for rent, at least once they no longer have the literal world record.

B: Cloudflare is feeding the trolls for free testing scenarios to improve the mitigation

C: The trolls don't really care if you feed them, large DDoS is something that's happening all the time anyways
by tines | 2025-06-24 23:10:19+00:00
I don't think the hand-setting lines of code is really the part that brings these people joy, the joy is in understanding. LLM-like tools do not create understanding in the user, who is farming out the understanding in order to get results quickly.

I understand the draw and usefulness of this, but just clarifying, it's not the typing that matters, it's what is going on (or not going on) in one's mind.
by dengxiaopeng | 2025-06-24 23:10:22+00:00
My partner works for NARA, but not in this office. Outside of the large amount of departures and RIF actions taken for the agency, there's lots of challenges regarding staffing for people who come in off the street and do not have succinct, coherent research questions. Staff are duty-bound to respond to all queries, regardless of how good they are.

I imagine this research card policy does two things:

1. Raises an easy bureaucratic barrier for people who just drop in and expect/demand help

2. Gives staff an opportunity to refuse access to people who may have non-research intent from accessing the building

It's likely the example you provided qualifies as a business need. They just don't want you hanging around and getting in the way of them helping people who scheduled a consultation, have an appointment, etc.

Totally agree on the poorly-constructed sentence. I wish they had said it more succinctly/precisely.
by ic4l | 2025-06-24 23:10:27+00:00
Thousands of large Facebook groups appear to have been taken down, with many admins reporting a wave of rapid content reports from a single account targeting the group's first post. This often triggers the group name to change to "Group title pending" just before the group is removed.

> https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/24/facebook-group-admins-comp...
by refulgentis | 2025-06-24 23:10:53+00:00
Correct. Entirely.

And I'm yuge on LLMs.

It is very much one of those things that makes me feel old and/or scared, because I don't believe this would have been swallowed as easily, say, 10 years ago.

As neutrally as possible, I think everyone can agree:

- There was a good but very long overview of LLMs from an ex-OpenAI employee. Good stuff, really well-written,

- Rapidly it concludes by hastily drawing a graph of "relative education level of AI" versus "year", draw a line from high school 2023 => college grad 2024 => phd 2025 => post-phd 2026 => agi 2027.

- Later, this gets published by same OpenAI guy, then the SlateStarCodex guy, and some other guy.

- You could describe it as taking the original, cut out all the boring leadup, jumped right to "AGI 2027", then wrote out a too-cute-by-half, way too long, geopolitics ramble about China vs. US.

It's mildly funny to me, in that yesteryear's contrarians are today's MSM, and yet, they face ~0 concerted criticism.

In the last comment thread on this article, someone jumped in to discuss the importance of more "experts in the field" contributing, meaning, psychiatrist Scott Siskind. The idea is writing about something makes you an expert, which leads us to tedious self-fellating like Scott's recent article letting us know LLMs don't have to have an assistant character, and how he predicted this years ago

It's not so funny, in that the next time a science research article is posted here, as is tradition, 30% will be claiming science writers never understand anything and can't write etc. etc.
by vkou | 2025-06-24 23:11:14+00:00
Right, I guess we should throw up our hands and let the dictator of the week run things as he sees, with no oversight.

If it meaningfully impacts the public, the public should have input. The input doesn't need to be binding, but it needs to be taken into consideration. Representative government is not a once-every-four-years exercise, nor is it something that should only be accessible to the mega-rich.

There's an entire process for this among many rule-making agencies in every level of government, across the world. It serves as, at minimum, a public record of objections and concerns, and at times that public feedback identifies a problem that the rule-drafters failed to address.

It doesn't, and can't prevent outright malice by a capricious autocrat, who only works to make his backroom friends happy. But it does make a public record of that malice.