MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anonymousiam | 2025-06-19 19:08:29+00:00
Dan Kaminsky showed us why we need DNSSEC. Without it, it's quite easy to MITM and/or spoof network traffic. Some governments like to do this, so they'll continue to make it difficult for DNSSEC to be fully adopted.

The original registrar, Network Solutions, doesn't even fully support DNSSEC. You can only get it if you pay them an extra $5/mo and let them serve your DNS records for you. So for $5/mo you get DNSSEC, but you defer control of your records to them, which isn't really secure.

https://community.cloudflare.com/t/dnssec-on-network-solutio...
by fxj | 2025-06-19 19:08:39+00:00
Well I live very close to Theresienwiese and dont have any problems at all. During the 2 weeks of Octoberfest they clean the streets every morning at 4am and everything is clean and shiny again. Also now that the Theresienwiese have been encircled by a fence during Octoberfest the numbers of drunk people has fallen dramatically.
by voidhorse | 2025-06-19 19:09:23+00:00
It's not a nice response but I would say: don't be so lazy. Struggle through the hard stuff.

I say this as someone who had the opposite experience: I had a decent humanities education, but an abysmal mathematics education, and now I am tackling abstract mathematics myself. It's hard. I need to read sections of works multiple times. I need to sit down and try to work out the material for myself on paper.

Any impression that one discipline is easier than another probably just stems from the fact that you had good guides for the one and had the luck to learn it when your brain was really plastic. You can learn the other stuff too, just go in with the understanding that there's no royal road to philosophy just as there's no royal road to mathematics.
by api | 2025-06-19 19:09:25+00:00
Another thing that's endemic in Rationalism is a kind of specialized variety of the Gish gallop.

It goes like this:

(1) Assert a set of priors (with emphasis on the word assert).

(2) Reason from those priors to some conclusion.

(3) Seamlessly, without skipping a beat, take that solution as valid because the reasoning appears consistent and make that part of a new set of priors.

(4) Repeat, or rather recurse since the new set of priors is built on previous iterations.

The entire concept of science is founded on the idea that you can't do that. You have to stop and touch grass, which in science means making observations or doing experiments if possible. You have to see if the conclusion you reached actually matches reality in any meaningful way. That's because reason alone is fragile. As any programmer knows, a single error or a single mistaken prior propagates and renders the entire tree invalid. Do this recursively and one error anywhere in this crystalline structure means you've built a gigantic tower of bullshit.

I compare it to the Gish gallop because of how enthusiastically they do it, and how by doing it so fast it becomes hard to try to argue against. You end up having to try to counter a firehose of Oh So Very Smart complicated exquisitely reasoned nonsense.

Or you can just, you know, conclude that this entire method of determining truth is invalid and throw the entire thing in the trash.

A good "razor" for this kind of thing is to judge it by its fruit. So far the fruit is AI hysteria, cults like the Zizians, neoreactionary political ideology, Sam Bankman Fried, etc. Has anything good or useful come from any of this?
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-06-19 19:10:37+00:00
> The boosters are in 5 stages of grief coming to terms with what was once AGI and is now a mere co-pilot, while the haters are coming to terms with the fact that LLMs can actually be useful in a variety of usecases.

I couldn't agree with this more. I often get frustrated because I feel like the loudest voices in the room are so laughably extreme. One on side you have the "AGI cultists", and on the other you have the "But the hallucinations!!!" people. I've personally been pretty amazed by the state of AI (nearly all of this stuff was the domain of Star Trek just a few years ago), and I get tons of value out of many of these tools, but at the same time I hit tons of limitations and I worry about the long-term effect on society (basically, I think this "ask AI first" approach, especially among young people, will kinda turn us all into idiots, similar to the way Google Maps made it hard for most of us to remember the simple directions). I also can't help but roll my eyes when I hear all the leaders of these AI companies going on about how AI will make a "white collar bloodbath" - there is some nuggets of truth in that, but these folks are just using scare tactics to hype their oversold products.
by ivape | 2025-06-19 19:10:54+00:00
Once someone(s) pay a lot of money for something, they will always be critical of it. They literally bought the thing. You don't think I'd write articles about the pros/cons coulda/shoulda/woulda if I paid $180k for a car?

A lot of businesses are truly poor and cannot afford buying the things they buy (in this case, it's people). Then the people have to go through their horrible post-mortem analysis. Build your own company, write your own shit, and stop analyzing how to min/max a person that was out of your league to begin with (never even in your price range comfortably, now shut up with what could have been done better).

If for whatever reason the above paragraph addressed businesses that were rich, well then, I have nothing to really say about that, because in that case we're dealing with a monstrosity for which there are no words.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-19 19:10:57+00:00
Related:

- ECC vs. non-ECC memory and bitsquatting when people said "oh, it doesn't matter and it's too expensive for no benefit."

- http:// was, for years, normalized pre-PRISM.

- Unsecured DNS over 53/tcp+udp (vs. DoH today) is a huge spoofing and metadata collection threat surface.
by qualeed | 2025-06-19 19:11:02+00:00
Noise is not the only thing I mention, it's just one of many reasons. The fact that it is so easily gamed by bad actors is another compelling reason why it wouldn't work in the courts and is a poor tracking technique.

Primarily though, there are more accurate ways of tracking people at this very moment, which are less prone to false positives, less prone to faking, cheaper, more easily scalable, and are already widely used and accepted in courts.

This offers basically no improvement over any existing tracking technology, with a handful of downsides that the others don't suffer from.

While I think it's good to ask these sorts of questions, they need to be asked within the context of what is already happening. If there wasn't cameras everywhere, ubiquitous and accurate phone tracking, internet connected cars, GPS trackers the size of a thumbnail, etc. then yes, this technology would be concerning. But that's not reality.

Privacy advocates are already looked at with a sideways glance. The least we can do is be responsible on when we raise the alarm. This is not one of those times.
by techjamie | 2025-06-19 19:11:24+00:00
Drop tens of thousands on a new vehicle at a stealership and you'll get sketchy companies offering warranties on your exact vehicle within a week and then forever-more afterwards.

The way I understand it, usually either the dealership, the software they take your information in, or both typically sell off your data after the sale.

Also I get calls and letters from places asking to buy a vehicle I haven't owned since 2018 regularly.
by leakycap | 2025-06-19 19:11:40+00:00
Beyond the Hz, the depth of the modulation matters. I am sensitive to poor PWM implementation, but Hue bulbs luckily don't bother me.

On an old iPhone with basic slow-mo recording capabilities, typical Hue bulbs don't "blink" when the video plays back, but the PWM-dimmed iPhone in the same video recording was blinking/flashing like crazy.

~~

Another example of the PWM details mattering: I can't use any iPhone with OLED (anything from the X to current), but I am able to use a Note9 which has OLED with DC-style PWM.
by bilekas | 2025-06-19 19:12:22+00:00
> I love entering “the zone” and solving complex problems, one at a time

This straight away sums up my experience too.. infarct for vscodrive had to even turn off copilot as, to me at least it feels so much more aggressive. It feels like it's trying to assume my intention constantly but auto completing. Like when someone will interrupt my conversation.

Visual studio is getting worse alsoas it will jump ahead of my point of focus and keep updating. This all very quickly becomes something to consider while working and thus prevents getting into the "zone"...

It's not good when trying to solve a problem so I turn it off.if I'm starting a new project and need boilerplate, then sure. The promise is long gone.
by zahlman | 2025-06-19 19:12:27+00:00
> tension btwn being "rational" about things and trying to reason about things from first principle.

Perhaps on a meta level. If you already have high confidence in something, reasoning it out again may be a waste of time. But of course the rational answer to a problem comes from reasoning about it; and of course chains of reasoning can be traced back to first principles.

> And the general absolutist tone of the community. The people involved all seem very... Full of themselves ? They don't really ever show a sense of "hey, I've got a thought, maybe I haven't considered all angles to it, maybe I'm wrong - but here it is". The type of people that would be embarrassed to not have an opinion on a topic or say "I don't know"

Doing rationalism properly is hard, which is the main reason that the concept "rationalism" exists and is invoked in the first place.

Respected writers in the community, such as Scott Alexander, are in my experience the complete opposite of "full of themselves". They often demonstrate shocking underconfidence relative to what they appear to know, and counsel the same in others (e.g. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/12/stop-adding-zeroes/ ). It's also, at least in principle, a rationalist norm to mark the "epistemic status" of your think pieces.

Not knowing the answer isn't a reason to shut up about a topic. It's a reason to state your uncertainty; but it's still entirely appropriate to explain what you believe, why, and how probable you think your belief is to be correct.

I suspect that a lot of what's really rubbing you the wrong way has more to do with philosophy. Some people in the community seem to think that pure logic can resolve the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem. (But plenty of non-rationalists also act this way, in my experience.) Or they accept axioms that don't resonate with others, such as the linearity of moral harm (i.e.: the idea that the harm caused by unnecessary deaths is objective and quantifiable - whether in number of deaths, Years of Potential Life Lost, or whatever else - and furthermore that it's logically valid to do numerical calculations with such quantities as described at/around https://www.lesswrong.com/w/shut-up-and-multiply).

> In the Pre-AI days this was sort of tolerable, but since then.. The frothing at the mouth convinced of the end of the world.. Just shows a real lack of humility and lack of acknowledgment that maybe we don't have a full grasp of the implications of AI. Maybe it's actually going to be rather benign and more boring than expected

AI safety discourse is an entirely separate topic. Plenty of rationalists don't give a shit about MIRI and many joke about Yudkowsky at varying levels of irony.
by henning | 2025-06-19 19:12:35+00:00
The more highly liquid an asset, the more efficient it is and the fewer trading opportunities after accounting for transaction costs. In something like the S&P 500, everything is already priced in.

Meme stocks and shitcoins being manipulated by whales are not efficient and also not as liquid.

The larger point remains that none of the above considerations are discussed on this product's page.
by jhbadger | 2025-06-19 19:12:40+00:00
There is a great recent book by Adam Becker "More Everything Forever" that deals with the overlapping circles of "effective altruists", "rationalists", and "accelerationists". He's not very sympathetic to the movements as he sees them as mostly rationalizing what their adherents wanted to do anyway -- funding things like rockets and AI over feeding the needy because they see the former as helping more people in the future than dealing with real problems today.
by tearflake | 2025-06-19 19:12:45+00:00
Actually it's quite simple. We parse from left to right. When we hit EOL, we return to the beginning of line and increase Y by one.

Blocks are parsed in the following way: when we get the beginning count of block opening characters, we move Y by one, loop right while whitespace, until we encounter ending count of block characters.

In transposed block, we just switch X and Y, it is easily done with pointers, and use the same code.
by mulmen | 2025-06-19 19:13:03+00:00
> So if you see them as bad, often bad appears, and if you see them as good, then often good appears? That's some magical stuff there.

Pretty much, yeah. Another way of saying this is “perception is reality.”

Everyone has their own perception of reality. As a result some people like you and others don’t. You can choose to perceive those around you as favorably as possible. You control your perception of reality.

It’s similar to this HN guideline:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I think this is the defining characteristic of HN that makes it a valuable place to be. It’s a deliberate choice I wish was more widespread.

> True. But we're here talking about managing serious operations, in which case being keenly aware of the above fact helps make decisions and they don't all have to be "evil" decisions and can often be quite beautiful solutions. You can reallocate people to optimize them without firing them, feeding one more person.

Totally. And you should assume the best about those you manage so you can move them into a position where they can succeed rather than dismissing them for their flaws.
by tikhonj | 2025-06-19 19:13:52+00:00
it's real impact, but it requires folks to be able to confidently talk about counterfactuals—"we would have wasted X days if not for..."—which I've found to be really hard at most places

the exception was places where leadership already thought in the same terms about software quality/etc, which meant I didn't have to do much convincing :P

how would you build teams or structures to support that sort of holistic thinking about software?
by jaybrendansmith | 2025-06-19 19:14:10+00:00
But it's easy to see when someone is falling for propaganda, because they believe what they are told, and do not check sources. They do not critically think. So I do not 'other' my uncles, but no presented facts seem to change their minds. It is disturbing to me how they are manipulated by false information that supports their gut instincts. Clearly there is a mind hack at work here. I would love to see them wake up but as long as the propaganda outlets they watch are left unchecked I don't believe it will happen. Our fathers understood the danger of propaganda. They must have understood the mind hack. It used to be that the only TV news that was allowed was at specific times every night, and it was required to always be factually correct. It was carefully controlled by the FCC for a good reason. We've really messed up as a society, and we are going to pay dearly now.
by dendrite9 | 2025-06-19 19:14:33+00:00
You might be interested in Madonna Yoder's tessellation instructions: https://training.gatheringfolds.com/garden

I bought Folding Techniques for Designers: From Sheet to Form by Paul Jackson on a whim several years ago and found it fun to work through. I think he has a new edition and some other books but I don't have any experience with them.
by dang | 2025-06-19 19:15:51+00:00
"Please don't fulminate."

"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by zahirbmirza | 2025-06-19 19:15:54+00:00
I just wasn't in the mood to show my real face in the video, it was too late at night. Gosh, thanks for the feedback, maybe I should have just combed my hair and gone with it. If of any solace, my AI avatar lasts approx 2 seconds. Im interested tho that you even found a potential for utility on Android. Good to know.
by fxj | 2025-06-19 19:15:57+00:00
Hamburg has a harbor and is at the riverside of a large stream so that makes it a complete different setup. Munich on the other hand still has a castle in the inner city (Residenz) and has many historical buildings. Hamburg has the status of a "state" in Germany while Munich is the capital of Bavaria (a state in Germany). Both cities are rich and the rich people also celebrate the weath in both cities. If you want a party city you better go to Berlin. (Arm aber sexy (Poor but sexy)) is their slogan.
by whilenot-dev | 2025-06-19 19:16:16+00:00
I get that, motivating young founders is difficult, and I think he has a charming geeky way of provoking some thoughts. But on the other hand: Why mainframes with time-sharing from the 60s? Why operating systems? LLMs to tell you how to boil an egg, seriously?

Putting my engineering hat on, I understand his idea of the "autonomy slider" as lazy workaround for a software implementation that deals with one system boundary. He should aspire people there to seek out for unknown boundaries, not provide implementation details to existing boundaries. His MenuGen app would probably be better off using a web image search instead of LLM image generation. Enhancing deployment pipelines with LLM setups is something for the last generation of DevOps companies, not the next one.

Please mention just once the value proposition and responsibilities when handling large quantities of valuable data - LLMs wouldn't exist without them! What makes quality data for an LLM, or personal data?
Ask HN: Can AI allow estranged relatives to talk to each other indirectly?
by amichail | 2025-06-19 19:16:19+00:00
The idea is to allow estranged relatives to communicate via an AI that relays messages in paraphrased form (using third-person framing such as ‘He says…’ or ‘She feels…’ to soften directness) between each party.

Do you think this would work?
by vjvjvjvjghv | 2025-06-19 19:17:02+00:00
Same happened for me. It started with the Thai cave rescue and his submarine where it showed that he is a big attention whore. From then on he seemed to lose his mind.

I still have to respect Starlink, accelerating adoption of EVs and the work SpaceX does. His businesses have reshaped several industries big time. It takes a lot of courage and insight to pull this off.
by almosthere | 2025-06-19 19:17:23+00:00
I would advocate for a legal solution to the government, some kind of limited form of amnesty based on the work they have contributed. I do believe there were too many people that entered the country during Biden's presidency and they need to go back to the border - but allow them to re-apply legally and have better tracking of where those immigrants are staying.

Do you think any Americans (as immigrants) in other countries don't have their addresses in database or two?
by vrosas | 2025-06-19 19:17:36+00:00
Someone saying "This is complex but I think I have the core idea" and someone to responding "That's not the core idea at all" is hilarious and sad. BUT ironically what you just laid out about TF is exactly the same - you just manually trigger the loop (via CI/CD) instead of a thing waiting for new configs to be loaded. The state file you're referencing is just a cache of the current state and TF reconciles the old and new state.
by tptacek | 2025-06-19 19:17:50+00:00
This would theoretically be possible if browsers did DANE and didn't, because of middlebox fuckery, have to have a fallback path to the X.509 WebPKI because DNSSEC requests get dropped like 5% of the time. But because that is the case, no browser does DANE validation today, and when they did, many years ago, those DANE CA certs were effectively yet another CA; they actually expanded your attack surface rather than constricting it.

Even if that wasn't the case --- and it emphatically is --- you'd still be contending with a "personal CA" that in most cases would have its root of trust in a PKI operated by world governments, most of which have a demonstrated aptitude for manipulating the DNS.
by lazide | 2025-06-19 19:18:03+00:00
Chances are, the initial function was written when the underlying auth backend only supported a single account (structurally), and most clients were using that method.

Then later on, it was figured out that multiple accounts per credential set (?!?) needed to be supported, but the original clients still needed to be supported.

And either no one could afree on a sane convention if this happened (like returning the first from the list), or someone was told to ‘just do it’.

So they made the new call, migrated themselves, and put in a uncaught exception in the old place (can’t put any other type there without breaking the API) and blam - ticket closed.

Not that I’ve ever seen that happen before, of course.

Oh, and since the multi-account functionality is obviously new and probably quite rare at first, it could be years before anyone tracks down whoever is responsible, if ever.
by spimmy | 2025-06-19 19:19:05+00:00
i think it has to start with having engineering managers and directors who are deeply technical themselves. the idea that you can split up this work into "managers do the people stuff" and "engineers do the technical stuff" is bananas. it's all sociotechnical work.

this is why i advocate the engineer/manager pendulum so strongly. we get better results when management has strong tech skills (and staff+ engineers have organizational skills as well).
by Jderenne | 2025-06-19 19:19:31+00:00
Tks,

We didn’t hard-code GTM strategies, the agent uses strong prompting + internal logic to get high-quality output from the LLM. It’s not just regurgitating a playbook, but it’s also not freestyling.

Actually our GTM strategy does not cover the design of a high converting homepage. (it give the strategic alignement a.o) We could add that later and see the impact on our homepage.

Financial benchmarking use their specific models and fine tuning. We constrain them hard, structured prompts, known-good data, and refined knwoledge from the agentic system. No room for AI "vibes." The results and projection (financial strategy is not accounting) is actually quite impressive tbh.

For others agents we see hallucination has a strong feature, while obviously it's not the case for financial benchmarks.
by cardassia | 2025-06-19 19:19:37+00:00
Well written, I agree based on my experience that you'll end up being penalized in most places as the one who spends a smidge more time incubating quality work. I really feel this now at my job where not only is the work shoddy as promoted by management, the motivations and ideas behind everything are even worse. I'm talking extreme levels of NIH syndrome. It's upsetting to see something like GraphQL, which could just be a gosh darn HTTP request using off-the-shelf libraries, be turned into this absurd Rube Goldberg machine of custom libraries and bizarre workflows.
by mdaniel | 2025-06-19 19:19:39+00:00
heh, I think you didn't read the room given this directory https://github.com/agentsea/nebulous/blob/v0.1.88/deploy/cha...

Also, ohgawd please never ever do this ever ohgawd https://github.com/agentsea/nebulous/blob/v0.1.88/deploy/cha...