MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cyberax | 2025-06-25 03:31:32+00:00
> Right, that makes such a system unusable for normal people, so it is not a good thing to force it upon them.

Whut? Passkeys work perfectly fine for "normal people".

> The benefit is not clearly there because anything that can manipulate local memory can also just use the key directly

Correct. But it does require fairly high level of system access. Hardware-bound keys also allow full hardware-attested authentication.

> Normal people are however not concerned with these Mission Impossible scenarios, and random passwords are good enough while being easy to use without an IT department to fix when it goes wrong.

If you're using truly random passwords, then you're using a password manager. And if you're using a password manager, then why not just use passkeys?

All the popular password managers support them: BitWarden, 1Pass, iCloud Keychain, even LastPass.
by archy_ | 2025-06-25 03:32:04+00:00
I don't really know how to feel about this. I've seen enough misconfigured Workday instances that result in most decent candidates never getting their resumes looked at because they didn't keyword-optimize enough, so it feels quite justifiable.

But for those businesses that actually review resumes, it's gotta be brutal.

Also, archive link: https://archive.is/ux6E7
by add-sub-mul-div | 2025-06-25 03:34:32+00:00
> Long-time romance author Milly Johnson said: “I had a one-star rating for a book that hadn’t even been seen by my copy editor. When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not.

Wow, I thought Google's innovation of zero-customer-service was bad. I hadn't considered that Amazon might go one step worse. Maybe I'll go leave one-star reviews of Kindles I haven't used and see if they're consistent about respecting this predictive review doctrine.
by ShakataGaNai | 2025-06-25 03:37:13+00:00
You're not wrong, but also there is a big difference between "apple wallet" and "emergency alerts". There is nothing life or death coming from apple wallet.

Also also, Apple (and basically all devs) have instrumentation to tell them if people are disabling notifications. So if enough people disable notifications for Apple Wallet, I promise you someone in corporate will notice.
by chmod775 | 2025-06-25 03:37:44+00:00
> [..] we're not at AGI with this baseline tech

DAG architectures fundamentally cannot be AGI and you cannot even use them as a building block for a hypothetical AGI if they're immutable at runtime.

Any time I hear the goal being "AGI" in the context of these LLMs, I feel like listening to a bunch of 18th-century aristocrats trying to get to the moon by growing trees.

Try to create useful approximations using what you have or look for new approaches, but don't waste time on the impossible. There's no iterative improvements here that will get you to AGI.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-25 03:40:43+00:00
> We had a perfectly fitting metric in DPI, why can't I set the desired DPI for every monitor, but instead need to calculate some arbitrary scale factor?

Because certain ratios work a lot better than others, and calculating the exact DPI to get those benefits is a lot harder than estimating the scaling factor you want.

Also the scaling factor calculation is more reliable.
by dlcarrier | 2025-06-25 03:42:14+00:00
I should clarify that noncommercial use something different: an exemption for commercial activity. What copyright enforcement can't recover is income from activity that couldn't have generated revenue, in the first place. If I draw a Nintendo character on my own T-shirt, and never sell that T-shirt, that's not a copyright violation, because there's no way I could have made money from it. Whereas, if I draw a character on a T-shirt, then give it away for free, it's noncommercial activity, but it could be subject to copyright, because I could have charged for it.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-06-25 03:42:32+00:00
So what you are saying is that consciousness is a property that emerges from a complex neural network that our brain is, and that makes sense. And indeed, in that case, consciousness would not be a physical thing since properties are not physical objects. But that would also mean that consciousness cannot invoke any quantum mechanics, which supports the original point that creating temporal experiences does not require a conscious being.

> we just don't know how to do it

As far as I know, there is no proof that consciousness exists, aside from the fact that everyone personally perceives it. In other words, one has no proof that another is conscious.

Claude effectively claims to be conscious, why should we not believe him?
by ChaoPrayaWave | 2025-06-25 03:42:32+00:00
Thank you for sharing this data, it is really helpful. Now it feels like microplastics are almost everywhere in life, even breathing and eating are difficult to completely avoid. What we can do is probably to try to understand their sources, and then reduce contact as much as possible, make a little bit of active choices, at least to protect ourselves and our families.
by sooheon | 2025-06-25 03:43:37+00:00
There are solid economic arguments that they were never the right model, even "back in The Day": http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...

Patents are government granted monopolies on ideas. The case for them is that you need the carrot of a monopoly to incentivize innovators (empirically untrue). The case against them is that government mandated monopolies immediately dampen all subsequent innovation until expiry (empirically true across industries throughout history).
by js8 | 2025-06-25 03:48:28+00:00
It's not strange at all. I am playing with lambda calculus and combinatory logic now, as a base for mathematics (my interest is to understand rigorous thinking). You can express any computation using just S and K combinators, however, there is a price to that - the computations will be rather slow. So to make the computation faster, we can use additional combinators and rules to speed things up (good example is clapp() function in https://github.com/tromp/AIT/blob/master/uni.c).

Of course, the extra rules have to be logically consistent with the base S and K combinators, otherwise you will get wrong result. But if the inconsistent rule is complicated enough to be used only infrequently, you will still get correct result most of the time.

Which brings me to LLMs and transformers. I posit that transformers are essentially learned systems of rules that are applied to somewhat fuzzily known set of combinators (programs), each represented by a token (the term being represented by the embedding vector). However, the rules learned are not necessarily consistent (as it happens in the source data), so you get an occasional logical error (I don't want to call it hallucination because it's a different phenomenon from nondeterminism and extrapolation of LLMs).

This explains the collapse from the famous paper: https://ml-site.cdn-apple.com/papers/the-illusion-of-thinkin... One infrequent but inconsistent rule is enough to poison the well due to logical principle of explosion. It also clearly cannot be completely fixed with more training data.

(There is also analogy to Terry Tao's stages of mathematical thinking: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-... Pre-rigorous corresponds to soomewhat random set of likely inconsistent logical rules, rigorous to small set of obviously consistent rules, like only S and K, and post-rigorous to a large set of rules that have been vetted for consistency.)

What is the "solution" to this? Well, I think during training you somehow need to make sure that the transformer rules learned by the LLM are logically consistent for the strictly logical fragment of the human language that is relevant to logical and programming problems. Which is admittedly not an easy task (I doubt it's even possible within NN framework).
by ryukoposting | 2025-06-25 03:48:55+00:00
I have been developing firmware for Nordic chips for about 5 years now, and I have roughly the same amount of experience with Memfault.

The idea of Memfault is like Datadog for IoT stuff. The reality of Memfault is that everyone just uses it to push OTA firmware upgrades through the cloud, and capture stack traces on crashes. Sometimes you bolt on their metrics later, but 95% of the value is in OTA firmware upgrades and crash reports.

Nordic has started to assemble a juggernaut of a tech stack, and a collossal moat. They keep most of their Zephyr contributions outside the main source tree, in something they call the nRF Connect SDK. They've been developing vendor-specific extensions to Memfault's SDK for years.

The upside with Nordic is you get a complete embedded tech stack out of the box. The downside is that, if their stack doesn't doesn't offer what you need, you have to grapple with the incomprehensibly complex SDK in the entire industry. For some companies, it works great. For others, it's an attractive nuisance.

I don't know how much actually changes for either company with this acquisition. It probably isn't good news if you're ST, Infineon, or Microchip.
by Zaylan | 2025-06-25 03:51:33+00:00
I used to think Basic Economy was just airlines making things uncomfortable on purpose. Then I realized it’s really about separating customers based on how much they’re willing to pay. They’re raising revenue without changing the base price. You see this more and more now. The default option keeps getting worse, not to cut costs but to make upgrades feel worth it. I’m not sure if people will just get used to it or eventually start pushing back.
by timr | 2025-06-25 03:52:17+00:00
Internet searches don't help you if you can't understand the basics of what you're reading.

1) The paper is very clear that it's talking about changes over a 50 year period, which is more than my entire life. It's certainly not something you're going to use to explain a particular hot day this year, or even an imagined increase in hot summer days over the past decade. In my lifetime, the regression line of their count of annual "QRA events" has gone from a bit less than 2, to a bit more than 2.

2) The phenomena discussed in the paper is described as a particular spectral decomposition pattern in the global upper atmosphere [1], not a frequency measurement of heat events. The pattern may be related to the weather, but like everything else in climate science, you can't use it to explain the outcome on a particular day. And it certainly doesn't explain the existence of what normal people call "hot summer days", which have, indeed, existed forever.

[1] Specifically: "A QRA event is counted as such if high-amplitude, quasi-stationary planetary waves of wave numbers 6, 7, or 8 are found in the atmospheric wind field in ERA5 data, and at the same time certain resonance conditions are met".

That's what the paper is about. They counted those, and plotted them in Figure 1: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2504482122/asset/22f39...
by kelnos | 2025-06-25 03:53:02+00:00
> Accurate DPI information is insufficient as users may want to scale differently anyways, either due to preference, higher viewing distance, or disability.

Which is fine. There's already a standardized property in XSETTINGS to use on X11 to advertise the user's scaling preference. For Wayland they decided to include this into the protocol, so it can be per-output and/or per-window (though the per-window fractional scaling stuff is an optional extension, sigh).

There's no reason why we couldn't do something similarly on X11, via xrandr output properties and X window properties. But it's more fun to abandon things and invent new ones than fix the things you have, so here we are.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-25 03:54:00+00:00
They aren't using KDE for the car, just KWin. And KWin is a robust compositor - it will happily survive a horrible KDE crash and even let you restart the session (unlike Mutter) in many cases.

If you're only using a Wayland compositor to render a webview, you cut out a lot of the surface area that could potentially cause a crash.
by runlevel1 | 2025-06-25 03:56:40+00:00
Looks like they quietly took the message down. For posterity, it said:

> ⓘ Restricted-Access Federal Facility, Effective July 7, 2025

>

> Effective July 7, 2025, the National Archives at College Park, MD, will become a restricted-access federal facility with access only for visitors with a legitimate business need. It will no longer be open to the general public. Security officers will enforce these restrictions, and your cooperation is appreciated.
by cyberax | 2025-06-25 03:56:53+00:00
I keep repeating that the modern urbanism ("war on cars", "bikes or gtfo", "a microapartment is good enough") is going to lead to the downfall of democracy.

Smaller sparse cities are way more human-friendly compared to monstrosities like Manhattan. Childcare becomes easier (sorry, but "walkable neighborhoods" are children-hostile), commutes are much faster, and you don't have to deal with transit.
by gucci-on-fleek | 2025-06-25 03:58:12+00:00
> In some ways it's a shame because I love the finesse game as a counterbalance to the focus on power

The relatively recent ban on takeouts before the 5th rock [0] has pushed the game back towards finesse, so if you haven't watched curling for the past few years, you might find it to be a little more interesting to watch now.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling#Free_guard_zone:~:text....
by saltech888 | 2025-06-25 03:58:22+00:00
I just uploaded a detailed breakdown exposing 5 hidden warning signs that your phone may be secretly monitored or tracked — without your knowledge.

This isn’t conspiracy — I walk through real settings most users never check, including:

How location sharing silently works in the background A call forwarding trap that redirects your private calls Google account events that log more than you think Hidden Bluetooth vulnerabilities for local tracking And how unknown apps can silently control your device

If you’ve ever felt like your phone is "off" or acting weird — you need to watch this.

▶ Watch the full video here https://youtu.be/c1HsYmSwhDk

No root, no factory reset — just straight-up security tips anyone can use today. Feedback and thoughts welcome — and if you’ve experienced this, I’d love to hear your story
by cycomanic | 2025-06-25 03:59:03+00:00
> I see where you are coming from and it makes sense.

I actually agree (even though I did not express that in my original post) that DPI is probably not a good "user visible" metric. However, I find that the scaling factor relative to some arbitrary value is inferior in every way. Maybe it comes the fact that we did not have proper fractional scaling support earlier, but we are now in the non-sensical situation that for the same laptop with the same display size (but different resolutions, e.g. one HiDPI one normal), you have very different UI element sizes, simply because the default is now to scale either 100% for normal displays and 200% for HiDPI. Therefore the scale doesn't really mean anything and people just end up adjusting again and again, surely that's even more confusing for non-technical users.

> I will also say though that in the most common cases where people request mixed scale factor support from us (laptop vs. docked screen, screen vs. TV) there are also other form factor differences such as viewing distance that doesn't make folks want to match DPI, and "I want things bigger/smaller there" is difficult to respond to with "calculate what that means to you in terms of DPI".

From my anecdotal evidence, most (even all) people using a laptop for work, have a the laptop next to the monitor and actually adjust scaling so that elements are similar size. Or the other extreme, they simply take the defaults and complain that one monitor makes all their text super small.

But even the people who want things bigger or smaller depending on circumstances, I would argue are better served if the scaling factor is relative to some absolute reference, not the size of the pixels on the particular monitor.

> For the case "I have two 27" monitors side-by-side and only one of them is 4K and I want things to be the same size on them" I feel like the UI offering a "Match scale" action/suggestion and then still offering a single scale slider when it sees that scenario might be a nice approach.

Considering that we now have proper fractional scaling, we should just make the scale relative to something like 96 DPI, and then have a slider to adjust. This would serve all use cases. We should not really let our designs be governed by choices we made because we could not do proper scaling previously.
by tacticalturtle | 2025-06-25 04:04:01+00:00
But why not just tax the owners of the corporation more to accomplish those same goals?

Why doesn’t the moral obligation rest with the owners of the company, rather than this legal construct that was created on paper?

Corporations aren’t rich people - they are machines that allocate capital and eventually return the money with profit to the owners. They can be owned by rich people, and we can tax them.

When we add taxes on corporations, we introduce compliance issues, accounting and forecasting requirements - all complications that take away money from the actual good things we can get from corporations - jobs in the community, better product development, etc.
by somenameforme | 2025-06-25 04:04:17+00:00
While this is a not directly an answer, I would emphasize that a lot of science still relies on what is essentially magic in areas that are not understood.

For instance the Big Bang Hypothesis largely came from observing that everything is moving away from everything else. So it's a very intuitive, even simple, hypothesis when you consider well what would happen if you just kept playing everything in reverse? The problem it turns out as we learned more is that a big bang, as we understood it, would not actually create what we see. For instance one problem, among many, is the Horizon Problem. [1]

Areas of the universe that should not be causally connected (light/causality itself, traveling obviously at the speed of light, would not have had time to go from one region to the other if it started at the birth of the universe) seem to be causally connected, in that they're effectively homogeneous. The currently standard explanation for this is cosmic inflation. [2]

Cosmic inflation suggests that for a brief moment in time, the universe's acceleration went into ultra over-drive expanding outward at many times the speed of light, only to suddenly slow down, and then resume accelerating again. This theory is 100% ad hoc. There is no rationale, logic, or remotely supported physical explanation - it's as good as magic for now. The only reason it became the standard is because it plugged a bunch of holes in the Big Bang Theory.

So too with consciousness, it's only in insisting in an answer that somebody is left waxing between the extremes of a basic emergent physical property with completely hamstrung ad hoc hypotheses to support it, or a God ordained proof to each person of their inner spirit. Its natural to seek answers to everything, but the reality is that we don't have those answers, and in some cases those answers may ultimately never be available. And while this may vary between people, I would much prefer to simply accept my own ignorance than believe in answers that have no more grounding than that opposite extreme which they seek to challenge.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
by usrusr | 2025-06-25 04:04:19+00:00
In the ad-fundeed years, we got used to not feeling tied to the opinion bias of one or two publishers. Even if effectively we are tied, not really routine-checking more than one of two news sources, it would feel like a huge loss loving ourselves down by a subscription or two, as we did in the paper age (those of us old enough to remember).

Publishers need to find some way to recreate that universal access feeling of the ad years with a subscription. Everything else feels like a downgrade from freeloading and nobody wants to pay for a downgrade.

One model that could work, I think, is if there was some "inverse syndication" mechanism: you subscribe on your "home news source", but it also gets you some form of "paying visitor" access on other sites that are completely unrelated except for being on the same "inverse syndication" network. That network would then do some crude redistribution based on views, like how (I think?) the Spotify subscription gets distributed: a view by a user with few cross-publisher views would give more redistribution than a view by a user that spends the entire day consuming "inversely syndicated" content. Distribution rules would be something end users would not have to be concerned with, same for defining what exactly publishers are expected to include in "paying visitor" access (I think it should be allowed to be a little worse than "home news source" access?).

The key requirement would be that participating sources would have to be all shades of claiming neutral (instead of just one side of the aisle), and ideally also regional, from all regions (just like adtech gave us the possibility to "pay" with local ads on a regional news site half a planet away).

So why not "Spotify for news"? Because no trade wants to give away the keys to their entire effective market. I'm looking not only at Spotify's (+Apple, Google, Amazon) grip on the music industry, also at booking.com's (+AirBnN) grip on lodging. Journalism absolutely cannot want that. They need to get their stuff together and federate a coop.
by cycomanic | 2025-06-25 04:05:56+00:00
As I replied to the other poster. I don't think DPI should necessarily be the exposed metric, but I do think that we should use something non device-dependent as our reference point, e.g. make 100% = 96 dpi.

I can guarantee that it is surprising to non-technical users (and a source of frustration for technical users) that the scale factor and UI element size can be completely different on two of the same laptops (just a different display resolution which is quite common). And it's also unpredictable which one will have the larger UI elements. Generally I believe UI should have behave as predictably as possible.
by zzleeper | 2025-06-25 04:06:43+00:00
No they are not. I've asked that question to quite a few well-published economists studying innovation and the off-the-record answer is always:

> Patents are an extremely noisy and biased measure of innovation; conflate innovation with a million other variables, etc. but we have all of the patents and patent applications available for free since the beginning of the time, so that's what we'll use. If you find another good measure as comprehensive let us know and we'll use that instead; meanwhile <shrug emoji>
by dlcarrier | 2025-06-25 04:07:48+00:00
I'm using an MI25, flashed as a PRO WX 9100, which requires an older version of ROCm to work. That's expectedm, because my GPU is depricated in future versions of ROCm, but what irks me is that everything neural network related barely works. You need the exact version of every interpreter and library, which ends up working on some distributions but not others. I've noticed that when people program in compiled languages, they seem to make a concerted effort to do some kind of bounds testing, but anything in Python or Node.js seems to be released as soon as it kind-of-sort-of works, some of the time.