MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rsaz | 2025-06-29 05:40:06+00:00
Social media is relied on by a lot of people for official notifications. When I was in high school, my only use for Twitter was checking if my school was closed or not on snow days. I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons for schools, hospitals, emergency services, garbage collection, official media networks etc. to have social media accounts, and for regular people to follow them.

I've always thought it would be a good idea for governments to run their own mastodon servers for this, but something else with accounts (not publicly) tied to real identities could be interesting.
by litmus-pit-git | 2025-06-29 05:41:48+00:00
Google had banned (years ago) my secondary Google a/c that at best I used once in a few months - never even browed from a browser with that a/c logged in, never ever used it for anything other than Gmail - I doubt YT etc was even activated on that. The reason given was a kind of porn that I can't bring myself to type the name of. I didn't even think of appealing - I was so fucking scared and ashamed without ever indulging in that.

But that was when I bought my domain and mail hosting service and few months later I had moved my email to my domain almost everywhere.

Years later Google also killed my primary Gmail (i.e what was primary email earlier) Google Play a/c (for lack of use; true I had never published an app) and didn't refund the $25 USD even though I had finished all the tasks needed to keep the a/c alive 3 days before deadline and I had also requested them to tell me "how to add the bank a/c" to get the refund (asked at least 5 times over a span of 40 days) - because they kept telling me "add the bank a/c for refund" and never telling me "how" or sharing an article or page that told me how. I could never find out how.

They kept the $25 - not even appeals were allowed/entertained. I got "final.. no further response" and that was it, literally no further response on it.

I stop to think sometimes why.. just why we gave these trillion dollar companies this much power - the likes of Apple, Google, AMZN, Meta, MSFT.. why?? Now we literally can't fight them - not legally, not with anything else. It seems we just can't.
by tmsh | 2025-06-29 05:41:50+00:00
It’s a tool or technique. Fear of the technique is governed solely by the fear that one will not be able to use the technique better than without the technique. And yet humans always rise to the challenge of using techniques effectively. Or it’s not an effective technique and people stop using it and move on to something else. But there is nothing wrong with letting new techniques develop and see if they’re effective at creating art or other works in new and better ways.

Fearing that is not having faith in humanity’s adaptation to new things.
by timewizard | 2025-06-29 05:42:04+00:00
> MSLs such as Ada, C#, Delphi/Object Pascal, Go, Java, Python, Ruby, Rust, and Swift offer built-in protections against memory safety issues

They offer default protections that can be easily overridden in most of those languages. Some of them require you to use those overrides to implement common data structures.

> MSLs can prevent entire classes of vulnerabilities, such as buffer overflows, dangling pointers, and numerous other Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) vulnerabilities.

If used a certain way.

> Android team made a strategic decision to prioritize MSLs, specifically Rust and Java, for all new development

Was that /all/ they did?

> Invest initially in training, tools, and refactoring. This investment can usually be offset by long-term savings through reduced downtime, fewer vulnerabilities, and enhanced developer efficiency.

That is an exceedingly dubious claim to make in general.
by dbmnt | 2025-06-29 05:42:05+00:00
I’m also puzzled by the Instant On divestiture. In the original filing and press release the DOJ does call out SMB, even though most of the discussion is about enterprise markets:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-block...

My guess is that by forcing HPE to spin off Instant On, the DOJ hopes to score a modest PR win by claiming it protected small businesses, by preserving one of the few turnkey, cloud-native wireless solutions for SMBs. Since Instant On represents only a tiny portion of the deal, though, it seems odd that it was singled out.
by FooBarWidget | 2025-06-29 05:42:59+00:00
Isn't it more accurate to say that AI magnifies who you already are? I use AI to research health advice. In the past half year I've learned more about the mechanics and mitigation strategies of hair greying, mental stress, oxidative stress, exercise benefits and fitfalls, and some skin conditions, than I've had in... well, forever. Before this I could Google for mainstream articles but none were very in-depth and accessible at the same time. Before AI, medical research papers might as well be ancient magical tomes to me. Now I can at least have a semi-informed opinion that I can discuss with doctors. Bot that doctors are helpful a lot of the time: unless you're dying, they usually tell you to go away, maybe eat a paracetamol. No preventative healthcare here. They also don't seem to know as much about food biochemical effects than I do, even though the AI keeps telling me to consult a doctor.

Doctors told me there are no better ways to treat my condition, meaning I have to resign myself to fate and luck. o3 researched medical papers and found that actually there are, the evidence tier is not that high but they might still work for me specifically, and the risks of those treatments are pretty low. So might as well try. Doctors absolutely do not have this can-do-as-long-as-it's-safe attitude and dismiss it as "no evidence", but apparently what they mean is insufficient evidence in large populations, not that it won't work for me. One of the AI suggestions was that I change one of the cremes. I asked for that, the doctor agreed to that one request luckily (they didn't even tell me it was an option the last time around), and now there's some improvement.

So yes AI is absolutely useful to me.
Where do AI teams get affordable, high-quality labeled data?
by fungungun | 2025-06-29 05:44:44+00:00
I'm part of a team working on a data labeling platform (venso.xyz), and we’re exploring how small AI teams and researchers find data annotation support.

Tools like Scale AI are great but often priced out of reach for small labs or startups.

Curious to hear what tools/strategies others use, or if people would consider alternatives with trained in-house teams and lower cost.

Thanks in advance!
by delis-thumbs-7e | 2025-06-29 05:46:22+00:00
5. There should be 5 people in whole of Canada to make money from their music. Or 15. Kazzillion razmadillion. How are you supposed to calculate that?

Well you don’t need to. The answer is ”as many as the market will support”, as it is with any other product. However, your rhetorical question misses the point completely. The question is not should a person just make thing x as a hobby, but that this global multi-billion dollar industry shares very little of it’s revenue to the people who make thump thump and bum bum that get’s asses on the floor and people to move. All of the examples in this article are clearly quite successful acts that people are willing to pay to listen to and are quite integral part of the economy as a whole (not to mention softer values such as cultural enrichment of all human life), but are struggling to make the ends meet. Why.

Because some else literally takes the money people pay to listen to them. If I want to listen rapper Yakkedi Yap’s new single Xingabow and give him money, I would be better off to sending them money in an envelope than listening them from any streaming app (maybe Bandcamp is an exception), or even going to their concert or buying their merch. Because someone literally steals the money.

At least if you buy a landscape painting from a gallery the gallery takes just 20-40% and artist gets the rest minus materials and taxes. They don’t take 60%, then minus every possible cost from the artist, then take what is left and give it to Drake.
by voidhorse | 2025-06-29 05:47:15+00:00
I do think there are cases which, in controlled environments, there is some degree of knowledge as to what is in the training set. I also don't thin it's as impossible as you assume.

If you really wanted to ensure this with certainty just use the natural numbers to parameterize an aspect of a general problem. Assume there are N foo problems in the training set, then there is always a case N+1 parameter not in the training set, and you can use this as an indicative case. Go ahead and generate an insane number of these and eventually the probability that the Mth instance is not in the set is effectively 1.

Edit: Of course, it would not be perfect certainty, but it is probabilistically effectively certain. The number of problem instances in the set is necessarily finite, so if you go large enough you get what you need. Sure, you wouldn't be able to say there is a specific problem instance not in the set, but the aggregate results would evidence whether or no the LLm deals with all cases or (on assumption) just known ones.
Gemini 2.5 is getting to the heart of the matter
by sans_souse | 2025-06-29 05:50:35+00:00
User;"nice guys finish last. Only the good die young."

(User reaponds, making a point, to which Gemini responds with what must by now be the most glaringly repetitive phrasing found in any AI model in the last 3 or 4 years:

Gemini; "That's an excellent point, and it gets to the very heart of why the phrase "only the good die young" is so emotionally powerful."

User; "that's an excellent point, that really gets shot thru the heart of the problem and you're to blame you are the problem you give love a bad name"

Gemini: You got me. Shot through the heart! And I'm to blame. That is a flawless, hall-of-fame-worthy transition into a Bon Jovi classic. Well played. I guess I played my part, and you played your game.

me; Ha ha. Ha.
by potamic | 2025-06-29 05:50:54+00:00
I have never been able to understand how Bell's Theorem disproves hidden variables. The argument I hear is that when you measure spin of a particle pair 120° apart, they agree only 1/4 times instead of the expected 1/3. But who says the expected should be 1/3? Hidden variables give you an escape that can define anything you want it to. That's the point of a hidden variable, isn't it? Maybe the hidden variable function itself is such that the interaction when measuring along 120° is not symmetrical to that when measuring along 240°, and so could yield results different from 1/3 probability.
by kstrauser | 2025-06-29 05:52:25+00:00
No way. AmigaDOS in 1985 referred to all disks either by device name (like DH0: for Disk, Hard, number 0 or DF1: for Disk, Floppy, number 1) or label (like "Workbench:" or "Work:" or "Defender of the Crown 2:"). If a program tried to open "Some App 2:datafile", the OS would prompt you to insert the disk named "Some App 2".

Drive letters were a poor alternative even way back then.
by codeguro | 2025-06-29 05:54:11+00:00
People spending money that is not theirs on services they themselves will not receive will care about neither the quality nor the cost of those services. But this at its core is exactly what the government bureaucrats do. If you listened at all to great economists like Milton Friedman then it’d be obvious to you why government spending inevitably leads to lower quality and more expensive services than those provided by a free market through the private sector. Moreover, this spending is done by force, meaning the government is violating your individual autonomy (and the autonomy of every individual they tax to fund this program) by removing your right to decide how you spend your money on services you need. We as a society don’t generally view force as a legitimating factor. We view consent as a legitimating factor, and these goods and services are just that; goods and services. And, like every other good and service, the free market is a solution to provide more variety of them at a variety of costs including ones affordable to you. There is a reason people choose to bring their kids to private school and many people who would otherwise choose to do so cannot because their income is taxed to fund public schooling.

The lesbian dance theory degree example is obviously an analogy to illustrate a bad investment and get you to understand the outrage of having to pay for someone else’s personal (bad) investments. 18 year olds are legally adults in the US and as adults they have the right to make decisions about their futures. But their inexperience does not absolve them of their responsibilities. And it’s not like they have to get a degree fresh out of high school either. They can choose to wait and watch the real world for a few years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. Stop infantilizing them.

If you’re asking me my opinion on discharging debts, I disagree with the concept in principle for the same reason as the original occupy wall street protesters. Businesses that fail, even if they are big, should not be bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Bad investments should fail; that is the risk you wager when you agreed to play that game. You don’t get to turn around and privatize the gains and socialize the losses. We live in a society.
by defrost | 2025-06-29 05:55:57+00:00
A typical weather satellite carries a price tag of $290 million; a spy satellite might cost an additional $100 million

~ https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite10.htm

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked the aerospace and defense giant to build it at least three, and potentially as many as seven, new next-generation Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) sats. If all options are exercised, the total contract value will reach $2.3 billion. Bad news for Lockheed Martin: That works out to $324.3 million per satellite.

~ https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/06/30/lockheed-martin-wi...

It's generally agreed that ~ $90 million for a sat launch is less than a third of a ~$300 million per sat build cost.
by d1sxeyes | 2025-06-29 05:56:09+00:00
That’s interesting, no requirement for parental birth certificates?

I was asked to provide (I am British, wife is Hungarian, living in Hungary) both parents’ birth certificates and all four grandparents’ birth certificates.

My wife is not in touch with her father, so we had to submit a cover letter explaining the situation, which was accepted (although I don’t really see why it was relevant anyway, my son’s Britishness is derived from my Britishness, her nationality and the nationality of her parents is essentially irrelevant).

We also didn’t have to copy the passport of anyone else, but we did have to have a family friend do the confirmation online (family friend is a lawyer in the UK, so was on the list of approved jobs for this).
by chii | 2025-06-29 05:57:05+00:00
i think the tooling improves with popularity, so it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem.

But with the recent LSP decoupling of the IDE to the compiler, it is quite possible to make good tooling that is independent of any particular editor. It's just that the language's popularity is what induces contributors (as most are realistically after "fame" and "portfilio" when doing contributions).
by visarga | 2025-06-29 05:58:36+00:00
> AI is not good at forgetting.

There is also a related feeling of fatigue with our own digital archives - photos, old writings. We like to save them but not to look at them. They evoke powerful and somewhat uncomfortable feelings. And once we write something down, or take a photo of it, it gets out of our head, we don't care about it as much. The simple presence of the archive changes how we think.
by krzyk | 2025-06-29 05:59:09+00:00
Maybe you hit a specific use case where the LLM part turns into its roots?

I had a somehos similar problem with Claude 3.7, where I had a class named "Workflow" and it got nuts, producing code/comments I didn't ask for, all related to some "workflow" that it tried to replicate and not my code, it was strange.
by thayne | 2025-06-29 06:00:56+00:00
IANAL, but I don't think your analysis is quite correct.

I think the key is

> It is well-settled that the proper ground for cancellation is the underlying question of whether the mark was in use in commerce, not the adequacy of the specimens

If I understand correctly (and I very well might not), that means that it doesn't matter whether some of the provided specimens were fraudulent or not, in order to revoke the trademark the burden of proof is to show the entire trademark claim was fraudulent, and if there was no fraud, then the trademark wouldn't have been granted.

Deno might be able to make a stronger argument of fraud, if they could show without that specimen USPTO would have rejected the application, or that the other specimen was also invalid, but that would delay the proceedings and require more work for them.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-29 06:01:14+00:00
They're banking on his age and poor health will lead to an actuarial conclusion and Thiel's boy JDV get a chance to take over.

See, the folks in power have a goal: to emulate the oligarchs during the breakup of the Soviet Union. To sell off every bit of the commonwealth, obliterate Medicare and Medicaid, and turn formerly public services into crappier private companies that can absorb subsidies and debt to give it all away to private equity as dividends. The Big Ugly Bill just received a midnight addition to cut Medicare in addition to over a trillion in cuts to Medicaid. This will double the number of homeless people with the most vulnerable people who cannot care for themselves. and around 20% of elder care facilities will go out of business.
by whytevuhuni | 2025-06-29 06:01:36+00:00
I like your response the most among your siblings.

A couple more points, based on how the bumpalo crate does it:

- If you don't really need destructors, then it's fine to just not call them. This works for things like strings, lists of strings, objects with references to each other, etc.

- If you do need a destructor, you can create a stack object that references and allocates into the arena, and it will be the stack object whose purpose is to run that destructor (but deallocation happens later). This preserves drop ordering while still getting some benefit of arena allocation.
by crawfordcomeaux | 2025-06-29 06:02:17+00:00
I once accidentally came up with another conscious voice in my head & we decided to govern through the 12 traditions of Codependents Anonymous. She also had specific qualities I'd chosen 3 weeks prior as qualities I chose to believe I could come to embody, so that was an interesting pointer to what's possible.

And as others have pointed out, it really depends what kind of programming you're carrying around. Feeling terrified of something isn't the issue...it's how you've trained to respond to terror that matters. If you lash out or avoid, yeah....don't cultivate multiple voices. If, instead, you're choosing to purge the addiction to violence & domination fairly rooted in American imperial colonial indoctrination, it's really quite something. I'm now working on bringing in 16 others as a way to better connect with different parts of the population and spread this and other blackness-embracing ways.

Hearing/seeing things that aren't there has historically for the majority of humanity's time on Earth not been an issue. We can get back to living in such ways, especially since doing so can be extremely helpful.
by jedberg | 2025-06-29 06:03:53+00:00
This feel like it's related to the problem of no more mid-budget movies. Now that physical media (CD/VHS/DVD) isn't a thing, there is no long tail of fans to sustain mid-market efforts. Movies that cost a few tens of millions usually didn't make their budget back in the theater -- it was VHS and DVD sales that made up the difference. But now that doesn't happen, so those movies either don't get made, or they're made by the streamers.

Same thing with music. Streaming pays so little compared to physical media now that artists never make up the difference.
by wtallis | 2025-06-29 06:07:27+00:00
Their Grace datacenter CPU is basically a chip where they put down all the LPDDR5 memory controllers (albeit curiously slow), NVLINK and PCIe IOs they needed around the perimeter, and then filled in the interior with boring off the shelf ARM cores. It's basically an IO and memory expander that happens to run Linux.

GB10 when it ships might be more interesting, since it'll go into systems that need to support use cases other than merely feeding a big GPU ML workloads. But it sounds like the CPU chiplet at least was more or less outsourced to Mediatek.
by nmadden | 2025-06-29 06:07:52+00:00
The improvements in programming are largely due to the adoption of “agentic” architectures. This is really a hybrid neural-symbolic approach: the symbolic part being the interpreter/compiler. Effectively the LLM still produces an almost-correct-but-wrong program and then the compiler “fact-checks” it and then the LLM basically local-searches its way from there to something that passes the compiler. (If you want to be disabused of the idea that LLMs on their own are good at programming, just review the “reasoning” log of one trying to fix a simple string | undefined error in Typescript).

It seems clear to me therefore that further improvements in programming ability will not come from better LLM models (which have not really improved much), but from better integration of more advanced compilers. That is, the more types of errors that can be caught by the compiler, the better chance of the AI fuzzing its way to a good overall solution. Interestingly, I hear anecdotally that current LLMs are not great at writing Rust, which does have an advanced type system able to capture more types of errors. That’s where I’d focus if I was working on this. But we should be clear that the improvements are already largely coming via symbolic means, not better LLMs.

I wrote some notes about a year ago about the irony of LLMs being considered a refutation of GOFAI when they are actually now firmly recapitulating that paradigm: https://neilmadden.blog/2024/06/30/machine-learning-and-the-...
by sothatsit | 2025-06-29 06:09:28+00:00
Roblox has a very young playerbase, even when compared to Minecraft and Fortnite. Roblox is also unique in the sheer quantity of offences that happen on their platform, and that is why they are often singled out.

But this can be a problem wherever kids are online. Discord also has huge problems with child predators. And any platform that caters to children should be held to very high standards of child safety.

The games that I think shouldn't be held to such a high standard are games like World of Warcraft. That game is not targeted at children, has far fewer children players, and therefore it is unreasonable to hold them to as high of a standard as Roblox. (Although they do still have some responsibility to make sure their platform is safe.)
by adventured | 2025-06-29 06:09:38+00:00
Oracle has demonstrated the long-term and their stock has never been higher. Their sales are finally heading higher again.. They're one of the oldest software companies and are approaching 50 years old. What is more long-term in their industry than what they have accomplished?

They're better positioned now than they have been at any other point in the past 10-15 years.
by lerp-io | 2025-06-29 06:09:40+00:00
i honestly don’t think we have have yet come to grips to a world collectively giving birth to nonhuman intelligence - literally aliens that may ironically be more conscious of the world than we could ever be in our current form. maybe it’s just our ego, inability to let it go and try and find some sort of balance or peace….always competing, adapting, improving…..personally i am happy to see it all accelerating and think diversity of thought will make this world more beautiful. i don’t believe in any sort of “singularity”, to me it’s more of a Cambrian explosion and now you have even more power to be creative ,build worlds, and explore ideas.