MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by southernplaces7 | 2025-06-19 12:59:16+00:00
Just to add to that: the same logic is supposed to apply to the fourth amendment too since it also doesn't specify citizens. It's of course also being violated wholesale here (and has been for a long time, since before the Trump Administration). While that particular ship has sailed since long ago, it's worrisome and sad to now see the same prying and winnowing down being applied to the 1st too, which has probably been the best defended of the 10 main amendments.

This is how normalization of deviance works on a bureaucratic administrative legal scale. One administration, with just a mildly lackadaisical attitude about staying within the bounds of things like rights, laws, legality and so forth, stretches what's legally allowed or normal just a bit, here and there, only to be followed by another more or less reasonable administration that does it a bit more. Then however, you might get a less common but not extremely rare administration that simply doesn't give a tin shit about anything resembling legality insofar as it thinks it can get away with it, and all those previous deviations are aggressively pried into and expanded as much as possible.

This is why it's important to fight deviations of respect for individual legal rights and constitutional boundaries even when they're small, committed by administrations you otherwise largely respect. You simply don't know who will come along later, or how much political tendencies will change over time having been already given ever more free rein to do so illegally.

Then on the other hand, there is also that large subset of the population that, as long as a particular administration shares its ideological fixations, simply doesn't care about legality or deviations from constitutional responsibility.

On the contrary, they'll actively bark for their new leaders to break the rules as much as possible against anything they don't like. They're idiots for doing this of course, because it can very easily bite them right back in the ass later, but try explaining that when rational discourse goes down the drain in favor of dogmas.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-19 12:59:38+00:00
Yep, it's obvious that a lot of people are interested because junk articles like this usually get penalized harder. That interest is what this piece is preying on. Unfortunately it's easier to write a piece that tells people what they want to hear and spreads FUD than it is to write a piece that corrects the misinformation.

Much more rewarding too, because "we really don't know very much about this yet" is hard to expand to a full click-worthy essay and less likely to move product.
by londons_explore | 2025-06-19 12:59:43+00:00
If you didn't want to go to mars, you wouldn't be making starship at all.

It's pretty clear there is barely enough commercial launch demand for falcon 9 (it already has ~100% of the non-foreign launch market, and there isn't a huge amount of price elasticity), so no reason at all to develop starship, apart from humans in space.
by incomingpain | 2025-06-19 13:00:58+00:00
>This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker.

I wholly agree with the aphorism and it's a defeatable law; but perhaps it's not exactly clear who they mean. It's not about father-son type situation. It's completely unclear what 'strong' they even mean. Not to mention the other law that's counter to this in that who is defining weak vs strong?

My argument against the aphorism is the cycles can be happening out of sync. It's not like 100% of men are weak in any era. It's not that you cant intentionally break the cycle.

Rockefellers, Buffet, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and andrew Carnegie are all perfect examples of breaking out of the cycle.

Perhaps we need to rewrite the saying:

Difficult times forge resilient people, resilient people build prosperous societies, prosperity breeds complacency and dependence, complacency and dependence usher in difficult times.
by axegon_ | 2025-06-19 13:01:44+00:00
Not a data engineer but my work revolves around processing a ton of data(let's call it partial data engineering). Much of the data I get is inputted by humans from different sources and platforms and countries. My biggest pain in a nutshell - the human factor. Believe it or not, people have managed to misspell "Austria" over 11,000 times(accents, spaces, different encodings, alphabets, languages, null characters and so on. Multiply that by 250-something countries and multiply that by around 90-100 other fields which suffer from similar issues and multiply that by 2.something billion rows and you get the picture.
by xphos | 2025-06-19 13:01:54+00:00
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

I think the worlds leaning dangerously into LLMs expecting them to solve every problem under the sun. Sure AI can solve problems but I think that domain 1 they Karpathy shows if it is the body of new knowledge in the world doesn't grow with LLMs and agents maybe generation and selection is the best method for working with domain 2/3 but there is something fundamentally lost in the rapid embrace of these AI tools.

A true challenge question for people is would you give up 10 points of IQ for access to the next gen AI model? I don't ask this in the sense that AI makes people stupid but rather that it frames the value of intelligence is that you have it. Rather than, in how you can look up or generate an answer that may or may not be correct quickly. How we use our tools deeply shapes what we will do in the future. A cautionary tale is US manufacturing of precision tools where we give up on teaching people how to use Lathes, because they could simply run CNC machines instead. Now that industry has an extreme lack of programmers for CNC machines, making it impossible to keep up with other precision instrument producing countries. This of course is a normative statement and has more complex variables but I fear in this dead set charge for AI we will lose sight of what makes programming languages and programming in general valuable
by Jacques2Marais | 2025-06-19 13:02:03+00:00
Another challenge is a shift from sandboxing your own application to running untrusted, 3rd-party code in the cloud (e.g, for AI agents or a plugin system).

Devs are forced to build an entire isolation infrastructure from scratch, or to use a complex compute platform like RunPod or Modal for simple code execution. You end up having to manage the ops overhead just for a simple feature.

We found this exact issue quite frustrating and needed an API with its primary feature being dead-simple, high-security ephemeral execution. And so we're building Stonebox, an API that provides that strong, gVisor-based isolation for arbitrary code without any of the setup or maintenance complexity.

Here's our approach if you're curious: https://stonebox.plust.click/
by freeone3000 | 2025-06-19 13:02:06+00:00
I can’t help but notice that so many of the things mentioned are not at all due to flaws in the protocol, but developers specifying protocol endpoints incorrectly. We’re one step away from developers putting everything as a tool call, which would put us in the same situation with MCP that we’re in with OpenAPI. You can get that badge with a literal badge; for a protocol, I’d hope for something at least novel over HATEOAS.
by simiones | 2025-06-19 13:02:19+00:00
That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making by bringing into discussion this timeline. The typical way this is presented by adherents of Zionism is something like "the Jewish people are the original people who lived in Israel/were given it by God; this land was stolen from the Jewish people and they were expelled, first by the Romans and then by the Arabs; the foundation of modern-day Israel marked the return home of the Jewish people, as was their right by their 2-3000 years of having lived there; the Palestinians were just the latest population living on this stolen land". By this logic, they then claim that Israel are not occupying any land, even Gaza or the West Bank, it is the Palestinians who had been occupying the land of Israel.

My claim is that this is factually incorrect by any stretch of the imagination, as soon as we recognize that the modern-day Palestinians and the modern-day Jewish people are just as much descendants of the ancient Israelites. Just because their language, culture, and religion have diverged, there is nothing that ties one group more to that land than the other (if anything, those that had left have a lesser tie than those that stayed, even if the culture of those that stayed diverged). So the claim of descent and continuity with the ancient kingdom of Israel, the 2-3000 year old history, is entirely irrelevant.
by vitaflo | 2025-06-19 13:03:09+00:00
I had to return an iPhone because the oleds they use flicker so bad. The only iPhones that don’t ficker are the SEs because they use ond school LCD screens. But of course they got rid of the SE. So now I’m stuck on this old SE3 until I can find a different phone that doesn’t flicker because as of now ALL iPhones flicker.
Show HN: Open Operator Evals – real-world benchmarks for LLM web agents
by monoid73 | 2025-06-19 13:03:56+00:00
We’ve open-sourced a benchmark for LLM-driven web agent setups.

It evaluates real-world tasks, like logging in, scraping dashboards, and submitting forms, using structured criteria: success rate, latency, and task reliability.

Everything is fully reproducible, with all outputs, logs, and evaluation data available.

https://github.com/nottelabs/open-operator-evals

Feedback, critiques, or contributions welcome:)
by bossyTeacher | 2025-06-19 13:04:53+00:00
It is a very interesting way of making music.

That being said I think something needs to be highlighted. For some reason, it sees itself as "low barrier to entry" relative to traditional ways of making music (ie partiture or an actual music instrument). How is possessing a phone, ability to read English and knowing how to program lower barrier to entry than picking an instrument like a piano and playing some music?

Clearly, Strudel assumes some knowledge of basic music theory (melody, rhythm and harmony) so having that, what is it exactly that makes Strudel lower barrier to entry.

Is Strudel assuming that learning to program is inherently easier than learning to play any instrument?

It would be nice if whatever assumptions it has could be made explicit as it's not the first time that I see [insert here software tool to make music] claim that it's a lower barrier to entry to make music without saying why.

Obviously, this being HN people will likely prefer software and algorithmic approaches to making music in your room as opposed to the traditional and more social way of learning with a teacher and a cohort of students.
by rsynnott | 2025-06-19 13:05:53+00:00
> Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad?

Yes! I am sure! That did not happen!

Early development of Saturn V rocket engines involved destructive testing, but a whole rocket would not have been involved at that point.

Here's some later ground testing of final engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg
by dcminter | 2025-06-19 13:06:00+00:00
It's fairly clear that v2 has some problems and that SpaceX have not got to the bottom of them. It's not clear whether that's a series of small things of which this is (perhaps) the last, or something systemic where solving one problem moves the problem further along the chain.

But on the other hand, this is a test programme and while I'm sure nobody at SpaceX is sanguine about this particular explosion, their philosophy is still leaning towards more-frequent higher-risk tests.

An explosion of this kind with SLS would be a catastrophe for that programme. For Starship it's a setback - but seems very unlikely to derail the programme in the same way. The costs of an individual Starship are dramatically lower than those for an SLS second stage.

The prize that SpaceX are reaching for is full reusability; achieving it would allow them to totally dominate the launch industry for at least a decade. It's worth a few detonations.

I think a lot of commentators are drawing too much pleasure from seeing Musk fail at his hobby (and, fair, he's a total areshole, I'm enjoying that a little too) to put this particular failure in its proper perspective. Now, if they have another failure or two, or particularly if they have similar failures with v3 then it will start to look like they might have a bigger problem - but for now this is just part of the price you pay for rapid iteration.
by a_bonobo | 2025-06-19 13:06:10+00:00
The article doesn't seem to talk about it but many carnivorous plants lost part or most of their chloroplast genomes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30629170/

I.e., because they got their nutrients from animals they didn't need chloroplasts and the chloroplasts 'broke' over time. Chances are minimal to zero that carnivorous plants will regain chloroplasts. In a way, carnivory in plants is an evolutionary 'dead end' similar to parasitism, which is also often linked to chloroplast loss. Where could the plants evolve 'to' if they have no chance of getting energy from alternative (chloroplast) sources?
by joshstrange | 2025-06-19 13:07:06+00:00
Do you see crypto as anything more than scams/crime/speculation?

Most people involved in crypto pretend it's the future and their business models depend on pumping up crypto. That might be the same for you all but I figure of anyone in the space, a group dedicated to tracking down where coins are moving for government agencies (I assume for scams/crime reasons) might not have the wool so pulled over their eyes.
by icedchai | 2025-06-19 13:07:37+00:00
That RFC glosses over a LOT of details. I'm skeptical the effort would be a bit smaller, once you consider what is required for routing and the "translation service." That's totally glossed over in the RFC, by the way.

Unless you're planning on doing all IP communications in user space (or within your network "cluster"), the OS and IP stack still needs to be updated, you need a new addressing format, applications need to be aware of it, etc. If you want to actually make use of the new address space, it all needs to be updated... just like IPv6.
by beacon294 | 2025-06-19 13:08:49+00:00
What is this "clerk" library he used at this timestamp to tell him what to do? https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?si=XaC-oOMUxXp0DRU0&t=1991

Gemini found it via screenshot or context: https://clerk.com/

This is what he used for login on MenuGen: https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/vibe-coding-menugen/
by cgriswald | 2025-06-19 13:09:02+00:00
Why would that be reasonable to assume? Even ignoring that calculators were ubiquitous long before smart phones existed, a google search can give you actual facts. A quick search suggests otherwise but I’ll let you do your own.

People can still do math in their head (and on paper) despite the existence of calculators. They can still dig holes by hand despite the existence of shovels. And they can still write a for loop despite the existence of AI.
by jjk166 | 2025-06-19 13:09:36+00:00
> So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit.

This doesn't follow. Engineering complexity is not a limit on payload to orbit, it is a fundamentally different parameter. Yeah building a mile tall rocket would be hard, but it would get a shit ton of payload to orbit. There is no maximum beyond which making a bigger rocket starts to reduce your payload to orbit.

> But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket.

Complexity does not increase with size, people just become more risk averse with size. Toy rockets fail all the time, just nobody really cares. No one would bet the lives of multiple people and hundreds of millions of dollars on a successful toy rocket launch. If complexity increases, it is with capability. If you want to land on the moon, you need something a bit more advanced than a hobby rocket. There is no reason to believe a floatilla of physically smaller rockets capable of achieving any given mission will be less complex in aggregate than a single physically larger rocket.
by troymc | 2025-06-19 13:10:25+00:00
Are you referring to the Stargate Project? I guess so, since there weren't any other 500 billion USD AI projects announced recently in the USA.

Construction of the first data center Abilene, Texas site is ongoing. Emily Chang visited the site over a month ago and got video footage [1]. So it's not nothing. Will they actually invest 500 billion in the end? I dunno; I guess we'll see. The main challenges seem to be the availability of electrical power and skilled workers, not demand, investment or ambition.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhIJs4zbH0o
by tome | 2025-06-19 13:10:59+00:00
Are you responding to an argument zaphar didn't make? He/she just said "your first paragraph ... ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history", which is true. Now you seem to be saying "if you look at the first 2-3000 years of history you will see that the first 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant", which is about as self-defeating as an argument can possibly be!
by npilk | 2025-06-19 13:11:26+00:00
Sure, there are higher energy costs and it's probably worse for the environment.

I just wanted to clarify what I meant by convenience - less effort and "processing time" for me, personally, not overall.

I guess I'd compare it to ordering DoorDash every night instead of buying groceries and cooking at home. The first one is much more convenient, but comes with much higher total energy costs.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-19 13:12:50+00:00
>If I own land, I should be able to invite anyone, anywhere to come stand on it

Naturally there's conflicts between different rights, and yours end where other's begin.

In this case one should not be able to jeopardize the safety or well being of their neighbours by inviting

>Passports as a concept are only about a hundred years old. Prior to that if you wanted to go somewhere, you just went.

We did have castles for quite some centuries
by plq | 2025-06-19 13:13:17+00:00
When implementing the lock-free stuff, was portability (across processors) a goal? If yes, did you have to deal with anything specific? Do you notice any difference in behavior of correct implementations when ran on different processors? How do you test for correctness of lock-free stuff?

EDIT: Oh and did you implement from scratch? Why not use eg. the RCU implementation from folly?
by whatamidoingyo | 2025-06-19 13:13:19+00:00
I recently went to the theater with my wife to see the new Karate Kid movie. We discussed it a bit after, and I said it felt a bit rushed. Like, the character goes from being in a Chinese kung fu temple, to being in the US, with a girlfriend - and an enemy - in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

She made a really good point: we're in the TikTok era.

After she said this, it made much more sense. The whole movie felt like "reels" stitched together, with no scene lasting longer than 5 minutes.

It makes me wonder if people today (especially younger people) would be able to watch a movie like the Godfather? I have doubts.

Honestly, I'm terrified of where we are heading as a species.
by ColinWright | 2025-06-19 13:13:22+00:00
From the article:

"Yet Musk has clinched his hopes on Starship as the key vehicle for both NASA’s third and fourth Artemis missions ..."

I'm puzzled by the use of "clinched" in this context.

To quote Inigo Montoya: "I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
by sensanaty | 2025-06-19 13:13:34+00:00
So AI is simultaneously going to take over everyone's job and do literally everything, including being used as application UI somehow... But you have to talk to it like a moody teenager at their first job lest you get nothing but garbage? I have to put just as much (and usually, more) effort talking to this non-deterministic black box as I would to an intern who joined a week ago to get anything usable out of it?

Yeah, I'd rather just type things out myself, and continue communicating with my fellow humans rather than expending my limited time on this earth appeasing a bullshit generator that's apparently going to make us all jobless Soon™
by jebarker | 2025-06-19 13:13:37+00:00
> the LLM views that vagueness as a potential aspect of it's own creative liberty.

I think that anthropomorphism actually clouds what’s going on here. There’s no creative choice inside an LLM. More description in the prompt just means more constraints on the latent space. You still have no certainty whether the LLM models the particular part of the world you’re constraining it to in the way you hope it does though.
by probably_wrong | 2025-06-19 13:13:58+00:00
> These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong.

This feels like victim blaming.

If the tool can be so easily misused that the participants in this study "used it wrong" by default, then were are the safeguards? How are these companies nudging the users in the "right" direction?

The way I see it, if there's nothing in the system telling you that you're using it "wrong" then you're using it exactly as intended.
by sammycage | 2025-06-19 13:13:59+00:00
I appreciate Lanier’s reminder that AI is ultimately a collective artifact, not an independent mind. Calling it "large language social collaboration" might be clunky, but the point is fair: what we label "AI" is just our accumulated digital patterns, recombined.

I do wonder, though. At what point does the remixing and generalization become more than just a mirror of us? Even if it is still trained on human work, its behavior can surprise us in ways that feel alien.

Curious if others here agree: is the term "AI" just marketing hype, or is it still useful shorthand for systems whose emergent properties we do not fully control?
by infecto | 2025-06-19 13:14:01+00:00
No doubt the complete cost of training and to getting where we are today has been significant and I don’t know how the accounting will look years from now but you are just making up the rest based on feelings. We know operationally OpenAI is profitable on purely the runtime side, nobody knows how that will look when accounting for R&D but you have no qualification to say they cannot make a profit in any way.
by arrowsmith | 2025-06-19 13:14:09+00:00
There’s already a common type of email spam that says, essentially, “I hacked your computer and watched you jerk off through your webcam, send me bitcoin or I’ll publish it along with your porn history.”

This is basically the premise of that Black Mirror episode, except if the spammer had actually hacked you for real and wasn’t just shotgun-blasting the message to stupid people.
by simpaticoder | 2025-06-19 13:14:13+00:00
I was about to post Metalhead (https://www.howclosetoblackmirror.com/metalhead) but found you got there first. Interestingly I read that the initial draft had the robots being remotely piloted by humans, which would have been much less frightening (and it would have ruined the apocolyptic setting). The only real fantasy element are the super-high density batteries and extremely fast solar charging. The embed-in-the-skin tracker tech doesn't seem realistic, either - but I suppose if you have those batteries it's possible. Each tag appears separately powered, and needs enough power to transmit through walls and over great distance. The AI and robotics are, ironically, the least fantasy of the elements.

The theme of technology continuing without humans was treated in Ray Bradbury's excellent, melancholic, still-relevant tale written in 1950 "There Will Come Soft Rains". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Will_Come_Soft_Rains_(sh...