MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bigyabai | 2025-06-09 18:04:58+00:00
> The Patriots in Ukraine can do it.

Missiles like the Zircon, Iskander and Oreshnik are not going 7km/s when they are being intercepted. It's doubtful they're even going 2km/s too; these are standoff missiles with a solid-fuel motor and bleed their speed immediately from the moment the motor dies. Many ballistic missiles with onboard targeting also have to decelerate below Mach 4 for the terminal phase, otherwise the plasma shroud on the airframe prevents pretty much anything besides INS from guiding the rocket. And INS isn't really suitable for non-nuclear strikes.

On paper, it might be possible for something like Avengard to get intercepted close to 7km/s. But Avengard is also meant to maneuver and exploit the Patriot's directional radar, which means it might not even see it by the time it's too late. Comparing the interceptor to maximum speeds feels like the wrong way to assess how much of a threat these weapons are.

> It would take additional research and development to move 10km/s intercepts from "experimental but possible" to "very high probability" bin.

Poor Gorbachev is rolling in his grave. "Additional research" is the understatement of the century, and intercept probability has been less of an issue than magazine depth since the deployment of the R-36. If you have an 80% chance to intercept 10 warheads aimed at New York, you've already lost the battle. And that's just one missile, out of potentially hundreds that could be salvoed in a wartime situation. This was clear even back during the development of the SPRINT interceptor.

This gives you two options; build 50,000 ground interceptors to stop a worst-case scenario, or, escalate the conflict to space to disable missiles before they reach the terminal phase. Both options suck balls! Yes, it is "physically possible" in both cases, albeit at great cost to the American people in prestige and capital that could be spent on strategic arms reduction elsewhere.

> It is not the 90s anymore.

I don't see what you're getting at here. The technology advancements we've made in ABM tech since the 90s isn't really profound. It's not nothing, either, but the physics side of the equation still oppresses any serious attempt at solving the problem. Is there any advancement in particular you're trying to highlight here?
by hackinthebochs | 2025-06-09 18:06:53+00:00
You are misrepresenting the point of contention. The question is whether LLMs lack of consistency undermines the claim that they "understand" in some relevant sense. But arguing that lack of consistency is a defeater for understanding is itself undermined by noting that humans are inconsistent but do in fact understand things. It's as simple as that.

If you want to alter the argument by saying humans can engage in focused effort to reach some requisite level of consistency for understanding, you have to actually make that argument. It's not at all obvious that focused effort is required for understanding or that a lack of focused effort undermines understanding.

You also need to content with the fact that LLMs aren't really a single entity, but are a collection of personas, and what you get and its capabilities do depend on how you prompt it to a large degree. Even if the entity as a whole is inconsistent between prompts, the right subset might very well be reliably consistent. There's also the fact of the temperature setting that artificially injects randomness into the LLMs output. An LLM itself is entirely deterministic. It's not at all obvious how consistency relates to LLM understanding.

Feel free to do some conceptual work to make an argument; I'm happy to engage with it. What I'm tired of are these half-assed claims and incredulity that people don't take them as obviously true.
by armchairhacker | 2025-06-09 18:07:17+00:00
> Iran’s government has also long seen pet dogs as a sign of Western cultural influence. And much of the opposition to dogs in Iran stems from religious beliefs, with dogs considered to be “najes,” or impure, in Islam.

> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, had issued a fatwa, or religious order, explaining the logic: A dog’s saliva or hair would render anything it touched — like a person, clothing or a surface — impure.

> “Dog walking is considered a threat to health and is considered a criminal behavior under the name of harassment of women and children,” Mr. Doroudi said, according to IRNA.

> “We are experiencing economic difficulties, but the dog lovers are spending billions of dollars each year for dog food,” [Hamidreza Taraghi] said. “We need that money for more important things.”

> In Hamedan, in western Iran, the provincial prosecutor’s office said that walking dogs or driving with them was “against religious and social values,” and “considered a threat to public health,” according to IRNA. Abbas Najafi, the prosecutor, said that dog walking was “considered a threat to the health, comfort and tranquillity of citizens,” according to IRNA.
by sumtechguy | 2025-06-09 18:07:36+00:00
Do I give it out? Not so much.

Do I expect it to be private? No.

You can for a small fee on some websites get my number.

Heck if you find a phone book from ~2000 where I use to live then you could just look it up in the phone book. Number portability saw to that.

Considering the number of data breaches and past history of phone numbers. To expect any sort of privacy is 'nice to have' but not going to happen. At this point it is basically security thru obscurity to expect it to be private.

Even when they had 'unlisted' numbers you could buy a book from the phone company that had it in there anyway. They even had reverse phone books you could buy. I even remember CD's from ~1998 that had the whole country. You didn't even need to keep the books.
by EnderWT | 2025-06-09 18:07:44+00:00
The IRS released guidance back in 2023: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-63.pdf

It starts on page 23.

Plenty of analysis online by tax firms but I'll quote from this one: https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/attachment_dw.actio...

> Generally, activities treated as software development for section 174 purposes include, but are not limited to, the following.

• planning the development of the computer software

• designing the computer software

• building a model of the computer software

• writing source code and converting it to machine-readable code

• testing the computer software (up to the point that a taxpayer places the computer software into service or determines that the computer software is ready for sale or licensing to others)

• producing product master(s), if the taxpayer develops the computer software for sale or licensing to others.

> Activities that are not treated as software development vis-à-vis software developed by a taxpayer for use in its trade or business are as follows:

• training employees and other stakeholders that will use the computer software

• maintenance activities after the taxpayer places the computer software into service

• data conversion activities, except for activities to develop computer software that facilitate access to existing data or data conversion

• installing the computer software and other activities relating to placing the computer software into service
by cesarb | 2025-06-09 18:08:19+00:00
> "oh god, I want to change the name of this function/variable, but I need to go through 500 files, and see where it's used, then make local changes, then re-test everything..."

Forgive me for being dense, but isn't it just clicking the "rename" button on your IDE, and letting it propagate the change to all definitions and uses? This already existed and worked fine well before LLMs were invented.
by bitwize | 2025-06-09 18:08:30+00:00
Oh God, it's as I feared.

Apple UI designer #1: Well, the flat design has been largely a success so far, but those darn users -- they can still easily pick out widgets from the background, and with a few tries still reasonably guess what they're for and how they'll respond!

Apple UI designer #2: I know! Let's make the widgets semitransparent. That way they'll be harder to pick out from the background, and Macs and iPhones will become delightfully fun puzzle boxes users will love trying to figure out, much like my dog loves his snuffle mat!
by 9d | 2025-06-09 18:09:10+00:00
I emphasize that it's the Vatican because they are the most theologically careful of all. This isn't some church with a superstitious pastor who jumps to conclusions about the rapture at a dime drop. This is the Church which is hesitant to say literally anything about the book of Revelation at all, which is run by tired men who just want to keep the status quo so they can hopefully hit retirement without any trouble.
by frankvienna | 2025-06-09 18:09:26+00:00
I didn’t plan to start something. I just wanted to keep track of the chaos.

After graduating, I figured finding a job in tech would be straightforward: solid experience, a clean portfolio, some solid interviews.

It wasn’t.

What surprised me most wasn’t the rejections, it was the silence. No feedback. No updates. Just an inbox full of unanswered applications and a spreadsheet that got messier by the week.

So I built a small tool to organize everything. Nothing fancy, just a way to see where I’d applied, what version of my resume I used, and who (if anyone) got back to me.

It worked. Not magically, I didn’t land a job overnight but I felt like I had control again.

Then some friends asked if they could use it. Then a few strangers. Now it’s called Woberry.

woberry.com

It helps people manage job applications, craft better resumes, and stay on top of follow-ups. It’s grown far beyond what I built for myself, and honestly, it’s still growing.

No grand launch. No viral moment. Just something useful that I decided to share.

If you’re deep in the job hunt and tired of feeling like you’re shouting into the void, maybe it’ll help you too.

Sometimes the things we build quietly end up mattering more than we expect.
by motorest | 2025-06-09 18:09:30+00:00
> (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much (...)

This is simply not true. At face value that's the literal claims the typical covid karens blurbed, but the common thread was always cynicism towards others in attempts to antagonize and outright assault anyone who didn't complied with their demands. Those who value personal freedom wouldn't assault passer-bys for using masks and practicing social distancing, nor would they single out service workers for the audacity of enforcing basic higiene and safety precautions.
by neya | 2025-06-09 18:09:34+00:00
Yep, it is not able to recognize. To be fair, it's not just dump it into ChatGPT and copy paste kind of AI. We feed it into the model in stages, we use 2-3 different models for content generation, and another 2 later on to smoothen the tone. But, all of these are just OTS models, not trained. For example, we do use Gemini in one of the flows.
by mrguyorama | 2025-06-09 18:09:52+00:00
I'm sorry, how did the FBI violate anyone's First Amendment rights here? Where in this story did they take down content? Where did they compel speech or silence or association?

LMAO you do not have a first amendment right to not be investigated for making threats in public, even if those threats are baseless! You do not have a right to baselessly threaten people!
by skybrian | 2025-06-09 18:10:10+00:00
For long-running, expensive processes that do a lot of waiting, a downside is that if you kill the process running the goroutine, you lose all your work. It might be better to serialize state to a database while waiting? But this adds a lot of complexity and I don’t know any languages that make it easy to write this sort of checkpoint-based state machine.
Responsible Prompting API – open-source project – Feedback appreciated
by MysticSlice | 2025-06-09 18:11:13+00:00
Hi everyone!

I work at IBM Research in the Responsible Tech team.

We are working on an open-source project called the Responsible Prompting API. This is the Github - https://github.com/IBM/responsible-prompting-api

It is a lightweight system that provides recommendations to tweak the prompt to an LLM so that the output is more responsible (less harmful, more productive, more accurate, etc...) and all of this is done pre-inference. This separates the system from the existing techniques like alignment fine-tuning (training time) and guardrails (post-inference).

The team's vision is that it will be helpful for domain experts with little to no prompting knowledge. They know what they want to ask but maybe not how best to convey it to the LLM. So, this system can help them be more precise, include socially good values, remove any potential harms. Again, this is only a recommender system...so, the user can choose to use or ignore the recommendations.

This system will also help the user be more precise in their prompting. This will potentially reduce the number of iterations in tweaking the prompt to reach the desired outputs saving the time and effort.

On the safety side, it won't be a replacement for guardrails. But it definitely would reduce the amount of harmful outputs, potentially saving up on the inference costs/time on outputs that would end up being rejected by the guardrails.

This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08757) talks about the technical details of this system if anyone's interested. And more importantly, this paper (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3713365), presented at CHI'25, contains the results of a user study in a pool of users who use LLMs in the daily life for different types of workflows (technical, business consulting, etc...). We are working on improving the system further based on the feedback received.

At the core of this system is a values database, which we believe would benefit greatly from contributions from different parts of the world with different perspectives and values. We are working on growing a community around it!

So, I wanted to put this project out here to ask the community for feedback and support. Feel free to let us know what you all think about this system / project as a whole (be as critical as you want to be), suggest features you would like to see, point out things that are frustrating, identify other potential use-cases that we might have missed, etc...

Here is a demo (https://huggingface.co/spaces/responsible-prompting/responsible-prompting-demo) hosted on HuggingFace that you can try out this project in. Edit the prompt to start seeing recommendations. Click on the values recommended to accept/remove the suggestion in your prompt. (In case the inference limit is reached on this space because of multiple users, you can duplicate the space and add your HF_TOKEN to try this out.)

Feel free to comment regarding any questions, feedback or comment about this project. Hope you all find it valuable!
by incomingpain | 2025-06-09 18:11:16+00:00
Canada doesnt meet their military spending obligations. Canada is essentially doubling military spending in less than a year; all of which heads into deficit spending.

The Canadian military already had a roughly 10,000 job openings relative to under 100,000 troops. Now they have a 110,000 job opening?

Canada has no real cyber army of any kind. Unlike practically all other countries. Perhaps we're going to get one now?

Canada has about the capacity of 5,000/troops per year can go through basic training.

The conclusion I'm making is that they must send this spending toward civilians. Switzerland for example has most men take home a fully automatic rifle + training + ammo + range days and training. I really dont see any other way for the military to spend this money.
by xp84 | 2025-06-09 18:11:16+00:00
I feel like both sides are right here:

1. Google shouldn't make it trivial to find out my phone number from my email. Given that even Google itself, despite having better technology available, still allows the dumpster that is SMS verification to be used as an auth "factor," they should not be enabling SIM-swapping so directly. Just knowing someone's number makes it trivial to social engineer a SIM-swap, and that can likely unlock every account most people have, and a lot of important accounts (like banks) even for security-minded people, since banks love SMS and hate everything else.

2. I shouldn't act like my phone number is a well-protected secret, or trust that anyone who calls or texts me has gotten it from a trusted source.
by twixfel | 2025-06-09 18:11:50+00:00
If you cared about Russian and Ukrainian lives then you would be arguing for Russia to leave immediately. Only Russia can end this war, by retreating back to the internationally recognised borders.

Russia has "vital interests" that the whole world is, according to Russian imperialists such as yourself, obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate.

Well, guess what, we Europeans have vital interests too. Our vital interest is a free and independent Ukraine. Russia is not the only country with interests, you know!

So: get over it.
by westurner | 2025-06-09 18:11:50+00:00
Could be software, Could be hardware. AI could be making it sooner, nearer in time.

Practically,

How to add the PQ library or upgrade to the version with PQ ciphers?

How to specify that PQ Ciphers are optional in addition to non-PQ Ciphers (TLS 1.3, downgrade risk) or necessary? Where is the configuration file with the cipher list parameter?
by varsketiz | 2025-06-09 18:11:52+00:00
Such a cool question! My perspective as a Lithuanian:

I think they will continue to sell both petrol and diesel in 15 years. I think gas (we have some cars running on literally gas) will not be there anymore. There will be more EV chargers, I would think in every station.

I would think in 15 years someone will try and succeed to create a "destination gas station", like a cool restaurant, that people will go out of their route to visit.

I don't think we will be on self driving trucks in 15 years. But once we get there, gas stations will service them in whatevet service they will need.
by techpineapple | 2025-06-09 18:11:56+00:00
I'm almost fine this but

1: These websites need to update their algorithmic customization tools so I can watch my primitive cabin building videos in peace.

2: There is no way that this won't come back to bite them when there's some big outbreak somewhere, and a conservative politician says "Well, obviously there's a difference between public interest / second opinions and outright lies."

3: This is the problem with everything on the internet being a platform. It was fun when some random person had their crazy conspiracy theory web page up in some obscure corner of the internet. Now it's just, the internet has become weird in the bad way, or maybe the opposite, it's just too everything is normal, nothing is weird anymore.
by SebastianKra | 2025-06-09 18:12:10+00:00
Eh, it could be worse. It looks like the over-the-top effects are limited to a few top-level elements such as the Navigation View, Homescreen, and Control Center. I wouldn't be surprised if these get dialed back in the future - especially the elements that break all contrast guidelines.

Many elements are still completely flat or more subtle. So, to me, it feels more like a new tool to convey hierarchy, rather than a complete new design: Secondary < Primary < Glass.

Also, the Safari-Redesign is back for round 2? It'd be funny if it runs into the exact same backlash again.
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-09 18:12:14+00:00
I signed the petition but I wanted to offer an some background for an alternate POV (that I think I mostly disagree with).

You have $600k in the bank. You hire 4 people to build a house. The materials for the house cost $200k and the 4 people cost $400k. Total expenses $600k and you now have $0 in your bank. You can deduct $600k in expenses, but!, you now have a house worth $$$$. You have to pay taxes on this house as it's an asset and worth $$$$. Your total worth is not $0 (your bank account). It's $0 + the house.

Change house to software. You created something new. The government is claiming that something, software or house, is worth $$$$

I see the point. I have no idea how to value software. I guess the gov might say, to find the value, delete the software, how much would it cost for you to replace it (as one idea)

Similarly with other expenses. You have $200k. You hire office workers at $95k each to do some work and buy two $5k PCs for them to use. At the end of the year you have $0 in the bank. The law sees it as you have $0 in the bank + two $5k computers. You owe taxes on that $10k (the 2 computers). For these, you're allowed to deprecate them 5 years. So you own taxes on $8k.

Note: this issue of equipment being deprecated has killed lots of small businesses, mostly because they are new and unaware (been there (T_T)). If you buy $100k of equipment (furniture deprecates over 7 years), you budgeted $1m for the year with $0 left over (making a product that takes 2-3 years to finish) but you've got to pay taxes on ~80% of the $100k of equipment even though you thought you'd made no money.

Many business opt to lease computers (and furniture?). This way they don't own it so it's not an asset and they can expense 100%. Unfortunately if you're a new startup no one will lease to you as you have no credit history (been there (T_T))

Under the new rules, on the ~3yr software project (like a game) with $1m per year budget, after the first year you'd owe taxes on $1m because you could not deduct any salary expenses. All of your employees are doing software dev by the definitions of the new tax law.
by jwarden | 2025-06-09 18:12:56+00:00
> accepting the social and individual utility of enjoying the arts, but denying any such utility for enjoying the saved lives

But in the part of the article you quoted above, the author (me) specifically acknowledges the utility of enjoying saved lives. But this is a critique of the quadratic funding mechanism, which is a public goods funding mechanism meant to maximize the utility each individual independently derives from enjoying public good.

The whole point of the article is to critique this assumption -- to point out that people's motives are sometimes altruistic (they derive utility just from knowing other people benefit), but the optimality of QF assumes this vicarious utility does not exist. As the article states "When individuals make contributions for purely altruistic reasons, they don’t directly experience the utility themselves. And yet the optimality of QF assumes that all utility is direct utility, benefiting the contributor only."