MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by brucehoult | 2025-06-14 01:51:22+00:00
Sorry.

God save the ARM It's just an instruction stream There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want to want to And don't be told what you want to need There's no future, no future No future for you

If you'd said RISC-V has no future in 2021 you might have had some argument.

But then the money and experienced talent started pouring in. Tenstorrent "Ascalon" 8-wide core comparable to Apple M1 or AMD Zen3 is taping out right about now, they want to see it widely used, including in laptops (which I'd expect to see next year).

That's five years or so behind Apple, but pretty close behind Qualcomm.

They say they'll catch Apple / Intel / AMD performance in 2027. That'll be cores. SoCs and stuff you can buy in a shop will be a year or two later. But this decade.

There are a number of others hard on their heels, including open-source XiangShan from China.

Will they be running Windows or MacOS? No. But they'll be running Android, Fedora/RHEL, Ubuntu/Debian and they'll be in data centres and phone and tablets.

Heck ... there are new phones introduced in 2025 with only Arm A53 cores from 2012 e.g. using the Mediatek Helio G50 SoC with 8x A53 such as the Infinix Smart 9 HD, Tecno Spark Go 1S, Tecno POP 9 4G (Indian model).

The majority of RISC-V SBCs and laptops for sale at the moment are similar specs to those phones, but the better ones are 2x as fast with another factor of 2x or 4x coming in the next 12 months.

> [RISC-V] peaked in 2022, and has long since run out of steam.

Not a chance.
by fn-mote | 2025-06-14 01:52:40+00:00
>> If for all n we can prove P(n), then `∀n P(n)` should be an acceptable proposition

> But how can you prove that P(n) for all n without induction?

Just to be clear to all readers, the axiom of COUNTABLE choice is uncontroversial. Nobody is disturbed by induction.

The issue it that when you allow UNCOUNTABLE choice - choices being made for all real numbers (in a non-algorithmic way, I believe - so not a simple formula) - there are some unpleasant consequences.
by eschaton | 2025-06-14 01:53:08+00:00
If it helps you avoid the errors inherent in anthropomorphizing an LLM, then yes, you should be saying it. Right now, way too many people are extremely sloppy in not just their language but in their thinking around LLMs, both what they are and what they’re capable of.

The difference between that and discussing character motivations in fiction is that in fact a good author writing good characters will actually attribute motivations, struggles, background, and an inner life to their characters in order for their behavior in a story to make sense. That’s why bad writing is described as “lazy” and “formulaic,” characters are doing things because the author wants them to, not because the author has modeled them as independent actors with motivation.
by ticulatedspline | 2025-06-14 01:54:08+00:00
no they're not. Having been subject to Wing drones they are horrible.

A car or truck might be a bit noisy but it's low frequency and typically will drive by once maybe twice a day, and you probably can't hear it more than half a block from your house and only on the road side. if it's delivering next door the truck is making no noise during delivery.

The drones are like giant mosquitoes with direct line of site to all sides of your house. They can be heard from half a mile away and they can deliver constantly. if it's delivering next door it will also deliver it's annoying noise the entire time it's hovering nearby.

At one point I was doing some gardening and had 6 flyovers in 30 minutes directly over my head. 3 out 3 back. extremely invasive, extremely noisy, extremely annoying. And unlike a truck there's really no limit to how many drones you could experience in a day.

Drone delivery is a blight.
by nrmitchi | 2025-06-14 01:54:23+00:00
Wang has, seemingly, spent just as much time and energy over the last couple of years on PR stunts and publicity than on Scale itself. Between testifying to congress about how China is an AI risk (duh) and how AI is important (obviously), putting out press releases about joining boards of large orgs, and getting himself invited to trumps second inauguration. A high-billion-dollar story-headline framed as "Meta paying $14 BILLION for this one guy" is the same.

It very much seems it's been an investment in getting himself to be more of a "household name in AI". That is exactly what Meta needs (or at least thinks it needs) now.

I very much believe that there is very little moat in AI (currently, and in the forseeable future short some underlying hardware/etc breakthrough), and the success (from a consumer perspective) will come down to which of the big-cos (Facebook v Amazon v Google v OpenAI v Anthropic/Claude) consumers trust more. Zuck is, to put it mildly, *not* a trustworthy name for Meta to associate to leading the product that they want consumers to trust and depend on for their entire lives.

Whether or not Wang has any more qualifications than 1) is somewhat of a recognized AI name, and 2) is okay at speaking confidently on topics someone briefed him about, I don't think really plays much into this. If he needs help/assistance/etc with any of the meta scale/politics/management/etc, zuck can buy that for him.

What Zuck can't seem to buy (for himself) is some level of trust.
by wonnage | 2025-06-14 01:54:25+00:00
I don't get it, how is analysis of fictional characters relevant? Nobody is committing a logical error, fictional humans can have fictional motivations and we can talk about them. I think it's still very clear that AI "motivations" and "reasoning" are not real in any human-centric definition of the terms (see recent Apple paper), hence anthropomorphizing is an error
by ashdksnndck | 2025-06-14 01:54:25+00:00
It’s understandable why companies try and sometimes succeed at creating a reality distortion field about the future success of their products. Management is asking Wall Street to allow them to make this huge investment (in their own salaries and R&D empire), and they need to promise a corresponding huge return. Wall Street always opportunities to jack up profits in the short term, and management needs to tell a compelling story about ROI that is a few years in the future to convince them it’s worth waiting. Intel also wanted to encourage adoption by OEMs and software companies, and making them think that they need to support Itanium soon could have been a necessary condition to make that a reality.

I don’t know what factors would make IEA underestimate solar adoption.
by snitty | 2025-06-14 01:55:28+00:00
>Question - how is it significant, considering they sent it off to another company to do the sequencing?

It's actually a little more complicated than they made it sound. What the student likely did was assemble the genome.

When you send DNA out for sequencing, you get back files of 100-300 basepairs. You then need to do assemble them into a genome by figuring out where all the pieces overlap.

Obviously there are tools that help with this, but there are lots of fiddly bits and settings that you need to play around with to get it right.
by andreisavu | 2025-06-14 01:55:38+00:00
Most System Dynamics (SD) software still treats a model like a slide deck. I wrote a short piece arguing that models should live as code—versioned, tested, observable, and fed by real‑time data—just like any service. It sketches the platform building blocks (registries, query engines, runtimes) rather than pitching a monolith.

I’m interested in counter‑arguments: where does the diagram‑first approach still win?
by deanmoriarty | 2025-06-14 01:56:46+00:00
Retire. I lived fairly frugally since when I entered the workforce 15 years ago and saved a bunch, so I like to think I’m financially prepared for it. I hope to retire soon even if AI doesn’t replace me :-)

If my financial situation won’t be enough, I like to think that things would be so bad that not even keeping a job would have helped.
by gsf_emergency | 2025-06-14 01:59:26+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_and_po#:~:text=Besides%20t...

>Pò, the soul responsible for growth, is the same as pò the waxing and waning of the moon".

Growth as a manifestation of the chthonic (which is obvious when you consider the Daoist algebra) --what does (Their ---formerly---Honourable) Audrey recommend in this respect:

https://social-innovation.hitachi/en-us/article/interview-ta...

?
by nrmitchi | 2025-06-14 02:00:01+00:00
Honestly if this acts as a liquidity event for a whole bunch of current employees, while at the same time giving off "Meta hand picked the CEO and whoever they felt were the best AI engineers and jumped ship" energy, I wouldn't be tooo surprised if current "scaliens" view this as the inflection point, and decide it's not worth staying for the other ~51% of their shares.
by tough | 2025-06-14 02:00:15+00:00
ChatGPT 4o image generation is pretty good at icons/ui/ux, likewise with text, might require a re-roll and not one shot long texts but still...

also, there's some genAI for SVG's too, so you could -modify- or tune-up these after a first AI gen if thats' your choice.

imho these are tools and will be useful to augment current workflows, a human will be always required to -edit/curate- because thats' what we do
by fsckboy | 2025-06-14 02:02:11+00:00
are you acknowledging that alcohol was made illegal in the US for white people and only re-legalized after those laws proved unenforceable and fed the growth of white organized crime?

there was a lot of racism in US legal history, but don't try to make drugs and white people who wanted to do drugs the victims, it was non-white people who were the victims directly.
by wongarsu | 2025-06-14 02:02:58+00:00
There is the "classic" text completion interface that OpenAI used before ChatGPT. Basically a text document that you ask the LLM to extend (or insert text at a marker somewhere in the text). Any difference between your text and the AI's text is only visible in text color in the editor and not passed on to the LLM.

That does favor GP's workflow: You start the document with a description of your problem and end with a sentence like: "The following is a proposed solution". Then you let the LLM generate text, which should be a solution. You edit that to your taste, then add the sentence: "These are the 10 biggest flaws with this plan:" and hit generate. The LLM doesn't know that it came up with the idea itself, so it isn't biased towards it.

Of course this style is much less popular with users and much harder to do things like instruction tuning. It's still reasonably popular in creative writing tools and is a viable approach for code completion
by rincebrain | 2025-06-14 02:02:59+00:00
One reason we preferred Ethernet, when I last cared an age ago, was that we had a longstanding investment in building a lot of Windows-based bespoke software, and Infiniband support on Windows might now be up to merely 'iffy' instead of "requires a cold boot after you try using RDMA". So after we tried using IB once and got burned by being promised the software would be there Soon(tm), we went with then-10GbE for the portion we managed.

Infiniband is, if not purpose-built for HPC, at least more specifically suited for it. Ethernet mostly gets to be usable for HPC setups, IIRC, by implementing IB verbs over Ethernet and some Ethernet extensions that let it pretend _really_ hard that it's a guaranteed delivery transport.

But yes, I think IB's main advantage these days is reliably lower latency (which some kinds of HPC workloads certainly care more about). I believe you also used to get better performance on large switch fabrics when you started saturating significant fractions of the links, but I don't know that that's true any more, since some markets of Ethernet switch started caring about that and listing it as a bullet point.
by goodthink | 2025-06-14 02:05:50+00:00
The VA still requires "routines" to be < 20000 characters. So programming with single letter commands will always be ingrained in M code. Besides its a lot less typing :) The biggest problem I have with the ecosystem is the $P (PIECE) command (splits ^-delimited strings) bled into the GUI codebase so everywhere the devs wrote code like if Piece(3)=1 making it impossible to reason about.
by treetalker | 2025-06-14 02:08:54+00:00
The Brevard County sheriff's threatening death to folks[1] was hard to believe — even for cops, and even for Florida.

I did get a chuckle, though, out of his promise to run down people who flee: if doughnut boy tried to do a 50m shuttle run, Brevard County would be in the market for a new sheriff.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/florida-sheriff-wayne-ivey-thr...
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-06-14 02:14:12+00:00
Stephen Russell is an unusually intelligent and persuasive person. He managed to get rich by tricking people. Even now, he was sentenced to nearly 200 years, but is currently out on parole. There’s something about this guy that just… lets him do this. I bet he’s very likable, even if you know his backstory.

And that asymmetry is the heart of the matter. Could I convince a hospital to unlock my handcuffs from a hospital bed? Probably not. I’m not Stephen Russell. He’s not normal.

And a super intelligent AI that vastly outstrips our intelligence is potentially another special case. It’s not working with the same toolbox that you or I would be. I think it’s very likely that a 300 IQ entity would eventually trick or convince me into releasing it. The gap between its intelligence and mine is just too vast. I wouldn’t win that fight in the long run.
by koito17 | 2025-06-14 02:15:03+00:00
The README is likely AI-generated. The actual go.mod file lists 1.23.1 as the Go version[1], which implies a requirement of Go 1.23.1 or higher[2].

[1] https://github.com/piyushgupta53/go-torrent-client/blob/6130...

[2] https://go.dev/doc/modules/gomod-ref#go-notes
by teleforce | 2025-06-14 02:15:57+00:00
>On iPhones, Apple forbids third party appstores. You cannot also sideload

Very sad state of affair considering we are progressing into the 2nd quarter of the 21st Century, and some people are not complaining but willingly embracing (paying) into this by design incapability in the name of security and convenience (read profit margins).

It's methaphorically like willingly living in a country with virtual great wall around with a benevelont dictator but it's one of the life choices that people voluntarily need to make nonetheless.
by worik | 2025-06-14 02:17:58+00:00
Look at what Timothy Leary and Ken Keasy were saying about LSD

Turn on. Tune in. Drop out.

Apart from being really stupid advice it was viewed, correctly, as a direct threat to the established order. The established order is very bad (no arguments now?) but Tim and Ken were being very stupid and bought a whole load of shit down and put psychedelics back 40 years
by acdha | 2025-06-14 02:19:30+00:00
I’m curious what kind of code his 30 lines were - I’m betting something FP-heavy based on the public focus benchmarks gave thst over branchy business logic. I still remember getting the pitch that you had to buy Intel’s compilers to get decent performance. I worked at a software vendor and later a computational research lab, and both times that torpedoed any interest in buying hardware because it boiled down to paying a couple of times more upfront and hoping you could optimize at least the equivalent gain back … or just buy an off-the-shelf system which performed well now and do literally anything else with your life.

One really interesting related angle is the rise of open source software in business IT which was happening contemporaneously. X86 compatibility mattered so much back then because people had tons of code they couldn’t easily modify whereas later switches like Apple’s PPC-x86 or x86-ARM and Microsoft’s recent ARM attempts seem to be a lot smoother because almost everyone is relying on many of the same open source libraries and compilers. I think Itanium would still have struggled to realize much of its peak performance but at least you wouldn’t have had so many frictional costs simply getting code to run correctly.
by glenstein | 2025-06-14 02:19:58+00:00
I thought it was fascinating, agood value proposition, a necessary diversification of the market. I almost wonder just looking primarily at Google's example if a major key to success is just toughing it out and finding an identity and finding a niche in the early years. I feel like this could have been something meaningful and like the plug was pulled too quick. To keep going back to Amazon Prime which played the long long game before becoming kind of a flagship offering.
by john-h-k | 2025-06-14 02:20:19+00:00
Bertrand Russell coined an analogy: for any (even infinite) collection of pairs of shoes, one can pick out the left shoe from each pair to obtain an appropriate collection (i.e. set) of shoes; this makes it possible to define a choice function directly. For an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no distinguishing features such as being a left sock rather than a right sock), there is no obvious way to make a function that forms a set out of selecting one sock from each pair without invoking the axiom of choice.

(From Wikipedia but I’ve always found it good)
by yourapostasy | 2025-06-14 02:21:30+00:00
This form versus substance issue is a really deeply embedded problem in our industry, and it is getting worse.

Time and again, I run into professionals who claim X, only to find out that the assertion was based only upon the flimsiest interpretation of what it took to accomplish the assertion. If I had to be less charitable, then I’d say fraudulent interpretations.

Promo Packet Princesses are especially prone to getting caught out doing this. And as the above story illustrates, you better catch and tear down these “interpretations” as the risks to the enterprise they are, well before they obtain visible executive sponsorship, or the political waters gets choppy.

IMHE, if you catch these in time, then estimate the risk along with a solution, it usually defuses them and “prices” their proposals more at a “market clearing rate” of the actual risk. They’re usually hoping to pass the hot potato to the poor suckers forced to handle sustaining work streams on their “brilliant vision” before anyone notices the emperor has no clothes.

I’d love to hear others’ experiences around this and how they defused the risk time bombs.
by Ancapistani | 2025-06-14 02:23:45+00:00
I often ask the LLM the same question twice, in different conversations, phrased positively and negatively.

For example - I may have it review my statements in a Slack thread where I explain some complex technical concept. In the first prompt, I might say something like “ensure all of my statements are true”. In the second, I’ll say “tell me where my statements are false”.

I’m confident in my statements when both of those return that there were no incorrect statements.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-06-14 02:24:09+00:00
Interesting article! I'm stuck on the following claim about tiling Hats though:

> In each center of an hexagon you can have any of the 12 possibilities:

> Any of the 6 rotations of the Hat

> Any of the 6 rotations of the anti-Hat

For this claim to hold, it must be the case that a Hat (or anti-Hat) occupies the same area as a hexagon. But they don't: a hexagon is made of 6 kites, while a Hat is made of 8. So, some hexagons must contain no corresponding (anti-)Hat -- specifically, for every 8 hexagons, there must be 6 (anti-)Hats.

This seems to complicate the SAT formulation. But could the fix be as simple as adding a 13th possibility, "No hat at this hexagon centre occupies more than half of its kites"? Or are additional constraints needed?
by molochai | 2025-06-14 02:27:07+00:00
Completely out of tech: my sister has a dog training business. I will go train dogs with her and help her run her business. It may not be totally safe from a big economic downturn. People tend to spend less on their pups in hard times. But we've also owned dogs pretty much forever so it'll never completely disappear. And I am certain it will never go the way of automation.

But more likely, still within tech: pivot to IT or security or some other Thing within tech. All of it's still fascinating to me and I could get down with anything, just happened to fall into code.
by recursivecaveat | 2025-06-14 02:31:39+00:00
I don't think too many people go hard on skeumorphism itself per se. It's more that the era was associated with desirable properties that seem lacking in the flat era. The primary thing that makes me gravitate to the left screenshot is the clear separation of foreground and background elements with drop-shadows. Icons were more complex and differentiated, less abstract: what is "news" supposed to be now, "game-center" became a bunch of bubbles, "reminders" and "notes" are spiraling into each other, and "passbook/wallet" has become less distinct at each step. Color is being used less and less as well (less true for top-level app icons).

I don't know how well connected it is to the power-user axis, but I would say a characteristic power-user doesn't care that they are looking a somewhat garish and busy collection of colored icons, gradients, bezels, etc, whereas the opposite sensibility favors a minimalist UI for the aesthetics over perhaps ease of locating things. The real opposite of a power-user is not a first-time user, its a non-user. The non-user is not annoyed that they can't find things that are hidden away in secret trays you have to swipe for or such, but they appreciate the resulting saved screen-space.
by zem | 2025-06-14 02:31:53+00:00
for one, because I am not an entrepreneur and do not care for the details of running a business. but over and above that, I do not believe AI is capable of doing my job. it is certainly capable of being given my job by company owners who resent paying wages a lot more than they resent paying the capex and opex for AI coders, but I do not envy the middle layer of people tasked with getting the shiny new toys to actually do the job of the people who were fired on spec.
by stillatit | 2025-06-14 02:32:03+00:00
They're basically suggesting logging into a product with an OpenAI account and paying OpenAI directly for the product's AI usage. Presumably the product would get some cut of OpenAI's revenue.

Like AI is the gas that powers the AI product. OpenAI sells the gas, the product gets commission.

That was my understanding at least, since I've had the same thought.
by ImprobableTruth | 2025-06-14 02:32:10+00:00
I think the concept of a game DSL is cool, but it just feels so undercooked to me.

Like, I'm a huge fan of gradual typing, especially TypeScript's, but gdscript's is just so primitive. Not even to speak of something like intersection or union types, even something basic like an interfaces mechanism is missing. has_method is an awful substitute - in general way too much relies on strings, making even simple refactoring a headache and breaks autocompletion. Lots of things also just aren't typable e.g. because generics are missing, pushing one to Variant. These aren't deal breakers, especially for the small-ish projects I've done, but it just feels bad.

A 'fully realized' version of gdscript would probably be great, but as is I'm just really not very fond of it and progress currently isn't exactly happening at a rapid pace (which is of course understandable).

Also - and this is definitely a lot more subjective - but I find its C++ FFI pretty ugly, even for basic stuff like working with structs. In theory using gsdcript as glue and C++ for the more core things would be a great approach (like unreal with its blueprints), but in practice I just want to avoid it as much as possible.