MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cosmotic | 2025-06-10 18:52:50+00:00
Looking at Apple's curated headline hero image on https://www.apple.com/os/ios/

Every single example of the five are hard to read, especially the second.

At least half of the example screenshots and videos I've seen in the keynote and on various Apple website pages are hard to read. The lense effects, only visible in the animations/videos, are technically impressive, visually stimulating, but terrible from a utilitarian perspective (unless you consider convincing people to buy iPhones using attractive visuals in a cinematic sort of way but not actually trying to use the devices as some sort of utility to Apple).
by jstummbillig | 2025-06-10 18:53:00+00:00
Very, very slowly.

OpenAI vs Anthropic on Google Trends

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=...

ChatGPT vs Claude on Google Trends

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=...
by DebtDeflation | 2025-06-10 18:53:03+00:00
> IBM’s error correction algorithm, known as a low-density parity check code, will make it possible to use 12 physical qubits per logical qubit

They have a machine with over 1000 PHYSICAL qubits today. I'm guessing this 12 physical per one logical is some sort of theoretical possibility, not something that can actually be realized.

Then you probably need a few thousand LOGICAL qubits to do anything meaningful with a QC.

There is no evidence that any of this will scale.

Every news release seems optimized for generating hype that will produce a round of funding that will enable the next news release.
by JamesBarney | 2025-06-10 18:53:05+00:00
I'm pretty sure this is just a psychological phenomenon. When a new model is released all the capabilities the new model has that the old model lacks are very salient. This makes it seem amazing. Then you get used to the model, push it to the frontier, and suddenly the most salient memories of the new model are it's failures.

There are tons of benchmarks that don't show any regressions. Even small and unpublished ones rarely show regressions.
by farmdve | 2025-06-10 18:53:13+00:00
The anti-tamper codes, if any tampering is detected will crash on undefined/unallocated regions. Meaning that if Windows ever were to overwrite that region for whatever reason, will trigger the crash.

Such was the case for SecuROM in early days. It featured the CRC checks mentioned, if any single byte was changed, including an INT (breakpoint) instruction, it would crash. Here it's unlikely that it wont crash. Rendering the game inoperable.
by o11c | 2025-06-10 18:54:16+00:00
To be fair that's missing a lot. I'm not sure how much is just showing its age and how much it never had. The actual bash manual is quite informative.

In particular, failure to mention `printf -v` is horrible. Not only is it better performing than creating a whole process for command substitution, it also avoids the nasty newline problem.
by chermi | 2025-06-10 18:54:27+00:00
I prompt it to come up with 3 potential implementation plans, choose which one it thinks is best, and explain its plan to me before it does anything. I also ask it to enumerate which files/functions it will modify in its chosen plan. Then you can give feedback on what it thinks and have it come up with a new plan if you don't like it. Every bit of context and constraints you give it helps. Having a design doc + a little description of your design/code "philosophy" helps. This is easy to do in cursor with rules, I'm guessing other tools have a similar feature. Also, if there's a somewhat similar feature implemented already or if you have a particular style, tell it to reference example files/code snippets.
by kazinator | 2025-06-10 18:54:50+00:00
OK, so if we have

: NAME alpha beta ... psi omega ;

what happens is that at at compile time, a dictionary entry NAME is created, and then the alpha ... omega words are compiled to be run later.

When DOES> is introduced:

: NAME alpha beta ... DOES> ... psi omega ;

all of the above still holds. We still have a dictionary entry NAME, which denotes all of the words up to the semicolon, including DOES>.

Then, when we execute NAME in a compilation context, because the word sequence contains DOES>, everything to the left of DOES> is specially treated: it is executed immediately in the compilation context and is removed. But that's not all; DOES> doesn't just execute everything to the left and disappear; it leaves something behind: some word which is then combined with the material to the right of DOES> to form the run-time sequence.

In your example, when we run CONSTANT, the part to the left of DOES> fetches a name from the input stream, and creates a word, and then makes the value on the stack the definition.

the accumulation of to-be-run later words is interrupted, and everything before DOES> is done now, at definition time, and removed from the definition.

The CREATE material, when executed, leaves behind a reference to the word denoting the constant. Then DOES> creates a definition for that word, using the remaining material.

Is that more or less it?
by ants_everywhere | 2025-06-10 18:55:10+00:00
Is this what happened to Gemini 2.5 Pro? It used to be very good, but it's started struggling on basic tasks.

The thing that gets me is it seems to be lying about fetching a web page. It will say things are there that were never on any version of the page and it sometimes takes multiple screenshots of the page to convince it that it's wrong.
by hathawsh | 2025-06-10 18:55:41+00:00
This kind of list may be right for a trade school. If that's what you're referring to, then I don't disagree. Those students want to learn how to use those tools.

But if the class is computer science at a university, then the students want to go deeper and learn how to improve upon and compete with the existing tools. They need the theory first, which means Lisp (or a derivative) and an imperative language.
by smikhanov | 2025-06-10 18:55:43+00:00
Prediction: there won’t be any AI systems repairing cars before there will be general intelligence-capable humanoid robots (Ex Machina-style).

There also won’t be any AI maids in five-star hotels until those robots appear.

This doesn’t make your statement invalid, it’s just that the gap between today and the moment you’re describing is so unimaginably vast that saying “don’t worry about AI slop contaminating your language word frequency databases, it’ll sort itself out eventually” is slightly off-mark.
by johnea | 2025-06-10 18:56:03+00:00
> everywhere in older texts

A) This is just not the case, they've only become popular _because_ of the prevalence in LLM generated slop

B) Even if it were, it doesn't stop them from sucking

Semicolons have a space after them.

Parenthesis have spaces.

English (and most others) is a space delimited language (note the space demarcating that parenthetical statement from the rest of the sentence).

Along with the indistinguishable difference from a hyphen, this adds up to suck.

Let me quote from wikipedia:

In modern Wit all printed Trash, is Set off with num'rous Breaks⸺and Dashes—

This is probably why they mostly stopped appearing after the 1700s...
by kevinventullo | 2025-06-10 18:56:13+00:00
Are you claiming the Stroop effect hasn’t been proven to exist or just that there hasn’t been an explanation?

Funnily enough, the first “professional” coding I ever did was writing up a Stroop test in Visual Basic for a neuro professor, and I recall the effect being undeniably clear. At a personal anecdotal level, I would time myself with matching colors versus non-matching, and even with practice I could not bring my non-matching times down to my matching times.
by vouaobrasil | 2025-06-10 18:56:55+00:00
> All of modern mathematics is conditional.

True, and there is some variation in the axioms. But for the record, pretty much all systems keep the logical rules of AND elimination and OR introduction for example: if A and B are true, then A is true. If A is true, then A or B is true. However, the law of excluded middle is sometimes excluded for constructivist reasons.
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-06-10 18:57:08+00:00
It might be a surprise when looking at the stratification of the atmosphere, where winds can occur, the depth of the atmosphere, and how tiny trees are on that scale.

On one hand, the mechanism seems readily apparent. On the other, it's also astounding. It's not just that the trees create physical disruption with their own physical bodies, but also through how they modify the properties of the atmosphere above and around them. That's incredible. They transport immense amounts of water into the atmosphere.
by mgraczyk | 2025-06-10 18:57:08+00:00
The paywall says I get extra stuff from premium, including "unlimited photo, voice, and barcode logging", "unlimited AI nutritionist chat", "unlimited Personalized tips from your AI nutritionist".

It sounds like if I pay more, I get more access and can use the app more? So the original article was completely correct in characterizing the premium plan as $79.99

It says

> The app was free to download, no trial period necessary. There's a $79.99 per year premium plan, but it's intended to be a donation. The app caps free tier users at three photos per day, while all non-photo methods of logging are unlimited and free for everyone.

Which part of that is not correct?
by croes | 2025-06-10 18:57:11+00:00
Nobody said that.

They cut the service dor one investigator and that’s bad enough.

Next time it‘s two or ten or more.

Nobody cares if the majority of the ICC still has access.

We care if the US can target those who don’t act according to their will.

So nice try MS, you are still the henchman of an authoritarian president. Don’t try to distract.
by kbolino | 2025-06-10 18:57:22+00:00
The best protection from piracy has always been making the product available at a reasonable price in a convenient fashion. This is echoed by Gabe Newell, founder of Valve, the makers of Steam, who said: "piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem...." I think the actual operation of Steam has shown that pricing matters too, since it is well known for its unusually generous sales compared to other (legitimate) digital stores. The point is that if you meet the customer where they're at, as frictionlessly as possible, you will outcompete the pirates.

DRM's primary purpose is to force consumers into an ultimatum: accept our inflated pricing and enforced inconveniences, or get nothing at all. For some products, this is part of their brand identity, since they bill themselves as "premium" or "AAA". For others, it's enforcement of their monopoly control (e.g., sports broadcasting). In all cases, it's treating the consumer like a disposable and squeezable commodity, which isn't necessarily inaccurate for some products and their target audiences, but certainly isn't the only way to do business.
by jxjnskkzxxhx | 2025-06-10 18:57:28+00:00
My definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist.

Yes, I realize there are degrees.

No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most useful because it captures the essence of why fascism is bad: it's an instability of the system.

According to this definition all the usual suspects are fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao), but also characters like Trump and his enablers, and Musk and his fanboys.
by bravesoul2 | 2025-06-10 18:57:36+00:00
That talks more to how humans think than to what nature is. It is almost a philosophical debate but I feel gut instinct infinities are not really in nature.

Sure you can draw a good circle and say the ratio is Pi and that number encodes infinite information (albeit at high entropy) but to me that Pi is an algorithm for computing better and better approximations to a perfect circle, an object absent from nature.

I don't know QM but I suspect it is the same. It is our mental model. Using infinities is our concept. To me infinite things are algorithms (i.e. as X tends to infinity... Tends being an important word)
by masklinn | 2025-06-10 18:58:18+00:00
You still need something close to ArcSwap with your persistent data structure, because once you’ve built your new tree (possibly using transients) you need to overwrite the old root with the new, atomically (and probably in a CAS loop really).

Left-right is an option which iirc avoids the CAS loop, as it’s a single writer primitive.
by MaxikCZ | 2025-06-10 18:58:20+00:00
> The app fails when I want to locate a file from another drive that I share between PCs and doesn't use the NTFS file format. Another thing it could do better is to feel a bit more system intergraded. Windows treat it like a separate window, like all the others, and Alt + Tabbing through multiple windows, or giving it administrator privileges every time you open it can cause a small chaos and frustration. It also looks kind of outdated. Doesn't have an easy and quick way to list the most frequently or recently used files. Doesn't provide security for sensitive files by locking them behind a password.

Just my 2 cents: I am not sharing drive, so this doesn't apply to me. "Better system integration" - I have the shortcut set to activate opened and open new only when none exists, so Alt+TAB isn't problem, I never have to give it admin privileges (I assume it has them). "Looks kinda outdated" - you mean "not bloated"? Simplicity, readability, uniformity with the rest of the system and information density are key pluses for me. "Doesn't list most frequent files" - for that windows already has "recents" it shows as first thing when opening new file explorer window. "doesn't provide security" - "Do one thing and do it well". I don't want my search bar to assume a role of access arbiter.

> If these issues bother you as well, keep reading.

Not a single issue you listed bothers me, many I actually prefer the state they are in to your point of view, so I didn't bother to continue reading.
by jstummbillig | 2025-06-10 18:58:34+00:00
You can just give it a go for very little money (in Windsurf it's 1x right now), and see what it does. There is no room for conspiracy here, because you can simple look at what it does. If you don't like it, so won't others, and then people will not use it. People are obviously very capable of (collectively) forming opinions on models, and then vote with their wallet.
by gowld | 2025-06-10 18:58:34+00:00
The problem with Everything and More is not because it is "uncritical"; it's that DFW didn't understand it and was "not even wrong" when explaining it. Even if you choose not to engage with Cantor's hierarchy of infinities because you don't find it interesting or relevant to the (finite or smaller infinite) sets you care about, there's nothing wrong with it as mathematics.
by woopsn | 2025-06-10 18:59:13+00:00
When you accept axioms randomly and reject even logical semantics, you wind up working with something like the so-called rado graph of Erdos. Call the first set of assumptions/structure meaningless and choose a new one, also having no grounding in reason - it turns out that would make no difference. "Almost certainly" you wind up with the same structure (the rado graph) in any case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rado_graph

So you can reject meaning (identifying the axioms with simple labels 1, 2, 3, ...) and truth (interpreting logical relations arbitrarily), but in doing so you ironically restrict mathematics to the study of a single highly constrained system.

I only disagree somewhat though - it is all contingent. We do say something like

IF { group axioms } THEN { group theory }

and introduce even more contingencies in the application of theory. In a real problem domain these assumptions may not hold completely - but to that extent they are false, not having a meaningless truth value. Crucially, we then search for the right set of assumptions, and the conviction of modern science that there is a right set of assumptions is "effective" at least.

In the previous century there was an attempt to identify mathematics with formalism, but it defeated itself. We need to see truth in these systems - not individual axioms per se, but in systems composed from them. This is justified by the body of mathematics itself, to the non-formalist, the richness of which (by and large) comes from discoveries predating that movement.
by vrosas | 2025-06-10 18:59:54+00:00
> While we knew where to look, this investigation had already taken weeks and things took a turn for the worse when we hit the issue again on February 23rd.

It blows me away an issue like this could take weeks to track down. If I were in any leadership position at this company I'd be rolling heads with the lack of telemetry or domain knowledge for these systems.
by jcranmer | 2025-06-10 18:59:57+00:00
With email, you necessarily leak the triple (to, from, date): no matter how good your cryptosystem is, that information can be pulled from the mailserver logs (and if you don't leak that triple, spam deluge is unsolvable). As a practical matter, you generally need to leak the mail headers as well, which contains a decent amount of useful metadata as well. Now I'm not an expert on how spy agencies do their analysis, but my understanding is that the set of information that has to be leaked by email is already the most useful information for them. And that's part of tptacek's point: if your main threat adversary is state-level actors, you've already lost if you're using email simply because you're using email.

What if your threat model isn't state-level actors? Well, the baseline of email these days is that your communication and your recipient's communication to the mail servers are both encrypted with TLS. The mail servers themselves may or may not communicate with each other using TLS, but if you really care about security, you can choose a mail server which will be using TLS. In other words, email is already at a baseline state of the only people aware of the message being the sender, the recipient, and their mail admins (and whomever these people choose to leak the message to, perhaps unwillingly). Encrypting email will only remove the mail admins from the list, and even then, they can still tell anybody whom you talked about.

So the use case of encrypted email boils down to wanting to hide the contents of communication but not hiding the fact of communication itself. Which isn't a broad use case; the best examples I've found in my own life is something like financial statements, but even in those cases, there's a pretty decent workaround: send an email saying "hi, we have a document for you online in our usual secure file repository" (protected by modern, useful standards for secure files). I don't like that only because I can't automate saving those files off to my own storage for my own purposes, but that is such a niche desire that I can understand why the bank doesn't bother.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-10 18:59:58+00:00
At no point did the Federal government institute a vaccination requirement for the general public, let alone for "healthy children". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...

Even if you weren't lying about that bit, non-mRNA vaccines exist and were approved in the US right alongside the mRNA vaccines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine#Unite...

Same for the elderly; largely, no requirement. Workers in nursing homes and other healthcare facilities were sometimes subject to requirements; many similarly have required flu shots for decades.
Ask HN: Advice on contribution guidelines for vibe coders
by gdcbe | 2025-06-10 19:00:25+00:00
Hello with the rise of LLM usage I start to get in some open source projects that I maintain PRs from people that clearly vibe code.

Problem with these is that they require a lot of work that I’m not sure pays off. Their descriptions and code comments are overly verbose and take forever to read through. This results in many iterations and reviews for what are supposed to be minor PRs.

Normally I don’t mind putting in the work for PRs in the spirit of mentoring folks. But somehow I’m not sure that applies here?

At the same time i don’t want to stop people just because they vibe as who am I to judge. But perhaps it’s fair to ask certain criteria like: keep your descriptions succinct. Don’t comment the obvious or overly verbose. Don’t add examples for 1+1. Don’t add new dependencies if existing dependencies in the tree already cover what you need.. etc.

Are there known policies like this out there? How to be welcoming while at the same time not get abused by ai slop o.o
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-06-10 19:00:26+00:00
These shields are slightly different from what's happening on the weather-system scale. Those winds are low to the ground, and when you obstruct them, the wind is deflected upward and diffused by the trees absorbing some (a very tiny amount) of the wind's energy. So it's a highly local effect. Forests can also modulate properties of the atmosphere around them, which can do various things like alter cloud formation or even stimulate rain. Rain stimulation is still be studied as I recall, but it has huge implications if it's true.
by msgodel | 2025-06-10 19:00:32+00:00
It's crazy to me this happens to people, the first time I tried chatGPT it immediately felt inhuman (in fact untuned GPTs felt closer to human even though they were way less coherent.) They still do, some like Grok are even worse. I get extremely annoyed when these companies try to RL slang into them because now it sounds both inhuman and informal.

I don't know if it's because most non-tech people don't have "conversations" with their tools the way we do with command lines? Maybe they just see English text and intuitively assume a person had to write it.
by aaronbaugher | 2025-06-10 19:00:45+00:00
We could survive without cheap strawberries if we had to, but we won't have to. Plenty of Americans used to do farm labor and other difficult work before mass migration pushed the wages for those jobs below sustainable levels for citizens. The idea that Americans have changed in some fundamental way that makes them "unwilling" to do hard work is just another lie from corporations bent on getting as much cheap foreign labor as possible.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-06-10 19:01:12+00:00
It blows my mind that some folks are still out here thinking LLMs are the tech-tree towards AGI and independently thinking machines, when we can't even get copilot to stop suggesting libraries that don't exist for code we fully understand and created.

I'm sure AGI is possible. It's not coming from ChatGPT no matter how much Internet you feed to it.
by whytevuhuni | 2025-06-10 19:01:21+00:00
What's that have to do with Rust though? Rust takes it straight from C: https://godbolt.org/z/Ysb6M66h4

And because it has been used like that in C for decades, the dictionary definition takes a backseat to the now de-facto C-based definition (at least for popular systems languages, which Rust is trying to share as much syntax with).
by dijksterhuis | 2025-06-10 19:01:27+00:00
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239632

same news, different source, trump mentioned in title - wasn’t and hasn’t been flagged at time of writing this comment (like an hour later).

it’s not auto-flagging or bot flagging. it’s just luck of the draw with humans and timings.
by glenstein | 2025-06-10 19:01:53+00:00
>more about avoiding training AI on its own output.

Exactly. The analogy I've been thinking of is if you use some sort of image processing filter over and over again to the point that it overpowers the whole image and all you see is the noise generated from the filter. I used to do this sometimes with Irfanview and it's sharp and blur.

And I believe that I've seen TikTok videos showing AI constantly iterating over an image and then iterating over its output with the same instructions and seeming to converge on a style of like a 1920s black and white cartoon.

And I feel like there might be such a thing as a linguistic version of that. Even a conceptual version.