MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by trod1234 | 2025-06-05 16:20:39+00:00
It doesn't, it favors longstanding caselaw and laws already on the books.

There is a longstanding precedent with regards to business document retention, and chat logs have been part of that for years if not decades. The article tries to make this sound like this is something new, but if you look at the e-retention guidelines in various cases over the years this is all pretty standard.

For a business to continue operating, they must preserve business documents and related ESI upon an appropriate legal hold to avoid spoliation. They likely weren't doing this claiming the data was deleted, which is why the judge ruled in favor against OAI.

This isn't uncommon knowledge either, its required. E-discovery and Information Governance are things any business must meet in this area; and those documents are subject to discovery in certain cases, where OAI likely thought they could avoid it maliciously.

The matter here is OAI and its influence rabble are churning this trying to do a runaround on longstanding requirements that any IT professional in the US would have reiterated from their legal department/Information Governance policies.

There's nothing to see here, there's no real story. They were supposed to be doing this and didn't, were caught, and the order just forces them to do what any other business is required to do.

I remember an executive years ago (decades really), asking about document retention, ESI, and e-discovery and how they could do something (which runs along similar lines to what OAI tried as a runaround). I remember the lawyer at the time saying, "You've gotta do this or when it goes to court you will have an indefensible position as a result of spoliation...".

You are mistaken, and appear to be trying to frame this improperly towards a point of no accountability.

I suggest you review the longstanding e-discovery retention requirements that courts require of businesses to operate.

This is not new material, nor any different from what's been required for a long time now. All your hyperbole about privacy is without real basis, they are a company; they must comply with law, and it certainly is not outrageous to hold people who break the law to account, and this can only occur when regulatory requirements are actually fulfilled.

There is no argument here.

References: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1, 4, 16, 26, 34, 37

There are many law firms who have written extensively on this and related subjects. I encourage you to look at those too.

(IANAL) Disclosure: Don't take this as legal advice. I've had the opportunity to work with quite a few competent ones, but I don't interpret the law; only they can. If you need someone to provide legal advice seek out competent qualified counsel.
Show HN: Create LLM graders and run evals in JavaScript with one file
by randall | 2025-06-05 16:20:56+00:00
Hi HN!

Run it: OPENROUTER_API_KEY="sk" npx bff-eval --demo

We built a tool to help people take LLM outputs and easily grade them / eval them to know how good an assistant response is.

We've built a number of LLM apps, and while we could ship decent tech demos, we were disappointed with how they'd perform over time. We worked with a few companies who had the same problem, and found out scientifically building prompts and evals is far from a solved problem... writing these things feels more like directing a play than coding.

Inspired by Anthropic's constitutional ai concepts, and amazing software like DSPy, we're setting out to make fine tuning prompts, not models, the default approach to improving quality using actual metrics and structured debugging techniques.

Our approach is pretty simple: you feed it a JSONL file with inputs and outputs, pick the models you want to test against (via OpenRouter), and then use an LLM-as-grader file in JS that figures out how well your outputs match the original queries.

If you're starting from scratch, we've found TDD is a great approach to prompt creation... start by asking an LLM to generate synthetic data, then you be the first judge creating scores, then create a grader and continue to refine it till its scores match your ground truth scores.

If you’re building LLM apps and care about reliability, I hope this will be useful! Would love any feedback. The team and I are lurking here all day and happy to chat. Or hit me up directly on Whatsapp: +1 (646) 670-1291

We have a lot bigger plans long-term, but we wanted to start with this simple (and hopefully useful!) tool.

Run it: OPENROUTER_API_KEY="sk" npx bff-eval --demo
by jeroenhd | 2025-06-05 16:21:04+00:00
Bitcoin is great for prospecting, laundering money across borders, and scamming gullible people. It's also easier to hide a stash of stolen bitcoins from the authorities for after you get released from jail than it is to hide a stash of actual money. Bitcoin is certainly no alternative to actual money but it's not entirely useless.

I think these Twitter DMs only does the scamming the gullible part, as you need to pay to use the feature and this is scamming people into thinking they're paying for secure messaging.
by add-sub-mul-div | 2025-06-05 16:21:24+00:00
A way I think of this is to categorize skills by whether they'll last a decade.

Python, SQL, Linux, those are core skills I've used for over a decade and are just as useful as they were a decade ago.

Javascript is obviously more than a decade old but a reason I've avoided that ecosystem is that you're often operating in the domain of year to year tools and skills on top of it.

Decade long skills come as easily to you as English. (Or whatever your native language.) It's easy for people to overlook this because it's so easy to "learn" a skill right away and feel fluent.

I've optimized for keeping as much of my work as possible/practical in decade long skills because it's pure productivity. If I'm turning over frameworks and tools regularly I'll still be productive, but not productive. I see it as a qualitative difference, not quantitative.
by reginald78 | 2025-06-05 16:21:46+00:00
I actually think its worse than driving yourself. Humans are OK at doing a repetitive task non-stop. They're terrible at sitting still doing nothing waiting to quickly spring into action. They fall asleep or their mind wanders. This is something a computer is good at yet we've got it reversed. The car drives along doing mundane things but then hands it over to groggy human right when things really get hairy.

And then there's the skill atrophy. How do you learn to perform in stressful situations? By building up confidence and experience with constant repetition in more mundane ones, which this robs you of.
by southernplaces7 | 2025-06-05 16:21:53+00:00
>The same data that average American housewives were sued over for millions of dollars of "damages"? The same data that often gets random German plumbers or steelworkers to pay thousands of euros of "fines" to the copyright mafia so they won't get sued and have their lives ruined?

Honestly curious. Could you share any examples of these cases?
by rawgabbit | 2025-06-05 16:21:54+00:00
System dysfunction is when local agents act rationally and in aggregate destroy the system that hosts them.

I would phrase this local optimization as parasitic optimization. The most famous example of this was after the Romans defeated Carthage. The rich acquired an enormous number of Carthaginian slaves and manned their latifundia estates with them. The returning veterans found their abandoned farms destroyed and became homeless. This led to the conflict between the Optimates (the wealthy) vs the Populares (the poor). The Gracchi brothers, Marius, and Caesar championed the Populares.
by munificent | 2025-06-05 16:21:57+00:00
I mean... I live in Seattle, so yes.

But absolutely don't have room in my kitchen or time in the morning for that. If I was the kind of person who had a leisurely second cup of coffee in the afternoon, I probably would. But I have exactly one caffeine unit as soon as I wake up and I'm done for the day. My brain chemistry doesn't allow me to deviate from that.
by mrangle | 2025-06-05 16:22:43+00:00
Smaller companies are way worse to work for, almost always. Everyone knows this.

Starting a successful company is virtually impossible, just looking at failure rate. Poverty is the outcome for whomever doesn't succeed and can't find a return to the workforce.

What a hostile work environment in corporate America is an argument for, actually, is either poor mental health or more Federal Employment. It reads like that's what you want.

A healthy corporate America is the only real antidote to massive dysfunction.

It isn't a coincidence that a healthy corporate America aligns with both a massively healthy GDP and a normal to advantageous labor pool for the average person.
by H1Supreme | 2025-06-05 16:22:53+00:00
> Did Photoshop kill graphic artists?

Desktop publication software killed many jobs. I worked for a publication where I had colleagues that used to typeset, place images, and use a camera to build pages by hand. That required a team of people. Once Quark Xpress and the like hit the scene, one person could do it all, faster.

In terms of illustration, the tools moved from pen and paper to Adobe Illustrator and Aldus / Macromedia Freehand. Which I'd argue was more of a sideways move. You still needed an illustrators skillset to use these tools.

The difference between what I just described and LLM image generation is the tooling changed to streamline an existing skillset. LLM's replace all of it. Just type something and here's your picture. No art / design skill necessary. Obviously, there's no guarantee that the LLM generated image will be any good. So, I'm not sure the Photoshop analogy works here.
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-05 16:22:55+00:00
From my understanding this couldn't be further from the truth.

Elon knew that EV's weren't sexy, so he decided to risk it and build a fast and ultimately expensive EV to begin with, to show people that they were worth buying and fast.

Only now through the model Y and the model 3 are we now seeing more consumer friendly models, which is what Elon always wanted from the start.

Here in Australia you can buy a model 3 for around the same price as our most sold car.
by dahart | 2025-06-05 16:23:21+00:00
You’re not quoting the overlap, you’re quoting the (IMO) misleading framing that compares extremes. If you look at the picture, roughly one third of the distribution has overlap. It’s not a majority, but it’s certainly not negligible either.

BTW, the 0.1% number may be sampling noise, as similar studies have come up with numbers like 1% or 3%. While they’re all small, 3% is 30x larger than 0.1%. Don’t put a lot of stock in that number; it’s trying to draw conclusions from the noisiest lowest-data part of the distribution, and therefore is highly prone to error.
by publicdaniel | 2025-06-05 16:23:53+00:00
Here's my really amateur understanding of this:

- Conventional SGD: Fixed target (e.g. "make an exact replica of this butterfly image") and it follows greedy path to minimize the error

- Open Ended Search Process: No predetermined goal, explores based on what's "interesting" or novel. In Picbreeder, humans would see several generated images, pick the "interesting" ones, and the system would mutate/evolve from there. If you were evolving an image that looked like an egg and it mutated toward a teapot like shape, you could pivot and pursue that direction instead.

This is kinda the catch -- there is a human element here where individuals are choosing what's "interesting" to explore, it's not a pure algorithmic process. That said, yes, it does use a genetic algorithm (NEAT) under the hood, but I think what the authors are suggesting is that the key difference isn't whether it's genetic or gradient based optimization... they're getting at the difference in objective driven vs. open-ended search.

I think the main position / takeaway from the paper is that something about conventional SGD training produces these "fractured entangled representations" that work but are not well structured internally so they're hard to build on top of. They look at things like the curriculum / order things are learned in, objective search vs. open-ended search, etc...
by saratogacx | 2025-06-05 16:24:09+00:00
Pro isn't a static plan. Pro subs can access Claude Code but are paying via API metering. I have it setup at home and, while I haven't used it much, it can quickly add up.

What I did do, because my personal projects aren't too complex, is moved the model from Opus to Sonnet which is about 1/5 the cost.

For day-to-day stuff I have ProxyAI (on IntelliJ, continue.dev works for this too) pointed at Mistral's Codestra for auto-complete and to Claude 4 for chat.

Claude Code is just for giving the bot tasks to do without me being deeply involved in the work.

(edit) I just saw that pro is getting a rate-limited option for Claude code for the sonnet model only. I haven't tried it out but will give it a go sometime. https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/11145838-using-cla...
by michaelbrave | 2025-06-05 16:24:56+00:00
I can't remember it's name because I didn't get around to reading it, but there was one sci-fi book where something like Gattaca happened but it happend in a very corporate way, meaning you could buy preset options (wealthy would do custom), everyone became mostly the same height and look etc, or they could tell which preset their parents chose etc, the problem was later on when diseases happened it was catastrophic since the genetics were too much the same.
by pornel | 2025-06-05 16:25:19+00:00
There is a circular dependency — the language strongly influences what libraries/engines can and will be written.

Bevy and Servo wouldn't exist without Rust. Unreal probably wouldn't succeed without C++.

Languages may also matter for other reasons than just their feature set. Node.js got traction specifically because it was JavaScript.

Even though Fortran had state-of-the-art numeric libraries, Python enabled numpy to have the sweet spot of usability with good enough speed.

The killer libraries need years of effort to build them. That won't happen if users don't want to use the language, or the language isn't good enough for the task.

For Swift to have killer libraries, users must first choose Swift to build them. Catch22.
by bob1029 | 2025-06-05 16:25:28+00:00
I think targeting no JS at all is much more impactful to the overall experience of web development. Reaching for it only when HTML+CSS have failed you is the original intent. Server-side rendering can take you really far if you are patient and creative.

NPM/Node is at the heart of my displeasure with JS. I don't mind JS in the browser when done tastefully. But I don't think it makes much sense outside of the DOM. As another comment noted, you often have to go dig through CDNs and hack at URLs to get the actual JS files for non-insane hosting models (i.e., statically from the same machine that hosts everything else). The notion that I need a CDN to serve a few kilobytes of source for anything short of netflix.com is absolutely insane.

I would advocate starting your next web project using 0 lines of JS, even if you intend to use the full USS Enterprise to build it out for prod. See how far you can get with just HTML & CSS. Consider that anything proximal to layout/style/art/etc. is entirely within this box. Javascript is not going to save you from an art problem. It can only make it worse.
by soperj | 2025-06-05 16:25:41+00:00
Honestly it's not hours of study. You identify the one mushroom that you're going foraging for, and then you need to know the ones that look like it so that you don't get those by mistake. It's pretty simple if you know what you're doing. Ie: Chantrelles have a symbiotic relationship with Douglas Fir trees, so you're only going to find them around Douglas firs.
by sparky4pro | 2025-06-05 16:25:59+00:00
Swift is usable (on Apple operating systems) if you use the add ons that Apple provides (like SwiftUI). Other than that… forget about it. Tried to use Swift for CLI apps (on macOS) and it failed miserably. The reason: after reaching a certain code size the Swift compiler is reporting vague syntax errors without line numbers. Unacceptable in 2025.
by jeffhuys | 2025-06-05 16:26:25+00:00
I’ve never mentioned “because it’s a US company” so I’ll ignore that part of the message.

Sticks & stones is a general thing that’s missing in a lot of people nowadays. Trying to protect everyone from bad words will only make them react more when they inevitably will encounter said bad words.

As for the rest of the “what if”s, I guess we’ll see what happens when it happens. As of right now, my For You page is filled with science, discussions, tech, friends, well-known people having normal discussions with “plebs”, etc.

If you don’t find value in the platform, simply don’t use it. Use Bluesky if you want.
by tacitusarc | 2025-06-05 16:26:42+00:00
I get that fabricating data and academic integrity look like a different issue from ROI-based funding, but I don’t think they are. In the context of public funding, there must be a justification for the money spent. For a long time, it was “this research will help all of humanity and further our understanding of the universe”, which is great until it turns out that a lot of the research is questionable at best and outright lies at worst. How does made up research help further our understanding of the universe?

So absent institutional integrity, another justification for funding must be found, and one option is ROI. That has its own drawbacks, but at least if we start there we could move back to a place of institutional trust.
by scottlamb | 2025-06-05 16:27:40+00:00
I'm a big fan of the AirGradient. They used to have really cheap DIY kits available: either $19 for the PCB + enclosure alone (with the assumption you already have the other parts or will buy them off aliexpress) or $96 for everything. Looks like the current kit is $138. If that's too much, you might be able to make it cheaper by downloading the KiCad and STL files off their website [1], getting PCBs printed elsewhere, 3D printing the case, and sourcing the rest of the parts from aliexpress. When you do it that way, you can also omit any sensors that are not of interest to save money, and perhaps add them in later.

[1] https://www.airgradient.com/documentation/overview/
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-05 16:27:44+00:00
Many spices, as well as actual oil extracted from actual snakes by actual healers, and mushrooms as well, gained reputations in antiquity as medicinal and/or beneficial to health in some way.

And this often fueled increased trade and increased cultivation volumes and increased prices and tariffs and wars and cruel laws. In antiquity.

And often, the actual medicinal benefits became overhyped, and crept from their scope, and each nation's crown jewel of a spice became a miracle cure-all, and cue the trade wars and sword-wielding knights defending their spice.

Basically the "Snake Oil Salesmen" of the Wild West were white hucksters who diluted the actual snake oil down so much, or didn't bother adding any in the first place, then sold the elixirs on Main Street between the saloon and the whorehouse. So the Native Americans were nonplussed that their shamanistic remedies had been subverted as a trope of quacks and hoaxers.

Most of all, these spices and mushrooms have been gradually enshittified, perhaps literally, and many of them are a shadow of their former selves, bred for mass-production. And Americans sit there and dust our burger and fries with gray sand that doesn't even taste like black pepper anymore. Not to mention the salt that's been refined until there's nothing but sodium in it.

Perhaps mushrooms are the least likely food to be enshittified or deliberately commercialized, except for about 4 types in the grocery stores. From what I've learned about mushroom foraging, it's never worth it; just go buy mushrooms in the store, I mean for crying out loud. The risk is too great, and aficionados can claim "easy identification" all they want, but "easy" is relative and not for you to judge, because there's a fine line between tasty and fatal.
by LightBug1 | 2025-06-05 16:28:04+00:00
100% me ... we're on the same page ... I've said it before. I don't want to become my cars manager ... I want to enjoy my driving.

I get that the vast majority aren't car enthusiasts and that's ok, but there is actual pleasure in driving.

And even me - when I want a rest from it - lane assist and cruise control are MORE than enough. I can even add these two to old classics without much bother.

Going all in on autonomy doesn't interest me at all.
by khedoros1 | 2025-06-05 16:28:56+00:00
A long while ago, I used Ubuntu. Then Mint. I had upgrade issues with both of those. Moved to Fedora kind of piecemeal after that. When I built a new gaming machine in 2020, that's what I used; no Windows on that machine. I've had very few compatibility issues. Granted, I don't play multiplayer at all (beyond Minecraft and Roblox, when my kid wants to play).
by dahart | 2025-06-05 16:29:01+00:00
> If you are going to have any benchmark

This is actually why IMO saying women are 65% as strong as the average man is the better framing. It gives you an immediate, practical, and tangible goal. If the force required to do a given operation is acceptable for men and not acceptable for women, then we don’t need to reduce the force by 100x, we need to reduce it by 1.5x, which is not very much.

Talking about the standard deviation doesn’t give you a usable result, while talking about the ratio of means does.

BTW this argument should be moot. It’s very, very poor safety design to suggest that controlling a vehicle or doing anything else safety critical should require more than 50% of my maximum strength. My own strength varies considerably based on how much I have to use it. I can’t maintain my max strength if I have to do it repeatedly, and it will affect my ability to think if I have to use my max strength in a crisis situation. There simply should not be controls that require more force than most women can apply, not even close.
by twobitshifter | 2025-06-05 16:29:37+00:00
>“Does a normal Ohio voter read . . . Mencius Moldbug? No,” Vance reportedly said one night at a bar during the 2021 National Conservatism Conference. “But do they agree with the broad thrust of where we think American public policy should go? Absolutely.”

Apparently, if the right people read your ideas then they’ll get convinced that the rest of Ohio feels the same way?
by mixmastamyk | 2025-06-05 16:29:38+00:00
There’s something about ip6 addresses being big as a guid that makes them hard to remember. Seem like random gibberish, like a hash. But I can look at an ip4 address like a phone number, and by looking tell approximately its rules.

Maybe there’s a standard primer on how to grok ip6 addresses, and set up your network but I missed it.

Also devices typically take 2 or 4 ip6 addresses for some reason so keeping on top of them is even harder.
by sib | 2025-06-05 16:30:08+00:00
>> It seems obvious that it is harmful for a user who requests and is granted privacy to then have their private messages delivered to NYT.

This ruling is about preservation of evidence, not (yet) about delivering that information to one of the parties.

If judges couldn't compel parties to preserve evidence in active cases, you could see pretty easily that parties would aggressively destroy evidence that might be harmful to them at trial.

There's a whole later process (and probably arguments in front of the judge) about which evidence is actually delivered, whether it goes to the NYT or just to their lawyers, how much of it is redacted or anonymized, etc.
by xd | 2025-06-05 16:30:29+00:00
From a quick skim of the repo it looks to be injecting phptop_hook.php into any call to a php file with auto_prepend_file in php.ini. phptop_hook.php generates some stats on how long it took the php file to process and stores this via error_log() which can then be queried with the perl script phptop.