MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JohnFen | 2025-06-05 14:06:08+00:00
I look at my employment as a pretty simple business deal. I get paid to perform a certain amount of time and effort on the job. I am being paid to be useful.

It's not "getting used", it's a voluntary value exchange. The moment that value exchange is no longer to my benefit, I'll move on. Equally, I expect that the moment that value exchange is no longer to my employer's benefit, I'll be let go.
by ben_w | 2025-06-05 14:06:18+00:00
> As for competition - Waymo had been too cautious and slow in its rollout to a fault. Much like Google’s AI policy before ChatGPT. Tesla can still beat them to a punch. Being a fully vertically integrated car company, they can churn out robo-taxis faster than anyone else.

Only if they're actually better, because Waymo is currently 5.5-6.5 years* ahead of where Tesla wants to be with this month's launch.

Also, BYD has their own one; don't rule them out as a viable competitor fo anything Tesla does: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/02/12/byd-gods-eye-more-advan...

* depending on how the safety drivers part goes
by armchairhacker | 2025-06-05 14:06:57+00:00
I think local politics varies between incredibly moral/functional and unbelievably corrupt/incompetent, depending on location (same for startups or any other group).

Larger groups are more consistent, they all have “bureaucratic” problems. One of these problems is too much happening and not enough (moral and competent) oversight*. Hence text sneaked into government bills, funds embezzled from big companies, etc.

* Ironically as other commenters point out, this text isn’t avoiding discovery, because the bill is public and there are enough concerned citizens to provide the necessary oversight. A better example is government contracts, if they were published and voted on like bills I suspect contractors would be way better (except they’d be more political unless we solve that…)
by dgroshev | 2025-06-05 14:07:33+00:00
I don't think "glue" frameworks like Loco can get us there tbh. One problem is that frameworks like Django or RoR have to be tightly integrated! Auth needs to be aware of models and sessions, autogenerated admin pages like Django have to rely on model metadata, templates and view code might need to be aware of cache busting and static file handling, etc etc. It's a tough problem and a very high barrier to creating a new comprehensive framework.
by 542354234235 | 2025-06-05 14:07:36+00:00
“[As of May 2025] Ukraine has developed and successfully tested the Sky Sentinel – an AI-powered, fully automated turret designed to shoot down Russian drones and missiles… the M2 is known to have an effective range of 1.5 kilometers against airborne threats. Each unit costs approximately $150,000. Developers estimate that protecting a city would require 10 to 30 turrets… Given that each Iranian-made Shahed-136 drone used by Russia costs around $100,000, Sky Sentinel offers a scalable and cost-effective solution to a persistent and deadly threat.”

https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/53546
by mikepurvis | 2025-06-05 14:07:53+00:00
It was briefly renamed Common Markdown as well, and John hated on that as well, so it became CommonMark.

And now we're in an odd position where Github and friends all validate their implementations against the CommonMark suites, but refer to the result as "Markdown" to their users, which makes the work they're doing maintaining that stuff especially thankless.
by larrled | 2025-06-05 14:08:13+00:00
Maybe it could be a boon to the sentinel program in the same way as the current administration strengthened the European defense posture, by weakening our own. If that happens it could actually be good, because America military will no doubt spend as much as it can on science as soon as they get debt back under control. Sadly that seems like it won’t happen in 2025, but with enough growth maybe by 2030 we’ll be back, and better.
Show HN: p99.chat – the assistant for software performance optimization
by art049 | 2025-06-05 14:08:35+00:00
Hi HN! We’re the team behind CodSpeed (https://codspeed.io), a continuous performance testing tool.

Today, we're really excited to launch our new product: p99 (https://p99.chat), an assistant for software performance optimization.

Through CodSpeed, we have been working with hundreds of projects doing performance optimization. What struck us was how fragmented the tooling landscape is. You would identify a performance regression in their CI, or worse, in production, then disappear into a rabbit hole of benchmarking frameworks, sampling profilers, memory profilers, instrumentation tools, and visualization tools. With each tool coming with its own setup requirements, data formats, and workflows. This less interesting part of setup ends up taking most of the troubleshooting time.

Even for our own developer-focused tool, we worked hard on making the CI product as simple as possible for straightforward use cases, but the required integration level is so deep that there seems to be an inevitable high entry cost for performance tooling.

Our solution, p99 eliminates this friction with an integrated chat interface. Instead of context-switching between tools, you describe your performance challenge, share your code, and p99 orchestrates the entire analysis pipeline. It handles code analysis, instrumentation (using CodSpeed's CPU profiling), and visualization in one seamless conversation.

The goal is to cut setup overhead from hours to seconds, so you can focus on what matters: finding the issue and making your code faster.

Current features: Python and Rust execution, algorithm comparison, (differential) profiling, flamegraph and charts display.

Coming next: MCP integration for editor integration, additional instruments (memory profiling, walltime profiling, DB instrumentation, ...), GitHub integration for direct code analysis, and automated PR generation for performance improvements.

For now, the product is completely free. Although we require a login before creating chats to prevent abuse, you can check out a short demo here: https://youtu.be/yxY-nWNbK6M

Looking forward to your feedbacks and comments!
by grapesodaaaaa | 2025-06-05 14:09:35+00:00
That's actually a nice perk since I have LLMs summarize or re-word my research findings quite often. I'm a disorganized person, so they've been a big help with me organizing my work.

I also like that Markdown is being added since it's what I typically use for documentation (github, etc). The default formatting in notes currently leaves something to be desired...
by jfengel | 2025-06-05 14:09:40+00:00
It's weird reading actual lawmakers refusing to put their names on the record, for fear of retaliation. That's usually for staffers, and the retaliation would come from above. There's not much "above" the legislator themselves.

If I were their constituents, I'd be pretty cranky about their lawmakers saying one thing to them and another to the press. (Obviously, we don't know exactly who they are, but it's not hard to narrow it down. And they appear to be speaking for others, so even if it wasn't your specific legislator, you know if yours likely feels that way.)
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-05 14:10:38+00:00
> allows a school to play a movie

No, it doesn’t. Play 10% of a movie for the purpose of critiquing it, perhaps.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

Fair Use is not an a priori exemption or exception; Fair Use is an “affirmative defense” so once you have your day in court and the judge asks your attorney why you needed to play 10% of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert for your Gender Studies class, then you can run down those Four Factors enumerated by the Stanford article.

Particularly “amount and substantiality”.

Teachers and churches get tripped up by this all the time. But I’ve also been blessed with teachers who were very careful academically and sought to impart the same caution on all students about using copyrighted materials. It is not easy when fonts have entered the chat!

The same reason you or your professor cannot show/perform 100% of an unlicensed film under any circumstance, is the same basis that creators are telling the scrapers that they cannot consume 100% of copyrighted works on that end. And if the risks may involve reproducing 87% of the same work in their outputs, that’s beyond the standard thresholds.
Show HN: Slip-0039 Shamir's Secret Sharing in GUI, CLI and C#/.NET NuGet
by svantex | 2025-06-05 14:12:01+00:00
I just implemented and released SLIP-0039 password and seed backup. Create M >= N > 1 shares, require any N shares to recover the secret. There's a NuGet library, a CLI and a GUI implementation. See https://www.axantum.com/help#sss, https://github.com/xecrets/xecrets-cli and https://www.nuget.org/packages/Xecrets.Slip39.
by jfengel | 2025-06-05 14:12:06+00:00
That part, at least, is common to all Presidents. Anybody can be fired. There's usually some deference to people who have been approved by the Senate, if for no other reason than that replacing them is a hassle, but Musk is not.

He probably should have been, given how much authority the President delegated. But there was no precedent, especially outside of wartime. This is all being presented as an "emergency", which is extremely dubious and should result in at least an investigation, but ... you know.
by desas | 2025-06-05 14:12:13+00:00
> We're drunk on the ease of implicitly painting people who can't read as much as us as simply dumb modern westerners.

I'm not sure we're doing that. That's certainly not my intention. I know and respect many people who read zero books per year.

I think what we're doing is showing surprise that reading ten books per year is seen as a flex or is worth lying about very publicly, and demonstrating (albeit unscientifically) that it's not that unusual.
by pdimitar | 2025-06-05 14:13:59+00:00
Thanks for sharing. I would reach for Golang or even Rust if I was you.

I work with Elixir for 9 years now (& love it) and I agree what you describe is not a good fit for it.

Elixir is a general-purpose language in the meaning of Turing-completeness. I never once felt tempted to write a CLI tool with it though.
by jonchurch_ | 2025-06-05 14:14:25+00:00
I think CORS is so hard for us to hold in our heads in large part due to how much is stuffed into the algorithm.

It may send an OPTIONS request, or not.

It may block a request being sent (in response to OPTIONS) or block a response from being read.

It may restrict which headers can be set, or read.

It may downgrade the request you were sending silently, or consider your request valid but the response off limits.

It is a matrix of independent gates essentially.

Even the language we use is imprecise, CORS itself is not really doing any of this or blocking things. As others pointed out it’s the Single Origin Policy that is the strict one, and CORS is really an exception engine to allow us to punch through that security layer.
by gus_massa | 2025-06-05 14:14:33+00:00
I'd take anything in the PR with a grain of salt, but from https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/pr/2024/2024...

> In the initial tests, one of the monomers was a common food additive called sodium hexametaphosphate and the other was any of several guanidinium ion-based monomers.

hexametaphosphate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hexametaphosphate

> SHMP hydrolyzes in aqueous solution, particularly under acidic conditions and/or heat, ...

Those phosphate bounds are weak, and break in water. I don't expect problems.

guanidinium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanidine

> It is found in urine predominantly in patients experiencing renal failure.

> Recent studies suggest that guanidinium is produced by bacteria as a toxic byproduct. To alleviate the toxicity of guanidinium, bacteria have developed a class of transporters known as guanidinium exporters or Gdx proteins to expel the extra amounts of this ion to the outside of the cell.

It's too far from my area, but it looks like similar to urea thst is used to dump excess of nitrogen in pee. It looks like guanidinium is produced naturally and dumped by some bacteria and probably other bacteria use it because nitrogen is difficult to get.
by edelbitter | 2025-06-05 14:14:48+00:00
> An exception isn’t just another event. It’s your code telling you it failed, in a specific place, with a specific context.

No! The other way around! All the other events should have context as well. I want to cry every time when I get a random warning-severity log that may or may not indicated something I need to look into.. without collecting the context which is collected on error-severity logging.

So the text was truncated? What? Where? Why? (don't truncate passwords before comparison, please!?) So the kernel logged some WARN dump? In response to what operation? Does only the 6.12 do that, or am I receiving this one from 6.14 machines as well? So the library says the "update()" method is deprecated? Which one of 10 update() methods in that library? Called from where?
by jandrewrogers | 2025-06-05 14:15:44+00:00
This has been tried many times. The performance is so poor as to be unusable for most applications. The technical reasons are well-understood.

The issue is that, at a minimum, you have added 32 bytes to a row just for the key. That is extremely expensive and in many cases will be a large percentage of the entire row; many years ago PostgreSQL went to heroic efforts to reduce 2 bytes per row for performance reasons. It also limits you to row storage, which means query performance will be poor.

That aside, you overlooked the fact that you'll have to compute a key schedule for each row. None of the setup costs of the encryption can be amortized, which makes processing a row extremely expensive computationally.

There is no obvious solution that actually works. This has been studied and implemented extensively. The reason no one does it isn't because no one has thought of it before.
by potatolicious | 2025-06-05 14:15:48+00:00
This is exactly it. Selling the output of a LLM is going to an incredibly cut-throat and low-margin business.

The more interesting, novel, and useful work you wrap the LLM in the more defensible your pricing will be.

That said I think this can describe a lot of agentic code tools - the entire point is that you're not just talking to the raw LLM itself, you're being intermediated by a bunch of useful things that are non-trivial.

I see this with Anthropic most - they seem to have multiple arms in multiple lines of business that go up the abstraction ladder - Claude Code is just one of them. They seem to also be in the customer service automation business as well.

[edit] I think a general trend we're going to see is that "pure" LLM providers are going to try to go up the abstraction ladder as just generating tokens proves unprofitable, colliding immediately with their own customers. There's going to be a LOT of Sherlocking, and the LLM providers are going to have a home field advantage (paying less for inference, existing capability to fine-tune and retrain, and looooooots of VC funding).
by dlivingston | 2025-06-05 14:17:13+00:00
Yes. The past two companies I've been at have self-hosted enterprise LLMs running on their own servers and connected to internal documentation. There is also Azure Cloud for Gov and other similar privacy-first ways of doing this.

But also, running LLMs locally is easy. I don't know what goes into hosting them, as a service for your org, but just getting an LLM running locally is a straightforward 30-minute task.
by publicdaniel | 2025-06-05 14:17:23+00:00
From the author's tweet (https://x.com/kenneth0stanley/status/1924650124829196370)

Could a major opportunity to improve representation in deep learning be hiding in plain sight? Check out our new position paper: Questioning Representational Optimism in Deep Learning: The Fractured Entangled Representation Hypothesis. The idea stems from a little-known observation about networks trained to output a single image: when they are discovered through an unconventional open-ended search process, their representations are incredibly elegant and exhibit astonishing modular decomposition. In contrast, when SGD (successfully) learns to output the same image its underlying representation is fractured, entangled - an absolute mess!

This stark difference in the underlying representation of the same "good" output behavior carries deep lessons for deep learning. It shows you cannot judge a book by its cover - an LLM with all the right responses could similarly be a mess under the hood. But also, surprisingly, it shows us that it doesn't have to be this way! Without the unique examples in this paper that were discovered through open-ended search, we might assume neural representation has to be a mess. These results show that is clearly untrue. We can now imagine something better because we can actually see it is possible.

We give several reasons why this matters: generalization, creativity, and learning are all potentially impacted. The paper shows examples to back up these concerns, but in brief, there is a key insight: Representation is not only important for what you're able to do now, but for where you can go from there. The ability to imagine something new (and where your next step in weight space can bring you) depends entirely upon how you represent the world. Generalization, creativity, and learning itself depend upon this critical relationship. Notice the difference in appearance between the nearby images to the skull in weight space shown in the top-left and top-right image strips of the attached graphic. The difference in semantics is stark.

The insight that representation could be better opens up a lot of new paths and opportunities for investigation. It raises new urgency to understand the representation underlying foundation models and LLMs while exposing all kinds of novel avenues for potentially improving them, from making learning processes more open-ended to manipulating architectures and algorithms.

Don't mistake this paper as providing comfort for AI pessimists. By exposing a novel set of stark and explicit differences between conventional learning and something different, it can act as an accelerator of progress as opposed to a tool of pessimism. At the least, the discussion it provokes should be quite illuminating.
by chgs | 2025-06-05 14:17:56+00:00
Wealth that isn’t concentrating on the 1% will be diluted as part of inheritance. Those from a poor background will continue to be screwed no matter how well they are doing. Tabitha who makes clogs for shitzus as a job (standard person on uk real Estate shows) will co time to live rent free massive houses while those working and living in the cities massive rent and commuting will do tie to pay far more tax.
by skrebbel | 2025-06-05 14:18:00+00:00
The code can crash but it won't often crash your system (unless you use lots of badly tested NIFs, which most people don't), and that's all GP is saying. BEAM isn't magic but it is pretty robust by now.

Tbh I feel like this is not very unique these days, so I'm not sure how this point means a lot, esp in the context of using LLMs for coding. Eg most NodeJS code won't crash your system either (it'll only crash NodeJS).
by nchmy | 2025-06-05 14:18:13+00:00
Its not evident to me what this does... It says that it "prints per query and average metrics", but it seems to just output some extremely generic stats. Does "query" actually mean request here?

I see there's a wordpress-specific wpdb mechanism - though it just seems to report total time spent on queries, and the slowest query. Surely something like Query Monitor is a far better tool for that?

A tool that everyone should be aware of and using is php-spx - its absolutely glorious for performance profiling/investigation. xhgui is similar, but bulkier and (in my experience) less accurate/insightful.

https://github.com/NoiseByNorthwest/php-spx
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-05 14:18:18+00:00
I wasn't bragging, I can't brag about them because I don't own a Tesla nor serve to gain any validation or benefit if they do well or not.

A study has found that perhaps I was wrong in the eyes of a dependability study, but I still think they're an excellent car. I still think that if a Ford owner said that they think their Ford Ranger is an excellent car people wouldn't disagree because a dependability study put them as average.
by skyyler | 2025-06-05 14:18:46+00:00
>APD leaders including Chief Lisa Davis said ALPRs have proven to be a key crime-fighting tool that helped the short-staffed police department

>short-staffed police department

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2023/08/council-approv...

More funding than ever, yet they're somehow short-staffed? Is that right?
by seveibar | 2025-06-05 14:18:46+00:00
Author here: I don’t think the commenter here has set the same focal length, the focal length can make a surface appear curved, I set it explicitly to a low value to test the algorithm’s ability to handle the increased distortion. You can google “focal length distortion cube” to see examples of how a focal length distorts a grid or you can google “fish eye lens cube” etc.

Edit: I think there’s a lot of confusion because the edges of the cube (the black lines), do not incorporate the perspective transform all along their edge. The texture is likely correct given the focal length, and the cube’s edge is misleadingly straight. My bad, the technique is valid, but the black lines of the cube’s edge are misleadingly straight (they are not rendered the same way as the texture)
by tim333 | 2025-06-05 14:19:19+00:00
I have an old rusty e-bike that I use for transportation and cost £200. It doesn't seem to get stolen although I leave it on the street. I do remove the battery which would cost £200 new on it's own so the batteryless bike is not of much value to thieves. Especially as it has a wacky diy paint job too.

It works pretty well although there is some maintenance cost when bits pack up. It's quite easy to find similar on facebook market.
by tacitusarc | 2025-06-05 14:19:44+00:00
I don’t find this compelling, especially given the enormity of the replication crisis and misconduct in academia. If scientific institutions want less budgetary scrutiny and more freedom, they need to be fundamentally trustworthy, but the past decade has made it amply clear that is not the case.

More rigor around funding isn’t putting a stake through the heart of scientific inquiry; fabricating data is.
by EvanAnderson | 2025-06-05 14:21:18+00:00
> Is there even a use case for this for which there isn’t already a better solution?

I deal with a third-party hosted webapp that enables extra when a webserver hosted on localhost is present. The local webserver exposes an API allowing the application to interact more closely with the host OS (think locally-attached devices and servers on the local network). If the locally-installed webserver isn't present the hosted app hides the extra functionality.

Limiting browser access to the localhost subnet (127.0.0.1/8) would be fine to me, as a sysadmin, so long as I have the option to enable it for applications where it's desired.
by vanschelven | 2025-06-05 14:21:19+00:00
Maybe... I even wrote about how to do this in the case of Python and the Sentry SDK [0], so I don't fully disagree... but: in the general case this might get very expensive data-wise. So you have to cut off somewhere/start somewhere and/or budget how much info you send per type of log

[0] https://www.bugsink.com/blog/capture-stacktrace-no-exception...
by colejohnson66 | 2025-06-05 14:21:28+00:00
Yes. Insurance companies being able to force you to take a generic when you and your doctor know you need the name brand is frustrating. If you change insurance, you and your doctor must go toe-to-toe with the insurance to prove you need the name brand. And then you're forced to "trial" the generic again. Yes, there are legitimate cases of generics not working right for the person.