MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ben_w | 2025-06-23 08:04:23+00:00
> I also don't understand the argument that "Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referential way of formulating clearly suggests that you are not a purely algorithmic entity". How does that follow?

It doesn't follow.

Trivially demonstrated by the early LLM that got Blake Lemonie to break his NDA also emitting words which suggested to Lemonie that the LLM had an inner life.

Or, indeed, the output device y'all are using to read/listening to my words, which is also successfully emitting these words despite the output device very much only following an algorithm that simply recreates what it was told to recreate. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
by Paapaa | 2025-06-23 08:05:26+00:00
Typst does already support some microtype fetures out of the box and more are coming: https://github.com/typst/typst/pull/6161

I'd also not overemphasize the significance of microtype features. They might help with narrow columns but on wider columnds the difference is very small and most people will never notice them at all.
by whstl | 2025-06-23 08:06:33+00:00
Compositions: absolutely.

More “evergreen” genres like classical, jazz, soundtracks, and also stuff by established artists? Surely!

But pop music recordings get “too dated” quite fast for the mainstream and mainstream audiences. This kinda keeps Spotify and Radio charts fresh and newer artists make some money. IMO of course!

EDIT: Wait! One thing however where you’re right and I’m wrong is with live concerts. Today older legacy acts compete and often surpass attendance of newer acts.
by frereubu | 2025-06-23 08:06:47+00:00
I have recently discovered that hardcore punk (like the album Feel The Darkness by Poison Idea) played at high volume in some headphones really helps me when I have to do those kinds of tasks. My hunch is that is translates my ennui into cathartic anger that I have to do this studpid f__king task, which generates motivation to show it who's boss and I plough through it. YMMV obviously - relies on you enjoying hardcore punk!
by ciphernomad-org | 2025-06-23 08:08:13+00:00
A formal spec is the next priority. We released the implementation first as the protocol is novel and we invite direct scrutiny of the work.

The path selection is secret, not public. It is determined by `hash(key, state, chunk)`. An attacker lacks the secret `key` and internal CVM `state` and cannot compute the path.

The key expansion and path collision mechanisms are as follows: 1. A round's key is derived from the master key, the CVM's state, and the unique nonce of the Labyrinth node being processed. 2. The CVM state ratchets forward after every block, making path collision negligible.
by IrishTechie | 2025-06-23 08:08:14+00:00
I often think how great it would be to have a site where I could see all the shops nearby that have stock of X at Y price even if they don’t do online shopping. For example I am certain there are multiple places near me that have some 5m 10t tie-down straps, I’d happily drive to one to collect, but I won’t drive or ring 10-20 shops to find them so just order on Amazon.

It’s a tough problem I guess with so many stock systems out there and inevitably whoever creates the site will want to monetise it, then slowly enshitify it.
by zxexz | 2025-06-23 08:08:49+00:00
What's up with the formatting in this paper? Though honestly, I can't even be mad about it. I actually find it kind of funny that it's been sitting on the front page this long and getting so many comments.

Sure, the author clearly needs to catch up on the last 80+ years of computer science (which sounds daunting but I think it's doable), but I'm not convinced this is just promotional content. He seems has real credentials in his field (epistemology and hospitality management I think?), plus he apparently runs a boutique hotel chain in Germany that I've actually heard of before!

So yeah, I'm intrigued. Looking forward to part IV - maybe after he gets through GEB ;)
by simoncion | 2025-06-23 08:09:05+00:00
> It's i915.mitigations

Since you're doing the research, you tell us. Is NEO_DISABLE_MITIGATIONS (the flag mentioned in TFA) related to i915.mitigations, and if so, how?

TFA mentions that Intel ships prebuilt driver packages with this NEO_... flag set, and that Canonical and Intel programmers talked at some length about the flag.
by TheDong | 2025-06-23 08:09:19+00:00
The article was about two issues that combine to make a single local-privilege-escalation, so the PAM thing isn't a separate exploit chain, it's just part of getting local root in this vulnerability.

What the parent poster meant is that you first need a way to run arbitrary code before local privilege escalation matters, so the exploit chain has to include _something_ that gets you local code execution.

I tend to agree with the parent poster, for most modern single-user linux devices, local privilege escalation means almost nothing.

Like, I'm the only user on my laptop. If you get arbitrary code execution as my user, you can log my keystrokes, steal my passwords and browser sessions, steal my bitcoin wallet, and persist reasonably well.... and once you've stolen my password via say keylogging me typing `sudo`, you now have root too.

If you have a local privilege escalation too, you still get my passwords, bitcoin wallet, etc, and also uh... you can persist yourself better by injecting malware into sshd or something or modifying my package manager? idk, seems like it's about the same.
by djaychela | 2025-06-23 08:09:22+00:00
I believe that driving is a privilege, not a right.

However, I'm not saying that their licence should be taken away (we've all made mistakes - I should have made that clear), but if that is representative, it is dangerous. I rode motorbikes for many years, and you can spot people who are dangerous very quickly from their 'car body language'. And an error like that in another circumstance could kill someone.

I knew people whose driving had deteriorated like this (my late mother and her friends spring to mind). They refused to accept they were not capable any more, and she used to do things that terrified me. I had discussions (kindly!) about her driving standards and errors and she refused to accept that she was making the errors she was. And they were not as bad as what I saw in the video.
by jeroenhd | 2025-06-23 08:09:33+00:00
Based on the comments and the article, it seems like Intel is relying on a patched kernel so that the mitigations at the GPU driver stack are no longer necessary. You get security warnings if you try to run the unpatched GPU stack without a patched kernel.

If my interpretation is correct, that means as long as you're using an up-to-date, patched kernel with standard mitigations enabled, the extra security layer Intel added is no longer necessary. It could expose another bug not yet covered by patches, though, as the heavy-handed patch probably also prevented more security issues.
by mittensc | 2025-06-23 08:14:39+00:00
Fair point, I'll give it a go to see for myself, thanks.

Alternative, if it's web calls then openAPI and a specific generator will work faster long term... (write generator once then import swagger files for whatever you need or tell claude to generate the swagger if not available?)

That would help with api changes longer term (just update swagger file, regen code and update where needed)

If it's actual library calls (C/C++), then why would wrapper be needed?, doesn't add yet-anothet-layer that makes things more difficult to grasp?
by jemmyw | 2025-06-23 08:14:55+00:00
Recession is probably a bit meaningless at this point. The Russian economy is already quite small in relation to the country size and population. They have plenty of natural resources though, and oil which they are exporting. In many ways it's an economy that comes pre-collapsed. But the govt has a lot of leeway to keep the internal economy going. Interest rates are 20%, without which inflation would be running away - although, they have capital controls and are disconnected from the majority of the world's financial systems so how much sense does currency conversion have anyway?

At some point things will have to come to a head because civilian businesses, military manufacturing and military service are competing for the same workforce, one of those actually consuming the people. The govt can keep things going for a long time under difficult conditions though. More of a concern is probably what happens when the war ends. Can they even let the war end now? They have a war economy and going back is going to be hard.
by simoncion | 2025-06-23 08:14:57+00:00
> ...for most modern single-user linux devices, local privilege escalation means almost nothing.

I haven't actually looked at the numbers, but I strongly suspect that it's true that the overwhelming majority of single-user Linux devices out there are Android devices. If that's true, then it's my understanding that Android does bother to fairly properly sandbox programs from each other... so an escalation to root would actually be a significant gain in access.
by trgn | 2025-06-23 08:15:28+00:00
> some French social-philosopher

was it Jacques Ellul? He made a real impact on me, his analysis that people adapt to the machine rather than the other way around, even will internalize its value system. In modern society, "efficiency" remains the sole aspiration, which is a technological value, not a human one. fwiw - don't recall if he wrote a lot about cars though.
by XorNot | 2025-06-23 08:16:31+00:00
Does it matter? The Russian parliament, most of it's wealthy citizens and all the critical industries would be dead.

Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..."

The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again.

Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
by ben_w | 2025-06-23 08:16:31+00:00
Boltzmann brains and A. J. Ayer's "There is a thought now".

Ages ago, it occurred to me that the only thing that seemed to exist without needing a creator, was maths. That 2+2 was always 4, and it still would be even if there were not 4 things to count.

Basically, I independently arrived at similar conclusion as Max Tegmark, only simpler and without his level of rigour: https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2018/08/26-08.28.24.html

(From the quotation's date stamp, 2007, I had only finished university 6 months earlier, so don't expect anything good).

But as you'll see from my final paragraph, I no longer take this idea seriously, because anything that leads to most minds being free to believe untruths, is cognitively unstable by the same argument that applies to Boltzmann brains.

MUH leads to Aleph-1 infinite number of brains*. I'd need a reason for the probability distribution over minds to be zero almost everywhere in order for it to avoid the cognitively instability argument.

* if there is a bigger infinity, then more; but I have only basic knowledge of transfinites and am unclear if the "bigger" ones I've heard about are considered "real" or more along the lines of "if there was an infinite sequence of infinities, then…"
by average_r_user | 2025-06-23 08:16:40+00:00
I really love this app, but I'm not a fan of the subscription model. While I understand the business reasoning, I'd much prefer having the option to purchase individual presets instead of committing to a full subscription.

I recently used the B/W preset by Greg Williams during my trip to Iceland, and the results were fantastic. The grainy texture it added to my photos was exactly what I was looking for and really enhanced the dramatic Icelandic landscapes.
by mr_mitm | 2025-06-23 08:18:18+00:00
The term was arguably coined by RMS and his full statement was:

> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Sometimes beer happens to be free, in which case it is referred to as "free beer". It's just an example.
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-23 08:18:34+00:00
I was surprised how a room of top notch 1280x1024 terminals was able to function so well on a shared 10mbps with pretty bad collision detection to boot. X apps of the day were super optimised for local drawing. Even games were super smooth. Toolkits like Motif were all draw calls. By the way back then we thought Motif was bloated lol :)

And then... Came the internet. People suddenly started running NCSA Mosaic in droves that bogged down the single core server. And those browsers started to push lots of bitmap stuff through the pipe to the terminals. Now that was bad, yes. When Netscape came with its image backgrounds and even heavier process people started moving away to the PC rooms :( Because all scroll content needed to be bitstreamed then.

Ps video content at that time wasn't even a thing yet. That came a bit later with realvideo first.

But there was a time when X terminals were more than sufficient, probably for a decade or so.
by imiric | 2025-06-23 08:18:58+00:00
Well, they're just commonly used commit types. I don't follow the "spec" strictly and have my own conventions as well. I don't use any tooling that reads them, and I'd probably write my own if needed.

I mainly find them helpful for sticking to atomic commits. If a change doesn't align with the commit type, or it touches too many parts of the codebase, that means it should be in a separate commit.
by CharlieTrip | 2025-06-23 08:19:47+00:00
Despite it might sound weird, the format spec is exactly what is needed to scrutiny any cryptographic primitive. It should be the first output during the design of a security-oriented primitive/protocol. See it in this way, if you soon publish the specs and there is a massive cheese-hole, your implementation is kaput! And since security products (sometimes sadly) live in reputation-system, your product lost all the reputation regardless if it will be secure or not.

So, the path is determined step by step taking into account the initial chunk or the output chunk? I'm confused on what this "CVM state" is. Your primitive has a secret key and that it, right? Or is this state yet another secret that must be shared to use the primitive? Again, without a formal specification, it is tricky for me to understand what that "chunk" effectively is and why should allow a decryption. If chunk is the "input chunk", how can you reconstruct the same path if you do not have the input?

Wait, the "CVM state" is the "round" key? Why do you care about "path collision"? This "property" does not make any sense without some appropriate context.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-06-23 08:19:54+00:00
> Perhaps we would still be exclusively writing C today for new languages' code could not been synthesized as easily or conveniently.

I'm not actually sure that would be a bad thing? All the reasons that immediately come to mind to move away from C have to do with ergonomics and safety, the latter largely being a product of the former IMO. If an LLM can ingest my entire codebase and do 90% of the work to get me to the changes I need doesn't that obviate the majority of the motivation to change languages in the first place?
by atwrk | 2025-06-23 08:22:33+00:00
> I don't think we're born with any concepts at all, it's all quite chaotic initially with consistent sensory inputs that we use to train/stabilise our neural network.

That is exactly the thing that doesn't seem to be true, or at least it is considered outdated in neuroscience. We very much have some concepts that are inert, and all other concept we learned in relation to the things that are already there in our brains - at birth mostly sensorymotor stuff. We decidedly don't learn new concepts from scratch, only in relation to already acquired concepts.

So our brains work quite a bit different than LLMs, despite the neuron metaphor used there.

And regarding your food example, the difference I was trying to point out: For LLMs, the word and the concept, are the same thing. For humans they are different things that are also learned differently. The memorization part (mostly) only affects the word, not the concept behind it. What you described was only the learning of the word "tall" - the child in your example already knew that the other person was taller than them, it just didn't know how to talk about that.
by randcraw | 2025-06-23 08:23:55+00:00
IMO, a large part of the appeal of classics is that you know others have also read the book so there will be opportunities to quote from it and share the experience, perhaps for decades to come. In contrast, most recent best sellers disappear off the radar so quickly that the reader knows the opportunity to share them will be ephemeral. This if you can't enjoy the reading experience of a recent work all by yourself, without sharing it with others, then your only hope to share it socially is to join a book club that reads it.
by vidarh | 2025-06-23 08:25:24+00:00
I'm not sure if this will help, but happy to elaborate further:

The set of Turing computable functions is computationally equivalent to the lambda calculus, is computationally equivalent to the generally recursive functions. You don't need to understand those terms, only to know that these functions define the set of functions we believe to include all computable functions. (There are functions that we know to not be computable, such as e.g. a general solution to the halting problem)

That is, we don't know of any possible way of defining a function that can be computed that isn't in those sets.

This is basically the Church-Turing thesis: That a function on the natural numbers can be effectively computable (note: this has a very specific meaning, it's not about performance) only if it is computable by a Turing machine.

Now, any Turing machine can simulate any other Turing machine. Possibly in a crazy amount of time, but still.

The brain is at least a Turing machine in terms of computabilitity if we treat "IO" (speaking, hearing, for example) as the "tape" (the medium of storage in the original description of the Turing machine). We can prove this, since the smallest Turing machine is a trivial machine with 2 states and 3 symbols that any moderate functional human is capable of "executing" with pen and paper.

(As an aside: It's almost hard to construct a useful computational system that isn't Turing complete; "accidental Turing completeness" regularly happens, because it is very trivial to end up with a Turing complete system)

An LLM with a loop around it and temperature set to 0 can trivially be shown to be able to execute the same steps, using context as input and the next token as output to simulate the tape, and so such a system is Turing complete as well.

(Note: In both cases, this could require a program, but since for any Turing machine of a given size we can "embed" parts of the program by constructing a more complex Turing machine with more symbols or states that encode some of the actions of the program, such a program can inherently be embedded in the machine itself by constructing a complex enough Turing machine)

Assuming we use a definition of intelligence that a human will meet, then because all Turing machines can simulate each other, then the only way of showing that an artificial intelligence can not theoretically be constructed to at least meet the same bar is by showing that humans can compute more than the Turing computable.

If we can't then "worst case" AGI can be constructed by simulating every computational step of the human brain.

Any other argument about the impossibility of AGI inherently needs to contain a something that disproves the Church-Turing thesis.

As such, it's a massive red flag when someone claims to have a proof that AGI isn't possible, but haven't even mentioned the Church-Turing thesis.
by ciphernomad-org | 2025-06-23 08:26:50+00:00
The core difference is what is being ratcheted.

Signal's Double Ratchet evolves the keys for a static algorithm like AES.

In Ariadne, the ratchet evolves the algorithm itself. The path through the Labyrinth, the sequence of cryptographic permutations, is a function of the CVM's state. The state ratchets, so the algorithm ratchets.

Signal gives you a new key for the same lock. We use a new key to build a new lock for every message, and the shape of that lock depends on the history of every one opened before it. This architectural difference is what allows the CVM to be reconfigured for other tasks like VDFs or cooperative proofs-of-work, where the "program" itself must be dynamic.
by Sakura-sx | 2025-06-23 08:27:03+00:00
I have been a user of keybr.com for a long time, and I didn't really like things like for example only practicing one word at a time or the algorithm trying to force you to type each character at the same speed, that's why I made my own. It has an algorithm that selects words randomly with weights based on how long you take to type each letter, you accuracy with each letter and how common the letter is in English (you should type more-common letters faster!).
by dataflow | 2025-06-23 08:27:13+00:00
By "spare listening sockets" do you mean having threads on the server calling ConnectNamedPipe? A bit confused by your terminology since these aren't called listening sockets. (You're not referring to socket() or AF_UNIX, right?)

And yeah, that seems more or less what I expected. The implementation is probably optimized for repeated I/O on established connections, not repeated unestablished ones. Which would be similar to filesystem I/O on Windows in that way - it's optimized for I/O on open files (especially larger ones), not for repeatedly opening and closing files (especially small ones). It makes me wonder what kinds of use cases require repeated connections on named pipes.

If the performance is comparable to Linux's after the connection, then I think that's important to note - since that's what matters to a lot of applications.
by christudor | 2025-06-23 08:27:51+00:00
G. E. Moore (in his Principia Ethica, 1903) makes a very similar case to this relation to consequentialist ethics:

"The first difficulty in the way of establishing a probability that one course of action will give a better total result than another, lies in the fact that we have to take account of the effects of both throughout an infinite future. We have no certainty but that, if we do one action now, the Universe will, throughout all time, differ in some way from what it would have been, if we had done another; and, if there is such a permanent difference, it is certainly relevant to our calculation.

But it is quite certain that our causal knowledge is utterly insufficient to tell us what different effects will probably result from two different actions, except within a comparatively short space of time; we can certainly only pretend to calculate the effects of actions within what may be called an ‘immediate’ future. No one, when he proceeds upon what he considers a rational consideration of effects, would guide his choice by any forecast that went beyond a few centuries at most; and, in general, we consider that we have acted rationally, if we think we have secured a balance of good within a few years or months or days."