MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by delichon | 2025-06-19 16:34:19+00:00
There was no such thing as a “male body,” Strangio told his colleagues: “A penis is not a male body part. It’s just an unusual body part for a woman.”

My dog has a penis. I assume that the penis is a male body part and therefore my dog is a male. Is this correct for my dog but not for a human male? Incorrect for both? Correct for both? What is it about the human species that might make it different for us? What would Strangio tell me?
by ashwinsundar | 2025-06-19 16:34:21+00:00
I don't have an answer here either, but after suffering through the first few chapters of HPMOR, I've found that Yudk and others tech-bros posing as philosophers are basically like leaky, dumbed-down abstractions for core philosophical ideas. Just go to the source and read about utilitarianism and deontology directly. Yudk is like the Wix of web development - sure you can build websites but you're not gonna be a proper web developer unless you learn HTML, CSS and Javascript. Worst of all, crappy abstractions train you in some actively bad patterns that are hard to unlearn

It's almost offensive - are technologists so incapable of understanding philosophy that Yudk has to reduce it down to the least common denominator they are all familiar with - some fantasy world we read about as children?
by mkoubaa | 2025-06-19 16:34:29+00:00
The problem with rationalism is we don't have language to express our thoughts formally enough nor a compiler to transform that language into something runnable (platonic AST) nor a machine capable of emulating reality.

Expecting rational thought to correspond to reality is like expecting a 6 million line program written in a hypothetical programming language invented in the 1700s to run bug free on a turing machine.

Tooling matters.
by godelski | 2025-06-19 16:35:41+00:00
No they're upset that some people just want to complain. They're okay with critiques (complaint != critique) but saying that only getting complaints is demoralizing and makes it hard for people who are actually trying to get shit done.

I don't know what's hard to understand about this. It's a pretty universal human experience. We've all had to listen to people just complain and experience how that makes us want to just say "fuck it" and stop doing the thing. That's it. Nothing more. Stop trying to twist this into things. You can read it as "shut up or pony up".
by Nextgrid | 2025-06-19 16:35:51+00:00
The prequel to this game (which had a bit of a cult following due to its insane hardware reqs, but frankly the multiplayer gameplay is good and sorely missed) explicitly did not have any global leaderboard or score system - instead, the "leveling up" was per-game-session and it took merely ~10-15 kills (~20 mins on a busy server) to earn enough points to acquire all the weapons you needed.
by schmorptron | 2025-06-19 16:36:08+00:00
Woah, cool to see a bit of how it all works. Seems similar to basic antivirus signature checking? As a side note, a few years back, they had a GDC talk about a (then-new) machine learning based approach to catching cheaters. Regardless of how it worked out, I found it fascinating. The presenter delivered the problem and solution approach so well I'd still like to work on something like this some time. I think they're still updating this for CS2, so it would be really cool to see how far it's gotten now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiP0zKF9bc
by codingdave | 2025-06-19 16:36:09+00:00
I do not find it exhausting at all, but I'm a technical product manager, not a full-time coder. So even before LLMs came out, I was in the mode of delegating some work, doing other work, and validating the work when it came back from delegation. That decision of "do vs. delegate" is just part of that job, at least in the gigs I've done. AI simply speeds up the task completion and feedback cycle when delegating.
by badc0ffee | 2025-06-19 16:36:15+00:00
Sorry, what I mean is, is there an image or PDF I can bring up that will show me imperfect lines on these displays?

As for rendering of text, there is definitely antialiasing in play. Subpixel rendering is no longer used, but I don't think you need it at these resolutions anyway. I'm not even sure what the subpixel arrangement is of my display (is it neat columns of R -> G -> B, or larger R and B with smaller but more numerous G? At 250-some PPI, the pixels are too small to notice or care!). But, I agree that if I was using my old 1920x1200 monitor I would miss it.
by diggan | 2025-06-19 16:36:23+00:00
> is the _reason_ why these disciplines

Would you say that ML isn't a successful discipline? ML is basically balancing between "formal language" (papers/algorithms) and "non-deterministic outcomes" (weights/inference) yet it seems useful in a wide range of applications, even if you don't think about LLMs at all.

> towards magical thinking, shamanism and witchcraft.

I kind of feel like if you want to make a point about how something is bullshit, you probably don't want to call it "magical thinking, shamanism and witchcraft" because no matter how good your point is, if you end up basically re-inventing the witch hunt, how is what you say not bullshit, just in the other way?
by lowkey_ | 2025-06-19 16:36:31+00:00
If you're ambitious and individualistic (as those who create the most economic value are), there's no alternative to the United States still.

If you're from a wealthy place like Europe or Canada: The United States is still far richer, bigger market, and more risk-encouraging than your homeland. Not everybody will want to move from those places, but I've seen first-hand how many ambitious people will. The ambitious culture and opportunity can't be overstated, and the ability to create a better life in a far more efficient country that rewards your efforts.

If you're from a poor place like Latin America: Almost anywhere in the United States is still better quality-of-life, better pay, etc., plenty of reasons to move.

From my sample size, the only people discouraged by this are political agitators who take up valuable spots at our universities, and contribute ~nothing to our economy anyways. Almost every immigrant I know supports these actions.
by trod1234 | 2025-06-19 16:37:05+00:00
There are many ways to invest, and I'm not a financial advisor so I suggest you read up from people who are, or who are well known in such areas like Benjamin Graham, or David Dodd. The rules I mention are their rules, and this is not financial advice.

There are day traders, swing traders, options traders, and institutional traders; when it comes to the stock market. There are other ways as well.

> You're not supposed to trade the index fund, you just buy and hold it confident in the knowledge that if it goes to zero you have a much bigger problem on your hands.

If you are doing this, you are violating investment rules that date back to the 30s. Rule #1 is don't lose money, Rule #2 is Always Manage your Risk Rule #3 is Always invest with a sufficient margin for safety. Rule #4 is profit in volatility.

Today, Rule #1 can't be controlled, Rule #2 can't be managed, and Rule #3 has no margin for safety because of inherent changes to the structure of the exchange, the middlemen, the backstopped by the fed pricing, and the lack of price discovery all contribute to a sieve-like environment for those with more money than others.

If sufficient transactions happen in the dark (dark pools), there can be no price discovery, and this creates unmanageable volatility in the normal markets, and gives those people who trade in the dark the ability to manipulate and fix the market price indirectly.

Yield farming and stop loss hunting happen all the time. The T2 data subscriptions gives these traders access to know exactly how much they need to short to trigger these stop losses and just steal the difference. That's steal your money. Similar things happen in bonds using a YTM financial reporting loophole so interest rate risk isn't propagated into the market value of an ETF (just the underlying value).

The indexes are also required to rebalance and reinvest in companies who get listed, even when they have no intrinsic value. This is where your pensions and retirement are.

Most companies on the exchanges don't have intrinsic value because they are required to hold a debt burden greater than their assets to avoid hostile takeovers, which occur because banks print money through debt to fund it so long as the cashflow can meet certain circumstances over a 5 year term period.

AT&T and Tesla for example have very high debt to asset ratios, and this is true of most if not all equities. Tesla is a bit more convoluted in how they declare that debt because of EV/carbon credits and other regulatory shenanigans, you have to be able to analyze the securities appropriately.
by eth0up | 2025-06-19 16:38:37+00:00
Damn. We had one, really recently.

It has always amazed me that even with infinite potential realities, that in this one, code enforcement can dictate that a home be a minimum square footage. There's all sorts of other equally bizarre behavior, but large forrests, or trees altogether, in a culture that builds its homes to the very edges of the property line, is probably not worth mentioning.
by anonymars | 2025-06-19 16:38:41+00:00
Has Microsoft ever EOLed an OS that was

1. in higher use than its successors

2. only had one possible successor

3. the successor did not support hardware in use at the time

?

I'm sure it won't stop them, as you say, but really Microsoft, as someone who used to be a (relatively rare at the time) defender of yours, get fucked. The Raymond Chen camp is truly dead (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...)
by bakuninsbart | 2025-06-19 16:39:26+00:00
Weirdly enough, both can be true. I was tangentially involved in EA in the early days, and have some friends who were more involved. Lots of interesting, really cool stuff going on, but there was always latent insecurity paired with overconfidence and elitism as is typical in young nerd circles.

When big money got involved, the tone shifted a lot. One phrase that really stuck with me is "exceptional talent". Everyone in EA was suddenly talking about finding, involving, hiring exceptional talent at a time where there was more than enough money going around to give some to us mediocre people as well.

In the case of EA in particular circlejerks lead to idiotic ideas even when paired with rationalist rhetoric, so they bought mansions for team building (how else are you getting exceptional talent), praised crypto (because they are funding the best and brightest) and started caring a lot about shrimp welfare (no one else does).
by dzink | 2025-06-19 16:39:49+00:00
The market is a battlefield of adversaries. For someone to cash out on a signal profitably, the others have to get less. A signal system is then easily abused by the signal maker who takes a position before hustling a bunch of people to take it. Or it is abused by a hedge fund or market maker who does the same and raises spreads on you when you are trying to make trades, etc.
by herval | 2025-06-19 16:40:54+00:00
There’s plenty of companies using these sorts of agentic systems these days already. In my case, we wrote an LLM that knows how to fetch data from a bunch of sources (logs, analytics, etc) and root causes incidents. Not all sources make sense for all incidents, most queries have crazy high cardinality and the data correlation isn’t always possible. LLMs being pattern matching machines, this allows them to determine what to fetch, then it pattern matches a cause based on other tools it has access (eg runbooks, google searches)

I built incident detection systems in the past, and this was orders of magnitude easier and more generalizable for new kinds of issues. It still gives meaningless/obvious reasoning frequently, but it’s far, far better than the alternatives…
by mkleczek | 2025-06-19 16:41:33+00:00
> Would you say that ML isn't a successful discipline? ML is basically balancing between "formal language" (papers/algorithms) and "non-deterministic outcomes" (weights/inference) yet it seems useful in a wide range of applications

Usefulness of LLMs has yet to be proven. So far there is more marketing in it than actual, real world results. Especially comparing to civil and mechanical engineering, maths, electrical engineering and plethora of disciplines and methods that bring real world results.
by dilyevsky | 2025-06-19 16:42:13+00:00
1. The built-in types are already protos. Imo gRPC wouldn't be a good fit - actually will make the system harder to use. 2. Already can be achieved today via kine[0] 3. Couldn't you build this today via regular CNI? Cilium NetworkPolicies and others basically do this already

4,5 probably don't require 2.0 - can be easily added within existing API via KEP (cri-o already does userns configuration based on annotations)

[0] - https://github.com/k3s-io/kine
by leptons | 2025-06-19 16:42:37+00:00
Nobody wants to run Windows on ARM. The software base just isn't there. Framework could make a fanless ARM-based laptop, but few people want those.

We were stuck with a perfectly good x86 MBP that Apple no longer supports, and we had the choice of buying an M-series Apple or buying the Dell. We went for the far cheaper and more powerful option, with a far larger softtware base. Most people do the same.

Apple stores are a place for fanboys to spend money, the stores are part of the corporate luxury persona. Dell and other PC manufacturers don't need retail stores in the age of the internet. And again, Apple is a luxury brand charging luxury prices, it's no wonder fanboys spend a lot of money at their stores, their identity and self-worth depend on it.
by geoctl | 2025-06-19 16:42:45+00:00
I haven't used CRDs myself for a few years now (probably since 2021), but I still remember developing CRDs was an ugly and hairy experience to say the least, partly due to the flaws of Golang itself (e.g. no traits like in Rust, no macros, no enums, etc...). With protobuf you can easily compile your definitions to any language with clear enum, oneof implementations, you can use the standard protobuf libraries to do deepCopy, merge, etc... for you and you can also add basic validations in the protobuf definitions and so on. gRPC/protobuf will basically allow you to develop k8s controllers very easily in any language.
by blonky | 2025-06-19 16:42:54+00:00
A core memory of mine was listening to the Doc. The show was on late Sunday night so I rarely got to hear the Five Five. One week, it was the Memorial Day weekend. My two closest friends and I were all able to hear the whole show. We met the next day to ride the bus downtown to the big mall. We talked and laughed all day about the songs we heard. Good times :D
by tudorizer | 2025-06-19 16:43:42+00:00
> That's a lot of people to talk to in a day more or less, since the talk happened. Were they all there and you too, or you all had a watch party or something?

hehe, I wish.

The topics in the talk are not new. They have been explored and pondered up for quite a while now.

As for the outcome of the donut experiment, I don't know. You tell me. Apply it repeatedly at a big scale and see if you should alter the initial offer for best outcomes (as relative as "best" might be).
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-06-19 16:43:57+00:00
That most likely is for the case where they made their investment calculations wrong and they won't be able to recoup their hw costs. So I think it's safe to say there may be the outlier 3rd party provider that may lose money in the long run.

But the majority of them are serving at ~ the same price, and that matches to the raw cost + some profit if you actually look into serving those models. And those prices are still cheap.

So yeah, I stand by what I wrote, "most likely" included.

My main answer was "no, ..." because the gp post was only considering the closed providers only (oai, anthropic, goog, etc). But youc an get open-weight models pretty cheap, and they are pretty close to SotA, depending on your needs.
by kiitos | 2025-06-19 16:44:10+00:00
The point of enumerating all of those specific issues, wasn't to say "here are some bugs" and if you fix them you're good. It was to say "here are some examples of the much more fundamental problem", which seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the language memory model and the guarantees offered by assignments, atomic.CompareAndSwap, etc., and those operations' interactions with package unsafe.

For example this code

https://github.com/sirgallo/cmapv2/blob/6bcaa0253b1b0b261e8a...

and in particular its use of this code

https://github.com/sirgallo/cmapv2/blob/6bcaa0253b1b0b261e8a...

is still completely unsound.

Looking at *only this code path* -- and there are *many more* --

---

Put

- Snapshots the current root pointer with atomic.LoadPointer

- Makes an updated root pointer via putRecursive, given the snapshotted root pointer

- Spins on a CAS of the root ptr and the updated ptr with runtime.Gosched() between attempts

---

atomic.LoadPointer isn't a real snapshot

- It's atomic only over the root ptr, not any interior field

- Those interior fields are mutated in-place via e.g. setBitmap, setChild, etc.

- Any goroutine can see partial data, violating the memory model, etc.

---

putRecursive is unsound

- copyNode performs a shallow copy, child pointers are shared, subsequent setChild, extendTable, etc. mutate nodes other goroutines can still hold -- this is a fundamental bug that seems to remain un-addressed from the previous review

- Those mutations use plain writes (no atomics/locks/etc.) -- data race, memory model violation, etc.

- Get later returns the internal []byte slice directly -- data race, memory model violation, etc.

- Newly created nodes are cast to unsafe.Pointer without an atomic store, bypassing the write barrier required by the GC

---

That compareAndSwap is unsound

- It compares only the root pointer, a shallow copy

- After a successful CAS other writers can still mutate any shared children (see above), so readers following any shared path see data races, memory model violations, etc.

- The retry loop can livelock, details elided

---

The implementation still seems to confuse "atomic pointer swap" with "atomic update of a complex, shared value", misunderstands the requirements of the Go memory model, and consistently mis-uses unsafe.Pointer.

tl;dr here is probably to just stop using package unsafe altogether, until you have some time to properly understand its semantics, requirements, and limitations...
by hokumguru | 2025-06-19 16:44:21+00:00
Eric Demaine is one of the better intersections of origami and mathematics, you should also read up on Dr Robert Lang, the OG and perhaps the most famous American JPL-physicist-turned-origamist: https://langorigami.com/

On the flip side the late Eric Joisel created perhaps the most amazing curved-crease and natural folding that we’ll ever see, his works were truly amazing art: https://ericjoisel.fr/en/home/
by _flux | 2025-06-19 16:44:49+00:00
I suppose it does work for interpreted languages (you just need to define what is success and what is failure), but for AFL the evaluation might be too far away from the actual branching that it would be less effective, possibly critically so. Additionall in fuzzing the bottleneck is running the programs, millions of times (though maybe not billions). So the slower your function is, the slower the fuzzing will be.

I think though the same approach could be used with interpreters, and I expect it would be easier to do there. E.g. for Python there is this, but I haven't tried it: https://github.com/jwilk/python-afl
by wat10000 | 2025-06-19 16:44:53+00:00
Wubi runs on Windows and installs Ubuntu into a file: https://github.com/hakuna-m/wubiuefi

This sort of thing used to be more common. My first exposure to Linux was before CD-Rs were ubiquitous so there was often no possibility of using external media if you downloaded Linux. Partitioning the drive and installing there was typical.
by Frummy | 2025-06-19 16:45:18+00:00
No it's only half backwards because of the infrastructure there is scalability in amount of work you're right in the phrasing however but the intention/idea matters more. So the horse and carriage is a generalization of the core value of the horse and increases the core value and generalization -> general, horse more specialised or at least reduced to niches today like competitions and hobbies
by duxup | 2025-06-19 16:45:21+00:00
It used to be that I wasn't surprised when my password app would tell me an account is compromised.

Now I'm surprised, often. Accounts with good generated passwords I get warnings about.

Not that that vendor or site ever tells me they were hacked, but it's one of those cases where I can't imagine how else it ended up on a list somewhere ...
by leeter | 2025-06-19 16:45:21+00:00
Correct, there is a difference between MS-DOS and IBM-PC compatible and a DOS (ex: all the DOSes that existed for Amiga/Apple II/Commodore etc). There are many DOSes (and even MSDOSes, because yay early PC era incompatibilities!), but there is a very dubious list of things needed to be MS-DOS and IBM-PC compatible. You can probably do it if you're willing to setup a hypervisor and emulate some hardware.

NGL one of my long term projects was/is something exactly like this but UEFI and secure boot. The idea being to use the VM extensions to create IBM-PC and DOS compatible environments. For anything using DPMI[1] I'd probably do the same trick as Win95 did and just replace it with my own implementation so it's not too overburdened with layers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_Protected_Mode_Interface
by casey2 | 2025-06-19 16:45:26+00:00
You are clearly dismissing his experience without much though. If a park ranger stopped you in the woods and said there was a mountain lion up ahead would you argue that he doesn't have enough information to be sure from such a quick glance?

Someone spending a lot of time to build one or multiple skills doesn't make them an expert on everything, but when they start talking like they are an expert on everything because of the perceived difficulties of one or more skills then red flags start to pop up and most reasonable people will notice them and swiftly call them out.

For example Elon Musk saying "At this point I think I know more about manufacturing than anyone currently alive on earth" even if you rationalize that as an out of context deadpan joke it's still completely correct to call that out as nonsense at the very least.

The more a person rationalizes statements like ("AI WILL KILL US ALL") these made by a person or cult the more likely it is that they are a cult member and they lack independent critical thinking, as they outsourced their thinking to group. Maybe their thinking is "the best thoughts", in-fact it probably is, but it's dependent on the group so their individual thinking muscle is weaken, which increases their morbidity (Airstricking a data center will get you killed or arrested by the US Gov. So it's better for the individual to question such statements rather than try to rationalize them using unprovable nonsense like god or AGI).
by 1-more | 2025-06-19 16:45:47+00:00
In the example you gave you have an incomplete implementation of len. We had either a language extension or a compiler flag to disallow incomplete implementations in Haskell (pretty sure it's the flag -Werror), and Elm has no way of allowing them in the first place. I should have specified that that was the case, because "Haskell" is a rather broad term since you can turn on/off language extensions on a per file basis as well as at the project level.

To head off (hah) discussion of taking the head of [], we used a prelude where head returned a Maybe. As far as I know, there were no incomplete functions in the prelude. https://hackage.haskell.org/package/nri-prelude