MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: A tool to benchmark LLM APIs (OpenAI, Claude, local/self-hosted)
by mrqjr | 2025-06-29 15:33:57+00:00
I recently built a small open-source tool to benchmark different LLM API endpoints — including OpenAI, Claude, and self-hosted models (like llama.cpp).

It runs a configurable number of test requests and reports two key metrics: • First-token latency (ms): How long it takes for the first token to appear • Output speed (tokens/sec): Overall output fluency

Demo: https://llmapitest.com/ Code: https://github.com/qjr87/llm-api-test

The goal is to provide a simple, visual, and reproducible way to evaluate performance across different LLM providers, including the growing number of third-party “proxy” or “cheap LLM API” services.

It supports: • OpenAI-compatible APIs (official + proxies) • Claude (via Anthropic) • Local endpoints (custom/self-hosted)

You can also self-host it with docker-compose. Config is clean, adding a new provider only requires a simple plugin-style addition.

Would love feedback, PRs, or even test reports from APIs you’re using. Especially interested in how some lesser-known services compare.
by sltkr | 2025-06-29 15:34:26+00:00
That just enumerates the entire sequence; I think the challenge is to do it faster than that.

By the way, the use of `filter` makes your implementation unnecessarily slow. (The posted link also contains Haskell code, which uses `delete` from Data.List instead of `filter`, which is only slightly better.)

I'd solve it like this, which generates both sequences in O(n) time, and the mutual recursion is cute:

a005228 = 1 : zipWith (+) a005228 a030124 a030124 = go 1 a005228 where go x ys | x < head ys = x : go (x + 1) ys | otherwise = x + 1 : go (x + 2) (tail ys)
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-06-29 15:34:50+00:00
>Why Bing?

I first saught out Bing Maps because the aerial views can be set askew from cardinal directions, which allows you to (sometimes) discover objects beneath tree-cover (hidden in top-down views).

I've continued using Bing for digital explorations because the physical printouts have more contrast (i.e. are easier to read; however, alltrails has the best printouts).

Bing seems to list more businesses than other platforms, and presents the information with less clutter.

But ultimately, I use Bing because I can use it while still blocking all other tracking products of its parent company (which is very difficult to do with e.g. Google products — which I just ban entirely).
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-06-29 15:35:06+00:00
> I do, in fact, have all three.

I don't believe you. If you had, you would have led with it, just like I did. I value people that have skin in the game. Jenny McCarthy is a big fat pain in the ass, but she really does have an autistic kid, is a good mother, and has formed her worldview around that.

> So please, stop with the reefer madness.

WTF? I've never believed that crap in my life. Interesting that it's important to you, that I support that twisted worldview. You've mentioned it a couple of times, so it seems to be something that you're fixated on.

I do, however, have considerable experience with the fallout from drug use. I have spent my entire adult life, helping folks out, who have had their lives shattered by it. There are a small percentage of the population that can't handle drugs, and need help to recover from it. I do my best to help them out, and don't insist that the vast majority of the population change their worldview to fit mine.

Personally, I think that pot should be legal everywhere, including at the federal level (which will basically kill all the "mom and pop" operations out there, so be careful what you pray for). I don't use it, and don't care, myself. That doesn't make me an enemy.

I'd gently suggest that a professional forum, read by many of the most influential people in tech, might not be the best place to be a crusader for drug use.
by Veen | 2025-06-29 15:35:33+00:00
It’s not a dichotomy, but an observation about how data privacy tends to work in the real world. You can easily refute it with practical examples of how openness has actually improved privacy for the average user relative to Apple’s closed, managed privacy programs. Would an average non-technical Apple user be exposed to higher or lower security and privacy risk if they moved from Apple platforms to open platforms?
by throaway955 | 2025-06-29 15:36:20+00:00
Yes, I am an accent coach and many immigrants do not accept this fact. They resist and resist out of stubbornness or laziness. I try to explain to them that people will react better if they can speak the native language like the natives to but to no avail. It's not even a matter of "correctness." It's great that you speak Kenyan/Punjabi/Ukrainian English! But we don't speak that here!
by steveBK123 | 2025-06-29 15:36:30+00:00
You're 100% right, Apple as a fast-follower "getting it right" tech company, and there's nothing to fast follow right now.

IoT/smarthome has been a niche/fad going nowhere since day 1.

Smart speakers are commodities.

They dabbled in an EV project, canned it.

They've dabbled in AR with the VisionPro but really it's too early, if it will ever work.

AI is software not hardware.

Apple smartphones/tablets/watches have essentially killed 10x more hardware categories than have come into existence since.

They sell a lot of headphones I guess.

The only consumer electronics I buy now outside Apple are basically higher end niche hobbyist stuff in for example music or photography. Nothing that would ever sell at the price levels ($200-1000) or volumes (billions) to move the needle for Apple.
by drivingmenuts | 2025-06-29 15:36:37+00:00
This isn't about animals, that's an entirely different problem. We are attempting to create a thing that can meaningfully communicate with us, in our language. We're not trying to create animals, or the equivalent - we are attempting to make a human analogue.

Perhaps (hopefully) after I'm long gone, society might address the issue of food animals, but we need to address the concept of AIs now to set guidelines for future development, training and usage. We aren't building dogs here, we're trying to make something between a dog and a human (without being a hybrid man-dog). We should set standards for what they can be trained as and how those trained models are used for, and especially, who is responsible for failure at each step.
by enzett | 2025-06-29 15:38:03+00:00
I find it rich that this article seems to glorify the proliferation of the Internet itself, completely ignoring that social media has been driving mass addiction since the late '00s and that the rich have been growing exponentially richer long before LLMs and the like made their splash. Maybe this is because WIRED's business model requires the existing 21st century media landscape to function.

I'm not exactly an "AI optimist", but this is not constructive journalism by any means. There are countless unaddressed, explicitly tech-related issues that would only further metastasise if we arbitrarily reverted and then halted progress to 2021.
by Fade_Dance | 2025-06-29 15:39:10+00:00
I agree about project titan/cars. That was a behemoth of a failed experiment experiment.

As for vision pro though and I guess even to a little extent the car exploration, it's sort of "safe" and derivative conceptually.

Steve's experiments were often seemingly directly at odds with profitability. Like, one day he may have looked at the extensive lineup with the "Pro Max" etc, and made the call to cut back down to one iPhone model. Or he would, you know, do something ridiculous like make the next Imac's screen round or something.

It's decisions like that which primarily profit driven mega corporations just can't do.
by old_man_cato | 2025-06-29 15:39:11+00:00
What approach is that?

Some people like AI. They should use it, talk about why they like it and use products that leverage it.

Other people don't like it. They should avoid using it, talk about why they don't like it and not use products that leverage it.

Each side's enthusiasm for their perspective can be shared for the purposes of convincing others that theirs is the correct perspective.

That all sounds pretty fine to me?
by xyst | 2025-06-29 15:40:03+00:00
I run my own tailnet (headscale as the coordinator server). Tailscale stack is essentially built on top of wireguard.

I have an exit node setup with dual stack IPv4/IPv6 addresses. So in theory if my ISPs CG-NAT failed or IPv4 was inaccessible, then configuring my device to use my exit node to reroute traffic _should_ work without having to mess with WG internals like the author in this article.

I suppose there are some caveats here since I have discovered many services do tend to flag IPs originating from VPS ASNs as "spammy" (ie, pretty much any service front loaded by CloudFlare). Maybe Hetzner is better in this aspect?
by blamestross | 2025-06-29 15:40:12+00:00
The cultural fixation on "Consciousness" has become deeply frustrating to me.

We are naturally "animistic" and personifying. The twist in structure allowing mirror neurons being able to re-use the hardware for thinking to model the behavior of external things is useful and has been critical to our success. Unlearning the behavior of of that animism is HARD. Maintaining awareness that the forces of nature, animals, or even objects don't have feelings, motivations, and narratives of their own is hard work but also becomes a more accurate and useful model of reality.

I think that dissonance between hardware that wants to interpret the world as a reflection of self, and the forced acknowledgement that it is not is uncomfortable. And we keep filling that discomfort with whatever rhetoric we can force to fit, and once that schema is in place, it takes a great act of discomfort and bravery to remove or replace it. The arguments and debates about it don't change minds, they just exacerbate the dissonance, making people even more motivated to shout loudly their model of the situation is right.

I desperately want the answers too. I don't know any of the answers. I don't think our culture (or even our neuroanatomy) is ready for the answers. In the meantime people yell at each other a lot without wanting to listen.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-29 15:40:31+00:00
A small percentage of people, like myself, have clearly autosomal genetic conditions that means being 'normal' is just not on the cards. I have to take psychopharmacological drugs just to get close to normal.

Not everyone is the same, there is a lot of variety, what you say could indeed be true for most people but can also not be true for a small minority of people.
by davedx | 2025-06-29 15:40:39+00:00
I actually think major components supporting consciousness are already present in LLMs, and some of the 'requirements' like "perceiving time fluidly" are anthropomorphism: perception of time is streams of discrete signals; an LLM also processes streams of discrete signals -- just not as high resolution or analog as the ones our brains process.

There are certainly big missing pieces too though -- like the article talks about, physical grounding; to me, this should probably also include emotion and other neuro-chemical mechanisms. But I think we have a moral duty to look very critically at whatever "criteria" (doubtless these will keep changing as machine intelligence advances) society and the AI Labs end up developing to "define machine consciousness". Personally I think we're headed in a very direct, straight line back to widespread institutionalised slavery.
by technothrasher | 2025-06-29 15:40:59+00:00
When I was a kid and used to hay the fields on our farm in the summers, I would get stung quite a bit from the ground wasps being kicked up by the hay bailing machines. I got so used to it that it would literally be like a mosquito bite. Annoying for less than 30 seconds. That was years ago, and my tolerance for stings isn't that high any longer. But even today a sting will be bothersome for maybe ten minutes, and within an hour the reaction will be gone completely.
by Jderenne | 2025-06-29 15:41:01+00:00
We added a strategic agents for GTM strategies and use it for ourself as well. The results from it and from the community feedback is great with more clarity on our message and an improvement of sign-ups.

By the usage of multiple AI models and a fine tuned architecture (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7342834...) , some strategic agents leverage the hallucination as a great features (ideation for exemple) while hallucinations are very limited and controlled for other agents (references provided, specific setup, cross checking, usage of other technologies than LLM etc..)
by ath3nd | 2025-06-29 15:41:03+00:00
> Exactly. It’s fair to criticize Israel for civilian casualties just like all of those countries have been criticized for failing to live up to their stated standards.

Russia doesn't target civilian population to the extent Israel does. There is a reason only Israel is charged with genocide, and not Russia. Don't get me wrong, both the countries' governments are run by bunch of homicidal dictators, but only Isreal systematically does enough war crimes and human rights violations to fit the criteria of genocide.
by josephcsible | 2025-06-29 15:42:33+00:00
> (2) ZFC is consistent with two different statements, "BB(x) = a" and "BB(x) = b" for two different a, b. This means that a disproof of either statement cannot exist.

> This, in turn, means that there is no observation you could ever make that would distinguish between the values a and b (for the identity of BB(x)). No matter what you believe the value of BB(x) might secretly be, there are no consequences; nothing anywhere could ever change if the value turned out to be different. Because, if there were an observable consequence of the value being different, the hypothetical observation of that consequence would be a disproof of the value that didn't cause it, and no such disproof can exist.

There's one part of this I don't understand. "BB(x) = n" means "there is at least one x-state Turing machine that halts after exactly n steps, and there are no x-state Turing machines that halt after more than n steps", right? Then why wouldn't this approach work (other than the numbers being way too big to actually do in this universe)? WLOG, assume a < b. Run all possible x-state Turing machines for b steps. If any halted on step b, then you've disproved "BB(x) = a". If not, then you've disproved "BB(x) = b".
by geoctl | 2025-06-29 15:42:43+00:00
Yes, it can operate as a self-hosted ngrok, pinggy, Cloudflare Tunnel with Github/OpenID Connect/SAML SSO and it can also provide anonymous public access, which can be useful for public website/API hosting, among many other use cases. You can see the examples https://octelium.com/docs/octelium/latest/management/guide/s... and https://octelium.com/docs/octelium/latest/management/guide/s...
by cholantesh | 2025-06-29 15:43:06+00:00
Did you read about how the IDF arms settlers and escorts them into the West Bank, where they harass residents? How about how they arbitrarily arrest and detain Palestinians and torture them without cause? Does this qualify as terrorism or is the US designation all that matters to you? If so, I wonder if you regard the US' documented sponsorship of AQ affiliates as an indication that their heuristic may be flawed. Cute deflection, though.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-06-29 15:43:11+00:00
>You are not just seeing consciousness in me; your brain is generating the feeling of another’s consciousness as the best explanation for the patterns you’re interacting with.

It's ironic to see the most mundane and likely best answer to the problem from the model itself, while the author is getting increasingly lost in philosophical conundrums. Consciousness has no scientific definition. The only way something, anything can be conscious, is if a human that we also consider "conscious" calls it that. You could argue that's what the Turing test evaluates, but some of the most recent models have actually passed this test [1]. So where do we go from here if we're not convinced yet? The answer is: nowhere. Humans used to deny that animals could have consciousness because they don't have souls or aren't chosen by god according to some sacred books or something along those lines. They even used to deny that other humans have consciousness to promote slavery and slaughtering. Today many would still deny consciousness in computers even when faced with overwhelming evidence, because they might fear for their jobs and thereby their wealth and social standing. Artificial intelligence is a direct threat to the foundations of personality in a capitalist society. Because what are you still worth if you lose in every metric to a computer? Consciousness is kind of a last straw that many people will cling to for the foreseeable future when all else is gone. But that also means these discussions are utterly meaningless and only serve to promote certain world views. It's best not to twist your head about it and just accept that humans are not the pinnacle (or the end) of intelligent thought in the universe. That is the only reality I'm willing to bet on.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
by superkuh | 2025-06-29 15:44:01+00:00
The dubs are not replacing the actual audio track. Both tracks are available if you want the original because you understand that language. You can just pick using the options menu (the gear).

The problem is that people are picking and then youtube is ignoring that on future videos and reloads instead of storing the preference.

The problem is not the availability of the auto-dubs as an option, which are undeniably great and helpful when you don't understand the language. I agree re: entertainment movies, dubs are bad. But sometimes in video media, often in fact, the speech is not about the person emoting but instead about what they are saying (ie, documentaries, reviews, etc).
by drivingmenuts | 2025-06-29 15:44:04+00:00
We haven't completely lost the ability to make things that make things and yes, there are machine shops in factories across the US. But how many of those machine shops have the equipment and expertise to completely produce the machines necessary to make a, for example, car, from carburetor to computer chips, without going outside the US. An increasingly large number of foundational products are being made in other countries and shipped here for assembly (and even that is being outsourced now).

Note: I should mention that I'm actually mostly OK with this - I don't have a huge issue with globalism. What I do have an issue with is people who claim this is a horrible, horrible situation while these same people are the ones who put us in this condition and continue to profit from it, without attempting to actually fix it, and expecting someone else to step up and fix it.
by photochemsyn | 2025-06-29 15:44:26+00:00
> "Seeking approval is in our genes."

Sure, but so is seeking food. Not controlling one's desire to seek food leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Not moderating one's desire for applause leads to similar issues, more mental neurosis than physical disabilities, but equally harmful in the long run.

> "Looking at successful athletes, founders, musicians, game speedrunners, or overachievers in any area, they seem to have unlimited motivation to do loads of tedious work or practice."

That's also part of many people's marketing and promotion strategies: "I grind all the time". In the real world, random chance, parental resources, or other 'non-self-made-person' factors often play significant roles in apparent success stories. Since people are seeking approval, and the overall society celebrates the 'up-by-your-bootstraps' narrative, people will sell this narrative because they want that approval - addiction to the applause button.

I've seem that desperation for approval that seems rather common in the social influencer world before - in the eyes of a junkie hunting their next fix.

This isn't to say some level of community isn't important and useful - taking a course in a technical subject where you show up at an appointed time with other people and then present your project at the end of the course, that's all good and motivating - but if the only goal is to get more applause, that's mental illness.
by drdaeman | 2025-06-29 15:44:40+00:00
On iOS?

Last time I've checked, kdeconnect-ios was unable to read any third-party notifications, not to mention doing anything to them or modifying their text or appearance in any way.

Project readme still says "Notification syncing doesn't work because iOS applications can't access notifications of other apps" (https://github.com/KDE/kdeconnect-ios?tab=readme-ov-file#kno...) so I think it's still a thing.
by quickthrowman | 2025-06-29 15:45:03+00:00
Engineered wood products have been around for a long time.

You can’t use this for reinforced concrete, bar joists (for precast tip-ups) are cheaper than engineered wood and they’re much more useful since you can mount things on them with beam clamps (drilling into engineered wood is a no-no), and i-beams are usually touching concrete and wood needs to be treated if it will be in contact with concrete. Regardless, there’s far more rebar by weight in a building than there are i-beams.

So my question is, what is the use for this product other than luxury residential applications (which is a tiny insignificant market compared to commercial/industrial)
by mingus88 | 2025-06-29 15:46:14+00:00
Dogs have all kinds of behaviors.

Not all dogs can be trained to stay next to you. At least, not by all owners

I have a husky mix whose prey drive means he will charge at other dogs, kids, usually playful but not always. Positive reinforcement is meaningless because he cares more about the chase than any treat.

Also dog owners don’t seem to understand that the sweet loving animal they have at home can be very aggressive towards anyone not part of their pack

I have had off-leash dogs start scrapping with mine on walks and I GO OFF on those owners. 100% of the time they never apologize and tell me how gentle their dog is

Well lady, your dogs charged mine, barking and growling. And and I don’t like breaking up dog fights.

Point is dogs and owners come in all kinds. Lots of bad ones out there.
by overu589 | 2025-06-29 15:46:33+00:00
I started hearing the voices well after 30. First it began with gang stalking, and by coincidence I am from the “home town” of Americas thought control elite. I was “recruited” (press ganged) and it is only a determination not to accept a word these say that keeps me unconcerned with the collapse of the lie that is modernity in my life.
by wltr | 2025-06-29 15:46:38+00:00
So much this! About 20 years ago, when I only started dealing with JS, I couldn’t grasp that pathetic name. Why even have Java in there?

Personally, I so much hate these so much weird nerdy stupid names. Gimp, anyone? These recursive acronyms like GNU, does somebody actually think that’s funny?

Count me in, I like web script.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-29 15:48:17+00:00
News outlets tell Israeli officers where their journalists intend to be, and they wear jackets that identify them as members of the press. Preventing the journalists from dying is really a matter of communicating to each other, and using visual identification before engaging in direct fire. Both the officers and enlisted have the opportunity to cancel an illegitimate fire mission. Something doctrinal is responsible for this behavior.

Given the unconscionable number of journalists who died at the IDF's hands, it seems like Israel is indeed using the transparency info from journalists to locate and target them with airstrikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...