MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by af78 | 2025-06-16 10:01:57+00:00
Indeed. Most of the matches for "retard" have the meaning of "delay":

$ git grep -i retard v6.15 v6.15:drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_dynamic_config.c:/* The switch is so retarded that it makes our command/entry abstraction v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_a.h:#define B43_OFDMTAB_ADVRETARD B43_OFDMTAB(0x09, 0) v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_lp.h:#define B43_LPPHY_ADVANCEDRETARDROTOR_ADDR B43_PHY_OFDM(0x8B) /* AdvancedRetardRotor Address */ v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.h:#define B43_NPHY_PHYSTAT_ADVRET B43_PHY_N(0x1F3) /* PHY stats ADV retard */ v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/tables.c:const u32 b43_tab_retard[] = { v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/tables.c: BUILD_BUG_ON(B43_TAB_RETARD_SIZE != ARRAY_SIZE(b43_tab_retard)); v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/tables.h:#define B43_TAB_RETARD_SIZE 53 v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/tables.h:extern const u32 b43_tab_retard[]; v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/wa.c:static void b43_wa_art(struct b43_wldev *dev) /* ADV retard table */ v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/wa.c: for (i = 0; i < B43_TAB_RETARD_SIZE; i++) v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/wa.c: b43_ofdmtab_write32(dev, B43_OFDMTAB_ADVRETARD, v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/wa.c: i, b43_tab_retard[i]); v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/ilt.c:const u32 b43legacy_ilt_retard[B43legacy_ILT_RETARD_SIZE] = { v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/ilt.h:#define B43legacy_ILT_RETARD_SIZE 53 v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/ilt.h:extern const u32 b43legacy_ilt_retard[B43legacy_ILT_RETARD_SIZE]; v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/phy.c: for (i = 0; i < B43legacy_ILT_RETARD_SIZE; i++) v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/phy.c: b43legacy_ilt_retard[i]); v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/phy.h:#define B43legacy_OFDMTAB_ADVRETARD B43legacy_OFDMTAB(0x09, 0) v6.15:drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/d11.h:/* Advance Retard */ v6.15:fs/bcachefs/bkey_cmp.h: /* we shouldn't need asm for this, but gcc is being retarded: */
by salviati | 2025-06-16 10:03:03+00:00
If you ask me to solve increasingly dififcult Tower of Hanoi problems, I don't expect to be good at it. Neither would I expect a fellow human to be. So based on this should we question our intelligence?

I heard about that paper through an "AI explained" video [0], so I might be biased, but I agree with that video that the Apple paper is "meh" at best: it points out LLM limitations that are hardly a surprise.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPBD6wTap7g
by archon1410 | 2025-06-16 10:04:56+00:00
The blog itself reads as if it was written by an LLM. (e.g. "This isn't about X, it's about Y." "... is timely ..." "X isn't Y".)

Weird.

And it has been discussed to death already:

Beware General Claims about “Generalizable Reasoning Capabilities” (of Modern AI Systems) [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5uw26uDdFbFQgKzih/beware-gen...]

Seven replies to the viral Apple reasoning paper and why they fall short [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44278403]
by ForHackernews | 2025-06-16 10:05:04+00:00
Curious about the use of the word "uncomfortable" -- for people working on AI who thought that LLM or L"R"Ms were a path to AGI?

To me, that paper was reassuring that I wasn't taking crazy pills. I've worked with these tools to produce code, and they routinely make mistakes that no thinking entity (yes, I've worked with some dimwitted junior devs) ever would. Yes, they are powerful and useful tools, but they're not "thinking" in any meaningful sense (defined here as a rigorously determining an algorithm and applying it correctly).
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-06-16 10:05:45+00:00
Just this morning, I saw a local news site (Bristol, UK) publish this article: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-cent...

I didn't realise that it was common for Brits to be refusing the MMR vaccine these days. Seems kind of stupid to me.

I also didn't realise how measles compromises the immune system - immune amnesia which was only discovered in 2012.
by antirez | 2025-06-16 10:06:47+00:00
The chain of thoughts is not where the reasoning capabilities of a model happens: models have reasoning capabilities that are part of the next token inference, what CoT does is searching/sampling the model space of representations and notions in order to "ground" the final reply, putting in the context window in an explicit way all the related knowledge and ideas the model possess about the question.

It is absolutely obvious that algorithmic problems like the Tower of Hanoi can't benefit from sampling. Also, algorithmic problems are domains that are comfortable for the paper authors to have a verifiable domain of puzzles, but are very far from what we want the models to do, and what they are good at. Models would solve this by implementing an algorithm in Python and calling a tool to execute it. This is how they can more easily solve such problems.

Moreover: in most benchmarks CoT improves LLMs performances a lot, because sampling helps immensely to provide a better reply. So this paper negative result is basically against a very vast experience of CoT being a powerful tool for LLMs, simply because most benchmarks operate on domains where sampling is very useful.

In short, the Apple paper mostly says things that were very obvious: it is like if they were trying to reach a negative result. It was a widespread vision that CoT can't help performing algorithmic work by concatenating tokens, if not in the most obvious ways. Yet, it helps a lot when there is to combine existing (inside the model) knowedge/ideas to provide a better reply.
by lesostep | 2025-06-16 10:07:48+00:00
unrelated but we got new checkout machines that used computer vision to guess what fruits are on the scale. It gives 5 guesses on top of the screen, and usual UI on the bottom, allowing shortcut so fast when it guesses correctly, that it feels like a future.

All my friends are convinced that "computer vision" on this thing is just color-based. I kinda think they are right, and we could have had that for decades
by jsnell | 2025-06-16 10:07:52+00:00
This paper, rebuttals, and rebuttals to rebuttals have been on HN repeatedly over the last couple of weeks (including literally now). At this point a summary of the original paper doesn't seem like it's adding much.

E.g.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44203562

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44221900

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44234626

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44278403

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286086
by gchamonlive | 2025-06-16 10:09:12+00:00
I remember bank run being one of the reasons why SVB failed, and also during the COVID pandemic people rushing to buy toilet paper has a terrible effect on the market.

However I don't think these cases are anywhere close to the level of widespread disruption that the list of dangers can bring.

Do you happen to know instances where mass hysteria had a similar effect on disrupting global supply chains or communication services than war, geopolitics etc?
by SomeUserName432 | 2025-06-16 10:09:15+00:00
I mostly use Uber and find the pricing from my perspective to be random and opaque. The price for a trip may be 3x compared to yesterday, but as long as I don't own car, I'm going to be requesting a ride either way.

Consistently high prices might lead me to get my own car again, I don't know. To me, the main selling point of app A or B isn't minor price differences, it's "will the car actually get here?"

Frequent cancellations, uber drivers accepting the trip, driving around for eons then cancelling.

This is definitely an experience I'd be willing to pay extra to avoid.
by pwagland | 2025-06-16 10:09:20+00:00
This is a valid point missed by many today. The mantra of don't optimise early is often used as an excuse to not optimise at all, and so you end up with a lot of minor choices scattered throughout the code with all suck a tiny bit of performance out of the system. Fixing any of these is also considered to be worthless, as the improvement from any one change is miniscule. But added up, they become noticeable.
by noirscape | 2025-06-16 10:09:35+00:00
The reality is that COVID caused lockdowns never had anything to do with the lethality rate. It had everything to do with hospital pressure - there's a limited number of ICU beds and COVID was the annoying combination of spreading easiliy and if it went bad, you'd occupy a bed in the ICU since you needed very active monitoring. If ICU capacity is exceeded, you get into the really ugly business of having to triage who can get necessary first aid. Governments and hospitals both would really do anything else than have to decide whether or not you leave the weak and elderly to die of diseases because you lack the space to handle them. (Not to mention the personnel shortage; a lot of other medical procedures got delayed because of ICU pressure. Even if they did have enough beds, that wouldn't necessarily translate to enough people to care for patients, and you'd end up having to triage non-COVID procedures too.)

That is what caused the lockdowns. It's also why after the first two vaccine waves, the pressure on hospitals was heavily relieved, leading to most countries lifting their lockdowns. Even just being vaccinated once gives you enough immunity against COVID to usually not need a hospital visit. The disadvantages of a lockdown even on just a healthcare level outweigh the benefits when you don't have a dangerous superspreader on your hands.

Mental problems were up massively during the lockdown period since humans are social creatures; physically there also were major spikes in seasonal diseases for the next year since they never stopped evolving, while we stopped getting them, meaning our bodies didn't have the time to adapt to them... So we got all the seasonal diseases thrown at us at once.
by acheong08 | 2025-06-16 10:10:22+00:00
What I meant was that there is no diff between new license and old license. I thought it was a force push but it seems it was a rewrite instead.

> I'm sorry you feel that way

While I was slightly surprised, I have no complaints at all. From what I can tell, the new version is entirely your's. You are entitled to change your license. I am mildly concerned about whether there'll be paid features or ads in the future but I won't complain about what doesn't yet exist.
by unsignedint | 2025-06-16 10:11:34+00:00
I get what you're saying, but I think there's a misunderstanding. I would opt for something like Waymo, not because I'm trying to avoid people or conflict, but because I prefer a system where the pricing is clear and all-inclusive.

It's not that I don't want people to be paid. I just believe compensation should be built into the cost upfront, not tacked on afterward through a tipping system that creates unnecessary pressure, especially when ratings are involved.

This isn't about replacing people. It's about preferring a model that's transparent, predictable, and fair without making customers responsible for patching up systemic pay issues.

Everyone has their preferences—this is mine, and I'm comfortable with it.
by delusional | 2025-06-16 10:12:15+00:00
You can also be mediocre in a lot of different ways. Some people are mediocre thinkers, but fantastic hype men. Some people are fantastic at thinking, but suck at playing the political games you have to play in an office. Personally I find that I need some of all of those aspects to have success in a project, the amount varies by the work and external collaborators.

Intelligence isn't just one measure you can have less or more of. I thought we figured this out 20 years ago.
by messe | 2025-06-16 10:12:46+00:00
I thought so too, but apparently on starlink roam you can pause service (by the sounds of it, indefinitely), only restarting when you need it:

> You have the ability to pause and unpause service at any time, with billing occurring monthly.

Source: https://www.starlink.com/support/article/dd5b43b5-20e1-b29b-...
by ccozan | 2025-06-16 10:13:03+00:00
Let me try to answer. Let's say the particles are experiencing gravity as a natural entropy phenomena. They will attract until they become so close that they are now seen as a single particle. The new system has a lower entropy and a higher gravity than before.

Explanation seems very rudimentary but that is the gist of the theory.

From my point of view, I might add the layer of information density. Every quantum fluctuation is an event and the more particles the more information is produced in a defined space volume. But there is no theory of information that is linked to the physics so ...that let me leave as that :).
by PSBigBig | 2025-06-16 10:13:12+00:00
Coolest I've seen? Honestly, I'd put one I worked on myself into the mix — it's called WFGY.

It’s a prompt + PDF system that helps large language models repair reasoning in real-time. We’ve seen improvements like: • Semantic Accuracy ↑ 22.4% • Reasoning Success ↑ 42.1% • Stability ↑ 3.6×

No installs. Just feed the AI a file and use a new style of prompt. GitHub: https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY
by hermitcrab | 2025-06-16 10:14:55+00:00
"Bottom trawling in seas globally emits as much carbon as aviation, and in Europe costs society up to €11 billion annually while governments subsidize it with €1·3 billion."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

"A wealth of studies also show that bottom trawling generates significant amounts of CO2 emissions and is fuelled by government subsidies."

https://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/2025/05/07/thebottomlin...
by Arainach | 2025-06-16 10:15:24+00:00
Hopefully in a few decades the last of the people who think that using respectful discourse means no fun can be had will be gone and we can stop rehashing these threads.

You're contributing to something that runs on billions of devices across the world and is maintained by people around the world of all types. If you can't describe your code, your reasons, and your notes politely, do better.
by practice9 | 2025-06-16 10:16:10+00:00
The human is a bad co-author here really.

I deployed lots of high performance, clean, well documented etc code generated by Claude or o3. I reviewed it wrt requirements, added tests and so on. Even with that in mind it allowed me to work 3x faster.

But it required conscious effort on my part to point out issues and inefficiencies on LLMs part.

It is a collaborative type of work where LLMs shine (even in so called agentic flows)
by crowie | 2025-06-16 10:17:28+00:00
This might be a dumb question, and will inevitably showcase my ignorance in this field to others, but I will risk that; Why can't AI at a certain level execute algorithms with solutions that have been proved to work for a very long time? What I mean is, the solution of the Hanoi towers problem is known. It does not take a lot of computational power to achieve the result. What is stopping an AI such as the objects of exam in the paper to execute such algorithms and gather the solutions, like a human programmer would? Do they get sidetracked in the process due to the amount of tokens? (edit: typo)
by VivienMahe | 2025-06-16 10:18:07+00:00
Hey HN,

I'm an indie developer and have been building mobile apps for a while.

After repeating the same setup across projects (auth, CI/CD, payments, notifications), I decided to build a boilerplate to save time and focus on actual features.

Today I'm launching KMPShip, a Kotlin/Compose Multiplatform boilerplate to build Android and iOS apps from a single shared codebase.

It includes: - Shared codebase for UI, domain and data layers. - Firebase Auth, Google/Apple sign-in, In-App purchases & subscriptions, local & push notifications, CI/CD setup. - Documentation and a small community space for support.

Would love your feedback!

It's a paid product, so the source isn’t public. But I’m happy to answer technical questions or share how it’s built.

Thanks!

https://kmpship.app/
by parodysbird | 2025-06-16 10:18:45+00:00
The original Turing Test was one of the more interesting standards... An expert judge talks with two subjects in order to determine which is the human: one is a human who knows the point of the test, and one is machine trying to fool the judge into being no better than a coin flip at correctly choosing who was human. Allow for many judges and experience in each etc.

The brilliance of the test, which was strangely lost on Turing, is that the test is doubtful to be passed with any enduring consistency. Intelligence is actually more of a social description. Solving puzzles, playing tricky games, etc is only intelligent if we agree that the actor involved faces normal human constraints or more. We don't actually think machines fulfill that (they obviously do not, that's why we build them: to overcome our own constraints), and so this is why calculating logarithms or playing chess ultimately do not end up counting as actual intelligence when a machine does them.
by aoetalks | 2025-06-16 10:20:12+00:00
I was about to agree with you, and then I read the article on DTLS.

> And that data-stream the interface that TLS provides

That’s exactly the problem. You might lose a UDP packet. That would corrupt data encrypted with stream cipher.

With DTLS, each packet is encrypted individually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Transport_Layer_Sec...
by jiggawatts | 2025-06-16 10:21:05+00:00
"Child actor" is a job where the result of the neural net training is sold to millions of people by the parents.

To play the Devil's Advocate against my own argument: The government collects income taxes on neural nets trained using government-funded schools and public libraries. Seeing as how capitalists are positively salivating at the opportunity to replace pesky meat employees with uncomplaining silicon ones, perhaps a nice high maximum-marginal-rate tax on all AI usage might be the first big step towards UBI and then the Star Trek utopia we all dream of.

Just kidding. It'll be a cyberpunk dystopia. You know it will.
by imtringued | 2025-06-16 10:21:33+00:00
The average consumer uses llama.cpp. So here is your list of kernels: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/tree/master/ggml/src/g...

And here is pretty damning evidence that you're full of shit: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/ggml/src/g...

The ggml-hip backend references the ggml-cuda kernels. The "software is the same" (as in, it is CUDA) and yet AMD is still behind.
by javcasas | 2025-06-16 10:21:34+00:00
I have never worked on a big corporation. But I find interesting about corporations forbidding swearwords in code. I mean, the people responsible for forbidding swearwords rarely read code. And if they read code with any frequency and are somewhat proficient at it, most likely they have their own list of swearwords.

Also we should look to add more keywords to programming languages that trigger naïve filters. I'm all in for another era of broken censorship to poke fun at the people who know nothing, but always have an opinion.
by James_K | 2025-06-16 10:22:03+00:00
It may genuinely be the case that slower humans are not generally intelligent. But that sounds rather snobbish so it's not an opinion I'd like to express frequently.

I think the complaint made by apple is quite logical though and you mischaracterise it here. The question asked in the Apple study was "if I give you the algorithm that solves a puzzle, can you solve that puzzle?" The answer for most humans should be yes. Indeed, the answer is yes for computers which are not generally intelligent. Models failed to execute the algorithm. This suggests that the models are far inferior to the human mind in terms of their computational ability, which precedes general intelligence if you ask me. It seems to indicate that the models are using more of a "guess and check" approach than actually thinking. (A specifically interesting result was that model performance did not substantially improve between a puzzle with the solution algorithm given, and one where no algorithm was given.)

You can sort of imagine the human mind as the head of a Turing Machine which operates on language tokens, and the goal of an LLM is to imitate the internal logic of that head. This paper seems to demonstrate that they are not very good at doing that. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it, because the models work by consuming their entire input at once where the human mind operates with only a small working memory. A fundamental architectural difference which I suspect is the cause of the collapse noted in the Apple paper.
by Mukesh_dhal17 | 2025-06-16 10:22:11+00:00
Job hunting is quite tough , like one apply for hundreds of application ,but got few responses in return , so to help both job seekers and Recruiters we built AI agents to help them not to replace .

The problem : Drowning in applications,Missing out on top talent, Wasting precious time

Our solution :We built an AI agent to cut through that complexity. It's like having a smart assistant for your entire hiring process.

1. Attract the right people 2. Quickly spot the best fits 3.Connect directly and smoothly

Tech side : LangChain + OpenAI for job parsing, Next.js + Supabase, custom contact discovery algorithms which fits to many of the companies

Result : Businesses using our platform are finding it much faster to hire, and they're connecting with higher-quality candidates.
by mandmandam | 2025-06-16 10:23:01+00:00
> I don't personally know of any

Like I said, just look at countries which resisted colonization.

For example - one of the fundamental mechanics of colonization is to find people willing to sell out their countrymen for personal profit. While there are always a few people like this, it's far from the norm; and those people are remembered with searing hostility.

A specific example that comes to mind: British land-owners exacting high rents on Irish farmers would often seize their property and hold a local auction. The entire town would turn out, the original farmer would make a small token bid to buy back their farm, and no one would bid against them.

Ireland also invented boycotts, where the entire village would shun scummy landlords.

Egalitarianism isn't just a reaction to colonizers though - it's the default state of humanity [0].

And research shoes that placing material possessions at the centre of your life is inversely correlated to your emotional well-being [1]. Pretty hard to believe that this would be the default.

So, American culture is clearly twisted. It might not be the most perverse in the world... But it's up there. This is a fact well recognized in the world, and almost entirely ignored in America itself.

Yes, on an individual basis, Americans can be quite lovely. Friendly and well meaning, might go out of their way to help you, and so on. Sure. But the fact that Americans can really believe that humanity, at its core, is willing to sell out their neighbors for profit says everything about Americans and nothing about humanity.

0 - https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ances...

1 - https://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actuall...
by fennecfoxy | 2025-06-16 10:23:25+00:00
The last fast food place you went to, what does the ceiling look like? The exact colour/pattern?

The last phone conversation you had with a utility company, how did they greet you exactly?

There's lots that we do remember, sometimes odd things like your example, though I'm sure you must have repeated it a few times as well. But there's so much detail that we don't remember at all, and even our childhood memories just become memories of memories - we remember some event, but we slowly forget the exact details, they become fuzzy.