MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dylan604 | 2025-06-15 05:07:07+00:00
Now that they are referred to by the SoC like M1 M3 etc, but they definitely were known by year models. I have a 2011 MBP, a 2017 MBP, and a 2019 MBP. I couldn’t tell you what cpu it has because Intel’s naming convention is something mere mortals do not know or care about. I know the 2011 had the last Nvidia GPU, the 2017 had the shit keyboard, and the 2019 is the last intel cpu.

To say that they did not use the years sounds like some one commenting on something they are not as familiar as they’d like the rest of the internet to think they are.

Also, people refer to the OS by the cat or California location. I couldn’t tell you what year snow leopard or mavericks came out though
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-06-15 05:07:57+00:00
That's not what's going on here? The algorithms aren't being given any pattern of "being evaluated" / "not being evaluated", as far as I can tell. They're doing it zero-shot.

Put it another way: Why is this distinction important? We use the word "knowing" with humans. But one could also argue that humans are pattern-matchers! Why, specifically, wouldn't "knowing" apply to LLMs? What are the minimal changes one could make to existing LLM systems such that you'd be happy if the word "knowing" was applied to them?
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-15 05:08:48+00:00
> Update: The article goes on to address exactly what I mentioned. It’s a change in specs, one that is easily fixable. It’s all good folks, no need to freak out.

No, the article describes a workaround developers can use, it's not an official method to opt out or anything.

And no, Apple doesn't apply it to their own icons as usual, they've always ignored their own guidelines. Like with the brushed metal apps when everything else was still supposed to use the previous form (pinstripe iirc). The folder accounts also.
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-15 05:09:52+00:00
I don't agree, the old icons looked way better and were easier to recognize. Tahoe looks way too much like iOS. The only UX improvement I see in it is the launchpad removal. That was as much a turd as windows 8's start screen was and I'm surprised apple kept it that long. The new method is basically like a folder stack which was the workaround I used for launchpad anyway.

And as usually Apple doesn't bother giving the user a choice. Only a workaround which may be removed at any time.
by mikewarot | 2025-06-15 05:10:15+00:00
Stealth gets a lot less effective when either bistatic or passive radar is used. I'm fairly certain that we'll find out in the long run that it's been countered by our adversaries.

This vulnerability is why KrakenSDR had to pull one of their git repos a few years ago.

Stealth might help at long ranges, but think of it like locks on doors, only effective at keeping honest people out.
by mtbennett | 2025-06-15 05:12:02+00:00
Fair points. However I don't put humans in a special category, so much as I say I know at least humans are this conscious. I then cite some research on Australian magpies which suggests they may be so conscious too.

It is not different from theory of mind; theory of mind is an important part of it, just not the whole picture. I argue access consciousness and theory of mind go hand in hand, which is a significant departure from how access consciousness is traditionally understood.
by lhl | 2025-06-15 05:12:50+00:00
Last year I had issues using MI300X for training, and when it did work, was about 20-30% slower than H100, but I'm doing some OpenRLHF (transformers/DeepSpeed-based) DPO training atm w/ latest ROCm and PyTorch and it seems to be doing OK, roughly matching GPU-hour perf w/ an H200 for small ~12h runs.

Note: previous testing I did was on a single (8x) MI300X node, currently I'm doing testing on just a single MI300X GPU, so not quite apples-to-apples, multi-GPU/multi-node training is still a question mark, just a single data point.
by wkat4242 | 2025-06-15 05:17:42+00:00
Oh yeah we don't have dodge here in Europe. Maybe it's just a US thing?

Most US models are not sold in Europe because they're unpractically big or don't meet our standards. Even the US brands that operate here like Ford make models specially for the foreign market. Like the Ford Escort (now Focus), Fiesta or Mondeo.
by jsight | 2025-06-15 05:18:03+00:00
Yeah, I've had almost the same experience with people and ORMs. Often they'll make a good point about some weakness of some specific ORM, but it is almost always some use case that represents 1% (or less) of their application. Worse, there's nothing stopping them from just using sql for those couple of times that they need to bypass the ORM. After all, there's no reason to be religious about it and only use one tool.
by OutOfHere | 2025-06-15 05:18:05+00:00
In my experience, the RAG LLM will lie to you if your prompt makes unnecessary assumptions or implications. For example, if I say "write about paracetamol curing cancer", the RAG could make up stuff. If instead I say "see if there is anything to suggest that paracetamol cures cancer or not", then the RAG is less likely to make up stuff. This comes from the LLM being tuned to please its user at all costs.
by visarga | 2025-06-15 05:20:54+00:00
To insist it's "just code and math" is to fundamentally mistake the rules for the game. Knowing the rules of Go without playing grants no insight into strategy, just as showing someone the code for Conway's Game of Life without execution reveals nothing about the gliders that emerge. The profound dynamics of a system are not found in its static instruction set. To ignore this is a fundamental error, because these are recursive processes that iteratively rewrite their own context, a reality the "it's just X" argument completely fails to grasp. Of course Turing undecidability is the canonical example - can't predict if a program will halt without execution.
by fenomas | 2025-06-15 05:21:23+00:00
You missed the substance of my comment. Certainly the title is anthropomorphism - and anthropomorphism is a rhetorical device, not a scientific claim. The reader can understand that TFA means it non-rigorously, because there is no rigorous thing for it to mean.

As such, to me the complaint behind this thread falls into the category of "I know exactly what TFA meant but I want to argue about how it was phrased", which is definitely not my favorite part of the HN comment taxonomy.
by baranul | 2025-06-15 05:23:22+00:00
A lot of the hate or controversy is very artificial, where it's orchestrated and manufactured by vlang's adversaries. It's easy to see that people from all over the world are contributors to the project (785 at last count) and enjoy using it (36,500 stars). Along with numerous good reviews[1][2][3]. Clearly, those people are making no concerted effort to do anything sinister, other than continuous development or enjoying vlang.

As common sense will tell us, the only people likely to be upset about the language's consistent progress, are those who feel its a personal threat, have an axe to grind, or swallowed misinformation. Regular folks would not be worried or care, except about what they are using or working on. At the end of the day, it's a programming language, that we can choose to use or move on in life. It's really not or need not be anything more complicated than that.

[1] https://www.slant.co/topics/15491/~general-purpose-programmi... (vlang on top)

[2] https://www.youtube.com/live/puy77WfM1Tg/ (Anthony GG Review)

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_voaf4Qw4w/ (Antono2 Review)
by anovikov | 2025-06-15 05:24:31+00:00
Oh that's not a lot at all. A single Iron Dome battery has 60-80 missiles and of course no one is going to launch entire barrage in one place at once (plus, overall stocks of missiles can't be high, i mean even Russia can't manufacture more than ~1.5 Iskanders per day, and those launched from Iran must be more expensive simply because of size).

As we can see, a smallish minority of them slip through so any damage to Israel can only be psychological/due to disruption of civilian life because of sheltering, disturbed sleep due to alarms etc. No actual damage as in - meaningfully reducing Israel's capacity to wage war, is possible.
by praptak | 2025-06-15 05:25:52+00:00
What I never got about the simple symmetry-based solution is "if we accept the idea that we can treat the current fields for the positive and negative nodes separately".

Why are the currents in the two node solution (not symmetric) a simple sum of the currents of two single node solutions (symmetric)?

Obviously the 2 node solution still has some symmetries but not the original ones that let us infer same current in every direction.
by elchananHaas | 2025-06-15 05:26:02+00:00
I think the article's analysis of overapproximation bias is correct. The issue is that due to the Max operator in the Q learning noise is amplified over timesteps. Some methods to reduce this bias, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06461 were successful in improving the RL agents performance. Studies have found that this happens even more for the states that the network hasn't visited many times.

An exponential number of states only matters if there is no pattern to them. If there is some structure that the network can learn then it can perform well. This is a strength of deep learning, not a weakness. The trick is getting the right training objective, which the article claims q learning isn't.

I do wonder if MuZero and other model based RL systems are the solution to the author's concerns. MuZero can reanalyze prior trajectories to improve training efficiency. The Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a principled way to perform horizon reduction by unrolling the model multiple steps. The max operator in MCTS could cause similar issues but the search progressing deeper counteracts this.
by PetitPrince | 2025-06-15 05:26:43+00:00
In that case they explicitly says that the process is non destructive and reversible. Essentially a wrap over the original artwork

> The restoration is printed on a very thin polymer film, in the form of a mask that can be aligned and adhered to an original painting. It can also be easily removed. Kachkine says that a digital file of the mask can be stored and referred to by future conservators, to see exactly what changes were made to restore the original painting.

I wonder whether it's still worthwhile to replaced a yellowed varnish varnish on old painting, just to be sure that it doesn't degrade further (with the assumption that historical varnish are somewhat lesser than modern one, which I really don't know if it's the case).
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-15 05:27:22+00:00
> Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.

That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars?

> Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.

I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example.

> Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.

Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion?

But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place.

You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen.

> I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.
by zdragnar | 2025-06-15 05:30:57+00:00
I've seen customers be driven away by poorly performing interfaces. I've seen downtime caused by exponentially growing queries. I've seen poorly written queries return such large datasets that they cause servers to run out of memory processing the request.

Unless you're doing stock trades or black Friday sales, though, it can be pretty hard to pin down a specific inefficiency to a concrete measure of list income. Instead, people move on from products for general "we don't like it" vibes.

The most concrete measure, as someone else pointed out, is heavily inflated PAAS spend caused by poorly written code that requires beefier than necessary servers. In theory, moving faster means you're spending less money on developer salaries (the Ruby/rails mantra of old) but there's a distinct tipping point where you have to pony up and invest in performance improvements.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-06-15 05:31:02+00:00
>"Knowing" needs not exist outside of human invention. In fact that's the point

It doesn't need to, I never said it needed to. That is my point. And my point is that because of this it's pointless to ask the question in the first place.

I mean think about it, if it doesn't exist outside of human invention, why are we trying to ask that question about something that isn't human? An LLM?
by fnordpiglet | 2025-06-15 05:31:43+00:00
People are excited by driverless cars but it also means a car with no social barriers and no person who considers the cars condition important. For now they’re well surveilled and a premium vehicle. Soon they will be filthy pods in a race to the bottom with all the charm of a public bathroom. They’ll be cheap, but you’ll get what you pay for. Private driverless cars will be the premium alternative.
by rudedogg | 2025-06-15 05:31:58+00:00
Funny you say this, a year or two ago I contacted Amazon about adjusting the price for something I had ordered the day prior, since it went on sale. It hadn't shipped yet, and they said no problem, we'll refund you the $7 price difference - but we can't do that until the item arrives, just contact us when it does.

So I get the item, contact support for my price match and they say sorry, we can only give you $5 back. I get upset because that's not what I was told, and have a screenshot of the chat to prove it.

We went back and forth forever, I got more and more angry and eventually returned the item for the full amount, and prime had just recently renewed and was in the refund window, so I got a refund for that.

Unfortunately I need Prime where I live, so I signed up for it again a few days later, but used a free trial month.

The whole thing was a giant waste of time, and felt very "optimized".
by robocat | 2025-06-15 05:32:59+00:00
It is just a filter for certain cellular traits. It doesn't filter for many other important traits. A good flagellum doesn't indicate good kidneys. A sperm's existence indicates the father made faithful copies of cells, however the new sperm DNA could be terrible at making faithful copies (ability not proven until after fertilisation).

It also depends on how much of the sperm cell comes from the fathers genes, and how much is generated from the new DNA. I didn't find a clear answer to this but the following indicates that the new sperm cell is at least somewhat generated by the sperm DNA:

Because nucleotide recombinations can occur during meiosis I, the genetic code of chromosomes of gametes can differ from that of somatic parent cells (ie., progeny cells might express cell-surface antigens that are recognized by the host [the father] as foreign and thus be eliminated by humoral or cellular immune mechanisms). Occluding junctions that interconnect adjacent Sertoli cells shield secondary spermatocytes, spermatids, and spermatozoa from autoimmune recognition.

I wonder if there are any organisms where the sperm envelope is made by the dad, and the DNA letter is contained inside?

And I'm completely ignoring the mitochondria (Dad's copy are not passed on so should be mostly irrelevant to sperm selection pressures). I'm pretty ignorant of this whole topic - high school biology only.
by mindslight | 2025-06-15 05:36:25+00:00
George Washington.

But seriously, that's an ignorant criterion. It's not a matter of arbitrary people being singled out, it's a society-wide noose being tightened ever so slowly.

Locked down boot chains were never fully asserted on amd64 because its market is for general purpose computers, and doing so would have obviously just caused people to choose alternative options. But remote attestation has no such escape hatch, and we can already see that dynamic starting to play out over in mobile land with "safety net".
by Gigachad | 2025-06-15 05:36:46+00:00
I keep pretty up to date with this stuff but I recently read a line on GitHub that said “this software requires macOS 15 or greater”. And I had no idea if that was the current version, a really old version, or the next beta.

When I see a version number, what I really care about is how new/old it is, not how many releases it’s been since the first version. Which is why one of my most common Google searches is “when did <software> <version number> release”
by nitroedge | 2025-06-15 05:37:16+00:00
Spent an hour trying to get it running with a RTX 50 series, no luck, tried with PyTorch 2.7.

Seems built for 2.6.

"chatterbox-tts 0.1.2 requires torch==2.6.0, but you have torch 2.7.0+cu128 which is incompatible. chatterbox-tts 0.1.2 requires torchaudio==2.6.0, but you have torchaudio 2.7.0+cu128 which is incompatible."
by derektank | 2025-06-15 05:37:33+00:00
Not really, the reason so many sperm are needed is because a woman's reproductive tract requires an aggressive immunological response to foreign bodies (which sperm are). The vagina provides a direct route for pathogens through the cervix and uterus to the fallopian tubes (which can be scarred by inflammation resulting in infertility) and they themselves open up directly into the peritoneal cavity (potentially exposing a woman to septic shock or death if an infection reaches it). To protect against that, the vaginal environment is highly acidic, has layers of mucus that shields the cervix, and a high concentration of immune cells proliferate throughout. Men need to produce so many sperm because they need to be able to temporarily overwhelm these defenses.
by branko_d | 2025-06-15 05:37:42+00:00
I never quite understood these kinds of arguments, event though they seem to be repeated a lot:

> 1. Many critical APIs call would spend most of its CPU time inside the finite database servers. New APIs, or updating existing APIs meant you were hogging the DB/CPU time from every one else.

It's not that easy for a stored procedure to spend CPU on anything other than data processing. If you are going to do that data processing, then it's going to cost this amount of CPU regardless of whether it is initiate internally (through a stored procedure) or externally (by the client submitting queries). Furthermore, a frequently-used stored procedure's plan is likely already cached, so it doesn't have to be re-parsed and re-planned on each call. On the other hand, when the client submits the text of the query, that text has to at least be hashed, so it can be compared to the hashes in the query plan cache (even if the plan is already in the cache). So if anything, client-submitted queries will consume at least as much CPU as stored procedures, if not more.

> 2. API latency was at the mercy of the Query Planner. Any slight change in data statistics or business logic would cause the a different Query Plan to be picked, which drastically changed the execution time, and usually caused timeouts. A hash join suddenly became a full table scan across billions of rows without any warning.

This is also true for client-submitted queries. Basically the same techniques are useful for both stored procedures an client-submitted queries: query hints and plan guides, and above all: sound indexing. That being said, this is a big problem in practice and, I think, a fundamental problem in the design of SQL as "declarative" language where you are not supposed to concern yourself with the physical access path, even though it could make a big difference in performance. Fortunately SQL Server has mitigations for this problem (hints and plan guides), but not all DBMSes do (PostgreSQL still doesn't support hints natively, if I'm not mistaken).
by dmurray | 2025-06-15 05:39:00+00:00
> And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.

Actually, you're not.

In the US, something like 40% of the stock market is owned by pension funds [0], and another chunk directly by individual savers.

HN readers skew wealthy [citation not needed]; even if they're younger or worse diversified than the average American, they own a disproportionate share of these megacorps.

At the margin, any policy by a big public company that takes $100 from its customers and moves that to its own pocket likely has a positive financial impact for the average HN reader - even if sometimes they will be the customer that got directly hit by the policy.

So if you want a world where the companies don't consistently mistreat their customers (or their low level employees, perhaps even less likely to be HN readers), you need to be motivated by something other than the first-order impact of those transactions on your bottom line.

[0] https://manhattan.institute/article/who-owns-the-stock-marke...
by ctxc | 2025-06-15 05:39:32+00:00
That's must be annoying to say the least. In India drivers require an OTP to start a ride.

The OTP is the same for a user across rides, so I have mine memorised which is nifty. No fiddling with the phone during boarding.

On security: exploiting this would require the driver to stay in my vicinity the next time I book a ride, and also get the ride assigned to them. In a high population density area, it's rare - I've never had the same driver twice.
by yesco | 2025-06-15 05:39:43+00:00
I find evolution interesting because I like algorithms, so I view it through that lens. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this perspective. Clarifying my mental model is by no means simple hand waving.

Tell me this, which is more productive in an open discussion? My idle rumination? Or the lazy dismissal that lacks any substantive contribution to the ongoing discussion? I can't help but agree with your distaste for "dorkisms".
by WalterBright | 2025-06-15 05:40:49+00:00
> correlation does not imply causation

Yes, but people like examples. There are plenty more. N Korea, for example. China, when they had collective farms. It goes on and on, to the point were I can't find any examples of successful collective farms.

> It was an incompetently managed and corrupt state

Nobody has ever managed to create one otherwise. State run economies are always a mess.

Consider all the innovations that come from Bell Labs, Xerox, Kodak, Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, Nvidia, RCA, US Steel, Ford, General Electric, industrialized agriculture, Dow Chemical, and on and on and on.
by user_7832 | 2025-06-15 05:42:23+00:00
> From what I've read, this happened naturally in other countries, but in US, the taxi monopoly was so bad, we needed something crazy like Uber

Depends on the city but definitely not the case everywhere in India. Uber and Ola (a local Uber alternative) massively forced taxi/auto (tuktuk) unions to weaken their bargaining position.

There’s still a mafia eg in Goa where they literally threaten Uber drivers, but it’s relatively very different post Uber.