MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by like_any_other | 2025-06-21 01:57:19+00:00
> Why do we feel entitled to get this for free?

With how user-hostile and anti-competitive Google is behaving, this is like asking why soldiers feel entitled to shoot at the enemy. Keep giving them money, keep watching their ads that they sell on rigged auctions [1], and eventually the only way to access the web will be with locked-against-the-user browsers [2], and everything will be surveilled (though it nearly already is - Google never asks itself why it should feel entitled to follow users around the web, or in real-life, despite opt-outs [3], and you'll find support for any alternative OSes mysteriously withering due to secret anti-competitive contracts between Google and manufacturers [4]). I know this isn't the reasoning people use, but that is what the outcome will be.

As for ads - it has always been hard, nearly impossible to block them, and few people did. Just like you can't block a billboard next to the freeway, you can't block a jpeg that's served as part of the webpage you're visiting, as it's programmatically indistinguishable from native content.

What people actually block are not ads, but a hybrid half-ad-half-surveillance entity, that's called an "ad" by historical accident.

[1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/11/25/google-is-three-t...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity

[3] https://apnews.com/article/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20200311172517/https://www.proto...
by throw123xz | 2025-06-21 01:58:01+00:00
Back when I started using Google Adsense, they had a 3 ad per page rule. You could be banned if you went above that limit. Today you can easily find web pages with 10, 15 or even more ad spots... one after each paragraph, sidebar, full page "popup", etc.

On YouTube, we went from a banner on the video to a few seconds of a video before to multiple ads before the video to multiple ad pauses even on relatively short videos (under 10 minutes). Add to that the sponsored sections of the video itself, which are added by the content creator, and other ads (stores, tickets, etc) that sometimes YouTube adds under the video even if you pay for premium.

Google Search pages used to have one or two ads at the top, with a different background colour than search results. Now sometimes I have to scroll down to see organic content, because sponsored content fills my screen.

I don't think I'm entitled to have access to all this for free, but we went too far... and so I use an adblocker on all my devices.
by krackers | 2025-06-21 01:58:25+00:00
But that only seems to make the situation worse: for all their hand-wringing about "AI safety", by their own benchmark their models seem to do no better than competitors. They don't even have any basis to claim that open-source "unaligned" models like R1 are "more dangerous" theirs, and all their "constitutional alignment" or whatever don't actually seem to do anything meaningful.

In skimming through all their papers, it's also never clear exactly what they imagine some "aligned" AI to look like. Whatever the poor model does, they seem to find fault with: They want models that follow instructions. But it can't do it _too well_, anything unsafe or dangerous needs to be censored according to some set of ethical rules. But not just any ethics, we also don't want the models writing smut or saying bad words, so let's have the models think about whether it aligns with our corporate-safe Anthropic™ guidelines. Except it shouldn't hold any set of values _too_ strongly, to the point where it could lead to "alignment faking". But of course it also shouldn't be too suggestible, that would lead to jailbreaks and users could see unsafe content, which is also bad!

I wouldn't be surprised if DeepSeek ends up surpassing closed-source models solely on the basis that they don't bother with giving it such conflicting objectives in the name of "safety training"
by sigmarule | 2025-06-21 02:01:01+00:00
A security-first OS with real crypto https://github.com/ipenas-cl/AtomicOs/blob/main/kernel/claud...

/* * Claude AI Military Grade - Navy SEAL Level Security */

I wonder how an AES implementation written by a Navy SEAL looks.

// Note: Real AES decryption would be implemented here // For security in military systems, we only support one-way encryption void mil_crypto_decrypt(const char* ciphertext, char* plaintext, crypto_context_t* ctx) { // Decryption disabled for security - data remains encrypted // In real implementation, would use AES-128 decryption plaintext[0] = '\0'; }

Just beautiful. The essence of vibe coding distilled into a few lines of… well, comments, and like one line of code.

Real crypto indeed.
by d6e | 2025-06-21 02:01:29+00:00
Those studies were mostly from the 80s-2000s when things were really different. Kids were often referred just for being gender nonconforming (like boys playing with dolls), not necessarily having serious gender dysphoria. Plus the treatment back then was often trying to make kids more "gender typical" - which obviously might push some kids toward appearing to "desist" even if they still had gender issues. Many of the kids in those studies didn't even meet what we'd now consider the criteria for gender dysphoria. So saying "80% of trans kids desist" might be more like "80% of gender nonconforming kids don't turn out to be trans" - which is pretty different.
by arjonagelhout | 2025-06-21 02:01:29+00:00
I think this is indeed the advantage of this paper taking C++ as the language to compile to SPIR-V.

Game engines and other large codebases with graphics logic are commonly written in C++, and only having to learn and write a single language is great.

Right now, shaders -- if not working with an off-the-shelf graphics abstraction -- are kind of annoying to work with. Cross-compiling to GLSL, HLSL and Metal Shading Language is cumbersome. Almost all game engines create their own shading language and code generate / compile that to the respective shading languages for specific platforms.

This situation could be improved if GPUs were more standardized and didn't have proprietary instruction sets. Similar to how CPUs mainly have x86_64 and ARM64 as the dominant instruction sets.
by marcusb | 2025-06-21 02:02:18+00:00
Having read the post mortem, I disagree. Slack engineers did something dumb, under pressure during an outage. Even if they hadn't, they still would have been in a degraded state until they could properly remove their DNSSEC records and/or get the Route53 bug they hit fixed. In other words, they still would have had a 24+ hour outage, albeit with a smaller blast radius.

The design of DNSSEC is simply not fit for purpose for zone operators. It is far too easy to screw your zone up for far too marginal a benefit, to say nothing of the huge increase in CPU resource required to authenticate DNSSEC record chains.

The story for implementers is just as bad - the specifications are baroque, filled with lousy crypto and poorly thought-out options.

To give just one example, consider the NSEC3 iteration limit field. NSEC3 itself was designed mostly[0] to prevent zone enumeration when validating negative responses (which is trivial to perform with NSEC.) The iteration count was designed to give zone operators the ability to increase the cost to an attacker of generating a dictionary of nsec3 names[1]. Of course, a high iteration count also raises the cost to a non-malicious resolver of validating a negative response for a nsec3-enabled zone.

In good old DNSSEC fashion, the iterations field is a single number that is subject to a... wide variety of potential limits:

* 16 bits by the wire protocol

* 150 for 1,024 bit keys (RFC 5155 10.3[2])

* 500 for 2,048 bit keys (RFC 5155 10.3[2])

* 2,500 for 4,096 bit keys (RFC 5155 10.3[2])

* 0 (RFC 9276 3.2)

Why 0? It was noted -- after publishing the NSEC3 spec -- that high iterations just don't provide that much benefit, and come with a high cost to throughput. Appendix B of RFC 9276 shows a roughly 50% performance degradation with an iteration count of 100. So, RFC 9276 3.2 says:

Validating resolvers MAY also return a SERVFAIL response when processing NSEC3 records with iterations larger than 0.

Of course, their guidance to implementers is to set the limits a bit higher, returning insecure responses at 100 iterations and SERVFAIL at 500. That said, if you want to be maximally interoperable, as a zone operator, you should pretend like the iteration count field doesn't exist: it is standards compliant for a validating resolver to refuse an nsec3 response with more than a single hash round.

As I said, this is one example, but I'm not cherry picking here. The whole of the DNSSEC spec corpus is filled with incomprehensible verbiage and opportunities for conflicting interpretations, far beyond what you see in most protocol specs.

0 - also to reduce the size of signed top-level zones

1 - all NSEC and NSEC3 records, while responsive to queries about names that don't exist, consist of obfuscated names that do exist.

2 - According to the letter of the standard, the limits applied to the iterations field should be 149, 499, and 2,499. Implementations are inconsistent about this.
by jmbwell | 2025-06-21 02:02:51+00:00
I was visiting my kid’s class one day. They were using some YouTube product that seemed oriented at schools, that I’d never seen before. An ad would pop up, and one of the kids (whosever turn it was next?) would run up and tap the skip ad button.

So even if you’re trying to use YouTube for something of value, you’re battling ads. Or at least our kids are.
by acdha | 2025-06-21 02:03:24+00:00
> Obama was president in 2014.

Yes, and had been since 2009. I’m still not sure how you expect the racist backlash starting in 2008 to have been triggered by time travelers from 2014. People were threatening to lynch him before he was sworn in and the mainstream Republican Party leaders weren’t willing to give those people the treatment David Duke got in the 90s - McConnell tried to spin all of that “one term president” talk as solely about policy but all of the context made it quite clear that they wouldn’t have been so motivated for, say, Kerry.
by OrvalWintermute | 2025-06-21 02:04:02+00:00
I asked Grok a related question about Robert Lee. Here is its response

Robert M. Lee, as the CEO and co-founder of Dragos, Inc., brings a wealth of expertise in industrial control systems (ICS) and operational technology (OT) cybersecurity, which aligns closely with the U.S. Army’s requirements for cyberspace operations and infrastructure protection. Commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard in February 2025, Lee’s extensive background positions him to make significant contributions to the Army’s mission of securing critical infrastructure and enhancing cyberspace capabilities. His prior experience as a U.S. Air Force Cyber Warfare Operations Officer, where he developed a pioneering mission at the National Security Agency to identify threats to industrial infrastructure, equips him with a deep understanding of the cyber threats facing military and civilian systems. Additionally, his leadership in investigating high-profile cyberattacks, such as the 2015 and 2016 Ukraine power grid attacks, the 2017 TRISIS attack, and the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident, demonstrates his ability to address sophisticated threats to critical systems, a key focus for the Army’s cyberspace operations.

Lee’s role in the Army National Guard, specifically with the 91st Battalion in Virginia, involves designing and leading OT cybersecurity and response efforts. The Army’s cyberspace requirements, as outlined in documents like the Army Cyberspace Strategy for Unified Land Operations 2025, emphasize securing mission-critical systems, protecting infrastructure, and developing resilient networks against advanced persistent threats. Lee’s expertise in ICS/OT cybersecurity directly supports these goals, particularly in safeguarding infrastructure like power grids, water systems, and transportation networks that the military relies on. His work at Dragos, including the development of the Dragos Platform for threat detection and response, and the discovery of the PIPEDREAM framework, showcases his ability to deliver scalable, OT-specific solutions. These skills could be applied to enhance the Army’s defensive cyber operations, improve real-time threat intelligence, and strengthen partnerships with private sector entities to protect national infrastructure.

Furthermore, Lee’s experience as a SANS Fellow and creator of ICS515 and FOR578 courses highlights his commitment to education and workforce development, which could bolster the Army’s efforts to train cyber warriors. His strategic vision, evidenced by his testimony to Congress and advisory roles with the Department of Energy and World Economic Forum, positions him to help the Army develop policies and strategies for public-private collaboration in cyberspace. By leveraging his technical expertise and leadership, Lee could drive the integration of OT cybersecurity into the Army’s broader cyber operations framework, ensuring robust protection of critical infrastructure and enhancing national security in an increasingly contested digital domain.
by sgarland | 2025-06-21 02:04:34+00:00
For reference, I’m a DBRE. IMO, yes, most people can learn basic joins and aggregates in a couple of hours, but that is subjective.

> you don’t need to understand the normalizations

You definitely should. Normalizing isn’t that difficult of a concept, Wikipedia has terrific descriptions of each level.

As to the rest, maybe read docs? This is my primary frustration with LLMs in general: people seem to believe that they’re just as good of developers as someone who has read the source documentation, because a robot told them the answer. If you don’t understand what you’re doing, you cannot possibly understand the implications and trade-offs.
by varenc | 2025-06-21 02:04:38+00:00
> Quick question, do you think these productivity features are critical in your day to day workflow? Any specific examples you can share? :)

hah, absolutely not! That specific nit was pretty low priority... I definitely don't imagine I'll be asking it to ungroup tabs regularly, or if ever. But the loop of it being stuck between Chat and Agent mode seems like more generic, and might happen whenever there's a prompt neither agent can handle. Ideally it would have just said "I can't ungroup tabs".

Restoring to a checkpoint could be nice, but might not be worth it in the early stage if its high effort for you. I've yet to do anything actually useful/productivity focused with Nxtscape yet, but will keep exploring.
by jasinjames | 2025-06-21 02:05:21+00:00
From “test_everything.c”:

// ============== TEST 6: ¿Claude AI militar?==============

int test_military_ai() { printf("\n[TEST] Claude AI Militar\n");

// Check if military AI exists if (access("kernel/claude_military_grade.c", F_OK) == 0) { printf(" Archivo existe\n"); // Check if it's real crypto or fake FILE* f = popen("grep -c 'XOR' kernel/claude_military_grade.c", "r"); char buffer[128]; fgets(buffer, sizeof(buffer), f); pclose(f); if (atoi(buffer) > 0) { printf(" Crypto FALSO (solo XOR)\n"); return 0; } else { printf("? Crypto no verificable\n"); return 0; } } else { printf(" NO EXISTE\n"); return 0; }

}

New whole-program analysis just dropped (it's grep).
by pstuart | 2025-06-21 02:09:44+00:00
A key problem is that anger, hate, and fear are more powerful motivators than hope and optimism. That fact has been leveraged to weaponize those emotions to a degree that inspires awe at it's success.

Freedom to power your home without paying "the man" should be compelling to all who could use it. Texas is ironically a prime state for renewable energy and the dollars generated from it have convinced some, but many still reject it as "wokeness".

It boggles the mind.
by Aachen | 2025-06-21 02:09:45+00:00
Consider that it's a monopoly. You can't get 99% of this content anywhere else (not even if it's marked as creative commons¹ or any other free license, publicly funded, etc.) but I don't agree with Google's/Alphabet's practices either. One could:

Option 1: be a hermit and not watch anything on YouTube ever. You can't look up repair guides, fully use a news website that I'm subscribed to that got rid of their self hosted version, watch a subset of public broadcasts that we pay for via taxes, etc. It's not just entertainment / a Netflix replacement

Option 2: give in and enrich this monopolistic tracking company

Option 3: try to pirate the content

I'd feel very different if this were Spotify or an individual artist: I can use three other music services with massively overlapping offerings from different jurisdictions. Or supermarkets, for the same reason. But if it's irreplaceable and gatekept, I can understand both sides here

¹ https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en
by cyberax | 2025-06-21 02:10:03+00:00
> HLS is so insanely optimised down to the hardware level that adding any kind of compute for targeting would increase costs exponentially.

Not really. They'll just need to recode for you that one minute with the ad. The rest of the video can stay the same.

If they're doing it smartly, they can even avoid full recompression and just splice in the ad.
by denkmoon | 2025-06-21 02:10:34+00:00
You can also just not watch TV. And not listen to the radio. And not receive newspapers. All mediums that have advertisements, and those advertisements are regulated to stop the most egregious types (eg. advertising sugary foods at children, tobacco products, hopefully gambling products soon).

Media, on the whole, is a good thing. We know more about the world. We know more about the excesses of the aristocracy. We know more about the violence committed by violent people (and I don't mean local petty crime. Genocide.) Before we can improve these things, we need to know about them. "just don't consume media" is a regression to a time where people knew little outside their local sphere.

Youtube/Google has a monopoly on one part of the modern media landscape and it has to be fixed. Not just put our heads in the sand.
by ArcTugboat03 | 2025-06-21 02:11:53+00:00
This is an excessively romanticized view of traditional farming. If you look at the astonishing death tolls from famine throughout human history, including in living memory, it is pretty clear why, for all its problems, industrial agriculture is still a far superior approach.

Food security requires food production at levels which demand industrialized agriculture, for better or worse.
by mcphage | 2025-06-21 02:12:05+00:00
That’s not an agreement, that’s just YouTube doing whatever they want. Which they can—but then—I can just do whatever I want, too. You don’t need to imagine some sort of covenant being involved.

> Or you can steal from them, that’s what I do. I’m just not afraid to admit it.

I don’t even do that, I just watch it as-is. I just don’t need to imagine that YouTube and I have agreed to anything.
by cvoss | 2025-06-21 02:12:10+00:00
If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content.

But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable. (And so many of the good ones do, quite successfully.)
by LightHugger | 2025-06-21 02:12:11+00:00
It absolutely is character assassination in the context of what's been happening. News sites that have praised the xlibre author for countless articles are suddenly doing a 180 because the people who pay their bills are the same people running wayland and embroiled in anti discrimination lawsuits for abusing DEI to hurt people.

That you care more about "make x11 great again" more than red hat and IBM perpetrating actual cases of racist discrimination tells me a lot about you. You're either in an echo chamber and do not have all the information or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. Either way you aren't in the morally just position you think you are.
by jhanschoo | 2025-06-21 02:13:03+00:00
> “Could there be some indirect way to model or orient the induction process, as we do deductions?”

I wonder if Putnam was aware of his contemporary Kolmogorov's work and the measure of descriptive complexity that Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff independently developed, and its application to formalizing inductive reasoning and learning. I guess that he had not, else he would be commenting profusely on that formalization. Solomonoff published "A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference" at 1964.

Also, not to be confused with Hilary Putnam, who also contributed to the philosophy of mind.
by Manuel_D | 2025-06-21 02:13:16+00:00
The example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation.

And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer underground? A even if a buried waste canister spontaneously combusts, how does the waste make it through half a kilometer of rock? In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur.

This kind of appeal to an unknown harm can be used to arbitrarily object to anything.

"We need to stop building solar panels and wind turbines because they have the potential to cause an unknown harm. You disagree that these systems have the potential to cause harm? Well of course you can't know this, because it's an unknown harm that we're trying to prevent. How can you possibly disprove the existence of an unknown harm?"
by slg | 2025-06-21 02:14:29+00:00
I was more remarking on your criticism of competition as an appropriate way to deal with scarcity and/or try to maximize societal benefit.

Although now that you mention the public/private distinction, the difference in that has been drastically reduced over the years as state appropriations have shrunk as a percentage of overall funding. You mentioned the Big Ten and "championship level in football", so let's look at Ohio State as an example since they won the last championship (and for what it is worth, they beat Notre Dame in the title game). They get only 10% of their revenue via state appropriations[1]. For sake of comparison, the OSU athletic department brought in a little over half that in revenue[2]. Meanwhile, 21% of the school's revenue comes from "tuition and fees", so offering an appealing product in the competitive market of higher education is incredibly important to their long term mission.

[1] - https://cga.ct.gov/2025/rpt/pdf/2025-R-0074.pdf

[2] - https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2024/01/...
by physix | 2025-06-21 02:15:21+00:00
Without having looked at it, I would assume the value comes from not having to know the data model in great detail, such that you can phrase your query using natural language, like

"Give me all the back office account postings for payment transfers of CCP cleared IRD trades which settled yesterday with a payment amount over 1M having a value date in two days"

That's what I'd like to be able to say and get an accurate response.