MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pauldix | 2025-06-18 14:25:06+00:00
InfluxDB Founder & CTO here. We worked hard to support InfluxQL in 3.x and it supports the v1 write API. Admittedly, it will be a migration to move and we haven't yet built the tooling, but we felt it was important to get the 3.0 release out even though we don't have the migration tooling built yet. Our plan is to have that available later this year.

The 2.x to 3.x move is, admittedly, much harder. This is because of the language Flux. We haven't been able to bring that over to 3.x in a way that makes it useful. We actually built a bridge for it in our cloud offering, but our experience is that the performance isn't good enough to be acceptable for customers wanting to upgrade. If they want to make the move, adopting SQL or InfluxQL is likely the only path.

We'll continue to develop 3.x and we'll build more migration tooling over time. I think we can build specialized tooling to help Flux users migrate over to 3.x with query translation tools, but there are more features we need to land in 3.x to enable that first.

We're committed to the technology stack (Apache Arrow & DataFusion) and the 3.x line. We have no plans for another major release. I'll be happy if we end up releasing 3.56.2 8 years from now.
by noworriesnate | 2025-06-18 14:25:28+00:00
What makes you think Israel is capable of having a decent relationship with its neighbors? They never have before. And they have no need to have a decent relationship because they have the US giving them enormous amounts of money and weapons.

I think the best way to fix Israel is to bring in refugees from an unrelated conflict, like Sudan, and once the Sudanese have a significant minority then Israeli politics won’t be ethnofascist anymore.
by bluGill | 2025-06-18 14:25:38+00:00
Wait a couple years before you start stating anything as a trend. There have been several downturns over my lifetime (I'm 50) where it was hard to find a tech job, and several periods of good times where tech people were in high demand. Until several years have past you cannot tell the difference between a temporary downturn and the end of an era.

Every time things turn bad a lot of people jump out and yell it is the end of the tech. They have so far been wrong. Only time will tell if they are right this time, though I personally doubt it.
by tokinonagare | 2025-06-18 14:25:54+00:00
On the other hand I find it the lamest and most annoying "feature" of the last 10 years. The article itself is a good demonstration (at least on my M1 MBP): as soon as an image has a single pixels row displayed, the luminosity of the whole page fades, and the reverse happens when no image is in sight. The comparison video is the first time ever I see the tech doing anything else than changing the luminosity of the screen.
by JoeAltmaier | 2025-06-18 14:26:29+00:00
In a mature space launch economy, there is room for every combination of cost and capacity and timing (launch frequency). Like scooters and taxis and truck and trains and cargo ships, each has its place.

Don't imagine because this rocket is a certain size or lift capacity, that it isn't serious. And, this was just an R&D technology test. Who knows where they'll go from here.
by shadowgovt | 2025-06-18 14:27:09+00:00
There's a layer that you could turn your head and squint and call Lua, but it's far more constrained than Lua is.

They never wanted to be in a situation in the embedded architecture where performance was dependent upon GC pauses (even incremental GC pauses). Their higher-level abstraction has tightly constrained lifecycles and is amenable to static analysis of maximum memory consumption in a way Lua is not.
by vadansky | 2025-06-18 14:27:24+00:00
I had a particularly hard parsing problem so I setup a bunch of tests and let the LLM churn for a while and did something else.

When I came back all the tests were passing!

But as I ran it live a lot of cases were still failing.

Turns out the LLM hardcoded the test values as “if (‘test value’) return ‘correct value’;”!
by spmurrayzzz | 2025-06-18 14:27:38+00:00
Sure. I didn't imply (or didn't mean to imply at least) that I thought MRCR was solved, only pointing out that it's closer to testing raw retrieval than it is testing long range dependency resolution like Longproc does. If retrieval is great but the model still implodes on the downstream task, the benchmark doesn't tell you the whole story. The intent/point of my original comment was that even the frontier models are nowhere near as good at long context tasks than what I see anecdotally claimed about them in the wild.

> The other evals you mention are not necessarily harder than this relatively simple one.

If you're comparing MRCR to for example Longproc, I do think the latter is much harder. Or at least, much more applicable to long-horizon task domains where long context accumulates over time. But I think it's probably more accurate to say its a more holistic, granular eval by comparison.

The tasks require the model to synthesize and reason over information that is scattered throughout the input context and across previously generated output segments. Additionally, the required output is lengthy (up to 8K tokens) and must adhere to a specific, structured format. The scoring is also more flexible than MRCR: you can use row-level F1 scores for tables, execution-based checks for code, or exact matches for formatted traces.

Just like NIAH, I don't think MRCR should be thrown out wholesale. I just don't think it can be pressed into the service of representing a more realistic long context performance measure.

EDIT: also wanted to note that using both types of evals in tandem is very useful for research and training/finetuning. If Longproc tanks and you dont have the NIAH/MRCR context, its hard to know what capabilities are regressing. So using both in a hybrid eval approach is valuable in certain contexts. For end users only trying to guage the current inference-time performance, I think evals like RULER and Longproc have a much higher value.
by bwfan123 | 2025-06-18 14:28:44+00:00
> It affects people too. Something I learned halfway through a theoretical physics PhD in the 1990s was that a 50-page paper with a complex calculation almost certainly had a serious mistake in it that you'd find if you went over it line-by-line.

Interesting, and I used to think that math and sciences were invented by humans to model the world in a manner to avoid errors due to chains of fuzzy thinking. Also, formal languages allowed large buildings to be constructued on strong foundations.

From your anecdote it appears that the calculations in the paper were numerical ? but I suppose a similar argument applies to symbolic calculations.
by Bluecobra | 2025-06-18 14:29:15+00:00
Not sure if I agree with it being the worst mistake. The beauty of UDP is its simplicity and you get the absolute minimum. (And that’s the way I like it!) I’ve worked on low latency financial networks that route 40+ Gb of UDP multicast daily and error free. Nobody is fragmenting UDP packets, and most packet sizes are less than 1000 bytes. All financial exchanges have their own proprietary format, but all use sequence numbers in the data gram to keep track of packets.
by ath92 | 2025-06-18 14:30:18+00:00
Generally, this is not really true. The point of CRDTs is that as long as all parties receive all messages (in any order), they should be able to recreate the same state.

So instead of merging changes on the server, all you need is some way of knowing which messages you haven’t received yet. Importantly this does not require the server to be able to actually read those messages. All it needs is some metadata (basically just an id per message), and when reconnecting, it needs to send all the not-yet-received messages to the client, so it’s probably useful to keep track of which client has received which messages, to prevent having to figure that out every time a client connects.
by a-dub | 2025-06-18 14:30:49+00:00
traditionally helps with thundering herd, but counterintuitively can help with just a single client. if the action potentially has an unknown duration long tail in terms of state or load on the service, backoff can help find that duration and allow for things to return to a quiescent state before trying again.

for example, if your action allocates near capacity ram and then releases it after some long unspecified time, a fixed period retry with a too-short period can result in a 2x allocation plus any knock on effects from thrash up to and including a compounding non-linear increase in resource demand. where exponential back-off is more likely to eventually succeed as it increases the period witb each attempt.
by Kwpolska | 2025-06-18 14:30:53+00:00
The problem with the old Android menu button was that you never knew whether or not there was a menu, and what would be in the menu. Some apps had navigation, some had actions. Some apps had different things on different screens.

The usual pattern on Android nowadays is that hamburgers go on the left, actions go on the right. And an on-screen button is much more obvious than a hardware key, or something on the never changing bottom bar.
by p3rls | 2025-06-18 14:31:14+00:00
I just posted that Google is translating words that should be translated like "bastard" in foreign pop music (in this case, a member of the most popular boy band in the world, BTS) as racial slurs like the n-word. This is pretty much the worst case error scenario for a translation service.

https://kpopping.com/news/2025/Jun/17/Google-Translation-of-...

It's amazing more people aren't talking about this stuff, how incompetent do you have to be to allow racial slurs in translation, especially with all the weights towards being pro-diversity etc that already exist?

Just more enshittification from ol Sundar and the crew
by aaviator42 | 2025-06-18 14:31:46+00:00
Hey, it's cool that you care so much about coral reefs and climate change — that kind of awareness is really important.

A lot of us care about climate change and coral reefs and the planet. The problem is that the biggest damage is often caused by large systems — like industries and governments — that prioritize profit over the planet. Even when regular people try to make eco-friendly choices, it’s really hard to make a big difference alone when the rules and incentives still let pollution and destruction keep happening on a huge scale. That’s why we also need collective action, policy changes, and accountability at the top.

Your voice matters though, and speaking up like you are is part of how change starts. Keep going. But keep in mind that people problems cannot be solved by technology alone. Even if you are able to develop technology to help coral reefs survive, you need massive funding and buy-in from various people and orgs with power to implement it in practice. That's way harder than coming up with the tech.

Also, food for thought: should we really be trying to genetically modify other organisms to be compatible with pollution or should we be reducing pollution in the first place?
by nobodyandproud | 2025-06-18 14:32:30+00:00
Nice. This is the first I’ve heard-of or read about Huey Long: "When he was gone it seemed that a beneficent peace had fallen on the land. Father Coughlin, Reno, Townsend, et al., were after all pygmies compared with Huey. He had been a major phenomenon."

The demagogue party has flipped, but of course we’re living with the consequences all the same.
by Y_Y | 2025-06-18 14:32:39+00:00
Organists have been using foot-keyboards (somehow) for hundreds of years.

I'm personally fond of this one though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moog_Taurus

See also this classic instrument, familiar from the late great FAO Schwartz on Fifth Avenue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_Piano
by tkgally | 2025-06-18 14:33:19+00:00
I had Claude Code write a module that monitored the incoming and outcoming token counts and display the accumulated costs. A Japanese-to-English translation that yielded about a thousand words in English cost around US$0.40.

I didn't double-check the module's arithmetic, but it seems to have been in the ballpark, as my total API costs for OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google yesterday--when I was testing this system repeatedly--came to about eight dollars.

A human translator would charge many, many times more.
by seydor | 2025-06-18 14:33:42+00:00
What "stronghold"? The science of LLMs is widely known, with everyone adding new small tricks everywhere. The main moat so far has been the availability of compute, and that's a leaky moat because inevitably more companies will find enough compute or make snappier models, or simply take more time to train them.

There is no secret sauce or moat , they ve been saying that for years, and it's still true. Being number 2 in the race is a losing position, so china probably thought they might as well give it away
by panick21_ | 2025-06-18 14:33:45+00:00
> but to ignore reusability has become an extinction-level event for launch providers

But it hasn't, that's just a fact. Neither ULA, nor Arianespace, nor Russia have gone extinct or embraced reuse to any degree at all. Same goes for India and Japan. Because this market simply doesn't operate like typical markets.

ULA and Arianespace have lots of orders. There a complex reason for this, but its still just a reality. Neither Russia or India have made major investments in reusable rockets. China to some degree does but we have little insight.

The only competitors are all new companies that had no position in the market before.

> Like the 4 minute mile.

No amount of believe makes it just happen. You can't just work a bit harder and get there incrementally. That's not how rockets work. Its not like running at all. Runners already existed, they just needed to incrementally improve a little bit, believe can help with that.

But if you don't have the necessary rocket engine or architecture, you can't just incrementally improve to get to the goal. You need to redo the whole architecture from the ground up. No amount of testing and believe turns Ariane 5 into a Falcon 9 competitor. And that's going to cost billions even if everything goes well.

That's why non of the existing competitors have done it. Its new potential competitors coming up that work on it.

> Some will learn from the 'break it and learn quickly' mentality that SpaceX followed for getting F9 to reliable reusability and there will be more competition.

That mentality is almost 20 years old and nobody has embraced it in the same way. There are many reasons for this that I could get into. But its far more then simply a shift in mentality. If your fundamentals are wrong, no amount of mentality shift changes anything.

And even if you embrace that mentality, its still a 10 year journey, see Stoke Space for example.

And many companies that had that mentality have gone bust, see ABL and others.

> Look at the lead that Tesla has thrown away in the EV market.

Tesla lead wasn't really technological. They never had battery technology better then what many other companies can produce. Except maybe their packs, were a bit better in the beginning, but that's about it and that wasn't a huge engineering lift to replicate.

What made them get a lead is the complete believe in the concept, and their ability to raise enough money to make it happen on a large scale, plus proving there is demand.

Also I think drawing parallels between car industry and space industry isn't really relevant at all.
by joram87 | 2025-06-18 14:33:52+00:00
Good questions.

We do not do connection pooling yet. currently it's a fresh connection per query (which adds a bit of latency). We're intending to add basic connection pooling shortly after launch. That said, if you put it in-front of pgbouncer, that would work well.

PostGIS and other extensions are on the radar, but currently are not supported. The proxy works with the extensions, but can't mask the data yet. If we get requests for specific extensions to be fully supported, we'll implement (same with extra masking data types). I look forward to the GIS data implementation, as I've met one of the postGIS contributors and have discussed several of those masking complexities.
by Ajedi32 | 2025-06-18 14:34:08+00:00
No, I'm saying that "that sort of thinking", where you naively design your economic systems around "First, look out for people, then figure out efficiency." rather than "efficient systems first, then work within those systems to help people" when taken to its logical conclusion and "tried on a national scale", is communism. Communism always sounds like such a great idea to people who think they know better than markets, but it consistently results in everyone starving, or at least being in abject poverty, every time it's tried at scale.

"keeping corporations from buying local resources" is a much weaker application of the same philosophy which will cause significant harm on a smaller scale for much of the same reasons, but probably not enough to impoverish a whole country unless combined with too many other policies based on that same sort of thinking.
by dymk | 2025-06-18 14:34:12+00:00
Then go read the study I linked, because it analyzes coroners data and tox reports from deaths linked to substance use. Guess what? None of the deaths where people were jumping out of windows, jumping into lakes, etc "from mushrooms" were psilocybin use.

You're doing everybody a disservice by spreading FUD that is contradicted by real world studies and data. It's no better than what Nancy Regan tried (and for the most part succeeded) to do.
by bluGill | 2025-06-18 14:34:19+00:00
Supply and demand is also influenced by ability to become qualified. I'm not qualified to flip burgers, but any fast food place could get me qualified in just a few hours. I'm not qualified to be a doctor and it would take me years of training to get that qualification. I've met people who failed to qualify as a burger flipper - you can correctly guess by that statement they are very disabled, I've met many who failed to qualify as a doctor, and all are smart people since people who are not wouldn't even try.
by marcuskaz | 2025-06-18 14:35:21+00:00
Agree, it seems like a mismatch of features and audience.

As someone who doesn't know much about working out or what exercises to do this sounds like a good app. I need help, but picking based on muscles is off. My thought and goals are not by muscle group, but losing weight or getting more toned.

Conversely, someone who knows what muscle groups they want to target, probably already has some sense of the exercises to target and thus less likely to need the app.
by morphle | 2025-06-18 14:35:36+00:00
>Releasing GMOs into the ocean is risky.

You are dangerous [3] (to the coral and the ocean).

Don't mess with the planet until you are qualified and have the consent of the mayority of the planet.

Start with learning ethics. And become a scientist, at 16 years old you have not yet learned to think properly [1,2].

You are from Kazakhstan, not know for its rigorous science process for the last 100 years.

> connect with experts

Only science is the expert. Individual scientists are not.

>who could shape, redirect or improve this idea.

Publish your scientific results in a paper and have them reproduced, peer reviewed and debated

[1] Alan Kay Sustainable Thinking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI

[2] The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It. But Is It Already Too Late? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPI6wh-Lr0

[3] Geoengineering carries ‘large risks’ for the natural world, studies show https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-carries-large-ris...
by codingdave | 2025-06-18 14:35:43+00:00
"FREE" does not sound as good as you might think. I'd rather pay someone for a useful product, so that I know the service will survive. I don't want to get burned by depending on a free service that hopes to monetize another way, someday, somehow. You never know what that will look like, or whether they will just shut down one day. After all with no money, there is no contract to keep running.

Free trials are cool, but a 100% free forever product raises red flags, unless open source.
by romaniv | 2025-06-18 14:35:44+00:00
The title should be "DSLs pose an interesting problem for LLM users".

It is significant that LLMs in coding are being promoted based on a set of promises (and assumptions) that are getting instantly and completely reversed the moment the technology gets an iota of social adoption in some space.

"Everyone can code now!" -> "Everyone must learn a highly specialized set of techniques to prompt, test generated code, etc."

"LLMs are smart and can effortlessly interface with pre-existing technologies" -> "You must adopt these agent protocols, now"

"LLMs are great at 0-shot learning" -> "I will not use this language/library/version of tool, because my model isn't trained on its examples"

"LLMs effortlessly understand existing code" -> "You must change your code specifically to be understood by LLMs"

This is getting rather ridiculous.
by proc0 | 2025-06-18 14:35:46+00:00
This is not well defined.

> Consciousness is defined as the fraction of an object's inherent description that an observer correctly believes to be true.

Here it's a belief, but in other places it's referring to a relationship between objects and belief (i.e. a ratio). In either case this isn't sufficient to account for the hard problem. It's just building a framework and using the word 'Consciousness' as one of the labels. Any definition of consciousness should account for why we have a subjective perspective that unrolls through time and has qualia.

Also "belief" implies subjectivity, which imlpies a conscious entity, so any use of "belief" is circular here.

An information theoretic approach would tackle this with Shannon entropy and Turing machines, for example.
by bluGill | 2025-06-18 14:36:45+00:00
YEs we do - your point that there might be too many is valid, but a modern UI when done right is much more accessible to the "common man" than a MSDos and so all the time those teams put in is more than made up for in all the time you saving not having to teach all the people who will use the program and thus we need far more teams than in the MSDos days when we couldn't make a good UI in the first place.
by incomingpain | 2025-06-18 14:37:41+00:00
>My experience with heavily quantized models is they do better than a similar sized unquantized model but don't really perform anywhere near the pre-quantized model.

People have tested it. Q8 has essentially no drop in quality, Q4 is measurable but still not realistically a problem. If this impacts you, just pay for the commercial saas option.
by ednite | 2025-06-18 14:37:51+00:00
Great article. I live a fully digital world, synced calendars and reminders, digital flowcharts, task management tools. And yet, I’ve got a giant whiteboard behind me like it’s 1999.

There’s just something about scribbling on a physical board that makes my brain go, “Ah yes, real work.” I don’t trust an idea until it’s written in squeaky marker and screaming out on the wall. Thanks for sharing!
by HelloNurse | 2025-06-18 14:37:53+00:00
Optimal pathfinding isn't always the right objective: for a good looking game agent reasonable pathfinding can often be enough, or even better.

For example, in a RTS making units follow a leader in formation can be more natural and less expensive than performing independent optimal pathfinding for all of them, while in environments with many obstacles staying away from walls (on a simplified graph of good positions) is usually more elegant than hugging corners (on a much more complex graph).