MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tsungxu | 2025-06-11 00:05:23+00:00
Thanks! I'm using the standard Ardupilot control systems for hover, transition and cruise flight. On the firmware side, it's just some parameters and tuning that is customized.

What I started with - Had built one VTOL before from foamboard, not 3D printed. - Familiar with Ardupilot from that project and assembling a multicopter and COTS VTOL. - So I had a little experience building a structurally sound airframe for VTOL loads, but 3D printing was a wrinkle. - How I worked it out is a hard question. But it was being focused with design, flight testing and troubleshooting. LLMs, Youtube, forums, etc for help when needed. - Building in public helped paradoxically. It actually saves me time to build in public because of the motivation boost that helps me move faster and to share progress sooner. Even though there's a higher lift to document and share.
by solresol | 2025-06-11 00:05:28+00:00
I think of it as trying to encourage the LLM to want to give answers from a particular part of the phase space. You can do it by fine tuning it to be more likely to return values from there, or you can prompt it to get into that part of the phase space. Either works, but fiddling around with prompts doesn't require all that much MLops or compute power.

That said, fine tuning small models because you have to power through vast amounts of data where a larger model might be cost ineffective -- that's completely sensible, and not really mentioned in the article.
by Aghmat | 2025-06-11 00:05:56+00:00
Over the past week (July 3–10, 2025), I discovered and successfully reproduced a serious vulnerability in a widely-used AI LLM platform—specifically, a cross-user context leak. This flaw allowed access to other users' data, including code, Excel spreadsheets, and personally identifiable information (PII).

I have acted in good faith to report this issue through all appropriate channels:

Initial report via the official bug bounty program.

Escalation through internal security channels.

Direct outreach to the company’s security team, executives, and even investors.

Despite these efforts, I was met with silence, gaslighting, and stonewalling. As of now, there has been no acknowledgment, remediation, or accountability. Given the severity of the data involved, it's hard to imagine this is being ignored—my hope is that a War Room is in session and legal teams are already preparing a response.

I’m withholding specific names and technical details for now, but I intend to report this to the appropriate regulatory authorities within the next 72 hours if no responsible action is taken.

This is a serious issue, and users deserve transparency.
by ab5tract | 2025-06-11 00:06:07+00:00
I have not ever been in a self-driving car. I've seen a few of them visiting the Bay Area. Only taxis seem to be allowed to use this tech so far.

I've always been a proponent that we would see self driving cars in our lifetime. But they have absolutely not arrived outside of the sheltered enclaves of a handful of tech-centered cities.
by Agingcoder | 2025-06-11 00:06:24+00:00
I don’t really care about google’s ai features - I’m fine with regular old fashioned search engines. I’ve stopped using google because it doesn’t work anymore - I used to be able to find what I want , and now I can’t. Everything is lost in a mess of ads and what seems to be a collection of random answers.

I now instruct chatgpt to search the web for me and I read the result, since it works. I also read the news directly from various newspapers that I subscribe to to make sure they actually get money.
by spartanatreyu | 2025-06-11 00:08:03+00:00
Oh shit privacy!

I got confused between the <image> css type (that `element()` produces) and the image type used by canvases. But they're different on purpose to try and make things one way to handle privacy/security concerns. (canvases can go in the other way, but they can end up "tainted" and you have to mess with CORS which a whole bunch of devs can't handle)

We can:

- declaratively render <image> css types onto elements from css land using `background`

- declaratively get the finished render of an element back into an <image> css type using `element()`

- programmatically make whatever changes to bitmap data inside a canvas

- programmatically copy the contents of a canvas through Houdini's paint worklets into an <image> css type that is declaratively accessible using `paint()`

We just don't have a non-CORS way to directly get an <image> css type into a canvas' bitmap data in the first place.

I haven't checked, but there could be a way to draw an <image> css type into an svg, then draw that svg in the canvas. Assuming that doesn't break the element() link, you could do the CORS headers dance to make the canvas' data accessible again.

So, you could probably make it work on your own website, but you couldn't release it as a library because each server would need to be set up correctly to allow it to work.

It'd probably be much easier to just skip the canvas entirely and do the distortions entirely declaratively in svg using filter effects (e.g. svgDisplacementMap, or maybe feConvolveMatrix) so there's no privacy leaking.

Ironically, that'd probably mean that the effect could be completely implemented right now in firefox without waiting for new features to be released, but with firefox's poor svg filter effects performance, it'd run at seconds per frame instead of frames per second.
by hoherd | 2025-06-11 00:12:36+00:00
Sounds like the modern version of the CS Lewis quote:

> The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.
by neilv | 2025-06-11 00:12:59+00:00
> It’s something about hardware companies writing software.

I've seen enough examples of that, to suspect there's some truth to it, and wonder why that is...

Speculation:

* Systems programming is hard, and systems programmers who are familiar enough with the kind of target hardware are even more rare. A company might decide to hire a hardware engineer who can code, rather than a systems programmer software engineer who knows enough hardware.

* Hardware companies know hardware, and might have hardware engineers as execs and managers, so they probably know how to hire hardware engineers, but maybe not software engineers.

* Hardware companies respect hardware engineers, and not so much software people. You don't need all those hard math and engineering classes to be a "coder". Even their 12yo can make an app, but you usually need a team with a ton of hardware education and experience to produce a viable board or IC. ("Coding" even sounds like a tedious but straightforward clerical task.)

Other speculation, or does anyone know?
by dataviz1000 | 2025-06-11 00:13:07+00:00
I wasn't aware of dia browser, thank you for sharing. I've been doing browser automation for a while and have become convinced the way to accomplish human in the middle is to fork Chromium and create a custom browser. However, there is one problem, there are 3.5B Chrome users. Getting someone to install a browser extension is hard enough, a whole new browser much, much more difficult.

I went with experimenting with stock trading as a demo because people need huge incentive and value to make the critical jump to install an app. There is potential for niche curated business intelligence in trading or real estate, for example, where not only providing the chat bot but also time series data embeddings ect.

I'm a little sad because I'm late to this party.

Nevertheless, there needs to incentive also for people to continue to publish the data, ideas, and information so the chatbots are going to have help the content creators help them curate and provide the data by getting users to navigate to the webpages.

I remember reading Google's Search Engine Optimization guide back in 2009 when I built a news publishing website for an industry newpaper. The tone was here is how to optimize your website for google crawlers to help us help you get traffic to your website. Google is nothing without people creating.
by lqstuart | 2025-06-11 00:13:08+00:00
Haha yeah. I’ve seen you mention the llama cpp wrapper elsewhere, it sounds cool! I’ve worked enough with vLLM and sglang to get angry at xgrammar, which I believe has some common ancestry with the GGML stack (GBNF if I’m not mistaken, which I may be). The constrained decoding part is as simple as you’d expect, just applies a bitmask to the logprobs during the “logit processing” and continuing as normal.
by jumploops | 2025-06-11 00:14:04+00:00
> people want good software

Absolutely! We’re in an interesting time, and LLMs are certainly over-hyped.

With that said, I’d argue that most software today is _average_. Not necessarily bad by design, but average because of the (historic) economies of software development.

We’ve all seen it: some beloved software tool that fills a niche. They raise funding/start to scale and all of a sudden they need to make this software work for more people.

The developers remove poweruser features, add functionality to make it easier to use, and all of a sudden the product is a shell of its former self.

This is what excites me about LLMs. Now we can build software for 10s or 100s of users, instead of only building software with the goal (and financial stability) of a billion users.

My hope is that, even with tons of terrible vibe coded atrocities littering the App Store/web, we’ll at least start to see some software that was better than before, because the developers can focus on the forest rather than each individual tree (similar to Assembly -> C -> Python).
by smitty1e | 2025-06-11 00:15:22+00:00
Mom; dad; kids: please explain the failing component?

This is not a top-down policy prescription. It is plain, simple, bottom-up wisdom. Nothing I'm saying here has to do with external law. Rather, internal common sense.

To your point, and as Strother Martin succinctly put it in Cool Hand Luke: "There's some men you just can't reach."

The actionable policy is to pursue the basic truth of "form follows function".
by jrapdx3 | 2025-06-11 00:15:34+00:00
I concur that TclTk is enormously versatile and productive. I've always regarded Tcl as a Lisp-like language. Tcl and Lisp share characteristics like homoiconicity that enable benefits you describe.

Tcl isn't as widely known and used as it deserves to be. I think that's in part due to its syntax being sufficiently different from "mainstream" languages. The learning curve isn't particularly steep, but enough so that developers question whether it's worth the effort to go there.

FWIW Tcl 9.0 has recently been released. The language has been enriched with sophisticated object-oriented capabilities, coroutines, full math tower, etc. It's also rather easy to write extensions in C.

Anyway, the GUI toolkit (Tk) has been "borrowed" by many other languages (e.g., Python's tkinter), so quite a few programmers use TclTk, know it not.
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-06-11 00:16:25+00:00
Do you think we will get AI models capable of learning in real time, using a small number of examples similar to humans, in the next few years? This seems like a key barrier to AGI.

More broadly, I wonder how many key insights he thinks are actually missing for AGI or ASI. This article suggests that we've already cleared the major hurdles, but I think there are still some major keys missing. Overall his predictions seem like fairly safe bets, but they don't necessarily suggest superintelligence as I expect most people would define the term.
by ryandv | 2025-06-11 00:16:33+00:00
> I am struggle to express myself in response to this, possibly because I'm at the bar, but I reeeaaally want to respond... so hold my beer and please forgive me for this long comment.

I'm going to not only assume that you are of the male gender but also will assume that if you need to rely on a LLM to produce this kind of slop, substituting soda for beer isn't really going to assist with your literacy.
by graycat | 2025-06-11 00:18:26+00:00
Clearly "Section 174" is now, currently, an issue.

And vaguely I seemed to remember some Trump campaign statements that in taxes some business spending could be deducted instead of amortized (spread over several years) or some such.

I'm deliberately no expert on taxes or business taxes.

Some of the Internet discussions seemed to suggest that some of the worst of 174 were to be implemented, continued, canceled, whatever, so for more information on the background, status, future, etc. of 174, did a little Google search and came up with the discussion I posted here. That discussion seems to say that the "Big Beautiful Bill" may get rid of 174, and that would seem to be in the collection of deduction changes Trump discussed.

About the economy, growth, the Fed's Prime rate, deficit spending, interest payments on Treasury bonds, tariffs, inflation, the balances of trade and payments, R&D, AI, foreign investment in the US, 174, etc., to me the MSM (mainstream media) is short on enough credible information for me to have much in opinions.

In addition, for politics, mostly it looks like noise for some manipulation, effect, or other and a reason to follow "Always look for the hidden agenda."

So, about 174, the information I have looks no more credible and a lot less fun than an old Bugs Bunny cartoon! But maybe Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd would guess that getting rid of 174 would help R&D, new businesses, factories, business revenue, and even, net, tax revenue. Or did Elmer repeat "To make money, have to spend money."?

I'd scream at the junk -- drama -- in the MSM, but it won't do any good.

Summary: For the main issues here in the US, I just don't have good information. The stuff I posted above seems to suggest that the future of 174 is still in doubt.
by momojo | 2025-06-11 00:19:19+00:00
I quick shout out to a light in the dark (in the bio-imaging space)

https://napari.org/stable/

I love napari. I remember downloading it on a whim, and while poking around, I accidentally opened its built-in python console. Half the time, if I'm writing a plugin for it, I open up the console just so that I can play around and print out stuff and try new things.

Everything, even the viewer itself, is accessible from the repl. Nothing hides behind a black box.
Are we witnessing the rise of AIDEs?
by devnullchild | 2025-06-11 00:19:27+00:00
I’ve been coding long enough to see the IDE go from a novelty to a default to… a bottleneck.

The last couple years, though, something’s changed. It’s subtle. Feels like most new tools aren’t just “smart editors” anymore. They respond. They suggest. Sometimes they even explain.

They’re not IDEs. They’re… something else.

Been calling them AIDEs lately — Artificial Intelligence Development Environments.

Not saying it’ll stick. But it feels different: • Cursor doesn’t feel like a VS Code extension. It feels like a teammate. • Ghostwriter doesn’t just autocomplete — it knows what I’m asking before I do. • I’ve seen junior devs build shippable codebases without ever typing if.

I’m wondering if this is just a fancy wrapper around LLMs, or the beginning of a proper shift — where “development environment” means co-author, not just color-coded text.

Anyone else feeling this? Do we need a new term for what’s emerging?
by lubujackson | 2025-06-11 00:19:57+00:00
> For a long time, technical people in the startup industry have made fun of “the idea guys”; people who had an idea and were looking for a team to build it.

I get the gist of what he is saying, but I really think that most of the "idea guys" who never got farther than an idea will stay that way. Sure, they might spit out a demo or something, but from what I've seen the "idea guys" tend to be the "I want to play business" guys who have read all the top books and refine their Powerpoints but never actually seem to get around to, you know, running a business. I think there is underlying difference there.

I do see AI as a great accelerator. Just as scripting languages suddenly unlocked some designers who could make great websites but couldn't hang with pointers and malloc, I think AI will unlock great idea guys who can make great apps or businesses. But it will be fewer people than you think, because "building the app" is rarely the biggest challenge - focused intent is much harder to come by.

I do think the age of decently robust apps getting shat out like Flash games is going to be fun and chaotic, and I am 100% here for it.
by dataviz1000 | 2025-06-11 00:21:21+00:00
As an experiment, because p47's social media posts move the markets $60 in a day, and the last thing on Earth I want to be doing is reading them so the system makes an API request for any new ones, then checks for links, video, and images. It uses OpenAI whisper running with transformers.js on the local machine using webgpu for the inference to transcribe the video and audio and image to text for ocr. I tried to do the text generation locally but any decent model although will run caused my Macbook M3 to get so hot I could cook a steak on it while freezing the rendering for the whole computer.

image-to-text and video, audio-to-text works fine, there are lot of uses for text generation that work but to get high quality analysis to see if a social media post might cause the stock market to crash requires sending the data out to an api. If the side panel requires searching for links to navigate to it requires a third party api.

Working with it, I think the next hardware race will be getting these models to run on personal computers in next 2 - 5 years and I have a suspicion Microsoft is ahead of Apple.
by charcircuit | 2025-06-11 00:21:48+00:00
>rooting should be allowed on a certified device

I don't think this should be allowed because rooting breaks the Android security model. Devices that don't follow at least Android's security model should not be allowed that way apps understand the security model of Android.

>grapheneos should be given a way to pass all attestations

There already is the Android attestation API that can be used to attest grapheneos. But I do think it would be nice if Play Integrity would expand beyond just Play Protect Certified devices, to devices which can prove they offer a similar or greater level of security.
by J_McQuade | 2025-06-11 00:22:40+00:00
Not gonna lie, I've been using (and programming) GUIs since the Amiga and even I get thrown askew by "click here to enter your name" (expecting a subsequent GUI element to focus, or worse - a popup) vs. "click here to enter your name" (haha! the prompt text disappears now and this is just where you write it I guess!).

You'd think this is just a little thing, but it can really mess with you if you need to change focus and - of course - every application will 'haha!' you in a different way.

It has nothing to do with skeuomorphism really, but at least skeuomorphism seemed to give everyone an idea of what they were shooting for at least.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-06-11 00:24:04+00:00
And power. Like their power over this young girl trying to go home:

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1l88mhj/lap...

Old dead link: https://www.reddit.com/r/chaoticgood/comments/1l8ax0z/protes...

Remember, less lethal does not mean non-lethal and doesn't mean it can't cause enough damage to impact someone's quality of life forever.
by ksec | 2025-06-11 00:24:38+00:00
>(But Apple had a great silent warranty on it, which is what you really are paying for.)

After we fought very hard for it. Otherwise it cost you $300 or something just for keyboard replacement.

But yes the certain aspect of "feel" for butterfly was great. I really like its key stability. I often wonder if it wasn't so thin, had the typing distance of 1.3mm would reliability drastically increase and feels a lot better.
by aspenmayer | 2025-06-11 00:25:29+00:00
Yes, this is a thing. Supposedly such a thing was used in a recent attack. 3D printers are not able to determine intended operation of their printed output from their print job inputs, whereas counterfeit money has no legitimate purpose, so anything that looks “close enough” for an automated system to detect is probably close enough to fool a human if passed to them as if it were the real thing. I think preventing counterfeit money is a broad enough social good/benefit that a broad cross section of industry, government, and private individuals and groups have decided to work together to make it harder to produce. I don’t see who is harmed by this, besides people trying to print their own currencies for their own purposes, some of whom aren’t trying to make counterfeit copies of actually-existing currencies, but I think they are already going to have to worry about the counterfeit problems themselves if their currency is used outside of controlled conditions by trusted parties.
by 34679 | 2025-06-11 00:25:47+00:00
Follow-up. I pasted the above into ChatGPT because I genuinely wanted to know how to get my 20 bucks back. That request is in and they say I'll get a response in 2-3 days. I then asked it "What are the potential risks of agreeing to their terms?" Here's the response:

Agreeing to Persona’s terms, especially for biometric identity verification, involves both privacy and long-term data security risks. Here’s a clear breakdown of the main risks you should be aware of: 1. Biometric Data Collection

Risk: Biometric identifiers (like facial recognition, voiceprints, etc.) are extremely sensitive and irreplaceable if compromised.

What they collect: Persona may collect a selfie, video, and metadata, and extract biometric templates from those for facial comparison and liveness detection. If leaked or abused: Unlike passwords, you can't change your face. A future data breach or misuse could lead to permanent identity compromise. 2. Data Storage & Retention

Risk: Persona says biometric data is kept for up to one year, but:

You’re relying on their internal policies, not a legal guarantee. There’s no technical detail on how securely it’s stored or whether it’s encrypted at rest. Worst-case scenario: Poorly secured biometric templates could be stolen, reused, or matched against other data sets by bad actors or governments. 3. Third-Party Sharing and Surveillance Risks

Risk: Your biometric and ID data may be shared with subprocessors (partners/vendors) that you haven’t explicitly vetted.

Persona may transfer your data to cloud providers (like AWS, GCP), verification specialists, or fraud prevention services. Depending on jurisdiction, data could be subject to subpoenas, surveillance laws, or government backdoors (especially in the U.S.). 4. Consent Ambiguity & Future Use

Risk: The fine print often includes vague consent for "quality assurance", "model improvement", or "fraud detection".

This opens the door to retraining algorithms on your biometric data—even if anonymized, that's still a use of your body as data. Their privacy policy may evolve, and new uses of your data could be added later unless you opt out (which may not always be possible).

Should You Agree?

Only if:

You absolutely need the service that requires this verification. You’re aware of the privacy tradeoff and are okay with it. You trust that Persona and its partners won’t misuse your biometric data—even a year down the line.

If you’re uneasy about this, you’re not alone. Many developers and privacy advocates refuse to verify with biometrics for non-critical services, and companies like OpenAI are increasingly facing criticism for requiring this.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-06-11 00:26:21+00:00
You don't want a licensing requirement in software engineering. That attempts to solve the problem in the wrong place entirely. The problem is that it's legal to build the Torment Nexus.

Licensing would raise your costs and restrict your choices, while having absolutely no effect on issues like what's being discussed here. You would just get a more expensive Torment Nexus that may or may not be slightly more secure.