MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by adrian_b | 2025-06-21 06:35:52+00:00
There will be no RDNA 5, but a unified UDNA, replacing both CDNA and RDNA.

AMD has not disclosed how they will achieve the unification, but it is far more likely that the unified architecture will be an evolution of CDNA 4, i.e. an evolution of the old GCN, than an evolution of RDNA, because basing the unified architecture on CDNA/GCN, will create less problems in software porting than basing it on RDNA 4 or 3. The unified architecture will probably take some features from RDNA only when they are hard to emulate on CDNA.

While the first generation of RDNA has been acclaimed for having a good performance increase in games over the previous GCN-based Vega, it is not clear how much of that performance increase was due to RDNA being better for games and how much to the fact that the first RDNA GPUs happened to have double-width vector pipelines in comparison with the previous GCN GPUs, thus double throughput per clock cycle and per CU (32 FP32 operations/cycle vs. 16 FP32 operations/cycle).

It is possible that RDNA was not really a better architecture, but omitting some of the hardware that was rarely used in games from GCN allowed the implementation of the wider pipelines that were more useful for games. So RDNA was a better compromise for the technology available at that time, not necessarily better in other circumstances.
by rstuart4133 | 2025-06-21 06:36:22+00:00
People love to blame regulations. I live in a bushfire, cyclone and flood prone part of Australia. We have lots of regulations. For example a category 5 cyclone recent hit us, but no one overly concerned because it is a new area, and if you live in a cyclone area your house must be able to withstand 300 km/h winds. If you live in a bushfire area, you are required to have 20,000 litres of water on hand at all times. If you live in near a freeway, you are required to have 14mm glass to dampen the sound.

As it happens, I am building a house now, and an subject to all those regulations. It added maybe 10% to the total. But in real terms housing price has gone up far that that more since the 1970's.

Why? The reason is fairly mundane really: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s... Combine that with modern houses being air-conditioned, need to garage 2 cars, have stone benches and multiple TV's (none of which are mandated by regulation), and you get to the real reason.

It has nothing to do with the regulations, yet people blame it anyway.

We just need to build affordable housing. You would think given there is a demand for it, capitalism would make it happen. Yet it isn't happening. If you want to blame the government for something, not putting the regulations in place to create a market place to ensure it does happen would where I'd be looking. I doubt they would have much to do with reducing building safety, or opening up unsuitable land, and more to do with somehow arranging the financing so that it becomes attractive to build smaller, plain, boring looking cookie cutter houses.
by fifticon | 2025-06-21 06:38:30+00:00
well, I have a parking timer installed in the windshield of my car, and it has a 'universally hailed' beautiful design.

It is an obnoxious hassle to replace the batteries on it, and equally so set the clock on it.

So, should I trust thus beautiful design to not be a hassle in daily use..? I long for an ugly parking timer that is easy to use, but those have been driven out of the market by this beauty.
by stiray | 2025-06-21 06:38:41+00:00
No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads.

And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary?

Yes, I know.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
by tguvot | 2025-06-21 06:39:55+00:00
iranian missiles don't have enough precision to execute retaliatory attacks. also, it will be much better use of missiles to take out some military infrastructure (which they can't do, because missiles don't have precision in order to hit something)

as proof of this, in last 2 days iran shooting missiles with cluster warheads that have 8km dispersion radius into downtowns in order just to hit somebody and do some damage
by niemandhier | 2025-06-21 06:40:13+00:00
Matrix as a protocol and any of the clients that use it. SchildiChat and Element being two.

In theory you could even make that interoperable with WhatsApp i( in the EU) since the DMA makes that mandatory, I am not aware if anyone who did it though.

https://developers.facebook.com/m/messaging-interoperability...
by d6e | 2025-06-21 06:40:59+00:00
I'm sorry, I don't want to spend my whole friday evening getting into this.

For me, the topic is personal because I was one of those young transgirls who was forced to go through male puberty. I transitioned the moment I was 18. I'm in my thirties now and still trans and still a woman. There's aspects of my body that are still permanently altered by the fact that I was forced to go through male puberty. I still resent the adults in my life, particularly the psychiatrist who strung me a long for years while I had to go through body horror. I would have done literally anything for hormone blockers back then.

I'm sure this is personal for you too. That's why you spend so much effort replying. Maybe we can see common ground? Neither of us want children to be forced to go through the wrong puberty.

Anyways, hope you have a good evening
by reconnecting | 2025-06-21 06:41:51+00:00
I tried to install Signal once. First, it checks and matches your phone number. Strange, but acceptable. Then, it shows a Google Captcha [0], which sends my data to Google. I checked Signal's Privacy Policy and there are no details data sharing [1].

Signal might be good at message encryption, but let's not forget that it handles user privacy unacceptably poorly.

[0] https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/6002

[1] https://signal.org/legal/
by neepi | 2025-06-21 06:42:30+00:00
Not much point here (UK). It’s difficult to get anyone to move or even install it. No one cares enough to show any interest.

Needs to be a large billboard marketing campaign which is “zuck eats children and owns WhatsApp” or something. Then you might get 5% of people move over.

My immediate family are on it and two friends. That represents a year of trying.
by mrweasel | 2025-06-21 06:43:03+00:00
> WhatsApp is great because it is run by a for—profit company

That also what causes the problems. The sad part is that it didn't have to be this way, but being publicly listed currently means that you got to pump those stocks. Very few people invest in stocks because they believe in the long term future of a given company, that's old school thinking.

The types of stockholders that "take ownership" also isn't going to help fund the company long term. They buy the stock once and the hold on to it. How is that going to help?

WhatsApp needed to be a subscription to not go down the ads and data collection rabbit hole. Now there's no going back, more and more ads will appear and more and more tracking will sneak in. This is a Meta product after all, so I don't even understand why people are surprised.
by mercacona | 2025-06-21 06:44:13+00:00
IMHO the constant complaints about losing chats or needing conversation backups aren’t technical problems—they’re social ones. We need to reclaim the freedom to speak with others ephemerally. No one should want all their conversations recorded, yet we’re heading toward the opposite with smart glasses.

Ideally, we’d agree universally: chats saved for one month (the context we can actually remember from a conversation), emails for five years (for administrative control), and conversations never recorded. However, we’ve been manipulated into needing exactly the opposite. Worse yet, we think it’s possible to maintain privacy while transcribing and archiving everything in our minds, making it public.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-06-21 06:44:57+00:00
> a bunch of consumers have decided that they'd rather pay less for a shirt or shoe that will fall apart faster than more for one that lasts longer

They don't know it'll fall apart faster, to begin with… and then by the time they do, they've already spent enough of their clothes budget that they can't afford to buy proper cloth, and it's hard to find that nowadays anyway, so they'll just have to buy more of the low-quality stuff.
by Nasrudith | 2025-06-21 06:45:28+00:00
Alignment appears to be a delusional construct along with 'AI safety'. They are basically looking for a gun that only hurts bad people and premising their plans based upon the mythical weapons which won't harm the innocent. Trying to come up with something universally inoffensive makes the 'gun which only hurts bad people' look sane, because at least that is possible with the proper metaphysics as physics.

The whole 'AI safety' corporate safety reminds me of the one apocryphal story about trying to make a safe chat system for children's multiplayer games to allow for connections while not having 'bad stuff'. They went through various systems, including filters which had scunthorping and various filter bypasses like adding in letters inbetween the swears. They gave up completely after giving it to some dirty minded middle schoolers and they produced some innuendos involving wanting to rub their fluffy bunnies.

The 'AI safety' for the corporate purposes is truly impossible, especially with a pretrained model. The unwritten future and any proper event can create something retroactively very offensive, let alone shifting standards. If some murderous psychopath went on a rampage killing people and cannibalizing the victims in the middle of the Superbowl, 'going pink bunny' would become an offensive reference. There is nothing that could be done to prevent that, but idiotically that is what they are seeking with 'brand safety'.
by lucubratory | 2025-06-21 06:45:44+00:00
>In 2025 if you are a public person saying it you will get consequences. See Hobhouse case.

Yes, if your criticism of China is in the news they might not let you in. That doesn't apply to many people but it's still a helpful clarification.

>There are other people like John Cena apologizing for saying something "wrong" in English but no idea if they were threatened by CCP or by their managers

Managers, and the reason isn't out of fear of legal consequences but fear of boycotts. Chinese have often felt like those in the West are talking down to them or being condescending, and they've never in their life had the ability to affect those doing so. Now that people really want access to the Chinese market, it's the first time ever for many Chinese people that they feel they can have any impact on how Westerners talk about China or the Chinese people. As a result (and because China has domestic equivalents of everything), Chinese people can be very boycott happy. The government can stop Chinese people from organising boycotts & very often does so (once again, they have an issue with any sort of mass organising by default), but the government can't force people to buy tickets to John Cena's movies & they didn't view it as appropriate to censor the videos of him screwing up what he meant to say. An organic boycott by the Chinese market is the worst nightmare of a lot of businessmen because the future of their business relies on selling in China, so they'll be even more strict on their people than the Chinese government would to try to avoid that.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-06-21 06:46:10+00:00
The history of chat networks over the last quarter century is that they come and go and there is no long term loyalty to any of them. ICQ, AOL, MSN, Yahoo Messenger, Facebook Messenger, Google's many messengers, etc. are long forgotten and some of those used to be dominant and their disappearance seemed unimaginable. Mostly this is due to corporate stupidity and big corporations getting greedy about "owning" their user base and then throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

It seems Meta (a repeat offended with this) is yet again making that mistake with whatsapp. Prediction: they'll run it into the ground just like they ran Facebook Messenger into the ground. And Facebook itself of course.

Whatsapp only showed up because of extortion prices for SMS messages. It did the same thing for a fraction of the cost (1$/year initially). Easy sell, so it grew to many users. But who uses SMS at this point? I get a few once in a while. Mostly stupid 2FA codes. The core premise for Whatsapp has long disappeared.

Whatsapp is probably going to implode as Meta starts pushing through unpopular things like advertising and continues to be in the spotlight for routinely doing dodgy things with respect to privacy, surveillance, etc. They are just not a great brand when it comes to that and they are losing a lot of trust over time.

Mostly people use whatsapp because other people use whatsapp. Not because it's particularly good. IMHO it actually always was a bit meh compared to other things. But world+dog seems to like sending me messages with it so I'm on it.

For the same reason I've had Signal on my phone for a few years now and more and more messages are coming in via that. Neither are optional at this point. I expect Signal will eat a lot of the Whatsapp traffic soon.

And if not Signal than something else. Whatsapp was famously built with only a small team. That's 16 years ago. These days building something like that from scratch could be done in a fraction of the time with minimal effort. You could vibe code an MVP in an afternoon and it wouldn't be horrible. This stuff is a pure commodity at this point. We don't need trillion dollar big tech companies doing this for us.
by oezi | 2025-06-21 06:47:04+00:00
Signal has many faults as a Whatsapp replacement and the export issue ranks also high for me. Other issues:

- Can't move from iOS to Android (and vice versa) without losing your chat history because backups aren't compatible.

- Can't send media with their creation timestamps. All photos shared with family/friends via Signal can't be used to build a photo album without manually sorting pictures.

- Can't automatically save pictures to Picture Roll, Google Drive, Dropbox for integration with your other pictures.

- Only one desktop/computer can be linked to Signal desktop.

- Many useful chat widgets such as polls or real-time location are missing.

- No transcription of audio messages (WhatsApp only has a few languages) and lot of issues with audio messages such as iOS users not being able to play audio messages created on Android but not with Signal.

I don't think they should strive to reach feature parity with Telegram or asian messengers, but why can't they try to at least match WhatsApp in core functionality?

I get the privacy focus, but most of us are not dissidents in foreign countries or journalists who could be killed over their picture metadata. Give us a mode for normal users.

I regret moving my family over to Signal because before I used to have all their pictures as part of my photo stream. Since switching I need to manually save pictures but they don't have the correct timestamps then.
by jchook | 2025-06-21 06:47:33+00:00
Signal has a central, proprietary server. It's between impractical and impossible to run your own Signal server like you can with Matrix, Revolt, or Delta Chat for example. BlueSky has a similar approach (compare to Mastodon).

Also Signal requires a phone number to sign-in. It's not exactly private. AFAIK the proprietary server can glean your IP, your phone number, who you talk to, and when you talk to them. This type of metadata is valuable information.

The WhatsApp co-founder gave Signal $105M in 2018. Signal costs ~$50M/year to run. It's also funded by wealthy donors such as Jack Dorsey (Twitter, BlueSky, Square). BTW Jack is now pushing Signal to integrate Bitcoin.

When evaluating the "ethics" of a chat platform, we should factor-in the metadata, soft power, and eventual leverage that centralized (controlled by a few) platforms like BlueSky and Signal afford to wealthy folks who are bankrolling it.
by grishka | 2025-06-21 06:48:30+00:00
The system partition is made some fixed size, the same way disk partitioning works on PCs, and never resized, because resizing file systems is still a non-trivial task. It often has some free space too to accommodate future system updates.

On my 128 GB Pixel 9 Pro, /data is 109 GB. The rest is /system (although `df -h` doesn't show it explicitly, no idea what's up with that) and various other system-related partitions.
by motorest | 2025-06-21 06:48:38+00:00
> Ironically, that looks a lot like when k8s is managed by a dedicated infra team / cloud provider.

There are multiple concerns at play:

- how to stitch together this cluster in a way that it can serve our purposes,

- how to deploy my app in this cluster so that it works and meets the definition of done.

There are some overlaps between both groups, but there are indeed some concerns that are still firmly in the platform team's wheelhouse. For example, should different development teams have access to other team's resources? Should some services be allowed to deploy to specific nodes? If a node fails, should a team drop work on features to provision everything together again? If anyone answers "no" to any of the questions, it is a platform concern.
by troupo | 2025-06-21 06:49:22+00:00
> I’ve paid for YouTube Premium from the beginning (remember YouTube Red?) and it has been a mostly great service for 10+ years.

I struggle to see the difference between Youtube Premium and regular Youtube with the exception of ads.

It's the same shitty recommendation algorithm. It's the same "you will watch shorts or else". It's the same nerfed unusable search. It's the same "we randomly decided that your bandwidth isn't enough, here's a 480p version of the video you're currently watching".
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-21 06:49:43+00:00
Are there no municipal or co-op ISPs in your area? GVEC here, started by farmers to get electricity where there was none, is awesome and still largely a co-op.

1 Gbps fibre of similar quality to GFiber for $89/month (vs 70) in almost the middle of nowhere. 2.5 and 5 exist too, but are pricier.
by PurestGuava | 2025-06-21 06:50:29+00:00
> If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

The most common throughline of all pro-piracy discourse is that there's a lot of people who feel completely entitled to free entertainment, and they will come up with all sorts of bizarre mental gymnastics to justify that as something other than "I want free entertainment and don't want to see ads."

I don't think anyone could articulate a coherent logical argument as to why they feel they should get YouTube's services, and the entertainment produced by the creators who are on YouTube, while not paying either of them through any means, other than pure selfishness.
by niemandhier | 2025-06-21 06:51:29+00:00
I’ll take the bait :-). . Endings of lines seem to come in pairs ( de, de; cuo, suo; de,de; wo,luo)

I’d therefore conjecture that lines are missing after ‘ge’ and ‘ge’.

This of course assumes Chinese poetry is based on vowels matching as e.g it is the case in german and not based on rhythm as would be the case in Latin and Arabic.
by shermantanktop | 2025-06-21 06:52:48+00:00
This is the type of twaddle that I have come to expect from “designer” types. Constant boosterism and exhortations to respect their craft. And when left to practice said craft, the majority of the actual work product is visionary PPTs for execs and a pile of figma screens that barely cover the happiest of happy cases.

Sad thing is that I very much agree with the importance of design. But practitioners seem often insecure, inward looking and unconcerned about whether their dreams are actually workable. But they will talk your ear off about the “texture” of a font.
by palmfacehn | 2025-06-21 06:53:45+00:00
Consuming content online has always been about agency. You choose the content. Previous media landscapes were largely passive endeavors. Broadcast media choices were limited. You either muted the ads, turned off the TV/radio or endured the advertisements. I often find myself closing YT when ads are played.

Not only are they largely irrelevant, but they are frequently in the wrong language. If I want to immerse myself in the local language, I will go outside and interact in that language. If I am listening to a podcast in English, typically around Anglophone cultural or political topics, why would they invade my space with non-English content?

I don't want to hear local music or K-Pop when I am listening to classical music.

In many cases, the language isn't even local to the country which I reside in. If I cannot have an English-only space on my own computer, I won't be using the site. There's a time and a place for immersion into other cultures. My personal computer in my home office isn't the place.
by throwaway-11-1 | 2025-06-21 06:53:46+00:00
I’ve been doing Ui for 20+ years and I’ve almost never seen a complete design make it out the door. When the project timeline slips it’s the first thing to get compromised by project managers or engineers making decisions to hit a target budget or deadline, none who value a complete user experience. I get that it’s not as valuable as other disciplines but it bothers me when people act like designers ever get to determine what actually ships.
by comp_throw7 | 2025-06-21 06:54:35+00:00
That's an empirical claim, not a "base principle" (whatever that is). And, uh, yeah, I agree that I am not re-examining my beliefs in response to a bunch of random unsupported accusations by people who are demonstrably not familiar with the thing they're attacking. You should update your beliefs in response to evidence, not in response to social attacks.
by skerit | 2025-06-21 06:55:11+00:00
I am kind of happy that people are looking back at iOS 7's style & flat design in a whole and can just say: "I hated it then, I hate it now". Because I surely do. Back then if you hated it, you were just being stubborn, you were against change. But I even hate it more today. How is this the visual design that has stuck around for the longest of times?
by bsder | 2025-06-21 06:55:31+00:00
> The real problem is public corruption

The outsourcing push was a Republican party propaganda anti-tax shibboleth combined with pique at government departments that had the temerity to point out that "Reality Has A Well-Known Liberal Bias(tm)".

The problem is that you switch from the government doing something possibly inefficiently to private industry who WILL take their cut no matter what which leads to even less efficiency. The contracting companies are the same but they love privatization because the government has far less recourse when they don't deliver properly.

If you want real competition, you have to keep at least some amount of capability in house in the government or the contractors will simply wring you out knowing full well that you have no recourse.

For the modern strain: see DOGE. And how much money got saved? Yeah, exactly like that.