MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CGamesPlay | 2025-06-16 23:40:20+00:00
In general, "reader mode". I don't use Chrome but Google suggests that it's in a menu <https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/14218344?hl=en>. Many Chrome-alikes provide it built-in (Brave calls it Speedreader), and many extensions can add it for you (Readability was the OG one).
by aspenmayer | 2025-06-16 23:40:37+00:00
There’s also this guy who you might have heard of, who created a little thing called Alcoholics Anonymous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_W.#Psychedelic_therapy

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5922.13027

Apparently he was so serious about the potential for LSD to help alcoholics, that he almost got thrown out of Alcoholics Anonymous, the recovery group he helped create. He had written to a Catholic friend about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/23/lsd-help-alc...

> LSD, by mimicking insanity, could help alcoholics achieve a central tenet of the Twelve Step programme proposed by AA, he believed. It was a matter of finding "a power greater than ourselves" that "could restore us to sanity". He warned: "I don't believe [LSD] has any miraculous property of transforming spiritually and emotionally sick people into healthy ones overnight. It can set up a shining goal on the positive side, after all it is only a temporary ego-reducer."

> But Wilson added: "The vision and insights given by LSD could create a large incentive – at least in a considerable number of people."

> His words were found in a late 50s letter to Father Ed Dowling, a Catholic priest and member of an experimental group he had formed in New York to explore the spiritual potential of LSD.
by bakugo | 2025-06-16 23:41:54+00:00
> Maybe it's the senior devs who should be the ones to worry?

Why would they be worried?

Who else going to maintain the massive piles of badly designed vibe code being churned out at an increasingly alarming pace? The juniors prompting it certainly don't know what any of it does, and the AIs themselves have proven time and again to be incapable of performing basic maintenance on codebases above a very basic level of complexity.

As the ladder gets pulled up on new juniors, and the "fertile brains" of the few who do get a chance are wasted as they are actively encouraged to not learn anything and just let a computer algorithm do the thinking for them, ensuring they will never have a chance to become seniors themselves, who else will be left to fix the mess?
by seabird | 2025-06-16 23:42:19+00:00
Are you talking about direct object pronouns? At least in the case of Spanish, lo/la is the pronoun for a masculine or feminine noun. It would obviously follow that it's the pronoun for a man and woman, respectively, the same way they would be the pronoun for any other masculine or feminine noun. I don't see how addressing men and women (as a noun) the same as you would any other noun in the language (save some irregularities) means that the cart is pulling the horse.
by RestlessMind | 2025-06-16 23:43:21+00:00
I used Hangouts including the dogfood versions internally at Google. Problem was it was too complicated because it was designed by Googlers for Googlers. So it supported desktop and mobile, work email and personal email and phone numbers, text and video, and so on. In short, every single complexity conceivable was crammed into the app.

Whereas Whatsapp was simple - only phone numbers to sign up, only text and images, only mobile phones. That simplicity meant my parents could onboard smoothly and operate it without having to navigate a maze of UX. I literally saw Whatsapp winning in real time vs Hangouts and other alternatives.
by atypeoferror | 2025-06-16 23:43:44+00:00
We have, and I won’t lie, it’s kinda a pain. The reality we discovered is that async flows are second-class citizens in otel tracing.

We essentially propagate the context manually between APIs and lambdas, through HTTP headers, SNS/SQS and even storage. We also ended up pulling Tempo’s Parquet files (we’re self-hosting the grafana stack) into Redash to be able to do real analysis. We got a lot of great insights and were able to do a lot of tuning that would have been impossible otherwise, but it was quite an investment. Would love to know if there is anything out there that would have made this less painful.
by jayofdoom | 2025-06-16 23:44:03+00:00
I spent a lot of time in my career, honestly some of the most impactful stuff I've done, mentoring college students and junior developers. I think you are dead on about the skills being very similar. Being verbose, not making assumptions about existing context, and generalized warnings against pitfalls when doing the sort of thing you're asking it to do goes a long long way.

Just make sure you talk to Claude in addition to the humans and not instead of.
by josephcsible | 2025-06-16 23:45:10+00:00
> Over-the-air updates have played a very important role in our development cycle, helping us push newer features to users without requiring them to download newer versions of the app from Google Play/Apple Store.

That isn't a good thing. I don't want my app to be able to update itself out of my control, and without me being able to downgrade by sideloading an old apk if something's wrong with the new version.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-06-16 23:45:27+00:00
I do agree with that. It's a complicated trade-off between spending resources to police companies Vs doing all the testing.

Companies will usually be doing a lot of internal testing on new products, so they'll have a lot of the necessary tech and processes already in place. The trick is to ensure that faking results is penalised enough to make it not worth the risk. Most of the time it's cheaper to trust companies and then focus on the safety stats, though that fails with your examples of non-obvious issues.
by allenrb | 2025-06-16 23:45:40+00:00
This confirms something I’ve occasionally wondered about. As an adult with a job, a side business, a family, and an ancient house, I can still remember the incredible focus of youth. No responsibilities.

I’m not saying that I envy anyone in prison — it sucks whether you’ve “earned it” or not, but I’ve always wondered how productive a person could be while locked up.

Glad to see him making the most of the opportunity. With care and feeding, he’s got a good shot at getting out and staying out.
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-06-16 23:47:44+00:00
> Major corporations are almost by definition have massive amounts of bloat and inefficiency to one degree or another and are carried (especially tech companies) by certain products/teams/departments the rest are often there only for the ride (short to medium term at least and who has time for any "long-term" development these days?). To be clear, I don't think this has that much to do with people who are "lazy" or hard workers (you can put in extreme amounts of effort into something that leads nowhere).

This is a really good summary, IME.

Yes there's loads of people that do "actual work" (technical work) on projects that are "pet/promo projects" that are doomed from the start to go nowhere and have no path to profitability.

There's also loads of managers managing managers overseeing project managers etc etc
by rorosen | 2025-06-16 23:48:04+00:00
You can decompress a complete file with "zeekstd d seekable.zst".

Piping a seekable file for decompression via stdin isn't possible unfortunately. Decompression of seekable files requires to read the seek table first (which is usually at the end of the file) and eventually seek to the desired frame position, so zeekstd needs to able to seek the file.

If you want to decompress the complete file, you can use the regular zstd tool: "cat seekable.zst | zstd -d"
by perching_aix | 2025-06-16 23:49:41+00:00
I'm indeed not Spanish, and I'm not particularly close with any of my Spanish colleagues either. This means we do not chat informally, and as such, I do not expect foul language - and indeed, they do not engage in any towards me. This very strongly indicates to me that they're perfectly aware what is the standard, where the lines lie, and what manner of conduct they should hold themselves to in a formal, professional setting. So we're culturally on the same page. They did not need any special training that I'm aware of to not push up foul language comments or commits either.

This is not about informal conduct. If they cuss among themselves or towards other colleagues who they are close to, that's completely of no interest to me, and as you say, is just plain normal. I do it with my closer peers as well all the time. This is about the work delivered and the formal communications. And I can understand if this informal speech seeps into work stuff at smaller scales, but that doesn't mean it's right. As you say, it's about everyone being on the same page and cutting themselves slack - but that does mean they are cutting slack, and so that there's a shared understanding of it not being proper, just being okay. According to the GP above though, this is not how it goes in Spain specifically, and it's an alternate reality there where commit histories and code comments will be full of cheap innuendo and cursing, and that that is somehow still completely professional there supposedly.

Well I'll be damned and be the ""cultural colonialist"" then, but I just do not buy that for one second. These standards were not invented yesterday, are not even specific to our industry, and are not nearly geo-localized enough for that to happen.
by notesinthefield | 2025-06-16 23:49:53+00:00
Some of the more popular models (NIPRGPT, the various DREN models) are “soft banned” and DoD is in need of a unified solution. MSFT’s GCC HIGH and GovCloud implementations have been slow to materialize. But more to your point - everyone is using LLM’s to pick up the slack from layoffs. Im sitting in meetings and watching my gov customers generate documentation and proposals everyday. Everything the commercial world uses AI for the US gov is doing the same. Cant directly speak to targeting but you can bet your ass there are 100 different offensive projects trying to integrate AI into ISR work and the like.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-06-16 23:50:17+00:00
Exactly! Temperature isn't fundamental. It's a statistical measure made up by humans. It's certainly a very useful abstraction but it isn't a fundamental property. It describes an emergent pattern observed in larger systems. Same for entropy (and also AFAIK angular momentum).

It's entirely possible I'm wrong about any of the above but if so I've yet to encounter a convincing line of reasoning.
by h4kunamata | 2025-06-16 23:50:44+00:00
Anything that generates fatigue doesn't work. Passwords expiring every 2 months?? Users will user password like "test1" "test2" test3" and so on.

Companies don't even have a password manager so few employees use the browser to save passwords, others use their own password manager which comes with its own security risks like that service, LastPass IIRC, that got breached.

When working for big companies, there are so many wrong processes and practices which provides the bare minimal and that is fine.

Support team cannot care to report the problems coz they don't wanna more work, my laptop always connect to a restricted network while in the office which kills internet access to everything, that in turn cause the laptop to take 20-30 to turn own while it tries to run AD policies.

The whole process is broken within the companies culture, keep it minimal, repetitive and that "should work, next"!
by temporallobe | 2025-06-16 23:51:10+00:00
I would be fine with the consumption model as long as it’s reasonable, but I honestly believe that streaming services hate this idea because it’s not as profitable as the ad model. In fact I am becoming more and more frustrated with services that I am paying for which show me ads even for “ad-free” experiences. For example, I pay for the highest tier of ad-free Hulu and Disney+ but Hulu somehow carves out exceptions for so-called non-Hulu content. So during some of those shows, you will see very frequent, very repetitive ads and it is quite obnoxious. There is literally not even an option to pay for a higher level of ad-free experience (I would!) because I guess they REALLY want to sell me Wegovy and SNHU and whatever other nonsense. The interruptions have gotten so obnoxious that I have lost interest. The only other option is to simply buy the episodes I am interested in. Or stop watching streaming content altogether.
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-06-16 23:51:29+00:00
> Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?

Probably not many. OTOH, I pay for Fastmail and NextDNS (both for at least 5 years at this point).

People give strange looks when I mention paying for e-mail, even people "in the know."

SAAS offerings for individuals don't have a lot of market share (streaming services aside). The exception might be iCloud/GMail harassing people about running out of storage, and people just eventually going "sure, here's 3 bucks a month."
by groby_b | 2025-06-16 23:53:32+00:00
> Plus you shouldn't need an LLM to understand a codebase. Just make it more understandable!

<laughs in legacy code>

And fundamentally, that isn't a function of "capital". All code bases are shaped by the implicit assumptions of their writers. If there's a fundamental mismatch or gap between reader and writer assumptions, it won't be readable.

LLMs are a way to make (some of) these implict assumptions more legible. They're not a panacea, but the idea of "just make it more understandable" is not viable. It's on par with "you don't need debuggers, just don't write bugs"
by imiric | 2025-06-16 23:53:41+00:00
:) It's difficult to imagine this today, but back then most households had a single ("the") computer shared by everyone. This was a challenge for adventurous geeks interested in Linux for two reasons. First, you couldn't get help with setting up Linux from the internet if the computer was out of service or you couldn't get online (getting your "winmodem" recognized and working was an endeavor all by itself). So I totally relate to your trips to the library. I used to print all the possible manuals and tutorials up front before attempting an installation, and have all the drivers I might need on floppies ready to go.

But most importantly, if you messed up the Windows installation for any reason (Linux was unusable after all in those days for mere mortals...), you broke the machine for everyone else in the household. I remember getting into trouble for this several times, and tinkering with Linux was always a rush because of it. I finally got my own _personal_ computer a few years later, which was a huge relief.
by drdeca | 2025-06-16 23:54:59+00:00
Are you sure? That’s almost the opposite of what I heard, which was that “gender” being used to refer to -inity arose as a euphemism to avoid using the word “sex”, because the word “sex” came to be more associated with specifically “sex-acts” (and that prior to it being used as a euphemism in this way, it essentially meant something like kind/type/sort), and only after “gender” began being used as a euphemism in this way, did people begin using it to distinguish between “gender roles” and “sexes”.
by evidencetamper | 2025-06-16 23:55:50+00:00
Evil is a moral concept, which is less tied to religion these days.

Drugs are an anti-social drain on society, that sickens its buyers, turning them into zombies or criminals, and turns the sellers into greedy, violent people who corrupt law enforcement.

Your edge case of an angel doesn't translate to the actual realities of drug trafficking and addiction.
Think Before You Speak – Exploratory Forced Hallucination Study [pdf]
by airylizard | 2025-06-16 23:58:00+00:00
This is a research/discovery post, not a polished toolkit or product.

The Idea in a nutshell:

"Hallucinations" aren't indicative of bad training, but per-token semantic ambiguity. By accounting for that ambiguity before prompting for a determinate response we can increase the reliability of the output.

Two‑Step Contextual Enrichment (TSCE) is an experiment probing whether a high‑temperature “forced hallucination”, used as part of the system prompt in a second low temp pass, can reduce end-result hallucinations and tighten output variance in LLMs.

What I noticed:

In >4000 automated tests across GPT‑4o, GPT‑3.5‑turbo and Llama‑3, TSCE lifted task‑pass rates by 24 – 44 pp with < 0.5 s extra latency.

All logs & raw JSON are public for anyone who wants to replicate (or debunk) the findings.

Would love to hear from anyone doing something similar, I know other multi-pass prompting techniques exist but I think this is somewhat different.

Primarily because in the first step we purposefully instruct the LLM to not directly reference or respond to the user, building upon ideas like adversarial prompting.

I posted an early version of this paper but since then have run about 3100 additional tests using other models outside of GPT-3.5-turbo and Llama-3-8B, and updated the paper to reflect that.

Code MIT, paper CC-BY-4.0.
by noleary | 2025-06-16 23:58:11+00:00
> The integration of generative AI with computational protein science has revolutionized protein design while also posing dual-use risks, such as enabling the creation of pandemic-capable proteins that require strong biosecurity safeguards. Here, we introduce FoldMark, a first-of-its-kind watermarking strategy leveraging distributional and evolutionary principles tailored for protein generative models, balancing watermark capacity and structural quality.
by sally_glance | 2025-06-16 23:59:27+00:00
Wherever you look, the conclusion is the same - balance is required. Too many seniors, you get stuck in one way streets. Too many juniors, you trip over your own feet and diverge into unknown avenues. Mix AI in, I don't see how that changes much at all... Juniors drive into unknown territory faster, Seniors get stuck in their niche just as well. Acceleration yes, fundamental change of how we work - I don't see it yet.
by kburman | 2025-06-16 23:59:29+00:00
I’ve watched the demo video, and gone through the discussion here but I’m still not sure what the core use case for Darklang is. It feels like I'm missing something obvious.

Can someone explain the practical problems this is solving better than existing tools like Python or other backend stacks?

Also, genuine question: how was the team able to work on this for 2+ years without revenue or traction? Was there still funding left, or was this a side project during that time?
by nullc | 2025-06-16 23:59:35+00:00
I've also found meshtastic to be pretty ineffectual, in both urban enviroments and in totally rural ones where my devices are the only devices for >50 miles.

I've given more study to the latter, and I think it's the lack of store and forward reliable transmission. The messages goes out once and if it doesn't make it.. too bad so sad. The whole ecosystem strongly assuming you have internet access is also a real bummer.

If anyone is looking to improve it or develop a better alternative, I did help create a primitive you should consider using: https://github.com/sipa/minisketch
by _--__--__ | 2025-06-16 23:59:36+00:00
I can't tell if that line came from the unnamed sources or is just the journalist's understanding, but it seems pretty clear to me that OpenAI did not spend $3B for the source code of an IDE. They wanted the employees and customers to kickstart a shift to an enterprise product focus, which doesn't sit well with MSFT (who entered into a partnership with what they believed was a research lab that would supply things they could upsell in github and office365).
by prats226 | 2025-06-17 00:00:11+00:00
I think the choice mainly stems from how you want to use the output. If the output is going to get fed to another LLM, then you want to select markup language where 1) the grammer would not cause too many issues with tokenization 2) which LLM has seen a lot in past 3) generates minimal number of tokens. I think markdown fits it much better compared to other markup languages.

If goal is to parse this output programmatically, then I agree a more structured markup language is better choice.
by phendrenad2 | 2025-06-17 00:00:23+00:00
> not what I would call nicely pinned down

Yes, they are, but I think your real point is that:

> I would only be ok with item 2

Yep, this is what it all comes down to. But it seems like everyone else is arguing without even knowing that the scope of this is. It's of course your right to your own opinion about if these business purposes are acceptable. I was even aware that training LLMs and showing ads are legitimate business purposes. You act like that's a revelation, but it's important to realize that is purely your reaction, not the reaction of the average person. Is the average person okay with their emails being used to train LLMs, or show them ads? I mean, what percentage of the population uses Gmail for mail? I think the question is nicely answered there.

> I can almost guarantee allowing business to collect this data will lead to use that doesn't fall under the legitimate business purposes. Uncollected data can't be mishandled

Sure, but we can't just lock ourselves in iron boxes and survive on privacy alone. People have to engage with the world. Maybe credit card numbers should be 100,000 digits long, so someone can't look over my shoulder and steal mine?
by Zak | 2025-06-17 00:01:42+00:00
Thanks for the insider perspective.

I used Hangouts for a while and had a bunch of contacts on it when it was Android's default SMS app. Many of them were not particularly technical, including one of my parents whom I don't recall telling to use it. If you were using an Android phone, you were probably already logged in to a Google account. iPhone users had to work a little harder for it (install the app and remember the password to the Gmail account they probably already had).

I don't recall the UX on the mobile client having extra complexity over other messaging apps if I didn't go digging in the settings, but it's been a while.
by leereeves | 2025-06-17 00:02:43+00:00
There's a third option. The definition of uninteresting we're using may be flawed. Here's a quick stab at a more rigorous approach:

We could start by defining a set of "all numbers that are uninteresting other than by membership or position in this set".

That describes the set the proof naively called "interesting numbers" without the contradiction.

Then we could create a second set with all members of the first set except those that are interesting because of where they are in that set (smallest, whatever). This is a new version of "interesting numbers" that approaches the version in the original proof but is, in human terms, less interesting. As you said, "Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume."

We could repeat that, making a sequence of sets that approach the definition of interesting in the original proof, but the definition of each set is progressively less interesting in human terms.

Then if we really want to be rigorous, we could talk about "first degree interesting" (what most people mean), "nth degree interesting", or "asymptotically interesting", but the last one is an empty set.
by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 | 2025-06-17 00:04:14+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

> On 26 September 1983, three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to four more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm.