MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by simonw | 2025-06-13 17:24:27+00:00
I think there are. If you use a prompt injection attack to steal commercially sensitive data and then profit from it you're likely breaking things like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act - and presumably a bunch of other federal and state laws as well, depending on exactly what you did with the stolen information.

(It's probably securities fraud. Everything is securities fraud. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...)
by Uehreka | 2025-06-13 17:24:41+00:00
Idk that I’d say it’s in 3rd place. My guess would be that something like Source Engine is 3rd.

Having worked with Unreal, Unity and Godot, Godot is extremely rough. It has a terrible scripting language, an abysmal script editing UI, all while lacking the sophistication of Unity and Unreal’s rendering. It gets way too much benefit of the doubt because it’s open source.

We desperately need an open source engine that can compete with Unity and Unreal, but we need to stop kidding ourselves that Godot is serious about filling that role. If they were they would’ve grabbed Lua (or JS, or Python, or anything well established) off the shelf, told devs to use the code editor of their choice, and focused on either building the best rendering pipeline they could with their limited resources, or focused on some sort of clever differentiating feature that Unity/Unreal won’t implement. As it is it’s clear Godot’s team is more interested in reinventing wheels for fun than in making a real contender.
by major505 | 2025-06-13 17:24:57+00:00
Thats why, me at 40`s, now am I working in a german auto industry where they still got more traditional views and p promote people with time inside the company.

Hip companies dont hire me, maybe some tech consultants, that would not be considered cool, like accenture or IBM.

A few years ago I was one of the first people in my country tomigrate my company android app to Kotlin, this helped me land in the app development team of a big bank in my country and I was by far the oldest dude. Everybody called me "uncle" there, very common to young people in my country to call older people that, because most where college kids.
by addaon | 2025-06-13 17:24:58+00:00
I agree completely. We gave programmable machines a full century after Babbage, and it was clearly a waste and a scam. Can you imagine if we had continued to invest in that garbage and built some "Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer" or other nonsense? Clearly if an idea isn't mature in a couple decades, it has no possible future development or impact.
by btilly | 2025-06-13 17:25:57+00:00
Spoken like a true formalist.

It doesn't really have to mean anything when we say that the reals are a larger set than the natural numbers - that's just the conclusion of the game that we are playing.

What fraction of people who "know" that there are more reals than natural numbers, do you think really understand that this is not an eternal verity of mathematics, but only a conclusion that follows from a particular set of rules that we're playing the mathematics game with?
by CamouflagedKiwi | 2025-06-13 17:26:22+00:00
Because you have to build it. If they don't use the same build system as you, you either want to invoke their system, or import it into yours. The former is unappealing if it's 'heavy' or doesn't play well as a subprocess; the latter can take a lot of time if the build process you're replicating is complex.

I've done both before, and seen libraries at various levels of complexity; there is definitely a point where you just want to give up and not use the thing when it's very complex.
by neom | 2025-06-13 17:26:33+00:00
There was a long paper on HN recently that I've been stuck thinking about.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43990843

Jaeger et al.’s ideas on consciousness is in which many “baked in” structures are emergent, and that living or "cognitive systems" similarly generate meaning from underlying complexity without being reducible to a straightforward set of rules. Macro level “givens” (geometry) can arise from deep nonclassical processes. “procedurally generated quantum reality” or something.
by sReinwald | 2025-06-13 17:27:12+00:00
You're right that an LLM could theoretically detect suicidal ideation - the article even mentions that ChatGPT briefly showed Torres a mental health warning before it "magically deleted." So the capability exists, but the implementation is clearly broken.

The more profound issue is that, the way I see it, LLMs are fundamentally multiplicative forces. They amplify whatever you bring to the conversation.

If you're an experienced programmer with solid fundamentals, an LLM becomes a force multiplier - handling boilerplate while you focus on architecture. But if you lack that foundation and vibe code away, you'll get code that looks right but is likely riddled with subtle or not so subtle bugs you can't even recognize.

And I suspect that the same principle applies to mental health. If you approach an LLM with curiosity but healthy skepticism, it can be a useful thinking partner. But if you approach it while vulnerable, seeking answers to existential questions, it doesn't provide guardrails - it amplifies. It mirrors your energy, validates your fears, and reinforces whatever narrative you're constructing.

The "helpfulness" training worsens this. These models are optimized to be agreeable, to match your vibe, to keep you engaged. When someone asks "Am I trapped in the Matrix?" a truly helpful response would be "That sounds like you're going through something difficult. Have you talked to someone about these feelings?" Instead, ChatGPT goes, "Yes! You're special! You're the chosen one! Here's how to unplug! Any tall buildings nearby, Neo?"
by G1N | 2025-06-13 17:27:41+00:00
No support for arm64 unfortunately :( OP, I tried installing via rosetta on macOS arm:

arch -x86_64 sh -c "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ezpieco/gethooky/master/tools/install.sh)"

And I get the following error:

mv: fastcopy: open() failed (to): /usr/bin/hooky: Operation not permitted

I curl'd and installed the x86 version manually into my ~/.zsh_scripts folder to get past this; I think for darwin clients you need to install to /usr/local/bin to get past perms errors (maybe just for arm macs?).
by ToValueFunfetti | 2025-06-13 17:28:33+00:00
It depends on how you define the bounds of the Solar System, but eg. a flight from Pluto at its most distant to the same distance on the opposite side of the sun that hits .1C at peak needs ~5G for the entire duration. And it seems quite wasteful to bother getting up to speed before immediately reversing the acceleration.

If you're travelling between points in the Oort Cloud, 1G should be more than sufficient to hit .1c on the trip.
by nobodyandproud | 2025-06-13 17:28:34+00:00
Not like 5, but High-school Geometry.

If you remember Geometry, there are two ways to prove something:

- By making it (constructing)

- By contradiction (reductio ad absurdum)

During the late 1800s to early 1900s, when math was becoming more formalized, a group of mathematicians had issues with the second method.

From their point of view if you can’t show how to make it, then you’ve not proven that it exists.

Now it turns out that indirect proofs like contradiction requires the law of excluded middle: If something isn’t true, then it must be false (or vice versa).

It turns out that AoC is needed/implied, for the law of excluded middle; hence the objection to AoC; and enables these non-constructive proofs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Another AoC proof: Prove that an irrational number to a irrational power can be rational.

sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) : If rational, then done.

Else (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^sqrt(2) = 2.

QED (and non-constructive).
by econ | 2025-06-13 17:28:42+00:00
On the contrary, the US has become England: A state of the art cutting edge industrial society and empire turned into a smug entitlement driven immoral turd that is far beyond useless for everyone outside and most inside of it. This will inevitably trigger a global effort to disconnect and help foster the downfall. It will be expensive for everyone involved.

Also wise to remember, there are now so many quiet parts you can't say out loud that pretty much everyone who knows anything no longer participates in online conversation.

We don't make things in the West anymore so our dialog has no constructive purpose. You don't care what I think, say or who I am but those with nefarious intend are the ones paying close attention to everyone.

The destructive people are outperforming the rest of us and it can only end in one way. It has always ended the same way.
by norir | 2025-06-13 17:29:24+00:00
I personally find syntax highlighting an annoying distraction, but I know this is a minority (and unpopular) viewpoint. For me, it actually has negative value, especially if I find myself spending time troubleshooting it (which I have extensively over the years) rather than actually working on the true problem at hand. I can't think of a single case where automatic syntax highlighting helped me solve a hard problem, but I have certainly wasted a lot of time futzing around with it.

The vast majority of code you are reading is almost definitionally syntactically correct, unless you are in the process of editing it. In that case, syntax highlighting can provide a lightweight proxy for correctness, which I suspect is where much of the enthusiasm comes from. What I personally want is immediate feedback on the actual correctness of the code, and syntax is just a subset.

That is not to say that highlighting is never useful. I just want it to be manual, like when you search for something with / in vim. Then the highlighted items actually pop and my eyes can go directly to the area I want to focus on. I immediately clear the highlighting as soon as I'm done because otherwise it creates a visual distraction.

In my estimation, what we actually need more of are smarter, faster compilers that can immediately respond to edit changes and highlight only the problem areas in the code. Typically, this should be exactly where my cursor is. I should ideally be programming in a state where everything above the cursor can be assumed correct, but there might be a problem with the current word, which is helpfully reported to me exactly where my focus already lies.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-06-13 17:29:42+00:00
> people now employed at FB at the executive level

I think it's reasonable that this is not counted, unless there's some possible condition on the stock ownership that I'm not aware of. If they ultimately disagree with the decisions from Facebook then they can, in theory, get help from the other stakeholders to override them.

That said, I would not be the least bit surprised if this turned out to be some scheme in which they use a series of technicalities that make the deal look like a merger but "be" an investment.
by molsongolden | 2025-06-13 17:30:39+00:00
Sounds like they're getting paid based on his note to employees:

> "The proceeds from Meta's investment will be distributed to those of you who are shareholders and vested equity holders [...] The exceptional team here has been the key to our success, so I'm thrilled to be able to return the favor with this meaningful liquidity distribution."

https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/1933328165306577316
by EvgeniyZh | 2025-06-13 17:31:47+00:00
There has been steady progress in metrics, that, if keep improving, will eventually lead to fault tolerant quantum computing. We also do not know any fundamental reason why we won't be able to keep improving them. It's true that the progress is not fast, because the problem is hard, but I don't see why would you call it scam (there are definitely scammers in the field, but there are in any field).
by esoterae | 2025-06-13 17:32:12+00:00
I think you've made a fundamental mistake. Whether or not someone understands software is not based on their job title or their desires. Nor does typing to an anthropomorphized language model expand the understanding of software. It may provide the material necessary to help someone learn, but learning is a change in behavior as a result of experience. You must fail at something in order to prevail. Using LLMs to work around failures without understanding how they occurred and why those failures were possible will not provide learning, but instead prompt the same behavior: Asking an LLM. Same behavior, same result.
by stale2002 | 2025-06-13 17:32:16+00:00
> Though his co-founder Lucy Guo is almost as bizarre

Well, kind of. I went to school with Lucy, and she was a completely different person back then. Sure she was among the more social of the CS majors, but the gliz and glamour and weirdness with Lucy came after she got her fame and fortune.

I suspect a similar thing happen with Wang. When you are in charge of a billion dollar business, you tend to grow into the billion dollar CEO.

> what were they doing before data labeling?

They were building an API for mechanical turks. Think "send an api call, with the words 'call up this pizza restaurant and ask if they are open'" and then this API call would cause a human to follow the instructions and physically call the restaurant, and type back a response that is sent back to your API call.

The pivot to data labelling, as money poured into self driving cars, makes some amount of sense given their previous business idea. Is almost the same type of "API for humans" idea, except much more focussed on one specific usecase.
by btilly | 2025-06-13 17:32:25+00:00
If you enjoy such questions, I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Indistinguishable-Magic-Robert-L-Forw....

The best speed for interstellar travel with technologies that current theory says should be within our reach can be achieved with a vehicle with a light sail pushed by a giant laser, that is powered by solar power. There is even a way to brake it when it reaches the target star. I forget what the predicted velocity was though.

This technology is basically the same as one that the Moties developed in the story, The Mote in God's Eye.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-06-13 17:32:45+00:00
> At home our wifi password is on a paper, right there on the office board.

You probably should know that recent smartphones (the most likely devices to ask for a wifi password at home) have features to share a password right in the settings. iPhones will simply ask you (or anyone connected) to allow them, and androids have some sort of sharing enabled (via qr code generally).
by adfm | 2025-06-13 17:32:46+00:00
Dan ran up to our table at a con excited to show us all the ssh tricks he was currently into at the time. His excitement and curiosity was contagious. We’d connect at events over the years and he’d always have something interesting to show off. Jet airplane explosion videos ran through MRI software? Check. AR app for the colorblind? Check. Keep DNS safe? Check. Dan was a hacker’s hacker. He was always lifting others up, paying it forward. It’s your duty to do the same. Stay human.
by lazide | 2025-06-13 17:32:58+00:00
That isn’t actually structurally true - the way inverters work is they do high frequency analysis of the output power, and then ‘push’ energy in at various parts of the waveform. That’s how DC->AC inversion works. We’re taking much higher frequency than the AC waveform for any non-terrible-quality inverter.

While they can be configured to overvolt the outputs or drive frequency higher than they should if they have the excess energy, that is certainly not a normal setup and seems pathological, frankly. Which I guess goes to your point regarding solar operators - if they have an incentive to keep pushing power into the grid even if the grid doesn’t need it, they certainly can configure their equipment to do that. But that is also a clearly screwed up situation for the grid eh? And of all the generation providers, they are the ones with the least excuse to actually do that.

It’s trickier with something with moving parts (like wind generation), where there may be some element of physical inertia or direct physical coupling to the output power. But inverters are not that.

And my understanding is that all modern wind turbines do automatic blade feathering and a significant degree of voltage/frequency regulation to avoid blowing things up ‘downstream’. So with any luck it would be a minutes at most, type situation.

Still, 90% of the problem is likely with wind farms or the baseload eh? Unless the solar operators are doing this intentionally to screw their competition.
by major505 | 2025-06-13 17:33:33+00:00
Everybody want their company to be a google where you are willing to waste that mauch time to get hired.

In the end, HR hiring team fails to recruit because in makes the process to expensive for candidates, and the CEOS hire more HR recruitment becasue they think the problem is the lack of people to hire. HR needs to justify the salary, and makes hiring more a pain in the ass, feeding the vicious cycle.

I miss the times where HR only responsabily was to process salary payment.
by rstat1 | 2025-06-13 17:33:58+00:00
I agree to a point. grpc++ (and protobuf and boringssl and abseil and....) was the biggest pain in the ass to integrate in to a personal project I've ever seen. I ended up having to write a custom tool to convert their Bazel files to the format my projects tend to use (GN and Ninja). Many hours wasted. There were no library specfici "sysroots" or "toolchains" involved though thankfully because I'm sure that would made things even worse.

Upside is (I guess) if I ever want to use grpc in another project the work's already done and it'll just be a matter of copy/paste.
by resize2996 | 2025-06-13 17:34:10+00:00
Then if "Add 10 items" seems to be sitting around for a while, I change it to "Add 5 items".

The part where I end up finishing the whole thing doesn't always happen, but breaking it down into chunks that I can power my way through even if I'm in the worst mood with the worst working conditions at least lets me accomplish a small thing and get a better sense of the task for the next time I try. Sometimes "Add 5 Items" actually turns into "Add 2 items and realize you only need 7 total items."

Some of my procrastination is "I haven't started the task because I can't completely visualize it, I can't completely visualize it because I haven't started the task."
by weiliddat | 2025-06-13 17:34:28+00:00
Hmm I have mixed feelings about this. I've thought about this topic for a bit, a couple of years ago I thought of bringing functional reactive programming to a backend node.js project (partially because of managing callback hell); in the past couple of years I work on an event/workflow system with 100+ million events per day.

This feels like a lighter weight alternative to Temporal or other workflow tools[0], but eventually for a backend system you'd likely be rebuilding features that are tailored for the backend.

In frontend code, you have many side effects (e.g. DOM, styling) that rely on a single piece of data/event, and more side effects that rely on those side effects (e.g. component hierarchy), and having this laid out declaratively is one way to understand the behavior of an application when this piece of data changes. You are also almost never concerned about durability/persistence of the state of data on the frontend, just because the code interacts with the browser and we almost never question the reliability of that API. A human is typically the "driver" of these interactions and is typically in the loop for most interactions, so stuff that fails, e.g. a failed network call, can bubble up to the user to deal with.

Conversely, web backend projects have code and infrastructure that are distributed (even monolithic ones), and most of the time are concerned with persisting state/data, distributing/scheduling workloads, etc. Each side effect / computation, especially ones that cross networks/service, has its own requirements for whether it should be at least once/at most once, retried/retry patterns, latency/throughput, failure modes/error handling. These requirements also define your boundaries/interfaces, rather than a nice semantic and declarative one (not exclusive but oftentimes the requirements win out).

Not saying that this signal-based approach can't be used in some areas of the application would benefit for declarative computation, but the examples given seem to indicate also a desire to do distributed workflow stuff.

[0] https://temporal.io/, https://github.com/meirwah/awesome-workflow-engines
by pixelready | 2025-06-13 17:34:59+00:00
Yes, I think othering at scale is the root of most of our societal ills. It was likely a useful heuristic when we were sparsely spread out tribal creatures, similar to always assuming the rustling in the bush was a tiger and not just the wind.

In a tightly woven, interdependent system like modern civilization, it is placing a huge strain on us structurally as well as psychologically. Add to this it is an easy exploit for power ala “my leadership is great, <out group> over there is your problem”, combined with mass media platforms and the whole thing is cracking at the edges.

How do we mitigate this though? It seems to take a massive concerted effort for a person to overcome those implicit biases. I was speaking with a family member the other day who is clearly primed by media in their country to assume that all current structural ills are caused by immigrants, and when probed about people of that same group that were actually in her life, she said “Well, Mr. so and so that works at the school is just a lovely decent hardworking man.” But she couldn’t take the leap that there are statistically more Mr. so and so’s in the group than the “bad ones” she was hearing about in the news. I’ve seen this pattern across all of business and politics.

Don’t even get me started on the whole “culture fit” hiring standards.
by IngoBlechschmid | 2025-06-13 17:35:02+00:00
This set of slides, originally devised for the Chaos Communication Congress, might be helpful: https://www.speicherleck.de/iblech/stuff/ac-38c3.pdf

- Precise statement of the axiom

- Overview of its consequences

- A counterexample (in an alternative universe)

- Consistency of the axiom

- Gödel's sandbox for containing the axiom
by evandot | 2025-06-13 17:36:19+00:00
This is not a typical algorithm.

It doesn’t solve a problem — it resists being solved.

It models a system where an object (U) refuses to be fully formalized by a stable observer (S), and where this failure itself becomes the only possible form of existence — as seen from a meta-system (R).

It’s not about output, it’s about persistence under observation.

The code doesn’t return a value. It becomes the trace of something that cannot collapse.

I’d be curious to see how others interpret what this means — both for computation and for the definition of “real”.