MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by janwas | 2025-07-25 07:54:55+00:00
Thanks for expanding on your viewpoint.

> Why would writing an optimizing compiler qualify as territory for directly writing SIMD code, but anything else is off the table?

I understood "directly writing" to mean assembly or even intrinsics. In general, I would advise not touching intrinsics directly, because the intrinsic definitions themselves have in several cases had bugs. Here's one AVX-512 example: https://github.com/google/highway/commit/7da2b760c012db04103....

When using a wrapper library, these can be fixed in one spot, but every direct user of intrinsics has to deal with it themselves.

> it's extremely easy to write your own wrappers (like I did) and not take a dependency. A good trade IMO

I understand wanting to reduce dependencies. The tradeoff is a bit more complex: for example many readers would be familiar with Highway terminology. We have also made efforts to be a lightweight dependency :)

> doing it yourself as a learning exercise has value.

Understandable :) Though it's a bit regrettable to tie your user code to the library prototype - if used elsewhere, it would probably have to be ported.

> The fact is, the library code is super fucking boring.

True for many ops. However, emulating AES or other complex ops is nontrivial. And it is easy to underestimate the sheer toil of keeping things working across compiler versions and their many bugs. We recently hit the 3000 commit mark in Highway :)
by zozbot234 | 2025-07-25 07:55:38+00:00
> an experienced Go developer probably has internalized how to avoid those bugs and the cost of preventing them can be nearly negligible.

And an experienced Rust developer has internalized the patterns (such as cloning or ARC) that are needed to cope with the borrow checker while writing prototype-quality, quick-iteration code. What's easier, fixing hard-to-spot bugs in the code or getting that code to compile in the first place?
by moomoo11 | 2025-07-25 07:55:42+00:00
Why do you feel so attached to “your solutions” just curious?

When you multiply big numbers do you do them on paper instead of a calculator? Why should the calculator figure out your tip?

It’s just a tool bro. It’s not a big deal. You’re still solving problems, if you can use it you can go far and wide. You’re not forced to use it.

Times change. Things evolve.

Lots of people paint or do pottery as a hobby. But most people just prefer to buy their bowls. If that makes sense.
by qxfys | 2025-07-25 07:55:56+00:00
Thanks! But, I can't find any details on how you "intelligently adjust quantization for every possible layer" from that page. I assume this is a secret?

I am wondering about the possibility that different use cases might require different "intelligent quantization", i.e., quantization for LLM for financial analysis might be different from LLM for code generation. I am currently doing a postdoc in this. Interested in doing research together?
by hdgvhicv | 2025-07-25 07:55:58+00:00
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/in...

https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/modis-india-is-a-dangerous-p...

https://theprint.in/opinion/authoritarian-streak-among-india...

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/04/m...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...

This isn’t a fringe view or “disgusting”
by rlue | 2025-07-25 07:56:21+00:00
Your prediction is about a hardware product, and your examples are both software products (one is a browser and another is a mobile OS, both of which are platforms for running other software, and thus extremely well-suited to the task of reporting user data back to Google).

I'm not an expert, but baking telemetry into the hardware (or at least the kind of telemetry that I assume Google is interested in) seems like skipping a few levels of abstraction, and thus more trouble than it's worth.
by bernoufakis | 2025-07-25 07:56:33+00:00
> When you say to people to not use GOS because the lead dev is paranoid or the community is hostile you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The value GOS brings is undisputable. The quirkiness of the leadership is also undisputable. Let's decouple the two. If you wish for the community to get better, become yourself the better contact point amd generally focus on suggestion on that matter. Don't say to people to not use arguably the most secure android rom!

It's one thing to separate the artist from the art, but I think that analogy does not apply when it comes to e.g. an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data. If anything, not being able to separate the art from the artist is the exact reason why GOS exists, the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices. (Edit: or a simpler analogy, would you trust the food (art) of a cook (artist) that threatens to ruin your life ?)

The OOP is entitled to express his informed opinion and even provided what he based it upon. As a user, I think that is important context when it comes to picking something as sensitive as an OS.

> I used to respect Rossmann a lot, but he fell in my eyes both for the LTT and the GOS incident. I have been watching LTT since a kid and I know that his has grown to be a jerk without looking at his private communications, but his competitors fired shots at him for the wrong reasons (honey case) and so did Rossmann, riding the wave.

I happen to have a similar background as far as LTT (weekly WAN show and what not) and Rossmann are concerned As I mentioned before I (unfortunately) went into the GOS incident rabbit hole and overall still think Rossmann was principled. As far as Rossmann's criticism of Linus about the LTT Honey case, perhaps he could have had a more nuanced approach, yes. Regarding the BilletLabs cooling block, or the "Trust Me Bro", his criticism was substantive, and came from his own business background on dealing with customers (although you can argue that Rossmann has high standards). I don't think Rossmann "fired shots for the wrong reasons", namely since LTT has publicly acknowledge the issues.

> If you want to criticize someone for being a jerk do it, but do it for the right reasons, don't muddy the waters by injecting other stuff in the discussion.

Just curious, but who is muddying waters, and how ?
by Thorrez | 2025-07-25 07:57:00+00:00
Most communist countries haven't been such a utopia as you describe.

>He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, "there would be a revolution."

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...
by zevon | 2025-07-25 07:57:20+00:00
I think it's perfectly valid to consider this as problematic (the GrapheneOS team certainly seems to think this is not ideal, for example). However - somewhat counter-intuitively - it's also valid to consider Pixels as among the most secure and most appropriate Android phones for something like GrapheneOS.

They write about their reasoning and criteria for device support here, for example: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-device.
by gf000 | 2025-07-25 07:57:36+00:00
> when there was a dispute in the former project copperhead

You mean who tried to hijack the project in a very questionable direction, harming their users, he rather lighted the project on fire then let the users' security be compromised?

If anything, that is the greatest compliment you could give him.

Also, this is fud that he can push any kind of code, like you can easily check any part of the pipeline.
by dotancohen | 2025-07-25 07:58:54+00:00
Everything on the QPs was always breaking.

I've never driven an automatic Ferrari or paddle shifted Ferrari to compare, but the QP that I drove (Ferrari V-8, I think that it even said Ferrari on the valve covers maybe) didn't have anything outstanding about the transmission that I remember. I thought it was a regular hydraulic automatic with a torque converter, so they really did tune it nicely. The robotic Toyotas I could feel. Maybe had they not tuned it so nicely it might have lasted longer?
by mzajc | 2025-07-25 07:59:05+00:00
DKIM doesn't decide which headers are signed, the mail server does (in the h= field). Gmail signs both To and From[0], but these don't control the 'real' recipient - the RCPT TO command in SMTP does. The recipient would presumably show wrong in the mail client, but since mailing lists and aliases are a thing, this is not suspicious by default.

[0] h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to;
by edanm | 2025-07-25 07:59:13+00:00
I used to believe this (as did many people) but no longer do. The amount of extra calories burned with a higher muscle mass is just not significant enough to make this a relevant idea.

Of course, there are many, many other reasons to lift weights. Health and longevity aside, the reason most people want to lose weight is to look better - so what they should really aim for isn't to lose weight, it's to lose fat and increase muscle mass. For that, you need both a caloric deficit and weight lifting.
by ncruces | 2025-07-25 08:00:23+00:00
Yeah, using LLVM for anything trying to avoid UB is crazy.

I got involved in a discussion with a Rust guy when trying to get C with SIMD intrinsics into wasi-libc where something that the C standard explicitly state is “implementation defined” (and so, sane, as we're targeting a single implementation - LLVM) can't be trusted, because LLVM may turn it back into UB because “reasons.”

At this point Go and Zig made the right choice to dump it. I don't know about Rust.

https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/pull/593
by onli | 2025-07-25 08:00:26+00:00
Do I have to explain what root is, or what are you not understanding about the concept of the software provider having complete control of the software on your phone and thus having root rights?

Your CopperheadOS description is one perspective, one that does not look all that believable now after his mental illness became clear.

I did not share the video, but I would and it is not clickbait.

I will not further respond to you, I don't think this would lead to a fruitful discussion. Kindly think about what kind of trust is necessary to trust in the proper functioning of a device as personal as a modern phone, and think about attack scenarios that could occur when the main developer of your OS is not trustworthy in the slightest.
by Yoric | 2025-07-25 08:00:41+00:00
Good point.

Open-source does replace entire companies, but typically with better products that other companies can build upon, and in the end, this expands the demand for software.

AI is expected to replace developers, and I believe that it will empower non-techies to develop highly-functional mockups, which will in turn increase the amount of (crappy) software on the market, which I believe will in turn increase the demand for people who can fix this software – if we multiply the number of apps by 1,000, even if only 1% of the apps need quality, this still means that we've increased the demand for software developers 10x.

So I actually think that, within a few years, AI will increase our job security as software developers. It's going to be a rocky few years, of course, but I think we'll be better off, at least until the rest of our dystopian timeline catches up.

Now, what I hate is the dishonesty of AI companies. I mean, as software developers, we strive on rigor: good documentation, compilers and JITs that speed up our code without changing its behavior, APIs and tools that work as claimed, etc. AI companies and their PR, on the other hand, peddle magic thinking and gaslighting. That's the exact opposite of rigor. And this keeps assaulting my sanity.
by mittensc | 2025-07-25 08:03:35+00:00
You can bypass (b) pretty easily with a raspberry pi pico identifying as keyboard and mouse.

Change device id to the whitelisted ones.

Then use a hdmi to usb video capture and grab frames from that on the same pico.

That's something very easy to do.

quick cost is 14E, a pico (7E) plus usb to uvc (~7E)
by rerdavies | 2025-07-25 08:04:05+00:00
Ok. Miscommunication. Different kernels. I was actually asking "which Linux kernel functions are going to benefit from auto-vectorization. There are not a lot of Linux kernel functions that take arguments that are two arrays of floating point values. Lots of string stuff that typically doesn't vectorize well (except in freakish cases), perhaps. But very very few functions that take arrays of floats as arguments. Yes, graphics libraries if you want to count those as kernel functions; but those primarily concern themselves with passing arrays of floats to co-processors, to be vectorized by a GPU (different problem).

As an interesting point of reference, the last time I did Windows kernel development (which was admittedly not recently), code running in ring 0 was not allowed to access SIMD registers because they weren't saved and loaded during kernel-code context switches. Not sure if that's the case, but it probably is. Context switches are a LOT faster if you don't have to save and load SIMD registers.
by wiz21c | 2025-07-25 08:04:21+00:00
currently, when you want to write a sahder, you have to use a specific language for that (gl/sl or some other). That's a pain because that language is C-like and most likely pretty close to your host language (C,Rust,Zig whatever). Moreover, you must pass information to these shaders (uniforms) and it means you have to write code to copy from you haost lang data structures to the data strctures of the shaders (which , once again, are pretty close to those in your host language). Shader languages don't usually have "import" mechanism, so building with them is painful. And their syntax is very light, so having syntactic sugar coming from the host language would be cool.

So yeah, writing shader in something else than Gl/SL, wgsl would make our life so much easier...
by samuell | 2025-07-25 08:04:55+00:00
I'd go out on a limb and say the rock-solid out-of-the box experience is what is keeping many people using R-studio (and even R itself), rather than the messy ecosystem of Python. I'm seeing this tendency in myself for some tasks.

Also, my impression is that that is also a big part of why MATLAB still exists, despite outraging prices.

I think the common theme among these tools' main user groups is that they are not developers. They are not comfortable fiddling a lot with a dev environment, but can be productive in an environment where everything just works.

Thus, if Positron can get the same smooth and rock-solid out-of-the box experience, it will be able to reach a lot of these non-developer user groups.

At least that's my 5c.
by 9dev | 2025-07-25 08:04:59+00:00
Yes, I do think you’re being hyperbolic. We’re waging a life that doesn’t exist yet against two parents and possible a healthy child that could be.

Accommodating for a human that exists, if suffering, is clearly a moral obligation. Doing so when it’s not a human but a husk still is not, and deciding in favour of the very human parents—who also have a right to happiness—is definitely ethically valid.

In a related discussion, someone argued that keeping up industrial farming is just, because if we stopped doing so all the cattle that wouldn’t been born would be worse off for never being alive, even if their existence was suffering, because suffering is better than not being at all. I firmly believe this is just wrong. Before a being gains consciousness, it’s not a being and doesn’t experience, hence by avoiding their conception we also avoid unnecessary suffering.
by pu_pe | 2025-07-25 08:05:26+00:00
> For instance, if a cutting-edge AI tool can expend $1000 worth of compute resources to solve an Olympiad-level problem, but its success rate is only 20%, then the actual cost required to solve the problem (assuming for simplicity that success is independent across trials) becomes $5000 on the average (with significant variability). If only the 20% of trials that were successful were reported, this would give a highly misleading impression of the actual cost required (which could be even higher than this, if the expense of verifying task completion is also non-trivial, or if the failures to solve the goal were correlated across iterations).

This is a very valid point. Google and ChatGPT announced they got the gold medal with specialized models, but what exactly does that entail? If one of them used a billion dollars in compute and the other a fraction of that, we should know about it. Error rates are equally important. Since there are conflicts of interest here, academia would be best suited for producing reliable benchmarks, but they would need access to closed models.
by comex | 2025-07-25 08:05:26+00:00
Yeah, that’s not nearly the level of big I was thinking of. It’s not a browser or WhatsApp or Word.

Admittedly, Go is popular among developers. And there are some public examples of client-side attacks targeting developers and security researchers specifically. Such attacks could hypothetically go after something like Docker. But, searching now, every single example I can find seems to either exploit a non-developer-specific target (browser, iMessage, Acrobat), or else not exploit anything and just rely on convincing people to execute a Trojan (often by sending a codebase that executes the Trojan when you build it).

That bifurcation actually surprises me and I’m not sure what to conclude from it, other than “build systems are insecure by design”. But at any rate, the lack of Go exploits doesn’t say much if we don’t see exploits of developer tools written in C either.
by homebrewer | 2025-07-25 08:06:15+00:00
It doesn't work for everything; one of the banks I'm forced to use checks for how it was installed, and Android for some incomprehensible reason is happy to report that to any application that asks (along with lots of other information like bootloader status and developer mode — you really have fewer rights to 'your' device than random applications).

After opening the application, it complains about being installed through an "insecure method", and bails. Reinstalling through Google Play magically fixes that.

These "security checks" are spreading like measles, so expect to see this sooner or later.
by suzzer99 | 2025-07-25 08:06:38+00:00
The 2014/2015 Royals capitalized on this to some degree, picking up players who didn't strike out or walk much, at a time when players who walked a lot were at a super premium.

Some of the smarter teams in the NFL seem to be figuring out that maybe running backs aren't completely fungible, as has been the mantra for a while.
by spicyusername | 2025-07-25 08:07:01+00:00
My personal theory is that it is ultimately the same reason you see things like software engineers blindly using the same tech stacks, because most people, most of the time, aren't working off first principles.

They're just trying to get the job done and copying your partner's homework can save time, even if your partner didn't get the right answer or also just copied their partner.

CEOs, on average, don't know what they're doing any more than anyone in most other professions. They just happen to be born part of the ruling class.
by sandos | 2025-07-25 08:07:26+00:00
Oooooh, finally!!!

I received almost exactly this email a couple of months ago, but targeted at a google domains admin! I was, of course, also spooked by it. I did wait out and avoided clicking links in it, but I could not really find any references to this scam.

What gave it away was that all email-addresses were masked, and those masks did not match up with any emails that I administer as a workspace admin. But yes, the email itself was legit, I googled that and the text passage matched. In my case it was an email for a deceased persons email, which ofc also did not match reality. But I was almost 100% at some point that someone had actually convinced Google I was deceased, and was going to access my entire Google account, talk about scary!
by HPsquared | 2025-07-25 08:08:01+00:00
That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources.

And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.
by dotancohen | 2025-07-25 08:09:02+00:00
> we're currently working with an OEM to have their devices have official GrapheneOS support.

It's a long shot, but please see if you can get this vendor to include an EMS stylus like the Samsung Note devices and S Ultra devices. That is what is keeping me on Samsung, and I will be one of their first customers if they have an integrated EMS pen.
by kqr | 2025-07-25 08:10:33+00:00
I have tried to reason back and forth about (1) myself. The things I think we'd lack are (a) simple graphical games to show what is hypothetically possible in an engaging way, and (b) something like PICO-8 which they have already shown an interest in.

Re. (2) is seems that no BSD supports unicode console, but an ISO-8859 variant might be sufficient: https://web.archive.org/web/20170223012445/http://v3.sk/~lku...
by elric | 2025-07-25 08:11:04+00:00
I had never heard of wero, despite living in Belgium and having been actively involved in fintech. Android also tells me that the app is not available in my country.

Sounds like it's supposed to replace Payconiq (which is currently the biggest mobile payment service in Belgium).

The fragmentation of payment services is starting to annoy me. I can use cash or cards everywhere in the eurozone with 100% compatibility. But every handful of banks in every country has decided to create their own payment "solution". Typically using Android & iOS apps that require an insane number of permissions (including location and wifi connections!?).

Looks like wero is just more of the same. Another non-standard that's only supported by a handful banks in a handful of countries. And I'll bet it won't work on rooted android devices, and that there won't be a web version.

At least it's built on top of SEPA Instant Payments, which is a step forward...
by kelnos | 2025-07-25 08:11:52+00:00
Unfortunately I think you'll find that many people just don't actually enjoy these sorts of activities. To me, cycling 120 miles (or even just 20 miles) is not something I'm interested in doing regularly.

I've tried various things, and I've found that I can get myself to go outside running (usually 3-5 miles in one session) a few times a week, but even that feels like a chore. I've been doing hot yoga (as well as a yoga-adjacent class that I think of more as "strength training and cardio with yoga features") for the past year and a half, which I actually somewhat enjoy. But it took me double-digit years to find exercise activities that I can actually get myself to do.

Go to the gym regularly? Really hard to find the motivation, though I do my best to go if I'm traveling in a place where I can't go to my (national chain) yoga studio. Cycling? Not my cup of tea. Playing a sport? Nope. Climbing? Tried it, didn't find it interesting. Hiking? Sure, on occasion, but not regularly enough to count as regular exercise. I'm just not really interested in any of those things enough to do them multiple times per week. And I think that's the case for many people.

If I could maintain my weight, leg muscle tone, and cardiovascular health without running, I'd never run ever again. I don't get that "runner's high" that people talk about (or if I do, it's not very intense, and fades very quickly). In addition to whole-body muscle tone, the yoga gives me some nice mental benefits, so I'd probably keep that up, but if it didn't, I'd drop it immediately.
by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe | 2025-07-25 08:11:55+00:00
No, pyright is called on static code. Beartime is called during the python process. Basically all my functions are decorated.

See for example in wdoc, my advanced personal RAG system:

https://github.com/thiswillbeyourgithub/wdoc/blob/main/wdoc/...