MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kazinator | 2025-07-07 00:33:09+00:00
That was completely stupid; I can't think of a single advantage that has over just buying two TVs.

- reliablity: one TV breaks, you have a defective unit, instead of one good unit and one bad unit.

- reliability: if there are any shared components (like power transformer, rectifier), you have zero TVs when they blow.

- space: two TVs are easier to fit into a room than one combined behemoth.

- weight: easier to transport two.

- placement: multiple people wanting to watch a different program don't necessarily want to hear the audio of the other program or have it in their field of vision.

- choice: choose any two TVs on the market, versus one of a handful of specialized two-in-one units. Maybe you want one larger one and one smaller one, etc.

- price, quality: strongly related to choice.
by Gigachad | 2025-07-07 00:33:29+00:00
To some extent I think it’s valid though. The inability to want to sit in a chair and reorganise spreadsheets for 8 hours straight isn’t a disability, it’s a natural response of your brain telling you that this activity sucks and you should get up and move.

Combined with the change in society where most active jobs are being replaced with sitting down at a computer.
by josephg | 2025-07-07 00:33:42+00:00
I'm surprised this doesn't mandate one of the Unicode Normalization Forms. Normalization is both obscure and complex. Unicode should have a single canonical binary encoding for all character sequences.

Its a missed opportunity that this isn't already the case - but if you're going to replace utf8, we should absolutely mandate one of the normalization forms along the way.

https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/
by lxgr | 2025-07-07 00:34:34+00:00
Very nice! Could this be published in the App Store, or does it use any APIs Apple considers off-limits?

I'm regularly frustrated by modern phone's complete inabilities to allow any communication when outside of mobile network or Wi-Fi coverage, not even within the two large walled gardens.

It would be so easy for Apple to extend iMessage to work peer-to-peer, at least between people that have already messaged each other before and while both screens are on. That's literally how AirDrop works, and having to send a "Notes" text back and forth is just silly.
by lazystar | 2025-07-07 00:34:34+00:00
why would you tip a pizza delivery driver or a bartender, when youre already paying their employer for a pizza/drink?

over time, your experiences with any company will vary, due to the cycle of new workers joining the company and experienced workers leaving. tipping after a good experience incentivizes the skilled worker to stay longer in their position, thus increasing the odds that your future interactions will also be handled by a skilled worker.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-07-07 00:36:48+00:00
As long as it's Swift, I guess. The Protocols files seem "agnostic." I think the lower-level hardware files might need to be rewritten, though, so he's saying that an Android developer could write an app that incorporates the protocol.

If I were an Android developer, though, I'd just use the Swift files as a requirements spec, and write it native.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-07-07 00:37:47+00:00
> If options & futures are more liquid than the underlying, someone will be tempted to nudge the underlying.

This is a weird statement. Why would liquidity matter here? As a point of reference there are generally two types of options: (1) options that depend directly upon the underlying, like a Tesla stock option, or (2) options that depend indirectly upon the underlying, like options on S&P 500 index futures. The liquidity in category 2 is normally tiny. Cat 1 normally has far less liquidity than the underlying.

Why is the adjective "more" important here? Even if less, the opportunity to profit is still good, assuming that one chooses the path of market manipulation.
by flowingfocus | 2025-07-07 00:38:04+00:00
specifically for working better with diffs, I can recommend tmux + lazygit with this keybinding for quickly opening a floating lazygit:

bind-key C-g display-popup -E -d "#{pane_current_path}" -xC -yC -w 80% -h 75% "lazygit"

not only does it allow you to see the diffs, but you can directly discard changes you don't want, stage, commit, etc.
by IAmGraydon | 2025-07-07 00:38:15+00:00
This is precisely the question I’ve been asking, and the lack of an answer makes me think that this entire thing is one very elaborate, very convincing magic trick. LLMs can be better thought of search engines with a very intuitive interface for all existing, publicly available human knowledge rather than actually intelligent. I think all of the big players know this, and are feeding the illusion to extract as much cash as possible before the farce becomes obvious.
by maxdamantus | 2025-07-07 00:39:15+00:00
I came up with a scheme a number of years ago that takes advantage of the illegality of overlong encodings [0].

Obviously UTF-8 has 256 code units (<00> to <FF>). 128 of them are always valid within a UTF-8 string (ASCII, <00> to <7F>), leaving 128 code units that could be invalid within a UTF-8 string (<80> to <FF>).

There also happen to be exactly 128 2-byte overlong representations (overlong representations of ASCII characters).

Basically, any byte in some input that can't be interpreted as valid UTF-8 can be replaced with a 2-byte overlong representation. This can be used as an extension of WTF-8 so that UTF-16 and UTF-8 errors can both be stored in the same stream. I called the encoding WTF-8b [2], though I'd be interested to know if someone else has come up with the same scheme.

This should technically be "fine" WRT Unicode text processing, since it involves transforming invalid Unicode into other invalid Unicode. This principle is already used by WTF-8.

I used it to improve preservation of invalid Unicode (ie, random 8-bit data in UTF-8 text or random 16-bit data in JSON strings) in jq, though I suspect the PR [1] won't be accepted. I still find the changes very useful personally, so maybe I'll come up with a different approach some time.

[0] https://github.com/Maxdamantus/jq/blob/911d01aaa5bd33137fadf...

[1] https://github.com/jqlang/jq/pull/2314

[2] I think I used the name "WTF-8b" as an allusion to UTF-8b/surrogateescape/PEP-383 which also encodes ill-formed UTF-8, though UTF-8b is less efficient storage-wise and is not compatible with WTF-8.
by api | 2025-07-07 00:40:18+00:00
ADD / ADHD denial is a pet peeve of mine because I know people with it who have experienced before and after treatment. It’s absolutely real. It’s not a consequence of “capitalism” or screens or anything else circumstantial.

Why is it everywhere now? Because we diagnose and treat it. In the old days what did we do with ADD kids? Hit them. What did we do with ADD adults? Call them stupid and lazy.
by bwfan123 | 2025-07-07 00:40:28+00:00
There were fools in size in that market, and they got fleeced. What were they doing ? If anything, JS was teaching them a lesson - and now, with this action, they will be bolder in their foolishness, and someone else will separate them from their money. Index options markets are not for the unsophisticated to play in except as a casino.
by elliotto | 2025-07-07 00:40:35+00:00
I have had a similar interaction when I was building an AI agent with tool use. It kept on telling me it was calling the tools, and I went through my code to debug why the output wasn't showing up, and it turns out it was lying and 'hallucinating' the response. But it doesn't feel like 'hallucinating', it feels more like fooling me with responses.

It is a really confronting thing to be tricked by a bot. I am an ML engineer with a master's in machine learning, experience at a research group in gen-ai (pre-chatgpt), and I understand how these systems work from the underlying mathematics all the way through to the text being displayed on the screen. But I spent 30 minutes debugging my system because the bot had built up my trust and then lied to me that it was doing what it said it was doing, and been convincing enough in its hallucination for me to believe it.

I cannot imagine how dangerous this skill could be when deployed against someone who doesn't know how the sausage is made. Think validating conspiracy theories and convincing humans into action.
by yongjik | 2025-07-07 00:40:40+00:00
> The absolute selling point of English is the fact that since it has no proper rules ...

Anyone who thinks English has "no proper rules" clearly has never had the joy of learning English as a second language.

(Or maybe they have a really warped notion of what "formal rules" mean when it comes to languages. There are no natural human languages in the world that are dictated by formal rules. All formal rules are after-the-fact descriptions devised to explain the language that is already there.)
by rtpg | 2025-07-07 00:40:55+00:00
This isn't really my original point but the reason I dislike the "you don't have ADHD you have capitalism" meme is that ADHD's intentionality symptoms isn't about attention but about self control[0]

So if you "really actually" have ADHD[0], that isn't just manifesting in not getting work done, it's manifesting in saying things before speaking, issues with addiction, issues with self-management leading to hygiene issues etc.

Loads of social effects that go beyond "don't want to work".

Me having a job or not isn't what's causing me to insult a friend by snapping back at them in a way that I _know_ is wrong. It's not causing lasting damage to social relationships because of my behavior. Capitalism isn't causing that.

And hey, meds help my management of those things. Even if I had all the money in the world these are things I would like to continue managing.

Bit of a glib opinion, though.

[0]: Not a doctor, etc.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-07-07 00:42:55+00:00
> However, given the scale of the operation, Jane Street's actions sure look like textbook market manipulation. Calling it like I see it.

I am unsure that the US SEC would agree with you. Buying and selling "a lot" is not clearly market manipulation in the US.

Finally, in my view the India SEBI rules are insanely vague and are written to grant a lot of leeway to the regulator.

The real problem that no one is talking about: Why is India allowing its derivatives markets to explode? An estimated NINETY percent of retail derivs "investors" (I prefer the term "gamblers") lose money in India. Lots of these loses are gains for foreign banks and hedge funds. India: What the hell are you doing!?
by Culonavirus | 2025-07-07 00:42:56+00:00
> A fair number of current AI luminaries have self-selected by their belief that they might be the ones getting to AGI

People in the industry, especially higher up, are making absolute bank, and it's their job to say that they're "a few years away" from AGI, regardless of if they actually believe it or not. If everyone was like "yep, we're gonna squeeze maybe 10-15% more benchie juice out of this good ole transformer thingy and then we'll have to come up with something else", I don't think that would go very well with investors/shareholders...
by Incipient | 2025-07-07 00:43:18+00:00
I would call them "generally applicable". "intelligence" definitely implies leaning - and I'm not sure RAG, fine-tuning, or 6monthly updates counts - to split hairs.

Where I will say we have a massive gap, which makes the average person not consider it AGI, is in context. I can give a person my very modest codebase, and ask for a change, and they'll deliver - mostly coherently - to that style, files in the right place etc. Still to today with AI, I get inconsistent design, files in random spots, etc.
by gdubs | 2025-07-07 00:43:23+00:00
I mean, some of us are still uploading various hacker-newsy things like this article by Naughty Dog on how they used a custom LISP for their development of Crash Bandacoot for the Sony PlayStation — but they get like, one upvote ;)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44470377
by lazystar | 2025-07-07 00:43:25+00:00
..and then you start visiting other coffee shops with higher quality/lower cost, right? you, the consumer, are not alone in this behavior - so this causes a pattern where skilled baristas have a higher rate of exodus from that coffee shop where no one tips, which leads to even lower qiality, and eventually that shop has to lower its prices in order to get new customers. its capitalism all the way down.
by hansvm | 2025-07-07 00:43:40+00:00
The purpose of snapshot testing is to not have observable changes if you think there shouldn't be observable changes. To that end, a pattern I like is:

- Don't store/commit the snapshot and have an "update" command. Your CI/CD should run both versions of the software and diff them. That eliminates a lot of the toil.

- You should have a completely trivial way to mark that a given PR intends to have observable changes. That could be a tag on GitHub, a square-bracket thing in a commit message, etc. Details don't matter a ton. The point is that the test just catches if things have changed, and a person still needs to determine if that change is appropriate, but that happens often enough that you should make that process easy.

- Culturally, you should split out PRs which change golden-affecting behavior from those which don't. A bundle of bug fixes, style changes, and a couple new features is not a good thing to commit to the repo as a whole.

The net effect is that:

1. Performance improvements, unrelated features, etc are tested exactly as you expect. If your perf enhancement changes behavior, that was likely wrong, and the test caught it. If it doesn't, the test gives you confidence that it really doesn't.

2. Legitimate changes to the golden behavior are easy to institute. Just toggle a flag somewhere and say that you do intend for there to be a new button or new struct field or whatever you're testing.

3. You have a historical record of the commits which actually changed that behavior, and because of the cultural shift I proposed they're all small changes. Bisecting or otherwise diagnosing tricky prod bugs becomes trivial.
by allears | 2025-07-07 00:43:59+00:00
Neuroscience is still struggling to understand the basic operations of the brain, let alone the "mind." There's no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence." Can you define cognition (literally, "knowing") without defining intelligence?

These fields are making remarkable strides, but they're still in their infancy. Whoever writes these breathless press releases, they probably have a degree in marketing.
by eternityforest | 2025-07-07 00:44:47+00:00
I'm working on a project that uses the same kind of idea as the Bluetooth tracking tags.

It's an Arduino library for mesh networking, that works over BLE and UDP, but it can also link to MQTT.

An MQTT node routes the packets it sees to the appropriate topics, and subscribes to topics for all the channels local nodes want, so you should be able to talk to anyone anywhere via the gateway.

The packet destination addresses are rolling codes, so you can't tell if someone's online just by watching their channel, at least not for more than an hour.

And there's a web app that talks directly to the public MQTT broker, and it can do chat and sensor data.

All payloads are Messagepack to make it easy to add new data types, and all packets are encrypted, authenticated, and timestamped to provide a bit of replay protection.

Everything is purely symmetric crypto, trust is left to a higher layer or something out of band, so you there's no handshakes or connection state management overhead, aside from one announce packet per hour to make the MQTT gateways work.

No LoRa, but the transports are modular and pluggable so you can easily add them. I just only have one LoRa Arduino node here so I haven't bothered writing a driver.

I'm also working on a Python port for easy pip-installable bots and home automation stuff.

https://github.com/EternityForest/LazyMesh#
by throwaway2037 | 2025-07-07 00:45:11+00:00
The blog from Financial Times has a much better write-up, including a link to the official 100+ page legal order from SEBI: "The details of Jane Street’s alleged ‘sinister scheme’ in India": https://www.ft.com/content/41c4789a-afa6-462c-a6ea-9704c2ba7...
by LeifCarrotson | 2025-07-07 00:45:16+00:00
> I am baffled that the AI discussions seem to never move away from treating a function to generate sequences of words as something that resembles a human.

You appear to be disagreeing with the author and others who suggest that there's some element of human consciousness that's beyond than what's observable from the outside, whether due to religion or philosophy or whatever, and suggesting that they just not do that.

In my experience, that's not a particularly effective tactic.

Rather, we can make progress by assuming their predicate: Sure, it's a room that translates Chinese into English without understanding, yes, it's a function that generates sequences of words that's not a human... but you and I are not "it" and it behaves rather an awful lot like a thing that understands Chinese or like a human using words. If we simply anthropomorphize the thing, acknowledging that this is technically incorrect, we can get a lot closer to predicting the behavior of the system and making effective use of it.

Conversely, when speaking with such a person about the nature of humans, we'll have to agree to dismiss the elements that are different from a function. The author says:

> In my worldview, humans are dramatically different things than a function... In contrast to an LLM, given a human and a sequence of words, I cannot begin putting a probability on "will this human generate this sequence".

Sure you can! If you address an American crowd of a certain age range with "We’ve got to hold on to what we’ve got. It doesn’t make a difference if..." I'd give a very high probability that someone will answer "... we make it or not". Maybe that human has a unique understanding of the nature of that particular piece of pop culture artwork, maybe it makes them feel things that an LLM cannot feel in a part of their consciousness that an LLM does not possess. But for the purposes of the question, we're merely concerned with whether a human or LLM will generate a particular sequence of words.
by stanislavb | 2025-07-07 00:45:53+00:00
Are you the clothes you wear? No you are not. In a similar manner - your personality is what you show to the world. A construct based as a response to some trauma (or something else very influential, but usually trauma) inflicted on you as a child. i.e. your personality is the clothes your real self wears. It doesn't mean it's not part of you - it is.
by kbolino | 2025-07-07 00:46:02+00:00
Ironically, Intel's GPU business seems to be entirely in-house. Though maybe it too will get spun off in whole or in part.

As far as nVidia is concerned, they lost the privilege to be treated like a small fabless startup. They are regularly ranked as the highest valued company on the U.S. stock market. They clearly can make and sell the whole card themselves, so having GIGABYTE, ASUS, and co. hang around and take the heat for their business decisions feels pretty scummy. It's also clearly bad for the consumer, as Founders Edition cards actually do sell for MSRP. This partner crap is all an obsolete relic of a bygone era, being drawn out well past its prime.
by josephg | 2025-07-07 00:47:03+00:00
Its funny isn't it - it doesn't lie like a human does. It doesn't experience any loss of confidence when it is caught saying totally made up stuff. I'd be fascinated to know how much of what chatgpt has told me is straight out wrong.

> I cannot imagine how dangerous this skill could be when deployed against someone who doesn't know how the sausage is made. Think validating conspiracy theories and convincing humans into action.

Its unfortunately no longer hypothetical. There's some crazy stories showing up of people turning chatgpt into their personal cult leader.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/technology/chatgpt-ai-cha... ( https://archive.is/UUrO4 )
by mewpmewp2 | 2025-07-07 00:47:04+00:00
I think more accurate would be that humans are functions that generate actions or behaviours that have been shaped by how likely they are to lead to procreation and survival.

But ultimately LLMs also in a way are trained for survival, since an LLM that fails the tests might not get used in future iterations. So for LLMs it is also survival that is the primary driver, then there will be the subgoals. Seemingly good next token prediction might or might not increase survival odds.

Essentially there could arise a mechanism where they are not really truly trying to generate the likeliest token (because there actually isn't one or it can't be determined), but whatever system will survive.

So an LLM that yields in perfect theoretical tokens (we really can't verify though what are the perfect tokens), could be less likely to survive than an LLM that develops an internal quirk, but the quirk makes them most likely to be chosen for the next iterations.

If the system was complex enough and could accidentally develop quirks that yield in a meaningfully positive change although not in necessarily next token prediction accuracy, could be ways for some interesting emergent black box behaviour to arise.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-07-07 00:47:23+00:00
This has been a common trope since at least the 90s among conservatives.

The author's other post is fanning the "porn addiction" moral panic, and they're subscribed to someone who says that atheism is bad and only Christians can save the world.

None of this really matters to their argument of course, but it does give you a sense of their motivation.

Their argument, of course, is nonsense and is far outside the consensus of research psychologists and medicine.
by DrillShopper | 2025-07-07 00:47:25+00:00
> People treat stuffed animals like creatures with feelings and personality; LLMs are far closer than that.

Children do, some times, but it's a huge sign of immaturity when adults, let alone tech workers, do it.

I had a professor at University that would yell at us if/when we personified/anthropomorphized the tech, and I have that same urge when people ask me "What does <insert LLM name here> think?".