MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zettabomb | 2025-07-25 16:48:03+00:00
Don't speak in absolutes, if you like being correct. In an engineering context, it's quite important that you know which one is which. I can and have ordered a B size shell with 9 pins. This does not look particularly similar to whatever you are imagining - there are large power pins in the shell.

Because we codified the nomenclature, the difference is important, and the standard "serial port" is a DE9 and nothing else. The word "standard" wasn't codified, but D-sub connectors were.
by glimshe | 2025-07-25 16:48:10+00:00
I do, but not like cyberpunk. I like to both read and watch movies, but I feel a lot more immersed with images than I do with words. It's not a binary rating (immersed vs not immersed), it's a gradient that makes things resonate more strongly with photorealism.

This is one reason, I believe, why some people can't stand animated cartoons. I like them but I know many people who won't even consider watching animation.
by to11mtm | 2025-07-25 16:48:12+00:00
Well it depends on what we mean by 'inconsistent'.

In C# For example, if a structure is over CPU arch Word size (i.e. 32 or 64 bits) then you could have a torn read if it's being written. However object refs themselves are always word size so you'll never have a torn pointer read on those.

However, in either case there is still a need in multithreaded environments to remember the CPU's memory ordering rules and put proper fences (or, to be safe, locks, since memory barrier rules are different between ARM and x86 for example).

But that second bit is a fairly hard problem to solve for without having the right type of modelling around your compiler.
by tetha | 2025-07-25 16:48:38+00:00
This is why I've learned to present people with the concrete consequences and results of their service request. Especially if I get the feeling that someone does not comprehend what they are asking for.

"Your service request will result in X hours of downtime, as well as ireversible data loss between T1 and T2, and a reset of your system back to the state it was in at T1. All changes and interactions after T1 will be lost. Is this what you expect and want?"

Beyond a certain amount of service disruption or monetary investment, asking twice and making sure is prudent, not pedantic.
by retrac | 2025-07-25 16:49:01+00:00
> To spot Venus in the Himawari data, the team used the precise imaging schedule and position of the satellites. "Because we know almost exactly when and where Himawari is looking," Nishiyama said, "we can roughly predict where Venus will appear in each image. From there, we isolate the pixels corresponding to Venus."

I love how this trick pops up over and over. It's the same result from information theory that allows the detection of a carrier below the noise floor. If you know where and when to look you can increase the signal-to-noise ratio and, in effect, create bandwidth.
by rodrigodlu | 2025-07-25 16:49:03+00:00
With stronger consumer protection laws I will just send the thing back. If the merchant does not honor, is an easy case to win on the small claims courts.

The risk is buying from shady merchants and platforms that don't care about the legal system, or can delay the resolution of the dispute.

For instance buying from China on AliExpress, I will obviously not use Pix (through AliPay), but my credit card.
by steveklabnik | 2025-07-25 16:49:15+00:00
Okay, so, I re-read your original post:

> it's not all that LLMs increase experienced developers productivity (even when they believe that it does):

In the present, I am struggling to parse this. When I made my original comment, I understood you to be saying that LLMs do not increase productivity. Synthesizing what you're saying now with that, if I had read

> it's not at all clear that LLMs increase

then I would have understood you correctly. That's my bad!

> The only extrapolations I've seen on this thread are people shrugging it as using 6 months old LLMs so this whole paper must be invalid today.

I feel for both sides on this one. I do think that, for me personally, the models they used weren't good, but the ones that exist now are. So I do think there's some issue there. However, I don't think that makes the study invalid, if anything, it's a great way to test this hypothesis: if they do the same thing again, but with newer models, that would lend some weight to that idea. So I also think saying that this is completely irrelevant is missing the point.
by jfengel | 2025-07-25 16:49:23+00:00
I read the article as saying the opposite: "They reject [evolution] because it threatens their identity. This creates a context where education alone can’t overcome deeply held convictions."

TFA suggests that the British seek compromise, and were therefore able to adapt to new information. As you note, it's not entirely clear that this remains true. I think Americans are proud of their refusal to compromise, and believe it is responsible for America's economic success. It sounds like some British are inclined to agree.
by positr0n | 2025-07-25 16:49:24+00:00
> Could a human enter a black hole to study it? No. Like obviously not.

That is incorrect. With a large enough black hole the event horizon is not a significant feature at human scale. Spaghettification will not occur. A human could easily dip inside the event horizon without damage.

Though of course once you go in there's no going back out!
by great_psy | 2025-07-25 16:49:27+00:00
A likely catalyst would be a DeepSeek like model where it has the capability of top model but in a much smaller footprint.

NVDA and cloud providers that are highly staked in AI would likely take a hit if a 70B model could do what Sonnet4 does.

But overall, AI is here to stay even if the market crashes, so it’s not really a AI bubble pop, more like a GPU pop.

And even then, GPU will still be in demand since the training will still need large clusters.
by ersatz_username | 2025-07-25 16:49:50+00:00
We analyzed over 1.8 million Hugging Face model repositories and found widespread licensing ambiguity, risky serialization formats, and subtle file-level inconsistencies—including drift between declared and actual artifact content. Even among the most-downloaded models, a surprising number are missing licenses or contain flagged files. Curious how others are thinking about model integrity and compliance in production.
by Mawr | 2025-07-25 16:49:53+00:00
> The fact is that Go doesn't admit memory corruption vulnerabilities, and the way you know that is the fact that there are practically zero exploits for memory corruption vulnerabilities targeting pure Go programs, despite the popularity of the language.

Another way to word it: If "Go is memory unsafe" is such a revelation after its been around for 13 years, it's more likely that such a statement is somehow wrong than that nobody's picked up on such a supposedly impactful safety issue in all this time.

As such, the burden of proof that addresses why nobody's ran into any serious safety issues in the last 13 years is on the OP. It's not enough to show some theoretical program that exhibits the issue, clearly that is not enough to cause real problems.
by growthwtf | 2025-07-25 16:50:11+00:00
I think this article misses the mark (sorry op). The author is misinterpreting what the purpose of those documents are. Those are planning documents intended to generate team alignment and shared context. You should co-author them with the important stakeholders and it's a form of thinking through the solution as a group. Of course they describe future state—and that's a good thing.

It sounds like the problem is that nobody in the org ever writes down what the system does in the real implementation, and so the RFC becomes the default? That does sound frustrating, but it's also not the problem/solution pairing that the article tries to tackle. Also—that is explicitly what generated docs solve.

Documents should be unix-y (do one thing well), is maybe how I would rephrase this. If they're overloaded, that is genuinely a bad thing, but RFCs do have a time and place!
by chihuahua | 2025-07-25 16:50:22+00:00
I totally agree. The example pictures in the article look fine.

I don't know what the author wants, but perhaps it's some kind of industry insider view similar to where "true artists' make movies that are so dark you can't see anything, and the dialog is quiet mumbling and the sound effects are ear-shattering. Perhaps there's an equivalent to that in games.
by maelito | 2025-07-25 16:50:53+00:00
> For the S10 a mandatory wipe-on-upgrade has last been the case when upgrading from versions _older than LineageOS 21.0_.

Ah, that might be it. My current version is 21.

> If your device is running LineageOS version older than 21.0, wipe your data partition (this is usually named “Wipe”, “Format”, or “Factory reset”) .

https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/beyond0lte/upgrade/

Yes ! Thank you, I can upgrade to 22 without wiping.
by strcat | 2025-07-25 16:51:26+00:00
Mock Location is a standard Android feature available in GrapheneOS. Our upcoming Location Scopes feature is being added for per-app control rather than global.

It's fairly pointless for apps to check for Mock Location being active without also verifying the OS via the Play Integrity API or hardware attestation API. Most apps checking for it are using or in the process of adopting the Play Integrity API. Apps enforcing the Play Integrity API basic/strong integrity level won't work on GrapheneOS unless they explicitly allow it. A growing number of apps doing this are explicitly allowing GrapheneOS. It would be counterproductive if our Location Scopes API didn't provide a way for apps to check if since those apps simply wouldn't permit GrapheneOS. However, it doesn't need to be the existing Mock Location API. It can be our own API which would only be used by apps explicitly choosing to permit GrapheneOS. This would allow apps like Pokemon Go and Ingress to permit GrapheneOS even if they insist on not allowing directly spoofing location.
by TrapLord_Rhodo | 2025-07-25 16:52:33+00:00
That's what he said they did. that's the joke.

>so they changed the existing code to just check that predicate first, and the code sped up a zillion times, much more than with Ken's solution.

but since you've now spent all this time developing some beautiful solution for .01% of the actual data flow. Not the best use of dev time, essentially.
by codingdave | 2025-07-25 16:52:56+00:00
How would the database know whether the other app layers depend on that value or not? You could absolutely have an app that does not require data in a specific field to function, yet all records happen to have data. This is actually fairly common in single-tenant apps, where some tenants populate a field and others do not. You need to look at how the data is used across the entire stack to know whether or not it should be nullable, not whatever the current data happens to be.
by matthewdgreen | 2025-07-25 16:53:10+00:00
The big question I'd want to answer here is: are we discussing symmetric encryption or public-key encryption, because they live in different worlds. I was sort of hoping that one of the experts would chime in with this.

Looking at the paper (for literally 30 seconds) I found a result stating that public-key encryption (in their model where secret keys are quantum and pubkeys/ciphertexts are classical) implies their one-way puzzles. That's good, because it implies that one-way puzzles are a necessary building block for public-key encryption. But it doesn't mean that one-way puzzles are sufficient to build public-key encryption. I was hoping to see the opposite implication, that one-way puzzles imply public-key encryption, but I didn't see that.

Maybe that's elsewhere in the paper, and isn't yielding to my sophisticated "search for one word" analysis.

ETA: I know as much quantum information theory as I do paragliding, so please chime in with knowledgeable thoughts here!
by ethbr1 | 2025-07-25 16:53:21+00:00
The iPhone was essentially enabled by (a) broadly deployed cellular networks, (b) touchscreens, (c) power efficient mobile chips, (d) battery technology.

The iWatch or iPad are probably better examples, as their technological prerequisites existed for quite a while before Apple packed them.

And I’d point out that they’re all fundamentally different physical interfacing methods.

Apple’s last non-physical major products were iTunes (more of a legal / licensing product than a technical one) and the App Store (basically driven by iPhone deployment and lock-in).

Has Apple ever released a groundbreaking non-physical/interface product? MacOS? Final Cut Pro?
by lblume | 2025-07-25 16:53:57+00:00
A counterpoint: photography enabled integrity and authenticity of images, which fueled journalistic credibility, in general becoming one part in fostering a high-trust society. AI image generation leads to these advances being slowly eradicated as generated images increasingly cannot be differentiated from unfabricated evidence. In this light, photography was socially progressive, while AI generation of photorealistic images could be seen as regressive.
by theshackleford | 2025-07-25 16:54:04+00:00
> And before we had OLED gaming monitors which can actually now display good HDR at 1000+ nits.

It’s worth pointing out these monitors for the most part can not sustain it or achieve it at anything other than the smallest possible window sizes, such as the 1-3% window sizes at best.

> Now we have real HDR that doesn't need tone-mapping, or only a small amount of tone-mapping above the display peak nits point.

For the reasons outlined above (and other) tone mapping is still heavily required.

It’s worth noting that OLED TVs do a significantly better job at displaying high nits in both percentage of the display and in sustaining it. It’s my hope the monitors eventually catch up because I waited a long time for it to become monitor sized.
by bigfishrunning | 2025-07-25 16:54:07+00:00
My favorite example of this is using "aux cable" to refer to an audio cable with a 3 or 4 pin 3.5mm connector on the end (because car stereos would have a 3.5mm jack labeled "Aux" for "Auxiliary input")

I usually call those "headphone cables" just to be contrary.
by lurk2 | 2025-07-25 16:54:14+00:00
Primary care duties and costs should remain with caregivers except in cases of neglect or deprivation. Additional healthcare burdens (e.g. development psychologists, medication, etc.) should be covered by the state. When caregivers die, the subject is assigned a social worker to ensure his wellbeing. If no other caregiver can be found, he becomes a ward of the state.

Socializing the costs this way has its own ethical problems, especially where the parents continue to reproduce after learning they are carriers; I’ve simply concluded that the costs of care are completely negligible when you contrast them with the loss of human dignity that results from valuing an individual human on the basis of economic cost or contribution.
by ryandv | 2025-07-25 16:54:47+00:00
> It seems to me there are two types of conservatism: concern about a change to society that does not have a clear evidential basis (which I'll call "small-c conservatism"), and a desire for other people to not have nice things (which I'll call "capital-C Conservatism").

False dichotomy [0]. Basically a bunch of sophistry to say "all conservatism is bad."

> the existence of trans people "erases differences" (Galatians 3:28),

You can't just quote the Bible without providing a translation, and I can find no translation with this wording. I would suggest that you refrain from commenting upon other cultures that you are ignorant of, as this is a form of cultural appropriation at best, and active bigotry at worst.

Same with your supposed "quotations" of Genesis 2.

> Capital-C Conservatism is about denying resources and happiness to perceived enemies,

Apply principle of charity [1].

> [...] while harming them as much as you can rationalise while still calling yourself a good person.

> Many "progressives" are actually capital-C Conservative, with a different – but no less harmful – idealised-state-of-nature: many modern-day eugenicists work in autism "charities", promoting "progressive" torture "therapies".)

On this we can agree - I don't actually see much difference between progressives and conservatives; they all fall prey to religious and superstitious thinking. All this self-aggrandizement about how diverse and inclusive one is, all the moralizing and ethical high-horsing, is really just a series of magic incantations the progressive chants to themselves to "psychologically manage the results of living in a materially deeply unequal society," [2] without actually needing to do anything about the material reality. Not so different from the way the sinner takes a dunk in a bathtub of water and is now "born again, free from sin," doesn't take the Lord's name in vain, uses gender-neutral pronouns, and wears a crucifix or a Pride flag - take your pick of religious idol.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[2] Liam Kofi Bright, "White Psychodrama." https://philpapers.org/archive/BRIWP.pdf
by fifteen1506 | 2025-07-25 16:55:00+00:00
Generic power-user here: I am going to guess without the backing of Google going forcefully open-source, "niche" hardware such as Google's Tensor will lose their attractiveness.

However one must note also that for now not even Snapdragon fulfills GOS requirements. If/when that changes, Snapdragon devices may have more open-source community momentum than Google's Tensor. Plus all the economy of scale, etc..

In terms of security, Microtek is even more far behind Snapdragon.

Again, not an Android dev here, take the text above with a grain of salt, YMMV, etc..
by thebruce87m | 2025-07-25 16:55:15+00:00
Considering my model y can’t stay in the same left motorway lane without panicking about a slip road off I don’t hold out much hope for Tesla self driving.

But it’s still a really good car, and I do not like the thought of going back to other manufacturers with their utter, utter shit software.

If Tesla just did a Rivian-like truck and an ID-Buzz-like van with model Y range they’d do so much better.
by b112 | 2025-07-25 16:55:28+00:00
You could deprecate the service, and archive the links as static html. 200bytes of text for an html redirect (not js).

You can serve immense volumes of traffic from static html. One hardware server alone could so easily do the job.

Your attack surface is also tiny without a back end interpreter.

People will chime in with redundancy, but the point is Google could stop maintaining the ingress, and still not be douches about existing urls.

But... you know, it's Google.
by cogman10 | 2025-07-25 16:55:32+00:00
I think the biggest issue is perhaps the danger aspect of it. You are making wild pressure swings on some critical storage structures with some pretty wild temp swings. Making sure that doesn't ultimately destroy the CO2 canister or collapse the CO2 dome will be a challenge.

It also has to be pretty big, which doesn't matter too much other than a critical failure would be more impressive.

They say no leaks, but I'm sure there will be SOME CO2 leakage. Hard to make something like this with gases that doesn't leak at least a little. You could offset that with some CO2 capture via atmospheric distillation.
by Mawr | 2025-07-25 16:55:46+00:00
You're right in principle, but it's important to remember that tradeoffs exist. You can very much trade off engineering effort and time to improve reliability.

Commercial aviation is a great example of taming extreme inherent unsafety of aircraft by applying a lot of resources to the engineering side. Another is space programs.

And car power trains have nothing on those ;) As Toyota has shown, it's totally possible to make reliable hybrid cars with enough engineering thrown at the problem.

So if all things were equal, you'd absolutely expect an EV to be more reliable than a hybrid, but all things are rarely equal.
by reaperducer | 2025-07-25 16:55:55+00:00
Sure you could do it. You could even put 25 pins in 9 pin housing if you made the pitch smaller.

They just don’t exist, and hopefully never will.

Maybe not as a standard, but I've seen a several companies stuff a crazy number of pins into a DE9 shell. I think one of them was my old GRiD Compass.

Beast of a machine. Heavy as hell, magnesium case, bubble memory, a screen that caused all televisions it was pointed at to lose their signal, and a sticker on the bottom saying it was illegal to use it in a whole list of countries, including Israel.
by SkyeCA | 2025-07-25 16:56:44+00:00
The website and app UIs for these services weren't my problem, it's the overall UX and KYC is part of that.

I don't want to go over all the issues I had, but to put it simply some were the fault of the service (I had major issues verifying and then reverifying) and some were due to the bank I use and their restrictions.
by wadadadad | 2025-07-25 16:56:51+00:00
I want to say that the game play was really well done, I really enjoyed the progression (speed of enemies, number of enemies, how quickly they descended) and mechanics (being able to shoot their bullets!)! I don't recall exactly how the original invaders worked, so I'm not sure how much was copied vs changed, but I very much enjoyed this as a brief break. Thank you!
by philipkglass | 2025-07-25 16:57:32+00:00
The biggest drawback that this web page acknowledges is lower round trip efficiency (75% for the CO2 battery, 85% for the lithium battery). If that is really the only deficiency, this device is great.

I'd mostly be wary of what the actual costs and operational experience are. This device has moving parts that a battery doesn't. Looking at their news page, I see announcements of projects and partnerships but I don't think that they have any completed projects running yet. I suspect that their CAPEX comparison, where they show lithium ion batteries as 70% more expensive, may be aspirational rather than demonstrated. There are several companies that have already installed megawatt-scale lithium ion grid storage today: Samsung, BYD, Tesla, Fluence, LG Chem... and many of these projects have published costs and operational experience already.
by rodrigodlu | 2025-07-25 16:57:32+00:00
There's the small claims courts for that, strong consumer protection laws.

Also some banks are offering insurance on trial basis already.

But yeah, I prefer CC on international platforms, or if the cashback is higher than the discount they offer via Pix (5% to 20%).

Lenovo offered me 20% on a Laptop recently through Pix.

With the discount I paid a bit more on broader support, keep your disks, liquid damage protection.
by ehnto | 2025-07-25 16:57:34+00:00
I totally agree with your last paragraph except to add: there has actually been some great advances in interaction, but people vote with their playtime, and I think the reality is that the "median gamer" is totally content with WASD + mouse/the typical controller thumbstick movement. In the same way that so many are content that many game mechanics boil down to combat and health bars.

I am personally not content with that and I explore all I can, and am trying to make games that skirt the trends a little bit.

But that stark contrast between visual fidelity but a lack of interactivity has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. You can even do so much more with just mouse and keyboard interactions, but I think it's overshadowed by the much lower risk visual fidelity goals.
by zettabomb | 2025-07-25 16:57:38+00:00
D-sub has got to be one of the longest enduring connector standards I can think of, apart from wall outlets. They're from the 50s, originally for military use, and we're still speccing them in new space hardware today. Now they've got coax/twinax, high power, fiber, and even pneumatic "contacts" if you know where to look (and can afford it). I can't say that they'd be my first choice, personally, but it's quite remarkable to see how well they've fared over the better part of a century.