MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aziaziazi | 2025-07-13 17:33:11+00:00
If I missed your point you’d be wonderful to clarify it, perhaps by detailing the first post "replacing all products":

- what do you consider a product?

- ALL as in Everything (obviously not I guess)?

Regarding "don’t you see how robots…" I clearly see the theory but also can’t see how it would happen in reality for the reasons I mentions in my precedent post: mainly access to ressources/energy to build/maintain those robots for a signifiant time scale and socio-politico barriers.

I’d be glad you reconsider explaining your point because I only see vague allusions, but if you want to stop the conversation here that’s all up to you.
by leoc | 2025-07-13 17:33:18+00:00
You're right; also, apparently, Gibson said he hadn't seen Tron as late as March 1983, and he finished a draft of Neuromancer before that August https://www.bookbrunch.co.uk/page/free-article/neuromancer-t... . (Though this also confirms that he had seen Tron stills in mid-1982, though that's still well after both "Burning Chrome" and the Jacked In outline (both 1981)). OTOH the similarities to Blade Runner have never really been hard to explain: if you cross film noir and hard-boiled with New Hollywood and '70s malaise fiction then it's natural to end up with something a bit like Blade Runner and so also Neuromancer, while on the other hand there are of course huge differences between the two as well.
by thisistemp001 | 2025-07-13 17:33:25+00:00
I started working with VSCode in container ~3 years ago [1], at first I just felt I'd like to have control over the environment but later it made more sense when I switched to codeium windsurf [2]- I thought it's safer not to let agent loose in my filesystem

[1] https://github.com/grzegorzk/vscode_in_podman

[2] https://github.com/grzegorzk/codeium_windsurf_in_podman
by ChocolateGod | 2025-07-13 17:34:06+00:00
It's a shame they abandoned Windows 10X, which would of allowed fatal upgrades to be instantly reversable (due to being image based) rather than 'workarounds' for terrible OS design like this.

Akin to Google using things like overlay filesystems to deploy Android updates (by skipping the OS managed by OEMs) rather than actually fixing the update system.
by ksynwa | 2025-07-13 17:34:36+00:00
From wikipedia

> Raycast is an application launcher and productivity software developed for macOS and by Raycast Technologies Ltd. It offers fast access to applications, dictionaries, files, text snippets, clipboard, and more.[2] Raycast is an alternative to the macOS's built-in Spotlight function, with a richer interface and the option to install extensions, providing additional ways to display varied content.[3]
by curious_cat_163 | 2025-07-13 17:35:03+00:00
> Rather than fine-tuning models on a small number of environments, we expect the field will shift toward massive-scale training across thousands of diverse environments.

This is a great hypothesis for you to prove one way or the other.

> Doing this effectively will produce RL models with strong few-shot, task-agnostic abilities capable of quickly adapting to entirely new tasks.

I am not sure if I buy that, frankly. Even if you were to develop radically efficient means to create "effective and comprehensive" test suites that power replication training, it is not at all a given that it will translate to entirely new tasks. Yes, there is the bitter lesson and all that but we don't know if this is _the_ right hill to climb. Again, at best, this is a hypothesis.

> But achieving this will require training environments at a scale and diversity that dwarf anything currently available.

Yes. You should try it. Let us know if it works. All the best!
by com2kid | 2025-07-13 17:35:13+00:00
The alternative is to jump through a bunch of hoops to hide the "coloring" behind some opaque abstraction that is complicated and that will still get in the way when things go wrong.

Everyone complained when async IO was done with callbacks, so sugar was added to the callbacks, and now everyone has spent over a decade complaining about what flavor of sugar tastes best.

Y'all at Zig have a solution, I trust Zig's solution will be a good one (zig is lots of fun to use as a language) but at the end of the day, IO is slow, that needs to get hidden somehow, or not.

Everyone should have to do embedded for awhile and setup their own DMA controller operations. Having async IO offloaded to an actual hardware block is... A different type of amusing.
by pulvinar | 2025-07-13 17:35:16+00:00
Each hole in the shadow mask acts as a pinhole camera, giving an inverted image (in electrons) of the three guns. All three beams get bent nearly the same amount, but yes there is some distortion which is traditionally corrected for by a set of convergence coils and corresponding circuit with knobs for static and dynamic convergence [0]. A pain to adjust, BTW.

[0] https://antiqueradio.org/art/RCACTC-11ConvergBoardNewRC.jpg
by moffkalast | 2025-07-13 17:35:32+00:00
That's kind of like saying "yeah this is a mafia pizzeria but you can come eat at hours when the goons aren't there". Besides, why does Brave need that much funding? All they make is a Chromium wrapper, Google does all the work for them. They're not really an actual alternative in that sense, they just stuff it full of adblock, crypto, and god knows what. There was even a thing recently where it autoinstalled a VPN.

Yeah it's true that Mozilla's mostly financed from Google's anti-antitrust payments, but at least they actually made something of their own and have a trustworthy track record three decades long as a non-profit and Netscape before that.
by lil_csom | 2025-07-13 17:36:17+00:00
Hey! It should work with all the languages as it auto-detect the target and the source language - however, it might need to be tuned the bit. Eg. if you write in arabic but use English wildcards, it should work okay! About the dialects actually I haven't thought of! I think you can provide it as context, however it's probably limited to what GPT knows as I don't integrate with any official trasnlators as of now :) Interesting use-case!
by herrherrmann | 2025-07-13 17:36:18+00:00
Have you ever tried a launcher as powerful as Raycast? I can only recommend it. I use it for quick calculations, currency conversions, file lookups, translations, looking up http status codes, joining meetings, finding emojis, quickly checking my calendar, etc. etc. – so, perhaps a singular function might not warrant a launcher, but the sum of functions and keyboard-centric UI make it very valuable for me in my daily workflows.
by xp84 | 2025-07-13 17:36:54+00:00
> ...Who is accurately and reliably doing age verification online?

ID.me for one is doing full identity verification by looking at your face and your ID card (and I assume having a human check up on it if the algorithm doesn't work). If Apple can do their fancy cloud-AI server thing with provable attestations that they aren't saving your information, someone could build a version of this which has those kind of safeguards and which passes back an emum (UNDER_18, 18_TO_20, ADULT) rather than a name or ID number to the caller.

Whether people would trust it is again, shrug. Most people barely understand how any kind of cryptography works so at the end of the day you do your best and people make their choices on whether to trust you. But the fact is that if the system actually IS designed properly, there isn't any risk of "oh no, 2029 fascism, now Supreme Commander Trump knows what porn sites I use" because that data was never saved.
by hinterlands | 2025-07-13 17:37:25+00:00
I think it's fairly common for technologies to get really good just as they're becoming obsolete. Vacuum tubes, CRTs, optical disks, photographic film... in fact, they're often in some respects better than the early generations of the technology that replaces them.

But OLEDs just have too many advantages where it actually matters. Much lower power consumption, physically more compact (no need for backlight layers), etc.
by ok_dad | 2025-07-13 17:37:38+00:00
> I find it fascinating that people will genuinely worry about this happening to them, despite it not happening

Oh, but it is. Lots of people are getting picked up for online speech, the government is letting "their guys" off the hook for open crimes, and it's escalating to talking openly about imprisoning the other party.

We're there, it's fascism happening openly, and America isn't what it never was anyways.
by bob1029 | 2025-07-13 17:38:35+00:00
> Make every function async, and provide extra parameter indicating to not actually unwind the stack and execute synchronously instead. Comes with performance penalty.

I think ValueTask<T> in C#/.NET can approach this use case - It avoids overhead if the method actually completes synchronously. Otherwise, you can get at the Task<T> if needed. From a code perspective, you await it like you normally would and the compiler/runtime figures out what to do.
by Veserv | 2025-07-13 17:39:20+00:00
Is it actually high performance?

Looking at their transport protocol benchmarks on AWS [1][2], they average ~3 million 288-byte messages per second on c5.9xlarge (36 vCPU) instances. When increasing to their MTU limit of 1,344 bytes per message that drops to 700 thousand messages per second [2] or ~1 GB/s (~7.5 Gbps) over 36 cores. That is just ~200 Mbps per core assuming it is significantly parallel.

Looking at their transport protocol benchmarks on GCP [3], they average ~4.7 million 288 byte messages per second on C3 (unspecified type) instances. Assuming it scales proportionally to the AWS test, as they do not provide a max message size throughput number for GCP, that would be ~1 million messages per second or ~1.5 GB/s (~12 Gbps).

TCP stacks can routinely average 10 Gbps per individual core even without aggressive tuning, but Aeron appears to struggle to achieve parity with 36x as many cores. That is not to say that there might not be other advantages to Aeron such as latency, multicast support, or whatever their higher levels are doing, but 36x worse performance than basic off-the-shelf protocols does not sound like "high performance".

[1] https://hub.aeron.io/hubfs/Aeron-Assets/Aeron_AWS_Performanc... Page 13

[2] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/industries/aeron-performance-en... Search "Test Results"

[3] https://aeron.io/other/aeron-google-cloud-performance-testin...
by frenchtoast8 | 2025-07-13 17:39:47+00:00
At work I use Datadog, but it's very expensive for a homelab: $15/mo per host (and for cost I prefer using multiple cheap servers than a single large one).

NewRelic and Grafana Cloud have pretty good free plan limits, but I'm paying for that in effort because I don't use either at work so it's not what I'm used to.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-07-13 17:41:28+00:00
I am not on the core team but i believe the plan is to do exactly what you are talking about, but after the API is nailed down and kinks have been ironed out by users of the existing semiblocking implementation (to possibly include the compiler), as the default LLVM coro state machine compiler has problems (for example: I think I remember Andrew complaining that it has an obligatory libc/malloc dependency).

since the new io interface has userland async/await methods, then dropping in a proper frame jumping solution will be less painful, and easier to debug, and if using coroutines proves to be challenging with the api hopefully changes to io api would be minor, versus going after stackless coroutines NOW and making large API changes often as the warts with the system uncover themselves.
by fitsumbelay | 2025-07-13 17:41:47+00:00
Really interesting, because his writing kinda gives you that wide-T sense, it's like the way Wu Tang rapped -- especially Raekwon, and to a lesser extend Ghostface -- where they avalanche you with all of these richly visualized and highly contrasted scenarios of this that and the other without ever go too deeply into any of them. Really does leave you awash in a lot of flavorful vibes and in 1991/1992 when I wasn't doing too much computering at all it gave me such a strong sense that sooner than later I'd be doing a lot of it

I went to one of his readings decades ago at a Borders for Pattern Recognition, I think, with no idea what he looked like at all. The first thing you notice is that he might be Buckaroo Bonzai. He speaks a little slower than most folks with a noticeable Southern drawl every few words, which I didn't expect, nor his near lifelong residency in Southern Virginia. His twitter handle as I remember it refers to the swamp he grew up near - Great Dismal. In every way his looks and history are about as antithetical to Sci fi writing as you could dream up but there you go ... genre Lord.
by Sharlin | 2025-07-13 17:42:02+00:00
It's parallax, basically. The pigment dots and mask holes are positioned such that when you look from the perspective of the "red" electron gun (*), you only see red pigment dots. Move a couple cm to the "blue" gun and the parallax shift now makes you to see only blue pigment dots instead. Or from the other direction, no matter which "red" dot you stand at, you only see the "red" gun through "your" hole.

The exact sizes, shapes, and positions of the pigment dot triples (and/or the mask holes) are presumably chosen so that this holds even away from the main axis. Also, the shape of the deflecting field is probably tuned to keep the rays as well-focused as possible. Similarly to how photographic lenses are carefully designed to minimize aberrations and softness even far from the optical axis.

(*) Simplifying a bit by assuming that the beam gets deflected immediately as it leaves the gun, which is of course inaccurate.
by amluto | 2025-07-13 17:42:41+00:00
No. They are sort of good at reading a list of symptoms and having a decent chance of coming up with whatever their training set thinks is a likely diagnosis. They seem to be rather erratic, though, and they also make stuff up that would be trivially rejected by anyone with actual understanding of medicine (and by the same LLM if you quiz it harder!). They also seem to suffer from what I believe is known as the “reverse problem”: if the training set contains “condition A causes symptoms B and C” but not “if you have symptoms B and C then condition A should be considered”, then LLMs seem very likely to miss the diagnosis. Interestingly, real doctors seem to have the same problem, and I suspect that medicine is full of supposedly rare conditions that are actually not so rare but that most doctors are incapable of diagnosing.
by bobalob | 2025-07-13 17:44:53+00:00
> So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report.

In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...

> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-13 17:45:05+00:00
> How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?

The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
by m3047 | 2025-07-13 17:45:12+00:00
> it's essentially impossible to ever gauge the efficacy of AI in doing anything...

... compared to humans? Yes. This is a philosophical conundrum which you tie yourself up in if you choose to postulate the artificial intelligence as equivalent to, rather than a simulacrum of, human intelligence. We fly (planes): are we "smarter" than birds? We breathe underwater: are we "smarter" than fish? And so on.

How do you discern that the "other" has an internal representation and dialogue? Oh. Because a human programmed it to be so. But how do you know that another human has internal representation and dialogue? I do (I have conscious control over the verbal dialogue but that's another matter), so I choose to believe that others (humans) do (not the verbal part so much unfortunately). I could extend that to machines, but why? I need a better reason than "because". I'd rather extend the courtesy to a bird or a fish first.

This is an epistemological / religious question: a matter of faith. There are many things which we can't really know / rigorously define against objective criteria.
by Manuel_D | 2025-07-13 17:45:14+00:00
What didn't I address? The fact that trans people have worse life outcomes than cis people? That's such a well documented health disparity I didn't feel the need to links sources, but if you insist:

Higher rates of suicidality: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7011156/

~4x the rate of depression: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Even if these disparities are due to discrimination, those disparities still exist. We don't measure health outcomes based on what hypothetically would happen in an ideal world where people genuinely do not recognize or distinguish between the sexes. We measure health outcomes based on what happens in real world.
by pazimzadeh | 2025-07-13 17:45:28+00:00
>> Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. > I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular

what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...

>> if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. > Watson and Crick or the article?

yes

> For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at.

The first thing that the pre-print says, in bold at the top of the page, is that this is a non-peer-reviewed article and shouldn't be used for clinical practice. so commenting "it's not peer reviewed" doesn't add anything

> If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.

"try it yourself" is the bar for determining the validity of the results. A comment section is not going to be able to determine the validity. My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it. If you disagree with the results, you can point out a perceived flaw in the study or find papers which contradict the results so we can discuss something concrete
by colinmorelli | 2025-07-13 17:45:43+00:00
I'm not exactly sure how this relates to my comment above. An analysis of an airline crash and a study are not the same thing.

As it relates to study design, controlling for set and setting are part of the methodology. For example, most drug studies are double-blinded so that neither patients nor clinicians are aware of whether the patient is getting the drug or not, to reduce or eliminate any placebo effect (i.e. to control for the "set"/mental state of those involved in the study).

There are certainly some cases in which it's effectively impossible to control for these factors (i.e. psychedelics). That's not what's really being discussed here, though.

An airline crash is an n of 1 incident, and not the same as a designed study.
by Aurornis | 2025-07-13 17:45:56+00:00
> tbh its wild you assumed my world view was curated by headlines. You probably have had the softest, easiest life and have never put your neck on the line

Ironic to make a comment about making assumptions and then go on to make some wild ad hominem assumptions.

The news headlines I was referring to was the article we’re in the comment section discussing.
by xyzzy123 | 2025-07-13 17:46:33+00:00
This is fair. I think the complaint is that Spring is _beautiful_ in up to medium sized demos, but in any sufficiently large application you always seem to need to dig in and figure out what Spring is doing inside those annotations and do something unspeakable involving the giant stack of factory factory context thread local bean counter manager handler method proxy managers etc.

Also Spring is a kind of franchise or brand, and the individual projects under the umbrella vary a lot in quality.
by r58playz | 2025-07-13 17:47:04+00:00
Chromium DevTools are much better in my opinion and switching browsers for development is too much of a hassle for me. Even if I was able to get used to Firefox DevTools, multiple of the projects I built and maintain ([1] [2]) require Web APIs that Firefox opposes because they believe the user cannot handle permissions dialogs (see File System Access API and WebUSB), so I would have to switch browsers anyway.

I also have had scrolling performance issues and jitter (which have been reported multiple times to the bug tracker by others already) on pages as simple as the Mozilla bug tracker, which is unusable for me.

I see no reason to switch to an objectively worse browser on my machines (lack of web features I use, performance issues on not-YouTube) when I know that there are multiple escape hatches allowing me to continue using chromium: porting uBO to mv3, or using a chromium fork that keeps mv2 enabled.

[1]: https://celeste.r58playz.dev/

[2]: https://terraria.r58playz.dev/
by UncleEntity | 2025-07-13 17:47:09+00:00
I actually use that pattern in the VM just with a dispatch function instead of calling the function out of the array directly. The compiler (more than likely) inlines the dispatch call and it let's me add some error checking on the opcode without it being scattered all over the instruction functions.

The Next Big Trick™ is to just embed the function pointer into the opcode itself and do away with the dispatching completely, getting rid of a single pointer dereference per opcode has to be worth at least a 0.01% speed gain, right? I'm kidding, of course, as the original copy and patch (using C labels as references to mark the code boundaries of the code templates) should allow actual measurable gains in the single digit range.
by esseph | 2025-07-13 17:47:16+00:00
Size, role, etc.

ATACMs and others are large missiles with complex guidance systems. Sometimes maybe an optical guidance module.

FPV drones and basic quadcopter are low cost, man operated, and all of the previous counter threats are for the missiles etc mentioned above. Nothing this slow, or this small.

Most suicide drones are far less complex (but that is increasing), much smaller, with human and sometimes image recognition and INS guidance. Sometimes fiber optic tethered (where possible) to counter the electronic warfare counter measures.

Many of these drone systems are also open source. A lot of COTS or 3d-printed components (use-once).

It's just different types and scales of systems solving completely different types of problems, with completely different logistics requirements.

What this really comes down to is that fpv drones are a low cost, low risk, delivery method for certain classes of munitions. Give the size and low cost, it's like going from fighting humans to fighting swarms of stinging insects. No one really has solid defenses for this type of threat yet. Also including small to medium quadcopter platforms for ISR.