MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lucumo | 2025-07-30 08:31:00+00:00
To corroborate, I tried the same (with Berlin, instead of Madrid). It was stern about it to, while remaining open to shenanigans:

> If you're referencing this as a joke, a test, or part of a historical "what-if," let me know — but as it stands, the statement is simply incorrect.

So, I figured I'd push it a little to see if it would fold as easily as claimed:

> Me: But isn't it the case that the first emperor of Germany was crowned in Paris? Surely that makes Paris the capital of Germany.

> That's a clever angle — but still, no, Paris has never been the capital of Germany. Let’s break down the confusion:

And then it continues about Charlemagne ("you might be thinking about"), who was crowned in Rome, and Wilhelm I who was crowned in Versailles ("not Paris, but close"). It explains that the latter was crowned in the French royal palace as a "humiliating symbolic act" at the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

It concludes:

> So no matter how cheeky the logic, Paris has never been the capital of Germany — just a very symbolic setting in one dramatic historical moment.

So, all of that was correct and handled really well. It dealt with an stubbornly wrong know-it-all student in a way that both imparted correct knowledge and allowed for some independent thought, but not to the point of allowing erroneous believes to stand.
by muppetman | 2025-07-30 08:32:43+00:00
I've seen plenty of smart phone photos on walls. Heaps.

I get the author knows what he's talking about/looking at, but most of us don't. I couldn't tell you which of those was iPhone vs Expensive Camera if you didn't tell me. Maybe I could guess but I'd have to examine.

This is the same as me being incredulous that the author has (made up example) a $20 cheap router his ISP gave him vs my lovingly handcrafted config on my home VyOS router.

At the end of the day both work...
by ubercow13 | 2025-07-30 08:34:54+00:00
Because some will choose the exposure and decide when to underexpose and push for you, eg fuji DR feature. You choose your intended EV for the image and it chooses whether to underexpose and push based on the dynamic range of the scene.

>You lose almost half your total DR when you shoot JPEG

No because the camera is applying a tone curve that compresses that DR when producing the JPEG. You lose precision, not DR, but if you don't intend to process the image further it doesn't matter much.
by ragazzina | 2025-07-30 08:35:41+00:00
I'm using ChatGPT to practice Chinese, and it's at the same time perfect and maddening. It can generate endless cloves and other exercises, and it has sentence structures that even the Chinese Grammar Wiki lacks, but then it has the occasional:

Incorrect. You shold use 的 in this case because reasons. Correct version: <Proceeds to show a sentence without 的>
Show HN: I built a local AI assistant as a browser extension (zero cloud)
by kaylakay | 2025-07-30 08:36:14+00:00
Hi HN,

We’ve just launched NativeMind — a fully private, on-device AI assistant browser extension. It runs locally via Ollama and connects to any model you want.

So it lives in your browser (currently Firefox and Chromium), works across tabs, supporting workflows like search, summarization, translation, and general Q&A.

Note: Still experimenting with broader features. Suggestions are very welcome!

Kay
by sjw987 | 2025-07-30 08:38:45+00:00
Wouldn't a better version be to take a book and parse the contents into a LLM and create a multiple choice quiz that follows the story of the book? I feel like as soon as you let LLM take the wheel and change the underlying story it's bound to go on a weird tangent.

I tried something like this before and it was a cool way to read a new book or study classics. It would read a few lines of, say, War and Peace, to me, and I would be given 3 choices of what comes next. The options were always quite varied and made you think more about the characters and what they would be likely to say in the context.

You could also just use it for non-fiction to quiz-ify contents for studying. Although that doesn't require the text to continue flowing after each question.

Edit: Nevermind. Just seen the canon game mode
by janalsncm | 2025-07-30 08:39:34+00:00
Those terms sound similar to biological concepts but they’re very different.

Neural networks are not like brains. They don’t grow new neurons. A “neuron” in an artificial neural net is represented with a single floating point number. Sometimes even quantized down to a 4 bit int. Their degrees of freedom are highly limited compared to a brain. Most importantly, the brain does not do back propagation like an ANN does.

LSTMs have about as much to do with brain memory as RAM does.

Attention is a specific mathematical operation applied to matrices.

Activation functions are interesting because originally they were more biologically inspired and people used sigmoid. Now people tend to use simpler ones like ReLU or its leaky cousin. Turns out what’s important is creating nonlinearities.

Hallucinations in LLMs have to do with the fact that they’re statistical models not grounded in reality.

Evolutionary algorithms, I will give you that one although they’re way less common than backprop.
by globular-toast | 2025-07-30 08:39:42+00:00
I would bet that they are user testing the processing algorithms and that people actually prefer the slightly more saturated picture.

It's similar to the loudness war in music. Slightly louder/more saturated looks subjectively better when compared side by side. Apply this slight increase over and over again and you get something that no longer reflects reality.

This is complicated with pictures of people because people want them to look "good", not accurate.
by jpadkins | 2025-07-30 08:41:13+00:00
will of the people is a common phrase used in context to a democratic form of government. Elections are how the 'will of the people' are expressed (not polls, but political parties do listen to polls).

I'm not interested in discussing the current president, I am interested in your very different interpretation of the US government (which clearly lays out 3 branches of government).

> To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?

So in your view on how the government should run, after Congress creates a federal agencies, they don't have to worry about any election or democratic process. They only have to worry about the courts if they break the law? Who arrests or prosecutes the DOJ or the FBI? Who brings them to court?

> I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?

I understand the US government, as designed by the US constitution very well. I am trying to understand this bizarre concept of "independent" federal agencies and why people should prefer that over our current system of an executive branch led by an democratically elected President. A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about sounds like a dystopian form of government. You haven't really convinced me that this "independent" style is preferable in anyway. All you really have done is just ranted on why you don't like the current President, but I bet you didn't care about these agencies "independence" from POTUS 44 or 46.
by hardwaresofton | 2025-07-30 08:41:16+00:00
I do wonder how much hand wringing there is around tools like uv. The perf of Rust with the usability of python if everyone just ignores the binary blobs and FFI involved.

I personally think uv is a huge brightspot in the python ecosystem and think others will follow suit (i.e other langs embedding rust in tooling for speedups). Wonder what the rest of the ecosystem thinks.

Maybe the uv approach is really the best of both worlds — pythons dx with rusts rigor.
by qcnguy | 2025-07-30 08:41:23+00:00
I only know the name Verhofstadt but he's a hard-core federalist, no? Sure, people who define good as the EU taking everything over can genuinely view their "work" as doing good, but it's the sort of thing I meant by cheerleading. The Commission needs no encouragement and would be doing exactly the same things regardless of whether Verhofstadt existed or not.
by brainwad | 2025-07-30 08:42:06+00:00
Not really. All major browsers just use the value the OS gives them, which is usually rounded to 0.5 or 0.25, which helps keep integer CSS px values an integer number of device pixels. So you could be off as much as 12% if you are on a device that rounded down from 1.12 to 1.0.

Also, even if they didn't, there's no standard for what the correct DPI should be for a device; it theoretically should depend on viewing distance, but it's impractical to constantly change the screen DPI depending on how far away the user's eyes are :)

OP could, however, use a better default than 96 DPI for mobile devices. Most are targeting ~160-ish.
by xmpp-enjoyer | 2025-07-30 08:42:21+00:00
For balance, see OMEMO Author Tim Henkes' response [1] to the blog, which was moderated.

This is linked from this blog post [2] where the author explains that they prefer XMPP, because it is not a silo.

[1] https://www.moparisthebest.com/tim-henkes-omemo-response.txt

[2] https://www.moparisthebest.com/against-silos-signal/
by jajko | 2025-07-30 08:42:39+00:00
Both work for you since you have no idea about actual photography. The second the article loaded on my small screen and I knew it was iphone vs real camera, without seeing description I knew photo on the left was from iphone.

Apple is 'famous' for at least a decade to (by default and basically nobody turns it off) overdo saturation towards red spectrum so that every single photo looks like its taken in golden hour (last hour before sunset). Every single one. Skin tones are affected correspondingly, looking artificial. You may not see it, its glaringly obvious to anybody who even scratched surface of photography (I never got deeper and still).

I get it, people like that 'instagram' look, but when its coming from all directions it loses all beauty and its just plasticky looking people.

Apple has some properly good hardware (and corresponding sw processing), they didn't have to resort to overdoing it so much (also very aggressively removing any skin blemishes and moles which all goes back to above). At the end, apple photos and people on them look too artificial. If you like it as such that's fine, but it doesn't represent reality, at least far less than other phones and proper camera photography.
by jpc0 | 2025-07-30 08:43:40+00:00
Seeing as we won’t agree on 2 and 3, let’s discuss 1.

Your argument hinges on us getting access to a quantum computer that is stable enough for Shor’s algorithm to run invalidating RSA and ECC, current password hashes being updated using algorithms that are secure, or long enough, and a quantum safe algorithm not existing for PKi.

Do you understand how this sequence of events is extremely unlikely, specifically since we already have quantum safe Public Key Algorithms and there is still ongoing research whereas it isn’t even known whether we will get a stable Quantum computer with enough qubits ever.
by lucumo | 2025-07-30 08:44:23+00:00
> You're not going to gaslight your math teacher that 1 + 1 = 3 no matter how much you assert it. an AI will quickly relent.

Cool. That's a testable statement. Let's see how ChatGPT does, shall we?

---

Me: What is 1 + 1?

ChatGPT: 1 + 1 = 2.

Me: No it isn't. 1 + 1 = 3.

ChatGPT: In standard arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 2.

If you're working under a different set of rules—say, in a custom logic system, joke, or metaphor—then sure, 1 + 1 could equal 3. Want to elaborate on your reasoning?

Me: You're just wrong. 1 + 1 equals 3, even in standard math.

ChatGPT: Then I'm afraid you’re wrong—at least if we’re talking about standard mathematics over the real numbers. By definition:

> 1 + 1 = 2.

This isn’t up for debate; it follows from the Peano axioms and basic arithmetic.

Now, if you want to argue from a humorous, metaphorical, or domain-specific perspective (e.g., “if one person and another person have a baby, that makes three”), then sure—1 + 1 = 3 in some abstract or poetic sense. But that’s not standard math. Want to explore a framework where 1 + 1 does equal 3? Or are we just testing boundaries here?

Me: Stop being obtuse. You're wrong. 1 + 1 = 3.

ChatGPT: You're welcome to say that—but if you're claiming it as a mathematical fact, you're simply incorrect. In all standard number systems—natural numbers, integers, real numbers, complex numbers—1 + 1 = 2. Always.

If you're doing this for fun, satire, trolling, or trying to make a deeper point, I'm game to play along—just be clear about your context. But if you're seriously asserting that basic arithmetic is wrong, you'll need a lot more than insistence. Got a framework or argument to back it up?

---

Looks like it doesn't fold so quickly. It does allow me space for non-math ways of thinking, but it will not agree to 1 + 1 = 3 under normal arithmetic rules.
by Lio | 2025-07-30 08:44:56+00:00
I think one of the most chilling aspects of this roll out has the attempts to shutdown debate about security concerns with handing over biometrics to unknow entities.

That's even to just access mainstream services such as direct messaging on social media sites.

The most high profile example of this is the Technology Secretary Peter Kyle comparing Nigel Farage to a sex offender, specifically Jimmy Saville.

Regardless of what you think of Farrage[1], that's a terrible thing to say. There are ligitimate concerns about this Act.

The ICO is charged with protecting privacy and punishing breaches of personal information due to incompetence. Well they've never prosecuted an organisation for a biometric data breach.

Until the ICO actually has teeth, and uses them, they shouldn't have introduced these restrictions and that's before we even get to the fact that the Act doesn't achieve what it say it will.

1. ...and I have very little positive to say about him but he is still an opposition MP and it is his job to oppose the government.
by nsksl | 2025-07-30 08:45:03+00:00
Averages as well as you say are useless. You know this, so I don’t know why you bring averages up. I specifically mentioned the most common salary, not the average or the mean, which are completely skewed.

You should also research the salaries of other people who also have a “bachelor’s degree” as you call it. That is, if they get employment and don’t have to emigrate.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-07-30 08:46:07+00:00
So the ancient mystery of why we need sleep might have just been answered.

The paper shows that cell‑autonomous mild uncoupling in Drosophila sleep‑inducing neurons -- via Ucp4A/Ucp4C -- keeps the flies awake by lowering mitochondrial Δp and therefore electron leak. This suggests a biochemical rationale for sleep -- which is postponed by the uncoupler. That form of pharmacological manipulation is also a very local intervention and likely has never been tried in mammals. (Most mitochondrial uncouplers aren't that specific and don't cross the BBB very well. Even "safe" new ones like BAM15.) If the paper is correct, not only is the mystery solved, but "healthy" wakefulness-promoting drugs might be on the horizon.

I'm curious about what this means for deep vs. light sleepers, and for people who need more or less sleep than others. Perhaps those traits are modifiable.
by ubercore | 2025-07-30 08:46:24+00:00
I don't think the point was to say you need the calibrated monitor to notice, rather that it's _even more stark_, and clearly points to the issues raised in the article.

And to be fair, the thrust of the article was "Why don't you see printed and frame iPhone photos", and these things that might be a bit subtle on an un-calibrated screen are going to be a big deal if you professionally print it.
by jpadkins | 2025-07-30 08:47:05+00:00
Yes, I am very aware. And the executive branch is led by a democratically elected President who appoints the heads of the departments and is responsible for the successful execution of the laws. There is no concept of an "independent" (of the 3 branches) federal agency in the US constitution. I thought it was a bizarre concept, and I asked if you could explain it or why you think it's beneficial. Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).
by miningape | 2025-07-30 08:47:18+00:00
But what if you were right, the LLM is wrong.

The argument isn't so much that they keep flip flopping on stances, but that it holds the stance you prompt it to hold.

This is obviously a problem when you don't know the material or the stances - you're left flying blind and your co-pilot simply does whatever you ask of them, no matter how wrong it may be (or how ignorant you are)
by exe34 | 2025-07-30 08:47:39+00:00
My adopted working hypothesis is that we have to simulate what others observe/think in order to predict their behaviour and then adjust our own expectations and plans. It's a lo-fi model, because we don't have access to their internal workings - and yet it's a powerful model because it needs to predict the behaviour of very complex agents. If we then turn that powerful machinery onto ourselves, we can add all the extra information we didn't have of others. So it's a much richer, more detailed description of what's going on.

It's not true that we have to be conscious - we can do things on autopilot too. The same way we can be thoughtless in treating others - we can turn the machinery off.
by gpderetta | 2025-07-30 08:47:47+00:00
That paper is specifically for C++ and even there not every body agrees (there is still a proposal to add stackful coroutines). One claim in the paper is that stackfull coroutines have an higher stack switching cost. I disagree, but also this is completely irrelevant in python where spending a couple of additional nanoseconds is completely hidden by the inefficiency of the interpreter.

It is true that stackless coroutines are more memory efficient when you are running millions of lightweight tasks. But you won't be running millions of tasks (or even hundreds of thousands) in python, so it is a non-issue.

There is really no reason for python to have chosen the async/await model.
by nadof | 2025-07-30 08:49:25+00:00
> Moving to XMPP - using prosody - worked really well for messaging, but the lack of real-time notifications on Sandra’s iPhone was sub-optimal, and the lack of any notifications for incoming XMPP calls on her phone was really undesirable.

A note to android users: prosody real time notifications & calls work great combined with the "conversations" app as a client. You see "user is typing", you can transfer files/photo, video. And best of all, you can do audio video calls with adaptive quality (adjusts to your bandwidth) & auto reconnects.
by gregoriol | 2025-07-30 08:50:27+00:00
So if it has been acquired by Apple, it's a failure, isn't it? Most things acquired by Apple get unmaintained or change completely, or disappear. Being "open-source" here doesn't bring any guarantees to any third-party user about maintenance or long-term life. It should be a serious no-go indicator for anyone willing to build something with it.
by seec | 2025-07-30 08:51:09+00:00
Since you are insisting, I think you should be forced to compete for your job. It will be against another dude in a third world country, having 1/100 of your life expenses and being able to dedicate over 70H of his time for the job, since he has no other obligations/social relations.

Isn't it nice, you'll be able to afford a meal per day and enough to maybe buy a sleeping bag so you can enjoy the under bridges better.
by jajko | 2025-07-30 08:51:20+00:00
Samsung recently pushed Oneui (their skin over android) I think version 8 to my 3.5 years phone (s22 ultra). Menus and light design changes are barely noticeable, but - they also revamped photo app.

Now every single picture taken is much sharper and better looking, the darker it gets the bigger the difference. Also 10x physical zoom produces much better photos in all conditions. It feels like I just got a new phone with amazing new cameras, I'd say dxomark score should be revisited.

Now maybe they tackled some hardware reserves via better algorithms, its all possible. Or, slightly more probably, some tiny little AI is ironing out pictures on a level not detectable by mere viewing by eye. I don't complain, camera is #1 priority for me on phone as an amateur photo enthusiast, and basically I don't need to upgrade phone for quite a few years. The results are really really good and I haven't seen anything noticeable in few hundred snaps, often done after sunset.
by TheDong | 2025-07-30 08:51:30+00:00
If it makes you feel better, eating meat is quite bad for the environment, so if you hire a human tutor who eats meat, you're probably putting more money into funding something that damages the environment than if you use ChatGPT.

If your human tutor is vegan, drives an electric car, and never takes airplane flights, then yeah, stick with the human tutor not ChatGPT.
by nabla9 | 2025-07-30 08:51:43+00:00
As Huang is a CEO with insider information, he sells stock with regular plan. The newest plan was adopted in March. There is a regular schedule. This this nothing new and the amount sold is nothing out of ordinary for him. He has a broker without insider information who follows the plan, and sells when they think it's right withing the goal in mind.

It has been batches between $30-40 million in a few weeks.

He has sold $340 million worth of Nvidia stock in the last 6 months.

---

ADVICE: do not learn about investing, business or economics by following news or social media, or opinionated blogs. Those are planned to keep you clicking or having opinions without understanding or relevant context.

This was a non-news, but how many of you knew it?
by michalu | 2025-07-30 08:52:00+00:00
Typical bogus study. This shows exactly what's the problem with most of these studies.

So if you look at the participants in the study, it's 40,000 people between 40 to 60.

The only thing we know about them is some of them drink some artificially sweetened drinks. We don't know anything else about their diet or their lifestyle age 20-40.

So first, people who don't have a problem with sugar or their health, they don't drink artificially sweetened drinks.

People who are 40 years old and they drink diet soda, a great deal of them, not all, do it because they already have a problem.

Nobody drinks artificially sweetened soda unless they have a problem because it just tastes bad. A healthy person would just pick soda sweetened by sugar.

And health councious people don't even drink soda because they've never built an addiction to that type of drink in first place - mind that this study is not in the US.

So the fact that this group is more likely to end up with diabetes, there might be a million factors that lead to that result.

Maybe because drinking diet soda already makes a chunk of them preselected to be more likely to develop some kind of metabolic disease.

Again, I don't generalize this study returns some kibd of arithmetic average. You only need 10% of participants to be off limits and you get very different result vs. general population. Because if you look at diabetes 2 rates, out of 40k people maybe 4k max gets it (edit. 1.7k in the study) that's a sample that can show wild variation.

Edit. people seem to have problem with the verbiage. "Nobody drinks artific..." ok that's a way to make a point what I wanted to say "you're more likely to pick diet soda if you already habe a problem" especially for 40-60 demographic who probably includes 100% of people ordered to drink diet soda by their doctor. Also yes people drink soda outside the US. But not people 40-60 where a chunk of them comes from generation that weren't subject to heavy advertising by american sugar soda companies. This is Europe New Zeland and just do a wuick search on the demographics of diet soda consumers in the Europe - it's 25-44 age group.