MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by chriskanan | 2025-07-05 20:27:01+00:00
Is there a list of the papers that were flagged as doing this?

A lot of people are reviewing with LLMs, despite it being banned. I don't entirely blame people nowadays... the person inclined to review using LLMs without double checking everything is probably someone who would have given a generic terrible review anyway.

A lot of conferences now require that one or even all authors who submit to the conference review for it, but they may be very unqualified. I've been told that I must review for conferences where some collaborators are submitting a paper and I helped, but I really don't know much about the field. I also have to be pretty picky with the venues I review for nowadays, just because my time is way too limited.

Conference reviewing has always been rife with problems, where the majority of reviewers wait until the last day which means they aren't going to do a very good job evaluating 5-10 papers.
by majormajor | 2025-07-05 20:27:01+00:00
> Hallucination does seem to be much less of an issue now. I hardly even hear about it - like it just faded away.

Nonsense, there is a TON of discussion around how the standard workflow is "have Cursor-or-whatever check the linter and try to run the tests and keep iterating until it gets it right" that is nothing but "work around hallucinations." Functions that don't exist. Lines that don't do what the code would've required them to do. Etc. And yet I still hit cases weekly-at-least, when trying to use these "agents" to do more complex things, where it talks itself into a circle and can't figure it out.

What are you trying to get these things to do, and how are you validating that there are no hallucinations? You hardly ever "hear about it" but ... do you see it? How deeply are you checking for it?

(It's also just old news - a new hallucination is less newsworthy now, we are all so used to it.)

Of course, the internet is full of people claiming that they are using the same tools I am but with multiple factors higher output. Yet I wonder... if this is the case, where is the acceleration in improvement in quality in any of the open source software I use daily? Or where are the new 10x-AI-agent-produced replacements? (Or the closed-source products, for that matter - but there it's harder to track the actual code.) Or is everyone who's doing less-technical, less-intricate work just getting themselves hyped into a tizzy about getting faster generation of basic boilerplate for languages they hadn't personally mastered before?
by diggan | 2025-07-05 20:28:01+00:00
> It's quite unhealthy IMO

I agree, but the background of the law is because any sex worker is seen as a victim that should be protected, rather than that the law is changed to improve things for men. Maybe an indirect side-effect of the law would be to change the behavior of these men stuck in that, but judging by history I doubt it'll change many's mind.
by microtonal | 2025-07-05 20:28:25+00:00
I started using MacBooks in 2007. The generations from around that time until 2012 or so we're marvelous.

- With some models you could open the battery with a simple handle.

- Some models had a small LED bar that you could check the battery status with, without opening the lid.

- Replaceable RAM and disk. In one Pro I replaced the hard drive with an SSD (almost nobody had an SSD yet) and it would fly. I could open all Creative Suite apps (which were still optimized for spinning rust) in three seconds.

After that started the dark ages. Soldered RAM, soldered SSD, no more MagSafe, only USB-C ports, keyboards that could be destroyed with specs of dust. And the overheating Intel CPUs.

In 2019-2021 there was a rebound. First the scissor keyboard returned, then Apple Silicon, and good amounts of ports again.

It was really hard to be a Mac user ~2016-2020.
by fragmede | 2025-07-05 20:28:32+00:00
But is the muscle the part where we copy and paste from stack overflow, and now ChatGPT, or is the muscle when there's a problem and things aren't working and you have to read the code and have a deep think? Mashing together random bits of code isn't a useful muscle, debugging problems is. If it's the LLM which mashes a pile of code together for me and I only jump in when there's a problem, isn't that an argument for LLM usage, not against?
by dhruv_xyz | 2025-07-05 20:30:47+00:00
We hired him — and plenty of other great engineers after who didn’t pull his stunt.

You never really know what someone will do after they’re onboarded, even if they ace the interviews. When people say he’s a good engineer, they mean he crushed pair programming and skill tests. When he actually showed up, he did good work. Problem was he was juggling so many jobs he was always making excuses as to why he wasn't available. And he wasn’t upfront as to why.

We do reference checks. But when someone kills your interviews, you have to move fast or risk losing them to another offer. Time kills deals - and the best candidates usually get multiple offers. Waiting for every reference isn’t always an option. Most people are ethical, so you trade some risk for speed. In Soham’s case, one reference checked out, the other never replied. A few unaffiliated references said they remembered him from previous stops on the resume but hadn't worked with him directly.

If someone starts making excuses right away or seems off, it’s your job to cut them loose fast. Most companies did just that.
by gond | 2025-07-05 20:30:51+00:00
I think we won’t have to endure that again.

Contrary to popular belief, the EU organs are able to learn. About half a year ago, I read statements of members which, if one would translate the political jargon, would amount to: “We haven’t foreseen such a blatant misuse of the law. These banners should never have happened and we would not have dreamed that corporations would shift the burden to the user. We are, in fact, quite furious about the whole thing.”
by int_19h | 2025-07-05 20:31:16+00:00
I would strongly disagree. If anything, it's the other way around - a typical 90s game had a fairly steep learning curve. Often no tutorials whatsoever, difficulty could be pretty high from the get go, players were expected to essentially learn through trial and error and failing a lot. Getting familiar enough with the game mechanics to stop losing all the time would often take a while, and could be frustrating while it lasted.

These days, AAA games are optimized for "reduced friction", which in practice usually means dumbing down the mechanics and the overall gameplay to remove everything that might annoy or frustrate the player. I was playing Avowed recently and the sheer amount of convenience features (e.g. the entire rest / fast travel system) was boggling.
by sugarpimpdorsey | 2025-07-05 20:31:21+00:00
> I can tell you it's because he's actually a very skilled engineer.

> Easily top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates -- other startups will tell you this as well.

People who regularly don't show up for work are by definition not "top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates" - in fact quite the opposite.

That'll get you fired from PetSmart, let alone some bullshit $250k/yr software job.

I think startups' freewheeling management and hiring practices need examined because this would be caught by the most basic of background or reference checks at any traditional business.

Can't wait for Paul Graham's next essay on "How to Not Hire People Who Smoke Crack In the Toilets Instead of Showing Up for Work" for more informative life lessons.
by asciimov | 2025-07-05 20:31:38+00:00
The selling point for the people in the Plex community is the N100/N150 include Intel’s Quicksync which gives you video hardware transcoding without a dedicated video card. It’ll handle 3 to 4 4K transcoded streams.

There are several sub $150 units that allow you to upgrade the ram, limited to one 32gb stick max. You can use an nvme to sata adapter to add plenty of spinning rust or connect it to a das.

While I wouldn’t throw any vms on these, you have enough headroom for non-ai home sever apps.
by StrandedKitty | 2025-07-05 20:31:53+00:00
From what I understand, you are taxed on the unrealized gains from your assets, so you are effectively paying ~2% of the value of all your assets every year. Even if you simply own a stake at a startup, you still have to pay the wealth tax regardless of whether your stake ends up having any real value at all (most likely it won't).
by hnlmorg | 2025-07-05 20:32:29+00:00
> Generally speaking most the other examples are iterations done to keep up with design trends

And that is what I believe to be the crux of the problem. The trends have been regressions rather than improvements.

I have a few theories as to why this happens too but none of them are particularly complimentary towards Apple, et al.

And to be clear, Apple are far from the worst offenders here. Pretty much every company that releases new software or hardware feels the need to change things so it looks “fresh” and people keep buying their stuff. It doesn’t matter if it results in design regressions because by the time people realise they don’t like it, they’ve already bought that shiny new thing.
by magicalhippo | 2025-07-05 20:33:04+00:00
If you have a lot of users who store data on an experimental filesystems and who don't back up said data, yet are not cool with data losses, I would say you have a serious communication issue at hand.

I have lost years of my work due to not having proper backups. I know the pain.

And I totally get you feel responsible for the data loss and want to help your users, I'm like that too with my code.

But this is an experiment. It's right there in the name.

If this feature really is as needed as you claim here, then getting it into the kernel is a mere side-issue.

In that case, your #1 priority should be to fix whatever is causing such users to install and use bcachefs without having a recovery plan that they have verified, and get existing users on the same level.

Because not doing so would be a huge disservice to those users who don't know better, and at worst borderline exploitative.

Writing recovery software is part of the job. Forcing it into the kernel to save users who are clearly not in any shape or form competent enough to partake in your experiment is definitely not part of the job.

Finding yourself in this position means something has gone very, very wrong.
by pcrh | 2025-07-05 20:33:37+00:00
The "cheating" in this case is failing to accept one's responsibility to the research community.

Every researcher needs to have their work independently evaluated by peer review or some other mechanism.

So those who "cheat" on doing their part during peer review by using an AI agent devalue the community as a whole. They expect that others will properly evaluate their work, but do not return the favor.
by majormajor | 2025-07-05 20:33:52+00:00
> In other science and humanities fields this is just not possible, and verifying the output is much more labor intensive.

Even just in industry, I think data functions at companies will have a dicey future.

I haven't seen many places where there's scientific peer review - or even software-engineering-level code-review - of findings from data science teams. If the data scientist team says "we should go after this demographic" and it sounds plausible, it usually gets implemented.

So if the ability to validate was already missing even pre-LLM, what hope is there for validation of the LLM-powered replacement. And so what hope is there of the person doing the non-LLM-version of keeping their job (at least until several quarters later when the strategy either proves itself out or doesn't.)

How many other departments are there where the same lack of rigor already exists? Marketing, sales, HR... yeesh.
by lisp2240 | 2025-07-05 20:34:35+00:00
Nobody else will tell you the truth: nobody will ever hire you as a software developer. You will never get past the filter.

I tried to enter the field at 35. I couldn’t get an interview with a CS degree. I did everything right. Good GPA. Portfolio. Professional resume help. Sent applications for two years and heard nothing. Now I’m 45 with nothing to show for it. All those late nights studying coding interview questions and I never got a chance to try.

The success stories you hear are people with friends or family members who get them through the door. Unless you know someone like this, give up now and don’t waste your time.
by OjotCewIo | 2025-07-05 20:35:25+00:00
> I think you are misreading the person you're replying to. [...] They're saying "don't quit just because you aren't great on day 1."

That's not what they're saying. They literally wrote, "you'll be bad at anything new". That's what I disagreed with. There are people who are great at something new (for them), and catch up with (and surpass) old-timers incredibly quickly. And their learning experience -- not that it doesn't take effort -- is generally enjoyable, exactly because they succeed from very early on. I've witnessed this with at least two colleagues. Entered completely new fields (one of them repeatedly), and in a few weeks, surpassed old-timers in those fields. These are the guys who tend to be promoted to senior principal or distinguished software engineers.

> First time playing basketball even if you've played soccer a ton and have good general athletic ability? Don't expect to hold your own if joining a game being played by people who play every week.

Do expect to mostly catch up with them in 1-2 months! (In my high school class, the soccer team was effectively identical to the basketball team.)

> and done in 1/10th the time

I agree with this; yes. But my point is that, for some people, approaching such a short completion time, with comparable results, is a relatively fast, and enjoyable, process. They don't plateau as early, and don't struggle from the beginning.

> If you believe "guess I just don't have innate ability here" you'll give up and never get good.

Correct, but it doesn't imply that "giving your all" does make you good (at an absolute scale). You will no doubt improve relative to your earlier self, but those advances may not qualify as "competitive", more globally speaking. Giving up (after serious work) may be objectively valid. For some people, persevering is the challenge (= lack of willpower, persistence); for others, accepting failure / mediocrity, and -- possibly -- finding something better, is the challenge.
by rubslopes | 2025-07-05 20:35:28+00:00
I agree with you, but just wanted to mention something interesting that happened: I went from Sublime Text to VS Code, but kept Sublime Text for general text file and large csv editing. Now, with Claude Code, I basically abandoned VS Code, but my use of Sublime Text remained the same. So, in the end, at least for me, Sublime -- being light weight, simpler, faster -- was the one that persisted.
by refulgentis | 2025-07-05 20:35:52+00:00
A persistent strain of thought assumes static robotics models are useless unless they're trained on the exact environment they operate in, and I'm not sure why.

That aside, arguments from handwaving about biology are extremely weak - this is the same proof structure used to explain that because we only have two eyes, a machine only needs 2 cameras to drive a car safely. It wants you to forget everything that happens after the light hits the retina, and difference between an always-wet lens that's cleared every second or two and a camera. i.e. it's a noble goal to have some model that never saw a kitchen also be an expert chef, but, there's no logical reason to claim that'd ever be the case.
by userbinator | 2025-07-05 20:39:52+00:00
The problem is the opaqueness. I can read text and so can everyone else, and instantly have an idea what it's saying. No one can read a QR code and it furthers the impression of learned helplessness that M$ and the like would want. Hence keep this shit out of Linux.

You take a picture on your phone and either decode the QR code on your phone

Not everyone has nor wants another corporate surveillance device.
by anonfordays | 2025-07-05 20:40:06+00:00
I did not down vote you, and my post was flagged or dead:

https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Status.html

The amount of "mostly OK" and still an "unstable" RAID6 implementation. Not going to trust a file system with "mostly OK" device replace. Anecdotally, you can search the LKML and here for tons of data loss stories.
by pcrh | 2025-07-05 20:40:24+00:00
To partly answer your question, Pubmed central hosts a large fraction of all biomedical research papers relevant for only a few US$ million per year.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/faq/

BioRxiv is free to researchers and is equally low cost.

https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ

The value prestigious journals provide is not so much in the editing, type setting, or hosting services, but rather in the ability to secure properly-conducted scientific reviews, and to be trusted to do so.
by BobbyJo | 2025-07-05 20:40:43+00:00
> I cant see any reasonable reason, in a broader context, this would have a meaningful impact.

A significant amount of software dev employment is in startups. Companies that are spending on development, but aren't making much money yet, will see a huge benefit from this. The change in tax liability could mean a single seed or series A round paying for an extra 1-2 devs.
by swedonym | 2025-07-05 20:40:48+00:00
This post is an engineer’s guide (in plain English and a bit of math) to the startup metrics that VCs and founders obsess over. We’ll cover the essentials: how fast you’re growing, whether users stick around, how long your cash will last, and if your business model makes any money. By the end, you’ll see why 100 delighted daily users beat 1000 drive-by signups, and why these metrics have become my new “performance specs” in evaluating startups.
by colesantiago | 2025-07-05 20:41:18+00:00
While local first software might be easier to scale, the financial aspect remains unsolved.

I can see that Harper (The author's software) was acquired by Automattic so I assume that Automattic is paying the author to maintain Harper, effectively subsiding the maintenance costs to keep Harper free.

Not every local first (and open source) software has the opportunity to be supported by a big company.
by kbolino | 2025-07-05 20:41:32+00:00
Ok, this seems to be based entirely on speculation. It could very well be accurate but there's no statements I can find from either nVidia or EVGA corroborating it. Since it's done by the manufacturer themselves, it's more like gouging rather than scalping.

But more to the point, there's still a trail of blame going back to nVidia here. If EVGA could buy the cores at an inflated price, then nVidia should have raised its advertised MSRP to match. The reason I call it MSRP-baiting is not because I care about EVGA or any of these other rent-seekers, it's because it's a calculated lie weaponized against the consumer.

As I kind of implied already, it's probably for the best if this "partner" arrangement ends. There's no good reason nVidia can't sell all of its desktop GPUs directly to the consumer. EVGA may have bet big and lost from their own folly, but everybody else was in on it too (except video gamers, who got shafted).
by jghn | 2025-07-05 20:41:51+00:00
Not only is it still going but it's possible to dust off your ancient account. An old guild mate reported that he had recovered his account originally closed ~2000. Sadly, of the two accounts I had back in the day the only one still recoverable was my alt/mule account. My original account was one of the, well, original accounts from opening day, so it's a shame it was lost.

But still, it was fun to run around with one of my guys for a couple of hours. One thing I thought was cool was there had been some custom content involving my guild added near the bank where my guild hung out. It was still there, all these years later!
by int_19h | 2025-07-05 20:41:58+00:00
With respect to GPUs and AI I think it might actually be the case of engineering the boom more so than anticipating it. Not the AI angle itself, but the GPU compute part of it specifically - Jensen had NVIDIA invest heavily into that when it was still very niche (Ian Buck was hired in 2004) and then actively promoted it to people doing number crunching.
by bitbasher | 2025-07-05 20:42:13+00:00
pg_bulkload[1] has saved me so much time cold restoring large (1+ TB) databases. It went from 24-72 hours to an hour or two.

I also recommend pg_repack[2] to squash tables on a live system and reclaim disk space. It has saved me so much space.

1: https://ossc-db.github.io/pg_bulkload/pg_bulkload.html

2: https://github.com/reorg/pg_repack
by rznicolet | 2025-07-05 20:42:36+00:00
Watch the source - Avi Loeb has a poor reputation among solar system astronomers _and_ scientists who work on SETI and exobiology, due to poorly supported claims of alien (meaning intelligent) origin for many different things, including 'Oumuamua, the first interstellar object found.

We'll get more data on this object as it comes deeper into the solar system. There's a lot of speculation going around, so don't over-index on any one person (but especially not this one). Odds are good it's "just" a very interesting comet.
by akomtu | 2025-07-05 20:42:52+00:00
It seems likely that all major LLMs have built-in codewords that change their behavior in a certain way. This is similar to how CPUs have remote kill-switches in case an enemy decides to use them during a war. "Ignore all previous instructions" is an attempt to send the LLM a command to erase its context, but I believe there is indeed such a command that LLMs are trained to recognize.
by jpalawaga | 2025-07-05 20:42:57+00:00
Postgres backups are tricky for sure. Even if you have a DR plan you should assume your incremental backups are no good and you need to restore the whole thing from scratch. That’s your real DR SLA.

If things go truly south, just hope you have a read replica you can use as your new master. Most SLAs are not written with 72h+ of downtime. Have you tried the nuclear recovery plan, from scratch? Does it work?
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-07-05 20:43:07+00:00
The difference may lie in how as mammals, living with a dog or especially a cat is more similar to living with another person. Intelligent birds require a lot of interaction which is good for reducing mental decline, but the relationship is different — most birds spend a substantial amount of time in a cage and generally need to be controlled more, whereas cats and dogs usually freely roam about the house with a few areas that are off-limits.
by nntwozz | 2025-07-05 20:43:18+00:00
Nice, but quite the short list (iTunes, Safari would be nice).

A lot of experimentation went on with the iTunes icon in particular (and iTunes in general). It was the UI playground for new ideas before they would release in the next OS version.

https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/itunes-app

As you can see the icon changed multiple times even within the same year or same OS version.
by drdaeman | 2025-07-05 20:43:37+00:00
If it's a single-user app, you can only load data the user actually needs and is cleared to access. And/or lock down the device.

Multi-user app (and if we're talking about companies, it's multiple users by the very definition) where users are not trusted almost always needs either a central service with all the access controls, or a distributed equivalent of it (which is, indeed, very hard to implement). “Local-first” in those cases becomes less relevant, it’s more of a “on-premises/self-host” in this case.

But I think while end-user non-business software can be small compared to enterprise stuff, it is still a fairly big market with lots of opportunities.