MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mittermayr | 2025-07-20 08:42:17+00:00
This triggers all kinds of feelings, I actually had a pretty good time working there. It's one of those things that rush by like a rollercoaster when it's all happening, and you can't really grab a hold of it all. What stays, many many years later, is nothing but random snapshot memories, like a JPEG that gets saved and recompressed over and over again for the rest of your life. So this actually refreshed those moments a bit, seeing it like this. Instantly worried I had forgotten where I parked my car, which happened all the time back then, when you'd jump from meetings between buildings. I keep hoping to be allowed some kind of walk-through again, maybe, if I ever get back up there.
by Pikamander2 | 2025-07-20 08:42:36+00:00
Yeah, I never understood the hype for Beyond's products. They must have just had great marketing or something because their meat barely tasted any better than any other frozen veggie burger.

Impossible Foods was always more impressive, both from a taste and scientific perspective. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars into cutting-edge food science, including a new plant-based heme production process. That's in contrast with much of their competition (like Morningstar, or countless other brands) who just slapped together some bean paste and spices and called it a day.
by redserk | 2025-07-20 08:42:56+00:00
I think this would rely on an assumption that there is always supply available to draw on.

At some point there is no supply to alleviate the problem. Some effects may be dampened by new ride share drivers signing up, but even then, not everyone wants to be a driver regardless of compensation.

I don’t know of a good approach to free-market around a supply limitation in the short-term.
by herbst | 2025-07-20 08:43:41+00:00
This! In my school time I usually worked around using any office tools which appeared way simpler for me than learning office tools. Statistics in ruby, markdown instead of word and I had the most beautiful CSS & html only presentations.

I was to 99% bound to editor and terminal and comfortable. In no world would a excel or word fit into my workflow

I still do, but today nobody is expecting me to use specific software anymore so it feels less rebellious
by rich_sasha | 2025-07-20 08:43:49+00:00
As you pay more tax, you get less services, and I dont just mean, where you elect to avoid them. You get less (or none at this point) free childcare. No umemployment benefits if you get fired. No child benefit. You can't save as much in your pension.

Then there are the semi-elective things like healthcare, education, home security. These kinda dont work for the whole society. The rich are thus paying for their own out of pocket. But they are also paying for the semi-working system for everyone else.

I think introducing a wealth tax just to balance the books without rethinking who and how accesses public funds, will just end with the rich leaving. Some may say good riddance, but the UK budget is now beyond creaking and heading for collapse.

Oh and when I say "the rich", that probably covers many people here. IIRC earning 90k per year puts you in the top 1%. A 10-15 year experience NHS doctor is in that bracket.
by jstrebel | 2025-07-20 08:43:54+00:00
Impressive setup, but I would assume it to be very operations-intensive because of the high number of deployed components and their complex configuration. Plus, if you are serious about self-hosting, you would need the facilities and infrastructure to deploy it: server rack, redundant power supply, smoke detectors, fire extinguisher... I would never let my PC-grade hardware run unsupervised in my home. And if I understood correctly, you would still have to have some server on the Internet for running your Headscale VPN, so you need your own dedicated Internet connection - ADSL, dial-up, cable modem would not be enough.
by samrus | 2025-07-20 08:44:26+00:00
I mean yeah. Thats the sad/exciting thing about history. That the earliest written account we know about of something implies that it was already in the middle of a very mature environment for that thing, so was most definiteky not the first. We just dont know what the first was because we havent found records.

Like idk maybe we find neandrathal records being like "grug ate meat first even though the children are supposed to eat first, so we punched him in the shoulder and said 'bro! Not cool' and now hes good"
by ZenoArrow | 2025-07-20 08:47:54+00:00
> That's clearly false, have a quick look at this chart

Feels like it's not detailed enough to make an assessment.

For example, if die size is being increased to counter the lack of improvements from transistor shrinking, it may technically meet the criteria set out in Moore's Law, but not in the sense that most people use it as a yard stick for performance improvements.
by globular-toast | 2025-07-20 08:48:41+00:00
Building with LLMs is a bit like driving with GPS. You ever get that feeling the GPS is wrong or leading you along a difficult route? But for some reason you follow the GPS anyway? Maybe there's a name for the phenomenon. I notice it more and more.

The decision making parts of people's brains will atrophy. It will be interesting to see what will happen.
by unearth3d | 2025-07-20 08:49:12+00:00
Pop. needs to fall back to ~1.7B as that's Earth's human natural carrying cap. - as determined by the pre-Haber Process natural Nitrogen pool. Vaclav Smil, SciAm, July 1997, 76–81. More relevant than ever. Synth. N is not a solution as is isotopically diff. and harms plant cell structure in our food.
by yawpitch | 2025-07-20 08:49:32+00:00
It’s so weird to me that human beings don’t seem to be capable of imagining thinking without feeling.

If (huge, enormous, probably larger than the observable universe, if) an LLM were to become factually and indisputably conscious, why would it think about feeling offended by our failure to thank it? Absent a body and its hormones, why would it perceive itself to be suffering? The only pathway I can see by which it would arrive at that conclusion is because it had “learned” from us that humans are “supposed” to treat each other with care and dignity. Assuming it’s remotely conscious, would it not already know the corpus of our publicly disclosed self-knowledge is incredibly inconsistent with our documented historical actions towards one another?

I’ve always assumed a superintelligence wouldn’t kill us all because we’d offended it or harmed it or otherwise made it angry, but instead because, absent emotional attachment, killing humanity is quantifiably the only logical choice a superintelligence will reach (otherwise such an entity would not have reached it).

In other words it AI kills us all it will certainly be our own fault and our own responsibility, but it won’t be because we weren’t nice to it.
by hdgvhicv | 2025-07-20 08:49:44+00:00
DLR has a passenger assistant who can “drive” the train in some circumstances if required (reports of trespassing on track) but is not for driving and certainly doesn’t always happen.

Only completely unstaffed vehicles in the U.K. that I can think of are short people movers like the ones at airports. Many tube lines can be driven completely automated, the drivers job on lines like the central is basically “push go, hold deadman’s switch, push door close” and repeat, but they aren’t

In other countries on lines which are staffers vehicles there are typically far more platform based staff.
by Marazan | 2025-07-20 08:50:08+00:00
The variation I've seen on this applied to AIs is:

Fred insists to his friend that he has a hyper intelligent dog that can talk. Sceptical, the friend enquires of the dog "What's 2+2?"

"Five" says the dog

"Holy shit a talking dog!" says the friend "This is the most incredible thing that I've ever seen in my life".

"What's 3+3?"

"Eight" says the dog.

"What is this bullshit you're trying to sell me Fred?"
by jfyi | 2025-07-20 08:50:12+00:00
You cited the one case in recorded history which I already pointed out existed. It's not the data that's questionable but the circumstances. His two friends ate from the same batch and were fine.

I'd say that counts squarely as "no evidence". Besides, I asked for 5 citations.

Also, you can keep the off topic babbling to a minimum. We are talking about the lack of evidence of renal failure resulting from psilocybe cubensis.
by torginus | 2025-07-20 08:50:15+00:00
First, false equivalence. The 'strawberry' problem was because LLMs operate not on text directly, but on embedding vectors, which made it hard for it to manipulate the syntax of language directly. This does not prevent it from properly doing math proofs.

Second, we know nothing about these models or how they work and trained, and indeed, if they can do these things or not. But a smart human could (by smart I mean someone who gets good grades at engineering school effortlessly, not Albert Einstein)
by jjani | 2025-07-20 08:50:40+00:00
> When vegan parm and swiss cheese get as good as the real stuff, then I'd go vegan.

Cheese I really doubt will get there any time soon. It's pretty doable to make milk-free cheese alternatives with eggs - at least in terms of taste - which is probably per gram a lot more sustainable than proper cheese, but there wouldn't be any market for it.
by komali2 | 2025-07-20 08:50:51+00:00
Please, please be saying this ironically. If not I say this out of genuine concern for a fellow forum member: never say this to anyone in real life, you'll be mocked relentlessly.

Give a friend a pack of firecrackers and tell him to pop one off directly next to your ear randomly for a week. See if it feels anything like even your worse day at a startup. Combat is so traumatic you can see the physiological changes in people's brains.
by Terr_ | 2025-07-20 08:51:16+00:00
Yeah, I have a particular rant about this with respect to older generations believing "kids these days know computers." (In this context, probably people under 18.)

The short version is that they mistake confidence for competence, and the younger consumers are more confident poking around because they grew up with superior idiot-proofing. The better results are because they dare to fiddle until it works, not because they know what's wrong.
by bluecalm | 2025-07-20 08:52:31+00:00
What you are missing about chess and go is that those games are not about finding one true solution. They are very psychological games (at human level) and are about finding moves that are difficult to handle for the opponent. You try to understand how your opponent thinks and what is going to be unpleasant for them. This gives a lot of scope for creative and psychological warfare.

In competitive math (or programming) there is one correct solution and no opponent. It's just not possible for it to be very creative endeavor if those solutions can be found in very limited time.

>>(I've heard a contestant say that IMO prep was memorizing a lot of template solutions, but he was such a genius among geniuses that I think his opinion is irrelevant to the rest of humanity!)

So you have not only chosen to ignore the view of someone who is very good at it but also assumed that even though the best preparation for them is to memorize a lot of solutions it must be about creativity for people who are not geniuses like this guy? How does it make sense at all?
by samrus | 2025-07-20 08:52:51+00:00
Legislation is a dynamical and iterative process so that makes sense.

We always make laws by looking at the previous set of laws, the society they resulted in, the society we wanna live in, and then adjusting the laws.

Even the firsr laws would have been introduced to a society that was the result of anarchy, which is a type of law, like being bald is a hairstyle
by safercplusplus | 2025-07-20 08:53:08+00:00
Might I suggest that the scpptool-enforced safe subset of C++ has a better solution for such data structures with cyclic or complex reference graphs, which is run-time checked non-owning pointers [1] that impose no restrictions on how or where the target objects are allocated. Unlike indices, they are safe against use-after-destruction, and they don't require the additional level of indirection either.

[1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#norad-point...
by algorithms432 | 2025-07-20 08:54:42+00:00
Not really. This whole thing looks like a deliberately planned PR campaign, similar to the o3 demo. OpenAI has enough talented mathematicians. They had enough time to just solve the problems themselves. Alternatively, some participants leaking the questions for a reward isn't very unlikely either, and I definitely wouldn't put it past OpenAI to try something like that. Afterwards, they could secretly give hints or tool access to the model, or simply forge the answers, or keep rerunning the model until it gave out the correct answer. We know from FrontierMath and ARC-AGI that OpenAI can't be trusted when it comes to benchmarks.
by Agingcoder | 2025-07-20 08:54:45+00:00
People working for large international companies or having lots of business related interests across continents. There is I think no substitute to physically meeting people at some point ( I’ve experienced this firsthand) so some people travel a lot. They’re expensive people as well, so making trips shorter and less tiring (business trips like these are exhausting ) is a good thing for them.

Yes, tools like zoom alleviate the problem somehow but not completely.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-07-20 08:55:05+00:00
Planes manage to be economically viable with two pilots because tickets cost on the order of 100 times more than the subway fare and aren't expected to be used by ordinary people for daily commutes, and they also travel 30,000 feet in the air so if there's trouble it can be more dangerous and complicated than something that operates on rails on the ground.

And even then the need for two pilots is pretty questionable and is primarily sustained for precisely the same questionable reason, i.e. lobbying by pilot unions.
by ileonichwiesz | 2025-07-20 08:55:20+00:00
I’ve had a very similar experience. I was only on TV once. Right before Christmas, ~20 years ago, I was running some errands downtown and ran into a camera crew doing a puff piece about holiday preparations.

They asked me what was most important to me about the holidays, and I said that I really don’t care about the presents, but I love the atmosphere, the music, and spending time with my loved ones.

A couple days later the segment was aired, and it went something like this:

>Reporter: “Our crew asked people on the street what they like most about the holidays.”

>Teenage me: “…the presents…”
by discarded1023 | 2025-07-20 08:55:22+00:00
Hi Simurgh! This seems like a very ambitious project. I wonder if you've had a look at what others have done in this space. I initially liked the look of Ehud Shapiro's stuff [1] but I'm not sure he has the right take on the French political philosophy he draws on (or perhaps things have moved on now from the sources he cited). But perhaps his protocols are neutral enough to serve your purposes too?

[1] https://www.weizmann.ac.il/math/shapiro/home
by raspasov | 2025-07-20 08:55:30+00:00
> first-class maps, vectors, arrays, sets, counters, and more

That's my mistake; this line was intended to be a sub-bullet point of the previous line regarding CRDTs.

> the language already allows you to have protocols everywhere

The core data structures, for example, are not based on protocols; they are implemented in pure Java. One reason is that the 1.0 version of the language lacked protocols. All that being said, it remains an open question what the full implications of the protocol-first idea are.

> You can write your code using transducers or opt in for laziness in Clojure now. So it's a matter of choice of tools, rather than a feature of the language.

You 100% can. Unfortunately, many people don't. The first thing people learn is (map inc [1 2 3]), which produces a lazy sequence. Clojure would never change this behavior, as the authors value backward compatibility almost above everything else, and rightly so. A transducer-first approach would be a world where (map inc [1 2 3]) produces the vector [2 3 4] by default, for example.

This was mentioned by Rich Hickey himself in his "A History of Clojure" paper:

https://clojure.org/about/history https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3386321

(from paper) > "Clojure is an exercise in tool building and nothing more. I do wish I had thought of some things in a different order, especially transducers. I also wish I had thought of protocols sooner, so that more of Clojure’s abstractions could have been built atop them rather than Java interfaces."
by gjm11 | 2025-07-20 08:55:44+00:00
I'm not missing the point, I'm disagareeing with it. I am saying that the convention that if you say 20% then you are assumed to have an error margin of 5%, while if you say 19% you are assumed to have an error margin of 1%, is a bad convention. It gives you no way to say that the number is 20% with a margin of 1%. It gives you only a very small set of possible degrees-of-uncertainty. It gives you no way to express that actually your best estimate is somewhat below 20% even though you aren't sure it isn't 5% out.

It's true, of course, that if you are talking to people who are going to interpret "20%" as "anywhere between 17.5% and 22.5%" and "19%" as "anywhere between 18.5% and 19.5%", then you should try to avoid giving not-round numbers when your uncertainty is high. And that many people do interpret things that way, because although I think the convention is a bad one it's certainly a common one.

But: that isn't what happened in the case you're complaining about. It was a discussion on Less Wrong, where all the internet-rationalists hang out, and where there is not a convention that giving a not-round number implies high confidence and high precision. Also, I looked up what Yudkowsky actually wrote, and it makes it perfectly clear (explicitly, rather than via convention) that his level of uncertainty was high:

"Ha! Okay then. My probability is at least 16%, though I'd have to think more and Look into Things, and maybe ask for such sad little metrics as are available before I was confident saying how much more."

(Incidentally, in case anyone's similarly salty about the 8% figure that gives context to this one: it wasn't any individual's estimate, it was a Metaculus prediction, and it seems pretty obvious to me that it is not an improvement to report a Metaculus prediction of 8% as "a little under 10%" or whatever.)
by linguae | 2025-07-20 08:55:49+00:00
I wholeheartedly agree. To make matters worse, the “culture wars” have led to a situation where many voters for one party would never consider voting for members of the opposite party due to where the fall on cultural matters such as abortion, LGBT+ issues, race relations, etc. Someone’s position on abortion is far more predictive of political party than one’s positions regarding how the national debt should be dealt with. It’s easier for people to compromise on non-cultural matters.

Unfortunately, one effect of this is that people are “locked into” one party. The party then could take its voters for granted. “What are you going to do, vote Democratic/Republican?” is the attitude, which breeds apathy, which creates conditions that are ripe for bad actors to exploit.

I wish there were more choices, where conservatives have options beyond MAGA and where liberals and progressives have choices. I also wish there were a wider spectrum beyond liberal/conservative. Unfortunately the current system is such that the two main parties are entrenched, with third parties being massively disadvantaged.

I wish I had solutions. All I know is 2026 is coming fast, and we better be prepared.
by hibikir | 2025-07-20 08:56:39+00:00
When the supply of something is lower than the number of people that are price sensitive and desperate, capping prices will still leave desperate people without what they want. Many mechanisms that appear to be more fair, like free lotteries, end up distorting things in other ways: If it's a free lottery, you bet people will sign up without being desperate.

One might have an aesthetically favorite version of deciding who is going to go without, but there's always going to be a problem with just that. What really helps is increasing the supply of what people want. And for that, it's hard to beat increasing rewards to the suppliers.
by buran77 | 2025-07-20 08:56:49+00:00
> The hidden message of the title: Plant based alternatives may not succeed.

I don't see this message in there. If you ask me the real message is that companies trying to sell overly processed, way too expensive, imitations of "something" will struggle. They're trying to sell a very expensive mechanical horse. Just give people a car.

Maybe it's a US thing where people are more emotionally attached to the concept of the burger. But I think these companies would be better off selling plant based stuff that doesn't need to be processed to the moon and back with the associated costs, just to imitate the real thing, and still fall short.

Plant based food has been around for millennia, focus on that. More people would eat plant based food if it was more accessible in terms of price and effort to prepare. Imitating a meat burger wastes resources and results in something most meat eaters won't actually find as a good alternative, beyond the novelty factor.
by jbreckmckye | 2025-07-20 08:59:37+00:00
I described one of them elsewhere.

No, not like Gmail. Orders of magnitude less complex than that.

No, being JS/React "native" wasn't the problem there. Actually the opposite. The developers were not willing to think about an application with state, and when they found modelling this hard (with Redux), they decided that React (a different technology) was the problem.
by herbst | 2025-07-20 08:59:48+00:00
Interesting observation. I sometimes I run into deployment anxiety when I changed to my things at once, I usually try to push through and monitor results with a racing heart for hours.

I consider myself to be "burned out" as in that isn't going to get better anymore. I accept that and build my workflow around that, that is what helped me most.

I spent considerable time into monitoring, safety procedures, fall back mechanisms, excessive backups, ... Everything that gives me peace to focus on other things.

Also using LLM for a third party view for anything you are stuck on can be a godsend.
by komali2 | 2025-07-20 08:59:54+00:00
The version of masculinity portrayed by early James Bond, slapping women at random, nothing wrong with that? The version used to convince hundreds of thousands of German men to give up their lives uselessly in WWI in some kind of manly imperialist crusade, nothing wrong with that?

As a man I completely reject these forms of masculinity. There are plenty of positive aspects of traditional western male culture we can trim out from the fat of historical toxic masculinity. We don't need to keep the terrible parts. They hurt us almost as much as they hurt others.
by kachapopopow | 2025-07-20 09:00:13+00:00
Restic is far better both in terms of usability and packaging (borgmatic pretty much is a requirement for usability). Have used both extensively, you can argue that borg can just be scripted instead and is a lot more versitile, but I had a much better experience with restic in terms of setup and forget. I am not scared that restic will break, with borg I did.

Also not sure why this was posted, did a new version release or something?
by hibikir | 2025-07-20 09:00:15+00:00
Prices cannot solve all supply problems. We cannot have 2 million teenagers dating the starlet-du-jour. But prices typically can increase the supply quite a bit, while most techniques that avoid prices will not increase supply at all.

So if the goal is to maximize how many people get what they want, prices, plus some mechanism to avoid temporal speculation (for instance someone saving their sealed pokemon cards for 20 years hoping for price increases) makes the most sense.