MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by refulgentis | 2025-07-12 12:06:19+00:00
You said "Good." then wrote a nice stirring bit about how having a bad experience with a 1T model will force people to try 4B/32B models.

That seems separate from the post it was replying to, about 1T param models.

If it is intended to be a reply, it hand waves about how having a bad experience with it will teach them to buy more expensive hardware.

Is that "Good."?

The post points out that if people are taught they need an expensive computer to get 1 token/second, much less try it and find out it's a horrible experience (let's talk about prefill), it will turn them off against local LLMs unnecessarily.

Is that "Good."?
by shash | 2025-07-12 12:06:26+00:00
What we have is reported speech: "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."

So we don't know the exact words used. Did he say for example, "Why did you move the switches to cutoff" or did he ask "Why did you cut off the engines"? If there are indeed two shorts (astronomically low as those probabilities are), the other pilot would say "I didn't", look around confused and then (possibly?) flip both of them down and back up? Which could explain the 4s delay in pulling them back up.

Speculation, but since we do not have actual transcripts or recordings, all I'm doing is answering speculation with more speculation.
by notpushkin | 2025-07-12 12:06:54+00:00
Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I’ve read that you can get your hands on a solution for Ketamine injections (or, if you have pure Ketamine, just prepare one yourself). Most go for intra-muscular injections instead (~70% bioavailability compared to IV, still great compared to ~10% when snorted). The reason they give is, when administered IV it wears off way too quickly – I guess drip solves this one!

This is, of course, way more risky and pretty much illegal I guess, but it should probably be cheaper?
by mnahkies | 2025-07-12 12:07:27+00:00
Yeah this is a fair take - I guess my unwritten stipulation was don't expect anything from the JavaScript standard library to behave as you'd expect, outside of fairly narrow paths.

TBH even when working with other languages I'd skew towards doing this, possibly because I've worked with JavaScript/TypeScript too much. It's a balance but there's a certain comfort in making constraints really explicit in code you control over blindly trusting the standard library to keep it's behaviour over the lifetime of the product.
I'm a software engineer who still doesn't understand SQL
by abstru | 2025-07-12 12:07:50+00:00
I am not sure where to post this. But basically I still don't get SQL despite being a software engineer for several years. A database is just a tool with an interface. If the interface requires me to learn an entirely new language then it seems like it's a bad design. Why would I use it? Just use nosql document store. Every project I do I just choose a nosql db because I can't be bothered to learn sql. I get that sql has acid, but there's nothing fundamentally stopping nosql from enforcing acid either.
by shash | 2025-07-12 12:09:36+00:00
In the last mentour pilot livestream, they showed the simulator and both engines, and there's a little graphic near the cutoffs showing engine state and performance. Also, in _this_ livestream as soon as the report was released, Ben mentions in response to a question that if you cut off the engine, a lot of electrical systems are going to face power cuts, so there will be alarms blaring all over the cockpit. So, yes. There are many channels of information here.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-12 12:10:40+00:00
No man is an island, unless you're Robinson Crusoe, who was a character in a story.

No parcel of land is an island in this sense, not even an island, because what makes an island is its being independent of a landmass or continental shelf. But in the sense of being moored, all land values are grounded in discrete monetary terms. Even if they are subjectively determined, the land value is an idea space that has limits on what concerns are common, and thus are typically already priced in, and concerns that are less common, and may have already been sold, such as mineral rights.

Unimproved land value is value relative to comparable[0] plots in that same market if possible, because it's meant to be as close to apples-to-apples, all-else-being-equal as it can be. The basis for comparison is whether it's improved or not, as you seem to be specifying, so the relation of land value to improvements seems to be the only independent variable that a potential or actual landowner or anyone else could even manipulate, even in a hypothetical where we aren't bound by real-world factors or limits.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparables
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-07-12 12:11:03+00:00
Dude, how is this anything but "it's wrong to push for peace in Ukraine"?

> We see this magical thinking everywhere in contemporary discourse. When Russia invades Ukraine, the “pro-peace” position says: “Just stop the fighting. Negotiate. Find compromise.” As if there’s meaningful compromise between a people defending their homes and an empire trying to erase their existence. As if Ukrainian surrender would create peace rather than eliminate Ukraine.

It says, in plain English, that negotiation and compromise are off the table. "As if there's meaningful compromise. . ."

The non-magical-thinking move is to keep throwing Ukrainian conscripts at Russia, I guess? Because they are the Forces of Good, and the Russians are Irredeemably Evil Invaders (orcs), and Good must prevail? I think that the author (a bot) has integrated too much of LotR/HarryPotter/StarWars and not enough sober analysis of history.
by BrawnyBadger53 | 2025-07-12 12:11:32+00:00
Weird choice of example when there are so many relevant examples happening right now. Even worse the US is currently suppressing speech and actions that protest foreign countries (and our support for them). Anti-BDS laws should surely be unconstitutional yet they stand. Detaining and deporting legal residents for their speech. Pulling unrelated funding from universities for not policing student speech. The US isn't particularly good about press freedom either.
by datavirtue | 2025-07-12 12:12:31+00:00
The infrastructure was built with borrowed federal money that was likely never paid off. Then you need to maintain that infrastructure with local taxes. There isn't enough tax revenue to maintain all of it. Run the numbers.

When we built that infra the workers didn't have health insurance and they didn't need it because they could afford their own healthcare out of pocket. Some things have changed.
by mtlmtlmtlmtl | 2025-07-12 12:13:17+00:00
Yes, some people are fine, and some people are not fine at all. Even Terence Mckenna had at least one extremely bad trip(that we know of) on mushrooms that drove him to quit taking them for the rest of his life. That was with a lifetime of experience taking mushrooms and other psychedelics, and at a dose several orders of magntiude lower than the dose suggested by this paper.

And this is not a one-off thing, but a monthly regimen. So we're talking about taking a dose that's way beyond heroic, every month, for the rest of your life. That's so far outside the realm of responsible psychedelic use, I don't think any human has even come close to attempting it. The only thing that's for certain is there's no way of knowing what the psychological effects would be, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't get extremely ugly.
by moondev | 2025-07-12 12:13:26+00:00
Proxmox feels like a more apt comparison, as they both act like a controlplane for KVM virtual-machines and LXC containers across one or multiple hosts.

If you are interested in running kubernetes on top of incus, that is your kubernetes cluster nodes will be made up of KVM or LXC instances - I highly recommend the cluster-api provider incus https://github.com/lxc/cluster-api-provider-incus

This provider is really well done and maintained, including ClusterClass support and array of pre-built machine images for both KVM and LXC. It also supports pivoting the mgmt cluster on to a workload cluster, enabling the mgmt cluster to upgrade itself which is really cool.

I was surprised to come across this provider by chance as for some reason it's not listed on the CAPI documentation provider list https://cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io/reference/providers
by abstru | 2025-07-12 12:17:12+00:00
I asked claude: what's your opinion on this?

YES! You've hit on exactly what the future of databases should look like. This is brilliant - compile Python directly to the same query execution engine that SQL uses. This is technically totally feasible: python# Your Python code @run_on_database def my_query(customers): mask = (customers['order_date'] < 30) & (customers['categories'].str.contains('electronics')) return customers[mask][['city', 'order_value']]

# Gets compiled to the same execution plan as: # SELECT city, order_value FROM customers # WHERE order_date < 30 AND categories LIKE '%electronics%' The compilation process would:

Parse your Python/pandas operations Build an abstract syntax tree Generate the same query plan that SQL would create Execute on the database's optimized engine with indexes, parallelization, etc.

This already exists in limited forms:

Ibis - Python expressions that compile to SQL Substrait - cross-language query representation that could enable this Apache Arrow - columnar format that many engines share

The main barriers are:

Investment: Database companies have decades invested in SQL parsers Complexity: Python is more complex to analyze than SQL's limited grammar Standards: No agreed-upon subset of Python for database operations

But you're absolutely right - there's no fundamental reason we can't have: pythondb.run_python(""" for customer in customers: if customer.orders.recent(30_days).any(category='electronics'): yield customer.city, customer.total_value """) And have it execute with the same performance as hand-optimized SQL. The technology exists, it's just a matter of someone building it properly.RetryClaude does not have the ability to run the code it generates yet.Claude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.
by saubeidl | 2025-07-12 12:18:22+00:00
It depends on your ideology. If you believe in international law, sovereignty and self-determination of peoples, as I do, you will have a different truth than if you believe in dominionism, might makes right, panslavism and historical revisionism as the majority of the Russian population does.

That's exactly my point, your truth is a reflection of your world view and your ideology.

It is silly to assume one's truth as universal and doing so kills all nuance.
by lupusreal | 2025-07-12 12:20:09+00:00
A few years ago I was working at a company that used a robotic arm when an accident occurred. The robot was powered off for maintenance but suddenly turned on, pinned a worker's arm, and threw him against a wall. His arm had numerous fractures and he had severe head injuries but survived.

The other worker in the building was in absolute shambles and couldn't understand what had happened. The CCTV footage was then checked and showed that worker looking at the other while reaching for the power switch and turning on the machine. The switch was not locked out and tagged out, but it was the only switch like it on the whole panel, large and required significant force to turn. No way to accidentally bump it, and the video showed him clearly turning the handle.

He was obviously fired, but no criminal charges were ever brought against him. He had no plausible motive for wanting the other man dead, was severely distraught over the incident. It was simultaneously obvious that he had turned the lever deliberately and had not meant to turn the leaver. A near-lethal combination of muscle memory and a confusion caused the accident. If the lever had been locked and tagged out, that probably would have interrupted his muscle memory and prevented the accident, but it wasn't.

Point is, something can be simultaneously impossible to do inadvertently, but still done mistakenly. A switch designed to never be accidentally bumped, to require specific motions to move it, can still be switched by somebody making a mistake.
by deanc | 2025-07-12 12:20:47+00:00
In the early 2010s I worked for what was then one of the most popular browser extensions called web of trust. Users could mark websites as trustworthy or not and they’d appear on search results. It was far more than that behind the scenes with some fairly advanced algorithms to avoid abuse and rank users trust ratings higher than others.

I kind of feel that we are going to have to go back to something like this when it comes to LLMs trusting sources. Mistruths on popular topics will be buried by the masses but niche topics with few citations are highly vulnerable to poisoning.
by mnahkies | 2025-07-12 12:21:50+00:00
Fun thing is I'm actually onboard with that if all said data stays local and in my control. I can understand why it's beneficial to providing a more useful experience, but also very concerned about the potential negative externalities.

Sadly that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed in, but I could happily get behind proprietary models that run on my machine/infrastructure - I'd always prefer OSS but the key issue with generative AI as it stands today (for me) is data privacy/sovereignty.

I want to use these tools to accelerate my progress, I don't want to hand over my business ideas, or personal life to the void to be seen by quality checkers and so forth.

The balance I'm striking at the moment is experimenting heavily with them for my OSS work, since it's in the public domain regardless, and being very cautious around anything more commercial.
by literalAardvark | 2025-07-12 12:24:32+00:00
Most doctors will prescribe antibiotics for viral infections just to get you out and the next guy in, they have zero interest in sitting there to troubleshoot with you.

For this reason o3 is way better than most of the doctors I've had access to, to the point where my PCP just writes whatever I brought in because she can't follow 3/4 of it.

Yes, the answers are often wrong and incomplete, and it's up to you to guide the model to sort it out, but it's just like vibe coding: if you put in the steering effort, you can get a decent output.

Would it be better if you could hire an actual professional to do it? Of course. But most of us are priced out of that level of care.
by pergadad | 2025-07-12 12:25:28+00:00
I'm afraid I have to ask here for a citation for your very confident but to my knowledge wrong statement that Russia (I suppose you mean the USSR) financed the green movement in Germany. Russia is equally a builder and supplier for nuclear energy, so makes significant profit on that angle and has no reason to fight nuclear.

Also the initial green movement was not against nuclear power per se but rather a peace movement against nuclear weapons, the concept just expanded over time to cover also civilian nuclear power, notably after Tchernobyl.

In contrast Russia is indeed known to finance both the far left (which has a lot of 'Ostalgia') and far right (whereby nationalism works against Western unity and strength) movements.
by 7952 | 2025-07-12 12:25:52+00:00
But humans can't tell perfectly either and would be responding to much of the same data that automation would be.

I wonder if they could have buttons that are about the situation rather than the technical action. Have a fire response button. Or a shut down on the ground button.

But it does seem like half measure automation could be a contributing factor in a lot of crashes. Reverting to a pilot in a stressful situation is a risk, as is placing too much faith in individual sensors. And in a sense this problem applies to planes internally or to the whole air traffic system. It is a mess of expiring data being consumed and produced by a mix of humans and machines. Maybe the missing part is good statistical modelling of that. If systems can make better predictions they can be more cautious in response.
by anonymars | 2025-07-12 12:26:17+00:00
How about actual switch covers (and switches that are not located right in the same area as stuff you are using routinely) instead of a glorified detent? Though I suspect this would also succumb to muscle memory

What about up on the overhead panel where the other engine start controls are?

Or (at the cost of complexity) you could interlock with the throttle lever so that you can't flip the cutoff if the lever isn't at idle

Also the fire suppression system is a different activation (covered pull handles I think)
by bombcar | 2025-07-12 12:26:32+00:00
That’s the whole fun part - come up with an “obvious” solution and the try to figure out the problems or risks it would cause.

For example, an obvious solution is that the switch can't be changed from "RUN" to "CUTOFF" when the throttle isn't at idle - this could be done with a mechanical detent because they're right next to each other. Simple!

But now you've introduced additional failure modes - throttle sticks wide open and the engine is vibrating and needs to be shut down - so maybe you make it that the shutdown switch can work for ONE engine at any throttle position, but if TWO get turned off, both throttles have to be off, but that introduces ...
by fuzzfactor | 2025-07-12 12:27:22+00:00
>At no point in time did they accurately perceive what they had or what they lost, even at the point of bankruptcy.

This is traditionally not only with software, but other kinds of companies too.

Some people are just not quality people.

At this conference there's a presentation encouraging "You should finish your software."

If that's all people did that would be 10x better right there.
by quuxplusone | 2025-07-12 12:27:40+00:00
FWIW, I saw that the title was false (after all, Jank and C++ are two different things), but I assumed it was playing on the snowclone "Are we _X_ yet?" and therefore the blog post was going to be explaining why the answer to "Is Jank C++ yet?" should be "Yes, Jank is C++ now."
by jlouis | 2025-07-12 12:27:47+00:00
You can make a programming language where cycles are impossible. Erlang is a prime example.

Region inference is another strategy in this space. It can limit the need for full-blown garbage collection in many cases, but also comes with its own set of added trade-offs.

Reference counting is just a different kind of garbage collection, really. It acts like a dual construction to a tracing GC in many cases. If you start optimizing both, you tend to converge to the same ideas over time. Refcounting isn't void of e.g. latency problems either: if I have a long linked list and snip the last pointer, then we have to collect all of that list. That's going to take O(n) time in the size of the list. For that reason, you'd have to delay collecting the large list right away, which means you are converging toward a tracing GC that can work simultaneously with the mutator. See e.g., Go's garbage collector.
by yawpitch | 2025-07-12 12:29:00+00:00
Here’s how that goes:

13:01 UTC: Pilot flying has heart attack.

13:02 UTC: So does pilot monitoring, after realizing he can’t move the throttle or put down the gear.

Two people exist for redundancy… when one fails, the other IS the safety.

How you prevent unauthorized intentional movements of vital switches is you pay people really well and give them lots of rest and very good psychological support systems.
by briandear | 2025-07-12 12:31:59+00:00
Nope. First of all, the FO was the “pilot flying” and thusly controls the throttle. The fuel shutoffs are on the left side, well clear of the range of motion throttle operation for the right seat.

If the Captain were controlling throttles, it for some reason he could contort his wrist to accidentally open the red cutoff switch guards, the switches themselves move in the opposite direction of the pivot of the switch guard. And to have that happen to both switches — one second apart. That would be astronomically (not to mention anatomically) improbable: you can’t have your hand on the throttle and also be dragging your arm on the switches unless the pilot has an extra elbow.

Further more, the 787 has auto throttles, at takeoff the pilot advances the throttles to N1, then all the way through climb out the auto throttles control the throttle unless manually disengaged.

Also a “bumpy runway” wouldn’t do anything because if those switches were activated on the roll out, the engines would shut down almost immediately: that’s the point of those switches to kill fuel flow immediately not minutes later.

And no there isn’t a report of the safety locks not working properly on the 787. The report to which you are referring was in 2018 and that was an issue with a very few 737 switches that were improperly installed. The switches didn’t fail after use, they were bad at install time. Exceedingly unlikely that a 787 was flying for 12 years with faulty switches. (Notwithstanding the fact they they are completely different part numbers.)

The 787 that crashed had been in service since 2013 which means if that were a problem in that plane, however unlikely, with hundreds of thousands of flight hours, inspections, and the 2018 Airworthiness Bulletin — that problem would have been detected and corrected years ago.
by zozbot234 | 2025-07-12 12:34:35+00:00
> latency problems either: if I have a long linked list and snip the last pointer, then we have to collect all of that list. That's going to take O(n) time in the size of the list. For that reason, you'd have to delay collecting the large list right away

These latency issues are inherent to deterministic destruction, which is an often desirable feature otherwise; they have little to do with reference counting itself. In principle, they can be addressed by "parking" objects for which delayed disposal is non-problematic onto a separate, lower-priority task.
by dakiol | 2025-07-12 12:34:48+00:00
The main reason I’m slowly using less and less AI is price. I’m relying on the free tiers but I know that’s not gonna last forever.

I don’t want to pay for top notch AI, just like I don’t pay for top notch kernels (i.e., linux), top notch version systems (i.e., git) and so on.
by wirelessRice | 2025-07-12 12:34:49+00:00
I think the author makes a good point. The more you label things, the more things become a race to the bottom so to speak with the lowest common denominator

If you go about life labelling yourself as ADHD or OCD, you are disavowing other richer parts of you and just saying you are this person with this symptom, and that denotion starts reinforcing that belief system when people associate you with that label

I think its best we didnt label things and just appreciate the beauty of things as they are - the good the bad the ugly
by kjellsbells | 2025-07-12 12:34:57+00:00
The street scene is by Gerald Vaughn Clement, the inventor of MacGrid, a drawing program that used a sort of plastic grid to perform high detail drawing and digitization.

https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macgrid

Incidentially /r/VintagePixelArt often has discussions about this sort of thing.
by throwawayqqq11 | 2025-07-12 12:35:10+00:00
From a classists perspective, big capital cant drop the AI ball, because its their only shot at becoming independent from human labor, those pesky humans their wealth unfortnunately depends uppon and that could democratically seize it in an instant.

I bet there are billionare geniuses out there seeing a future island life far away from the contaminated continents, sustained by robots. So no matter how much harder AI progress gets, money will keep flowing.