MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sleevi | 2025-07-07 21:40:10+00:00
All the time. Many CA distrust events involved some degree of “amateurs” reporting issues. While I hesitate to call commenters like agwa an amateur, it certainly was not professionally sponsored work by root programs or CAs. This is a key thing that Certificate Transparency enables: amateurs, academics, and the public at large to report CA issues.

At the same time, it sounds like the issues you describe aren’t CA/issuance issues, but rather, simple misconfigurations. Those aren’t incidents for the ecosystem, although definitely can be disruptive to the site, but I also wouldn’t expect them to call trust or identity into disrepute. That’d be like arguing my drivers license is invalid if I handed you my passport; giving you the wrong doc doesn’t invalidate the claims of either, just doesn’t address your need.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-07-07 21:40:45+00:00
I'm not sure if it is cope, but I sort of feel the same

The quality of LLM code is consistently average at best, and usually quite bad imo. People say it is like a junior, but if a junior I hired produced such code consistently and never improved I would be recommending the company PIP them out.

Having output like a Junior would be fine, if I didn't have to fix it myself. As it stands, I've never been able to get it to produce code of the quality I want so I have to spend more time fixing it than I would just writing it.

I dunno. It sucks man
by bruce511 | 2025-07-07 21:40:50+00:00
In the book I found the character of Ian Malcolm fascinating. He was the math guy, grounded in "chaos theory" which basically posited that things don't work out the way you plan.

Jeff Goldblum's portrayal was pretty spot on for me - sure that it would all end in tears, and yet unwilling to leave simply because the opportunity to see his math play out in real life was irresistible.

And his line in movie 2 (or 3?) About how "it always starts with oooh and ahhh, but then comes the running, and screaming, and tearing of flesh" is such a meta observation of the film, and life in general, that it's always resonated with me.

And Ian delivers it perfectly- as if to say "I know how this plays, just like you do, but fate / math says I have to be here, so here I am. I'm right where I'm supposed to be."
by clown_strike | 2025-07-07 21:40:58+00:00
You're being gaslit. The point is to make you look unproductive.

The untrained temp workers using AI to do the entirety of their jobs aren't producing code of professional quality, it doesn't adhere to best practices or security unless you monitor that shit like a hawk but if you're still engineering for quality then AI is not the first train you've missed.

They will get code into production quicker and cheaper than you through brute force iteration. Nothing else matters. Best practices went the way of the rest of the social contract the instant feigned competence became cheaper.

Even my podunk employer has AI metrics. You won't escape it. AI will eventually gatekeep all expertise and the future employee becomes just a disposable meat interface (technician) running around doing whatever SHODAN tells them to.
by ltbarcly3 | 2025-07-07 21:41:03+00:00
I addressed the entire concept of the talk, and made other relevant points. The correct response to "let me tell you something I can't possibly know" isn't to argue the points within that frame.

If you see a talk like: "How we will develop diplomacy with the rat-people of TRAPPIST-5." you don't have to make some argument about super-earths and gravity and the rocket equation. You can just point out it's absurd to pretend to know something like whether there are rat-people there.

Either way, it isn't flag-able!
by Spivak | 2025-07-07 21:41:14+00:00
I think over the years trust and identity have gone out of scope for TLS—I think for the better. Your identity is your domain and it's not TLS's problem to connect that identity to any real life person or legal entity. I'm sure you still can buy EV certs but no one really cares about them anymore. Certainly browsers no longer care about them. And TLS makes no claim on the trustworthiness of the site you're connecting to, just that the owner of the cert proved control of the domain and that your connection is encrypted.

I can't even imagine how much a pain it would be to try and moderate certs based on some consistent international notion of trustworthiness. I think the best you could hope to do is have 3rd parties like the BBB sign your cert as a way of them "vouching" for you.
by NathanKP | 2025-07-07 21:41:47+00:00
I think the author's definition of "creating" is just too narrow. A gardener can get tremendous satisfaction from watching their plants grow from the bed of soil that they prepared, even if there is not as much weeding or watering to do later on in the growth cycle. A parent can get tremendous satisfaction from watching their child continue to grow and develop, even after the child is no longer an infant who requires constant care and attention.

In my opinion, having spent about a year and half working on various coding projects using AI, there are phases to the AI coding lifecycle.

1) Coding projects start out like infants: you need to write a lot of code by hand at first to set the right template and patterns you want the AI to follow going forward.

2) Coding projects continue to develop kind of like garden beds: you have to guide the structure and provide the right "nutrients" for the project, so that the AI can continue to add additional features based on what you have supplied to it.

3) Coding projects mature kind of like children growing up to become adults. A well configured AI agent, starting from a clean, structured code repo, might be mostly autonomous, but just like your adult kid might still need to phone home to Mom and Dad to ask for advice or help, you as the "parent" of the project are still going to be involved when the AI gets stuck and needs help.

Personally, while I can get some joy and satisfaction from manually typing lines of code, most of those lines of code are things I've typed literally hundreds of times over my decades long journey as a developer. There isn't as much joy in typing out the same things again and again, but there is joy in the longer term steering and shaping of a project so that it stays sane, clean, and scalable. I get a similar same sense of joy out of gently steering AI towards success in my projects, that I get from gently steering my own child towards success. There is something incredible about providing the right environment and the right pushes in the right direction, and then seeing something grow and develop mostly on it's own (but with your support backing it up).
by alganet | 2025-07-07 21:42:35+00:00
I just did.

By pretending to know less of egyptian culture and the academic consensus around it, I played the role of a typical human (not trained to prompt, not smart enough to catch bullshit from the LLM).

I then compared the LLM output with real information from specialists, and pointed out the mistakes.

Your attempt at discrediting me revolves around trying to estabilish that my specialist information is not good, that ancient aliens is actually fine. I think that's hilarious.

More importantly, I recognize the LLMs failing, you don't. I don't consider them to be good enough for a gullable audience. That should be a big sign of what's going on here, but you're ignoring it.
by godelski | 2025-07-07 21:44:12+00:00
Serendipitous name...

In part I agree with the parent.

>> it pointless to *not* anthropomorphize, at least to an extent.

I agree that it is pointless to not anthropomorphize because we are humans and we will automatically do this. Willingly or unwillingly.

On the other hand, it generates bias. This bias can lead to errors.

So the real answer is (imo) that it is fine to anthropomorphise but recognize that while doing so can provide utility and help us understand, it is WRONG. Recognizing that it is not right and cannot be right provides us with a constant reminder to reevaluate. Use it, but double check, and keep checking making sure you understand the limitations of the analogy. Understanding when and where it applies, where it doesn't, and most importantly, where you don't know if it does or does not. The last is most important because it helps us form hypotheses that are likely to be testable (likely, not always. Also, much easier said than done).

So I pick a "grey area". Anthropomorphization is a tool that can be helpful. But like any tool, it isn't universal. There is no "one-size-fits-all" tool. Literally, one of the most important things for any scientist is to become an expert at the tools you use. It's one of the most critical skills of *any expert*. So while I agree with you that we should be careful of anthropomorphization, I disagree that it is useless and can never provide information. But I do agree that quite frequently, the wrong tool is used for the right job. Sometimes, hacking it just isn't good enough.
by marcusverus | 2025-07-07 21:45:29+00:00
A declining population will bring a few challenges, none of them "unprecedented". The main issues will be A) increased difficulty in funding a welfare state which was predicated on baby boom demographics, and B) a related decline in quality of life among the poor--particularly the elderly, and C) the likely end to the 150+ year trend of a constantly rising stock market.

These things will sort themselves out, though.

Historically, the driving force behind childbearing was the notion that children were your retirement plan. If you wanted to be sure that there would be someone to take care of you in old age, you'd sure as heck better have a few kids. The fewer kids, the higher the likelihood that, once you were too old to work, your life would end in poverty. The more kids you had, the more likely they would be able to take good care of you.

The combination of Government social guarantees, general prosperity and a constantly rising stock market have obliterated this natural incentive structure. Children are no longer required to ensure a certain standard of living in the future--they are perceived as a financial drain, if anything. The moment the social security programs dry up and the stock market flattens out, women will quickly perceive the new reality, wherein having more children is a direct personal benefit, and not having kids is a dire economic risk. Once this occurs, fertility will skyrocket and the cycle will repeat.
by sherdil2022 | 2025-07-07 21:45:32+00:00
What Turnbull proposed is less a twisted sociopathic plan and more a symptom of corporate AI fanaticism: treating emotional upheaval as a data point to be optimized and managed. That comes off as cold, uncaring, and frankly out-of-touch.

However, all the feedback against them would make some people and trolls to dig in further - not necessarily to make a point of conviction, but as trolls go, to rile people up and revel in that negativity.

This is not only twisted and offensive, losing a job deserves more than an AI prompt. It's a moment for empathy, care and true leadership - not these tone-deaf messages.
by pseudocomposer | 2025-07-07 21:46:14+00:00
When I meet people who immediately use hyper-specific jargon with strangers, I either distrust them, or assume they’re not emotionally intelligent (because it’s a choice demonstrates little respect for the person they’re addressing). It also projects that they may be compensating for some emotional insecurity on their own end, trying to assert intellectual “superiority” in some way.

The first option (explaining things simply) might make your job sound easy to a very small minority of extremely uneducated, under-stimulated people, who also have unaddressed insecurities around their own intelligence. But that’s not most humans.

Moderately-to-very intelligent people appreciate how difficult (and useful) it is to explain complex things simply. Hell, most “dumb” people understand, recognize, and appreciate this ability. Honestly, I think not appreciating simple explanations indicates both low mathematical/logical and social/emotional intelligence. Which makes explaining things simply a useful filter for, well… people that I wouldn’t get along with anyway.

With all that said, I prefer to first explain my job in an “explain like I’m 5” style and, if the other party indicates interest, add detail and jargon, taking into account related concepts that may already be familiar to them. If you take them into account, they won’t get bored when you go into detail.
by lurking_swe | 2025-07-07 21:46:48+00:00
west elm pretends to be high end but it’s not. As you said it’s hit and miss, some gems and a lot of junk. As consumers in 2025 we are awash in a sea of cheap junk. It’s frustrating sometimes.

I personally recommend people go to a real furniture store (a large one), where the salesperson is actually knowledgeable and where they offer many brands. Ask for what you want. Specific materials, finishes, price range, etc. Make a note of the brands and manufacturers. Then dig deeper. Often times these brands are featured in a niche catalog or magazine, where you can find similar brands offering similar products.

There are many high quality buy it for life items to be found! But rarely at the convenience of a button click from westelm’s website.
AI Power Internal Tools
by DeonRob | 2025-07-07 21:46:54+00:00
Hey folks

I’ve been building Sashi — a developer tool that reads your existing codebase and lets you create AI-driven workflows out of your backend functions.

Imagine giving your ops/product/dev team a natural-language interface to: • Search users from your DB • Filter and chart usage data • Send emails or Slack messages • …all by just describing what they want to do

It works with TypeScript + Zod functions, generates UIs automatically, and connects to your GitHub so it stays in sync.

The long-term goal is to help teams move faster without rebuilding internal tools every time someone needs a new dashboard or button.

Right now it supports: Dynamic function registration AI workflow planning Automatic UI generation (tables, charts, forms) GitHub function ingestion Secure execution via a centralized hub

Automatically installs into any node.js/next.js codebase with a cli command

If you’re curious or want to try it out, I’d love your feedback we are looking for beta users: https://www.usesashi.com

Also I had a question if you wanted to be help:

What’s one task in your codebase you’d love to turn into a “just say it and run it” flow?

Like i know changing a users roles especially if its tied to a bunch of side effects in you code base is something i deal with a lot
by throwawayffffas | 2025-07-07 21:46:57+00:00
I think it's very similar in both countries, but you have got it wrong. Downloading a book without permission is copyright infringement in both countries, regardless of whether you distribute it.

In the UK it's a criminal offense if you distribute a copyrighted work with the intent to make gain or with the expectation that the owner will make a loss.

Gain and loss are only financial in this context.

Meaning that in both countries the copyright owner can sue you for copyright infringement.
by tart-lemonade | 2025-07-07 21:47:14+00:00
I wish more agencies would release tools like this. Even if you still need a fair amount of technical know-how to use them, it's a lot more accessible than tax laws. I especially like the articles on the website, like how assessed value appeals impact tax burdens on everyone else: https://ccao-data.github.io/ptaxsim/articles/appeals.html
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-07-07 21:47:30+00:00
Omitted from the article is that Edge's initial load time comes from having it run at all times, prelaunched as a background app.

Using AutoRuns, I disable 6-10 points (1x-2x runonce, 2+ services, 4 sched tasks, 1-2BHO) to keep Edge from consuming resources without user consent.
by ben_w | 2025-07-07 21:47:53+00:00
> And yet we're supposed to think this is profound?

I am increasingly of the opinion that SMBC is, despite the jokes, one of the more important sources of, ah, profound, wisdom in this age, because of the points it makes about AI and how often human thinking finds mundane things… profound:

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-12

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-5

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/annihilate

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/soul-9

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/soul-4

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gently

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sirens-2

• https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/touch-2
by dctoedt | 2025-07-07 21:48:07+00:00
That's why it's often critical to implement systems to second-check important stuff.

If I may lapse into garrulous-old-fart mode: Soon after I made partner in my BigLaw IP firm, as the resident software(-adjacent) geek I was tasked by the management committee with overseeing the firm's docketing operation: Six very nice people (ladies of varying ages, as it happened) who for many years had opened all our incoming mail from courts, agencies, etc., and logged future deadlines into our by-then antiquated, home-grown, pre-PC calendaring system, still running on a mini-computer.

The proximate cause of my tasking was that the other partners were getting increasingly frustrated by the human-origin calendaring errors that kept showing up in lawyers' tractor-feed greenbar printouts. If we'd blown a court deadline, we likely would have gotten zero sympathy from the court, the client, and our malpractice-insurance carrier.

The first thing I did was implement a Navy-nuke system in which every deadline entry got second-checked. That produced some grumbling among the docketing staff because it made extra work for them.

(We mitigated that by eliminating some calendaring tasks that no longer made sense, such as logging every date, in ink, into a bound ledger book, which no one had looked at in years — I called it our WORN drive: Write Once, Read Never.)

I reassured the staff that no one would get fired for making a mistake, because we all do that. But they very well might get fired if their mistake got out the door because they'd bypassed the second-checking system.

Happily, the rate of calendaring errors showing up on lawyer greenbar printouts dropped to essentially zero. No one had to be fired, and several staff members said that they liked the second-checking system.

(Soon after, we switched to a then-modern, PC-based system.)
by ManuelKiessling | 2025-07-07 21:49:56+00:00
What sometimes works, when given into the right hands, is to go smaller, more intimate, instead of „again 2x as epic as the one before“: like, imagine a Jurassic Park movie with only one single, not even especially large and fancy dinosaur, and a small group that needs to survive. Imagine this being done in a very character-driven and claustrophobic way, keeping you on the edge of your seat instead of trying to make you gasp at some artificial grandeur. Still benefits from the established backdrop of its „universe“.

Worked well with Prey and Alien Romulus recently, for example.
by kevindamm | 2025-07-07 21:49:59+00:00
It was raised in one of the initial proposals, back in 2002

https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug?bug_id=4726340

but that looks like a dead link and no wayback archive..

IIRC, basically it's because some parts of the JVM use stack unwinding to figure out what userland code is calling certain system code.. also the current stack frame has metadata about lock status used for allowing re-entrant locks that you lose if you elide the entire recursive call (which the initial proposal did by only removing the few bytecode instructions that set up the callstack frame and return from it).

A more informal proposal from ~2016 allows for soft tail calls and hard (annotated) tail calls, with some restrictions that evidently avoid issues with system calls and lock/reentry maintenance:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161112163441/https://blogs.ora...

And a video by one of the JVM architects at Oracle about adding TCO for Scala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5Pv4yN0b0&t=1h02m18s

Also previously featured here on HN, a way to do it that avoids security concerns, by using goto instead of strictly deleting bytecode instructions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22945725
by chaboud | 2025-07-07 21:50:36+00:00
I ended up closer to python, but not totally delighted with it (still need to pass in a descriminator function/lambda, so it's more structurally verbose). I'd just recommend Linq, but I was writing for an old version of Unity coerced through IL2CPP (where Linq wasn't great). It was also a chunk of semi-hot code (if it was really hot, it wouldn't be sitting in C# in Unity), so some of the allocation behaviors of Linq behind the scenes wouldn't have been optimal.

What surprised me initially was just how confidently wrong Llama was... Now I'm used to confident wrongness from smaller models. It's almost like working with real people...
by toast0 | 2025-07-07 21:50:40+00:00
I recently replaced a dishwasher, and while the old one just had a cable to plug in, the new one needed some power box, so I had to mount that, and the existing holes for cables and hoses weren't big enough, so I needed to enlarge those. Not a big problem for me, I'm handy, but a lot of people aren't comfortable making holes in things. Physically moving the machines wasn't that hard, but I have plenty of dollies and what not.

I was lucky and someone was interested in the old one to try to fix it, or to swap parts and make their current one look nicer, so I didn't have to haul the other one away to the dump, but that's something the installer will typically do.
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-07-07 21:51:39+00:00
Real furniture stores lay somewhere between being useful and being like a mattress sales money laundering operation. I just find most of them full of gaudy furniture that I’m not sure anyone would really buy (hence my guess that money laundering is involved).

In the Seattle area, the best I could find is Dania, which is a chain that is basically a higher end IKEA that focuses more on furniture (Scandinavian style).
by bigmattystyles | 2025-07-07 21:51:42+00:00
I agree with almost everything you said - especially, about LLMs not being nearly ready yet. I didn't phrase that very well. The practicum and supervision, did seem very intense and thorough and I will admit that since that involved actual clients, what my wife could/should/did share about it was nearly nil so my visibility into it was just as nil.

The part I disagree with is:

>> Feeding patient files and clinical notes into a training set violates so many ethical and legal rules

I know it's unrealistic but I wonder if completely anonymized records would help or if that would remove so much context as to be useless. I guess I would allow for my anonymized enough medical records to be available for training 100 years after my death, though I get that even that is a timebomb with genetics.

And yes, obviously my comment was a personal anecdote.
by michaelt | 2025-07-07 21:51:51+00:00
The point of CT logging is to ensure a person can ask "What certificates were issued for example.com?" or "What certificates were issued by Example CA?" and get an answer that's correct - even if the website or CA fucked up or got hacked and certificates are in the hands of people who've tried to cover their tracks.

This requires the logs be held by independent parties, and retained forever.
by danpalmer | 2025-07-07 21:51:59+00:00
I don’t have a Dyson, but my vacuum also struggles with items so big they don’t fit under the roller. I don’t generally find it to be a problem because at that size they’re easy to pick up.

Not defending Dyson, there’s a lot of valid criticism here, but at some size pieces are too big to vacuum, and if that size is Cheerios, maybe that’s not much of a problem?

I’d rather have a vacuum that does well at the small stuff I can’t reasonably pick up.