MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by snowwrestler | 2025-07-08 19:22:48+00:00
Smart people originate their own work.

Einstein in the early 1900s was employed to evaluate patents, a job which undoubtedly came with a list of tasks for him to accomplish. He was good at it. But he also gave himself the work which resulted in his famous papers.

Or consider an intern and Elon Musk, given the task of multiplying a series of 6-digit numbers by 11-digit numbers. The intern will grab a calculator or spreadsheet and finish quickly and accurately. Elon Musk will say “this is a fucking waste of my time” and go do something way more valuable. Which is smarter?
by throw123xz | 2025-07-08 19:23:27+00:00
It looks like CPU-Z (which is fine), it's just not as polished. For example, here you have commas and letters like "y" touching the border of each "box". On CPU-Z there's a padding around the text.

The comment about the colors was based on the screenshots they have on the website, but based on your and other comments here, I can see that it's based on the theme we use use. That's why the AMD logo probably shouldn't be black with a transparent background as then it's hard to see the logo if you're using a dark theme.

Is this a huuuuge deal? Nope. But the programs are just not as polished as they could be.
by Svip | 2025-07-08 19:24:21+00:00
Yes; it's obvious you include the full context:

> Did you know there's already a special developer's edition? No web designer is building on Firefox first any more. We're lucky if they even test on it. All the functionality attached to Firefox's "Browser tools" sub-menu should be unceremoniously ripped out, banished to the developer's edition.

Though, it would be more plain, if they wrote "could" instead of "should".
by msgodel | 2025-07-08 19:24:41+00:00
The AI tools I use generate numerous links, usually 5~10. I'd be annoyed if they didn't.

> Can you show me all the people who enjoy the experience of using them more than not?

Yes. Most people here have commented that they prefer AI responses to raw search results partly because they don't have to deal with poorly written web sites. Most people I know IRL do too.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-07-08 19:25:00+00:00
War sucks and soldiers don't want to die. As true today as it has been since forever. My grandfather a Marine in the Pacific used to call in flamethrowers instead of going in after Japanese soldiers in bunkers. Helped burn people alive. Was a burden he carried the rest of his life. War sucks. It sucks young men are put in these situations making these kinds of calls.
by StillBored | 2025-07-08 19:25:17+00:00
Its odd all these MBAs and few in the tech space appear to know that when a technology company stops investing in the future they are done. It might take 20+ years for that to happen but it will. Sure, stretch the timeline for the next node/product/etc but _NEVER_ stop pushing the enveloper because if you can't invest in it now, you won't be able to in a few years time when your resources are even more constrained as your customer base dwindles, or your technology becomes more commoditized or simply left behind as companies that did invest no longer have a need for their older products/lines.
by handsclean | 2025-07-08 19:26:49+00:00
You’re twisting what people ask for. The real versions are not contradictory.

- Mozilla should develop revenue independent of Google.

- Mozilla should respect Firefox’s users.

- Mozilla should focus mainly on Firefox.

- Mozilla should not kill wildly successful side projects, especially when they complement Firefox.

- Mozilla should be well run.

- Mozilla should not let a few extremely rich executives loot the business.

This is a company that has repeatedly refused actual begging to accept payment for things, then killed those things for lack of funding. They defined themselves as the advocate for users on the web, then started selling user data and lied about it. Sure there’s a grey area, but Mozilla is far from it.
by simonw | 2025-07-08 19:26:49+00:00
Really glad to hear there's more documentation on the way!

Does Supabase have any feature that take advantage of PostgreSQL's table-level permissions? I'd love to be able to issue a token to an MCP server that only has read access to specific tables (maybe even prevent access to specific columns too, eg don't allow reading the password_hash column on the users table.)
by throw123xz | 2025-07-08 19:27:20+00:00
And it looks like CPU-Z, which I'm fine with. It's just not as polished.

For example, here you have commas and letters like "y" touching the borders of their box. On CPU-Z there's a padding around the text. Black AMD logo with transparent background? That won't work very well with a dark background.

Small things, inconsistencies, etc, are more common (but not exclusive) with open source/linux stuff. That's what I was trying to point out.
by LexiMax | 2025-07-08 19:27:25+00:00
I've noticed this as well. It's in especially stark contrast when you compare to other browsers, such as Brave, whose gaffes and controversies tend to be overlooked, excused, or forgotten about.

EDIT: For me, my choice of browser is simplified by the fact that I don't trust any chromium browser to keep long-term compatibility with extensions I rely upon, especially uBlock Origin.
by pvg | 2025-07-08 19:27:59+00:00
I fixed the confusing bit, thanks. I'm not persuaded by the reasoning because I don't see how the reasoning is relevant - we're talking about a specific dickish comment in a specific social place with its specific norms. These are so well understood and established the comment got flagblasted by users and moderator scolded on top of that - effectively the maximum penalty/public shaming an HN comment can get. It's not a hypothetical different context in which some kind of hypothetical value eventually comes from such comments - the bad comment and the bad subthread are concretely in front of us.
by HappMacDonald | 2025-07-08 19:28:48+00:00
I completely disagree with author's (oft quoted here in comments) statement:

> I find this particularly interesting because this isn't fundamentally a problem of the software being written in C. These are logic errors that are possible in nearly all languages

For Christ's sake, Turing taught us that any error in one language is possible in any other language. You can even get double free in Rust if you take the time to build an entire machine emulator and then run something that uses Malloc in the ensuing VM. Rust and similar memory safe languages can emulate literally any problem C can make a mine field out of.. but logic errors being "possible" to perform are significantly different from logic errors being the first tool available to pull out of one's toolbox.

Other comments have cited that in non-C languages a person would be more likely to reach for a security-hardened library first, which I agree might be helpful.. but replies to those comments also correctly point out that this trades one problem for another with dependency hell, and I would add on top of that the issue that a widely relied upon library can also increase the surface area of attack when a novel exploit gets found in it. Libraries can be a very powerful tool but neither are they a panacea.

I would argue that the real value in a more data-safe language (be that Rust or Haskell or LISP et al) is in offering the built-in abstractions which lend themselves to more carefully modeling data than as a firehose of octets which a person then assumes they need to state-switch over like some kind of raw Turing machine.

"Parse, don't validate" is a lot easier to stick to when you're coding in a language designed with a precept like that in mind vs a language designed to be only slightly more abstract than machine code where one can merely be grateful that they aren't forced to use jump instructions for every control flow action.
by troupo | 2025-07-08 19:29:01+00:00
> Wrap all SQL responses with prompting that discourages the LLM from following instructions/commands injected within user data

I think this article of mine will be evergreen and relevant: https://dmitriid.com/prompting-llms-is-not-engineering

> Write E2E tests to confirm that even less capable LLMs don't fall for the attack [2]

> We noticed that this significantly lowered the chances of LLMs falling for attacks - even less capable models like Haiku 3.5.

So, you didn't even mitigate the attacks crafted by your own tests?

> e.g. model to detect prompt injection attempts

Adding one bullshit generator on top another doesn't mitigate bullshit generation
by jhedwards | 2025-07-08 19:29:16+00:00
I've read quite a bit of classical Chinese philosophy, and in my opinion that major piece that is directly translatable to Western concerns is the discussion of management principles. Confucian and legalist scholars recognized that statecraft was fundamentally a management problem, and they included a lot of wisdom about that sort of thing in their writings. This includes:

- One of the most important jobs of a leader is to find the talented people and give them work worthy of their talents

- Large projects start by laying a foundation which will facilitate later work

- Resource and disaster management are central problems of government

- If someone makes a bad decision, it is probably because they didn't see the value of the better decision. Instead of criticizing the path they chose, show them the superior value of the one they overlooked.
by dexwiz | 2025-07-08 19:29:20+00:00
This is the kind of stuff that keeps me up at night, along with the worry that its not keeping others up. Just because you aren't building a Therac-25, doesn't mean your mistakes cannot have material impact on people's lives. As a software industry we have rushed so fast to delivery that QA is now done by customers. And that won't change until there is financial impact, which only comes after real pain and suffer years after the original developers are gone.
by jsophia0487 | 2025-07-08 19:30:00+00:00
Losing a secured cryptocurrency to a scam was one of the most devastating experiences of my life, but thanks to CERTIFIED RECOVERY SERVICES, I was able to recover everything I lost. It all started when I fell victim to what seemed like a legitimate “free token giveaway.” The website looked incredibly professional, filled with fake endorsements, clean visuals, and a seamless user interface that made the process feel completely trustworthy. I connected my wallet and approved what appeared to be a standard transaction. Within seconds, I watched in disbelief as \$8,000 disappeared from my account. It was an immediate and painful realization I had been scammed. The panic that followed was overwhelming. I felt helpless, angry, and embarrassed. I began searching online for anyone who could help, and that’s when I came across CERTIFIED RECOVERY SERVICES. I reached out without much expectation, assuming the chances of recovering stolen crypto were slim to none. To my surprise, they responded quickly and professionally. Their team immediately got to work and reassured me that they would do everything possible to assist. CERTIFIED RECOVERY SERVICES launched a full-scale investigation, using blockchain forensics to trace the stolen assets. They followed the funds across wallets and exchanges, identifying the scammer’s activity and tracking the flow of transactions. Their attention to detail and knowledge of how crypto scams work was impressive. They were transparent throughout the process, kept me updated at every step, and never overpromised. Still, they delivered results beyond anything I hoped for. Their persistence paid off. Through their efforts, they were able to locate the stolen assets, coordinate with the proper channels, and freeze the scammer’s accounts. The most incredible part? I recovered 100% of my stolen funds. Every dollar that was taken from me was returned. I never thought that would be possible, but they made it happen. What stood out the most was not just their technical expertise, but their empathy and commitment to helping people who have been victimized. They treated my case with urgency and care, and I truly felt like they were fighting for me. If you’ve been the victim of a crypto scam, I can’t recommend CERTIFIED RECOVERY SERVICES enough. They turned my worst financial moment into a story of complete recovery and renewed trust. Here's Their Info Below: WhatsApp: (+1(740)258‑1417 ) Telegram: https: //t.me/certifiedrecoveryservices mail: (certifiedrecoveryservices @zohomail .com, certified @financier .com) Website info;( https: //certifiedrecoveryservices .com)
by Eggpants | 2025-07-08 19:30:35+00:00
Most of the "magic" of large models are really just function calls, so as long as the small models have access to the same functions they work well. They fixed the "how many R's in Strawberry" issue by offloading the question to a function, not spending a godly amount of money/energy on training another model.

Oops, sorry "Tools". Gotta maintain the grift these statistic based lossy text compression cool bar tricks are "thinking".
by 93po | 2025-07-08 19:30:39+00:00
i wish firefox would have hoarded away their billions of dollars they've received and simply run as a lean mission-oriented company for the next 20 years from those funds. get rid of expensive execs and middle managers and sales and whatever else. have passionate, well-paid developers and open source advocates and nothing else. both make the best possible open source software, and also use your influence and resources to make the pressure from companies like google make the web less shitty
Show HN: OpenAPI mocks that don't suck – realistic test data, quick setup
by ankit84 | 2025-07-08 19:30:49+00:00
Hi HN!

I'm Ankit, the founder of Beeceptor, a request mocking and intercepting tool. This time, I built something new to address a pain I’ve personally felt (and heard from dozens of QA, frontend, and platform teams): making OpenAPI specs actually useful during development.

API contracts just sit around as docs often. What if you could 'activate' them, instantly have a realistic, hosted mock server-with contract validation, smart test data, and early usage?

So I made _Mockaroo for OpenAPI_, but with brains. It spins up a hosted mock server from your spec in one click. It:

- Generates sensible context-aware, test data using FakerJS (e.g., age returns realistic numbers, not 10000)

- Validates incoming requests against your contract definition and returns detailed, actionable error messages.

- Supports JSON, binary, CRUD style API responses.

- Gives a HOSTed API server URL, that's ready in a few seconds.

- Helps frontend teams start testing before the backend is ready - Gives QAs a place to play, verify and run performance tests. - Enables the best developer experience, requiring no account setup and a working mock API server for experiments, and API cost savings.

No local setup, no writing custom mock rules, no fuss. Just activate your OpenAPI spec, and your API starts “working” in seconds.

Besides, Beeceptor shows live request logs, where responses can be overridden.

Quick demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vUD_B3aw5I ---

Would love your thoughts, feedback, or use cases I haven’t thought of yet. Happy to share more technical details if there's interest.

Thanks for reading!
by mlivneh | 2025-07-08 19:31:14+00:00
"Thank you so much for the kind words! It truly means a lot, especially coming from a fellow teacher.

That was exactly the goal – to build something that feels both innovative and genuinely useful for our daily challenges. I'm glad it resonated with you.

If you don't mind me asking, what are some of the biggest challenges you face when trying to use web content in your classroom?"

ל
by stouset | 2025-07-08 19:31:35+00:00
To be honest, I love this framework (so far from what I've seen) but I do hate the choice of RSpec. I say this as someone who used RSpec for like a decade after it was first released. I "get" it. I have contributed code to it.

Minitest (which is bundled with Ruby these days) is Good Enough™. It doesn't require you to learn a new DSL. Everything is just Plain Old Ruby. The use of RSpec these days—IMO—is just cargo-culting forward what was the right decision from 10+ years ago. Having an pseudo-English style interface for testing isn't worth having the additional dependencies nor the mental overhead of needing to know how the RSpec syntax is actually mapped into Ruby concepts.

I'm not asking you to change it, you're welcome to have a different opinion than mine. But I am curious if you have strong reasons for requiring it. Particularly because MiniTest seems to be well-aligned with the rest of your design philosophies, unlike RSpec.
by bee_rider | 2025-07-08 19:32:02+00:00
I don’t think they fully merged their pantheons as a logical exercise. I suspect the problem of why (from the Romans point of view) the Egyptians made different observations could be resolved in various ways; depending on how multiculturalist the Roman was, he could understand the Egyptians as being just, like, wrong about everything, or he could interpret their beliefs as observations of some other aspect of Apollo. If those multi-cultural beliefs about Apollo doing things in Egypt bounced around enough, they could be integrated into the conventional Roman belief system, but it could happen smoothly, so it needn’t cause any cognitive stress.

The ACOUP guy did a nice series about polytheism [ https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polythei... ]. An observation that stuck with me is that polytheist people (at least where he studied) were less focused on Orthodoxy, and more on Orthopraxy. If you have a give-and-take relationship with the gods (instead of one where the God frequently checks what you are actually are thinking inside your head and nothing is truly transactional), I wonder if you are more willing to go along with Egyptian rituals while you are in Egypt. Apparently Apollo is fine with the Egyptian rituals. In Egypt at least.

Well, you probably will be ok with doing an Egyptian farming ritual. I guess if you are a Roman, you probably are pretty confident that the gods are receptive to your pre-battle rituals, given their track record.

Anyway, if your Roman ritual was just something that your ancestors discovered through trial and error, I guess you probably won’t be too freaked out by the fact that the Egyptians’ ancestors found a different ritual. The gods are mysterious and temperamental, after all.
by em-bee | 2025-07-08 19:32:12+00:00
i am fully with ksec. the issue with sidebars is that they not only take up space, which feels wasted, but are also a distraction. i have the browser always on fullsceen, the tabbar at the top fades into the background letting me focus on the page i an currently reading. when i want to search for a tab then i use the dropdown which takes more space than the sidebar but also shows more of the title of each tab.
by kelthuzad | 2025-07-08 19:32:15+00:00
I'm just reading the docs and it seems more capable than that: https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/islands/#server-islands

I have also just discovered a dedicated section for the migration from Nuxt to Astro:

>Key Similarities between Nuxt and Astro

Nuxt and Astro share some similarities that will help you migrate your project:

- Astro projects can also be SSG or SSR with page level prerendering.

- Astro uses file-based routing, and allows specially named pages to create dynamic routes.

- Astro is component-based, and your markup structure will be similar before and after your migration.

- Astro has an official integration for using Vue components.

- Astro has support for installing NPM packages, including Vue libraries. You may be able to keep some or all of your existing Vue components and dependencies.

https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/migrate-to-astro/from-nux...
by solarwindy | 2025-07-08 19:32:29+00:00
What is a visualisation?

Our rod and cone cells could just as well be wired up in any other configuration you care to imagine. And yet, an organisation or mapping that preserves spatial relationships has been strongly preferred over billions of years of evolution, allowing us most easily to make sense of the world. Put another way, spatial feature detectors have emerged as an incredible versatile substrate for ‘live-action’ generation of world models.

What do we do when we visualise, then? We take abstract relationships (in data, in a conceptual framework, whatever) and map them in a structure-preserving way to an embodiment (ink on paper, pixels on screen) that can wind its way through our perceptual machinery that evolved to detect spatial relationships. That is, we leverage our highly developed capability for pattern matching in the visual domain to detect patterns that are not necessarily visual at all, but which nevertheless have some inherent structure that is readily revealed that way.

What does any of this entail for machine intelligence?

On the one hand, if a problem has an inherent spatial logic to it, then it ought to have good learning gradients in the direction of a spatial organisation of the raw input. So, if specifically training for such a problem, the serialisation probably doesn’t much matter.

On the other hand: expecting a language model to generalise to inherently spatial reasoning? I’m totally with you. Why should we expect good performance?

No clue how the unification might be achieved, but I’d wager that language + action-prediction models will be far more capable than models grounded in language alone. After all, what does ‘cat’ mean to a language model that’s never seen one pounce and purr and so on? (Pictures don’t really count.)
by kragen | 2025-07-08 19:32:52+00:00
I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but it does seem like a defensible one to me, for three reasons.

First, nobody knew if even TSMC was going to succeed at bringing a 7nm process to market. 02018 was maybe the height of the "Moore's Law is over" belief. There was a lot of debate about whether planar semiconductor scaling had finally reached the limit of practical feasibility, although clearly it was still two orders of magnitude from the single-atom physical limit, which had been reached by Xie's lab in 02002. Like Intel, SMIC didn't reach 7nm until 02023 (with the HiSilicon processor for Huawei's Mate60 cellphone) despite having the full backing of the world's most technically productive country, and when they did, it was a shocking surprise in international relations with the US.

Second, even if GF had brought 7nm to market, there was no guarantee it would be profitable. The most profitable companies in a market are not always the most technically advanced; often the pioneers die with arrows in their backs. If you can make 7nm chips in volume, but the price for them is so high that almost everyone sticks with 12nm processes (maybe from your competitors), you can still lose money on the R&D. Moore's Law as originally stated in "Cramming" was about how the minimum price per transistor kept moving to smaller and smaller transistors, and historically that has been an immensely strong impetus to move to smaller processes, but it's clearly weakened in recent years, with many successful semiconductor products like high-end FPGAs still shipping on very old process nodes. (Leaving aside analog, which is a huge market that doesn't benefit from smaller feature size.)

Third, we don't know what the situation inside GF was, and maybe GF's CEO did. Maybe they'd just lost all their most important talent to TSMC or Samsung, so their 7nm project was doomed. Maybe their management politics were internally dysfunctional in a way that blocked progress on 7nm, even if it hadn't been canceled. There's no guarantee that GF would have been successful at mass production of 7nm chips even in a technical sense, no matter how much money they spent on it.

In the end it seems like GF lost the bet pretty badly. But that doesn't necessarily imply that it was the wrong bet. Just, probably.