MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by joe_the_user | 2025-07-17 06:10:00+00:00
It's remarkable how many people are uncritically talking of "malevolent data" as it is was a well-defined concept that everyone knows is the source of bad things.

A simple good search reveals ... this very thread as a primary source on the topic of "malevolent data" (ha, ha). But it should be noted that all other sources mentioning the phrase define it as data intentionally modified to produce a bad effect. It seems clear the problems of badly behaved LLMs don't come from this. Sycophancy, notably, doesn't just appear out of "sycophantic data" cleverly inserted by the association of allied sycophants.
by throwaway7356 | 2025-07-17 06:10:25+00:00
> Killfile and all, same as it ever was.

Ah, so not blocked. Thanks for confirming.

> Is this LLM hallucination? The victim of the pedophile was 11. Sad to see even LLMs will twist themselves into hallucinations defending pedophiles.

No, that is not correct, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44565662.

Please stop lying for once. Ideally also stop "investigating" preteens on the internet that you have no relation with.

If you have no idea what you are even saying, just shut up instead of stalking preteens. Or do you prefer coming up with new excuses why you have a vested interest in preteens?

> Sorry, we don't want to be a pedo bar, and we support preteen victims of violent sexual abuse.

By "investigating" preteens, it looks more like you want to expand your bar from Nazi bar to Nazi & Interested-in-Preteens Bar. Enjoy the Xlibre/Lunduke community!
by somenameforme | 2025-07-17 06:10:29+00:00
You're jumping from the start to the end. For instance you do not start with large scale agriculture on Mars - that will be a decades long project that will start with simple greenhouses. The first missions will be bringing 200% of the food they need with themselves, and then working to establish and ensure (as there will be unmanned deployments ahead of time) domestic life support systems. And the first habs will be exactly what we land in - the rockets themselves.

I think an important thing to consider is that in contemporary times most institutions are 100% risk averse outside of war. With Mars that will always be an impossible initial threshold. Because not only are there known unknowns, but also a practically infinite number of unknown unknowns. When we landed on the Moon internal estimates at NASA gave us about a 50% chance of success, which is why the public obituary for the astronauts was written before they'd even left Earth. Early on in the Apollo program NASA even ended up scrapping mathematical risk modeling because the numbers were always coming back so grim that they found it impossible to move forward with them.

Of course that doesn't been they were just suicidally YOLOing it. There was (and will be) extensive planning and preparation, but you have to strike a balance between achieving things and working to create an acceptable perceived risk factor. So for a practical example - the long-term effects of low g, as opposed to 0 g, can be relatively safely ignored. There's every reason to think that low g will be much closer to 'normal' gravity than 0g in terms of effects, and predictable bone/muscle deterioration can be mitigated with exercise or even weight suits much more easily than on the ISS.

---

An even more general issue is that the best place to test things with relation to Mars is Mars itself, because Mars is far closer to the Earth in just about every way than it is to the Moon, let alone the ISS. So we have things like the Mars Desert Research Station in Utah, or AMADEE-18 that was carried out in Oman. But at the end of the day it's Earth - we know the conclusion of these simulations, and there's limitations on what we can simulate.
by pfannkuchen | 2025-07-17 06:10:34+00:00
> compared to most tv programs

Modern media is so replete with hyper stimuli that it is often hard to see where the line is between what is evolutionarily congruent and what is greater.

I don’t see how knowing you is relevant. This is my position on what most people do. Either you have a different viewpoint on this than the mainstream and yet arrived at the very same conclusions, or I essentially am familiar with your viewpoint in this area. What have I gotten wrong?
by thekevan | 2025-07-17 06:10:43+00:00
The Samsung Galaxy Note (the first one) had a screen size of 5.3 inches.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 2 had a screen size of 5.5 inches. I had one and regularly had strangers ask me if that was really a phone. I had friends say, "Give me a call on your tablet" as a joke.

I loved it. Now my 6.1 inch iPhone feels on the small side.
by NackerHughes | 2025-07-17 06:11:41+00:00
> GPTBot et al. will probably do the same, as more people use AI to replace search.

It really won’t. It will steal your website’s content and regurgitate it back out in a mangled form to any lazy prompt that gets prodded into it. GPT bots are a perfect example of the parasites you speak of that have destroyed any possibility of an open web.
by pjmlp | 2025-07-17 06:12:15+00:00
I think that is where they are going with mesh shaders, amplification shaders and bringing more C++ into HLSL, but still as part of DirectX 12.

I don't imagine them pushing for a DirectX 13, only available on Windows 12 onwards kind of thing, as they have done in past.

Either way, I see we will be back to software rendering, although it is actually hardware accelerated.
by keiferski | 2025-07-17 06:12:51+00:00
I don’t really buy this narrative anymore, and I think it’s more a reflection of individualist technologists than how regular people interact with culture. A big percentage of what’s read or watched is driven by what other people are reading or watching and has nothing to do with personal preferences. Just look at the Netflix shows that become extremely popular and watched by huge amounts of people, mostly to be discussed online or with friends. That behavior isn’t going away just because an AI can make a book or show tailored to my consumer preferences.
by tinytoon | 2025-07-17 06:13:09+00:00
I can confirm, that Apple my misunderstood the market: I was eager to buy a new iPhone because I just finished my masters degree and started a new job, had a bit of money and than the SE2 launched. My 5s or SE1 started to age and as an beginner app developer a current phone was important. I was so happy because I could not see my self using one of those bigger phones even though the SE2 was still bigger than my 5s/SE1. A few months later the mini was released and my initial reaction was "OMG this is THE perfect phone, but I just got a new one... i can not afford to buy another one".
by jakegmaths | 2025-07-17 06:14:44+00:00
I'm writing this on a Unihertz Jelly Star which is tiny, and I consider it my "protest phone" at the lack of decent small phones.

A friend jokingly calls it my "microphone", another a "prison phone" (due to its size allowing for more easily smuggling in body cavities). Occasionally I go to mobile phone shops and ask if they have a case for it just for the fun of seeing the look on their faces when they see it (I don't actually want a case, and in fact it came with one which I threw in the bin).

Personally, I couldn't be happier with it.

Only problems: they don't do software updates; camera is poor; non-OLED screen.

In an ideal world I'd have a slightly bigger phone, but not too much bigger. I've grown very fond of this phone.
by gonzobonzo | 2025-07-17 06:15:32+00:00
It feels like 95% of the people are responding to the headline instead of reading the article. From the article:

> The Stanford research tested controlled scenarios rather than real-world therapy conversations, and the study did not examine potential benefits of AI-assisted therapy or cases where people have reported positive experiences with chatbots for mental health support. In an earlier study, researchers from King's College and Harvard Medical School interviewed 19 participants who used generative AI chatbots for mental health and found reports of high engagement and positive impacts, including improved relationships and healing from trauma. ** > "This isn't simply 'LLMs for therapy is bad,' but it's asking us to think critically about the role of LLMs in therapy," Haber told the Stanford Report, which publicizes the university's research. "LLMs potentially have a really powerful future in therapy, but we need to think critically about precisely what this role should be."
by hunglee2 | 2025-07-17 06:16:21+00:00
CHIPS act nuked Intel. The promise of unlimited US govt support to make a US TSMC encouraged Gelsinger to all in on domestic fab production, only to rugged first by Biden DEI stipulations, then by Trump 2.0 coercing Taipei to give up TSMC and start production in Arizona. All this while export controls cut Intel out from its second largest market (China), depriving it of much need revenue. Workers in Oregon losing jobs is downstream of all this
by fc417fc802 | 2025-07-17 06:16:32+00:00
Fully agree with you that the way much (but not all) of the publication process currently works is bad for everyone involved (including the taxpayer).

But I'd like to push back against the following.

> the way we say "hasn't been peer reviewed" implies that if it has been published in a journal then it's factual.

I think that's ascribing meaning that isn't actually there. Peer review _does_ tell you something. Certainly not "guaranteed correct" or even "guaranteed high quality" but it is definitely some sort of signal to the reader. Consider that this is nothing more than proactively pointing out that a linked paper which closely resembles work that would typically be affiliated with a journal (a signal gated by an editor) be peer reviewed (another signal) and those reviews possibly made public (yet another signal) does not have any of these signals. That is to say, it's an important disclaimer in order to avoid the appearance of attempting to deceive the audience.
by dwaite | 2025-07-17 06:17:11+00:00
Some of these are hard comparisons specifically because what you are describing is really the initial exit. Acquisitions are often not funded by valuation as much as an actual plan to make money.

Something like Minecraft for an example - the existing established customer base with perpetual license was not justification for buying it. The value Microsoft saw was around things like DLC content and cosmetics, and subscription revenue through server hosting.

From what I have observed - one could say that everything Apple acquires is an accu-hire first, for a product they want to ship and trying to find a delivery-focused team to help them with that.

If the company already built a product similar to that and had it hit the market - thats great! It means that they are getting a team which has delivered successfully and maybe even have a significant head start toward Apple's MVP. That likely means also that the team will have a fair bit of autonomy too (and often retain their brands).

DarkSky's product in that light wasn't their app. It was their work on localized weather models and their weather API.

Apple's Weather App doesn't look like DarkSky, but AFAICT you could rebuild the DarkSky app on the WeatherKit REST API (including features like historical weather, and supporting alternative platforms like Android).
by 47282847 | 2025-07-17 06:17:45+00:00
Winston, R., & Chicot, R. (2016). The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children. London journal of primary care, 8(1), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17571472.2015.1133012

Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Neff, C. (2012). Father involvement, paternal sensitivity, and father-child attachment security in the first 3 years. Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 26(3), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027836

Deneault, A. A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Groh, A. M., Fearon, P. R. M., & Madigan, S. (2021). Child-father attachment in early childhood and behavior problems: A meta-analysis. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2021(180), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20434

Scism, A. R., & Cobb, R. L. (2017). Integrative Review of Factors and Interventions That Influence Early Father-Infant Bonding. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN, 46(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2016.09.004

Jeong, J., Franchett, E. E., Ramos de Oliveira, C. V., Rehmani, K., & Yousafzai, A. K. (2021). Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine, 18(5), e1003602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003602

Joas, J., & Möhler, E. (2021). Bonding in Early Infancy Predicts Childrens' Social Competences in Preschool Age. Frontiers in psychiatry, 12, 687535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.687535

Thümmler R, Engel E-M, Bartz J. Strengthening Emotional Development and Emotion Regulation in Childhood—As a Key Task in Early Childhood Education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):3978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073978
by Dylan16807 | 2025-07-17 06:17:53+00:00
> At scale it does when “serious downsides” are both common and actually serious like death.

Yeah but the argument about how it works today is completely different from the argument about "theoretical limitations of the underlying technology". The theory would be making it orders of magnitude less common.

> Not when the underlying idea is flawed enough. You can’t get from the earth to the moon by training yourself to jump that distance, I don’t care who you’re asking to design your exercise routine.

We're talking about poor accuracy aren't we? That doesn't fundamentally sabotage the plan. Accuracy can be improved, and the best we have (humans) have accuracy problems too.
by toast0 | 2025-07-17 06:19:20+00:00
> The lack of correlation between sound and letter is embarrassing.

Well, it's worse than that, because English speakers don't agree on how words sound.

So, if we started spelling things like they sound, words would get misspelled (or perhaps misspelt) a lot more than now. There's a lot of vowel shifts from place to place ... but not for all instances of those vowel sounds in all words. Some people like to add r's that aren't there, but there's a few places to do it.

You'd need a much tighter language community to enforce consistent enough pronunciation that a phonetic alphabet would work. And you'd be giving up centuries of printed works to do it.
by ste_berna | 2025-07-17 06:19:48+00:00
Hi HN,

I recently finished writing a guide to help small SaaS teams figure out what to build (and what to ignore) once they’ve found some traction.

It’s based on my experience bootstrapping a B2B SaaS to over €1M ARR in the past 10 years. The framework came out of our own mess: too many ideas, no PM, lots of pressure, and no clear way to prioritize.

I tried to make it practical, with real examples, clear steps, no fluff. It covers:

- How to figure out who you’re really building for

- Mapping KPIs to outcomes

- Building a “Decision Map” and 3-year execution plan

- Avoiding reactive product work

It’s ~16k words and free on Notion (no email wall): https://www.notion.so/redokun/What-Should-We-Build-Next-21f3...

I’d love feedback, especially:

- Is this useful for other small/bootstrapped teams?

- Anything confusing or unclear?

- Should I turn it into a more polished book?

Thanks to anyone who checks it out

P.S. You can also leave comments directly in the Notion file
by gonzobonzo | 2025-07-17 06:20:04+00:00
Therapy gone wrong lead to wide scale witch hunts across the U.S. in the 1980's that dwarfed the Salem Witch trials. A huge number of therapists had come to believe the now mostly debunked "recovered memory" theory to construct the idea that there were networks of secret Satanists across the U.S. that needed to be weeded out. Countless lives were destroyed. I've yet to see therapy as a profession come to terms with the damage they did.

"These people are credentialed professionals so I'm sure they're fine" is an extremely dangerous and ahistorical position to take.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-17 06:20:10+00:00
If you know about the third party doctrine and you still collect user data while praising the ideal of privacy, I think you’re serving at least two masters, and Mammon is one. Privacy may be another, but I’m free to doubt your commitment to privacy while serving idols. I don’t believe that anonymization is the issue, though it’s related. It’s about creating a system of control, and I have no desire to be part of that system.

They’re outsourcing the liability and accountability of gathering the data in the first place while saying they value my privacy. I know they do: they’re cashing the checks.
by zpeti | 2025-07-17 06:20:31+00:00
A lot of the comparisons I see revolve around comparing a perfect therapist to an LLM. This isn't the best comparison, because I've been to 4 different therapists over my life an only one of them actually helped me (2 of them spent most of the therapy telling me stories about themselves. These are licensed therapists!!) There are really bad therapists out there.

An LLM, especially chatgpt is like a friend who's on your side, who DOES encourage you and takes your perspective every time. I think this is still a step up from loneliness.

And a final point, ultimately an LLM is a statistical machine that takes the most likely response to your issues based on an insane amount of human data. Therefore it is very likely to actually make some pretty good calls about what it should respond, you might even say it takes the best (or most common) in humanity and reflects that to you. This also might be better than a therapist, who could easily just view your sitation through their own live's lense, which is suboptimal.
by gavmor | 2025-07-17 06:21:10+00:00
> Those of the Elven-race that lived still in Middle-earth waned and faded, and Men usurped the sunlight. Then the Quendi wandered in the lonely places of the great lands and the isles, and took to the moonlight and the starlight, and to the woods and caves, becoming as shadows and memories, save those who ever and anon set sail into the West and vanished from Middle-earth.

(J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion)
by uecker | 2025-07-17 06:21:20+00:00
I only have limited experience with Rust (only playing around a bit). But it seems the language forces you to structure the code in a specific way (and you seem to agree). This is good, because it prevents you from making a mess (at some level at least). But what others report (and it matches my limited experience) is that it makes the structure of the code very rigid. So I do not quite see how this does not limit refactoring? What some of you describe in this thread is type-directed refactoring (i.e. you change a type and the compiler tells what you need to change), but is this not limited to relatively basic changes?

In C, you can make partial changes and accept a temporary inconsistency. This gives you a lot of flexibility that I find helpful.
by famouswaffles | 2025-07-17 06:21:20+00:00
>Pointing out that they got that DAU/MAU by registering their own users to it is precisely the point that is being made - this metric is a meaningless gauge of how popular an app is, and especially when viewed from the context of this argument.

How does that make DAU/MAU growth meaningless ? Threads has special context. That's it. Almost all the other software applications that orbited that record are staples of internet life today. So because one entry had some special circumstances to take into account (that users weren't gained from scratch), the growth as a concept or comparison (for uses gained from scratch) is meaningless ? How does that make any sense ?

Also, yeah strong adoption (which is the real point here beyond just the growth) is a strong signal for satisfaction. It's very strange to claim most people don't like the output of what has half a billion weekly active users and is one of the most visited sites on the planet.

>Besides that being a wild jump on its own, it's incorrect.

It's not incorrect. Threads was the fastest to hit some early milestones (like 100M) sure but since growth stalled, ChatGPT is still the software application with the fastest adoption because it reached further milestones threads hasn't and may not reach.
by maltris | 2025-07-17 06:21:34+00:00
Being the parent of a child in the boys age, this was incredibly hard to read. I started yesterday, stopped half way through, could not sleep at first, woke up in the morning to finish the story. To me, as a non-native english speaker, the story is very well written to paint an extensive picture of the events unfolding as well of the environment, which made it much more frightening.
by Expurple | 2025-07-17 06:21:49+00:00
> The "70%" is just nonsense.

Care to elaborate why?

> And cherry picking individual benchmarks too.

Do you have any general, comprehensive benchmarks or statistics that would indicate the opposite? I would include one if I had one at hand, because that would be a stronger argument! But I'm not aware of such benchmarks. I have to cherry pick individual projects. I don't want to.

I still claim that, as a general trend, Rust replacements are faster while also being less bug-prone and taking much less time to write. Another such example is ripgrep.
by aucisson_masque | 2025-07-17 06:21:56+00:00
It’s an interesting take but I believe most people just prefer bigger phone. I know it’s weird to those of us who like the opposite and funnily enough it’s often women who have gigantic phone, which they can’t put in their tiny jean pocket.

I don’t explain it and every time I get explained they like it better because it’s got bigger battery and bigger screen, I just don’t understand how you could live your life with a brick constantly on you but it’s what people want.

The market just adapted to the demand and it’s not a 40k « petition » that will change much.