MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by airstrike | 2025-07-12 14:06:14+00:00
When I was a kid in the 90s, a teacher in the school shut their car door with their key inside. It was late into the afternoon and the school was a ways out, so with no expectation that they could get service any time soon, other teachers started trying their own keys.

To everyone's surprise, out a car key from a totally different make and model worked. The details of that one instance are obviously fuzzy at this point, but if I had to guess, it might have been made possible thanks to the AutoLatina JV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoLatina
by jerlendds | 2025-07-12 14:06:25+00:00
It's going good! I'm currently taking some time off work due to medical issues I ran into which is kinda nice since I get to dedicate more time to OSINTBuddy. Overall my journey has had plenty of ups and downs. In short I'll be forever grateful to the software industry for being mostly meritocratic, I'm not sure where my life would be if all companies required degrees.
Show HN: Cogency – Cognitive Architecture for AI Agents
by cogencyai | 2025-07-12 14:06:26+00:00
Yesterday I built something that probably shouldn’t exist yet. In 9 hours, I created a cognitive architecture demonstrating emergent reasoning.

It follows a 5-step loop: Plan → Reason → Act → Reflect → Respond. Adding a WebSearchTool to test extensibility, the agent initially failed its first search, reflected on poor results, adapted its query, and then succeeded. This behavior wasn’t programmed; it emerged naturally from the architecture.

Five hours later, I integrated a FileManagerTool — it worked on the first try. Like code compiling first time, except this was intelligence composing zero-config.

Key insight: separating cognitive operations from tool orchestration enables true composability. Most frameworks conflate these, resulting in brittle, unpredictable agents.

Commit timeline: https://github.com/iteebz/cogency

It’s pip-installable (pip install cogency) with production-ready components. Currently dogfooding across projects.

Seeking feedback from the community on the approach and implementation.
by interestica | 2025-07-12 14:06:53+00:00
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1

> Recommendations The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity: 1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. 2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes and Boeing Model 737- 8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature.
by willsmith72 | 2025-07-12 14:07:23+00:00
"not breaking things they like" is a very low bar for building a great product

To be honest building things this way seems like such a competitive disadvantage I don't see how it could ever work at scale. Certainly all the big players are using them. If we shake our heads at the little players doing the same, we're just going to widen the moat
by DonHopkins | 2025-07-12 14:07:32+00:00
The point isn't that I'm making excuses for Texas voters, it's that you're both ignorantly making pathetic excuses for high tech companies, and ignorantly making false statements about Texas voters.

You're wrong that Texas hasn't voted Republican since the 60's: they've voted Republican since Reagan in 1981. And they voted Democrat long before the 60s when they were segregationist, before the Republicans became the racist party with the Southern Strategy.

Is this really a surprise to you because you are you a Russian troll who never learned about US history, or are you just too intellectually lazy to look it up in Wikipedia?

Solid Democratic South: Texas backed Democrats for president through the mid-1960s -- even as the party enforced segregationist policies at home—carrying LBJ with 63.32% in 1964.

1960s Democratic wins: John F. Kennedy won Texas in 1960 (50.52% - 48.52%) and Hubert Humphrey narrowly carried it in 1968 with 41.14%.

Early “swing” elections: Richard Nixon broke through in 1972 (66.20% for Nixon vs. 33.24% for McGovern), but Democrats reclaimed it for Jimmy Carter in 1976 (51.14%).

Reagan realignment: Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s win in 1980, Texas has voted Republican in every presidential contest since.

Statewide Democratic comebacks: Even after that, Texas elected Democrat Mark White governor in 1982 (53% - 46%) and Ann Richards in 1990 (49.5% - 46.9%).

U.S. Senate (Democratic representation)

Ralph Yarborough (D) served from 1957 - 1971, leading the liberal wing of the party in Washington

Lloyd Bentsen (D) won the Class 1 seat in 1970 (took office 1971) and was reelected in 1976, 1982, and 1988 -- he remains the last Democrat Texas voters sent to the Senate in a general election.

Bob Krueger (D) was appointed by Governor Ann Richards in January 1993 to fill Bentsen’s seat; he served until June 1993, when he lost the special election to Kay Bailey Hutchison (R).

Governor’s Mansion & Statewide Offices

Mark White (D) broke the GOP’s hold in 1982, defeating incumbent Bill Clements and serving as governor 1983 - 1987.

Ann Richards (D) won the 1990 gubernatorial race -- she was governor 1991 - 1995 and the last Democrat (and last woman) to hold that office.

Texas Legislature

Senate majority: Democrats held the State Senate until 1996 (75th Legislature); Republicans first took control in 1997.

House majority: Democrats controlled the Texas House through 2002; Republicans gained it in 2003 (78th Legislature).
by earcar | 2025-07-12 14:07:40+00:00
Why not bump it to 10,000 threads? The post shows: the OS scheduler struggles badly, 18x slower allocation, 17x slower context switching. That’s measured overhead, not theory.

Complexity? We migrated in 30 minutes. It’s just Async blocks, not goroutine scheduling gymnastics.

Not claiming it’s a silver bullet - the post explicitly says “use threads for CPU work”. But for I/O-bound LLM streaming, the massive improvement is real and in production.
by bayindirh | 2025-07-12 14:07:49+00:00
A friend of mine developed his own game engine, and what he said is you need to bargain with the nVidia driver, because hardware doesn't perform at its peak when you write everything honoring the spec, and driver feels free to ignore your commands about how you want to do some things (e.g. memory transfers).

Like board manufacturers, the game developers also need to please the drivers and do the way driver silently dictates to them (regardless of what DirectX, OpenGL or Vulkan says), otherwise all bets are off.
by agentcoops | 2025-07-12 14:07:54+00:00
I can’t see that proposed division as anything but a straw-man. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who genuinely thinks of LLMs as an “all-knowing, all-solving oracle” and yet, even in specialist fields, their utility is certainly more than a mere “heuristic”, which of course isn’t to say they don’t have limits. See only Terrance Tao’s reports on his ongoing experiments.

Do you genuinely think it’s worse that someone makes a decision, whether good or bad, after consulting with GPT versus making it in solitude? I spoke with a handyman the other day who unprompted told me he was building a side-business and found GPT a great aid — of course they might make some terrible decisions together, but it’s unimaginable to me that increasing agency isn’t a good thing. The interesting question at this stage isn’t just about “elder parents having nice conversations”, but about computers actually becoming useful for the general population through an intuitive natural language interface. I think that’s a pretty sober assessment of where we’re at today not hyperbole. Even as an experienced engineer and researcher myself, LLMs continue to transform how I interact with computers.
by jcarterwil | 2025-07-12 14:08:32+00:00
This futurecast explores what happens when we flip the entire healthcare model from treating disease to optimizing human potential. Key technical innovations in the story:

Function Health's proteomic analysis creating personalized nutrition algorithms A WeChat-style platform ("LifeOS") that integrates health data, food purchases, insurance, and community Grocery stores with real-time biomarker integration for personalized shopping Distributed "Healthspitals" replacing centralized hospitals

The economic model is what makes it inevitable: insurers profit from keeping people healthy longer, employers see 8:1 ROI on healthspan investment, and the elimination of employer-sponsored health plans reduces administrative overhead by 40%. Based on real companies and current research, but projected forward to show system-level transformation. Curious to hear NackerNews's thoughts on the technical feasibility and potential barriers.
by bonoboTP | 2025-07-12 14:09:08+00:00
Where did you see that? You say subtle. What does that mean?

It's a fact that there are no recommendations to manufacturers or airlines yet. If they had found anything seriously suspicious they would already issue recommendations as soon as possible, not just in the final report, not even just at the prelim report, but as fast as possible. Grounding planes, forcing maintenance etc. That has not happened.

It's easy to fall in the other direction and jump on the Boeing hate bandwagon. It's become a trendy thing online.
by dgacmu | 2025-07-12 14:09:17+00:00
I tend to agree except for one recent experience: I built a quick prototype of an application whose backend I had written twice before and finally wanted to do right. But the existing infrastructure for it had bit-rotted, and I am definitely not a UI person. Every time I dive into html+js I have to spend hours updating my years-out-of-date knowledge of how to do things.

So I vibe coded it. I was extremely specific about how the back end should operate and pretty vague about the UI, and basically everything worked.

But there were a few things about this one: first, it was just a prototype. I wanted to kick around some ideas quickly, and I didn't care at all about code quality. Second, I already knew exactly how to do the hard parts in the back end, so part of the prompt input was the architecture and mechanism that I wanted.

But it spat out that html app way way faster than I could have.
by mehphp | 2025-07-12 14:09:38+00:00
I agree with all you’ve said but with regards to writing a dissertation for larger changes : have you tried letting it first right a plan for you as markdown (just keep this file uncommitted) and then let it build a checklist of things to do?

I find just referencing this file over and over works wonders and it respects items that were already checked off really well.

I can get a lot done really fast this way in small enough chunks so i know every bit of code and how it works (tweaking manually of course where needed).

But I can blow through some tickets way faster than before this way.
by stego-tech | 2025-07-12 14:10:59+00:00
> I was under the impression that LLMs are very deterministic if you provide a fixed seed for the samplers, fixed model weights, and fixed context.

That's all input-side, though. On the output side, you can essentially give an LLM anxiety by asking the exact same question in different ways, and the machine doesn't understand anymore that you're asking the exact same question.

For instance, take one of these fancy "reasoning" models and ask it variations on 2+2. Try two plus two, 2 plus two, deux plus 2, TwO pLuS 2, etc, and observe its "reasoning" outputs to see the knots it ties itself up in trying to understand why you keep asking the same calculation over and over again. Running an older DeepSeek model locally, the "reasoning" portion continued growing in time and tokens as it struggled to provide context that didn't exist to a simple problem that older/pre-AI models wouldn't bat an eye at and spit out "4".

Trying to wrangle consistent, reproducible outputs from LLMs without guaranteeing consistent inputs is a fool's errand.
by Domainzsite | 2025-07-12 14:11:07+00:00
This is pure internet mischief at its finest. Weaponizing fake JPEGs with valid structure and random payloads to burn botnet cycles? Brilliant. Love the tradeoff thinking: maximize crawler cost, minimize CPU. The Huffman bitmask tweak is chef’s kiss. Spigot feels like a spiritual successor to robots.txt flipping you off in binary.
by anal_reactor | 2025-07-12 14:11:44+00:00
I think there are two problems:

1. AI is a genuine threat to lots of white-collar jobs, and people instinctively deny this reality. See that very few articles here are "I found a nice use case for AI", most of them are "I found a use case where AI doesn't work (yet)". Does it sound like tech enthusiasts? Or rather people terrified of tech?

2. Current AI is advanced enough to have us ask deeper questions about consciousness and intelligence. Some answers might be very uncomfortable and threaten the social contract, hence the denial.
by yawpitch | 2025-07-12 14:11:45+00:00
Go feed some pigeons.

Seriously, just buy a bag of seed, go find some pigeons, and feed them.

Now, watch them, carefully… see how hard they work, every day, even when they’re hobbling around on grotesque stumps where their feet used to be before they got wrapped up in our discarded waste.

Notice how something can put so much effort into just surviving, against all the odds, and against the abuse and mistreatment and just casual negligent brutality inflicted upon them by your species. See how they aren’t focused on money or jobs or learning or prestige, just on being now and being for a bit longer.

See how they’ll eventually trust you enough to approach or land on your hand to feed. How, if you do this day after day, they’ll recognize you and wait for you.

The only living thing that won’t, eventually, react to a modicum of gentleness and kindness with trust is a human.

You’re not on this planet to earn money. You’re not here to work. You’re certainly not here to build edifices of ephemeral noise. You’re here to be, while you can.

Pay your parents back on their real investment, by dedicating your time to them. Be there to care for them as they age. Give them a bit of gentleness and kindness… they need that much more than they need the fiction that is money.

When they’re done, then check out if you want to. I’ve been suicidal for as long as I can remember, I’m faking it until there’s no one else to care for. That’s enough.

No one is beyond redemption, if only because there’s no such thing as redemption in the first place.
by llm_nerd | 2025-07-12 14:12:26+00:00
There are a huge number of reasons for large scale systems. Batching sizes when hitting MoE systems (which are basically all LLMs now) leading to routing variations. Consecutive submissions could be routed to entirely different hardware, software, and even quantization levels! Repeat resubmissions could even hit different variations of a model.

No one targets determinism because randomness/"creativity" in LLMs is considered a prime feature, so there is zero reason to avoid variation, but that isn't some core function of LLMs.
by skeledrew | 2025-07-12 14:13:08+00:00
I figured this would become an issue from the first story about some websites not allowing LLM access popped up. It's a simple leap to find that the narratives which will become widely known and accepted over time are those which are made widely available, and so IMO those who seek to push their narrative will just optimize for AI to train on or otherwise utilize their content. Those who seek to lock their content away will become less and less heard/relevant. And if/when at some point we start handing far greater control of life aspects to AI, we'll find it skewing in favor of the former, and wonder why.
by da_chicken | 2025-07-12 14:13:19+00:00
This reasoning is essentially circular.

You're saying that the design makes sense because there's a definition, and the definition is what makes it make sense.

There is value in having defined behaviors, but those behaviors can't be immune from criticism. That's letting the tail wag the dog. The purpose of a program is not to execute the rules of the programming language. It's to perform a real and useful task. If those real and useful tasks are complicated because synthetic and arbitrary behaviors of the language exist, then the language is wrong. The tool exists to do work. The work does not exist to provide academic examples for the language.

And, yes, it's possible for it to be impossible to determine a reasonable behavior, but that still doesn't mean we can't have reasonable behavior whenever possible.
by DoctorOetker | 2025-07-12 14:15:32+00:00
Energy levels and activation energies can be acquired much more simply from Fourier Transform - Ion Cyclotron Resonance - Mass Spectroscopy...

Its a device that makes and analyzes at the same time, check out this primer:

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/chemistry/research/oconnor/oco...
by BillyTheMage | 2025-07-12 14:15:51+00:00
Dig slightly deeper into all this realm of right-wing software stuff. The X11 thing led me down a rabbit hole. All sorts of nonsense.

I found a CODE_OF_ETHICS that's full of Christian requirements, like you have to believe in god and do all that self-hating "attribute all good to god and all bad to yourself" nonsense. And these people think they're being "anti-discriminatory". LOL
by whodidntante | 2025-07-12 14:16:09+00:00
This, and many other things in the area of science, is an embarrassment.

However, I feel that what is argued about, by all sides, misses the point.

The US spends 2X what China does on civilian space programs, and 4X what Europe spends. We spend 2X as much on health care, 1.5X as much on education, and 2X as much on science research.

Our systems are inefficient and corrupt, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Arguing for or against how much money we need to spend or to cut is just the modern day circus that distracts everyone from the real problems and provides everyone on both sides with feel good excuses.
by bonoboTP | 2025-07-12 14:16:13+00:00
The thing is, people always want something to be done. And politicians want to do something. No matter what kind of action it is, someone knifed a kid on the street, we must ban knives of a certain length. A pilot downs a plane while the other leaves the cockpit - we must mandate two pilots always present. Someone hides explosives in his shoe - we must X-ray all shoes of all passengers forever. Etc.

The human brain can't take the idea that yeah an exceedingly rare thing happened and we're not going to do anything, because rare things do happen sometimes. And the medicine can be worse than the disease. We just accept that yeah, despite best efforts, some pilots will be hostile for whatever mental reasons. Not saying that is what happened in this case, but just saying that IF that happened.

We need more tradeoff thinking, instead of do something! thinking.
by jfengel | 2025-07-12 14:16:49+00:00
There is only one thing that might help: making it clear that this is going to keep happening. There are a lot of people who could help, but haven't in the past. If a small fraction of them realize that this is a problem that they can help fix with very little effort, then maybe it might get better.

Having said that, here's the really unhelpful part: I don't think this will work, either. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people vote the same every time, including choosing not to vote. The only thing that changes is a microscopic minority, and they choose randomly. I believe that if we re-ran the 2024 election again right now, the result would be identical.

I point that out only to say the my original comment is me being optimistic. I actually think it's even worse.
by hv23 | 2025-07-12 14:17:09+00:00
Digging in here more... why would you say it isn't in Anthropic's interest to win the "agentic coding UI" market?

My mental model is that these foundation model companies will need to invest in and win in a significant number of the app layer markets in order to realize enough revenue to drive returns. And if coding / agentic coding is one of the top X use cases for tokens at the app layer, seems logical that they'd want to be a winner in this market.

Is your view that these companies will be content to win at the model layer and be agnostic as to the app layer?
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-07-12 14:17:19+00:00
Gasp! Are you referring to a lively marketplace of ideas and the intrinsic dynamics of competition within that marketplace?

Nobody said it's without cost to hold non-consensus views. The point is that those costs are incurred by the marketplace of ideas itself (people being "mean" to you, not the state beheading you) and that, in the long run, correct views become the consensus through winning such competitions over and over again.

There are alternative regimes where incorrect views can reign indefinitely because they choose to prevent people from criticizing each others' views.
by intended | 2025-07-12 14:17:56+00:00
The things I have noted offline included a HK case where someone got a link to a zoom call with what seemed to be his team mates and CFO, and then transferring money as per the CFOs instructions.

The error here was to click on a phishing email.

But something I have seen myself is Tim Cook talking about a crypto coin right after the 2024 Apple keynote, on a YT channel that showed the Apple logo. It took me a bit to realize and reassure myself that it was a scam. Even though it was a video of the shoulders up.

The bigger issue we face isn’t the outright fraud and scamming, it’s that our ability to make out fakes easily is weakened - the Liar’s dividend.

It’s by default a shot in the arm for bullshit and lies.

On some days I wonder if the inability to sort between lies, misinformation, initial ideas, fair debate, argument, theory and fact at scale - is the great filter.
by spaceprison | 2025-07-12 14:18:08+00:00
There’s more to life than money, this is why your parents are willing to “waste” it on you.

When I was in a similar rut/loop the best thing that happened to me was when I finally stopped trying to keep up appearances, got honest and asked for help.

It was embarrassing to finally humble myself to ask for help, luckily embarrassment isn’t life threatening, just really uncomfortable for a minute.

The people in my life wanted to help me more than they wanted repayment. They helped in finding a gp the gp helped find a psychologist and then they all helped find a psychiatrist.
by CPLX | 2025-07-12 14:18:21+00:00
> it becomes easy to deduce that based on point 2, switch was not human induced

This just isn’t correct at all. The evidence isn’t conclusive but if a human operated switch was flipped, and one of the humans present says to the other one hey why did you do that, then Ockham’s razor points to a human flipping the switch.

It’s not the only option, but it’s certainly the most likely.
by Someone | 2025-07-12 14:19:33+00:00
I would think name mangling is out of scope for a programming language definition, more so for C and C++, which target running on anything under the sun, including systems that do not have libraries, do not have the concept of shared libraries or do not have access to function names at runtime.

> It would be really nice to have some way to get symbol names and calling semantics

Again, I think that’s out of scope for a programming language. Also, is it even possible to have a way to describe low level calling semantics for any CPU in a way such that a program can use that info? The target CPU may not have registers or may not have a stack, may have multiple types of memory, may have segmented memory, etc.