MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jfindley | 2025-07-07 13:34:32+00:00
If you want people to take your benchmark seriously, you'd need to provide a very great deal more information on how those numbers are generated. "It's complicated, just trust me" isn't a good enough explanation.

If you want people to listen, you need to have a link where you explain what hardware you're using, what settings you're using, what apps/games you're running, what metrics you're using and how you compute your Magical Number.

My already high level of sceptism is compounded by some scarcely-believable results, such as that according to your testing the i9-14900K and i9-13900K have essentially identical performance. Other, more reputable and established sources do not agree with you (to put it mildly).
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-07-07 13:35:02+00:00
>Why should they suffer the consequences of political and corporate mismanagement ?

Who said they should? Nobody should ideally, but that's the way the world works: shit rolls downhill. And being a cheeky little shit at work, will not result in a revolutionary change at the top of corporations leadership the way you imagine, but will just result in your direct manager's career being at risk due to your behavior, so you're giving him no choice but to cut you because they're not gonna die on your hill for you. Cultural changes take a long time and need to involve 90%+ of the workforce, not just a few.

>Why is accountability rarely invoked when it comes to people in power?

You know why. Because the rules are made by those in power, and people choose to rise to power in order to make the rules by which others are held accountable.

That's why young people are engaging in the "lying flat" or quiet quitting movements, and voting outsiders of the establishment like Trump, Mamdani, etc. They want to flip the monopoly board over because they know they were dealt a shit hand. And while I'm not that young anymore, I totally support their movement.
by acureau | 2025-07-07 13:35:32+00:00
I did some looking into this a few days ago, and I can understand the sentiment. I can't understand the proposed implementation. There is a lack of technical discourse and heavy criticism of any negative opinion. I don't want to defend big publishers, I have not bought a new AAA game in many years. I think they are user hostile.

Stop Killing Games is just way too broad. Remove online DRM checks from my single player game? Sure, I have been on board with that for a very long time. Make sure my MMO stays playable forever? You're asking for a miracle. You as a consumer need to be informed about what you're paying for. It's your job.

"Just release the server's source / binary" is a pipe-dream and I figured more people here would understand this. Modern software is super complex, distributed, entangled with external services and dependencies. Often it's not just isolated, should you be forced to release the backend serving all of your (still active) games? Has anyone considered the security implications? Should you be forced to use only libraries that you can distribute? Can you see how this may stifle creativity?

"Just state when the game will go offline" is impossible. The game will go offline when it can't be responsibly funded it anymore. Whether that's 2 or 10 years from now. If a company has to declare when your game service will expire, expect most online games to transition to a subscription model going forward. If the consumer won't have that, expect less of them to exist. It's going to backfire spectacularly. A better idea would be to mandate a minimum support window, and refunds within that window.

What constitutes a "playable state"? Is the anti-cheat in an online FPS integral to playability? Many would argue so, I'll let you think about that one. This movement is riddled with such ambiguities.
by rf15 | 2025-07-07 13:36:07+00:00
In our internal system we use it "as-is" as an autocomplete system; query/lead into terms directly and see how it continues and what it associates with the lead you gave.

Also visualise the actual associative strength of each token generated to confer how "sure" the model is.

LLMs alone aren't the way to AGI or an individual you can talk to in natural language. They're a very good lossy compression over a dataset that you can query for associations.
by catlikesshrimp | 2025-07-07 13:36:36+00:00
They did cite the source at the bottom of the phys.org page (The source article and the link)

"More information: Anmar A. Fadhil et al, Literary Texts From The Sippar Library V: A Hymn In Praise Of Babylon And The Babylonians, Iraq (2025). DOI: 10.1017/irq.2024.23"
by octo888 | 2025-07-07 13:36:37+00:00
As a general comment, I wish hiring managers found some other outlets for their enormous ego and insecurities than the process of hiring of software engineers.

I understand their argument that they have 1,000,000,000 applicants for every job so it's absolutely totally super required to be like. But companies still paying 2019 wages and are CRUD shops really need to bring it down a notch. You're getting a billion applicants because people are desperate and there are tons of CS grads, not because you're the greatest company on earth
by umanwizard | 2025-07-07 13:37:34+00:00
Your first question, who thought of the system, has a straight answer. From Wikipedia:

> Hanyu Pinyin was designed by a group of mostly Chinese linguists, including Wang Li, Lu Zhiwei, Li Jinxi, Luo Changpei, as well as Zhou Youguang (1906–2017), an economist by trade, as part of a Chinese government project in the 1950s.

By the way, they are not “English” characters; they are Latin/Roman characters, and used in a huge number of languages with different spelling conventions. Pinyin was created for the entire world to use, not specifically English speakers.
by leumon | 2025-07-07 13:38:02+00:00
He said in the video that they tested regular people (uber driver, etc.) on arc-agi2 and at least 2 people were able to solve each task (an average of 9-10 people saw each task). Also this quote from the paper: None of the self-reported demographic factors recorded for all participants—including occupation, industry, technical experience, programming proficiency, mathematical background, puzzle-solving aptitude, and var- ious other measured attributes—demonstrated clear, statistically significant relationships with performance outcomes. This finding suggests that ARC-AGI-2 tasks assess general problem-solving capabilities rather than domain-specific knowledge or specialized skills acquired through particular professional or educational experiences.
by ecshafer | 2025-07-07 13:38:22+00:00
Would increasing funding for therapy help any of those issues? Ignoring that very low efficacy of therapy and the arguments if funding it is worthwhile at all. The American people had fewer issues with school shootings and loneliness and drug abuse when we had even fewer therapists and therapy was something for people in mental asylums, that no respectable person would admit going to.
by hwillis | 2025-07-07 13:38:34+00:00
A 747 burns ~9 tonnes of kerosene per hour, creating ~29.6 tonnes CO2. The Monroe Power Plant produces 3400 MWe at ~1 kg CO2 per kWh, so ~3400 tonnes CO2 per hour.

It's a little complicated to weigh stratospheric emissions- the CO2 has a larger impact, and while the water droplets and contrails left by planes somewhat counteracts it (by reflecting incoming infrared) it's harder to compare intangibles like mercury emissions from coal. If you just say its all a wash, that plant is equivalent to 120 747s running full speed.

Private jets consume more like .9-1.5 tonnes per hour, so that's equivalent to ~900 billionaires. That's a bit less than half of them which is probably a lot more than were at the wedding. They also probably parked them instead of leaving them circling in the air.

If there were 90 billionaires who flew 12 hours each way in their private jets, then they probably released around 2.5 hours worth of Monroe Power Plant time over those 90 days- 8458 tonnes. Fun fact, the pilots and flight attendants probably used ~1000 tonnes of CO2 worth of energy etc and exhaled ~25 tonnes of CO2 in that time. 25 tonnes is small compared to the planes (>.3%), but in those 90 days the planes released just .11% as much as the coal plant.

Coal really truly sucks and it's unfair that I can't eat tuna without getting mad hatter disease.
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-07 13:38:35+00:00
You're mischaracterizing my position from the start. I never claimed LLMs "revoke ambiguity from the English language."

I said I'm doing everything a programmer does except writing syntax. So your argument about English being "ambiguous" misses the point. ⍵[⍋⍵]}⍨?10⍴100 is extremely precise to an APL programmer but completely ambiguous to everyone else. Meanwhile "generate 10 random integers from 1 to 100 and sort them in ascending order" is unambiguous to both humans and LLMs. The precision comes from clear specification, not syntax.

You're conflating oversight with "babysitting." When you review and validate code, that's normal engineering process whether it comes from humans or AI. If anything, managing human developers involves actual babysitting: handling office politics, mood swings, sick days, ego management, motivation issues, and interpersonal conflicts. CTOs or managers spend significant time on the human element that has nothing to do with code quality. You're calling technical review "babysitting" while ignoring that managing humans involves literal people management.

You've created a false choice between "prototype" and "production software" as if natural language programming can only produce one or the other. The architectural thinking isn't missing, it's just expressed in natural language rather than syntax. System design, scalability patterns, and business requirements understanding are all still required.

Your assumption that "cognitive load can only be decreased by an engineer who understands your product" ignores that someone can understand their own product better than contractors. You're acting like the goal is to "dismiss humans" when it's about finding more efficient ways to build software, I'd gladly hire other natural language developers with proper vetting, and I actually have plans to do so. And to be sure, I would rather hire the natural language developer who also knows syntax over one who doesn't, all else being equal. Emphasis on all else being equal.

The core issue is you're defending traditional methods on principle rather than engaging with whether the outcomes can actually be achieved differently.
by Bender | 2025-07-07 13:38:36+00:00
It certainly doesn't hurt when the government profiles and grooms intelligent people out of Stanford SRI the dark side, Harvard, hands them an unlimited credit card and says, "Make this thing that can do x,y,z." and then helps them network with like-minded creators and removes any obstacles in their path. One has to at least admit that was a contributing factor to their success as the vast majority of people do not get these perks.

Partially related documentary [1]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Xxi0b9trY [video][44 mins]
by mopsi | 2025-07-07 13:39:00+00:00
Finnish use of swastika predates Germany and the Finnish Air Force Academy uses swastika to this day in their official insignia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Academy_(Finland)

Taboos are a cultural thing, and the world is (thankfully) very far from having a monoculture shaped by NYC's neurotic intellectuals.
by orev | 2025-07-07 13:39:23+00:00
This whole response is being written using slide to type, and it definitely adds spaces after each word.

Maybe you’re unaware that it will leave the cursor at the end of the word, with no space, which indicates that if you backspace it will delete the whole word, or replace it in full with one from the predictive word list above the keyboard if it got it wrong. If you keep typing it adds a space automatically.
by umanwizard | 2025-07-07 13:40:12+00:00
> That means that transliteration tends to be shared across the various European languages that use the Latin alphabet

Not just European languages. Pinyin is useful for everyone that has to interact with Chinese words, whether their first language is English, French, Swahili, or even Mandarin.

A lot of people might not realize that the primary users of Pinyin are Chinese people. The way typing Chinese works is that you type the pronunciation in Pinyin and then a box pops up with choices of characters from which you select the correct one. It's also used in dictionaries to give the pronunciation of unfamiliar characters.
by quacked | 2025-07-07 13:41:11+00:00
I deeply, deeply despise the Figma-style design language that everything uses now, where there's barely any indication of what's clickable vs. what isn't and every screen is an endlessly-scrolling set of tiles and pills.

No borders, no button depth, no hyperlinks, huge swaths of blank monochrome space, menus distributed randomly, and my least favorite software design element of all time--scroll bars that aren't visible unless you're actively scrolling, but there actually are additional options on the list hidden in the borderless flat color below or above the list, so it looks like there's a static menu when in fact it's a scroll list.

I realize that I do not represent the most common user and that most people prefer as few clicked interactions with their software as possible (and also as little reading or learning as is possible), but I have vivid memories of when I could control computers and applications like I was at the command deck of a vehicle, and I greatly miss those days.
by renerick | 2025-07-07 13:41:18+00:00
It's not like Figma forces to use those features, right? And also, hot take, "limits the possible expressions" is a good thing for application design. Application is not art, first and foremost it must solve user's use case, be accessible, discoverable, ergonomic and practical to implement. Aesthetics must serve and complement those purposes, not be the focus of the design
by coldcode | 2025-07-07 13:41:27+00:00
I too worked at Apple during this period (Dec 95 to May 96). It does not surprise me that code was released without anyone asking or looking at it from a product standpoint. Management of Copland for example (the new OS from hell that was eventually canned, leading to the purchase of NeXT and the return of Jobs) was a complete utter shitshow, leading me to give up and quit (leading to me spending my life going d'oh).
by os2warpman | 2025-07-07 13:42:36+00:00
HN has censorship that makes those apple rules look like anarchy.

Write a spicy comment and a mod will memory-hole it and someone, usually dang, will reply "tHat'S nOt OuR vIsIon FoR hAcKeR nEwS, pLeAsE bE cIvIl" and we all swallow it like a delicious hot cocoa.

If YC can control their product (and hn IS a product) to annihilate any criticism of their activity or (even former) staff, then Apple is perfectly within their rights to make sure Siri doesn't talk about violence.

No, there's no difference.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-07-07 13:43:26+00:00
I'm not proposing that fiat currencies overtake each other through violence. If you're accustomed to some bully overriding your notion of "value" to align with their agenda, then you likely don't lose much by swapping them out for a different bully. I mean, some bullies are better or worse stewards of a currency than others, but you're still living under a system designed to protect bullies.

I'm proposing that fiat currencies overtake their alternatives by violence, and I'm interested in those alternatives. So it was really a poke at the Roman empire. Or perhaps my history isn't quite right and its some other empire. Surely somewhere, somewhen, there was a people who would be presented with a token for exchange and who would accept or reject it based on the wisdom or skill or empathy shown by whatever group was involved in the creation of that token.

Choosing what to accept as money would be an expression of one's personal values: each transaction a sort of vote. Leaders would have an incentive to remain wise or skillful or empathetic, because their power comes from the people's willingness to trade in their tokens. Noticing that somebody else is using the same kind of money as you would be an indicator that you value the same outcomes as they do. If they have a lot of it, it would be evidence that their actions have been furthering your goals.

Fiat currency, as practiced today, forces us to act as though we all value the same things (which, in some sense we do: not being harmed by the bully, but that's hardly a useful policy objective). Crypto looked like a way out for a while. A place where we could opt in to good ideas by chosing to use tokens which were involved in carrying them out, a market where the desirability of the externalities determined the value of the abstraction.

I really want to see how far technology can amplify a consent-based system as opposed to a bullly-based one, so the collapse of Web3 into a casino feels like a tragedy. What we're doing isn't working, and yet we're apparently too afraid to explore alternatives.
by gavinray | 2025-07-07 13:45:34+00:00
I write primarily Kotlin for a living currently and have for several years.

Despite having a positive relationship with the language, I don't think it's the best choice for multi-platform UI apps.

If you want to be pragmatic about it, you just can't beat React Native. The ecosystem and tooling are an order of magnitude larger, the DX is better, and the talent pool is also an order of magnitude larger.

KMP on Desktop/Browser are also comparatively lacking, with browser having split development between Kotlin.js and the new WASM Skia backend.
by cafard | 2025-07-07 13:45:54+00:00
The introduction to the NYRB edition of Kaputt says that Malaperte's original draft of the Warsaw section had Hans Frank written up as the hero; obviously that would not have worked for post-war publication. I don't doubt that the man was a skillful writer, but I have little time for a historical chronicler I can't believe.

Also a) the Allies didn't go on the offensive in 1918 until August, b) were the Italians in fact fighting in the Alps after Caporetto?, c) the US Army has or had staff sergeants, but staff colonels?
by mikepurvis | 2025-07-07 13:46:13+00:00
Interesting, yeah that makes sense— and I agree, that would be tricky to figure out the proper balance of caching the actual contents somewhere vs just caching the decompressor state, and whether that caching goes to RAM or disk. There isn't an obvious right answer for either, nor is there necessarily a right way to expose that option to the user.

Can definitely see why systems like python's wheel would choose zip as it's just always been natively seekable out of the box. I believe Nix now does something similar with flake repo archives being zipfiles in the store, as they can be seeked and evaluated without a full decompression, saving a lot of disk space.
by ctvo | 2025-07-07 13:46:44+00:00
> You're getting a billion applicants because people are desperate and there are tons of CS grads, not because you're the greatest company on earth

How does this change the point? They would still like the best candidate out of that pool, not any warm body, since they have limited positions.

What is your approach to hiring and evaluating talent knowing the large number of applicants and how easy it is to _talk about software development_ vs. _actually developing software_, and how expensive and difficult it is to deal with a bad hire, even in America.
by elric | 2025-07-07 13:46:49+00:00
> Send the picture to someone at the other end of the lecture theatre? It's likely that there would be a phone network or Wi-Fi available.

Now you're back to using a centralised system using a network you know nothing about, operated by someone you don't know.

> direct Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection or an AirDrop

AirDrop is not cross platform AFAIK. Direct wifi or bluetooth aren't the easiest to work with for non-technical users.

> A crisis or emergency situation where networks are down? There isn't much population density or movement to propagate the data.

Why not? Do emergencies only occur when people are few and far between? I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

> That's why I personally think that the use case should be related to travel, transport, sport or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Situations involving movement and loss of connectivity.

That's certainly a valuable use case, but probably not something that bitchat would be useful for.
by mike_hearn | 2025-07-07 13:46:50+00:00
A good chance to bring up something I've been flagging to colleagues for a while now: with LLM agents we are very quickly going to become even more CPU bottlenecked on testing performance than today, and every team I know of today was bottlenecked on CI speed even before LLMs. There's no point having an agent that can write code 100x faster than a human if every change takes an hour to test.

Maybe I've just got unlucky in the past, but in most projects I worked on a lot of developer time was wasted on waiting for PRs to go green. Many runs end up bottlenecked on I/O or availability of workers, and so changes can sit in queues for hours, or they flake out and everything has to start again.

As they get better coding agents are going to be assigned simple tickets that they turn into green PRs, with the model reacting to test failures and fixing them as they go. This will make the CI bottleneck even worse.

It feels like there's a lot of low hanging fruit in most project's testing setups, but for some reason I've seen nearly no progress here for years. It feels like we kinda collectively got used to the idea that CI services are slow and expensive, then stopped trying to improve things. If anything CI got a lot slower over time as people tried to make builds fully hermetic (so no inter-run caching), and move them from on-prem dedicated hardware to expensive cloud VMs with slow IO, which haven't got much faster over time.

Mercury is crazy fast and in a few quick tests I did, created good and correct code. How will we make test execution keep up with it?
by daveguy | 2025-07-07 13:47:01+00:00
It is not a judge of whether we got to AGI. And literally no one except straw-manning critics are trying to claim it is. The point is, an AGI should easily be able to pass it. But it can obviously be passed without getting to AGI (as . It's a necessary but not sufficient criteria. If something can't pass a test as simple as AGI (which no AI currently can) then it's definitely not AGI. Anyone claiming AGI should be able to point their AI at the problem and have an 80+% solution rate. Current attempts on the second ARC are less than 10% with zero shot attempts even worse. Even the better performing LLMs on the first ARC couldn't do well without significant pre-training. In short, the G in AGI stands for general.
by poulpy123 | 2025-07-07 13:47:31+00:00
> I don't see any cites for people who believed that boiling could not happen in fragile containers.

> The people around me aren't anthropologists claiming to understand ancient societies.

Are they people or not? It's a simple and quick experiment to have an idea of what current people think about this fact. You'll not be able to write a scientific paper about it but it will good enough to for a reasonable opinion on the topic.
by flipgimble | 2025-07-07 13:47:50+00:00
My company issued a warning to developers to stay away from Gemini Code, mostly because the subscription model is such an impenetrable mess. Google AI Pro apparently does not give you any access to Gemini Code, nor do various Google Workspace subscriptions.

Google as a company seems to have become an incoherent set of exec fiefdoms and their personal campaigns. I wouldn't be surprised if Gemini Code will join https://killedbygoogle.com , and re-surface as something else in due time. Anthropic and OpenAI are much better focused on the developer experience.