MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by netbioserror | 2025-08-05 19:48:02+00:00
Data structure types. In standard CL and Scheme, data structures are implemented at their base using cons cells, and their interpretation as tables, trees, queues, etc. is up to library functions. Unless I have somehow misinterpreted the selling points of classic Lisps, because Clojure and Janet data structures sell themselves as being not built this way. Clojure makes a different trade-off by building all its data structures off of hash array-mapped tries. But Janet goes out of its way to use efficient and closely-mapped base stores, even if the contained elements are dynamic Janet objects.
by thaumasiotes | 2025-08-05 19:48:06+00:00
Well, it's true that the article says "seven-millionths".

I would guess it's a lot more likely that this is an editing failure, introducing a hyphen where no hyphen should be, than that they meant to divide a second into seven million equal parts.

For one thing, as SECProto alludes to, English would normally require you to say "less than a seven-millionth of a second" if that was what you meant. There's no such thing as saying "less than weeks". You have to specify less than how many weeks.

less than (seven) (millionths of a second)

ordinary grammar, ordinary unit choice

less than (seven millionths of a second)

improper grammar, bizarre unit choice.
by systemdev | 2025-08-05 19:48:12+00:00
I regret open sourcing an offline patch I made for an Unreal Engine 3 game. The game was unplayable due to an always online backend that got shut down, but was still being sold so I required everyone buy a license to play with my mod. I had to reimplement stock UE3 netcode, and a bunch of other really cool stuff. Someone who was mad at me for not giving them more help when they struggled to develop on my software decided to "repack" my software and the game on a popular piracy site, both violating my AGPL license and increasing the risk that the whole project gets CnDd. I guess it's funny that a project violating a companies "no reverse engineering" clause is pissed that someone violated their OSS license, but such is life :D
by CharlieDigital | 2025-08-05 19:48:29+00:00
> We don't inherit any software

I wonder, though. Many animal species just "know" how to perform certain complex actions without being taught the way humans have to be taught. Building a nest, for example.

If you say that this is emergent from the "underlying structure alone", doesn't this mean that it would still be "inherited" software (though in this case, maybe we think of it like punch cards).
by extr | 2025-08-05 19:49:24+00:00
Nice release. Part of the problem right now with OSS models (at least for enterprise users) is the diversity of offerings in terms of:

- Speed

- Cost

- Reliability

- Feature Parity (eg: context caching)

- Performance (What quant level is being used...really?)

- Host region/data privacy guarantees

- LTS

And that's not even including the decision of what model you want to use!

Realistically if you want to use an OSS model instead of the big 3, you're faced with evalutating models/providers across all these axes, which can require a fair amount of expertise to discern. You may even have to write your own custom evaluations. Meanwhile Anthropic/OAI/Google "just work" and you get what it says on the tin, to the best of their ability. Even if they're more expensive (and they're not that much more expensive), you are basically paying for the priviledge of "we'll handle everything for you".

I think until providers start standardizing OSS offerings, we're going to continue to exist in this in-between world where OSS models theoretically are at performance parity with closed source, but in practice aren't really even in the running for serious large scale deployments.
by currymj | 2025-08-05 19:49:39+00:00
there are many separate problems of scientific fraud. I think these issues sometimes get confused which is unhelpful.

1. apparently-legitimate papers in prestigious journals with fraudulent data. extremely bad.

2. legitimate papers in legitimate journals which, innocently or not, just used bad methods and have wrong conclusions. this is "the replication crisis".

3. totally fake papers in paper mills with no meaningful peer review. it's really easy to spot these, no one is individually getting taken in by the results, but...

3a. sometimes they wind up in a meta-analysis, which is really bad because people might trust the meta analysis.

Problem 1 is morally worst and much more common than one would hope. Outright fabricated data in a Nature or NEJM publication (as has happened) is a disaster.

Problem 2 is amenable to reform for the most part (fields are already doing this).

Problem 3 isn't a problem at all for scientific knowledge per se, although universities and funding bodies might not be pleased their scientists are buying fake papers. You can just ignore the paper mills.

But Problem 3a can actually alter policy, which is pretty serious.
by dingnuts | 2025-08-05 19:50:16+00:00
this stuff is old tech, and has nothing to do with transformers. The Boston Dynamics style robot dogs are always shown in marketing demos like the one you linked in secretly very controlled environments. Let me know when I can order one that will bring the laundry downstairs for my wife.

I asked for real examples from someone who claimed to have first hand experience, not more marketing bullshit
by anon_cow1111 | 2025-08-05 19:50:16+00:00
Well what's the alternative? Get in a week long battle with the hospital while they struggle to locate and send a 500kb jpg? I AM talking about the American healthcare system here.

Yeah, I'll just grab it myself. It was a standing workstation right in front of the exam table and he didn't even close the browser. Would have taken 3 seconds to lock and unlock if they cared about security.
by throwaway0123_5 | 2025-08-05 19:50:17+00:00
Right, I get that they make most of their money from sources other than their salary. But that seems like something we should aim to discourage, as it is pretty ripe for abuse. It is clear that many of them trade on non-public information, and for those that own businesses there's a lot of incentive to push legislation that helps the business. So if we were to ban most of that and have them live just on their salaries, I think the salaries should be higher given the challenges/responsibility of the job and the area they're living in.
by alphazard | 2025-08-05 19:50:25+00:00
The point is that good software engineers are good at doing the "hard part". So good that they have a backlog of "trivial" typing tasks. In a well functioning organization they would hand off the backlog of trivial parts to less experienced engineers, who might be herded by a manager. Now we don't need the less experienced engineers or the manager to herd them.
by ewoodrich | 2025-08-05 19:50:26+00:00
> Rockstar would be nerd-sniped on GTA6 by a world model

I'm having trouble parsing your meaning here.

GTA isn't really a "drive on the street simulator", is it? There is deliberate creative and artistic vision that makes the series so enjoyable to play even decades after release, despite the graphics quality becoming more dated every year by AAA standards.

Are you saying someone would "vibe model" a GTAish clone with modern graphics that would overtake the actual GTA6 in popularity? That seems extremely unlikely to me.
by unboxingelf | 2025-08-05 19:51:53+00:00
The Simulation Theory presents the following trilemma, one of which must be true:

1. Almost all human-level civilizations go extinct before reaching a technologically mature “posthuman” stage capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations.

2. Almost no posthuman civilizations are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history or beings like their ancestors.

3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
by altairprime | 2025-08-05 19:52:05+00:00
> ensure that no one, not even the user, ever gets to see it

One small correction: this should read, “especially not the user”, reflecting the research and evidence collected over decades showing that authorized users are an apex threat to their own security.

The problem solved by passkeys is not addressed by #1, or else it would just be S/MIME-like certificates in password managers as we had for twenty years already in browsers only with better UI. If the user has the ability to access to private key underlying the public certificate, then an attacker can convince the user to extract and upload the private key and password, and an expert user can remove the password altogether. Passkeys takes the view that social engineering and malware attacks cannot be prevented so long as the secret is retrievable from the HSM into an unmanaged file, clipboard, etc.

The only way to close the social engineering attack vector is to design a system where users cannot upload a key even if they’re conned, which is why passkeys implement both #1 (to stop transmitting the secret) and #2 (to deny all human beings the footgun). And the only way that we know of in tech today, to technically deny humans their footgun when they have physical access to the device, is to build the OS around an HSM with secure boot and attestation so that the user can’t naively or expertly bypass the footgun safety by installing software.

So, today, we have to choose as an industry between denying users the right to extract private keys from the HSM, and allowing attackers to exploit users to extract private keys from the HSM. There is no known middle ground. Should we prioritize liberty over safety, or safety over liberty? That is the core contention of Passkeys, and ultimately of attestation.
by CraigJPerry | 2025-08-05 19:52:19+00:00
I just tried it on open router but i was served by cerebras. Holy... 40,000 tokens per second. That was SURREAL.

I got a 1.7k token reply delivered too fast for the human eye to perceive the streaming.

n=1 for this 120b model but id rank the reply #1 just ahead of claude sonnet 4 for a boring JIRA ticket shuffling type challenge.

EDIT: The same prompt on gpt-oss, despite being served 1000x slower, wasn't as good but was in a similar vein. It wanted to clarify more and as a result only half responded.
by andix | 2025-08-05 19:52:42+00:00
I think you can just pick the components you really need via nuget reference. And start/stop the web server as you like.

The full asp.net out-of-the-box experience is tailored to the most common use case, which is a plain web service.

I think you can even run the Kestrel HTTP server without all the asp.net pipelines, infrastructure and without dependency injection.

Also the common WebApplication.CreateBuilder() includes a lot of default configuration (batteries included), there is also CreateSlimBuilder() and CreateEmptyBuilder().
by instig007 | 2025-08-05 19:52:43+00:00
> In 2020, Haskell was close to Kotlin, Rust, and Dart. [...] In 2025, Kotlin and Dart have pulled ahead into the second bucket, but Haskell is moving in the other direction.

> It's behind Perl, and Perl itself is not exactly doing great.

Your comment reminded me of gamers who "play games" by watching "letsplay" videos on youtube.
by anigbrowl | 2025-08-05 19:52:53+00:00
These aren't contradictory. If I say I'm going to steal your phone and then I do, notifying you beforehand doesn't absolve me of criminal liability. One could argue that it's a contractual arrangement, but there's a well established doctrine of unconscionability in contract law. It's especially applicable when contracts are unilateral rather than being negotiated between peers.
by igor47 | 2025-08-05 19:52:56+00:00
My goal was to steelman an argument I disagree with. I'm not convinced -- I think climate change is a huge problem and we should move as fast as possible to try to solve it. But I also strongly dislike my allies on the left who reflexively dismiss any argument they don't immediately agree with as illegitimate. If you can't even attempt to pass the ideological Turing test, you should retain low confidence in your opinions.
by qingcharles | 2025-08-05 19:53:01+00:00
This isn't correct. GitHub Copilot now totally competes with Claude Code. You can have it create an entire app for you in "Agent" mode if you're feeling brave. In fact, seeing as Copilot is built directly into Visual Studio when you download it, I guess they have a one-up.

Copilot isn't locked to a specific LLM, though. You can select the model from a panel, but I don't think you can plug in your own right now, and the ones you can select might not be SOTA because of that.
by cvadict | 2025-08-05 19:53:15+00:00
Yes, but they are suuuuper safe. /s

So far I have mixed impressions, but they do indeed seem noticeably weaker than comparably-sized Qwen3 / GLM4.5 models. Part of the reason may be that the oai models do appear to be much more lobotomized than their Chinese counterparts (which are surprisingly uncensored). There's research showing that "aligning" a model makes it dumber.
by xpe | 2025-08-05 19:53:42+00:00
> Open models are going to win long-term.

[1 of 3] For the sake of argument here, I'll grant the premise. If this turns out to be true, it glosses over other key questions, including:

For a frontier lab, what is a rational period of time (according to your organizational mission / charter / shareholder motivations*) to wait before:

1. releasing a new version of an open-weight model; and

2. how much secret sauce do you hold back?

* Take your pick. These don't align perfectly with each other, much less the interests of a nation or world.
by zoeysmithe | 2025-08-05 19:54:01+00:00
I think this might be revisionism. A lot of people feared early anesthesia because it was far more dangerous than today.

I also notice people will make note that 'eccentrics' from the 1940s-1950s hated air conditioning but it helps to understand it was a dangerous technology that regularly injured and killed people back then, especially in its earlier days the adults of that period were children during. AC didn't get safe until fairly recently in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It would catch fire or leak poison that killed people in their sleep. Some people just saw it as an unnecessary risk. Same with early fridges. When they leaked, that leak could be fatal as poison or explosion.

It wasnt until later that these technologies got safer and even now today, we consider full anesthesia a last resort and will always try to get away with local or twilight anesthesia because full anesthesia does regularly injure, disable, and kill people. Evolution didnt design us to be trivially "shut off" like this. Injecting us with substances like that will always come with risk.

In other words, a lot of those people weren't mindless luddites, but people who assessed their personal risk and said "nope, not worth it." I think that's perfectly fine.

I'd argue the revisionism of today and the ego justifications of the time were just that, ego protection. Its far easier to say "Well, I'm tough, I don't need that," then "I'm scared of that." The former is rewarded in our individualist capitalist society. The latter is vulnerability and honestly which is often only punished in a society like ours. We see it today with people with limited access and affordability to healthcare in the USA putting off care or engaging in various home remedies, alt-medicine, supplements, or conspiracy-culture-esque pharma drugs gotten cheaply via the gray market.
by csb6 | 2025-08-05 19:54:50+00:00
Typically ships need to be certified by a classification society (an organization that inspects ships and makes sure they meet technical safety standards) in order to operate commercially. The Oceangate sub was not certified by any of these authorities because certification was viewed as “red tape” in the way of their “innovations”, and they would have almost certainly failed to be certified (a bad look if you are trying to convince people it is safe).

I think the rules/laws around commercial deep sea sub companies were unclear because most deep sea subs are research vessels or private projects (e.g. James Cameron’s sub), not tourist operations.
by accrual | 2025-08-05 19:55:02+00:00
> The format enables the model to output to multiple different channels for chain of thought, and tool calling preambles along with regular responses

That's pretty cool and seems like a logical next step to structure AI outputs. We started out with a stream of plaintext. In the future perhaps we'll have complex typed output.

Humans also emit many channels of information simutaneously. Our speech, tone of voice, body language, our appearance - it all has an impact on how our information is received by another.
by ffsm8 | 2025-08-05 19:55:12+00:00
That scenario is a lot further out compared to what I was talking about.

It's conceivable that thats going to happen, eventually. but that'd likely require models a lot more advanced to what we have now.

The agent approach with lead devs administering and merging the code the agents made is feasible with today's models. The missing part is the tooling around the models and the development practices that that standardizes this workflow.

That's what I'd expect to take around 5 yrs to settle.
by Jtsummers | 2025-08-05 19:55:36+00:00
> In standard CL and Scheme, data structures are implemented at their base using cons cells

That's not true. Both CL and Scheme have other data structures besides cons cells, and that's been true for the Lisp family of languages for nearly 70 years now.

This bizarre belief that everything is a cons cell in Lisp and Scheme needs to go away.
by ericzawo | 2025-08-05 19:56:22+00:00
Results-driven growth marketer and founder of ezmedia, specializing in paid social, go-to-market strategy, and full-funnel optimization for global brands and startups. Skilled in scaling revenue through Meta, Google, and multi-platform campaigns, with expertise spanning creative strategy, analytics, and high-impact brand storytelling.

Location: Los Angeles / Toronto Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Meta Ads Manager, Google Ads, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Klaviyo, Shopify, Squarespace, Webflow, TikTok Ads Manager, Pinterest Ads Manager, Microsoft Ads, Canva, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere Pro, Figma, Notion, Slack, Asana, Zapier, ChatGPT / AI-assisted marketing tools, SEO tools (Ahrefs, SEMrush, Google Search Console)

Résumé/CV: https://www.ericzaworski.com/cv

Email: eric.zaworski@gmail.com
by const_cast | 2025-08-05 19:56:41+00:00
> every time in recorded human history when there's be a panacea or cure-all it's generally been snake-oil.

That's just not true at all. Like, not even close.

Almost everything we've invented in medicine has been free. As in, little to no downsides and just makes things better. And not just in medicine - look around you, compare it to 100 years ago. A lot of stuff is safer, for free.

Think about infant mortality. We went from 1/4 100 years ago to 1/1000s. For free. Surely birth must be more painful now, right? No... we got rid of the pain too. Well surely mothers die more, right? No... They die orders of magnitude less too. Well surely the Vitamin K shot must have SOME downside? Pretty much no, it just pevents bleeding out.
by djha-skin | 2025-08-05 19:57:11+00:00
Opus 4(.1) is so expensive[1]. Even Sonnet[2] costs me $5 per hour (basically) using OpenRouter + Codename Goose[3]. The crazy thing is Sonnet 3.5 costs the same thing[4] right now. Gemini Flash is more reasonable[5], but always seems to make the wrong decisions in the end, spinning in circles. OpenAI is better, but still falls short of Claude's performance. Claude also gives back 400's from its API if you CTRL-C in the middle though, so that's annoying.

Economics is important. Best bang for the buck seems to be OpenAI ChatGPT 4.1 mini[6]. Does a decent job, doesn't flood my context window with useless tokens like Claude does, API works every time. Gets me out of bad spots. Can get confused, but I've been able to muddle through with it.

1: https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-opus-4.1

2: https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4

3: https://block.github.io/goose/

4: https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet

5: https://openrouter.ai/google/gemini-2.5-flash

6: https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-4.1-mini
by angmarsbane | 2025-08-05 19:57:22+00:00
I fall into the same category as your wife's extended family. I used it to get to the weight I feel most comfortable and I've gone back on it periodically (like after 5 weeks of work travel) to get back within 5 lbs of that weight (where I can manage the additional weight loss on my own).

When being fat becomes more of a deliberate choice (due to the drug accessibility) I do wonder how society and society's expectations Will change. Will women be even more pressured to "bounce back" during postpartum? Will the "baby fat" we only get to have during adolescence be eliminated and drop out of the shared experience of growing up?

There's also a lot of concern within the eating disorder community about the potential for abuse, because these drugs are so easy to get a hold of by lying on telehealth (could be argued that I've abused them by getting them when they're not truly necessary).
by robinroy03 | 2025-08-05 19:57:25+00:00
I think you misunderstood me :)

There is a finite set of features you need to add to make this an "excellent" video editor. It will take time & most people who'll eventually use this project may not use them at all.

The best way to guarantee ROI is to do things that users need immediately, like captions. Salesforce isn't in the finite set of things a video editor needs, so that request will be rejected.
by potatolicious | 2025-08-05 19:57:42+00:00
It's a bit worse than a branding problem honestly, since there's legitimate overlap between products, because ultimately they're different expressions of the same underlying LLMs.

I'm not sure if you ever got a good rundown, but the tl;dr is that the 3 products ("Desktop", Code, and API) all expose the same underlying models, but are given different prompts, tools, and context management techniques that make them behave fairly differently and affect how you interact with them.

- The API is the bare model itself. It has some coding ability because that's inherent to the model - you can ask it to generate code and copy and paste it for example. You normally wouldn't use this except that if you're using some Copilot-type IDE integration where the IDE is doing the work of talking to the model for you and integrating it into your developer experience. In that case you provide API key and the IDE does the heavy lifting.

- The desktop app is actually a half-decent coder. It's capable of producing specific artifacts, distinguishing between multiple "files" it's writing for you, and revisiting previously-written code. "Oh, actually rewrite this in Go." is for example a thing it can totally do. I find it useful for diagnosing issues interactively.

- "Claude Code" is a CLI-only wrapper around the model. Think of it like Anthropic's first-party IDE integration, except there's not an IDE, just the CLI. In this case the integration gives the tool broad powers to actually navigate your filesystem, read specific files, write to specific files, run shell commands like builds and tests, etc. These are all functions that an IDE integration would also give you, but this is done in a Claude-y way.

My personal take is: try Claude Code, since as long as you're halfway comfortable with a CLI it's pretty usable. If you really want a direct IDE integration you can go with the IDE+API key route, though keep in mind that you might end up paying more (Claude Code is all-you-can-eat-with-rate-limits, where API keys will... just keep going).