MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by palata | 2025-08-21 15:13:56+00:00
Isn't the whole point of a privacy-preserving scheme be that you can ask many "certificates" to the attesting authority and it won't care (because you may need as many as the number of websites you visit), and the website b.com won't be able to link you to them, and therefore if it bans certificate C1, you can just start using certificate C2?

And then of course, if you need millions of certificates because b.com keeps banning you, it means that they ban you based on your activity, not based on your lack of certificate. And in that case, it feels like the certificate is useless in the first place: b.com has to monitor and ban you already.

Or am I missing something?
by famouswaffles | 2025-08-21 15:14:21+00:00
Yes it's just true in practice.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not the same site and have different audiences. Even the most popular movies will barely scrap 60 reviewers on Metacritic.

Comparing them directly is meaningless. Unfortunately they removed the average score for critics percentage but it's still there for the audience percentage.

You're also just wrong. Those movies, especially the last two have high Metacritic scores.
by GoatInGrey | 2025-08-21 15:15:02+00:00
You are welcome to share how AI has transformed a revenue generating role. Personally, I have never seen a durable example of it, despite my excitement with the tech.

In my world, AI has been little more than a productivity boost in very narrowly scoped areas. For instance, generating an initial data mapping of source data against a manually built schema for the individual to then review and clean up. In this case, AI is helping the individual get results faster, but they're still "doing" data migrations themselves. AI is simply a tool in their toolbox.
by TheHeasman | 2025-08-21 15:15:08+00:00
This is very fair: I went for a metaphorical explanation, rather than a literal one. (For instance, I'd actually have had to write down the code for an SVG, and I was quickly writing this on my lunch break).

The `.selectAll().data().join()` data binding method (or `.enter()` on older versions) is very intuitive once you understand it, but for the layman coming in, it's inaccessible AF. I fudged a little in my explanation to make it more accessible. But hey. That's learning.
by lm28469 | 2025-08-21 15:15:14+00:00
Dude we're talking about getting safe from an "ai" bubble pop by diversifying in gold and cryptos. If any of these words make sense to you, you obviously already are privileged.

I'm just sharing my experience, I know a bunch of relatively poor people (household with 2 min wage) who have kids and are paying their mortgage. I also know a shit ton of tech workers making $$$ who spend more than the combined income of the former households on pokemon cards and crypto coins every single month

> If everyone you know stressing about money would actually be fine if they stopped stressing they are all very privileged.

Well yes, that's my point, stop buying bullshit and start building a future, it's way less stressful to spend all of your money on a plan rather than spending it on future hypothetical gains that might or might not materialise depending on variables you don't even know about.
by arp242 | 2025-08-21 15:15:23+00:00
These are not "unresolved issues"; these are opinionated views. That's okay, but please, don't fool yourself in to thinking this is somehow objective fact because it's just not. Encoding all human scripts in one encoding was always going to involve some choices, and no matter which choices would have been made some people were going to disagree with it.

I have no idea which "characters common in ordinary books" are missing; the explicit goal of Unicode is to encode exactly that sort of thing.
by EgregiousCube | 2025-08-21 15:15:27+00:00
Under what law? It's interesting because these are sites that host content for the purpose of providing it to anonymous network users. ebay won a case against a scraper back in 2000 by claiming that the server load was harming them, but that reasoning was later overturned because it's difficult to say that server load is actual harm. ebay was in the same condition before and after a scrape.

Maybe some civil lawsuit about terms of service? You'd have to prove that the scraper agreed to the terms of service. Perhaps in the future all CAPTCHAs come with a TOS click-through agreement? Or perhaps every free site will have a login wall?
by latexr | 2025-08-21 15:15:35+00:00
> At least one CEO seems to get it.

> (…)

> I’m not even sure AI is good for any engineer

In that case I’m not sure you really agree with this CEO, who is all-in on the idea of LLMs for coding, going so far as to proudly say 80% of engineers at AWS use it and that that number will only rise. Listen to the interview, you don’t even need ten minutes.
by fuoqi | 2025-08-21 15:15:43+00:00
I agree. We already see instances of debanking (logical evolution of money laundering "control") being used to pressure political opponents and dissenters even in the "free" West. Even worse, governments silently share this power with private entities to pressure stuff they do not like as was recently demonstrated by the MasterCard/Visa debacle.

Ideally, access to the financial system and secrecy of financial transactions should be protected by constitutions in the same way as secrecy of correspondence and right to privacy. Unfortunately, most constitutions were written in the age when it was a given, since most people relied on physical cash and were was no need to explicitly protect this right.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-08-21 15:16:01+00:00
> Didn't he say their goal is AGI and they will not produce any products until then.

Did he specify what AGI is? xD

> I admire that, in this era where CEOs tend to HYPE!! To increase funding (looking at a particular AI company...)

I think he was probably hyping too, it's just that he appealed to a different audience. IIRC they had a really plain website, which, I think, they thought "hackers" would like.
by gcr | 2025-08-21 15:16:05+00:00
I'd still love to see a report that accurately captures training cost. Today's report[1] notably excludes training cost.

Not just "one training run," but the cost of a thousand AI engineers starting failing runs to get to that one deployed model.

1: Link to Google's tech report: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/measuring_the_envi... "We leave the measurement of AI model training to future work."
by claw-el | 2025-08-21 15:16:11+00:00
Any LP system will have false positive and false negative. If we can have a perfect LP system without false signals, I think self-checkout systems would have been more wide spread by now.

I was accused of not paying for certain items at a grocery store recently, and I explained that I bought those at another store. The LP person didn’t even ask to check the receipt from the other store. I proceeded with packing my groceries and went home.

I wonder if we can recognize that store people would want to reconfirm if we have correctly paid for the things we thought we bought, and we just answer them. No need to assume ill intent.
by pjc50 | 2025-08-21 15:16:29+00:00
> Moving money around is a crime...why?

The short answer is that said money is either the proceeds of a crime, or (in the other direction) being sent to or from a sanctioned person, organization, or country.

This is why it's so hard to push back against, like the TSA. "Do you want terrorists using the banking system?" is a killer argument for midwits.
by raincole | 2025-08-21 15:16:53+00:00
During my elementary school years, there was a teacher who told me that I didn't need to memorize it as long as I understand them. I taught he was the coolest guy ever.

Only when I got late twenties, I realized how wrong he was. Memorization and understanding go hand in hand, but if one of them has to come first than it's memorization. He probably said that because that was what kids (who were forced to do rote memorization) wanted to hear.
by al3rez | 2025-08-21 15:17:04+00:00
I implemented something similar for a 3M/day ad tech platform. We created a few materialized views for my boss, myself, and the DevOps team to monitor, instead of querying over 100 tables. I used stored procedures in PostgreSQL, which made it fast, efficient, and non-blocking also not to mention we avoided setting up complex Grafana/UI in admin dashboard, boss: i want to know x, y ,z, okay -> tableplus, -> export csv boom!
by TheHeasman | 2025-08-21 15:17:29+00:00
Agreed. I fudged quite a lot in my post to make it accessible to the layman. Triee to explain to a UX designer I know that "D3 is a library for JavaScript that..." And I saw their brain switch off live in front of me.

Semantics matter more than literals sometimes.

*EDIT: Grammar. I was typing on my phone. Soz.
by chickenbig | 2025-08-21 15:18:00+00:00
> When I hear reports that AI power demand is overloading electricity infrastructure ...

It feels like dog-whistle tactics. "Aren't the technology companies bad for the environment!" "What about the water usage?" "What about the electricity?"

For me the peak of this is complaining about water consumption at the Dalles datacentre [0]. The buildings are next to the Colombia river and a few miles away from the Dalles Dam [1] which generates an average of 700MW. The river water should be used for cooling, taking out some of the water, warming it up by a few degrees and returning it to the river; one might argue that this is simply returning the heat to the river that would have come from the water flowing downhill.

[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2022/12/googles-wa...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dalles_Dam
by neilv | 2025-08-21 15:18:04+00:00
In a town of big-name universities, where people are constantly coming and going from all around the world, and the reality of students living and socializing heavily, in cramped conditions, often with little sleep... Covid still seems to be "in the air".

Most people no longer wear masks in stores here, but there are some. And some employees do as well. Including the person at/near the customer service desk of the grocery I mentioned, I think the last 2 times I was in there.
by gen220 | 2025-08-21 15:19:09+00:00
FWIW, stacking is "just a tool" that you can use to make whatever sort of workflow you want. I agree creating alt PRs isn't a high-value usage of the tools.

The //actually better// workflows stacking enables are the same sort of workflows that `git add -p`, `git commit --fixup` and `git rebase` enable, just at a higher level of abstraction (PRs vs commits).

You can "merge as a stack" as you imply, but you can also merge in sub-chunks, or make a base 2-3 PRs in a stack that 4 other stacks build on top of. It allows you to confidently author the N+1th piece of work that you'd normally "defer" doing until after everything up to N has been reviewed.

An example: I add a feature flag, implement a divergent behavior behind a feature flag gate, delete the feature flag and remove the old behavior. I can do this in one "stack", in which I deploy the first two today and the last one next week.

I don't have to "come back" to this part of the codebase a week from now to implement removing the flag, I can just merge the last PR that I wrote while I had full context on this corner.

In theory you can do all of this stuff with vanilla git and GitHub. In non-stacking orgs, I'd regularly be the only person doing this, because I was the only one comfortable enough with git (and stacking) for it to not be toooo big a burden to my workflow. Graphite (and other stacking tools) make this workflow more accessible and intuitive to people, which is a big net win for reviewers imo.
by eloisius | 2025-08-21 15:19:10+00:00
I agree. AI is a wonderful tool for making fuzzy queries on vast amounts of information. More and more I'm finding that Kagi's Assistant is my first stop before an actual search. It may help inform me about vocabulary I'm lacking which I can then go successfully comb more pages with until I find what I need.

But I have not yet been able to consistently get value out of vibe coding. It's great for one-off tasks. I use it to create matplotlib charts just by telling it what I want and showing it the schema of the data I have. It nails that about 90% of the time. I have it spit out close-ended shell scripts, like recently I had it write me a small CLI tool to organize my Raw photos into a directory structure I want by reading the EXIF data and sorting the images accordingly. It's great for this stuff.

But anything bigger it seems to do useless crap. Creates data models that already exist in the project. Makes unrelated changes. Hallucinates API functions that don't exist. It's just not worth it to me to have to check its work. By the time I've done that, I could have written it myself, and writing the code is usually the most pleasurable part of the job to me.

I think the way I'm finding LLMs to be useful is that they are a brilliant interface to query with, but I have not yet seen any use cases I like where the output is saved, directly incorporated into work, or presented to another human that did not do the prompting.
by mdaniel | 2025-08-21 15:19:22+00:00
> Cylindrical "Trash Can" Mac Pro

My favorite Mac, by far. I upgraded the RAM in it. Can you even imagine a Mac that has upgradeable RAM? Pearl clutching. I also tried plugging 4 different 4K monitors into it just for the novelty. I miss my trashcan

Also, if you were to serve your get.sh (et al) as text/plain it would enable browing them versus them downloading and having to open it locally. Or, as your footer implied, linking to GitHub would also be super handy
by noodletheworld | 2025-08-21 15:20:06+00:00
> Is it part of the multi-modal system without it being able to differenciate that text from the prompt?

Yes.

The point the parent is making is that if your model is trained to understand the content of an image, then that's what it does.

> And even if they can't, they should at least improve the pipeline so that any OCR feature should not automatically inject its result in the prompt, and tell user about it to ask for confirmation.

That's not what is happening.

The model is taking <image binary> as an input. There is no OCR. It is understanding the image, decoding the text in it and acting on it in a single step.

There is no place in the 1-step pipeline to prevent this.

...and sure, you can try to avoid it procedural way (eg. try to OCR an image and reject it before it hits the model if it has text in it), but then you're playing the prompt injection game... put the words in a QR code. Put them in french. Make it a sign. Dial the contrast up or down. Put it on a t-shirt.

It's very difficult to solve this.

> It's hard to believe they can't prevent this.

Believe it.
by nallana | 2025-08-21 15:20:12+00:00
Versus Octave:

- Lots of language semantics are unsupported in Octave (like Classes), and it’s purely a slow line by line interpreter so it’s very slow.

- Given the design / Cranelift IR translation here, RunMat can run natively on any compile target for which Cranelift [currently x86-64, aarch64 (ARM64), s390x (IBM Z), and riscv64], and targeting additional ISAs is easy. The net of this: you can write controls / logic in Matlab code and run it natively on device.

- GPU acceleration; the foundations are in place so RunMat can natively accelerate Tensor / Matrix math on GPUs, irrespective of device (eg CUDA / Metal / Vulcan / etc). Net of this is that you can do much bigger math calculations even faster (and without having to worry about moving things on/off GPU memory; there’s a configurable (and substitutable) planner built in that does scatter / gather intelligently for you). The AST is extensively typed, and we can support things like reverse-grade autograd by default -> your math runs even faster than would natively in Octave or even Matlab (I believe Matlab has a separate toolbox where you can do some of this, but it’s not natively how their matrix math works / they try and upsell for that).

- Once the package manager is complete, you can extend it. Octave doesn’t really have a package system per se.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-08-21 15:20:30+00:00
People say this, but then never link to chats.

And then on the rare occasion they do link to a chat, their prompt is something like:

"Tell about a person of history who was important for their work inthe time of their existence and give quotes of what they said that made them important when they were speaking include notes and other stories about them and give details about their life who they married and their kids and who their parents were and other big things they did do in their lives"

Instead of downvotes, please prove me wrong.
by evertedsphere | 2025-08-21 15:20:30+00:00
i'm sure you know this but it's important not to understate the importance of the fact that there is no "prompt"

the notion of "turns" is a useful fiction on top of what remains, under all of the multimodality and chat uis and instruction tuning, a system for autocompleting tokens in a straight line

the abstraction will leak as long as the architecture of the thing makes it merely unlikely rather than impossible for it to leak
by stonemetal12 | 2025-08-21 15:20:32+00:00
>Memorization is not a panacea.

It is What you memorize that is important, you can't have a good discussion about a topic if you don't have the facts and logic of the topic in memory. On the other hand using memory to paper over bad design instead of simplifying or properly modularizing it, leads to that 'the worst code I have seen is code I wrote six months ago' feeling.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-08-21 15:20:37+00:00
Something that I forgot to add was that with early TRS-80's and PC's the computer was "frozen" while it sent the job to the printer.

Most entry-level printers didn't have enough internal memory for more than a few pages.

Which was fine for everybody that only printed a page or two, but for those who needed printouts of dozens of pages this would take a long time because the printer had such little memory.

So eventually the external print buffers appeared which connected between the PC and the printer so you could go back to DOS without waiting while the printer sat there chewing through fanfold paper.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-08-21 15:20:54+00:00
Australia managed to keep COVID out for nearly two years, before they ran out of resources. Stop all non-local travel, identify where it's spread to, establish a buffer zone, wait to see if we drew our buffer zone large enough… two weeks later, and most of the world can be business as usual (minus globe-hopping); two months later, and COVID-19 is as dead as smallpox… assuming everything went right. Realistically, it might take four or five months for everyone infected to recover (or die): but it's a lot easier to enforce a quarantine when there are a hundred cases in the whole world.

This would be expensive, but as expensive as what we did was? Surely not! So, other regions providing funding and resources to the regions taking on the burden would be a strictly rational move.

You might say "oh, but people didn't know about the spread!"… but that's a ridiculous claim. The Less Wrong crowd tracked it in near-real-time from open source intelligence, and governments had access to more intelligence than that. The number of governments giving nonsensical advice, like "masks don't work because the respiratory disease is not spread via aerosols", and "replace your soap with dilute alcohol", lampshades a broad coordination problem. (We're not much past the "sweet-smelling herbs will protect from the plague" advice of yore, it seems.)

The things we needed to do were done – but for ridiculous political reasons, nearly everyone waited until after the disease had reached their regions to close their borders: internationally and intranationally, at every level! (The algorithm in Pandemic II's easy mode was more sensible than that.) So much of that effort, that psychological torment, was wasted. Even if the whole world had taken Australia's approach, we still would've brought the disease to manageable levels within a year. But there wasn't the political will… and so it goes. I think we're less prepared for the next novel disease outbreak, now.
by saghm | 2025-08-21 15:21:10+00:00
It's possible I'm making the exact mistake that the article describes and relying on outdated information, but my understanding is that pretty much all of the rules are actually permissions rather than restrictions. "Block public access" is an unfortunate exception to this, and I suspect that it's probably just a poorly named inversion of an "allow public access" permission. You're 100% right that modeling permissions like this requires having everything in the same "direction", i.e. either all permissions or all restrictions.

After thinking about this sort of thing a lot when designing a system for something sort of similar to this (at a much smaller scale, but with the intent to define it in a way that could be extended to define new types of rules for a given set of resources), I feel pretty strongly that the best way for a system like this to work from the protectives of security, ease of implementation, and intuitiveness for users are all aligned in requiring every rule to explicitly be defined as a permission rather than representing any of them as restrictions (both in how they're presented to the user and how they're modeled under the hood). With this model, veryifing whether an action is allowed can be implemented by mapping an action to the set of accesses (or mutations, as the case may be) it would perform, and then checking that each of them has a rule present that allows it. This makes it much easier to figure out whether something is allowed or not, and there's plenty of room for quality of life things to help users understand the system (e.g. being able to easily show a user what rules pertain to a given resource with essentially the same lookup that you'd need to do when verifying an action in it). My sense is that this is actually not far from how AWS permissions are implemented under the hood, but they completely fail at the user-facing side of this by making it much harder than it needs to be to discover where to define the rules for something (and by extension, where to find the rules currently in effect for it).
by Miraste | 2025-08-21 15:21:26+00:00
This might be true for a normal definition of success, but not lottery-winner style success like Facebook. If you look at Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google, and so on, the founders all have few or zero previous attempts at starting a business. My theory is that this leads them to pursue risky behavior that more experienced leaders wouldn't try, and because they were in the right place at the right time, that earned them the largest rewards.
by eatsyourtacos | 2025-08-21 15:21:40+00:00
Sounds like you are using it entirely wrong then...

Just yesterday I uploaded a few files of my code (each about 3000+ lines) into a gpt5 project and asked in assistance in changing a lot of database calls into a caching system, and it proceeded to create a full 500 line file with all the caching objects and functions I needed. Then we went section through section of the main 3000+ line file to change parts of the database queries into the cached version. [I didn't even really need to do this, it basically detected everything I would need changing at once and gave me most of it, but I wanted to do it in smaller chunks so I was sure what was going on]

Could I have done this without AI? Sure.. but this was basically like having a second pair of eyes and validating what I'm doing. And saving me a bunch of time so I'm not writing everything from scratch. I have the base template of what I need then I can improve it from there.

All the code it wrote was perfectly clean.. and this is not a one off, I've been using it daily for the last year for everything. It almost completely replaces my need to have a junior developer helping me.