MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by trjordan | 2025-08-19 18:51:42+00:00
A few of these points are right, but a lot of it is so far lost from the reality of LLMs that it isn't even wrong.

Yes: structure beats vibes. Primacy/recency bias is real. Treating prompts as engineering artifacts is empirically helpful.

But:

- “Reads all tokens at once.” Not quite. Decoder LLMs do a parallel prefill over the prompt, then sequential token-by-token decode with causal masks. That nuance is why primacy/recency and KV-cache behavior matter, and why instruction position can swing results.

- Embeddings & “labels.” Embeddings are learned via self-supervised next-token prediction, not from a labeled thesaurus. “Feline ≈ cat” emerges statistically, not by annotation.

- "Structure >> content". Content is what actually matters. “Well-scaffolded wrong spec” will give you confidently wrong output.

- Personas are mostly style. Yes, users like words typed in their style better, but it'll actually hide certain information that a "senior software engineer" might not know.

I don't really get the Big-O analogy thing, either. Models are constantly exposing and shifting how they direct attention, which is exactly the opposite of the durably true nature of algorithmic complexity. Memorizing how current models like their system prompts written is hardly the same thing.
by dazc | 2025-08-19 18:51:54+00:00
With 4k I would to go for a Focus or Fiesta, I think you're always risking trouble with a Vauxhall? The Focus of around 12-14 years ago, particularly, was seriously over engineered which is why you still see so many of them around.

I had one for 4 years, approaching 200k miles, it came to grief at the hands of a 95 year old lady driver. Her car was wrecked, the Focus stood up well but, alas, even the minor repairs required were deemed uneconomical.

No help to you, admittedly, but if it assists anyone else avoid a similar issue...
by ArchOversight | 2025-08-19 18:52:24+00:00
Sounds like libxslt needs more than just a small number of fixes, and it sounds like Google could be paying someone, like you, to help provide the necessary guidance and feedback to increase the usability and capabilities of the library and evolve it for the better.

Instead Google and others just use it, and expect that any issues that come up to be immediately fixed by the one or two open source maintainers that happen to work on it in their spare time. The power imbalance must not be lost on you here...

If you wanted to dive into what [3] does, you could do so, you could then document it, or refactor it so that it is more obvious, or remove the compile time flag entirely. There is institutional knowledge everywhere...
by bullen | 2025-08-19 18:52:26+00:00
dTPM means it removable on motherboard. fTPM means it's in the CPU or some chip soldered to the motherboard?

They cannot distinguish between the dTPM and the one that is soldered? Because the one soldered is signed by the motherboard manufacturer.

If they only allow CPU signed TPM they are scrapping millions of perfectly fine machines.

RIP Microsoft and all AAA gamedevs.
by doesnt_know | 2025-08-19 18:52:59+00:00
If it’s not a secret that is used to sign something, then the secret has to get from the vault to the application at some point.

What mechanism are you suggesting where access to the production system doesn’t let you also access that secret?

Like I get in this specific case where you are running some untrusted code, that environment should have been isolated and these keys not passed in, but running untrusted code isn’t usually a common feature of most applications.
by catigula | 2025-08-19 18:53:57+00:00
The problem is that cash windfalls don't build wealth. You need consistent income to do much of anything in this world that matters that can be traced, tracked, expressed in credit reports and used to back loans for serious purchases like cars and homes.

If you simply gave young people $100k - which is a number nobody is seriously throwing around - what do you think they would materially gain from it? Very little. Their ability to purchase a home is still income-based and far more than a $100k windfall in many parts of the US can sustain for much time at all and everything else is just a slow bleed.
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | 2025-08-19 18:54:10+00:00
I don't like or follow Moldbug. Most women never have or need abortions so it doesn't affect them. Even if it affected every woman (half the population) food prices are still better to run on because everyone eats.

I just agree with Carville that Dems can't make any change while losing so they should focus on winning.
by derefr | 2025-08-19 18:54:32+00:00
I don't think you need to read between the lines. The lede is buried, but explicit:

> This is part of an overhaul dubbed Turing 2.0 under which the institute will focus on three key areas: health, the environment, and defence and security.

They're trying to make the organization into a defense subcontractor (with a few side-projects for image maintenance), and purging anyone who isn't interested in that mission.
by diggan | 2025-08-19 18:54:55+00:00
> If you want to direct your rage at wealth inequality in the working class, perhaps start with the things that have eroded the supply-demand balance of labor, such as globalization and technology

Not that I'm feeling any rage, I left that unproductive phase a long time ago.

But even so, why cannot we talk about multiple unfair things at the same thing? Not sure how globalization and technology is even relevant when the explicit topic of this submission is about CEO/executive pay at US companies. Why try to take the discussion away from that?
by DiabloD3 | 2025-08-19 18:55:09+00:00
Haha, some do, and then don't know what they're looking for.

Companies getting pwned because of Docker image hygiene issues should never make it to the HN front page.

They still do.

If your system does not involve an automatic CI loop of "new package/upstream source code/somebody else's Docker image (yuck)" -> "testing" -> "some sort of staged rollout to prod", then do not use Docker. If you are doing this, then you have better choices than Docker.

Fun fact: From Kubernetes, I can orchestrate actual VMs that startup faster, use less resources, and use my CPU's hardware virtualization instructions and, on top of that all, offer a Docker-compatible API to interface with legacy tools!

It's called Firecracker. Its KVM, underneath, the only tech I'm willing to use, after having used everything. Everyone gets to have their ridiculously overcomplex APIs, I get to have my actually working VMs.
by ArchOversight | 2025-08-19 18:55:45+00:00
If this is the reason to remove and or not add something to the web, then we should take a good hard look at things like WebSerial/WebBluetooth/WebGPU/Canvas/WebMIDI and other stuff that has been added that is used by a very small percentage of people yet all could contain various security bugs...

If the goal is to reduce security bugs, then we should stop introducing niche features that only make sense when you are trying to have the browser replace the whole OS.
Ask HN: Are there any good educational computers for children that aren't toys?
by laianav | 2025-08-19 18:55:56+00:00
My nieces are 6 years old and they're going to start primary school soon.

They're pretty smart and I'd like to know if there are any good educational computers that allows them to learn at their own pace, things like maths, geography, programming, etc.

They will be educated in Basque/Spanish/English but their English is not very good yet so it should be available at least in Basque or Spanish.

Thank you!
by masfuerte | 2025-08-19 18:56:22+00:00
The vendor discussion on removing XSLT is predicated on someone creating a polyfill for users to move to. It is not an unreasonable assumption because a polyfill can be created fairly trivially by compiling the existing XSLT processor to WASM.

And it is also fairly trivial to put that polyfill into the browsers.

The Chrome team has been moaning about XSLT for a decade. If security was really their concern they could have replaced the implementation with asm.js a decade ago, just as they did for pdfs.
by celsoazevedo | 2025-08-19 18:56:34+00:00
Containers are a better fit for... what containers do. They're the wrong tool when you want to separate, let's say, personal and work bookmarks, extensions, etc.

For example, I have a main profile where I have personal bookmarks and different extensions (and more aggressive adblocking). I also have a work profile with a different theme, different bookmarks, extensions, etc. And I use containers in both.

Containers are nice, but they're not profiles. We have to understand that not everyone can or wants to have one profile with everything in it.
by stopthe | 2025-08-19 18:57:02+00:00
Having dealt with similar architectures, I have a hypothesis on how this library (Hollow) emerged and evolved.

In the beginning there was a need for a low-latency Java in-process database (or near cache). Soon intolerable GC pauses pushed them off the Java heap. Next they saw the memory consumption balloon: the object graph is gone and each object has to hold copies of referenced objects, all those Strings, Dates etc. Then the authors came up with ordinals, which are... I mean why not call them pointers? (https://hollow.how/advanced-topics/#in-memory-data-layout)

That is wild speculation ofc. And I don't mean to belittle the authors' effort: the really complex part is making the whole thing perform outside of simple use cases.
by tombert | 2025-08-19 18:57:07+00:00
This is pretty interesting; I had never thought of using Emacs as a video trimming thing, but why not? I've trimmed videos manually with FFmpeg and I've thought about building my own GUI to do it, so Emacs is as good a choice as any.

I don't really use Emacs but I love that people use it for everything; next step is a non-linear video editor.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-08-19 18:57:08+00:00
> libxslt is linked against by all sorts of random apps and changes to libxslt (and libxml2) must not break ABI compatibility. This often constrains the shape of possible patches, and makes it that much harder to write systemic fixes.

I’m having trouble expressing this in a way that won’t likely sound harsher than I really want, but, uh, yes? That’s the fundamental difference between maintaining a part of the commons that anybody can benefit from and a subdirectory in a monorepo. The bazaar incurs coordination costs, and not being able to go and fix all the callers is one of them.

(As best as I can see, Chrome’s approach is largely to make everything a part of the monorepo, so maintaining a part of the commons may not be high on the list of priorities.)

This not to defend any particular ABI choice. Too often ABI is left to luck and essentially just happens instead of being deliberately designed, and too often in those cases we get unlucky. (I’m tempted to recite an old quote[1] about file formats, which are only a bit more sticky than public ABI, because of how well it communicates the amount of seriousness the subject ought to evoke: “Do you, Programmer, take this Object to be part of the persistent state of your application, to have and to hold, through maintenance and iterations, for past and future versions, as long as the application shall live?”)

I’m not even deliberately singling out what seems to me like the weakest of the examples in your list. It’s just that ABI, to me, is such a fundamental part of lib-anything that raising it as an objection against fixing libxslt or libxml2 specifically feels utterly bizarre.

[1] http://erights.org/data/serial/jhu-paper/upgrade.html
by moomoo11 | 2025-08-19 18:57:17+00:00
It was because they backstabbed us. We showed them how factories work and helped them set up manufacturing back in the day so we could be cooperation partners.

Instead we were backstabbed by the CCP through IP theft and other corporate espionage. Yes America wanted a cheaper manufacturing partner and China at the time when “real communism” was fading seemed like a good partner to onboard for the new century ahead.

I don’t think Americans are insane. It’s that Americans have to live in a world dominated by warlords, weirdos (Kim Jon Un and others like him), shithead dictators and religious zealots.

We aspire to achieve greatness and manifest destiny. Meanwhile we are blocked by literally everyone else who can’t get their shit together.

So yes, it’s necessary for our end goals. I don’t think it’s as bad as what others were already doing to each other before our intervention (hey nothing is perfect and punching up is easy af). It’s not like others don’t benefit. I’m sure for the majority where it worked out they like the GDP boost and using American tech and services. Or they can also copy what we tried and worked and try implementing it there.

While we are building cool stuff, we have to live in a mostly evil world with awful dictators and zealots of all sorts (commies, sky daddy, etc).

It took Europe 50 years to chill tf out and we had to bail them out each time they kicked off a world war. Most of the world is still not a desirable place to live (it’s why my parents moved from a hellhole to here for a better life).

If some people think we are crazy then I suggest they don’t come here for education (even if they plan to go back) or work. Save the room for someone else who actually wants to join the American journey.
by gpderetta | 2025-08-19 18:57:41+00:00
It was standardized in c++11, but it was standardizing hash_map that was in the original STL pre-C++98 and was available as an extension in most STL derived standard libraries.

For me the remaining reason I still reach for unordered_map is if I need reference stability as most faster hash tables don't provide it (and I don't care enough about performance to build reference stability on top of a better hash map).
by kamikazeturtles | 2025-08-19 18:57:48+00:00
I don't know if that is necessarily the case. I'm from eastern Turkey and my DNA results showed mostly Iranian and Armenian ethnicity. I'd assume, a place that was constantly trampled would have a little more variety, especially considering the last time the Persian or Armenian empires controlled the city I'm from (Malatya) was thousands of years ago.

It's valuable real estate but not so easy to conquer. Probably because of the mountains. When the Arab's were on a role, they couldn't get too far into Turkey, same with Tamerlane, as well as many other invaders throughout history.
by osener | 2025-08-19 18:57:49+00:00
I tried Zen for a few months. I like the UX, even more than Arc in many places. But it is just too slow for me on an M1 Max. I've switched back to Orion. Even though I miss some goodies such as Firefox containers, I just need the browser to get out of the way, not use too much power and not warm up my laptop with runaway processes. Plus, tree-style tabs are great.
by iLemming | 2025-08-19 18:58:48+00:00
Emacs is weird. I think it changed something in my brain. Before Emacs, I never thought I would ever try controlling video playback from my editor. "Just why?" I probably would've said. I never thought I'd be trying to get the text from the active tab in my browser. Or search through my browser history. Or OCR the content of my clipboard, or control my WM. Dang, before Emacs, it didn't even occur to me to try to type just about any text in my text editor - which now makes absolute sense - why would I ever bother typing in my browser window, Slack, Zoom, or email client?

In Emacs, I have all the tools I need for dealing with text - thesaurus, spell-checking, definition and etymology lookup, search engines, translation, LLMs, etc. Why, oh why, wouldn't I ever try typing anything longer than two words in anything else?

Like, for example, while typing this very comment, I may come across a thought: "I think I already made a similar comment some time ago, let me find it..." What would a regular user do? They'd switch to the browser, navigate to HN, scroll to the bottom, type search query, lookup on the page, jump to the next, keep paging until they find it, copy, switch back, paste... What would an experienced Emacs user do? They'd search for it without ever leaving their editor, grab the stuff from the buffer and paste it - all within just a few keystrokes. Or if I need to find a url in my browser history - I'd just search for it and insert in-place - two keystrokes+search query.

It's not just faster - it is profoundly satisfying and liberating. It gives you the feeling of being in control. You don't have to deal with the quirks of specialized apps; you don't need to memorize tons of their specific keybindings; it gives you a straight path to extracting or injecting plain text.

That's why those who never made a wholehearted attempt to use Emacs just never get it. And those who have, never can understand why others don't even try to recognize the value.
by grouchy | 2025-08-19 18:58:52+00:00
Hi, thanks for the feedback. Good luck with Coldran.

To answer this question:

> why would anyone use this instead of building their own unique ui

0. Under our component library is tambo-ai/react, which are just React hooks, so you could build your UI from scratch (we had a user do this over a weekend). They apologized, "sorry I didn't use your ui components".

1. Most of our components are just for managing sending messages, showing chat state, etc. The rendered or intearcted with components are up to the developer and often pulled from their existing app (chart, forms, tables, etc.) and styling is up to them.

2. All of those provided UI components are the “copy and paste” model (like shadcn). You can easily update their styles to match your UI or customize them by simply changing the tambo.css file we add to your project.

> Internal Dashboard Chatbots can allow people to interact with some api endpoints which other components use within the website with a prompt and then the ui appears ~ that would be cool like creation of projects or changing the git connection from one repo to another without changing the pages.

We have this experience inside our dashboard https://tambo.co/dashboard you should try it!
by surgical_fire | 2025-08-19 18:58:52+00:00
Both can be true.

LLMs have an unsolvable problem of "hallucination". It is a bad description of what the problem is because hallucination is all they do, it just also happens to be correct in many cases. The larger the codebase or the problem space, the less accurate LLMs tend to be.

And developers to a lot more than generating LOC.
by ericbarrett | 2025-08-19 18:59:09+00:00
> (you sign away all rights to the things you made free)

I don't see that in Autodesk's terms, which (per quick search - not exhaustive) seem to apply to "Fusion for Personal Use":

https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/general-ter...

The only license I can find it compels is "If You provide Autodesk with ideas for improvement, suggestions, or other feedback".

(Not a lawyer, not your lawyer, not legal advice etc. etc.)
by bayindirh | 2025-08-19 18:59:47+00:00
> cumbersomeness of xml...

Telling the parser to navigate to first element named $ELEMENT, checking a couple of conditions and assigning values in a defensive manner is not cumbersome in my opinion.

I would not call parsing binary formats cumbersome (I'm a demoscene fan, so I aspire to match their elegance and performance in my codebases), but not the pragmatic approach for that particular problem at hand.

So, we arrive to your next question:

> What’s the added value of xml then?

It's various. Let me try to explain.

First of all, it's a self documenting text format. I don't need an extensive documentation for it. I have a spec, but someone opening it in a text editor can see what it is, and understand how it works. When half (or most) of the users of your code are non-CS researchers, that's a huge plus.

Talking about non-CS researchers, these folks will be the ones generating these files from different inputs. Writing an XML in any programming language incl. FORTRAN and MATLAB (not kidding) is 1000 times easier and trivial than writing a binary blob.

Expanding that file format I have developed on XML is extremely easy. You change a version number, and maybe add a couple of paths to your parser, and you're done. If you feel fancy, allow for backwards compatibility, or just throw an error if you don't like the version (this is for non-CS folks mostly. I'm not that cheap). I don't need to work with nasty offsets or slight behavior differences causing to pull my hairs out.

The preservation is much easier. Scientific software rots much quicker than conventional software, so keeping file format readable is better for preservation.

"Sealing" in that project's parlance means "verify and don't touch it again". When you're comparing your results with a ground truth with 32 significant digits, you don't poke here and there leisurely. If it works, you add a disclaimer that the file is "verified at YYYYMMDD", and is closed for modifications, unless necessary. Same principle is also valid for performance reasons.

So, building a complex file format over XML makes sense. It makes the format accessible, cross-platform, easier to preserve and more.
by joshka | 2025-08-19 18:59:59+00:00
Technically, a more direct analogy would be that some newspaper print on demand service exists, and the instructions for printing are distributed to the machines that print the newspapers, but are modified during distribution before the newpaper is printed by the reciever.

As much as I'm pro ad blockers, this seems like a reasonable reading of the law. An interesting way to convince yourself of this is to find a solid line that you could draw based purely on a set of principals grounded by some legal standard about what the difference between a desktop computer program, a downloadable JavaScript program, CSS and HTML really is in terms of how they cause a computer to act on the information.

That said, I think you could fairly reasonably find that section 69e of the copyright act (english translation [1]) applies to adblock software, though I'd imagine the plaintiff would probably argue that the use of an adblock software interferes with their interests.

---

Section 69e Decompilation

(1) The rightholder’s consent is not required where reproduction of the code or translation of its form within the meaning of section 69c nos. 1 and 2 is indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:

1. the acts are performed by the licensee or by another person authorised to use a copy of a program or on their behalf by a person empowered to do so;

2. the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been made readily available to the persons referred to in no. 1;

3. the acts are confined to those parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.

(2) Information obtained through acts as referred to in subsection (1) may not be

1. used for purposes other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created program,

2. given to third parties, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created program,

3. used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program which is substantially similar in its expression or for any other acts which infringe copyright.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are to be interpreted such that their application neither impairs the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably impairs the rightholder’s legitimate interests.

---

[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...