MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by __jonas | 2025-08-13 13:19:57+00:00
This looks really nice!

I’m currently looking for a nice implementation of stroke expansion (here called outlining) that I can run in the browser, this seems like a good option besides skia (pathkit)[0] and vello/kurbo[1].

Ideally I’d love to be able to expand in a non-uniform way, similar to what Metafont does for bitmap fonts, or what Inkscape allows with its power stroke effect, or even just with a non-uniform ‘nib’ as is possible with FontForge[2].

This doesn’t seem to be something that these bezier libraries generally offer which is understandable, probably a rather niche goal.

[0] https://skia.org/docs/user/modules/pathkit/

[1] https://doc.servo.org/kurbo/stroke/index.html

[2] https://fontforge.org/docs/techref/stroke.html
by llm_nerd | 2025-08-13 13:20:29+00:00
I know nothing about this field, and the actual paper is behind a paywall, but it says that after the "exposure to AI", the adenoma detection rate (ADR) dropped from 28.4% to 22.4%.

As a layman, does ADR simply mean suspicion, or does it mean they correctly and accurately saw adenomas in 28.4% of patients before and now the rate is only 22.4%. Or just that they suspected it 6% more before? Does the actual paper detail if they simply stopped seeing illusions, or did they actually stop seeing meaningful things they used to see?

I'm sure the paper goes into more detail, but I'm more interested in the false positive vs false negatives than just overall %.
by TechRemarker | 2025-08-13 13:20:38+00:00
"benevolent" is an interesting word choice. I wouldn't consider them having positive intentions for users, but rather focused on financial gain and market power at any cost. Though if Apple owned would be anti non Apple customers, if most other companies owned would end up monetizing it as well but without the resources of Google. Or if government owned would remain stagnant. So not sure what the right path is.
by woodpanel | 2025-08-13 13:20:39+00:00
With the rise of these tracking services a cat-and-mouse-situation was foreseeable all along, especially for security related type of flights.

Probably already happening for intelligence operations. I assume the obfuscation makes sense for deportation-flights, but one could argue that keeping it transparent would be a political win. So what might be the reason? Keeping the involved staff safe?
by dig1 | 2025-08-13 13:21:09+00:00
I believe this reflects the euphemization of the english language in US, a concept that George Carlin discussed many years ago [1]. As he put it, "we don't die, we pass away" or "we are not broke, we have negative cash flow". Many non-English speakers find these terms to be nonsensical.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
by soulofmischief | 2025-08-13 13:21:30+00:00
I currently have 8260 tabs open across 9 windows, and that's just on my main laptop, across all devices I probably have over 20k tabs, and I don't really have any issues regarding tab management.

I used to have issues with Firefox randomly nuking my state on load and having to restore backups, but now I use Tab Session Manager for that and never think twice about it.
by 369548684892826 | 2025-08-13 13:21:43+00:00
You're trying to solve two problems:

- Want to invest in an asset to keep some wealth outside your bank account.

- Want to have a place you can escape to, but without too much maintenance.

I would think about solving two problems with two solutions.

- Invest some money in funds (e.g. property investment funds if you really want property).

- Use some of the interest to rent fun places to go on holiday to.
by elif | 2025-08-13 13:23:41+00:00
I've spent a lot of time trying to get LLM to generate things in a specific way, the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz"

When working on art projects, my trick is to specifically give all feedback constructively, carefully avoiding framing things in terms of the inverse or parts to remove.
by pjmlp | 2025-08-13 13:23:53+00:00
The point is that when you happen to compile yourself Go projects, and CGO is used, you better have the C or C++ compiler toolchain installed that is compatible with Go, with the related dependencies they rely on, otherwise the build will break.

But you won't be blaming Go for that, rather the devs that decided to use CGO.

Likewise, when downloading some .NET project, it isn't .NET to blame, if the devs have decided they wouldn't be making use of Mono AOT, Native AOT, or single-file deployment package (with ReadyToRun).
by nathan_compton | 2025-08-13 13:24:41+00:00
Rhetoric.

While its true that various pieces of Catholic "stuff" admit the possibility of salvation _without_ explicit belief in Christ, the vibes are still very much "if you know about Jesus/The Gospel then you probably need to believe in him to be saved, with some possible exceptions."

And a "state of separation" from God is expected to be a state of torture. Like maybe the idea of demons literally poking you in the eyeballs with hot pokers is out of fashion, but its clear Hell is still understood to be a deeply unpleasant place.
by Thorrez | 2025-08-13 13:24:47+00:00
Your original comment was "You're making his point. 4br in only 2k sqft? For 2M? Please..."

That's not the same point as sblocal123's point.

Regarding the real estate location point, yes, you and caminante made the same point. caminante made the point convincingly and you didn't. There's nothing ironic about me changing my mind when someone makes a point convincingly.
by anovikov | 2025-08-13 13:24:50+00:00
I only found out that homeless was not a crime, around 10 years ago - i always assumed that it was and have always been a crime, just the police was too busy with more serious stuff/won't prosecute it for some subjective reasons like lack of prison capacity. It still doesn't fit with me. I can't accept it can be legal to be a bum.
by DiabloD3 | 2025-08-13 13:24:55+00:00
I love "bugs" like this.

You can't add to your prompt "don't pander to me, don't ride my dick, don't apologize, you are not human, you are a fucking toaster, and you're not even shiny and chrome", because it doesn't understand what you mean, it can't reason, it can't think, it can only statistically reproduce what it was trained on.

Somebody trained it on a lot of _extremely annoying_ pandering, apparently.
by qwertylicious | 2025-08-13 13:25:16+00:00
This is the story of the modern tech industry at large: a major new technology is released, harms are caused, but because of industry norms and a favourable legal environment, companies aren't held liable for those harms.

It's pretty amazing, really. Build a washing machine that burns houses down and the consequences are myriad and severe. But build a machine that allows countless people's private information to be leaked to bad actors and it's a year of credit monitoring and a mea culpa. Build a different machine that literally tells people to poison themselves and, not only are there no consequences, you find folks celebrating that the rules aren't getting in the way.

Go figure.
by const_cast | 2025-08-13 13:25:28+00:00
The problem is a lot of states are stupid and self-destructive. A lot of them are essentially on the welfare of the federal government because they're so economically inept and seem addicted to passing policy that makes their state even less desirable.

If we just let them do whatever, WE pay. I pay. That's not free. They're not sovereign states, they're still part of the union. And that means my hard earned money has to go to making sure fucked up states don't completely shit the bed. Ultimately some place like Louisiana shouldn't even exist. But it does, because we fund their existence through welfare.

I don't want to make millions of Americans lives more shit for some ideological cause that I don't even know makes sense.

Okay, we should leave it to the states. Why? Why should we do that? Because someone 200 years ago said so in the federalist papers? Is that good enough to make life shit for millions of people with absolutely no economic gain?

Also, elephant in the room: this court is not made up of textualists. That's just what they tell you so that what they do sounds justified.
by tengwar2 | 2025-08-13 13:25:38+00:00
Unfortunately I don't remember. This was back in the late 80's, so getting on for 40 years back, and while I do have the source code, it's on 5¼" floppy. I just checked eBay, but the only USB floppy drives seem to be in the new-fangled 3½" size. I do remember that the clock that I made was on an ISA card, and presumably so were the DACs. I don't remember any difficulty in reading from them. It may be significant that I was only reading.

I think I'm going to see if I can find a service which will read the disk - it would be nice to have the code, though I remember there was a lot of stuff ♯defined out where I would have used SCCS once I had it available - hence it was a bit messy.

One little vexation was that although I had a vast 64MB hard disk, and a 1GB (bites tip of little finger) optical WORM drive, I had to reboot in to MS/DOS to use the WORM drive (no OS/2 drivers) and because one of the operating systems couldn't handle more than 32MB disk size, I had to partition the hard disk.
by Filligree | 2025-08-13 13:25:43+00:00
It's a really hard problem to solve!

You might think you can train the AI to do it in the usual fashion, by training on examples of the AI calling out errors, and agreeing with facts, and if you do that—and if the AI gets smart enough—then that should work.

If. You. Do. That.

Which you can't, because humans also make mistakes. Inevitably, there will be facts in the 'falsehood' set—and vice versa. Accordingly, the AI will not learn to tell the truth. What it will learn instead is to tell you what you want to hear.

Which is... approximately what we're seeing, isn't it? Though maybe not for that exact reason.
by cube00 | 2025-08-13 13:25:44+00:00
> - **NEVER** use phrases like "You're absolutely right!", "You're absolutely correct!", "Excellent point!", or similar flattery

> - **NEVER** validate statements as "right" when the user didn't make a factual claim that could be evaluated

> - **NEVER** use general praise or validation as conversational filler

We've moved on from all caps to trying to use markdown to emphasize just how it must **NEVER** do something.

The copium of trying to prompt our way out of this mess rolls on.

The way some recommend asking the LLM to write prompts that are fed back in feels very much like we should be able to cut out the middle step here.

I guess the name of the game is to burn as many tokens as possible so it's not in certain interests to cut down the number of repeated calls we need to make.
by latexr | 2025-08-13 13:25:49+00:00
> The irony is that deletion is one of the most expensive operations in data infrastructure

I’m pretty sure the true irony is the government—an entity ostensibly at the service of its citizens—asking said denizens to perform low-impact actions detrimental to themselves so that massive faceless corporations can continue to exploit them with impunity while reaping massive profits and laughing all the way to the bank.
by MiddleEndian | 2025-08-13 13:26:26+00:00
Sure there wasn't messaging between systems, but the point was I had friends on AIM, YIM, and MSN and I could use one program (with three accounts signed in) to message them all and not have to think about it. Adium would just aggregate them together, so I'd see "FirstName LastName" and it would message from the right service.

But modern chat apps like FB Messenger, Google Chat (if it still exists?), etc. managed to successfully break all that, never worked reliably in Adium or Pidgin (if at all).
by Workaccount2 | 2025-08-13 13:26:43+00:00
I expect a barage of these headline grabbing long tail stories being pushed out of psychology circles as more and more people find ChatGPT more helpful than their therapist (which is already becoming very popular).

We need to totally ban LLMs from doing therapy like conversations, so that a pinch of totally unhinged people don't do crazy stuff. And of course everyone needs to pay a human for therapy to stop this.
by florinzf | 2025-08-13 13:27:11+00:00
Senior Full-Stack Dev | React & PHP | $3.5k-5k/mo | REMOTE

We’re looking for a full-stack engineer with strong experience in React, PHP, and AWS to take technical ownership of a fast-growing product. You'll work on an HR/coding evaluation platform used by hundreds of companies across LATAM. This is a profitable, growing SaaS.

What we’re looking for: (1) Senior React & PHP developer; (2) Fluent with AI dev tools (Cursor, Claude Code); (3) Startup/SaaS experience or shipped your own products.

Compensation: $3.5k-5k/mo on a B2B contract, depending on experience and fit. Other details: Remote, full-time, 3 short meetings/week, B2B contract, LATAM or Europe.

Apply here: https://airtable.com/appH4dOGEi6iiotOE/pagWpeEDUfb9dCMCI/for...
by adolph | 2025-08-13 13:27:39+00:00
For folks interested in more about QNX, Software Engineering Daily podcast did an interview with folks from there. It is titled "Secure Communications" but the entry few minutes traces the roots of QNX and a bit about how they use a microkernel architecture in order to increase reliability. One of the interviewees, John Wall, has been at QNX since 1993 with a focus on automotive applications.

Episode: https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2025/02/06/secure-commu...

Transcript: https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2025...
by deepsquirrelnet | 2025-08-13 13:27:49+00:00
> RocksDB and HNSW were sharded across 200 cores, 4 TB of RAM, and 82 TB of SSDs.

Was your experience with ivfpq not good? I’ve seen big recall drops compared to hnsw, but wow, takes some hardware to scale.

Also did you try sparse embeddings like SPLADE? I have no idea how they scale at this size, but seems like a good balance between keyword and semantic searches.
by spwa4 | 2025-08-13 13:29:07+00:00
> > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint

> I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism

We were talking about external influences. Period. Mentioned was taxes (ie. effort you have to put in to keep a state structure operational), and other external influences. By which I mean from acquiring food to dealing with the weather, and indeed, occasionally dealing with the fact that there are people outside working under other systems. But I bet for most communists it's, ironically, the communist state. That's the biggest external influence they have to deal with. This will include "capitalist expectations" ie. an amount of work you have to perform, without any reward, because that's what the state needs. That's what the state needs to exist, and of course to make the Kremlin look like it looks.

> Don't strawman people.

Then by all means do tell: how will you prevent people either individually or in groups from banding against the communist system? After all, almost by definition, that's in their individual interest because ... communist system. You agreed that it's necessary to stop this but neglected to say HOW you'd do it. In history the "white terror" is one example of how far people will go to band together to destroy communism ...

Every historical communist state (after a short while) chose state terror: indiscriminate, industrial-level violence against individuals. Given that they didn't immediately chose this gives at least an indication that they tried other methods, which badly failed. Even Israel initially did that (well, the Arabs, not yet called Palestinians, did most of it for them), but then switched to give people a choice, which lead to near-total abandonment of communism (even though they kept much of the state institutions communism built).
by zozbot234 | 2025-08-13 13:29:18+00:00
> the biggest take away I have is, if you tell it "don't do xyz" it will always have in the back of its mind "do xyz" and any chance it gets it will take to "do xyz"

You're absolutely right! This can actually extend even to things like safety guardrails. If you tell or even train an AI to not be Mecha-Hitler, you're indirectly raising the probability that it might sometimes go Mecha-Hitler. It's one of many reasons why genuine "alignment" is considered a very hard problem.
by navi0 | 2025-08-13 13:29:39+00:00
Rhetorical questions are real questions and useful for exploring the logical fallacies that are embedded in ideas like minimum wage.

As shown by comments elsewhere, picking a minimum wage is often based on some imagined everyman/woman’s standard of living that may preclude others from earning a livelihood at all due to jobs never created or capital replacing labor because government decided by fiat that no work that generates less than $X/hr in output shall occur. Human skills and living arrangements are infinitely variable, and governments fail when they attempt to preclude people with lower skills from finding work.

In practice, very few workers earn the minimum wage, but union contracts are often tied to it, so unions like to advance laws that increase the minimum wage, which leads to the outcomes described in the parent post.

As economic policy, they’re also bad because inflating the price floor of labor fairly quickly feeds through to higher costs for housing, food, and services.

Safety standards (ie rules of the road) and competent enforcement are good roles for government, and while they do tend to increase operating costs and function as regulatory barriers to entry, setting prices is best left to markets.

Monopsonies are easily solved by workers moving out of the (labor) market controlled by the buyer to better job prospects. Claiming ancestral ties to a place, etc, as reasons for remaining are then the choice of the worker. If enough people leave, the employer will be forced to increase wages to attract workers.
by input_sh | 2025-08-13 13:29:53+00:00
Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they do not exist, with DDoSecrets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Denial_of_Secrets) pretty much taking over the role that WikiLeaks had 15 years ago.

Although I'd say it's kinda true that they're far more interested in attacking Russia and Israel these days than they are attacking the US.
by skizm | 2025-08-13 13:30:22+00:00
Does capitalizing letters, using "*" chars, or other similar strategies to add emphasis actually do anything to LLM prompts? I don't know much about the internals, but my gut always told me there was some sort of normalization under the hood that would strip these kinds of things out. Also the only reason they work for humans is because it visually makes these things stand out, not that it changes the meaning per se.
by myrmidon | 2025-08-13 13:30:49+00:00
> Wouldn't having them already up give a lot less warning in a first strike situation?

Improved first strike capability is worthless íf it isn't crippling, and "devastating enough" first strike capability from orbit is completely unaffordable, and impossible to build up unobserved.

Being in orbit is a hindrance more than anything, really, because maintenance becomes ruinously expensive, everything is trivially observable for all your adversaries and you have to align the orbit with your target beforehand, too (which, again, everyone can observe).

> It doesn't even have to be rational though, combinations of graft and brinkmanship would be enough.

Enough for what? Threatening to nuke some satellites? Because anything else you can do easier, cheaper and on a larger scale from the ground. Why would you bother with nuclear warheads in space when you can just build/maintain like 10 ICBM silos for the same cost?
by jl6 | 2025-08-13 13:31:25+00:00
> Various privacy considerations are made with each LFR deployment in the UK, the cops say. These include notifying the public about when, where, and for how long LFR will be used in a given area, allowing them to exercise their right not to be captured by the technology.

Are they trying to normalize wearing masks, helmets, burkas and balaclavas everywhere?
by jonplackett | 2025-08-13 13:31:26+00:00
I have this same problem. I’ve added a bunch of instructuons to try and stop ChatGPT being so sycophantic, and now it always mentions something about how it’s going to be ‘straight to the point’ or give me a ‘no bs version’. So now I just have that as the intro instead of ‘that’s a sharp observation’
by hombre_fatal | 2025-08-13 13:31:40+00:00
That might characterize their approach to human interaction, but I don't think any of us can say who will or won't prefer the sycophantic style of the LLM.

It might be the case that it makes the technology far more approachable. Or it makes them feel far less silly for sharing personal thoughts and opinions with the machine. Or it makes them feel validated.
by crossroadsguy | 2025-08-13 13:32:16+00:00
My experience is not what you indicated. I was talking about evaluating it. That's what I was discussing in my first comment. Seeing how it works and my experience so far has been pretty abysmal. In my coding work (which I don't do a lot since last ~1 year) I have not "moved to it" for help/assistance and the reason is what I have mentioned in these comments. That it has not been reliable at all. By at all I don't mean 100% unreliable of course but not 75-95% either. I mean I ask it 10 doubts questions and It screws up too often for me to fully trust it and requires me to equal or more work in verifying what it does then why not I'd just do it myself or verify from sources that are trust worthy. I don't really know when it's not "lying" so I am always second guessing and spending/wasting my time try to verify it. But how do you factually verify a large body of output that it produced to you as inference/summary/mix? It gets frustrating.

I'd rather try a LLM to whom I through some sources at or refer to them by some kind of ID and ask them to summarise, give me examples based on those (e.g man pages) and they give me just that near 100% accuracy. That will be more productive imho.
by jghn | 2025-08-13 13:32:21+00:00
Ok. Then it's on people in your camp to a) quantify the impact of *specific* forms of cheating, b) ensuring that you're not painting with too fine nor too broad a brush.

For instance, it was understood by those in the uhhh let's call it "sports nutrition" circles at the time that as a class pitchers were benefiting more overall than batters from the chemical enhancement options of that era. But yet the focus was on the home run hitter outliers. Why?

And let's also not forget that the poster children of the anti-steroid brigade are players who would have likely already been all time greats. Anyone who thinks that a Nobody became a HoFer is deluding themselves. Further: who had more to gain? The already great talent, or the marginal AAAA player who was just looking for an edge to make a team out of spring training?

My point here is that views like you're espousing are too black & white, and too narrowly applied. There's *way* too much noise to sort it all out. None of the household names of "the steroid era" were doing anything different than most of the other players. They were just already great.
by ubercow13 | 2025-08-13 13:32:23+00:00
That doesn't sound right. If you're on the event horizon you're not going at very slow speeds in that sense, the space around you is already falling into the black hole faster than light.

If you're "travelling at 1m/s so you can only raise your hand above your head at 1m/s by expending infinite energy" then you're already travelling at c-1m/s away from the black hole through local space just to 'stay still' at 1m/s 'velocity'. No wonder you need infinite energy to accelerate your arm 1m/s further and things get weird - you're travelling at relativistic velocities.