MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rdm_blackhole | 2025-08-09 15:45:38+00:00
That is not why people attack the EU, at least that is not why I am personally hostile to it.

I am attcaking it because it has failed to deliver on it's promises. The whole push for digital sovereignty has been going on for years if not decades now and nothing ever materialized.

You can go back to the archives of HN to see how many articles have been shared along the years regarding the EU's attempt to start their own versions of FAANG/MANGA companies.

You can even go back to last year to see when the so called Draghi report was being talked about and see how much progress has been made to address the issues that he raised.

Then there is also the fact that the EU does not miss one occasion to publicly criticize countries that violates human rights like China and Russia all the while it's own commission is trying to exert major control on social media via the DMA and remove privacy for all citizens in Europe in order to "save the children".

Do anyone really think that EU cares about your privacy more than the US?

But when you bring any of these points, the EU supporters come back with, well that's because there is not enough EU. Listening to them, we should all just be happy to be a federation where countries become provinces that are managed by bureaucrats in Brussels.

Now, that may be what certain people want but I am not one of them.
by ai4mathlogicrsn | 2025-08-09 15:46:06+00:00
Tried asking this to GPT5 and GPT5 Thinking - “Solve this: 5.9 = x + 5.11”. Genuinely surprised why we as an industry are trying to force fit a probabilistic language model for solving problems in Math, Logic, Reasoning, when it clearly does not excel in any of it.
by VladVladikoff | 2025-08-09 15:46:52+00:00
I actually have a direct answer for this: priorities. I run a fairly popular auction website and we have map tiles via stadia maps. We spend about $80/month on this service for our volume. We definitely could get this cost down to a lower tier by caching the tiles and serving them from our proxy. However we simply haven’t yet had the time to work on this, as there is always some other task which is higher priority.
by ndiddy | 2025-08-09 15:47:27+00:00
You would have to look at the feature flags that your pool uses and see whether they match the flags that illumos supports. OpenZFS's feature flags are a superset of illumos's, so you'd be able to use a pool created on illumos on Linux/FreeBSD if that's what you're asking. https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/Feat...
by onli | 2025-08-09 15:47:55+00:00
It is the other way around, I am convinced. In the config scenario you describe the input is also trusted, as will be the bulk of JSON usage. In all those scenarios duplications will happen regularly and developers rely on the JSON parser to work with the input regardless. Which means they all will have to churn the change required by this to get a working program again, one that does not crash with input that passed before.

I get that the option to detect and prevent this is good. The warning is seriously useful. But it does not need to be a new default to forbid the old valid inputs. And I do not understand why the option to do so would not have helped in the hacker issue.

Thanks for the code snippet. Actually, it is not a lot of code for me to change and likely I do not have an intermediate dependency, I hope. Problem is the dependencies vastly outnumbering my program and thus work like this potentially adding up.

Dont feel obliged to further discuss if it is a waste of your time - but it is important for me to try to argue against churn.
by pron | 2025-08-09 15:48:22+00:00
> The point is that if you look at the history of programming languages simplicity in general goes against safety... C and assembly are extremely simple compared to java, python, C#, typescript

But Java and Python are simpler yet safer than C++, so I don't understand what trend you can draw if there are examples in both directions.

> It's the greatest example of you take a simple language, you add a ton of complexity and it becomes more safe.

But I didn't mean to imply that's not possible to add safety with complexity. I meant that when the sound guarantees are the same in two languages, then there's an argument to be made that the simpler one would be easier to write more correct programs in. Of course, in this case Zig is not only simpler than C++, but actually offers more sound safety guarantees.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-08-09 15:48:49+00:00
> Humans build theories of how things work. llms dont. Theories are deterministic symbolic representation of the chaotic worlds of meaning

What made you believe this is true? Like it or not, yes, they do (at least to the best extent of our definitions of what you've said). There is a big body of literature exploring this question, and the general consensus is that all performant deep learning models adopt an internal representation that can be extracted as a symbolic representation.
by efilife | 2025-08-09 15:48:53+00:00
> it cannot "logically reason" like a human does

Reason? Maybe. But there's one limitation that we currently have no idea how to overcome; LLMs don't know how much they know. If they tell you they don't something it may be a lie. If they tell you they do, this may be a lie too. I, a human, certainly know what I know and what I don't and can recall from where I know the information
by masklinn | 2025-08-09 15:50:25+00:00
> Shadowing is another concept that made this issue less visible.

There is no shadowing here, Go can only shadow in different scopes, `ctx` is just rebound (overwritten). Zig does not prevent reusing variables that I know. However I believe zig parameters are implicitly `const`, which would have prevented thoughtlessly updating the local in-place. Same in Rust.

> If you've ever heard of linear types, and never saw their utility, that's actually exactly what they are good for: a variable gets 'consumed' by a function, and the type system prevents us from using it after that point. Conceptually, g.Wait(ctx) consumes ctx and there is no point using this ctx afterwards.

I don't believe linear types would prevent this issue per-se since `errgroup.WithContext` specifically creates a derived context.

Depending on the affordance they might make the issue clearer but they also might not: a linear errgroup.WithContext could consume its input leaving you only with the sub-context and thinking little more of it, so you'd have to think to create derived context on the caller side. Would you think of this issue when doing that?

TBH this seems more of a design issue in errgroup's API: why is the context returned from the errgroup instead of being an attribute? That would limit namespace pollution and would make the relationship (and possible effects) much clearer. But I don't know what drove the API to be designed as it is.

But in all honesty I'd say the main error in the snippet is that `checkHaveIBeenPawned` swallows all http client errors, without even logging them. That is the part which struck out to me, it only returns an error if it positively finds that the password was a hit on HIBP. So you'd have hit the exact same issue if the `NewRequestWithContext` was otherwise malformed e.g. typo in the method or URL. And of course that points out to an other issue, this time with type-erased errors and error information not necessarily being programmatically accessible or at least idiomatically checked: I would assume the goal was to avoid triggering an error if HIBP is unavailable (DNS lookup or connection error).
by tptacek | 2025-08-09 15:51:39+00:00
LLMs can be a useful tool, maybe. But don’t anthropomorphize them.

(but, earlier)

If a tool is able to actively mislead me this easy, which potentially results in me wasting significant amounts of time in trying to make something work that is guaranteed to never work, it’s a useless tool. I don’t like collaborating with chronic liars.
by cperkins | 2025-08-09 15:52:13+00:00
I used Cursor and Chat GPT 5 last night for the first time. Before I could even ask Chat GPT 5 about my issue it had scanned the .cpp file in question (because it was open in the editor) and had discovered some possible issues, one of which was the issue in the code. I confirmed that and gave it more description of the error behavior. It identified the problem in the code, and suggested two different CORRECT solutions (one simple, one more complex but "perfect"). I opted for the simple one. It did it. One tiny problem remained, I pointed it out, it fixed it.

This was much better than Gemini or CoPilot on the exact same issue and the exact same commit pointer in my repo. Both of them suggested the same wrong solution and got themselves further and further wrong as they went.

So, I guess as of today, Chat GPT 5 leads. YMMV
by echelon_musk | 2025-08-09 15:52:16+00:00
I wish all diesels could be included in the ULEZ ban. Or at minimum all non commercial diesel engines.

As a motorbike rider I can taste the diesel fumes as soon as I'm behind one in a way that's unlike any petrol car.

There's large particulates being thrown out by even the most luxurious diesel cars that you simply couldn't tell if you're behind in a car.
by Ygg2 | 2025-08-09 15:52:25+00:00
> Your writing feels accessible. I find it makes complex topics approachable

Yeah. By omitting a large swath of nuance. It reeks of "you can approximate cow with a sphere the size of Jupiter". It's baffling ludicrous.

Any rhetorical device that equates Java/C# (any memory safe Turing language ) safety with C is most likely a fallacy.
by mockingloris | 2025-08-09 15:52:59+00:00
Funny how when I read this, it reminded me of something I make an effort to remind myself of as much as I can; Hording is easily leads to waste - the feeling of having a lot and control or lack of, of drawing the line.

I pivoted from a career in security operations to go full time into tech and I find myself gathering too much information to solve a problem that actually doing the thing. In a wise and brotherly Nigerian tone Too much of anything no good
by Mattykry | 2025-08-09 15:53:26+00:00
Hello HN!

I’m Matteo, founder of SleepLive (https://sleeplive.io).

We’re building a lightweight platform to help ASMR creators take paid custom requests from fans without the usual DM/email chaos—and we’d love your feedback.

-The problem we saw

Scattered requests: Creators juggle DMs, comments and emails, losing track of who asked for what.

Uncertain payments: Fans often commit verbally but fail to pay, or creators deliver before getting paid.

No formal workflow: There’s no standardized process for quoting, delivering, reviewing and resolving disputes.

-What SleepLive does

Request portal: Fans submit audio/video requests on your public profile. Custom quote: You reply with your price and turnaround time—simple “accept/decline.”

Upfront payment: When the fan agrees, they pay immediately; the request becomes an order.

Protected delivery: You upload the final file; we run a quick admin check to ensure quality/legality.

-Key benefits

Reliable earnings: No more “will you pay me?” back-and-forth.

Clear pipeline: Requests → quotes → orders → delivery → feedback, all in one dashboard.

________________________________________

-Questions for HN:

Does this workflow address pain points you’ve seen in creator platforms?

Any missing features or edge cases we haven’t considered?

Thoughts on pricing models or launch strategy for a niche community?

I’m eager to hear your thoughts—what works, what feels off, and how we can improve before our beta opens. Thanks in advance for your time and honest feedback!

—Matteo
by jen_ai_era | 2025-08-09 15:53:29+00:00
The work wasn’t the hardest part. The silence was.

In corporate life, giving and receiving feedback was the norm. Weekly check-ins, annual reviews, quick “you nailed that” messages—it was baked into the culture. When I left to start my solo venture, I expected the grind. What I didn’t expect was the silence. No feedback. No quick “you’re on the right track.” No way to know if what I was doing was working, or how it compared to what others were doing. Communities helped, but only in bursts—never when I needed it most. And doubts have a way of growing in the gaps.

So I built something for founders, solopreneurs, and creators: * Turn scraps into clarity — messy notes become actionable insights * See your patterns — track progress, trends, and blind spots * Get instant feedback — no waiting for calls or coaches * Stay aligned — with weekly and quarterly guided reviews It’s like having a coach in your pocket, always available, always relevant.

If you’ve felt the quiet of building solo, you know why this matters.

I’d love your feedback. If you’re a solopreneur, what would you like to see in something like this?
by rovr138 | 2025-08-09 15:53:43+00:00
I did? None of your points talk about privacy which was your original argument.

I’ll remind you,

> If you looking for privacy there is only 1 app in the whole wide internet right now, HugstonOne (I challenge everyone to find another local GUI with that privacy).

Heck, if you look at the original comment, it clearly states it’s macOS and iOS native,

> I've been selling a macOS and iOS private LLM app on the App Store for over two years now, that is: > a) is fully native (not electron.js) b) not a llama.cpp / MLX wrapper c) fully sandboxed (none of Jan, Ollama, LM Studio are)

How do you expect it to be and cross platform? Isn’t hugstone windows only?

So, what are your privacy arguments? Don’t move the goal post.
by data-ottawa | 2025-08-09 15:53:44+00:00
I've been using marimo since January pretty heavily, I absolutely love it and would recommend it to anyone.

I run it with uv and --sandboxed which makes it much easy to share notebooks with teammates and not have to worry about limiting dependencies. Any issues I've had were were Python libraries themselves (specifically graphviz).

I really like how much easier it is to reason about interactive components vs Jupyter. The mo.ui.altair_chart method has got me to migrate off of matplotlib because charts can be fully integrated – as you can see in the demo being able to lasso data points or scrub a chart and analyze specific time periods is awesome.

One thing which I don't like about reactive notebooks is that you have to be much more mindful of expensive and long running calculations. There are feature to help, like adding a run button, but often I end up just disabling auto-run which does reduce the value of the reactive flow. For those use cases I don't find myself using marimo over Jupyter.

I think the entire marimo team deserves a shoutout, the quality of the software is excellent, they've moved very quickly, and they have been very receptive to issues and feature suggestions.
by analog31 | 2025-08-09 15:54:02+00:00
I compare it to day trading, where you always close out your position at the end of the day, and never leave anything running overnight. "Restart kernel and run all" when I finish a lab session. Assume that I might not come back to it for a long time, and that it won't be fresh in my mind.

It's harder when some of your cells took hours to execute, which mine don't. Then I think you should be using data files.

The tools that fix this problem seem to evoke "the cure is worse than the disease." At this point, basic Jupyter notebooks are by far the most reproducible way I've ever worked.
by simonw | 2025-08-09 15:54:15+00:00
> This concludes all the testing for GPT5 I have to do. If a tool is able to actively mislead me this easy, which potentially results in me wasting significant amounts of time in trying to make something work that is guaranteed to never work, it’s a useless tool.

Yeah, except it isn't. You can get enormous value out of LLMs if you get over this weird science fiction requirement that they never make mistakes.

And yeah, their confidence is frustrating. Treat them like an over-confident twenty-something intern who doesn't like to admit when they get stuff wrong.

You have to put the effort in to learn how to use them with a skeptical eye. I've been getting value as a developer from LLMs since the GPT-3 era, and those models sucked.

> The only way ChatGPT will stop spreading that nonsense is if there is a significant mass of humans talking online about the lack of ZSTD support.

We actually have a robust solution for this exact problem now: run the prompt through a coding agent of some sort (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor etc) that has access to the Swift compiler.

That way it can write code with the hallucinated COMPRESSION_ZSTD thing in it, observe that it doesn't compile and iterate further to figure out what does work.

Or the simpler version of the above: LLM writes code. You try and compile it. You get an error message and you paste that back into the LLM and let it have another go. That's been the main way I've worked with LLMs for almost three years now.
by nnutter | 2025-08-09 15:54:24+00:00
I appreciate you citing the USAID funding but you seem to be trying to prove a point rather than get to the truth. Screwworm detection and prevention was not halted because of the USAID shutdown, USDA is actively working on it, one can see this by going to usda.gov and searching for "screwworm". I really appreciate ajmurmann's edit which acknowledges this.
by pron | 2025-08-09 15:54:40+00:00
> I explained in some detail exactly why this equivalence exists.

No, you assumed that Zig and C++ are equivalent and concluded that they'll follow a similar trajectory. It's your premise that's unjustified.

A problem you'd have to contend with is that Rust is much more similar to C++ than Zig in multiple respects, which may matter more or less than the level of safety when predicting the language trajectory.

> But you can't choose (no matter how much effort you imagine applying) to always be sure

That is not Rice's theorem. You can certainly choose to prove every program correct. What you cannot do is have a general mechanism that would prove all programs in a certain language correct.

> One clever trick here is that you can just not be a general purpose language.

That's not so much a clever trick as the core of all simple (i.e. non-dependent) type systems. Type-safety in those languages then trivially implies some property, which is an inductive invariant (or composable invariant) that's stronger than some desired property. E.g. in Rust, "borrow/lifetime-safety" is stronger than UAF-safety.

However, because an effort to prove any property must exist, we can find it for some language that trivially offers it by looking at the cost of translating a correct program in some other language that doesn't guarantee the property to one that does. The reason why it's more of a theoretical point than a practical one is because it could be reasonably argued that writing a memory-safety program in C is harder than doing it in Rust in the first place, but either way, there's some effort there that isn't there when writing the program in, say, Java.
by hyperknot | 2025-08-09 15:55:01+00:00
We are talking about an insane amount of data here. It was 56 Gbit/s (or 56 x 1 Gbit servers 100% saturated!). This is not something a "caching server" could handle. We are talking on the order of CDN networks, like Cloudflare, to be able to handle this.
by jerf | 2025-08-09 15:55:05+00:00
The only thing stopping that right now is that that's pretty expensive at scale. The research about using AIs to "nudge" people, the research that AIs can far more accurately determine your tastes than currently-used profiling techniques, all that is already in place and it's obvious how to take the next steps.

Jury's still out on whether AI is actually going to be a net benefit to humanity, or if the AIs will be so firmly under the thumb of their owners that eventually the only rational thing to do will be to disregard everything that may have come from them because you can presumptively assume that everything coming from them is for the owner's benefit and not yours.
by ModernMech | 2025-08-09 15:55:57+00:00
> I don’t see it much in the real world.

Maybe you missed it, but there was a whole period in the Spring when people were in the real world protesting in front of actual Tesla dealerships. These were people like my parents, who don't even have social media, yet they were dragging themselves and their protest signs to the local Tesla dealerships every weekend. People got so mad they were setting Teslas on fire! When people are so pissed they're firebombing dealerships, you can't pretend it's just online murmurings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Takedown
by burnt-resistor | 2025-08-09 15:56:18+00:00
It sounds hyperbolic and they probably mean high school students with 1500+ SAT-I, 5 AP everything, and other community leadership achievements.

Meanwhile, there's the ultra-talented people IIT turns away every year. Maybe the smart thing would be to also pick up international students as second-chance admits rather than chase away tourists, students, researchers, and workers?
by metalman | 2025-08-09 15:56:40+00:00
the same is true of solar eclipses, there are no partial eclipses, untill the very last instant of the moon covering the sun, it is far to bright to look at, and then the stars come out and the solar flares are visible, the birds sing there evening songs and here I have told you of it, but at best it will be hint. AI is worse, much worse, as we have our own inteligence, but cant even offer a hint of where that line is and how to cross it, where to go to see it
by keiferski | 2025-08-09 15:57:22+00:00
In my experience IF is better thought of as a way to break bad eating habits, not as a direct way to lose weight. Merely eating the same amount of food but in a certain time frame (which is what a lot of people end up doing) doesn’t accomplish much in terms of weight loss.

But I have found it successful in breaking bad habits, which results in weight loss indirectly.

For example, I had a bad habit of eating a large breakfast 1-2 hours within waking up. I was never really that hungry, but it was just something I did out of habit. Doing an IF routine made me realize that I’m not actually that hungry in the morning and can get by until 10-11am on just a coffee with milk.
by ankit219 | 2025-08-09 15:58:01+00:00
Meta's case might be different, and hence i wrote it as scale would have been acquired in past times instead of an investment like they did today. For other companies, the hiring aspect avoids M&A filings, balance sheet consolidation, and still give the big tech companies access to IP and talent. Easier path to get what you want than say Wiz acquisition still waiting to be completed. The stance may have recently changed, but seems like big tech companies are not testing it. (it's also not just US, but other jurisdictions have a say too. Meta had to sell Giphy due to issue raised by UK/Europe)

Re Microsoft and Windsurf, this[1] article claims Windsurf did not want MS accessing it's intellectual property, a default condition for Microsoft OpenAI deal.

> Windsurf didn’t want Microsoft to have access to its intellectual property — a condition that OpenAI was unsuccessful in getting Microsoft’s agreement on, people familiar said. That was one of several sticking points in Microsoft and OpenAI’s ongoing talks about the AI company’s effort to restructure into a commercial entity. Microsoft’s existing agreement with OpenAI says the software giant is entitled to access the startup’s technology.

This is different from Microsoft not wanting openai to compete with Github copilot, given thats what they do with Codex anyway.

> Knowledge is extremely valuable when it comes to AI/ML We agree on that, but even in the past most acquisitions would value teams at a certain cost too. Without the team that built it, any company would struggle to get a good multiple. OP's claim was that lower multiple was cos of margins only, and i disagreed there.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-11/openai-s-...