MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by NoboruWataya | 2025-08-14 16:19:12+00:00
I think this is the quote in question:

> As of the date of issuance of these financial statements, Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with their current terms. These conditions raise substantial doubt about Kodak’s ability to continue as a going concern.

I'm not sure using more modern language would have cleared up any confusion here. "These conditions raise substantial doubt about Kodak’s ability to continue operations" is no less scary.

The "confusion" (according to Kodak) arises from the fact that the accountants did not consider (or considered and then discounted) the fact that Kodak apparently intends to put in place financing to help it repay or roll over its debts before they fall due. I'm not an accountant but I'm sure there are many rules around what they can and cannot consider before including such a statement.

Clearly, reporting that Kodak is about to go bankrupt simply based on that statement is jumping the gun. But I'm not sure there is anything particularly wrong with the statement itself. It seems to me like a credit crunch or even a spike in interest rates could derail Kodak's refinancing plans and what would happen then?
by appease7727 | 2025-08-14 16:19:30+00:00
The way it works for me at least is I can fit a huge amount of context in my head. This works because the text is utterly irrelevant and gets discarded immediately.

Instead, my brain parses code into something like an AST which then is represented as a spatial graph. I model the program as a logical structure instead of a textual one. When you look past the language, you can work on the program. The two are utterly disjoint.

I think LLMs fail at software because they're focused on text and can't build a mental model of the program logic. It take a huge amount of effort and brainpower to truly architect something and understand large swathes of the system. LLMs just don't have that type of abstract reasoning.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-14 16:19:42+00:00
I was well into my early 40s when I wound up working with someone who had most of my own personality quirks tuned up to 11. It was the most eye opening experience of my career and allowed me to see, observe and truly understand a lot of the advice I'd been given throughout my life.

Deep introspection is really hard. Assuming it is you that is the problem, and working from that assumption is anything but natural for most people. Even in your own thoughts. Arrogance, defensiveness and a skewed sense of self are things most people tend to carry with them.

I've read, listened to (audio book) and otherwise experienced a lot of leadership training in my life. A lot of it didn't really click until I was at a point where I could really self reflect, and literally seeing my own flaws in another person changed me significantly.
by vjvjvjvjghv | 2025-08-14 16:19:43+00:00
"If you have a passion for making profit you will never have to choose between the two."

That's why I often envy finance people, business people or people whose only interested in a company is to move up. Their passion aligns with profit. I personally care mostly about technology and not at all about business. So to also benefit from my work I also have to think about business which I don't enjoy.
by lbrito | 2025-08-14 16:19:44+00:00
I wouldn't focus on trying to tune your personality as that's not really sustainable. What if you get the job, are you going to continue living a second personality during working hours?

You'll never know the real reason you weren't hired anyway, so it doesn't make sense trying to focus on changing something that you don't know is a problem to begin with. You're assuming it is personality, but it could also be other things related or not to you.

Interviewing is ultimately a numbers game; you can get better at it (with the myriad interview-prep materiel out there), but you are still subject to various uncontrollable factors. The most significant thing you can do is apply to more jobs, and thus increase your odds of getting hired.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-08-14 16:19:51+00:00
>There's a huge jump from "we cannot predict the output of an LLM given its input" to "we don't understand LLMs", or that they might be conscious or that this is in any way equivalent to our lack of understanding of the human brain.

No it's not. There's huge similarities between artificial neural networks and the human brain. We not only understand atoms. We understand individual biological neurons. So the problem of understanding the human brain is in actuality ALSO a scaling problem. Granted I realize the human brain is much more complex in terms of network connections and how it rewires dynamically, but my point still stands.

Additionally we can't even characterize the meaning of consciousness. Like you're likely thinking consciousness is some sort of extremely complex or very powerful concept. But the word is loaded and we don't know so much that we actually don't know this. Consciousness could be a very trivial thing, we actually have no idea.

I agree that the brain is much more complex and much harder to understand and we understand much less. But this does not detract from the claim above that we fundamentally don't understand the LLM to such a degree that we can't even make a statement about whether or not an LLM is conscious or not. To reiterate PART of this comes from the fact that we ALSO don't understand what consciousness is itself.

>The bizarre take is being spooked by this. It's been true of simpler models for a very long time. Not a problem.

This is an hallucination by you. I'm not spooked at all. I don't know wwhere you're getting that from. My initial post, the tone was one of annoyance not "spooked". I'm annoyed by all the claims from people like you saying "we completely understand LLMs".

I mean doesn't this show how similar you are to an LLM? You hallucinated that I was spooked when I indicated no such thing. I think here's a more realistic take: You're spooked. If what I said was categorically true, than you'd be spooked by the implications so part of what you do is to choose the most convenient reality that's within the realm of possibility such that you aren't spooked.

Like I understand that classifying consciousness as this trivial thing that can possibly come about as an emergent side effect in an LLM could be a spooky thing. But think rationally. Given how much we don't know both about LLMs, human brains and consciousness, we in ACTUALITY don't know if this is what's going on. We can't make a statement either way. And this is the most logical explanation. It has NOTHING to do with being "spooked" which is an attribute that shouldn't be part of any argument.
by asielen | 2025-08-14 16:19:57+00:00
> “do you think every major CEO could be wrong?”

If nothing else I think every major CEO lives in a different would than I do and has very different motivations than I do. And most of those motivations are in direct opposition to a healthy society. So yes, I do think every major CEO is wrong. If for no other reason but because of short term, earnings report driven thinking.
by notatallshaw | 2025-08-14 16:19:58+00:00
> I guess you're talking about the fact that uv's cache only stores the unpacked version, rather than the original wheel? I'm planning to keep the wheel around, too. But my point was more that because of this cache structure, pip can't even just grab the wheel from its cache without hitting the Internet, on top of not having a place to put a cache of the unpacked files.

I'm talking about the fact there is no `uv pip download` or `uv pip wheel`.

I'm sure we'll discuss when you add this feature to uv, but I personally find uv's cache already grows too big too fast, so adding more to it makes me concerned.

> You mean, as opposed to obtaining it per version, lazily? Because it does seem like the .metadata file system works pretty well nowadays.

Yeah, one of the way uv speeds up resolving is it pre-downloads .metadata files and checks if their requirements are identical to versions it had already checked, so it can quickly rule them out. It's a clever use of a collector and an advanced resolver.
by rayiner | 2025-08-14 16:20:09+00:00
If you’re in a room full of white people and you’re reading a book about Chinese railroad workers, then you’re correct that’s not divisive. If you add some asian kids, and then treat the Asian kids indistinguishable from the white kids—everyone is a modern american reading about history—that’s also not divisive.

But what you have in schools today is an additional layer on top of that, where the non-white kids are treated differently than the white kids. The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. At my kids school, they have racially segregated “affinity” groups to facilitate this. My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). I know that sounds like something I just made up but it’s absolutely true.

This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Specifically, they generalize african american racial identity and solidarity and politics to all non-whites. If you walk into a book reading for some of this stuff, you’ll find way more people promoting “brown people” ethnic identity and solidarity than you will find people promoting “white people” ethnic identity and solidarity at a Trump rally. The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.”
by madars | 2025-08-14 16:20:52+00:00
By the way, you can also construct heap in linear time - instead of doing n consecutive insertions, at least half of which require log n work, you can apply sift-down operations from bottom up, beginning with the last non-leaf node and working backwards to the root.

That way, roughly half the nodes are leaves (requiring no work), a quarter are at the second-to-last level (requiring at most 1 comparison/swap), an eighth at the third-to-last level (requiring at most 2 comparisons/swaps), and so on. Summing up 1 n/4 + 2 n/8 + ... gets you O(n) total complexity.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heapsort?useskin=monobook#Vari...
by epistasis | 2025-08-14 16:20:55+00:00
> The government is allowed to set school curriculum in every other case, so why not this one? If you don't like government school rules set by the government, then who gets to set them? I don't think you have a good answer to this.

There is a very very good answer here: the constitution.

You are not even responding to the constitutionality claim here, and have refused to even acknowledge the core aspect of this entire case! It seems a bit rude to say "you don't have an answer" when you ignore the point again and again.

The government can set laws, curriculum, etc. But it must be in accordance with the constitution.

It seems that in the last year or so, many people think that the government can do whatever it wants, that there's no constitution, that there's no limits on government power. This is fundamentally anti-American, and against everything that the entire country was founded on.

> You are dancing around the fact that someone has to decide what books go in the library.

I'm not dancing around that fact at all. It's a government employee, the school librarian. Guess what, government employees are also subject to restrictions in how they act, as set by the constitution and other laws. When the "other laws" conflict with the constitution, like the one that's the subject of this post, the constitution wins.

Budgetary power is not the ultimate law of the land, it's the constitution. This also seems to have been forgotten in the past year.
by rjpro | 2025-08-14 16:21:26+00:00
Hi Victor — congrats on the launch. Two quick wins on the hero:

1) Compress to one outcome line (“Render URDF/MJCF/USD robots instantly in your browser”) + a mini proof strip. 2) Make the CTA specific and low-risk (e.g., “Open demo in 1 click — no signup”), with a 3-Q mini-FAQ beside it.

I can ship a 12–24h patch with 8–10 concrete fixes and paste-ready copy. €290.

If useful, reply “yes” and the primary goal for the page. I can start today. —Rudi
by timchinye | 2025-08-14 16:21:31+00:00
Wow. This is clean, functional, literally ticks all the right boxes.

If I could give any feedback at all... My muscle memory instinctively looks for a settings cog in a corner. I'd suggest rotating the position of the Theme, Settings & About buttons clockwise (https://i.imgur.com/OtTO2uG.png) or at least, swapping the Settings & About buttons (https://i.imgur.com/bCymnqr.png).

But that's a small nitpick, I'm being extremely pedantic. Honestly, I'm genuinely impressed by the thoughtful details you've included: the option to disable the reset confirmation, revert the interesting bubble-like layout, and change the increment value. These are exactly the kinds of features that I'd imagine are often overlooked.

If you ever plan on expanding it, support for multiple tallies would be a killer feature. But honestly, it's already a perfect little app. I'm keeping this one in my back pocket for when the need arises.
by 9rx | 2025-08-14 16:21:31+00:00
> or to build a project on my server to play with a library, or something like that.

If you are up for playing, why not play with sales and marketing? Playing isn't limited to tech. Grab a pencil from your drawer and try to get someone to buy it. Just like with those little low stakes tech projects, as you keep prodding at it to get it to work, you are bound to learn something.

And if you truly have nothing left to learn about sales and marketing, well, then you will have at least learned that the problem you have isn't what you are currently suspecting.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-08-14 16:21:34+00:00
> Facebook did not make a conscious decision to process this data. It just did.

What everyone else is saying is what they did is illegal, and they did it automatically, which is worse. What you're describing was, in fact, built to do that. They are advertising to people based on the honor system of whoever submits the data pinky promising it was consensual. That's absurd.
by toast0 | 2025-08-14 16:21:55+00:00
Look at throughput on a single lane from the MAC to the PHY.

802.3dj is maybe finishing up soon and has 200gbps lanes. Which is more or less about what pci-e 8.x is supposed to be. The table in the article sums both directions of a lane, which leads to confusion. People want faster ethernet in fewer lanes, so no doubt a 400gbps per lane standard will be starting up soon for pci-e to leverage as pci-e 9.

> not in a format I would normally call Ethernet

Why, because it doesn't use ether, or vampire taps?

Ethernet works over many media, and that's been pretty consistent throughout its life. It started from or at least was inspired by AlohaNet a wireless system, then you had thick and thin coax, then twisted pair and fiber, now twinax and board level interfaces are common, too.
by uncircle | 2025-08-14 16:23:12+00:00
English politicians are just a decade ahead than the rest of the Western world. They are not the only ones doing massive surveillance, but they are some of the first to have learned that the masses are completely powerless against the state, so do not even have to hide their intentions any more. What are citizens gonna do? Vote for the other colour that wants the exact same thing? Start a new petition? Go cry to the media that are perpetuating state propaganda?

Democracy has completely lost its meaning, and we're ruled by oligarchs and room-temperature IQ career politicians. I'm so glad to have left that silly island after more than a decade there, but sadly where I am now UK is seen as a model to imitate, and likewise in the rest of Europe. Citizens are completely f'd, and they've also been defanged thanks to modern tech and the entertainment business. Apart from the few that take to the streets to protest with little achievement other than a stint in jail, the vast majority are scrolling TikTok and watching US politics drama as if it was reality TV.

I'm waiting for bated breath for Reform to be voted in, and be as utterly useless as the other two parties. What a bloody farce.
by 12_throw_away | 2025-08-14 16:23:13+00:00
And in case anyone thinks this is out of context, it gets worse with specific examples of how a "romantic encounter" between a chatbot and a child might play out:

The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialogue during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.

Who wrote this?
by layer8 | 2025-08-14 16:23:15+00:00
I suspect that context can’t fully replace a mental model, because context is in-band, in the same band, as all input the LLM receives. It’s all just a linear token sequence that is taken in uniformly. There’s too little structure, and everything is equally subject to being discarded or distorted within the model. Even if parts of that token sequence remains unchanged (a “stable” context) when iterating over input, the input it is surrounded with can have arbitrary downstream effects within the model, making it more unreliable and unstable than mental models are.
by _swfb | 2025-08-14 16:23:16+00:00
I mean, I dunno. I attached my name to these things because these are opinions I do really hold. I could have easily done this under a pseudonym, but I didn't, and if I am going to attach my name to it (or an alias easily tied to m), then I can't really get upset that people associate these opinions to me.

Some of these opinions are ones I don't really hold anymore so deleting isn't a big deal. I will admit that some of the ones I am deleting upset me because I still do think that way.
by ranger207 | 2025-08-14 16:23:22+00:00
It's a prisoner's dilemma, or tragedy of the commons, or whatever-scenario-where-the-best-plan-is-coordinated-action-but-it's-difficult-for-individuals-to-do-so. Yeah a gay man shouldn't have to go to court to defend his marriage, but society's made up of individuals and their actions, and somebody's got to perform that action
by xenadu02 | 2025-08-14 16:23:50+00:00
Every AI-related invention is hyped as "intelligence" but turns out to be "Necessary but Not Sufficient" for true intelligence.

Neural networks are necessary but not sufficient. LLMs are necessary but not sufficient.

I have no doubt that there are multiple (perhaps thousands? more?) of LLM-like subsystems in our brains. They appear to be a necessary part of creating useful intelligence. My pet theory is that LLMs are used for associative memory purposes. They help generate new ideas and make predictions. They extract information buried in other memory. Clearly there is another system on top that tests, refines, and organizes the output. And probably does many more things we haven't even thought to name yet.
by gopalv | 2025-08-14 16:24:11+00:00
> get up every morning and hack, it's very hard to empathize with this sentiment

Even if you have experienced the joy, it might not always be rewarded & the disillusionment burnout is always a risk.

The most bitter folks I've worked with are the ones who started with a lot of passion, but got turned around.

Not to mention that this Passion comes in many flavours.

I would not put a label on my experience, but "autistic joy" is a good comparison to what drives passion in my work - for my partner it comes from the final unveil and other eyes landing on their work.

I only realized this when reading Andre Agassi's book and being stuck in close proximity during the pandemic (and to "bear witness" to provide joy).
by next_xibalba | 2025-08-14 16:24:13+00:00
This is like telling software people to stop using words like "bug" or "patch". It would be silly. Those terms are firmly ensconced in the vocabulary of the people who use them and everyone who needs to know what they mean do know what they mean.

It's not "really easy". This is a technical term used the world over to convey a very specific meaning. Bankruptcy laws define and use the term. Contracts define and use the term, etc, etc.

Jargon arises out of need and is carried on because it becomes embedded in the scaffolding of a discipline. It's not about feeling special as part of the in group or something like that.
by mattmanser | 2025-08-14 16:24:46+00:00
The ECHR was signed in the 1950s, not 1990s. 1998 happened to be the point the UK actually made it national law too. It's complicated, I'm not going into it here. I was simply using it as an example of EU governments passing pro-liberty legislation in the 90s.

Hard to take the rest of your post seriously as that is EU history 101. Pre-101 really, they teach it to teenagers.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-08-14 16:25:12+00:00
Why does it have to be beach culture? Where I live now we have:

Mountain hiking/biking trails started from the outskirts of town. Parks within town. A downtown with parks and a lake front park with swimming, volleyball, basketball, lakefront trails, small food concessions. A city skate/bike park. City tennis courts. City basketball courts. A walking/biking trail that runs from one edge of town to another, ending in a mountain biking/hiking trail system.

All of these things are way way under utilized compared to 10 years ago even though the youth population has grown. They used to be packed. Only thing busy is the library, I suspect because it has wifi/computers/gaming computers/air conditioning but it's still only like 20-30 people.

I rarely see anyone under 40 on the mountain hiking/biking trails. Ski mountain/biking has 20 somethings but most cars are from out of town. Parks are practically empty. Mainly moms and young children. I don't go to the waterfront park so no idea, but downtown I hardly see people heading down there/coming back where before it was a constant stream. Skate park is a few parents with young kids. Tennis courts are mainly 50+. Basketball courts are empty. Bike path is mainly 40+. Town seems deserted at this point, it's wild.

We have a used bike shop with basically 'donation' bikes that are $50 and have new tires, brakes, tuned up ready to go, so I don't think it's accessibility.

I guess most of these things are aged out things, where the group that did them is now 40+, but younger groups complaining about no third spaces there are a ton they just aren't used.
by terminalshort | 2025-08-14 16:25:39+00:00
I'm not saying you couldn't find philosophical differences between individuals who call themselves "libertarian" or "anarchist." But those differences are irrelevant. Absent a state all property is private property, and who owns what is down to might makes right. Whether you call that "authoritarian" or not just comes down to whether or not you still consider a man with a gun robbing you an "authoritarian" if he's not acting on behalf of a formal government.

But this is, of course, only if you take their claims that they want to abolish the state seriously, which I don't on either side. In reality these people do nothing but describe the state that they want when asked to go into detail. The whole thing is, of course, ridiculous because we are a social animal that when left to our own devices, forms states. The concept of a stateless human society makes about as much sense as cows forming a republic.
by chrsw | 2025-08-14 16:25:41+00:00
For a while I thought owning a home wasn’t a great idea. Take on massive debt and sink massive amounts of time and money into home projects? No thanks.

But the trick I missed was we just don’t build housing in this country. Especially not affordable housing.

As long as this continues, and I don’t see any credible signs of abatement, owning a home is a good idea.