MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tetha | 2025-08-28 22:37:05+00:00
I agree. We do have mirrors setup, we do have observability into the images we use across the infrastructure. This has concluded we only have a minor issue with this move, wonderfully.

But, just butting users with "Just do this good practice" or "Just do this NOW" still is an uphill battle and will usually not cause the best effect with users. We're currently doing this while moving our 2-3 artifactories into one. If we just shut this stuff off because "You should have more control with your builds", there'd be a riot.

And sure, some people will still fail the migration no matter what. But such time frames are still punishing any but the most professional companies.

That's all in all the work I consider a good operations team to do. Make a stink, provide a migration path, be noticeable, and push people off of the old stuff. Just breaking things because "you should have" is burning trust by the mile.
by simonh | 2025-08-28 22:37:16+00:00
These two questions are not equivalent.

Q1: I looked at only one of a pair of two randomly selected children and it was a girl. What is the probability the other I didn’t see is a girl?

Q2: I looked at both of two randomly selected children and at least one of the pair of children is a girl. What is the probability the other is also a girl?
by qwerpy | 2025-08-28 22:38:06+00:00
It’s one of those things where you can claim Teslas have poor build quality and you get a free pass, but you will be “source?”d to death if you contradict it.

I’ve had several Teslas and even currently have their supposed disaster of a truck and have not encountered this alleged build quality issue. My car before that, a Honda Civic, spent much more time in the shop purely on account that it needed oil changes and expensive scheduled maintenances once or twice a year.
by ProfessorLayton | 2025-08-28 22:38:28+00:00
IMO what made American muscle cars special was their combination of power + unique styling + price. Yeah they were noisy (Which some really liked) and sometimes impractical, but that was okay because of they weren't trying to be everything to everyone.

A Model 3 might check a lot of boxes, but its styling is definitely not unique, and the rest of car itself is tying to appeal to as many as possible.
by jsnell | 2025-08-28 22:38:50+00:00
An unavoidable aspect of abuse problems is that there is no perfect solution. As the defender, you’re always making a precision vs. recall tradeoff. After you’ve picked off the low hanging fruit, most of the time the only way to increase recall (i.e. catch more abuse) is by reducing the precision (i.e. having more false positives, where a good user is falsely considered an abuser).

In an adversarial engineering domain neither the problems or solutions are static. If by some miracle you have a perfect solution at one point in time, the adversaries will quickly adapt, and your solution stops being perfect.

So you’ll mostly be playing the game in this shifting gray area of maybe legit, maybe abusive cases. Since you can’t perfectly classify them (if you could, they wouldn’t be in the gray area), the options are basically to either block all of them, allow all of them, or issue them a challenge that the user must pass to be allowed. The first two options tend to be unacceptable in the gray area, so issuing a challenge that the client must pass is usually the preferred option.

A good counter-abuse challenge is something that has at least one of the following properties:

1. It costs more to pass than the economic value that the adversary can extract from the service, but not so much that the legitimate users won’t be willing to pay it.

2. It proves control of a scarce resource without necessarily having to spend that resource, but at least in such a way that the same scarce resource can’t be used to pass unlimited challenges.

3. It produces additional signals that can be used to meaningfully improve the precision/recall tradeoff.

And proof of work does none of those. The last two by construction, since compute is about the most fungible resource in the world. The last doesn't work since it's impossible to balance the difficulty factor such that it imposes a cost the attacker would notice but would be acceptable to the defender.

If you add 10s to the latency for your worst-case real users (already too long), it'll cost about $0.01/1k solves. That's not a deterrent to any kind of abuse.

So proof of work just is a really bad fit for this specific use case. The only advantage is that it is easy to implement, but that's a very short term benefit.
by random3 | 2025-08-28 22:38:56+00:00
I'd argue that, out of white collar jobs, it is actually one of the least automatable still. I.e. the rest of the jobs are likely going to get disrupted much faster because they are easier to automate (and have been the target of automation by the software industry in the past century). Whatever numbers were seeing now may be too early to reflect this accurately.

Also there are different metrics that are relevant like dollar count vs pure headcount. Cost cutting targets dollars. E.g. entry level developers are still expensive compared to other jobs.
by jonahx | 2025-08-28 22:39:16+00:00
Congrats on your game of the year.

I do agree it takes time for things to be fully absorbed into the culture, and the full impact of even the current state of AI has not been felt. But I stand by my claim that, basically, many many people have no interest in being makers, and no amount of friction-easing will change that. I think it's a hard thing to grasp for people with a natural interest in math/CS/etc. I came to my current position reluctantly, after teaching undergrads in both math and humanities, and after many conversations with non-technical (and often very smart) friends. Some people are just not interested in using their mind that way, just like some people like some games but not others.
by taeric | 2025-08-28 22:39:20+00:00
Well, sorta? You were either in the world where dime was heads, in which case the space has TH, HH, or the Quarter was Heads, in which case you have HT, or again HH. Both with 50% probability, no? You were never in a scenario where HT and TH have the same probability as each other. (Well, again, sorta. Point being that you know one of them is possible.)

Edit: I want to be clear that my initial thinking was exactly what you said. I was trying to "steelman" the bad intuition and I think I've trapped myself. :D
by recursivecaveat | 2025-08-28 22:39:23+00:00
Not necessarily the exact same address (you can fix that in a program anyways with a broadcast tree), but same memory bank. Imagine 1000 trains leaving a small town at the same time, instead of 1000 trains leaving 1000 different towns simultaneously. At some point there are not enough transportation resources to get stuff out of a particular area at the parallelism desired.
by MorehouseJ09 | 2025-08-28 22:39:27+00:00
Tom nails it, BYOC, by default is not more secure just because it's in the customer's cloud account. Just like self-hosted.

At worst, BYOC has a much bigger blast radius and can cause bigger vulnerabilities for customer workloads.

To offer BYOC, teams need to think beyond cross account permissions, and build tooling to dynamically push changes with toggleable, customer-controlled permissions and policy validation.

Disclaimer - I'm building Nuon, and we're building a security platform for BYOC deployments.
by Joker_vD | 2025-08-28 22:39:43+00:00
I think I actually saw a question on SO way back during the Windows Vista era when some guy asked if Windows supported machines with odd number of cores/processors, and the answer was "well, 1 is an odd number, you know".

Another joke from the same era: Having a 2 core processor means that you can now e.g. watch a film at the same time. At the same time with what? At the same time with running Windows Vista!
by kbelder | 2025-08-28 22:40:24+00:00
I agree, it's perfectly clear. In my humble opinion, people are bringing their incorrect assumptions to the question, and because they're wrong, are trying to blame the framing of the question. That happens a lot with the Monty Haul paradox, as well.

And, of course, neither are paradoxes. They're just math that can seem paradoxical if you don't look closely at it.
by DouweM | 2025-08-28 22:41:08+00:00
Pydantic AI maintainer here! Did you happen to file an issue for the problem you were seeing with Azure OpenAI?

The vast majority of bugs we encounter are not in Pydantic AI itself but rather in having to deal with supposedly OpenAI Chat Completions-compatible APIs that aren't really, and with local models ran through e.g. Ollama or vLLM that tend to not be the best at tool calling.

The big three model providers (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini) and enterprise platforms (Bedrock, Vertex, Azure) see the vast majority of usage and our support for them is very stable. It remains a challenge to keep up with their pace of shipping new features and models, but thanks to our 200+ contributors we're usually not far behind the bleeding edge in terms of LLM API feature coverage, and as you may have seen we're very responsive to issues and PRs on GitHub, and questions on Slack.
by JohnFen | 2025-08-28 22:42:18+00:00
I have maintained a portfolio for decades, as have most of my colleagues. I don't put it online, though, because I don't see an advantage in me doing so (but I can totally see others could get an advantage doing so). I provide that portfolio to others personally when I'm selling myself in some way (job interview, wooing investors, etc.).

But I'm old and most of my colleagues are within a decade or so of me. I wonder if there's been a generational change. Maybe this used to be a common thing and just isn't so much anymore?
by jrflowers | 2025-08-28 22:42:37+00:00
Yes. In this thread about the profitability (or lack thereof) of OpenAI’s business model, I pointed out the part where you appeared to agree with Ed Zitron about the profitability (or lack thereof) of OpenAI’s business model. Like it seems like all of those posts were pretty clearly motivated by wanting to poke holes in Zitron’s criticism, their lack of profitability (which is central to his criticism) is where you declined to push back with any real argument.
by XorNot | 2025-08-28 22:43:50+00:00
I mean the first and foremost principle of the DSM is that if the patient is not reporting or experiencing a debilitating ability to live a functional life, and is otherwise happy with their own lived experience, then whatever symptoms they have aren't a problem.

There's obviously a gulf of potential argument in that definition, but a unique form would be people who report hearing voices, but they're not hostile or angry..so actually it's not a problem.
by zeroonetwothree | 2025-08-28 22:44:10+00:00
Similarly if you had the knowledge “at least one is a boy born on May 11” then it would be very close to but slightly less than 50%.

So we can see in the limit as the information becomes more and more specific it turns into the unconditional probability. That is, the case of “the first is a boy, what is the probability both are boys” (50%).

I think this clarifies the situation in the OP pretty well.
by AIPedant | 2025-08-28 22:44:14+00:00
Like others in the thread have said, the question could have been phrased more precisely. Technically you are misreading it but in an annoying and trivial way.

What the problem is really saying is this:

1) You have a large collection of families with two kids of varying genders.

2) You draw one of them at random. At this point, your only estimate of P(2 girls) is 0.25.

3) Someone tells you that the family you drew has at least one girl.

4) This extra information changes your probability estimate because the possibility of two boys has been ruled out; the naive 1/4 estimate is refined to 1/3.

The way you are interpreting it is this:

1) You have a large collection of families with two kids, at least one of whom is a girl.

2) Then the probability that the other child is a girl is clearly 50%.

As a reminder this is how the original post phrased the question:

Here's the problem: a family has two children. You're told that at least one of them is a girl. What's the probability both are girls?

This is just too vague and admits both interpretations, they needed to be more specific about where the family "came from." That's why Monty Hall is a better illustration: it starts with you explicitly choosing a door at random. Here the family has been chosen at random from the pool of families with two children, but that's totally unclear.
by DoctorOetker | 2025-08-28 22:44:55+00:00
for example, the element Helium (which had been presumed to exist as a missing gap in the Aufbau model, but at the time not yet discovered) was first discovered not on Earth... but in the Sun! Spectroscopy confirmed the predicted spectrum. Once The element was confirmed to exist on the sun, they started looking for it on Earth and eventually found it on Earth as well.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-08-28 22:45:01+00:00
There are no moving goalposts, though there is a certain lack of precision in the discussion, on both ends. There is a commonly accepted scale of self-driving car autonomy. By some accounts Waymo can be considered to be level 4, by others they are only level 3. By no account are they level 5, nor is anyone else.

Those are the goalposts and they've been in the same spot for quite a while now.
by conductr | 2025-08-28 22:46:19+00:00
Eventually, maybe. Right now I see a lot more people wasting time with AI in search of these promised efficiencies. A lot of companies reducing headcount are simply hiding the fact that they are deprioritizing projects or reducing their overall scope because the economy is shit (I know, I know - but it feels worse than reported IMO) and that's the right business cycle thing to do. If you're dramatic and take the DOGE/MAGA approach to management, just fire everyone and the important issues will become obvious where investment is actually needed. It's a headcount 'zero based budget' played out IRL. The truth is, there is a lot of fat to be cut from most large companies and I feel like it's the current business trend to be ruthless with the blade, especially since you have AI as a rose colored scapegoat.
by JohnFen | 2025-08-28 22:46:22+00:00
> I doubt any backend positions have such a field

I haven't ever seen one, or been asked for one in those terms. I have often been asked to bring in something that demonstrates my work (which is a sort of micro-portfolio), and I do bring in a portfolio of my work even when not asked. I know that there's a certain point past the initial screening stages where work examples can really be effective.
by DouweM | 2025-08-28 22:46:27+00:00
How do you mean? Pydantic AI (which I'm a maintainer of) is completely open source.

We do have a proprietary observability and evals product Pydantic Logfire (https://pydantic.dev/logfire), but Pydantic AI works with other observability tools as well, and Logfire works with other agent frameworks.
by astrange | 2025-08-28 22:46:42+00:00
> Ah ok, well, obesity incidence is probably almost entirely explained by the amount of sugar and fats in modern diets.

The obesity epidemic started rapidly around 1980, but it's unlikely diet changed for the worse since then.

Also, it happened to lab animals and pets as well.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010...

Also, it appears to be correlated with low altitudes and interventions that cause you to move to higher altitudes cause weight loss.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

> Purely anecdotally, my step-dad always thought he was intolerant to gluten because of his reactions to British bread, but when he spent a lot of time in France and tried bread there, he was fine.

The American equivalent of this (people who go to Europe and think the bread is healthier because it's easy to digest) is because we fortify wheat and the extra nutrients esp. iron cause stomach discomfort.
by AuthAuth | 2025-08-28 22:47:45+00:00
Its not about dominating its the constant competition. Growth and power makes it easier to grow more and become more powerful. If you stay in your lane you limit how you can grow and then the guy who didnt stay in their lane has grown bigger and can now influence and push you around.

You could have an equal balance of power but both sides would still be competing to match each other and it could be upset at any moment.
by trod1234 | 2025-08-28 22:47:51+00:00
There are a couple of ways.

The main one is called an Eclipse Attack in cyber circles, and it can be done at any entity operating at the ASN layer so long as they can position themselves to relay your traffic.

The adversary can invisibly (to victim PoV) modify traffic if they have a cooperating rootPKI cert (anywhere in the ecosystem) that isn't the originating content provider, so long as they recognize the network signature (connection handshake); solely by terminating encryption early.

Without a cert, you can still listen in with traffic analysis, the fetched traffic that's already been encrypted with their key (bit for bit), as known plaintext the math quickly reduces. SNI and a few other artifacts referencing the resources/sites are not part of the encrypted payload.

Its more commonly known in a crypto context, but that kind of attack can happen anywhere. It even works against TOR. One of the first instances (afaik) was disclosed by Princeton researches in 2015, under the Raptor paper.
by ranger_danger | 2025-08-28 22:47:55+00:00
They admitted that this was a 'shitpost'.

> how this would help stop scrapers

I think anubis bases its purpose on some flawed assumptions:

- that most scrapers aren't headless browsers

- that they don't have access to millions of different IPs across the world from big/shady proxy companies

- that this can help with a real network-level DDoS

- that scrapers will give up if the requests become 'too expensive'

- that they aren't contributing to warming the planet

I'm sure there does exist some older bots that are not smart and don't use headless browsers, but especially with newer tech/AI crawlers/etc., I don't think this is a realistic majority assumption anymore.
by harikb | 2025-08-28 22:48:07+00:00
It shouldn't require a fancy forward-lookup-capable editor / language-server to show type. That is the point I am trying to make

var/declare x;

25 lines later

call f(x); // ** Reader has no idea what x is ... even though compiler has **

25 lines later

if (....)

x = "world" // infer type as string - this is bad
by awl130 | 2025-08-28 22:48:19+00:00
I had the same experience at Citibank. We started at a small branch in downtown LA with our Series Seed round check for $3M. Even then we barely got any attention, and dealt with just a local branch manager. Later we closed $7.5M, still no attention; except this time due to consolidation we were kicked to a regional team that handled our account as a team. In fact we never had a dedicated banker, we were just handled like so many SMB by calling a banking center. Over the years we asked for things like corporate credit cards and the like, but it always seemed we were just a little too small (I guess with Fortune 50 clients, we were small to them). Anyway we eventually moved to a smaller independent bank for different reasons.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-28 22:48:37+00:00
Definitely seen this a lot in the JS/NPM ecosystem... You go searching for a module that does $thing... you find about 10, you sort and look at say the 3 most recently published an the 3-5 most downloaded/popular... is the repo open (github, usually), are there a lot of old issues left lingering with an old last publish date? Might take a passive look at the codebase to see if I can grok it and fix any issues I find if needed.

Choose what I feel is the best option. Trying to avoid dead packages, but not afraid to deal with older packages if they aren't just stale, but functionally complete. The shift towards ES import statements and TypeScript defs has also influenced my selection process.

I've seen plenty of cases where either a fork or new option effectively takes over. A lot of people are leaning towards Zod over Yue or Hono over Express. There's instances where the dev goes off the rails like with Faker and the community comes together to fork a solution.

All of the above examples definitely happen in practice. I'm guessing many packages all over the place have replaced various dependencies over the years.
by ezconnect | 2025-08-28 22:49:17+00:00
Maybe that's the point of the big players making things harder for small business to operate independently. You want to put up shop online? Just use our services (eg Shopee, Temu, Amazon) to sell online and they get a cut on all your transaction. All the big players get a cut on every commerce on the internet. Want to put up a payment system not under their system? Their lobbies will take care of your startup before it even starts.
Show HN: A new interface for doing research fast with an LLM
by kanodiaashu | 2025-08-28 22:49:18+00:00
We built ProRead as a new interface for researching anything with an LLM. Instead of chat, you explore topics through an interactive map of ideas. The interface changes the level of detail like when zooming in and out on Google Maps. Click to go deeper, expand branches, and always stay grounded in sources.

It’s less “chat with AI,” more structured exploration. Curious if this feels useful for your own deep dives.
by kgwgk | 2025-08-28 22:49:19+00:00
The "it's perfectly clear" crowd are also bringing their own assumptions into the answer.

"Different readings of the setup imply different answers to p(what you're told | the unknowns)." See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45056790

Do you think that it's perfectly clear that the answer to all the questions here is 2/3? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45057514
by araes | 2025-08-28 22:49:32+00:00
Heavily prevalent in Europe and New Zealand, with a bit in South Africa and couple observations on the west and east coast of America. (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1367002-Crataegus-germanica)

The American variety, Stern's Medlar only has a couple observations in Arkansas (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1368643-Crataegus---canesce...)

Japanese / Chinese Medlar or Loquat are apparently distantly related, yet still have a lot of similarity and edible food (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/76949-Eriobotrya-japonica)

If its included in Crataegus (as Crataegus germanica) then it has a bunch of relations like Hawthorn (also edible, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51147-Crataegus-monogyna) and Azaroles (also edible, Haws, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/191019-Crataegus-azarolus)

Seems to get heavily mixed in naming with the genus Vangueria in the family Rubiaceae, since they're frequently named Medlar, and have edible fruit, just happen to be mostly from Africa. Really confusing, since they look similar, have similar food, yet apparently different genus, family, and order. Don't cross over until they get all the way up to Clade: Eudicots. Apparently they're attached to bad luck and misfortune, so maybe they got a cursed botanical classification.

Wild-Medlar (Vangueria infausta, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/340324-Vangueria-infausta

Mountain Medlar (Vangueria parvifolia, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/595967-Vangueria-parvifolia

Velvet Wild-Medlar (Vangueria infausta ssp. infausta, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/601546-Vangueria-infausta-i...

Bush Medlar (Vangueria madagascariensis, Africa, S. America) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/466936-Vangueria-madagascar...

Natal Medlar (Vangueria lasiantha, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/341606-Vangueria-lasiantha

Waterberg Crowned-Medlar (Vangueria triflora, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/595971-Vangueria-triflora

Forest Crowned-Medlar (Vangueria bowkeri, Africa) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/595965-Vangueria-bowkeri