MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrlongroots | 2025-08-16 20:46:00+00:00
Ok I think the confusion arises because of the probabilistic nature of LLM responses that blurs the line between "intelligent vs not".

Let's take driving a car as an example, and a random decision generator as a lower bound on the intelligence of the driver.

- A professionally trained human, who is not fatigued or unhealthy or substance-impaired, rarely makes a mistake, and when they do, there are reasonable mitigating factors.

- ML models, OTOH, are very brittle and probabilistic. A model trained on blue tinted windshields may suffer a dramatic drop in performance if ran on yellow-tinted windshields.

Models are unpredictably probabilistic. They do not learn a complete world model, but the very specific conditions and circumstances of their training dataset.

They continue to get better, and you are able to induce a behavior similar to true intelligence more and more often. In your case, you are able to get them to stop and ask, but if they had the ability to do this reliably, they would not make mistakes as agents at all. Right now they resemble intelligence under a very specific light, and as the regimes under which they resemble one get bigger, they will get to AGIs. But we're not there yet.
Show HN: unsafehttp – tiny web server from scratch in C, running on an orange pi
by GSGBen | 2025-08-16 20:46:15+00:00
Hey HN, I wanted to get more familiar with C programming, *nix socket programming and C compilation, so I wrote this "web" ""server"". It's running on a tiny SBC in my office, and there's as little as possible between you and it.

Happy for you to try and break it, hopefully with something more interesting than a DoS though :) Please let me know if you find any issues.
by SatvikBeri | 2025-08-16 20:46:59+00:00
As a data point, I've been at two data-intensive startups where they eventually needed to pull (some) of their table-like data out of postgres, and for both that was past a $100MM valuation.

This varies by domain of course, but non-postgres solutions are generally built for very specific problems – they're worse than postgres at everything except one or two cases.
by wkcheng | 2025-08-16 20:47:20+00:00
Yeah, that's the way that I cut onions: you make vertical cuts followed by one single horizontal cut slightly above the cutting board.

This way of calculating doesn't take into account the creative ways you can make cuts. You could also do mostly vertical slices, and then slightly angle inwards when you do the final few cuts. That would get you a more optimal distribution as well.
by hilbert42 | 2025-08-16 20:47:47+00:00
"It's awfully bold to claim that the US is obsessed with making rules, and China isn't."

Of course China is obsessed with rules just like many countries are, and it's pretty clear it firmly polices its laws.

The difference is that after the death of Mao in 1976 Deng Xiaoping consciously and openly embarked on a task to pull China into the modern technological era, and to do that he deliberately set out to populate China's Politburo with highly educated engineers and like. (I gave references to this in a HN post a short while ago.)

Thus, for nearly 50 years China has been run by the best brains available rather than those who've the gift of the gab and promise the electorate whatever it takes to get them elected.

Sure that's not democracy and many of us in the West find it irksome. However, like it or not, over the last 50 years China's rulers have run a command economy and worked an economic miracle.

Deng Xiaoping's insight of getting the best and brightest to run the country was brilliant, unlike most dictators he chose a course of action that actually benefited China. There's no question about that, the evidence is there for all the world to see.
by oblio | 2025-08-16 20:47:59+00:00
> The left margin is where the text is, and on the right there is an illustration which has (almost) uniform padding on the right and on the bottom, which leaves enough room for the popup not to feel cluttered. You could maybe add a little more margin to the left of the text, but it really isn't that visible to me.

Well, it is visible, and the professional solution for this would be to have icon design guidelines and enforce them, such that the actual visible/non-transparent icon contents are always in the same "box", and then include the padding in the icon itself in the calculation for element spacing. The fact that one component is text and the another one is an icon is not a valid excuse, these things can be planned in advance, especially for a desktop environment that has been around for close to 29 years now.

Oh, and now that I've looked the image more, even more alignment/padding issues:

- the main text isn't vertically aligned in the (I assume) fixed size vertical window

- similar story for the KDE icon and the KDED text in the titlebar

- the settings icon is bigger/the "content box" of the icon is bigger than that of the windows close (x) icon, such as that the visible contents are not padded the same amount, vertically

As I said, I guess the solution at this point is to not care and just accept that KDE is KDE, that weird but kind uncle at every family Christmas party.
by abeppu | 2025-08-16 20:48:43+00:00
I think the case for interpretability could have been made better, but in Figure 3 I think if you look at the middle "prototype" rows from the traditional vs Tversky layers, and scroll so you can't see the rows above, I think you could pick out mostly which Tversky prototype corresponds to each digit, but not which traditional/linear prototype corresponds to each digit.

So I do think that's more interpretable in two ways:

1. You can look at specific representations in the model and "see" what they "mean"

2. This means you can give a high-level interpretation to a particular inference run: "X_i is a 7 because it's like this prototype that looks like a 7, and it has some features that only turn up in 7s"

I do think complex models doing complex tasks will sometimes have extremely complex "explanations" which may not really communicate anything to a human, and so do not function as an explanation.
by impossiblefork | 2025-08-16 20:48:46+00:00
Yes, but this was in 2009, with a Gripen C. The F-16 thing was with Gripen A.

W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.
by exe34 | 2025-08-16 20:49:18+00:00
I'm practically living in a post scarcity situation - my work is stuff I'd do for fun anyway, other than a bit of paperwork now and again. nothing is compulsory if you want to do it anyway. even then I only need to work part time to survive.

the rest of the time I spend studying and doing sports. I've tried doing nothing - but boredom is actually worse than work.

what I really want is for other people to also be in a similar situation. I also want to be able to afford to just not work for 6 months and travel the world - but I've got a mortgage to pay. so I think further reductions in scarcity in my life would not reduce my drive to do, learn, experience one bit.

I suspect that most people would be the same if they weren't accustomed to not having the energy to look after themselves and growing their mind.
by woodruffw | 2025-08-16 20:49:26+00:00
I think it’s flagged (although I don’t have an opinion on whether it should be) because it’s not clear at all whether it’s actually a reasonable thing to expect: plenty of industries are built on programming languages that don’t have formal specifications, much less natural language ones.

To argue by example: Ruby has an ISO standard, but that standard is for a very old version of the language. Python doesn’t have an independent standard at all; it’s like Rust in that the reference implementation is itself the standard. But nobody is champing at the bit to replace their Ruby or Python stack for standards reasons.
by paffdragon | 2025-08-16 20:50:27+00:00
It's not that it is not possible, but whether it's a good idea.

The usual problem is that some team exposes one of their internal tables and they don't have control over what type of queries are run against it that could impact their service when the access patterns differ. Or when the external team is asking for extra fields that do not make sense for the owning team's model. Or adding some externally sourced information. Or the team moving from PostgreSQL to S3 or DynamoDB. And this is not an exhaustive list. An API layer is more flexible and can remain stable over a longer time than exposing internal implementation depending on a particular technology implemented in a particular way at the time they agreed on sharing.

This is, of course, not a concern inside the same team or very closely working teams. They can handle the necessary coordination. So, there are always exceptions and simple use cases where DB access works just fine. Especially, if you don't already have an API, which could be a bigger investment to set up for something simple if it's not even known yet the idea will work etc.
by cyberax | 2025-08-16 20:50:32+00:00
> The author is making it sound like the letter 'A' in English should have a different code point than an 'A' in French. Or that a lowercase 'a' with the top tail should be a different character than a lowercase 'a' without the top tail.

But we do have А and A. Even though they look the same. And unified Han characters are often quite distinct, it tripped me up as a learner of Chinese more than once. For example, a very common character '喝' (drink) looks quite a bit different: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%96%9D - they have a different number of strokes even. And I can't even copy-paste it here to demonstrate, because it changes form once I copy it from the Wikipedia article.

Han unification is a mess.
by verdverm | 2025-08-16 20:50:54+00:00
What about an MCP for a CLI too?

Some more considerations going on in the comparison

1. MCP has the description and schema, whereas the agent will have to figure this out for a CLI

2. MCP can move details out of the context, helping long-term attention

3. CLI's can gain a lot of this by using instruction files

4. CLI's are almost always more flexible
by dunkelheit | 2025-08-16 20:51:14+00:00
Kudos to the raft authors for making distributed consensus accessible. Structuring the presentation in terms of RPCs and making the algorithm well-suited for implementing replicated state machines may not sound like a big deal, but those decisions really helped to make it approachable.

In a span of a decade consensus transformed from an esoteric algorithm that you can maaaaybe try implementing if you are a google engineer, to being widely deployed across many storage systems and readily accessible libraries and Raft played a big part in it.
by more_corn | 2025-08-16 20:51:42+00:00
When I was in college I read Dante’s inferno. Our copy was great because it showed the English translation on one page and the Italian on the opposing page so even without knowledge of the the original language you could get a feel for the tone and rhythm of his epic imagining of a trip through hell. I’m pretty sure this article title is the name of one of the lost chapters of Inferno. I’m not sure which mortal sin one would commit in order to be sentenced there in the afterlife, maybe the owners and creators of RealPage are candidates for creating the algorithmic price collusion tool for landlords.
by Henchman21 | 2025-08-16 20:51:53+00:00
So you documented that work and made it public for the rest of us, right?

Were we collectively using the same setup that turned all this stuff off — and I’m talking a real project to cleanup Windows installations — we’d be in a better spot. Unfortunately people want to profit from doing so, so nah we don’t really do that.

O&O shutup seems to take on a lot of this AND its free! This is what I usually recommend.
by testdelacc1 | 2025-08-16 20:51:56+00:00
I can’t speak for them, but here’s the Rust project’s rationale on writing a spec when they started on it: Our Vision for the Rust Specification (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...).

I do find it curious that the people who write comments demanding a spec and alternate implementations aren’t aware of the work-in-progress spec and alternate implementations.
by mattmanser | 2025-08-16 20:52:27+00:00
So, I'm doing that right now. You do get wow moments, but then you rapidly hit the WTF are you doing moments.

One of the first three projects I tried was a spin on a to-do app. The buttons didn't even work when clicked.

Yes, I keep it iterating, give it a puppeteer MCP, etc.

I think you're just misunderstanding how hard it is to make a greenfield project when you have a super-charged stack overflow that AI is.

Greenfield projects aren't hard, what's hard is starting them.

What AI has helped me immensely with is blank page syndrome. I get it to spit out some boilerplate for a SINGLE page, then boom, I have a new greenfield project 95% my own code in a couple of days.

That's the mistake I think you 10x ers are making.

And you're all giddy and excited and are putting in a ton of work without realising you're the one doing the work, not the AI.

And you'll eventually burn out on that.

And those of us who are a bit more skeptical are realising we could have done it on our own, faster, we just wouldn't normally have bothered. I'd have gone done some gardening with that time instead.
by inglor_cz | 2025-08-16 20:52:36+00:00
It was pretty rare even among medieval kings to live to be 70.

The first English king to be definitely alive on their 70th birthday (though no longer "in office") was Philip of Spain (jure uxoris) in 1597, so not a medieval king. That is Early Modern Age.

Elizabeth I. didn't make it, though barely, and so the next to reach 70 was George II. in November 1753! Only since the second half of the 18th century is it common for British monarchs to reach their seventies.

Richard Cromwell lived to be 85, but he was never a king, only Lord Protector.

Edgar Aetheling lived to be 73, but he was never king either, due to certain William arriving en force from Normandy.
by bestham | 2025-08-16 20:52:51+00:00
If you read his boks or others stories about Woz you would know that he was like this long before he had fortune in business. He spent a lot of time and money on setting up a quite popular answering machine service for delivering jokes and did attribute his success as an engineer to not having that much money [1] so he needed to make due with what he had.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#cite_note-2_co...
by const_cast | 2025-08-16 20:52:51+00:00
> Nothing justifies blowing up teenage girls you deluded psychopath.

This is why there is zero accountability in the West. Because as soon as we say "hey, policy had some hand in this", people like yourself come out of the woodwork with language such as this to shut the conversation down.

Believe it or not, Terrorism IS a policy issue. If you have bad policy, then you are partially responsible when terrorism happens!

Even natural disasters are a policy issue. For example, here in Texas we had a flood where a lot of people, including young girls, drowned.

This is the type of thing that gets affected when you, say, cut budgets for weather and climate surveillance services. But when you point this out, braindead republicans will say "wowww so you're politicizing the death of little girls? Shame on you!"

But it is political, because everything is political, because politics is literally how modern humans structure their society. It's not team sports. If you cut money for thing X, things that rely on thing X will die, and that includes humans.

The reason people want to shut this coversation down over and over again is because they don't want to be accountable. They voted for something, knowing deep down it's bad and it's gonna lead to some people dying, and they feel immense shame for this. So, they would prefer to simply pretend the issue does not exist, then to have some accountability.

You see, they vote for policies for their direct consequences, but then they don't want to be responsible for those consequences either. That's not possible, those two don't compute together.
by vdupras | 2025-08-16 20:52:59+00:00
Common accepted knowledge around here is that greed is good and that capitalism works because of it.

Fine, let's accept it.

But here's my pet theory and here why I think we see cracks forming up in this "greed is good" mantra (which, frankly, hurts common sense of anyone living in a judeo-christian culture, because, well, isn't greed a sin?): this only works in a world of expanding EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Investment).

This cheap energy is basically a giganormous pool of energy slaves. As long as there are slaves to capture, greed is good because it's good for everyone to capture and distribute as many slaves as possible.

When that pool dwindles, greed stops working as well as it did for the advancement of public good and it begins cannibalizing on it (the public good). It still gets accepted as a truism today, but it will soon go back to sin territory.
by rsync | 2025-08-16 20:53:30+00:00
It’s not that Chia is more intensive than any other high usage activity…

Rather, it is a combination of a highly intensive use case and a relatively morally bankrupt user base that results in a supply chain full of burned out SSDs.

I say relatively morally bankrupt… I am sure there are many delightful people out there mining Chia coin …
by saghm | 2025-08-16 20:54:25+00:00
The reliance on context and human intervention in our current system is a feature, not a bug. That's my entire point; if you get rid of that, you're introducing a lot of issues, and if you don't, you're throwing out a system with literal centuries of stress-testing where the flaws are legitimate but well understood to switch to one with literally no evidence to suggest that it's better.
by JdeBP | 2025-08-16 20:55:26+00:00
The idea that this is just exploitation of open proxy HTTP servers has been doing the rounds for a year, now.

* https://isc.sans.edu/diary/31136

However, at least one person thinks that it is a bug in the X-Forwarded-For handling code,

* https://biggo.com/news/202508070812_IPv4_Games_Header_Exploi...

which, contrary to the headlined NANOG mailing list thread, is being parsed, as we can see:

* https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/master/net/turfwar...

* https://justine.lol/threads/

I think that the person who thinks that X-Forwarded-For: cannot be manipulated here needs to be put in the same room with the person who thinks that there's an endless variety of ways in which "desync" attacks can forge such headers when one uses HTTP/1.1.

* https://portswigger.net/research/http1-must-die

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915090
by brewdad | 2025-08-16 20:56:16+00:00
Well, for one thing, on many planes the space above FC and whatever their premium economy class is called is specifically labeled for use of passengers seated in those areas. For another, it's just common courtesy. I get if you are boarding late and there are only a few available bins but in my experience the bins at the back fill last not first, so you really should have no problem storing your bag near your seat.
by wat10000 | 2025-08-16 20:56:49+00:00
It’s not the terminology. It’s the whole idea that this is something different. Schmoogling employees is no different than any other hiring. A company makes an offer, the candidate accepts, and they change employers. The only reason some of this gets categorized as schmoogling is because some companies want it to be frowned upon because it suppresses wages to do so.

The terminology isn’t the problem, the terminology is a result of the problem, which is disturbingly widespread acceptance of some degree of conceptual ownership of employees. If we called it schmoogling I obviously couldn’t point out the unfortunate implication of the term but that wouldn’t materially change my point. You are FAR too focused on the specific word.

I know I was pointing out the implication of the term, but it’s more about the existence of any term for this.
by linkism | 2025-08-16 20:57:06+00:00
Selectors break all the time — redesigns, framework migrations, DOM churn. Linkism is a new protocol that introduces persistent element addressing (lid://) to make UI elements stable over time.

RFC Spec v1.0 just went live with support for: -Framework migrations (React → Vue → Svelte)

-Offline resolution with SCR bundles

-Graceful fallback when selectors change

-Simple implementation in any language (JS, Rust, etc.)

Curious to hear feedback from this community on whether persistent selectors could become a shared standard, or if there are edge cases I haven't accounted for.
by eptcyka | 2025-08-16 20:57:14+00:00
Could it be that the original freenode staff did not want to have anything to do with you in an operational manner? Whilst the financial contributions for legal defense always went a long way, not much else was needed, like the live events and freenode branded merch. Staff were not adequately informed as to how the sale went down. Later, I do not believe tomaw was trying to strongarm anyone into leaving, staff genuinely wanted nothing to do with the supposed crown prince of Joseon.

Ultimately, the people who invested their labor into the network felt like they had little control over the future of the project and felt like they had been rug pulled by christel so they left. They did not believe that it was christel's to sell. Ultimately, as soon as the original operators left, the new management have not necessarily left a great impression. For a while, freenode.net would just redirect to a subreddit? And then later it was a reddit clone of sorts? (https://web.archive.org/web/20220505184527/https://freenode....). Channels were taken over at will. There were somewhat dubious partnerships made, crypto products endorsed. The first blog posts made by the new management straight after the changeover were markedly different from the previous messaging - (https://web.archive.org/web/20210730233709/https://freenode....). The original freenode was doing its best to be a place where like minded people could collaborate and communicate without adding too much of a political sway or coloring anything, the freenode after the takeover did not aspire to do any such thing. If in May of 2021 one could've argued that the old staff were a tad too eager to leave, then the newcomers did everything in their power to prove them right in less than a month.

Please do fund FOSS stuff, it really helps. Just don't expect to buy yourself out of being cringeworthy.
by dkarl | 2025-08-16 20:57:44+00:00
100%. Views don't even cover all the use cases of schema evolution, unless you're willing to duplicate business logic between stored procedures and services, but schema evolution is only the start of it. API versioning gives you a lot more flexibility to evolve how data is stored and accessed. Some parts of your data might get shifted into other data stores, some functionality might get outsourced to third party APIs, you might have to start supporting third-party integrations, etc. Try doing that from a view -- or rather, please don't!
by alyx | 2025-08-16 20:58:16+00:00
Never heard of Novamin but doesn't look promising?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7068624/

Conclusion Review shows that Novamin has significantly less clinical evidence to prove its effectiveness as a remineralization agent in treating both carious and non-carious lesion. Hence, better designed clinical trials should be carried out in the future before definitive recommendations can be made.