MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jacquesm | 2025-08-17 20:55:51+00:00
Hardware architecture not, for very obvious reasons. But if you wrote BBC Basic you'd have felt right at home and this continuity was one of the reasons they sold quite well, lots of people that were using the BBC Micro in ways that it wasn't intended for had run into the limitations of the platform and wanted something similar but bigger and faster. The Archimedes was that - and more. To get maximum performance (still very anemic by today's standards) out of a 6502 based BBC you'd have been programming in assembly and that of course did not port at all to the ARM based machines.

As I wrote in another comment I was pretty close to the fire and had very early access to the ARM architecture based beebs courtesy of a friendly contact but I realized soon enough that the future for home computing and SMB business computing did not lie with either Acorn, Atari, Commodore or any of the other contenders. In '88 or so (my memory is a bit hazy about the dates, there was a lot going on in my life back then) I moved to x86 professionally with a side of Atari ST (using the fantastic Mark Williams C compiler + documentation) for more fun stuff and with the advent of the availability of the internet for the masses I ran SGI Irix for a couple of years until I settled on Linux which has been my daily driver for decades now. Hardware architecture used to be a super important factor for me, now the only thing that matters is whether or not I can run Ubuntu and whether the hardware is sufficiently powerful to get me through my working day. The fact that my daily driver is a 12 year old laptop is a nice indication of how far we've come, it is pretty rare that I put together machines where performance really matters.

But regardless of all of that I have a fond spot in my heart for the BBC, regardless of processor used, it was the machine that allowed me to finally do some more structured programming and explore other languages without breaking the bank.
by closewith | 2025-08-17 20:56:02+00:00
> do you have any references?

Staatsräson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Restrict...

> and what do you mean by "government-sanctioned"? reality is that any kind of large public demonstration requires registration and is subject to permission.

In Germany. That's not true in the majority of the democratic world and is not what any reasonable person would call freedom of expression. Nothing that requires permission is a right and civil rights don't require permission.

> demonstrations in favor of palestina certainly did happen.

And the protestors have faced consequences both immediate and in long-tail harassment from the German State.
by thomastjeffery | 2025-08-17 20:57:12+00:00
Check for what?

This is the question that anti-cheat conveniently dodges.

The real problem is that "cheating" is practically undefinable. What players really need is moderation. There is no relevant difference, from a player's perspective, between playing against a cheater or playing against a legitimately skilled person. If someone is not fun to play with, then that needs to be managed somehow.

The most effective strategy is for players to moderate the servers they play on. This has recently become impossible, because game studios have chosen to monopolize server hosting while also abdicating the responsibility of moderation. Anti-cheat is nothing more than a lazy implementation of automated moderation.

There's a reason that Battlefield 4 is still going strong, while Battlefield One (which came out just after 4) is unplayable. That reason is player-hosted servers.
by byw | 2025-08-17 20:57:13+00:00
I think it's a shame that we can't add new safety features into older cars.

I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't, and it's mostly regulatory hurdles, that removes any economic incentives to do so.

I've recently read an article about what constitutes the right balance of regulations when it comes to aviation safety, and that while regulations have made modern planes extremely safe, overly stringent rules are also preventing planes from adopting modern safety features.
by roscas | 2025-08-17 20:57:55+00:00
We should be awere that it is not just this one Springer. The amount of marketing associations is unreal. But they go nowhere if nobody uses ads on pages. Also companies like Google and Facebook that they exists only to put ads on peoples eyes, they should not exist. Always remember that a company pays them good money for them to put ads on your face. They get money to show you ads you don't want to make you buy crap that you don't need. Remember that.
by daveguy | 2025-08-17 20:58:28+00:00
[0] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_22MY_031_US?wid=480...

[1] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_014_US?wid=480...

[2] https://jlr.scene7.com/is/image/jlr/L663_23MY_025_US?wid=480...
by SamInTheShell | 2025-08-17 20:59:27+00:00
It's just a fad. It'll die down eventually like everything else does. Don't see much talk about cryptocurrency lately (not that I care to see more, the technology choices are cool though).

Might take a long while for everyone to get on the same page about where these inference engines really work and don't work. People are still testing stuff out, haven't been in the know for long, and some fear the failure of job markets.

There is a lot of FUD to sift through.
by aeonik | 2025-08-17 20:59:55+00:00
Something I've noticed recently, is the new Opus 4.1 model seems to be incredibly good at getting out of these cul-de-sacs.

I've always had a subscription to both ChatGPT and Claude, but Claude has recently almost one-shotted major toxic waste dumps from the previous models.

I'll still use ChatGPT, it seems to be pretty good at algorithms, and bouncing ideas back and forth. but when things go off the rails Opus 4.1 bails me out.
by acdha | 2025-08-17 21:00:19+00:00
Looking only at trends is how people convince themselves they’re sophisticated enough investors to make huge mistakes. You need to look at the rest of the market, too. Apple is still making very popular phones, computers, tablets, headphones, watches, etc. Their execution is solid in a proven market, modulo sabotage by the American president.

The reason they’re not the most valuable company in the world any more is not that they’ve stopped being good at their core business but rather that investors have given enormous amounts of money to Nvidia hoping that AI will start replacing jobs compellingly enough that every business in the world will start buying it at a premium. This seems like the people who’ve been pumping TSLA up for years in the hope that they’ll have a moat, ignoring both the difficulties of actually delivering on that promise and the lack of a moat for competitors. If the most bullish AI boosters are right, the economic impact of mass unemployment is going to be enormously disruptive; if they’re not, the amount of money being paid to train models is going to decline to the level which the actual shipping capabilities warrant (neither zero nor money geyser), and in all cases competition is going to eat into their profits – not just AMD but also Chinese alternatives as their government sees being frozen out as a strategic risk. Nvidia is still likely to do well, of course, but investors like to pretend that the boom stage will never end.

None of this directly affects Apple unless AI causes people to stop buying phones and computers, or Google builds AI features into Android which are both highly compelling and not available from anyone else. The most likely scenario is that companies continue to ship things normal people don’t care about for a while and Apple either builds something internally which they’re happy with or buys something built by an AI specialist, similar to how they were way behind on portable audio players, phones, or tablets until they weren’t.
by echelon | 2025-08-17 21:00:44+00:00
I've been predicting this since Deep Dream (which feels like a century ago) and HN loves to naysay.

I claimed three years ago that AI would totally disrupt the porn and film industries and we're practically on the cusp of it.

If you can't see how these models work and can't predict how they can be used to build amazing things, then that's on you. I have no reason to lift up anybody that doubts. More opportunity on the table.
by ohdeargodno | 2025-08-17 21:00:59+00:00
>Server side checks. That's it. User input is tainted evil and you can't trust it. Anything less than server side checking is insecure.

Cool. Noone will play your game. Every single thing that makes a game feel not even just good, but playable, like basic prediction no longer works. Peeker's advantage gets multiplied tenfold. Players with high sensitivity get rolled back because you decided that their .1s flick was not right.

And the funniest of all that ? The cheaters that are just sending mouse & keyboard events still get to play, because they can pretend to play exactly like you want them to.

>I distinctly remember being a kid bypassing this type of software back when it was just Game Guard at the top. There's nothing that's going to stop kids from doing it today.

With none of the respect: ok grandpa, time to get you a chamomile and time to go to bed. It's not kids pulling out cheat engine, it's physical hardware that does DMA with $100/month subscriptions. The most basic, not-even-officially-considered-a-cheat piece of hardware is something like a Cronus, that does recoil control and scripting, on console. That's not a rare piece of equipment: a large part of the higher ranked players are using one or similar. That's the _basic_ cheating device now. Nobody is talking about shitty spinbots.

EDIT: editing to not fall into a deep thread with you whining:

>you resign to insults

no, I called you old because you're referring to an anti cheat that runs on Rappelz and MapleStory (and that is notoriously known for being terrible). The only way it could have been more telling would have been referring to WON or QuakeWorld.

>can't because you lack the skills required.

sorry, who's doing insults ?

I've enumerated a short list as to why it doesn't work. But if you want more: here: nothing on that article works any more with server side verification of everything: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_.... Rollback ? Lagcomp ? Basic hitreg? Nope, broken, because you just wanted to verify everything server side instead of assuming a set of known good information. You don't acknowledge either _what_ you verify server side. I'll give a quick little hint: it's because there's nothing useful you can verify. The basic stuff is already verified: player state is kept in sync, and you can't say that you have 300 bullets in your 20 bullets magazine.

Trusting the client is necessary, because even a 10ms ping means that you're a frame behind, and nobody will play that.
by 64718283661 | 2025-08-17 21:01:19+00:00
By blocking KVM. Enable or fake hyper-v? Block various qemu drivers. Don't use any of the qemu drivers? Side channels to detect KVM. Stronger hyper-v purity integrity. Detect nested hypervisors, which will have poor performance anyway.

If you arent virtualizing disk drives and get banned. They will get serial banned, along with your other non virtualized hardware. GPU, monitors, ram, motherboard, keyboard, mice, headset serials. Yes, these are really all collected. No myth.

Some people think server side anticheat can help. It can to a degree. Then some things will always be possible client side. Game devs need more subtle client side integrity checks inside the game, not only ones that purely check the integrity of your overall system.

It's a losing battle, especially on games using the most popular engines like unreal and unity.
by strstr | 2025-08-17 21:01:31+00:00
In practice, it’s essentially infeasible to make a non-detectable virtualization stack. Timing is really really hard to match (as is everything else). You can edit the binary that’s doing the detection, but this is time consuming. Every new feature they push costs you time and will poison your hardware id.

You can go further by, say, requiring fTPMs that are on the SoC (super common these days for most recent consumer CPUs). If you can’t boot into linux without the PCRs reflecting your virtualization stack being in the boot chain, you’re cheat is quite detectable.
by Thorrez | 2025-08-17 21:02:24+00:00
>For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly.

Do you believe that killing a baby is morally worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant? And what is the reasoning for that belief?

Do you believe that killing an innocent adult is morally worse than killing a baby? And what is the reasoning for that belief?

I believe that killing a baby is worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant, because human life has intrinsic value significantly greater than non-human animal life.

I believe that killing an innocent adult and a baby are equally bad, because all people have equal value.

>I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process?

If they're physically separated, we don't have an entity that could be called a young human. We don't have an entity that contains a plan for how to grow into an adult.

After they've joined, we do have an entity that could be called a young human.

>If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging?

No. In the same way that it's not horrifying if some other sperm zoomed in real fast and fertilized the egg and blocks off the first sperm. Before fertilization, there is no entity that could be called a young human.

>Why does entity-ness matter to ethics?

There's no known way a single person can be composed of 2 physical entities. So I say that when there are 2 physical entities, there isn't a single person composed of the 2 of them.

Another line of reasoning is why should there be a moral difference between a sperm and egg very close to each other and a sperm and egg miles apart? I don't see any reason. We would have to consider every possible pair of sperm and egg in the world as a person, which doesn't make sense.

>When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness?

Physical body. There's no known way a person can be split across 2 bodies. So a sperm and an egg can't be a person.

>Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba?

Yes and yes.
by NoboruWataya | 2025-08-17 21:02:33+00:00
This is something I do regularly - count how many of the top 10 articles are AI-related. Generally it is 4-6 articles out of the 10 (currently it is 5). The other day it was 9.

Even 4-6 articles out of the top 10 for a single topic, consistently, seems crazy to me.
by akk0 | 2025-08-17 21:03:35+00:00
Well that was shit. Most questions have answer options that look like:

A) I just do what's best

B) Here's what I think my professor wants to hear

C) Here's a non-sequitur soundbite I pulled from LinkedIn (not always meaningfully distinguishable from B)

D) I write enterprise Java, it's too late for me

I still finished it and ended up somewhere slam dunk in the middle, and I even avoided the A) options
by closewith | 2025-08-17 21:03:59+00:00
> Capitalist doesn’t really fit with the gdpr.

What makes you say that? A lot of it was heavily impacted by industry, who were by far the biggest contributors during the drafting process.

> And anything but full trust of government also wouldn’t fit with chat control.

I agree with this, but chat control isn't a top-down proposal. It's based on a solid grassroots movement aiming to combat CSAM. Personally I think it's misguided, but there is a _lot_ of public support for online regulation to stem the endless cases of CSAM.

It's a real blind-spot of HN and devs to miss this, as if we don't find ways to effectively end CSAM online, stronger less-targeting regulation like the proposed Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse is inevitable>
by ohdeargodno | 2025-08-17 21:05:01+00:00
The different way is called a hammer and your hands. They don't have magic tools to break encryption.

We're barely finding out software ways to attack the Xbox360 and it requires rowhammer level of fuckery. Hardware attacks are in the vast majority of cases destructive or relying on some side effects. If you don't leave JTAG pins on your board, they're pretty much never reliable.
by throw10920 | 2025-08-17 21:05:26+00:00
Can you point to a set of recent comments that are critical of big tech while also not breaking the guidelines and make good points, and are flagged anyway?

All of the anti-big-tech comments I've ever seen that are flagged are flagged because they blatantly break the guidelines and/or are contentless and don't contribute in any meaningful sense aside from trying to incite outrage.

And those should be flagged.
by dzink | 2025-08-17 21:05:29+00:00
He’s a car designer who designed a lot of famous cars in the past and now he appreciates the focus on safety in modern cars. What I appreciate is that most of the original push for safety was done to market cars to Moms. Including seat belts and other features. Another fun fact is that the safer cars become, the faster they are driven, causing more risks outside of the car than in it. In Bulgaria the newly wealthy really expensive car owners and their children have caused tremendous suffering by wrecking their vehicles into other people at high speed and killing more and more. That included severing a bus this last week, killing a journalist several years ago, and many in between. The world is pulled by the brilliant and dragged by the stupidity of its most arrogant.
by xelxebar | 2025-08-17 21:06:51+00:00
Honestly, I read this a just a case of somewhat sloppy terminology choice:

- Positive → AI Boomerist

- Negative → AI Doomerist

Still not great, IMHO, but at the very least the referenced article is certainly not AI Boomerist, so by process of elimination... probably more ambivalent? How does one quickly characterize "not boomerist and not really doomerist either, but somewhat ambivalent on that axis but definitely pushing against boomerism" without belaboring the point? Seems reasonable read that as some degree of negative pressure.
by srcreigh | 2025-08-17 21:07:01+00:00
> rather questioning first if the future being peddled is actually what we want

The author (tom) tricked you. His article is flame bait. AI is a tool that we can use and discuss about. It's not just a "future being peddled." The article manages to say nothing about AI, casts generic doubt on AI as a whole, and pits people against each other. It's a giant turd for any discussion about AI, a sure-fire curiosity destruction tool.
by DaveZale | 2025-08-17 21:07:06+00:00
A functional, cooperative Congress would help to understand the issues, and allocate funds to take corrective measures. Many in Congress seem to take their marching orders from powerful lobbyists with very specific agendas. It's been this way since the so-called "Citizens United" ruling.

I won't be more specific about the single-issue zealot lobbyist org that controls the president and almost every congressperson. That would get me flagged again. It just shows how they're everywhere and very easily triggered.
by daveguy | 2025-08-17 21:07:11+00:00
Okay, but maybe recruiters aren't up on rust iconography. Seems like an ineffective way to communicate a preference (vs it being a shibboleth with the GP).

I mean, unless the recruiter is a rust programmer they're going to have a hard time distinguishing your profile vs just "positions only - or get blocked" (ie don't contact me unless it's about recruitment).
by SamInTheShell | 2025-08-17 21:08:46+00:00
> ok grandpa, time to get you a chamomile and time to go to bed

So you resign to insults because you're either incompetent in code or think you know something I don't. You would be better served to make a case for a counter argument, but can't because you lack the skills required.

Edit: Good developers figure out how to make better code, while some developers are just doomed to mediocrity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
by throwitaway1123 | 2025-08-17 21:09:47+00:00
Somewhat related: you technically can access some type metadata in TypeScript at runtime using the `emitDecoratorMetadata` and `experimentalDecorators` tsconfig options, along with Microsoft's `reflect-metadata` polyfill package. There was a trend at one point where people were writing database ORMs using decorator metadata (e.g. Typegoose, TypeORM, and MikroORM).

This of course requires your build tool to actually understand the TS type system, which is why it's not supported in tools like esbuild and tsx (which uses esbuild under the hood).
by fanf2 | 2025-08-17 21:10:37+00:00
Some notes:

* Single-label domains are problematic in several ways. Traditionally they are used as local abbreviations on the assumption that TLDs can’t be mail domains – tho that’s false, because several ccTLDs have had MX records at one time or another. Still, mail software can vary in whether it might treat single-label domains as abbreviations or TLDs or both. And there’s the historical anomaly that RFC 2821’s syntax disallows single-label domains; this was a drafting mistake not an intentional change.

* Spaces around local parts are valid or not depending on which spec you are following, so question 7 is badly framed. You need to be clear whether you are parsing a mail address as in the SMTP envelope, or an address and display name as in a message header.

* Similarly, comments are not valid in SMTP so the questions about comments are also poorly framed.

* And the syntax of domain literals / address literals is specified by SMTP, so question 16 and 18 are based on not reading enough of the RFCs.
by ano-ther | 2025-08-17 21:10:50+00:00
Adblock Plus which is the topic of this lawsuit is an ad-replacer rather than an ad-blocker -- and they make money from their own ads. I can see where that annoys publishers (and marvel that they manage to get any users).

From the article:

> While it offers ad blocking software, the company generates revenue from ads through its Acceptable Ads program – advertisers pay to have ads that are "respectful, nonintrusive and relevant" exempted from filtering. Non-commercial open source projects like uBlock Origin rely on community support.

From https://eyeo.com/

> Deliver more effective ads to a unique and valuable audience of 400 million ad-filtering users.
by bravesoul2 | 2025-08-17 21:11:07+00:00
That is in danger of being a typical "weird heuristic" that linked in loves to post about (with high p values).

I have seen people say for recruiting advise.

* They recommend you hustle. E.g. deliver your resume pretending to be a food delivery

* Don't follow up if explicitly not told to by your recruiters instructions.

* You must have an up to date linked in.

Usually in hot take format that if you dont do that you got no chance.

So everyone stick to measuring for the role!
by indigodaddy | 2025-08-17 21:12:08+00:00
Just FYI, this isn't about updating the DDNS record itself, it's about only allowing through ssh connections from a source IP that dynamically changes via DDNS-- for this you need a mechanism to update the $tables rules after DDNS changes (eg, I only want to allow ssh to my vps from my home DDNS external IP address).

If you already realized this then I misunderstood your comment and I apologize!
by 1659447091 | 2025-08-17 21:12:18+00:00
I have a theory that a large number of old accounts that were abandoned/not used got taken over at some point and are being used for most AI assisted comments. I just don't care enough to audit the comments of all the users. It was more obvious over the spring with all of the political post and how volatile the voting on comments would be plus other patterns that stuck out