MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-22 02:04:20+00:00
As an amateur correspondent myself, the correspondents I’m concerned about doing right by would be other visitors to their site who click my link. I’m protecting link-clickers from my source, and my source from others. In this case, I’d view 'tptacek as both as my source, and as a potential operational security concern to me as an investigator due to not knowing them well enough to know their motives, and not knowing who is watching them and everyone who visits their site, which is the larger and more legitimate concern about doing security research, in my view.
by SnuffBox | 2025-08-22 02:06:33+00:00
Acting obnoxiously to piss people off makes you seem like an inexperienced teenager and distances more than "Serious Business Man".

I look forward for this to be taken to the logical extreme when a niche subculture of internet nerds change their entire online persona to revolve around scat pornography to spite "the normals", I'm sure they'll be remembered fondly as witty and intelligent and not at all as mentally ill young people.
by e2021 | 2025-08-22 02:07:17+00:00
Metaverse was a flop maybe, but meta makes something like $1 billion a week from its mobile apps, it'd be crazy to say that is not successful.

The fact that it was so successful, and that zuck picked mobile to be the next big thing before many of his peers and against what managers in the company wanted to do is probably what has made him now overconfident that he can do it again
Exploring the $YZY and the New USD1: A Step Towards Decentralized Finance
by ALIUDHHA | 2025-08-22 02:07:50+00:00
Coinbase recently added the Trump-backed USD1 stablecoin, allowing U.S. users to trade it alongside USDC and USDT. USD1 is backed by U.S. dollars and Treasuries, offering stability in the volatile crypto market.

On a similar note, I’ve been exploring the $YZY listing on BingX Perpetual Futures. $YZY, tied to Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, is introducing decentralized payments for Yeezy products. Both USD1 and $YZY are steps toward decentralized finance, each bringing new opportunities for market participants.

How do you see the future of decentralized finance evolving with these developments?
by voidhorse | 2025-08-22 02:08:32+00:00
It's already wrong at the first step. A probabilistic system is by definition not a function (it is a relation). This is such a basic mistake I don't know how anyone can take this seriously. Many existing systems are also not strictly functions (internal state can make them return different outputs for a given input). People love to abuse mathematics and employ its concepts hastily and irresponsibly.
by rebelliouswhiz | 2025-08-22 02:09:35+00:00
I work for an electronic device ODM/OEM maker in Shenzhen. In the business sector, but was once heavily involved in R&D.

It is true that you can walk into a shop and get electronic parts. It is also true that you can get PCBs in a shop, but probably pre-made ones.

For serious business, you probably want to ask for samples from serious suppliers. But usually, you will get the parts you asked for on the second day, or within a week or two for a simpler PCB.

It used to be "walking distance" for all electronic components, maybe 10-20 years ago, but since the cost of living has increased in Shenzhen, factories are moving away from the center of the city. But still, if you really want something today, within a 1-hour drive, you can get what you need.
by toofy | 2025-08-22 02:09:41+00:00
> … meanwhile, South Park hasn't really evolved and misses the opportunity…

i understand where you’re coming from looking at the most recent seasons, but this year has that humor bite that it used to have years ago. i’m not sure what they changed, but it really does capture the sassy claws it had in the early seasons.

it just completely slices up so many of the fantasy goggles so many people are wearing.

i can understand why certain cultish groups in the tech sphere are stinging though.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-08-22 02:09:53+00:00
I have vibe coded things like a personal finance forecast with interactive graphs in less than 30min of effort. I have 3 kids and would never have considered learning React to do that as a hobby project.

There are so many unusual or one off use cases that would have normally required me to spend several hours locating and reading API documentation that I now just hand off to the AI. I am a big believer in their value. I’m getting more done than ever.
by pfannkuchen | 2025-08-22 02:10:42+00:00
That makes sense to me and I’m comfortable with redundant agreeing evidence as well (assuming we don’t ignore any contradictory evidence), but my impression is that these fields do not consistently have such a standard. Maybe my impression is wrong? To me it seems like you need to crawl through the dependency chain and verify that reasonable standards were used all the way up. Does the peer review process in these fields actually enforce this? It seems like no, but I am just a spectator.
by stephen_g | 2025-08-22 02:13:37+00:00
> They're competing with Google, X, MS, OpenAI and others in terms of AI interactions

Am I the only one that find the attempt to jam AI interactions into Meta's products useless and that it only detracts from the product? Like there'll be posts with comedy things and then there are suggested 'Ask Meta AI' about things the comedy mentions with earnest questions - it's not only irrelevant but I guess it's kind of funny how random and stupid the questions are. The 'Comment summaries' are counter-productive because I want to have a chuckle reading what people posted, I literally don't care to have it summarised because I can just skim over a few in seconds - literally useless. It's the same thing with Gemini summaries in YouTube - I feel it actually detracts from the experience of watching the videos so I actively avoid them.

On what Apple is doing - I mean, literally nothing Apple Intelligence offers excites me, but at the same time nothing anybody else is doing with LLMs really does either... And I'm highly technical, general people are not actually that interested apart from students getting LLMs to write their homework for them...

It's all well and good to be excited about LLMs but plenty of these companies' customers just... aren't... If anything, Apple is playing the smart move here - let other spend (and lose) billions training the models and not making any real ROI, and they can license the best ones for whatever turns out to actually have commercial appeal when the dust settles and the models are totally commodified...
by artathred | 2025-08-22 02:14:58+00:00
> depend on every single customer reporting each outcome quickly and accurately.

Why would the end customer have to report this? The company should be determining this and in very specific scenarios, ask the customer to approve the outcome.

It’s very easy to game though if you’re relying on end-customers to always self report, just look at all the people getting refunds on Uber Eats because the food wasn’t the “right outcome”
by hdjrudni | 2025-08-22 02:15:17+00:00
IANAL but two ideas come to mind:

1) What I do for my small app is make a copy of the prod database and randomize nearly all the data. All the PII, phone numbers, email addresses, names, etc. All the relationships between the data are preserved so I can usually still repro whatever issue. I don't know if this would satisfy the lawyercats but I think it's a decent start.

2) If I had more time/money I'd build a specialized "Customer Support" app that gives limited access to customer data. Customer would have to provide consent before support worker could access their data, and this would be logged/audited. No one would have direct access to the prod DB.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-08-22 02:15:32+00:00
I hate to break it to you, but this guy probably wasn’t working at all. That sounds like a pretense to goof off.

Now I could believe an intern would do such a thing. I’ve seen a structural engineer intern spend four weeks creating a finite element model of a single concrete vault. he could have treated the top deck as a concrete beam used conservative assumptions about the loading and solved it with pen and paper in 30 minutes.
by xorvoid | 2025-08-22 02:16:10+00:00
Because block-argument is actually the “right way”. The phi-node is very un-natural.. in the same sort of way that pi should have been tau.

Also, notice the connection here between Phi nodes and Continuation Passing Style (CPS). It because obvious with the block-arg form because it’s just the same thing. Jumps to blocks are just calls that don’t return.
Show HN: GPT-5 vs. Claude 4 Sonnet on 200 Requests Benchmark
by anwarlaksir | 2025-08-22 02:17:22+00:00
We Released an independent evaluation of GPT-5 vs Claude 4 Sonnet across 200 diverse prompts.

Key insights: GPT-5 excels in reasoning and code; Claude 4 Sonnet is faster and slightly more precise on factual tasks.
by sagasu007 | 2025-08-22 02:18:21+00:00
Hi IHabl502, thank you so much for the detailed feedback! Really appreciate you taking the time to test it on mobile and sharing these specific insights. You're absolutely right about the mobile outline issue when puzzle size gets bigger - that's definitely something I need to fix. The viewport clipping makes larger puzzles much less playable on phones. I'll prioritize getting that sorted out. Great catch on the loop validation too! You found an edge case I missed - the system should definitely catch single loops without branches. And you're spot on about the initial line placement feeling a bit jarring when everything suddenly turns green. These are exactly the kind of real-world testing insights I was hoping for. It's so valuable to hear from someone who actually played through puzzles rather than just clicked around briefly. I'm working on updates to address these issues, and your feedback will definitely help make the experience much smoother for everyone. Thanks again for giving it a proper test and for the encouraging words about the concept!
by bryanlarsen | 2025-08-22 02:18:28+00:00
No, I disagree with your initial assertion.

> you get more people out of cars by making them expensive than you do with city design.

The city design is the prerequisite. If you don't have transit etc, people will own cars no matter how expensive the cars are (within reason, of course). Households in rural Denmark without access to transit own cars despite it being 2X as expensive as elsewhere.

Once you have transit, cranking the price becomes a much more effective mechanism.
by seabrookmx | 2025-08-22 02:18:45+00:00
That feature might be able to replace my docker usage on the host, so I don't need it and incus side by side. Which would be pretty neat.

Within the incus dev environment container though I'm pretty sure I want to keep docker, as I have a lot of tooling that expects it for better or worse (docker compose especially). It also doesn't appear incus integrates buildkit etc. so even if I used it here, I'd still need something else to _build_ OCI images.
by slv77 | 2025-08-22 02:18:49+00:00
Money is a call option on the labor of its citizens. When money accumulates to people who operate against the best interests of its citizens more and more of a countries labor and future is traded for less societal value. There exists some tipping point where no societal value is created and money exists just to drain the vitality of its citizens. In other words, no matter how hard you work things only get worse.

A great article on this dynamics that is worth a read (https://www.propublica.org/article/china-cartels-xizhi-li-mo...)
by MisterMower | 2025-08-22 02:19:17+00:00
Say every single one of the 330 million people in America flushes a toilet five times a day, every day of the year.

That’s still less than a cubic mile of water. Lake Mead, by comparison, has a volume of 7 cubic miles. Every American could go back to using outhouses and the water savings wouldn’t even be noticeable.

People are not very good at visualizing this stuff. The volumes involved are hard to grasp.

Or think of it this way: if you personally saved all that water by using an outhouse, it would amount to less than 300 gallons a month. My water bill doesn’t even show usage at a resolution high enough to see those savings. I’m billed per 1,000 gallons.

If the water company doesn’t care enough to track it and charge me for it, it’s noise.
by JustExAWS | 2025-08-22 02:20:55+00:00
As if startups before LLMs were creating great code. Right now on the front page, a YC company is offering a “Founding Full Stack Engineer” $100K-$150K. What quality of code do you think they will end up with?

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/text-ai/jobs/OJBr0v2-f...
by kjellsbells | 2025-08-22 02:21:48+00:00
true story, I got my start programming by typing in two-line BASIC programs on the C64 display models in a Boots in South London. My family couldn't afford a computer at home.

10 PRINT "FART!"

20 GOTO 10

Not my finest code, I'll admit.

That was 40 years and a continent away.
by ncallaway | 2025-08-22 02:22:13+00:00
> as long as there's a new new thing to replace it as the aspirational vehicle. Like any good mark in a con game, tech investors want to believe.

Yea, but it seems like the new new thing needs to get progressively bigger with each cycle, which is why I think the shell game is almost over.

They really can't overpromise much more than they did with the AI hype-cycle.

It feels like a startup valuation in that having a down round is...not favored by investors; I feel like having a step-down in promises would also be problematic.
by kouteiheika | 2025-08-22 02:22:59+00:00
> But it can't in general build torch-tensorrt or flash-attn because it has no way of knowing if Mercury was in retrograde when you ran pip.

This is a self-inflicted wound, since flash attention insist on building a native C++ extension which is completely unnecessary in this case.

What you can do is the following:

1) Compile your CUDA kernels offline. 2) Include those compiled kernels in a package you push to pypi. 3) Call into the kernels with pure Python, without going through a C++ extension.

I do this for the CUDA kernels I maintain and it works great.

Flash attention currently publishes 48 (!) different packages[1], for different combinations of pytorch and C++ ABI. With this approach it would have to only publish one, and it would work for every combination of Python and pytorch.

[1] - https://github.com/Dao-AILab/flash-attention/releases/tag/v2...
by rebelliouswhiz | 2025-08-22 02:23:09+00:00
A friend of my girlfriend owns a textile factory near the Shenzhen/Canton area. Once I was told, "We have like 3 days off for a 7-day holiday, 2 days if it gets too busy". Yes, Labor Laws here are less effective.

On the other hand, I have been trying to help a client in the US to find the right local partner to work with. It's a nightmare. The companies I contacted either ignored me or the contact person left the company after a few emails exchanged, and we had to find another contact person.

We finally found the current partner who's really helping.

It's really harsh to me. I used to believe the US was the beacon of hospitality and entrepreneurship. My belief has collapsed.
by TylerE | 2025-08-22 02:23:12+00:00
I never had a trinitron TV, but I had a trinitron monitor in the late 90s. What a beast that was. Think it was like an 18 or 19” with a max res of something kinda weird like 1280x960 or something like that. If my probably faulty memory is accurate, the sweet spot was to run it at 1024x768 because that was that was the highest res it could do at >60hz, which made the crt AC flicker much less annoying.

The monitor shelf on that computer table had about a 2” sag in it after years. Think that think weighed about 80lbs.
by lotsoweiners | 2025-08-22 02:23:54+00:00
I worked at Sears at the time when Amazon first started becoming a household name. I for the life of me couldn’t understand why they didn’t make a copycat site called the Sears Catalog Online. But then I think about it and management wanted salesmanship because selling maintenance agreements was their cash cow. Low margin sales won in the long term hence we have Walmart and Amazon as the biggest retailers.
by voidhorse | 2025-08-22 02:24:32+00:00
Sure, but it's overblown. People have been reasoning about and building probabilistic systems formally since the birth of information theory back in the 1940s. Many systems we already rely on today are highly stochastic in their own ways.

Yes, LLMs are a bit of a new beast in terms of the use of stochastic processes as producers—but we do know how to deal with these systems. Half the "novelty" is just people either forgetting past work or being ignorant of it in the first place.
by jimmytucson | 2025-08-22 02:24:59+00:00
The company with the lowest median pay, Aptiv, I had to look up, and what a darling of a company this is:

- guilty of systemic accounting fraud from 1999-2004 - manufactured a (allegedly known-to-be) faulty ignition switch that led to the deaths of 124 people and injured 275 others - currently forcing 20,000 former employees to fight a decades-long legal battle for their earned pension benefits - gleefully dumps massive quantities of carcinogens and poisons into the environment, including: lead compounds, chromium compounds, sulfuric and hydrochloride acid (lol), and glycol ethers

Simply a masterclass in corporate irresponsibility, exactly why their CEO is so well comped.

Citations here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptiv
by michaelbrave | 2025-08-22 02:25:30+00:00
Kinda, I mean so our brains shift once we are able to write things down instead of having to memorize completely, similarly when the internet happened we now could find answers quickly and stopped remembering or writing down things that were easy to find. So now thinking will shift again, dumber might be the right word, but it might not be, our thinking would shift away from computation type of knowledge and lean more toward making good judgments or having clearer goals type of knowledge.
by kazinator | 2025-08-22 02:25:33+00:00
It's a question of how much.

If AI told you have a missing semicolon and it regenerated an almost exact copy of your code, with only the added semicolon being different, then the case is very strong that the fixed code is a derived work of only your code. (Moreover, side point: you could burn that session, keeping the fix, and nobody would ever suspect.)

If it's purely generated, then there is no question it's a derived work of unknown works used without permission.

Those are the extreme endpoints. I think that the bulk of the intermediate area between steers toward infringment; the contribution from AI has to be very low or trivial to have a clear case that the work is still clean.

This is because a small amount of illegal material taints the whole work; it's not a linear interpolation whereby if you wrote 90% of it, it's 90% in the clear. E.g. one GPL-ed source file in a work with 50,000 source files requires the whole thing to be GPLed, or else that file removed.
by hxtk | 2025-08-22 02:25:58+00:00
CS is sort of unique in that regard. I value my university degree, but when I think about the classes that helped me the most, only one of them was a degree requirement. Not because the degree was useless, but because the information was accessible enough that I already knew most of the required content for an undergraduate degree when I got there.

I took lots of electives outside my major, and I know that I could have easily loved chemistry, mathematics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or any number of fields. But when you're 12 years old with a free period in the school computer lab, you can't download a chemistry set or an oscilloscope or parts for building your next design iteration. You can download a C compiler and a PDF of K&R's "The C Programming Language," though.

CS just had a huge head-start in capturing my interest compared to every other subject because the barrier to entry is so low.
by DoctorOetker | 2025-08-22 02:27:12+00:00
The patent office doesn't serve the patenting of physical theories (which would be a horrible thing), but if it did, its easy to imagine Einsteins theories regarding relativity to have been summarily rejected: surely charged particles at rest in a gravitational field don't radiate energy, yet by the Equivalence principle it seems that radiation is nonetheless predicted by relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charge...

I believe that which is often referred to as the stagnation of physics is in a large part due to this instant-rejection in the modern physics community. There's plenty of "single point mutation" theories (think hypothesize particles with negative masses, hypothesize underlying elements below the standard model so that reactions once again obey the chemical conservation numbers,...) which individually are easy to lampoon, and are henceforth ignored (i.e. for negative masses simulations show they can pair up and accelerate indefinitely, or for a beyond-the-standard-model atomistic theory one can easily refer to the spectrum of hydrogen or positronium, and highlight that a single photon can excite it to a higher state, and then emit 2 lower energy photons).

What if our current interpretations form a very successful local optimum? I.e. suppose we can provably rule out each crooked idea if its the only modification in a theory, then we might be collectively conclude to rule them out in general, as they fail so embarassingly, but perhaps simultaneous consideration of 2 crooked ideas can make the inconsistencies disappear.

Imagine voting as a group of physicists on the most interesting crooked ideas, gathering the top 10, and then exhaustively going through the 2^10=1024 combinations, where bit K decides if crooked idea K is "enabled" a specific one of the 1024 candidates.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-08-22 02:27:23+00:00
This doesn't really have anything to do with "money laundering". For example, you get the same set of problems if the money is accumulating to monopolies or industries with artificial scarcity as a result of regulatory capture even though the law doesn't require them to "launder" the money they're accumulating.

Meanwhile in the case of classical criminal enterprises, the laws against money laundering don't actually work because in practice there are ten thousand ways to exchange value other than with official currency. And then the systems to prevent "money laundering" cause more problems for honest people who get trapped up in them out of ignorance, or become victims of corrupt government officials who use financial surveillance systems for oppression, whereas professional criminal organizations just restructure their activities to bypass the rules.
by muzani | 2025-08-22 02:28:08+00:00
It's evolving into engineering. Look at a real engineer (the ones who need to get certified). What do they do? They review plans and calculations. They verify the plan complies with relevant engineering standards. They verify the solution is safe and fit for its intended purpose. They stamp it and accept legal and professional responsibility for whatever happens.

There's going to be less 'hacking' and more verifying that you've got E2E encryption and meet the privacy standards required... or justifying that this problem does not require E2E.
by Borealid | 2025-08-22 02:30:12+00:00
An LLM can be used for a clean room design so long as all (ALL) of its training data is in the clean room (and consequently does not contain the copyrighted work being reverse engineered).

An LLM trained on the Internet-at-large is also presumably suitable for a clean room design if it can be shown that its training completed prior to the existence of the work being duplicated, and thus could not have been contaminated.

This doesn't detract from the core of your point, that LLM output may be copyright-contaminated by LLM training data. Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an LLM output cannot be a valid clean-room reverse engineer.