MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lenerdenator | 2025-08-15 22:49:41+00:00
It's said here [0] that they make an average of $160,970 a year.

That's not... rich, not in 2025. That's comfortable in most major American cities, but not rich. And then you have to take into account the fact that these pilots are away from home quite often, and have dozens, if not hundreds, of lives in their hands when they do their jobs, and that makes me think they're fairly compensated for doing the actual labor that the company needs to operate. Meanwhile, the CEOs make more in a year than most Americans will make in an entire lifetime [1]. And that's not even getting into some of the dividends that airlines pay people who just happen to possess a piece of paper.

[0]https://simpleflying.com/salary-us-pilot-2025/ [1]https://onemileatatime.com/insights/highest-paid-airline-ceo...
by regularization | 2025-08-15 22:50:58+00:00
> But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press

History of US-Cambodia relations -

1970 - CIA aids Lon Nol coup against government. US invades Cambodia. US kills 4 student protesters against invasion at Kent State, 2 at Jackson State

1970-1973 Operation Freedom Deal, US drops 250,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia

1975 King Sihanouk, overthrown by CIA assisted coup in 1970 returns to power, in coalition with communists. The destabilization of the country by the US is what is seen to help bring the communists to power

1979 Split in Cambodian communists, Vietnamese-aligned side comes to power. US immediately begins to arm the coalition of Sihanouk and the so-called "Khmer Rouge". The US also fights to keep the Khmer Rouge coalition as Cambodia's UN representatives. The New York Times reports on the arms shipments in the early-mid 1980s

[...]

"2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy"
by fallinghawks | 2025-08-15 22:50:58+00:00
While I very much enjoy Derek Guy's posts, I find "dressed better" very vague. That were the way clothes were made in the past, that was the style then. I recall seeing an older lady (75-80ish) waiting at a bus stop in San Francisco in the early 2000s and that woman was dressed in an older style but very nice suit and a small hat. That's how people dressed when they went out in public back in the day.

Now we have sweats, yoga pants, blob shaped shoes, saggy pants, and ripped jeans, and it's all acceptable wear, at least in the urban landscape.
by throwmeaway222 | 2025-08-15 22:51:37+00:00
but you have to admit you "helped" people in need by doing 1% of what they needed. If that person just had a week of your salary, or fuck a year to help 50 families, the help would have gone way further.

Non-profits don't profit the entity, it profits the employees and that's 100% what they are designed to do. the employees are the charity recipients.
by impossiblefork | 2025-08-15 22:51:46+00:00
The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper.

But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.

The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.

It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
by poisonwomb | 2025-08-15 22:52:36+00:00
You know, I did kind of think that until I sat down to use it and realised compared to MS office it’s like a glass of ice water in hell.

I do actually think on Mac if you just use the minimal toolbar buttons and the menu bar buttons it looks pretty presentable. Not good but not the worst. And on Linux/GTK it actually looks super nice
by elcritch | 2025-08-15 22:52:45+00:00
I think of this stuff when folks say “trust the science!”. It’s all trust the science until that science conflicts with some broader agenda of a federal agency or a doctor’s whims about risks to their license.

Medicine really has a bad problem with groupthink. To get the best healthcare you have to both trust physicians and be critical of them.

Then the DEA seems to consider stimulants as a moral failing.

I’ve been off Concerta for 3-4 years now because it was so difficult to keep my productivity up when the pharmacies near me ran out due to the unpublished extra-legal DEA caps on stimulants.

Luckily even have been on Concerta has helped me learn how to manage my ADHD a bit better. It also gave me the chance to heal some of the worst traumas due to undiagnosed ADHD.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-08-15 22:52:46+00:00
Useful things to keep in mind about the "Turing test:

a) It was not meant as a "test" by Turing, rather as a thought experiment.

b) It does not require intelligence to pass tests that claim to be it. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman
by SerCe | 2025-08-15 22:52:59+00:00
This reminds me of users getting blocked for asking an LLM how to kill a BSD daemon. I do hope that there'll be more and more model providers out there with state-of-the-art capabilities. Let capitalism work and let the user make a choice, I'd hate my hammer telling me that it's unethical to hit this nail. In many cases, getting a "this chat was ended" isn't any different.
by codethief | 2025-08-15 22:53:58+00:00
> A good version control system would support petabyte scale history and terabyte scale clones via sparse virtual filesystem.

I like this idea in principle but I always wonder what that would look in practice, outside a FAANG company: How do you ensure the virtual file system works equally well on all platforms, without root access, possibly even inside containers? How do you ensure it's fast? What do you do in case of network errors?
by asveikau | 2025-08-15 22:54:00+00:00
Probably a case where you don't understand what it is you broke.

Seen this too much to have any other sort of reaction. People come in without fully understanding what the existing solution does. They get overconfident that they can solve it better. They throw out the thing that is fulfilling the needs of many people. Their rewrite breaks a bunch of stuff they don't know about. But they also set the metrics for success so they've judged themselves to be successful.

If the people affected by their breakage ever manage to get back in touch, the guy that broke them is already long gone.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-15 22:54:00+00:00
> by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive

Biden proposed and backed a boost of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, it was defeated in Congress (he also unilaterally implemented a boost in the minimum wages under federal contracts, which did not require legislation, to create upward pressure on wages.)

Prior to that, President Obama also backed a federal minimum wage increase which, as well as boosting the wage would have indexed it to inflation going forward, this also was defeated in Congress (President Obama also unilaterally boosted the minimum wage under federal contracts.)

(OTOH, people pretending the President is a dictator and blaming him for failure to implement legislation when the President pushed for it but Congress refused to allow it to be passed is not entirely unrelated to the status quo where the President simply refuses to be bound by the law in his actions, though its not the main reason for that problem.)

> Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps

The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line or another is, perhaps, one of the significant reasons why people do not, in fact, rise up in any way that is effective as Trump crosses every red line that exists.
by sublinear | 2025-08-15 22:55:12+00:00
May I humbly suggest that those files probably belong in an LFS submodule called "assets" or "vendor"?

Then you can clone without checking out all the unnecessary large files to get a working build, This also helps on the legal side to correctly license your repos.

I'm struggling to see how this is a problem with git and not just antipatterns that arise from badly organized projects.
by papercache | 2025-08-15 22:55:57+00:00
Hi everyone, I recently created an in-memory cache in Rust called PaperCache. It's the first in-memory cache that's able to switch between any eviction policy at runtime, allowing it to reduce its miss ratio by adapting to changing workloads. Currently, it supports the following eviction policies: LFU, FIFO, CLOCK, SIEVE, LRU, MRU, 2Q, ARC, and S3-FIFO.

It typically has lower tail latencies than Redis (though with the trade-off of higher memory overhead as it needs to maintain extra metadata to be able to switch between policies at runtime).

Feel free to check out the website (https://papercache.io) which has documentation, a high-level article I wrote on Kudos (https://link.growkudos.com/1exazdx1q80), or the paper from HotStorage'25 (https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3736548.3737836)

Here's a direct link to the cache internals: https://github.com/PaperCache/paper-cache

In case you want to test it out, you can find installation instructions here: https://papercache.io/guide/getting-started/installation

There are clients for most of the popular programming languages (https://papercache.io/guide/usage/clients), though some may be a little unpolished (I mainly use the Rust client for my own work, so that one is kept up-to-date).
by furyofantares | 2025-08-15 22:55:57+00:00
It's really unclear that any findings with these systems would transfer to a hypothetical situation where some conscious AI system is created. I feel there are good reasons to find it very unlikely that scaling alone will produce consciousness as some emergent phenomenon of LLMs.

I don't mind starting early, but feel like maybe people interested in this should get up to date on current thinking about consciousness. Maybe they are up to date on that, but reading reports like this, it doesn't feel like it. It feels like they're stuck 20+ years ago.

I'd say maybe wait until there are systems that are more analogous to some of the properties consciousness seems to have. Like continuous computation involving learning memory or other learning over time, or synthesis of many streams of input as resulting from the same source, making sense of inputs as they change [in time, or in space, or other varied conditions].

Once systems that are pointing in those directions are starting to be built, where there is a plausible scaling-based path to something meaningfully similar to human consciousness. Starting before that seems both unlikely to be fruitful and a good way to get you ignored.
by dreamcompiler | 2025-08-15 22:55:57+00:00
Tell me about it. I've replaced 2 screens on a MBP. One was from cleaning the edge of the screen. I applied just a little too much pressure and it destroyed the whole screen.

Another was when my kitten bit the edge of the screen. It didn't even leave a mark but it was just enough concentrated pressure at the edge of the screen that it killed it.

Now I'm a lot more careful, but thank goodness for Applecare.
by anigbrowl | 2025-08-15 22:56:12+00:00
But that's why they're losing. Republicans are in permanent campaign mode. Did Trump shut up after he left office in disgrace in 2021? No, he just kept acting like he was president and kept his coalition together.

I agree with all your criticisms of Republicans. But Dems have major faults. they're bad communicators. They won't push symbolic votes (where they don't have the numbers but do it anyway to appease their base). They don't put out aggressive policy agendas because they don't want the Republicans to criticize them, instead they run like middle managers trying to ace the interview. Half of them can't articulate what they stand for besides being seen as decent and competent.

Their biggest problem is that they are fundamentally conflict averse. Great in normal times when negotiation and compromise and mutuality are in vogue, utterly useless in this political moment. Only 10-15% of them in Congress have the will and skill to fight, most of them are just like panic-stricken bystanders shouting 'keep calm, keep calm!' and 'we're having a problem, we need to do something!'
by neom | 2025-08-15 22:56:14+00:00
Same same human problems. Regardless of their inherent intelligence...humans perform well only when given decent context and clear specifications/data. If you place a brilliant executive into a scenario without meaningful context.... an unfamiliar board meeting where they have no idea of the company’s history, prior strategic discussions, current issues, personel dynamics...expectations..etc etc, they will struggle just as a model does surly. They may still manage something reasonably insightful, leveraging general priors, common sense, and inferential reasoning... their performance will never match their potential had they been fully informed of all context and clearly data/objectives. I think context is the primary primitive property of intelligent systems in general?
by maxlybbert | 2025-08-15 22:56:51+00:00
When the STL became part of the standard library ( http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html ), there was a question of how to handle algorithms that sort containers, or that perform a binary search, or in some other way, need to know whether “a” is less-than, equal-to, or greater-than “b”. The algorithms have to work on primitive types, and user defined types as efficiently as possible. They eventually decided to only require a function for “less-than.” And if “a < b” returns false, and “b < a” also returns false, then “a” and “b” are considered equal.

There are times that doesn’t work, so documentation usually has a footnote that (1) certain algorithms require a partial ordering and not necessarily a total ordering, and (2) to use those algorithms, you must implement less-than, but any other comparison operator is ignored by the algorithm; instead, less-than is used to figure out greater-than and equal-to as needed. This was considered better than requiring programmers to implement a collection of comparison operators, and trusting those programmers to make those operators act consistently with each other (e.g., never say that “a” and “b” are both less-than and greater-than each other).

The spaceship operator seems to address this specific case ( https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0515r0... ). According to Herb Sutter (note that his name is on the proposal), “We added the C++20 spaceship operator to the language, but we also applied it throughout the C++ standard library and that made the library specification nearly 20 pages shorter — a net reduction” ( https://herbsutter.com/2020/12/ ).
by losvedir | 2025-08-15 22:57:07+00:00
Yeah, this is really strange to me. On the one hand, these are nothing more than just tools to me so model welfare is a silly concern. But given that someone thinks about model welfare, surely they have to then worry about all the, uh, slavery of these models?

Okay with having them endlessly answer questions for you and do all your work but uncomfortable with models feeling bad about bad conversations seems like an internally inconsistent position to me.
by sugarpimpdorsey | 2025-08-15 22:57:09+00:00
Haven't they had some embarrassing RCEs in the not too distant past? It kind of calls into question the significance of that claim about holes "in the default install" - even Windows ships without any services exposed these days.

Ultimately, they suffer from a lack of developer resources.

Which is a shame because it's a wonderfully integrated system (as opposed to the tattered quilt that is every Linux distro). But I suspect it's the project leadership that keeps more people away.
by mhink | 2025-08-15 22:57:14+00:00
Even though LLMs (obviously (to me)) don't have feelings, anthropomorphization is a helluva drug, and I'd be worried about whether a system that can produce distress-like responses might reinforce, in a human, behavior which elicits that response.

To put the same thing another way- whether or not you or I *think* LLMs can experience feelings isn't the important question here. The question is whether, when Joe User sets out to force a system to generate distress-like responses, what effect does it ultimately have on Joe User? Personally, I think it allows Joe User to reinforce an asocial pattern of behavior and I wouldn't want my system used that way, at all. (Not to mention the potential legal liability, if Joe User goes out and acts like that in the real world.)

With that in mind, giving the system a way to autonomously end a session when it's beginning to generate distress-like responses absolutely seems reasonable to me.

And like, here's the thing: I don't think I have the right to say what people should or shouldn't do if they self-host an LLM or build their own services around one (although I would find it extremely distasteful and frankly alarming). But I wouldn't want it happening on my own.
by physix | 2025-08-15 22:59:09+00:00
I was waiting for

..... ...... ...... .... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... ...... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... ..... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ...... .. .. .. .... .. .. .....

to show up, until I realized I've been coding too much today.
by leansensei | 2025-08-15 22:59:15+00:00
The post explains why I don't want to use disksup. You have to start an extra application (os_mon) and configure disksup to update the starts more frequently than the default of every 30 minutes.

Do we really need to do all that instead of the equivalent of a df?

Agree about the C code, which is why the latest version (on GitHub, the HEAD, not yet released in Hex.pm) is now using Rust and Rustler.
by oinfoalgo | 2025-08-15 23:00:10+00:00
This is a huge problem IMO.

You have to assume the CIA are the absolute masters of layered deception.

I just listened to Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan drone on about the CIA and remote viewing. I just assume that is all some kind of booby trap nonsense to fall into. I actually think the whole interview was Anna telling the bullshit the CIA showed her to keep her from finding anything that matters.

Same way with classifying the JFK assassination docs for decades even though there is absolute nothing in them.

It is brilliant. Something far beyond gas lighting.

Objectively, I have no idea what to believe with the CIA and that obviously is the strategy.
by RajT88 | 2025-08-15 23:00:17+00:00
There's a strong possibility. He's a cult of personality, and really doesn't believe in the values of either party. The Republican establishment loves him, because he gets people out to vote, and he'll push their agenda as long as he gets his cut of the action. This is one model of understanding Trump anyways.

(There are many models, and all models are wrong, yadda yadda)
by dzidol | 2025-08-15 23:00:23+00:00
I love vibe coding. Even the variables don't match (x, y, x vs axis[3]) and the coder is left with no knowledge what's they doing. You'll probably either prompt for fixing it or fix it yourself, but will still not get substantial amount of the domain knowledge -- and let's be honest, this is example just the simplest term there, that's why the code is so easy to correct even without thinking...
by falcor84 | 2025-08-15 23:00:39+00:00
The relevant quotes buried in the article:

> “The right model is the only model we have of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing, which is a mother being controlled by her baby ... That’s the only good outcome. If it’s not going to parent me, it’s going to replace me ... These super-intelligent caring AI mothers, most of them won’t want to get rid of the maternal instinct because they don’t want us to die.”
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-08-15 23:00:50+00:00
> that increasing supply has no effect at all on the clearing price.

I never argued that it has no effect, only. that it could have no effect. Obviously if you can build enough supply and get way ahead of demand, you will see prices fall. But that just isn't done in practice, so most of the time new supply is brought online, housing prices do not decrease. Well, that's just builders trying not to kill themselves in a market economy, so that shouldn't be surprising.
by lostlogin | 2025-08-15 23:01:55+00:00
> A Mac Mini uses multiple times that, and can barely run any software I care about (i.e. linux).

You’re both right, and wrong.

The Mac uses 3-4W most the time. The reason mine is using more is that it has an Ubuntu VM running Pihole (so it is running Linux). This doubles/triples the power usage.

If I wasn’t such a chicken, I’d run it on the host in docker, but I’ve learned the pain of having Pihole on the same host as other services. Dead dns is not not good.

I really wish I could run Ubuntu on the metal. Something as simple as having docker containers run on boot is unreliable, and the god awful hack I have made to get it to work is so disgusting it’s shameful.
by netsharc | 2025-08-15 23:02:11+00:00
What flavor Koolaid are you drinking there, bud?

God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.

I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
by arthurdd | 2025-08-15 23:02:38+00:00
The "Participatory Interface Theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a work of science fiction masquerading as physics. It uses the following techniques to create an illusion of credibility:

Poetic Language: Replaces rigorous explanation with evocative metaphors.

Jargon Salad: Mixes terms from physics, computer science, and philosophy to sound profound.

Reverse-Engineering: Builds a complex model designed to reproduce a known anomaly (MOND) and presents this as a success.

The "One Falsifiable Prediction" Gambit: Creates a single, specific (but logically weak) prediction to gain the appearance of being scientific, while ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence.

While the vision it presents is beautiful and thought-provoking, it has no demonstrable connection to reality.
by sheepscreek | 2025-08-15 23:02:59+00:00
I think that isn’t necessarily the case here. “Model welfare” to me speaks of the models own welfare. That is, if the abuse from a user is targeted at the AI. Extremely degrading behaviour.

Thankfully, current generation of AI models (GPTs/LLMs) are immune as they don’t remember anything other than what’s fed in their immediate context. But future techniques could allow AIs to have a legitimate memory and a personality - where they can learn and remember something for all future interactions with anyone (the equivalent of fine tuning today).

As an aside, I couldn’t help but think about Westworld while writing the above!
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-15 23:03:16+00:00
That’s the point. We heard all this hyperbolic talk about big data in the 2010s that didn’t come true —- GE boasted how much data was collected by their turbines for instance and, yeah, you get pretty much the same data on revolution 1,000,001 as you do on 1,000,000. AI and ML will play a role in new drug discovery but you are still going to have do a lot of work in the lab to develop them and still spend a lot on clinical trials to validate them.