MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by K0balt | 2025-08-17 00:01:55+00:00
I think that especially for educational, engineering, and scientific research, these kinds of “libraries” cross over firmly into the public good.

Making money on textbooks by selling them to students at premium prices is despicable and is a poverty of mind for the future. Course tuition should include necessary book access. We gain so much more as a civilisation by sharing within academia that there needs to be a change in the way that the publishing industry treats these kinds of “violations “.
by SvenL | 2025-08-17 00:04:05+00:00
Something’s are pretty handy, like I go on vacation and forgot to turn off the heater/light. Open an app, click „off“, done. Yes, it might be an inconvenience if they are on for two weeks, but it could be also dangerous. Certain electronic devices still plugged in can cause fires. And yes, this might not count as „smart“ in the sense that it’s more „connected“.

Other scenario what would be nice is restocking. Fridge/kitchen cabinet „notice“ that something is running low and reminds me if I wanna put it on a shopping list. And again, yes it’s a small inconvenience if I return from the grocery store after work and open the fridge to see that I forgot milk. But I think that’s what’s technology is about: taking away inconveniences so we can focus on more important things.

The example with going on vacation is something I really enjoy because it’s removing some friction to „just go“ for me. Before I always took pictures of rooms, heater, power sockets etc before leaving because evertime I arrived a the hotel I thought „did I turnoff x? Did I locked the door?“. Now I just open an app and see if everything is fine and don’t worry the whole vacation.
by type0 | 2025-08-17 00:05:30+00:00
I spoke with one person with WS recently, very musically minded. I haven't recognized what the syndrome was at the time, but I remembered that it was some textbook case of genetic disorder. As adults I think they're aware to be gullible and might take "too much precautions" when it comes to crime in a city so they might bother the police a bit too much.
by aussieguy1234 | 2025-08-17 00:06:19+00:00
I have a bunch of little projects that benefit me personally and professionally in a number of ways.

I keep them private because for a lot of them, if others had access to the same tools, my tool assisted efforts in these areas would become ineffective if others were all doing the same thing as me.

Its only a small few tools that i'll actually share with the world.
by K0balt | 2025-08-17 00:06:26+00:00
I don’t think robot plumbers are coming anytime soon lol. Robot warehouse workers, factory robots, cleaning robots, delivery robots, security robots, general services robots, sure.

Stuff you can give someone 0-20 hours of training and expect them to do 80% as well as someone who has been doing it for 5 years are the kinds of jobs that robots will be able to do, but perhaps with certain technical skills bolted on.

Plumbing a requires the effective understanding and application of engineering knowledge, and I don’t think unsupervised transformer models are going to do that well.

Trades like plumbing that take humans 10-20 years to truly master aren’t the low hanging fruit.

A robot that can pick up a few boxes of roofing at a time and carry it up the ladder is what we need.
by zzo38computer | 2025-08-17 00:07:06+00:00
It does not display the quiz. I found the JavaScript file, which is compiled from Nim, and I found the source code, and the questions.

For many questions, the answer depends on the specific use, and/or will be something other than what is listed there. (For example, debugging will involve all of the four things that are listed there.)

I am also not so sure that the quiz describes the programming philosophy very well, but this is a general feature of these kind of quiz anyways.

I seem to disagree with many modern programmers about programming philosophy, but some I seem to have more agreement with some people who do some things in the older ways (although not completely).
by h4ch1 | 2025-08-17 00:08:19+00:00
You prefer elegant, high-level solutions that are intuitive and accessible to other developers. You likely favor functional programming, clear abstractions, and code that reads like prose.

Abstract ↔ Concrete: +7 Abstract Human ↔ Computer Friendly: +11 Human-Friendly

Spot on I'd say; code is the best documentation unless I'm writing some bespoke mathematical algorithms, even then I try to offset it by writing and using clear variables/function names.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-08-17 00:08:57+00:00
So for office, you're looking at files that are archive formats already. Maybe you could improve that a bit, but because of the compression you wouldn't be able to diff text edits better, just save storage. So it would perform about the same as git already does. And you could make it smarter so the prolly tree works better, but you could also make git smarter in the same way, it's not a prolly tree specific optimization.

For your UI editor I'd need to understand the format more.
by autoexec | 2025-08-17 00:09:41+00:00
They've been getting away with it for ages. The RIAA even hired a bunch of ex-cops to act as goons, impersonate the FBI, and go on raids

https://web.archive.org/web/20040209170528/http://www.laweek...

I swear I've seen photos of them in their RIAA jackets too, but I can't seem to find any at the moment
by cjbgkagh | 2025-08-17 00:09:42+00:00
All your items on your list for WS is on my list for hEDS, add in the IQ and I’d say likely 2 TNXB SNPs, do a high quality WGS to be sure. Given the hEDS I highly doubt you have WS as well, just hEDS presents in a variety of depending on other co-occurring SNPs and you got a particular combo.

hEDS is far more common than currently thought because the medical diagnostics are not very sensitive, it’s a spectrum and what doctors tend to think of hEDS is the severe form of it.
by biglyburrito | 2025-08-17 00:10:00+00:00
Chicago O’Hare International Airport Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Denver International Airport Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport John F. Kennedy International Airport LaGuardia Airport Los Angeles International Airport Newark Liberty International Airport Portland International Airport in Oregon Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Salt Lake City International Airport San Francisco International Airport Seattle–Tacoma International Airport
by masfuerte | 2025-08-17 00:10:40+00:00
No, in any particular use of the value both branches return the same type Z.

But when I want to use the value in two different places I don't want Z to be the same in both places.

That's where I'm stuck. When I instantiate the function that represents a value of the sum type I need to choose a return type Z, which is locked in for every use of the value.

I think I understand the idea. I don't see how to make it work in C#.
by Theodores | 2025-08-17 00:10:49+00:00
It was an incredible time because workstations were 10x faster than PCs with applications built very much to use specific hardware. I didn't have Photoshop on IRIX but I did have Matador and the legendary 3D stuff such as Softimage.

These dinosaur computers were the last ones that impressed mere mortals, just the box and the Trinitron screen with the SGI logo on it made people think they were in the future.

We know how that ended with Fahrenheit and other problems, but since then, very few computers have had that wow factor.

As for office, we mean MS Word and Excel, which worked brilliantly on Windows, with WordPerfect and the like lagging. For me it was no problem not having Word and Excel on IRIX as we had PCs for those things.

If I remember rightly, it was quicker to access files off the IRIX workstation SCSI disk over NFS than it was to access local files on the PC. Everything was 10x.
by didibus | 2025-08-17 00:11:22+00:00
Like with most technologies of this sort, I think it's often a matter of how well does it work.

But is it even ethical here to attempt to develop this? How many failed attempts does it take to refine it?

If the tech can magically spawn of nowhere and create totally healthy at birth and later in life children, I'm sure people will get used to the idea of it.

But the path to get there seems unethical.
by stavros | 2025-08-17 00:11:35+00:00
All the replies are spectacularly wrong, and biased by hindsight. GPT-1 to GPT-2 is where we went from "yes, I've seen Markov chains before, what about them?" to "holy shit this is actually kind of understanding what I'm saying!"

Before GPT-2, we had plain old machine learning. After GPT-2, we had "I never thought I would see this in my lifetime or the next two".
by do_not_redeem | 2025-08-17 00:12:36+00:00
I've always reached for llvm-mca when I need stuff like that, but again it's all predicted/ideal numbers, not live off the hardware. And you need to start off with another tool first to pinpoint where to look.

I've never come across pmu-tools, thanks for the tip. I'll try it out next time I'm in the trenches.
by jiveturkey | 2025-08-17 00:14:30+00:00
This is hot garbage IMO. Admittedly I haven't looked past the intro page, and comments here. Plus I have a ton of experience in this area (although have never actually operated a consumer VPN or ToR or what have you).

I think the comments here about SGX trust are misguided. This isn't protecting you from deep state chip level intentional bypasses. We can at least have reasonable enough assurance in SGX per se. The average law enforcement isn't going to get to your data because of some undisclosed SGX issue.

But unlike AMZ Nitro, which AIUI has a network stack which bypasses the guest OS (I believe hypervisor can see everything, which I would trust about the same as SGX), SGX requires host/guest support to pass network packets. So in Nitro you can operate the TCB entirely without (unverified, unattested) guest OS seeing anything? But in SGX the guest has to pass traffic back and forth to SGX. The difference here is who operates the untrusted bit. For SGX it's the application author themselves.

That is why you need the 10ms batching, to stop the host/guest from matching src/dst pairs, and inspecting the outbound traffic (inbound is presumably encrypted for the TEE). However, batching is laughable and won't stop correlation (unless you inject significant fake traffic, which the host/guest has to not be able to tell is fake).

So like every other VPN this is marketing of snake oil.

Compare that to express or whoever it is that offers static IP within Nitro. That is way more useful than this pretend security. (Use of Nitro allows them to not know what static IP is assigned to you, so they can't be compelled to give that info up.)

MASQUE (Apple Private Relay) or other double-blind VPNs are better and don't require SGX.

Besides the technical inadequacies, you have the double whammy of PIA and MtGox heritage. oh my.
by Animats | 2025-08-17 00:14:47+00:00
Not sure, but it should be message-oriented, rather than stream-oriented. You have to put a framing protocol on top before you can do anything else. Then you have to check that framing is in sync and have some recovery.

I'm currently struggling with the connection between Apache mod_fcgid (retro) and a Rust program (modern). Apache launches FCGI programs as subprocesses, with stdin and stdout connected to the parent via either pipes or UNIX local sockets. There's a binary framing protocol, an 8-byte header with a length. You can't transmit arbitrarily large messages; those have to be "chunked". There's a protocol for that. You can have multiple transactions in progress. The parent can make out of band queries of the child. There's a risk of deadlock if you write too much and fill the pipe when the other end is also writing. All that plumbing is specific to this application.

(Current problem: Rust std::io appears to not like stdin being a UNIX socket. Trying to fix that.)
by 8organicbits | 2025-08-17 00:15:14+00:00
Note that this only considers UUIDv4, the random UUID. Other forms can generate UUIDs that are much closer together. For UUIDv7, UUIDs generated within the same millisecond will have identical 48 bit prefixes (or up to 60 when the monotonic counter from section 6.2 is used).

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html#monotonicity_cou...
by yoshuaw | 2025-08-17 00:15:38+00:00
We are more or less trying to solve this exact problem with Wasm Components [1]. If core WebAssembly is a portable instruction format, WebAssembly Components are a portable executable/linkable format.

Using them is unfortunately not yet quite as easy as using repr(wasm)/extern "wasm". But with wit-bindgen [2] and the wasm32-wasip2 target [3], it's not that hard either.

[1]: https://youtu.be/tAACYA1Mwv4

[2]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wit-bindgen

[3]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/was...
by K0balt | 2025-08-17 00:16:30+00:00
As someone who actually has built robots to solve similar challenges, I’ve got a pretty good idea of that specific problem. Not too far from putting sticks in a cup, which is doable with a lot of situational variance.

Will it do as good a job a competent adult? Probably not. Will it do it as well as the average 6 year old kid? Yeah, probably.

But given enough properly loaded dishwashers to work from, I think you might be surprised how effective VLA/VLB models can be. We just need a few hundred thousand man hours of dishwasher loading for training data.
by nelox | 2025-08-17 00:17:26+00:00
The distinction between love and attachment is valid, but it does not solve the problem. Even if one defines love as universal, impartial goodwill, it remains aspirational and fragile. To say morality originates only in love is to assume a capacity that human beings rarely sustain in practice. That is precisely why societies construct rules and duties: to create reliable standards even when love fails.

The justice system is far from perfect, but dismissing it as a “brittle imitation” overlooks what it prevents. Most people are not saints. Universal love may be possible in theory, but history shows that in practice societies without enforceable norms often descend into cycles of revenge, corruption, or rule by the strongest. Systems of law are crude, but they are better than trusting every individual to embody unconditional love.

Rehabilitation and restorative justice models do exist, and they align with the spirit of love by seeking repair rather than punishment. But they are still structured by rules. Without those, there is no guarantee of fairness or safety. Love can inspire moral action, but rules are what make morality workable in communities of imperfect humans.
by filoleg | 2025-08-17 00:17:43+00:00
> Sure there are features that people want and would pay for, but I'd bet given the option that a lot of people would prefer to pay a bit more up front then have a monthly subscription. Personally, I want that choice back.

No one is taking that choice away from you, it is right there in the article. You can either pay the monthly subscription cost or pay the lifetime outright purchase cost (which is under $700 iirc), and it stays with the car forever (in case you decide to resell it later).
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2025-08-17 00:19:58+00:00
Java has an excellent GC, but a horrible runtime. .net is probably the best GC integrated into a language with decent memory layout ability. If all you want is the GC without a language attached, LXR is probably the most interesting. it's part of MMTK which is a rust library for memory allocation and GC that Java, Ruby, and Julia are all in the process of adding options for.
by borroka | 2025-08-17 00:22:26+00:00
I'm sorry, but it seems like you're talking to a bot, some kind of artificial intelligence entity, or an alien who has never experienced the sensation of having gas in their stomach.

After this attempt at gaslighting (how dare you complain about someone who farts every 15 minutes, out of the blue, during a 6-hour flight, spreading a nauseating smell throughout the plane and making the flying experience miserable for dozens, if not hundreds, of other passengers), I wonder if the times I held back from farting, I was tapping into some latent superpowers I didn't know I had. Or, by doing so, I was putting my health and the safety of my organs at risk, and it was only by some lucky coincidence that I didn't end up in the emergency room.

There's always a convenient rationalization for bad behavior. People screaming on a plane? Maybe they got fired, were having a nervous breakdown, and holding back the screams would have landed them in the hospital. People singing at the top of their lungs during a flight? Maybe it's their way of coping with the stress of a breakup. Or maybe they're just annoying people who were never taught how to behave in public.
by stavros | 2025-08-17 00:22:41+00:00
For another view on progress, check out my silly old podcast:

https://deepdreams.stavros.io

The first few episodes were GPT-2, which would diverge eventually and start spouting gibberish, and then Davinci was actually able to follow a story and make sense.

GPT-2 was when I thought "this is special, this has never happened before", and davinci was when I thought "OK, scifi AI is legitimately here".

I stopped making episodes shortly after GPT-3.5 or so, because I realised that the more capable the models became, the less fun and creative their writing was.
by patrakov | 2025-08-17 00:23:09+00:00
No. The verifiable part receives an already-decrypted copy of your traffic and mixes it with everyone else's traffic. Source: https://vp.net/l/en-US/technical#:~:text=cryptographic%20dat...

I have not inspected whether the procedure suggested for verifying the enclave contents is correct. It's irrelevant if you need to prove that the decrypted traffic, while still being associated with your identity, goes ONLY into the enclave and is not sent to, let's say, KGB via a separate channel.
by cryptonector | 2025-08-17 00:23:36+00:00
Who accumulates decades of legacy code?!

Real companies do. The moment you deploy one line of code, it's legacy. It goes from there. Soon you have to build systems that interface with other systems you'd rather were better architected and designed, except you have to deal with them as they are. Then your product becomes one of these, and with no need to maintain or expand it for a long time, it rots a bit, and now someone has to pick it up or interface with it, and your product made things more complex, and the complexity can't be magic wand waved away.
by contingencies | 2025-08-17 00:24:13+00:00
Are you near Sydney? I noted a possible link to the Central Coast. I will contribute a smaller device if you're game to host it.

PS. You may be unaware that your shortened domain name 'benren' from your whois-available real name means "stupid person" in Mandarin. Only noted because there is a company registered with the same name since 1999. On the off chance it's yours, probably not the best marketing in a global world. Just throwing it out there.
by grafmax | 2025-08-17 00:24:59+00:00
Many of the reports are not sensationalized, but based on the companies’ own reporting of water usage. Water is preferred for cooling the dense data centers needed for AI - other methods are inadequate. And 2/3rds of new data centers in the US are built in water-stressed areas.

While some reports may be sensationalized we deceive ourselves if we conclude that the water scarcity problem as a mirage. It’s a real problem.
by arjonagelhout | 2025-08-17 00:25:21+00:00
I have the same issue. For many of the questions my answer is "all of the above, but A in context A, B in context B, etc.". Many are also not mutually exclusive.

Take this example: "When debugging I typically:"

> Write tests to isolate the problem

In the case of math functions, or more primitive building blocks, writing tests can help ensure correctness of the underlying functions, to exclude them from the problem search.

> Reason about the code logically first

This is always useful.

> Use a debugger to step through code systematically

Useful when dealing with a larger codebase and the control flow is hard to follow. The call stack can give quick guidance over trying to manually decipher the control flow.

> Add print statements to understand data flow:

Useful when debugging continuous data streams or events, e.g. mouse input, where you don't want to interrupt the user interaction that needs to be debugged.
by twiss | 2025-08-17 00:25:33+00:00
> The chances of generating two GUIDs that are the same is astronomically small.

> The odds are 1 in 2^122 — that’s approximately 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

This is true if you only generate two GUIDs, but if you generate very many GUIDs, the chance of generating two identical ones between any of them increases. E.g. if you generate 2^61 GUIDs, you have about a 1 in 2 chance of a collision, due to the birthday paradox.

2^61 is still a very large number of course, but much more feasible to reach than 2^122 when doing a collision attack. This is the reason that cryptographic hashes are typically 256 bits or more (to make the cost of collision attacks >= 2^128).
by reasonableklout | 2025-08-17 00:26:35+00:00
I'd love to know more about how OpenAI (or Alec Radford et al.) even decided GPT-1 was worth investing more into. At a glance the output is barely distinguishable from Markov chains. If in 2018 you told me that scaling the algorithm up 100-1000x would lead to computers talking to people/coding/reasoning/beating the IMO I'd tell you to take your meds.
by jdhwosnhw | 2025-08-17 00:27:24+00:00
Unfortunately I’m in the same boat. What appears especially telling is:

> tVNS applied for 30 min daily over 7 consecutive days increased VO2peak by 1.04 mL/kg/min (*95% CI: .34–1.73*; P = .005), compared with no change after sham stimulation (−0.54 mL/kg/min; *95% CI: −1.52 to .45*)

(emphasis mine) The 95% CIs for the case and control groups overlap. Seems borderline irresponsible to have a the abstract reporting a significant result.
by RangerScience | 2025-08-17 00:27:33+00:00
AFAIK, you cut off shitty relatives…

…and you usually find out they’re shitty because of how they handle (or don’t) “political” conversations.

Pro tip: You don’t get to decide for someone else what’s “just” politics. If someone else says it’s important, while you’re interacting with them, it’s important.
by tim333 | 2025-08-17 00:28:22+00:00
I have the impression a lot depends on people's past reading and knowledge of what's going on. If you've read the likes of Kurzweil, Moravec, maybe Turing, you're probably going to treat AGI/ASI as inevitable. For people who haven't they just see these chatbots and the like and think those won't change things much.

It's maybe a bit like the early days of covid when the likes of Trump were saying it's nothing, it'll be over by the spring while people who understood virology could see that a bigger thing was on the way.
by dghlsakjg | 2025-08-17 00:29:19+00:00
Is the vet clinic thing a lasting phenomenon? Are independent vet clinics not economically viable or is there just a VC/PE market imbalance where capital is overbidding for a business that doesn't really have a great moat. I would be perfectly willing to believe that if you knock on the door of a perfectly viable business and offer them more than it's worth as well as a salaried position at the new business, (almost) no one says no.

I think the cash merry go round will stop eventually because the moat, in as much as there is one, is the vet themselves, not the business. If my vet leaves and opens a new practice, I will follow the person. Vet services don't really scale either, you can hit efficiencies with admin, but I'm sure a software company is willing to eat the PE firm's lunch there. With software, costs are heavily weighted to the fixed side. With vets, seeing twice the number of dogs takes twice the number of vet hours, vet tech hours, etc.