MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jcgrillo | 2025-08-07 23:51:34+00:00
~ freebsd-version -kru 14.3-RELEASE 14.3-RELEASE 14.3-RELEASE-p1 ~ uname -aKU FreeBSD t14 14.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.3-RELEASE releng/14.3-n271432-8c9ce319fef7 GENERIC amd64 1403000 1403000 ~ pkg repos -el | sort -f FreeBSD FreeBSD-kmods ~ pkg repos -e | grep url url : "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/FreeBSD:14:amd64/quarterly", url : "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/FreeBSD:14:amd64/kmods_quarterly_3", ~ sysctl net.wlan.devices net.wlan.devices: iwlwifi0 ~ pciconf -vl | grep -B4 VGA vgapci0@pci0:0:2:0: class=0x030000 rev=0x0c hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x46a6 subvendor=0x17aa subdevice=0x22e8 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' device = 'Alder Lake-P GT2 [Iris Xe Graphics]' class = display subclass = VGA ~ kldstat | grep i915 15 1 0xffffffff838f1000 1e0228 i915kms.ko

Sorry I wasn't clearer before, the laptop is a Lenovo Thinkpad T14 gen3 with an Intel CPU. I poked around in logs a bit but I haven't found anything indicating an error yet.

EDIT: just started reading Ch. 10 on Kernel Debugging[1], will try some things and see if I can extract any useful information. The handbook is so great.

[1] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/developers-handbook/kernel...
Show HN: Built a tool that gives your team a support community in seconds
by connorjchen | 2025-08-07 23:52:33+00:00
Hi HN! I’m Connor and I’ve worked on a bunch of devtools over the years.

One pattern kept coming up: support is always a mess.

Questions are scattered across GitHub Issues, Discord, Slack threads, and emails. Docs help, but only if people want to read them (they usually don’t). A lot of teams either burn time answering the same stuff over and over, or worse, get no signal at all because users silently churn or bounce.

Companies like Railway and Framer built great internal systems for this, but most lean teams don’t have time to build or maintain it.

So I built Paladin, a beautiful, OOTB, free, and AI driven support community that can be set up in seconds.

Here’s what it is: A shared space for roadmap updates, questions, and feedback (public or private) An AI support bot trained on your docs, playbooks, and past answers

Features coming soon: AI-powered insights to help you understand what users are really asking for AI moderation that flags issues without over-policing—keeps things safe while preserving real discussion Discord integration that pulls in relevant messages and support threads from your existing community, so tickets and questions don’t get lost in chat

It’s designed to be the support platform you’d eventually build yourself, just available immediately. If you’re working on a product and want to see what this could look like for yours, spin it up in seconds here.

I would love your feedback! Either drop a comment here or post on Paladin’s support community ;) Thanks for reading!

Connor
by eru | 2025-08-07 23:52:33+00:00
> Really though, why put all your eggs in one basket? That's what I've been confused about for awhile. Why fund yet another LLMs to AGI startup.

Funding multiple startups means _not_ putting your eggs in one basket, doesn't it?

Btw, do we have any indication that eg OpenAI is restricting themselves to LLMs?
by billmalarky | 2025-08-07 23:52:48+00:00
Ah, I probably should have listed some of the "assumptions" I'm developing it on top of:

1) Regarding the "generation is how learning occurs" claim, I'm going off of this:

https://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2024/3/7/how-does-re...

Granted, that article refers to retrieval specifically being one major way we learn, and of course learning incorporates many dimensions. But it seems a bit self-evident that retrieval occurs heavily during active problem solving (ie "generation"), and less so during passive learning (ie: just reading/consuming info).

From personal experience, I always noticed I learned much more by doing than by consuming documentation alone.

But yes, I admit this assumption and my own personal experience/bias is doing a lot of heavy lifting for me...

2) Regarding the "optimal AI productivity process" (AI Generates > Human Validates > Loop)

I'm using Karpathy's productivity loop described in his AI startup school talk last month here:

https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?t=1327

Does this help make it more concrete Swyx (name dropping you here since I'm pretty sure you've got a social listener set for your handle ;)? Love to hear your thoughts straight from the hip based on your own personal experiences.

Full disclosure: I'm not trying to get too academic about this. In all honestly I'm really trying to get to an informal theory that's useful and practical enough that it can be turned into a regular business process for rapid professional development.
by aalvarado | 2025-08-07 23:52:59+00:00
I recently saw a video talking about how bureaucracy legitimizes theft and other crimes. It mentioned a laundry list of negative factors about it. It was layers of obstacles designed to obscure the real cause. Makes me think about how many lands have been stolen by the government simply because the previous owners lost them for technicalities, lack of access to documents or some other modern nonsense
by Dr4kn | 2025-08-07 23:53:17+00:00
If you're sure enough that there is going to be a big crash I would move the money into gold, bonds or other more secure assets. After a crash you can invest again.

I don't know why buffet sold a lot of shares over the last few years to sit on a huge pile of cash, but I could guess.

The Job market looks like shit, people have no money to buy stuff and credit card debt is skyrocketing. When people can't buy stuff it is bad for the economy. Even if AI is revolutionary then we would need people spending money to keep the economy going, and with more AI taking jobs that wouldn't happen.

If AI doesn't work out the market is going to crash and the only companies keeping the market growing are going to wipe out all that growth.

No matter how I look at it I don't see a thriving market.
by cosmicgadget | 2025-08-07 23:54:15+00:00
> Tesla has faced an exodus of key talent this year as it has grappled with rising competition, falling sales and a consumer backlash to Musk’s political activity. Milan Kovac, the head of engineering for Optimus, and David Lau, vice president of software engineering, departed earlier this year, while Bloomberg reported in June that longtime Musk confidant Omead Afshar had abruptly left.

Wonder how much is belt-tightening from poor financials and how much is talent that was tempted/driven away.
by jasonfarnon | 2025-08-07 23:54:20+00:00
the article has a quote “That’s way, way more than I think many people would ever imagine,” but I don't have much intuition with 1/7000. The LLM tells me 1/7000 is the 6'7.5" quantile for US adult males. That doesn't sound too far off from what I would have expected of this type of incest, if I had to hazard a height quantile before reading this article. Maybe I would've gone for 6'9". If it was like 6'4", I would be seriously nauseated. I've never had a friend over 6'5" but a number < that. Which would suggest.
by brandall10 | 2025-08-07 23:54:54+00:00
It's a big improvement from an API consumer standpoint - everything is now under a single product family that is logically stratified... up until yesterday people were using o3, o4-mini, 4o, 4.1, o3, and all their variants as valid choices for new products, now those are moved off the main page as legacy or specialized options for the few things GPT-5 doesn't do.

It's even more simplified for the ChatGPT plan, It's just GPT-5 thinking/non-thinking for most accounts, and then the option of Pro for the higher end accounts.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-07 23:55:05+00:00
If you actually have a point to make you should make it. Of course I've actually noticed the actual performance of the 'actual' AI tools we are 'actually' using.

That's not what this is about. Performance is the one thing in computing that has fairly consistently gone up over time. If something is human equivalent today, or some appreciable fraction thereof - which it isn't, not yet, anyway - then you can place a pretty safe bet that in a couple of years it will be faster than that. Model efficiency is under constant development and in a roundabout way I'm pretty happy that it is as bad as it is because I do not think that our societies are ready to absorb the next blow against the structures that we've built. But it most likely will not stay that way because there are several Manhattan level projects under way to bring this about, it is our age's atomic bomb. The only difference is that with the atomic bomb we knew that it was possible, we just didn't know how small you could make one. Unfortunately it turned out to be that yes, you can make them and nicely packaged for delivery by missile, airplane or artillery.

If AGI is a possibility then we may well find it, quite possibly not on the basis of LLMs but it's close enough that lots of people treat it as though we're already there.
by echelon | 2025-08-07 23:58:11+00:00
Is this the moment the bubble pops (at least for OpenAI)?

GPT-5 has to be one of the most underwhelming releases to date, and that's fresh on the heels of the "gift" of GPT-OSS.

The hottest news out of OpenAI lately is who Mark Zuckerberg has added to Meta's "Superintelligence" roster.
by WrongOnInternet | 2025-08-07 23:58:15+00:00
Kevin Mitnick figured out how to get around police radio encryption in the 90's. From 'Ghost in the Wires': "Whenever I heard any hiss of communication, I’d hold down my Transmit button. That would send out a radio signal on the same exact frequency, which would jam the signal. Then the second agent wouldn’t be able to hear the first agent’s transmission. After two or three tries back and forth, the agents would get frustrated with the radio. I could imagine one of them saying something like, “Something’s wrong with the radio. Let’s go in the clear.” They’d throw a switch on their radios to take them out of encryption mode, and I’d be able to hear both sides of the conversation! Even today I’m amused to remember how easy it was to work around that encryption without even cracking the code."
by codebje | 2025-08-07 23:58:32+00:00
It's extremely hard to get an accurate count of connected devices, so we're all just estimating. There's lots of sources giving rough values for things like smartphones or IoT devices, there's a reasonably common estimate of 5.6 billion connected Internet users, but it's largely guesswork for connected devices per user.

It's improbable that I'm off by an order of magnitude: 7 billion is far too low (we have 7.5 billion smartphones in the world!) and 700 billion is far too high; how low an estimate could we make without being unreasonably optimistic? 40b seems quite low to me - 7.5b smartphones, 5.6b connected users, 20b IoT devices, and commercial use of IPs - but if we took that value we'd be sitting at saturation for 36 bits of address space (60% utilisation is pretty darn good!) and the next decade would kind of suck.
by lacy_tinpot | 2025-08-07 23:58:50+00:00
AI being used to completely off load thinking is a total misuse of the technology.

But at the same time that this technology can seemingly be misused and cause really psychological harm is kind of a new thing it feels like. Right? Like there are reports of AI Psychosis, don't know how real it is, but if it's real I don't know any other tool that's really produced that kind of side effect.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-08-07 23:59:02+00:00
ah, thank you for the extra context. I appreciate knowing that, its certainly an easier mistake to make without the quotes.

> I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.

I am less so, maybe I'm getting old and falling into elderly tropes, but I feel like there's a growing uptick in society with people seeking a platform to moralise, while skimming the content and not understanding it. The short-cuts that were originally just amber/red flags (e.g. like the casualness of throwing out a harsh label like "slut") are starting to become the offense, as opposed to the actual behaviour (the underlying cruelty) that they originally hinted at.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-08-07 23:59:04+00:00
I tried Gemini for gDrive to find some files and it was useless.

I tried it in Slides to generate some slides from text, it was useless.

I tried having it produce a plot for me in Sheets and it was useless. (It does look up documentation but I could already do that.)

I haven't found any useful feature for it in Google Workplace; but I do get AI summaries of everything now, which I don't need and have to keep dismissing.

I haven't yet used it in Google Docs -- it's probably decent there for writing.
by selcuka | 2025-08-07 23:59:27+00:00
> if they could recreate the entire thing with the same tool

"Within one year" is the key part. The product is only part of the equation.

If a startup was launched one year ago and is worth $1B today, there is no way you can launch the same startup today and achieve the same market cap in 1 day. You still need customers, which takes time. There are also IP related issues.

Facebook had the resources to create an exact copy of Instagram, or WhatsApp, but they didn't. Instead, they paid billions of dollars to acquire those companies.
by simoncion | 2025-08-07 23:59:54+00:00
What search engine are you using?

I've tried DDG, Google, Bing, and Yandex. All of them rank official KeepassXC stuff in the top five results, and -with the exception of Bing- rank it above any other non-Wikipedia results. I didn't see this weird keepassx GitHub fork in the results from any of the search engines I tried.

> When I searched for `keepassxc`, my search engine ranked eugenesan/keepassxc [0] higher than keepassxreboot/keepassxc...

With the greatest of respect, I would expect someone who's sufficiently savvy to know what to do with a GitHub repo in their search result to also be sufficiently savvy to -at minimum- visit the homepage listed in the repo's About blurb and notice that [0] is the very first item in the list of "Latest News". I'd also expect that savvy someone to know to visit the repo's Releases page, notice that there are no published releases, and consider even more intensely that they might not be looking at the software they expected to see.

I can't explain why your search system is ranking this misleadingly-named GitHub repo so highly. AFAICT, noone with the repo owner's email address was ever involved in any public development on KeePassXC.

[0] <https://www.keepassx.org/index.html%3Fp=636.html>
by mrandish | 2025-08-08 00:00:21+00:00
I was the CEO of a tech company I founded and operated for over five years, building it to a value of tens of millions of dollars and then successfully selling it to a valley giant. There was rarely a meeting where I felt like I was in the top half of smartness in the room. And that's not just insecurity or false modesty.

I was a generalist who was technical and creative enough to identify technical and creative people smarter and more talented than myself and then fostering an environment where they could excel.
by somat | 2025-08-08 00:01:22+00:00
On the one hand I sort of understand it, by not having a stable ISA you don't get tied down in past mistakes and can have really clever hardware innovations. But on the other hand it leads to bullshit like this. where every hardware device is a special snowflake and effectively needs it's own unique driver.

Final thoughts, It's not perfect but I really appreciate AMD's more open stance that gives us this source. And to the absolute heroes who are able to take this big steaming linux centric turd and make it work on openbsd, huge salutes. well done.

However I do wish AMD would clean up their driver. Or at least settle on an ISA.
by knodi123 | 2025-08-08 00:01:33+00:00
> the USA has had DARPA monitoring stuff like this since before OpenAI existed

Is there a source for this other than "trust me bro"? DARPA isn't a spy agency, it's a research organization.

> governments won't "look ahead", they'll just panic when AGI is happening

Assuming the companies tell them, or that there are shadowy deep-cover DARPA agents planted at the highest levels of their workforce.
by Sanzig | 2025-08-08 00:02:08+00:00
A couple of bright physics grad students could build a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the US Government actually tested this back in the 1960s - they had a few freshly minted physics PhDs design a fission weapon with no exposure to anything but the open literature [1]. Their design was analyzed by nuclear scientists with the DoE, and they determined it would most likely work if they built and fired it.

And this was in the mid 1960s, where the participants had to trawl through paper journals in the university library and perform their calculations with slide rules. These days, with the sum total of human knowledge at one's fingertips, multiphysics simulation, and open source Monte Carlo neutronics solvers? Even more straightforward. It would not shock me if you were to repeat the experiment today, the participants would come out with a workable two-stage design.

The difficult part of building a nuclear weapon is and has always been acquiring weapons grade fissile material.

If you go the uranium route, you need a very large centrifuge complex with many stages to get to weapons grade - far more than you need for reactor grade, which makes it hard to have plausible deniability that your program is just for peaceful civilian purposes.

If you go the plutonium route, you need a nuclear reactor with on-line refueling capability so you can control the Pu-239/240 ratio. The vast majority of civilian reactors cannot be refueled online, with the few exceptions (eg: CANDU) being under very tight surveillance by the IAEA to avoid this exact issue.

The most covert path to weapons grade nuclear material is probably a small graphite or heavy water moderated reactor running on natural uranium paired up with a small reprocessing plant to extract the plutonium from the fuel. The ultra pure graphite and heavy water are both surveilled, so you would probably also need to produce those yourself. But we are talking nation-state or megalomaniac billionaire level sophistication here, not "disgruntled guy in his garage." And even then, it's a big enough project that it will be very hard to conceal from intelligence services.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment
by kristopolous | 2025-08-08 00:03:02+00:00
This is interesting but there's a little more to it, especially with the erotic.

If people were polled what they want to see on social media, few would say things that are inflammatory, upsetting, divisive, etc but those as we know are strong drivers of engagement.

It's because you're polling for affinity or disclosed preference not for the actual engagement drivers.

For instance, if a male says they watch male pornography, they are labeling, or at least stating an affinity to a sexual identity.

However, the identities people choose to own are not the same as the preferences they actually have.

Instead if you track things like scroll velocity, linger time, revisitation, the time distance (such as 2 days apart instead of 5 minutes) a different story emerges.

For instance a given male could frequently look at male pornography but for all kinds of social reasons not want that affinity so they'd never even internally ideate the preference although their behavior of frequenting male content will be there regardless.

That's one of the problems with this approach is that not many people want to own all the social identities which map to their preferences so they don't openly identify it.

There (maybe) three levels of acceptance: admitting it to oneself, to others, identifying with it. And honestly these have a poor mapping to actual engagement with explicit content. You can have a (insert sexual affinity) rights activist who does not look at explicit content and someone protesting them who does all the time.
by austin-cheney | 2025-08-08 00:03:07+00:00
I have experienced numerous conversations about performance with people who invent theories while never actually measuring things. Typically this comes from students.

That is not correct in practice. Some operations are primarily CPU bound, some are primarily GPU bound, and some are primarily memory bound. You can absolutely see the difference when benchmarking things on different hardware. It provides real insight into how these operations actually work.

When you conduct your own measurements we can have an adult conversation about this later. Until then it’s all just wild guessing from your imagination.
by rusk | 2025-08-08 00:03:30+00:00
Cost was what brought supersonic down. Comparatively speaking, it may be the cost/benefit curve that will decide the limit of this generation of technology. It seems to me the stuff we are looking at now is massively subsidised by exuberant private investment. The way these things go, there will come a point where investors want to see a return, and that will be a decider on wether the wheels keep spinning in the data centre.

That said, supersonic flight is yet very much a thing in military circles …
by ed | 2025-08-08 00:03:50+00:00
I decided to check-in on Codex after being a longtime Claude Code user. The experience was not great. GPT5 is pretty solid, however!

- The permission system is broken (this is such an obvious one that I wonder if it's specific to GPT5 or my environment). If you tell Codex to ask permission before running commands, it can't ever write to files. It also runs some commands (e.g. `sed`) without asking. Once you skip sandbox mode, it's difficult to go back.

- You can't paste or attach images (helpful for design iteration)

- No built-in login flow so you have to mess with your shell config and export your OpenAI key to all terminal processes.

- Terminal width isn't respected. Model responses always wrap at some hard-coded value. Resizing the window doesn't correctly redraw the screen.

- Some keyboard shortcuts aren't supported, like option+delete to delete words (which I use often, apparently...)

This is on MacOS, iTerm2, Fish shell. I guess everyone uses Cursor or Windsurf?
by pxc | 2025-08-08 00:04:54+00:00
Don't pass secrets via CLI args. Not only do they end up in your shell history, but they can easily be grabbed just by inspecting the list of running processes.

And you've got all this "supply chain security" window dressing except nobody knows who you are and there's no community. So we have lots of records verifying that the published artifacts were authentically built by... someone... somehow.

This is AI slop, with a careless, checklisty, notion of what makes software secure.

The marketing language and actual design of the tool are also incoherent ("no server" and "no trust" both contradict how this thing actually works).

This post should probably be not just criticized, but flagged and removed.
by theamk | 2025-08-08 00:05:07+00:00
As far as car security is affected, "normies" really don't care what the algorithm is. The entire UX is "press button to open car, go to dealership if you need new key" and it allows a wide variety of choices re algorithms.

The only reason they use KeeLoq (with whopping 32 bits of security!) instead of something normal, like I dunno, AES-128 or something, is because they are trying to save $0.50 in parts on the item they sell for $100. Oh, and because they don't like any change and don't have organizational ability to use anything recent, like other poster says.