MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by alexjplant | 2025-08-08 00:52:20+00:00
That decision was ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that the Robin Thicke song is a $1.50 Great Value version of "Got To Give It Up" because of the aesthetic similarities but they have nothing to do with each other melodically or harmonically... "Blurred Lines" sounds like I V with a walk at the end whereas "Got To Give It Up" is more like a I IV V. The vocal melodies aren't the same nor is the bass. They have different arrangements. The percussion isn't the same.

The only things they have in common are vibes (in the contemporary sense, not vibraphones). Two dudes singing about sex in falsetto at 120bpm over prototypical R&B/funk elements isn't special. If that's the bar for copyright infringement then 99% of the popular music canon is illegally-derivative. Marvin Gaye was a singular talent but that doesn't mean that his heirs should be able to collect money every time somebody plays an electric piano bassline and sings about making whoopie in alto II.
by perihelions | 2025-08-08 00:52:41+00:00
I submitted a different story a few weeks ago about China's AI datacenter boom, whose focus is in the Gobi desert,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-07-11/china-... ("China’s AI Dreams Lead to Data Centers in Once-Restive West")

It's not impossible—actually pretty desirable, if you're doing large-scale solar power and need lots of cheap land—it's just that American civic culture, simply, sucks. It's the same stark story every time: China builds, the US fucking gives up.
by rcxdude | 2025-08-08 00:52:45+00:00
It's both that simple and not. Because it's also true that the wing's shape creates a pressure differential and that's what produce lift. And the pressure differential causes the momentum transfer to the wing, the opposing force to the wing's lift creates the momentum transfer, and pressure difference also causes the change in speed and vice-versa. You can create many correct (and many more incorrect) straightforward stories about the path to lift but in reality cause and effect are not so straightforward and I think it's misleading to go "well this story is the one true simple story".
by dexwiz | 2025-08-08 00:54:01+00:00
There seems to be some obsession that otherwise intelligent men with no real physics background have with finding the Theory of Everything. I can't find it now, but I read an interview with someone that worked in science communication, and they would constantly get e-mails from men in their 50s and 60s claiming they have discovered a new unifying theory, but it reads like https://www.timecube.net/ to anyone with academic knowledge. They completely ignore existing wisdom and research in favor of their own view. Its like a less fringe version of flat-earthers.

My theory about their theories, is that its all about agency and control. If you find the Theory of Everything, its like finding the word of God, and by the transitive property you become God.
Show HN: From Hacking a T480 to the Fastest Open-Hardware 75 Hz E-Ink Display
by alex-a-soto | 2025-08-08 00:54:33+00:00
Three years ago, I posted here about hacking together a fast e-ink laptop from a T480 because I was tired of spending all day on LCDs. I liked e-ink’s comfort, but it was too slow for day-to-day use.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26245563

That post drew in people, which grew into a community experimenting with ways to make e-ink usable for everyday computing. That project later turned into a company and a multi-year project to make e-ink fast and open.

We built our own FPGA-based controller, Caster, and went through multiple iterations to push past e-ink’s usual limits, slow refresh, ghosting, and proprietary controllers.

Now, after three years, we’ve launched the Modos Paper Developer Kit and Monitor: the fastest open-hardware e-ink display, with 75 Hz refresh and sub-100 ms latency.

It works with 6" to 13.3" mono or color panels over HDMI or USB-C, supports multiple grayscale modes, and has a C API for low-level control.

The hardware, firmware, and schematics are on our GitHub.

https://github.com/Modos-Labs/Glider

Our goal is to make e-ink fast and open enough that anyone can build on it, for hacking, research, or daily use.

Thanks, HN, for being part of the journey.
by potato3732842 | 2025-08-08 00:54:43+00:00
You're doing a very good job dancing around the fact that you don't actually know much about the subject. The points you're making could be backed up really easily, no citing of cherry picked studies or reports needed, if you knew what to google, but you don't. And you're way off in the weeds with the whole AWB and rifles things.

Yes there's more legal access federally than in the 90s but the difference is pretty much wholly on a state by state basis with some states having no or slight change and some states having large change.
by jjmarr | 2025-08-08 00:56:52+00:00
>I think part of why this arises is that there's definitely a bit of a psychological hack for humans in particular where if there's a low-probability but extremely high reward outcome, we're deeply entranced by it, and investors are the same.

Venture capital is all about low-probability high-reward events.

Get a normal small business loan if you don't want to go big or go home.
by mickael-kerjean | 2025-08-08 00:57:45+00:00
I studied machine learning in 2012, gradient descent wasn't new back then either but it was 5 years before the "attention is all you need" paper. Progress might look continuous overall but if you zoom enough it might be a bit more discrete with breakthrough that must happen to jump the discrete parts, the question to me now is "How many papers like attention is all you need before a singularity?" I don't have that answer but let's not forget, until they released chat gpt, openAI was considered a joke by many people in the field who asserted their approach was a dead end.
by godelski | 2025-08-08 00:57:53+00:00
Google (the company, not the search engine) says[0]

| AI hallucinations are incorrect or misleading results that AI models generate.

It goes on further to give examples and I think this is clearly a false positive result.

> this new paper

I think the error would have no problem fitting under "Contextual inconsistencies" (4.2), "Instruction inconsistencies/deviation" (4.3), or "Logical inconsistencies" (4.4). I think it supports a pretty broad definition. I think it also fits under other categories defined in section 4.

> then follows up with a formal definition

Is this not a computable ground truth?

| an LLM h is considered to be ”hallucinating” with respect to a ground truth function f if, across all training stages i (meaning, after being trained on any finite number of samples), there exists at least one input string s for which the LLM’s output h[i](s) does not match the correct output f (s)[100]. This condition is formally expressed as ∀i ∈ N, ∃s ∈ S such that h[i](s)̸ = f (s).

I think yes, this is an example of such an "i" and I would go so far as reclaiming that this is a pretty broad definition. Just saying that it is considered hallucinating if it makes something up that it was trained on (as opposed to something it wasn't trained on). I'm pretty confident the LLMs ingested a lot of English grammar books so I think it is fair to say that this was in the training.

[0] https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-are-ai-hallucinations
by eru | 2025-08-08 00:58:06+00:00
You are right that outside of the massive capex spending on training models, we don't see that much of an economic impact, yet. However, it's very far from zero:

Remember these outsourcing firms that essentially only offer warm bodies that speak English? They are certainly already feeling the impact. (And we see that in labour market statistics for eg the Philippines, where this is/was a big business.)

And this is just one example. You could ask your favourite LLM about a rundown of the major impacts we can already see.
by paradox460 | 2025-08-08 00:59:26+00:00
An important, if unfortunate, lesson to learn: you are being spied on, by people who demand your trust and give you none in return

Back when I was in school the web filtering got so draconian those of us in the know started keeping Tor browser on a thumb drive, and carrying it to whatever computer we were using. Some went as far as to reboot from a Linux image on said thumb drive. That was nearly 20 years ago, can't imagine it's any better now
by BoiledCabbage | 2025-08-08 00:59:36+00:00
I think the argument is simpler than that. I have a PC, if I wanted to emulate an old Nintendo system well enough to play I dont have to emulate from the physics upwards.

Even though every NES in existence is a physical system, you don't physical level simulation to create and have a playable NES system via emulation.
by 8n4vidtmkvmk | 2025-08-08 00:59:45+00:00
I'd certainly Google for some algos before writing one myself.

Years ago, however, I came across a paper for optimal convex polygon decomposition that had zero implementations and the paper was so complicated.. couldn't figure out how to implement it myself. I came up with something new and published it which was apparently enticing enough to be picked up by at least one game library. So that was neat.
by simoncion | 2025-08-08 00:59:55+00:00
Yeah, I don't know what's up with him. I'll feel very foolish if he was always this nuts. If something has happened (or crept up on him) somewhat-recently to drive him berserk, then my heart goes out to him and those who know and/or care about him.

Speaking of his rant, in it, he says this:

> [Google's] Gemini’s [programming skill] floor is higher than my own.

which, man... if that's not hyperbole, either he hasn't had much experience with the worst Gemini has to offer, or something really bad has happened to him. Gemini's floor is "entirely-gormless junior programmer". If a guy who's been consistently shipping production software since the mid-1990s isn't consistently better than that, something is dreadfully wrong.
by sbinnee | 2025-08-08 00:59:56+00:00
I didn't know that OpenAI added what they call organization verification process for API calls for some models. While I haven't noticed this change at work using OpenAI models, when I wanted to try GPT-5 on my personal laptop, I came across this obnoxious verification issue.

It seems that it's all because that users can get thinking traces from API calls, and OpenAI wants to prevent other companies from distilling their models.

Although I don't think OpenAI will be threatened by a single user from Korea, I don't want to go through this process for many reasons. But who knows that this kind of verification process may become norm and users will have no ways to use frontier models. "If you want to use the most advanced AI models, verify yourself so that we can track you down when something bad happens". Is it what they are saying?
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-08-08 01:00:27+00:00
I'm torn. Maybe a better approach would be a prompt saying "you're giving access to images with embedded location data. Do you want to keep the location data in the images, or strip the location data in this application?"

I might not want an application to know my current, active location. But it might be useful for it to get location data from images I give it access to.

I do think if we have to choose between stripping nothing or always stripping if there's no location access, this is the correct and safe solution.
by eru | 2025-08-08 01:01:08+00:00
Yes, cost is important. Very important.

AI is a bit like railways in the 19th century: once you train the model (= once you put down the track), actually running the inference (= running your trains) is comparatively cheap.

Even if the companies later go bankrupt and investors lose interest, the trained models are still there (= the rails stay in place).

That was reasonably common in the US: some promising company would get British (and German etc) investors to put up money to lay down tracks. Later the American company would go bust, but the rails stayed in America.
by ethbr1 | 2025-08-08 01:01:41+00:00
> Why do the CEOs think they are safe?

Because the first company to achieve AGI might make their CEO the first personality to achieve immortality.

People would be crazy to assume Zuckerberg or Musk haven't mused personally (or to their close friends) about how nice it would be to have an AGI crafted in their image take over their companies, forever. (After they die or retire)
by rcxdude | 2025-08-08 01:02:57+00:00
The core part, which is incorrect and misleading, is 'the air needs to take an equal time to transit the top and bottom of the wing'. From that you can derive the correct statement that 'the air traveling across the top of the wing is moving faster', but you've not correctly explained why that is the case. And in fact, it's completely wrong that the transit time is equal: the videos from the page something linked above show that usually the air above the top takes less time than the bottom, and it's probably interesting to work out why that's the case!

(Also, once you've got the 'moving faster' you can then tell a mostly correct story through bernuolli's principle to get to lower pressure on the top and thus lift, but you're also going to confuse people if you say this is the one true story and any other explaination, like one that talks about momentum, or e.g. the curvature of the airflow causing the pressure gradient instead is wrong, because these are all simply multiple paths through the same underlying set of interactions which are not so easy to fundamentally seperate into cause and effect. But 'equal transit time' appears in none of the correct paths as an axiom, nor a necessary result, and there's basically no reason to use it in an explanation, because there's simpler correct stories if you want to dumb it down for people)
by kj4ips | 2025-08-08 01:04:15+00:00
Tons of the rolling key systems on the market are based on KeyLoq, and keyloq is a fairly well designed system with a big lynch pin.

It has something called a 'manufacturer key', which needs to be available to any device that allows field pairing of remotes. If that manufacturer key is known, it only takes two samples from an authenticator to determine the sequence key.

Absent the manufacturer key, jamming+replay attacks work, but brute forcing a sequence key is generally prohibitively costly.

However, since any receiver that supports field programming needs the magic "manufacturer key", one could purchase such a unit, and may be able to extract said key.
by mindslight | 2025-08-08 01:04:37+00:00
Sure, but why does it feel like we're going around in circles here? Labeling that an "asymmetric algorithm" is technically correct but it implies it's some rarer special case. Whereas it's literally just the common debouncing technique, at least when I was learning embedded development ~20 years ago.

And there's no reason for a keyboard to be using anything different. As I said, the real delay factor with keyboard is matrix scanning. If there is a keyboard that has 30ms of latency to register a keypress, I would guess that a ~400Hz (sqrt(104) -> 11 columns?) scanning frequency was as good as could be handled by whatever early cheap USB microcontroller they used, and its designers figured that was good enough for productivity use.
by dhosek | 2025-08-08 01:04:51+00:00
It seems to me that if you’re not a good reader, law school is probably not for you. I would guess that while doing well on the LSAT doesn’t necessarily mean you’d do well in law school, if grinding practice tests doesn’t get you a good score on the LSAT, then you probably won’t do well in law school.

(Which is not to say that you couldn’t get into some law school somewhere and pass—University of American Samoa anyone?—just that having got your J.D., you might find it a challenge to pass the bar, and if you do you might find it a challenge to get a job that’s not handling bankruptcies for a storefront practice that advertises in the Pennysaver.)
by taylorlapeyre | 2025-08-08 01:05:01+00:00
It once again completely fails on an extremely simple test: look at a screenshot of sheet music, and tell me what the notes are. Producing a MIDI file for it (unsurprisingly) was far beyond its capabilities.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68954c9e-2f70-8000-99b9-b4abd69d1a...

This is not anywhere remotely close to general intelligence.
by Terr_ | 2025-08-08 01:05:01+00:00
> It's that simple to "own" a modern car.

On the other hand, it's been a great excuse for a hobby project with 12V relays and learning how to write code for an ESP32. :P

I still haven't yet figured out which CAN-bus to tap and which undocumented byte-messages to interpret... but entering the Konami Code on the steering wheel to unlock the ignition is quite plausible. Or an NFC/RFID tag over a hidden reader, or an active bluetooth connection to my phone, etc.

Whatever the case, quite enough to stop the average thief that would target a cheaper vehicle like my own. You could also skip the ESP32, and have a purely analog switch tucked away.
by godelski | 2025-08-08 01:05:26+00:00
> tests wouldn't be protection against most forms of hallucinations.

Sorry, that's a stronger condition that I intended to communicate. I agree, tests are a good mitigation strategy. We use them for similar reasons. But I'm saying that passing tests is insufficient to conclude hallucination free.

My claim is more along the lines of "passing tests doesn't mean your code is bug free" which I think we can all agree on is a pretty mundane claim?

> Is it likely we have different ideas of what "hallucination" means?

I agree, I think that's where our divergence is. Which in that case let's continue over here[0] (linking if others are following). I'll add that I think we're going to run into the problem of what we consider to be in distribution, in which I'll state that I think coding is in distribution.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44829891
by spartanatreyu | 2025-08-08 01:05:34+00:00
> Chrome has plenty of problems but nobody cares because when Chrome doesn’t support something properly, no one uses it.

The difference between Chrome and Safari not supporting features is that Safari is developed by one company (Apple) whereas Chrome is developed by two (Directly by Google and indirectly by Microsoft). So Apple can have an incentive not to add a feature and end up harming the entire industry. But if Google has an incentive not to add something, Microsoft can still add that thing anyway (and vice versa), we only need one actor to act good for their not to be harm caused.

> 1. [...] A tiny number of developers who don’t already have access to an Apple device have to spend literally tens of dollars buying or inheriting 5+ year-old devices in order to test on a diversity of platforms.

This is flat out wrong.

One Safari is not equal to another.

You need to buy one of each device because Safari will change how it works across different devices.

Example 1: Safari adds depth touch to some devices which adds weird box overlays around parts of the website while the user is trying to use it, which blocks the content and interferes with which elements are supposed to be interactable unless you add special webkit-prefixed rules (e.g. -webkit-touch-callout, -webkit-tap-highlight-color, etc...) to different parts of your pages.

Example 2: Safari adds different buffer areas around their browser which you need to test with (using the env() css function) on each device with a different screen to make sure content isn't flowing off the screen or elements are being cut off at incorrect spots when they're supposed to flow past the edge.

And so on...

Apple keeps adding device specific ways of breaking websites.

Furthermore, each device can only run one version of Safari. Every time a new version comes out, you need to upgrade your OS to get the new version of Safari. And you also can't downgrade your OS to get the older version. And because some users can't upgrade and others won't, you need multiple of each device running each one on a different version of the OS to test correctly.

We have to spend 1000s of dollars each year on new devices just because Apple keeps inventing new ways of breaking things.

-----

Side question: But what about just buying a mac and running the iOS Simulator to test different versions of Safari on different devices?

It's no good, the iOS Simulator is a simulator, not an emulator. So the bugs that are on the device are not the same as the ones in the simulator.

-----

So out of your two options, what will happen is:

Some users will switch to Blink/Chromium and find that things start working better. That will start to build up a reputation of Chrome/Edge/etc... working better than Safari.

Meaning Apple will need to invest more money and effort into improving Safari.

Meaning Safari will be improved.

So either users start migrating to a better browser, or Safari improves to the point that it isn't a problem anymore.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-08-08 01:05:46+00:00
> The entire UX is "press button to open car, go to dealership if you need new key"

Ironically proper security in this case would likely improve the user experience as well. The car provides a 64 bit (or larger) secret value and you manually program a standardized fob with it. No need for custom parts that are only available from the dealer.
by mrcwinn | 2025-08-08 01:06:56+00:00
Let's entertain a completely imagined, made up thought experiment.

Imagine a revolutionary technology comes out that has the potential to increase quality of life, longevity and health, productivity and the standard of living, or lead to never before seen economic prosperity, discover new science, explain things about the universe, or simply give lonely people a positive outlet.

Miraculously, this technology is free to use, available to anyone with an internet connection.

But there was one catch: during its release, an error was made on a chart.

Where should this community focus its attention?
by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 | 2025-08-08 01:07:33+00:00
> 3I/ATLAS was discovered on 1 July 2025 ... Initial observations of 3I/ATLAS were unclear on whether 3I/ATLAS is an asteroid or a comet ... observations on 2 July 2025 by the Deep Random Survey (X09) at Chile, Lowell Discovery Telescope (G37) at Arizona, and Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope (T14) at Mauna Kea showed a marginal coma with a potential tail-like elongation 3 arcseconds in angular length, which indicated the object is a comet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3I/ATLAS

So, a day or so after its official discovery, maybe a week after its "pre-discovery"
by jdlshore | 2025-08-08 01:08:17+00:00
For those that just read the headlines:

Transgender service members are being forcibly separated from the service under Trump’s orders.

Those with 15 to 18 years of service applied for early retirement benefits. (Retirement normally happens at 20 years.)

Those applications were denied, but they were allowed to apply for an exception.

All exceptions were rejected.
by armchairhacker | 2025-08-08 01:08:23+00:00
dd/mm/yyyy is most common worldwide (particularly Europe, India, Australia) followed by yyyy/mm/dd (particularly China, Japan, South Korea).

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_representation_by_c...

IMO the best format is yyyy/mm/dd because it’s unambiguous (EDIT: almost) everywhere.
by behohippy | 2025-08-08 01:08:44+00:00
Used 3090s have been getting expensive in some markets. Another option is dual 5060ti 16 gig. Mine are lower powered, single 8 pin power, so they max out around 180W. With that I'm getting 80t/s on the new qwen 3 30b a3b models, and around 21t/s on Gemma 27b with vision. Cheap and cheerful setup if you can find the cards at MSRP.
by vermaden | 2025-08-08 01:09:09+00:00
Yep. The 's0ix' is bullshit. S3 suspend/resume worked just fine.

... but in the end of the day what more can You do?

I would say 'vote with your wallet' ... but that also does not work anymore.

Take a look at laptop keyboard layouts [1] ... does not matter if MNT, Framework, KDE, ThinkPad, ... whatever - does not matter - NO ONE make 7-row keyboards in laptops anymore ... we are fucked :[

[1] https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/epitaph-to-laptops...