MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jemiluv8 | 2025-08-07 20:25:33+00:00
Can OP tell us how they implement one-time code email? Ever heard of PKCE flow applied to otp auth where there is a guarantee that the top flow can only be completed using the device/browser on which the user initiated the request?

Consider this scenarioUser initiates login on your site.

1. You generate a code_verifier (random) and a code_challenge = SHA256(code_verifier) and store the code_verifier in the browser session (e.g., local/session storage, secure cookie, etc.).

2. You send the code_challenge to the server along with the email address.

3. Server sends the email with a login code to the user, recording the challenge (associated with the email).

4. User receives the email and enters the code on the same device/session.

Client sends the code + code_verifier to the server. Server verifies: Code is correct. SHA256(code_verifier) == stored code_challenge.

The end result is that The code cannot be used from another device or browser unless that device/browser initiated the flow and has the code_verifier.

A combination of the above and a login link might help. But ultimately, the attacker will be relying on the gullibility of the user. The user will have to not check the urls

Assuming the bot knows to send a code_challenge and send the code_verifier together with the verification code

But then again, GOOD can just also ensure that their otp can only be completed from the GOOD domain/origin. That would shore things up at least.
by nradov | 2025-08-07 20:25:53+00:00
George W. Bush scored well above average on standardized tests. People who worked with him and have no reason to lie report that he was deeply engaged on policy issues and had a good command of the facts. And yet despite all that he still managed to make some truly terrible decisions that still negatively impact the country today.

It was really the mainstream media who falsely labeled him as an idiot. The "chattering class" who make their living by speaking and writing tend to denigrate others who aren't particularly good at those things, regardless of their other abilities or achievements.
by klipt | 2025-08-07 20:26:40+00:00
> I'm not criticizing parents' decisions, but yours.

I don't know man, if you think it's fine for parents to abort downs babies, I think that means you're the utilitarian.

You can try deny it, but in your heart of hearts you think it's fine to value avoiding the inconvenience of a downs baby higher than the value of a fetus's life.

That's pretty damn utilitarian.
by bigmadshoe | 2025-08-07 20:26:49+00:00
It was relative to the number the comment I replied to included. I would assume GPT-5 is nowhere near 100x the parameters of o3. My point is that if this release isn't notable because of parameter count, nor (importantly) performance, what is it notable for? I guess it unifies the thinking and non-thinking models, but this is more of a product improvement, not a model improvement.
by andix | 2025-08-07 20:27:11+00:00
It's a bit of an edge case. It makes a good point and it uses text from a credible source. AFAIK everything NASA publishes is royalty free and can just be copied.

One additional sentence between the image and the content like this and it would probably be fine:

"The explanation from OpenAI has some major flaws, here is how this NASA source explains it:"
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-08-07 20:27:24+00:00
> I own 6 cars. I didn't pay more for all of them combined than the cost of one new car.

Seven but we have 3 drivers. Cars are 1961-2011 and 63, 96 & 2011 are current daily drivers. Every so often something under 40k mi shows up on FB marketplace under $2k and we grab it.

Our car insurance includes a $200/mo FU charge for living in FL. We're at no risk of flooding and carry liability-only. The forever-skyrocketing costs of repairing other drivers' new cars - this is a force multiplier on our premium costs.
by Traubenfuchs | 2025-08-07 20:27:44+00:00
Set up a free kubernetes cluster on the always free tier of oracle cloud with terraform.

4 nodes with 1 cpu and 6 GB RAM each: that's PLENTY for small project ideas. You also get plenty of free storage/DB options.

After having learned to do this once, creating and deploying a new app under your subdomain of choice should take you no more than a few minutes.
by pyckle | 2025-08-07 20:27:54+00:00
No custom duckdb settings were used - the defaults are used.

The defaults use all l6 vCPUs - I verified by running duckdb.sql("SELECT current_setting('threads')").show() which returns 16.

Python gc isn't related, as the parquet file is processed entirely within duckdb's native C++ code.

The duckdb benchmark code can be found here: https://github.com/Earnix/parquet-sort/blob/master/duckdb_be...
by simonw | 2025-08-07 20:28:28+00:00
My understanding is that training data cut-offs and dates at which the model were trained are independent things.

AI labs gather training data and then do a ton of work to process it, filter it etc.

Model training teams run different parameters and techniques against that processed training data.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that OpenAI had collected data up to September 2024, dumped that data in a data warehouse of some sort, then spent months experimenting with ways to filter and process it and different training parameters to run against it.
by syntaxbush | 2025-08-07 20:28:38+00:00
Mine "thought" for 8 minutes and its conclusion was:

>So the “best possible” plan is: sit still all summer near a pole, slow-roll around the pole through equinox, then sprint westward across the low latitudes toward the other pole — with a peak westward speed up to ~1670 km/h.

Is this to your liking?
by rsanek | 2025-08-07 20:28:55+00:00
Been a user of Anki for a little over a decade. I think that creation of cards from the chat interface is a good idea, I've had many discussions that I'd like to retain concepts from. Though I personally would ideally use it directly from the ChatGPT / Gemini chat interface itself (not sure how that would work tbh, maybe an extension?).
by xp84 | 2025-08-07 20:29:32+00:00
I am also very skeptical about voice, not least because I've been disappointed daily by a decade of braindead idiot "assistants" like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant (to be clear I am criticizing only pre-LLM voice assistants).

The problem with voice input to me is mainly knowing when to start processing. When humans listen, we stream and process the words constantly and wait until either a detection that the other person expects a response (just enough of a pause, or a questioning tone), or as an exception, until we feel we have justification to interrupt (e.g. "Oh yeah, Jane already briefed me on the Johnson project")

Even talking to ChatGPT which embarrasses those old voice bots, I find that it is still very bad at guessing when I'm done when I'm speaking casually, and then once it's responded with nonsense based on a half sentence, I feel it's a polluted context and I probably need to clear it and repeat myself. I'd rather just type.

I think there's not much need to stream the spoken tokens into the model in realtime given that it can think so fast. I'd rather it just listen, have a specialized model simply try to determine when I'm done, and then clean up and abridge my utterance (for instance, when I correct myself) and THEN have the real LLM process the cleaned-up query.
by KoolKat23 | 2025-08-07 20:29:49+00:00
In my opinion, it'll mirror the human world, there is place for multiple different intelligent models. Each with their own slightly different strengths/personalities. I mean there are plenty of humans that can do the same task but at the upper tier, multiple smart humans working together are needed to solve problems as they bring something different to the table. I don't see why this won't be the case with super intelligence at the cutting edge. A little bit of randomness and slightly different point of view makes a difference. The exact same two models doesn't help as one would already have thought of what the other was thinking already
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-08-07 20:30:08+00:00
> after buying what was their biggest competitor and it tanking.

Uhhh... You must have missed the news, but oAI didn't end up buying windsurf. There's been like 2 more layers of drama you missed.

Windsurf got its top execs and some researchers aquihired by google, and what was left was eventually bought by the company that develops devin. Now the devin people are asking the windsurf people to either agree to work 80h weeks or take a package and go. Lots of drama.
by ModernMech | 2025-08-07 20:30:21+00:00
Why are your examples so vague?

I'm not saying they're not delivering better incremental results for people for specific tasks, I'm saying they're not improving as a technology in the way big tech is selling.

The technology itself is not really improving because all of the showstopping downsides from day one are still there: Hallucinations. Limited context window. Expensive to operate and train. Inability to recall simple information, inability to stay on task, support its output, or do long term planning. They don't self-improve or learn from their mistakes. They are credulous to a fault. There's been little progress on putting guardrails on them.

Little progress especially on the ethical questions that surround them, which seem to have gone out the window with all the dollar signs floating around. They've put waaaay more effort into the commoditization front. 0 concern for the impact of releasing these products to the world, 100% concern about how to make the most money off of them. These LLMs are becoming more than the model, they're now a full "service" with all the bullshit that entails like subscriptions, plans, limits, throttling, etc. The enshittification is firmly afoot.
by tim333 | 2025-08-07 20:30:35+00:00
It's funny how it's changed. Hassabis on Lex the other day:

>I remember when we were starting out back in 2010, I didn’t even pay myself a couple of years because it wasn’t enough money. We couldn’t raise any money, and these days, interns are being paid the amount that we raised as our first entire seed round. So it’s pretty funny. And I remember the days where I used to have to work for free and almost pay my own way to do an internship. Right now, it’s all the other around, but that’s just how it is.
by bluetidepro | 2025-08-07 20:31:02+00:00
Agreed. All it takes is a simple reply of “you’re wrong.” to Claude/ChatGPT/etc. and it will start to crumble on itself and get into a loop that hallucinates over and over. It won’t fight back, even if it happened to be right to begin with. It has no backbone to be confident it is right.
by OsmanDKitay | 2025-08-07 20:31:07+00:00
The way I see it the choice for websites is quickly becoming not ads vs. no ads but getting scraped for free by ai companies vs. offering a clean managed front door. Right now, when an ai scrapes a site, it bypasses the entire user experience that site owners have carefully designed to guide visitors and keep them engaged. The ai just extracts the data and leaves completely ignoring the layout, the related content, and any other part of the site s strategy. Aura is a way for a site to manage that interaction, and this opens up a couple of possibilities. For paid services the aura.json manifest can technically define which capabilities require payment. Your ai agent connected to your payment method, could then directly pay for a api call on your behalf to complete a task. But perhaps more interestingly for adsupported sites aura enables a new kind of advertising. Since the ai s request contains precise user intent(e.g. searching for flights to London) the api response can include a highly relevant, structured ad object right alongside the data. That s an ad delivered at the peak moment of user intent, which is far more valuable than a simple banner impression. It gives control back to the site owner to build a business model that actually works in a world full of ai agents.
by araes | 2025-08-07 20:31:19+00:00
Real estate is partially explained by what you wrote. Wealth concentration passive investment. California is (19%) passive investment real estate, Hawaii (40%), Alaska (35%), Vermont (31%), West Virginia (30%), and Wyoming (30%). It's just wealthy people passive.

Bond's don't go up fast enough to keep up with the S&P, and especially the top 7. Buying a few percent of every S&P is better than buying bonds. 1Y is 19.8%. Bonds are 4.2% (Hitchhiker joke). 5Y is ~13.5% Until 2022 bonds were less than 2%.

They also look flat when you look at a line chart. Doesn't matter if the flat line means you make 4% a year. It looks flat.

Also, personal view. The concentration of wealth is only part of it. Humans in most cases aren't really involved. It doesn't actually have that much to do with "human" fundamentals. It has to do with algorithms calculating. Even a lot of hedge funds and banks just push a button, turn on a trading algo and walk away to go have a beer. The numbers are too large, and far away to actually mean much. Line twiddling about $200T in stocks does not actually mean much to normal humans. It's kind of that Russ Hanneman joke if you've ever seen Silicon Valley. "No. Billion not Million. B not an M. It's a 1000 of those."

The stock market situation's a bit like those auto-battlers that have taken over a lot of video gaming. "You want to actually play?" "No." "The game's going to play itself and you're not allowed to participate."
by SilasX | 2025-08-07 20:31:38+00:00
Heh, I had this dream/nightmare where I was typing on a laptop at a cafe and someone came up to me and said, "Oh neat, you're going real old-school. I like it!" and got an info dump about how everyone just uses AI voice transcription now.

And I was like, "But that's not a complete replacement, right? What about the times when you don't want to broadcast what you're writing to the entire room?"

And then there was a big reveal that AI has mastered lip-reading, so even then, people would just put their lips up to the camera and mouth out what they wanted to write.

With that said, as the owner of tyrannyofthemouse.com, I agree with the importance of the keyboard as a UI device.
by reducesuffering | 2025-08-07 20:32:26+00:00
Why would they need people who produce X but consume 2X? If you own an automated factory that produces anything you want, you don't need other people to buy (consume) any of your resources.

If someone can own the whole world and have anything you want at the snap of your finger, you don't need any sort of human economy doing other things that take away your resources for reasons that are suboptimal to you
by throwanem | 2025-08-07 20:32:35+00:00
> I don't know man, if you think it's fine for parents to abort downs babies, I think that means you're the utilitarian.

> You can try deny it, but in your heart of hearts you think it's fine to value avoiding the inconvenience of a downs baby higher than the value of a fetus's life.

> That's pretty damn utilitarian.

Thank you for conceding that utilitarianism trivially entails arrogating unto oneself the right to decide universally who lives and who dies, in quite literally every imaginable case - this being obviously true to so reflexive and unreflected-upon an extent that you can only conceive of even an overtly hostile and disdainful interlocutor arguing he should instead be given that power, rather than that no one should.

Is there anything you'd care to add to that, or are you content with having revealed your vicious ideology in all its bare-fanged, blood-soaked glory?
by JamesSwift | 2025-08-07 20:32:47+00:00
I think its valid to say its wrong even if it reaches the same conclusion.

If I lay out a chain of thought like

Top and bottom are different -> god doesnt like things being diffferent and applies pressure to the bottom of the wing -> pressure underneath is higher than the top -> pressure difference creates lift

Then I think its valid to say thats completely inaccurate, and just happens to share some of the beginning and end
by shaftway | 2025-08-07 20:32:53+00:00
The cost of living in California makes the gas taxes irrelevant. Let's compare them. I've picked Vallejo, CA versus Wheeling, IL. Both are about 30 miles from the nearest major city (San Francisco / Chicago). Both are pretty suburban.

Gas in Vallejo is about $4.09 / gal, versus $3.49 (according to GasBuddy.com).

The average house in Vallejo is about $539,000, versus Wheeling at about $307,000 (according to Zillow)

The "minimum annual income to live comfortably" in Vallejo is $96,120, versus $46,080 in Wheeling (according to BestPlaces.net). Side note: crime in Wheeling is significantly lower than Vallejo.

These places were chosen essentially at random, but meant to be comparable, and the differences are pretty stark. Houses are slightly less than twice as expensive in Vallejo, but the cost of living is more than twice as expensive by a comfortable margin. In terms of living costs, for them to be comparable, Vallejo's gas would need to be a little over $7 / gal, just for you to start seeing meaningful effects.

TL;DR - California's gas taxes are basically meaningless when it comes to guiding buyers' decisions.
by const_cast | 2025-08-07 20:33:03+00:00
They're definitely very threatened by open source - a lot of software infrastructure these days is built off of open source software. In the 2000s, it wasn't. It was Microsoft, MSS, COM, Windows server, etc all the way down. Microsoft has basically been earned alive by open source software, it's just hard to tell because they were so huge that, even taken down a few pegs, they're still big.

Even today, Azure and AWS are not really cheaper or better - for most situations, they're more expensive, and less flexible than what can be done with OS infrastructure. For companies who are successful making software, Azure is more of a kneecap and a regret. Many switch away from cloud, despite that process being deliberately painful - a shocking mirror of how it was switching away from Microsoft infrastructure of the past.
by jjfoooo4 | 2025-08-07 20:33:06+00:00
Yeah to some degree that's already happened. Anecdotally I hear giving your whole iMessage history to Gemini results in pretty reasonable results, in terms of the AI understanding who the people in your life are (whether doing so is an overall good idea or not).

I think there is some degree of curation that remains necessary though, even if context windows are very large I think you will get poor results if you spew a bunch of junk into context. I think this curation is basically what people are referring to when they talk about Context Engineering.

I've got no evidence but vibes, but in the long run I think it's still going to be worth implementing curation / more deliberate recall. Partially because I think we'll ultimately land on on-device LLM's being the norm - I think that's going to have a major speed / privacy advantage. If I can make an application work smoothly with a smaller, on device model, that's going to be pretty compelling vs a large context window frontier model.

Of course, even in that scenario, maybe we get an on device model that has a big enough context window for none of this to matter!
by yieldcrv | 2025-08-07 20:33:21+00:00
Another reason it wasn’t silly at all

I don’t think any commodities bubbles were irrational bubbles or good examples of irrational exuberance. Even the beanie babies one was rational until a seemingly permanent supply constriction was alleviated to the surprise of everyone.

So far I’ve narrowed it down to credit bubbles as being actually irrational, like the railroad bonds, and south china sea bubble, over leveraging in real estate market and derivatives with poor accounting of underlying assets

And yet tulips and beanie babies are the ones most cited
by runako | 2025-08-07 20:33:36+00:00
> great lengths to assure

is not incompatible with

> "Fake it till you make it"

I don't know where they land, but they are definitely telling people they are not using their outputs to train. If they are, it's not clear how big of a scandal would result. I personally think it would be bad, but I clearly overindex on privacy & thought the news of ChatGPT chats being indexed by Google would be a bigger scandal.
by kccoder | 2025-08-07 20:34:38+00:00
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates that the apportionment of Representatives among the states be based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed". This means that the census counts everyone residing in a state for the purpose of determining that state's representation in Congress.

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives among the states must be carried out every 10 years
by KoolKat23 | 2025-08-07 20:34:43+00:00
It's an interesting one, a problem I feel is coming to the fore more often. I feel typing can be too cumbersome to communicate what I want, but at the same time, speaking I'm imprecise and sometimes would prefer the privacy a keyboard allows. Both have cons.

Perhaps brain interface, or even better, it's so predictive it just knows what I want most of the time. Imagine that, grunting and getting what I want.
by mystraline | 2025-08-07 20:35:01+00:00
I have a BT scanner app for my phone. "BLE Radar".

I have a detection on there for the MAC address "00:25:DF:*". That's the MAC OUI prefix for Taser International.

I keep it on while driving, because the badgecams and hardware in cop cars spurts this out regularly. So even unmarked cars show themselves.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-08-07 20:35:41+00:00
I don't think anyone assumes that the cost of raising children is zero... quite the opposite.

I don't think its key, either. Can say about Japan specifically, but in the West I think it's down to people wanting to have a life, things, holidays instead of having children. It is a choice that is about the whole commitment and sacrifice of having children no matter what.
by ACCount36 | 2025-08-07 20:35:44+00:00
That's a lie people repeat because they want it to be true.

People evaluate dataset quality over time. There's no evidence that datasets from 2022 onwards perform any worse than ones from before 2022. There is some weak evidence of an opposite effect, causes unknown.

It's easy to make "model collapse" happen in lab conditions - but in real world circumstances, it fails to materialize.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-08-07 20:35:51+00:00
I read that as "the tools (their capabilities) are external to the model".

Even if an RAG / agentic model learns from tool results, that doesn't automatically internalize the tool. You can't get yesterday's weather or major recent events from an offline, unless it was updated in that time.

I am often wondering whether this is how large Chat and cloud AI providers cache expensive RAG-related data though :) like, decreasing the likelihood of tool usage given certain input patterns when the model has been patched using some recent, vetted interactions – in case that's even possible?

Perplexity for example seems like they're probably invested in sone kind of activation-pattern-keyed caching... at least that was my first impression back when I first used it. Felt like decision trees, a bit like Akinator back in the days, but supercharged by LLM NLP.
by simtel20 | 2025-08-07 20:36:05+00:00
I have met people who said they use vim for programming and don't know how to use commands like `%s` and `G` to do those basic things. I don't think most people understand how to use vim, and for those cases it's about the same as using any other editor with a find, and arrow keys and delete. That is, about as much an editor as any textarea in a browser.