MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by n_u | 2025-08-06 05:44:23+00:00
I agree with both of you. I think it’s sort of a hybrid and a spectrum of how much you do of each first.

When you test part of the circuit with the scope, you are using prior knowledge to determine which tool to use and where to test. You don’t just take measurements blindly. You could test a totally different part of the system because there might be some crazy coupling but you don’t. In this system it seems like taking the measurement is really cheap and a quick analysis about what to measure is likely to give relevant results.

In a different system it could be that measurements are expensive and it’s easy to measure something irrelevant. So there it’s worth doing more analysis before measurements.

I think both cases fight what I’ve heard called intellectual laziness. It’s sometimes hard to make yourself be intellectually honest and do the proper unbiased analysis and measuring for RCA. It’s also really easy to sit around and conjecture compared to taking the time to measure. It’s really easy for your brain to say “oh it’s always caused by this thing cuz it’s junk” and move on because you want to be done with it. Is this really the cause? Could there be nothing else causing it? Would you investigate this more if other people’s lives depended on this?

I learned about this model of viewing RCA from people who work on safety critical systems. It takes a lot of energy and time to be thorough and your brain will use shortcuts and confirmation bias. I ask myself if I’m being lazy because I want a certain answer. Can I be more thorough? Is there a measurement I know will be annoying so I’m avoiding it?
by Ferret7446 | 2025-08-06 05:44:26+00:00
It solves the actual problem of "it is literally impossible for me to pay for this digitally" with "it is possible, albeit somewhat inconvenient, to pay anyone digitally for anything".

> b) "have some recourse if someone takes my money and doesn't send me anything"

Your recourse is the legal system. Crypto isn't mutually exclusive with working with trusted, legally registered corporations whom you can sue.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-08-06 05:44:32+00:00
I think plenty here are asking the wrong questions.

The question is not so much are EU enterprises currently depending on offering by Google and Microsoft. The real question is what are the alternatives these companies could turn to if they needed to.

And the truth is that there exists solid alternatives from Asia to nearly everything they offer.

EU companies don’t need to reinvent anything. They have a great opportunity to diversify their supply chain.
by bruce511 | 2025-08-06 05:44:45+00:00
This is of course a terrible reply to receive, I'm sorry you got that.

But I also find the psychology behind this sort of reply interesting, because there's lots of factors that lead to this sort of extreme.

Firstly, we don't know the age of the replier, but my guess would be someone also young, or at least immature. Telling people to kill themselves is not something adults typically do in any context.)

So it suggests another junior, desperate to prove their own standing, and needing to compete against others rather than collaborate. I've seen this kind of response in one adult (abusive to other forum members) but he clearly had quite severe mental health issues (and the user was banned.) In youngsters it is usually extinguished with firm moderator guidance.

With adult responders, frustration and tedium play a role. Personally I'm more generous with replies in the morning than the evening. At times I almost "fake" patience (when I'm getting impatient) with people who are simply not thinking, and who aren't listening.

Overall it is very imbalanced. The asker is asking 1 question. The replier may answer tens or hundreds in a day. So it's hard to answer each one as if it's original, as if it matters, as if you've not heard it a million times before (especially if it's right there in the FAQ.)

Part of answering well, and the quality of any forum, is in participants answering well, even if the question is trivial.

We all were newbies once. Asking stupid questions is how we grew from there. Answering stupid questions is how we pay it forward.
by dylan604 | 2025-08-06 05:44:57+00:00
The original post was painting anyone that voted for the current admin as stupid. The conversation also assumed that anyone that voted for POTUS did so because of tariffs. That's clearly not true. Are there people that voted for POTUS while also having no clue about tariffs, yes and this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that anyone that voted for the cheeto-in-chief is automatically stupid. It helps to keep up with the thread. This assumption that everyone that voted opposite of how you did is automatically stupid is what is actually stupid.
by ludwik | 2025-08-06 05:45:14+00:00
> Worse, after attempting to delete all chats and disable memory, I noticed that some information still seemed to persist.

I'm fairly sure "seemed" is the key word here. LLMs are excellent at making things up - they rarely say "I don't know" and instead generate the most probable guess. People also famously overestimate their own uniqueness. Most likely, you accidentally recreated a kind of Barnum effect for yourself.
by blensor | 2025-08-06 05:46:22+00:00
"The brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.."

Average duration per generation: 1.28 seconds

Characters processed per second: 30.35

--

"Um"

Average duration per generation: 0.22 seconds

Characters processed per second: 9.23

--

"The brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.. The brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.."

Average duration per generation: 2.25 seconds

Characters processed per second: 35.04

--

processor : 0

vendor_id : AuthenticAMD

cpu family : 25

model : 80

model name : AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with Radeon Graphics

stepping : 0

microcode : 0xa50000c

cpu MHz : 1397.397

cache size : 512 KB
by userbinator | 2025-08-06 05:46:37+00:00
those written for e.g. Linux will likely cease working in a decade or two

Have we already passed the era of DON'T BREAK USERSPACE when Linus would famously loudly berate anyone who did?

I suspect Win32 is still a good target for stability; I have various tiny utilities written decades ago that still work on Win11. With the continued degradation of Microsoft, at least there is WINE.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-08-06 05:46:42+00:00
> "Source" form shall mean the PREFERRED FORM FOR MAKING MODIFICATIONS, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.

Yes, weights are the PREFFERED FORM FOR MAKING MODIFICATIONS!!! You, the labs, and anyone sane modifies the weights via post-training. This is the point. The labs don't re-train every time they want to change the model. They finetune. You can do that as well, with the same tools/concepts, AND YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT by the license. And redistribute. And all the other stuff.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-08-06 05:47:06+00:00
> South Korea, Japan, and even Russia would like to have a word with you.

If you think anything happening in Russia is somehow linked to the discussion in the USA, I can’t do anything for you.

> By the way, resistance to this garbage is not "religious" in general.

Who said anything about resistance? I’m just listing two nauseous things the US currently exports.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-08-06 05:47:24+00:00
I guess with a benign modification it does work: it’s just dual licensed (a)gpl and commercial license, the latter available when offered a job. The former always available but of course they’d have to release their entire stack’s source, which Anthropic almost certainly wouldn’t want to do. That’s not OP’s fault though and the license stands as pure (a)gpl.
by TheChaplain | 2025-08-06 05:48:08+00:00
The danger is not on such high level, as all decisions are highly scrutinized by the public.

But on the lower levels, where the insight is much much narrower and your ability to protest or influence the outcome is near zero... That I am worried about.

Municipals, councils, social services, make decisions that directly effect peoples lives. E.g. building permits, custody cases, restaurant permits and so so much more low level things.

And I somewhat understand, if you have a stack of cases to go through and ChatGPT can shorten it from 6 hours to 30 seconds, then why not? Never mind the details, if the outcomes at a glance seems match the average then lets go.
by syl5x | 2025-08-06 05:48:18+00:00
I have the exact same problem and I am using the same tools, I was thinking of how to solve this, and the best thing so far is to use Claude with the Notion MCP.

My workflow would be to open claude's app and just use the voice tool to say something like "create me a note about blabla in my personal notes", this with a custom project where the system prompt would be about note taking and how to organize stuff pretty much solves this.
by dwd | 2025-08-06 05:48:39+00:00
EOS (Aust) sent 160 of these to Ukraine to be mounted on M113 carriers and Kozak MRAPs. Could also be put on the back of a Toyota Hilux or other technicals.

They use a Bushmaster 30mm cannon with proximity fuse HE rounds so they don't need to hit the drone dead on.

https://eos-aus.com/defence/counter-drone-systems/slinger/
by palmfacehn | 2025-08-06 05:49:25+00:00
You make a good and necessary point:

>...to disregard the extreme differences between the social contract in a democratic state and an authoritarian one is insane...

> I don't care if a crazy person was supposedly "impressed" at what Roosevelt was doing, because they were attempting to reframe it in terms of their propaganda

Praise is often used in a diplomatic context as well. Just because bad actors praised FDR, it doesn't necessarily follow that FDR is equally odious.

That said, at the time the US had shifted from the high growth, individualistic era of the Gilded Age, into the collectivism of the Progressive Era. When people talk about fascism here it is often in the accusatory, partisan context.

If you examine collectivist projects, you will find that they almost always require an authoritarian backstop to enforce the agenda. There are direct parallels between the Corporatist economic model and many of the progressive era reforms. Instead of using the word 'Fascism' as a partisan cudgel, it may be more informative to examine the parallels. Specifically here in economic doctrine.

>Is it so bad for the government to lay the foundations for the economic security of its people? Or at least attempt to?

In my view, yes absolutely. While it maybe fair to presume good intent, we could also judge the programs on their outcomes. Cynics typically look towards the special interests which benefit from the state's largess and dismiss the good intentions as a mere marketing ploy. Is self-professed altruism enough?

Federal Reserve (a public private partnership, see Corporatism) Chairman Ben Bernanke famously observed, "You're right, we caused the Great Depression. We're sorry. But thanks to you we'll never do it again." The comment was directed towards Milton Freedman, at his 90th birthday party. This was before Helicopter Ben presided over the 2008 financial crisis.

As for FDR, his new deal programs are widely regarded as deepening and prolonging the Great Depression.

So from an empirical perspective, yes these were specifically bad attempts.

However, I'm going a bit long here, and the main topic of the discussion is Democracy. Aside from empirical evaluations we can also reason about the premises of the democratic process in relation to FDR's programs. One of the key objections to Democracy as an ultimate good, is that the sum of the democratic process, Democracy the ideal, becomes greater than the whole of the participants. Axiomatically, if no single individual has the power to coerce another into an internment camp or force him to sell his labor at a fixed rate; Then by what magical incantation, did the votes of these individuals empower FDR to intern Japanese Americans or enact price controls?

I agree that there is an order of magnitude of difference between history's worst and FDR. However, many of the rationales and some of the methods are similar. If we are truly opposed to those outcomes or ideals, then we should call out the similarities.
by bsimpson | 2025-08-06 05:49:34+00:00
I haven't open sourced anything in a while, but at Google it's historically been pretty easy so long as you let Google put itself as the copyright holder and aren't in any legal minefields (e.g. emulators). You can actually look up the Google Open Source docs even if you don't work there.

That's why so many repos say "Not an official Google product." That's the boilerplate of someone's side project that got open sourced, but Google wanted to claim copyright.
by phatskat | 2025-08-06 05:49:52+00:00
> Before this, I would accidentally hit a keybinding while doing something else and not know how I got to that state, taking me out of flow to troubleshoot.

I used to accidentally background my tmux frequently and the first couple times made my heart sink in that “did I save??” way lol, though these days I’ve largely stoped using it since splits feel smoother in Kitty and I don’t do any remote sessions.
by kangs | 2025-08-06 05:51:33+00:00
Most people, even here, only read headlines anyway. Every time a really weird science claim is made in the news, finding the paper takes a while, if it's at all available. Then reading it correctly. Then usually, you can write a a blog post about how fake and bad the paper is (that 10 people in the world will read, vs the news reaching millions), and wonder how the one and a half peer reviewers approved it.

It's actually a fun exercise, IMO. I did it a couple of time for surface temperature claims, which were completely bogus. It took me a couple of days to actually "peer review" the paper though, so it's expensive in time.

Beside "science" is not a thing to trust, it's a process. It's never fully correct by definition.
by buu700 | 2025-08-06 05:52:12+00:00
That’s a horrifying amount of saturated fat per day, though. This is an extreme risk for heart disease.

I keep hearing this, yet after 13 years of keto my cholesterol is still 100. Being fat is much higher-risk than eating fat.

I'm all for obese people taking Ozempic if they really need it, as well as thoroughly studying its long-term benefits and risks, but the fact that we're at the point of considering medical intervention as the population-wide solution to obesity is an abject failure of policy. Looking at our nutritional guidelines, you'd think everyone in America was an extreme athlete. All we have to do is:

1. Take something like the food pyramid, and put vegetables on the bottom, put fat/dairy/coconut and protein/meat/eggs/soy/mycelium in the next level up, put fruit in the next level up, and put starches and sugars on top. In other words: eat real food, mostly plants, without extreme high-carb macros, and treat fruits as dessert. Reverse the failed policy of demonizing saturated fat, and make this the official dietary recommendations for at least a generation.

2. Provide an incentive structure to use lower-GI ingredients in food products. For example, largely replace sugar with inulin fiber sweetened with stevia and/or monk fruit, and largely replace flour with alternatives made from blends of flax, wheat gluten, and resistant starch; no one will notice the difference. Stop letting Cheerios of all things market itself as "heart healthy", at least with its current formulation.

In this world, people would eat way more veggies because they'd grow up with parents and restaurants preparing them properly (with saturated fat and salt). Even for those who didn't, high fiber fortification of UPFs would provide a reasonable backstop. The low-fat/low-salt era's reframing of healthy food as "bland" is a crime against humanity.

For any fat people we still have after that, sure, put them all on Ozempic. It just shouldn't be the expected default that unmedicated people are fat while the medical establishment shrugs its shoulders and doubles down on half a century of empirically bad advice.
by superkuh | 2025-08-06 05:52:42+00:00
Unless explicitly addressed rot rate is proportional to popularity.

Unpopular targets, platforms, languages, etc don't get changed and provide a much needed refuge. There are some interpreted languages like perl where a program written today could run on a perl from 2001 and a program from 2001 would run on perl today. And I'm not talking about in a container or with some special version. I'm talking about the system perl.

Some popular languages these days can lose forwards compatibility (gain features, etc) within just a few months that every dev will use within a few more months. In these cultures sofware rot is really fast.
by sebastos | 2025-08-06 05:53:47+00:00
I think trying to keep a tally rather misses the larger point. You can’t properly determine the most impactful bad science of the last 30 years, because you’re not aware of all of it! These meta-studies are showing how often you find bad science when you dig deeper, but that’s just a rate of incidence, not an absolute number. There’s a whole iceberg of findings we haven’t begun to press on. Who knows what kind of stuff might turn out to be fraudulent? The real concern is about what kind of damage has been done to the foundations of knowledge, which compounds as we continue to do research on top of shoddy prior work.
by icameron | 2025-08-06 05:53:59+00:00
Nobody has a better ecosystem of “industrial marine grade code rot resistance” than Microsoft. That I can run the same .NET web app code compiled 20 years ago on a new Server 2025 is an easy experience unequaled by others. Or the same 30 year old VBA macros still doing their thing in Excel 365. There’s a company that knows how to do backwards compatibility.
by Animats | 2025-08-06 05:54:20+00:00
We can see the beginning of the end of humans now. "Peak baby" worldwide was in 2013. Essentially all of the developed world has a birth rate below replacement rate.[1] This could just be a slow phaseout of humans over the next century as AIs take over.

Milton Friedman's position that the sole purpose of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value is now accepted economic wisdom in the US.[1] So, once AIs get better at running businesses than humans, investment decisions will put AIs in charge. It's the free market in action.

Next big milestone to watch for: first big company with an AI in charge and outperforming competitors. This outcome is inherent in capitalism.

[1] https://desapublications.un.org/publications/world-populatio...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
by bsimpson | 2025-08-06 05:55:19+00:00
Look into toybox. It's a tiny reimplementation of GNU coreutils that ships in Android.

The author was on the core team for another project in that space (I think busybox). He saw first hand how copyleft sounds good but ends up being lots of friction with no practical benefit, and vowed to public domain all his projects after that. BSD0 is him giving a name to a public domain grant so OSS people could recognize it.
by devjab | 2025-08-06 05:55:27+00:00
In my experience a lot our "google engineers" now do both. We tend to preach that they go to the documentation first, since that will almost always lead to actual understanding of what they are working on. Eventually most of them pick up that habbit, and in my experience, they never really go back to being "google engineers" after that... Where the AI helps with this, is that it can search documentation rather well. We do a lot of work with Azure, and while the Microsoft documentation is certainly extensive, it can be rather hard to find exactly what you're looking for. LLM's can usually find a lot of related pages, and then you can figure out which are relevant easier than you can with google/ecosia/ddg. I've havent used kagi, so maybe that works better?

As far as writing "tedious" code goes, I think the AI agents are great. Where I have personally found a huge advantage is in keeping documentation up-to-date. I'm not sure if it's because I have ADHD or because my workload is basically enough for 3 people, but this is an area I struggle with. In the past, I've often let the code be it's own documentation, because that would be better than having out-dated/wrong documentation. With AI agents, I find that I can have good documentation that I don't need to worry about beyond approving in the keep/discard part of the AI agent. I also rarely write SQL, bicep, yaml configs and similar these days, because it's so easy to determine if the AI agent got it wrong. This requires you're an expert on infrastructure as code and SQL, but if you are, the AI agents are really fast. I think this is one of the areas where they 10x at times. I recently wrote an ingress for an ftp pod (don't ask), and writing all those ports for passive mode would've taken me a while. There are a lot of risk involved. If you can't spot errors or outdated functionality quickly, then I would highly recommend you don't do this. Bicep LLM output is often not up to date, and since the docs are excellent what I do in those situations is that I copy/paste what I need. Then I let the AI agent update things like parameters, which certainly isn't 10x but still faster than I can do it.

Similarily it's rather good at writing and maintaining automatic tests. I wouldn't recommend this unless you're working with actively dealing with corrupted states directly in your code. But we do fail-fast programming/Design by Contract so the tests are really just an extra precaution and compliance thing, meaning that they aren't as vital as they will be for more implicit ways of dealing with error handling.

I don't think AI's are good at helping you with learning or getting unstuck. I guess it depends on how you would normally deal with. If the alternative is "google programming" and I imagine it is sort of similar and probably more effective. It's probably also more dangerous. At least we've found that our engineers are more likely to trust the LLM than a medium article or a stackoverflow thread.
by min2bro | 2025-08-06 05:55:48+00:00
Yes, I am working on a Activity book for kids based on similar kind of games which I would be publishing sometime later this year. I've published a Math Brain Teaser book back in April and yes I can see the sales going up but not significant though. I'm still learning the art of marketing. Would love to know if you've any tips for me since you being an established author

Math Brain Teaser: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F4PBNZWF
by tikhonj | 2025-08-06 05:56:10+00:00
Fun story: when I interned at Jane Street, they gave out worksheets full of put-call parity calculations to do in your head because, when you're trading, being able to do that sort of calculation at a glance is far faster and more fluid than using a calculator or computer.

So for some professionals, mental math really is faster.

Make of that what you will.
by bruce511 | 2025-08-06 05:56:51+00:00
Obviously I can't change how it made you feel, and as such it was a crappy reply to receive, but on one level at least it's a genuine question that projects should have an answer for.

It kinda matters if you build something as a proof of concept, or you build it to exercise some new technique, or you build it to improve the state of the art, or you build it as the foundation for a product etc.

You wrote it "for fun". That's an excellent reason to write something. I can appreciate your effort in that context. It's going to have rough edges etc. And when it's not fun anymore you move on.

Someone else might write the same thing, but for a different reason. Maybe they want a "better Kotlin compiler". They intend to make it perfect, build a product around it and so on. This sort of project encourages a different level of scrutiny than something fun.

So giving context to a project helps attract the right kind of attention. And more importantly the right kind of other-peoples-time.

But yeah, asking like that is not terribly polite.