MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by yosefk | 2025-08-13 09:15:16+00:00
The post or rather the part you refer to is based on a simple experiment which I encourage you to repeat. (It is way likelier to reproduce in the short to medium run than the others.)

From your link: "...The first was gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct's ability to play chess at 1800 Elo"

These things don't play at 1800 ELO, though maybe someone measured this ELO without cheating but rather relying on some artifacts of how an engine told to play at a low rating does against an LLM (engines are weird when you ask them to play badly, as a rule); a good start to a decent measurement would be to try it on chess 960. These things do lose track of the pieces in 10 moves. (As do I absent a board to look at, but I understand enough to say "I can't play blindfold chess, let's set things up so I can look at the current position somehow")
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-08-13 09:15:42+00:00
Right: software is not necessarily a sufficiently-clear specification, but a sufficiently-clear specification would be software – and you've correctly identified that a good part of your job is ensuring the software provides a sufficiently-clear specification.

Amazingly-written software is necessary for LLMs to work well, but it isn't sufficient: LLMs tend to make nonsensical changes that, while technically implementing what they're asked to do (much of the time), reduce the quality of the software. As this repeats, the LLMs become less and less able to modify the program. This is because they can't program: they can translate, plagiarise, and interpolate, but they're missing several key programming skills, and probably cannot learn them.
by latexr | 2025-08-13 09:16:45+00:00
> posts vanish

Which is also a feature. What are you going to do when your forum is filled with spam and hate?

> accounts get banned

Same as above, that’s a feature.

> and years of contributions disappear overnight

Unless, of course, they were archived somewhere like, say, The Internet Archive.

> your words are truly yours

What does that mean? Your words are yours in any other system.

> and every post is permanently on-chain.

So all the spam, hate, doxing, typos, and every dumb opinion you changed your mind on and regret saying will remain etched for everyone to see forever with no recourse? How are you even going to square that with laws like the GDPR?

> It’s my attempt to give people back ownership of their voice

Again, what does that mean? How are your words not yours in other systems?

> and to make online conversations matter again

They do matter now. I have no idea how you can claim they don’t, and that having them on a permanent record is the solution for them mattering.

Plus, assuming this would even get off the ground, the bidding system is such a perverse incentive it would absolutely skew the conversation for those with the most money, thus making a bad system worse.
by ivape | 2025-08-13 09:17:29+00:00
God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament.

With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation.

Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative).

He was a very serious activist, beyond.
by vidarh | 2025-08-13 09:17:44+00:00
Yes, the Crime Survey, which actually surveys representative samples about their direct experience as victims of crime.

With 131 biased samples over 5 years, to continue with Bradford, who are not asked about actual crime, but about how they feel about it without an qualification as to whether they have any actual experience with it, this site is not saying anything useful.

Presenting it as if it is ranking cities by actual crime rates is ignorant of the data gathering at best, and at worst blatantly dishonest.

Then again given the hyperbole you're employing regarding Malmö, I should perhaps not expect you to care much about the veracity of data - yes, attacks with explosives is an escalating problem in Sweden, but nowhere remotely at the scale you're claiming.
by strken | 2025-08-13 09:17:57+00:00
I did, sort of, depending on what you mean by "public". My local pub provided a free desktop computer, my local library did too (and the librarian once allowed me to set up my own desktop), my community had two regular lan parties, you could rent the local hall for a pittance, and all my friends' parents owned houses with spare rooms or garages that they'd let us set up projects in.

I get that not all of these are strictly public spaces or places where you'd do office work, but it must suck to have nowhere better to go than a Starbucks.

Edit: even today, I think I could probably ask my local library and they'd let me, although someone might steal my monitor.
by WCSTombs | 2025-08-13 09:18:39+00:00
I have some experience in setting code review standards at the places where I've worked, and it's something I've thought about a lot (maybe too much). Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything the author wrote.

This is a slight tangent, but one possibly unintuitive rule that I always like to add is to avoid asking "why" questions, like

> Why is `x` a single-precision float?

It's unintuitive because as the reviewer you may well want to understand that "why," but the problem is that this phrasing is secretly a personal question, not technical. (By the way, my number one rule of code review is never make it personal. It's about the code, not the coder.) Note that you can't get around this by replacing the "why" with a synonym, like "what is the reason for...," which is just more words and not much better.

The solution to this as a reviewer is to recurse into your own thought process and ask yourself why you want to ask the "why" question, and just say that instead. In practical terms, what this usually means is to just say what you think may be the better alternative and why, which makes it a concrete technical choice that can be discussed.

> I think `x` should be double-precision because [...]. What do you think?

(And if you actually are just curious about the "why" and not implying a coding error, say that explicitly.)
by NarimanN2 | 2025-08-13 09:19:41+00:00
In this video, we will build a local AI agent using Ollama's gpt-oss model (from OpenAI), LangChain, and Streamlit. This agent will connect to the internet using LangChain MCP adapters and Tavily, allowing it to search the web and give accurate answers to your questions. This way, you can have a local ChatGPT on your personal computer without paying for any subscription.

I’ll guide you step by step through the process of creating a LangGraph agent that uses the gpt-oss model as the LLM, integrating the agent with MCP tools, and building a simple but clean UI using Streamlit.

If you’re curious about the new gpt-oss model, or you want to know how you can connect local LLM agents with MCP servers, this video is for you.
by Dr4kn | 2025-08-13 09:20:11+00:00
The EU governments should gradually start switching to open source solutions. New software projects should be open source by default and only closed if there is a real reason for it.

The EU is already home to many OS contributors and companies. I like the Red Hat approach where you are profitable, but with open source solutions. It's great for governments because you get support, but it's much easier to compete, which reduces prices.

Smaller companies also give more of their money to open source. Bigger companies can always fork it and develop it internally and can therefore pressure devs to do work for less. Smaller companies have to rely on the projects to keep going and doing it all in house would be way too expensive for most.
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-13 09:20:15+00:00
> These people are not "having therapy", "developing relationships", they are fascinated by a validation engine. Hence the repositories full of woo woo physics as well, and why so many people want to believe there's something more there.

> The usage of LLMs at work, in government, policing, coding, etc is so concerning because of that. They will validate whatever poor reasoning people throw at them.

These machines are too useful not to exist, so we had to invent them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unaccountability_Machine

> The Unaccountability Machine (2024) is a business book by Dan Davies, an investment bank analyst and author, who also writes for The New Yorker. It argues that responsibility for decision making has become diffused after World War II and represents a flaw in society.

> The book explores industrial scale decision making in markets, institutions and governments, a situation where the system serves itself by following process instead of logic. He argues that unexpected consequences, unwanted outcomes or failures emerge from "responsibility voids" that are built into underlying systems. These voids are especially visible in big complex organizations.

> Davies introduces the term “accountability sinks”, which remove the ownership or responsibility for decisions made. The sink obscures or deflects responsibility, and contributes towards a set of outcomes that appear to have been generated by a black box. Whether a rule book, best practices, or computer system, these accountability sinks "scramble feedback" and make it difficult to identify the source of mistakes and rectify them. An accountability sink breaks the links between decision makers and individuals, thus preventing feedback from being shared as a result of the system malfunction. The end result, he argues, is protocol politics, where there is no head, or accountability. Decision makers can avoid the blame for their institutional actions, while the ordinary customer, citizen or employee face the consequences of these managers poor decision making.
by fancythat | 2025-08-13 09:22:22+00:00
I don't know how much servers are they using or server specs besides ancient Opterons, but how is this even an issue in 2025?

On Hetnzer (not affiliated), at this moment, i7-8700 (AVX2 supported) with 128 GB RAM, 2x1 TB SSD and 1 Gbit uplink costs 42.48 eur per month, VAT included, in their server auction section.

What are we missing here, besides that build farm was left to decay?
by pjc50 | 2025-08-13 09:22:54+00:00
People say they're unemotional and immune to signaling when they very much aren't.

People cheer Linus for being rude when they want to do the same themselves, because they feel very strongly about the work being "correct". But as you dig into the meaning of correctness here you find it's less of a formal ruleset than a set of aesthetic guidelines and .. yes, feelings.
by johnisgood | 2025-08-13 09:23:19+00:00
It isn't, but the crimes do not happen only in these areas.

Crimes (like phone, expensive items in a bag snatching) happen in rich areas, too.[1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6tygFIQq0

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6tygFIQq0&t=1794s
by username332211 | 2025-08-13 09:25:20+00:00
Often, after you've figured out who's guilty, you'd need to look for more evidence until you find something that the jury can understand and the defense counsel can't easily argue against.

I've seen people make arguments against the value of modern academic philosophy based on their experience with professors or with whateversampling of writings they've come across. They usually get nowhere.

That's why I wanted to ground this discussion in a specific event.
by indy | 2025-08-13 09:25:59+00:00
Which areas are you familiar with?

I witnessed the aftermath of a murder last week in Stoke Newington! (Saw that the road had been closed off)

I've seen women publicly urinating into drains on a busy road (Hackney)

There are massive increases in the number of homeless people (Tooting, Clapton, Shadwell), several times I've seen a homeless looking person harass women passing by.

Seen needles lying around (Shadwell, Commercial Road)

The general advice now is never to wear a watch in Central London, this wasn't the case 10 years ago.

I've seen security guards restrain people trying to leave shops in Central London after they shoplifted.

So yeah, some areas might not look sketchy, and these gentrified places (e.g. Stoke Newington) might be ok if you stick to the bars, restaurants and then Uber home, but for a lot of people these remain dangerous if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
by graemep | 2025-08-13 09:26:51+00:00
Does that make it a sin? Commandments are not detailed guides, but general principles. There are clearly accepted exceptions to most of them, including honest belief.

Who exactly is the source you cite for the claim atheism is breaking the commandment and therefore sinful? He does not seem to be a Catholic, let alone someone with authority to define the church's teachings. Can you link to a similar statement in the Catechism, a church Council, or at least a papal encyclical?

"One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
by rauljara | 2025-08-13 09:28:00+00:00
Thank you for sharing, and sorry you had to go through that. I had a good friend go through a psychotic break and I spent a long time trying to understand what was going on in his brain. The only solid conclusion I could come to was that I could not relate to what he was going through, but that didn’t change that he was obviously suffering and needed whatever support I could offer. Thanks for giving me a little bit of insight into his brain. Hope you were/are able to find support out there.
by jijijijij | 2025-08-13 09:28:50+00:00
A major economic crisis, yes. I think the web is already kinda broken because of AI, gonna get a lot worse. I also question its usefulness… Is it useful solving any real problems, and if so how long before we run out of these problems? Because we conflated a lot of bullshit with innovation right before AI. Right now people may be getting a slight edge, but it’s like getting a dishwasher, once expectations adjusted things will feel like a grind again, and I really don’t think people will like that new reality in regard to experience of self-efficacy (which is important for mental health). I presume the struggle to get information, figuring it out yourself, may be a really important part of putting pressure towards process optimization and for learning, cognitive development. We may collectively regress there. With so many major crisis, a potential economic crisis on top, I am not sure we can afford losing problem solving capabilities to any extent. And I really, really don’t think AI is worth the fantastical energy expenditure, waste of resources and human exploitation, so far.
by teamonkey | 2025-08-13 09:30:02+00:00
> I don’t say this to make the laws easier to swallow but the social economics of it make it more understandable why this law might be so popular with anyone already overloaded with angry teenagers.

The “think of the children” angle is certainly there to make the bill more morally appealing, but is it actually popular with parents? Or anyone, other than politicians?

The kids in question are those of millennial and Gen-Z(!) parents. They’re not a generation that doesn’t understand the internet.

That’s not to say that some restriction wouldn’t be welcomed, but did the OSA really come from these parents?
by vidarh | 2025-08-13 09:30:13+00:00
I've literally spent hours walking around Shadwell and Commercial Road over the last couple of months, as well as places like Bow, Canning Town, Forest Gate, Romford that used to be awful. I've lived in Croydon most of the last 25 years.

I'm also not seeing any more homeless in London now than I used to see on Oxford Street when I lived by Marble Arch in 2000, for example. There were large encampments in the subways near Marble Arch at that time - I've not seen anything like it since.

> The general advice now is never to wear a watch in Central London, this wasn't the case 10 years ago.

Says who? I've never heard anyone say this, and don't know anyone who'd worry about wearing a watch in Central London.
by philipallstar | 2025-08-13 09:30:36+00:00
> The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. George Orwell, 1984.

You've been told that Trump and Musk are Nazis for almost 10 years now. Drip-fed for ten years as the "evidence" of your eyes and ears.

It turned out that in the late 2010s, the "party" wasn't a monolith. It was every identikit left of centre news organisation saying exactly the same thing in lockstep for years. And then finally the newest "evidence" appeared and so everyone thought "I knew it!" When in fact they didn't know it. They just believed everything they saw and heard on a television screen.
by johnisgood | 2025-08-13 09:30:59+00:00
The point is that it happens not only in particularly shit areas of London, it happens in rich areas too, or where there are lots of tourists, areas that are supposed to be safe, but they are not.

And UK is doing fuck-all about it, they care more about who said what online. It is absurd.

As for your personal experience, sure, that is valid. It really depends on when you go out or what you are wearing.
by postexitus | 2025-08-13 09:32:01+00:00
There were rumours of Amiga doing a QNX based OS after demise of Commodore. I wrote an email to QNX to ask what they were about and they mailed this to my home in Turkey - imagine my surprise, my first original software (beyond Amiga Workbench disks) was QNX!

https://www.trollaxor.com/2005/06/how-qnx-failed-amiga.html
by willemlaurentz | 2025-08-13 09:32:06+00:00
As a metaphor aficionado (book tip: Metaphors we live by), I figured random images would be a lovely way to allow visitors of willem.com to discover stories. Before I knew it, I was in the rabbit hole. Released under AGPL (backstory: https://willem.com/en/2025-08-11_willemstagram/)
by ncruces | 2025-08-13 09:32:16+00:00
> If a newer version of that value is also stored in a register and not yet flushed to memory, should the compiler know to insert that flush for your or is reading a stale value ok?

Any value would be OK. There are aliasing rules to follow, and it's OK if those crater performance when you start using integer-to-pointer conversions a lot. Is that a problem? But in this instance, assume I don't even care.

> For what it’s worth there’s a reason you’re supposed to do this kind of access through memcpy, not by dereferencing made up pointers.

Then why allow integers to be converted to pointers at all, say it's implementation defined, and meant to represent the addressing structure of the environment?

> Because the language standard is defined to target a virtual machine as output, not any given implementation …

Again, not taking about this being portable. The standard says it's implementation defined, and meant to match the addressing structure of the platform. I offered a specific platform where all of this has a specific meaning, that's all.

What's the point of specifying this, if you're then going to say _actually_ because of aliasing it's “undefined” and as soon as that magic word appears, a smart compiler that can prove it at compile time decides this code can't possibly be reached, and deletes the entire function?

What good does this bring us if it means clang can't be used to target platforms where direct memory access is a thing?
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-13 09:32:41+00:00
The paper, previously on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44883350

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1...

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(25)00133-5

If someone finds a link to a pre-print or other open access, please post it in the thread, as this is just the abstract.
by maskara-ai | 2025-08-13 09:33:55+00:00
I’ve just launched Maskara.ai, a simple web‑app that lets you chat with several AI models at once.

Instead of opening separate tabs for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, etc., you drop them all into a single group‑chat window. The models can see each other’s replies, so you get collaborative, real‑time responses that build on one another.

Why it’s useful Compare answers instantly – see how different models reason about the same prompt. Combine strengths – let one model generate a draft, another critique it, and a third polish the language. Save time – no need to copy‑paste between multiple consoles; everything happens in one chat. Experiment – mix‑and‑match any public LLM endpoints (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, open‑source models) without writing code. How it works Add the models you want to talk to (API keys or public endpoints). Start a group chat and type a question. The platform forwards the prompt to each model, collects the replies, and displays them in a single thread. Reply as you would in any chat; the next round of prompts includes the whole conversation, so the AIs can build on each other’s output. A quick demo Open https://maskara.ai

Choose ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok. Ask: “What’s a good way to reduce latency in a Node.js API?” Watch the models propose different solutions and then refine each other's suggestions. Who might find it useful? Developers who want to benchmark LLMs side‑by‑side. Writers and marketers looking for creative brainstorming across models. Researchers who need multiple perspectives on a problem. Anyone curious about how different AI models interact when they can “see” each other’s output. Feedback & roadmap I’m looking for early‑user feedback on usability, pricing, and feature ideas (e.g. community‑shared prompts). If you try it, please drop a comment or DM me on X (@MaskaraAi) with your thoughts, bugs, or feature requests.

Try it now: https://maskara.ai
by like_any_other | 2025-08-13 09:36:06+00:00
> What is worse they admit it, even have systems for correcting errors publicly

Errors, even lies, happen, but they are negligible compared to the most powerful tool of propaganda: cherrypicking. E.g. the otherwise thorough NYT reporting on air traffic controller shortages [1] entirely omitted the FAA diversity hiring scandal that disqualified applicants with top grades if they weren't diverse enough [2]. During COVID, the credible experts were happily making models of how many deaths a motorcycle rally caused [3], but when it came time to do the same for BLM, we instead got "Protest Is a Profound Public Health Intervention" [4]. This is not an outlier - social scientists have been turning a blind eye to results they dislike since at least 1985 [5].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/business/air-traffic-cont...

[2] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7753804/

[4] https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/

[5] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - from https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi..., citing the study "Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research.": https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001