MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by righthand | 2025-08-10 19:54:38+00:00
I guess it depends on how you like to work. I hate working on devices. I have an iPhone Mini, two laptops, a pc I built, a Remarkable, a work iPad, a TV.

I use 4-5 of these devices for mostly writing comments online and writing various mediums of comedy. I do other creative work on my personal devices but I have found I enjoy doing more with my hands and body as well.

For example, often when I am stuck on writing I go for a walk. I often don’t take my phone and force myself to focus only on the problem at hand. I often take a notebook and write any notes about my conclusions along the walk. Eventually the notes make it back into a computer.

I also enjoy cooking and can use my device to look up recipes or order food online and avoid cooking all together. But I choose to use the stack of throw away desk calendar paper to write down my grocery list and go to the store without my phone. I choose to chop the broccoli and carrots even though I cab buy a bag of pre steamed for less. I even keep a passive grocery list on my phone in reminders app. But I still do the ritual. Not at all because it’s productive.

But what I really enjoy about life and creating is not sitting at a desk by myself hammering the ideas and draining myself reading, reading, reading. And I like to read but a lot of reading these days is distraction and those devices are designed to be distracting. So much that I go out of my way to prevent them from distracting me and keeping me in a sitting position.

With a little device dedicated for productivity I gain the benefits of computing without all the distracting tracking, “use my product!” Side effects.

And do it because you have agency to do it. Living your life with productivity doesn’t mean being an efficiency slave.

At the end of the day I still may be middle/lower class consumer cattle. But at least I am cattle with agency.

My first thought was “I’m glad this has progressed and looking slimmer, this inspires me to investigate building the 4-inch square device of my dreams.”
by zerolayers | 2025-08-10 19:55:14+00:00
Yeah, I do find myself more these days reminiscing about some of the inconveniences we experienced when younger in a positive light now. But more importantly I see people jumping on the latest trend and then 10-15 years later trying to find a cure to the exact thing they willingly adopted. A most recent example that comes to mind is smartphones and kids. After parents jumped on the hype train and gave their kids a phone, they're now re-evaluating that decision and seeing some of the negative impact it has had. So yeah, AI is here and it sure has benefits and will be useful in a lot of ways, but let's direct it properly and tread lightly.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-08-10 19:55:16+00:00
> They're illegal workers who broke the law not only by immigrating illegally, but by using stolen identification to get past the federal employment verification system.

So, some boundaries here to establish perspective. Since the mandate of seizing and exporting 3000 people/day, we've had a series of disingenuous and patently false statements from the relevant USG agencies. Further, the acts committed in this pursuit have exhibited extreme bad will by this administration and commonly disregard constitutional boundaries.

If this isn't a baseline you accept as factual and useful to the discussion, there's little point in continuing beyond this point. If you do not see these violations as harmful to the integrity to rule of law and to the trustworthiness of US Gov's authority, there is little point in continuing this conversation. If you feel current US Gov justifications are trustworthy by default, we are likely at an irreconcilable point.

That said, we know US Gov's verification system validated these workers. US Gov justifies seizing these workers based on fraudulent identities - after saying they are valid. The trustworthiness of the latter claim isn't well established given the agencies' recent history.

Given it's most recently earned reputation, it is especially likely that the claims of false identity are at least partially false and probably trend higher. If you do not see this as a reasonable supposition, I believe we are done here.
by will4274 | 2025-08-10 19:55:38+00:00
> According to the documentation it should be impossible to perform the authorization code flow with a scope that targets multiple resource servers.

(I work on Entra) Can you point me to the documentation for this? This statement is not correct. The WithExtraScopesToConsent method (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.ident...) exists for this purpose. An Entra client can call the interactive endpoint (/authorize) with scope=openid $clientid/.default $client2/.default $client3/.default - multiple resource servers as long as it specifies exactly one of those resource servers on the non-interactive endpoint (/token) - i.e. scope=openid $clientid/.default. In the language of Microsoft.Identity.Client (MSAL), that's .WithScopes("$clientid/.default").WithExtraScopesToConsent("$client2/.default $client3.default"). This pattern is useful when your app needs to access multiple resources and you want the user to resolve all relevant permission or MFA prompts up front.

It is true that an access token can only target a single resource server - but it should be possible to go through the first leg of the authorization code flow for many resources, and then the second leg of the authorization code flow for a single resource, followed by refresh token flows for the remaining resources.
by dlcarrier | 2025-08-10 19:55:51+00:00
First it went from "comes from money and has no need to work, whatsoever" thorough "eventually needs to get a job but can live off rich parents for four plus years" before the current state.

Economists call it costly signaling. The more elite of a status it signals, the costlier it can be, but with guaranteed student loans, the economics of it have become so separated that as the eliteness of a bachelor's degree has gone down, the costliness has gone up.
by yosefk | 2025-08-10 19:56:09+00:00
Your being blunt is actually very kind, if you're describing what I'm doing as "being smart and reasoning from first principles"; and I agree that I am not saying something very novel, at most it's slightly contrarian given the current sentiment.

My goal is not to cherry-pick failures for its own sake as much as to try to explain why I get pretty bad output from LLMs much of the time, which I do. They are also very useful to me at times.

Let's see how my predictions hold up; I have made enough to look very wrong if they don't.

Regarding "failure disproving success": it can't, but it can disprove a theory of how this success is achieved. And, I have much better examples than the 2+2=4, which I am citing as something that sorta works these says
by Atomic_Torrfisk | 2025-08-10 19:56:32+00:00
> An autonomous vehicle, flying at 1-2 metres, very fast, hardly targetable and carrying either a small bomb or a device which projects shrapnel precisely at an individual soldier.

We already have that running in UA right now, loitering drones are very hard to shoot down, fast and carry anti-personnel munitions.

The article is wordy, but is ultimately correct. Wars are inherently complex and there is no one size fits all solution for supplychain and combat. Drones will be a feature in a modern military, but not the game changer the venture capitalists want you to believe.
by Twey | 2025-08-10 19:57:12+00:00
I maintain — they shouldn't be fancy. ‘Fancy’ is the mark of something your language doesn't support well. They can be _long_, and that's often worth breaking up, but if something is ‘fancy’ it's because it's not clear to read, so you should attach some identifier to it that explains what it's supposed to mean. That's significantly, though not exclusively, a function (ha) of the syntax used to express the concept.

If you're working with Roman numerals, division is a very fancy thing to do.
by idkfasayer | 2025-08-10 19:57:39+00:00
It would be a funny parody, if the path to 0% homelessness wasn't so brutal:

1) start a civil war killing a few % of the population

2) take every large property in the country killing or driving into exile its owners

3) deport ethnic minorities and take their property

4) artificially create a major famine killing many millions of people and driving half the country into slave like labour

5) start a major war killing a double digit fraction of your population

6) rely massively on foreign labour and foreign aid during and after the war.

7) cause smaller wars and crises around the world to extort more foreign aid.

8) jail and send to forced labour camps everyone not performing a government assigned job.

9) collapse, the second you can't extort labour internally or funds and goods internationally
by 9dev | 2025-08-10 19:57:45+00:00
It takes a firm believe to still pretend the bill of rights would be adhered to. You have a convicted criminal as president with ties to child traffickers, taking foreign bribes on live TV, scamming voters with crypto, while punishing universities for teaching the wrong things and imprisoning people without due process for having the wrong opinion.

All the while SCOTUS elevated him above the law; now he actually could shoot somebody on fifth ave and he’d really not have to fear prosecution.

Are you sure you want to make this point?
by streb-lo | 2025-08-10 19:57:50+00:00
I don’t really see how it’s different than how you’d setup someone really junior to have a playground of sorts.

It’s not exactly a groundbreaking line of reasoning that leads one to the conclusion of “I shouldn’t let this non-deterministic system access production servers.”

Now, setting up an LLM so that they can iterate without a human in the loop is a learned skill, but not a huge one.
by matthewdgreen | 2025-08-10 19:58:41+00:00
I try really hard to be precise on HN because I recognize and even begrudgingly respect pedantry. This is why I wrote “de facto segregation” in my original post, just because I was concerned that somebody responding to my post might not be clear about the topic of discussion. And while I can reluctantly respect pedantry, I have zero patience for people who combine pedantry with careless reading.
by aesh2Xa1 | 2025-08-10 19:58:42+00:00
I agree with your point about OP's statement regarding "where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware" I also read that to mean that the firmware solution is self-contained and complete, even though that's pretty misaligned when you consider the meaning of a "remotely" managed device (remotely managed by what?).

But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.

Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.
by bloaf | 2025-08-10 19:58:47+00:00
So I think the author is right regarding current sales pitches, but also wrong about the long term impact. There is nothing on the market today that would be anything but an incremental improvement in an already existing capability.

However

The thing everyone knows is coming is fully artificial boots-on-the-ground, and this will be a categorical revolution on par with the use of airplanes in warfare. (note: "boots" could still be drones).

Like the author points out "A battalion commander in the Ukrainian Army stated to me a few weeks ago that even in the Summer of 2025, the single most decisive factor in his unit’s ability to hold and take ground is the number of infantry".

The instant you have a factory that churns out the equivalent of a "dude with a rifle in a dugout", you've suddenly changed warfare in all the non-tactical ways the author was talking about.

The politics of war becomes different: your battlefield losses may no longer be measured in lives, no one comes home with PTSD, and no collateral damage is due to soldiers' malice.

The doctrines of war become different. Suicide charges/runbys are fine, there's no need to worry about PoWs, and friendly fire is potentially a thing of the past.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-08-10 19:58:57+00:00
uBO has a different purpose. It's essentially a blacklist with sophisticated measures in place to fix breakage it causes. In many cases it selectively filters content that is otherwise allowed through. IIRC youtube is an example of an extensive such cat and mouse game.

A whitelist approach is less nuanced but far more extensive. It defaults to defending you against unknown vulnerabilities.
by cookiengineer | 2025-08-10 19:59:05+00:00
If functions don't have a return signature, does that mean everything must be satisfied in the compilation step?

What about memory management/ownership? This would imply that everything must be copy by value in each function callsite, right? How to use references/pointers? Are they supported?

I like the matchers which look similar to Rust, but I dislike the error handling because it is neither implicit, and neither explicit, and therefore will be painful to debug in larger codebases I'd imagine.

Do you know about Koka? I don't like its syntax choices much but I think that an effect based error type system might integrate nicely with your design choices, especially with matchers as consumers.

[1] https://koka-lang.github.io/koka/doc/index.html
by jstummbillig | 2025-08-10 19:59:20+00:00
With 700 million(?) users, we have a lot of people familiar with every field. I am no biochemist, but if chatgpt starts spouting nonsense in that field biochemists will notice and speak up, and I will notice that they do.

What's the idea? How does creeping, far reaching incompetence continually get past all of us?
by musicale | 2025-08-10 19:59:36+00:00
At many schools, CS departments emerged from Electrical Engineering departments. Some (MIT, Berkeley, ...) even have a combined EECS department, while others (Stanford) are part of the school of engineering.

However, it does not seem to be common practice for computing professionals to acquire professional engineering certification. (Perhaps graduation from an accredited program is considered to be equivalent?)

There do seem to be Professional Engineer (PE) certifications for computer engineering at least:

https://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/electrical-and-computer/

https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FINAL_PE-Electr...

There are also company-specific certifications (from Microsoft, Cisco, etc.) but those are less general.
by wtallis | 2025-08-10 19:59:52+00:00
Intel's Arrow Lake platform launched in fall 2024 is the first to support CUDIMMs (clock redriver on each memory module) and as a result is the first desktop CPU to officially support 6400MT/s without overclocking (albeit only reaching that speed for single-rank modules with only one module per channel). Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max processors launched in fall 2021 used 6400MT/s LPDDR5.

Intel's Lunar Lake low-power laptop processors launched in fall 2024 use on-package LPDDR5x running at 8533MT/s, as do Apple's M4 Pro and M4 Max.

So at the moment, soldered DRAM offers 33% more bandwidth for the same bus width, and is the only way to get more than a 128-bit bus width in anything smaller than a desktop workstation.

Smartphones are already moving beyond 9600MT/s for their RAM, in part because they typically only use a 64-bit bus with. GPUs are at 30000MT/s with GDDR7 memory.
by robocat | 2025-08-10 20:00:46+00:00
> sounds to me as bad as "should of"

Interesting that you've used the spelling mistake which is perhaps why you hate it?

If you heard "should've" or "should have" then perhaps it wouldn't annoy you so much??? Also listen for would've / could've

But listening to https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/should_of_would_of_c... made me wonder if people do clearly pronounce the "of" in "should of"... Now I'm worried that I'm going to hear the mistake and be annoyed.

There is nothing more annoying than being told something annoying, and then learning to be annoyed by it.

Try not to internalise that dictum or it will recursively annoy you.

Next time you hear a really annoying vague repetitive/intermittent sound at work, mention it to a coworker if you wish to ruin their worklife.

(Minor edits). I often hear people who have learned English make a particular class of mistake (usually pronunciation) that is a result of being taught English by reading from books. Modern schooling for languages causes certain types of mistakes. There is a natural mimicking art/skill to learning a language by ear. Unfortunately the art isn't taught and is hardly even recognized: perhaps because it works best with intense one-on-one interaction and intent. Book learning was the default that our society used, and some well-educated people prefer books. When learning spoken English it is important to try and ignore spelling. Natural English speakers learn the spelling after learning the language and are in an environment where we have tricks to learn pronunciation of unfamiliar words. There is a strong classist/academic ridiculing of people that make the mistake of pronouncing a word as it is spelled (knowing how words are "properly" pronounced is an important distinction to many people - as is received wordplay).
by norir | 2025-08-10 20:01:32+00:00
Significant whitespace is not difficult to add to a language and, for me, is vastly superior than what zig does both for strings and the unnecessary semicolon that zig imposes by _not_ using significant whitespace.

I would so much rather read and write:

let x = """ a multiline string example """

than

let x = //a //multiline string //example ;

In this particular example, zig doesn't look that bad, but for longer strings, I find adding the // prefix onerous and makes moving strings around different contexts needlessly painful. Yes, I can automatically add them with vim commands, but I would just rather not have them at all. The trailing """ is also unnecessary in this case, but it is nice to have clear bookends. Zig by contrast lacks an opening bracket but requires a closing bracket, but the bracket it uses `;` is ambiguous in the language. If all I can see is the last line, I cannot tell that a string precedes it, whereas in my example, you can.

Here is a simple way to implement the former case: require tabs for indentation. Parse with recursive descent where the signature is

(source: string, index: number, indent: number, env: comp_env) => ast

Multiline string parsing becomes a matter of bumping the indent parameter. Whenever the parser encounters a newline character, it checks the indentation and either skips it, or if is less than the current indentation requires a closing """ on the next line at a reduced indentation of one line.

This can be implemented in under 200 lines of pure lua with no standard library functions except string.byte and string.sub.

It is common to hear complaints about languages that have syntactically significant whitespace. I think a lot of the complaints are fair when the language does not have strict formatting rules: python and scala come to mind as examples that do badly with this. With scala, practically everyone ends up using scalafmt which slows down their build considerably because the language is way too permissive in what it allows. Yaml is another great example of significant whitespace done poorly because it is too permissive. When done strictly, I find that a language with significant whitespace will always be more compact and thus, in my opinion, more readable than one that does not use it.

I would never use zig directly because I do not like its syntax even if many people do. If I was mandated to use it, I would spend an afternoon writing a transpiler that would probably be 2-10x faster than the zig compiler for the same program so the overhead of avoiding their decisions I disagree with are negligible.

Of course from this perspective, zig offers me no value. There is nothing I can do with zig that I can't do with c so I'd prefer it as a target language. Most code does not need to be optimized, but for the small amount that does, transpiling to c gives me access to almost everything I need in llvm. If there is something I can't get from c out of llvm (which seems highly unlikely), I can transpile to llvm instead.
by godelski | 2025-08-10 20:01:42+00:00
I don't have an exact reference but there are a lot more hints that evidence the claim (compute more with same weights). In fact, I wouldn't even call them hints since they aren't subtle at all. For one, animal brains are perfect examples of this. But in the ML space, we could think of this purely from the mathematical perspective.

I think it might be confusing because neurons are neurons right? And they can only hold so much memory, so what's the difference? Well, that difference is architecture and training.

Let's think about signals for a moment and to help understand this, let's move to small dimensions[0]. Like 2D or 3D. (I'll use 3D, but you'll see why this can still ruin visualization) We're talking about universal approximates, so we can think of these as finite length strings, but have fixed end points. Our goal is then to untangle these strings. Oh no, this bundle has a knot! We can't actually untangle this string just by stretching. We also have a rule that we can't cut and glue things. We'd be stuck if we didn't have a trick up our sleeves. We can move into a higher dimension and untangle these strings there[1]. We'll need at least 2N-D. To the flatlander this will look like a cut, but it isn't.

The reason this needs to be understood is because we need to know where we get those dimensions. It is through architecture and training. But let's just think about that architecture. When we're learning these relationships we need to have the capacity to perform these higher dimensional movements, but once we already uncover the relationships we don't necessarily need to. The relationship it depends on the dimensionality of the relationship itself, not the data.

This is true for all models and is fundamentally why things like distillation even work. It is also why that FFN layer post attention in the transformer needs to project into a higher dimension before returning (typical is 4x and I think you can reason why that gives more flexibility than 2x). Also related to the latent manifold hypothesis.

If you ever wondered if math is useful to machine learning, I hope this gives some motivation to learn more. You don't need math to build good models, but even a little math goes a long way to help make better models.

[0] Note, we're doing a significant amount of simplification here. There's a lot of depth and complexity to all of this but I think this will be sufficient to point anyone in (mostly) the right direction.

[1] Think about a Klein bottle. In 4D it has a single surface. But the 3D projection of this shape makes it look like it is intersecting itself. Unfortunately we can't really visualize the 4D version :(
by znpy | 2025-08-10 20:01:47+00:00
> Linux is really efficient. Especially when you're using a window manager like Hyprland, as we do in Omarchy.

Window managers are usually the last issue on modern Linux. Pretty much any native app is okay.

Troubles really start (and start fast) when you open any browser and load any modern website. Had we more native applications (so not cloud stuff, and not javascript stuff with a bundled chromium) we'd all have a much better overall computing experience.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-08-10 20:01:57+00:00
Framework absolutely does fleece you on the SSD, so don’t buy SSDs from them if you’re price-sensitive. But compared to Apple it’s nowhere close: per Apple’s website, upgrading a current Mac Mini or Mac Studio from 512 GB to 2 TB costs $600. You can buy a WD_BLACK SN850X 8TB for that much money (or a WD_BLACK SN8100 4TB and still have a quarter of it left over, if you really want PCIe 5.0, but there’s no point at the moment).