MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Izkata | 2025-08-24 03:14:45+00:00
I did the search because I have a similar memory, I'd place it in the early 2000s before StackOverflow existed, around when people were first switching from latin1 and Windows-1251 and others to UTF-8 on the web and browsers would often pick the wrong encoding, and IE had a submenu where you could tell it which one to use on the page. WTF-8 was a thing because occasionally none of these options would work, because the layers server-side would be misconfigured and cause the double (or more, if it involved user input) encoding. It was also used just in general to complain about UTF-8 breaking everything as it was slowly being introduced.
by beefnugs | 2025-08-24 03:15:07+00:00
Thank you for this honesty. I mean if i try something 5 times and its a total failure every time, I would never in a million years think to try it another 5. (maybe i will give it another try when home hardware capable of a coding model is anywhere near affordable)

I guess I see why the salesmen dont mention this... but it seems really important for everyone to know?
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-08-24 03:18:01+00:00
> I just see obstacles that are like speed bumps in parking lots.

If you multiply a small inconvenience by the entire general population, you are causing a lot of damage.

And the damage to specific people or industries is significantly worse. There are legitimate things people may need to buy that would be dangerous to have associated with their identity, e.g. because it reveals something about their religion or health or sexual preferences. If you want to anonymously pay for any of those things to be sent to you in an unlabeled box at a numbered mailbox so that you don't have to risk someone seeing you buying it in person with cash, you should be able to do that. If some schmucks you've never even met have added some erroneous data to a database or you share the same name with someone rowdy, you shouldn't be endlessly aggrieved like an outlaw by financial institutions that aren't even allowed to tell you why.

> They also don’t really “work.” But they are needed

If something doesn't work then it isn't needed.
by kelnos | 2025-08-24 03:18:40+00:00
I'm not sure I'd give such an absolute statement of certainty as the GP, but there is little reason to believe that consciousness and intelligence need to go hand-in-hand.

On top of that, we don't really have good, strong definitions of "consciousness" or "general intelligence". We don't know what causes either to emerge from a complex system. We don't know if one is required to have the other (and in which direction), or if you can have an unintelligent consciousness or an unconscious intelligence.
by BobbyTables2 | 2025-08-24 03:18:47+00:00
Did something similar a different way.

Multiple video cards and usb pci cards — one of each passed through to different (UEFI) VMs using libvirt.

Actually worked really well. Was nice to run Linux and Windows with a “native” feeling user experience on each.

At least cheap Radeon cards worked fine. Had one higher end card whose windows driver silently refused to work until I masked the hypervisor bit in CPUID.

Was nice to “manage” it from a separate monitor/keyboard while still having benefits of shared storage. Could quickly reset a VM to a snapshot. Out-of-band backups were similarly convenient.

Otherwise more financially practical to have multiple cheap PCs, albeit with harder to manage storage.
by inkyoto | 2025-08-24 03:19:23+00:00
> It’s just a social network for recruiters it’s not as complicated as they like to pretend.

Dismissing this as «just a social network» understates the real constraints: enormous scale, global privacy rules, graph queries, near-real-time feeds and abuse controls. Periodic DB queries can work at small scale, but at high volume they either arrive late or create bursts that starve the primary. Capturing changes once and pushing them through a distributed transaction log such as Kafka evens out load, improves data timeliness and lets multiple consumers process events safely and independently. It does add operational duties – schema contracts, idempotency and retention – yet those are well-understood trade-offs. The question is not push versus pull in the abstract, but which approach meets the timeliness, fan-out and reliability required.

> You don’t need push, it’s just a performance optimization that almost never justifies using a whole new tool.

It is not about drama but about fit for purpose at scale.

Pull can work well for modest workloads or narrow deltas, especially with DB features such as incremental materialised views or change tables. At large scale, periodic querying becomes costly and late: you either poll frequently and hammer the primary, or poll infrequently and accept stale data. Even with cursoring and jitter, polls create bursty load and poor tail latencies.

Push via change data capture into a distributed log such as Kafka addresses such pain points. The log decouples producers from consumers, smooths load, improves timeliness and lets multiple processors scale independently and replay for backfills. It also keeps the OLTP database focused on transactions rather than fan-out reads.

This is not free: push introduces operational work and design care – schema contracts, ordering being per-partition, duplicate delivery and idempotency, back-pressure and retention governance including data-protection deletes. The usual mitigations are the outbox pattern, idempotent consumers, DLQ's and documented data contracts. The data processing complexity now belongs in each consumer, not the data processing engine (e.g. a DB).

Compute–storage separation in modern databases raises single-cluster ceilings for storage and read scale, yet it does not solve single-writer limits or multi-region active-active writes. For heavy write fan-out and near-real-time propagation, a CDC-to-log pipeline remains the safer bet.

To sum it up, both pull and push are valid – engineering is all about each specific use case assessment and the trade-off analysis. For small or bounded scopes, a well-designed pull loop is simpler. As scale, fan-out and timeliness requirements grow, push delivers better timeliness, correctness and operability.
by hackhomelab | 2025-08-24 03:21:45+00:00
What are you missing from the TUI? The latest version has improved it a bit, it's more responsive now and you can navigate around the UI with the keyboard more easily (tab, up/down arrows, and pgup/pgdown). If you don't like it though, you can also use `--format text` for a UI-less experience that just prints things to stdout.

As for converting failures into forge tests, there's multiple tools offering a solution to that problem; check out (in no particular order):

* the Recon VSCode extension (https://github.com/Recon-Fuzz/recon-extension) * fuzz-utils (https://github.com/crytic/fuzz-utils) * runes (https://github.com/Enigma-Dark/runes) * fuzz_parser (https://github.com/Enigma-Dark/fuzz-trace-parser)

Some of them use the Echidna trace output, while others (like runes and fuzz-utils) take advantage of the fact that Echidna saves these sequences as part of the corpus during runtime (particularly, in the `reproducers` and `reproducers-unshrunk` corpus subdirectories)
by bsenftner | 2025-08-24 03:21:53+00:00
AGI, by definition, in its name Artificial General Intelligence implies / directly states that this type of AI is not some dumb AI that requires training for all its knowledge, a general intelligence merely needs to be taught how to count, the basic rules of logic, and the basic rules of a single human language. From those basics all derivable logical human sciences will be rediscovered by that AGI and our next job is synchronizing with it our names for all the phenomenon that the AGI had to name on its own when that AGI self developed all the logical ramifications of our basics.

What is that? What could merely require light elementary education and then it takes off and self improves to match and surpass us? That would be artificial comprehension, something we've not even scratched. AI and trained algorithms are "universal solvers" given enough data, This AGI would be something different, this is understanding, comprehending. Instantaneous decomposition of observations for assessment of plausibility, and then recombination for assessment of combination plausibility - all continual and instant for assessment of personal safety: all that happens in people continually while awake. Be that monitoring of personal safety be for physical or loss of client during sales negotiation. Our comprehending skills are both physical and abstract. This requires a dynamic assessment, an ongoing comprehension that is validating observations as a foundation floor, so a more forward train of thought, a "conscious mind" can make decisions without conscious thought about lower level issues like situational safety. AGI needs all that dynamic comprehending capability, to satisfy its name of being general.
by saagarjha | 2025-08-24 03:22:30+00:00
> Due to improvements in newer hardware, you might need to use more tricks to reach Speed-of-Light on older GPUs e.g. pipeline shared memory to register memory data movements.

On the contrary, older GPUs are a lot easier to hit rooflines on. Newer GPUs run so fast that they keep adding new tricks to remove bottlenecks. Not to discount the author's work here but a 5090 is pretty bad on the FLOPs/memory bandwidth ratio so it's comparatively easier to get throttled by tensor cores there; on datacenter hardware your tensor cores are so fast that you'll hit limits that were glossed over here.

For example, using Ampere "mma" instructions won't cut it, because they compute a really small MMA and force your input to live in registers. You'll need TMA to get data into shared memory and wmma to do a matrix multiply out of them. At those speeds you will run into issues with dispatching instructions and computing addresses (and doing out-of-bounds calculation) fast enough that you will need to offload it to specialized hardware to keep up with the tensor cores.
by bames_jond | 2025-08-24 03:22:49+00:00
Hey HN,

I’m Arsh, co-founder of Torial.

We got tired of watching generic videos on YouTube whenever we needed help with niche topics, whether STEM homework or tricky assignments. Torial fixes that by instantly transforming your notes, prompts, or scripts into polished explainer videos that require no editing.

Great for:

- EdTech companies auto-generating videos from student's prompt/notes.

- Making research papers easier to understand through clear explainer videos.

- Internal teams creating on-demand explainers for onboarding, SOPs, or updates.

No more one-size-fits-all videos. Can’t wait to see the kinds of content you’ll bring to life with Torial!
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-24 03:23:58+00:00
> AGI, by definition, in its name Artificial General Intelligence implies / directly states that this type of AI is not some dumb AI that requires training for all its knowledge, a general intelligence merely needs to be taught how to count, the basic rules of logic, and the basic rules of a single human language. From those basics all derivable logical human sciences will be rediscovered by that AGI

That's not how natural general intelligences work, though.
by karmakaze | 2025-08-24 03:26:05+00:00
I usually prefer to be navigator than driver. It's the navigator that does the high level thinking. The one at the keyboard is the one who's usually better at typing and writing out the design patterns that are agreed upon. Of course we did swap roles routinely, maybe several times a day. Oh and to top it off we switched pairing partners every week or two. It was a brutal experiment but I learned a lot and I'd say it was a great success.
by martinald | 2025-08-24 03:26:16+00:00
Totally agree. It even (usually) gets subtle meanings from my often hastily written prompts to fix something.

What really occurs to me is that there is still so much can be done to leverage LLMs with tooling. Just small things in Claude Code (plan mode for example) make the system work so much better than (eg) the update from Sonnet 3.5 to 4.0 in my eyes.
by xpe | 2025-08-24 03:26:36+00:00
Update: it might have been clearer and more helpful if I wrote this instead…

This idea of intelligence stated above seems to combine computation, memory, and self-improvement. These three concepts (as I understand them) are both different and logically decoupled.

For example, in the context of general agents, computational ability can change without affecting memory capability. Also, high computational ability does not necessarily confer self-improvement abilities. Having more memory does not necessarily benefit self-improvement.

In the case of biology, it is possible that self improvement demands energy savings and therefore sensory processing degradation. This conceptually relates to a low power CPU mode or a gasoline engine that can turn off some cylinders.
by nradov | 2025-08-24 03:27:21+00:00
Rumors of the death of civilization have been greatly exaggerated. While it's true that failed progressive policies have ruined housing affordability in a handful of coastal metropolitan areas, it's still possible for elementary school teachers to own their own home in many other parts of the country. Try other states like Utah, Idaho, or Michigan.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/...
by timshell | 2025-08-24 03:27:54+00:00
> Curious that you can "mix" PT & EU functionals (with perceptron) but not the corresponding "decision-making mechanisms"..?

Great push. We actually can't make any mechanistic claims from the data/math in this paper. From an ML prediction standpoint, we're mixing a PT and EU theory together. But to what extent that is the actual cognitive process we have to remain agnostic about. That being said, a reason this arbitration between EU and PT is intriguing is because there's a lot of work about arbitration between dual process models in psychology (System 1 and 2; model-free and model-based; labor versus leisure; etc.)
by jibal | 2025-08-24 03:28:09+00:00
It's not "key"; it's not even relevant ... the proof will be in the pudding. Proving a priori that some outcome is possible plays no role in achieving it. And you slid, motte-and-bailey-like, from "know" to "some clear indication of possibility" -- we have extremely clear indications that it's possible, since there's no reason other than a belief in magic to think that "biological" is a necessity.

Whether is feasible or practical or desirable to achieve AGI is another matter, but the OP lays out multiple problem areas to tackle.
by markerz | 2025-08-24 03:28:13+00:00
Why would you use sentence level chunking?

I’ve generated embedding for “objects” or whole documents to get similarity scores. Helps with “relevant articles” type features.

I’ve also made embeddings for paragraphs or fixed sized chunks for RAG lookups. Good for semantic search.

I don’t understand why you would want embeddings on sentences.

> Chunking Strategies

> Sentence-level chunking works well for most use cases, especially when the document structure is unclear or inconsistent.
by pfannkuchen | 2025-08-24 03:28:20+00:00
Source? I haven’t seen anything about it and I just googled again and still don’t see anything (though that could be Google’s fault).

I think legally it is possible since Supreme Court decisions are applied retroactively in general (just not the existing EO one because the EO was forward looking), but that would be super unpopular since it’s basically a huge rug pull and I’m skeptical they would do it.
by mikeyouse | 2025-08-24 03:28:48+00:00
In Michigan, there were several IRA-catalyzed investments worth many billions for battery facilities or various components — and the announcements were met with vehement protests because some of the companies involved were Korean or Chinese. It didnt matter that they were going to create many thousand good jobs and use tons of local construction, the weird conspiratorial bigotry was just too strong (fanned by the now-President and VP).

Just no idea where to go from here. Feels really dire to be honest.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2024/09/13...
by wtallis | 2025-08-24 03:28:56+00:00
Intel and AMD have pretty much never made it straightforward to compare laptop part numbers against desktop part numbers and know what's faster or newer. That's not a new problem.

If you compare the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 against the other AMD mobile parts in their current lineup, it's pretty clear where it ranks. And for however long they're using a new and different naming scheme for their mobile parts while still using the old naming scheme for their desktop parts, there's the distinct and rare advantage that the model numbers are not misleading about how a high-end mobile part ranks against desktop parts.
by davemp | 2025-08-24 03:29:01+00:00
Zig is not a hobby project.

> It doesn't address the problems people actually have with C++, not like Rust or Swift do

Speak for yourself. Zig addresses pretty much all of my problems with C++:

- terrible compile times - overly complex and still underpowered template/meta programming - fragmented/ancient build tools - actually good enums/tagged unions - exceptions - outdated OOP baggage

I don’t actually mind C++ that much, but Zig checks pretty much all of my boxes. Rust/swift check some of these but not all and add a few of their own.

> and it certainly isn't going to attract any attention from the Java, JavaScript, C#, Python, etc... of the world.

Yeah of course. Zig isn’t trying to be a max ergonomics scripting language…
by bsenftner | 2025-08-24 03:29:19+00:00
Are you sure? Do you require dozens, to hundreds, to thousands of examples before you understand a concept? I expect no. That is because you have comprehension that can generalize a situation to basic concepts which you apply to other situations without effort. You comprehend. AI cannot do that: get the idea from a few, under a half dozen examples if necessary. Often a human needs 1-3 examples before they can generalize any concept. Not AI.
by malicka | 2025-08-24 03:29:34+00:00
> Congratulations on being lucky enough to not be afflicted by a bad enough mental health disorder! All you have to do is to "get out there and do stuff" to achieve fulfillment.

It’s true that mentally ill folk (including yours truly) fall prey to these dopamine sinks more easily as an escape or coping mechanism — and they’re even more vulnerable to the predation of marketers and UX engineers trying to maximize ad-views. It is important to have these talks about society and social structures. But ultimately, on an individual level, it very literally is about just “getting out there and doing stuff.” That isn’t dismissive or discounting hardships, that’s just how it is.

Getting out there and doing things is the answer, for those with mental illnesses and those without. Upping your willpower and your ability to cope is paramount. How you do it differs from person to person: It might be tweaks to routine, taking medication, or getting therapy. But this is a universal human thing. The goal is the same, the steps is the same — but some of us have more intermediate steps than others.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-08-24 03:29:47+00:00
> Sure, that’s why saying things like Tianmen square - over voice audio - in a game with an encrypted connection to the server gets everyone’s connections in China severed, even when the game servers are in another country and the game company has nothing to do with it.

You're describing something that seems like an urban legend/coincidence. What technical means are you suggesting they're using to determine the contents of a voice chat over an encrypted connection?

> And knowing all the people taking the ‘totally secret’ backdoor is not even a complex trick.

That's assuming it can be distinguished from ordinary traffic.

If your device goes direct when you want to read the Wikipedia article on the Streisand Effect but you also have a browser that proxies traffic through a random AWS VPS in Virginia when you want to read about something they don't want you to know, how are they supposed to tell that the latter is that and not just a regular arbitrary third party webserver?

> Folks like the NSA in the US have to stay in the shadows, and have a tiny budget and population to draw experts from. What do you think happens when they get to be direct, obnoxious, AND somewhat public in a national pride kind of way?

It becomes easier to find way to thwart what they're doing because any random device can be used to determine if or how something is being blocked instead of only the devices of high-risk people who can't afford to test the fences.
by dsubburam | 2025-08-24 03:30:22+00:00
I do not know how "general intelligence" is defined, but there are a set of features we humans have that other animals mostly don't, as per the philosopher Roger Scruton[1], that I am reproducing from memory (errors mine):

1. Animals have desires, but do not make choices

We can choose to do what we do not desire, and choose not to do what we desire. For animals, one does not need to make this distinction to explain their behavior (Occam's razor)--they simply do what they desire.

2. Animals "live in a world of perception" (Schopenhauer)

They only engage with things as they are. They do not reminisce about the past, plan for the future, or fantasize about the impossible. They do not ask "what if?" or "why?". They lack imagination.

3. Animals do not have the higher emotions that require a conceptual repertoire

such as regret, gratitude, shame, pride, guilt, etc.

4. Animals do not form complex relationships with others

Because it requires the higher emotions like gratitude and resentment, and concepts such as rights and responsibilities.

5. Animals do not get art or music

We can pay disinterested attention to a work of art (or nature) for its own sake, taking pleasure from the exercise of our rational faculties thereof.

6. Animals do not laugh

I do not know if the science/philosophy of laughter is settled, but it appears to me to be some kind of phenomenon that depends on civil society.

7. Animals lack language

in the full sense of being able to engage in reason-giving dialogue with others, justifying your actions and explaining your intentions.

Scruton believed that all of the above arise together.

I know this is perhaps a little OT, but I seldom if ever see these issues mentioned in discussions about AGI. Maybe less applicable to super-intelligence, but certainly applicable to the "artificial human" part of the equation.

[1] Philosophy: Principles and Problems. Roger Scruton
by keepgettingban | 2025-08-24 03:30:54+00:00
> “Inquiry” is not this “gosh just asking questions” bullshit you’re doing. If you want to go out and actually add to the body of human knowledge by doing yet another study or vaccine safety, then by all means, go for it. But dropping into online conversations to say “I can’t believe you idiots trust Big Pharma” isn’t inquiry.

This is where you're confused.

I'm not here making some big claims, adding to the body of human knowledge about how vaccines are actually bad.

I've mentioned many times that I think vaccines are a net positive, and don't want them discontinued. I myself am 3x vaccinated against covid (all mRNA), and will continue to get vaccinated in the future.

By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, even though we all acknowledge the dire financial incentives by which they propagate such claims, I have induced zealous attacks rivaled only by the most fundamentalist theologians.

I guess I have answered my own initial question (flagged into a memory hole) - people have adopted these beliefs in the same way that others adopt religion, and any attack on the belief is interpreted as a personal attack. The amount of ad hominems levied against me on this post here are incredible - childish, bad faith, burner account, and so on.

I remain curious and intellectually honest, I don't fault you or anyone else for their beliefs - only the way you treat others when they dare question them.