MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lern_too_spel | 2025-08-07 17:49:08+00:00
> If it happened “all the time”, you would link examples

Because I'm right, this is very easy to do. I thought that linking to why this happens would help you understand, but I can clear any bar you set. For example, variations of the DREAM act have been introduced in the House and Senate, often within a few months of each other, just like SOPA and PIPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#Legislative_history

But this is all beside the point. You claimed that this was a conspiracy to force the law through. Since it has to pass both chambers, this strategy doesn't work, and your conspiracy theory makes no sense, yet you refuse to concede this.
by pjmlp | 2025-08-07 17:49:29+00:00
I keep waiting for the mythical day I can walk into a random computer store, and pick a laptop on display with either FreeBSD, or most common Linux distros, already pre-installed and 100% supported hardware.

Last time I was able to do that was with netbooks, and even those were mostly OEM specific distros without updates, if we wanted to actually have 100% supported hardware.
by fidotron | 2025-08-07 17:49:31+00:00
Going by the system card at: https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-system-card/

> GPT‑5 is a unified system . . .

OK

> . . . with a smart and fast model that answers most questions, a deeper reasoning model for harder problems, and a real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent (for example, if you say “think hard about this” in the prompt).

So that's not really a unified system then, it's just supposed to appear as if it is.

This looks like they're not training the single big model but instead have gone off to develop special sub models and attempt to gloss over them with yet another model. That's what you resort to only when doing the end-to-end training has become too expensive for you.
by UncleOxidant | 2025-08-07 17:49:37+00:00
The comment I see right above yours says "there is no reliable Mouse Model for Alzheimer's." So it's certainly not a slam dunk that taking OTC lithium orotate is going to prevent Alzheimer's. Maybe it'll work? (but you won't know for decades) And maybe it's safe as long as you don't exceed the recommended dose, but there can be interactions with other meds you might be taking (some diuretics will cause you to concentrate lithium, for example).
by grafmax | 2025-08-07 17:49:39+00:00
Yeah it does seem like we are talking around each other but I will try again to answer your question.

It depends on the circumstances of the market. Imagine an extreme hypothetical example, where one investor owns 90 out of 100 houses. And one new house is built every ten years. That investor has pricing power. They can essentially charge whatever they want even if it’s means some houses they own are empty (withholding supply). So: it depends on how fast new houses enter the market versus how much pricing power the investor possesses.

(In fact YIMBY doesn’t create an endless new supply. The idea is that it deregulates, facilitating a new supply where there wasn’t one before. That doesn’t constitute an endless supply, just a new one-time shift allowing a finite boost of additional supply.)

Another example: consider a speculative bubble. In a speculative bubble an investor can purchase a house, it can stay empty, there can be new supply coming into the market, but the forces of froth can outpace the force of additional supply, for quite some time. If they sell before the bubble pops, they profit.

Both these examples are of investors withholding supply, new supply coming into the market, and still profiting. Whether prices fall comes down to whether the downward force of new supply outstrips other forces that boost prices.
by throwaway0123_5 | 2025-08-07 17:50:06+00:00
I thought so too, but I gave it a screenshot with the prompt:

> good plot for my presentation?

and it didn't pick up on the issue. Part of its response was:

> Clear metric: Y-axis (“Accuracy (%), pass @1”) and numeric labels make the performance gaps explicit.

I think visual reasoning is still pretty far from text-only reasoning.
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-07 17:50:25+00:00
With 14 day nights, nuclear is attractive in the moon, but I think thermal storage (sand batteries, ‘geothermal’, etc.) is the most practically important. Dig in just 1 meter and you are seeing stable temperatures just below the freezing point of water which is quite stable. If Starship can be gotten to the moon I think the most practical plan is land 100 ton of cargo and just leave the vehicle there which means you turn the vehicle into habitat, storage tanks and raw steel —- there will be no shortage of storage tanks but maybe a shortage of volatiles to store in them.
by demirbey05 | 2025-08-07 17:50:31+00:00
IMO is not breakthrough, if you craft proper prompts you can excel imo with 2.5 Pro. Paper : https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15855. Google just put whole computational power with very high quality data. It was test-time scaling. Why it didn't solve problem 6 as well?

Yes, it was breakthrough but saturated quickly. Wait for next breakthrough. If they can build adapting weights in llm we can talk different things but test time scaling coming to end with increasing hallucination rate. No sign for AGI.
by RivieraKid | 2025-08-07 17:50:36+00:00
Exactly. A slowdown in AI investment spending would have a short-term and tiny effect on the economy.

I'm not worried about the scenario in which AI replaces all jobs, that's impossible any time soon and it would probably be a good thing for the vast majority of people.

What I'm worried about is a scenario in which some people, possibly me, will have to switch from a highly-paid, highly comfortable and above-average-status jobs to jobs that are below avarage in wage, comfort and status.
by primaprashant | 2025-08-07 17:50:53+00:00
looks like 4 new features for API

- reasoning_effort parameter supports minimal value now in addition to existing low, medium, and high

- new verbosity parameter with possible values of low, medium (default), and high

- unlike hidden thinking tokens, user-visible preamble messages for tool calls are available

- tool calls possible with plaintext instead of JSON
by Topfi | 2025-08-07 17:51:02+00:00
> 400,000 context window

> 128,000 max output tokens

> Input $1.25

> Output $10.00

Source: https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-5

If this performs well in independent needle-in-haystack and adherence evaluations, this pricing with this context window alone would make GPT-5 extremely competitive with Gemini 2.5 Pro and Claude Opus 4.1, even if the output isn't a significant improvement over o3. If the output quality ends up on-par or better than the two major competitors, that'd be truly a massive leap forward for OpenAI, mini and nano maybe even more so.
by techpineapple | 2025-08-07 17:51:03+00:00
Interesting readign the progress.openai.com sample prompts https://progress.openai.com/?prompt=6

I would say GPT-5 reads more scientific and structured, but GPT-4 more human and even useful. For the prompt:

Is uncooked meat actually unsafe to eat? How likely is someone to get food poisoning if the meat isn’t cooked?

GPT-4 makes the assumption you might want to know safe food temperatures, and GPT-5 doesn't. Really hard to say which is "better", but GPT-4 seems more useful to every day folks, but maybe GPT-5 for the scientific community?

Then interesting that on ChatGPT vibe check website "Dan's Mom" is the only one who says it's a game changer.
by some-guy | 2025-08-07 17:51:03+00:00
As someone who tries to push the limits of hard coding tasks (mainly refactoring old codebases) to LLMs with not much improvement since the last round of models, I'm finding that we are hitting the reduction of rate of improvement on the S-curve of quality. Obviously getting the same quality cheaper would be huge, but the quality of the output day to day isn't noticeable to me.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-08-07 17:51:06+00:00
> I would legitimately love to hear of an alternative option to UBI in the AI dominated future every executive is convinced we're headed towards, in which the vast majority of jobs have been automated away.

Why do these executives tell this all the time?

1. Because it's their wet dream.

2. To make workers more obedient because they are made to believe that they will soon become redundant [honest personal opinion on this: if I was made to believe that, I'd rather think "So I have nothing to loose, then." and actually become much more arrogating in my demands :-) ]

With this in mind, the alternative is simple: don't listen to what these executives want you to brainwash with. :-)

This of course does not mean that you should not form an opinion for yourself: quite the opposite, but do consider what those in power want you to believe as having a dangerous agenda that they want you to brainwash with. In other words: consider such statements from those in power like this executable file that you downloaded from some highly suspicious website. :-)
by therealpygon | 2025-08-07 17:51:54+00:00
No one is using AI search to read Tammy’s original content unless it is terribly written, and no one is reading the 4 page fluff peice about the process of troubleshoot XY just to find the command that fixes their problem when they just want to solve the problem.

People who want to engage with original content will; people just won’t be forced into appearing they are engaging with content just to find answers to simple questions or find the specific information they are looking for before they leave the site…like always.

The result is likely to be more time on site with lower numbers of users; a more genuine reflection of an actual user base instead of search-fed propping of ad revenue numbers through effectively fake impressions.

To that point: There is not a single website or blog, ever, that I started visiting regularly by having ended up there from a search result. Literally, ever. From something a friend shared? Something I saw on HN? Something I found through a recommendation, an article that was posted on a different site, etc? Absolutely.
by owenversteeg | 2025-08-07 17:52:02+00:00
I have to say that I think the current popular idea of "we know how X drug works in the body because it does Y to Z" is patently insane. It may be useful information, sure, but it's not really _why_ it works, because we don't understand how the body works. It would be like Toyota saying: "the Corolla works on gasoline because it burns inside the engine, but we have no idea why the engine breaks when you put acetone in it." It would be obvious that Toyota had no goddamn clue what was going on in the engine! And yet, that's exactly where we are with most drugs including lithium; most of these so-called mechanisms would work on rubidium, so why does rubidium have different effects? Who knows!

If you read a literature review for lithium's mechanism of action, it's a wild ride [0] that clearly demonstrates exactly how little we know. More importantly, though, is that all of this is made up ex post facto. Nobody can take a _new_ drug and tell you anything concrete about what it will do or how it will work: instead, we look at what happens and _then_ we make crude guesses. It is essentially modern miasma theory. For those who have forgotten, the application of miasma theory built our first sanitation systems, which eliminated more deaths from disease than the entirety of vaccines. That is to say: just because we are groping in the dark does not make the work useless, and indeed, our first vaccines were also constructed with very primitive methods.

I think that a more concrete understanding of the human body can only come when we start to understand all the many pathways of life in/on/around the body. Right now, our technology constrains us to investigate only individual points in mostly static ways. Give it a few decades of advancement and I bet we'll have some fascinating insights. I would also bet that, as with any complex system, there will be no simple answers to how things work.

-----------

For what it's worth, in the specific case of lithium, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists would agree with me that the mechanism of action is unknown: https://www.drugs.com/monograph/lithium.html

[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40263-013-0039-0
by erikerikson | 2025-08-07 17:52:14+00:00
You are correct about what EA references. There was corruption in the EA community (e.g. Sam Bankman) and some extremist factions as well. It was fashionable for a bit to point to the worst sections and dismiss the whole movement which largely has centered on being financially efficient in improving the world. For example, supporting malaria nets, direct cash transfers, and other basically not wasteful altruism.
by tptacek | 2025-08-07 17:52:27+00:00
These are all points well taken. I'd just say, don't look for any kind of coherent fairness in vulnerability embargo lists. Certainly, if you're a fork that the upstream doesn't want to exist, I don't think there's any norm that you'll automatically be included. I'm irritated about a number of embargo lists myself, but if the vulnerability researchers wanted to include me, they could, regardless of what IBM thought.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-08-07 17:52:51+00:00
The delay between key press and sound starts to become noticeable at around 10ms when you play an electronic (musical) keyboard instrument.

At 20-30ms or more, it starts to make playing unpleasant (but I guess for text input it's still reasonable).

50ms+ and it starts becoming unusable or extremely unpleasant, even for low expectations.

I'm not sure how much the perception of delay and the brain lag differs between audio and visual stimuli.

But that's just about the perceived snappiness for immediate interactions like characters appearing on screen.

For events that trigger some more complex visual reaction, I'd say everything below 25ms (or more, depending on context) feels almost instant.

Above 50ms you get into the territory where you have to think about optimistic feedback.

Point that most seem to miss here is that debouncing in FE is often about asynchronous and/or heavy work, e.g. fetching search suggestions or filtering a large, visible list.

Good UIs do a lot of work to provide immediate feedback while debouncing expensive work.

A typical example: when you type and your input becomes longer with the same prefix, comboboxes don't always need to fetch, they can filter if the result set was already smallish.

If your combobox is more complex and more like a real search (and adding characters might add new results), this makes no sense – except as an optimistic update.

_Not_ debouncing expensive work can lead to jank though.

Type-ahead with an offline list of 1000+ search results can already be enough, especially when the suggestions are not just rows of text.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-08-07 17:52:51+00:00
So. You can back up your personal data to what is effectively a fancy tar ball (technically it's a collection of CAR files akin to what IPFS uses) and you can restore that to any PDS (personal data server) when you point your account there (either via your did:plc doc or via DNS records via did:web). So even if your current PDS implodes or bans you, you can just go somewhere else.

And of course there are several implementations and hosts for relays (the gossip nodes), PDS implementations, clients, and appviews (the server backend for bluesky the web app).

So strictly speaking if bluesky imploded tomorrow you could just use a self hosted version of the same app or use someone else's (such as https://zeppelin.social).

The PLC directory is still technically in bluesky's hands but is being transferred an independent foundation atm and could be trivially forked if needed. And of course if you use did:web that doesn't apply to you and you just depend on DNS.
by canucker2016 | 2025-08-07 17:53:03+00:00
No.

Gateway 2000 was the actual name of the company at that time.

They dropped the 2000 close to the year 2000. I assume it wouldn't look good for a forward-looking tech company to be named for a year in the past.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_2000
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-08-07 17:53:28+00:00
edit: sorry about that, I thought I couldn't reply for a bit.

What he means when he says "nobody gives a hoot about profits" is that "They only care about...personal success", in a system where stock price is seen as a measure of corporate health and success but itself can be driven by things other than good corporate health. One can achieve personal success by guiding the company effectively and making it healthy, but that's not the only way. Another way is by hopping on the AI train, because that's what's hype right now. That will communicate to investors that you're well-positioned to take advantage of the latest and greatest thing, regardless of whether you actually are.

To turn it into a metaphor because I just had my second espresso of the day and that's what I feel like doing, imagine a chef you pay on a per-meal basis, but you have to pay him during the cooking process. For argument's sake lets say the meal takes 6 months to deliver, and the chef himself has to eat food and sleep indoors in the meantime. You only want to pay for a quality meal, and the final judgment in quality can't take place until the meal is fully complete and served. So you look for lead indicators, and you happen upon two: smell, and whether the chef is using the latest and greatest techniques. These two things are pretty strongly correlated with good, high quality meals and for the most part people who pay for good smells and good techniques end up getting good meals. But I, as the chef, can exploit this gap between what you want and what you look for. Imagine castoreum is the latest and greatest technique, beaver anal gland extract. I can deliver a meal that smells great, uses castoreum and tastes amazing, or I can spend your money for six months then deliver boiled beaver buttholes in scented paraffin wax. The meal is a product, I'm the CEO, and the boiled beaver buttholes is AI. I can exploit the market's expectation that this tech will make everything better by shoehorning it in places it won't fit or half-assedly delivering a product whose primary source of anticipated value is just the fact that it uses AI, and by the time people realize that it hasn't actually delivered the promised product I've collected salary for 6 months and now I get to write myself a golden parachute check on the way out the door. Thus, the company's profits are completely divorced from my own profits as CEO, I hit all the KPIs, did exactly what investors asked me to do, the stock price went through the roof and we've created nothing at all of intrinsic or exchange value.
by surround | 2025-08-07 17:53:29+00:00
GPT-5 knowledge cutoff: Sep 30, 2024 (10 months before release).

Compare that to

Gemini 2.5 Pro knowledge cutoff: Jan 2025 (3 months before release)

Claude Opus 4.1: knowledge cutoff: Mar 2025 (4 months before release)

https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/compare

https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/

https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overv...
by bawolff | 2025-08-07 17:53:32+00:00
> So if after a long time its proven that it does prevent Alzheimer's, was the deaths of everyone that would have been taking lithium to prevent it due to this anecdotal article worth it?

And if it actually makes Alzheimer's worse?

We are talking about a mouse model of a disease that very famously doesn't work the same way in mice and humans. The most likely scenario is it does nothing. With this level of evidence you might as well just eat random garbage off the ground in the off chance it helps.
by wavemode | 2025-08-07 17:53:53+00:00
The maker of the credential manager is still a "big tech company", and there is still lock-in. Before I ever use any passkey solution, I would need to be guaranteed the ability to export and backup my passkeys and migrate them wherever I want.

My expectations for how long I intend to be alive and using the internet is much longer than my expectations for the continued operation and service of any particular passkey management software.

I already had to jump ship from LastPass after they were hacked. Imagine if they hadn't allowed me to migrate my passwords.
by gamblor956 | 2025-08-07 17:54:13+00:00
It took someone from outside the ticketing system to actually listen and say: Wait. This makes no sense.

Which only happened because of your blog post. In other words, the effort to prevent bad PR led to them fixing your problem immediately, while 20 days of doing things the "right" way yielded absolutely no results.

This actually makes the problem you've described even worse: it indicates that AWS has absolutely no qualms about failing to properly support the majority of its customers.

The proper thing for them to do was not to have a human "outside the system" fix your problem. It was for them to fix the system so that the system could have fixed your problem.

That being said: Azure is so much worse than AWS. Even bad PR won't push them to fix things.
by aliljet | 2025-08-07 17:54:20+00:00
Between Opus aand GPT-5, it's not clear there's a substantial difference in software development expertise. The metric that I can't seem to get past in my attempts to use the systems is context awareness over long-running tasks. Producing a very complex, context-exceeding objective is a daily (maybe hourly) ocurrence for me. All I care about is how these systems manage context and stay on track over extended periods of time.

What eval is tracking that? It seems like it's potentially the most imporatnt metric for real-world software engineering and not one-shot vibe prayers.
by lenerdenator | 2025-08-07 17:54:57+00:00
> According to my Vehicle Privacy Support (https://vehicleprivacyreport.com), LexisNexis is the data broker that Toyota uses. I submitted Consumer Disclosure Report with them and 6 weeks later, a snail-mail letter arrived saying they were not going to disclose any of my information to me.

What legal recourse would you have? They've got data on you, you'd think that at the very least they would be obligated to show it to you for a reasonable price.
by moltar | 2025-08-07 17:55:10+00:00
Totally agree. It’s so surprising that I spent almost an hour trying to figure out how to make Gemini collaborate with me on a Google Document as a kind of artifact. I was sure I was just holding it wrong. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t a feature. Even when I gave up I was still unsure if maybe my account isn’t on the right tier or something.
by rrrrrrrrrrrryan | 2025-08-07 17:55:17+00:00
It makes a little sense, but I'm not sure it's good for your eyes.

My eye doctor had me come in first thing in the morning, then again the next day at the end of the day, after my workday, and my vision had degraded about -0.25 to -0.5 over the course of the day, which is apparently pretty typical. If your prescription is just a little bit off, your eye muscles will work a little harder to hold things in focus, but over the course of the day, they get strained and tired, and at the end of the day they can't do it anymore.

I can imagine if you really strength-trained those muscles, you could hold things in focus for longer, more comfortably, and inversely, I could imagine if you never really worked those muscles they'd atrophy somewhat.

But I'm not sure really straining those muscles all-day-every-day is healthy long term. It would be like sitting on a wooden stool all day during your workday and saying "all you need to do is keep your core muscles strong by doing x/y/z workout a couple times a day," versus just getting a decent ergonomic chair.

Nothing wrong with a workout or keeping your muscles strong, but in order to last a full lifetime, your muscles need lots of rest too, and I imagine getting proper glasses definitely helps.