MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sehansen | 2025-08-29 12:21:19+00:00
Reminds of this Neil Gaiman anecdote about imposter syndrome:

"""Some years ago, I was lucky enough invited to a gathering of great and good people: artists and scientists, writers and discoverers of things. And I felt that at any moment they would realise that I didn’t qualify to be there, among these people who had really done things.

On my second or third night there, I was standing at the back of the hall, while a musical entertainment happened, and I started talking to a very nice, polite, elderly gentleman about several things, including our shared first name. And then he pointed to the hall of people, and said words to the effect of, “I just look at all these people, and I think, what the heck am I doing here? They’ve made amazing things. I just went where I was sent.”

And I said, “Yes. But you were the first man on the moon. I think that counts for something.”

And I felt a bit better. Because if Neil Armstrong felt like an imposter, maybe everyone did. Maybe there weren’t any grown-ups, only people who had worked hard and also got lucky and were slightly out of their depth, all of us doing the best job we could, which is all we can really hope for. """

from: https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2017/05/the-neil-story-with-a...
by Shacklz | 2025-08-29 12:21:25+00:00
> It's a common rhetoric from someone who has no clue about financial markets (the person you replied to).

I think what OP meant is that producing all this fancy advanced tech just to play the financial game isn't all that much benefit for society.

And when looking at societal development in the last couple of decades with the increasing gap in distribution of wealth, social mobility and overall life expectancy declining and other such metrics, I think it's a valid standpoint that maybe, the collective smarts of our society could be allocated a bit better than putting them into companies like Jane Street; as impressive as their work is.
by Mallowram | 2025-08-29 12:21:31+00:00
The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/
by bdd8f1df777b | 2025-08-29 12:21:47+00:00
WebRTC is not blocked. I do see some protocols trying to masquerade as WebRTC, but for some reason it is not popular.

A primitive way to bypass the censor is just to connect to your VPS with RDP or Chrome Remote Desktop (which is WebRTC underlying) and then browse the Internet there. But it needs a very powerful server and is quite slow.
by Silhouette | 2025-08-29 12:22:23+00:00
Am I the only one who finds the branding and privacy policies around these AI services (possibly deliberately) confusing?

For example Anthropic have an Anthropic Console that they appear to consider quite distinct from Claude.ai. Do these share a privacy policy and related settings? How do either of these fit in with the named plans like Pro and Max? What are you actually paying for when you give them money for the various different things they charge for? Is all API use under their Commercial Terms even if it's a personal account that is otherwise under the Consumer Terms? Why isn't all of this obvious and transparent to users?

OpenAI don't seem to be any better. I only just learned from this HN discussion that they train on personal account conversations. As someone privacy-conscious who has used ChatGPT - even if only a few times for experiments - I find the fact that this wasn't very clearly stated up front to be extremely disturbing. If I'd known about it I would certainly have switched off the relevant setting immediately.

I get that these organisations have form for training on whatever they can get their hands on whether dubiously legal or not. But training on users' personal conversations or code feels like something that should require a very clear and explicit opt-in. In fact I don't see how they can legally not have that first in places like the EU and UK that have significant data protection legislation.
by numpad0 | 2025-08-29 12:22:35+00:00
STUN gives back your public IP:port, TURN gives you assigned proxied IP:port.

You take that data and send to the peer over signaling connection, and they call you back on that IP:port. Most NAT implementations make and keep a temporary mapping between public port to private IP consistent[1] for few minutes, and not completely random per destination[2], so it usually works.

1: e.g. router.public.ip.example:23456 <-> 192.168.0.12:12345

2: e.g. if stun.l.google.com:12345 sent from port 23456 but if yourfriend.router.ip.example:12345 sent from port 45678
by kossTKR | 2025-08-29 12:23:21+00:00
Oh i see thanks. That's a dark design pattern, hiding stuff like that.

No one cares about anything else but they have lots of superflous text and they are calling it "help us get better", blah blah, it's "help us earn more money and potentially sell or leak your extremely private info", so they are lying.

Considering cancelling my subscription right this moment.

I hope EU at leat considers banning or extreme-fining companies trying to retroactively use peoples extremely private data like this, it's completely over the line.
by sumtechguy | 2025-08-29 12:23:25+00:00
I did something similar years ago. Couple of drives in an old beige tower case. Setup the sharing wand what not. Not exactly 'hard' but it was one thing. Time consuming. Once you have done it a few times the novelty wears off and its more of a chore to mess around with the thing. NAS boxes like that 'just work'. You plug some drives in, set it up, done. However, one comment in here puts it perfectly. The software on syno is wildly out of date. It has been for 15 years. Ease of use is now outweighed by something recent software wise. The syno guys are literally leaving nearm 20-30% perf uplift out. For 'reasons'. Those reasons are wearing very thin. It will mean I need a different backup solution for my computers. One that handles full disk incremental and stored windows and linux on the remote drive and not something I 'run once and awhile' and perferably open source.
by ezekg | 2025-08-29 12:24:22+00:00
Yeah since I've beeen a Kagi user for so long, I think I have multiple Kagi apps (they changed how they did things at some point iirc) and I probably need to go through and reset everything so that I can use Google/Duck when needed. Usually not an issue, but when Kagi's down, I usually fumble around trying to find what works.
by brk | 2025-08-29 12:24:36+00:00
I've removed all Meta apps other than Whatsapp (and I don't love that). I haven't had the Facebook app on my phone in well over a decade. Had Instagram for a while, I was casually active on it, but Meta just keeps convincing me not to be trusted.

Facebook mobile is a suboptimal experience, which is fine, it just reminds me to use it less.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-08-29 12:24:57+00:00
The last time my brother and I were discussing about anthropic, they were worth 90B$, and that was a month ago, he asked chatgpt in the middle of the conversation, either it was a sneaky sabotage from gpt or my memory is fuzzy but I thought that 90b$ was really underrated for anthropic given the scaleAi deal or windsurf/cursor deals.
by sokoloff | 2025-08-29 12:25:16+00:00
I think I missed the part where Google imprisoned someone.

The government forces me to do business with them; if I don't pay them tens (and others hundreds) of thousands of dollars every year they will send people with guns to imprison me and eventually other people with guns to seize my property.

Me willingly giving Google some data and them capriciously deciding to not always give it back doesn't seem anything like the same to me. (It doesn't mean I like what Google's doing, but they have nowhere near the power of the group that legally owns and uses tanks.)
by metaphor | 2025-08-29 12:25:22+00:00
> Immediately after the wreck at 9:14 p.m. on April 25, 2019, the crucial data detailing how it unfolded was automatically uploaded to the company’s servers and stored in a vast central database, according to court documents. Tesla’s headquarters soon sent an automated message back to the car confirming that it had received the collision snapshot.

> Moments later, court records show, the data was just as automatically “unlinked” from the 2019 Tesla Model S at the scene, meaning the local copy was marked for deletion, a standard practice for Teslas in such incidents, according to court testimony.

Wow...just wow.
by everdrive | 2025-08-29 12:25:23+00:00
I finally got around to rebuilding my pihole. My wife's phone as absolutely rife with requests for various Real-Time Bidding (RTB) domains. It was a flood of them like I really haven't seen before. I didn't do much troubleshoot, but when we looked at her phone, the Facebook app seemed like the likeliest culprit. (Facebook, after all would be the best-placed to have the user data required to actually participate in RTB.)

Once we deleted the app, the RTB requests went away for good. I've had pihole previously, and she's had the Facebook app previously, and we never seemed to have this issue. Perhaps Facebook is drudging up whatever profits it can since it's mostly cornered the population, and is potentially in decline.
by mothballed | 2025-08-29 12:25:29+00:00
I'm not sure when interns stopped being part of the hiring chain, but I remember almost universally circa 2010 or 2011 in the great recession, almost every single intern and co-op student I knew were told bluntly there would be absolutely no hiring of them into full time roles.

Up until the great recession it was pretty normal, almost expected, that a good internship turned into a good job offer.

I'm guessing that just never reversed.
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-08-29 12:26:00+00:00
I mean, I am sure there are individuals, who still believe in the basic value of the word within the framework of our civilization, but, having seen those words not just twisted beyond recognition to fit a specific idea, but simply ignored when they were no longer convenient, it would be a surprise now that a cynical stance is not more common.

The question is: how does that affect their choices. How much ends up being gated what previously would have ended up in the open?

Me: I am using a local variant ( and attempting to build something I think I can control better ).
by epgui | 2025-08-29 12:27:04+00:00
> There are two types of people who use python: those who understand statistics and those who write python. I’m happy that python basically took over the role once filled by matlab […]

This exactly! Worded charitably, but accurately.

Python is a messy and complex language, full of historical baggage and non-essential machinery. I’ve been working in it for many years, so I’m not new or unfamiliar to it… But I know what a clean simple language looks like (eg.: clojure), so I have much less patience for unnecessary complexity now.

It may be arguably-better than some other popular languages (or MATLAB), but it's easy to find an objectively much better high-level language.
by 1718627440 | 2025-08-29 12:27:19+00:00
> You can't double the speed

I only need two instances to be faster then a single one. This means the human having the resources to run the system is unbound to do anything an infinite number of humans can do regarding his own time and energy.

> Yeah, humans can produce other humans too

In this hypothetical scenario humans were able to build "AI" (including formalized, deterministic and reproducible). A system as capable as a human (=AI) is then able to produce many such systems.

> There are practical limits to what we can do with information.

Yes, but we are nowhere near this limits yet.

> Are we? In practice?

Yes. We are able to build a particle accelerator. Given enough resources, we can have enough particle generators as there are particles in a car.

> That would mean machines are capped at 200IQ forever.

Except when the 300IQ thing is found by chance. When the system is reproducible and you aren't bound by resources, then a small chance means nothing.

> This is circular.

No it just means intelligence is not attributable to a black box. We don't think other humans are intelligent solely by their behaviour, we conclude that they are similar then us and we have introspection into us.

> You can fit all the textbooks and documentation describing how a 1TB hard drive works on a 1TB hard drive with plenty of room to spare.

It's not about encoding the result of having understood. A human is very much capable of computing according to the nature of a human. It's about the process of understanding itself. The harddrive can store this, it can't create it. Try to build a machine that makes predictions about itself including the lowest level of itself. You won't get faster then time.
by somenameforme | 2025-08-29 12:27:21+00:00
Even if somehow a Kessler syndrome [1] type event (a chain reaction of debris busting other satellites creating even more debris) was intentionally triggered, the effects are not what most people think. Launches would remain perfectly safe simply because space is massive. What would happen is that certain orbital velocities would end up with an unacceptably high risk of collision over time, and so you wouldn't want to go into orbits that spend any significant amount of time at those velocities.

The neat thing about orbital mechanics is that your orbital altitude is determined 100% by your orbital velocity. Even in the case of an eccentric orbit, your velocity changes as you go from your furthest point to your closest point. A purely circularized orbit is an orbit where your velocity stays constant.

Extremely high energy debris would often end up escaping Earth's orbit and probably end up orbiting the Sun. And lower energy debris would often end up entering the atmosphere and burning up. So only fragments that remain in a sort of demented goldilocks zone would end up being dangerous. So in general I think the answer is - not much, especially in strikes of satellites near LEO. US, Russia, China, and India have all carried out live fire tests of anti-satellite weapons.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
by potato3732842 | 2025-08-29 12:27:26+00:00
>Many younger kids don’t view cars as the gateway to freedom and coming of age experiences. (Which is fine)

It's not freeing because it's been saddled with all sorts of financial burdens raising the cost while at the same time younger people are poorer than ever.

It's not just cars, tons of traditional "coming of age" things are going away for the same reasons.
by rayiner | 2025-08-29 12:27:57+00:00
> immigrant can be radicalized to the point that you are cheering on the people who would be more than happy to deport you and most of your family on the basis of your skin color alone

Based! I can just picture Kash finishing the job by deporting the last remaining immigrant: himself.

Regardless, it’s telling that we were talking about legal theories but you couldn’t keep out that intrusive thought about my skin color and immigration background.
by bitwize | 2025-08-29 12:28:11+00:00
Yes.

You pick a door. Probability 1/3 it has the car behind it. The host then picks another door, revealing the booby prize. That door now has probability 0 of having the car. But you still picked a door with probability 1/3 of having the car, which means there's a 2/3 chance the other door you didn't pick has the car. Write a program to run a Monte Carlo simulation... of the Monty Hall problem... and you will see this is the case.

The host has given you information about where the car is by revealing where it is not. Whether you can effectively use that information is another matter.
by kypro | 2025-08-29 12:28:14+00:00
I'm not talking about "replacing" workers. I'm talking about hiring the most qualified which in a global talent pool will almost always be someone from abroad. There's no reason for a company to hire a relatively unskilled graduate domestically when they could hire someone with more experience from abroad.

If you look at the workforce makeup of many large tech companies today there's a reason Indian and East-Asian talent is so overrepresented, and it's not because they lack talent. It's because if you actually want to hire the best of the best you're not going to bring in juniors from the domestic workforce and train them up.
by hookedonwinter | 2025-08-29 12:28:20+00:00
I love playing queens (and tango) on LinkedIn every morning. It’s doing its job and bringing me back every day.

How is your version different than the one on LinkedIn? I played one game on yours and it seems the same but maybe I missed something.

Also, the crown is really hard to see for me with some color blindness. I ended up clicking crown squares to mark them a few times without realizing they already had a crown there.

Nice work overall!
by utyop22 | 2025-08-29 12:28:24+00:00
Exactly that's the trade-off.

People keep comparing higher-level programming languages to lower-level abstractions - these comparisons are absolutely false. The whole point of higher-level programming languages is for people to get away from working with the lower level stuff.

But with the way software engineers are interacting with LLMs, they are not getting away from writing code because they have to use what comes out of it to achieve their goal (writing and piecing together code to complete a project).
by cube00 | 2025-08-29 12:28:28+00:00
To consent to sharing your data for training Docusign AI models, your organization (as the account owner) must first agree to share data through your Docusign service agreement.

After providing consent, the setting will be turned on by default. [1]

[1]: https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&...
by ermir | 2025-08-29 12:28:29+00:00
When I experimented with this a few years back a true NxN room would cap around 8 people when using PCs and 4 on mobile, the bottleneck is encoding/decoding of the video. For larger rooms you need a server to route the video to all recipients, this is called an SFU. With an SFU you can have hundreds of participants, but not everyone can speak or be seen at once.

For audio-only the sky is the limit. I used to work on a voice-based social media and you also need an SFU here as well, but I added a few mixing features so that multiple incoming audio streams would be mixed together into a single outgoing one. Was very fun (and scalable).
by mutkach | 2025-08-29 12:28:54+00:00
How would they not "share information with third parties". You need to sift through the data to make it even remotely useful for "training". You absolutely need to share it with either Amazon (for Mechanical Turk) or with Scale AI.

I am wondering how would you use a chat transcript for training? Unless it is massive, possibly private codebases that are constantly getting piped into Claude Code right now. In that case, that would make sense.
by pch00 | 2025-08-29 12:29:10+00:00
> In the days before Slack and being constantly plugged in people were a lot more conscious about interrupting others and we had less interrupts. The reason we have more interrupts today is that it's just too easy to interrupt people.

So much this. Our org moved pretty quickly into organising and communicating via Teams when the lockdowns hit and people starting working from home. Moving that quickly meant that many basic things like messaging etiquette never really got thought about. Even now I'll still receive messages when my status is set to DND or receive complete junk openers like "You there?".
by carlmr | 2025-08-29 12:29:40+00:00
>I wish that the hype crowd would do that.

Exactly, IME the hype crowd is really the worst at this. They will spend 8h doing 8 different 1h tries at getting the right context for the LLM and then claim they did it in 1h.

They claim to be faster than they are. There's a lot of mechanical turking going about as soon as you ask a few probing questions.
by troupo | 2025-08-29 12:29:59+00:00
> the extrapolation should have been straightforward,

Indeed."By late next month you'll have over four dozen husbands" https://xkcd.com/605/

> So, here's some support for my second claim:

I don't think any of these links support the claim that "No SOTA model was trained without verified reward training for math and programming"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06920: "We hope this work contributes to building a scalable foundation for reliable LLM code evaluation"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11425: A custom agent with a custom environment and a custom training dataset on ~800 predetermined problems. Also "Our work is limited to Python"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06807: The only one that somewhat obliquely refers to you claim
by bayindirh | 2025-08-29 12:30:16+00:00
Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything, forever. Not forgetting that the first guy's son's pictures are ended in a CSAM database and he lost his account permanently, and Google didn't give his account back [0].

A company "applied what the law said", and refused that they made a mistake and overreached. Which is generally attributed to governments.

So, I you missed the effects of this little binary flag on their life.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
by jt2190 | 2025-08-29 12:30:19+00:00
> Or are they literally just in the business of making money?

All for-profit businesses can be viewed abstractly as “in the business of making money”, so this doesn’t really distinguish Jane Street in any way.

> … why/if what they do is useful to anyone?

The utility that Jane Street provides is to the be a persistent buyer and seller of equities. Basically you can call them at any time and buy shares or sell shares. Most shareholders do not trade very often so without a “market maker” like Jane Street it can be a lot of work finding a buyer/seller who is willing to trade on your schedule at the current market price. You’ll have to pay them extra to convince them to trade, which makes it harder to trade profitably. Jane Street significantly lowers the price and makes trading easier (“provides liquidity to the market”).
by ForHackernews | 2025-08-29 12:31:41+00:00
full slop. I kind of worry that long-term exposure to content like this will reduce humans to 8th graders doing a book report on books they haven't read.

> But memory without decay is less than human.

How is it less than human? By definition, the undecayed memory is more complete.

> Nostalgia itself might be the first compression algorithm: a lossy filter that turns clutter into resonance.

What is this even supposed to mean? I guess the idea is something here like "fuzzy" memory == "compression" but nostalgia is an emotional response - we're often nostalgic about clear, vivid memories, experiences that didn't lose their texture to time.

> Without the soft erasures of time, experience calcifies into raw data, and raw data has no mercy.

Eh... kinda. Calcifies is the wrong word here. Raw data doesn't have mercy, but lossily-compressed data is merciful? Is memory itself merciful? Or is it a mercy for the rememberer to be spared their past shames?

So much AI slop is like this: it's just words words words words without ideas behind them.