MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by whimsicalism | 2025-08-12 18:45:12+00:00
If you really want to talk aviation, Boeing pled guilty and settled and got fined billions of dollars and had to change safety practices. Compared to Airbus which was well known to be a major briber abroad and was protected in the EU until the US eventually brought FCPA action after it got ridiculously out of hand and EU regulators did nothing.
by slg | 2025-08-12 18:45:37+00:00
>I don't know what you want from me.

All I want from you is to...

>update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward.

The first step in that process is examining your prior mistakes so you know what not to repeat. Your comments have shown an unwillingness to do that work. You're treating this as a mistake that you just happened to fall into through no fault of your own and not a mistake caused by your own actions.
by bhouston | 2025-08-12 18:46:02+00:00
You present these as straw man exaggerations, but they were real things that happened.

> The global pandemic will tank the stock market

It actually did screw up the economies of a lot of countries and companies and it messed with stock markets as well. It increased debt worldwide, it increased unemployment that took years to recover.

> High interest rates will tank the stock market

There is a well established relationship between lower stock market returns when there is high interest rates.

> War in Ukraine will tank the stock market

It significantly hurt the Russian stock market, at least the sanctions did. But war tends to be a stimulus for the economy as long as it isn't too large of a war.
by kazinator | 2025-08-12 18:46:07+00:00
I see what you are getting at. Programs consist of materials that are presented to the implementation, and also of materials that come from the implementation.

So what I mean is that no file matching <winkle.h> has been presented as part of the external file set given to the implementation for processsing.

I agree that if such a file is found by the implementation it becomes part of the program, as makes sese and as that word is defined by ISO C, so it is not right terminology to say that the file is not part of the program, yet may be found.

If the inclusion is successful, though, the content of that portion of that program is not defined by ISO C.
by stevezsa8 | 2025-08-12 18:46:24+00:00
This worked really well for me at work. A new text file for each day, so I could explain what I did/plan to do during standup.

I struggle at home though. Because there's not as much pressure to do one task until it's done... so my text file gets forgotten about. Then I start a paper list. Then I forget that... rinse and repeat.
by jonathaneunice | 2025-08-12 18:46:28+00:00
"High-level CPUs" are a tarpit. Beautiful idea in theory, but history shows they're a Bad Idea.

Xerox, LMI, Symbolics, Intel iAPX 432, UCSD p-System, Jazelle and PicoJava—just dozens of fancy designs for Lisp, Smalltalk, Ada, Pascal, Java—yet none of them ever lasted more than a product iteration or three. They were routinely outstripped by MOT 68K, x86, and RISC CPUs. Whether your metric of choice is shipment volumes, price/performance, or even raw performance, they have routinely underwhelmed. A trail of tears for 40+ years.
by shadowgovt | 2025-08-12 18:46:59+00:00
True, but this is where the Boolean nature of traditional logic can really trip up a person trying to operate in the real world.

These "maybes" are on the table. They are probably not the case.

(You end up with a spread of likelihoods and have to decide what to do with them. And law hates a spread of likelihoods and hates decision-by-coinflips, so one can see how rhetorical traditions grounded in legal persuasion tend towards encouraging Boolean outcomes; you can't find someone "a little guilty," at least not in the Western tradition of justice).
by nosianu | 2025-08-12 18:47:04+00:00
Yes, building something new is a lot of effort. And? We have been doing it for a few thousand years, again and again and again. Cities were a lot of work. Irrigation was a lot of work. Farming was a lot of work. Castles were a lot of work. Roads. Aqueducts. International trade. And that was before the even more complex problems of modernity, after the industrial revolution. I don't understand the attitude behind such an argument. I would understand complaints if unwilling people were forced to contribute funds and/or time, but it's not like me or anyone else is forcing you to participate in this idea against your will.
by XenophileJKO | 2025-08-12 18:47:21+00:00
From my experience. Gemini is REALLY bad about context blending. It can't keep track of what I said and what it said in a conversation under 200K tokens. It blends concepts and statements up, then refers to some fabricated hybrid fact or comment.

Gemini has done this in ways that I haven't seen in the recent or current generation models from OpenAI or Anthropic.

It really surprised me that Gemini performs so well in multi-turn benchmarks, given that tendency.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-08-12 18:47:40+00:00
>Two seconds later he picks up the laptop and heaves it so hard it skipped across the table like a stone on water: "I said fxxking INSTANT ON!!"

When did the OG MacBook Air have instant on at launch in 2008?

IIRC the M1 brough Instant on and Jobs wasn't around anymore.
by const_cast | 2025-08-12 18:48:34+00:00
> Crime was certainly never driven by the cost of private health insurance.

Its a simple question - is crime motivated by money or not?

If you answer yes, then you're wrong - things like the ACA that lessen financial burden MUST lead to less crime over time.

If you answer no, then you're probably not reasonable. Who legitimately believes that crime isn't caused by money issues?

> crime is driven by things like alcohol and demographics,

Demographics absolutely do not drive crime, otherwise you have a broken world view. Being of a different demographic is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.

Being black does not cause crime, or being in a zip code does not cause crime. Being poor does, that zip code having poor education does, that zip code providing no opportunities does.

You're working backwards.
by __rito__ | 2025-08-12 18:49:26+00:00
Hard disagree.

Even during ChatGPT peak, when HN was buzzing with every other post being how ChatGPT/other LLM product replaced Google for them, I could not honestly switch, or meaningfully reduce my Google usage.

Until Perplexity.

It was the AI product that actually reduced my Google usage. Even with AI mode directly built into Google homepage now, Perplexity is still better.

It has basically zero hallucination, each para/entry backed by a URL, and lower latentcy than any other LLM product.

I don't know why you find it bad. I use it daily, and for serious searches.

It has fundamentally changed the way I search the web/ask questions in the web.
by griffzhowl | 2025-08-12 18:49:39+00:00
Ok, could be. Does that imply then that this is a general feature, that if you get the same output from different methods and contexts with an LLM, that this output is more likely to be factually accurate?

Because to me as an outsider another possibility is that this kind of behaviour would also result from structural weaknesses of LLMs (e.g. counting the e's in blueberry or whatever) or from cleverly inbuilt biases/evasions. And the latter strikes me as an at least non-negligible possibility, given the well-documented interest and techniques for extracting prompts, coupled with the likelihood that the designers might not want their actual system prompts exposed
by godelski | 2025-08-12 18:49:44+00:00
The author is forgetting another scenario: a multibillionaire creates a company and values the business at $1bn. Though of course Max Fosh already did something like this[0]

Which also makes me wonder, is this not a bet that can be filled simply by will? There's a lot of abstraction to money, so can't someone like Altman just find a one person startup and invest in them such that this happens? I think this makes the whole thing a lot trickier than it appears at face value. Personally, I wouldn't be all that shocked if something like this happened because it could probably end up being worth more in advertising than the the tens(?) of millions to invest in the company.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHfJRON3b-w
by regularization | 2025-08-12 18:50:10+00:00
From 2004 to 2009, the inflation rate was less than 4% each year. Gold was $443 an ounce in March 2005 and $975 an ounce in March 2008. Yes rich people had to put their money somewhere as banks and then corporate America started to collapse during the surprise crisis, they took them out of equities for banks offering subprime mortgages and put them into assets like precious metals and the like.

Also in 1999 MSFT was $57 a share. In 2009 it was $16 a share. It cracked $57 again in 2016. 17 years to go sideways.

Cisco never reached its 2000 peak again. Of course companies like Pets.com just went out of business.
by kmansm27 | 2025-08-12 18:50:20+00:00
Really cool, I actually haven't met many people using cursor background agents. I do think Anthropic is working on a web app for Claude Code (saw it in some thread somewhere), so I'm sure they're also working on a mobile app. In that case, the value for Omnara + Claude Code diminishes, but we're able to support any agent, so if every company has their own app, but a user can use all the same agents from a single platform, hopefully they'll choose the single platform.
by BoorishBears | 2025-08-12 18:50:26+00:00
I agree with the article that it won't happen because it's just natural to hire your way out of some pain.

You'd need someone who cares enough to make a point to a very niche community but doesn't care about the product enough to hire, and I think the two circles don't overlap.

... but if it did happen I expect it'd be a NSFW AI chatbot/companion, not VC-backable (or at least not openly)

There are some people building those that don't want or care about building the best product: they've realized if you get the cheapest most heavily quanitzed model around to produce NSFW content and tell a lonely person they're loved, they'll give you increasing amounts of money.
by jmatusky | 2025-08-12 18:50:41+00:00
Love this! Impressed at the fully automated flow. A while back I was working on video/AR postcards, but more of a B2B play. We were linking music videos and behinds the scenes content to postcards, mailers, merch etc for musicians and record labels. Always wanted to try something in the DTC space. Never got it as automated as Keeps. Nice work!
by throwaway31131 | 2025-08-12 18:50:56+00:00
"You don't think about memories when you design hardware"

I found that comment interesting because memory is mostly what I think about when I design hardware. Memory access is by far the slowest thing, so managing memory bandwidth is absolutely critical, and it uses a significant portion of the die area.

Also, a significant portion of the microarchitecture of a modern CPU is all about managing memory accesses.

If there were a hypothetical high-level CPU language that somehow encoded all the information the microarchitecture needs to measure to manage memory access, then it would likely tie in performance, assuming the CPU team did a good job measuring memory. Still, it wouldn't need all the extra stuff that did the measurement. So I see that as a win.

The main problem is, I have absolutely no idea how to do that, and unfortunately, I haven't met anyone else who knows either. Hence, tons of bookkeeping logic in CPUs persists.
by tialaramex | 2025-08-12 18:51:06+00:00
I'm sure the compiler authors will disagree that they were "using any excuse". From their point of view they were merely making transformations between equivalent programs, and so any mistake is either that these are not in fact equivalent programs because they screwed up - which is certainly sometimes the case - or the standard should not have said they were equivalent but it did.

One huge thing they have on their side is that their implementation is concrete. Whatever it is that, say, GCC does is de facto actually a thing a compiler can do. The standards bodies (and WG21 has been worse by some margin, but they're both guilty) may standardize anything, but concretely the compiler can only implement some things. "Just do X" where X isn't practical works fine on paper but is not implementable. This was the fate of the Consume ordering. Consume/ Release works fine on paper, you "just" need to have whole program analysis to implement it. Well of course that's not practical so it's not implemented.
by lenkite | 2025-08-12 18:51:08+00:00
Thanks, but did you read what you wrote ? You seem to be actually supporting the argument that the Chief cannot unilaterally act by himself, especially when Pelosi's Sergeant At Arms denied his request - several times.

That would mean treason on his part if he overruled the Sergeant.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/8/new-obtained-hbo-footage-shows-...
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-08-12 18:51:29+00:00
>It's not foolish.

It is all about fooling the viewer. Like for example seeing some run down old buildings in US or Eastern Europe will make people scoff, but if you show them similar looking run down buildings in South Mediterranean Europe or Japan they will be in awe. It's about perception.

>Design is subjective

No it isn't. Just like art and people's appearances, there's unanimously objective on what's beautiful and what's ugly.

The redesigned Pepsi logo is objectively worse, which is why it was so short lived and reverted back to the original design.

People who say there's no such thing as ugly design because it's al subjective are coping hard or trying to sell their design agency.
by numbers | 2025-08-12 18:51:52+00:00
is the multi-file editing as easily understood in the Claude Code cli? or am I missing something? I always felt like Claude Code CLI was OK as a tool yet powered by one of the best AI models. I stuck with Cursor b/c of the multi-file editing, agent mode, etc. I'm very very willing to leave Cursor because they've recently been scummy about their pricing changes.
by the_af | 2025-08-12 18:52:01+00:00
> The purpose of the test is whatever the tester decides it is.

Well, I did say:

> As an experiment, I cannot argue with this.

It was more a reflection on the fact that the primary goal of a lot of modern IF games, among which there is "9:05", the first game mentioned in TFA, is not like "traversing a mountain". Traversing a mountain can have clear and meaningful goals, such us "reach the summit", or "avoid getting stuck", or "do not die or go missing after X hours". Though of course, appreciating nature and sightseeing is beyond the scope of an LLM.

Indeed, "9:05" has no other "goal" than, upon seeing a different ending from the main one, revisiting the game with the knowledge gained from that first playthrough. I'm being purposefully opaque in order not to spoil the game for you (you should play it, it's really short).

Let me put it another way: remember that fad, some years ago, of making you pay attention to an image or video, with a prompt like "colorblind people cannot see this shape after X seconds" so you pay attention and then BAM! A jump scare! Haha, joke's on you!

How would you "test" a LLM on such jump scare? The goal is to scare a human. LLMs cannot be scared. What would the possible answers be?

A: I do not see any disappearing shapes after X seconds. Beep boop! I must not be colorblind, nor human, for I am an LLM. Beep!

or maybe

B: This is a well-known joke. Beep boop! After some short time, a monster appears on screen. This is intended to scare the person looking at it! Beep!

Would you say either response would show the LLM "playing" the game?

(Trust me, this is a somewhat adjacent effect to what "9:05" would play on you, and I fear I've said too much!)
by mmh0000 | 2025-08-12 18:52:19+00:00
I think many people in America have forgotten what it originally took to get workers' rights and unions.

For decades, management has mostly given in to unions, and union members just "pay their dues" and bitch about it.

Seems like "Management" has finally pondered: "What if we just ignore them?" and currently the unions are just crying in a corner: "They're ignoring us!! I guess the union is over boys :'("

Someday, the union side will remember, they only have power if they wield it.
by nyeah | 2025-08-12 18:52:59+00:00
Apparently you will not be told what I'm saying.

I read your point and answered it twice. Your latest response seems to indicate that you're ignoring those responses. For example you seem to suggest that I'm "claim[ing] that it's out of the realm of possibility" for "Einstein" to make progress on our work without taking more data. But anyone can hit "parent" a few times and see what I actually claimed. I claimed "mostly" and "for us where I work". I took the time to repeat that for you. That time seems wasted now.

Perhaps you view "getting more data" as an extremely unpleasant activity, to be avoided at all costs? You may be an astronomer, for example. Or maybe you see taking more data before thinking as some kind of admission of defeat? We don't use that kind of metric. For us it's a question of the cheapest and fastest way to solve each problem.

if modeling is slower and more expensive than measuring, we measure. If not, we model. You do you.
by gwbas1c | 2025-08-12 18:53:09+00:00
I get that today's CPUs are orders of magnitude faster than the CPUs of the past. I also think it's important to admit that today's computers aren't orders of magnitude faster than yesterday's computers.

There's many reasons for that, but mostly it's because it's not worth it to optimize most use cases. It's clear that, for the author's use case (image recognition,) it's "worth it" to optimize to the level they discuss.

Otherwise, we shouldn't assume that doubling a CPU's speed will magically double an application's speed. The author alludes to bottlenecks inside the computer that appear "CPU bound" to many programmers. These bottlenecks are still there, even when tomorrow's CPU is "twice as fast" as today's CPUs.
by willvarfar | 2025-08-12 18:53:14+00:00
(the top post on HN right now is announcing Claude lets you buy a 1M token context. Extrapolate a few years.

Generally, there is a push towards 'context engineering' and there is a lot of bleeding edge research in snapshotting large contexts in ways to get the next back-forth turn in the conversation to be fast etc. So optimisations are already being made.)
by tomatocracy | 2025-08-12 18:53:20+00:00
SpellMaster for the (6502-based) BBC Micro was seriously impressive given the space limitations.

It did both spell checking and correction (and had an anagram finder as a bonus), had integration with several different wordprocessors, check as you type functionality, AND its own integrated editor on top of that. The built in dictionary had a claimed 58k words (with a claimed checking speed of 10k words per minute). All of this was somehow squeezed into 128k (as a ROM on a carrier board with a hardware bank switching mechanism paging in 16K at once).
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-12 18:53:48+00:00
> That's interesting. Which countries do this?

The majority of non-monarchic parliamentary systems still have a separate chief of state and head of government (including semi-presidential systems, which are basically parliamentary democracies but the chief of state has a wider set of formal powers without being head of government).

In the EU, for instance, excluding monarchies and presidential systems, every single member state fits the pattern of having a separate chief of state and head of government, mostly with the same titles. Here's a list of EU states that aren't monarchies or presidential systems, identifying whether they are parliamentary or semi-presidential and, if the separated CoS and HoG have titles other than the most common, what those titles are. Unless noted, in the examples, the usual English title of the CoS is "President" and the HoG is "Prime Minister", exceptions have the HoG title in parens (there are not exceptions for the CoS title.)

Austria: Parliamentary (Chancellor), Bulgaria: Parliamentary, Croatia: Parliamentary, Czechia: Parliamentary, Estonia: Parliamentary, Finland: Parliamentary, France: Semi-presidential, Germany: Parliamentary (Chancellor), Greece: Parliamentary, Hungary: Parliamentary, Ireland: Parliamentary (Taoiseach), Italy: Parliamentary, Latvia: Parliamentary, Lithuania: Semi-Presidential, Malta: Parliamentary, Poland: Semi-Presidential, Portugal: Semi-Presidential, Romania: Parliamentary, Slovakia: Parliamentary, Slovenia: Parliamentary
by xetxov | 2025-08-12 18:54:14+00:00
This method of devleopment is definitely the future.

I've been having a lot of success with Google's Jules (https://jules.google.com/) which has the added benefit of running the agent on their VMs and being able to execute scripts (such as unit tests, linting, playwright, etc). The website works great on mobile and has notification support.

With the Google AI Pro subscription you get 100 tasks a day(!) included, it's a fantastic deal.
by __rito__ | 2025-08-12 18:54:44+00:00
Even during ChatGPT peak, when HN was buzzing with every other post being how ChatGPT/other LLM product replaced Google for them, I could not honestly switch, or meaningfully reduce my Google usage.

Until Perplexity.

It was the AI product that actually reduced my Google usage. Even with AI mode directly built into Google homepage now, Perplexity is still better.

It has basically zero hallucination, each para/entry backed by a URL, and lower latentcy than any other LLM product.

I don't know why you find it bad. I use it daily, and for serious searches.

It has fundamentally changed the way I search the web/ask questions in the web. One particular way: I can now combine multiple subsequent searches into one. And I can trust the results.
by const_cast | 2025-08-12 18:55:05+00:00
> Do you really believe that people are committing crimes in order to make money to pay medical bills? Breaking Bad is a work of fiction.

I think the vast, vast majority of people are committing crime to make money, and I think your singular counter example, which isn't really a counter example, is worthless.

Yes, SOME people are just bad and will always commit crime. Some.

However, most criminals do it for monetary gain.

Why do people even sell drugs? Surely, if their goal is to be evil and just make a lot of people hooked on heroin, they'd just give it away for free right?

Well, that isn't their goal. Their goal is to make money.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-12 18:55:10+00:00
example: "Healthy at any weight/size."

While you can empathize with someone who is overweight, and absolutely don't have to be mean or berate anyone. I'm a very fat man myself. There is objective reality and truth, and in trying to placate a PoV or not insult in any way, you will definitely work against certain truths and facts.
by crystal_revenge | 2025-08-12 18:55:11+00:00
Yea, after the pandemic I've stopped making any predictions about the stock market and bubbles.

It's clear we're living in an illusion, but I'm pretty sure there are enough people invested in that illusion that it won't stop until it is no longer physically possible to maintain. I'm increasing convinced that when whatever dream we're living in ends, it will end catastrophically, but I'm not even certain I'll live to see that happen.
by lenkite | 2025-08-12 18:55:11+00:00
Yes, but he didn't have authority under the statute because the Sergeant at Arms rejected approval. He called the Sergeant several times.

How could he overrule the Sergeant ? That would mean treason - he would be thrown under the bus and spend a decade-plus in jail.

Also Pelosi herself explicitly took responsibility for not granting approval for the National Guard. She is herself on video stating this.