MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by layoric | 2025-08-11 08:47:40+00:00
Software updates and data collection. Eg, my mums Toyota Corolla 2018 already has a disabled infotainment button because of dropped support. If it was a 2019 it would have been eligible for an update, but not for 2018.

Lots of cars from the same period are collecting and sharing data to various different companies from weather to insurance.

Personally I don’t want monitoring or software updates, and definitely don’t want any cloud dependencies.
by linguae | 2025-08-11 08:47:59+00:00
I thought of another possibility: if he enrolled at a university that will allow him to skip or test out of the introductory CS courses, then this will also save time, though he’d still likely need to take non-CS intro courses such as calculus, physics, and a variety of liberal arts/humanities courses.

There’s also the possibility of applying to universities where even the intro level CS courses are quite rigorous and where there’s an expectation, tacitly or explicitly, that CS students have prior experience. Berkeley’s CS 70, for example, is ostensibly an introductory course on discrete math and is required in the EECS program, but it’s much more rigorous than the standard introductory discrete math course taught at most other universities.
by close04 | 2025-08-11 08:48:09+00:00
People use "theft" because it's the terminology the companies responsible for the failure insist on using. The word makes it sound like the person failed to protect their identity, and hides that it was the company which failed to validate the identity.

This should be called "identity validation failure".

When scammers impersonate a company to steal your money it's no longer called identity theft.
by socalgal2 | 2025-08-11 08:48:13+00:00
the first time I got a bonus that big, $240k, I thought it would be life changing. the gov took $100k in taxes. I paid off my car $20k. then when I really thought about it there wasn’t much I could do.

It was not a down payment on a house in LA/SF/NYC. it was not enough to start a company and hire people. If I’d changed my life style to be like a college student and live with roommates then it might have given me 2-3 years of student lifestyle but I was 34 and not prepared to go back to student lifestyle

To be honest it was super disappointing. Of course getting a $240k bonus is a privilege. My only point was it didn’t change my life like I thought it would.

And, that was 25 years ago. today, even a million ($600k after taxes) in those 3 cities won’t likely change your life. Maybe you could put a down payment on a house or pay for your kids college tho but it not the freedom I thought it would be
by noelwelsh | 2025-08-11 08:48:55+00:00
Addition, as I missed the edit window.

I wish they would elaborate on what Really Really Hard(tm) means. From a high-level I believe everything they are concerned with has been researched as part of the work on contract by Robby Findler and collaborators. E.g. https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~robby/pubs/papers/popl201...
by munksbeer | 2025-08-11 08:49:58+00:00
I would never wish to live like the average human 100 years+ ago. Most people lived in squalor, died easily, toiled their entire lives.

We live in absolute luxury and comfort today compared to pretty much any point in history.

It gets very tiresome hearing people complain about how hard they have it these days, which is just factually untrue. What I actually think the problem is, is apathy. People are looking to blame anything else for how they feel in life, rather than take ownership.

I see so many times people complaining about how fast modern life is, and yet they have a very real choice to go and live mostly off grid. There are communities all around the world where pro-active people have had the same thoughts and feelings, and actually had the guts to do something about it. This is all available to you right now, with the added benefit that it isn't even permanent if you don't like it (unlike 100+ years ago when there was no choice).

(waits for the downvotes)
by pnt12 | 2025-08-11 08:50:12+00:00
I was surprised that I started reading one blog on your site, and it was badly written. Only afterwards below the text, did I notice it was a summary!

I'd advise to put it at the top, before the text, to let people know beforehand and not be caught off guard. Then you can have a big button saying "read full article in website" or something, to make it easy for people to see both options.
by sundarurfriend | 2025-08-11 08:50:15+00:00
> I've found that no mater what country I've been to, or what social classes the people belong to, three topics have a 95% success rate when it comes to social relations with guys: sports, cars, fishing/hunting. And to some degree handywork.

Have you generally been to the Americas and Western Europe? Sports is the one universal, that makes sense in my experience too. But most people outside the rich upper class don't give a hoot about cars anywhere in the parts of Asia I've been to. And if you talked about fishing/hunting, you'd probably get weird looks trying to decide if you came from some modern hunter-gatherer cult.
by regularfry | 2025-08-11 08:50:21+00:00
> will we start seeing a formal split in open-weight model development—specialized “reasoners” that rely on tool use for facts, and “knowledge bases” tuned for retrieval-heavy work?

My bet's on the former winning outright. It's very hard to outrun a good search engine, LLMs are inherently lossy so internal recall will never be perfect, and if you don't have to spend your parameter budget encoding information then you get to either spend that budget on being a much better reasoner, or you shrink the model and make it cheaper to run for the same capability. The trade-off is a more complex architecture, but that's happening anyway.
by pjmlp | 2025-08-11 08:51:09+00:00
Haskell and OCaml are two runtimes that do just good enough with type erasure for how the polymorphic types get implemented across their implementations.

Probably MLton is the only implementation that actually does it the C++ and Rust way.

So lets see how far they go.

I always considered it was a mistake for Java to ignore what GC enabled languages were doing at the time, Eiffel, Modula-3, Oberon and frieds, which they naturally looked into given their influences, but it wasn't deemed necessary for the original Java purposes of being a settop box and applets language.

Now we have a good case of what happens when we tried to retrofit such critical features after decades of field usage, a lesson that Go folks apparently failed to learn as well.
by Svip | 2025-08-11 08:52:21+00:00
A little more context: that article 3 paragraph 2.a. was added by parliament (not proposed by the Commission). But paragraph 1 (same article) was altered to this text:

> Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional conduct referred to in paragraphs 2 to 8 is punishable.

(Emphasis being the change.)

So they only mean the intentional act of putting up pornography without age verification? Just feign forgetfulness, I guess. How is a negative act an intentional one? Or moreover; how do you prove it? I know neglect and gross neglect are things, so I assume they mean if you don't do it after being asked to.
by fancyfredbot | 2025-08-11 08:53:23+00:00
I'd respectfully suggest that it's perhaps not time to "discontinue diffusion models". Minsky and Papert set AI back by decades by suggesting neural networks were a dead end which couldn't learn XOR. There's not a chance of an HN comment having the same effect of course but my point is that it's easy to dismiss things prematurely.
by ElectroBuffoon | 2025-08-11 08:53:42+00:00
We already have standards:

PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...

What seem to lack is the will power to use them. Or after seeing in the linked site:

*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.

they really want mass surveillance for the plebs even by creating a weak point for enemies. To hell not just with rights but also defence. So any excuse will do.
by hn_throw2025 | 2025-08-11 08:54:02+00:00
> Of course there’s a push for it with the intent to replace us. Why else would it be forced down our throats?

I still don’t see this, if only for the Managerial instinct for ass-covering.

If something really matters and a prod showstopper emerges, can those non-technical supervisory managers be completely, absolutely, 100% sure the AI can fix the code and bring everything back up? If not, the buck would surely stop with them and they would be utterly helpless in that situation. The Board waiting on conference call while they stare at a pageful of code that may as well be written in ancient Sumerian.

I can see developers taking a higher level role and using these tools, but I can’t really see managers interfacing directly with AI code generation. Unless they are completely risk tolerant, and you don’t get far up the greasy pole with those tendencies.
by gametorch | 2025-08-11 08:54:09+00:00
You can absolutely "delete" a protocol if you own the Solana program.

It's not deleted in the sense that all of its history is still on the blockchain. But it is deleted in the sense that the account storing the Solana program no longer exists / is empty and you cannot interact with it. In fact, if you haven't immutably deployed a Solana program, you are heavily incentivized to delete it if it is unused, because then you can recoup the Solana you posted as rent to upload the program in the first place.
by linguae | 2025-08-11 08:54:34+00:00
I feel the exact same way as someone who is a teacher and researcher of CS. If I were to do it all over again, I would’ve done a bachelor’s in math, with an emphasis on discrete topics (combinatorics, graph theory), linear and abstract algebra, and category theory. I would have then pursued graduate education in computer science.

I’ve found myself drawn to areas of CS such as graph machine learning and programming language theory where I wish I had stronger math chops beyond calculus, linear algebra, and introductory discrete math.
by DrScientist | 2025-08-11 08:54:36+00:00
I think the issue here is the theft of livelihoods.

If you spend months crafting something unique with your livelihood being based on then selling access to that creation ( whether it be music, software or prose ) and somebody copies it in a way that deprives you of a livelihood ( and replaces it with a revenue to the entity that copied it's ) - it's that theft of your income stream?
by fiftyacorn | 2025-08-11 08:55:19+00:00
I was on reddit/math and someone was talking about how they were trying to get AI to create there final year thesis from uni. They tried 4-5 different AI solutions and reckoned they got 40-60% of the work from AI but it couldnt conclude the project. A few others on the thread had said the same

Doesnt mean it wont get there - just that it isnt there yet
by DanielHB | 2025-08-11 08:56:11+00:00
I mostly used it for exploratory analysis of tools/libraries I am not familiar with, where it points me the parts of the API docs I need to lookup to verify the output. Then I manually adapt or rewrite it.

So in the end I use it fairly often when setting up new things (new infra, new files, new tools, new functions, etc). Although the time it saves is not coding time, but googling/boilerplating time. But in practice I work in a well established project where I rarely do this kind of thing (I don't think I even created a new file in the project last week).

If I am already familiar with the tool/library I almost always skip it (occasionally autocomplete is useful, but I could easily live without it). Occasionally I used for small self-contained snippets of code (usually no more than a single function). Last one I remember was some date formatting code.
by verisimi | 2025-08-11 08:56:58+00:00
This is the whole point: putting intermediaries between you and the things you think you own.

You think you own your car, phone, appliances, but actually, once this system is in place, you will effectively be on some sort of subscription contract with few traditional ownership rights, with many other parties (the car maker, government agencies) able to turn your car off remotely.

Nice and safe.
by nicbou | 2025-08-11 08:57:23+00:00
I think the main issue is that it uses monopolistic behaviour to press its advantage. It feels as if Google et al are scalping information from the actual producers.

There is also the nonconsensual aspect of it. I make things for humans. Just because it’s free for humans does not mean it’s free to be used by corporations, especially they use my work to kill the economics of my industry. It feels like a parasitic relationship.
by dandellion | 2025-08-11 08:57:58+00:00
Absolutely, yes. Even as a professional software engineer I think software should be free, and tell everybody I know to pirate software, if they can.

Imagine we discovered a way to generate almost unlimited energy for very cheap, then we told poor people if they want any they have to pay it at the same price per kilowatt hour as current energy or it's stealing. It would be morally wrong. Digital content is the same, current copyright laws are unethical.
by 9dev | 2025-08-11 08:58:03+00:00
You can hold that stance, but it completely undermines the source of income for artists or inventors. If you want a world where only rich and privileged people can afford the time to create art, this is the way to go.

Otherwise, we maybe can agree that people who make something should be eligible for some kind of compensation to encourage them to continue making, for our shared benefit.

You can argue that Beyoncé and George Clooney and Stephen King are so rich already they don’t need the money anyway, but that omits how even these people had to make a career from the bottom up on the sole premise that their focus on their art (regardless of your opinion on it) will pay the bills.

So just saying piracy isn’t theft and thus isn’t a problem is a wholly undercooked answer to a difficult problem.
by mdiesel | 2025-08-11 08:58:46+00:00
I watched the Tencent version after reading the books, and it's the first time I've been able to get properly engaged while reading subtitles.

My goto for showing the difference between the Netflix and Tencent shows is the Shi speech about bugs. It's an important moment, but the Tencent version does a much better job of conveying that.
by findthewords | 2025-08-11 09:00:40+00:00
One of two legal outcomes must follow from OpenAI's piracy.

1. OpenAI must be fined according to law.

2. Piracy is decriminalized.

Failing to do neither is an admission that the US has become a corporatocracy. That is, a form of oligarchy where the rule of law is not by a majority or plurality of people, but by a number or corporations you can count with one hand.
by skerit | 2025-08-11 09:00:41+00:00
I don't understand the example image. The description says:

> The yellow circles highlight areas of similarity between the original photo and the AI-generated photo

What about the person in the middle, doing the throwing? It's exactly the same. Why don't they have a circle around them? Why highlight some lens flares & distorted faces when the actual subject is the same? Or was this some kind of image-to-image generation?
by andersmurphy | 2025-08-11 09:00:43+00:00
Yeah, I've mostly adopted hobbit software [1]. I got tired of the endless churn for the churn gods. It does push you more towards building your own products and/or shipping end to end apps to customers (where they are more interested in the what than the how). If anything in that context you care even more about stability and maintenance.

My shire of calm is currently:

Datastar/Clojure/JVM/Sqlite/VPS/caddy

Destroy the ring, break the cycle. It's great to just focus on building stuff and solving actual problems (PHP devs have known this for a long time).

- [1] Hobbit Software

> Now thinking about creating a movement to promote "hobbit software". Pretty chill, keeps to itself, tends to its databases, hangs out with other hobbit software at the pub, broadly unbothered by the scheming of the wizards and the orcs, oblivious to the rise and fall of software empires around them.

> Oh, the Electron empire is going to war with the Reacts? Sounds ghastly, sorry to hear that. Me and the lads are off to the pub to run some cronjobs, wanna come along?

- Dave Andersoon
by orlp | 2025-08-11 09:02:19+00:00
> Non-temporal instructions don't have anything to do with correctness. They are for cache management; a non-temporal write is a hint to the cache system that you don't expect to read this data (well, address) back soon

I disagree with this statement (taken at face value, I don't necessarily agree with the wording in the OP either). Non-temporal instructions are unordered with respect to normal memory operations, so without a _mm_sfence() after doing your non-temporal writes you're going to get nasty hardware UB.
by tannhaeuser | 2025-08-11 09:02:25+00:00
Briefly looked at the vanilla repo and I really like it.

The focus seems to be on the paper the sw was published along with as mere attachment; I can get as much seeing that the doc consists of an excerpt of that paper. There's no guide on how to run a simple demo. It doesn't state license conditions. It uses tabling by default but it's Wild West in your own words ;) The canonical tabling implementation would be XSB Prolog anyway, but the sw seems to require SWI. It uses "modules" but if that is justified by code base size even, for Prolog code working on theories stored in the primary Prolog db specifically, such as ILP, this is just calling for trouble with predicate visibility and permission, and it shows in idiosyncratic code where both call(X) and user:call(X) is used.

What do you really expect from putting it on github? It's nice that you've got unit tests as you're saying but there aren't any in the repo. I'm sure the code serves its original purpose as a proof-of-concept or prototype in the context of academic discourse on the happy path well, but due to the issues I mentioned picking it up already involves nontrivial time investment when it isn't sure to save time as it stands compared to developing it from scratch based on widely available academic literature. In contrast, Aleph has test data where the authors have gone out of their way to publish reproducible results (as stated in TFA), end-user documentation, coverage in academic literature for eg. troubleshooting, a version history with five or at least two widely used versions, a small community behind or even so much as a demonstration that more than a single person could make sense of it, and a perspective for long term maintenance as an ISO port

*) Not to speak of the "modules" spec being withdrawn and considered bogus and unhelpful for a really long time now, nor of "modules" pushing Prolog as general-purpose language when the article is very much about using basic idiomatic Prolog combinatorial search for practical planning problems in the context of code generation by LLMs.

With that in mind, I was personally more interested in ILP as a complementary technique to LLM code generation.

Re ISO as I said the focus here is solving practical problems in a commercial setting with standardization as an alignment driver between newer Prolog developers/engines. You know, as opposed to people funded by public money sitting on de facto implementations for decades, which are still not great targets for LLMs. Apart from SWI this would in particular be the case for YAP Prolog which is the system Aleph was originally developed for and making use of its heuristic term indexing, which however has been in a long term refactoring spree such that it's difficult to compile on modern systems
by stereolambda | 2025-08-11 09:02:30+00:00
I would just establish that all references to "theft" and "stealing" in the realm of copyright (with the notable exception of plagiarism) is metaphor and emotional rhetoric. Historically it would come from copyright interest groups who want(ed) to use criminal police to enforce their state-granted copyright privileges[1] against regular people.

Sadly these things are often decided by rhetoric in society, but then again, there's no actual debate if it's just throwing slogans.

Now some of the same rhetoric is used in the AI battle. The only question worth asking here is what's the social benefit, as human culture is by nature all commons and derivation. But in this case, the AI companies are also accumulating power, and LLMs are removing attribution which could be argued to discourage publishing new works more than piracy. A "pirate" may learn about you and later buy from you in different ways, a LLM user won't even know that you exist.

[1] Not even discussing how exaggerated these privileges are from what would be reasonable.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-08-11 09:03:11+00:00
I completely agree of course. My reply was simply because I think it's important not to inadvertently conflate things, particularly when the issue is contentious. In this case the concepts of authoritarian and permanency, as well as the concepts of people who deny COVID, people who distrust vaccines, and people who were dissatisfied with the various government mandates.

Granted there is quite a bit of overlap among the latter trio.
by piva00 | 2025-08-11 09:03:22+00:00
I've been using SO since it first launched, and through time it has changed a lot already. It used to be simple to ask questions and get answers, when it grew and the huge influx of questions required moderation it was a nice smooth change but over time the pearl clutching of mods to mark many reasonable questions as irrelevant started to grip the usefulness.

I used to answer a lot of the basic questions just to help others as I've felt I had been helped, the moderation shift applying more and more rules started to make me feel unwelcomed to ask questions and even to answer. I do understand why it happened, with the influx of people trying to game the platform to show off in their resumés they were at the "top" of whatever buzzword was hot in the industry at the time but it still affected me as a contributing user out of kindness.

By 2018 I would not even login to vote or add comments, and I feel it was already going on a slow downhill path, and LLMs will definitely kill it.

We will definitely suffer, SO has been an incredible resource to figure out things not covered well in documentation, I remember when proper experts (i.e. maintainers of libraries/frameworks) would jump in to answer about a weird edge case, or clarify the usage of a feature, explain why it was misuse, etc.

Right now I don't see anything else that will provide this knowledge to LLMs, in 10-20 years time there will be a lot missing in training datasets, and it will be a slow degradation of knowledge available in the open for us all to learn from.
by PandaRider | 2025-08-11 09:03:53+00:00
It's not bad. Maybe 7/10.

I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).