MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Daishiman | 2025-08-21 07:48:41+00:00
This is such a tremendously biased and ignorant e reading of history it blows my mind.

Hamas is a modern creation that has nothing to do with Gaza. Gaza was a refugee camp for the displaced Palestinianas, many who came from towns torched by Jewish paramilitary forces.

To talk about Islam legitimizing attacking nonbelievers is as bigoted a statement as characterizing Judaism by the insane beliefs of the half million settlers who constantly bulldoze Palestinian towns (and act which the West refuses to call it what it is: terrorism and ethnic cleansing).

For the Palestinians and the southern Lebanese who have also been bombed by Israel, or the innocent people who die every day in Gaza, Israel is the “permanent hostile neighbor”. Hamas and Hezbollah didn’t come out of the ether.
by palata | 2025-08-21 07:48:48+00:00
> the same reason you won't sell/rent your real-world identity to other people today

If you sell your real-world identity to other people today, and they get arrested, then the police will know your identity (obviously). How does that work with a privacy-preserving scheme? If you sell your anonymous token that says that you are a human to a machine and the machine gets arrested, then the police won't be able to know who you are, right? That was the whole point of the privacy-preserving token.

I'm genuinely interested, I don't understand how it can work technically and be privacy-preserving.
by arethuza | 2025-08-21 07:49:27+00:00
Here in Edinburgh, I cancelled an Uber recently and hailed a passing black cab because it was obvious from looking at where the Uber car was that it was effectively lost - I gave up when I could see it going in a circle.

Uber is a great service but their navigation tech seems pretty bad - if I get an Uber home I have to correct the driver because the route Uber wants to take tries to go up a farm track to get to my house. I've reported this problem to Uber but they don't seem to care.

Edit: Edinburgh is a nightmare to drive in at this time of year because of the festival closing a lot of roads - but normal taxi drivers don't seem to struggle?
by rapnie | 2025-08-21 07:49:33+00:00
The bigger point I wanted to make is how pervasively small social interactions with other people are automated away all across the board. At the McDonalds you go through the menu on the monitor at the entrance, or used your mobile. No social exchange at the counter anymore. In the cinema you do the same. AI is going to break the bonds online by indirect agent intermediaries. People become isolated in small in-groups. Until in your local community you sail lonely with your family through a sea full of strangers. You probably can't talk about community anymore then. What is the societal impact of the loss of all these micro interactions? How can we have a tolerant society if we are so separate and individualist?
by fancyfredbot | 2025-08-21 07:49:35+00:00
I'd read the semi analysis article and while it's excellent as usual I don't see anything in there which says nobody RMAs defective GPUs. Perhaps there's something behind the pay wall I'd missed?

I'm not at a hyperscalar but I've been involved with deployment of A100 and H100 GPUs and we RMA GPUs which don't work. I don't think it impacted our allocations which have always seemed fine to me, but obviously it's hard to know for sure and perhaps GB200 is different.

You are right that in theory NVDA can sell everything they produce without the hyperscalars, but strategically there are many risks with acting in that way towards deep pocketed clients. They'd have to go to another customer who is likely to be less reliable. They'd put themselves on very shaky ground legally. They'd create a much stronger incentive for a deep pocketed client to become a competitor (CF trainium, TPUs). I'd be surprised if they'd take such risks to avoid what's ultimately a small cost.
by rantallion | 2025-08-21 07:50:10+00:00
> Paying with your phone is a massive improvement to convenience.

And it only gets easier when you pay with a watch - you don't even have to pull your phone out of your pocket!

My cards only come out when I'm making a large purchase that I want extra protection on (think the UK's Section 75) and these are usually purchases I know about in advance - otherwise my wallet stays at home most days.
Best workflow for quick ideation with LLMs from phone
by ImageXav | 2025-08-21 07:50:39+00:00
As per the title. I tend to travel a lot and don't often have comfortable access to my laptop. I would like to run quick, small research ideas quickly. My workflow would be:

- Ask an LLM to put together a PoC - Get the code and send it to my home PC or some cloud offering - Run and get results

Has anyone here put together a pipeline like this? I would be curious to hear thoughts on processes people have set up.
by rwyinuse | 2025-08-21 07:50:52+00:00
>> When my laptop gives me the first sign of trouble I just buy a new one.

Well, some people enjoy fixing old things. Even though I work in tech I don't get to fix physical devices at work, which means fixing them at home doesn't feel like work at all. Rather it feels like an excellent and fun way to save money for something more meaningful than buying a new router or laptop.

I have some passion for technology, but zero passion for wasting the little money I'm paid on expensive devices, which will be outdated in a couple of years anyway.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-08-21 07:51:41+00:00
This is similar to the time that ASDA (in the UK) was accused by a customer of violating the GDPR by using face detection in their self-checkouts. ASDA's statement was that the face detection was for the purpose of preventing theft (GDPR allows exceptions for the purpose of law enforcement) and that the information was not stored or used for any other purpose.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/asda-iss...
by landhar | 2025-08-21 07:51:56+00:00
> But here we're talking about a system where legitimate users (human browsers) and scrapers get the same value for every application of the work function. The cost:value ratio is unchanged; it's just that everything is more expensive for everybody. You're getting the worst of both worlds: user-visible costs and a system that favors large centralized well-capitalized clients.

Based on my own experience fighting these AI scrappers, I feel that the way they are actually implemented makes it that in practice there is asymmetry in the work scrappers have to do vs humans.

The pattern these scrappers follow is that they are highly distributed. I’ll see a given {ip, UA} pair make a request to /foo immediately followed by _hundreds_ of requests from completely different {ip, UA} pairs to all the links from that page (ie: /foo/a, /foo/b, /foo/c, etc..).

This is a big part of what makes these AI crawlers such a challenge for us admins. There isn’t a whole lot we can do to apply regular rate limiting techniques: the IPs are always changing and are no longer limited to corporate ASN (I’m now seeing IPs belonging to consumer ISPs and even cell phone companies), and the User Agents all look genuine. But when looking through the logs you can see the pattern that all these unrelated requests are actually working together to perform a BFS traversal of your site.

Given this pattern, I believe that’s what makes the Anubis approach actually work well in practice. For a given user, they will encounter the challenge once when accessing the site the first time, then they’ll be able to navigate through it without incurring any cost. While the AI scrappers would need to solve the challenge for every single one of their “nodes” (or whatever it is they would call their {ip, UA} pairs). From a site reliability perspective, I don’t even care if the crawlers manage to solve the challenge or not. That it manages to slow them down enough to rate limit them as a network is enough.

To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that the cost incurred by regular human users is still high. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is not a situation in which the cost to the adversary is not asymmetrical. It wouldn’t be if the AI crawlers hadn’t converged towards an implementation that behaves as a DDOS botnet.
by JimDabell | 2025-08-21 07:52:10+00:00
> some form of online ID attestation (likely based on government-issued ID[1]) will become normal in the next decade

I believe this is likely, and implemented in the right way, I think it will be a good thing.

A zero-knowledge way of attesting persistent pseudonymous identity would solve a lot of problems. If the government doesn’t know who you are attesting to, the service doesn’t know your real identity, services can’t correlate users, and a service always sees the same identity, then this is about as privacy-preserving as you can get with huge upside.

A social media site can ban an abusive user without them being able to simply register a new account. One person cannot operate tens of thousands of bot profiles. Crawlers can be banned once. Spammers can be locked out of email.
by simianwords | 2025-08-21 07:52:17+00:00
I agree but its about the extent. I'm willing to accept the risk of ocassionally making S3 public but getting things done much faster, much like I don't meticulously read documentation when I can get the answer from stackoverflow.

If you are comparing with stackoverflow then I guess we are on the same page - most people are fine with taking stuff from stackoverflow and it doesn't count as "brave".
by account42 | 2025-08-21 07:52:21+00:00
Browser vendors aren't maintaining the web for fee, they are for profit corporations that have chosen to take on that role for the benefits it provides to them. It's only fair that we demand that they also respect the responsibilities that come with it. And we can also point out the hollowness about complaints of hardship due to having to maintain the web's legacy when they keep making it harder for independent browser developers by adding tons on new complexity.
by alexolivier | 2025-08-21 07:52:41+00:00
Congrats to the team and Apple!

It's great to see authorization getting more attention in the mainstream developer conversation.

For folks exploring policy-based authorization solutions, we've written up a detailed comparison between Cerbos and OPA that might be helpful: https://www.cerbos.dev/blog/cerbos-vs-opa

The key differences tend to be around developer experience, policy language complexity, and deployment patterns. Both are solid open source options depending on your specific needs.

(Disclosure: I'm a cofounder of Cerbos)
by businessmate | 2025-08-21 07:53:21+00:00
Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) was an early attempt to adapt SEO for large language models, but it never solved volatility or persistence. The standard has now been archived at GeoStandard.org for historical reference. AIVO (AI Visibility Optimization) has since emerged as the framework for measuring and governing brand presence in AI outputs like ChatGPT and Gemini, focusing on citation density, entity authority, and visibility decay.
by blfr | 2025-08-21 07:53:43+00:00
> push for me to get just another account

This is such a minor complaint though. I have 1150 accounts saved in my password manager and then another 150 in my company phone/laptop. What's one more? Who even cares at this point.

Or some app I will use to adjust settings then never open again. It's like being annoyed by having dconf editor or gnome tweaks installed. Yeah, I install them, use them twice, and then forget about their existence for another two years.

There are real issues with Samsung meddling in Android for no good reason. Primarily, that their oneUI is maybe prettier but way less readable and somewhat less intuitive than stock. Secondly, that they pull random stuff unnecessarily like ext4 support on external drives. Things that just should work and they burned calories to make them worse. Some app or account just ain't it.
by Cordiali | 2025-08-21 07:55:00+00:00
You can check if there's agreement between different techniques. Tooth enamel would be a pretty trustworthy source of information, for example. It just depends on what level of confidence you want in the results.

I'm personally comfortable with a "probable" or "it's likely that" in my history docos. I'm a lot less comfortable with that standard when it comes to planes, trains, and automobiles.
by visarga | 2025-08-21 07:55:06+00:00
> I have struggled to get any of the RAG approaches to handle this effectively.

You need to annotate your text chunks. For example you can use a LLM to look over the chunks and their dates and generate metadata like summary or entities. When you run embedding the combination data+metadata will work better than data alone.

The problem with RAG is that it only sees the surface level, for example "10+10" will not embed close to "20" because RAG does not execute the meaning of the text, it only represents the surface form. Thus using LLM to extract that meaning prior to embedding is a good move.

Make the implicit explicit. Circulate information across chunks prior to embedding. Treat text like code, embed <text inputs + LLM outputs> not text alone. The LLM is how you "execute" text to get its implicit meaning.
by groaninvasion | 2025-08-21 07:55:22+00:00
AWS is always going to be a lego bricks - choose your own adventure or assemble your own stuff option for people who want to struggle with IAM policies. plus AWS VPs compete against each other, so there is no concept of the best opinionated way of doing things. just a bunch of random options with tradeoffs. might attract some nerds. nobody else
by mytailorisrich | 2025-08-21 07:55:23+00:00
It is, as often, a trade-off.

You need a high level design up-front but it should not be set in stone. Writing code and iterating is how you learn and get to a good, working design.

Heavy design specs up-front are a waste of time. Hence, the agile manifesto's "Working software over comprehensive documentation", unfortunately the key qualifier "comprehensive" is often lost along the way...

On the whole I agree that writing code is the design phase. Software dev. is design and test.
by ehnto | 2025-08-21 07:56:18+00:00
> So, if OP really thinks that no cyclist can ride more than what an average motorists drive a year, then even "but a truly tiny proportion" would appear as a surprise to them.

I said an avid cyclist, which is quite undefined so fair enough. What I meant was an enthusiast still, not a sport rider or someone you could consider an amateur athlete (many road riders).

Road riding gets you a lot of KMs and hours in the saddle too, like you said in quite a specific wear pattern. I ride for hours on my MTB and my commuter but would never come close to the hours and KMs of road riding, and I will be replacing my MTB sprocket and brake pads much sooner than my commuter.

I think we're more or less on the same page though, and since all cities and cultures are a bit different we could be talking past eachother without specifics at which point my general comments go out the window anyway.
by zaptrem | 2025-08-21 07:56:32+00:00
If people are truly concerned about the crawlers hammering their 128mb raspberry pi website then a better solution would be to provide an alternative way for scrapers to access the data (e.g., voluntarily contribute a copy of their public site to something like common crawl).

If Anubis blocked crawler requests but helpfully redirected to a giant tar ball of every site using their service (with deltas or something to reduce bandwidth) I bet nobody would bother actually spending the time to automate cracking it since it’s basically negative value. You could even make it a torrent so most of the be costs are paid by random large labs/universities.

I think the real reason most are so obsessed with blocking crawlers is they want “their cut”… an imagined huge check from OpenAI for their fan fiction/technical reports/whatever.
by simianwords | 2025-08-21 07:56:56+00:00
For those high stakes cases maybe you can be more careful. You can still use an LLM to search and get references to the appropriate place and do your own verification.

But for low stakes LLM works just fine - not everything is going to blow up to a 30,000 bill.

In fact I'll take the complete opposite stance - verifying your design with an LLM will help you _save_ money more often than not. It knows things you don't and has awareness of concepts that you might have not even read about.
by scott_w | 2025-08-21 07:58:00+00:00
> Having the agent plugged into the DB doesn't mean the agent can see everything in the DB. If that plug includes an automatic "where current user has access" filter, then the agent can't know anything the user can't know.

It depends on how it's plugged-in. If you just hand it a connection and query access then what exactly stops it? In a lot of SaaS systems, there's only the "application" user, which is restricted via queries within the API.

You can create a user in the DB per user of your application but this isn't free. Now you have the operational problem of managing your permissions, not via application logic, but subject to the rules and restrictions of your DBMS.

You can also create your own API layer on top, however this also comes with constraints of your API and adding protections on your query language.

None of this is impossible but, given what I've seen happen in the data analytics space, I can tell you that I know which option business leaders opt for.
by lopis | 2025-08-21 07:58:20+00:00
I don't personally care about top performance at all (I've been a happy user of Fairphones for several years). But as phones start doing more and more AI tasks (from camera post-processing to computer vision tasks, and now LLMs) the added processing power does make a difference in how usable and snappy the phone feels. For most users it's not about being constantly fast (like for gaming or for long AI tasks), but for being able to handle peak load more smoothly.
by voidnap | 2025-08-21 07:59:35+00:00
The proof of work isn't really the crux. They've been pretty clear about this from the beginning.

I'll just quote from their blog post from January.

https://xeiaso.net/blog/2025/anubis/

Anubis also relies on modern web browser features:

- ES6 modules to load the client-side code and the proof-of-work challenge code.

- Web Workers to run the proof-of-work challenge in a separate thread to avoid blocking the UI thread.

- Fetch API to communicate with the Anubis server.

- Web Cryptography API to generate the proof-of-work challenge.

This ensures that browsers are decently modern in order to combat most known scrapers. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

This will also lock out users who have JavaScript disabled, prevent your server from being indexed in search engines, require users to have HTTP cookies enabled, and require users to spend time solving the proof-of-work challenge.

This does mean that users using text-only browsers or older machines where they are unable to update their browser will be locked out of services protected by Anubis. This is a tradeoff that I am not happy about, but it is the world we live in now.
by torginus | 2025-08-21 08:01:05+00:00
Hi!

Thanks for coming here.

I have a question - how does the device aid in identifying in which cells have gone bad, and then do the necessary rebalancing to match the load level of the cells in the string?

Also, cell replacement is a concern in EVs that placing in a cell of different make and age to the existing ones will mean that cell will have a different charge curve to the others, making very easy for the pack to go 'out of sync' again. How do you address this issue?

You also mentioned that you spent a huge amount of time on making sure the contacts stay in place during the shaking that comes with riding a bike - which is super important as jumpy contacts could cause DC arcing which is a fire hazard.

How would you ease the concern that such a thing absolutely cannot happen?
by qwery | 2025-08-21 08:01:07+00:00
Yes, I think you're right. The commentary about its (presumed, imagined) effectiveness is very much making the assumption that it's designed to be an impenetrable wall[0] -- i.e. prevent bots from accessing the content entirely.

I think TFA is generally quite good and has something of a good point about the economics of the situation, but finding the math shake out that way should, perhaps, lead one to question their starting point / assumptions[1].

In other words, who said the websites in question wanted to entirely prevent crawlers from accessing them? The answer is: no one. Web crawlers are and have been fundamental to accessing the web for decades. So why are we talking about trying to do that?

[0] Mentioning 'impenetrable wall' is probably setting off alarm bells, because of course that would be a bad design.

[1] (Edited to add:) I should say 'to question their assumptions more' -- like I said, the article is quite good and it does present this as confusing, at least.
by baxtr | 2025-08-21 08:01:30+00:00
What I find weird is that no one has solved the "people like you also liked this" problem for ratings/reviews.

All ratings on these platforms are average values through the entire cross-section of people.

Yet I am sure that they are people who have a very similar taste like me. I want to read their reviews, see their ratings, and recommendations.

Social media platforms do that pretty well these days.
by rurban | 2025-08-21 08:01:33+00:00
> Humanity Has Stopped Producing Bad Art: After a century of trial and error, mankind has perfected the art of cinema, as proven by recent masterworks like Cats, Space Jam: A New Legacy, the live-action Snow White, Red One, and Joker: Folie à Deux. Critics, who were once joyless automatons thriving on takedowns of human creativity, now bask in this golden age of moviemaking, lavishing praise upon the timeless artistry of The Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Discovery.

This really should appear in professional film reviews.
by bob1029 | 2025-08-21 08:01:52+00:00
I think BM25 is the right path for most use cases. I'd reach for a single lucene index here, making the commit hash one of the document's indexed fields. This would make FTS across history nearly instant. I'd store it in an ignored folder right next to .git.

For code search only, BM25 might be a bit overkill and not exactly what you want. FM indexes would be a simpler and faster way to implement pure substring search.

Maybe having both kinds of search at the same time could work better than either in isolation. You could frame them as "semantic" and "exact" search from the perspective of the LLM tool calls. The prompt could then say things like "for searching the codebase use FunctionA, for searching requirements or issues, use FunctionB."
by Smaug123 | 2025-08-21 08:02:18+00:00
I disagree! I claim that most people follow rules out of a general sense of fair play rather than because they will be punished for not doing so. Certainly this is true of me, and I don't believe society would look the way it does if the cynical view were nearly universally correct.

Cheaters in games like Magic are very rare; if most people tried to cheat whenever they thought they could get away with it, we'd be forced to set up competitions with more stringent verifiable rules like (off the top of my head) "all cards must be drawn and given to you from your deck by the opponent". We haven't done that, so I infer that most people don't try to cheat.

(In your favour, I do concede that everyone writes down their individual understanding of the history of a given chess game; but there are weak instrumental reasons for that even if people aren't cheating, because it is possible to upset a board by accident.)