MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sudohalt | 2025-08-18 17:45:34+00:00
This is click-bait. All foundational AI companies have to do this. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel, someone needs to set the guardrails. How else is a model supposed to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. From a technical perspective there is no difference between "making meth" and "making a cupcake" both are just bytes in bytes out. At what point does something become inappropriate? When is the model crossing the line? These are all problems that someone has to decide.
by Tade0 | 2025-08-18 17:46:13+00:00
I remember being able to read the timer on the other end of the subway station(120m) in my city, so in low light conditions at that. The numbers were maybe 20cm in height.

In my case it's not even the defect itself, but the associated astigmatism. For a long time I was unaware of the issue because it started in one eye, so the other compensated until it couldn't.

Now I get around two weeks of perfect vision upon getting a new glasses prescription and it's back to "normal".
by Bender | 2025-08-18 17:46:28+00:00
Mains power is dirty. Having a data center without line condition on mains would be insane.

Agreed. Even my home computer and networking equipment is 100% in-line with inverters and never see commercial power. PG&E in California got me into this habit with all the Planned Safety Power Shutoffs, wildfires, surges from really old transformers and unplanned outages. Now each of my tiny indoor rings of power have 200 to 800 amp-hour capacity each and over-sized inverters. I put the whole-house inverter plans on hold for now.
by _Algernon_ | 2025-08-18 17:46:47+00:00
I mean the main reason is that robots.txt is pointless these days.

When it was introduced, the web was largely collaborative project within the academic realm. A system based on the honor system worked for the most part.

These days the web is adversarial through and through. A robots.txt file seems like an anachronistic, almost quaint museum piece, reminding us of what once was, while we stoop head first into tech feudalism.
by jawns | 2025-08-18 17:47:07+00:00
Is a person not allowed to put up a "no trespassing" sign on their land unless they have a reason that makes sense to would-be trespassers?

I know that ignoring a robots.txt file doesn't carry the same legal consequences as trespassing on physical land, but it's still going against the expressed wishes of the site owner.

Sure, you can argue that the site owner should restrict access using other gates, just as you might argue a land owner should put up a fence.

But isn't this a weird version of Chesterton's Fence, where a person decides that they will trespass beyond the fenced area because they can see no reason why the area should be fenced?
by testdelacc1 | 2025-08-18 17:47:46+00:00
Is the difference that the reference follows the implementation whereas the implementation would follow the spec if it existed?

In that case, I agree that the spec is different from the reference they’re building.

To try and understand where you’re coming from, you want the development of Rust to be similar to C++, where a group of people decide the spec and afterwards implementations implement the spec?
by loph | 2025-08-18 17:47:51+00:00
Thanks. I'll stick to a walkie-talkie. FRS radios are cheap, easily obtainable, and will work as far or farther than this 915 MHz stuff.

If you get into deep shit, some amateur FM handy-talkies are IMHO more likely to be able to get you help. Or perhaps T-Mobile's T-Satellite service if you are headed somewhere really remote.

Unpopular opinion: Meshtastic is a solution in search of a problem.
by skeaker | 2025-08-18 17:48:07+00:00
As they should. Never once have I seen any good outcome of ads on the web.

On the user end:

- People click scam download buttons or fake links and are blasted with scams or malware.

- Nobody I know has ever, not once, purchased something from an ad and been happy with it. The one person I know who did purchase something from a Facebook ad got scammed.

- The actual content people want to watch is delayed or interrupted by constant nonsense that they will never engage with.

So already there is absolutely no incentive as an end user to want ads. Then over on the content creator end:

- Because they work through clicks, ads generate a ton of bad incentives to make divisive content or just otherwise harmful content. See Elsagate for one way this manifests.

- For honest creators who make genuinely good and creative works, ads harm them by consistently underpaying them. Only the very absolute peak of content creators make a livable wage from ads alone. See the rise of Patreon and other such subscription methods that they have had to rely on to get away from ad revenue dependency.

- Ads also harm honest creators by incentivizing bad actors to steal their work, either by direct reuploads on various platforms or by simple plagiarism. See any Facebook page for stolen content or the whole James Somerton expose that happened a couple years ago for the plagiarism bit.
by tim333 | 2025-08-18 17:48:12+00:00
The house two down from my mums kept having cars crash through the garden wall and into the garden. They fixed it with speed bumps and a junction redesign as two mini roundabouts. View of them from near where the crashes were https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sun+Ln,+Harpenden+AL5+4H...

before it was just a crossroads. The tree in the road wasn't there - you could blast straight through if you didn't crash. Must have reduced crashes 10x.
by bpcrd | 2025-08-18 17:48:43+00:00
We've actually deployed to several Tier 1 banks and large enterprises already for various use-cases (verification, fraud detection, threat intelligence, etc.). The feedback that we've gotten so far is that our technology is high accuracy and a useful signal.

In terms of how our technology works, our research team has trained multiple detection models to look for specific visual and audio artifacts that the major generative models leave behind. These artifacts aren't perceptible to the human eye / ear, but they are actually very detectable to computer vision and audio models.

Each of these expert models gets combined into an ensemble system that weighs all the individual model outputs to reach a final conclusion.

We've got a rigorous process of collecting data from new generators, benchmarking them, and retraining our models when necessary. Often retrains aren't needed though, since our accuracy seems to transfer well across a given deepfake technique. So even if new diffusion or autoregressive models come out, for example, the artifacts tend to be similar and are still caught by our models.

I will say that our models are most heavily benchmarked on convincing audio/video/image impersonations of humans. While we can return results for items outside that scope, we've tended to focus training and benchmarking on human impersonations since that's typically the most dangerous risk for businesses.

So that's a caveat to keep in mind if you decide to try out our Developer Free Plan.
by suddenlybananas | 2025-08-18 17:49:06+00:00
> The number of Vikings from Scandinavia who went to Rus, served in the near east, then returned to Scandinavia then invaded England (carrying their loot with them all the way) can’t have been many.

I really don't find this that unbelievable, especially when you consider that booty brought back from the Near East could be traded locally by Scandinavians. So it just takes one guy looting the Muslim world for the silver to make it to Scandinavia and then England.
by Jtsummers | 2025-08-18 17:49:52+00:00
abs(x) >= 1 and abs(x) <= 3

Is also unidiomatic in Python.

1 <= abs(x) <= 3

Means the same thing and tightens it up a bit, and reads better since it's indicating that you're testing if something is in a range more clearly.

EDIT: To add:

The filter, list construction, and len aren't needed either. It's just:

sum(map(predicate, diffs)) # this counts the number of elements in diffs which satisfy predicate, map is lazy so no big memory overhead

Or alternatively:

sum(predicate(diff) for diff in diffs)

The predicate is complex enough and used twice, so it warrants extraction to its own named function (or lambda assigned to a variable), but even if it were still embedded this form would be slightly clearer (along with adding the line breaks and removing the extra list generations):

sum(map(lambda line: all(1 <= abs(x) <= 3 for x in line) and (all(x > 0 for x in line) or all(x < 0 for x in line)), diffs))
by 9rx | 2025-08-18 17:49:55+00:00
What is representative, though, is simple use: All you have to do is use chat to see how awful it is.

It is better than nothing. It is arguably the best we have right now to make use of the technology. But, unless this is AI thing is all hype and goes nowhere, smart minds aren't going to sit idle as progression moves towards maturity.
by CJefferson | 2025-08-18 17:50:21+00:00
I find it particularly useful when I would need to look up lots of library functions I don't remember. For example, in python I recently did something (just looked it up:

for ever my file in directory 'd' ending '.capture': Read file Split every line into A=B:C Make a dictionary send A to [B,C] Return a list of pairs [filename, dict from filename]

I don't python enough to remember reading all files in a directory, or splitting strings. I didn't even bother proof reading the English (as you can see)
by Sanzig | 2025-08-18 17:50:53+00:00
Ugh. Yeah, this misses the point: not everyone wants their content archived. Of course, there are no feasible technical means to prevent this from happening, so robots.txt is a friendly way of saying "hey, don't save this stuff." Just because theres no technical reason you can't archive doesn't mean that you shouldn't respect someone's wishes.

It's a bit like going to a clothing optional beach with a big camera and taking a bunch of photos. Is what you're doing legal? In most countries, yes. Are you an asshole for doing it? Also yes.
by kbolino | 2025-08-18 17:51:09+00:00
No, we're talking about games with invasive anti-cheating mechanisms.

The proposed alternative was to just have "community servers where cheaters get banned" -- and I responded specifically to the "cheaters get banned" part. Yeah, if you could just ban cheaters forever, all would be well! But you can't, not at scale and not forever, at least. It's an ongoing, sizable problem.

You talk about "once or twice [...] a day" when the reality for major games is more like thousands of cheaters each trying thousands of times.

A lot of things that work just fine for small groups and niche interests utterly fail to scale to large groups and popular interests. When your scope of vision is the entire game--like it would be for the company making the game--something like "just have the cheaters go bother a different set of players each time they get banned from one server" is not a solution. In fact, it's a terrible practice that could destroy the reputation of your game.

Of course, community servers exist and work fine for many (esp. niche/older) games. Also, invasive anti-cheat gets applied even to some games where it's not really needed, and sometimes gets conflated (whether by players or game companies) with invasive DRM. However, the majority of games that have invasive anti-cheat requirements cannot simply remove the requirement, pass off the company's (usually paid!) moderation duties to a bunch of volunteers, and call it a day. Though, that may be an acceptable thing to do at the end of the game's ordinary life, instead of just shutting it down.
by gls2ro | 2025-08-18 17:51:35+00:00
Trying to understand this and please correct me if I am wrong:

A is producing something of value 100. That is complex to configure so B comes along and they say: Buy from me at 150 and you will get both the product and the configuration.

C comes and say: there are multiple products like this so I created a marketplace where I do some offering that in the end will cost you 160 but you can switch providers whenever you want.

Now I am a customer of C and I buy at 160: C gets 160 retains 10 but total revenue is 160 B gets 150 retains 50 but total revenue is 150 A gets the 100

Here is the question: How big is GDP in this case?

I think it is 160.

Now A adds LLM for about 4 extra that can do what B and C can (allegedly) removing the intermediaries and so now the GDP is 104.

Am I wrong with this?
by viridian | 2025-08-18 17:51:38+00:00
This post is sort a pot and kettle situation, as you also write in a highly emotionally charged way.

The sub-clause "you're one of those dishonest people that resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" alone laden with emotionally manipulative affect that this reads like a self-referential example.

"You're one of those" is a phrase often, and certainly in this case, used for the purposes of othering.

"dishonest people" speaks for itself.

"resorts to emotional manipulation to try to get their way" assumes bad faith on behalf of somebody you barely know.

There's a lot I agree with on in your post, but the irony doesn't exactly stop with jodrellblank.
by grepfru_it | 2025-08-18 17:51:59+00:00
Heating your house/cooking/bathing etc during this time put extraordinary strain on the grid. A big reason why others did not have power is because those that did did not reduce their consumption by much. So many of my neighbors/friends/collegues made comments like "we didn't lose power, so we kept the heat cranking at 75". So it would make sense that load shedding primarily affected neighborhoods, but my recollection of the events from people who lived near emergency centers was use it up before it goes away.
by crazygringo | 2025-08-18 17:52:00+00:00
The productivity paradox isn't disputed by any mainstream economists. What is debated is its exact timing, size, and exactly which parts of businesses are most responsible (i.e. was eventual growth mostly about computers improving existing processes, or computers enabling brand-new processes like just-in-time supply chains)? The underlying concept is generally considered sound and uncontroversial.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. It seems like you're complaining that CapEx costs are higher in GenAI than they were in personal computing? But lots of industries have high CapEx. That's what investors are for.

The only point I've made is that "95% of organizations are getting zero return" is to be expected in the early days of a new technology, and that the personal computer is a reasonable analogy here. The subject here is companies that use the tech, not companies creating the tech. The investment model behind the core tech has nothing to do with the profitability of companies trying to use it or build on it. The point is that it takes a lot of time and trial and error to figure out how to use a new tech profitably, and we are currently in very early days of GenAI.
by brokensegue | 2025-08-18 17:52:03+00:00
i think you're missing some key information. the warcs do not just contain the location header information. and their methods are fully public/open source so scenario 1 makes no sense.

sure maybe the warcs will be unlocked at some point in the future. this is a fairly small volunteer effort. i doubt there is some "unlock in 100 years" feature on IA.
by motorest | 2025-08-18 17:52:06+00:00
> Is this seriously quicker than just writing in a language that you know?

Yes. Well, it depends.

Most of the prompts specifying requirements and constraints can be reused, so you don't need to reinvent the wheel each time you prompt a LLM to do something. The same goes for test suites: you do not need to recreate a whole test suite whenever you touch a feature. You can even put together prompt files for specific types of task, such as extending test coverage (as in, don't touch project code and only append unit tests to the existing set) or refactoring work (as in, don't touch tests and only change project code)

Also, you do not need to go for miracle single-shot sessions, or purist all-or-nothing prompts. A single prompt can fill in most of the code you require to implement a feature,and nothing prevents you from tweaking the output.

It is seriously quicker because people like you and me use LLMs to speed up how the boring stuff is implemented. Guides like this are important to share some lessons on how to get LLMs to work and minimize drudge work.
by jjk166 | 2025-08-18 17:52:11+00:00
> It was falling at a stable pace for 20 years in nominal terms.

It was not. Look at the chart: https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...

Between 1984 and 1996, 131 of the 156 months were within $50 of the average nominal price, and the lowest point, December 1984, was only $89 below the average. In particular from 1993 to 1996 the price was never more than $10 off average. If you bought gold in July 1979, which was an all time high at the time, the nominal value of your gold never decreased.

Looking at the inflation adjusted numbers there is much more volatility, but again, the value of gold in Jan 1989 was the same as the value of gold in Jan 1979. If you happened to buy gold during its peak in Jan 1980, you wouldn't see an inflation adjusted profit until October 2024.

Gold is not generally a good asset to hold to make money, but that's not what is under discussion here. The question is can the value of gold be used as a proxy for inflation. Gold going up is like smelling smoke - you know there is a fire. I am not arguing that inhaling large quantities of smoke is the best way to protect yourself during a fire.
by SimianSci | 2025-08-18 17:52:31+00:00
If efforts like this are to be sustainable in any lasting way, participants need to be cooperative, not parasitic. I agree with the Anna's Archive team, it serves noone to have one of these players in the space hoarding their own collections and not sharing them to other archiving projects, it make the collection extremely vulnerable and at risk of becoming lost knowledge as time goes on.
by KronisLV | 2025-08-18 17:54:12+00:00
> Not if you have the right fingerprint - then you're not even aware the site is using CF.

I live in Eastern Europe, so for reasons beyond me that's never the case.

Either way, if I have to stare at something, I'd very much like to understand what it is: the difference between a CMD window popping up when you start your computer for a split second, vs it sticking around and you seeing that it's AMDAutoUpdate that you can track down to scheduled tasks and "C:\Program Files\AMD\AutoUpdate\AMDAutoUpdate.exe".
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-08-18 17:54:55+00:00
> Who cares if it is low effort?

It's a weird thing to wonder after so many people expressed their dislike of the upthread low-effort comment with a down vote (and then another voiced a more explicit opinion). The point is that a reader may want to know that the text they're reading is something a human took the time to write themselves. That fact is what makes it valuable.

> pncnmnp seems happy

They just haven't commented. There is no reason to attribute this specific motive to that fact.
by nottorp | 2025-08-18 17:55:03+00:00
Exactly. You only write code sequentially when it's a new file.

If i decide to add a new field to some class, i won't necessarily go to the class definition first, I'll probably write the code using that field because that's where the IDE was when i got the idea.

If I want to enhance some condition checking, i'll go through a phase where the piece of code isn't valid while I'm rearranging ifs and elses.
by WASDAai | 2025-08-18 17:55:10+00:00
The Right Kind of “Control” When we talk about taking control, we’re not talking about bossing others around or power-tripping. It’s about reclaiming authorship of your own life — being the one holding the pen in your daily story. Everyone naturally deserves this kind of control: the freedom to make choices and guide situations, rather than always reacting. In fact, nobody likes being micromanaged or dominated, but everybody appreciates a bit of guidance and respect. Think of it as being the navigator of a road trip, not a tyrant at the wheel. You set a direction, but everyone enjoys the ride. Read more in the Article.
by 10000truths | 2025-08-18 17:55:38+00:00
If you're assuming that every tenant's block device is storing a filesystem, then you're not providing your tenant a block device, you're providing your tenant a filesystem. And if you're providing them a filesystem, then you should use something like LVM for dynamic partitioning.

The point of NVMe namespaces is to partition at the block device layer. To turn one physical block device into multiple logical block devices, each with their own queues, LBA space, etc. It's for when your tenants are interacting with the block device directly. That's not a hack, that's intended functionality.
by knome | 2025-08-18 17:56:01+00:00
given this is from a group determined to copy and archive your data with or without your permission, their opinions on the usefulness of ROBOTS.TXT seem kind of irrelevant. of course they aren't going to respect it. they see themselves as 'rogue digital archivists', and being edgy and legally rather grey is part of their self-image. they're going to back it up, regardless of who says they can't.

for the rest of the net, ROBOTS.TXT is still often used for limiting the blast radius of search engines and bot crawl-delays and other "we know you're going to download this, please respect these provisions" type situations, as a sort of gentlemen's agreement. the site operator won't blackhole your net-ranges if you abide their terms. that's a reasonably useful thing to have.
by Sesse__ | 2025-08-18 17:56:47+00:00
Hard disagree. I'd like word processors to not need ten seconds just to start up. I'd like chat clients not to use _seconds_ to echo my message back to me. I'd like news pages that don't empty my mobile data cap just by existing. All of these are “non-performance critical”, but I'd _love_ for them to focus on performance.
by cbm-vic-20 | 2025-08-18 17:56:47+00:00
I've been getting Otter AI ads on the various ad-supported streaming services I watch. The ad shows a scenario where a couple of people are tapped for a last-minute meeting, but they've got other things to attend to (lunch, PTO), and they just have Otter sit in their place in the meeting.

I may be a dinosaur, but I was shocked at how casual they made this look (I know, it's just an ad), but I would be fired almost instantly at $ENTERPRISE if I did this. I almost looks like it's designed for corporate espionage.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-08-18 17:56:52+00:00
Great post. Minor quibble: the data shows fast DC charging does not have a material impact on battery pack health longevity.

TLDR These batteries are going to outlast the vehicle chassis.

Full Speed Ahead: EV Study Reveals Impacts of Fast Charging - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37330024 - August 2023
by jmort | 2025-08-18 17:57:13+00:00
I think we should have an opt-out standard via a subsonic signal, like DO NOT TRACK in browsers. Then, it's on the vendors to intentionally ignore a clear signal.

To that end, I've been working on opening sourcing https://dontrecord.me as a side project. Putting together a fork of Whisper that will follow the opt-out signal, too. If anyone one wants to help, please connect.