MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by komali2 | 2025-08-17 15:23:43+00:00
> The demonstrators being peaceful, singing and praying.

I never advocated against peaceful protest. You are describing the protest ideology I subscribe to, as described in the new version of The Anarchist Cookbook by the founders of Food Not Bombs: https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html

However:

https://tminstituteldf.org/police-and-protests-the-inequity-...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/20/nypd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incide...

https://www.amnestyusa.org/aiusa-documents-police-violence-a...

Police in the USA beat peaceful protestors. Here's a picture of them pepper spraying students that are sitting down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident...

"Treating police like they're human beings" gets you beat in the USA. I am an advocate for peaceful protest, I'm just warning people - you will probably get shot with tear gas or bean bags or plastic bullets if you participate, and you might lose an eye or die as a result. I won't lie to people about this reality. Americans should still resist this rising fascism, but they should go with both eyes open (behind safety goggles).

> This shouldn't have any effect on a judgement. Can you seriously be convicted for such nebulous crimes in the USA?

Yes, you can be arrested and convicted of "resisting arrest," this happens to people who lawfully film police all the time. They are given an unlawful order, question it on camera, are arrested, and then because the cops have no crime to accuse them of, accuse them of "resisting arrest," and the judge agrees during probable cause determination. It's easier to get the probable cause determination if you say anything about your political opinions, which the type of people who film cops often can't help themselves from doing. And yes, that includes "tendency to disrespect authority." I've personally witnessed this happen to protest observers, though I'm too tired to dig through court docs and find examples.

I understand that you don't want America to be this way, or are in disbelief perhaps that it's that bad, but that is my whole point for sharing these stories - you're not the only one surprised that it's this bad! It's this bad. Don't come to America and if you do, don't talk to cops!!!!
by veidr | 2025-08-17 15:24:06+00:00
Yeah, but it's not a big bet. Deno can do it, Bun can do it, if they die a tragic VC-fueled death then somebody else (maybe Node) can do it. Using Bun to me is just like using a microwave oven in 1980 — there weren't a lot of microwavable convenience foods yet, but you could sure heat up some leftovers more conveniently and quickly.
by samwillis | 2025-08-17 15:24:08+00:00
Web workers don't share memory (other than SAB) with the main thread, they are far from traditional threads. These APIs are designed the way they are to protect end users, stop sites from consuming resources or bad code blocking the main thread. None of that is needed to be that way on the server. There is zero reason that a JS implementation cannot implement proper threads within the same memory space. The issue is that all js engines are derived from the browser where that isn't wanted, they simply don't have support for it. Traditional threads need careful use,

Nowhere did I say that full, or even any, compatibility with Node is needed - it isn't.

We need to stop conflating JS the language with the runtimes.

A JS runtime absolutely can get by without a GC, you just never dealloc and consume indefinitely. That doesn't change any semantics of the language, if a value/object is inaccessible, it's inaccessible...

An arena allocator provides a route to say embedding a js-to-native app in a single threaded web server like Nginx, you don't need to share memory between what in effect become "isolates".
by simianwords | 2025-08-17 15:24:18+00:00
That’s crazy! Who said lying is not risky for companies?

You need to build brand trust when there is a lot of competition especially in the case of self driving where safety is of maximum concern. People are already skeptical and would look out for signals on such things.

You can’t keep things hidden for too long - word would spread that some cars are actually unsafe.

In general it is simply more simple and sustainable to not lie. Some times things fall through the cracks and you get problems like you see on Tesla.
by gruez | 2025-08-17 15:24:49+00:00
>You are saying we are going to see similar reports for Linux when using these parts?

The linux install base is orders of magnitude smaller than windows, so there's less of a chance that it gets picked up by tech media. Moreover if it's really an issue with the underlying hardware itself, a more technical user base would be able to trace the issue to the actual hardware, rather than going straight to social media with "ZOMG windows update bricked my PC!"

>Why did it started happening after a windows update then?

Some sort of code change that changes the behavior of the drive, but is technically within spec.

>And why did it need a patch?

Because putting in a patch doesn't imply you're at fault. The linux kernel is filled with workarounds for crappy hardware as well. The existence of those workarounds don't imply linux was somehow at fault for those bugs.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-08-17 15:25:17+00:00
So... WD/SanDisk only tested the SN770’s firmware with then-contemporary Windows, different behaviour from Linux/ZoL led to breakage, and now Windows too has changed its behaviour enough to expose the breakage?

(I’m still wondering if the successor, SN7100, is affected, as it’s not mentioned in that thread either way. The upmarket DRAMful SN850X seems not to be affected.)

Or not? The bug here looks different from that one, which the same outlet reported on[1] earlier.

[1] https://www.neowin.net/news/wd-ssds-still-block-windows-11-2...
by techpineapple | 2025-08-17 15:25:29+00:00
One thing I think is weird in the debate is it seems people are equating LLMs with CPU’s, this whole category of devices that process and calculate and can have infinite architecture and innovation. But what if LLMs are more like a specific implementation like DSP’s, sure lots of interesting ways to make things sound better, but it’s never going to fundamentally revolutionize computing as a whole.
by toast0 | 2025-08-17 15:25:36+00:00
> Also is this an actual problem that users are really having, or is it perceived because some benchmark / speedtest gave you a score.

The actual problem is I'm on a voip call and someone starts a big download (steam) and latency and jitter go to hell and the call is unusable. Bufferbloat test confirms that latency dramatically increases under load. Or same call but someone starts uploading something big.

If troublesome buffers are at the last mile connection and the ISP provides a modem/router, adding QoS limiting downloads and uploads to about 90% of the acheived physical connection will avoid the issue. The buffers are still too big, but they won't fill under normal conditions, so it's not a problem. You could still fill the buffers if there's a big flow that doesn't use effective congestion control, or a large enough number of flows so that the minimum send rate is still too much; or when the physical connection rate changes, but good enough. Many ISPs do this, and so you hear a lot less complaining about bufferbloat on say Comcast these days; also, this is an effective best practice, so less need for papers, reports and case studies... it's a matter of getting the practices in the wild and maybe figuring out how to do it better for wireless systems with rapidly changing rates.

Otherwise, ISP visibility can be limited. Not all equipment will report on buffer use, and even if it does, it may not report on a per port basis, and even then, the timing of measurement might miss things. What you're looking for is a 'standing buffer' where a port always has at least N packets waiting and the buffer does not drain for a meaningful amount of time. Ideally, you'd actually measure the buffer length in milliseconds, rather than packets, but that's asking a lot of the equipment.

There's a balance to be met as well. Smaller buffers mean packet drops, which is appropriate when dealing with standing buffers; but too small of buffers leads to problems if your flows are prone to 'micro bursts', lots of packets at once potentially on many flows, and then calm for a while. It's better to have room to buffer those.
by GuB-42 | 2025-08-17 15:26:15+00:00
Most quick jokes in French are puns in some way, including the famous "blagues Carambar".

For those who don't know, Carambar is a brand of candy where the wrapper contains a joke. Always regarded a terrible, we love them anyways. Similar to dad jokes in English.

The longer the joke, the less it tends to rely on puns. You don't hear puns very often in stand up comedy for instance.
by appease7727 | 2025-08-17 15:26:33+00:00
LinkedIn has the single worst search function out of any job board or website in general I've ever seen. It's astonishingly bad.

The only hit I got from LinkedIn applications turned me down because the CEO didn't think I had enough activity on LinkedIn.

Frankly that's a huge red flag. If you're concerned about how a potential engineer looks on LinkedIn, you probably don't know or care what an actually good and skilled employee looks like.
by jeffbee | 2025-08-17 15:27:39+00:00
Fun post. One unmentioned parameter is the LBA format being used. Most devices come from the factory configured for 512B, so you can boot NetWare or some other dumb compatibility concern. But there isn't a workload from this century where this makes sense, so it pays to explore the performance impact of the LBA formats your device offers. Using a larger one can mean your device manages io backlogs more efficiently.
by overfeed | 2025-08-17 15:28:38+00:00
> I don't really see other usage of this

My hot-take: this is the future of high-fidelity prompt-based image generation, and not diffusion models. Cycles (or any other physically based renderer) is superior to diffusion models because it is not probabilistic, so scene generation via LLM before handing to off to a tool leads to superior results, IMO - at least for "realistic" outputs.
by nradov | 2025-08-17 15:29:07+00:00
It's at least mostly BS. Researchers have found certain genes which have a weak statistical correlation with high IQ but the mechanism of action is unknown. And it's not an additive thing: the interactions and relationships between individual genes must play some role but that has barely been studied at all. There's no guarantee that an embryo with those genes will grow up to be intelligent, or that they won't have other problems. But there's enough "dumb money" in Silicon Valley to provide a customer base of insecure suckers for these startups.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/silicon-valley-high-iq-children-...
by skappapab | 2025-08-17 15:29:31+00:00
> So how can it be legal/ethical for them to sign a contract to get a credit card or a mortgage if they literally cannot understand it?

It’s not. Part of being fair and equitable is simply acknowledging we can’t hold everyone to the same standard. One day we’ll look at all this schooling, etc as the equivalent of trying to train people to grow taller.

I’d argue you can’t be a good ruler if you don’t acknowledge these limitations of your citizens. I’d have to dig it up but there was a wealthy slave owner during reconstruction who basically expressed (via personal letter) his concern freed slaves would become a permanent underclass if held to the same expectations as the rest of society. Given the current state of things, it’s a fairly impressive prediction.

I don’t say this to attract downvotes but from a genuine position of creating a society that is safe and plentiful for all. We need to create new systems and expectations (that will be disparate in their application and impact). And no, they don’t have to be explicitly “racist”.

Refusing to acknowledge these limitations is akin to neglect and despite all the emotional signaling ultimately harmful and preventing real progress.
by amluto | 2025-08-17 15:30:21+00:00
I should perhaps clarify. Filling the pipe with air is unhelpful. The pump (or at least the wet part of the pump) on the surface is actively counterproductive — pumps are much, much, much better at producing high output pressure than at producing suction, and you can’t suck very hard on water anyway until it boils.

Almost all modern “deep well” pumps are at the bottom of the well, and a 50 foot well is “deep” for this purpose.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-08-17 15:32:05+00:00
My wife used Angie's List to find some really good, honest contractors.

Many years ago, when it was still fairly new.

I'd never recommend Angie's List, these days, though. It's pure garbage.

She also used to rely on Amazon reviews.

Again, it's a dumpster fire, these days. Absolutely worthless.
by erikerikson | 2025-08-17 15:33:07+00:00
A term of use for your son is twice exceptional. The GP is correct about the theoretical basis of the tests. Note the use of "tend" in the quote. Even those who fit that better tend to have differential strengths so that has shown to be too simple. Over time the models of intelligence have complected adding EQ (emotional quotient), SQ (social q...), and so on but IQ was first, continues to be considered useful in some ways even as it's also been considered an oppression by some.
by LeftHandPath | 2025-08-17 15:33:57+00:00
The posts I see most often on LinkedIn are ones that try to capture a trope of "flipping expectations" that people associate with great business people. Silly, inane conclusions are made about everyday events so that people who are startlingly mediocre can cling to them as a differentiating factor.

Basic politeness is sold as the secret hack to become the next Steve Jobs. Boasts of frugality are made and used to explain why the poster will inevitably become ultra-rich (no avocado toast, no lattes!). HR people explaining the mostly arbitrary reasons they passed over anonymous candidates, seeking to be seen as oracles of career success. Tech people saying "Ten things that separate junior developers from seniors" and then citing meaningless things like the modulo and ternary operators, or the poster's personal favorite whitespace style.

Realistic advice is hard to find, probably because it's so general in its best form that material would run out quickly. I think of Rob Dahm's old video where he suggested, Lamborghini in the background, to "Find something that you're so good at it feels like you're cheating." Or a quote from Kurt Vonnegut's player piano, "Nobody's so damn well educated that you can't learn ninety per cent of what he knows in six weeks. The other ten per cent is decoration... Almost nobody's competent, Paul. It's enough to make you cry to see how bad most people are at their jobs. If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."
by ingloriousB | 2025-08-17 15:34:02+00:00
For related, I would list two papers. If you really want to understand these algorithms, start with these two:

1) https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/pubs.html#time-clocks

Lamport's 1978 "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System". The Raft dissertation never really explains why using a logical clock is the critical, central thing. It just glosses over it.

And then read Lampson's 1996 "How to Build a Highly Available System Using Consensus". It will teach you how to prove equivalence of your variation back to an established, proven model. It is very clearly written.

2)https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
by raincole | 2025-08-17 15:34:03+00:00
Of course no one knows the future, but I think it's very plausible that the future of films/games (especially games) tech resembles something like this:

1. Generation something that looks good in 2D latent space

2. Generation 3D representation from 2D

3. Next time the same scene is shown on the screen, reuse information from step 2 to guide step 1
by toolslive | 2025-08-17 15:34:48+00:00
What bothers me most is how "fake" it all is. I've seen companies upholding an image of success while they are scraping by and leave a wake of unpaid invoices. Companies with fake job posts that keep on getting recycled (clicking "report this job" does not help at all) aso aso. It's sort of a parallel universe where everything is nice and dandy... sort of a Barbie universe.
by ramses0 | 2025-08-17 15:34:58+00:00
There was a book written a few years back that I haven't read but might answer some of these questions. "We Were Yahoo!: From Internet Pioneer to the Trillion Dollar Loss of Google and Facebook" https://a.co/d/9SuUXIn

I'll throw out Mr. Hedger Wang from Yahoo! as my nominee, he basically had the IE6 browser renderer in his head, and even though I never worked with him directly, just being able to ping on Y!M was an incredible help.

What made it special (2010-timeframe) was that we would do without thought what other companies struggled to do at that time (hot-hot failover, multi-region, "3 machine minimum" deployments), processing traffic for ~500M monthly users when spinning rust and 32gb of ram was considered "a lot".

My perspective on what happened is reeeally smart people solved really tough problems, then would either bail to Google (and later FB) to write the "v2.0" and solve those same problems but "better" or they'd go and start a full-blown company to sell that solution.

The tide rose around Yahoo! and both business-wise (and tech-wise), they didn't keep pace once their competitive advantage of "we can scale" dissipated.
by ComputerGuru | 2025-08-17 15:35:06+00:00
Lots of negativity in this thread; let me offer a bit of positivity to contrast!

The project homepage is awesome, it's a mix between a throwback to retro documentation (with ascii charts) and a console out of godbolt: https://porffor.dev/

The hangup on lack of GC is probably unnecessarily overwrought, WasmGC is pretty much here and there will be an entire ecosystem of libraries providing JS GC semantics for WASM compilers that this compiler can tap into (actually implementing the backend/runtime GC support is fairly trivial for baseline support).
by ericalexander0 | 2025-08-17 15:36:06+00:00
Security people will argue forever “defense in depth” this, “real world doesn’t match the study” that. Yawn.

Here’s the hard truth: cybersecurity today is basically fashion. It’s not science, it’s herd behavior. The industry is still running on the “nobody gets fired for buying IBM” mentality. Careers aren’t built on being right, they’re built on chasing whatever tool is trending on LinkedIn this quarter.

If studies like this mattered, then the security community would have paid attention to this study long ago:

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2005/1/fostering-email-secu...
by alsetmusic | 2025-08-17 15:36:19+00:00
I similarly contribute only minor language and writing corrections to Wikipedia, and usually anonymously (unless my phone has randomly pulled a blocked IP and I need to sign in). I don’t consider myself enough of an expert in any Wiki-worthy topic to do anything more, but I’ll make damn sure small mistakes get addressed.

I feel even less qualified to contribute corrections on GitHub mostly for the same reasons mentioned above. Staying anonymous prevents anyone from thinking I’m attempting to capitalize on low hanging fruit.
by gchamonlive | 2025-08-17 15:36:36+00:00
> if it's really an issue with the underlying hardware itself, a more technical user base would be able to trace the issue to the actual hardware, rather than going straight to social media with "ZOMG windows update bricked my PC!"

So what you are saying is that users went "ZOMG windows update bricked my PC!" And that prompted the article?

> Because putting in a patch doesn't imply you're at fault

If you designed a system for certain range of hardware, your latest update broke that design and you had to go back and put a patch, I'd say it's pretty much Microsoft at fault here, even though your comment is right
by ziofill | 2025-08-17 15:37:02+00:00
Mmh, this is a bit sloppy. The derivative of a function f::a -> b is a function Df::a -> a -o b where the second funny arrow indicates a linear function. I.e. the derivative Df takes a point in the domain and returns a linear approximation of f (the jacobian) at that point. And it’s always the jacobian, it’s just that when f is R -> R we conflate the jacobian (a 1x1 matrix in this case) with the number inside of it.
by Kim_Bruning | 2025-08-17 15:37:26+00:00
Ethology (~comparative psychology) started with 'beware anthropomorphization' as a methodological principle. But a century of research taught us the real lesson: animals do think, just not like humans. The scientific rigor wasn't wrong - but the conclusion shifted from 'they don't think' to 'they have their own ways of thinking.' We might be at a similar inflection point with AI. The question isn't whether Claude thinks or feels like a human (it probably doesn't), but whether it thinks or feels at all (maybe a little? It sure looks that way sometimes. Empiricism demands a closer look!).

We don't say submarines can swim either. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't watch out for them when sailing on the ocean - especially if you're Tom Hanks.
by api | 2025-08-17 15:37:37+00:00
Throughout 99% of human history, the economy was mostly zero sum. If someone was rich it was because they stole it. If a group was wealthier it was because they stole it. By "stole it" I'm including theft of labor through slavery as well as the usual conquests and raiding. There was little to no innovation over time spans as long as thousands of years.

Most of human culture and philosophy evolved during these periods and bakes in the idea that the pie is finite and that anyone with more of it has stolen it, because that was just an accurate picture of reality.

A growing pie is a rare condition. It has happened a few times during periods of high civilization: Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the West and similar examples exist in lots of other places.

A rapidly growing pie is entirely new. The modern world is an extreme historical aberration built on the scientific method, modern engineering methods, and the discovery of massive amounts of exploitable cheap energy in the form of first fossil fuels, then nuclear power, then (today) learning to exploit things like solar and wind energy at exponentially larger scales. Other innovations that have fed into this unique condition include synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, vaccines, etc.

Humans have never lived in an environment like this. Everything in our evolution and our accumulated culture is screaming that it's wrong -- that it will either collapse tomorrow (hence the perennial popularity of doomerism) or that it must be built on some kind of insanely massive crime because otherwise where is all this wealth coming from? That's because it's impossible. It cannot be. The idea that wealth can be created at this scale is just... not a thing that has ever existed until maybe 200 years ago max but really more like 80-100. Before that there was only subsistence and theft.

Edit: I'm not arguing that there is no slavery or near-slavery or theft/conquest in the modern world. These things certainly still happen. I'm arguing that it is not the primary source of our massive wealth. Slavery and conquest have always been around and no society has ever been this wealthy or grown this fast. Not even close.
by raincole | 2025-08-17 15:37:47+00:00
The best thing you can do is to just make money. I am serious.

The current 3D GenAI isn't that good. And if when they eventually become good enough they won't be very cheap to run locally, at least for quite a while. You just need to wait & hoard spare cash. Learning how to use the current models is like trying to get GPT1 to write code for you.