MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by m4rtink | 2025-08-07 15:16:34+00:00
Yep - it really makes sense to do it like that - I don't say planets are useless, but if you just arrived after possibly hundreds of years in deep space, you might as well par you ark somewhere safe and resource rich, do any repairs or upgrades, gather some resources, while possibly doing some initial exploration by probes or even small initial crewed missions.

It might be different for other missing profiles, like some very compact minimalistic missions where everyone is in some sort of suspended animation & you dump the whole ship into a suitable planetary environment, as to ship is just not setup to sustain them for any period on board. But this requires quite substantial advances in both stashing colonists for possibly hundreds of years without killing them as well as getting a compact ship to a star system with habitable planet, decelerating it there and landing it.

Seems more likely we will have the first trillion of extra terrestrial humans living in diverse habitats built from local materials at a nearby star much sooner than something like that.
by troupo | 2025-08-07 15:16:46+00:00
> there are two kinds of visual operations that can occur from a DOM change: a screen repaint or a local change.

There's:

- reflow (most expensive)

- repaint (second most expensive)

- composition (least expensive)

The footguns in HTML and CSS are randomly scattered all over the place.

Oh? You changed a single value that wouldn't even register on any performance monitoring tool anywhere else? Oops, the browser now has to reflow the page, re-paint it, and re-compose leading to noticeable CPU and GPU spikes.

Or maybe it won't, you'll never know. Because none of these are documented anywhere and randomly change as browser internals change.

E.g. why would focusing an element reflow the entire document? https://gist.github.com/paulirish/5d52fb081b3570c81e3a Who knows.

Again, a recent article on HN's front page dealt with 60% CPU and 25% GPU while doing the most primitive of all animations on just three rectangles.

> I wouldn’t build a AAA 3D game engine in that, but it’s also not the intended use case.

Yes. Because the use case is displaying static pages.
by dylan604 | 2025-08-07 15:16:54+00:00
Again, you're just pointing out what happens. I'm pointing out a reasonable alternative that gets both points achieved. If you're telling me that a CEO that is currently making $15 million but just won't be able to make it on $29 million instead of $30 million is just going to get no sympathy from me. None. At. All. The fact that you are on here just trying to use current logic on why the alternative I've proposed is the better solution is just preposterous and puts you in the part of the problem camp.
by sam_lowry_ | 2025-08-07 15:17:16+00:00
I had a meeting with a public servant this morning. He is part of an organization that promotes multi-factor authentication and publicly endorses the view that users are stupid.

The meeting was about him unable to test the APK of the new version of their mobile app. He felt embarrassed, his mobile phone is enrolled in the MDM scheme that disallows side-loading of apps.

What I am trying to say is that assuming users are stupid carries a non-negligible risk that you will be that stupid user one day.
by urubu | 2025-08-07 15:17:17+00:00
This is the entry for 'poika' in a Finnish etymological dictionary (Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja), run through deepl:

"The word has definite etymological equivalents in both closely related and distantly related languages, e.g. Karelian and Votic poika, Ludic and Vepsian poig}, Estonian poeg, Livonian puoga, Komi and Udmurt pi, Mansi pig, and Hungarian fiu. Possible equivalents are also the initial parts of the Mordvin word pijo 'grandchild' and the Mari word puerge 'male person' (erge 'man'). The original form of the word has been reconstructed as *pojka. The Swedish pojke, which in the past also meant 'servant boy', is apparently a loanword from Finnish. In contrast, the English boy and the etymologically related German Bube have different origins."
by bee_rider | 2025-08-07 15:17:39+00:00
This might be kind of tangential, but—if people are working pretty hard at early stage start-ups with the intent of having their start-up bought (presumably by a large company), then the large companies must be doing something, right? Clearly the startup employees think it is worthwhile to create a good product (the company to be bought). Which means they think there will be some reward based on the quality of the start-up they create. Which means they think the large company has some way of distinguishing between high and low quality start-ups.

That’s a thing the corporation does, I guess.
by automatic6131 | 2025-08-07 15:17:48+00:00
No as you and I both know - I can't. Because it's a qualitative view, and not a quantitative one. I would need to know _when_, quite precisely, I will turn out to be right.

And I don't know, because I have about 60 minutes a week to think about this, and also good quantitative market analysis is really hard.

So whilst it may sound like a good reposte to go "wow, I bet you make so much money shorting!" knowing that I don't and can't, it's also facile. Because I don't mind if I'm right in 12, 24 or 60 months. Fwiw, I thought I'd be right in 12 months, 12 months ago. Oops. Good thing I didn't attempt to "make money" in an endeavor where the upside is 100% of your wager, and the downside theoretically infinite.
by yesfitz | 2025-08-07 15:17:49+00:00
This comment section's been illuminating to see who has probably never worked public-facing support or service industry.

There's no amount of money you can pay to make this behavior not shitty. Shitty behavior is never a good look, but sometimes it's understandable. If you refrain from being shitty, you won't have to worry about whether or not it's understandable.

Also, the only reason that someone can be shitty and get results is because other people aren't. (In this case, "submitting" a bug report via Twitter and still getting a resolution is possible because other people reported it through the proper channels.)
by hinkley | 2025-08-07 15:18:10+00:00
Who told you that? Don’t talk to that person anymore.

Base64 and uuencode before it are about transmitting binary data over systems that cannot handle binary. There are a bunch of systems in the early Internet that could only communicate 7 bits per byte, which is why uuencode uses only printable low ASCII characters. Has nothing to do with familiarity.

Systems that supported eight bits per byte were referred to as “8 bit clean”, to distinguish them from legacy systems you might still have to support.

PNG file format was specced in 1995, and it was still worried about 8 bit clean transmission. The first byte of the PNG magic number has the high bit set because they didn’t want the decoder to even have to bother with broken PNG files.

> Base64 is also widely used for sending e-mail attachments, because SMTP – in its original form – was designed to transport 7-bit ASCII characters only. Encoding an attachment as Base64 before sending, and then decoding when received, assures older SMTP servers will not interfere with the attachment.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that in a world with 9 bit bytes, someone may have chosen 8 bits for SMTP, or moved to 8 bit sooner. Which would give you at least Base128.
by crowcroft | 2025-08-07 15:18:10+00:00
The biggest challenge I have is that setting up and configuring them is a mess. I'm pretty technical and I still find configuration confusing and brittle. Especially if auth is involved.

I work in a marketing team, I would love folks to be able to use Google's Analytics MCP [1]. The idea of getting people into Google Cloud, or setting up and sharing a file with service account credentials is an absolute nightmare.

I don't think these problems can't be solved, and if remote MCPs gain adoption that alone solves a lot of the issues, but the way most MCPs are packaged and shared currently leaves A LOT to be desired.

[1] https://github.com/googleanalytics/google-analytics-mcp
by diggan | 2025-08-07 15:18:26+00:00
> GPT-OSS is not much of a snowflake

Yeah, according to the architecture it doesn't seem like a snowflake, but they also decided to invent a new prompting/conversation format (https://github.com/openai/harmony) which definitely makes it a bit of a snowflake today, can't just use what worked a couple of days ago, but everyone needs to add proper support for it.
by dragontamer | 2025-08-07 15:19:03+00:00
Taiwan isn't some backwater island making low skilled items.

USA lost mass manufacturing (screws and rivets and zippers), but now we are losing cream of the crop world class manufacturing (Intel vs TSMC).

If we cannot manufacture then we likely cannot win the next war. That's the politics at play. The last major war between industrialized nations shows that technology and manufacturing was the key to success. Now I don't think USA has to manufacture all by itself, but it needs a reasonable plan to get every critical component in our supply chain.

In WW2, that pretty much all came down to ball bearings. The future is hard to predict but maybe it's chips next time.

Maybe we give up on the cheapest of screws or nails. But we need to hold onto elite status on some item.
by fulafel | 2025-08-07 15:19:40+00:00
> But anything that's happening on the GPU timeline is pretty much impossible to do safely. Rust's type system is not sufficiently capable of modeling this stuff without tons of runtime checks, or making the API so awful to use nobody will bother.

I wonder if there's any thinking / research around what the PLT (programming language tech) would look like that could manage this. Depending on what kind of safety is sought, compile-time safety is not necessarily the only way to ensure this.

Of course it depends greatly on what kind of safety we are looking for (guaranteed to run without error vs memory-safe behaviour that might bail out in some cases, etc)
by gizmo686 | 2025-08-07 15:19:42+00:00
At best, that explains how they get money. It does not explain how they manage the logistics of distributing it; which is what that article (including your quote) is about.

At worst, it is a carefully crafted narrative (with a kernel of truth) being used to justify the usage of starvation as a weapon of genocide (or a weapon of war if you want to be a little charitable).

There are two facts here that should surprise no one. In times of shortage:

A) Prices go up

B) Resources go to those with guns
by PJDK | 2025-08-07 15:19:47+00:00
Can I push you to give it a try - places with honesty boxes feel like places with honesty boxes if that makes sense.

Obviously you might get your car egged once - but you can get eggs anywhere.

If it's any help, my (admittedly very nice) corner of Bristol has a couple of honesty boxes for eggs and things about the place and I've never seen any trouble from it.
by diggan | 2025-08-07 15:20:08+00:00
Ah, it only works for GGUF, not for .safetensors (which the format HuggingFace themselves came up with :P ) ? I see the checks at https://huggingface.co/unsloth/gpt-oss-20b-GGUF but nothing at https://huggingface.co/openai/gpt-oss-120b, seems a bit backwards.
by ElectronCharge | 2025-08-07 15:20:22+00:00
I guess you didn't read the article.

TSMC is building factories in America, and Apple is the biggest customer so far. It's a similar situation for rare earth magnets. So, not just "assembly".

As to tariffs in general, you should learn about something called the "trade deficit". The other countries, such as China, already had tariffs on American products, America is simply reciprocating. If tariffs are so stupid, why do so many countries use them I wonder?

One beneficial side effect of tariffs is bringing strategic manufacturing onshore, such as...semiconductor manufacturing.

Like it or not, the US economy will grow explosively as a result of the current economic policies, after an adjustment period.
by creddit | 2025-08-07 15:20:28+00:00
I understood the gist of what the author is trying to say and ultimately this all comes down to a matter of philosophy. My post is mostly tongue in cheek and poking lightheartedly at the moving goal posts of what "LLMs know how to do". The only fundamental part of what they said that I would say is unambiguously false is the first sentence: the LLM (already itself hard to define!) fundamentally does know how to use tools through its expected interface. That that interface may not be connected to something isn't really a fault of the LLM's nor is it a demonstration of the knowledge and understanding the LLM has.

An analogy would be "humans don't have native tool calling abilities, all they can do is press physical keys that represent a function call". I too don't have the ability to natively control a computer in the same sense that the LLM doesn't. If the keyboard to a computer is disconnected then I too will just emit keypresses into the void much like an LLM will emit tool call tokens into a void where they are not linked to an MCP like interface.
by andsoitis | 2025-08-07 15:20:50+00:00
> 6. A Friendlier User Experience The more chatbots I use, the more ChatGPT’s interface lets me down. Claude, for example, pops out creative writing you generate in a sidebar that maintains formatting across resolutions and screen sizes. It also has a tab where you can access anything Claude generated for you, including poetry, research, and more. Other chatbots have cool design innovations, too.

Great HCI makes a big difference. The question is who will define the UX paradigm for this new mode of HCI.
by Traubenfuchs | 2025-08-07 15:20:56+00:00
I fully agree that there will be a pop, there must be. Current evaluations and investments are based on monumentally society destroying assumptions. But with every disappointing, incremental and non evolutionary model generation the chance increases that the world at large realizes that those assumptions are wrong.

What should I do with my ETF? Sell now, wait for the inevitable crash? Be all modern long term investment style: "just keep invested what you don't need in the next 10 years bro"?

This really keeps me up at night.
by varispeed | 2025-08-07 15:21:00+00:00
Refreshing to see. Usually employees are being treated as a resource to exploit. There is system called "market rates", where labour cost is actually fixed across the domains and is disconnected from the value workers generate. So you as an employee can develop something that saves company few millions, but still you'll get paid £65k and then dismissed the moment company doesn't need you.
by saghm | 2025-08-07 15:21:09+00:00
The first time I got one of the ARM MacBooks from a job after years of being given the x86 ones, even my cats could immediately tell the difference. The x86 ones were basically constantly operating at a warm temperature that caused them to both want to nap on it, so they'd scuffle a few times a week when inevitably one of them tried to get on my desk only to find the other already napping there. In around 20 months of using M1 and newer laptops from employers, I've had a cat nap on them maybe three times total, because it pretty rarely is noticeably warmer than anything else in the room, so they have no special interest in it compared to much more enticing furniture like my keyboard.
by treis | 2025-08-07 15:21:16+00:00
I second this. By the time you're 4 years in almost anywhere you're an old timer. That plus being better than average at coding can easily make you 2-3 times as productive coding than average for your role.

You can either use that to get more done or get the time back. Lots of people choose the 2nd option. Especially if they can wfh.
by epage | 2025-08-07 15:22:05+00:00
Note that the original article came across as there being no package unification. A later update said that versions would be selected "closest to the root".

I was speaking to that version of the article. There was no way to override transitive dependencies and no unification. When those are in the picture, the situation changes. However, that also undermines an argument of the article against SemVer

> But... why would libpupa’s author write a version range that includes versions that don’t exist yet? How could they know that liblupa 0.7.9, whenever it will be released, will continue to work with libpupa? Surely they can’t see the future? Semantic versioning is a hint, but it has never been a guarantee.
by cipherboy | 2025-08-07 15:22:17+00:00
Since HashiCorp and OP did not opt to disclose to OpenBao, the most authoritative source right now is HashiCorp's security tracker, linked down-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44821779

https://discuss.hashicorp.com/tag/security-vault is the aggregate link, with HCSEC-2025-[13..22] being the relevant topics.

I will be working shortly to acquire additional CVE numbers for OpenBao for the 8 affected issues.

HCSEC-2025-18 / CVE-2025-6037 (core user confusion bug) does not affect OpenBao.

In general, our release notes detail fixed security issues: https://openbao.org/docs/release-notes/2-3-0/ per policy https://github.com/openbao/.github/blob/main/SECURITY.md. This also has contact information if anyone wishes to discuss additional new security issues.
by diggan | 2025-08-07 15:22:25+00:00
> they don't actually constrain the behavior

They do actually constraint the behavior, to various degrees of success which depends on the model, the system prompt, the inference parameters, the current context length and a lot more. Add in the new `developer` role and you have another venue for constraining the assistant outputs. Finally, structured outputs can help in forbidding specific terms too.
by cloverich | 2025-08-07 15:22:41+00:00
> it suggests that concerns about institutional investors distorting the market

Right but doesn't it merely change the target from institutional to non institutional investors? 1/5 to 1/4+ SFH homes being owned by non homeowners, and competing on prices, seems like the elephant in the room?

Put another way does the fact that they are non-institutional meaningfully change the narrative and if so how would that relate to policy? It would seem a policy disincentivizing non-primary homeownership could apply equally to institutional and non-institutional investors alike.
by szatkus | 2025-08-07 15:22:46+00:00
According to the spec:

These constants are defined mostly to make serialization of infinite/NaN values simpler and more obvious, but can be used to indicate a "largest possible value", since an infinite value gets clamped to the allowed range. It’s rare for this to be reasonable, but when it is, using infinity is clearer in its intent than just putting an enormous number in one’s stylesheet.
by AnotherGoodName | 2025-08-07 15:22:51+00:00
Lived in rural Australia with this as commonplace. Fwiw the neighbour did have someone take the whole box one day. He did run after it and get a numberplate since he was close to the box at the time.

That's one thing about these, it's not that no one would ever steal them as if there's some magic in these areas that leads to zero theft. After all anyone can drive out there. They exist because there's little choice but to accept some losses since you can't staff a store selling small amounts of produce.

For all the comments along the lines of "society has gone to shit, look how nice it once was" just remember that theft still happens and these honesty boxes were always done out of raw necessity.
by roarcher | 2025-08-07 15:23:16+00:00
> The clients love Brenda – she is young and in tune with Gen Z culture. She offers unique insights like “Instagram DMs are out” and “Being cringe is cool”. Her boomer clients run every piece of marketing material by her to avoid the never-ending cultural landmines and to be perceived as cool.

Maybe I'm getting old and out of touch myself, so maybe someone marketing-adjacent can tell me: is this sort of person actually real and employed in a typical corporation these days? This sounds like an obnoxious minor character in a poorly written Netflix Original.
by volkk | 2025-08-07 15:23:28+00:00
i'm having a lot of cognitive dissonance with the amount of money being thrown around -- you have people making a few dollars a day in some parts of the world, and in others you get an extra 1.5mm to sit at the computer for 2 hours a day and then take a nap. Let's be honest, not all openai employees are phd researchers, and this is one giant publicity stunt akin to a gameshow (Look at us! we pay a TON, much more than the other guy!)

black mirror-esque somehow. but hey, now a few thousand people in SF are guaranteed millionaires (as if they weren't already)
by 542354234235 | 2025-08-07 15:24:27+00:00
>That sounds suspiciously close to "laws should just be whatever benefits me or my group".

I do not understand how you can make that leap. Saying laws should account for the imbalance of power between parties has nothing to do with "my" group. Police have asymmetric power over citizens, so laws should protect citizens from abuses of that power. Employers have asymmetric power over employees, so laws should protect workers from abuses of that power.

>This seems very susceptible to manipulation to get whatever conclusion you want.

Everything is. That is what bad faith arguments are. But in the real world, in a complex society, no simple rule over something as broadly defined as "intellectual property" can work every time in every situation.
by taylodl | 2025-08-07 15:24:28+00:00
Now we're introducing the notion of a 1000x employee? I call BS. The 10x employee is a bit of a unicorn, but I have known such people and the biggest thing I've noticed about them is their ability to identify BS work and not work on it and thus carve out time to focus on bigger issues whose solutions really propel the organization or project forward.

The reasons not everybody can be this 10x employee is two-fold:

1. People are content with busy work just to appear busy and don't really care if they get anything meaningful accomplished.

2. For those who are better at managing their time to focus on more impactful issues, they lack the ability to actually resolve those issues in a way that has meaningful impact.

That's why the 10x employee is so difficult to find. But a 1000x employee? Get out of here!
by spaceribs | 2025-08-07 15:24:31+00:00
> Speculation is less profitable than development, If you're getting speculation it's because the roi vs risk of development isn't justifiable.

Arguably, speculation should always be unprofitable and we should ideally regulate against it in every way, shape and form. I'd ask what purpose does holding onto a unproductive piece of land serve at all to society beyond an easy to grease financial vehicle?
by parpfish | 2025-08-07 15:24:49+00:00
I'm far less worried about ethical issues that arise from building AGI (or soemthing very close to it) than I am about the ethical issues that arise from building really good machine-learning models (that a marketing department calls AI).

Things like the alignment problem, post-scarcity economics, the legal status of sentient machines are all issues to be dealt with, but theyre are pretty speculative at this point.

Problems that stem from deepfakes, voice cloning, bias in algorithmic decision making are already here and need to be dealt with.