MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dash2 | 2025-08-14 21:30:44+00:00
OK, interesting hypothesis. So, I wondered how it would do with "Why should cultural historians care about ice cores?" which indeed requires gluing together ideas across areas. I asked ChatGPT 5 on Thinking mode:

https://chatgpt.com/share/689e5361-fad8-8010-b203-f4f80d1457...

It does a pretty good job summarizing an abstruse, but known, subfield of frontier research. (So, perhaps not doing its own "gluing" of areas....) It clearly lacks "depth", in the sense of deep thinking about the why and how of this. (Many cultural historians might have reasons for deep scepticism of invasion by a bunch of quantitative data nerds, I suspect, and might be able to articulate why quite well.) It's bullet points, not an essay. I tried asking it for a 1000 word essay specifically and got:

https://chatgpt.com/share/689e5545-0688-8010-8bdf-632d3c3466...

which seems only superficially different - an essay in form, but secretly a bunch of bullet points.

For a comparison, here's a Guardian article that came up when I googled for "cultural historians ice cores":

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/20/solar-storms...

It seems to do a good job at explaining why they should, though not in a deep essayistic style.
by kube-system | 2025-08-14 21:30:56+00:00
> nobody wants to buy it, you have no case for a trademark. That's weird.

It may seem weird if you're thinking about it from the perspective of a business owner trying to protect their brand. That's why a business would want one. But it isn't why they exist. The legal basis of trademarks isn't brand or business protection, but consumer protection.

The point of a trademark is to protect consumers from being fooled or misled. If there are no consumers, then there's nobody to protect.
by filoeleven | 2025-08-14 21:31:03+00:00
> But if we think about it for even a second quite often these precedents are terrible and stifling to everyone in tech.

Doesn't everything else in your post kinda point to the industry needing a little stifling? Or, more kindly, a big rethink on privacy and better controls over one's own data?

Do you have an example of a similarly terrible precedent in your opinion? One that doesn't include the blatant surveillance state power-grabbing "think of the children" line. Just curious.
by gjvc | 2025-08-14 21:31:26+00:00
with a sample size of one, there is no obvious problem.

presumably any given household wants to watch more than just pokemon, though and this is where things become unstuck. suddenly, to satisfy the demand for the range of things people in the household want to watch they are forced to make subscriptions to multiple services, perhaps sometimes for one-offs.

scale this up, and you have a population forced to make multiple subscriptions to multiple streaming providers to satisfy their demand for content.

or people just choose a couple of them and that's that. either way it seems that there is a symbiotic relationship between the content authors and the streaming companies.

but wait, read the page carefully, multiple seasons of the same thing spread across different streamers forcing consumers to subscribe to multiple streamers .... and now we are into Phoebus cartel territory.
by canyon289 | 2025-08-14 21:32:03+00:00
I don't think we dumped the model and say you do the rest?

Myself and my colleagues spent many days transforming the weights into various open compatible formats. And its not just us there's many orgs and partners dedicating their time, resources, and companies to making all open models easy to use.

I encourage you to explore the solutions provided by them. We linked some in our blog post here, and there's more. They've all done a fantastic job building frankly an insane amount of infrastructure, documentation, and community support in the last 2+ years. Some of them are here in this HN thread answering questions.
by MerrimanInd | 2025-08-14 21:32:53+00:00
I don't think that BBC article is technically detailed enough to make that case. The actual study may be, so I'm not saying you're wrong, but "generative AI" is far too large of an umbrella term that encompasses two very different views. The common thesis here is that AI is a wildly powerful tool to do fundamental science, and I think most technologists with any knowledge of neural networks would agree that's true. But the problem is that the Sam Altmans of the world are applying that thesis to the promise that GPT5 is on the path to AGI and they just need to keep scaling and pouring more billions of dollars into these massive models to get there. When I see actually interesting applications of AI in fundamental science the studies are usually of custom programs starting with smaller or more purpose-built foundational models, being hand tuned by knowledgeable researchers with deterministic/testable validation feedback loops. So what you're saying can be true while what Altman is promising can also be absolutely false. But it's hard to say without actually reading that MIT study.
by imglorp | 2025-08-14 21:33:07+00:00
Plus the idea that if you pay someone to "purchase" and "own" (their terms!!) content, then it's yours forever. Unless, of course, they renegotiate something upstream and subsequently remove the content from your "library" or your device. Or perhaps they lock you out of those things altogether. This means it wasn't ownership, it was subscription.

So as they say, “if buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing.”

https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2023-12-08...
by schyzomaniac | 2025-08-14 21:33:11+00:00
hi, congrats for the amazing work!

i love the 27b model, and i use it basically daily. however when i tried to finetune it for a task in a low resource language, unfortunately i did not succeed: lora just did not picked up the gist of the task, full finetune lead to catastrophic forgetting.

may i ask four your advice, or do you have any general tips how to do that properly?

thanks in advance for your help :)
by SJC_Hacker | 2025-08-14 21:33:12+00:00
For its credit though, it follows the C++ "philosophy" fairly faithfully. If you don't like Boost you probably don't like C++ either.

Although that download is a monster, I think its like 1.6 GB even compressed. Its not modular at all, some of the modules depend on others and its impossible to separate them out (they've tried in the past)

But last I check there is ALOT they could have removed, especially support for older compilers like MSVC 200x (!), pre C++ 11/older GNU compilers, etc. without compromising functionality. I'm not if they got around to doing that.
by crote | 2025-08-14 21:33:24+00:00
> To me it seems like Cory Doctorow is demanding perfection, and saying that because we can't achieve perfection in age verification, we can't do age verification at all.

Not we can't, but we shouldn't. All the current solutions are terrible, and are either trivial to fool or mass surveillance machines. We shouldn't be stupid enough to go for either option because it'll either cost a fortune while giving us nothing, or cause immeasurable harm when the National Porn Viewing Database inevitably gets used to blackmail everyone.

We're trying to (poorly) use technology to solve a social problem. If we can't figure out a way to do so using technology without significant downsides, then perhaps we shouldn't be using technology to solve the problem at all.
by echelon | 2025-08-14 21:33:25+00:00
I don't understand folks with these answers. I would want $1T or more. I could easily invest it.

- I want to build a human cloning startup to build whole-body, HLA-neutral, antigen-clean, headless clones. Taken to the extreme, this cures all cancers except brain and blood cancers, and it could expand the human lifespan/healthspan to be 200 years or more.

- I want to build directed energy systems to manipulate the weather and climate.

- I want to build an open source cloud, open source social layer, open source social media and actually get them real traction against the incumbents. Distributed media exchange layer that is P2P, not federated. Rewire the internet to be fault-tolerant and censorship immune.

- I want to train frontier AI models and make them open. I want to build massive amounts of high quality training data and make it all available (with a viral license).

- I want to build open source hardware. Tractors, automotive EVs, robots, stuff you can hack and own and exchange and print parts for.

- I want to build infra for my city.

I couldn't stop coming up with ideas for things to build.

But, alas, I'm still stuck here at the bottom wondering why a compound in Hawaii could be cooler than these things.
by yodsanklai | 2025-08-14 21:33:39+00:00
> it's a weird snakepit of conservative anger.

I've noticed that on teamblind as well (started to use it only recently). I didn't realize there was such hate towards foreigners in the US, especially, in the tech world which I assumed was more educated/progressive. Don't know if it's fueled by Trump or the other way around, but it's pretty scary.
by krapp | 2025-08-14 21:34:05+00:00
The funny thing is after Trump cried wolf so hard about the 2020 election even if that were true no one would take any Democratic attempt at an investigation seriously.

And Trump has even made statements which can easily be interpreted as admission[0].

But it doesn't matter.

[0]https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-trum...
by corytheboyd | 2025-08-14 21:35:21+00:00
I’ve never once seen “come back and fix with deadline” work. It’s really only the “with deadline” that does not work. Good teams will constantly be judging if now is the right time to fix the thing, and that fluid process works pretty well. Setting deadlines for tech debt just leads to the people setting the deadlines getting upset and quitting when they are inevitably missed. Save the urgency for when it’s warranted, like discovering a time bomb in the code, a scaling limit that is about to be breached— people will take you more seriously, you will be happier, they will be happier, hooray.

By all means, shoot for absolute perfection on your own projects. I work very, VERY differently on my own code than I do on work code, and I get different types of satisfaction out of both (though of course massively prefer working solo).
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-08-14 21:36:12+00:00
Remember when they passed a bunch of really strong anti-terrorism bills in the US after 9/11 and we were all super sure that it was a great idea because they promised us they'd show restraint and only use the powers they were giving themselves against the worst of the worst, then they declared vandalism to be terrorism (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-buy-new-...)?

That's how I expect "privacy-preserving age verification" to go. It's the narrow end of the wedge. Once privacy-preserving age verification is in place there will be some reason to get rid of the privacy, and we will have a fully tracked and identified internet.
by vhanda | 2025-08-14 21:36:52+00:00
I was thinking along the lines of how much I actually watch, if I only watched 10 minutes of your show, I only pay for 10 minutes, not the entire thing.

You're also saving on bandwidth.

Paradoxically, I'd still want to pay per minute of viewing time, if I'm watching the show on 2x the speed.
by giantg2 | 2025-08-14 21:37:17+00:00
Project 2025 is not a response plan. It's also not the same as the Republican platform. They publish separate documents. What you are seeing is the overlap between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. There are multiple think tanks for both sides that are not officially party affiliated - Heritage Foundation, Third Way, Center for American Progress, etc.

Most of the actual strategic mechanisms for either side will not be published. Why would you publish your playbook for the other side to anticipate your moves?

What happens is a candidate posts their platform, such as Ageneda 47. Then you can view the published documents from the think tanks on how that might be achieved, such as Project 2025. And yes, oftentimes the people creating or pushing those programs get put in charge of them or advising on them (see Biden pulling someone from the Center for American Progress to be an advisor, etc).
by JamesSwift | 2025-08-14 21:37:24+00:00
Ehh, while I agree its 70% about having a way more user-friendly experience, theres still 30% which is that the content needs to justify the price. And HBO and Netflix have missed that mark in my opinion.

I cancelled HBO after their price increase a year or two ago after being pretty happy with their service for a long time (though also the service quality had gotten worse). Too many people share my netflix for me to cancel it.
by lurking_swe | 2025-08-14 21:37:44+00:00
I agree with you. I’m eager to see the details once MIT releases it.

Generative AI is a lot of things. LLM’s in particular (subset of generative AI) are somewhat useful, but nowhere near as useful as what Sam claims. And i guess LLM’s specifically - if we focus on chatgpt, will not be solving cancer lol.

So we agree that Sam is selling snake oil. :)

Just wanted to point out that a lot of the fundamental “tech” is being used for genuinely useful things!
by ryandv | 2025-08-14 21:38:49+00:00
> several of the definitions in the link feel constructivist, i.e. they describe constructions of of real numbers.

If you are a constructivist, then you will supply direct proofs for your results as you reject indirect proof, proof by contradiction, law of excluded middle, and things of this nature.

The converse does not necessarily hold. Providing a direct construction of an object satisfying the field and completeness axioms (e.g. the Dedekind construction) does not necessarily mean that one is a constructivist. Indeed, one can use the Dedekind construction and still go on to prove many more results on top of it that still do rely on indirect proof and reductio ad absurdum.
by leobg | 2025-08-14 21:40:22+00:00
My take is that government is like a really lazy college student. Goimg to the library to study would be hard, and you’d need vision and motivation to do it. Instead, you take the money given to you by your parents, buy the best textbook there is on the subject, and put it on your shelf. You haven’t actually achieved anything. But you still feel a sense of accomplishment. You paid money. You bought something. That counts. Or at least so you tell yourself. And so does the government. It’s basically all Y Combinator rules, reversed.
by crote | 2025-08-14 21:40:33+00:00
> Linux is fine. Someone can build the ultimately perfect parental control software for Linux and I'll use it.

You can't build a perfectly secure system and still respect the user's freedom. The perfect parental control system is by definition also going to be the ultimate rootkit - or else you'd just boot your own kernel which perfectly fakes the parental controls.

In such a world you wouldn't be allowed to build your own OS, only boot a pre-approved image. The Linux community is not exactly likely to participate in this.
by ryandrake | 2025-08-14 21:40:36+00:00
Piracy offers:

1. Unrestricted access to an absolutely huge library of movies, music and TV shows, nearly unlimited. Certainly not limited by opaque "licensing deals" between various companies.

2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release.

3. No arbitrary device/OS limitations.

4. Can watch/listen/download from any location on earth with sufficient bandwidth.

I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads, because that's pretty much the least important attribute to me. If any company came out with a service that offered those four points, I'd probably be willing to pay a lot for it. How much? Who knows, we don't know how much this is worth because nobody is even trying to offer it.
by ncdm_stldr | 2025-08-14 21:42:05+00:00
While I understand your point, I just wanted to point out that I am not sure if there is not technical solution to the problem. I wonder what can be done with a technology similar to this: https://huggingface.co/spaces/zama-fhe/encrypted_sentiment_a... Or this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof Ok I didn't point the exact solution for the problem, but still it hints me that technical solutions may exist.

Anyway, I am not in the side of control freaks, but still find the question interesting.
by FakeFind | 2025-08-14 21:42:30+00:00
Fake reviews on Amazon are a bigger problem than most people realize. In the past 7 days, over 10,000 scans have been run through FakeFind.ai, and over half flagged signs of review manipulation.

The patterns are often subtle — repetition in phrasing, vague or overly generic praise, hijacked listings, or suspicious spikes in 5-star ratings. These can make low-quality products appear trustworthy at a glance.

I built FakeFind.ai to give shoppers a way to quickly verify reviews before purchasing. You paste an Amazon link, and in seconds it returns:

Trust Score (1–10) for review authenticity

Adjusted Rating recalculated from likely genuine reviews

Trust Summary explaining the reasoning

Three trusted alternatives in the same category

No extension, no account, no tracking just paste, scan, and shop smarter. Made for Amazon shoppers who want to avoid wasting money on products boosted by fake reviews.

Try the Amazon Review Checker: https://fakefind.ai
by baby_souffle | 2025-08-14 21:42:36+00:00
This guy gets it!

Don't get me wrong, I love diving into the technical details just as much as anybody else here. I've learned something new almost every time there's a comment thread on the subject .

But the technical details are a distraction. That this is happening at all is the forest the technical crowd is going to miss for the trees.

Preserving some semblance of privacy on the internet is already hard enough. We do not need systems like this to encroach any farther; risks of personal privacy is so great and could be caused by such a simple innocent and subtle configuration mistake.
by bawana | 2025-08-14 21:43:00+00:00
Meta is waging an opium war on us. But instead of drugs, it is giving kids something even more addictive that is FREE. I believe in free speech - speech as in the vibrations of air molecules that come out of someones mouth. Crap that is amplified a billion fold through mass media, social media, and advertising only exists to mislead. That. crap. needs. to. go.
by tmarsden | 2025-08-14 21:43:42+00:00
I share that dream and, yes, it's getting closer with modern Android. IMO Google has seemingly embraced this path (e.g. with ChromeOS "merging" with Android) I could see a future where docked desktop mode in Android is basically like what we have today with ChromeOS.

https://www.androidauthority.com/run-desktop-linux-apps-on-a...

"An upcoming Android update will significantly upgrade the Linux Terminal app, enabling it to run full-fledged graphical Linux programs on supported devices"
by dash2 | 2025-08-14 21:43:59+00:00
Maybe not... given its Price/Sales ratio, it's pricing in about 10 years of 30% growth. It's a great company (bracketing the ethics issue which has produced a lot of boring discussion here). But even a great company can be severely overvalued.

Put another way: if you buy, be very ready to sell fast, and very confident that you can gauge when a market turns.
by Blake_Welsh | 2025-08-14 21:44:23+00:00
Publicly available manufacturer specifications for 1,800+ NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel GPUs to visualize the evolution of single-precision floating-point performance (GFLOPS) over the past 18 years.

Highlights:

GPU performance grew from ~497 GFLOPS in 2007 to over 100,000 GFLOPS in 2025

Major performance leaps occurred with microarchitectural shifts.

Methodology: GFLOPS calculated from shader counts and core clock speeds: GFLOPS = (Shader Units × Core Clock × 2) / 1,000,000,000
by innocentoldguy | 2025-08-14 21:44:48+00:00
It has been a while since I looked at Gleam. Some things may have changed. However, the last time I used Gleam, I was forced to switch back to Elixir because Gleam:

• Lacks support for named processes.

• Has limited actor abstractions.

• Doesn't support OTP system messages.

• Has implemented supervisors in a way that can lead to improper shutdowns, data loss, and deviations from the expected BEAM behavior.

• Doesn't support pattern matching directly in function definitions. Instead, it requires you to use case statements.

• Doesn't support global mutable variables because it has no way to track variable types and state changes when BEAM modifies these variables, which is one of the hallmark features of BEAM.

• Doesn't support hot code reloading.

All of these features, which are readily available in Erlang and Elixir, are far more important to me than static typing. I've used statically typed languages like C, C++, C#, and Java, and dynamically typed languages like Python, Ruby, and Elixir throughout my 30+ years career. I've never once lamented not having static types, nor have I ever jumped for joy when I do. For me, static vs. dynamic typing is largely irrelevant and doesn't affect my work one way or the other.
by willster787 | 2025-08-14 21:45:15+00:00
First of all- thank you so much for giving it a try. I know it's a bit rough around the edges. I found what I think is some really solid data and I'm going to try to train it tonight. The "idea" was to show what it could possibly do for a SaaS Dashboard, I was thinking "clippy but not useless". REALLY appreciate the constructive criticism!
by generichuman | 2025-08-14 21:45:29+00:00
All fair, but:

> As for the "...latest version of the SDKs..", that is moving the goal posts, there is no mention of it on [...]

I thought it was implied since tooling & library breakages over the years happen and sometimes you can't just get the old SDK to run on the latest Windows / macOS. If the languages and Ant/Maven are backwards compatible to that extent, that's actually pretty good!

I had to deal with moving a .NET Framework 4.7 project to .NET Standard 2.0 and it wasn't effortless (although upgrading to each new .NET release after that has been pretty simple so far). We took a couple of weeks even though we had minimal dependencies since we're careful about that stuff.
by bearl | 2025-08-14 21:45:34+00:00
Not sure if you’re joking. The parent mentioned Clinton’s surplus so I referenced Clinton’s famous welfare queen reforms.

If I wanted to attack the character of William Jefferson Clinton, I would have plenty of facts to draw from there as well, like sexually assaulting an intern in the Oval Office and lying to us with “it depends on what your definition of is is”[0], which I’d note our non-biased hard-hitting media elites collectively shrugged off. Or I might allude to Jennifer Flowers, or Epstein, or a really long list of other ghoulish Clintonian acts.

[0] One can easily see this as the approximate moment the executive became unaccountable, a trend that’s continued (slippery slopes are real) and which many are now fallatiosly calling factism. It’s not, it’s just unaccountability in the same vein as Clinton’s sexusl assault.
NV Formation Fee
by ahinojosa82 | 2025-08-14 21:47:02+00:00
I'm trying to create a C Corp in NV using the standard practice of 10M shares with a par value of $.00001. However, NV is calculating the authorized capital value of the company as $10,010,000 with a formation fee of $5,600.

Is this correct or we doing something wrong?
by radicaldreamer | 2025-08-14 21:47:29+00:00
I don't think its all that sophisticated. The reason Palantir pairs up its services with consultants is that it's not that useful or sophisticated, the consultant's job is to spice it up so it seems like the data and tooling is more valuable than it actually is.

It's the same model as McKinsey etc, the value add is in feeling like you're getting value out of the money you're spending and half of that is being marketed to personally by the consultant and getting glossy presentations, reports, and dashboards.