MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by skeeter2020 | 2025-09-29 20:27:50+00:00
This is textbook strategy, adding layer after layer of pseudo protocols and "standards" on top of (surprise, surprise) their hard to defend against competition offerings, and ironically attempt to build a moat around something that ideally is open and interoperable. I haven't ruled out that I'm actually an idiot who doesn't get it, but it sure feels like the emperor has no clothes. It's like a recent Cloudflare post about how we're using LLMs to code all wrong; we just need to build (yet more) APIs specifically for MCP servers and then have very simple tools that only use those APIs. Yet more extra effort, time and energy optimizing for someone else's benefit.
by sholladay | 2025-09-29 20:29:31+00:00
Agreed. One big difference, though, is that the local AI tech we have as an alternative to OpenAI is significantly better compared to the local alternatives we had for Google. You can run a reasonably powerful AI on your own machine right now. Sure, it’s not going to be as good. And the cost of GPUs, RAM, and electricity is important to keep in mind. But the point is it’s not all-or-nothing and you are not beholden to these corporations.

There is also plenty of research going on to make models more efficient and powerful at small sizes. So that shift in the power gradient seems like it’s going to continue.
by throw-qqqqq | 2025-09-29 20:29:49+00:00
It sounds like you think OpenAI is a profitable business? As far as I understand, it’s not.

OpenAI is projected to generate $12-14 billion in yearly revenue in 2025 (annualized from a single month), but expect to lose around 8 billion USD, implying the margins are negative.

OpenAI has raised a total of ~$60 billion.

I think they need to show investors a huge and growing cashflow to keep the show going.
Show HN: Agentsmd – Local preferences and templates for AGENTS.md
by adiasg | 2025-09-29 20:30:46+00:00
Hi HN

I built agentsmd for developers who use AGENTS.md but want a way to manage personal preferences and reusable templates on top of the canonical repo version.

For example, I don’t want my agents to run npm run dev for Next.js. Another developer might want that step included. Those kinds of preferences should live in my local .agentsmd, not in the shared AGENTS.md. The standard only defines looking at AGENTS.md files, which are git-tracked, so this tool helps get around the problem.

Ideally, the AGENTS.md standard should also look at local .agentsmd files to account for local preferences. I've already opened an issue: https://github.com/openai/agents.md/issues/72

I’d love feedback on: - How you separate personal vs. shared guidance in your projects - Whether templates like this would help in your workflow - What other features would make managing AGENTS.md easier

Thanks for checking it out!
by wcfrobert | 2025-09-29 20:31:14+00:00
Bitcoin is different.

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? How come his Bitcoin holdings - now worth more than $100 billion dollars - have remained untouched since 2010? How can any one human resist that kind of temptation? I would be digging landfill sites if I lost my wallet worth $100 billion. The launch of Bitcoin also coincided with the 2008 financial crisis. The first block had the text: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" embedded, etc.

None of the altcoins have this level of myths and legend. You need this kind of supernatural story to start a new fiat, digital gold, religion, and whatever collective fiction you can think of.
by howmayiannoyyou | 2025-09-29 20:31:21+00:00
Its not about the USD.

It is about certain regimes nearing their end and folks converting assets into something fungible they can use and enjoy while exiled in Geneva, Dubai, Phnom Penh, etc.

As just one example (of many) of why its not about the USD - most global debt is dollar denominated and settled in dollars. Even if they don't reside or transact in the US, most large financial transactions settle (or are hedged) in USD. Again, just one example.

Also, understand export economies like China cannot avoid dollar settlement for goods exported to the US. They can settle in USD and covert to another asset, but only as a secondary step.

I could go on about this, but Carnegie Endowment Prof Michael Pettis explains this and more much better than I can.
by Animats | 2025-09-29 20:31:37+00:00
"Mechanical keyboards" like these are not very mechanical. I've overhauled Teletype machines with real mechanical keyboards. You can only press one key at a time, because the encoding mechanism pushes back if you push two keys at once. When you press a key, it briefly locks down during the scan cycle, then releases. Typing is speed limited, and it's like playing a piano at a constant rate.

An original IBM Selectric keyboard has the same lock-down properties, but allows one-key rollover. Nobody replicates that, although the Selectric was once held up as the gold standard of keyboards.
by LargoLasskhyfv | 2025-09-29 20:31:44+00:00
I feel AI enables only a shallow copy, a shadow of a true self.

Whatever that may be.

OTOH there are so many philosophical zombies around, making the point moot anyway.

Otherwise, in a true biological context it could be very interesting for learning more about "nature vs. nurture".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyteen
by kragen | 2025-09-29 20:31:47+00:00
One of the eminently attackable facets of that claim is the varying availability of goods over the millennia, making it impossible to have a really stable and precise measure of value against which to measure gold's purchasing power. You can't buy silphium or Roman concrete today for any price, for example, nor a ticket to a gladiatorial match, and, from a certain point of view, most of the functions fulfilled by handmade Roman togas are today fulfilled by mass-produced machine-stitched US$200 wool suits, or even a cheap sports coat, jeans, and T-shirt. And no amount of gold would have bought you penicillin 100 years ago, much less in Roman times.
by Someone | 2025-09-29 20:31:48+00:00
> You'd have two of everything (two pipelines, two ALUs, two sets of registers, etc.)

As others said: yes, it has been tried and it works, but it costs a lot in hardware and power usage. A problem is that lots of code has a branch every 10 or so instructions. Fast high-end CPUs (the only realistic target for this feature) can dispatch multiple instructions per cycle. Combined that means you will hit a branch every two or three cycles. Because of that, you do not end up with two of everything but with way more.

So, you’re throwing away not 50% of your work but easily 80%.

Some code has fewer branches, but that often can easily be parallelized or vectorized.
by MountDoom | 2025-09-29 20:32:27+00:00
Pretty long, given that the US had a fully-fiat currency for 50+ years, and many European countries had it for longer than that. Per CPI, your dollar is worth 8x less than what it was worth in 1970.

This, in itself, doesn't mean anything profound. There's nothing to "snap" if the expectation of stable, modest inflation is baked into the markets. Fiat currencies usually implode only when something else undermines the confidence in the issuing government.
by BenoitEssiambre | 2025-09-29 20:32:51+00:00
To add to this, there are fundamental information-theoretic principles that support inlining code and components. It's about reducing code entropy, reducing length and referential distances. https://benoitessiambre.com/entropy.html

The good thing is LLMs try to optimize for information theoretic measures of language so they naturally generate better scoped more inline code. LLMs might help us win this battle :-)
by Yoric | 2025-09-29 20:32:57+00:00
> why do you think this is so?

Well, because nothing in the transformer architecture supports such learning ability. All AI researchers and most serious AI users are aware of this, so I'm not sure I understand the question.

> And if you have a compelling thesis, why hasn't this spread to the investing community?

The investing community believes that they can make money. That's feels pretty much orthogonal to whether the metaphorical intern can learn, and much more related to whether clients can be made to buy the product, one way or another.
by StackRanker3000 | 2025-09-29 20:33:13+00:00
> This is the whole crux of the situation so buying it in a disclaimer misses the point.

It maybe doesn’t adress the point you’re interested in, but it doesn’t miss the point I was making, that the goals and mechanisms revolves around how well a person manages credit. For the credit provider everything else is secondary or irrelevant, including whether it’s because you’ve made poor decisions or external factors have screwed you over.

> Every lender and background investigator I’ve ever interacted with have treated credit score as a social credit marker, but sure, your mileage might vary.

This is probably the crux of why we’re not on the same page, because I don’t understand what this means. I’m genuinely asking, what do you mean when you say that they treated it as a social credit score marker? What business did you have with them (or they with you) that didn’t involve whether or not to extend credit? What does the term “social credit score marker” mean to you?

> This is a fallacy; algorithms are “uncaring” in an anthropomorphic sense, yes, they lack a psychological capacity to care, but their designers are very much not, as you admit in the very next sentence.

I don’t see how you explain that it’s a fallacy, and I don’t think it is, but I concede that it’s a confusing word choice - I should probably have just omitted the word “uncaring”. My point was once again that their sole goal is determining the risk of extending a person credit - whether that would be a nice or moral thing to do or not doesn’t factor into it.

> We entirely disagree on this point. Probably because we have different definitions of “non-financial factors” and “non-financial outcomes.”

I assume here that you mean that people’s financial status, including their access to credit, determines a lot of aspects of their lives, too (correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t think any reasonable person disagrees with that. I do however think that you underestimate how constraining it can be when additional variables are factored in to more directly control what you are and aren’t allowed to do, and how.
by resters | 2025-09-29 20:33:14+00:00
> They're incredibly dangerous to use if you don't know how to isolate them in a safe container but wow the stuff you can do with them is fascinating.

True but all it will take is one report of something bad/dangerous actually happening and everyone will suddenly get extremely paranoid and start using correct security practices. Most of the "evidence" of AI misalignment seems more like bad prompt design or misunderstanding of how to use tools correctly.
by kmeisthax | 2025-09-29 20:33:33+00:00
The problem with the "nice suit" metaphor is that the cost of clothing has actually plummeted since the height of the Roman Empire. Also, they didn't wear suits.

The reason why money printing doesn't immediately translate into lowered dollar value (and thus, higher gold prices) is that other goods and services are getting cheaper around it. If supply is flexible then the price of some goods won't change much, while things with fixed supply will skyrocket in price. That's why we basically didn't see much inflation in the 2010s despite printing shittons of money and having a zero-interest rate policy for most of it. All that money went straight into equities and real estate.

Likewise, there are also goods like oil that are part of basically every supply chain, so when the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up. Owning gold will not hedge against this kind of inflation. "BuT tHe SuPpLy Of GoLd Is FiXeD!" you say. Yes, but oil has something stronger than a fixed supply: centralized supply. Every oil producing nation in the world is part of a large supply-restricting cartel that has proven to be frustratingly resilient to all the usual things that are supposed to break cartels. They even managed to bring American shale oil producers to heel (because fracking is too expensive to be economic in a cheap oil environment).

As a result, the ratio of gold to oil prices is very volatile[0], way moreso than you'd expect from something sold as an inflation hedge. Because, with few exceptions, everything in the economy runs off oil, you'd expect to see either a fixed line (if oil is as fixed as gold) or a rising line (if oil grows like dollars). Instead we see ups and downs everywhere.

[0] Apologies for the infographic spam, but this was the easiest chart to find: https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-gold-t...
by throwaway0123_5 | 2025-09-29 20:34:16+00:00
Their point still stands though? They said the 1 tok/hr example was illustrative only. 11,000 LoC could be generated line-by-line in one shot, taking not much more than 11,000 * avg_tokens_per_line tokens. Or the model could be embedded in an agent and spend a million tokens contemplating every line.
by malux85 | 2025-09-29 20:34:37+00:00
First jump that computers gave us : speed. With excess of speed came the ability to brute force many problems.

Next jump given by AI (not LLMs specifically, I mean “machine learned systems” in general) is navigation. Even with large amounts of speed some problems are still impractically large, we are using AI to better explore that space, by navigating it smarter, rather than just speeding through it combinatorially.
by keernan | 2025-09-29 20:35:02+00:00
>>if it wants ensured protection against a threatened Chinese invasion

If the promised 'ensured protection' of Taiwan was worth anything then why is the security of the United States dependent upon 50% of chip production being moved out of Taiwan?

Sounds more likely Taiwan's 'ensured protection' will only last as long as 90% of chip production remains in Taiwan.
by kelnos | 2025-09-29 20:35:27+00:00
> IMPORTANT: DO NOT ADD *ANY** COMMENTS unless asked*

Interesting. This was in the old 1.x prompt, removed for 2.0. But CC would pretty much always add comments in 1.x, something I would never request, and would often have to tell it to stop doing (and it would still do it sometimes even after being told to stop).
by brucehoult | 2025-09-29 20:36:48+00:00
> some SiFive cores implement exactly this fusion.

I was not able to open the given link, but it's not true, at least for the U74.

Fusion means that one or more instructions are converted to one internal instruction (µop).

SiFive's optimisation [1] of a short forward conditional branch over exactly one instruction has both instructions executing as normal, the branch in pipe A and the other instruction simultaneously in pipe B. At the final stage if the branch turns out to be taken then it is not in fact physically taken, but is instead implemented by suppressing the register write-back of the 2nd instruction.

There are only a limited set of instructions that can be the 2nd instruction in this optimisation, and loads and stores do not qualify. Only simple register-register or register-immediate ALU operations are allowed, including `lui` and `auipc` as well as C aliases such as `c.mv` and `c.li`

> The whole premise of fusion is predicated on the idea that it is valid for a core to transform code similar to the branchy code on the left into code similar to the branch-free code on the right. I wish to cast doubt on this validity: it is true that the two instruction sequences compute the same thing, but details of the RISC-V memory consistency model mean that the two sequences are very much not equivalent, and therefore a core cannot blindly turn one into the other.

The presented code ...

mv rd, x0 beq rs2, x0, skip_next mv rd, rs1 skip_next:

... vs ...

czero.eqz rd, rs1, rs2

... requires that not only rd != rs2 (as stated) but also that rd != rs1. A better implementation is ...

mv rd, rs1 // safe even if they are the same register bne rs2, x0, skip mv rd, x0 skip:

The RISC-V memory consistency model does not come into it, because there are no loads or stores.

Then switching to code involving loads and stores is completely irrelevant:

lw x1, 0(x2) bne x1, x0, next next: sw x3, 0(x4)

First of all, this code is completely crazy because the `bne` is fancy kind of `nop` and a core could convert it to a canonical `nop` (or simply drop it).

Even putting the `sw` between the `bne` and the label is ludicrous. There is no branch-free code that does the same thing -- not only in RISC-V but also in arm64 or amd64. SiFive's optimisation will not trigger with a store in that position.

[1] SiFive materials consistently describe it as an optimisation not as fusion e.g. in the description of the chicken bits CSR in the U74 core complex manual.
by tossandthrow | 2025-09-29 20:37:08+00:00
I think this is a key observation.

Apparently consumables have become incredibly cheap.

But then again, consumables will like start to rise in price now people need more money to buy a house, etc.

You could also say that real salaries have gone down a lot, which is probably also true.

These effects have to go through very complex value chains.
by logicprog | 2025-09-29 20:37:13+00:00
Agreed. And I mean, I think the nuanced investigations of what AI is and is not good for or capable of, and how it might or might not be made sustainable going forward both economically and environmentally, are a much more meaningful, interesting, and worthwhile check on the hype than dogmatic rejection, because just as hype won't convince anyone sane, neither will dogmatic rejection built on a biased accounting of what's going on with no vision of the possible futures available to us. No one will be swayed by that that isn't convinced already, and many will be repelled. Especially given how wrong or incomplete their accounts often are (like Gary Marcus talking about how AI can't run searches to retrieve information lol).

To be clear, I started out as a fan of Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron, and a rabid anti-AI hater, because I tried GPT 3.5 soon after it was released and was extremely unimpressed with any of its capabilities. But after a while, I started to get uncomfortable with my closed mindedness, and so decided to try to give the tools a fair shake, and by the time I had decided to do so, the capabilities had expanded so much that I genuinely became impressed, and the more I stress tested them the more I began to gain a more nuanced understanding where there are serious traps and limits and serious problems with how the industry is going but just because a tool is not perfectly reliable does not mean it isn't very useful sometimes.
by rurban | 2025-09-29 20:38:05+00:00
That's basic knowledge in civil engineering. You can look up every text book.

* Lack of curvature control

Catmull-Rom splines pass through all control points, which sounds great, but the curvature between points is determined automatically. For roads, you need precise control over minimum curve radii for safety and vehicle dynamics - tight curves require reduced speed limits and proper banking.

* No arc length parameterization

Catmull-Rom splines are parametric (0 to 1 between points), not arc-length parameterized. This means equal parameter steps don't give equal distances along the curve, making it tricky to place lane markings, guardrails, or calculate exact distances.

* Curvature discontinuities

While the curve itself is smooth (C1 continuous), the curvature can have abrupt changes at control points. Roads need smooth curvature transitions for driver comfort and safety - sudden changes in steering wheel position feel jarring and can be dangerous at speed.

Better are:

* Clothoid/Euler spirals - Linear curvature change, standard in highway design for smooth transitions between straights and curves. I prefer clothoids

* Cubic Bézier curves - Better curvature control with tangent handles

* B-splines - Smoother curvature, don't pass through all points but more predictable

* Circular arcs with transition curves - Traditional civil engineering approach. Nice, but not for fast speeds. And I struggled with it constantly algebraicly.
by cyberax | 2025-09-29 20:38:14+00:00
I've been using the bleach trick, especially when my shoes get wet on their own.

Add a bit of bleach to a bucket, put the shoes there for 3-4 minutes, and then add a bit of thiosulfate to neutralize the bleach. Rinse under running water, and then dry in a tumble dryer (on a drying pan).
Anyone here use Less Annoying CRM? Looking to learn from your experience
by mihaivavram | 2025-09-29 20:38:30+00:00
I’ll pay for your time if you’re a current user of Less Annoying CRM and willing to share your experience.

I’m a developer/entrepreneur exploring whether it’s worth building integrations or tooling around it, and I’d like to understand: • What you like most about the product • What frustrates you or feels missing • Any integrations you wish existed

I’m not selling anything, just trying to do genuine discovery. If you’re open to a 10–15 min chat, please let me know — I’d really appreciate it.

Thanks! ~Mihai
by tredre3 | 2025-09-29 20:38:38+00:00
Simple Gallery Pro hasn't been updated since the takeover and doesn't even have the Internet Permission, so it is still perfectly safe to use. It is still superior to Fossify Gallery because of its proprietary photo/video editor (IMG.LY). Fossify's photo editor is extremely limited, and there's no video editor at all.

If you don't use the editors (or if you're using the non-Pro Simple Gallery) then you should probably switch to Fossify now.

If you do use the editors then you should probably disable automatic updates in Google Play, so you get a heads up if they ever push a shady update.
by johnohara | 2025-09-29 20:38:52+00:00
The price of gold fluctuated significantly in 1979 due to concerns over whether inflation could be brought under control. It started the year at ~$250.00 per ounce and ended the year at ~$850.00 per ounce.

It was a presidential election year and consumers were getting squeezed hard by rising energy prices. Russia invaded Afghanistan, Carter suspended participation in the Olympics, and there was a general feeling of concern.

Using Wolfram Alpha to compute gold's price in 1979 relative to 2025, "850.00 1979 dollars in 2025", the result is $3,663.84

Gold closed today at $3,858.60.

Just like 1979, 2025 has a long list of international concerns making investors nervous.
by AlexandrB | 2025-09-29 20:38:58+00:00
> We can only hope that the incentives don't end up warping the models too much...

Oh my sweet summer child. How can you be so optimistic after seeing Google's decline? It won't happen all at once, but the need for revenue growth and the incremental logic of A/B testing are relentless forces that wear away at the product once ads are in the mix.
by taude | 2025-09-29 20:39:50+00:00
100%. As a burnt-out manager, who doesn't get a lot of spare time to actually code. It's nice to have a tool like CC where I can make actual incremental changes in the spare 15 minutes I get here and there.

I spend most of my time making version files with the prompt, but pretty impressed by how far I've gotten on an idea that would have never seen the light of day....

The thoughts of having to write input validation, database persistence, and all the other boring things I've had to write a dozen times in the past....
by pizlonator | 2025-09-29 20:40:03+00:00
The issue is that we're seeing asset price inflation that is far greater than CPI

In other words, we have two different inflations happening at once, leading to people who happened to own the right assets getting richer and everyone else getting poorer. I don't think that's what an efficient market would do, which implies that efficiency will kick in at some point and BOOM