MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rsolva | 2025-09-06 05:51:10+00:00
Correct, but the time you can stay is surprisingly generous in Oslo, between 3 and 24 hours, depending on location. I used to dread driving to Oslo, but after I discovered that the municipality had repurposed an old bunker to fit hundreads of chargers/parking spost dead in the middle of town, I visit with gleeful joy :P

Here is a map of all charging points provided by the municipality around Oslo: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/2053e5d9f24c48c487e...
by simoncion | 2025-09-06 05:51:32+00:00
> If you take all the works of Shakespeare, and reduce it to tokens and vectors is it Shakespeare or is it factual information about Shakespeare?

To rephrase the question:

Is a PDF of the complete works of Shakespeare Shakespeare, or is it factual information about Shakespeare?

Reencoding human-readable information into a form that's difficult for humans to read without machine assistance is nothing new.
by al_borland | 2025-09-06 05:52:06+00:00
This all sounds very messy.

> If someone becomes toxic, you could buy back their shares at market price and even cut off contact.

There are 2 main scenarios here. Either the person doesn’t have the money to buy back the shares, that’s why they would have entered into an agreement like this in the first place. Or they have a lot more valuable now, and they’re paying 100x on their education to try and buy out the teacher.
by keeda | 2025-09-06 05:53:06+00:00
I strongly believe LIDAR is the way to go and that Elon's vision-only move was extremely "short-sighted" (heheh). There are many reasons but that drives it home for me multiple times a week is that my Tesla's wipers will randomly sweep the windshield for absolutely no reason.

This is because the vision system thinks there is something obstructing its view when in reality it is usually bright sunlight -- and sometimes, absolutely nothing that I can see.

The wipers are, of course, the most harmless way this goes wrong. The more dangerous type is when it phantom-brakes at highway speeds with no warning on a clear road and a clear day. I've had multiple other scary incidents of different types (swerving back and forth at exits is a fun one), but phantom braking is the one that happens quasi-regularly. Twice when another car was right behind me.

As an engineer, this tells me volumes about what's going on in the computer vision system, and it's pretty scary. Basically, the system detects patterns that are inferred as its vision being obstructed, and so it is programmed to brush away some (non-existent) debris. Like, it thinks there could be a physical object where there is none. If this was an LLM you would call it a hallucination.

But if it's hallucinating crud on a windshield, it can also hallucinate objects on the road. And it could be doing it every so often! So maybe there are filters to disregard unlikely objects as irrelevant, which act as guardrails against random braking. And those filters are pretty damn good -- I mean, the technology is impressive -- but they can probabistically fail, resulting in things that we've already seen, such as phantom-braking, or worse, driving through actual things.

This raises so many questions: What other things is it hallucinating? And how many hardcoded guardrails are in place against these edge cases? And what else can it hallucinate against which there are no guardrails yet?

And why not just use LIDAR that can literally see around corners in 3D?
by defrost | 2025-09-06 05:54:03+00:00
You got me.

The best I could posit was to further the Trump plan to force US allies and not allies to team up together, isolating America from the taint of globalism.

For a more informed opinion, US Historian Heather Cox Richardson had much to say; an excerpt being:

… In 1949, Congress replaced the National Military Establishment name, whose initials sounded unfortunately like “enemy,” with Department of Defense. The new name emphasized that the Allied Powers of World War II would join together to focus on deterring wars by standing against offensive wars launched by big countries against their smaller neighbors. Although Trump told West Point graduates this year that “[t]he military's job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America, anywhere, anytime, and any place,” in fact, the stated mission of the Department of Defense is “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.” … Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has pushed the change because he sees it as part of his campaign to spread a “warrior ethos” at the Pentagon. Today he said the name change was part of “restoring intentionality to the use of force…. We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders. So this War Department, Mr. President, just like America, is back.” In 1947, when the country dropped the “War Department” name, the chief of staff of the U.S. Army—the highest-ranking officer on active duty—was five-star general Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is unusual for anyone to suggest that Eisenhower, who led the Allied troops in World War II, was insufficiently committed to military strength. Indeed, the men who changed the name to “Defense Department” and tried to create a rules-based international order did so precisely because war was not a game to them. Having seen the carnage of war not just on the battlefield but among civilians who faced firebombing, death camps, homelessness, starvation, and the obscenity of atomic weapons, they hoped to find a way to make sure insecure, power-hungry men could not start another war easily. …

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-5-2025

It's worth revisiting a prime example of day drinker Hegseth personally demonstrating "restoring intentionality to the use of force…"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrVdFnjEjs
by ScottContini | 2025-09-06 05:54:36+00:00
You can call it recreational cryptography. I am no longer a professional cryptographer: I used to be. Now I have a full time job in the software industry and a family with kids. I don't have a lot of free time to work on cryptography like professional cryptographers do.

The person you replied to is correct. To my knowledge, the best inversion of Math.random( ) is this one: https://github.com/PwnFunction/v8-randomness-predictor . It takes 5 outputs from Math.random( ) to determine the seed. My research included a 2^50 algorithm to get it with 3 outputs. If there is a better implementation out there that does it in less than 2^50 work for 3 outputs, could you please provide a link to the implementation?

Also, as I said in the blog, this is a first step. I think I can bring it down by a factor of 2^6 with another trick I am working on, but details are still being tested. As the saying goes, attacks always get better, never worse.

The blog is also to encourage the aspiring or amateur cryptographer to have a look themselves. Nothing in my research is particularly deep, so I hope it shows a wider audience that what cryptographers do doesn't always require complex mathematics. This is a simple attack and I thought it was worth blogging about.

I have another blog about why I left cryptography. Part of it is about being stuck in doing research that has no practical implications. To a real cryptographer, attacking XorShift128+ and Math.random( ) may seem uninteresting. I have a different view. Engineers make mistakes and use the wrong tools for the job all the time. We tell them it is wrong, but it is so much more powerful to prove it. When I looked at CVE-2025-7783, I just shook my head: the web security community is stuck using less than ideal tools (requiring 5 outputs to invert the algorithm) because the cryptographic community does not value producing tools to invert things that are not designed for cryptographic purposes. I think this attitude is doing a disfavour to the web security community.
by geethikaisuru | 2025-09-06 05:55:34+00:00
I hate when suddenly Claude code says, 5 hour limit reached. Would have been great to schedule my coding sessions. Got enough of waiting for Anthropic to build this. So I built a simple web app to track it. Enter your last known reset time and see 30 upcoming windows.

- Basic HTML and some style. - Fast & lightweight af - Data save in localStorage.

heh :)
by ozjd | 2025-09-06 05:57:00+00:00
I’ve been working on a project called Rusticle, which started as the default cargo new Rust app. Through aggressive size optimizations, I’ve reduced the binary to less than 0.5% of its original size — over 99.5% smaller.

It’s fully functional and runs on Windows XP (possibly even earlier versions, I'd assume Windows 2000 though untested). What’s more: it’s built using the default Rust toolchain and the MSVC linker — no nightly features, no exotic build setups.

I’m posting here because I want to push it even further. I’m already using LTO, symbol stripping, panic aborts, and other standard tricks — but I’m curious what else the community might suggest.

Are there obscure linker flags, or other techniques I haven’t considered? Bonus points if it helps with legacy Windows compatibility.

Would love to hear your thoughts — and if you’ve ever tried something similar, I’d be keen to swap notes.
by b3orn | 2025-09-06 05:57:10+00:00
For submarine cables there are two things here. The first is lower attenuation which allows for fewer amplifiers along the route making it overall cheaper. The second is lower latency. There have been cases where high frequency trading people went wireless to get lower latency because of the higher propagation speed of EM-waves in air. For really long distances you can go theoretically use satellite links to get lower latency than a submarine cable even if the total distance increases.
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-09-06 05:57:56+00:00
It is brazenly unequal. If your company makes things for 5e international markets, and you employ international production staff, you now have to separate things you do for US consumers and things you do for non-US consumers to figure out how much of this tax you should pay, it’s an accounting nightmare, especially if you ship the same product to Us and non-US consumers. More so, your non-US competitors can still ship product to US consumers without being subject to the tax, and other companies might retaliate with a tax on US labor that targets their own market, because why not?
by hilbert42 | 2025-09-06 05:58:50+00:00
I've been bitten on a number of occasions by wasps and they're painful to say the least.

One sting was particularly memorable. I had what I thought was a bee buzzing around the room where my computer was and I tried for some minutes to shoo it out the window but it disappeared, either it went to ground or snuck out without me noticing.

About two weeks later whilst working at my computer I felt several quite painful 'stings' on on my left ankle and noticed a wasp biting through my sock. What's more my first attempt to remove it was unsuccessful, it just bit me again.

An examination of my ankle showed several lacerations of about 2mm in length in near proximity to one another and they were bleeding.

Seems to me these weren't deliberate stings as such, rather the wasp was starving and I was the nearest food available. (I should add that that window and the door to the room were normally kept shut so the wasp would have had difficulty escaping.)

Would be interested to know if others have been bitten in a similar way.
by JustExAWS | 2025-09-06 05:59:06+00:00
Say the employee did want to work on the product in spite of it not being in their best interest. How are they going to get the buy in and the team to make the change and the support to get it pushed to devices in the field?

And no one works for a privacy invading ad tech company because they want to make the world a better place. It’s purely about making a shit ton of money.

> And we should be calling them out for it. It's bad in the same way that forced ranking systems are bad; they promote the wrong things.

Despite the newest LP about being the best employer, Amazon has been the shittiest of the BigTech employer as long as I can remember. Their reputation hasn’t changed anything about their profitability or stock price.

Before you ask if I knew that, why did I work there. I was 46 at the time, it was my 8th job out of 10 and it was purely remote and a “field by design role” that was remote until a year after I left. It was purely a money and resume play.
by stevenicr | 2025-09-06 06:01:17+00:00
I too have wondered why there has not been huge pressure from parents to demand that cell phone hardware and the cell companies (and cable companies) - offer a portal they can log into and choose a 'bouncer / blocking system'

I have suggested publicly in the past that there should be a set of community blocker bots that are transparent about what they do and do not block and they are easy to fork and change for this sort of thing. And parents can choose which level of blocking their networks adhere to.

Of course they could just block all things sex for the moment -

But parents have not demanded this.

I imagine that way back in the day when if the porn via cable boxes was enabled by default, many parents would not have chosen to just give their kids one in the living room and one in their bedroom, many houses put one in every room of the house.

And yet they know that these phone devices can bring up porn and many worse things - and they just hand them over with an unlimited data plan like its nothing.

Many years ago, some parents could argue they did not know there was naughty things on the telephone like connected to the computers, but today's parents grew up with the porn on the internet and most partents just give them unlimited anytime access to all the things.

If the zealots riling up the churches and mom groups and such truly believe that porn is proven scientifically destruction to the children, why are the parents not in trouble for giving these devices to the kids? Like giving a car and alcohol and unlimited ammo to what 90% of kids?

I do believe part of the problem has been non-great options for blocking. (I have heard there are more options today than there were when I researched this a bit 10 years ago - back then disney circle (too expensive) and an open source dns poisoning thing I couldn't figure out how to setup)

But I think we also need to be honest that all parents know the porn is there (and worse, they know they have cameras on these devices and things like snap have been around so long everyone knows there are worse things that can be done with these devices) - and yet people have not demanded non-camera, all adult blocked devices, in fact they have been buying them up and paying premium prices to provide unlimited 24/7 access.

So the few people who are getting their ego stroked by the choir for saving the children, it would seem being in their bubbling is preventing them from seeing the reality of the people's choices, and providing better alternatives and education.

It seems every year each group needs a boogie man to raise money and get the likes and shares before campaign season. It's a shame they are willing to slay the rights of people just to get some temporary popularity - and likely knowing it's not going to fix the thing, but it is going to cost time and money for many - but they don't care about the masses.
by safety1st | 2025-09-06 06:01:17+00:00
It's bad but I think it's important to recognize how much worse it can get. Otherwise why would you work to save anything? I'm "positive" because I come from the US and I now live in an actual banana republic and I see firsthand how much worse things will get in America if the trajectory doesn't change.

Imagine a future where election results are casually and publicly nullified if the people with the guns don't like the result, and no one can do anything about it. Or where you can start a business but if it succeeds and you don't have the right family name it'll be taken from you and you'll be stripped of all you own and possibly put in prison for a while. That's reality in some countries, the US is not there yet, but those are the stakes we're playing for here, and why change needs to happen.
by imoverclocked | 2025-09-06 06:01:24+00:00
I dislike either/or answers in such open-ended scenarios. It points to our lack of humility in the vast unknown.

eg: maybe they exist(ed) but once a civilization gets advanced enough to build FTL-like travel, they invent AI and use it for warfare and then soon cease to exist. This would mean there are potentially many civilizations (and AI?) that are budding and could travel through the universe.

eg: We aren't in an interesting enough place to bother visiting.

eg: they exist and know about us but have "prime directive" (Ala: Star Trek) laws that state they can't make contact until we reach a stable enough civilization to invent warp drive (or some other advancement.)

eg: There is some exotic reason that our pocket of the Milky Way is un-navigable.
by Szpadel | 2025-09-06 06:01:30+00:00
you can use any model with Claude code thanks to https://github.com/musistudio/claude-code-router

but in my testing other models do not work well, looks like prompts are either very optimized for Claude, or other models are just not great yet with such agentic environment

I was especially disappointed with grok code. it is very fast as advertised but in generating spaces and new lines in function calling until it hits max tokens. I wonder if that isn't why it gets so much tokens on openrouter.

gpt-5 just wasn't using the tools very well

I didn't tested glm yet, but with current anthropic subscription value, alternative would need to be very cheap if you consider daily use

edit: I noticed that also have very inexpensive subscription https://z.ai/subscribe, if they trained model to work well with CC this might actually be viable alternative
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-09-06 06:02:59+00:00
That really isn’t true. I have a split level heat pump with no thermostat, well, there is one in the remote control that sets a mini thermostat on each internal unit. Basically, we don’t have a central thermostat but that isn’t weird for Seattle.

Incidentally, I would love for a better remote control that was easier to use, we might use our heat pump more than a couple of weeks a year in that case.
by Aerroon | 2025-09-06 06:03:12+00:00
Or: we're the first (or among the first). The history that led to space travel (modern human technology) has passed through an insane amount of unlikely scenarios.

A few of these:

* Astronomical: the sun is unusually calm for a star. Jupiter blocks comets. Saturn blocked Jupiter from destroying the Earth.

* Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In the next 0.5-1 billion years Earth will become unhabitable because the sun's luminosity is increasing. We're in the twilight years of the (life-supporting) planet.

* Above point + think about all the species that came before us. Life appeared 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. It took that long to get to humans.

* Dinosaurs got wiped out. Would humans have even evolved if a cosmic event hadn't cleared the board?

* We think that human ancestors dropped down to about 1000-100,000 individuals about 900k years ago.

There's also the question of how many sun-like stars in terms of metallicity there are that preceded the sun. Our sun inherited a lot of heavier elements from a previous generation of star(s).

Add all of these together and we might be early to the party.
by ehsankia | 2025-09-06 06:03:48+00:00
Just link to a few? There's a finite set of stores a game is usually on

On PC, it'll be Steam, GOG, maybe Humble. Then on consoles you have Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo. If you wanna put affiliate link, go for it. It's better than no link at all.

These articles already bait my click for ads by never putting the name of the game in the title anyways. At least let me get to the game and buy it.
by sesm | 2025-09-06 06:04:44+00:00
One issue: 'classical mechanics' section doesn't introduce Hamiltonian, and instead it's introduced in chapter 2.2 as if it is a QM concept.

In my uni Classical Mechanics course was a pre-requisite to QM to ensure that students have a good intuition about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, because those are non-trivial concepts by themselves.
by KronisLV | 2025-09-06 06:05:38+00:00
> I get better results from Qwen 3 coder 30b a3b locally than I get from Qwen 3 Coder 480b through open router. I'm really concerned that some of the providers are using quantized versions of the models so they can run more models per card and larger batches of inference.

This doesn't match my experience precisely, but I've definitely had cases where some of the providers had consistently worse output for the same model than others, the solution there was to figure out which ones those are and to denylist them in the UI.

As for quantized versions, you can check it for each model and provider, for example: https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-coder/providers

You can see that these providers run FP4 versions:

* DeepInfra (Turbo)

And these providers run FP8 versions:

* Chutes * GMICloud * NovitaAI * Baseten * Parasail * Nebius AI Studio * AtlasCloud * Targon * Together * Hyperbolic * Cerebras

I will say that it's not all bad and my experience with FP8 output has been pretty decent, especially when I need something done quickly and choose to use Cerebras - provided their service isn't overloaded, their TPS is really, really good.

You can also request specific precision on a per request basis: https://openrouter.ai/docs/features/provider-routing#quantiz... (or just make a custom preset)
by caydenpiercehax | 2025-09-06 06:06:59+00:00
MentraOS allows multiple apps to run at the same time and access context at the same time by running apps in the cloud.

This is enabled by relay servers. You can use Mentra's relay server, or host your own.

This is the architecture that we use and recommend so multiple apps can run at once and access powerful AI, while saving your phones battery. If you need to run offline or on the edge, we're working on the Mentra Edge SDK so you can skip the cloud, but it has downsides - only 1 app at a time.

Remember, every app on your phone is communicating with its own backend - which you have to trust. This isn't different.

Users aren't forced to use the store. You can self host a relay server, self host a store, etc.
by koopuluri | 2025-09-06 06:08:04+00:00
1. If the person doesn’t have money, they can bring in a new investor who does see potential. If no one is willing to invest and they can’t afford a buyout themselves, then the “toxic” teacher just stays on the cap table, but the student can disengage personally. As soon as new investors come in, the buyout can happen.

2. If the person has become far more valuable, I don’t see that as a problem. Yes, they might be paying 100x compared to their early valuation, but that’s because their potential has grown 100x. From the student’s perspective, spending 1% of a much larger pie to buy out a teacher (even if toxic) isn’t “robbing their future self”. The real benefit for the student is that they never take on debt. Ever. They are never burdened if they don't become successful (unlike our current system).
by 0dte | 2025-09-06 06:08:43+00:00
This notably wasn't one of the allegations levied against Anthropic, as Claude was accompanied by software that filtered any infringing outputs. From the relevant opinion finding Anthropic's use of the books to be fair use:

> When each LLM was put into a public-facing version of Claude, it was complemented by other software that filtered user inputs to the LLM and filtered outputs from the LLM back to the user. As a result, Authors do not allege that any infringing copy of their works was or would ever be provided to users by the Claude service.

(from Bartz v. Anthropic in the Northern District of California)