MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by freehorse | 2025-09-29 06:41:46+00:00
No, I wouldn't. That would require me be proficient in this, and I am not, so I am pretty sure I would not get to write better assembly optimisations unless I actually became better in that.

The difference is that there is no point (I know or would encounter) in which a compiler would not actually be able to do the job, and I would need to write manual assembly to fix some parts that the compiler could not compile. Yes a proficient programmer could probably do that to optimise the code, but the code would run and do the job regardless. That is not the case for LLMs, there is a non-zero changeyou get to the point of LLM agents getting stuck and it makes more sense to get hands dirty than iterating with agents.
by jaggederest | 2025-09-29 06:42:02+00:00
A gentle warning to people who are overly trusting: Claude code can and will modify files in plan mode.

Before I switched to a different agent, I routinely ran into situations where I would say "write a plan to do x", it would start planning, and I would steer it by saying something like "update such and such a file, instead of other-file" and it would immediately update it, even though it was in plan mode.

Then I would point out "you're in plan mode, don't update files", and it would go absolutely ham undoing changes and furiously apologizing "You're right! I'm in plan mode, let me undo those changes I wasn't supposed to make!" - meaning that now it's broken the rules twice.

Plan mode does not disable any writing tools, it just changes the system prompt, judging by my experience anyway.
by BrenBarn | 2025-09-29 06:42:30+00:00
This is only touched on in passing, but I think editing is the real missing link here. When content was gatekept by publishers of various sorts, they wouldn't let anyone just ramble on for as long as they felt like. When anyone can do it with no constraints, well, a lot of it is going to be crap.

Producing good work is hard, and part of what makes it hard is not the production of "raw material" but the cutting down of the bad parts and the distillation of the good parts into a more concentrated form.

When I was in college I took a class where we had to write a weekly one-page summary of that week's readings/research. It was much harder than it would have been had there been no length limit. It's easier to make a three-hour podcast than to make a one-hour podcast.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-09-29 06:43:03+00:00
What I need is to be able to blacklist alarms on a calendar. If I have that day marked as a holiday, I don't want my alarms going off. If I turn them off for the three day weekend, I inevitably forget to turn them back on for Tuesday. I have a calendar that has all these days marked, but no way to do this in a convenient manner. Can your stuff do this?
by 4ggr0 | 2025-09-29 06:43:20+00:00
isn't there a difference between buying a gallon of milk every week because that's part of your standard household equipment versus an item you buy once every couple of years?

i think no one would disagree that there are things they buy very frequently, almost on a schedule. (then again, with these items people are probably very accustomed to buying the same brand of milk every week, so ads don't seem reasonable here as well).
by freeopinion | 2025-09-29 06:43:54+00:00
Do I understand that you want these to be sorted like this?

1 2 9 10 11

So I guess you also want things sorted like

1.1 1.2 2 9 9.9

And also

1 1.1 1.10 1.2 1.10.1

So when you're done defining whatever crazy rules you think up, how do I pause whatever and edit the filenames to get them back into lexicographical order?

You can massage lexicographical to meet your needs. I can't massage your arbitrary rules to meet my needs.
by raxxorraxor | 2025-09-29 06:44:28+00:00
Problem with a digital ID is that I don't want to use it beyond government service. But now there is discussion that people need to identify themselves for any and all online services.

If an ID is proliferated the legislative change to force ID checks is minimal. If it weren't just Estonia and government ID would be more widely spread, it would take less than 24h for the EU to enforce borders online.
by nine_k | 2025-09-29 06:44:46+00:00
I'm not objecting! I wrote many thousand lines of both classic BASIC (80, MSX, etc) and Fortran-66 (not even 77). Once I even wrote a BASIC version of some numerical methods assignment in a way that made it trivially easy to translate it to Fortran at the university.

Modern Fortran is pretty great in its specific area, and is barely recognizable as a descendant of the ancient Fortran.
by spwa4 | 2025-09-29 06:45:09+00:00
That will never work for an economy the size of China. If China really starts producing it will easily satisfy the full demand of the entire world. So this can't happen.

But, China is a centrally planned economy. Every centrally planned economy died (or went into a state so bad people starve, like North Korea) because it gives higher ups an incredible incentive to lie about everything. This is made easy by the fact that centrally planned economies suppress dissent.
by chithanh | 2025-09-29 06:46:21+00:00
The sorting order is only defined between strings of the same locale, not between strings of different locales.

You can specify the sorting order per command like

LC_COLLATE="tr_TR.utf8" ls

if it differs from your system or user locale.

An alternative is to first transliterate the strings to ASCII and then sort them (but this does not preserve the sorting order of non-latin scripts).
by shirro | 2025-09-29 06:46:35+00:00
Australia's phase 2 industry codes build on phase 1 which was blocking csam and terrorist stuff and are into the child protection phase with age assurance and content restrictions.

There are draft documents across a range of services including search, social media and internet carriage.

The most relevant ones for Android are:

- app distribution services https://onlinesafety.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CLEAN...

- manufacture supply of devices (including operating systems) https://onlinesafety.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CLEAN...

The future is looking bleak for open computing and open hardware. They have gone from being a place of education, freedom and empowerment to a loophole in regulation.
by d1sxeyes | 2025-09-29 06:47:01+00:00
I am surprised how many people are comfortable calling sorting numbers alphabetical sorting (including TFA).

In true alphabetical sorting, sorting numbers is undefined behaviour. Both of these sorting methods are valid extensions of alphabetical sorting, and which you prefer is just that: a preference.

So actually when he says ‘alphabetical order’, he does not, in fact, mean ‘alphabetical order’.
by adwn | 2025-09-29 06:48:31+00:00
As much as I wish this would come true, there's little chance for a full, end-to-end open source toolchain for Xilinx or Altera FPGAs that's competitive with the vendor tools. The reason for this is that there's no publicly available documentation of the signal routing configuration or the bitstream format, which are required for the final two steps in the chain. I don't see the two market leaders releasing this information anytime soon, and reverse engineering it from the data files is probably rather difficult.

The synthesis discussed in the linked page is one of the earliest steps, and from the point of view of open source implementations, the simplest one, because all necessary information is freely available.
by 0d0a | 2025-09-29 06:49:14+00:00
Exactly, it misses out on explaining how the fixed Huffman table is interpreted to apply symbol and distance codes, or how dynamic tables are derived from the input itself. Sure it's the hardest part, but also the more interesting to visualize. As another commenter pointed out, we are just left with mysterious bit sequences for these codes.

It would be cool if we could supply our own Huffman table and see how that affects the stream itself. We might want to put our text right there! https://github.com/nevesnunes/deflate-frolicking?tab=readme-...
by jinjin2 | 2025-09-29 06:50:16+00:00
Bullying is such a hard problem. The only school system I have seen dealing with it effectively is the Sudbury Valley schools.

There they have a Judicial Committee, composed of both students and staff, and deal with issues through a process similar to courts in democratic society.

Interesting enough, both students and staff can be brought up for bad behavior, which is probably what makes the process respected enough to work.
by curtisblaine | 2025-09-29 06:51:32+00:00
I still fail to understand why this is a thing. Two possibilities:

1) the beat is created live by a human performer who can't meaningfully hear the other performer(s) in time. He / she is stuck with playing blindly.

2) the beat is pre-recorded - sampled or electronically generated on a sequencer. Then what's the use case in the first place? The other performer can download it offline and play on it live.

All this is done to get something that mimics a live performance (but isn't, because the band components can't hear each other in real time) to someone listen-only at the end of the chain. What's the advantage in doing so? What's the use case?
by spwa4 | 2025-09-29 06:52:01+00:00
However that is still vulnerable to the microwaves. The issue is that this setup catches microwaves and while, yes, it prevents the waves from entering the electronics it does so by converting them to heat. So if this cage has caught 100J * volume (say 100W for slightly over 1.5 minutes), the electronics are above 100 degrees, and the solder joints are releasing.

The advantage of microwaves is that unlike lasers, kilowatt strong microwaves are easy to generate, it is an incredibly well studied problem, because that's how early radar systems worked. They are what secured the skies above London against the Nazi air force.

Israel seems to be trying another approach with lasers. They decided it doesn't matter if the laser is powerful, if you just have hundreds of 2W lasers aimed at the same target.
by wheezle | 2025-09-29 06:52:24+00:00
It will deliver two separate batches. One of U1 & U4 and a 2nd one of U3 & U2. `quinn-udp` in particular also uses recvmmsg and is thus able to receive up to 32 different permutations of src, dst and segment length with a single syscall (assuming the application provides enough buffers).
by athrowaway3z | 2025-09-29 06:52:29+00:00
Isn't one of those scalers getting money from NVIDIA to buy NVIDIA cards which they use as collateral to borrow more money to buy more NVIDIA cards which NVIDIA put up as revenue which bumps the stock price which they invest into OpenAI which invests into Oracle which buys more NVIDIA cards?

Its not a Ponzi scheme, and I don't have a crystal ball to determine where supply and demand will best meet, but a lot seems to be riding on the promise of future demand selling at a premium.

I'm not yet ready to believe this is the thing that permanently breaks supply and demand. More compute demand is likely, but the state of the art: resale-users, providers, and suppliers, will all get hit with more competition.
by Someone | 2025-09-29 06:55:21+00:00
> Indeed you can't be sure. But on the other hand a bunch of the commentariat has been claiming (with no evidence) that we're at the midpoint of the sigmoid for the last three years.

I haven’t followed things closely, but I’ve seen more statements that we may be near the midpoint of a sigmoid than that we are at it.

> Thy were wrong. And then you had the AI frontier lab insiders who predicted an accelerating pace of progress for the last three years. They were right.

I know it’s an unfair question because we don’t have an objective way to measure speed of progress in this regard, but do you have evidence for models not only getting better, but getting better faster? (Remember: even at the midpoint of a sigmoid, there still is significant growth)
by 3uler | 2025-09-29 06:55:55+00:00
Yes it is a skill issue - I lack the skill to enjoy programming in a language with the ergonomics of something from the 70s. Golang is C with garbage collection

They’re complaining about mediocre AI-generated Go code, when Go was explicitly designed to optimize for mediocrity at scale. Rob Pike literally said they designed it for programmers who “are not capable of understanding a brilliant language.” The language deliberately trades expressiveness for simplicity so that huge teams of junior engineers can’t shoot themselves in the foot.

LLMs are basically junior engineers with perfect syntax recall. Of course they generate Go well, verbose, explicit, no clever abstractions. That’s not a bug, it’s the entire design philosophy.

For most of my work, TypeScript/Node is plenty fast and I can work fullstack in one language. When I actually need performance, Rust gives me control without random GC pauses. And if I need a GC language with good ergonomics, Kotlin on the JVM is miles ahead.

Go made sense in 2010 when Google needed to get thousands of new grads productive quickly. But those tradeoffs, sacrificing language quality for organizational scale - are exactly why it’s perfect for AI generation. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t design a language for the lowest common denominator and then be surprised when AI hits exactly that bar.
by jibal | 2025-09-29 06:56:12+00:00
It was Larry Summers, who was frequently mischaracterized as having claimed that men were smarter than women. But he was far from innocent--it was one of the worst cases ever of failing to read the room--a room full of extremely accomplished and intelligent women ... and his speculations severely failed to account for cultural factors. It rationalized the status quo and suggested that nothing could change it. The history of women in STEM since then has refuted those speculations ... though the attack on "DEI" is turning the progress around.

> Since differences between the sexes exist, I would also expect differences among the sexes to cluster for evolutionarily relevant reasons

And what is one supposed to do with this vague generalization? Mostly it used to reinforce biases.
by pjmlp | 2025-09-29 06:56:27+00:00
JVM is designed for and alongside Java.

I will consider Kotlin outside Android, when it becomes relevant for JVM design, being taken into account by all major JVM implementations and JEP proposals, instead of something imposed by an OS vendor, stiffing Java support on purpose.

Guest languages always end up eventually going down their own path.

Not even C++ developed alongside C and UNIX, managed to take over UNIX clones, or industry standards for OS and graphics APIs.

Typescript relevance might wither away when JavaScript gains type annotations, it is after all only a nice linting tool.

Despite all WebAssembly craziness, JavaScript still rules the browser and edge gateways.

If that is irrational, oh well.
by BatteryMountain | 2025-09-29 06:59:10+00:00
I've been using claude code for the past 2 months and I spend most of my time in it's planning mode, which is just amazing to flesh out a good plan. After having a very good/specific plan, it usually one-shots the implementation. If I have a bad plan, it executes poorly.

The other thing that makes a big difference is using a language that has strong typing and a strict compiler. You can allow claude to call the complier, analysers, debuggers and so forth and it works amazing to keep code quality consistent if you tell it always follow your existing patterns.

Lastly, I figured out recently, quite by accident, that claude can call adb/logcat on a connected android device, to ingest real debug logs while my app is running, which can be a firehose of logs. It cuts through it like candyfloss and spots runtime errors significantly faster than a human can read all those log. It found a bug for me that was nearly impossible to find with the IDE & breakpoints, just by ingesting the debug/logcats outputs directly.

So overall the article is great, I do think the way we work can and will fundamentally change in the coming years.
by Hackbraten | 2025-09-29 06:59:42+00:00
There’s some prior art on this [0] [1], and it’s worked decently well for me on obfuscated JS.

[0]: https://thejunkland.com/blog/using-llms-to-reverse-javascrip...

[1]: https://github.com/jehna/humanify/blob/main/README.md#exampl...
by ipnon | 2025-09-29 07:00:22+00:00
The differences in macroeconomic policy between America and China has been described as a difference between optimizing for GDP growth and optimizing for productivity growth: America will be satisfied with increasing GDP at the expense of productivity, and China will be satisfied with with increasing productivity at the expense of GDP. The Chinese state owned enterprises are able to burn through billions of dollars of investment with little or no returns so long as the end result increases total productivity in the economy at large, and not just profit at the level of the firms.
by Lukas_Skywalker | 2025-09-29 07:00:37+00:00
The status quo is that companies which are required by law to have this information (banks, telecommunication providers etc) do require an ID scan (and often video identification as well).

All the others don't really care and just let you register with whatever name and birthdate you want, because the ID scan method is too cumbersome and expensive to them.

I expect those to move to eID, effectively requiring people to have an eID, with no way to provide false information.
by littlestymaar | 2025-09-29 07:01:33+00:00
It's funny because the author doesn't realize that this sentence at the beginning undermines his entire argument:

> Or they see two consecutive model releases and don’t notice much difference in their conversations, and they conclude that AI is plateauing and scaling is over.

The reason why we now fail to notice the difference between consecutive models now is because the progress isn't in fact exponential. Humans tend to have a logarithmic perception, which means we only appreciate progress when it is exponential (for instance you'd be very happy to get a $500 raise if you are living the minimum wage, but you wouldn't even call that “a raise” when on a SV engineers salary).

AI models have been improving a ton for the past three years, in many direction, but the rate of progress is definitely not exponential. It's not emergent either, as the focus is now being specifically directed at solving specific problems (both riddles and real world problems) thanks to trillions of token of high quality synthetic data.

On topics that aren't explicitly being worked on, progress have been minimal or even negative (for instance many people still use the 1 year old Mistral Nemo for creative writing because the more recent ones all have been STEMmaxxed)
by somenameforme | 2025-09-29 07:01:59+00:00
But it is! To take a silly but noncontroversial example - if, for just a single fertility generation (which is driven by the female fertility window for humans - about 20 years) anybody over 5'3" stopped having children, all humans would become quite short! Of course there's some asterisks there like malnutrition may mean somebody's genetically 'normal' height is greater than their expressed height, but the broad point remains true - in a single generation there would be a dramatic transformation in humanity.

This has also been observed in nature. For instance most people view the variation in Darwin's finches as something gradually happening over eons, but further studies on them showed a rapid shift in beak morphology following a single severe drought. [1] It's the same stuff - suddenly one beak became more likely to reproduce (or not), which drove a very rapid population level change.

[1] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.h...
by Timwi | 2025-09-29 07:02:04+00:00
> Why? We got attached to pleasant sounding but made up story. We didn’t question it enough to allow the evidence before our eyes to update our thinking.

It bears mentioning that this isn't simply a matter of “everyone was wrong until a clever chap was first to question established wisdom and suddenly everyone was enlightened”.

It's more like “everyone enforces the established wisdom on everyone else and the clever chap is punished for being clever”.

I don't know if this applied to the germ theory, but it applied to plenty of theories the most famous of which being geocentrism. It's very likely that people before Copernicus questioned geocentrism, perhaps even thought of heliocentrism, but were either tortured or killed for it, or stayed silent from the get-go because they knew that would happen to them.

Lone clever chaps do not overturn established wisdom. It's a gradual process that requires a critical mass and a mountain of evidence.
by OvbiousError | 2025-09-29 07:02:10+00:00
> Anyone shipping code in a professional setting doesn't just push to prod after 5 people say LGTM to their vibe coded PR, as much as we like to joke around with it.

I can guarantee this is happening in a lot of companies right now. Any company where there is pressure to use AI tools + pressure to get faster results it's inevitable.
by justlikereddit | 2025-09-29 07:02:33+00:00
The exponential progress argument is frequently also misconstrued as a

>"we will get there by monotonously doing more of what we did previously"

Take the independent time being an SWE metric of the article. This is a rather new( metric for measuring AI capabilitie, it's also a good metric, it is directly measurable in a quantified way, unlike nebulous goal points such as "AGI/ASI".

It also doesn't necessarily predict any upheaval, which I also think is a good trait of a metric, we know it will be better when it hits 8, or 16 hours, but we can skip the hype and prophecies of civilizational transformation that are attached to terminology like "AGI/ASI".

Now the caveat is that a SWE-time metric is useful at the moment because it's an intra day timescale, but if we push this number to the point of comparing 48 hour vs 54 hour SWE-time models we can easily end up chasing abstractions that have little to no explanatory power as to how good this AI really is and what consists as a proper and good incremental improvement and what comes out as a numerical benchmark number that may or may not be artificial.

The same can be said of math-olympiad scores and many of the existing AI benchmarks.

In the past there existed a concept of narrow AI. We could take task A, make a narrow AI become good at it. But we would expect a different application to be needed for task B.

Now we have generalist AI, and we take the generalist AI and make it become good at task A because that is the flavor of the month metric, but maybe that doesn't translate for improving task B, which someone will come around to improving when that becomes flavor of the month.

The conclusion? There's probably no good singular metric to get stuck on and say

"this is it, this graph is the one, watch it go exponential and bring forth God"

We will instead skip, hop and jump between task-or-category specific metrics that are deemed significant at the moment and arms-race style pump them up until their relevance fades.
by samplifier | 2025-09-29 07:02:47+00:00
Thanks for sharing that information. Fonts were not being rendered without adding an exemption. Instructions for future reference if resist fingerprinting is on: in about:config modify privacy.resistFingerprinting.exemptedDomains and add messenger.abeto.co/. Example: .example.invalid,*messenger.abeto.co/ Obligatory disclaimer that fingerprinting is then possible for that site and one's privacy could be compromised. Use at your own risk and all that.
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-09-29 07:03:51+00:00
Okay, I'll refine the rule to "Treat any sequence of digits as a base 10 whole number for the purpose of sorting". I still think this is quite clear. (Frankly, I also think the original definition is quite clear unless you're purposefully trying to misinterpret it.)

> those names are strings having one or two characters. They are not "numbered files."

Yes they are! In this context, a number is an idea, not a data type. Strings are capable of containing numbers.