MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rbalicki | 2025-09-20 21:07:16+00:00
Many years ago, I saw a video of a touchscreen input demo where the touchscreen could tell how many fingers you were placed on the screen, i.e. track each finger independently. So, for example, you might imagine that two finger scrolling up/down controls the volume, three fingers controls the AC strength, etc.

This also gave you another two degrees of freedom: expansion vs contraction and rotation. So, you might start with three fingers close together and expand out. Or you might rotate three fingers clockwise to proceed to the next track.

This gives you enough degrees of freedom to never need to look at the screen for routine actions! Sadly, I haven't seen anything about it since then. Large changes like this to UX are going to be inherently hard to introduce into cars, but alas, feels like a missed opportunity.
by Spivak | 2025-09-20 21:07:34+00:00
I don't think it's a valid measure across models but, as in the OP, it's a great measure for when they mess with "the same model" behind the scenes.

That being said we also do keep a test suite to check that model updates don't result in worse results for our users and it worked well enough. We had to skip a few versions of Sonnet because it stopped being able to complete tasks (on the same data) it could previously. I don't blame Anthropic, I would be crazy to assume that new models are a strict improvement across all tasks and domains.

I do just wish they would stop depreciating old models, once you have something working to your satisfaction it would be nice to freeze it. Ah well, only for local models.
by dahart | 2025-09-20 21:07:36+00:00
I thought you were saying the TV industry is fixing it, maybe I misunderstood. PQ is a television standard, people don’t really use it in other scenarios. I thought you were defending PQ. If not, then I’m not sure why we’re talking about PQ, Game Maker doesn’t use PQ, does it?

I’m not sure what you mean about different ambient environments leading to the conclusion that PQ is wrong. No color space can fix that problem, that’s not a color space problem. You seemed to argue with the idea of keeping track of physical units. I guess I’m not understanding your point.

For the rest it sounds like we’re mostly in full agreement. Of course the output of HDR work isn’t linear, transfer functions and tonemapping guarantee that. I mentioned linear HDR workflows because you brought up PQ, which is primarily a delivery display color space for HDR displays. I agree that what 1.0 means depends on what the color space defines it to mean, especially when you don’t use a relative color space. We only have the 2 kinds, one that’s relative and where 1.0 is defined to mean the max brightness (or reflectivity) of the display medium, and one where you somewhere define an absolute reference point. My point was only, and still is, that for the relative color spaces, 1.0 always means the same thing. It’s true you can have values above 1 in a relative color space, if you want, but you can’t print or display them; that would only be useful for pre-output color processing.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-20 21:08:31+00:00
I remember that there was a Dilbert comic, back when Apple started releasing models with back-and-front glass, that referred to "a smartphone" as being "BSB," which stood for "Beautiful, Slippery, Brittle." The idea was that buyers were encouraged to not get a case (thus, hiding the "beauty"), but it was easy to drop ("slippery"), and easy to break ("brittle").
by SilverElfin | 2025-09-20 21:08:45+00:00
They actually had an industrial design studio come up with the design. It isn’t white labeled “Alibaba junk” and to my eyes, it doesn’t resemble that either.

> I've got knives that I've had for over 20 years that perform as well as this thing appears to (in the slick prepared advertisement).

You have knives that can not have potatoes stick without scallops in the blade? Or that can atomize lemon drops? Or that can cut through bread easily without a serrated edge? What I’m seeing in the video is a lot more versatile. But I can see needing a smaller utility knife still.
by nanolith | 2025-09-20 21:09:38+00:00
The applicability of Rice's theorem with respect to static analysis or abstract interpretation is more complex than you implied. First, static analysis tools are largely pattern-oriented. Pattern matching is how they sidestep undecidability. These tools have their place, but they aren't trying to be the tooling you or the parent claim. Instead, they are more useful to enforce coding style. This can be used to help with secure software development practices, but only by enforcing idiomatic style.

Bounded model checkers, on the other hand, are this tooling. They don't have to disprove Rice's theorem to work. In fact, they work directly with this theorem. They transform code into state equations that are run through an SMT solver. They are looking for logic errors, use-after-free, buffer overruns, etc. But, they also fail code for unterminated execution within the constraints of the simulation. If abstract interpretation through SMT states does not complete in a certain number of steps, then this is also considered a failure. The function or subset of the program only passes if the SMT solver can't find a satisfactory state that triggers one of these issues, through any possible input or external state.

These model checkers also provide the ability for user-defined assertions, making it possible to build and verify function contracts. This allows proof engineers to tie in proofs about higher level properties of code without having to build constructive proofs of all of this code.

Rust has its own issues. For instance, its core library is unsafe, because it has to use unsafe operations to interface with the OS, or to build containers or memory management models that simply can't be described with the borrow checker. This has led to its own CVEs. To strengthen the core library, core Rust developers have started using Kani -- a bounded model checker like those available for C or other languages.

Bounded model checking works. This tooling can be used to make either C or Rust safer. It can be used to augment proofs of theorems built in a proof assistant to extend this to implementation. The overhead of model checking is about that of unit testing, once you understand how to use it.

It is significantly less expensive to teach C developers how to model check their software using CBMC than it is to teach them Rust and then have them port code to Rust. Using CBMC properly, one can get better security guarantees than using vanilla Rust. Overall, an Ada + Spark, CBMC + C, Kani + Rust strategy coupled with constructive theory and proofs regarding overall architectural guarantees will yield equivalent safety and security. I'd trust such pairings of process and tooling -- regardless of language choice -- over any LLM derived solutions.
by ElliotH | 2025-09-20 21:10:20+00:00
I love seeing a change ringing article on HN, especially with well labelled diagrams!

The move to a framework system where we can all ring what we like and just describe it within an agreed upon nomenclature is a great improvement rather than the legacy Decisions. Having strict rules always seemed quite dated to me - the ringing police after all do not show up if you ring a "banned" performance. But agreeing on names makes communication possible - a good role for a central body.

Jump changes are fun too, but I don't think I agree with the article that allowing them has really led to a revolution. The top performances on BellBoard are of commonly rung non-jump methods. In fact I don't think I've seen a jump method be featured at all. Philip himself doesn't seemed to have published a performance of "Jump" anything since 2013. For many I think it remains an interesting novelty.
by gambiting | 2025-09-20 21:10:52+00:00
In my experience(English as a second language) it's actualy useless and recognizes maybe 30% of what I say. In my native tongue it's even worse than that, but that's a moot point as if I try to mix and say "[in my native tongue] navigate to [in English]Queen Victoria's Hospital" it will just never work. That combination has actual 0% success rate but it's unavoidable living in the UK. As does trying to call anyone with a non-English name, trying to do say "call Jędrzej Kazimierzowski" just leads to either it dialing someone completely unrelated or just saying "Sorry, I don't recognize that".
by zamadatix | 2025-09-20 21:11:06+00:00
If it were just that "higher number sells better" reasoning then it wouldn't make sense the density increases had a pretty hard stop after ~2014. Same with why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream - it's about the genuine limit for a typical person at typical TV viewing distance unless they have an absolutely massive TV.

I always thought Samsung had a clever approach with a toggle to just render at the lower resolution if you wanted the lower rendering load. Then you still only need to develop 1 cutting edge screen with all of the latest improvements but it will please both use cases well as the cost overhead of shipping models 2 separate screens would.
by thebenedict | 2025-09-20 21:11:59+00:00
This is nonsense and your cynicism is unwarranted. I personally know Scott. He's worked on food tech in Seattle for decades, and developed the product and fundraised for Seattle Ultrasonics locally.

Ultrasonic knives are historically large footprint devices used in commercial/industrial food prep. The innovation here is making ultrasonic hardware compact enough to fit in the knife handle.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-09-20 21:12:56+00:00
I go caseless just because of sheer amount of bulk cases add, even the "thin" ones. It significantly impacts how easy the device is to hold and pocket.

The Air I might consider putting a bumper case on since its thinness offsets the bulk increase, but it's specifically made to be resilient to drops so it's a coin toss even with that.

I barely drop my phone though, it happens maybe twice a year, usually on carpet. In the last decade my phones might've had a run-in with concrete or pavement 2-3 times, tops.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-09-20 21:13:25+00:00
Depends. Am I guaranteed the ten years?

See, I'm 63. My current life expectancy is more like 18 years, so 10 years would be... maybe a bit short? But not so short that I can claim to be really ripped off. But the other side is, a guarantee that that I'd make 10 years is better than my pessimistic scenarios, so that would be a step up.

What would I do? Probably retire today. The problem with retirement planning is that you don't know how long you're planning for; if you did know, it would simplify a lot.

I'd make an effort to spend more time with my kids. It's not just that I only have 10 years - they also have only 10 years to have me around.

I am a Christian. I'd try to pass on some of what I've learned to the younger generations. (I mean, maybe more in general too, but what I've learned about coding, say, isn't going to change anybody's life.)

I'd probably watch what I eat less. That piece of chocolate cake won't be what kills me.

I'd hopefully be more patient toward people. There are a lot of things that aren't worth getting mad at them over.
by nixosbestos | 2025-09-20 21:13:46+00:00
Dear Rust haters, lying about Rust in the Linux kernel is not effective for your cause, and in fact just makes it further look like you're throwing a tantrum. Downvoting me doesn't change the fact that more and more Rust is merged into the kernel, new, serious drivers are being written in Rust. It also doesn't change Firefox, Chrome, Microsoft, the US Government and others are recommending and writing new code in Rust. It's over, qq. It's absurd.

I really wish I could find the Lobsters comment the other day from someone that broke down the incredible list of nuanced, spec-level detail you needed to know about C++ to actually use it at scale in large projects. It's laughably, absurdly complex compared to Rust in huge code bases.
by ElliotH | 2025-09-20 21:13:48+00:00
There is some change ringing in the USA, just not very much of it. There are towers around.. https://www.nagcr.org/towers-and-bands

There's even a few change ringing towers dotted around parts of Africa, Australia, some of Europe. Just few and far between.

But when compared to England, where practically every town can be relied upon to have at least a 6 bell tower where change ringing can happen, it's no comparison.
Show HN: ScaryStories.Live – Real-Time AI Horror Video Generator
by tonyabracadabra | 2025-09-20 21:15:03+00:00
We’re launching a platform that lets you turn any scenario—your basement, your city, your office—into an interactive POV horror video, powered by a state-of-the-art real-time video generation model (think LTXV, Sora, or whatever the AI gods just dropped on arXiv). You type a prompt, upload a photo, and seconds later you’re watching (and shaping) your own nightmare unfold.

It’s not just a video generator. It’s an experience: dynamic, interactive, and game-like. Tweak the fear level, swap images, change the story on the fly. Export to TikTok, share, remix, collaborate. All runs are saved for further play.

Launching October 2025. Waitlist: https://scarystories.live

Ask me anything about the stack, the SOTA model, or how close we got to making AI horror actually scary.
by troupo | 2025-09-20 21:16:14+00:00
I mean, this is from a company that judges its designs for "feeling of rebelliousness" and "courage" [1]

The entire text is rationalizing post-factum for a promotion package.

[1] In case you missed it https://design.google/library/expressive-material-design-goo...

--- start quote ---

We found a 32% increase in subculture perception, which indicates that expressive design makes a brand feel more relevant and “in-the-know.” We also saw a 34% boost in modernity, making a brand feel fresh and forward-thinking. On top of that, there was a 30% jump in rebelliousness, suggesting that expressive design positions a brand as bold, innovative, and willing to break from convention.

--- end quote ---
by andy99 | 2025-09-20 21:16:24+00:00
These can be useful for labs training models. I don't see them as particularly valuable for building AI systems. Real performance depends on how the system is built, much more so than the underlying LLM.

Evaluating the system you build on relevant inputs is most important. Beyond that it would be nice to see benchmarks that give guidance on how and LLM should be used as a system component, not just which is "better" at something.
by stordoff | 2025-09-20 21:16:26+00:00
Not perfectly. I grabbed a random encoded line from these comments, and asked ChatGPT to decode it[1]. It determined the plaintext was:

> Immediately thought of Moby, infact a quick search for this title... coincidental, but I would mention it in the page if I were you.

and noted that it had "preserved punctuation and capitalization from the ciphertext". The actual plaintext should be:

> Immediately thought of XKCD, infact a quick search for this title gives me XKCD, it could be coincidental, but I would mention it in the page if I were you.

I've hit my free usage limit so can't currently prompt it further about its mistake.

[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/68cf17a6-8478-8011-a44e-64d43ad8a4...
by preommr | 2025-09-20 21:17:01+00:00
This feels like it should've been a git issue rather than a blog post.

No feedback from the author, no explaining what the code does at a level for people new to zig, no explanations of the fundamental problem (i.e. files, buffers, and flow of data, and how to write that as code) and how it relates to what zig is doing, no alternate solution for how zig or other languages might try to solve the problem.

I have a strong suspicion that people are upvoting this based on the title of 'Zig' and 'unsafe' instead of the actual substance of the post.
by mystraline | 2025-09-20 21:17:46+00:00
'15 hours to return or you're fucked' is not the kind of policy to reform H1B status.

Disassociating the employee with special skills from the sponsoring company would do a load better. Right now, the current H1B sponsorship creates a form of indentured servitude, which is horrific.

Now, sure, H1B should be gated similarly to Green Card status, as in there is a need for people of those skills. Right now, H1B serves as a way to depress wages for the rest of us. If anything, H1B should be significantly higher to show "these skills are highly in need", but instead, average H1B wages are 100k/yr.

Reforms are completely needed. But slapping a 17 hour 'show up or you'll be sorry' is NOT it.
by duxup | 2025-09-20 21:17:59+00:00
Honestly I think most of the actually angry people only heard "about it". It was a very mild commentary.

The commentary about what Kimmel said was disconnected from what he said, hell the demand he give money seemed more like a criminal shakedown.

I think Trump's statement about going after anyone who has anything negative to say about them, that's the real goal / point. Doesn't even have anything to do with Kirk.
by ViewTrick1002 | 2025-09-20 21:18:09+00:00
Okay. Planes was a bit tongue in cheek from me.

The central point was that syngas, as it stands today, only really works if you have a concentrated carbon source due to the infeasibility of direct air carbon capture.

Meaning, for aviation to be freely able to release its previously captured carbon to the atmosphere we need a source for it. Capturing the exhaust fumes from a coal plant is just fossil emissions with extra steps.

One source could be biofuels and biogas from waste. But is that enough to run all airtravel on? Likely not. And if the carbon source is biofuels then we might as well just skip making syngas and run the airplanes on it directly.

The aviation industry have enormous problems to solve, and for it to work I think direct air capture needs to be solved. Or they need to manage with liquid hydrogen or ammonia. Come to think of it; ammonia and an airplane crash sounds like a terrible recipe...

For maritime shipping they alreay have engines running on hydrogen, methanol, syngas, syndiesel, ammonia and whatever else that is liquid at any temperature and makes a bang. They also have the space to install carbon capture systems if they choose to go down carbon based fuels allowing them to not be reliant on direct air capture.

This is why they truly like ammonia. It is a liquid with similar nastiness properties as methanol which they know how to deal with. Nitrogen is trivial to capture and it makes a bang when ran in an engine.
by mr_toad | 2025-09-20 21:18:34+00:00
> Initially? People looking for gold, silver, fur.

For the most part it was companies looking for gold, furs etc, with the support of their governments. Companies founded the colonies and trading posts for the benefit of the stockholders and the governments. The consideration of colonists was a distant third. When the supply of easy marks dried up they turned to indentured labour and then slavery.
by esbranson | 2025-09-20 21:20:29+00:00
Classic elitism masquerading as insight. Complaints about parking near Harvard passed off as proof of America's decline, and hand-wringing over chip sales as if who profits changes anything for ordinary Americans. The obsession with framing everything as US vs China blinds these writers to the obvious: what matters for Americans is wages, housing, and healthcare, not whether elites can take a train to Harvard or whether Beijing builds more bridges. A strong China, like a strong Japan or Germany, is not a threat to ordinary Americans. The bizarre part is watching people recycle the same cracked narratives until they've forgotten what everyday life even looks like.
by sterlind | 2025-09-20 21:21:11+00:00
> Among the apps described as "highly concerning" are Turbo VPN, VPN Proxy Master, XY VPN, and 3X VPN – Smooth Browsing, each of which has been downloaded 100 million times from the Google Play Store. Thus, hundreds of millions of internet users believe they are enjoying a level of security that does not exist.

I've never once heard of any of these. And those download numbers seem more like bots pumping the stats. No way are 100,000,000 humans using "VPN Proxy Master."

This is a low-effort article.
by mulmen | 2025-09-20 21:21:33+00:00
> The point is to remove the most egregious of failures, and let literally anything else take their place.

Define egregious. Why would the next thing be any different than what it replaced?

> Sometimes things fail so badly that a randomly initialized system outperforms them.

Sometimes? When?

> The point is: recognize that and apply destruction.

How do we recognize what needs to be destroyed? What are the criteria?

What you’re describing here seems incredibly careless.
by kmeisthax | 2025-09-20 21:21:59+00:00
HPE's customers are big-pocketed enough that they absolutely could manage a Rust port themselves, or pay HPE however much money they need to get them to do it if they're going to play games with ABI documentation. NonStop isn't some kind of weird hobbyist or retrocomputing platform.

Actually, I'm surprised HPE doesn't already ship a Rust fork, given how NonStop is supposed to be a "reliable" OS...
by danabramov | 2025-09-20 21:22:11+00:00
It’s not necessarily smooth sailing for sure. But in my (limited!) experience, there is a noticeable difference, so that’s what I wanted to note.

There indeed can be a gap between “it works in my head” and convincing the machine to do it, and sometimes the gap is wide. For example, type-theoretic way of looking a things (as customary in Lean) might not match the idioms in the paper proof, or some crucial lemmas known to be true might have never been formalized. Or the tactics to prove some piece are getting too slow. Or you got the definitions wrong or they’re annoying to deal with. So that is its own set of difficulties.

Even with that, the nature of difficulties feels different from much of software work to me. In software, I find that “divide and conquer” rarely works and I need to “grow” the program from a primitive version to a more sophisticated one. But in proofs, “divide and conquer” actually sort of works — you gain some assurances from making a high-level proof with holes in the middle, then filling in those holes with more intermediate steps, and so on. You can actually work “top down” to a meaningful extent more than in software.

To put it another way, with proofs, you can work top-down and bottom-up at the same time, making real progress while a bunch of steps are stubbed out. In programming, “stubbing out” non-trivial parts of the program is often annoying or impossible, and you can only make progress on a smaller (but complete) piece of it, or a less ambitious (but still complete) piece of it. This is because you can’t run an incomplete program, and there’s a set of knowledge you only gain from running it. But you absolutely can check an incomplete proof, with arbitrary granularity of incompleteness.

So I agree with you it’s not necessarily linear. But it’s also not exactly like software, and analogies from software work don’t apply 1:1.
by pedalpete | 2025-09-20 21:22:15+00:00
Thanks for the comment.

We'll be clearer on the privacy policy. We're not yet regulated as a medical device.

The data download has been discussed, it's not currently in the product.

We actually take a different approach on the subscription. The processing of your sleep data itself is included with the device. It's the stimulation, which we believe is where the value is, which the subscription covers.

Of course there is extra processing with the stimulation as well.

We're not there yet on downloading of data. It's been discussed, and we currently provide raw data to researchers. So few people would know what to do with raw EEG data. We've seen other companies provide EEG downloads in the past, only to remove the feature, and we'd like to have a better understanding of why.

I know from my previous start-up, supporting data download added support overhead, and that was just location data.