MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ants_everywhere | 2025-09-30 03:28:13+00:00
Hey, sorry I don't mean to imply any of those things about you.

Before commenting I did check out your profile and saw that you weren't AI hater. My intention was the opposite -- I was trying to point out that some arguments don't survive on logic, but on emotional appeal. When enough smart people repeat something, it can slip past our skepticism. But of course my comment was terse and you had no way of knowing that.

In my view, among all people who make claims about what is on the forefront of science or knowledge, the most credible claims come from people whose research is on the forefront of science or knowledge. That's why the claims of experts are considered more credible in their fields than non-experts, even when the non-experts are experts in nearby fields.

So, applying that general rule to this particular case, we would expect the people to most credibly talk about the application of AI to science to be people who know the most about the application of AI to science.

There are other scientists whom I really respect but whose opinions on this particular topic I would find less weighty. For example, Terry Tao is a brilliant mathematician and has consulted on using AI to do research level math. But he was just a few months ago figuring out how to set up ChatGPT with VS Code, so I wouldn't expect him to be the most up to date on how AI is impacting science.

On the other hand, a Nobel laureate who has shown an aptitude for making important scientific discoveries is exactly the sort of person I believe would be able to talk knowledgeably about how to carve up science problems and about how to apply the current generation of AI to solve them. Especially if they've seen the internal world of a company that has a top tier foundational model and a track record for making scientific discoveries. Because in that case they see how science is being done if you have unlimited funds and access to some of the smartest scientists on the planet.

In contrast, I would be much more skeptical of a similar claim made by a company like OpenAI or Microsoft that doesn't have the same track record of producing new science.

For those reasons I don't think it's true that the claim would be more credible from someone with more distance (and hence less expertise). And I think similar claims made in other contexts would strike most people as bizarre. For example, if I said that claims about medicine are more credible if they come from people who aren't medical doctors.
by jpster | 2025-09-30 03:28:26+00:00
Wow, you seem to be so confident in defining exactly when and how any of the following “beliefs” are “anthitetical to American society”:

> hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,

> hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and

> hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.

You seem to be a paragon of discernment regarding extremely subjective, ill-defined areas. How impressive.
by stryan | 2025-09-30 03:33:43+00:00
I've been working on a tool called Materia[0] for managing Podman Quadlets on hosts, GitOps style and I think it's really starting to hit its stride. I just released a new version yesterday: https://github.com/stryan/materia/releases/tag/v0.3.0 .

There's been a couple attempts in this space before but they usually seem to peter out after a while. I'm hoping to avoid that by staying flexible and focusing on just managing files instead of creating a new compose-like DSL. But even if it doesn't become popular I'm just happy I don't have to manage my homelab with Ansible anymore :) .

[0] https://primamateria.systems/
by qxfys | 2025-09-30 03:34:29+00:00
vulnerability discovery and exploitation, with zero false positives.

https://vyprsec.ai/

Yep, you read it right. 0 false positives. We scan the whole codebase for possible vulnerabilities, rank them, write the proof-of-concept for exploitation, spin up the software in a sandbox, and then attack. All of them happen autonomously without human involvement.

The end report? Only verified vulnerabilities are being reported without noise.

Already reported some unknown vulnerabilities in open source projects. The good thing is we're just getting started.
by ethanseal | 2025-09-30 03:34:43+00:00
Materialized views in Postgres don't update incrementally as the data in the relevant tables updates.^1

In order to keep it up to date, the developer has to tell postgres to refresh the data and postgres will do all the work from scratch.

Incremental Materialized views are _hard_. This^2 article goes through how Materialize does it.

MSSQL does it really well from what I understand. They only have a few restrictions, though I've never used a MSSQL materialized view in production.^3

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rules-materializedvi... [2]: https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/materialize-decor... [3]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/creat...
by zdragnar | 2025-09-30 03:35:24+00:00
Perhaps it is an arbitrary limit picked out of concern for weight and / or live energy in a place normally meant as living quarters. Too much of either on a balcony would be a hazard, especially if everyone with a balcony was doing it simultaneously in buildings not really built with either in mind.

800w sounds low to me, especially on 120v in the US, but the rules may have been in place for older less efficient / bulkier panels in mind.
by robertfw | 2025-09-30 03:35:31+00:00
I don't know, I tend to agree. I feel like the number of times I've been thrown off by an out of date comment for code that could have probably been refactored to be clearer, outweigh the times a comment has helped.

Docstring comments are even worse, because it's so easy for someone to update the function and not the docstring, and it's very easy to miss in PR review
by belden | 2025-09-30 03:36:13+00:00
Speaking for myself, reasons why I don’t immediately share my own tooling:

Perhaps I want to hold it to my own standard for tooling, not the team’s.

Perhaps I want to write it in a language that the team doesn’t really embrace.

I might not think it’s worth anyone’s time to code review changes I make to my own tools.

I might want to do something dumb like bake an API key into the tool.

Maybe the project already has a similar tool, and I don’t want to explain why I am wrapping/ignoring it.

In short: sometimes the cost to collaborate on idiosyncratic tools is just higher than I’m willing to pay.
by btrettel | 2025-09-30 03:36:17+00:00
This guy?

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-solarpowered-plastic-to-f...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Brown_(influencer)

He gets $36K from about 800 donors for a project that seems pretty easy to explain ("creating fuel from burning plastic") and is something probably millions of people are interested in. Wikipedia says he has millions of followers!

The stuff I'd like to do would probably not have even 800 people interested in it after I carefully explained it. And $36K is not a lot when it comes to experimental research in the physical world.

In my view, working a day job and taking periodic sabbaticals would have better ROI for this guy and myself.
by smilekzs | 2025-09-30 03:37:04+00:00
Anecdote: 9 years ago I was at MSFT. Hands forced by long GC pauses, eventually many teams turned to hand-rolling their flavor of string_view in C#. It was literally xkcd.com/927 back then when you tried to interface with some other team's packages and each side has the same but different string_view classes. Glad to see that finally enjoying language and stdlib support.
by nativeit | 2025-09-30 03:41:54+00:00
Is this the same as any of these?

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27819384

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35415403

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19227962

EDIT: Just to clarify, these are all from several years ago, so it's 100% fine if this is a blast from the recent past. Either way, I really enjoyed the opportunity to revisit these very entertaining endeavors, thanks!
by mr_briggs | 2025-09-30 03:42:55+00:00
I LOVE this idea. Tangentially, a more pimitive case: in trying to recycle or reuse jars or carboard containers food comes in, I wish there was a simple service for ranking brands. For example, some jam jars have labels that can be immediatey removed - others tear and stick to the jar. Similarly, some brands use excessive plastics and packaging, others less so.
by arp242 | 2025-09-30 03:43:02+00:00
I use a eGPU via USB4/Thunderbolt (I think it's the same? Not entirely clear). Works out of the box on Linux. No real setup needed. Main downside is that removing it tends to make the system somewhat unstable and lock up (sometimes hours later) after a kernel "oops". I need to look into that because it's probably a relatively minor Linux kernel issue. But minus that: it works great.
by magicalhippo | 2025-09-30 03:43:19+00:00
Knowing what I now know about ZFS native encryption, I find it difficult to recommend until the sharp edges have all been filed down.

I've read several scary stories about ZFS encryption and have reached the same conclusion. Meanwhile, based on the accounts I've read, running ZFS on top of LUKS seems to be a more stable approach.

In any case, nice and detailed write-up. The nice thing about open source is that you can do "hacks" like you did.
by freddie_mercury | 2025-09-30 03:43:19+00:00
While I'm deeply sympathetic to the original claim, I agree the evidence is lacking. All I really see is the assertion that AI means onboarding and coming up to speed is faster. Which feels a bit unproven?

(Unrelated but the post has a funny rhetorical thing where it says nobody is hiring juniors then also says if you don't hire then your competition will... But you already said nobody is hiring them?!)
by wingmanjd | 2025-09-30 03:43:42+00:00
I found Andrew Burgess's method approachable and ended up cribbing from his dotfiles concept [1] and making my own repository [2]. His method uses bash instead of make to create the symlinks defined in the links.prop file in each subdir of the repo.

I typically checkout the dotfiles repo to a personal project folder on every new OS build and then run the installer to get all my configs in place.

- [1] https://shaky.sh/simple-dotfiles/ - [2] https://gitlab.com/jgonyea/dotfiles
by keithasaurus | 2025-09-30 03:44:06+00:00
It's not the core of koda-validate, and yeah lots of libraries have a similar capacity. Feedback I'd be interested in is if there are gaps.

In general the value prop of koda-validate is that it turns validation into typesafe building blocks, which makes validators very re-usable -- and flexible. Some other notable differences from pydantic are that it doesn't `raise` on validation errors, you don't need a typing plugin, and it's fully asyncio-compatible.
by ninjin | 2025-09-30 03:44:43+00:00
Indeed, if you want to see what is possible with only a Famicom (or NES) itself you can have a look at Little Limit's incredible Bad Apple "port" [1]. This recording is from an emulator [2], but I know from personal experience that it plays perfectly fine on my "New Famicom" (HVC-101). This is not to detract from how amazing the posted ACE is, but it is indeed different in terms of data limitations.

[1]: https://littlelimit.net/bad_apple_2_5.htm

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNU1lzr_m4Q
by thaumasiotes | 2025-09-30 03:44:46+00:00
I thought this was an interesting idea.

I rated each word in the comment for how much I felt it represented grammar vs semantics (total adding to 1 for each word; ratings in increments of 0.1).

The ratings divided into 31.5 words worth of syntax and 37.5 words worth of semantics, adding up to 69 instead of 71 because I combined "a lot" and "as well" into one word each for this purpose.

French accounted for 6% of the grammar (reflecting my rating of sure and just as 90% "grammatical" each), and 22% of the semantics.

English got 91% of the grammar and 59% of the semantics. The point you might be most likely to disagree with is that I rated many prepositions as 50% semantic. (For example, to in the phrase thirty to forty got that rating, although to in get exposed to and something to read up on were rated 0% semantic.) The second point, cutting in the other direction, is that I rated all pronouns as 0% semantic; realistically they should rate a bit higher. In a better model, I'd probably like to rate them 100% grammatical and also ~30% semantic.

(The residual ~3% of grammar is the passive marker get, from Norse.)

If this is the kind of thing you enjoy, I'd be interested in your evaluation.
by user_7832 | 2025-09-30 03:45:39+00:00
(Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash and FAA's lapse, so my memory is a bit foggy.)

The short answer is that unfortunately it's practically almost impossible to do this any other way, short of massively increasing funding for the FAA (which is presumably politically not going to be done.)

The long answer is, anyone with expertise ends up going to work at an aerospace company where they are properly compensated. You end up with the engineers at Boeing et al, and the regulatory folk at FAA etc. (This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries where you need a high level of technical expertise.) And if you think it should be easily doable... here's a thought experiment. Say 20 people in boeing know about MCAS (pre crashes and their publicity). If even only 2 FAA employees need to be technically sound in their knowledge of such a niche system, that's about 10% of how many boeing employees know about it.

Now if you extrapolate that to all systems and all employees across multiple companies... you see why it's an issue for one agencies to have such deep knowledge about everything. (And this isn't even considering what happens when people quit etc.)

Because of this, the most obvious answer to "how does the FAA, without much engineers, decide what's safe or not", is to ask the experts and just have them certify stuff, well, not under oath, but as close to that as possible.
Ask HN: Mini PC or desktop for labbing DevOps?
by shivajikobardan | 2025-09-30 03:45:44+00:00
GMKtec NucBox K6 Mini PC | Computer | Wireless Combo | AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS | 32GB RAM | 1TB M.2 SSD | Wi-Fi 6 | Windows 11 Pro | 4K60Hz iv

My eyes has been set on this product. I will be using containerization over virtualization. The lab will not be open 24x7. It will be open for 7-8 hours per day with heavy workload. And extra 5 hours with lightweight workload(reading pdfs, writing notes etc).

I am wondering if this is a best deal or there are other stuffs? Buying a mini pc helps to save costs on various stuffs like PSU etc that are a baggage while building a desktop PC.
by harry8 | 2025-09-30 03:45:51+00:00
Because then you get a fight. Signal moves to F-Droid and F-Droid gets a huge mindshare increase and much harder to kill.

Signal is today's thing the security state in Europe & the US clearly hate and want to backdoor and destroy. So let's speculate they'd rather be able to make sure that no app, for any purpose that they don't control can survive or succeed?
by ymyms | 2025-09-30 03:46:13+00:00
Biscuits are in the same family as macaroons in that they are bearer tokens that can be attenuated offline, but they go further. A biscuit carries a chain of signed “blocks” that can contain facts, rules, and checks in a small Datalog-like logic language. That lets the token itself express richer authorization context, not just restrictions.

Key differences from macaroons:

- Crypto model: Macaroons use HMAC, so every verifier needs the shared secret. Biscuits use public/private keypairs so any verifier with the public key can check validity.

- Expressiveness: Macaroons only add caveats (restrictions). Biscuits can encode facts, rules, and checks, enabling more complex policies to travel with the token. so you can attest and attenuate (and do some other tricky stuff if you want)

- Delegation: Both support attenuation, but biscuits do it with signed blocks that are verifiable and can be chained across services.

So conceptually similar, but biscuits aim to be more decentralized and policy-rich.
by itake | 2025-09-30 03:47:41+00:00
I’m not sure where they’re getting their data about companies not hiring juniors.

In 2021, 104,874 CS students graduated—the highest number ever [0] (1.5x more than the 4 years prior). But the job postings 2022-2025 have certainly not maintained that trajectory.

If the number of graduates keeps climbing while the total number of jobs shrinks, then naturally more new grads will struggle to find work.

Playing devil’s advocate: some “senior” folks may now be competing with juniors, since they’re willing to take lower titles or pay just to stay employed. I’m not sure how much that actually shifts the market, considering companies famously don't hire overqualified people and tech workers face age-ism risk.

[0] - https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_322.10.a...
by MarkusQ | 2025-09-30 03:47:43+00:00
Another aspect that often gets overlooked is the sense of place, letting the physical world remember relationships for you. Put your finger on an interesting passage, flip back to where you saw something related...about this many pages, left side, near the top,... there it is! Flip back and forth, comparing the two...ah, interesting, there's a shift of perspective.

You really can't do that with digital media, letting your proprioception carry its share of the load.
by GrantMoyer | 2025-09-30 03:47:56+00:00
There's a somewhat easier way to implement 2-argument-function flip in C++ than the blog post provides:

#include <functional> constexpr auto flip(const auto& f) { return std::bind(f, std::placeholders::_2, std::placeholders::_1); }

The best I could get the fully general version is still pretty obtuse though:

// std doesn't have a template version of placeholders::_1, _2, etc., so we need to // define our own. template <int I> struct placeholder{}; template<> template<int I> struct std::is_placeholder<placeholder<I>> : std::integral_constant<int, I> {}; // flip must be an object so that the function type can be deduced without needing // to explicitly specify its parameters' types. template<typename F> struct flip { const F f; // operator() deduces the argument types when the flip object is called, but really // all we need to know is the number of arguments. template<typename... Args> constexpr auto operator()(Args... args) { return bind_reversed(std::make_integer_sequence<int, sizeof...(Args)>{})(args...); } private: // a helper function is needed to deduce a sequence of integers so we can bind all // the placeholder values. template<int... Is> constexpr auto bind_reversed(std::integer_sequence<int, Is...>) { return std::bind(f, placeholder<sizeof...(Is) - Is>{}...); } };
by moozilla | 2025-09-30 03:48:01+00:00
I like to think of models leaving "useless comments" as a way to externalize their reasoning process - maybe they are useless at the end, but leaving them in on a feature branch seems to marginally improve future work (even across conversations). I currently leave them in and either manually clean them up myself before putting up a PR for my team to review or run a final step with some instructions like "review the diff, remove any useless comments". Funnily enough Claude seems pretty competent at identifying and cleaning up useless comments after the fact, which I feel like sort of proves my hypothesis.

I've considered just leaving the comments in, considering maybe they provide some value to future LLMs working in the codebase, but the extra human overhead in dealing with them doesn't seem worth it.
by Liftyee | 2025-09-30 03:48:08+00:00
I'm working on exploring an exploit in physical security systems that I haven't seen anyone investigate before (at least, not published on the internet). It's involved an interesting combination of reverse engineering, pentesting and regular prototyping/hardware development.

Currently writing a run-through of it to publish on my website. I'm not sure how secretive to be - I think I just want to be the first to actually release my findings. In my post I'll detail the steps to reproduce my results so more people can look into this.

So far I haven't found any critical ways to (ab)use this access control system weakness, as it only typically applies to the outer layer of physical security.
by mavilia | 2025-09-30 03:49:21+00:00
- Active recall studying app that allows a user to practice active recall[0]. The app hides user provided content at first and asking the user to try to remember all they can before reading the content. Then the user goes through the material slowly revealing each paragraph from their input. At the end they try to actively remember what they learned and can even compare to what they knew at the start.

- Mixtape sharing platform for midwest emo[1] which is a genre I've really gotten into over the past few years. The community is pretty strong on YouTube for creating "mixtapes" so I wanted a spot that was just for these videos.

- PhotoForge[2] Photographer's companion app which can help me choose photos using a Tinder-esque swiping mechanism. It also has some AI stuff for generating Instagram descriptions. Finally has a watermark tool. Still trying to think of other stuff to add. This was an AI code weekend project so it's like a house on stilts at the moment but I plan to give it some more love soon

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXdpSfDWbGY

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS4M4WpmrY4

[2] - https://www.photoforge.fun/
by ThrownOffGame | 2025-09-30 03:49:49+00:00
The crazy thing about the "paperless office" of the 21st century is that authentication of documents has gone out the window, completely back to the stone age of forgeries.

Didn't we recently see where a landlord attempted to forge a lease document but was caught by the tenant?

Nobody wants to see your authentic ID/DL anymore. Just FAX it in or scan it. Nobody can examine your birth certificate or passport (except for real officials) but you need to scan and present it to all kinds of third parties. It absolutely destroys 80% of the countermeasures that are built in to those types of documents. Wrote a check from your checkbook? Your bank immediately photographs it and the image traverses their network, not the paper thing. They just shred that useless paper thing. The image is, for all intents and purposes, the negotiable document. Most of us pay a premium for "security checks" with a bunch of microprinting and other bullshit. That's utterly useless once you push it through a cellphone cam!

I've drawn a lot of public assistance from entitlements. They often require a stack of paperwork, like bank statements, paystubs. I usually ran Linux and had all the third-party PDF-manipulation tools. They would just accept screenshots from my banking apps! I could've easily forged anything, down to pixel level, or in the HTML itself, print to PDF, undetectable. No checksums or hashes to worry about!

So perhaps this headline is a symptom, a symptom of landlords being skeptical and wary of tenant-side forgeries, that they feel the need to grab the documents straight from the horse's mouth. I can't blame them for being risk-averse and wary of forgery, but this is crazy. Just... figure out a way to authenticate electronic documents. We cryptographers have worked this all out, but it's been ignored for reasons of cost and expedience. You can't ignore it anymore.