MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Twirrim | 2025-09-06 20:29:43+00:00
CXL is going to be really interesting.

On the positive side, you can scale out memory quite a lot, fill up PCI slots, even have memory external to your chassis. Memory tiering has a lot of potential.

On the negative side, you've got latency costs to swallow up. You don't get distance from CPU for free (there's a reason the memory on your motherboard is as close as practical to the CPU) https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/12/05/just-how-bad-is-cxl-.... CXL spec for 2.0 is at about 200ns of latency added to all calls to what is stored in memory, so when using it you've got to think carefully about how you approach using it, or you'll cripple yourself.

There's been work on the OS side around data locality, but CXL stuff hasn't been widely available, so there's an element of "Well, we'll have to see".

Azure has some interesting whitepapers out as they've been investigating ways to use CXL with VMs, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/....
by catlifeonmars | 2025-09-06 20:30:24+00:00
Wouldn’t you need a Pin<T> to guarantee no copying? I think copy has two different meanings, depending on whether you’re talking about the underlying memory representation and the logical representation that is available to the developer.

Obviously the distinction can matter sometimes and thus copy in the logical sense is a leaky abstraction (although in practice I notice I do not see that leakage often).
by tanelpoder | 2025-09-06 20:31:18+00:00
Yeah I saw the same. I've been keeping an eye on the CXL world for ~5 years and so far it's 99% announcements, unveilings and great predictions. But the only CXL cards a consumer/small business can buy are some experimental-ish 64GB/128GB cards that you can actually buy today. Haven't seen any of my larger clients use it either. Both Intel Optane and DSSD storage efforts got discontinued after years of fanfare, from technical point of view, I hope that the same doesn't happen to CXL.
Show HN: StreamBuddy – Natural lang movie search (with platform availability)
by peaknk | 2025-09-06 20:31:25+00:00
StreamBuddy lets you type plain English queries like: •“Comedy movies after 2010, RT >70, under 90 minutes, on Netflix US”

•“Heist movies available on Netflix or Hulu”

•“Romantic comedies from the 90s on HBO Max”

It parses the query into filters (genre, year, ratings, platform, etc.) and returns results. On top of that, you can apply dynamic filters — platform availability, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, runtime — without retyping the query.
by praptak | 2025-09-06 20:31:36+00:00
"[...]someone recently explained to me how great it is that, instead of using data to make decisions, we use political connections, and that the idea of making decisions based on data is a myth anyway; no one does that."

From my experience the second part is somewhat true. I have yet to see a "data driven" decision that wasn't actually driven by a very political process of choosing what data to gather and how to interpret the results.

(This obviously doesn't mean you should ignore data and focus on politics. Focus on making the politics good so that data can be properly used.)
by bigyabai | 2025-09-06 20:32:08+00:00
If the estimated unit cost of ~90-110 million dollars is right, I'd argue it's a pretty big success. The absolute cheapest 4th generation fighter would cost you an order of 20-30 million dollars to import brand-new, whereas 4.5th generation platforms like the Rafale commonly fetch 100m+ a unit to import.

As far as credible 5th generation strike fighters go, that's a pretty cheap per-squadron price tag. My bigger gripe is with the "Big Bomb Diplomacy" tactics that require such a platform, but we'd end up wanting one either way if a fight with China is in the cards.
by shellsteady | 2025-09-06 20:32:24+00:00
Great pointer—love tldr. Greppers is a different slice: • Copy-first & tiny: one or two opinionated incantations with sensible flags, not an exhaustive page. • Instant search & links: live filtering, ?q= deep links, favorites (local), and keyboard nav; easy to share a specific query. • Curation over coverage: mixes cross-tool “recipes” (e.g., lsof + networking, systemd log views) rather than a page per command. • Safety: “dangerous” commands prompt before copying.

They’re complementary: tldr is a great reference with multiple examples per command; Greppers is for the 2–3 commands you re-google at 1am with the exact flags you want to copy. If there’s a command where the tldr example is clearly better, I’ll happily mirror it or link out.
by johnbellone | 2025-09-06 20:33:26+00:00
There's a big difference between "using Tylenol may increase the risk of autism" and "Tylenol causes autism". If this study is accurate, it merely links the two together, and does not provide the reason. The problem with RFK is he's using it as a way to appease his own base to justify an anti-vaccination and anti-science agenda.
by iLemming | 2025-09-06 20:34:28+00:00
> my understanding from game dev friends is that's precisely what they do, no?

Do what? Program games in a Lisp engine? That's quite atypical, which is unfortunate. It's almost impossible to convey the sensation of "living" within a Lisp machine. Those who haven't experienced Lisp programming and haven't become accustomed to the process cannot grasp the dopamine effect of writing instructions virtually anywhere, at any time, changing the things on the fly. It's enormously empowering, and it's incredibly liberating.

That's why those who at least once unleashed the true power of Emacs simply can't feel the same joy in anything else. Other editor and IDEs talk about features like "keyboard macros" and how powerful they are, yet they fail to grasp that Emacs operates on an entirely different plane - its keyboard macros are programmable constructs that can be created, modified at the Lisp expression level, and converted into full-fledged functions from any recorded sequence.

Using Emacs is like playing a video game where you level up by writing s-expressions. The profound satisfaction of shaping the system to match your exact needs is immense, and sadly remains vastly underappreciated. Even when curios newbies come to explore this "immense power of Emacs", they don't even realize that it all is possible only because of Lisp.

It just feels weird to me that the gamedev community outright rejects the idea of programming in Lisp. To me (a Lisper) writing games that way makes absolute sense - games should be written as if you're playing one, right?
by ofrzeta | 2025-09-06 20:34:32+00:00
> a 21 Petabyte Flash Module (ExaFLASH) is provided based on the IBM Storage Scale

Nice. How much does this cost?

> The scratch storage is based on 20 IBM Storage Scale 6000 systems utilizing NVMe disk technology, based on the IBM Storage Scale solution. With 29 PB of raw and 21 PB of useable capacity

That's also a lot of waste, isn't it?
by jandrewrogers | 2025-09-06 20:35:54+00:00
Massive scale strategic bombing and nuclear weapons are not substitutable from a military strategy standpoint and everyone would have understood the implications of that. Any similarity is superficial.

The massive bombing of Japan was a grinding war of attrition that has well-understood limitations and challenges. Military leaders in Japan were perfectly capable of understanding what those campaigns couldn't do, so it came down to a willingness to accept the losses to maintain strategic optionality, which they clearly were.

Most of the limitations of strategic bombing campaigns do not apply to nuclear weapons, which is something the Japanese military leadership also understood, though the scope of capability was uncertain (which also probably helped). If the US switched to nuclear weapons instead of conventional bombing campaigns, which was the risk Japanese military leaders had to consider, it takes most of the strategic optionality off the table at which point there is little to gain by continuing.
by shermantanktop | 2025-09-06 20:36:17+00:00
Assuming this prediction of a tepid future for AI pans out, where is the accountability for all those CEOs and managers who pushed for deep investment based on FOMO, bolstered by wishful thinking and a willing ignorance of the technical details?

IOW, who will be fired for getting this wrong? Answer: nobody.

Some small AI-based companies will tank, but all the leaders in F500 companies know how to survive. If the emperor has no clothes, they'll all have collective amnesia and say they knew it the whole time. A few quotes to the press here, a few emails there, and they will move on with their BSing and talk about "what we learned."
by vinnymac | 2025-09-06 20:36:39+00:00
Agreed, this is just bad engineering. I hope we don’t see more ideas like this bleed into actual release processes.

Outside of a fun project to tinker on and see the results, I wouldn’t use this for anything that runs in production. It is better to use an LLM to assist you in building better static analysis tools, than it is to use the proposed technique in the article.
by tanelpoder | 2025-09-06 20:38:02+00:00
Yup, for best results you wouldn't just dump your existing pointer-chasing and linked-list data structures to CXL (like the Optane's transparent mode was, whatever it was called).

But CXL-backed memory can use your CPU caches as usual and the PCIe 5.0 lane throughput is still good, assuming that the CXL controller/DRAM side doesn't become a bottleneck. So you could design your engines and data structures to account for these tradeoffs. Like fetching/scanning columnar data structures, prefetching to hide latency etc. You probably don't want to have global shared locks and frequent atomic operations on CXL-backed shared memory (once that becomes possible in theory with CXL3.0).

Edit: I'll plug my own article here - if you've wondered whether there were actual large-scale commercial products that used Intel's Optane as intended then Oracle database took good advantage of it (both the Exadata and plain database engines). One use was to have low latency durable (local) commits on Optane:

https://tanelpoder.com/posts/testing-oracles-use-of-optane-p...

VMware supports it as well, but using it as a simpler layer for tiered memory.
by bigyabai | 2025-09-06 20:38:25+00:00
Well, that's not 10x engineering. In the most optimal scenario, it probably shakes out to "2x engineering" (if you actually work 80h/week) but we all know you're not steaming away a 996 at 100% dedication.

People who are 10x engineers simply demonstrate it - Woz, Carmack, we don't ask how many hours they worked because it never mattered. Their effort is self-evident, they don't masturbate their ego or espouse hustle-culture because it isn't corollary to their success.
by crooked-v | 2025-09-06 20:38:41+00:00
I'm extremely suspicious of anything that looks at 'an increase in autism rates' without considering the same factors that have gone into there being 'more' left-handed people over the past 50 years or so. There are a lot of people in the past who 'weren't left handed' because they were punished as children if they showed left-handed behavior, and that's still a whole lot less stigmatized than autism.
by tejohnso | 2025-09-06 20:39:28+00:00
I'm not sure it's fraud because there was always the fine print. But a company selling a car with a feature called Full Self Driving that does not in fact fully self drive, well, that's a company I don't buy from. Unfortunately others don't seem as offended and happily pay for the product, encouraging further b.s. marketing hype culture.

Just like politicians, it seems there's no repercussions for CEO's lying as long as it's fleecing the peons and not the elite.
by rolph | 2025-09-06 20:40:04+00:00
a really strong spiral goes about 75 yards, so that distance should be enforced as minimum. water bottles or frisbees or other such things should probably be prohibited.

a decent seasrch for rocks loose concrete or hardware should be made of the venue.

pocket drones should be way out of bounds, lasers or flash photo equipment that makes it akward to appear on camera , as well.
by kelnos | 2025-09-06 20:40:32+00:00
That doesn't verify what you think it does, though. It doesn't verify that the LLM ran all the tests necessary to exercise the code paths that were changed. "Running all necessary tests" is indistinguishable from "we did a good job on these PRs and didn't write any new bugs that would have been caught by the tests". This is the classic situation where you can prove a negative (if all the LLM-selected tests pass, but there's a new failure in the full suite), but can't prove a positive (if all the LLM-selected tests pass, and the full suite also passes, it could just mean there were no new bugs, not that the LLM selected the right tests).

The only way to verify that is to do what GP suggested: for each PR, manually make a list of the tests that you believe should be run, and then compare that to the list of tests that the LLM actually runs. Obviously you aren't going to do this forever, but you should either do it for every single PR for some number of PRs, or pick a representative sample over time instead.
by simne | 2025-09-06 20:41:19+00:00
Looked carefully on graphs, and don't see reasons for worry.

All looks like recession, where measured changes within measurement error (~2..3 percents very usual for such things).

Even very much looks like typical market without much grow or shrink - sales of premium brands (Audi, Benz) suffered less than mass-market (Toyota), but again, all changes within measurement error.

Need more data to make serious conclusions about possible crash.

Only could say one conclusion - Chinese always made strange things, in this case constantly grow production capacity without demand. I don't understand where they planned to sell twice as now number of machines, except if planned to supply some big war.
by dang | 2025-09-06 20:41:36+00:00
I've added this to the text at the top, so more people will see it.

Btw - if you're replying to other commenters, can you do so by clicking the 'reply' link at the end of their comment? That will place your response underneath the comment you're referencing, which will make the thread much more readable.

Currently, your comments are all going to the top level, where it's hard to connect them with the other posts you're replying to. I'm going to try to move them manually to the right places, but it's not clear what those are!
by kolektiv | 2025-09-06 20:42:41+00:00
But an LLM is not answering "what is truth?". It's "answering" "what does an answer to the question "what is truth?" look like?".

It doesn't need a conceptual understanding of truth - yes, there are far more wrong responses than right ones, but the right ones appear more often in the training data and so the probabilities assigned to the tokens which would make up a "right" one are higher, and thus returned more often.

You're anthropomorphizing in using terms like "lying to us" or "know the truth". Yes, it's theoretically possible I suppose that they've secretly obtained some form of emergent consciousness and also decided to hide that fact, but there's no evidence that makes that seem probable - to start from that premise would be very questionable scientifically.

A lot of people seem to be saying we don't understand what it's doing, but I haven't seen any credible proof that we don't. It looks miraculous to the relatively untrained eye - many things do, but just because I might not understand how something works, it doesn't mean nobody does.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-09-06 20:42:45+00:00
The human sensor (eye) isn't more advanced in its ability to capture data -- and in fact cameras can have a wider range of frequencies.

But the human brain can process the semantics of what the eye sees much better than current computers can process the semantics of the camera data. The camera may be able to see more than the eye, but unless it understands what it sees, it'll be inferior.

Thus Tesla spontaneously activating its windshield wipers to "remove something obstructing the view" (happens to my Tesla 3 as well), whereas the human brain knows that there's no need to do that.

Same for Tesla braking hard when it encountered an island in the road between lanes without clear road markings, whereas the human driver (me) could easily determine what it was and navigate around it.
by crazygringo | 2025-09-06 20:42:57+00:00
I lived through the transition, so absolutely.

Early VCS was clunky and slow. If one dev checked out some files, another dev couldn't work on them. People wouldn't check them back in quickly, they'd "hoard" them. Then merges introduced all sorts of tooling difficulties.

People's contributions were now centrally tracked and could be easily turned into metrics, and people worried (sometimes correctly) management would weaponize this.

It was seen by many as a top-down bureaucratic Big Brother mandate that slowed things down for no good reason and interfered with developers' autonomy and productivity. Or even if it had some value, it wasn't worth the price devs paid in using it.

This attitude wasn't universal of course. Other devs thought it was a necessary and helpful tool. But the point is that tons of devs were against it.

It really wasn't until git that VCS became "cool", with a feeling of being developer-led rather than management-led. But even then there was significant resistance to its new complexity, in how complicated it was to reason about its distributed nature, and the difficulty of its interface.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-09-06 20:44:00+00:00
> We have not proven "to a level of absolutely provable certainty" that other humans are also conscious. You can only tell you are conscious yourself, not others. The whole field of consciousness is based on analyzing something for which we have sample size n=1.

That sounds like you are talking about subjective experience, qualia of senses and being, rather than consciousness (ability to self-observe), unless you are using "consciousness" as catch-all term to refer to all of the above (which is the problem with discussing consciousness - it's an overloaded ill-defined word, and people don't typically define what they are actually talking about).

If we make this distinction between consciousness, defined as ability to self-observe, and subjective qualia (what something feels like), then it seems there is little reason to doubt that others reporting conscious awareness really are aware of what they are reporting, and anyways given common genetics and brain anatomy it'd be massively unexpected if one (healthy) person had access to parts of their internal state and others didn't.

> Not only that, but what would be an alternative to "it feels like something?" - we can't imagine non-experience, or define it without negation. We are supposed to use consciousness to prove consciousness while we can't even imagine non-consciousness except in an abstract, negation-based manner.

Perhaps the medical condition of "blindsight" gives some insight - where damage to the visual cortex can result in people having some proven visual ability but no conscious awareness of it. They report themselves as blind, but can be tasked with walking down a cluttered corridor and manage to navigate the obstacles nonetheless. They have lost visual consciousness due to brain damage, but retain at least some level of vision.
by pessimizer | 2025-09-06 20:44:14+00:00
It's weird that you're surprised, it's one of the most dangerous otc drugs, and is the leading cause of liver failure on the planet. I'm always surprised that British people treat it like aspirin, because an overdose can easily kill you.

I'm serious. Over 50% of all liver failure is due to acetaminophen, and 20% of liver transplants.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4913076/
by danhite | 2025-09-06 20:46:21+00:00
OP wrote:

> He acknowledged that my way reduced the chance of failure without making the technical consequences of failure worse, but it was more important that we not be embarrassed. Now that I've been working for a decade, I have a better understanding of how and why people play this game, but I still find it absurd.

If OP's embarrassment comment and the topic of normalization of deviance interest you then you might find this soft (Social) Science Fiction short story to be amusingly enlightening...

"The trouble with you Earth people" by Katherine MacLean (1968)

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Trouble_With_You_Ea...

^ link is to google books and their preview includes the entirety of the titular short story from the collection.

If ^ that short story is tl;dnr for you, Spoiler Alert:

Well meaning Alien POV discovery that Humankind is a self important and superstitious lot, and not mostly harmless.
by Spivak | 2025-09-06 20:47:00+00:00
I feel like there must be some shame/stigma among leadership types to say that your decisions aren't "data driven" even though we've all experienced that most decisions are based on some executive's intuition. Which is funny because if the path forward was an obvious conclusion from the data we wouldn't need decision makers—the company direction would be set by a council of data science nerds.
by kolektiv | 2025-09-06 20:47:51+00:00
It's useful as a term of understanding. It's not useful to OpenAI and their investors, so they'd like that term to mean something else. It's very generous to say that whether an LLM "knows" is irrelevant. They would like us to believe that it can be avoided, and perhaps it can, but they haven't shown they know how to do so yet. We can avoid it, but LLMs cannot, yet.

Yes, we can know whether something is true or false, but this is a system being sold as something useful. If it relies on us knowing whether the output is true or false, there is little point in us asking it a question we clearly already know the answer to.
by Hikikomori | 2025-09-06 20:48:31+00:00
>To make things worse, a lot of existing medium-haul fiber links are actually twice as long as you'd expect, due to the desire to cancel out dispersion; you first run the fiber e.g. 10km from place to place, and then run it through a large 10km spool (of a slightly different type of fiber) in the datacenter to cancel out the dispersion. This is slowly going away, but only slowly.

Only slowly? I haven't worked with very long haul wdm systems or sonet/sdh but I've never seen this. Maybe you mean much longer distances than 10km as we've had 10G-LR for ages that don't need this.
by jrflowers | 2025-09-06 20:49:09+00:00
Oh I know that you’re correct, your phrasing was just hilarious.

Under the caveats of a competent physician and a completely med-compliant patient, opiates are perfectly safe. Those are enormous caveats though, given the history and prevalence of incompetent physicians and noncompliant patients (at least in the US).

Generally if you see someone complaining about opiates being dangerous, they’re likely factoring in opiates as things that exist in the context of society rather than a strictly clinical context. You can’t really use the reasoning of one context to dispute the other, it looks silly because you have to say stuff like “ignore all the deaths and the mechanism of those deaths”
by alchemical_piss | 2025-09-06 20:49:55+00:00
> The reality is that people twiddle thumbs.

No way man. You get hard workers (tm) working hard. I can’t tell you how many h1b Indians are more than happy to respond to my every bark any time of day to work on my visionary line of business SaaS app. People like you are obsolete bozo.
by javanonymous | 2025-09-06 20:50:04+00:00
There are several open source tools for Java (Eclipse, Visual Studio plugins, Netbeans and others).

The reason I don't use them is not because they are bad, but because IntelliJ is so much better.

I even use IntelliJ Ultimate for non Java code like React, even though Visual Studio Code seems to be de-facto standard for React developers and guides.