MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nickpapciak | 2025-09-02 19:53:57+00:00
Glad you find it interesting. A surprising way people are using us right now has been people who are technical but don’t have deep infrastructure expertise, asking datafruit questions about how stuff should be done.

Something we’ve been dealing with is trying to get the agents to not over-complicate their designs, because they have a tendency to do so. But with good prompting they can be very helpful assistants!
by breppp | 2025-09-02 19:54:05+00:00
> 2. That figure does not distinguish exits by Palestinians, Israelis, or other citizens, so it has no bearing on whether Palestinians are trapped in Gaza or not. Many Israeli workers also cross into and out of Gaza constantly.

I don't believe Israelis entered Gaza in 2022. In fact, cases where mentally ill Israelis entered Gaza ended in them being held as hostages by Hamas
by poszlem | 2025-09-02 19:54:13+00:00
We often think of "social credit" as something far away, like in China. But it’s worth noticing how our own systems are starting to blend with state power. Just today, Graham Linehan, a comedy writer, was arrested by five UK police officers over social media posts when entering the country.

We may not call it social credit, but in practice we’re already building it.
by nomadpenguin | 2025-09-02 19:54:16+00:00
There are specialized architectures (the Tolman-Eichenbaum Machine)* that are able to complete this kind of task. Interestingly, once trained, their activations look strikingly similar to place and grid cells in real brains. The team were also able to show (in a separate paper) that the TEM is mathematically equivalent to a transformer.

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
by lnsru | 2025-09-02 19:54:33+00:00
Can you please share your country of residence? Because in Germany I really don’t feel the choice. There are few political parties, but I don’t feel this variety helps in any way. There are few mega corporations for everything else, just check the list of richest germans.

Edit: I might be another troll, but from last few elections I don’t feel any progress. As an engineer I see continuous offshoring of well paid positions to cheaper EU countries. As self employed electrician I see regulatory and tax madness.
by dweekly | 2025-09-02 19:54:38+00:00
I don't think most folks think very hard about where most wealth comes from but imagine it just sort of exists in a fixed quantity or is pulled from the ground like coal or diamonds - there's a fixed amount of it, and if there are very rich people, it must be because they took the coal/diamonds away from other people who need it. This leads to catchy slogans.

But it's pretty obvious wealth can be created and destroyed. The creation of wealth comes from trade, which generally comes from a vibrant middle class which not only earns a fair bit but also spends it. Wars and revolutions are effective at destroying wealth and (sometimes) equitably redistributing what's left.

Both the modern left and modern right seem to have arrived at a consensus that trade frictions are a good way to generate (or at least preserve) wealth, while the history of economics indicates quite the contrary. This was recently best pilloried by a comic that showed a town under siege and the besieging army commenting that this was likely to make the city residents wealthy by encouraging self-reliance.

We need abundant education and broad prosperity for stability - even (and maybe especially) for the ultra wealthy. Most things we enjoy require absolute and not relative wealth. Would you rather be the richest person in a poor country or the poorest of the upper class in a developed economy?
by const_cast | 2025-09-02 19:54:44+00:00
Yes this thing is just like this other thing because they can both be bad, therefore we should do nothing.

Its the classic low-brow reasoning technique. It almost makes sense, if you squint and don't think about it much.

No, there's levels of bad and we have no problem making some bad stuff off limits. I can't build nuclear weapons, after all.
by clee_tech01 | 2025-09-02 19:54:53+00:00
Monad Foundation | https://www.monad.foundation/ | Remote | $225M Series A Funded

We are actively hiring Engineers to build software and facilitate the adoption of the Monad blockchain. Key roles include: 1. Senior Protocol Engineer 2. Full Stack Engineers 3. Devrel Relations Engineers

The full list of roles is here: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/monad.foundation?utm_source=jGLVJ5Y...
by Workaccount2 | 2025-09-02 19:55:36+00:00
I think there is a conflation between different types/definitions of "value" that always runs things off the rails. Economic value is a distinct thing that arises from markets and price discovery. It doesn't really cover social or personal values, despite them constantly leaking into discussions.

Pretty much everyone agrees teachers are valuable, but their economic value is relatively low or their market is distorted. As hellishly capitalistic as it sounds, a teacher that could reliably produce all star workers would probably be paid handsomely as a student conveyor belt to Megacorp, by Megacorp.

Also medicine breaks discussions of markets/economics, the value of a shot that saves your is infinite.
by MarkusWandel | 2025-09-02 19:56:16+00:00
Whose (vi) keybindings I learned in 1987 on a SunOS system where it was simply the best editor available stock (about 1/2 of the user population in those days used emacs instead but you had to install that). And I can still use them to this day! Whereas I've forgotten the WS ones.
by mraniki | 2025-09-02 19:56:30+00:00
https://archive.is/PuZ8i

The employee, Jian Zhang, joined the Meta Robotics Studio, the social media company confirmed on Tuesday. Separately, three more AI researchers are leaving Apple’s in-house large language models team, adding to upheaval in that group, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The latest string of departures — all taking place over the last week — includes John Peebles, Nan Du and Zhao Meng, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the moves haven’t been announced.
by recursive | 2025-09-02 19:56:32+00:00
I never claimed my preferences were realistic!

Stuff costs money, sure. But I don't think it's that simple. Next and Vercel come from the same organization. I have no objection to a paid hosting solution making it operationally simpler. However when that same org has control over the free thing, they can make it even more easier (probably grammatical! who knows) that it would have "naturally" been.
by mallowdram | 2025-09-02 19:56:48+00:00
People without signs of mental illness are experiencing psychosis using LLMs. Psychosis is not indicative of mental illness, in fact people without any signs can experience temporary psychosis. Hypnopompic hallucinations are so common that almost all of us experience them and these can be considered psychosis (Allan Hobson). The problem is words are inherently schizophrenia-inducing if they are subjective enough (McLuhan). LLMs are simply too subjective because the words have lost contact with context, that is the central function of words. LLMs can't exclude their dark matter.

The tech isn't ready not because the species isn't ready. It's because nothing trained on words is specific. The input comes arbitrary, ie it's not viable as units. Words are unfit for automation.
by runjake | 2025-09-02 19:56:48+00:00
Blunt, but:

- The icon is terrible.

- The graphics and UI widgets are terrible.

They actively repulse me, because they resemble the design of those corporate conference "audience poll" type apps.

Try more modern designs? Give it a good space theme, or a castle or dungeon theme, perhaps? AI imagegen might produce something good if you need help.

Just being honest, because that's what you asked for. :-)
by const_cast | 2025-09-02 19:56:51+00:00
> Besides the potential number of people hurt/killed, what's the difference between someone walking into a school with a gun versus one walking into a school with a knife?

Yeah, and what's the difference between cutting a slice of bread and dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

Scale, it's scale. Scale matters, you can't hand wave it. If you try to, then you go to some very dumb, obviously wrong conclusions.

Everything, and I do mean everything, can be used for evil. But we don't allow everything, and for good reason.
by saubeidl | 2025-09-02 19:57:22+00:00
I think one core issue in capitalism is that it's really hard to decide things that go against the interest of capital. See Big Oil, but also Big Tech these days.

Sure, theoretically a democratic system would allow us to make all sorts of changes to curtail the worst excesses.

In practice though, once the capitalist class has accumulated enough power, nothing that goes against their interest actually happens. They buy off politicians. They manipulate the public, be it through ad campaigns or even just straight up buying the media (Bezos buying WaPo, Musk buying Twitter).

Capital distorts democratic decision making until it becomes completely unviable to curtail their power.
by neom | 2025-09-02 19:57:49+00:00
It's signaling P&L responsibilities. It's not that weird, at least not unheard of at all, just that it's typically done through "EVP" - So EVP Applications, VP of Applications Engineering, etc. - I'm guessing that the line items those "C"s who are not Sam are responsible for, are bigger than most F500 executives, and they're using titles to reflect that reality.
by qcnguy | 2025-09-02 19:57:56+00:00
I did some random spot checks of the DoE report and this new rebuttal. The rebuttal is crap. If this is the best they can do, the new DoE conclusions should stand.

Example 1. A dispute over the effect of pH on coral reefs. DoE: "De’ath et al. (2009) ... [said] Great Barrier Reef experienced 14% decline in calcification since 1990 ... [that] resulted from a biased data analysis that, when corrected, showed no change in calcification rates". DoE points out that climatologists cited the flawed study hundreds of times and the correction just 14 times. The rebuttal agrees that the analysis was biased and flawed, then cites the very same De'ath guy - the one they just agreed did bad work - to argue that there is still a problem, just smaller than stated.

If the best defense against a charge of bogus scientific claims is to cite more claims from the same source, that defense is weak.

Example 2. DoE points out that temperature records are heavily corrupted by urban development around the weather stations (UHI), that climatologists know this and claim to have taken it into account, but there's lots of evidence they haven't. They present examples of the bogus things climatologists have done, like presenting readings from the middle of cities of 100,000 people as "rural", or announcing UHI is insignificant without giving any evidence. And they cite papers showing that much of the warming announced by climatologists isn't real, it's just measurement error.

The rebuttal simply cites those very same datasets that the IPCC has already agreed are corrupted and then says "We have shown that [everything is fine]". But they haven't shown anything! None of the evidence presented by the DoE report has been addressed. They just repeated their standard line and ignored all the arguments in the report.

If your best defense against a set of arguments is to repeat your initial position and declare victory, your defense is weak.

Example 3. Storm intensity. DoE points out that storms aren't getting worse, contrary to common media reports, and that anyway Earth has a long history but our records are short, so labeling individual events as "extreme" doesn't make sense because we don't really know what the extremes are. The rebuttal agrees with all of this. Then it starts a list of criticisms. The very first one is "The DOE CWG Report neglects important evidence from theory and models". Models and theories don't yield evidence! They make predictions, which aren't evidence of anything except the beliefs of the model authors. Their statement is stupid and implies a loss of grip on the scientific method.

If your best defense is to agree with your critics then attack them for not conflating ideas with data, then your defense is weak and so is your whole field. They should be ashamed to make an argument like that.

I can't be bothered reading more of this stuff. The rebuttal is a gish gallop. They hope that by spamming 400+ pages they know no journalist will ever read, they'll get the headlines they want and people will just default to believing them through inertia and lazyness.
by furyofantares | 2025-09-02 19:58:01+00:00
Everything about this sucks. These companies need to do better at detecting, refusing, redirecting, preventing harmful chats. They need to offer this to anyone using the APIs to build products too.

And that all also sucks. I don't trust these companies one bit to be monitoring all of these. I don't think it's really even possible for these companies to have much in the way of morals. So they also need to NOT do any of that.

And then there's the issue of reporting to authorities. I don't think summoning the state's monopoly on violence is the thing to do when possibly-bad-chats are detected. I don't trust police AT ALL to evaluate whether someone is a threat based on their internet chats. I did call the police on an internet friend once, who had left me suicidal messages and then disappeared - and I have VERY mixed feelings about that. I didn't know any other way to get someone to try to get to him. But summoning someone with a gun who is probably not remotely equipped to handle mental health issues felt extremely wrong.

Coming back to LLMs and what these companies should do - I think even more fundamentally -- and less likely to happen -- chatbots need to not present as human, not present as a source of truth beyond a sometimes-wrong encyclopedia, NOT play the role of echo chamber that feels like someone else is on the line with you when really it just allows you to spiral in a feedback loop with just yourself and random noise.

I love this technology and yet I am tempted to say, shut it all down. Of course, that won't happen. But it is how I feel at times.
by SilverElfin | 2025-09-02 19:58:16+00:00
This has been a problem prior to this administration as well. Emergency declarations, mandates, bans, lockdowns, and really any other violation of individual rights are a problem in free societies because they can be abused and used in authoritarian ways.

For example COVID emergencies were kept in effect long after it was appropriate. As a recently example, an election observer from the GOP in Washington state was charged and later convicted of a felony for not wearing a mask when serving as an election observer in the 2024 election (https://nypost.com/2025/02/16/us-news/washington-election-ob...), long after the pandemic ended.

I also read that the same state’s legislators often mark their bills as an “emergency measure” because it prevents voter initiatives (which I guess are like propositions in California) from changing the law. This happens elsewhere too for other procedural reasons. Like governors or whoever declaring an emergency because it allows them to unlock funds and spend, or it allows them to take some action that is otherwise prevented by law.

But setting these types of situations aside, there has been casual overuse of the words “emergency” or “crisis” everywhere. Climate emergency. Housing emergency. Homeless crisis. Drug crisis. And so on. None of these fit the definition of an emergency unless you contort things.
by jjcm | 2025-09-02 19:58:25+00:00
Templates are solid and are slightly more performant than including your html-in-js for webcomponents, but that said I really wish there was some sort of web component file format that incorporated:

- The HTML

- The JS

- The CSS

In some sort of a structured way that's easy to load and distribute as a library. I don't like that to use webcomponents the right way, you have to load the logic from an import and then inline the html aspects of it.
by mym1990 | 2025-09-02 19:58:27+00:00
For whatever its worth, I bet the chess master would be able to instantly identify that it is a random/invalid board position, aka an invalid world state. I think the experiment you are alluding to gave both groups a very limited amount of time to look at the board. Given enough time, both groups would definitely be able to memorize 64 pieces on a board.
by cm2012 | 2025-09-02 19:58:56+00:00
My wife has psychosis and Gpt5 consistently is a voice of reason and grounds her. She shows me her GPT chats to get me caught up and its so nice to have something that can patiently listen to her when she repeats herself a lot.

In the meantime Ive had two therapists that we ended with since they didnt help the condition, and we're very expensive.
by jandrese | 2025-09-02 19:58:59+00:00
MS-DOS was more of a clone of CP/M. The sort of thing that was mostly possible because CP/M is so minimal that one person can rewrite/port it in a just a few weeks. MS-DOS also cleaned up some of the rough edges of CP/M, like soft locking the system if you tried to access an non-existent drive.
by eastbound | 2025-09-02 19:59:17+00:00
> there is no increase in disorder

The mobile phone created an occupation for people who would otherwise be on the street committing crime. It paced people, even common kids, adults, we commit much, much less crime than the previous generation, and even less in unreported crime (bar fights, revenge against a neighbor, etc.). The boomers used their hands!

But the problem is: If you follow the average strength and fight training of citizen from 1970 to today, violence should have been practically zero. It is much higher because some subsets have abnormally high rates.

You claim the average is going down. OP claims it’s going up. Both are right. Violence wins.
by xp84 | 2025-09-02 19:59:23+00:00
- Purchasing advertising can be done from a variety of actors not just a couple social media platforms.

- As a customer of an ad network or media property or whatever, you either get what you pay for and are happy, or you can go to another one. I totally expect there are arbitrary restrictions imposed by some. But advertising is more of a commodity. And I don't mean to suggest online ads are the only choice.

Article points out that this politician has actually been banned from billboards (which is literally censorship) but I just don't see "Internet" as automatically fixing things like that. Yes, governments can ban people for ridiculous reasons. We were naïve to ever believe that "Internet" would be a trump card for any such nefarious government activity. We live in nations. Nations have power. In some cases people have legitimately chosen a leader whose value system runs counter to our ideals, but that's still democracy working as intended. In other cases, despots take that power in unfair ways. In either case though, "Internet," and especially private social media sites, are not a serious "solution" to anything. The sooner people understand that the better off we'll be.
by Buttons840 | 2025-09-02 20:00:02+00:00
You make some good points.

I guess a "living wage" probably implies living an "normal" American life, which isn't maximally tightening the belt.

Even with good public transportation, driving saves a lot of time. The extra $300 probably comes from a combination of needing to buy a new phone and new computer periodically, hidden taxes and fees, and also it's reasonable to expect a "normal" living wage to include enough to cover at least 2 or 3 of the cheapest options--more than just one single bottom-of-the-barrel option.

Again, you make good points, and I agree some skepticism about their "living wage" numbers are justified. At least they break it down to give a glimpse into some of their logic.
by PaulHoule | 2025-09-02 20:00:20+00:00
My system is written in Python because it is supported by a number of batch jobs that use code from SBERT, scikit-learn, numpy and such. Currently the server doesn't do any complex calculations but under asyncio it was a strict no-no. Mostly it does database queries and formats HTML responses but it seems like that is still too much CPU.

My take on gunicorn is that it doesn't need any tuning or care to handle anything up to the large workgroup size other than maybe "buy some more RAM" -- and now if I want to do some inference in the server or use pandas to generate a report I can do it.

If I had to go bigger I probably wouldn't be using Python in the server and would have to face up to either dual language or doing the ML work in a different way. I'm a little intimidated about being on the public web in 2025 though with all the bad webcrawlers. Young 'uns just never learned everything that webcrawler authors knew in 1999. In 2010 there were just two bad Chinese webcrawlers that never sent a lick of traffic to anglophone sites, but now there are new bad webcrawlers every day it seems.
by Terretta | 2025-09-02 20:01:26+00:00
Sibling's proposed approach is a recipe for false positives.

Consider Claude Code's new /security-review prompt or just use the prompt starting from "Objective" after giving the context (see the Git shell commands) to Claude Opus 4.1.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/claude-code-sec...

Definitely Opus 4.1 though, not lesser.
by throwup238 | 2025-09-02 20:01:28+00:00
You don’t need to jump to political extremes and it doesn’t help when discussing capitalism as the successor to mercantilism rather than its own political system. The answer to the problem of capitalism isn’t necessarily communism or socialism or a wholesale change of political system but lots of small solutions like well regulated markets with strong labor laws and trust busting, a more robust safety net, increased anticorruption and white collar crime enforcement, better consumer protection, and so on. Ones that can be mostly implemented regardless of the political system, given the political will.
by ack_complete | 2025-09-02 20:02:08+00:00
Also caused subtle bugs. I once had to debug a crash in C++ code that turned out to be due to Stackless Python corrupting stack state on Windows. OutputDebugString() would intermittently crash because Stackless had temporarily copied out part of the stack and corrupted the thread's structured exception handling chain. This wasn't obvious because this occurred in a very deep call stack with Stackless much higher up, and it only made sense if you knew that OutputDebugString() is implemented internally by throwing a continuable exception.

The more significant problem was that Stackless was a separate distribution. Every time CPython updated, there would be a delay until Stackless updated, and tooling like Python IDEs varied in whether they supported Stackless.
by SilverElfin | 2025-09-02 20:02:12+00:00
That’s a great link. A more specific example I’ll name is the IEEPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...), which is a law for emergency economic powers that is being used (abused?) by the current administration to implement tariffs. Prior to this administration, the law had been invoked like 30 times. There are still emergencies declared under it that have been in effect, continuously, for more than 40 years!
by poszlem | 2025-09-02 20:02:45+00:00
True, reputation has always existed. But after a certain scale, quantity becomes a quality of its own. There’s a big difference between word-of-mouth at a single bar and a centralized, algorithmic reputation score that can follow you across dozens of services. If one bartender thinks you’re rude, you can go to another bar. If one nonprofit doesn’t like you, you can still volunteer elsewhere. But when a social media company or platform blacklists you, it can ripple through your professional, social, and even financial life, because their influence extends far beyond one community. That’s the leap from local memory to systemic gatekeeping.