MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bko | 2025-09-24 20:31:21+00:00
> In a sane market, those dark patterns would be defeated by competition, but there is a distressing lack of sane markets today

Did you miss the part where the parent said "I’ve recently switched to Facebook Dating"?

It sounds nice to make "dark patterns" illegal, but what that means is that its arbitrary since you can't define it. Discretion is fine, but you have to be fine with [bad politician] appointing his minions to oversee the process.

For something simple like "pick up my garbage in a regular cadence", I wouldn't really care if it's Biden, Trump, Obama, Clinton or any reasonable politician so I'm fine with ceding that authority to the state. But when it comes to something like social media regulation, I don't trust politicians.
by airspresso | 2025-09-24 20:31:27+00:00
Man, this hits hard. I've done so much to protect my part of the org chart from the whims of others and the cost-cutting pressure of the organization at large. My team are happy. Personally, I'm burned out to the level that nothing excites me any more and it's really hard to muster the energy to even do what's needed at the job, let alone drive vision and the team forward.
by abustamam | 2025-09-24 20:31:49+00:00
> unless it's a banking app and it blocks permissions for screenshots and similar things.

Yeah those can fuck all the way off. I'm lucky I have two phones so I can take a photo of my screen and use it for OCR or whatever, but it's ridiculous I have to do that.

I understand that for security purposes they don't want to let you take a screenshot in case of a man in the middle or whatever, but let me risk it. Warn me or something, but let me do it.
by yorwba | 2025-09-24 20:31:54+00:00
Specifically, for 12th-grade math, the cut scores are 141/300 for NAEP Basic, 176/300 for NAEP Proficient and 216/300 for NAEP Advanced. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieve.as...

The score is an aggregate over questions testing many different skills, so while getting a low score suggests that a student is less skilled, it doesn't immediately tell you which skills they're bad at in particular. So this is exactly the scenario that 'ninkendo was talking about. If you want to know how many students correctly answered a specific question testing a certain skill, you would need the raw disaggregated data, which I don't think NAGB publishes.

I'd like to add that it's intentional that there are substantial numbers of students in each of the four buckets defined by the three thresholds, since the goal is to track the performance of the overall population, not just a few very bad or exceptionally good students.
by joe_the_user | 2025-09-24 20:32:32+00:00
Your links give a plausible picture but apparently not in the terms you're thinking.

He's a real person. His TedX talk is about applying AI medicine. Now medicine has so far been one of the least useful ways of applying LLMs/AI but even in areas where its been effective, it's problem is no one is that much of expert 'cause the AI is doing the "thinking" (prompt-"engineering" isn't nothing, it just isn't that hard to pick-up and has to be constantly changing and simplifying as the models improve).

And the thing about his "amazing" output is that it has all the ear-marks of someone who lightly editing "brilliant" LLM hallucinations. Just the case of Quantum Extensions to the Einstein Field Equations; this is either going to be big advance with thousands of citations or it will bogus (and paid placement - that's negative credibility, less credible than just an bare ArchiveX upload).

So, sure he's real. His claims, on the other hand...

Edit: And the thing about the stream of "genius" ideas is that LLMs seem to be inspiring many people with the approach of bouncing ideas off the chat-thing, having the chat-thing fill the ideas with seemingly plausible phrases and math (most of which makes sense) and reach the point where they seem to have created an earth shattering advance - especially in fields they didn't know in any depth. Notably, cranks have been common in many fields already but this allows cranks to proceed without the former markers of crankdom. And that presents some challenges to a variety of fields.
by gitremote | 2025-09-24 20:32:34+00:00
> Just earlier this year, the first words out of the mouth of the political right about a fatal aircraft crash was to... Question the credentials of its black pilot.

> All that judgement was made before any of the facts besides the pilot's skin color were out.

It's worse than that. The pilot was actually white.

Trump thought the pilot must have been black just because they crashed. When asked why he thought DEI caused the crash, he said, "Because I have common sense." He claimed without any source that the Obama administration "actually came out with a directive, too white" on aviation agency standards.
by array_key_first | 2025-09-24 20:32:54+00:00
I worked briefly at a company that wrote applications that interacted with bank mainframes. Think end point bank teller systems and in branch customer/account management. They definitely do exist - every major bank has a mainframe written in (usually) cobol.

But it's very abstracted, part of our main product offering WAS abstracting it. On top of our ready to use applications, we offered APIs for higher-level data retrieval and manipulation. Under the hood, that orchestrates mainframe calls.

But even then that there could be more level of abstractions. Not every bank used screen-level mainframe access. Some used off the shelf mainframe abstractors like JxChange (yes, there's a market for this).

Fintech would be even more abstracted, I imagine. At that point you can only interact with the mainframe a few levels up, but it's still there. Out of sight.
by authleap | 2025-09-24 20:33:06+00:00
Client-side encryption in MongoDB offers a compelling way to protect sensitive data by ensuring encryption happens before the data leaves the client. This is particularly powerful for applications that handle PII, PHI, or financial information, as even database administrators can’t view the encrypted fields. However, in a multi-tenant environment, where the same database and its collections are shared across tenants, things become more challenging. As we set out to implement field-level encryption at DevRev, we carried out an in-depth evaluation of how MongoDB’s native encryption features align with our needs. This blog shares some of the key insights from that journey.
by thegrimmest | 2025-09-24 20:33:21+00:00
> for the greater good of all or advancement of society

I'm not sure we agree enough on the definitions of these things to justify a democratic redistribution of resources towards them. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny after all. The nice part about private enterprise is that it's hard to argue they didn't earn their money. Google, Apple, et al provided some value to some folks who volunteered to pay for it in a free exchange. Their claim to use their earned wealth as they see fit is much easier to substantiate than a government intervention which is neither voluntary nor obviously providing value to the people who pay for it.
by nailer | 2025-09-24 20:34:03+00:00
Zuckerberg mentioned meta were getting government employees that were calling Facebook absolutely furious, and when they didn’t take down legal speech administration did not approve of, there was an immediate investigation launched into Meta that he considers retaliatory.

https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-bi...

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=j...
by sokoloff | 2025-09-24 20:34:17+00:00
Because the framing of what is the standard or default matters in determining whether a problem needs solving at no cost or merely needs a solution to be available in the market.

If the standard is everyone can choose whom they sit next to (assuming seats are available), then parents are at no disadvantage. This is how air travel was for a very long time, when tickets were much more expensive and much more all-inclusive.

Now, people are seeking cheaper tickets, so the airlines propose to offer discounts for passengers to forgo some of that all-inclusive nature and if those forgone items are a good match for your needs, feel free to take advantage of them. If they're not, feel free to buy a ticket that meets your needs.

No one would think that when the USPS offers Next Day Express, Priority, and Parcel Post that a parent should get Next Day Express for the price of Priority or Parcel Post just because they're mailing something for their kid, right? When a rental car company charges a family of 6 more for a large car than a childless couple is charged for an economy car, are they violating some kind of social contract? "Use discount code BUTIHAVEFOURKIDS to rent a Suburban for the price of a Civic." A landlord charging more for a 2 BR than a 1 BR also hurts parents, but I assume most people think that's logical and proper.

> we generally want to encourage parenting and reduce the burden on them by using the power of the state to spread such costs out

Some people want that. Not all people want that and probably no one wants it in unlimited amounts. I have kids and I'm largely indifferent on the topic beyond supporting strong K-12 public education. I do observe that some people take the notion of "we should spread out the costs of kids" way, way too far for what I think is rational.

Selfishly, I'd be perfectly fine if Basic airline tickets were made illegal for everyone. It just makes my looking at airfares online more annoying because I'll never buy a Basic fare. But, people who do find Basic fares to meet their needs ought to be allowed to have access to them, so I don't actually want them banned.
by sonderotis | 2025-09-24 20:34:24+00:00
I am not saying that if someone has poor leadership skills they should stand all I am saying is it should not be because of their beliefs. I mean why are they referencing his blog posts and not github issues of poorly handled pull requests.

I mean why does the leader have to align with your faith. If this escaletes youll realize that people will discriminate patches of contribution because they came from some who is "muslim" or "christian".
by ElijahLynn | 2025-09-24 20:34:55+00:00
This is really exciting news! I think many tech companies would be interested in this service as it's a huge perk if you make your people commute into work.

I mean how many people drive for 30 to 60 minutes just to get to work in or already a bit stressed out because of the drive.

But second, wouldn't it be cool if places that serve alcohol could have a whole bunch of these codes to hand out! If somebody looks a bit too buzzed, just give them a code for a ride and send them on home. Heck even give him another code to come back in the morning and get their car!
by dr-smooth | 2025-09-24 20:35:08+00:00
Yeah, Snopes is really missing the point here. When people point to this idiotic drivel that he spoke in a press conference, their point is not that "oh my god, he told everyone to inject bleach, this is going to cause mass injury and is terrifyingly dangerous".

I think most who point to this statement, they see it as evidence of how pitifully stupid this man is.

So for most people who like to talk about this statement, it's still true -- it's like a 3rd grader is spitballing on how to solve a pandemic.
by bArray | 2025-09-24 20:35:27+00:00
My concern is either that QuickJS is something like 100x slower, or that even when using Deno, the download experience will be insanely slow.

In my mind, an acceptable time for users might be 30 seconds (somewhat similar to watching an ad). If QuickJS is taking >20 minutes, then it is some 40x slower? Seems very high?

> QuickJIT (a fork of QuickJS that uses TCC for JIT) might yield better results, but still slower than Deno.

Interesting, not come across it before. Running C code seems like an insane workaround from a security perspective.
by emeryberger | 2025-09-24 20:35:38+00:00
You can adjust the code on the page easily (it’s open source javascript) to determine the question you are after, which is a valid one: if an adversary starts today and adds x nodes to the existing network, what is their success rate?

BUT the author asked a different (but valid) question: assuming the adversary controls x out of N existing nodes, what is the success rate? I am unclear: is the assertion that everyone’s relay is honest today? From a privacy standpoint, that’s not a great assumption.
by gregates | 2025-09-24 20:35:38+00:00
I think the article's title question is a bit misleading because it focuses on peak throughput for S3 as a whole. The interesting question is "How can the throughput for a GET exceed the throughput of an HDD?"

If you just replicated, you could still get big throughput for S3 as a whole by doing many reads that target different HDDs. But you'd still be limited to max HDD throughput * number of GETs. S3 is not so limited, and that's interesting and non-obvious!
by kiitos | 2025-09-24 20:35:41+00:00
> Why RPC? (And what is RPC anyway?)

RPC is an ambiguous and abstract umbrella-term for any request-response communication between two nodes that don't share the same memory space, usually over a network connection, and always via serialized bytes.

> Without RPC, you might communicate using a protocol like HTTP.

HTTP is probably the most common protocol for implementing RPC, indeed

> With HTTP, though, you must format and parse your communications as an HTTP request and response, perhaps designed in REST style.

yep! HTTP/REST is one good option, among many, for doing RPC communications

> RPC systems try to make communications look like a regular function call instead, as if you were calling a library rather than a remote service. The RPC system provides a "stub" object on the client side which stands in for the real server-side object.

Er, no, if you introduce the concept of "objects" you're now talking about something quite different than RPC, more akin to CORBA, which we well know now is not sound...

> When a method is called on the stub, the RPC system figures out how to serialize and transmit the parameters to the server, invoke the method on the server, and then transmit the return value back.

I mean, sure, but this is just normal serialization protocol stuff, right?

> The merits of RPC have been subject to a great deal of debate. RPC is often accused of committing many of the fallacies of distributed computing. But this reputation is outdated. When RPC was first invented some 40 years ago, async programming barely existed. We did not have Promises, much less async and await. Early RPC was synchronous: calls would block the calling thread waiting for a reply. At best, latency made the program slow. At worst, network failures would hang or crash the program. No wonder it was deemed "broken". Things are different today. We have Promise and async and await, and we can throw exceptions on network failures. We even understand how RPCs can be pipelined so that a chain of calls takes only one network round trip. Many large distributed systems you likely use every day are built on RPC. It works.

What a confusion of terms and concepts! Promises and async/await are language-level concepts, completely orthogonal to "RPC" which is a transport/wire-level concept -- what is happening here!! :o

> The fact is, RPC fits the programming model we're used to. Every programmer is trained to think in terms of APIs composed of function calls, not in terms of byte stream protocols nor even REST. Using RPC frees you from the need to constantly translate between mental models, allowing you to move faster.

i do not think RPC means what this author thinks that it means
by codedokode | 2025-09-24 20:35:46+00:00
While the story in the article is scary, what's the point of reporting the person to the dating app company? They have no way to check whether there happened a crime or not. Maybe there should be a government-run database which tracks the people reported to police, and the dating apps must warn if the user is in the database or temporarily freeze the account.

Anyway such things should be regulated by laws and run by the government rather than by private companies without any legal responsibility.
by victorgglv | 2025-09-24 20:36:01+00:00
For the last 6 months, I have been building Coparadigm from the ground up. I decided to build Coparadigm because I couldn't find a product or tool for managing my local church youth group events and activities all in one place without having to jump tab to tab and use 7 different apps to finish one task. That is the thesis of Coparadigm, an all-in-one integrated suite of tools for group management and community building, and communication. I recently released my free beta version with the following features:

Group calendar

Member task assignment

Posts and comment threads

Group chat

Subgroups

Please hop in at: https://coparadigm.com, create a free account, and try it out!

Also coming this month is a my full subscription tier based version with the following extended features:

built-in group spreadsheets

form builder

payment portals

Issue style to-do lists

Schedule builder

AI Agent with context of your group, events, tasks, chats, and data! Full workflow through a chatbot!
by bccdee | 2025-09-24 20:36:08+00:00
> Also consider youtube, I watch a lot of tiny creators

Right, but you don't know these people. You're not in a community with them. Tao points to Dunbar's number as a rough boundary between small and large communities; how many of these "tiny" creators have fewer than 150 followers, and how many of them foster close social ties among those followers in ways that couldn't scale to a larger audience?

Before the era of ~2k subscriber youtube passion project channels, people were forced to find people in their area with shared interests and establish social clubs. This necessarily meant a smaller audience, but it also meant actually being friends with the people you were communicating with. Youtube is definitely a different kind of thing.

That said, I do think there's an argument to be made that the Discord- and groupchat-ification of the social media ecosystem is a backswing toward smaller groups.
by ranger_danger | 2025-09-24 20:36:21+00:00
> Why can’t other nodes have freedom to decide how they want to participate?

Because the network was explicitly designed to not allow this... otherwise it becomes subject to censorship, which is one of the main goals they try to prevent.

The (onion) address itself is never transmitted in plaintext through the Tor network... when you access an onion site, your Tor client encrypts the traffic multiple times, literally like an onion. No relay in the circuit knows the final destination.
by abraae | 2025-09-24 20:36:22+00:00
Humans sometimes yearn for the leader to put their foot down.

The quiet ones may want the yapping voices silenced so progress can be made.

And sometimes the yapping ones get out ahead of their own skis and don't know a graceful way to back down so they're happyish to be closed down, even if they're primed to come back with an "I told you so" if the leader gets it wrong.
by sershe | 2025-09-24 20:36:42+00:00
That wouldn't explain why the reverse happened. Everyone introduced the crappier economy tier; even the airlines initially saying they wouldn't eventually caved and now there's a crappy economy tier default. Moreover, gradually these crappy tiers converged, including some (united iirc) getting slightly less crappy following user demand.

Most people want cheaper tickets and don't shop on quality. In the rare cases that they do airlines readily adjust. But the airlines trying to offer quality as the default would go out of business
by dismalaf | 2025-09-24 20:37:15+00:00
> EU regions

Which ones exactly? I live in an EU country (part time anyway) and DHH's views would be considered centrist at most...

Edit:

> So whats next? No software made by christians.

Well, Matz is a devout Mormon, so hopefully all the crazy people realize this and just leave the Ruby community and ecosystem.

Also, I wish these people would just fork and be done with it. Instead they try to bully others on social media.
by rpdillon | 2025-09-24 20:38:15+00:00
> But a large part of this is completely unsubstantiated speculation that people are nodding along with, which, in my opinion, is showing a breakdown in the ability to comprehend logical or evidence-based arguments.

This is how I feel about the NYT article. So much doesn't add up, and the more I read and investigate, the flakier it becomes.

Odd to have officials speaking anonymously about an investigation while the Secret Service is putting out press releases about it.
by ipaddr | 2025-09-24 20:38:38+00:00
Are you supporting the software or running a purity test for others involved.

It seems backwards to leave a blogging platform project because other people helping make that blogging platform have different views. They might even use it to make a blog about something you wouldn't. They might say something dangerous like the right sucks or the left sucks.

The internet was better without real names. The less people know about you the less prejudices you face.
by svieira | 2025-09-24 20:38:40+00:00
> What makes this vast private data uniquely valuable is its quality and real-world grounding.

This is a bold assumption. After Enron (financial transactions), Lehman Brothers (customer/population databases, financial transactions), Theranos (electronic health records), Nikola (proprietary research data), Juicero (I don't even know what this is), WeWork (umm ... everything), FTX (everything and we know they didn't mind lying to themselves) I'm pretty sure we can all say for certain that "real world grounding" isn't a guarantee with regards to anything where money or ego is involved.

Not to mention that at this point we're actively dealing with processes being run (improperly) by AI (see the lawsuits against Cigna and and United Health Care [1]), leading to self-training loops without revealing the "self" aspect of it.

[1]: https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/health-care-counsel-blog...
by lxgr | 2025-09-24 20:39:49+00:00
> it's hard to imagine the world can be fully described with 200 terabytes of data

Why? Intelligence and compression might just be two sides of the same coin, and given that, I'd actually be very surprised if a future ASI couldn't make due with a fraction of that.

Just because current LLMs need tons of data doesn't mean that that's somehow an inherent requirement. Biological lifeforms seem to be able to train/develop general intelligence from much, much less.
by florianj | 2025-09-24 20:40:45+00:00
Great write-up. Love how everyone is sharing their solutions. Fun fact, this is an actual business problem we have to solve at our company (Listen Labs).

We have an AI customer interviewing platform our customers ask us things like: “I want to talk to 200 people, at least 100 who are ChatGPT Pro users, 75 who use Gemini weekly, and 50 from each region of the US.”

We don’t know those attributes upfront, so we have to ask participants screening questions and decide in real time whether to move forward.

Of course, it's a bit different as we optimize for the average case, not the best case, and we don't know the distributions (but can estimate with LLMs!).
by ahmedfromtunis | 2025-09-24 20:41:18+00:00
I used to enjoy browsing PH and learn about all the cool projects people were building. And there were actually very good ideas -- at least in the early days of the community.

I even used to play a game that I've called PH-roulette: I'd open the top 10 or so products in separate tabs without reading their taglines. I then try to guess what they do based on the copy of landing page.

On most days, only one or 2 products had clear descriptions that are actually useful.

I started playing this game out of boredom but ended up learning a lot about what not to do while building my own landing pages.