MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pzshaikh | 2025-09-06 14:37:14+00:00
Yes, most of these features are available in Brave. You have Vertical tabs, split view, pinned tabs, grouped tabs, tab sneak previews, tab search, in built AI assistant. Instead of 'spaces' you have old fashioned profiles, single windowed space switcher would be nice to have in Brave. Arc also has a nice Tidy tabs feature.
by Aurornis | 2025-09-06 14:37:39+00:00
> Because for at least half of the 72-hour workweek, most employee will mentally checkout (in Chinese we call this 摸鱼).

The CEO of one of my employers was smitten with his new China office because they bragged about operating 996.

To everyone else, it was obvious that they weren’t working more. They were just at the office a lot, or coming and going frequently.

When they’d send a video from the office (product demos) barely anyone was at their seats, contrary to their claims of always working.

Their output was definitely not higher than anyone else.

However, they always responded quickly on Slack, day or night, weekend or not. The CEO thought this was the most amazing thing and indicated that they were always working.
by picafrost | 2025-09-06 14:37:52+00:00
I tell new employees that I will not praise them for working extra hours because I don't want them to. I do not have hard data, but anecdotally, when I see teams adopt this mentality productivity seems to increase. My guess is that it's because they try tidy up the loose ends/ideas that annoy folk into jumping back onto the work laptop later in the evening.
by pizlonator | 2025-09-06 14:37:54+00:00
I’m already living on a Fil-C compiled CPython. It doesn’t matter.

And a Fil-C compiled text editor. Not VSCode, but still

I absolutely do think you could make the browser 5x slower (in CPU time - not in IO time) and you wouldn’t care. For example Lockdown Mode really doesn’t change your UX. Or using a browser on a 5x slower computer. You barely notice.

And most of the extant C++ code doesn’t fit into any of the categories you listed.
by binsquare | 2025-09-06 14:38:08+00:00
I've been part of startups, big corps and have recently started my own startup.

I've also heard from executives and management discuss how they work longer hours (from 1:1s as a dev myself). Now as a founder, many of my peers discuss working 24/7 or close to it. Most don't - but there's a hustle culture that glamorized lack of sleep as a badge of honor.

The reality is that the "work" is very different for these different groups of people. Executives and management work by delegating and chatting people up. Founders can vary between executive duties or building or many various other founder duties. But (L3-5) engineering at corp is basically expected to code nonstop or to work oncall.

Working 996 as an executive is not comparable to 996 as an engineer.
by fumeux_fume | 2025-09-06 14:38:09+00:00
I like that OpenAI is drawing a clear line on what “hallucination” means, giving examples, and showing practical steps for addressing them. The post isn’t groundbreaking, but it helps set the tone for how we talk about hallucinations.

What bothers me about the hot takes is the claim that “all models do is hallucinate.” That collapses the distinction entirely. Yes, models are just predicting the next token—but that doesn’t mean all outputs are hallucinations. If that were true, it’d be pointless to even have the term, and it would ignore the fact that some models hallucinate much less than others because of scale, training, and fine-tuning.

That’s why a careful definition matters: not every generation is a hallucination, and having good definitions let us talk about the real differences.
by alexnewman | 2025-09-06 14:40:13+00:00
If you don’t want to grind, don’t pick a career where only the toughest survive—like startups. In China, programmers get massages. You could be giving the massages.

I’m not smart, but I worked 7 days a week for a decade. It takes me 40 hours just to warm up, so real work means 100-hour weeks. Yet I’ve built 3 startups, 2 unicorns. In both, I was the dumbest person in the room—but I outworked everyone.
by unmole | 2025-09-06 14:40:36+00:00
I used to work for Huawei where 996 or worse wasn't uncommon. While middle management definitely pushed for extended working hours, I didn't get the impression that anyone viewed it as failed management. If anything, upper management knew exactly what was happening and was encouraging it.

Hell, you have the likes of Jack Ma glorifying 996, calling it a blessing.
by vips7L | 2025-09-06 14:41:13+00:00
The new features make the code easier to read. For example var:

List<Account> accounts = List.of(new Account(1), new Account(2)); var accounts = List.of(new Account(1), new Account(2));

It just reduces visual noise and boilerplate that you already know.

Java 8 is also a slow and old runtime. It performs terribly in 2025. Here’s a quote from 2020 and the gap has only gotten wider [0]:

> JDK 8 is an antiquated runtime. The default Parallel collector enters huge Full GC pauses and the G1, although having less frequent Full GCs, is stuck in an old version that uses just one thread to perform it, resulting in even longer pauses. Even on a moderate heap of 12 GB, the pauses were exceeding 20 seconds for Parallel and a full minute for G1. The ConcurrentMarkSweep collector is strictly worse than G1 in all scenarios, and its failure mode are multi-minute Full GC pauses.

You’re doing a disservice to everyone by continuing to use and glorify it.

[0] https://hazelcast.com/blog/performance-of-modern-java-on-dat...
by gethly | 2025-09-06 14:41:14+00:00
Indeed, the support is widespread across languages. OTOH, using compression, like basic gzip, for http responses, turns the text format into binary format and with http2 or http3 there is no overhead like it would be with http1. so in the end the binary aspect of these encoders might be obsolete for this use case, as long as one uses compression.
by Someone1234 | 2025-09-06 14:41:37+00:00
I agree with everything you're saying; but even outside of Tesla, I'd just like to remind people that LIDAR as a complement to vision isn't at all straightforward. Sensor fusion adds real complexity in calibration, time sync, and modeling.

Both LIDAR and vision have edge cases where they fail. So you ideally want both, but then the challenge is reconciling disagreements with calibrated, and probabilistic fusion. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that vision is dirty input and LIDAR is somehow clean, when in reality both are noisy inputs with different strengths and weaknesses.

I guess my point is: Yes, 100% bring in LIDAR, I believe the future is LIDAR + vision. But when you do that, early iterations can regress significantly from vision-only until the fusion is tuned and calibration is tight, because you have to resolve contradictory data. Ultimately the payoff is higher robustness in exchange for more R&D and development workload (i.e. more cost).

The same reason why Tesla needed vision-only to work (cost & timeline) is the same reason why vision+LIDAR is so challenging.
by scarface_74 | 2025-09-06 14:41:49+00:00
> I suppose anything's possible, but that's not how the alcohol system works: when I show ID to purchase alcohol, the cashier looks at it and hands it back to me without recording anything

On the other hand, I bought Pseudoephedrine from a Publix at home when I was living in GA, left it by mistake, flew to Puerto Rico and was denied in a CVS because there is a nationwide database.
by nivertech | 2025-09-06 14:41:52+00:00
they don't see words, only tokens

and even with tokens they don't know how to count them at the LLM completion layer

they have to be trained with something like RLHF about word counting at the question answering / instruction following layers

or at the application layer (so called "agentic workflows"), e.g. writing a Python code to count words, or calling a function or a CLI tool like "wc"
by ninetyninenine | 2025-09-06 14:41:57+00:00
Every culture in the world operates on shame. It goes beyond culture and is intrinsic to human nature. The actions of almost everyone on the face of the earth accounts for shame. It’s an emotion we avoid and we act in ways to avoid it. It’s a very surface level thing. We break the rules of a society and others know about it, we feel shame. Thus to avoid shame we avoid publicly breaking the rules of society.

If an attribute of humanity is universal and historically prevalent it becomes for sure through induction that the attribute survived the gauntlet of natural selection. There is a huge survival benefit here.

All of evolutionary psychology can only be formulated through induction as there’s no way to find causal evidence for psychological attributes short of time travel.

> Does child abuse convey a survival benefit? Or spousal abuse?

We don’t know if it does. But abuse is possibly not evolutionary and possibly not beneficial. The reason is because it’s not universal across societies. Not like Shame.

Though there is evidence that it is beneficial. Hitting children in Asia is normal. The high achievement and IQ and work ethic of those in China are often achieved through physical abuse not to the extent where it injures the child extremely but to the extent where pain changes behavior. A large part of the economic success of the Chinese is due to high industriousness of the society which is very much influenced by physical abuse of children.

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of human societies have men as the dominant sex and often hitting a wife is equivalent to spanking a child in societies where men have power. Was this beneficial? Who knows. One thing is that in societies where men dominate women rate their lives as happier and the divorce rate is significantly down. While the data on this isn’t fully solid this isn’t strictly evidence it’s food for a thought. It’s also the overwhelming dominant paradigm of humanity where men dominate women. Modern society as we know it where women are equal to men is experimental we’ve never done it and there’s no way of knowing if natural selection will select for this.

Another thing to note is that modern societies are all experience population decline. There is enough of a correlation here that we believe modernity is causal to population decline. What part of modernity? We don’t know. Likely it is very complicated but male domination could be an aspect of it. Take India. Spousal abuse is much more common and men hold a dominant place in the family unit and they also follow more traditional arranged marriages. Indias population is not declining, it is growing and it is quite possible spousal abuse or the attributes that lead to spousal abuse are causal.

We don’t know. So my long winded explanation here is that you cannot use abuse as an example of evidence against the evolutionary benefits of shame. It doesn’t follow from the logic or the evidence and you only said it as if it was like dropping the mic because you’re heavily influenced by modern culture. Abuse = universally bad to you but from an impartial and objective standpoint it is not.
by tremon | 2025-09-06 14:41:58+00:00
a) takes more time than should be necessary

b) produces sub-optimal results

Both of these claims are empty. Necessary according to whom? Sub-optimal against which metrics? All industrial processes are inefficient in some way because you're always dealing with engineering trade-offs. Staying in the computer domain: show me a system with optimal latency and I will show you an underutilized system; show me a system optimized for high-throughput and I will show you a system with erratic latency behaviour.
by Twirrim | 2025-09-06 14:42:24+00:00
It's not unrealistically pessimistic. We're already seeing research showing the negative effects, as well as seeing routine psychosis stories.

Think about the ways that LLMs interact. The constant barrage of positive responses "brilliant observation" etc. That's not a healthy input to your mental feedback loop.

We all need responses that are grounded in reality, just like you'd get from other human beings. Think about how we've seen famous people, businesses leaders, politicians etc go off the rails when surrounded by "yes men" constantly enabling and supporting them. That's happening with people with fully mature brains, and that's literally the way LLMs behave.

Now think about what that's going to do to developing brains that have even less ability to discern when they're being led astray, and are much more likely to take things at face value. LLMs are fundamentally dangerous in their current form.
by plasma_beam | 2025-09-06 14:42:31+00:00
I view this largely as a symptom of the widescale “success” of the bloated J2EE app servers in the early 2000s to mid 2010s. Your Java version and dependencies were locked in and upgrading was a massive effort. A large group of developers stagnated on Java 1.4.2 and 5 and seemingly never updated their use of the language, even when moving to Java 8 and beyond. The legacy stuff keeps ticking along.
by doublerabbit | 2025-09-06 14:42:52+00:00
Why and what gives you the right to tell them off?

Hacking is hacking. If they wish to risk it, what's your problem?

They know the risks. Everyone knows hacking is illegal. Same with selling drugs; illegal yet folk do. Same premise. Get caught; no sympathy given.

"People may get hurt"? $country throw folk in to war; it's a harsh world we live in.

Bug bounty's are only the new norm because the younger audience want validation and compensation for their skills or that companies are being cheap to ensure security.

During my era of internet bug bounties were non-existent. You either got hired or you went to jail.

In my case I got fired from a bank accidentally boasting that I could replace printer status messages with "Out of Ink - please insert more blood". Granted I was 17.

Being banned from using any computer at school for discovering a DCOM exploit using Windows 98 Help resulting in being denied from doing my IT GCSE and from two colleges.

Or being doxxed by another hacker group for submitting their botnet to an AntiVirus firm. Good times, a living nightmare for my parents.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-09-06 14:43:22+00:00
I don't agree that it is an ill-defined problem, since we can design separate models to excel in each of these two tasks. For a "factual" LLM, if the output is a verifiable statement, it should be correct. Otherwise it "hallucinates". But since an LLM can't know everything, a better approach is to effectively state its own uncertainty so that it avoids making definitive statements with low confidence.
by Fourier864 | 2025-09-06 14:43:48+00:00
When I bought my Leaf last year, I actually didn't have range anxiety because I assumed the infrastructure was better than it actually was. But I'm shocked that at most places I drive to don't even have a charging station, and if they do it's like 2 spots that are both full.

And I definitely didn't factor in skiing, my favorite mountain has 4 charging stations in one of the hotel's parking lots.
by weitendorf | 2025-09-06 14:43:56+00:00
> Why do security researchers privately inform companies of vulnerabilities and wait for them to patch before public disclosure?

Because if they don’t inform the company and wait for the fix, their disclosure would make it easier for less ethical hackers to abuse the vulnerability and do real material harm to the company’s users/customers/employees. And no company would ever want to collaborate with someone who thinks it’s ok to do that.

It’s not even really a matter of liability IMO, it’s just the right thing to do.

(main exception: if the company refuses to fix the issue or completely ignores it, sometimes researchers will disclose it after a certain period of time because at that point it’s in the public’s best interest to put pressure on the company to fix it even if it becomes easier for it to be exploited)
by bob1029 | 2025-09-06 14:44:01+00:00
> He's also very much into pushing the engine's lighting to its limits.

With a bit of experience you can achieve global illumination results that are competitive with Pixar films by using static scene elements, URP, area lighting, baked GI and 5~10 minutes on a 5700XT. The resulting output will run at hundreds of FPS on most platform targets. If this means pegging vsync, it may also be representative of a power savings on those platforms.

Lights in video games certainly use real electricity, but the power spent on baked lights is amortized across every unique target that runs the game. The biggest advantage of baking is that you can use an unlimited # of lights. Emulation of a physical scene is possible. There are also types of lights that aren't even accessible at real-time (area/volumetric). These produce the most compelling visual results, avoiding problems that others create such as hotspots in reflection probes and hard shadowing.

Lightmap baking is quickly becoming a lost art because realtime lighting is so simple by comparison (at first!). It also handles a lot of edges cases automagically. The most important ones being things like dynamic scene elements and foliage. Approximately half of the editor overlays in Unity are dedicated to visualizing the various aspects of baked lighting. It is one of the more difficult things to polish but if you have the discipline to do so it will make your game highly competitive in the AAA arena.

The crazy thing to me about baked GI is that it used to be incredibly crippling on iteration time. Working at a studio back in 2014 I recall wild schemes to bake lights in AWS so we could iterate faster. Each scene would take hours to fully bake. Today, you can iterate global GI in a fixed viewport multiple times per second with a progressive GPU light mapper. Each scene can be fully baked in <10 minutes. There has never been a better time to build games using technology like this. If I took a game studio from a decade ago and gave them the technology we have today, they would wipe the floor with every other studio on earth right now.

This tech doesn't have to be all-or-nothing either. Most well engineered AAA games utilize a mixture of baked & real time. The key is to make as many lights baked as possible, to the extent that you are kind of a constraining asshole about it, even though you can support 8+ dynamic lights per scene object. I look at real time lighting as a bandaid, not a solution.

If you want to attack this from a business perspective - Bleeding edge lighting tech is a nightmare if you want to ship to a large # of customers on a wide range of platforms.
by pjmlp | 2025-09-06 14:44:05+00:00
I imagine the point being the same as game development in general, hence my agreement on a sibling comment.

Many people, especially those coming from FOSS background, don't understand the game development culture is all about IP.

The culture is to create great experiences, with interesting gameplay, the actual programming languages tend to be whatever everyone uses in the industry, and in general proprietary APIs aren't the drama like in sites as this.

So if an indie is going beyond desktop, trying to maximise sales, they will pick an engine and language that covers them.
by pizlonator | 2025-09-06 14:44:44+00:00
> But if you just want "more security" then they are both reasonable options to pick

The only people doing “more security” are the actors in the security theater business.

If you’re serious about security, you’re going to have a threat model. And I cannot imagine a threat model that is addressed by both Fil-C and RLbox in a similar enough way to where you’d be choosing between them based on perf
by AndrewKemendo | 2025-09-06 14:45:45+00:00
Karpathy should be held liable for this (maybe less than Musk) but he should at least be considered persona non grata for pushing it.

It was his idea, his decision to build the architecture and he led the entire vision team during this.

Yet, he remains free from any of this fallout and still widely considered an ML god

https://youtu.be/3SypMvnQT_s?si=FDmyA6amWnDpMPEj
by panarky | 2025-09-06 14:45:45+00:00
You can't look at just one risk and say it's not worth it.

Like everything else in life, you must weigh all the risks and benefits.

Untreated fever also carries real risks - neural tube defects, congenital heart defects, orofacial clefts, miscarriage.

You need to treat fever, and NSAIDS have greater risks than acetaminophen.

It's irrational to let a minuscule and unproven risk dominate the decision when the other side of the balance has more evidence of larger risks to weigh.
by yogthos | 2025-09-06 14:46:09+00:00
That's literally the whole point of using a high level functional language though. You use it to express the business logic of your app, the code that you care about. The fact that the underlying details of how rendering and physics are done is written in an imperative language doesn't really matter here. What I care about is maintaining the logic of my application, and that's what a language like Clojure makes easier to do.
by ACCount37 | 2025-09-06 14:46:36+00:00
If I had a penny for an every confidently incorrect "LLMs can't do X", I'd be able to buy an H100 with that.

Here's a simple test: make up a brand new word, or a brand new person. Then ask a few LLMs what the word means, or when that person was born.

If an LLM had zero operational awareness of its knowledge, it would be unable to recognize that the word/person is unknown to it. It would always generate a plausible-sounding explanation for what the word might mean, the same exact way it does for the word "carrot". Or a plausible-sounding birth date, the way it does for the person "Abraham Lincoln".

In practice, most production grade LLMs would recognize that a word or a person is unknown to them.

This is a very limited and basic version of the desirable "awareness of its own knowledge" - and one that's already present in current LLMs! Clearly, there's room for improved self-awareness.
by jitl | 2025-09-06 14:46:40+00:00
The post you’re replying to is saying they went FROM always having the component mounted (at least in the component tree if not in the DOM as display:hidden), TO only mounting the component when it needs to be open. They moved from the way you’re talking about, to creating the component/DOM nodes only when needed.

Excessive nodes - hidden or not - cost memory. On midrange Android it’s scarce and even if you’re not pushing against overall device memory limit, the system is more likely to kill your tab in the background if you’ve got a lot going on.
by mpweiher | 2025-09-06 14:47:06+00:00
They just redefined the term so that they no longer call hallucinations that are useful hallucinations.

But the people who say everything LLMs do is hallucinate clearly also make that distinction, they just refuse to rename the useful hallucinations.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg." -- Abraham Lincoln
by tzs | 2025-09-06 14:47:40+00:00
> No vehicle sales to having the best selling vehicles in the world

They have the best selling model in the world (their Model Y). But their total sales of all models are way behind many other car companies.

These car companies sell more cars each year than Tesla (ordered by total sales): Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai-Kia, GM, Stellantis, Ford, BYD, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Renault, and Geely.

Toyota and Volkswagen each sell more cars in a year than Tesla has sold over its lifetime, and Hyundai-Kia's annual sales are about the same as Tesla's lifetime sales.

By revenue rather than units these companies sell more per year: Volkswagen, Toyota, Stallantis, GM, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Honda, BYD, and SAIC Motor. (Edit: I accidentally left out Hyundai-Kia)