MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by thewebguyd | 2025-09-26 20:27:15+00:00
And those are the exact same reasons I loath the trend of discourse moving into discord groups, or slack groups, hell I've even seen Facebook groups.

None of those are reachable without an account and in many cases an invite (private by default), they are not indexed by search engines, they are proprietary, cannot be exported or archived, etc.

It's asking for knowledge to be lost.
by godelski | 2025-09-26 20:27:18+00:00
> Isn't this an old idea?

So are neural networks. So is attention.

What's your point? Sometimes things need to be retried. Sometimes there are small subtle details that make or break an idea. So what's the point of acting dismissively? If an old idea that didn't work now works, then what's the problem? Besides, progress is typically iterative, not through leaps and bounds. The vast majority of things that look like leaps are just because we don't see the steps between.

The reason I'm saying this is because that sentiment is often used to pass over working solutions and slows down their progress. So even if unintentional it should cause us to rethink how we respond. Otherwise we end up with such silly claims like "Einstein just used Tensors" and "Nash just used topology". In some sense these are accurate, but they are too high level descriptions (and these are real dismissals. Which again, so what? If it works, it works?).

Why is "novelty" even a question? Novelty is only ever in the eyes of the beholder.

> What is novel about the approach in the blog post? Serious question, I really can't tell after reading the post.

Honestly, I do not know, but I'll give you my best read on it.

1) Scale: Don't underestimate the importance of this. While I don't think scale is all you need, it certainly is a critical factor.

2) Different optimization: I may be missing something, but it looks like they are using a different optimizer. They mention that they're using the muon optimizer constraining to a Stiefel manifold. Neither of those things are unique on their own, but is their combination? This is where I'm uncertain because such a thing would be easy to miss. Maybe someone did and was unsuccessful with it. Maybe someone did, but was not at scale. Maybe someone did, it worked, and just nobody noticed (that happens a lot!).

So I think this is quite similar to how 99% of progress and breakthroughs are made: putting together ideas that seem unrelated and inventing some glue to generalize the process. At a high level this always looks like you're just putting existing things together, but that glue is really hard to make. And to continue that analogy, if we do a good enough job gluing things together then to anyone but an expert it'll look like there is no glue. It can be surprisingly difficult to tell if something is glued, welded, mated, milled, printed, or whatever. It usually takes a very keen eye to determine the answer non-destructively.
by foltik | 2025-09-26 20:27:19+00:00
Did we read the same article? It spends so many words answering these exact questions with examples and helpful illustrations!

Your question:

> why should they care that they don't "own" their Instagram post, whatever that means?

From the article:

> The web Alice created—who she follows, what she likes, what she has posted—is trapped in a box that’s owned by somebody else. To leave it is to leave it behind. On an individual level, it might not be a huge deal. However, collectively, the net effect is that social platforms—at first, gradually, and then suddenly—turn their backs on their users. If you can’t leave without losing something important, the platform has no incentives to respect you as a user.

Your question:

> can you give examples of good and bad incentive structures in this context?

From the article:

> Maybe the app gets squeezed by investors, and every third post is an ad. Maybe it gets bought by a congolomerate that wanted to get rid of competition, and is now on life support. Maybe it runs out of funding, and your content goes down in two days. Maybe the founders get acquihired—an exciting new chapter. Maybe the app was bought by some guy, and now you’re slowly getting cooked by the algorithm.

> Luckily, web’s decentralized design avoids this. Because it’s easy to walk away, hosting providers are forced to compete, and hosting is now a commodity.

I think you’re right that the average person doesn’t care so much as they just want to be entertained or reach a large network, but apathy is not an argument in favor of the status quo.
by simonw | 2025-09-26 20:27:21+00:00
Yeah, the linked article did make me smile because the previous iteration of OpenSocial - which had a LOT of buzz around it back in 2007-2010 - was such an ambitious swing that completely missed.

Apparently I wrote about it a fair bit back then, mostly noting how confusing it all was: https://simonwillison.net/tags/opensocial/
by Ancapistani | 2025-09-26 20:28:38+00:00
I'm playing with a new "AI browser" these days (Dia), so here's an excerpt from its interpretation of how it could be seen as a dog whistle:

> There are a few ways this lands: > • Benign interpretation: it’s a factual note from teardown reports, relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy implications. > • Critical interpretation: in context of posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which some view as incitement. > • Political reading: emphasizing hidden/“obfuscated” tracking signals an anti‑surveillance stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing

That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.

I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree. The risk/reward just isn't right for me.
by iamnothere | 2025-09-26 20:28:49+00:00
> Having these keep data for a very short amount of time is a reasonable idea.

I agree that this is more reasonable than the status quo (although I’d still prefer no cameras at all). Now show me the politicians who are willing to limit ALPR data retention by law on the federal level. As far as I know it hasn’t even been proposed, nor will it be, until some kind of major public scandal emerges. I’d rather not wait until major harm is done.

The federal government has an unfortunate habit of illegally harassing the disfavored group du jour (which rotates about once a decade). State and local governments are often worse, with personal grudges getting into the mix. I’d rather not provide tools to make the harassment even more effective! At some point you begin to enable new “official” crime with the tools you use to stop typical criminals. And the impact of state-level crimes can be much larger and more widespread.

> I think you’ll be surprised how much real people don’t have cartoon villain ambitions.

Most don’t, but some do, and unfortunately they are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Not that everyone in government is a bad guy, but many are when given means and motive.

Edit: edited to specify data retention at the federal level, actually I was surprised to see that a few states do limit data retention.
by preyapatel | 2025-09-26 20:28:52+00:00
import numpy as np import pandas as pd from ucimlrepo import fetch_ucirepo from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix, precision_score, recall_score, f1_score

# load the dataset using the the given url iris = fetch_ucirepo(id=53) X = iris.data.features y = iris.data.targets df = pd.concat([X, y], axis=1)

# Keep only Setosa and Versicolor df = df[df['class'].isin(['Iris-setosa', 'Iris-versicolor'])]

# Separate features and labels df['class'] = df['class'].map({'Iris-setosa': 0, 'Iris-versicolor': 1}) X = df.iloc[:, :-1].values y = df['class'].values.reshape(-1, 1)

# intercept X = np.c_[np.ones((X.shape[0], 1)), X]

# train test split (80/20) X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split( X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42, shuffle=True )

# Logistic Regression (Gradient Descent) def sigmoid(z): return 1 / (1 + np.exp(-z))

def compute_loss(y, y_pred): m = len(y) return - (1/m) * np.sum(ynp.log(y_pred + 1e-9) + (1 - y)np.log(1 - y_pred + 1e-9))

# weights and parameters theta = np.zeros((X_train.shape[1], 1)) lr = 0.01 # learning rate iteration = 10000 # iterations

# Gradient Descent Loop for epoch in range(iteration): z = np.dot(X_train, theta) y_pred = sigmoid(z) error = y_pred - y_train gradient = (1 / len(y_train)) * np.dot(X_train.T, error) theta -= lr * gradient

if epoch % 1000 == 0: loss = compute_loss(y_train, y_pred) print(f"Epoch {epoch}: Loss = {loss:.4f}")

# Predictions and Metrics y_test_pred = sigmoid(np.dot(X_test, theta)) y_test_class = (y_test_pred >= 0.5).astype(int)

# Accuracy accuracy = np.mean(y_test_class == y_test) * 100 print("RESULTS") print(f"Classification Accuracy on Test Data: {accuracy:.2f}%")

# Confusion Matrix cm = confusion_matrix(y_test, y_test_class) print("\nConfusion Matrix for Test data:") print(cm)

print("\n--- Predict for a new flower sample ---") print("Please enter the feature values:")

# Ask user for input sepal_length = float(input("Enter Sepal Length (cm): ")) sepal_width = float(input("Enter Sepal Width (cm): ")) petal_length = float(input("Enter Petal Length (cm): ")) petal_width = float(input("Enter Petal Width (cm): "))

# Create feature array with bias term new_sample = np.array([[1, sepal_length, sepal_width, petal_length, petal_width]])

# Predict probability and class new_pred_prob = sigmoid(np.dot(new_sample, theta)) new_pred_class = (new_pred_prob >= 0.5).astype(int)

print(f"Predicted probability of being 'Iris-versicolor': {new_pred_prob[0][0]:.4f}") if new_pred_class[0][0] == 1: print("Predicted Class: Iris-versicolor") else: print("Predicted Class: Iris-setosa")
Show HN: Linden – Self-healing Playwright scripts at scale
by wayy | 2025-09-26 20:28:56+00:00
Justin and Avichal here. We’re building Linden (http://trylinden.com), a tool for maintaining browser automations at scale.

Avichal lived this problem at a dental insurance startup, where he spent time fixing brittle Selenium scripts that broke on minor website updates. He was pulling data from dozens of legacy portals and the constant maintenance was a drain on engineering time.

The new AI browser tools had their own issues. We found them to be mostly black boxes, lacking the observability and control needed for business-critical pipelines.

We're building Linden with a different approach: AI isn't responsible for the core execution; instead it simply creates and maintains Playwright scripts for you. This makes the entire workflow transparent and robust.

Here's how it works:

1. Record the First Run: To start, the task is performed just once by our AI agent (or manually). As the task runs, we record the sequence of raw, deterministic actions, like click(selector) and fill(selector, value).

2. Export a Workflow: This action trace is saved as a clean Playwright script. You also get the raw steps in JSON, giving you a fully transparent workflow you can read, edit, and run yourself.

3. Execute the Script: All future runs execute this script directly. It’s cheaper, faster, and more stable than having an AI agent re-evaluate the page from scratch every time.

4. Self-Heal on Failure: When a step in the workflow fails (e.g., a selector becomes stale), an AI agent is invoked with a narrow scope: to fix only that one broken step. It then patches the workflow, and the updated script is saved for all future runs.

We’re still super early and we’d love your feedback. Also interested to hear about how people are currently dealing with browser automations at any scale.
by reissbaker | 2025-09-26 20:29:09+00:00
Line 1 makes it pretty clear:

# The contents of this file are adapted from the promptwrite library (https://github.com/StacklokLabs/promptwright), # which was adapted from the pluto library (https://github.com/redotvideo/pluto).

https://github.com/Kiln-AI/Kiln/blob/d38a64b598bf21939263bed...

Curious how the OP "just confirmed. No code copied."
by AnotherGoodName | 2025-09-26 20:29:24+00:00
There was a time in the electronics world when bright, house illuminating leds first came about and manufacturers used them in place of the dull red/green indicators. Black tape everywhere. Macbooks were one of the worst offenders. They had an extremely bright and worst of all pulsating led that was on when the device was in standby. Used to shine right through laptop bags and keep everyone nearby awake.

Fortunately that fad is somewhat over and manufacturers mostly learnt not to put in the brightest led they could source.
by collinfunk | 2025-09-26 20:29:47+00:00
You would not be able to find the first commit. The repositories for Fileutils, Shellutils, and Texutils do not exist, at least anywhere that I can find. They were merged as Coreutils in 2003 in a CVS repository. A few years later, it was migrated to git.

If anyone has original Fileutils, Shellutils, or Textutils archives (released before the ones currently on GNU's ftp server), I would be interested in looking at them. I looked into this recently for a commit [1].

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/coreutils@gnu.org/msg12529.html
by atmanactive | 2025-09-26 20:30:04+00:00
I love it! The option to disable notifications is a must :) By the way, I was hoping the portable version would save the data in the exe's folder, but it is still saving to %LOCALAPPDATA%\Linklever\... Bummer. Since I can't trust this operating system and/or hardware instance not to bail on me unexpectedly, I can't commit to building all the Linklever rules I'd like right now. So, for now I will be using it in a simple mode, with just a few rules, until either you or me come up with a solution. One solution would be to bake in proper Portable Mode Data Handling, where the exe would self-discover the path and write to a subdirectory there, or alternatively, with your permission, I could build a Portable Wrapper, like, for example, this one: https://github.com/AtmanActive/opendeck-portable
by IncreasePosts | 2025-09-26 20:30:34+00:00
Well, that's the thing. He never fought any of those people in a real competition, so the question could remain in someone's mind whether he would have won or not. Combine that with the general mystique of Asian martial arts in the 1960s, and his early death, that has the makings of a legend.

I think people also like the idea that there can be these systems in place for hundreds of years, and an individual can come along and intelligence and hard work, can turn the systems upside down or develop something better.
by bobmarleybiceps | 2025-09-26 20:30:35+00:00
This may not be the actual reason in this case, but I think it's good to be aware of: A non-zero chunk of "ai for science" research done at tech companies is basically done for marketing. Even in cases where it's not directly beneficial for the companies products or is unlikely to really lead to anything substantial, it is still good for "prestige"
by schoen | 2025-09-26 20:30:44+00:00
Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility.

In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something).

All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
by dwohnitmok | 2025-09-26 20:31:11+00:00
> You have to treat LLMs as basically similar to human beings

Yes! Increasingly I think that software developers consistently underanthropomorphize LLMs and get surprised by errors as a result.

Thinking of (current) LLMs as eager, scatter-brained, "book-smart" interns leads directly to understanding the overwhelming majority of LLM failure modes.

It is still possible to overanthropomorphize LLMs, but on the whole I see the industry consistently underanthropomorphizing them.
by crazygringo | 2025-09-26 20:31:25+00:00
> The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire

This is not true. Government agencies generally look up your ID as necessary to check if it's still valid.

Stopped for speeding? The cop is going to look up your driver's license.

Leaving the country? They're running your passport number.

Starting a job? They're checking the status of your SSN.

The physical ID is good enough for low-stakes stuff like renting a car with a driver's license, or proving your age to get into a bar. But it's already not trusted on its own for any of the serious stuff you're talking about, like where you can reside and work.
by johnmaguire | 2025-09-26 20:31:26+00:00
I'm not sure they determined that it did not improve lifespans. Here's some snippets from the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim...):

> On average, Medicaid coverage increased annual medical spending by approximately $1,172 relative to spending in the control group. The researchers looked at mortality rates, but they could not reach any conclusions because of the extremely low death rate of the general population of able-bodied Oregon adults aged 19 to 64.

> In the first year after the lottery, Medicaid coverage was associated with higher rates of health care use, a lower probability of having medical debts sent to a collection agency, and higher self-reported mental and physical health. In the 18 months following the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid increased emergency department visits.

> Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures, but "it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."
by paxys | 2025-09-26 20:31:47+00:00
Nothing is going to change unless you put the entire penalty of illegal employment on the employer. This could mean massive fines, shutting down the business and/or jail time. In the US hundreds of illegal workers are rounded up every day and jailed/deported while their employers get a slap on the wrist, and these employers then just turn around and hire more illegal immigrants. The overall problem goes unsolved.
by XenophileJKO | 2025-09-26 20:31:53+00:00
Currently for me, in the type of music I have enjoyed from v4.5+. V5 of their model is a regression.

I was very impressed with v4.5+ that I could get quite good songs evocative of Devo, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, Metric, etc.

Version 5 is currently harder (or I haven't figured out a way) to generate this kind of chopped/produced sound. It doesn't follow complex style definitions and tends to generate songs that are too slow and "smoothed" over.
by mh- | 2025-09-26 20:33:06+00:00
> Until the ambient temperature reaches about 30 Celsius, I find it as effective as my full-size air conditioner [..]

This sentence made it hard for me to give much consideration to the rest of the review, as I seem to have different standards - 30C is 86F and I'll have defenestrated myself before my office reaches that ambient temp.
by FreakLegion | 2025-09-26 20:33:50+00:00
He doesn't mean to say the conversation is meaningless, just that the signs themselves have no intrinsic meaning, since they're arbitrary. Which, duh. It's a banal claim articulated poorly.

There's a little bit of ore here to mine (there are philosophical accounts of natural meaning, for example; see Paul Grice), but he mostly seems to just believe in a transcendental signified, and missed the boat on how incredibly rich the consequences of e.g. J. L. Austin and late Wittgenstein are for how we think about language.
by FireBeyond | 2025-09-26 20:34:03+00:00
> There is no reason for a human to care whether the other car is being driven by a machine.

What? If I don't trust the machine or the software running it, absolutely I do, if I have to share the road with that car, as its mistakes are quite capable of killing me.

(Yes, I can die in other accidents too. But saying "there's no reason for me to care if the cars around me are filled with people sleeping while FSD tries to solve driving" is not accurate.)
by stephenpontes | 2025-09-26 20:34:49+00:00
I’ve seen this play out at multiple startups. The people holding things together often don’t fit neatly into the KPIs or eng chart levels. They’re mentoring juniors, redesigning workflows, updating documentation, and bridging gaps between departments. Because their scope isn’t bundled into a single “initiative,” reviews don’t always capture their true impact.

I’ve felt this personally working on the design system used across the entire engineering org. Three years after I left, that system is still the foundation the team builds on. At the time, the cross-team coordination and invisible maintenance work pulled me away from more visible deliverables, so it was harder to show impact in a review cycle. But the endurance of that system is its own validation—it shows how much hidden glue work pays off when invested properly.

The takeaway for me is that the best orgs figure out how to see this kind of work before it fades into the background. If you can spot and reward it early, you not only retain the people doing it, you build resilience into the team itself.
by LaGrange | 2025-09-26 20:35:14+00:00
> Literally any open-source forum or wiki meets all the requirements except possibly "federated" (depending on whether people set up a dump->restore to another machine), but is much more welcoming to ad-hoc contributors who don't want to subscribe to 10,000 emails per day just to get replies to their own posts.

I know that mailing clients have gotten worse, but not _that_ worse.

> The contrast of 3/4 to forums is utter bullshit. What security/privacy risk is there in using a forum? Are they going to leak my email address or something?

Most of them employ a whole bunch of google analytics for reasons unclear. That should be sufficient.

---

Though unfortunately I disagree with the OP. Those are arguments as to why it would be nice if email stuck around. But it won't. Just because the problems come from "bad deployments of anti-spam policies" doesn't change the fact that the "bad deployments" are literally _the majority of email_.
by ruralfam | 2025-09-26 20:35:25+00:00
The article is about two things: Kareem & Bruce, and Kareem & racism. Very much like "Sunday Best" (Ed Sullivan & racism) on Netflix. If you have a sub, be sure to watch it. Younger folks today have a hard time understanding the depth of racism around the 60s. Couple of scenes in SB will help to provide some understanding. Kudos to Kareem (and Ed) for many things.
by HDThoreaun | 2025-09-26 20:36:18+00:00
> Why else are gambling providers forced to include addiction recovery phone numbers with their ads?

Some people are sick and cant control themselves.

> No, and this is equally as insincere as your first statement.

Neither comments were insincere.

> Gambling takes money without offering a fair return in goods or services.

It provides entertainment, same thing tickets to the event provide. A lot cheaper than seeing the game in person too.
by delichon | 2025-09-26 20:36:44+00:00
Tarantino wanted to prove that his stunt double character was a bad-ass, so he had him fight Bruce Lee on a movie studio back lot, and win. Tarantino said that Bruce Lee fans dragged him through fire, insisting that Lee would have won. Tarantino said, it's my fantasy damn it, my guy can win if I want him to!

That's consistent with your comment getting down votes.