MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by GeorgeTirebiter | 2025-09-17 18:06:03+00:00
Same 'speaking from living' and I want to amplify a spark you mention: break down the task into smaller pieces; the size of the piece is how much time you can force yourself to do the task, fully knowing after 5 minutes (10 minutes, whatever) you'd have done that mini-piece. This builds success, power, confidence. Then you can tackle the NEXT piece, etc. Virtuous cycle. ("See, it wasn't THAT bad...maybe even a little fun!")

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
by tptacek | 2025-09-17 18:06:13+00:00
He was prosecuted within the statute of limitations for the crime, and probably not too far out of the normal bounds between a criminal act and a federal prosecution. Federal prosecutions are relatively rare compared to state prosecutions, federal prosecutors don't take nearly as many "flyers" as states do, and the feds very often wait a long time before pouncing; this is all consistent with their M.O.

In this particular case, I don't disagree that there was probably motivation to the prosecution! They probably did want something from Rockenhaus, and, when they didn't get it straight up, looked for leverage. Unfortunately for Rockenhaus, he had given them a lot of leverage. It looks like it was a lay-up case.

You can call that a moral grey area and I won't disagree, but my point is just, it's not remotely a legal grey area. Rockenhaus' experience of this prosecution is probably no different than that of a typical federal defendant.
by marcosdumay | 2025-09-17 18:06:17+00:00
Open source is open source. There exists no gradient there.

If your software isn't open source, don't claim it is. You are free to try to normalize your licensing preferences. Even better if you have a nice name for them that don't try to mislead people into thinking they are something they clearly aren't.

> I think the world would be a much better place if we just changed the definition of open source to include such licenses.

You are free to think that. I'm quite certain it's not correct, but nothing stops you. Anyway, you can make a positive change on the world you actually live on by being honest and clear about what your license does, and communicating why you think it's a good thing.

Again, it's a huge plus if you get some nice name that can actually mean the thing your license is.

> normal everyday use of the term would already include them

Normal and everyday use of "open source" does absolutely not include the licenses you are talking about.
by jitl | 2025-09-17 18:06:44+00:00
We offer Notion MCP since most users prefer the ease of GUI, but agree that Claude code CLI + markdown files is handy. If we had the Obsidian md style sync we could sync to an obsidian vault in a Git repo just as well. We have lots of docs in Notion as you might imagine and having them synced into the git repo could improve their hit rate w Claude and all the other menagerie of code agents without needing to hook them all up w MCP and waste time on remote tool calls.
by timw4mail | 2025-09-17 18:06:54+00:00
Of these options, I'd recommend the SV08, provided you are okay with some mods essentially being required for consistent, reliable use.

These being:

- Eddy sensor (for faster bed meshing, eddy-ng addon for Klipper adds auto z-offset)

- Mainline Klipper/Kalico (required for eddy functionality)

- Some motherboard fan replacement mod (the default is tiny, noisy, and always-on)

Of the others listed:

- Bambu printers and the Elegoo Centauri Carbon have locked-down firmware (possibly with hidden license violations).

- I think the only Prusa machine with that build volume is the XL, which is out of the price range

- The Creality Ender 3 V3 KE is okay, but the build volume is 220x220x240mm
Show HN: LLMyourself.com – Type a name. Get a report.
by AlexNicita | 2025-09-17 18:07:06+00:00
I hacked an AI background checker. After a week or two of nights & weekends with Cursor, React, Typescript, Supabase, Vercel, etc... the site is live.

Preview reports are redacted and full reports read a bit like Wikipedia pages for anyone.

The reports are quite fun. Try it out! If you or someone you know are interested in lots of reports, please feel free to reach out with a note about the use-case.

Cheers
by james2doyle | 2025-09-17 18:07:52+00:00
Totally agree. I use for chores (generate an initial README, document the changes from this diff, summarize this release, scaffold out a new $LANG/$FRAMEWORK project) that are well understood. I have also been using it to work in languages that I can/have written in the past but are out of practice with (python) but I’m still babysitting it.

I recently used it to write a Sublime Text plugin for me and forked a Chrome extension and added a bunch of features to. Both open source and pretty trivial projects.

However, I rarely use it to write code for me in client projects. I need to know and understand everything going out that we are getting paid for.
by LorenPechtel | 2025-09-17 18:08:09+00:00
Yup. What's happening is horrible, but that doesn't mean there are better options. History has a very clear lesson: When Israel is harsh fewer Israelis die. When Israel is nice more Israelis die. The lesson has been repeated many times. Multiple times Israel has permitted the world to cram appeasement down it's throat, every time has made it worse for Israel.

Want peace over there, make peace not bring problems for Israel. But so long as Iran keeps fanning the fires of war I see no way to accomplish that.
by epicureanideal | 2025-09-17 18:08:31+00:00
> There's a good chance that eventually reading code will become like inspecting assembly.

We don’t read assembly because we read the higher level code, which deterministically is compiled to lower level code.

The equivalent situation for LLMs would be if we were reviewing the prompts only, and if we had 100% confidence that the prompt resulted in code that does exactly what the prompt asks.

Otherwise we need to inspect the generated code. So the situation isn’t the same, at least not with current LLMs and current LLM workflows.
by LexiMax | 2025-09-17 18:08:39+00:00
People who pay for YouTube Premium are already tracked by virtue of the fact that they are a logged in user who has a credit card associated with their account.

Google has to do no legwork here to figure out who you are and what videos you are watching. There is no ambiguity. There should be no reason to not count views from Premium subscribers who don't disable their ad-blocker.

I'm sure Google knows this, and has a good reason for this behavior that they are not telling us. I'm not sure what it could be, other than spite.
by gchamonlive | 2025-09-17 18:08:57+00:00
Yes. Is that hypocrisy? No, because I'm not advocating for any extreme form of consuming veganism. I'm advocating for a message.

If the message is strong and clear that companies can't employ anti-consumer practices without consequences, then maybe other companies like Reason that operates outside the US will think twice before doing it, even if the laws under which they operate would allow them to.

Why target American products then? It's not accidental. US is by far the largest market and as such has the responsibility to set an example. If we change the example being set that will likely ripple to other markets.
by NiloCK | 2025-09-17 18:09:00+00:00
At worst, it's harmful!

From top of my layperson head: bruised insertion sites, tainted needles, tainted vaccine supply, customer capacity crowding for the pharmacy, squeezing supply capacity for actual target demographics, etc etc etc.

Things have tradeoffs, even if they are subtle. Relentless follow-through on marginal protocols should generally be treated with suspicion.

Stranger danger advocates brush off the criticism that most abductions occur among family with the "if there's a small chance it would make a difference" argument, but this ignores the real harms of teaching children to fear everyone by default.
by Wurdan | 2025-09-17 18:09:02+00:00
"These findings suggest that in young adults, depressive symptoms are associated with difficulty in overriding prepotent responses to actively avoid aversive outcomes in the absence of reward."

My word... Could they have phrased that any less clearly?

As I understand it: the more depressive symptoms the subjects showed, the less likely they were to actively avoid bad outcomes (unless there was some other associated reward).
by madamelic | 2025-09-17 18:09:06+00:00
As others have said, LLM generation of code is no excuse for not self-reviewing, testing, and understanding their own code.

It's a tool. I still have the expectation of people being thoughtful and 'code craftspeople'.

The only caveat is verbosity of code. It drives me up the wall how these models try to one-shot production code and put a lot of cruft in. I am starting to have the expectation of having to go in and pare down overly ambitious code to reduce complexity.

I adopted LLM coding fairly early on (GPT3) and the difference between then and now is immense. It's a fast-moving technology still so I don't have the expectation that the model or tool I use today will be the one I use in 3 months.

I have switched modalities and models pretty regularly to try to keep cutting edge and getting the best results. I think people who refuse to leverage LLMs for code generation to some degree are going to be left behind. It's going to be the equivalent, in my opinion, of keeping hard cover reference manuals on your desk versus using a search engine.
by GeorgeTirebiter | 2025-09-17 18:09:13+00:00
Yes, extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. Sometimes, you MUST do a task (taxes, take a driving test, etc).

And, yes, the extent that tasks start from intrinsic motivation, you're ahead of the game. For me, this is making habits (personal example: eating less). Habit frees you (mostly) of the need for any sort of 'motivation' - it's just Habit.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-09-17 18:09:14+00:00
I get this take because of the existential threat, but it ignores that at least right now, LLMs are enabling people to get more from their computer than ever before.

Maybe LLMs can't build you an enterprise back-end for thousands of users. But they sure as shit can make you a bespoke applet that easily tracks your garage sale items. LLMs really shine in greenfield <5k LOC programs.

I think it's largely a mistake for devs to think that LLMs are made for them, rather than for enabling regular people to get far more mileage out of their computers.
by skydhash | 2025-09-17 18:09:50+00:00
Adding to the sibling comment by @jacknews. Code is much more than an algorithm, it’s the description of the algorithm that is non ambiguous and human readable. Code review is a communication tool. The basic expectation is that you’re a professional and I’m just adding another set of eyes, or you’re a junior and I’m reviewing for the sake of training.

So when there’s some confusion, I’m going back to the author. Because you should know why each line was written and how it contributes to the solution.

But a complete review takes time. So in a lot of places, we only do a quick scan checking for unusual stuff instead of truly reviewing the algorithms. That’s because we trust our colleagues to test and verify their own work. Which AI users usually skip.
by foobarkey | 2025-09-17 18:10:17+00:00
After having owned many 3D printers I can recommend Bambu Lab X1C with AMS. It will be a bit over budget but does not matter, you will spend time just printing and not messing with settings or bed leveling, it’s a workhorse and just prints what you tell it to reliably, no tuning or tweaking required. When using official filaments it will automatically recognize them, switch them during print etc.

After maybe 10 years of printing this is what I initially imagined it would be, now its finally there for consumer - I want this part in plastic let’s go

Oh and it’s also fast.

Hmm, I wonder if bambu gives me a cut for the sales pitch, but if not it is also ok - i just have to give credit to good engineering when I see it

PS: no prusa or clones, no creality, dont mess with that nonsense
by bluGill | 2025-09-17 18:10:57+00:00
Even if you buy a printer you should be aware of all the services. It might be more expensive but it opens up a lot more options too. Want a SLS print instead - they have it. Want to mill it from steel and then bend it - they can do that for you. Want to make something out of solid wood, no problem. Need a lot of parts fast - they have many printers and overnight shipping (at extra charge).

Sure it costs more, but if you will only do it once that is still cheap. And some of the things they can do for you are not safe to do at home.
by glenstein | 2025-09-17 18:11:20+00:00
A phenomenal point that I had not considered in my first-pass reaction. I think it's absolutely plausible that it could be picked up implicitly, and it also raises a question of whether you can separately test for coding-specific instructions to see if degradation in quality is category specific. Or if, say, Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong takeover, Xinjiang labor camps all have similarly degraded informational responses and it's not unique to programming.
by zahlman | 2025-09-17 18:11:37+00:00
The comment you're linking to was rightfully flagged and killed. Your characterization of "propaganda" is completely uncalled for.

The premises were explained before the questioning even started:

> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.

The entire point was that the claim

> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.

has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.

Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.

The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.

Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.
by acdha | 2025-09-17 18:11:40+00:00
Ignoring the genocide topic for the moment, it’s relevant from a speech perspective: that’s an alliance of hard-right groups who have spent the last year conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism and trying to shut down voices which disagree with them (e.g. cuts to research grants based on unrelated actions on campus). Consolidating a large chunk of the information space under a unified group opposed to free speech should concern all of us.
by bangaladore | 2025-09-17 18:11:42+00:00
I've done CTFs in that past where a UUID is used to brute force an AES key. As the key was derived partially from the time source so by knowing the system time close to when the data was encrypted you could pretty easily brute force the key.

A more simple example is a URL for say a file / photo share service. You allow users to upload images, and you return them back website.com/GUID. That's it. You don't provide a way to see when that photo / file was updated, but because you use a UUIDv7 you just did.

Is this a security risk? Maybe or maybe not? But it's an unintended disclosure of information.
by LetsGetTechnicl | 2025-09-17 18:12:06+00:00
Are there any other examples of something like this happening? A successful (foreign) app is forced to be sold to a US company just because of its country of origin? What happened to the free market? It's remarkable that privacy is even in the conversation when FAANG is just as bad

Not to mention that this is all just a distraction from the very real destruction Trump 2.0 is doing to peoples' lives, safety, financial outlooks, rights, etc and flushing our country and planet down to the toilet for his benefit

*edited for clarity and fixed typos
by ben8128 | 2025-09-17 18:12:18+00:00
It's a really interesting question, and not something we had done enough research to speak authoritatively on. But I just did some more digging and looking into this, and here's my current thoughts:

Even with Starlink-style LEO constellations, fiber will remain the core backbone for fundamental physics and economics reasons:

1. Path loss: Signals in free space spread out, so by the time they reach Earth the received power is extremely low. That limits throughput per satellite to tens of gigabits. A single subsea fiber pair routinely carries 10–20 terabits per second, three orders of magnitude more.

2. Spectrum vs. optics: Satellites are limited to tens of GHz of allocated Ku/Ka spectrum. Fiber operates in the optical domain with essentially limitless bandwidth, and you can keep upgrading terminal equipment to increase capacity without touching the cable.

3. Upgrade cycles: Fiber capacity scales with new transponders; satellites are frozen hardware once launched. To scale, you have to build and launch thousands more satellites, which is far more expensive per bit.

The likely future is division of labor: fiber remains the bulk intercontinental backbone, satellites provide resilience and reach where fiber can’t go. Data centers in space may exist for specialized uses (defense, finance, satellite-native apps), but latency, hardware refresh cycles, and launch costs make them impractical for general-purpose compute. For almost all workloads, it will remain cheaper and faster to keep servers on Earth next to abundant power and fiber.
by flohofwoe | 2025-09-17 18:12:27+00:00
I don't think it's a counting issue but that the various experiments that YouTube did recently to block adblockers are causing people with adblockers to leave the page early before the video starts playing, because they are greated with infinite loading spinners, incomplete page loads or in the best case 10 second delays until the video starts.

I happily watch the embedded ad-segments of YouTubers, but not the aggressive scam/slop-ads that YouTube puts before the actual videos thank-you-very-much.
by cyberax | 2025-09-17 18:12:43+00:00
> exfiltrated a npm token with broad publish rights

I freaking HATE tokens. I hate them.

There should be a better way to do authentication than a glorified static password.

An example of how to do it correctly: Github as a token provider for AWS: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/use-iam-roles-to-conne... But this is an exception, rather than a rule.
by elviejo | 2025-09-17 18:13:34+00:00
Code is not only code.

It's like saying physics it's just math. If we read:

F = m*a

There is ton of knowledge encoded in that formula.

We cannot evaluate the formula alone. We need the knowledge behind it to see if it matches reality.

With llms we know for a fact that if the code matches reality, or expectations, it's a happy accident.
by aequitas | 2025-09-17 18:14:26+00:00
I consider myself a little techy, since I visit this site quite often. But for me YouTube is curing me from my addiction to it by ramping up its ad blocker blockers. I know I have to wait roughly the ad’s runtime looking at a frozen video before the video actually starts playing and it is often enough to let me go do something productive or useful instead. Thanks google :)
by zahlman | 2025-09-17 18:14:27+00:00
> I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information.

GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.
by AAAAaccountAAAA | 2025-09-17 18:14:43+00:00
I have understood that Whatsapp is not a terribly profitable product for Meta, so it is possible that it would just be withdrawn from Europe, instead of making expensive and controversial modifications.

iMessage is not really a thing in Europe. Apple phones are simply not popular enough here for it to be an useful feature. I guess Apple would just disable it for European users.
by gchamonlive | 2025-09-17 18:14:53+00:00
Idk and I don't care. One mistake doesn't make another right. You can spend all your free time bashing on Brazilian policies and you'd be mostly right. Consumption is taxed as well as income, the rich pays laughably low taxes and corruption is still rampant with all the congressman taking a bite of public treasury. Still the point stands, Brazil has shown that his laws and regulations work better than US, not only when applying due process to judge and hold polítical figures accountable, but also to protect the consumer after purchase.
by Sharlin | 2025-09-17 18:15:13+00:00
That’s what I said? It’s easy to come up with scenarios where signed overflow breaks a program in a crashy way if the optimizer, for example, optimizes out a check for said overflow because it’s allowed to assume that `++i < 0` can never happen if i is initialized to >= 0. That’s something that very real optimizers take advantage of in the very real world, not just on paper. For example, GCC needs -fwrapv to give you guaranteed wrapping behavior (there’s sctually -ftrapv which raises a SIGFPE on overflow – that’s likely the easiest way to cause this crash!)

But I specifically said that it doesn’t look like SOUB in this particular case, and proposed an alternative mechanism for crashing. What’s almost certain is that some type of UB is involved because "crashing" is not any behavior defined by the standard, except if it was something like an assertion failing, leading to an intentional `abort`.
by mallowdram | 2025-09-17 18:15:17+00:00
I began in animation and shifted to gaming in 2001 where we encountered - against our stated goals of delivery - an audience rejecting both words and narratives (they thanked us yet we weren't at all going for this).

So a small team of us stuck together since and we've been unraveling, decrypting how that initial audience craving might work out as a next language.

In retrospect it now seems obvious, how the path led here, but then in 2001, it was a complete mystery.
by ag8 | 2025-09-17 18:15:26+00:00
prompt optimization is very cool, and we use it for certain problems! The main goal with this launch is to democratize access to "the real thing"; in many cases, full RL allows you to get the last few percent in reliability for things like complex agentic workflows where prompt optimization doesn't quite get you far enough.

There's also lots of interesting possibilities such as RLing a model on a bunch of environments and then prompt optimizing it on each specific one, which seems way better than, like, training and hot-swapping many LoRAs. In any case, _someone's_ ought to provide a full RL api, and we're here to do that well!
by bluGill | 2025-09-17 18:15:28+00:00
Code doesn't always speak for itself. I've had to do some weird things that make no sense on its own. I leave comments but they are not always easy to understand. Most of this is when I'm sharing data across threads - there is good reason for each lock/atomic and each missing lock. (I avoid writing such code, but sometimes there is no choice). If AI is writing such code I don't trust them to figure out those details, while I have some (only a minority but some) coworkers I trust to figure this out.