MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vessenes | 2025-09-24 03:24:54+00:00
I spent a little time with the thinking model today. It's good. It's not better than GPT5 Pro. It might be better than the smallest GPT 5, though.

My current go-to test is to ask the LLM to construct a charging solution for my macbook pro with the model on it, but sadly, I and the pro have been sent to 15th century Florence with no money and no charger. I explain I only have two to three hours of inference time, which can be spread out, but in that time I need to construct a working charge solution.

So far GPT-5 Pro has been by far the best, not just in its electrical specifications (drawings of a commutator), but it generated instructions for jewelers and blacksmith in what it claims is 15th century florentine italian, and furnished a year-by year set of events with trading / banking predictions, a short rundown of how to get to the right folks in the Medici family, .. it was comprehensive.

Generally models suggest building an Alternating current setup and then rectifying to 5V of DC power, and trickle charging over the USB-C pins that allow trickle charging. There's a lot of variation in how they suggest we get to DC power, and often times not a lot of help on key questions, like, say "how do I know I don't have too much voltage using only 15th century tools?"

Qwen 3 VL is a mixed bag. It's the only model other than GPT5 I've talked to that suggested building a voltaic pile, estimated voltage generated by number of plates, gave me some tests to check voltage (lick a lemon, touch your tongue. Mild tingling - good. Strong tingling, remove a few plates), and was overall helpful.

On the other hand, its money making strategy was laughable; predicting Halley's comet, and in exchange demanding a workshop and 20 copper pennies from the Medicis.

Anyway, interesting showing, definitely real, and definitely useful.
by AfterHIA | 2025-09-24 03:25:26+00:00
Let's think pragmatically and think of, "democracy" as a way of living which seeks to maximize human felicity and minimize human cruelty. In a fair society there would be/is a consensus that at a basic level our social contract is legitimized by these commitments to that. The issue stems from splitting hairs about what human felicity constitutes. This can be resolved as recognizing that some dignified splitting of these hairs is a necessary component of that felicity. This presents in our society as the public discourse and the contingent but distinct values of communities in their efforts to realize themselves.

I'm reminded of that old line by Tolstoy-- something like, "happy families are all happy for precisely the same reasons; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The point from an Adam Smith perspective is that healthy societies might all end up tending toward the same end by widely different means: Chinese communists might achieve superior cooperation and the realization of their values as, "the good life" by means dissimilar to the Quaker or the African tribesperson. The trick is seeing that the plurality of living forms and their competing values is not a hinderance to cooperation and mutual well-being but an opportunity for extended and renewed discourses about, "what we would like to be as creatures."

Worth mentioning:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Courses/Antirepresentationa...
by mitchbob | 2025-09-24 03:25:56+00:00
When there are groups of people who, as the subtitle of this article says, are "reshaping our future in their image," I like it when good writers do some ethnography, some deep hanging out, and give me insights about what our future might look like. I might take a look at this one and see if there's substance that survives the magazine's house obsessions. A good writer can give us that, and New York has had some very good ones over the years.
by jameshart | 2025-09-24 03:26:15+00:00
Tool calling is just part of the protocol you're using for how to handle states output by your Markov model. Same goes for chat input, for that matter.

Chat interfaces are like taking a simple Markov generator, but with a rule where you say 'whenever it reaches a state ending in X, hand over decision making about state transitions to a human instead of a random number generator, until they move it to state ending in Y'.

Tool calling is similar - 'when it reaches state ending in X, send the state data to a tool; use the result to drive a series of state transitions; then start generating again'.
by MyOutfitIsVague | 2025-09-24 03:26:33+00:00
> Cross platform games don't run really well

Wouldn't that depend heavily on the game and developer in question? The Switch 2 has more than sufficient hardware to compete, with a particularly beefy GPU for a handheld.

I'd be more ready to blame the game and developer in question than this console, unless there are a lot of examples from capable developers performing measurably worse.
by defrost | 2025-09-24 03:26:48+00:00
Clifton Pugh's Dunmoochin (original) is part of national heritage now, and still used as an artists retreat as part of the Dunmoochin Foundation in outer Melbourne.

Dunmoochin is historically significant as the home and studio of the internationally famous artist, Clifton Pugh, three times Archibald Prize winner and founder of the Dunmoochin Artist's Community. The property exemplifies the values and robust way of life of the artistic community that settled in this area in the 1950s.

* https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/55217

* https://dunmoochin.org/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_Pugh

Albert Namatjira's "studio" was the entirety of the MacDonnell Ranges in Central Australia .. that's still there much as he saw it last, albeit more encroached by white ants.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Namatjira#/media/File:W...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Namatjira
by jdiff | 2025-09-24 03:27:22+00:00
Assuming you're right, I don't believe the effect will be at all dramatic. The vast majority of businesses are not in breakneck, life-or-death, do-or-die competition. The vast majority of business do quite a lot of languishing in a variety of areas, and yet they keep their clients and customers and even continue to grow despite not just languishing, but solid leaps backwards and even direct shots to the foot.

How do you propose that AI will do what you suggest, exposing shortcomings of companies? Right now, when it's being implemented, it's largely dictates from above with little but FOMO driving it, no cohesive direction to guide its use.
by msandford | 2025-09-24 03:28:22+00:00
Congrats! You are 99% of the way to understanding it. Now you just have to realize that "whoever is in charge" might or might not have your best interests at heart, government or private.

Anyone who has the power to deny you information absolutely has more power than those who can swamp out good information with bad. It's a subtle difference yes, but it's real.
by walterbell | 2025-09-24 03:29:13+00:00
> as long as the counterparty actually accepts the invitation every so often

Per the article, the collegiate counterparty did accept other invitations:

We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months.

The social ritual in the article's title was specifically about party invitations:

“Why do you keep inviting Anna out when she’ll just say no?” “I know she’s always going to say no, but that’s not the point. I invite her out so she’ll always feel included in the group.”
by dylan604 | 2025-09-24 03:29:14+00:00
For those unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ccNkksrfls

I just watched the replay, and I'm convinced VAR would rule it offside. So the hand of god would be irrelevant. The AR on the far side of the pitch is just out of frame at the crucial moment, so he was clearly behind the play. That's a position you never want to find yourself as an AR. I always found the AR role much more demanding than the referee. Keeping that offside line is difficult at best and nearly impossible if you're 30+ something trying to keep up with fit professional athletes in peak fitness in their 20s. Now, after that call was blown, again due to the framing, it is hard to see where the ref was looking. You can see his last position easily 30 yards from goal while Maradona makes contact about 8 yards from goal. There are at least 15 players in between the ref and the play at that point. Also, a very telling thing is that there was no conversation between the AR and the ref. On contentious plays, you'd see the ref back peddle to the AR (never take your eyes of the pitch) and have a chat about who saw what. I don't know if the ref crew had radios back in 1986, but the fact that the ref did not think it was worthy of a chat with his AR who would have had a different angle to view it says a lot about the ref's thinking. If the AR had seen it and wanted to chat with the ref, he would have stood still with his flag raised. If he felt the goal was good, he would keep his flag down and make a little run up the touchline towards midfield. The linked YT footage is cropped (pushed in I assume to remove any network branding) so the AR is out of frame. In the very last replay with the camera from behind the goal line on the near side, you can barely make out the AR but it cuts before he signals. My guess is he turned and ran up the touchline. Again, it is obvious he is out of position behind the play, so his view was more than likely blocked.

At the end of the day, if you can't absolutely positively tell that something happened, you pretty much let it stand. Just because all of the defenders raised their arms does not make it offside. There's only one person that can tell you that, and he couldn't make the call so had to let it go. There's no way the ref was going to call offside. The one thing they do teach you is that if you're unsure, make a call and make everyone think you're sure. Just own it, and move on. Never had to do that for a goal, but there's plenty of times I don't know who was last to touch the ball before it went out so you turn to the AR to get a clue. It's always fun when they shrug. You just pick on what you think you saw and just confidently rule that way. It's a damn throw, just put the ball back in play. Corners vs goal kicks are more risky, so always safe to rule for the defense with a goal kick. Never want a team to score on a bad call from a ref. Of course, none of that is ever taught to a ref...in those terms.

However, I think if you use the enhance feature to zoom into the ref's back pocket, you can see the cash he was paid to let it happen /s
by tbrownaw | 2025-09-24 03:29:30+00:00
Preventing people from disputing claims of fact makes it harder to find out if those claims are actually solid. Same for arguments. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66643-he-who-knows-only-his...

Preventing people from having a platform for content-free asshattery doesn't have that problem.

(A fun implication of this line is reasoning, is that the claim that Kimmel's comments were "lies" makes the jawboning against him more morally bad rather than less bad.)
by toomim | 2025-09-24 03:30:02+00:00
The UN commissioner ignores all the obvious arguments against his case.

For instance, he ignores that Israel goes out of its way to warn civilians before attacking, and provides aid to civilians. He ignores that Israel could simply kill ALL the civilians with a bunch of bombs if its intent was actually genocide, and yet it has not.

This is not a serious debate. Israel is not genociding. If you disagree, you need to respond to the actual arguments. But nobody on the other side is doing so, because they can't, because Israel is not genociding.

Please think about this.
by nine_k | 2025-09-24 03:30:13+00:00
It's understandable, but in no way nice. One side is going to bring their authentic shy and antisocial self, and stonewall the invitations, while the other side needs to keep smiling and send invitations no matter what. This sounds slightly lopsided, doesn't it?

If you would like the other side to do you a small favor every time, it's worth considering to do the same. At least respond to the invitation with gratitude and a hope to maybe do it next time.
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-09-24 03:31:45+00:00
So many people have just given up on the very idea of coherent reality? Of correspondence? Of grounding?

Why? No one actually lives like that when you watch their behavior in the real world.

It's not even post modernism, it's straight up nihilism masquerading as whatever is trendy to say online.

These people accuse every one of bias while ignoring that there position comes from a place of such extreme biased it irrationally, presuppositionaly rejects the possibility of true facts in their chosen, arbitrary cut outs. It's special pleading as a lifestyle.

It's very easy to observe, model, simulate, any node based computer networks that allow for coherent and well formed data with high correspondence, and very easy to see networks destroyed by noise and data drift.

We have this empirically observed in real networks, it's pragmatic and why the internet and other complex systems run. People rely on real network systems and the observed facts of how they succeed or fail then try to undercut those hard won truths from a place of utter ignorance. While relying on them! It's absurd ideological parasitism, they deny the value of the things the demonstrably value just by posting! Just the silliest form of performative contradiction.

I don't get it. Fact are facts. A thing can be objectively true in what for us is a linear global frame. The log is the log.

Wikipedia and federated text content should never be banned, logs and timelines, data etc... but memes and other primarily emotive media is case by case, I don't see their value. I don't see the value in allowing people to present unprovable or demonstrably false data using a dogmatically, confidentally true narrative.

I mean present whatever you want but mark it as interpretation or low confidence interval vs multiple verified sources with a paper trail.

Data quality, grounding and correspondence can be measured. It takes time though for validation to occur, it's far easier to ignore those traits and just generate infinite untruth and ungrounded data.

Why do people prop up infinite noise generation as if it was a virtue? As if noise and signal epistemically can't be distinguished ever? I always see these arguments online by people who don't live that way at all in any pragmatic sense. Whether it's flat earthers or any other group who rejects the possibility of grounded facts.

Interpretation is different, but so is the intentional destruction of a shared meaning space by turning every little word into a shibboleth.

People are intentionally destroying the ability to even negotiate connections to establish communication channels.

Infinite noise leads to runaway network failure and in human systems the inevitably of violence. I for one don't like to see people die because the system has destroyed message passing via attentional ddos.
by pcannons | 2025-09-24 03:31:47+00:00
My current world view: for monster multiples you need someone who knows how to go 0 to 1, repeatedly. That's almost always only the founder. People after are incremental. If they weren't, they'd just be a founder. Hence why everything is done through acquisitions post-founder. So there's armies of engineers incrementally scaling and maintaining dollars. But not creating that wealth or growing it in a significant % way.
by lisbbb | 2025-09-24 03:32:34+00:00
I don't think a meta analysis is worth anything at all, to be totally honest with you. I also don't think those gene therapy shots were at all effective, given how many people contracted covid after receiving the full course of shots. I think basic herd immunity ended covid and the hysteria lasted far beyond the timeframe in which there was truly a problem. Furthermore, I think those shots are the cause of many cancers, including my wife's. The mechanism? The shots "programmed" the immune system to produce antibodies against covid to the detriment of all other functions, including producing the killer T-Cells that destroy cells in the early stages of becoming cancerous. That's why so many different cancers are happening, as well as other weird issues like the nasty and deadly clotting people had. I have no idea about mycarditis, but that's fine because it is a well documented side effect that has injured a lot of people. So cancer and pulmonary issues are the result of those poorly tested drugs that were given out to millions of people without informed consent and with no basic ethical controls on the whole massive experiment. And before you gaslight me, please understand that my wife, age 49 was diagnosed with a very unusual cancer for someone of her sex and age and it's been a terrible fight since June of 2024 to try and save her life, which has nearly been lost 3x already! Of course I have no proof that the Pfizer shots caused any of this, but damn, it sure could have been that. Also, her cousin, age 41, was diagnosed with breast cancer that same year. So tell me, how incredibly low probability is it that two people in the same family got cancer in the same year? It's got to be 1 in 10 million or something like that. Just don't gaslight me--we can agree to disagree. I'm living the worst case scenario post covid and I only hope my daughter, who also got the damn shots never comes down with cancer.
by otterley | 2025-09-24 03:32:49+00:00
What are you talking about? If you mean something like this (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/02/27/california-seizes-record-6...) then that's totally believable. It's the amount seized over the course of a year. Fentanyl is cheap to produce and as long as enough gets through the distribution process to be profitable, you can lose literally 30 tons of it as a cost of business.

I'm all for having a productive discussion, but casual exaggerations and half-truths aren't helpful. If you just don't trust LE, that's fine (and quite understandable), but that's a more honest thing to say than that you know something contradictory with absolute certainty.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-09-24 03:32:51+00:00
Sadly it still fails the "extra limb" test.

I have a few images of animals with an extra limb photoshopped onto them. A dog with an leg coming out of it's stomach, or a cat with two front right legs.

Like every other model I have tested, it insists that the animals have their anatomically correct amount of limbs. Even pointing out there is a leg coming from the dogs stomach, it will push back and insist I am confused. Insist it counted again and there are definitely only 4. Qwen took it a step further and even after I told it the image was edited, it told me it wasn't and there were only 4 limbs.
by hedora | 2025-09-24 03:33:00+00:00
The only way it will be addressed is if people like you hold your nose and vote reliably for the least bad choice.

At that point, the GOP splinters or moves to center (they’re currently pandering to the rightmost 1/3 of the country, and would have to pander to the right 1/2 if you voted), and the “blue” people you dislike become the new “red”.

Then, the candidates that are against things like genocide will have some sort of chance in hell of winning.

Of course, it’s a moot point for this genocide, since the above will take a decade.

Continue to protest by not voting, and you’ll be wishing for the days when Trump was in office.
by sothatsit | 2025-09-24 03:33:11+00:00
Probably at first when the compiler was bad at producing good assembly. But even then, the compiler would still always produce code that matches the rules of the language. This is not the case with LLMs. There is no indication that in the future LLMs will become deterministic such that we could literally write codebases in English and then "compile" them using an LLM into a programming language of our choice and rely on the behaviour of the final program matching our expectations.

This is why LLMs are categorically not compilers. They are not translating English code into some other type of code. They are taking English direction and then writing/editing code based upon that. They are working on a codebase alongside us, as tools. And then you still compile that code using an actual compiler.

We will start to trust these tools more and more, and probably spend less time reviewing the code they produce over time. But I do not see a future where professional developers completely disregard the actual codebase and rely entirely on LLMs for code that matters. That would require a completely different category of tools than what we have today.
by jhbadger | 2025-09-24 03:33:35+00:00
Today, sure. But you could have made the same argument with Pascal being more practical in the 1980s. And yet here we are 40 years later with Pascal having become obscure and Fortran still with us. While ultimately any programming learning should be language independent, there's an argument to be made to stick to languages like Fortran which have a track record of being around a long time over whatever is currently popular.
by daemonologist | 2025-09-24 03:34:03+00:00
This is only tangentially relevant, and a violation of the Guidelines, but I looked up the MVNO brand in the Secret Service photo (MobileX) and holy moly every single button on their website just opens a "scan to download the app" modal (or on mobile, takes you directly to the App/Play Store). It also asked for location permissions half a dozen times in as many seconds until I told Firefox to remember my refusal. MobileX, I am not under any circumstances going to install your app.
by stinkbeetle | 2025-09-24 03:38:01+00:00
> Did the WHO push for censorship or was it YouTube/Google/others?

Quite likely the WHO directly or by proxy with members who are also part of bureaucracy and governments in member states.

There is no question the WHO loves censorship and take an authoritarian approach to their "authority".

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/the-world-health-organizatio...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/13/who-drops-cens...

If corporations start adopting policies that censor anything contradicting WHO, there would be a larger onus on a claim that they were not involved in that censorship action, in my opinion.

If it wasn't them and it was all Google's idea to censor this without any influence from governments or these organizations, which is quite laughable to think but let's entertain the idea -- the WHO still should not have responded as it did with these knee jerk reactions, and also it should have been up to Google to ensure the did not use as their "source of truth" an organization that behaved in that way.

> It was a novel time

It wasn't really that novel since there have been centuries to study pandemics and transmissible diseases of all kinds, and there have even been many others of slightly less scale happen.

> and things were changing daily.

Things always change daily. Covid was not particularly "fast moving" at the time. It's not like new data was coming in that suddenly changed things day to day. It just progressed over the course of months and years. It appeared to be wild and fast moving and ever changing mainly because of the headless-chicken response from organizations like this.

> Care needs to be taken yes, but it’s also weighed against clear and open communication. People were very scared. Thinking they would die.

People were very scared because of the fear campaign, and the imbecilic and contradictory responses from these organizations.

Not that it was nothing to be afraid of, but people should have calmly been given data and advice and that's it. Automobiles, heart attacks, and cancer kill lots of people too, and should be taken very seriously and measures taken to reduce risk but even so it would be stupid to start screaming about them and cause panic.

> I don’t mind having up-to-date information even if it were changing daily.

It's not having data that is the problem, it is jumping the gun with analysis and findings and recommendations based on that data, then having to retract it immediately and say the opposite.