MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by foxglacier | 2025-09-01 08:35:30+00:00
You're being fooled by the humans. They're not writing intimately any more than TFA is. They've learned and practiced to write in a way that conveys whatever emotion they choose to show, whether they really feel it or not. LLMs just bring a professional writer's abilities to normal people.

Just like with music, random amatures may have just the same or deeper feelings than superstars, but they don't have the technical skills to put that into their music. We still prefer to listen to the technically competent music to get feelings from it despite it being less personal.
by lmm | 2025-09-01 08:37:01+00:00
> Siskind is a practicing psychiatrist, which is relevant to his profile. Using his real name makes it possible to discuss that.

The NYT of all entities should be comfortable talking about whether someone has particular qualifications or a particular job without feeling the need to publish their birth/legal name.

> Siskind is a public figure—I don't know why so many people think he is entitled to demand that NYT only discuss him in the ways he wants to be discussed (i.e. not connecting his blog to his physciatric practice).

Again the NYT of all entities should understand that there are good reasons to hide people's private details. People get very angry about some of the things Alexander writes, there are plausible threats of violence against him, and even if there weren't, everyone agrees that names are private information that shouldn't be published without good reason. His blog is public, the fact of him being or not being a practising psychiatrist may be in the public interest to talk about, but where's the argument that that means you need to publish his name specifically?
by ranguna | 2025-09-01 08:37:03+00:00
A car won't manipulate you into ending your's or someone else's life. You just get on the car and do it. An AI can lead you from a fragile state of mind to a suicidal state of mind.

Not saying I want AIs to be banned or that the article is good, I'm just argumenting that your analogy could potentially be flawed.
by grumbel | 2025-09-01 08:37:26+00:00
> This achieves your goal, doesn't it?

Running a server isn't practical for average people. It's also nothing new, people could do since the dawn of the Internet, they don't need a Fediverse for that.

> You can freely move between the islands.

I can freely move between Facebook and Twitter too. Again, not seeing what the Fediverse is doing here for me. The Fediverse does not prevent walled gardens, the federation is an optional server-provided feature that can be switched off any time they want. You can't even move your data from one server to the other unless both servers cooperate.

And Lemmy specifically isn't even GDPR compliant, there is no way to export my comments in the UI. There are also other huge issues such as message-ids being tied to the server, so you can't even resolve a URL from one server with another (something Usenet did better 40 years ago, which is why I can still find old post today).

> Mastodon achieves a similar

If Mastodon decides to run ads and enshittify, it's just like Twitter again. There is nothing to prevent that, outside of being small and unpopular.

> Decentralization obviously doesn't on its own protect anything from the governments, but it helps.

I am not worried about the government, I am worried about overzealous mods and server admins, who are already running rampant on the Fediverse and the Fediverse provides no infrastructure to help me here. That's an area where I much prefer Twitter and Co., they are pretty hands-off with moderation as long as you don't violate the law. On the Fediverse thought-policing is getting sold as a feature.
by vintermann | 2025-09-01 08:37:39+00:00
If we go by theories by their earliest incarnations, "germ theory" rejected that diseases could be caused by deficiency in micronutrients. "Terrain theory" arguably was the closest to the truth on those.

Also, by the standards of so-called "evidence based medicine" where we care less about the proposed mechanism a treatment works by, and more about whether it actually works, then miasma theory (or maybe it's more accurate to call it miasma practice, then?) doesn't look so bad. Florence Nightingale didn't bury horses because she believed in germ theory, she did it because they stank - and because she had developed statistical evidence that such hygiene interventions worked, whatever the mechanism. It took a long time for germ theory to get sophisticated enough that we can say it started saving more lives than sanitation (which was developed based on miasma theory).

The first incarnations of an ultimately correct theory often work worse in practice at the start.

Not that it excuses Kennedy.
by SifJar | 2025-09-01 08:40:01+00:00
> doing it their way gets rid of all of the ambiguity involved with USB C

At that point, why use USB-C for the dock connection at all? Just use a proprietary connector if you're not going to follow the standards.

Having a separate USB-C port for charging should satisfy e.g. the EU regulations requiring that, I think. (Assuming that is the reason they used USB-C in the first place)
by BertoldVdb | 2025-09-01 08:40:38+00:00
Usually yes, but it is not an EU-wide system. Contact your spectrum regulator and ask for what options are available for private 5G[1]. You can likely get a bit of spectrum in the 1.8GHz guard band, around 2.3GHz, or somewhere between 3.4-5GHz. Price is from free to thousands of euros, depending on the country, transmit power and whether you are using outdoor cells. A private mmWave cell will almost everywhere need to be under an experimental/R&D license (we don't have public mmWave networks).

If you can choose, it's best to take a TDD license, as the duplexer required for FDD base station operation is a relatively expensive device when operating on an uncommon band.

1) Private 4G wasn't really a big thing in EU, but in most countries the license you get is technology neutral and can be used with a 4G base station as well.

PS: Connecting the private LTE to the public telephone network with a publicly reachable number requires a public telecom operator permit in some countries. You will also need to pay for the block of phone numbers. Roaming to the public cellular network requires many extra things which are not cheap or easy to obtain. And of course you need to have a roaming agreement with the other operator.
by mike_hearn | 2025-09-01 08:40:42+00:00
Most politicians would find that argument confusing and not agree with you. I don't think the outcomes of running to government would be what you expect. It could easily backfire.

Politics is a spectrum. Some claim that model is oversimplified but it's not. Here you're making a left wing argument that individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective. However, left politicians would look at the situation and see the opposite. They prioritize an authoritarian safety-first victim-first mindset, in which individual freedoms are sacrificed to help the weakest. But companies like Google and Apple are already doing that. And whilst you're trying to hammer this situation into a left wing framing, the number of individuals who care about the freedom to install apps from anonymous developers is very small. Trivial, on the scale of a country. They do not represent the "consumer interest" in any meaningful way.

So if you lobbied politicians this way, Google/Apple would lobby back and they'd say, we are exactly what you always demand! We're acting proactively to protect the victims by limiting the freedoms of bad guys for the greater good. And the left would be not only highly receptive to that message, but having suddenly become aware of what is technically possible would likely demand they go much further! We already see this with left wing governments banning VPNs and DNS resolutions so they can better control the internet in order to keep this or that group safe.

Which sort of politicians care about the rights of freedom-loving minorities over the safety of the collective? Libertarian politicians do. But they are themselves in a minority, and would not be receptive to an argument framed as "we must regulate the big evil corporations for the greater good", because regulation is always about removing freedoms: in this case, the freedom to design a computing device as you see fit. They probably would be receptive to an argument of the form "it is important to be able to distribute code and communicate anonymously", but prioritizing something so few people care about is exactly why they don't tend to win elections.

So there's no direct solution in politics, but the closest approximation is to support politicians who are more libertarian than average. They won't solve the problem but they will at least not make it worse, and might be open to very targeted regulations that can be framed as protecting market competition e.g. requiring unlockable bootloaders can be framed as protecting competition in the operating systems market. Meanwhile you can try and increase the popularity of platforms that prioritize freedom over safety. In practice that means demonstrating some sort of use case that the big vendors disallow, which is valuable, morally positive and requires anonymous app distribution.
by indrora | 2025-09-01 08:41:09+00:00
Not even.

Early devices were things like the OnePlus 2 [0] and there were plenty of phones out before the Switch even hit the market in 2017 [1]. There were some issues with standards compliance, sure, but the market had vastly improved by the time the Switch had come out.

[0] https://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_2-6902.php [1] https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMax=2017&nUSBType...
by latexr | 2025-09-01 08:41:31+00:00
> LLMs are tools. If you master your tools, you become more productive.

LLMs are unpredictable tools which change all the time, let’s not pretend otherwise. You can’t “master” them in the same way as previous tools. You can learn some tricks to trick them to be closer to what you want, and that’s about it.

Imagine if every time you did the exact same movement to hammer a nail, you had to check your work. Maybe this time it hammered it in perfectly, or maybe it smashed your finger, or maybe it only went half-way through. You could never develop muscle memory for such a tool. You could use it, sure, but never master it.
by alpaca128 | 2025-09-01 08:43:39+00:00
In my experience the one big problem on the Quest 3 is the user interface. I am still puzzled why they made a floating taskbar with tiny buttons that you have to hit with VR controllers. I have good eyes, decent hand-eye coordination and don't have shaky hands, yet I manage to hit a button at first try maybe 40% of the time. They made a cut-down 2D desktop interface that makes up a small fraction of the field of view for a VR device and called it a day, and then put the user into some virtual room with zero interactable elements.

Meta Quest 3 feels like sci-fi tech with badly executed UI design from the 90s.
by diggan | 2025-09-01 08:43:56+00:00
I used reference tracks for mastering before, once or twice for mixing, but outside of that, not so much. And when I've used them, I haven't thought once I needed to separate out the instruments, but I guess that's because of what I used them for. Most of the production I do is outside of Ableton, so maybe I'm not considered a "serious" Ableton user :)
by raggi | 2025-09-01 08:44:24+00:00
They don’t have exactly the same coverage. UEFI provides a standard set of APIs, some optional, some mandatory. It also specifies a boot path via gpt and efi system partitions.

A common secondary piece is ACPI, which isn’t strictly mandatory, but when you provide both UEFI and ACPI then you can skip the whole dtb mess. Sadly ACPI isn’t the simplest of approaches, as it’s encoded in a way that requires executing bytecode in a stack machine. There are real and valid security concerns that come with this, but there are also big advantages- the abstraction generalizes over a lot of what would otherwise be specialization that has to be carried around in the bootloader and OS.

Uboot implements a subset of the uefi spec, but typically is used where there is no ACPI type configuration, with the gap filled by a combination of dtbs and vendor forks or patches (often before upstreaming, which sometimes never happens).

Depending on how deep your relationship is with all of this, you may live with uboot as a plain binary blob from a board vendor, in which case whatever version they formed and options they chose may bring various constraints or challenges doing anything novel like booting an alternative kernel or distro.

Typically a more complete uefi and ACPI system will be able to get much further in the boot process with far less hardware specialization, a lot of operating systems can boot very far with this combo even if they’ve never seen the specific hardware topology before.

Uboot upstream has a lot of implementations for a lot of hardware targets. There isn’t really so much of a central place for uefi implementations
by josephg | 2025-09-01 08:44:26+00:00
> IMO what's needed is less per-app sandboxing, and more per-context.

I think you could do this with capabilities!

The current model makes of security implicit, where an application can make any syscall it wants and its up to the OS to (somehow) figure out if the request is valid or not. Capabilities - on the other hand - restrict access of a resource to the bearer of a certain token. The OS knows that by invoking capability X, the bearer can make requests to a certain resource / account / file / whatever. (Think of it like unix file descriptors. You just call write(1, ...) and the OS knows what file you're writing to, and what your access to that file is.)

There's lots of ways to use capabilities to build the sort of frankenstein app you're talking about using caps. Eg, you could have a supervisor task (maybe the desktop or a script or something) that has a capability for everything the user cares about. It can create sub-capabilities which just have access to specific network ports / files / accounts / whatever. It launches subprocesses and hands the right capabilities to the right sub processes. The sub processes don't even need to know what the capability they were given connects to. They just need to know - for example - that reading from the capability gives it the data it expects to receive. Then you can do all the routing & configuration from the supervisor task.

Because all the sub processes only have the specific capabilities that were passed to them, the security surface area is automatically minimised.

SeL4 shows that you can do this without losing much performance. (In SeL4, the IPC overhead is tiny.) But as I said upthread, I'm sure there's also ways to design our programming languages to allow within-process isolation. So, for example, you can call the leftpad package without giving it capabilities held by other parts of the same program.

Capabilities can also make it easy to virtualise filesystems, the network, and so on. Or to do interdiction - and snoop on the messages being sent. Its easy because you can just make virtual network / filesystem / whatever capabilities and pass those to subprocesses.
by ptrj_ | 2025-09-01 08:44:47+00:00
How have you found the current experience of (async) networking in Rust? This is something which is stupidly easy out-of-the-box in Python -- semi-seriously, async/await in Python was _made_ for interacting w/ a chat completions/messages API.

(As an aside, my "ideal" language mix would be a pairing of Rust with Python, though the PyO3 interface could be improved.)

Would also love to learn more about your Rust agent + Qwen3!
by 1dom | 2025-09-01 08:44:54+00:00
> And there's a risk they'll replace the wrong drive in your RAID pair and you'll lose all your data - this happens sometimes - it's not a theoretical risk.

A medium to large size asteroid can cause mass extinction events - this happens sometimes - it's not a theoretical risk.

The risk of the people responsible for managing the platform messing up and losing some of your data is still a risk in the cloud. This thread has even already had the argument "if the cloud provider goes down, it's not your fault" as a cloud benefit. Either cloud is strong and stable and can't break, or cloud breaks often enough that people will just excuse you for it.
by lucideer | 2025-09-01 08:45:00+00:00
FIDO can't force any app developers to do anything but fwiw I think "pressuring" people to encrypt secrets at rest rather than storing them in plaintext is ok.

---

There's levels to appropriate paranoia around these things of course. SSH private keys are stored in plaintext for millions of engineers around the world - sometimes probably even passed around through unsecured emails or whatnot I would guess. They're still largely more secure than user:pass on aggregate, despite that rather major peril.

So ultimately, plaintext creds are not necessarily catastrophic. But still - imo - something worth concerted effort to dissuade at least at early stages of standards' implementation.

---

Edit: also, looks like the outcome of that thread was ultimately that KeepassXC have opted to implement the spec as per[0]. Good outcome to a good request.

[0] https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/11363
by jeroenhd | 2025-09-01 08:48:20+00:00
In theory yes, in practice ACPI isn't always a great solution (as can be seen by the many lines of kernel logs about broken DSDTs on my motherboard).

Manufacturers kind of suck at actually describing the hardware on their motherboards and hacks and workarounds are very much required to provide a usable experience on many machines.

Unless manufacturers stop lazily copy-pasting their DSDTs with minor changes, we should probably hope for a better solution.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-09-01 08:48:29+00:00
They stopped on January 1st 2025 when the contract with Gazprom signed in 2019 expired, costing Gazprom / Russia an estimated $5bn / year: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-g...

It's a complicated one, but legally it's a civil contract; if the Ukrainian government decided to stop the gas flowing, both Gazprom and all the companies "downstream" would be in their rights to sue for breach of contract and/or causing gas shortages, costing the Ukrainian government billions.

And you could wonder why they signed the contract anyway given Russia invaded/annexed Crimea 5 years prior, but, it's a lot of money, and at the time it was still considered a civil contract I presume.
by genezeta | 2025-09-01 08:48:49+00:00
As far as I can see, you have:

- One submission 19 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44879608 This is clearly promotional.

- A previous one 4 days before that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44839405 which is a blog post. It also has a single comment and it's from rkwap (In their bio: "Building http://huntyourtribe.com" and the account has no submissions and only this single comment).

So your submissions are clearly marketing and promotional. This isn't bad in itself; people are allowed to submit their own projects. It's also not a problem to say things like "new and novel approach", though I must say that it sounds exactly like an advertisement.

But the problem is that there's an important guideline [0] on HN that says:

Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

You are not posting "your own stuff part of the time". You are posting only your stuff, which is considered self-promotion and is not the focus of HN.

[0] The guidelines are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by TheDong | 2025-09-01 08:49:22+00:00
It's possible to make this detectable, and chromebooks already do.

On a chromebook, if you toggle to developer mode you get a nag screen on early-boot telling you it's in developer mode every time, and if you're not in developer mode you can only boot signed code.

Basically, just bake into device's firmware that "if any non-apple keys have been added, forcibly display 'bootloader not signed by Apple, signed by X'", and if someone sees that on a "new" device, they'll know to run.
by kapone | 2025-09-01 08:49:36+00:00
> It's putting a longer server in the rack above/below yours and pushing the power plug out of the back of your server

Are you serious? Have you ever built/operated/wired rack scale equipment? You think the power cables for your "short" server (vs the longer one being put in) are just hanging out in the back of the rack?

Rack wiring has been done and done correctly for ages. Power cables on one side (if possible), data and other cables on the other side. These are all routed vertically and horizontally, so they land only on YOUR server.

You could put a Mercedes Maybach above/below your server and nothing would happen.
by hennell | 2025-09-01 08:49:39+00:00
Conversely those are some of the devices that make me question the principle “I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own”.

Cars are increasingly controlled more via code than driver, but that (hopefully) goes through certification and oversight processes. Lane control, collision detection, self parking, self driving features - should people be able to hack these systems? Do we want people running their own collision detection routines that are less sensitive, because the stock option keeps slowing them down so much everyday when they drive past a school?

I imagine many of us here have encountered a computer that's broken because the user installed a programe to "make their machine faster" which deleted important windows files or removed everything from the startup folder that the user needs to use. I'm sure I could make a lot of money with a programme that decreases the time it takes to recharge your EV. Might remove heat protections, run at your own risk! (And the risk of passengers, neighbours, pedestrians and anyone your share a road with...)

I don't care if you want to run code that can allow more nuances to the seat heating, but do I think that's an important enough principle to also allow drivers to watch netflix on the in car display?

TVs and home appliances are less concerning, but I'm sure there's users out there who'd like to disable the annoying "don't run the dryer when it's full of lint" lock out or stop their garage door from beeping at their car everyday, not realising that setting also keeps it from closing on top of neighbourhood kids or cats.

I don't know if there's anyway to balance a reasonable right to tinker with a general right to live in a safe environment. I also suspect EU and US readers will have quite different takes on it - in part because of the current culture, in part because I think a lot of it is quite effected by geography. Live in dense housing and your neighbours ability to burn their house down is much more of your concern!)
by freehorse | 2025-09-01 08:49:40+00:00
> suggestions are proactively generated and count against your account credit even if not accepted

This is no longer the case. They only count if you accept them.

Ime their model is not great, but better than copilot (ime copilot is just too slow and disruptive).

Also the options you have for tab-complete, afaik, are zed/zeta, guthub copilot, supermaven, and local models. I dont think there are other providers right now, glad if I am wrong in that.