MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by antisthenes | 2025-10-22 19:55:05+00:00
Now you understand where the "Wise man under the mountain" trope comes from.

Beside the burden of knowledge and understanding, there is an even higher burden of bringing your knowledge to the laypeople, which is the most thankless, dangerous and tedious undertaking possible.

Yet it is also the most noble, as it drives civilization forward.

In many cases it's insurmountable.
by revicon | 2025-10-22 19:55:11+00:00
I have a bunch of little scripts and aliases I've written over the years, but none are used more than these...

alias ..='cd ..'

alias ...='cd ../..'

alias ....='cd ../../..'

alias .....='cd ../../../..'

alias ......='cd ../../../../..'

alias .......='cd ../../../../../..'
by akerl_ | 2025-10-22 19:55:17+00:00
You're just sort of loosely interweaving unrelated comments?

You're back on prevention instead of detection, but also no: an attacker with valid creds isn't going to run other checks first before using them.

And yes: by volume, most attacks on the internet are just spam reusing published tools and IP lists. And that traffic is zero percent risky unless your auth is already busted.
by serbancon | 2025-10-22 19:56:00+00:00
You’re absolutely right - SrcFS and EdenFS were inspirations for SourceFS.

The challenge with those systems is that they’re tightly coupled with the tools, infrastructure, and even developer distros used internally at Google and Meta, which makes them hard to generalize. SourceFS aims to bring that “Piper-like” experience to teams outside Google - but in a way that works with plain Git, Repo, and standard Linux environments.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, neither SrcFS nor EdenFS directly accelerate builds - most of that speed comes from the build systems themselves (Blaze/Buck). SourceFS goes a step further by neatly and simply integrating with the build system and caching/replay pretty much any build step.

The Android example we’ve shown is just one application - it’s a domain we know well and one where the pain is obvious - but we built SourceFS in a way where we can easily integrate with a new build system and speed up other big codebases.

Also you’re spot on that this problem mostly affects big organizations with complex codebases. Here without the infrastructure and SRE support the magic does not work (e.g. think the Redis CVE 10.0 of last week or the AWS downtime of this week) - and hence the “talk to us”.

We plan to gradually share more interesting details about how SourceFS works. If there’s something specific you’d like us to cover - let us know - and help us crowd source our blogpost pipeline :-).
by binarymax | 2025-10-22 19:56:07+00:00
I think the point is: why is OpenAI wasting its time on this? If it's just another channel for billing tokens then OK I guess, but it's not like it's a huge breakthrough.

OpenAI should be the roads, not the trucks. Let other product teams sort out the AI browsers. OpenAI has lots of problems to solve related to models and thats where they should focus. This is a side quest.
by SkyBelow | 2025-10-22 19:56:07+00:00
Years ago in college, we had a class where we analyzed science in the news for a few weeks compared to the publish research itself. I think it was a 100% misrepresentation rate comparing what a news article summarized about a paper verses what the paper itself said. We weren't going off of CNN or similar main news sites, but news websites aimed at specific types of news which were consistently better than the articles in mainstream news (whenever the underlying research was noteworthy enough to earn a mention on larger sites). Leaving out complete details or only reporting some of the findings weren't enough to count, as it was expected any news summary would reduce the total amount of information being provided about a published paper compared to reading the paper directly. The focus was on looking for summaries that were incorrect or which made claims which the original paper did not support.

Probably the most impactful "easy A" class I had in college.
by mopsi | 2025-10-22 19:56:22+00:00
One-sided avoidance of war can be counterproductive and make everything worse. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Ukraine since 2022 because the response to the initial invasion in 2014 focused too much on avoiding confrontation, which was taken as a sign of weakness to exploit.

Up until the day of the invasion in February 2022, something as simple as deploying US airborne forces to Kyiv for exercises could have prevented the war. Biden chose to avoid confrontation, and here we are now, in the fourth year of the war.
by mirashii | 2025-10-22 19:56:23+00:00
> There are no substantial technical or usability reasons to switch to JJ from Git and it's impractical for most working programmers to switch. This is a neutral impersonal opinion that is virtually a fact.

Not a thing in here is true, especially not objectively true. As neutral as you may believe yourself, it might be a good time to step back and reexamine your priors that led you to state so confidently that there’s no usability reason to switch in particular.
by epolanski | 2025-10-22 19:56:34+00:00
Not great when these operations are carried out by the executive branch imho.

Too politicized, too corruption prone, too volatile, too personal. Questionable benefits for taxpayers, on taxpayers money. This isn't a videogame.

In general, I really dislike how much budget and power the executive in US has, it's scary, and unstable. One president sets some goals, then the following one undoes everything.

But that's a flaw of presidential republics in general, not US in particular. Kinda prefer systems like the British, German or Italian one, sure, governments last less, but you're one vote of confidence away from having to resign. Whereas this personification of power in a single person like in US/Russia/Hungary/etc without having to depend on votes and coalitions is a danger for democracy.
by mef51 | 2025-10-22 19:57:06+00:00
Trauma to me means there are ways of responding to painful experiences that can keep you in that painful state for a very long time, and/or make things worse. I recognize that simple fact from my own experiences. In that lens, its helpful to reflect on your responses to painful experiences to stop them from developing into long term traumas. Maybe that's why this book, or at least the title, seems to resonate with people. (I haven't read it)

...But it's also good to know the author of the book was wildly mis-citing things
by danaris | 2025-10-22 19:57:18+00:00
It's not a soft science.

The problem is that too many people believe you can do research on one group of people, and generalize that universally to all humans, when in fact, the variation in every population of humans is wide enough that you can't say for certain that a given treatment will work for a given set of symptoms—not because the treatments are bad, but because there are differences both in the causes of the same symptoms, and in the workings of the body & brain, between different people.

This doesn't make psychology/psychiatry/psychopharmacology a "soft science"; it just makes it a science that is still in its infancy. Once we have a better understanding of both the various underlying neurological/physical (and, for some, even gastrointestinal, given recent research showing that gut microbiota can affect the mood and brain) causes of various psychological symptoms, and the physical and neurological variations between people, it will be much easier to see, for instance, "ah, we shouldn't use Lorazepam for this patient, because their anxiety is caused by this which is much better treated by CBT and CBD, rather than that which Lorazepam directly addresses".
by mikece | 2025-10-22 19:57:41+00:00
I'll ignore the first point but I have to concede that I'm helping Ukraine kill Russians by virtue of paying taxes to the US Govt which has been supplying billions of dollars of weapons to use against Russians in the war. My concern is that we're going to get paid back in kind with interest and am a little surprised it hasn't happened yet... and am hopeful it can be avoided.
by psunavy03 | 2025-10-22 19:57:41+00:00
AR is going to be on the back burner unless miniaturization improves for the price point. The only player in that space I'm aware of is Anduril's EagleEye, which is Son of HoloLens 2 for the Army's IVAS contract. AFAIK Anduril yoinked all the staff and tech from the HoloLens team (or a lot of the staff anyway) when it fell over.

MS and Magic Leap tried to make holographic AR work, but the state of the art wasn't cheap and compact enough for them to make any money on it.
by crote | 2025-10-22 19:57:53+00:00
It's for the phase where there is part of a building. Specifically, when your building looks like [0] - so basically just an empty concrete shell.

With a lot of commercial buildings it is up to the tenant to install the interior walls, as everyone will have slightly different requirements. The Twin Towers were a great example of this: all of the structural support was done in the exterior walls and the center core, so you had a huge empty space you could fill in however you wanted.

The robot draws on the bare concrete floor, so all the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and hvac technicians will install their stuff in the right place. Turns out having to rework your plans because someone installed a big expensive pipe in the wrong place is a huge hassle...

[0]: https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/09/64/72/08/1000_F_964720843_sLWAm...
by hadlock | 2025-10-22 19:58:05+00:00
I think everyone who has ever owned a game console and bought the "optional first party accessory" (super scope 6, kinect, etc) is painfully aware that since developers can't count on widespread adoption, they almost never waste resources implementing support for them.

Not that it matters, apple has dropped support for true VR and now that google doesn't have to compete on this obscure battlefield, it will be cancelled before the end of Q4. I honestly feel bad for the team it was probably a good product. The launch event may have only been done for tax purposes to recover R&D losses.
by triMichael | 2025-10-22 19:58:09+00:00
I agree, and one place I've observed this is in quantum physics. The double slit experiment is an experiment where you shine light through two slits, and instead of the expected two bands, it makes a wave-like interference pattern. This single experiment changed how we view all of physics. However, nearly every source targeted at laypeople claims that there is a variation where you can put a detector on one of the slits and it will show two bands. This is false.

One clue is that these claims never detail on what this "detector" is. There are various types of detectors, and instead of showing a two band pattern they show a single slit interference pattern. By not giving specifics, the claim becomes much harder to disprove. This may not be malicious though, as the source of the faulty claim is likely the miscommunication of a thought experiment proposed by Einstein. Einstein proved by thought experiment that any detector couldn't show an interference pattern, which is easily twisted into the incorrect claim that it does show the two band pattern that people initially expected.

Even with all that, it's simply hard to refute. Like you said, it requires rigorous technical arguments, specifically as the faulty claim didn't specify what kind of detector they use. So the layperson has to choose between <some detector makes shape you'd expect> and <multiple complex existing detectors makes different shape>.

In the end, to a layperson, it wouldn't even seem to be all that important. And yet, almost all of the misunderstandings people have about quantum physics come from this one faulty claim. This claim makes it seem like some objects have quantum behavior, and some don't, and that you can change an object from quantum to non-quantum by detecting it. When in reality, all objects have quantum behavior, we just don't usually notice it.
by yyyk | 2025-10-22 19:58:10+00:00
I can understand why JMAP instead of IMAP given the latter's antiquated design. I don't see the advantage to clients in replacing WebDAV though, and the others are a bit iffy too. They'll need to make a way better sales pitch than 'JSON vs XML' (serialization ain't tough, XML is supported everywhere).

I guess contacts/calendar follows JMAP naturally when the clients already implement it, but that only applies in the 'already wrote a JMAP email client' case. Virtually any other case would rather stay with widely supported protocols?
by cassianoleal | 2025-10-22 19:58:13+00:00
Git is an interesting example.

I have a few commands and one-liners that perform certain tasks. I can chain them together without looking at the screen. In fact, I can be reading code on the editor while I perform them on the terminal from muscle memory alone. I build a mental model of the branch I'm working on and how it relates to trunk and work from there. Each command updates that mental model. A GUI will never be as fast as that.

Now, you're right - a GUI that can be fully navigated with the keyboard can get somewhat close. That is, until an update changes the place of a button, or the organisation of a menu. CLIs almost universally have stable contracts with the user.

Don't get me wrong, I like GUIs for a lot of tasks: web browsing, CAD work, even programming. I just find that "everything should be a GUI" only serves to bring top performers down closer to the mean at best.

Furthermore, a crappy CLI is really only crappy until muscle memory sets in. A crappy GUI generally remains a crappy experience for as long as it's used.

Is muscle memory an exclusive benefit of CLI? No, but it's am universal benefit of the CLI, whereas it's only incidental on GUIs.
by Benanov | 2025-10-22 19:58:24+00:00
As we know or a quick STFW will educate - the "airplane with red dots" refers to the idea that the planes that came back had damage indicated on them with red dots and so the initial idea was that the designers of the planes needed to armor those spots...

When it was really the case that the spots that weren't damaged were the ones that actually needed to be armored, because the planes that took damage there didn't come back.

In this case, the data that survived a selection process ("I just recommended this book that dovetails nicely") is the only data considered, when really all of the data needs to be considered.

I'm seeing this as "you're reading the data wrong" or more accurately "you're barking up the wrong tree"
by antisthenes | 2025-10-22 19:58:35+00:00
I only skimmed the wikipedia article, but it seems like it is missing emphasis on the biggest problem in soft sciences like psychology - the fact that a huge chunk of their data comes from self-reporting by subjects.

It's the equivalent of basing nutrition science on a Pew poll where people self-report their favorite food.

Sure, it's useful to know people's general preferences sometimes, but for science that data is junk.
by toss1 | 2025-10-22 19:58:38+00:00
Entirely likely, and my first thought. It would be an ideal and cheap way for Russia to probe responses and results with complete plausible deniability. Jsut testing for another route to destabilize targets.

It wouldn't be a bit surprising from a bloc known for weaponizing regional poverty and migration by aggravating wars to stimulate migration and even literally bussing migrants the borders of Poland and other countries to create instability in target countries.

Or, it could just be some smuggling crew going wild to meet some deadline or get stuff shipped before a coming crackdown. Or both.
by boxed | 2025-10-22 19:58:56+00:00
This "monopoly" isn't a monopoly at all first of all. ULA and afaik even RocketLab are winning contracts, and SLS is still actually a thing.

The "monopoly" you are complaining about IS the competition. SpaceX literally cut US government spending on launch by billions over the years. AND it meant the US didn't have to go begging Putin for astronaut seats to the ISS.

Again: you can dislike Musk, and any sane person does, but from going from a dislike of a person to contorting the factually inaccurate stuff you just said just to satisfy your dislike of a person is crazy. You must see that.
by WorldMaker | 2025-10-22 19:59:22+00:00
The big pitch for JMAP is for a modern web-tech-only approach to email/calendar/"groupware" servers. One reason to do that would be to make it easier to also build email/calendar/"groupware" clients entirely out of modern web-tech. Today most "web email clients" are bespoke to specific stacks/email servers. A dream of JMAP is that with the right CORS policy a single web client could interact with multiple JMAP servers, using only fetch/XHR.

The modernization efforts of JMAP are interesting, too. Most of the old protocols are a mess of bespoke plaintext formats full of quirks evolved over decades in a giant mess of different software. Even the stuff that was already web tech like WebDAV and its extensions CalDAV and CardDAV were full of quirks, violated some REST "rules", and originally intended for a different purpose (file shares/FTP replacement). JMAP is much closer to "plain REST" than WebDAV's complex HTTP protocol extensions/changes.
by dangus | 2025-10-22 20:00:19+00:00
I think what you need to do if you hope to facilitate a discussion is get into the nitty gritty detail of exactly what events cause this capital flipping mechanism to happen. An individual getting a paycheck? A business making a profit (income minus expenses)? An asset appreciating and/or being liquidated? Who is paying and what events make them pay? What happens with part time work, self-employment, debt/loans, interest, rental income, depreciation, appreciation, etc.

For now, the more answers I get the hazier it is. I still don’t understand if this is payroll based.

I am skeptical at the idea this frees up the worker especially due to its “flat” nature, but I don’t really have enough information until you hash this out better.

The last thing I’ll point out is that federal taxes are NOT 50% as you describe, nowhere close.
by hnuser123456 | 2025-10-22 20:00:21+00:00
So many things are actually concentrated on the "cloud" providers now that significant chunks of "the internet" can all go down at the same time for everyone in a way that was supposed to be impossible with the many-fault-tolerant mindset the internet was originally engineered with. Laypeople don't need to understand any technical topics to understand "a bunch of websites/apps broke for everyone on Sunday". Some are even noting that this is happing more often and affecting more apps at once.

anyways, more on topic with TFA, of course lots of people are looking for excuses for why they aren't what they want to be, and it sounds like this book flips the causation, so that people can say e.g. "I was perfectly healthy until I went through some difficult stuff and now I'm disabled" rather than much more sober but accurate "I was born with some relative weaknesses that make things more difficult for me than others." It looks like he keeps trying to claim that bad experiences leave reliably measurable marks in some way but it simply never holds to the claimed reliability under scrutiny.

Of course, knowing exactly what specific "weaknesses" one actually has compared to a statistical average is the hard part, and jumping to conclusions in that area is just as much playing with fire.

Someone could write a book about "bad experiences give you bad memories, which can bring down your mood when you remember them and demotivate you", but everyone already knows that, and leaving it at that doesn't give the reader the feeling of understanding why they feel less than whole.
by the_af | 2025-10-22 20:00:28+00:00
I think the critique is fundamentally different from saying "it's soft science".

It's saying "it's bad research, misquoting experts and references, drawing sloppy conclusions aimed at a lay audience".

You can do psychology and psychiatry better than that, even if acknowledging they are not hard science.

There's no excuse for being sloppy or outright fraudulent.
by JadedBlueEyes | 2025-10-22 20:00:38+00:00
If you look it up, you'll see that JMAP is 6 years old now. It's a protocol for doing email (and now other things) over HTTP, without many of the legacy issues from IMAP and SMTP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_Meta_Application_Protocol / https://jmap.io/index.html
by riku_iki | 2025-10-22 20:00:49+00:00
You still looking at small part of the picture. Big part of the picture is confrontation of Western World and allies against China, Russia, Iran. The winning strategy could be to weaken enemy now: strike on Russia military/oil infra, and not wait until they will become stronger and will be way more bold in their moves which could lead to WW3 with much higher chance.
by inimino | 2025-10-22 20:00:56+00:00
> does this include the training data and fine-tune content?

No, I'm excluding that because I'm responding to the post which starts out with the example of: [prompt containing obvious exploit] -> [code containing obvious exploit] and proceeds immediately to the conclusion that local LLMS are less secure. In my opinion, if you're relying on the LLM to reject a prompt because it contains an exploit, instead of building a system that does not feed exploits into the LLM in the first place, security exploits are probably the least of your concerns.

There actually are legitimate concerns with poisoned training sets, and stuxnet-level attacks could plausibly achieve something along these lines, but the post wasn't about that.

There's a common thread among a lot of "LLM security theatre" posts that starts from implausible or brain-dead scenarios and then asserts that big AI providers adding magical guard rails to their products is the solution.

The solution is sanity in the systems that use LLMs, not pointing the gun at your foot and firing and hoping the LLM will deflect the bullet.
by blurbleblurble | 2025-10-22 20:01:10+00:00
The book might have some flaws but this article is flat out reactionary drivel.

Example slop: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ajgq!,w_1456,c_limit...

What the research _actually_ suggests is something more like a combination of those pictures. Except that the scientific research isn't framed in terms of "bad behavior". So that alone should give you a clue about where this blog post is coming from.

That image alone exposes the worldview of the person who wrote this, something like this:

~some people are good quality, some people are bad quality. if you're born as a bad quality person, it's something like bad luck / your fault for falling into bad behavior, no wonder you're struggling. you need to work harder but it might just be that you're a dud.~
by PaulHoule | 2025-10-22 20:01:28+00:00
Power is a measure of money, but it is not in fact money.

See https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma

or the fact that John D. Rockefeller was furious that Standard Oil got split up despite the stock going up and making him much richer.

It's not so clear what motivates the very rich. If I doubled my income I might go on a really fancy vacation and get that Olympus 4/3 body I've been looking at and the fast 70-300mm lens for my Sony, etc. If Elon Musk changes his income it won't affect his lifestyle. As the leader of a corporation you're supposed to behave as if your utility function of money was linear because that represents your shareholders but a person like Musk might be very happy to spend $40B to advance his power and/or feeling of power.
by jvanderbot | 2025-10-22 20:01:57+00:00
This seems like the just-world response. But how can one force this? If they just say "No" you end up taking them to court and delaying the construction of your house. You endanger the contracts for downstream work.

I had a landscaper screw up just about everything they could building a retaining wall, and they couldn't even get me an extra bag of grass seed after the fact.