MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zamadatix | 2025-10-22 01:03:23+00:00
I think every major vendor has had 10G PoE switches: Arista, Aruba/HPE/Juniper, Cisco, Extreme, and Fortinet for sure. The problem is there is little use case for 10G + PoE in the enterprise and even less for consumers. Ubiquity likes to tout it for the 10G APs... but, realistically, most are worried about airtime with APs, not 10G wired throughput from a single one when they have a thousand.

As a result, it tends to be relegated to the "high end switch which has every feature those one-off customers demand but costs an arm and a leg as a result" model/family. E.g. the only ones I ever sold were to a hospital that wanted to have select switches have 10G for radiology workstations but also wanted to still be able to plug 1G APs in without having to think about the port types. Radiology was covering the cost, so they didn't care it was a waste of money.
by bediger4000 | 2025-10-22 01:03:42+00:00
The headline doesn't really match the content of the article. The Chinese part of Nexperia sent email to the Dutch Nexperia employees telling them they had the right to refuse orders issued by a Dutch puppet management installed by the Dutch government at the behest of the US government. I think that's correct. Did the Dutch Nexperia employees actually refuse Dutch puppet management's orders? The article isn't clear. The article has little or no content suggesting that anyone went "rogue".
by fluoridation | 2025-10-22 01:03:51+00:00
Yeah, I already covered that when I said that if you're not able to do it at all it does say something.

>But who can actually make it happen? That's a huge organizational, human, financial, industrial challenge. And people do notice when only one country can do it.

On the other side of the coin, it's such a huge expense just for bragging rights, that for any country it's not worth undertaking. It's much more preferable to just give the appearance that you could totally do it if you wanted to, but you just don't feel like it. I'd argue that the US is currently failing at this, but until anyone else flies a manned mission to the moon, it doesn't say anything.
by qyph | 2025-10-22 01:04:04+00:00
I wonder if this could be used for doping in aerobic sports? Could this elevate overall oxygen intake in a healthy person?

My vague understanding is that oxygen intake is a big limiting factor in aerobic activities hence measurement of things like vo2max in sports science. ‘Blood doping’ has similar benefits though it’s also about having more blood period.

It seems unlikely that one could take a big enough suppository to help in a meaningful way in a marathon, but in a middle distance race lasting only a few minutes…
by thewebguyd | 2025-10-22 01:04:21+00:00
Isn’t this what Recall in Windows 11 is trying to solve, and everyone got super up in arms over it?

I have no horse in the race either way, but I do find it funny how HN will swoon over a feature from one company and criticize to no end that same feature from another company just because of who made it.

At least Recall is on-device only, both the database and the processing.
by Keyframe | 2025-10-22 01:04:29+00:00
You can't look at it like _that_. Biometrics has its own "things". I don't know what OP is actually doing, but it's probably not classical image processing. Most probably facial features are going through some "form of LGBPHS binarized and encoded which is then fed into an adaptive bloom filter based transform"[0].

Paper quotes 76,800 bits per template (less compressed) and with 64-bit words it's what, 1200 64-bit bitwise ops. at 4.5 Ghz it's 4.5b ops per second / 1200 ops per per comparison which is ~3.75 million recognitions per second. Give or take some overhead, it's definitely possible.

[0] https://www.christoph-busch.de/files/Gomez-FaceBloomFilter-I...

Cache locality is a thing. Like in raytracing and the old confucian adage that says "Primary rays cache, secondary trash".
by _aavaa_ | 2025-10-22 01:04:32+00:00
> you're confused about the thermodynamics of the situation.

I assure you I am not, it is actually you who still seem confused about where the energy is coming from.

> they're not giving you more energy than what you put into it.

When you burn gas in a furnace, all of the energy that raises the temperature of the house comes from the gas.

When you run a heat pump you have two sources of energy:

1. Electricity running the thing.

2. Heat from the outside that you're moving inside.

#2 is where most of the energy that actually heats up the house comes from. The electricity is used to move it from outside the house to inside.

> Burning that gas in a turbine & then transferring that energy through a bunch of transformers to get to the heat pump can't give you more heat than what went into combusting the gas in the first place.

It actually can. A combined cycle plant can be ~60% efficient (chemical energy -> electricity). Say another 70% for getting it from the plant to your heat pump, then a COP 3 (or "efficiency" of 300%) gives you 0.6x0.7x3 or 1.26. So for every J of natural gas you burn in that plant, you'll heat your house with 1.26 J (compared to at best 1 J, realistically 0.9 J, for a gas furnace).

If you instead look at a ground source heat pump, you can get a COP of ~7 [0]. You're now putting ~3 J of heat into your house of each J of natural gas.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump#Performance
by pitpatagain | 2025-10-22 01:05:37+00:00
It's not that there's a single money shot message, it's that the conversation throughout is just stuff that no normal prosecutor would ever say anything but "no comment" about in regard to an active case.

The prosecutor is not supposed to be disclosing information from the grand jury, and then spends a shockingly long signal thread talking on record with a journalist that constantly implicitly discusses/confirms information they aren't supposed to be talking about at all.

It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
by tekacs | 2025-10-22 01:05:43+00:00
One thing that I would watch out for with _all_ OpenAI products is that they use Keychain's Access Control lists to encrypt data such that _you_ cannot unlock or access it.

It's a change that they made to 'fix' this issue: https://pvieito.com/2024/07/chatgpt-unprotected-conversation...

The net effect however is that if you use their apps, you can get data _in_, but you can only get it _out_ in ways that their apps themselves allow. The actual encryption of Chrome data seems to be _potentially_ held behind the 'ChatGPT Safe Storage' key that - since it's Chromium - you can unlock (for now), but the rest of Atlas's keys do the same thing as the above - locking you out of the encrypted data on your own computer.

I understand the rationale that it protects the data from malware or users willingly filling in a password dialogue, but the current approach means that any _intentional_ access by other apps or automated backups or export (even with Full Disk Access or similar) can't see into the apps' data.

More context: https://chatgpt.com/share/68f82df3-74f0-8012-9bfe-de89a4e75e...
by dsr_ | 2025-10-22 01:06:05+00:00
It is a database for when you read a lot and don't write too often; when a write might be pretty big but not frequent; when you don't want to write a database engine yourself (I.e. figure out what to write and when). And, especially, when corrupting the data would be a big problem.

And it is especially good on copy-on-write filesystems, because it is CoW itself.
by rschristian | 2025-10-22 01:07:59+00:00
Neither of those things are true to my knowledge... I can find absolutely no evidence of Ryan Carniato being involved with Angular Signals (nor did I hear anything whilst they were being developed) and Preact Signals certainly weren't a port of Solid. Same name but internals share nothing and if anything, Preact's signals most closely resemble Vue's refs in API (though completely different internals -- there was no porting).
by Jtsummers | 2025-10-22 01:09:36+00:00
> It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.

A lot like Signalgate, it's the fact of the messages as much as (if not more) than the messages themselves that matter. It demonstrates unprofessional behavior. In Signalgate, discussing what should have been classified details in an inappropriate forum and without ensuring only authorized people were present (still wrong to use Signal, but at least not broadcast to a journalist). In this case, just everything about it is unprofessional. Reaching out to a reporter who highlighted details from other reports asking her to correct details but not saying what should be corrected. None of it is professional and the "it was all off the record" at the end is a comical display of incompetence. This is sitcom stuff, but real life.
by juped | 2025-10-22 01:09:53+00:00
I think you're a person behaving in a very socially harmful way, purportedly representing a group of such people. I think this based on the actual words you wrote. You're not behaving harmfully because you don't want to use software without the author's dox, you can have any preferences you like, but because you think your desire not to use it without the author's dox gives you any standing to impose demands on another person.

"I didn't ask for their name" is a ridiculous reply. You asked for some unspecified degree of personal information. Luckily the author didn't bow to your pressure but just said "I'm a software developer", which we already knew because of the developed software.

Why don't I have standing to demand people's dox as some random idiot Internet commenter? Answer this question and then turn your answer around on yourself. Then, maybe, apologize? Or don't, if you have some other way to psychologically ensure you won't go around demanding people's information in the future.
by sobellian | 2025-10-22 01:10:45+00:00
I'd say material science since the only non-ablative material we can use is too brittle compared to a normal fuselage. I really hope they succeed but it's a pretty fundamental problem to have unanswered this deep into the program development (and gating Artemis no less). Also hard to judge their progress without the data their heat shield team is getting, see https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1978183753114505496 for example. It's great that they can tolerate loss of vehicle & have better margins due to the steel fuselage but for Artemis and Mars they need to solve it or they'll be burning up hardware fast, literally.
by measurablefunc | 2025-10-22 01:11:28+00:00
That's clever accounting but your overall system (house + outside + plant + fuel) is still less than 100% efficient. That's basic physics/thermodynamics.

Heat pumps are basically taking advantage of solar + geothermal radiation that ends up in the ground & air but once you account for the solar + geo radiation then it becomes obvious that all a heat pump is doing is accelerating the production of entropy. You're either normalizing the delta between inside & outside or increasing it but in both cases the overall entropy of the system goes up. Whereas your accounting seems to suggest you somehow get more energy than what was available which is obviously unphysical.
by jemmyw | 2025-10-22 01:11:37+00:00
a 3 year old toyota is a temp beater? I bought a 5 year old toyota and consider that pretty luxury compared to the 7-10 year old cars I've always previously purchased (edit: and I'd never call them beaters either, I've always looked after them). I've never financed a car, I think it's a crazy thing to do when there are so many good used cars available. And new doesn't mean without problems either, usually you can get good information on the reliability of older models that you won't know for new ones.
by dmitrygr | 2025-10-22 01:12:17+00:00
> Last year I tried to extend Retro68 to support Palm OS

I did that 5 years ago and published it on reddit in /r/Palm:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Palm/comments/fu5870/announce_new_g...

and then

https://old.reddit.com/r/Palm/comments/p81m58/announce_new_g...
by visarga | 2025-10-22 01:13:14+00:00
I think this is the natural endpoint - local models doing something like what Atlas and Codex are doing, acting like a firewall between the user and web. You don't need to wade through the crap online yourself, the AI extracts the useful signal for you, acts like a memory layer for your values and preferences. Don't like the feed ranking - use your agent to extract, filter and rerank by your criteria. Not a big fan of dark UI patterns? Not a problem anymore, the UI can be regenerated. Need a stronger model? Sure, your agent can delegate.

I see this as a big unbundling, since your agent has your ear now, not Google, not social networks, they lose their entry point status and don't control by ranking, filtering and UI what I see or what I can do. They can spread out searches to specialized engines, replace Google for search, walk above all social networks and centralize your activities so you don't have to follow each one individually. A wrapper or cocoon for the user, taking the ad-block and anti-virus role, protecting your privacy and carefully reducing your exposure to information leaks.

All of this only works if you can host your model. But this is where the trend is going, we can already see decent small models, maybe before 2030 we will be running powerful local models on efficient local chips.
by alwa | 2025-10-22 01:14:27+00:00
That’s a tremendously clarifying framework, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

I wonder, though—at the risk of overextending the metaphor—what if I don’t have a kitchen, but I need the lunch meeting to be fed? Wouldn’t (relatively expensive) catering routinely make sense? And isn’t the difference between having steak catered and having sandwiches catered relatively small compared to the alternative of building out a kitchen?

What if my business is not meaningfully technical: I’ll set up applications to support our primary function, and they might even be essential to the meat of our work. But essential in the same way water and power are: we only notice it when it’s screwed up. Day-to-day, our operational competency is in dispatching vehicles or making sandwiches or something. If we hired somebody with the expertise to maintain things, they’d sit idle—or need a retainer commensurate with what the Vercels and Herokus of the world are charging. We only need to think about the IT stuff when it breaks—and maybe to the extent that, when we expect a spike, we can click one button to have twice as much “application.”

In that case, isn’t it conceivable that it could be worth the premium to buy our way out of managing some portion of the lower levels of the stack?
by fluoridation | 2025-10-22 01:14:48+00:00
>We have lost a bunch of old techniques.

Like I said, you didn't have to invent anything new. In this case you put yourself in the awkward situation of having to reinvent the wheel by your own incompetence. So if you actually do do it, what have you proven?

>It would be even more expensive and worse in every way.

Worse and more expensive than what? The only rocket that has flown men to the moon is Saturn V. What exactly are you comparing it to?
by tptacek | 2025-10-22 01:16:21+00:00
It's a database for strictly exact-match lookups for very read-intensive workloads; think systems where the database only changes when the configuration changes, like email alias or domain lookups. It's very simple (a first-level hash table chaining to a second-level open-addressed hash table) and easy to get your head around, but also very limiting; an otherwise strict K-V system that uses b-trees instead of hash tables can do range queries, which you can build a lot of other stuff out of.

Most people would use Redis or SQLite today for what CDB was intended for; CDB will be faster, but for a lot of applications that speed improvement will be sub-threshold for users.
by fragmede | 2025-10-22 01:17:39+00:00
You keep saying it's clear when it isn't. We don't know what's going on in your mind. Did you know there are people out there that won't eat anything that came from any animal products? That's crazy extreme! But there are tons of vegans out there. So what's seems extreme to one person is someone else's normal, and someone else's normal is extreme.

You say you like A and don't like B. You don't like B because it has X in it. But A also has X in it. So why do you like A but not B? It's not logically consistent. We disagree on how much X is in A. You want X to be clearly marked with red tape. It's not clear how reasonable and feasible that is or isn't. I'm saying if you're looking for X, you're going to find trace amounts of it everywhere once you start looking for it. X isn't some previously unheard of chemical that's gonna give you cancer or leaky gut though, it's other people making money. It's been chosen for us, that money is how the world works. It's not how I would do it, but I'm not in charge of the world, so it's a moot point. Everyone is weird about money in their own special way. I am no exception. What sticks in my craw is when people have problems with other people making money. How they make money is material. I'm not okay with making money off of sex trafficking or CSAM, for example, but advertising a product with an interesting bit of writing beforehand isn't that. So on the spectrum of your kid's painting that they made for you in school with crayon that were ethically sourced and drew on recycled paper, to the in your face red plastic Coca-Cola banner wrapped around the side of a bus that's gonna be fed to whales to choke and die on, where this particular blog post lies is for you to determine for yourself. Where I'm really getting at is that requiring X to be at a certain level has the unintended consequence that only big corporations with giant bags of money can create content that passes this purity test of yours, is, if we do some extrapolating, self-defeating.
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-10-22 01:17:42+00:00
Meaning bootstrapped consciousness, just ask dna and rna.

I don't get any of these anthropocentric arguments, meaning predates humanity and consciousness, that's what dna is, meaning primitives are just state changes the same thing as physical primitives.

syntactic meaning exists even without an interpreter in the same way physical "rock" structures existed before there were observers, it just picks up causal leverage when there is one.

Only a stateless universe would have no meaning. Nothing doesn't exist, meaninglessness doesn't exist, these are just abstraction we've invented.

Call it the logos if that's what you need, call it field pertubations, reality has just traveling up the meaning complexity chain, but complex meaning is just structural arrangement of meaning simples.

Stars emit photons, humans emit complex meaning. Maybe we'll be part of the causal chain that solves entropy, until then we are the only empirically observed, random walk write heads of maximally complex meaning in the universe.

We are super rare and special as far as we've empirically observed, doesn't mean we get our own weird metaphysical (if that even exists) carve out.
by anonym29 | 2025-10-22 01:18:16+00:00
I'll keep taking bitcoin, gold, land, housing. You can have my worthless paper federal reserve notes - they're all forged. Unlimited supply cap, the issuing entity literally just keeps printing trillions of them. It's monopoly money. I have no interest in that toilet paper with pictures of dead presidents the federal reserve keeps printing for 100,000% markup. Just because everyone around me is jumping off a cliff with a parachute made of federal reserve notes doesn't mean I'm obligated to do the same.
by loganye | 2025-10-22 01:18:25+00:00
Hey HN,

I'm Logan. Built DeepTutor after running a beta signup last month.

Got 200 researchers in 48 hours. Asked them to screen share their workflow.

What I saw: Copy text from Zotero → paste into ChatGPT → upload PDF to NotebookLM → back to Zotero → repeat.

Everyone was doing this tab circus just to ask questions about their own papers.

So I forked Zotero and embedded the chat directly into the library.

Technical bits: - Built on Zotero's open source codebase - One-click import of existing workspaces - Understands figures/tables, cites exact locations - Agent mode: chat with entire library without manual file selection

Current state: - Some plugin compatibility issues (fixing) - PDF only for now - Paragraph-level highlights (working toward word-level)

Next: MCP integration with Claude Code.

Try it: https://deeptutor.knowhiz.us/

Happy to discuss architecture or product decisions.
by internetter | 2025-10-22 01:19:05+00:00
Correct. The amount of Wikipedia pages at any given moment with active vandalism is vanishingly small. The only time I have ever stumbled upon vandalism is as part of my work as a volunteer there actively looking for such cases. Looking at my feed of possibly problematic changes at the moment, about 3 entries are appearing per minute with the most recent revert being just 2 entries ago. It is significantly worse while school is in session in my experience, but vandalism very rarely lasts long. Talking to people, people frequently confess to vandalising wikipedia at one point or another. When I ask them "how long did it survive" they tell me answers ranging between "a few moments" to "5 minutes." So to answer your question, I believe it is unlikely the average person has seen vandalism on the site barring those looking at their own shit.
by incompatible | 2025-10-22 01:19:16+00:00
Even if this current plotting comes to nothing, there are plenty of ways for investments to fail over 1000 years. Even if we assume that the system continues intact so that the accumulated wealth retains its meaning and is protected, and it isn't directly targeted by the government at any time.

Investments can fail, such as bank deposits (bank collapses), shares (company goes bankrupt), government bonds (government defaults), commodities (price fluctuations as they go in or out of favour.)

Theft can also occur, including by corrupt insiders (sometimes even legally, just by inflating their salaries to ridiculous levels.)

The chance of remaining intact for 1000 years seems very low.
by RealityVoid | 2025-10-22 01:20:03+00:00
At the risk of sounding kind of like a fanboy, you should check out Math Academy. That thing is very good, is based on actual research, they have a book explaining their approach - https://www.justinmath.com/files/the-math-academy-way.pdf

And it is conceived for kids and they routinely seem to take smart kids and enable them to learn advanced math.

I think you are correct that individual instruction is still necessary and just passive consumption of content is not the way. But there are solution that make the system much much more efficient.
by marcosdumay | 2025-10-22 01:21:02+00:00
Hum... Writing a game engine is a high-difficulty task that should be available to any reasonably good software developer with a few months to study for it. Making it in assembly is a sure way to take 10 times the time of another low level language like C, but shouldn't be an impossibility either.

Configuring a web server is a low-difficulty task that should be available for any good software developer with 3 days to study for it. It's absurd for a developer to need to configure a web server, but insist on paying a large rent and cede control to some 3rd party instead of just doing it.