MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dr-j | 2025-10-28 14:59:00+00:00
Appreciate the detailed look. A few clarifications and immediate fixes: • Concepts pie: noted. It’s a minor visualizer and not a current priority; there are dozens of other charts in the Dlog Lab tab. I’ll queue a fix, but I’m focusing elsewhere first. • Privacy policy: you’re right—OpenAI is a third-party processor. I’m correcting the policy to say exactly when data is sent, what is sent, and under what controls (Enterprise API with no training/retention). I’ll also add a simple data-flow diagram. • Local vs cloud: journals live on-device; the SEM runs locally. Scoring only happens when you explicitly choose to score—there’s no background upload. I’m adding a per-journal “Include in Coach analyses” toggle, and a simple “Remove names” anonymizer (ships in the next few days) so names are stripped before any scoring call. • BYO endpoint: not on the near-term roadmap. I’m prioritizing clear privacy controls and product focus over supporting custom model URLs right now. • Copy/video: I’ll tighten the site copy to lead with privacy and analysis, and make the local vs cloud boundary crisp.

Thanks for pushing on clarity—fixes are in motion.
by mattnewport | 2025-10-28 14:59:28+00:00
This might be true in the abstract but it's not true of actual compilers dealing with real world calling conventions. Absent inlining or whole program optimization, calling conventions across translation units don't leave much room for flexibility.

The semantics of pass by const reference are also not exactly the same as pass by value in C++. The compiler can't in general assume a const reference doesn't alias other arguments or global variables and so has to be more conservative with certain optimizations than with pass by value.
by placardloop | 2025-10-28 14:59:34+00:00
The title makes it seem like this is a major or systemic issue, but the article content essentially says this was a one-off, potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours. The article itself even states that the Post routinely discloses its ties to Bezos in its reporting and this was an anomaly. I used to read the Post (I’m not a subscriber anymore) but I do distinctly remember seeing such a disclosure all over the place. Is this an attempt at outrage clicks?

Edit: people saying I didn’t read the article apparently didn’t read it themselves. From the article:

> The Post has resolutely revealed such entanglements to readers of news coverage or commentary in the past … since 2013, those of Bezos, who founded Amazon and Blue Origin. Even now, the newspaper's reporters do so as a matter of routine.

So at minimum the article disagrees with itself, but it seems the outrage bait is working hook line and sinker.

Edit 2: To try and be a little clearer here: the article is trying to (but in my opinion doing a really poor job of) make a distinction between the disclosures that the non-editorial WaPo authors do, and the disclosures that the editorial authors do, with the assertion that the editorial authors are worse at it.
by flatline | 2025-10-28 15:00:31+00:00
The Post is a plaything to him that has a disproportionate impact on the rest of the world. We’ve created systems that allow a few individuals to control resources beyond the wildest dreams of the monarchs of days past. Whether it is about power, control, self-aggrandizement, or simply a special interest to him, there is no accountability at the end of the day, and we are all excellent at justifying and rationalizing our decisions to ourselves. I don’t think there has to be an ulterior motive per se, it’s simply human nature.
by bccdee | 2025-10-28 15:01:03+00:00
> However, DDD has a strong object-oriented core

The original 2003 DDD book is very 2003 in that it is mired in object orientation to the point of frequently referencing object databases¹ as a state-of-the-art storage layer.

However, the underlying ideas are not strongly married to object orientation and they fit quite nicely in a functional paradigm. In fact, ideas like the entity/value object distinction are rather functional in and of themselves, and well-suited to FCIS.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database
by prewett | 2025-10-28 15:01:09+00:00
I guess if all you have is a hammer...

It's certainly easy to blame the rich for everything, but the rich have a tendency to be miserable (the characters in "The Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye" are illustrations of this). Historically, poor places have often been happier, because of a rich web of social connection, while the rich are isolated and unhappy. [1] Money doesn't buy happiness or psychological well-being, it buys comfort.

A more trenchant analysis of the mental health problem is that the US has designed ourselves into isolation, and then the Covid lockdowns killed a lot of what was left. People need to be known and loved, and have people to love and care about, which obviously cannot happen in isolation.

[1] I am NOT saying that poor = happy, and I think the positive observations tended to be in poor countries, not tenements in London.
by MoreQARespect | 2025-10-28 15:01:11+00:00
>Most developers just don't know how to think in terms of formal proofs

Formal proofs are useful on the same class of bug property tests are.

And vice versa.

The issue isnt necessarily that devs cant use them, it's that the problems they have which cause most bugs do not map on to the space of "what formal proofs are good at".
by mothballed | 2025-10-28 15:01:31+00:00
I'm intrigued by your take, and it is quite convincing.

What are the effects you predict would happen if drugs were legalized, therefore eliminating most of the profits of drug traffickers, and simultaneously declaring war on the groups controlling seceded territory?

What's your calculus on the over under of fighting a war against drug-funded vs non-funded drug traffickers? I'm willing to take at face that they are de facto seceded and have already started a war, but I don't see how it can exclude (2) since even if you defeated them there would still be yet the same underlying incentives and the seceding drug traffickers could emerge again.
by wrsh07 | 2025-10-28 15:01:38+00:00
Yes. Some ai skeptical people (eg Tyler Cowen, who does not think AI will have a significant economic impact) think gpt5 is AGI.

It was news when dwarkesh interviewed Karpathy who said per his definition of AGI, he doesn't think it will occur until 2035. Thus, if karpathy is pessimistic, then many people working in AI today think we will have agi by 2032 (and likely sooner, eg end of 2028)
by xpe | 2025-10-28 15:01:43+00:00
I'll start with a direct response, because otherwise I suspect my answer may come across as too ... complex.

> How can I trust a therapist that has a financial incentive to keep me seeing them?

The direct response: I hope the commenter isn't fixated on this framing of the question, because I don't think it is a useful framing. [1] What is a better framing, then? I'm not going to give a simple answer. My answer is more like a process.

I suggest refining one's notion of trust to be "I trust Person A to do {X, Y, Z} because of what I know about them (their incentives, professional training, culture, etc)."

Shift one's focus and instead ask: "What aspects of my therapist are positives and/or lead me to trust their advice? What aspects are negative and/or lead me to not trust their advice?" Put this in writing and put some time into it.

One might also want to journal on "How will I know if therapy is helping? What are my goals?" By focusing on this, I think answers relating to "How much is my therapist helping?" will become easier to figure out.

[1] I think it is not useful because both because it is loaded and because it is overly specific. Instead, focus on figuring out what actions one should take. From here, the various factors can slot in naturally.
by rkomorn | 2025-10-28 15:02:07+00:00
The best example of this is all the "ghost hunter" shows that were (are?) popular.

If you listen to static looking for something to hear, you're gonna find something.

If you see a heat pattern left by someone leaning on a locker and you want to see something, you're gonna see "a face and body!!!" instead of just the fact that the shoulder pressed more than the arm and left a larger circle.
by jmclnx | 2025-10-28 15:02:24+00:00
Lets hope not, if so, here is a theoretical scenario:

A person wants someone dead, so they hack into the system or hires someone to do so. Person is hit and dies. The heirs sue say "Waymo", but since death is "accepted", case tossed out and Insurance will cover it.

We already know, there is no serious punishment to companies that is cracked, this case will be accepted. Now punishment it is a slap on the hand, just a cost of doing business.

In this case, and others, we need these companies to be punished to the point where they are 1 step from bankruptcy and/or maybe the CEO and all their direct reports are jailed for a minimum of 7 years. And they can be sued in civil court.

Without that, it will be mayhem on the roads, just as it is for Personal Information being obtained.
by alterom | 2025-10-28 15:02:45+00:00
>Bit like blaming a airplane building company for NOT building airplanes

FTFY. OpenAI has not built AGI (not yet, it you want to be optimistic).

If you really need an analogy, it's more in the vein of giving SpaceX crap for yapping about building a Dyson Sphere Real Soon Now™.
by ericmay | 2025-10-28 15:02:53+00:00
That, unfortunately, is the reality. There are in the US probably 0 departments of transportation/highways including at the federal level that are focused on reducing car crashes and deaths. The only true focus is expansion of highways to ease congestion.

Why is that?

The staff and engineers at these organizations and all of the contracting companies make a lot of money building additive solutions to existing problems. They can’t build a rail line or a tram line because then they won’t have a job. Sidewalks crumble not because of a lack of funding, but because there is more money to be made widening a highway.
by bluGill | 2025-10-28 15:02:54+00:00
> but that Waymo's at least are already far safer than human drivers

Is that really true? the only data I can find is published by Waymo or others who are obviously not independent of Waymo. Is there any independent data or investigators in this? Until then I need to be cautious. The big question is are they really safer, or are they just safer if you include a few outliers (alcohol) that among humans are significantly worse.

I'm not doubting the claim, and I've always though it is a matter of time before autonomous cars are statistically safer.
by arusahni | 2025-10-28 15:02:57+00:00
There are two additional recent ones mentioned in the article:

> On Oct. 15, the Post heralded the military's push for a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors. "No 'microreactor' currently operates in the United States, but it's a worthy gamble that could provide benefits far beyond its military applications," the Post wrote in its editorial.

> A year ago, Amazon bought a stake in X-energy to develop small nuclear reactors to power its data centers. And through his own private investment fund, Bezos has a stake in a Canadian venture seeking nuclear fusion technology.

and

> Three days after the nuclear power editorial, the Post weighed in on the need for local authorities in Washington, D.C., to speed the approval of the use of self-driving cars in the nation's capital. The editorial was headlined: "Why D.C. is stalling on self-driving cars: Safety is a phony excuse for slamming the brakes on autonomous vehicles."

> Fewer than three weeks before, the Amazon-owned autonomous car company Zoox had announced D.C. was to be its next market.

Edit to respond to your edit: these are the opinion pages, not reporting.
by JoelMcCracken | 2025-10-28 15:04:04+00:00
You can certainly think of them that way if you want. And, you'll be wrong, at least IMO, and in what seems to be the consensus of people who study and work on PLs.

"UI" issues, while not at all unimportant, are surface level. Semantics are fundamental. Get the semantics of your language wrong, and you are stuck. Indeed, this is what happens with most popular languages that aren't well-considered:

- lang author creates some random new lang, throws whatever feels like a good idea to them into the lang

- lang community discover that these features interact in rather surprising ways, ways that keep tripping up newcomers to the language, and would like to change it.

- lang author, having had X more years of experience now, identifies that changing the behavior could break user programs who rely on that behavior (wittingly or un-)

- lang author decides to write a new, backwards-incompatible version, community has 20 years of turmoil before recovering (python3), if it ever does (perl6).
by afavour | 2025-10-28 15:04:22+00:00
The article does not say this was a one-off:

> On at least three occasions in the past two weeks

Bezos announced a relaunch of the Opinion section earlier in the year, I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there has been a policy change. Three times in two weeks is a lot.

> potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours

potentially, yes. Responsible news organizations post correction notices when they make an omission like this, but WaPo did not (despite having a history of doing so, again, a notable change in practice)
by hylaride | 2025-10-28 15:04:27+00:00
Don't worry, it'll be relevant ads, just like google. You're going to love when code output is for proprietary libraries and databases and getting things the way you want will involve annoying levels of "clarification" that'll be harder and harder to use.

I kind of meant this as a joke as I typed this, but by the end almost wanted to quit the tech industry all together.
by throwaway201606 | 2025-10-28 15:04:40+00:00
There are many setups where this is not just not possible. In some cases, doing this is prohibitive because of cost or prohibited by law.

+ for case of cost: lots of very large companies have prod environments that cost big $$$. Business will not double prod cost for a staging environment mirroring prod. Take an example of any large bank you know. The online banking platform will cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to run. Now consider that the bank will have hundreds of different platforms. It is just not economically feasible.

+ for the case of law: in some sectors, by law, only workers with "need to know" can access data. Any dev environment data cannot, by law, be a copy of prod. It has to be test data, even anonymization prod data is not allowed in dev/test because of de-anonymization risk.

Given this, consider a platform / app that is multi-tenant (and therefore data driven ) eg a SaaS app in a legally regulated industry such as banking or health care. Or even something like Shopify or GMail for corporate where the app hosts multiple organizations and the org to be used is picked based on data (user login credentials).

The app in this scenario is driven by data parameterization - the client site and content are data driven e.g. when clientXYZ logs on, the site becomes https://clientXYZ.yourAppName.com and all data, config etc are "clientXYZ" specific. And you have hundreds or thousands of clentsAAA through clientZZZ on this platform.

In such a world, dev & test environments can never be matched with prod. Further, the behaviour of the client specific sites could be different even with the same code because data parameters drive app behaviour.

Long story short, mirroring staging and prod is just not feasible in large corporate tech
by softskunk | 2025-10-28 15:04:52+00:00
What exactly is the problem with having an opinion? People are allowed to have opinions. People working in a field are allowed and even expected to have opinions on that field’s current state and goings-on.

Your opinion, if I had to guess, is that generative “AI” can be good and useful. My opinion is that it’s an insult to humanity that causes considerable harm and should not be used. These are both valid opinions to have, although they disagree with each other.

Don’t fall into the trap of “I’m objectively correct, everyone else just has opinions”.
by Drakim | 2025-10-28 15:05:18+00:00
A big difference is that you can't put a robot in jail. Even though the person driving the car is usually not harmed by hitting somebody on foot, it's still a life-or-death level situation, they might be looking at multiple years in prison, a large portion of their life gone.

The same even stakes are not there with robots killing humans. For one side it's a life-or-death situation, while for the other side it's profit margins and numbers. Companies are usually very happy to increase yearly profit for something as minor as a decimal percentage rise in human deaths spread across society, that's not even controversial.

Heck, not only can you not put a robot in jail, you can't even stop it from driving the next day as if nothing happened because it's duplicate running the exact same software and hardware is all over society.

I still think robot cars is a good thing though, because they will have a lot less accidents than us humans who love to drink and drive, or speed for no good reason. Still, it will raise some big important questions.
by spwa4 | 2025-10-28 15:05:36+00:00
I think you'll find societies are incredibly inconsistent in what they will and will not accept. For instance Europe is currently accepting constant death toll due to drownings of African refugees [1]. Hell, Europe accepted, without much complaint, that North African countries drove refugees into the desert and abandoned them to die, including children [2].

[1] https://ecre.org/mediterranean-rise-in-crossings-on-two-rout...

[2] https://www.dw.com/en/tunisia-thousands-of-migrants-being-du...
by ericmay | 2025-10-28 15:05:40+00:00
Ok so the US military is going to drop a nuclear weapon on Dallas or Buffalo to stop insurgents? Why even bother writing something like that when you know it’s stupid?

Obviously governments have superior firepower and can and have quashed rebellions. But rebellions have been successful as well. Taking away arms from the people makes rebellion in the case of tyranny that much harder.

I don’t think it’s unfair to question whether such rights are worthwhile or not, but I do think it’s unfair to suggest that since the government has helicopters you can’t have a rebellion. They sure didn’t need any tanks or helicopters when the MAGA goons tried to hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.
by Fwirt | 2025-10-28 15:05:41+00:00
I kind of wonder if the designers of the Atmega8 series had this in mind when they designed the parallel interface. I always wondered if there were any modern devices left other than say, EPROM where programming by hand was still possible. The fact that you can do this means you could use an Atmega8 to bootstrap a larger computer that was dependent on a serial interface. Always thought it would be interesting to see someone program a desktop “from nothing” starting with just hardware and no software (other than boot ROMs and firmware) and end up with a usable OS like that UEFI FORTH implementation.
by bluecalm | 2025-10-28 15:05:54+00:00
I agree with everything here. Thank you for interesting references and links as well!. One point I would like to make:

>>On top of that, for poker, you'd need LLM to somehow implement continual resolving/ReBeL (for equilibrium guarantees). To do all of this, you need either i) LLM call the CPU implementation of the resolver or ii) the LLM to execute instructions like a CPU.

Maybe we don't. Maybe there are general patterns that LLM could pick up so it could make good decisions in all branches without resolving anything, just looking at the current state. For example LLM could learn to automatically scale calling/betting ranges depending on the bet size once it sees enough examples of solutions coming from algorithms that use resolving.

I guess what I am getting at is that intuitively there is not that much information in poker solutions in comparison to chess so there are more general patterns LLMs could pick up on.

I remember the discussion about the time heads-up limit holdem was solved and arguments that it's bigger than chess. I think it's clear now that solution to limit holdem is much smaller than solution to chess is going to be (and we haven't even started on compression there that could use internal structure of the game). My intuition is that no-limit might still be smaller than chess.

>>I see. The same applies for Chess however -- you can play mixed strategies there too, with similar property - you can linearly interpolate expected value between losing (-1) and winning (1).

I mean that in chess the same move in seemingly similar situation might be completely wrong or very right and a little detail can turn it from the latter to the former. You need a very "precise" pattern recognition to be able to distinguish between those situations. In poker if you know 100% calling with a top pair is right vs a river pot bet you will not make a huge mistakes if you 100% call vs 80% pot bet for example.

When NN based engines appeared (early versions of Lc0) it was instantly clear they have amazing positional "understanding" but get lost quickly when the position required a precise sequence of moves.
by afavour | 2025-10-28 15:06:00+00:00
Yeah, this was always the tell. If he truly cared about journalism and wanted to use his money to support it he could very easily place WaPo in some sort of trust he has no power over. And yet, despite publicly admitting the conflict of interest, he hasn’t. Only one reason why you do that and it's because you intend to make the most of your control.
by mwigdahl | 2025-10-28 15:06:08+00:00
What are you basing that on? Haiku 4.5 just came out and beats Sonnet 4 at a third the cost.

GPT-5 and GPT-5-codex are significantly cheaper than the o-series full models from OpenAI, but outperform them.

I won't get into whether the improvements we're seeing are marginal or not, but whether or not that's the case, these examples clearly show you can get improved performance with decreasing resource cost as techniques advance.
by doginal | 2025-10-28 15:06:14+00:00
I built ChatGPT Exporter to bypass clipboard overflows on long ChatGPT threads. It exports the entire conversation to clean Markdown with a live preview. Free: .md export, dual view (rendered ↔ raw). Pro: Google Drive sync (OAuth) with folder memory and fast uploads. Privacy: no tracking; all processing local; Drive uses OAuth. Happy to answer edge cases (very long threads, code-block fidelity) and discuss bulk export. Chrome Web Store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chatgpt-exporter/he...
by andai | 2025-10-28 15:06:49+00:00
A friend of mine works in a bank. He said, "Did you know, the optimal amount of fraud is actually not zero? Because first of all, you can't get zero, and second, if you try, you screw up the whole bank."

The optimal amount of fraud is close to zero, but it's not zero. (He didn't say if they knew the actual number, but they probably do.)

I think the same logic applies to a lot of other things as well. You want to get as close to 0 as you can, without breaking everything else.
by skybrian | 2025-10-28 15:07:05+00:00
My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised by that editorial and thought it made a good (or at least arguable) point that it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents.

I’m more neutral on it now. I don’t really know what facilities the White House needs, but think the case should be made on practical grounds. Perhaps some other writer could go into that in more depth? But as editorials go, it didn’t seem like a bad one, and I don’t think adding a disclaimer about a conflict changes that much.

Separately, raising money through corporate “donations” seems like a huge loophole for corruption.