MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by quintu5 | 2025-10-23 21:54:26+00:00
There’s a pattern to emoji use in docs, especially when combined with one or more other common LLM-generated documentation patterns, that makes it plainly obvious that you’re about to read slop.

Even when I create the first draft of a project’s README with an LLM, part of the final pass is removing those slop-associated patterns to clarify to the reader that they’re not reading unfiltered LLM output.
by tptacek | 2025-10-23 21:54:55+00:00
He's literally writing about Three Mile Island. He doesn't have anything to tell you about what concurrency primitives to use for your distributed DNS management system.

But: given finite resources, should you respond to this incident by auditing your DNS management systems (or all your systems) for race conditions? Or should you instead figure out how to make the Droplet Manager survive (in some degraded state) a partition from DynamoDB without entering congestive collapse? Is the right response an identification of the "most faulty components" and a project plan to improve them? Or is it closing the human expertise/process gap that prevented them from throttling DWFM for 4.5 hours?

Cook isn't telling you how to solve problems; he's asking you to change how you think about problems, so you don't rathole in obvious local extrema instead of being guided by the bigger picture.
by MisterTea | 2025-10-23 21:55:00+00:00
Happened to a friend of mine by an ex GF who said he was on psych meds (true though he is nonviolent with no history) and that he was threatening to kill his parents. NYPD SWAT no-knock kicked the door down to his apartment which terrorized his elderly parents as they pointed guns at their son (in his words, "machine guns".) BUT because he has psych issues and on meds he was forced into a cop car in front of the whole neighborhood to get a psych evaluation. He only received an apology from the cops who said they have no choice but to follow procedure.

edit should add sorry to hear that.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-23 21:55:05+00:00
> refuse to vote for a party that was complicit with the threats against me and my friends. The other party is pretty ass too, despite being closer to what I want politically

Sure. There are a lot of other people like you. Political operatives work hard to find folks like you, because groups who won’t vote are groups you can transfer resources from. (Same, oddly enough, for folks who will vote for you regardless of what you do. You can take advantage of that loyalty to buy votes on the margin.)

It’s dumb. And it directly undermines the causes you and others like and around you support, because again, your devoted non-participation creates political capital on the other side of any issue you would have voted on. But it’s common and a real part of any electoral—possibly political—system, and no elected who wins and keeps office can afford to ignore the free resources predictable non-voters offer up.
by GolfPopper | 2025-10-23 21:55:15+00:00
The problem with that is the status quo wasn't that good.

To compare the two parties with a house on fire, absolutely the sadistic pyromaniac arsonist burning down the neighborhood one house at a time is a bad guy and needs to be stopped. But when person trying to rally everyone to go after him is the abusive slumlord, it doesn't always resonate as effectively as it might.

A healthy society wouldn't tolerate either one. I wonder if the Democrats seeming inability to stop right-wing abuses has been partially motivated by the knowledge that successfully stomping out that sort of corruption would curtail their own abuses, too.
by tastyfreeze | 2025-10-23 21:55:20+00:00
Not OP but I reluctantly voted for Trump because of the direction he proclaimed he wanted the country to go. I could not tolerate the direction the democrats were wanting to go as it seemed an inevitable path to civil war.

But I knew Trump was shady and didn't like that he partied with Epstein in the 90s. A country takes a long time to change directions. I saw a chance for a smaller less restricting federal government. It was a gamble I was willing to take to at least get the ship turning around.
by derefr | 2025-10-23 21:55:40+00:00
> "Not now" says "I won't take no for an answer".

They know. When a designer makes one of those prompts with only a "not now", they tend to mean a very specific thing, that is at the same time a subtle message to the user and a passive-aggressive stab at the company they work for.

What they mean: "the code path that handles what happens when you say 'no' here has been deprecated, because support for this feature was not part of the planning of a recent major-version rewrite of this app's core logic. When that rewrite is complete/passes through this part of the code, the option to say no will go away, because the code for that decision to call will be gone. So, in a literal sense, we think it's helpful to keep bugging you to switch, so that you can get used to the change in your own time before we're forced to spring it on you. But in a connotational sense, we also think it's helpful to keep bugging you to switch, as a way of protesting the dropping of this feature, because every time users see this kind of prompt, they make noise about it — and maybe this time that'll be enough to get management's attention and get the feature included in the rewrite. Make your angry comments now, before it's too late!"
by prewett | 2025-10-23 21:56:05+00:00
Lack of technical leadership?! I guess I must be missing something, because from the outside, they've got best CPU, the best battery life, the best VR system, the best privacy, and they seem to have gotten Intel's WiFi chips to work (which Intel couldn't). Probably the watch has some top-notch features, but I am not at all familiar with it. They also have a bunch of features that are unmatched by competitors due to their vertical integration (e.g. handoff, iOS apps on macOS, etc.). Maybe leadership are just a bunch of putzes who are only being saved by great engineers, but it seems unlikely.
by int_19h | 2025-10-23 21:56:27+00:00
Let's be clear about one thing, though. LLMs are simply tools, which can be used for good or for bad. It's specific people who do and promote the latter - top management of tech companies, for example. It's those people who are creating the negatives in my life and who tank quality for the sake of "productivity". Point the finger and say it out loud. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the tech.
by a-dub | 2025-10-23 21:56:37+00:00
i recently worked with a mac and was pretty unimpressed with all the visual clutter in the upper left corner of the screen. it was just kinda cluttered up with a junkyard of wasted space and needless controls. it didn't feel good, magical or delightful. just kind of like jumbled hodgepodge of dated nonsense.

oddly, kde plasma is more pleasing and consistent.
by righthand | 2025-10-23 21:56:47+00:00
Debatable since the nub is still around on all their devices. My M3 work laptop definitely feels like a playskool toy.

You can’t get more brain dead that taking away important screen real estate then making the argument that you get more real estate because it’s now all tucked into a corner.

God forbid there be a black strip on the sides of the screen. How did we ever live?!??
by LinXitoW | 2025-10-23 21:57:13+00:00
Well yes, but you're completely misunderstanding how the trolley problem applies to voting, esp. in the USA. You're pretending that "Not Voting" and "Voting" are the switch options, but that's simply not true.

There are just two possible outcomes: Dems or Reps getting power. That's the switch options you have. "Not Voting" simply means letting the trolley take the Rep route and being JUST AS CULPABLE for the results as every single republican voter.

Your fantasy of "not voting" being an actual moral option is like arguing "I disagree with the concept of a trolley, so I'm just going to turn away from the switch". You're morally exactly as culpable, because you made a choice that is morally the equivalent of "not switching tracks".
by dragonwriter | 2025-10-23 21:57:40+00:00
> I'm not sure why Presidents were given the ability to pardon.

Because of the impossibility of law written in advance perfectly covering all cases and to provide a mechanism for correction of overpunishment that cannot be effectively anticipated in crafting general law. (That's more the reason why the traditional power of chief executives seen in state governments and the British government they were all more or less modeled on was retained when a federal executive was created; the US Constitution was very much not create ex nihilo in a historical vaccuum.)

> Besides corruption, bias, or self-interest, nothing else can come out of it.

Every viewpoint is "bias" relative to every other viewpoint, so that piece is a nullity, but it is certain;y not the case that corruption and self-interest are the only impacts or motivations for applying the pardon power.

Which isn't to say that there aren't arguments for putting more guardrails around the application of the power by the executive (or perhaps just radically changing the nature of the federal executive, to improve the application of its powers generally and not just the pardon power).
by alganet | 2025-10-23 21:57:43+00:00
I think you're missing something here.

I can invest lots of time in Linux, for example. I don't know how to write a driver for it, but I know I could learn how to do it. If there's a bug in a driver, there's nothing stopping me except my own will to learn. I can also do it in a potato, or my phone.

I can experiment with free tier LLMs, but that's as far as I will go. It's not just about me, that is as far as 99% of the developers will go.

So, it's not uninteresting because it's boring or something. It's uninteresting because it puts a price on learning. That horizon of "if there's a bug in it, I can fix it" is severely limited. That's a price most free software developers are not considering worthy. There's a lot of us.
by _jsmh | 2025-10-23 21:59:14+00:00
I want to understand what you said.

You assumed the leader is corrupt, possibly assumed the leader has bad intentions, and that the world can't possibly be more complex than these assumptions. Assumed the leader made this choice instead of a team behind him.

Then presented a generality. Possibly assumed he doesn't know more than you and "everyone who won't say anything".

Called an entire administration a circus. Another generality.

Suggested bribery without evidence.

How does one respond constructively to a comment like this?
by ant6n | 2025-10-23 21:59:16+00:00
Apple stuff is full of bugs now. The times of "it just works" are a very distant memory. The OS crashes more often then Windows 10 did, with the operating system becoming basically completely unresponsive. Apple also now has eternal bugs that have been around for years (like ios hot spot disabling quickly when tethering non-Apple devices). Together with a bunch of annoying decisions for how the OS works, which can not be configured, it feels a lot like windows -- eternally broken, fighting with the users, having to work around bugs.

Kind of bizarre that they are destroyed their reputation for software perfection.
by ModernMech | 2025-10-23 21:59:35+00:00
> IMO a country's leader pardoning his own family members is about as banana republic as it gets.

That is until you see what's currently happening, the President personally directing the DOJ to arrest his political enemies, of which Biden and his family are considered to be primary antagonists (remember they labelled them the "Biden crime family" and chanted "lock them up"). That is the most banana republic as it gets, so how is preemptively defending against that behavior out of bounds?
by markus_zhang | 2025-10-23 21:59:45+00:00
> But, man, Apple hardware still rocks. Can't deny that.

This makes me extra sad. The HW is very good and very expensive, but the SW is mediocre. I bought an iPhone 16 a few months ago and I swear that is the first and last iPhone I'd purchase. I'd happy sell it at half of the price if someone local wants it.

Edit: Since people asked for points, here is a list of things that I believe iOS does not do well:

- In Android Chrome, I can set YouTube website to desktop mode, and loop the video. I can also turn off the screen without breaking the play. I can't do this in Safari however I tried.

- In Safari, I need to long-press a button to bring up the list of closed tabs. How can anyone figure it out without asking around online?

- In Stock app, a few News pieces are automatically brought up and occupy the lower half of the screen when it starts up. This is very annoying as I don't need it and cannot turn it off.

- (This is really the level of ridiculous) In Clock, I fucking cannot set an one time alarm for a future date (Repeat = Never means just today), so I had to stupidly set up weekly alerts and change it whenever I need a new one-time. I hope I'm too stupid to find the magic option.

- Again, in Clock, if I want to setup alarm for sleep, I have to turn on...sleep. This is OK-ish as I can just setup a weekly alarm and click every weekday.

So far, I think Mail and Maps are user friendly. Maps actually show more stuffs than Google Map, which is especially useful for pedestrians. Weather is also good and I have little complain about it.
by jasonjmcghee | 2025-10-23 21:59:46+00:00
Interesting. Claude places breakpoints. Afaik - no way to do mid message.

I believe (but not positive) there are 4 breakpoints.

1. End of tool definitions

2. End of system prompt

3. End of messages thread

4. (Least sure) 50% of the way through messages thread?

This is how I've seen it done in open source things / seems optimal based on constraints of anthropic API (max 4 breakpoints)
by CuriouslyC | 2025-10-23 21:59:55+00:00
Memory is ok when it's explicitly created/retrieved as part of a tool, and even better if the tool is connected to your knowledge bases rather than just being silod. Best of all is to create a knowledge agent that can synthesize relevant instructions from memory and knowledge. Then take a team of those and use them on a partitioned dataset, with a consolidation protocol, and you have every deep research tool on the market.
by hamdingers | 2025-10-23 21:59:57+00:00
We don't even try. In the US you demonstrate that you know the rules at one point in time and that's it, as long as you never get a DUI you're good.

For instance, the 2003 California Driver's Handbook[1] first introduced the concept of "bike lanes" to driver education, but contains the advice "You may park in the bike lane unless signs say “NO PARKING.”" which is now illegal. Anyone who took their test in the early 2000s is likely unaware that changed.

It also lacks any instruction whatsoever on common modern roadway features like roundabouts or shark teeth yield lines, but we still consider drivers who only ever studied this book over 20 years ago to be qualified on modern roads.

1. https://dn720706.ca.archive.org/0/items/B-001-001-944/B-001-...
by LinXitoW | 2025-10-23 21:59:58+00:00
Yes, you are, to the extent that "the other option" would have been better.

This seems incredibly obvious. If my options are "don't bomb children" and "bomb children", there's an obvious choice and obvious culpability. If my options are "bomb children" and "bomb way the fuck more children" the choice is also obvious.

You do not get to pretend a moral dilemna doesn't exist just because you're not a fan of the available choices. You are still culpable.
by MisterTea | 2025-10-23 22:00:16+00:00
Its likely procedure that they have to follow (see my other post in this thread.)

I hate to say this but I get it. Imagine a scenario happens where they decide "sounds phony. stand down." only for it to be real and people are hurt/killed because the "cops ignored our pleas for help and did nothing." which would be a horrible mistake they could be liable for, never mind the media circus and PR damage. So they treat all scenarios as real and figure it out after they knock/kick in the door.
by jkaplowitz | 2025-10-23 22:00:18+00:00
They didn't say that these are actually for internal use only. They said that they are generated either from maintainers applying labels (as a manual human decision) or from internal PR branches, but they could easily be publicly facing code reviews of internally developed versions, or manually internally approved deployments of externally developed but internally reviewed code.

None of these are the kind of automatic user-generated content that the warning is attempting to detect, I think. And requiring basic auth for everything is quite awkward, especially if the deployment includes API server functionality with bearer token auth combined with unauthenticated endpoints for things like built-in documentation.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-10-23 22:00:36+00:00
> Of course, once it is done by a president representing the party you (generic you) feel affiliated with, the double standards inevitably kick in.

Less that, more we're all aware of what Trump campaigned on and what he promised to do to Biden's entire family. And we're disheartened that there's cultists (not you) trying to convince us that we should let our families suffer if dear leader demands it.

I don't know these people, I don't have a strong feeling if any of them go to jail for something they did, because I'm not in a personality cult. But I care a lot more if people are going to jail just because a more corrupt person got the keys to everything. Turns out, those fears were valid, and I'm increasingly alarmed that there's still so much vitriol towards Biden pardoning a checks notes gun charge, than there is for the blatantly corrupt shit we see every day.
by daxfohl | 2025-10-23 22:00:52+00:00
I'd guess it works like any form of learning a subject. The better you have internalized the fundamentals, the better you can perform at higher level tasks.

Though to that end, I wonder if the model "knows" that it "understands" the fundamentals better once it's been trained like this, or if when it has to do a large multiplication as part of a larger reasoning task, does it still break it down step by step.
by tavavex | 2025-10-23 22:01:17+00:00
I've barely ever tried them, but I've never liked the shaping of any that I have held, and I don't think that the touchpad addition justified the discomfort that it causes in all other use cases. That being said, the whole "Apple added the charging port on the bottom to be evil and prevent you from using the mouse" thing had become such an entrenched internet fable over the last decade that it's impossible for me to come by it and not comment on it. I'll clarify that no one but the designers themselves knows the original intention, but since it's the exact same design as the AA model, just with internal changes, it seems like an open-and-shut case.
by Modified3019 | 2025-10-23 22:01:28+00:00
Anyone who’s had the misfortune of trying to use the iPhone “Files” program to do anything at all, or seen all the little curser placement glitches in Notes or Safari (especially when resizing), or had to look up the arbitrary and ever changing path to a system setting, or started typing to be greeted by a loud popping from glitched out audio feedback, knows that legend was always just a myth.

These are all things which have been broken for years.
by tastyfreeze | 2025-10-23 22:02:01+00:00
Just stop with that BS. I guarantee that "white nationalism" was the farthest thing from the majority of Trump voters mind. If you come out of the gate saying all Trump supporters are racist most people are just going to roll their eyes at you at walk away. You have already told them you dont like them and that you will most likely not even entertain their reasons as acceptable.
by whattheheckheck | 2025-10-23 22:02:09+00:00
Do you have a complete list because thats literally what trump is doing. In no way shape or form is any past president comparable to the depravity and recklessness of trump its not even close. If you say its close you are so misinformed or ignorant or willfully evil. Seriously crypto scams, open bribery from kushner and the saudis, the Qatar jet, the gold card visas for the cartel family... the list of insane actions goes on and on and its so depressing to see anyone fall for it or not be seething in rage because this country will not make it if this family and the people driving project 2025 are not brought to justice
by username223 | 2025-10-23 22:02:10+00:00
Not enough Rust.

The thought of rewriting anything as intricate, foundational, and battle-tested as GNU coreutils from scratch scares me. Maybe I'd try it with a mature automatic C-to-Rust translator, but I would still expect years of incompatibilities and reintroduced bugs.

See also the "cascade of attention-deficit teenagers" development model.
by emp17344 | 2025-10-23 22:02:20+00:00
This exact statement could be said about literally any corporation or organization. And yet, corporations still lie and mislead, because deception helps you make money and acquire funding.

In OpenAI’s case, this isn’t exactly the first time they’ve been caught doing something ethically misguided:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/19/ai-benchmarking-organizati...
by underlipton | 2025-10-23 22:02:23+00:00
The article misrepresents the data, and you're misrepresenting both MIT's policies and the degree to which they reflect on college admissions (even those of top schools) in general.

You're suggesting that the drop reveals a quota, but it really only shows a slight drop from the norm for black students from the period pre-Pandemic (from ~8% to 5%) and a slightly larger drop for Hispanic/Latino students (from ~17% to 11%). Most of the change across the larger timescale has been fewer white students and more Asian students.

Your "abuse" was a handful of years of slightly increased consideration of qualified black applicants post-George Floyd protests, after decades of racial considerations boosting black enrollment by maybe 2% or 3% compared to the most current incoming class's proportion. This boost is slightly higher for Hispanic/Latino applicants, but still not much to consider (insofar as it's roughly equal to the boost in proportion of Asian students).

We'll not talk about the fact that affirmative action is still alive and well in the admissions process, as gender is still a valid consideration.

This is specifically at MIT, which chooses its class from a pool of qualified applicants (which means that, even with the demographic changes, everyone who was there was someone who deserved to be there), without recognition of sports, legacy, and international student interests. This is decidedly not the case elsewhere, where racial consideration had little effect on class composition when compared to the aforementioned.

In short: your grievance is not serious. It's shallow and formed from misconceptions. If you cared about abuse in college admissions, you would accept that legacy and moneyed interests are more of a drag than racial consideration as a remedy to decades of discrimination. The protections were not only valid, but not even given serious consideration until after our most recent reckoning with America's structural racism, and just as quickly torn up at the first opportunity.

https://ir.mit.edu/projects/demographic-dashboard/

https://web.archive.org/web/20240829012444/https://mitadmiss...

https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/profile/

https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/diversity-or-merit/