MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by BornToBeRoot | 2025-10-19 01:31:22+00:00
I’m excited to share NETworkManager 2025.10.18.0, an open-source tool for network management and troubleshooting. This release introduces Tags and Filters for profiles, making it easier to organize hosts and networks, plus a collapse/expand all profile groups feature via right-click and improved light theme readability.

What’s NETworkManager?

It’s a .NET/WPF Windows app for network admins, offering:

- Network Analysis: WiFi Analyzer, IP/Port Scanners, Ping Monitor, Traceroute, DNS Lookup, LLDP/CDP Capture.

- Remote Management: Remote Desktop (RDP), PuTTY (SSH, Telnet, Serial), PowerShell (WinRM), TigerVNC, AWS SSM.

- Profile Management: Encrypted profiles for hosts/networks, reusable across features.

- Troubleshooting: Unified interface for diagnosing network issues.

Links:

- Download: https://github.com/BornToBeRoot/NETworkManager/releases/tag/...

- Source: https://github.com/BornToBeRoot/NETworkManager

- Docs: https://borntoberoot.net/NETworkManager/

It’s free, ad-free, and built in my spare time. Star the repo and share it to support development! Feedback, issues, or contributions welcome. What do you think?
by jopsen | 2025-10-19 01:31:55+00:00
HTML with interpolation is not a good idea.

You really should want a template engine that knows if the variable it's injecting goes into a tag as text or into an attribute, etc.

The problem with the webstack is that these things are easily hard, or comes to you by using an ORM, or DSLs in a generic language.

Personal I think that things like JSX or: https://www.gomponents.com/ Aren't that bad, as they are basically modeling HTML.

JSX doesn't have to mean react, you could render server side into plain html.
by gus_massa | 2025-10-19 01:35:02+00:00
Nah, they are using the wrong definitions;

> where work is extracted from entropic resources, such as system-bath correlations

When the "bath" is correlated with the "system", then the "bath" is part of the "system", not an external "bath".

You can do the same trick with a classic system If you have a magical "bath" that has just the right positions and speeds to give the piston a big push at the right moment, you can extract work from the "bath".
by Gigachad | 2025-10-19 01:36:51+00:00
Discovery is probably the main problem social media creates. Almost all of these problems solve themselves when you remove discovery. If someone in your friends group chat is spamming porn you just remove them. There's no need for the platform to intervene here, small groups of people can moderate their own friend groups.

Once you start algorithmically shoving content to people you have to start worrying about spam, trolling, politics, copyright, and all kinds of issues. The best discovery system is friends sharing chat invite links to other friends who are interested.
by jalapenos | 2025-10-19 01:37:17+00:00
I'd say that since today, modern western government spending floats around 50% of the total, and that's widely believed roughly the average tax rate of feudal times (with big variance by place and time), they're about the same proportion wise.

The difference of course being, in our wealthy age, the communal benefits nowadays are similarly greater.

I think certain comparisons regarding social spending now are just cultural self-congratulation.

For instance, yes a politician can't just pocket any takings directly. Instead, it has to be indirect - post-office speaking fees, consulting, etc, that can easily render them far richer than any manor lord of old.

Also in such undeveloped, poor, and violent times, the value of law, military power, as well as what communal spending did happen - a granary, a road, a temple - would have similar value parity to them then as to us for what we get in the modern era.
by gwern | 2025-10-19 01:37:54+00:00
My point is more that Schmidhuber is saying that the gates or the initialization are the innovation solely because they produce well-behaved gradients, which is why Hochreiter's 1991 thing is where he starts and nothing before that counts. But it's not clear to me why we should define it like that when you can solve the gradient misbehavior other ways, which is why https://gwern.net/doc/ai/nn/fully-connected/1988-lang.pdf#pa... works and doesn't diverge: if I'm understanding them right, they did warmup, so the gradients don't explode or vanish. So why doesn't that count? They have shortcut layers and a solution to exploding/vanishing gradients and it works to solve their problem. Is it literally 'well, you didn't use a gate neuron or fancy initialization to train your shortcuts stably, therefore it doesn't count'? Such an argument seems carefully tailored to exclude all prior work...
by 0_____0 | 2025-10-19 01:38:49+00:00
I reckon you could skip spraying it if you were going to eat it anyway.

Did you know that wheat in the US is sprayed with glyphosate right before harvest? It causes all the wheat to dry evenly, avoiding the need to cut down the wheat and windrow it for drying. This means extra weeks in the growing season to squeeze another crop in.
by sarchertech | 2025-10-19 01:40:19+00:00
> The first car wasn’t by definition engineered by an automotive engineer?

If that’s the definition we’re going with, then anyone who does research that touches on neuroscience is a neuroscientist.

>trivial

Calling it trivial is hand-waving. Tegmark’s fast-decoherence bounds hinge on specific parameter choices; change the dielectric, charge model, spacing, or geometry and the timescales move into a regime that might matter. Temperature equality doesn’t erase structure. Ordered environments and collective modes can suppress decoherence without “insulating the brain.” Microtubules are a testable hypothesis, not a creed.

If you think they fail, point to a concrete model that rules out coherence under corrected parameters or shows a clash with measured neural dynamics and energy budgets. “Warm water, case closed” is an assertion, not that model.
by bitwize | 2025-10-19 01:40:48+00:00
Parse, don't validate. Alexis King's article by that title should be fundamental reading for all distributed application developers. Go directly from on-the-wire representation to data structure with a well-defined type, and error if you can't. Use the type system to describe all representable objects. While this results in runtime errors on parse failure on the receiver's side, an advantage is that if the sender uses those same type definitions, you can guarantee that it will always send valid data.

Schemas should be derived from the type of the representation used in the application code, or vice-versa. If there are multiple schemas in use, there should be multiple corresponding types, perhaps with ways to interconvert between them. Schema changes will be less frequent, and easier to manage, with a bit of upfront systems analysis and design, including use of a data dictionary or complete IRM repository.

The more time you invest in thinking and planning what you want to build ahead of time, the fewer bugs and changes you'll have to worry about at runtime. The payoff is almost always more than worth the investment; "we don't have time to do things the right way" implies you have plenty of time to do things the wrong way.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-10-19 01:43:31+00:00
>benchmark for accomplishment?

I think you've hit the nail on the head, it's state-of-the-art.

Whatever the state-of-the-art at the time is.

>modern fighter jet can fly literal circles around one that was designed with a slide rule.

Yes, but not so easy to outperform the ones designed by those who had adequate talent using a slide rule, once those guys got a hold of mainframes.

Not all of those people are completely gone yet, mostly retired if still living, but they've been with us as senior engineers ever since, just dwindling numers.

But no new crops of that type of average engineer since the 1970's.

It might be beginning to show, things like B52's seem to have been impossible to replace ever since.

What are the odds of a dramatically different B52 replacement, designed today, lasting 60 years into the future and still operating routinely? If any could be made airborne by then anyway.
by HansHamster | 2025-10-19 01:44:46+00:00
This brings back memories of my old HP laptop with an Athlon 64 and a Radeon X200M. The crappy FGLRX driver only supported overlays (afair) and so when running something like Compiz it would transform the window with the green background but the video itself would stay in place and it would just stick parts of the video on top where it happened to overlap. I still remember being excited when the open source drivers finally gained support for r300 and could do proper textured video...
by locopati | 2025-10-19 01:45:39+00:00
Depriving? They are human beings making choices. Who am I to judge them?

And yes, ICE is apprehending green card holders, people with valid work visas, citizens even (see the raid on the Chicago apartment building).

Your willingness to believe the government is going to use this power responsibly is naive at best.

So, as I customarily offer these days... may the actions you are so supportive of be visited on you and yours. Please tell me how much you like it then.
by TheTaytay | 2025-10-19 01:45:52+00:00
This is bizarre to me on many levels.

1) Moore’s law is “dead”, but the AI boom is being built on GPUs that get faster, smaller, and cheaper every year? Their biggest problem is that they can’t be manufactured fast enough, and that humanity doesn’t produce enough electricity to meet demand.

2) Oil and its byproducts are in extremely high demand. He wants it to be a dying industry, and I can see why, but it sure looks to me that oil and its derivatives (which don’t look anything like crude or fuel) are in extremely high demand, with no replacement in sight. If you know someone in the oil industry, they might have concerns, but “people don’t seem to want to pay us shocking amounts of money to pump this stuff out of the ground every day because of those darn clean energy sources, so I guess we will stop drilling” isn’t one of them.

3) So much faith in solar panels…and the mention of ship power as a metric, but no mention of the nuclear power plants that actually power modern (or heck, even aging) fleets for shockingly long periods of time. We aren’t decommissioning those power plants to plate the ships in PVs. When we need consistent, orders of magnitude more power, we use nuclear. Data centers are incentivized to find the best way to power these mega-centers they are planning, and they don’t seem very excited about the ability to install a lot of solar panels on the roof. They are however trying to build or restart their own nuclear power plants…

Once you have access to enough energy, as in orders of magnitude more energy, the economics and physics change. This isn’t just about powering cars and houses. If you need hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon chains in a particular form to make portable, energy dense fuels, lubricants, and plastics, the raw materials are in seawater and the air (h2o and co2). We are “just” missing the affordable energy input to make those chemical reactions worth it when comparing it to the ease of taking this pre-formed stuff literally out of the ground. Solar is neat, and will hopefully replace certain types of energy needs on a local level, but it’s not the end of oil or society’s unlock for the next big thing.

https://www.seadragon.energy/seawater-to-jet-fuel

https://xkcd.com/1162/
by alganet | 2025-10-19 01:46:02+00:00
You can't stop astrology. Humanity will never free itself from it. Someone you know probably uses it. Maybe that person will make decisions based on horoscope, and that in turn will affect your decisions.

I think AI is going to be very similar. And maybe it even develops a less virulent benign strain (like astronomy), but the bad one will hang around forever.
by nsagent | 2025-10-19 01:46:13+00:00
You're right that there is no purely mathematical argument; it's almost non-sensical to claim such.

Instead you can simply make the rather reasonable observation that LLMs are a product of their training distribution, which only contains partial coverage of all possible observable states of the world. Some highly regular observable states are thus likely missing, but an embodied agent (like a human) would be able to correctly reason about these states due to other sensory modes that observe these states. It's very clear that the number of possible states far exceeds any text describing those states (the number of states transcribed to text is vanishingly small in comparison, but they are locally coherent and quite regular when observed through other sensory modes like vision). That's the closest you can make to a mathematical argument.

As a result one common failure case for an LLM might involve describing a specific physical environment and associated set of actions that are in an area of low (or no) probability mass in the training data and asking the LLM to reason about it. Here's an example where I asked ChatGPT the following:

imagine i walked into a room through a doorway, then turned around and walked right back out of the room. from the perspective of a person in the room facing the door, which side would my right arm be? please explain.

It responded by incorrectly stating the following:

Let’s break this down step by step. 1. *You walk into the room through the doorway*: * As you're entering, the person in the room is facing the door. So, you're entering from the **outside**. * Your **right arm** will be on the **right side** of your body, just as it is normally when you're standing. 2. *You turn around and walk right back out*: * When you turn around to walk out, you’ll be facing **away** from the room, looking back toward the doorway. * Since you're walking **back out**, the person inside the room is still facing the door, while you are walking away from them, so your **right arm** is still on the right side of your body. So, from the perspective of the person in the room, as you’re exiting, your *right arm* will still be on their *left side*. That’s because they’re facing the door, and your right side is to their left when you’re turning around and leaving. To visualize: * Imagine a door in front of them. * You walk through and turn around, so you're now facing away from them. * Your right arm is on your right side, but to them, it's on their left side since you’re now moving in the opposite direction.
by sexyman48 | 2025-10-19 01:47:35+00:00
You say a lot of dumb ____ (but to be fair, I said a lot more when I was your age), but your disdain for transient is on the money. I'm a satisfied magit user, but transient is a blatant UX error and a confounded implementation. Some guy spends his 20% time hawking an entire suite around transient. No one cares.
by SoftTalker | 2025-10-19 01:51:18+00:00
It was mostly a tangential thought.

People could of course see a photo of a happy black person among 1000 photos of unhappy black people and say that person looks happy, and realize the LLM is wrong, because people's brains are pre-wired to perceive emotions from facial expressions. LLMs will pick up on any correlation in the training data and use that to make associations.

But in general, excepting ridiculous examples like that, if an LLM says something that a person agrees with, I think people will be inclined to (A) believe it and (B) not see any bias.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-10-19 01:52:31+00:00
I guess I'm not sure what the point of the dichotomy is. Suppose you're developing a system to identify how fast a vehicle is moving, and you discover that it systematically overestimates the velocity of anything painted red. Regardless of whether you call that problem "AI bias" or "societal bias" or some other phrase that doesn't include the word "bias", isn't it something you want to fix?
by vlovich123 | 2025-10-19 01:53:33+00:00
DSLs serve an important purpose but the entire thread is about general purpose Turing complete languages. DSLs fail very quickly as soon as you need to leave the domain which can easily result in needing many many DSLs for a given project which has other forms of complexity and sources of bugs that easily arise from such an approach (and that’s assuming you can just cobble together DSLs), not the least of which that proprietary DSLs and languages quickly become difficult to hire for and maintain long term. And DSLs more specifically suffer from the domains they can solve. WUFFs is a notable exception that proves the rule just because format parsing is very well studied and has very sharp edges on the things you need to support / accomplish.
by mapontosevenths | 2025-10-19 01:57:04+00:00
> You're not acknowledging that they don't want to be there.

I told you what I meant. You're trying to tell me that it's not what I meant. As the the guy who said it i can tell you that you are wrong about my intent.

> You're calling them "stupid" without using the word.

I'm willing to own that it's Blunt language that might hurt feelings if you really want it to, but that wasn't the intent. I refuse to walk on eggshells because someone somewhere in the world might find some meaning i never intended if they really look for it.

As a human being sometimes I can't accurately communicate my full intent to everyone. However, as a normal human being you also have he obligation to try to see the best version of others peoples words before assuming the worst version.

Maybe we both failed a little here.
by rclkrtrzckr | 2025-10-19 01:57:49+00:00
I had mine measured a few years ago. I had given some headphones in a quiet room, with a low frequency sinus wave on it. Whenever I said I could hear the tone clearly, they increased the frequency. At one point, the tone blends with my tinnitus tone, that's the whole magic. They then measure the current volume in dB, just by increasing/decreasing the tone's volume.

I'm on 12kHz, vacuum cleaner level.
by diego_sandoval | 2025-10-19 01:57:51+00:00
In my case, this mindset + SSRIs have helped me tremendously.

I didn't want to depend on a drug, but after getting into a really bad, quasi-suicidal mental state, I went to the psychiatrist. I've been on escitalopram for 4 months and it has really helped reduce the distress associated with tinnitus in like 80%. Making an effort to not think about it has also helped.

I hope to stop taking the drug at some point and see if the mental improvement persists.
by zem | 2025-10-19 01:58:22+00:00
you can view it as serving the same role as universal function call syntax, the latter being a feature in some other languages that rewrites `a.f(x)` to `f(a, x)` if `a` doesn't have a method `f`. in ruby you can just add the method to `a`'s class directly, but the idea is the same - you're adding some user defined function that is closely related to the type of `a`, and you're using method call syntax because that reads nicely.
by gus_massa | 2025-10-19 01:59:23+00:00
This has been posted a few times

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Mirror+life

> Saving grace and we need more scientists like her;

No, they are alarmist. The immune system can produce antibodies with arbitrary shapes that can trap the mirrored versions too.

Doing something like that is super ultra mega expensive.

Also, the mirrored version of bacteria can not eat the normal version of proteins and sugars, only fat because a mirrored fat is identical to a normal one, so mirrored life will be in a bad position.

Unless someone designs the mirrored enzymes that is beyond our current knowledge. Or someone cherrypick some of the enzymes that normal bacterias use to eat the minor amount of the mirrored natural molecules, but this means that normal bacterias will eat the mirrored ones.

And mirrored virus are useless, because they need normal DNA/RNA to reuse our DNA/RNA machinery.
by gsf_emergency_4 | 2025-10-19 02:01:46+00:00
In order to explain his impact to people, someone could find a friendlier name for "gauge"?

Some say that list of stylists would not be meaningful without von Neumann (although Dyson might say that frogs have no style*)

https://youtu.be/OmaSAG4J6nw?t=24m19s

Please see next slide for a minimal example of a "real(!) gauge field", even if you don't like philosophy of physics.

*https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17457678
by slowmovintarget | 2025-10-19 02:02:24+00:00
You're right. Democrats don't talk about masculinity, they talk about erasure of gender instead.

>> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.”

-- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/democra...

If you can't even speak about the differences between men and women, let alone admit that men and women may face different issues because of those differences, then you'll push whoever you're not prioritizing away. Surely you'll admit that the Democrats prioritize women's issues (e.g. reproductive rights). Many Democrats actively deride men's concerns over economic anxiety, mental health, education gaps, and job losses in male-dominated sectors.

When men didn't vote for Kamala, they were called sexist, explicitly and frequently by both Democrat politicians and the media. Young men who express concern over the future prospects given college and university degree programs graduating more women than men, especially in the last decade, earn the "toxic" label.

There's far more going on with how boys are treated in school, with how media messaging across the board is slanted against masculinity, and how funding for all these efforts traces back to NGOs the Democrats empowered...

So yes, Democrats don't talk about masculinity, on purpose.
by kimixa | 2025-10-19 02:02:26+00:00
That's just means you're effectively acting as a moderator yourself, only with a whitelist. It's just your own direct curation of sources.

And how did you discover those feeds in the first place? Or find new ones?

I know people have tried to have a relatively closed mesh-of-trust, but you still need people to moderate new applicants, otherwise you'll never get any new idea of fresh discussion. And if it keeps growing, scale means that group will slowly gather bad actors. Maybe directly by putting up whatever front they need to get into the mesh or existing in-mesh accounts. Maybe existing accounts get hacked. Maybe previously-'good' account-owning people have changed, be it in opinion or situation, to take advantage of their in-mesh position. It feels like a speedrun of the internet itself growing.
by adastra22 | 2025-10-19 02:04:46+00:00
This is simply not true. BTW I was a bitcoin core developer for many years, and am one of the few people who have actually changed bitcoin’s consensus rules.

If a quorum of miners decide to run hard fork changes, then they just disappear from the network once the changes trigger. No miner can force a user to change their consensus rules.

A soft fork is different. But increasing the bitcoin issuance can never be a soft fork.
by jychang | 2025-10-19 02:06:43+00:00
> have no problems with mechanics.

What? Shaq shot free throws at 85% in practice. Players with good mechanics like Curry wouldn't be caught dead shooting 85% during the season, he's always 90%+ at free throws. Curry would probably shoot free throws at 99.9% in practice; there's plenty of stories of him swishing 100 3-pointers in a row in practice.

I'm not saying Shaq would shoot free throws as good as "90% in game and 99.9% in practice" if he threw free throws underhanded, but clearly Shaq had mechanics issues.