MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by topspin | 2025-10-14 04:04:40+00:00
> Containers and namespaces are not about security

True. Yet containers, or more precisely the immutable images endemic to container systems, directly address the hardest part of application security: the supply chain. Between the low effort and risk entailed when revising images to address endlessly emerging vulnerabilities, and enabling systematized auditing of immutable images, container images provide invaluable tools for security processes.

I know about Nix and other such approaches. I also know these are more fragile than the deeply self-contained nature of containers and their images. That's why containers and their image paradigm have won, despite all the well-meaning and admirable alternatives.

> A bypassable security mechanism is worse than useless

Also true. Yet this is orthogonal to the issues of supply chain management. If tomorrow, all the problems of escapable containers were somehow solved, whether by virtual machines on flawless hypervisors, or formally verified microkernels, or any other conceivable isolation mechanism, one would still need some means to manage the "content" of disparate applications, and container systems and the image paradigm would still be applicable.
by tkgally | 2025-10-14 04:05:50+00:00
Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting.

I notice that that particular tokenization deviates from the morphemic divisions in several cases, including ‘dec-entral-ization’, ‘食べ-させ-られた-くな-かった’, and ‘面白-くな-さ-そうだ.’ ‘dec’ and ‘entral’ are not morphemes, nor is ‘くな.’
by weavejester | 2025-10-14 04:07:22+00:00
> And you're not qualified to be the arbiter of the subjective devices we call societal justice and morality all by yourself.

Does this mean that you have no internal conscience? You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral?

You've indicated you believe that same-sex marriage is moral, but before that became a majority opinion, did you believe the opposite?

>> I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority.

> Then you agree with all the most reviled villains in history who also knew better what is moral for everyone else.

You mean like Jesus of Nazareth or Buddha?

The belief that morality isn't defined by the majority is an extremely common viewpoint. Probably the most common viewpoint, since its one shared by every major religion.

> Let's play this out. You break the law. People, known as law enforcement, who chose of their own free will a violent career path will arrive with loaded firearms. These individuals are intentionally chosen for their lack of mental ability and for their willingness to follow orders and endure violent and dangerous situations, aggressively.

So America's police force is so corrupt and violent that they'd think nothing of gunning down unarmed protestors in cold blood.

Why do you think that following the law would stop this?

I'm honestly trying to understand your thought process here. On the one hand you imply that most police officers are a hair trigger away from firing on a crowd; on the other, you seem to be insinuating that a individual's adherence to the law is an absolute defense.
by JimDabell | 2025-10-14 04:07:29+00:00
That’s not what he said. This is the new project:

> My goal is to get the full "strong baseline" stack into one cohesive, minimal, readable, hackable, maximally forkable repo. nanochat will be the capstone project of LLM101n (which is still being developed). I think it also has potential to grow into a research harness, or a benchmark, similar to nanoGPT before it.

This is how he described vibe coding:

> There's a new kind of coding I call "vibe coding", where you fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists. It's possible because the LLMs (e.g. Cursor Composer w Sonnet) are getting too good. Also I just talk to Composer with SuperWhisper so I barely even touch the keyboard. I ask for the dumbest things like "decrease the padding on the sidebar by half" because I'm too lazy to find it. I "Accept All" always, I don't read the diffs anymore. When I get error messages I just copy paste them in with no comment, usually that fixes it. The code grows beyond my usual comprehension, I'd have to really read through it for a while. Sometimes the LLMs can't fix a bug so I just work around it or ask for random changes until it goes away. It's not too bad for throwaway weekend projects, but still quite amusing. I'm building a project or webapp, but it's not really coding - I just see stuff, say stuff, run stuff, and copy paste stuff, and it mostly works.

Vibe coding is clearly aimed at having fun hacking around on something that doesn’t matter, and he’s doing the opposite of that with this project. The fact that he’s not using vibe coding for something that is completely inappropriate for vibe coding is neither surprising nor a failure of vibe coding.
by pants2 | 2025-10-14 04:07:49+00:00
ChatGPT had Santa mode last year where you could talk to Santa using Advanced Voice. I thought it was pretty cool because as adults we're used to turn-based conversation, speaking clearly, and waiting for a response.

That did not happen when I tried it with my nieces and nephews. Lots of screaming, incoherent AND I I I REALLY I WANT, yelling over Santa as he was responding, etc. It was a complete flop.

Anyway I would be astonished if this works well for younger kids.
by nirui | 2025-10-14 04:08:45+00:00
The firm got some good in it, sure. But as I see it, today people could be motivated by a firm of good meanings, then tomorrow a post with bad intentions could swing people the other way just as far.

The firm was produced back in 1945, but we still hearing similar if not exact same racist and xenophobic talk points today across many countries of different backgrounds. This alone is telling.

People don't really care about good or evil, truth or lies, but the message, the story telling, whether someone can make it flip the switches inside their heads, make them subscribe. If you can flip their switches in the exact right way, they'll be your utility.

It turns out, we are, unmistakably, suckers. Just with different arrangement of switches.

I stopped believing good intentions long ago.
by yibg | 2025-10-14 04:08:49+00:00
I think part of the problem is the variance (economically) of AI delivering is so wide, that even that's hard to predict. e.g, is end stage AI:

- Where we have intelligent computers and robots that can take over most jobs

- A smarter LLM that can help with creative work but limited interaction with the physical world

- Something else we haven't imagined yet

Depending on where we end up, the current investment could provide a great ROI or a negative one.
by drshapeless | 2025-10-14 04:09:51+00:00
I did not propose anything or push any ideas. I have only asked two questions, one was about the best practice of using datastar with go templ, one was expressing my doubt that whether more features will be behind paywall.

I got personal attacks, publicly or by DMs. A guy told me that they were told to defend the project.

The only nice thing I got from them was an alternative method to imitate replace-url function using only free-tier features.
by bryan_w | 2025-10-14 04:10:26+00:00
> the lower the tech that you have access to, the better for the rest of humanity.

Back in the early 2000's when I saw Pres. Bush on the TV, he would say something like, "... and they hate our way of life" and I assumed that had to do with our secular way of having different religions around or something.

As I get older, I realize that he was talking about the above quote.
by dsab | 2025-10-14 04:10:57+00:00
I was working in space industry and ECSS security guidelines are missleading grant seeking startups to try to reinvent TLS on orbit. There are to mamy bureaucracy. ECSS guidelines for software teams were created by people who never written a Hello World in their life, just look at specs of ECSS Packet Utilisation Service, it's a joke, that's why I prefer to work for VC funded companies than grant funded.
by quuxplusone | 2025-10-14 04:11:14+00:00
Hmm. The Rolling Stone article (and linked press conference) has the police giving a vastly different account of the ChatGPT logs they're complaining about:

> Investigators, he noted, allege that some months prior to the burning of the Pacific Palisades, Rinderknecht had prompted ChatGPT to generate “a dystopian painting showing, in part, a burning forest and a crowd fleeing from it.” A screen at the press conference showed several iterations on such a concept...

Video here, including the ChatGPT "painting" images circa 1m45s: https://xcancel.com/acyn/status/1975956240489652227

(Although, to be clear, it's not like the logs are the only evidence against him; it doesn't even look like parallel construction. So if one assumes "as evidence" usually implies "as sole evidence," I can see how the headline could be seen as sensationalizing/misleading.)
by trenchpilgrim | 2025-10-14 04:11:55+00:00
In my case I'm a big fan of Ace Combat and PCSX2 has rendering issues in both software and hardware modes:

https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10976

https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/12173

It's gotten better (no more black untextured planes!) but the best experience is still on original hardware.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-10-14 04:12:37+00:00
If you are referring to the incident below, it is different because the government asked Apple to write software to allow access to the device:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...

If Apple had simply had the text records, they would have had to comply with the government order to provide them.
by BurningFrog | 2025-10-14 04:13:14+00:00
You're implying that the colonial powers got rich by taking natural resources from Africa and forcing Africans to work without pay.

Since you don't offer any evidence for this scenario, I can't really refute it :)

But note that 90% of Africa didn't even get colonized before 1884. That was over a century into the Industrial Revolution era, during which Western Europe had roughly doubled it's population and tripled their GDP.
by illiac786 | 2025-10-14 04:16:18+00:00
Green at any cost? What do you mean here?

Did you look at the state of rail and water ways, did you see subsidies for agricultural diesel, do you know they’re still buying gas from Russia, gasoline is still heavily subsidised, etc…

They’re greener than the US, yes. But far from green at any cost. They built these huge mountain of papers that make everything difficult, not just building a wind turbine (~7 years, literally trucks of paper…).
by Imagenuity | 2025-10-14 04:16:28+00:00
As a former migraineur, what worked for me was completely removing food triggers, including gluten and oxalates.

Try carnivore. No carbs, all animal products. It's reversed so many of my health problems, from pre-diabetes, skin fungus flareups, and mental fog. Over a million people are now carnivore, and the evidence in support in growing quickly.
by somenameforme | 2025-10-14 04:17:21+00:00
US farming already has extremely high levels of government intervention aimed at price stability. This leads to all sorts of things like the government paying some farmers not to grow crops, some farmers being prevented from selling their crops, farmers getting paid after a bad season, government minimum price guarantees, and so on. And the overwhelming majority (like 95%+) of all produce in the US is sold by farmers to commodity markets, at more or less fixed rates, who then process/distribute it.
by Nasrudith | 2025-10-14 04:17:36+00:00
It depends upon the field you are talking about for diminished return and less innovations. Returns have been thoroughly diminished when it comes to raw power in weaponry for instance. With anti-ship missiles already it is rather 'you get hit and you die'. Railguns haven't really been working out well for instance, and even if they did succeed all they would do is create 'stable magazines' while adding 'unstable' additional power production. Precision is the area where real work is being done, lumping in drones as an example of precision compared to say missiles or bombs which just explode at a destination, or mines which just explode when anything triggers it.

There are some major advancements in biotech for instance that are nothing to sneeze at, and even more in the pipeline (which admittedly may not pan out). Organs may not qualify as an invention technically, but being able to manufacture them certainly does. Not to mention how environmental tech is needed now more than ever.

Science being less convertible to inventions could have counterintuitive effects if it were true. Like smaller nations being in a 'don't even bother' situation while superpowers gain a literal monopoly on invention due to the rareness raising the barrier to entry to get anything meaningful out of it.

Politicians defunding and discouraging science is based more around memes and suppressing dissent than anything concrete. The reason not to create such 'stability' is generally that when the rest of the world passes by it will not be kind to you. But even if science somehow became literally useless tomorrow (an impossibility, of course), I highly doubt that politicians would not be such rigorous cost-oriented stewards that they would consider it worth the political capital to uproot the entrenched bureaucracies which no longer serve a purpose. Even if they knew it for certain was useless they might consider the spending a worthy price to pay for false hope. Crowds get real ugly when you tell them that things will never get better.
by coliveira | 2025-10-14 04:17:53+00:00
Exactly, most factories in China are already heavily automated. Americans don't have a clue of what they've been doing there in the last 20 years to modernize production. The US would need to invest trillions in automation and workforce training to be able to compete with China, Taiwan and Korea. I don't see Americans being able to do this because they're too addicted to easy money from Wall Street.
by erxam | 2025-10-14 04:19:19+00:00
> Are you somehow committed to the idea that it's not useful or morally valid to debate about whether those ideas are right or wrong?

Well, it really isn't.

At the end of the day, ideologies are just fronts for material interests. You argue for your material interests, and they might be at odds with the material interests of the masses.

If a revolutionary movement wants to achieve its goals, it must take care that such deviations don't take root, especially if they use naïve liberal humanism and appeals to human emotion as Trojan horses.

Honestly, this applies to movements in general. You can see this in the USA. Trump's dictatorship was nurtured and empowered by naïve liberal humanist moderates who thought they could debate and 'when they go low, we go high' their way into power and stability.

Decry censorship and ideological rigidity all you want, your enemies won't think twice about using everything in their power to crush you.
by hopelite | 2025-10-14 04:19:53+00:00
That’s not quite correct. It wasn’t the foreign entity purchasing something, or they wouldn’t have allowed all the foreign entities purchasing things. It is more accurate to say they didn’t care as long as they thought they had the advantage and letting the foreign entity buy critically important companies and industries was a means for grooming them or working them to serve your interests. What “America” has realized is that their plan to develop China into an asset/ally simply did not work, nor that they’ve totally empowered them and likely the Chinese were intentionally sharing false data to give false understanding of how they were doing overall.

We’ve recently seen a major reversal on China in particular, because it has dawned on people they were being played, not that they were the player.
by lutusp | 2025-10-14 04:22:09+00:00
> But few people have asked what, exactly, is science? How does it work?

The author asks the question, but then never answers it. That isn't surprising -- nearly no one outside science understands how it works.

* Science rejects authority and doubts expertise. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

* The basic scientific posture is that a theory is assumed to be false until proven true.

* Contrast this outlook with pseudoscience, where a theory is assumed to be true until proven false.

* A conscientious scientist lists all the reasons his theory might be wrong. In other fields, this task is left to critics.

This summary may seem to be at odds with modern scientific practice, but that's because much of modern scientific publishing is not science, it's marketing.

In a now-famous science story, during an astronomy conference a researcher stood up and confessed that he had made a mistake -- his detection of an exoplanet actually resulted from a failure to subtract Earth's own annual motion from his data.

The audience came to its feet and gave the researcher a standing ovation.

That is science.
by somenameforme | 2025-10-14 04:23:59+00:00
Is this really true re: "modern search"? Genuine question because this is probably outside of my domain. I'm just trying to think of industries that would critically affected it we went from modern search to e.g. AltaVista/Yahoo/DogPile and kind of coming up empty except in that it might be more difficult for companies that have perfected modern SEO/advertising to maintain the same level of reach, but I don't think that's what you're alluding to?
by goku12 | 2025-10-14 04:25:05+00:00
What we really need is a fair alternative to both these abuse platforms. Choosing an unfamiliar abuse over a familiar abuse isn't exactly the smartest move. The switch over to a free(dom) platform like plain Linux must happen even if we have to make some temporary sacrifices like the loss of mobile banking facilities. It can't be worse than using a feature phone, can it? The app ecosystem will eventually attain parity if the platform achieves popularity.
by protocolture | 2025-10-14 04:25:58+00:00
>this must mean the consequences of such a breach has either not produced any visible damage

Yeah lets say you were carrying unencrypted frames for Bills Burger Hut.

The largest extent of the damage might be sniffing some smtp credentials or something. Bill sends some spam messages, never figures out how it was done but their IP reputation is always in the toilet.

Lets then say instead of Bills Burger Hut, you are carrying traffic for critical mineral and food industries. The attacker isnt a scammer, but a hostile nation state. Customer never realises, but theres a large, long term financial cost because (TOTALLY NOT CHINA) is sharing this data with competitors of yours overseas, or preparing to drop your pants in a huge way for foreign policy reasons.

No one gets fired until after the worst case long term damage, and even then probably not.

In fact, the likely outcome is that the burden gets moved to the customer for L2 encryption and the cowboy never changes.
by tauchunfall | 2025-10-14 04:26:04+00:00
"They are talked at as if they were friendly co-workers and, and this is the really important point, the talking is not programming."

The technical manual of TNG [1] states, "Most panels are also configured to accept vocal input, although keyboard input is preferred in most situations for greater operating speed and reduced chance of input error by voice discriminator algorithms." (page 33). Even in the original Star Trek they quite often use the panels.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation...
by lgleason | 2025-10-14 04:26:32+00:00
What almost nobody in SV wants to talk about it the gutting of STEM in the early 90's when real wages for STEM began it's decline in the US via labor arbitrage. Of course Blank and most of Silicon Valley benefited from this, because it allowed them to get cheap, compliant labor. Eric Weinstein did a great paper on this years ago https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhow... . Looking at the current unemployment in STEM, which is higher than the national average, this arbitrage has just hit a point where it has killed the goose that laid his golden egg.
by motorest | 2025-10-14 04:27:25+00:00
> It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well.

This reads like a straw man argument. No one gets mad when other countries do it. At most, you see complains of protectionism being unilaterally imposed while benefitting from your competitor's openness. See for example the criticism directed at the likes of China for preventing foreign companies from even investing in their domestic market without a government-minder-as-a-partner scheme, while China throws a tantrum when there is even a hint of suggestion that Chinese companies should be subjected to the same type of treatment when operating abroad. See the case of TikTok, for example.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-10-14 04:28:24+00:00
I am not going to ask you to go through my comments. But if you look at my submissions..

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=raw_anon_1111

You’ll see that I’m much more interested in business and industry trends than the technology itself - technology as an enabler to make money

But it’s more about giving my brain a break between exercising and my recent(ish) hobby of learning Spanish. My wife and I are planning to be in Costa Rica (or some other Spanish speaking country in us time zones) six-eight weeks every winter starting next year.
by smaudet | 2025-10-14 04:28:30+00:00
Maybe some of these 2-brain cell executives should consider that their "buybacks" will be worthless when US throughput starts to be equally worthless compared to the rest of the world...

Of course, I'm being a bit pejorative, they aren't thinking big picture at all, just concerned with what happens tomorrow not the day after...

However, they are in part responsible for the nonsense happening at the moment wrt to American policy, it seems like a game who can light cash on fire the fastest ..
by saguntum | 2025-10-14 04:28:33+00:00
I think there's a bubble around AI, but I don't think I agree with this argument. Google search launched in 1998, and ChatGPT launched in 2022.

In 2001, if Google had gone under like a lot of .com bubble companies, I think the economic impact visible to people of the time would have been marginal. There was no Google News, Gmail, Android, and the alternatives (AltaVista, Ask Jeeves, MSN Search) would have been enough. Google was a forcing function for the others to compete with the new paradigm or die trying. It wasn't itself an economic behemoth the way it is today.

I think if OpenAI folded today, you'd still have several companies in the generative AI space. To me, OpenAI's reminiscent of Google in the late 90s in its impact, although culturally it's very different. It's a general purpose website anyone with an internet connection can visit, deep industry competitors are having to adapt to its model to stay alive, and we're seeing signs of a frothy tech bubble a few years after its founding. People across industry verticals, government, law, and NGOs are using it, and students are learning with it.

One counterpoint to this would be that companies like Google reacted to the rise of social media with stuff like Google+, but to me the level to which "AI" is baked into every product at Google exceeds that play by a great margin. At most I remember a "post to plus" link at the top of GMail and a few hooks within the contact/email management views. In contrast, they are injecting AI results into almost every search I make and across almost every product of theirs I use today.

If you fast forward 20 years, I would be surprised if companies specializing in LLMs were not major players the way today's tech giants are. Some of the companies might have the same names, but they'll have changed.