MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by beeflet | 2025-10-19 16:58:04+00:00
It is not a bug, it is a law of nature. The world has limited resources, time and labor being one of them.

The technology proposes a source of labor for the elites so abundant that they will not need to trade their wealth with the eaters.

However much resources you consume, it will be too much to buy for your labor. You will be priced out of existence.
by lioeters | 2025-10-19 16:58:12+00:00
> this update disrupts mouse and keyboard functionality within the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE), making them unresponsive

> Early last week, Microsoft accidentally broke the Windows Media Creation Tool (MCT) just a day ahead of Windows 10's end-of-life. Additionally, the company began requiring Online Accounts for Windows 11 installations, making them increasingly difficult to bypass.

> Every previously reported issue has been addressed or resolved, except for the broken localhost functionality and now this WinRE problem.
by Timsky | 2025-10-19 16:58:13+00:00
I think you have a very good point here: a semantic search would be the best option for such a search. The items would have unique identifiers so the language variations can be avoided. But unfortunately, I am not aware of any of these kinds of publicly available projects, except DBpedia and some biology-oriented ontologies that would massively analyze scientific reports.

Currently, I am applying RDF/OWL to describe some factual information and contradictions in the scientific literature. On an amateur level. Thus I do it mostly manually. The GPT-discourse somehow brings up not only the human-related perception problems, such as cognitive biases, but also truly philosophical questions of epistemology that should be resolved beforehand. LLM developers cannot solve this because it is not under their control. They can only choose what to learn from. For instance, when we consider a scientific text, it is not an absolute truth but rather a carefully verified and reviewed opinion that is based on the previous authorized opinions and subject to change in the future. So the same author may have various opinions over time. More recent opinions are not necessarily more "truthful" ones. Now imagine a corresponding RDF triple (subject-predicate-object tuple) that describes that. Pretty heavy thing, and no NLTK can decide for us what the truth is and what is not.
by devolving-dev | 2025-10-19 16:58:19+00:00
I've never really been convinced that robots or AI replacing humans is a real problem. Because why would they do that? If I had an army of super intelligent robots, I would have them waiting on me and fulfilling my every whim. I wouldn't send them off to silicon valley to take all of the programming jobs or something like that.

You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my every need. And if I need money for some land or resource or something, I would have my robots work until my need was satisfied, I wouldn't continue having them work forever.

And even if robots did take all of the jobs, they would have to work for free. Because humans would have no jobs, and thus no money with which to pay them. So either mankind enjoys free services from robots that demand no compensation, or we get to keep our jobs.

So I really don't get the existential worry here. Yes, at a smaller scale some jobs might be automated, forcing people to retrain or work more menial jobs. But all of humanity being replaced? It doesn't make sense.

Another way to think about it is that if all of the jobs were replaced by AI, us leftover jobless humans would create a new economy just trying to grow food and make clothes and build houses and take care of our needs. The robot masters would just split away and have their own economy. Which is the same as them not existing.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-19 16:59:04+00:00
Another interesting point: If someone think that robots can be a better partner, then you also no longer understand what it means to be human.

Maybe it depends on what you want in a relationships. AI is sycophantic and that could help people who might have trust issues with humans in general or the other sex (which is happening way more than you might think in younger generations, whether that's involuntary celebates or whatever)

I don't blame people for having trust issues but the fact that they can live longer in some idea of a false hope that robots are partners would just make them stuck even longer and wouldn't help them.

Should there be regulations on this thing depends if this becomes a bigger issue but most people including myself feel like govt. shouldn't intervene in many things but still. I don't think its happening any time soon since AI big tech money and stock markets are so bedded together its wild.
by Fnoord | 2025-10-19 16:59:08+00:00
Stupid burglars get caught. It is only a matter of time till burglars learn to combat this. For example, a MITM on the camera. Thing is, neighbors also got one. If I get threatened to remove the video, I will oblige. If everything gets destroyed in a fire due to cobra's, there's a backup. That's my threat model. And silent data corrupt on the camera feed storage could also occur.
by layer8 | 2025-10-19 16:59:55+00:00
The (former) translators I know mostly translated B2B publications (brochures, specifications, …), commonly containing specialized domain vocabulary. Certainly not low-hanging fruit. I’m sure AI can’t make a quality job on those without guidance and review by a speaker of both languages knowledgeable in the respective domain. Nevertheless, the market for such translations has dried up, and those that remain only pay a pittance.

Part of the reason likely is that the perception that translation is valuable work has changed.
by alganet | 2025-10-19 17:00:23+00:00
It should have been separatd into "new hire" and "long time employee", regardless of technical experience.

You should expect new hires (of any seniority level) to jump in and try to fix things. It shows they're invested, willing to embrace opportunities.

You should expect new hires (of any seniority level) to ask lots of questions. They need to learn this new environment, quickly. That's the best way to do it.

You should expect new hires (of any seniority level) to try to be extra helpful. They still don't know exactly where they can help the most, mapping the ground is a good sign.

You should expect new hires (of any seniority level) to be enthusiastic. It shows they value being there, and are on board with trying new approaches. In other words, it shows they believe themselves to be useful in that new environment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a senior, but being in a new environment. Of course, to juniors, every environment is new and they should do that all the time. Seniors should do that when they change environments, or when the environment changes for them.
by itsnowandnever | 2025-10-19 17:01:18+00:00
I think the author didn't account for different types of engineering orgs at different points in their lifecycle. "just fix it" at an enterprise massive company as a junior is fine but a senior would know "if you fix it, you own it" and it could cause downstream issues with what your team does or owns at the company. whereas at a startup, if you're relying on junior devs to "just fix it"... good luck with that
by ternaryoperator | 2025-10-19 17:01:39+00:00
It reads as reasonable but is really saying: no diversity hires. That’s more significant in universities than in the job market. In general, the most educated Americans are the children of the wealthy. So without DEI, the faculty, which is thereby a product of the economic elite, will be teaching primarily the children of that elite. Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That’s what the Trump administration is targeting in part with these compacts.
by wffurr | 2025-10-19 17:01:59+00:00
It’s fine for 1440p gaming but you way overpaid for the GPU versus a discrete GPU and a lower end CPU with socketed RAM.

The CPU power of it and the high bandwidth integrated RAM aren’t the right performance trade offs for a gaming workload. Does it work for it? Sure. But you also have a bunch of extra hardware you don’t really need for it.
by JimDabell | 2025-10-19 17:02:26+00:00
> robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots.

Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular!

What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed by the same amount of people doing the same amount of jobs. That’s why standards of living have been rising for the past few millennia instead of everybody being out of work. We took work away from humans with technology, we then used that effort saved to get more done.
by DaveZale | 2025-10-19 17:03:11+00:00
Molycorp was active 15 years ago. As I recall, it was owned by a Canadian magnet company at the time, with talk of a big investment by US based Carlyle forthcoming, which never happened. As a small investor, it was a painful time. They could not obtain certain acids, due to conpetition from the demands of the fracking boom. At one point their bond value dropped and that was the clue to get out Now. I've worked among engineers in another field and all of the proper engineering scale up I've seen just never happened at Molycorp. I might also note here that rare earths come with radioactive impurities. That's okay, if you safely return tailings to their source, but that too complicates the engineering.
by sillyfluke | 2025-10-19 17:03:23+00:00
movie pitch: Kerouac has some debt that falls on Castellono's people to collect. Kerouac tries to get out of it by convincing them to take a story instead of cash. They lock him up in a room somewhere until he writes the story. Movie is basically two or more people talking in a room, or just Kerouac seen talking with whoever is in the room, off screen.
by onraglanroad | 2025-10-19 17:05:28+00:00
There are statutory rights that you have anyway, such as for a full time position you are entitled to 28 days leave, so the contract normally covers extra stuff (so I have 33 days under my current one).

Plus it covers things like disciplinary procedures, working hours etc. It's really weird to me that you don't have that. Are you sure it's normal?

To address your specific point, you can mostly be fired without reason if you're a new employee. You get more rights after 2 years so companies generally have a procedure to go through after that. You can always appeal to an employment tribunal but they won't take much notice if you've been there a couple of months and got fired for not doing your job.
by ogogmad | 2025-10-19 17:05:53+00:00
No, your claim about matrix multiplication is false. Google's new algorithm can be applied recursively to 4x4 block matrices (over the field of complex numbers). This results in an asymptotically faster algorithm for nxn matrix multiplication than Strassen's. Earlier results on 4x4 matrices by Winograd and others did not extend to block matrices..

Google's result has more recently been generalised: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13242
by lukan | 2025-10-19 17:06:05+00:00
If a 16 year old cannot say no to unwanted advances, I would say education failed him very much in the first place.

"You also can't ignore the position of power a famous person might be in"

And no, I don't. I am also not a fan of grownup men going after boys in general.

Still, I do see a difference in men going after 16 year or 8 year old boys and how they approached them.

"horror story" is pretty strong language and implies certain things to me.

Precise use of language matters. Case in point, I am at a unconventional gathering right now and things happened, that were communicated as rape... so people wanted to take drastic action quickly. What happened? A "tantra" teacher giving massages and "solving blockages" of young (adult) women in their genital areas.

So they said yes to a massage and "healing" in general, but never said no afterwards, they just didn't realized what was happening. They met later and shared their stories and then things came to light.

So, definitely sexual abuse, but rape?

Well their body was raped in a way as sexual things happened that they did not consent to. But the right term here is rather sexual abuse I believe. Because to me and most others, rape implies penetrating with the penis against their will. If you use the most strong word for everything, what word will you use for actual violent forced sex? That just creates confusion that can has drastic consequences.

(As it did, with people wanting to take drastic violent action assuming something way worse. In the end the guy was banished, but no criminal charges were brought up as that would have required the victims going to police which they didn't wanted to).
by margalabargala | 2025-10-19 17:06:55+00:00
I work with a staff level engineer that I think internalized the article's advice in the worst possible way.

Rather that asking questions, or reading code, when confronted with something new they will state "I don't understand X" or "I don't know what a Y is."

And then expect someone to jump in and fill in the gaps.

It's incredibly obnoxious and grating on a personal level and makes me not want to work with this person despite their other, genuinely valuable skills.
by zer00eyz | 2025-10-19 17:07:24+00:00
> Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots.

Replace the word robot with "automation" or "industrialization" and you have the last 200 years of human history covered.

The Ludites could have won and we would all have 1500$ shirts.

Do you know any lamp lighters? How about a town crier?

We could still all be farming.

Where are all the switch board operators? Where are all the draftsmen?

How many people had programing jobs in 1900? 1950?

We have an amazing ability to "make work for ourselves", and history indicates that we're going to keep doing that regardless of how automated we make society. We also keep traditional "arts" alive... Recording didnt replace live performances, TV/Film didnt replace Broadway... Photography didnt replace painting...
by Spivak | 2025-10-19 17:07:34+00:00
This is a perfect microcosm of this discussion. You're going to be replaced by robots because they will be better than you at everything but also if they're better than you at anything then that's your personal moral failing and sucks to be you.

HN Comment in 2125: Why would I have casual sex with a real guy, I can have a sexual partner who I can tailor perfectly to my in the moment desires, can role play anything including the guy in the romance novel I'm reading, doesn't get tired, is tall and effortlessly strong, has robotic dexterity, available 24/7, exists entirely for my pleasure letting me be as selfish as I want, and has port and starboard attachments.

What makes you think that sex is some sacred act that won't follow the same trends as jobs? You don't have to replace every aspect of a thing to have an alternative people prefer over the status quo.
by bee_rider | 2025-10-19 17:08:31+00:00
I don’t care about investors making their money back. ChatGPT did a good enough proof of concept. They can go out of business now, that would be fine.

Now, Mistral or DeepSeek or somebody can put out open weights models. The existing frameworks are good enough to act as very nice autocompletes, coding buddies, or writing style nitpickers. Or probably they could make more interesting video game NPCs.
by jasonlotito | 2025-10-19 17:08:35+00:00
They sound good because they are being presented in a pleasant way that undermines that reality of what these requests are. First, adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice. Basically, the current administration can dictate what constitutes a violation. The government gets to dictate what is passing and what is not passing.

Basically, this is the government having a direct hand in dictating what the schools that receive government funding can say and do, full stop.

Further, this is a potential violation of the current administrations desire to eradicate DEI as this compact literally promotes DEI. So it's an odd request.

It's also a massive violation of the freedom of speech.

> Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.

So, no one employed by the university can speak about societal or political events unless it has a direct impact on the university. Imagine not being able to talk about modern events in the classroom? I was doing this in high school in the 90s in Missouri!

And now the administration wants to take that away.

There are many reasons this is bad. But predominantly it's this: I get to decide what any of this means. So you have to defend this from MY POV, because this establishes me as the ultimate arbiter here.

* Why me? Because it's whoever is in charge at the time, which means you need to be able to defend the merits of this when it doesn't necessarily fit your wants or needs. Which means me.
by patagurbon | 2025-10-19 17:08:43+00:00
This push to force ideological “balance” on universities is incredibly dangerous. The pursuit of truth is difficult and has its pitfalls but it naturally leads to the dominance of certain viewpoints, which hopefully approximate the truth.

What the Feds are doing here is just a hop skip and a jump from forcing universities to hire young Earth creationists alongside archaeologists, climate change deniers alongside climate scientists, etc.

Universities and the research they do must inform politics, but the reverse risks destroying the research enterprise all together.
by BoredPositron | 2025-10-19 17:08:44+00:00
As always summaries only paint a shallow picture.

This is the original compact https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...

1 The Compact explicitly makes federal funding conditional on compliance, meaning that universities must either align with federal definitions of “excellence” and “neutrality” or lose access to research grants, contracts, student loans, and tax exemptions. In practice, this could establish a centralized federal control mechanism over university policies effectively nationalizing large portions of higher education decision-making without direct legislation.

Sections 2 and 4 (“Marketplace of Ideas” and “Institutional Neutrality”) appear to promote pluralism, but they impose mandatory structural changes to ensure “no single ideology dominant”. This could require ideological balancing in faculty hiring, curricula, and departmental governance. The threat of Department of Justice enforcement transforms “neutrality” into a federally monitored ideological litmus test, likely constraining academic freedom more than protecting it.

Section 6 defines “male,” “female,” “woman,” and “man” strictly by biological function and requires single-sex spaces to be maintained on that basis. This departs from current federal civil rights interpretations under Title IX and would effectively prohibit recognition of gender identity in campus policy rolling back existing protections for transgender and nonbinary students.

By forbidding universities from commenting institutionally on “societal and political events” unless directly related to operations, the Compact silences institutional voices on issues like racial justice, climate change, or foreign policy—even if faculty consensus supports public engagement. The “marketplace of ideas” clause simultaneously allows punishment of university employees or centers deemed “dominant” in ideology, directly threatening critical studies programs (e.g., gender studies, ethnic studies).

Section 8 introduces anti-money-laundering and KYC requirements typically reserved for banks, applied here to universities. It also mandates information sharing with DHS and the State Department and caps foreign student enrollment at 15%, with a 5% per-country limit. Combined with civics instruction requirements for foreigners, this moves higher education toward national security oversight and ideological vetting creating a form of state-managed educational nationalism.

The enforcement section deputizes the Department of Justice to investigate compliance and allows it to reclaim all federal funds and even PRIVATE contributions during a violation year. This mechanism represents an extraordinary form of financial coercion that could bankrupt noncompliant universities, effectively forcing universal submission or privatization.
by Timsky | 2025-10-19 17:08:48+00:00
Thank you for sharing! I like your dendrogram-like circular graphs! They are way more intuitive. That could be a nice companion for a bibliometrix/biblioshiny library for bibliometric analysis https://www.bibliometrix.org/. I tried "Deep Dive" with my own request, and ... it unfortunately stops at the end of "Organizing results". Maybe I should try again later.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-19 17:09:09+00:00
I searched some day and there is enough food to end world hunger once or (twice I know for a fact once, but I had a reddit article which said twice but I am not pulling that source but you get it)

> Less than 5% of the US’ military budget could end world hunger for a year. [1]

My friend we live in 1984, when the main character discovers that eurasia and others have enough food / resources to help everybody out but they constantly fight/lessen it just so that people are easy to be manipulated in times of war.

I discovered this 5% statistic just right now and its fucking wild. US itself could end world hunger 20 times but it spends it all on military. I don't know if its wrong or not but this is fucking 1984. The big brother has happened. We just don't know it yet because the propaganda works on us as well, people in 1984 didn't know they were living in 1984.

And neither do we.

Have a nice day :)

Sources [1]: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/hunger-global-citiz...
by cryptos | 2025-10-19 17:09:52+00:00
This story reminds of Scala. The language as such is also fine, but has (had?) a cultural problem. There functional programming fundamentalists always promoting the purest solution without solid reasoning - as if god had decided that only pure functional programming is your ticket to paradise. In addition, Scala comes also with powerful language features to build abstractions, like traits, generics, and almost arbitrary names for classes, objects, and functions. All that lead to a culture of unreadably "try to be clever" code. I'm not sure whether the Scala authors paved the way with methods like :\ (fold left) or whether that happened, because the language had the features, but I tend to assume the latter. It is a great responsiblity of a language designer to think about what others might do with the language later. Regarding language features the rule "when in doubt, leave it out" applies. See Go (although not my favorite language).