MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by abdullahkhalids | 2025-10-27 22:59:28+00:00
The agents are numerous, as pointed out by sibling comment.

The farmer agents only make decisions based on personal profitability. The overall system after some years can evolve to a state where some of the following are true:

- the GMO seed maker acquires a monopoly over certain types of seeds, which enables it to reduce farmer profits to below what they were when they were planting non-GMO seeds.

- the country's food supply becomes dependent on foreign countries/corporations, which can cause severe problems at international negotiating tables.

- the GMO crop has long term health impacts, say after 20 years of use. When these are discovered, it is no longer possible to go back to non-GMO because the infrastructure required for non-GMO crops is not easily reconstructable (for instance a country might reduce its pesticide production significantly once enough farmers have switched to GMO). Similarly, farmers have living knowledge about how to grow certain crop varieties learned by long experience. non-GMO and GMO varieties require different techniques, and non-GMO techniques may be forgotten, making it infeasible to switch back to non-GMO.

Decisions to prevent these outcomes can only occur at the government/regulatory level, and may possibly be "GMO are banned".
by evil-olive | 2025-10-27 22:59:30+00:00
with systemd timers [0], explicitly specifying the timezone is an option:

> systemd-analyze calendar '02:30' Original form: 02:30 Normalized form: *-*-* 02:30:00 Next elapse: Tue 2025-10-28 02:30:00 PDT (in UTC): Tue 2025-10-28 09:30:00 UTC From now: 10h left > systemd-analyze calendar '02:30 UTC' Original form: 02:30 UTC Normalized form: *-*-* 02:30:00 UTC Next elapse: Mon 2025-10-27 19:30:00 PDT (in UTC): Tue 2025-10-28 02:30:00 UTC From now: 3h 34min left

however, making it disregard the server timezone and use UTC by default isn't really an option. it would violate the Principle of Least Surprise, as well as being a hugely backwards-incompatible breaking change.

0: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/syst...
by worik | 2025-10-27 22:59:37+00:00
Golly

People have been getting the message "you should use someone's race to judge them" in my country for over a hundred years

In the USA since the seventeenth century

Here Māori property is confiscated with gay abandon, laws written specifically for that purpose

In the USA there was slavery. It has cast a long shadow, and still politicians are moving mountains to corral the black vote so it does not threaten entrenched privileges

Golly!
by upboundspiral | 2025-10-27 23:00:00+00:00
Even if I can unlock a hypothetical 90% of physical locks, I still need to go in person to every house that has one. On the other hand, if I crack one smart lock I now have remote access to every home that has one, and I can operate on all of them simultaneously. Anything internet-connected makes doing damaging things at scale much easier.
by ilikehurdles | 2025-10-27 23:00:26+00:00
You need to get a grip on reality for your own sake.

I mentioned both terrorist and communist for evidence-based reasons. I am literally a naturalized citizen who had to affirm he was not affiliated with communist parties when applying for citizenship in this country. The rules were literally different for me then, than they are for me now as a citizen.

Other people “pointing out” other arguments is fine - we can disagree, one or both of us can be wrong, etc. Liberalism is built on individual rights.

But you want to label people as extreme in order to kill them. I don’t know what made your heart so corrupted by hate but I hope you find your way out
by thewebguyd | 2025-10-27 23:00:58+00:00
> Not to mention, what happened to making money by being innovative and changing the world?

Too slow and expensive. Why innovate when you can extract instead. It's the financialization of our economy. No one cares about or even has incentive to make better widgets, all the incentive is in financial optimization and squeezing out every last cent because the business is now a financial asset, not a product company.
by legitster | 2025-10-27 23:01:22+00:00
> It's quite entertaining to see how little security you actually get from most locks.

Yeah, one of my conclusions after years of watching LPL is ironically to start buying cheaper locks.

The difference between a $3 and a $300 lock is just about a minute of time for an experienced lockpick. No lock is capable of dissuading a determined thief, but any lock is equally capable of dissuading a lazy one.
by quickthrowman | 2025-10-27 23:01:23+00:00
> They had a "secure document store" built within their suite, with a thick door made of 19mm ply layers either side of a 6mm steel plate, welded to a full-length hinge, which was in turn welded to a 25mm steel tubing frame, with big long brackets bolted into the brick work of the exterior wall on one side and a steel beam on the other.

Wow, that sounds like a pretty secure entry! I wonder how they secured the walls, that’s a lot of steel plate, enough to require structural reinforc—

> So yeah it took about ten seconds to get in to the secure room. I cut a hatch through the plasterboard with a Stanley knife, recovered the keys, taped the plasterboard back in place, and - the time-consuming bit - positioned their office fridge so no-one could see it.

Haha, that was my guess. This is like constructing a safe with a super heavy reinforced steel door on the front and construction paper on the sides and top! He could’ve kicked his way through 5/8” (prolly 16mm to you lot) drywall ;) Your solution was a lot cleaner and you earned that tasty reward!
by HellDunkel | 2025-10-27 23:02:08+00:00
No.

The reason AI code generation works so well is a) it is text based- the training data is huge and b) the output is not the final result but a human readable blueprint (source code), ready to be made fit by a human who can form an abstract idea of the whole in his head. The final product is the compiled machine code, we use compilers to do that, not LLMs.

Ai genereted code is not suitable to be directly transferred to the final product awaiting validation by TDD, it would simply be very inefficient to do so.
by philipp-gayret | 2025-10-27 23:02:49+00:00
I'm aware of the issues around rules as in a default prompt. I had hoped the author of the blog meant a different mechanism when they mentioned "steering rules". I do mean something different, where an agent will self-correct when it is seen going against rules in the initial prompt. I have a different setup myself for Claude Code, and would call parts of that "steering"; adjusting the trajectory of the agent as it goes.
by II2II | 2025-10-27 23:03:10+00:00
> but these jobs are going to be the first on the chopping block as these integrations mature.

I'm not even sure that has to be true anymore. From my admittedly superficial impression of the page, this appears to be a tool for building tools. There are plenty of organizations that are resource constrained, that are doing things the way they have always done thing in Excel, simply because they cannot allocate someone to modify what is already in place to better suit their current needs. For them, this is more of a quality of life and quality of out improvement. This is not like traditional software development, where organizations are far more likely to purchase a product or service to do a job (and where the vendors of those products and services are going to do their best to eliminate developers).
by starik36 | 2025-10-27 23:03:23+00:00
I can't wait until someone does this, then autofills 50k rows down, then gets a $50k bill for all the tokens.

Reminds me of when our CIO insisted on moving to the cloud (back when AWS was just getting started) and then was super pissed when he got a $60k bill because no one knew to shutdown their VMs when leaving for the day.
by txrx0000 | 2025-10-27 23:03:27+00:00
More polarization is good if people are allowed to naturally polarize in different directions. Alignment between individuals are supposed to emerge naturally, forming small groups that are internally polarized in the same direction. Democracy would work fine in that society.

But now we have huge online mobs that are homogenously polarized that want to kill eachother. It gets violent when the group size reaches the nation-state level because that's where most of the violence and oppression in our society is siloed.

We have to limit group sizes online. Before social media, it was physically limited by the difficulty of meeting up in person. But now groups just keep getting larger and more homogenous.
by dragonwriter | 2025-10-27 23:03:39+00:00
> It is written as if this only applies to functions you mark with use server and not the whole file.

The demonstration code illustrating the problem uses a file-level "use server" directive (and doesn't have other functions in the same file with the problem isOwner function); if they were using function level "use server" directives and it impacted a different function in the same file, I would say this is clearly surprising and unexpected (and even buggy) behavior, but this seems to be using a clearly documented feature and getting exactly what is advertised.
by georgefrowny | 2025-10-27 23:03:50+00:00
If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". Planting the GMO is the optimal choice if you want to survive in the short term, even if you can see disaster looming in the long term despite sweet supplier promises.

Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine.

A classic multipolar trap for the farmers because they all made an entirely rational decision at every stage and yet they all ended up worse off in the end. And a trap agrotech will be extremely happy to coax farmers into.

For their part, if they don't do it, a less scrupulous company would and so they need to do it or get outcompeted - not only must they grow, they just grow faster than the competition to survive long term. And so they are also a trap of their own where they could end up in a strongly negative situation (angry mobs after their blood, say) despite making what was both an optimal and necessary decision at every step.

Which is not to say you can't or even shouldn't use biotech to increase crop yield. It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.
by visarga | 2025-10-27 23:04:14+00:00
The triad of LLM dependencies in my view: initiation of tasks, experience based feedback, and consequence sink. They can do none of these, they all connect to the outer context which sits with the user, not the model.

You know what? This is also not unlike hiring a human, they need the hirer party tell them what to do, give feedback, and assume the outcomes.

It's all about context which is non-fungible and distributed, not related to intelligence but to the reason we need intelligence for.
by cyberax | 2025-10-27 23:04:49+00:00
> but should be possible when calling an LLM through an API style call, right (if you add additional pass thru headers

Nope. I assumed as much and even implemented the bearer token authentication in the MCP server that I wanted to expose.

Then I tried to connect it to ChatGPT, and it turns out to NOT be supported at all. Your options are either no authentication whatsoever or OAuth with dynamic client registration. Claude at least allows the static OAuth registration (you supply client_id and client_secret).
by Cheer2171 | 2025-10-27 23:05:02+00:00
> you have to play the game and I don't blame them as such.

Not to Godwin the thread, but that is exactly what the executives at IBM thought about their European subsidiary Dehomag in the 1930s. Soon they were custom building machines that organized the logistics of the Holocaust.

They got away with it and kept all the profits and were exempted at Nuremberg, for the same reason as all the rocket scientists: America needed the tech.
by jcranmer | 2025-10-27 23:05:47+00:00
It is definitely way too easy to accidentally confuse "x is true" and "x is proven to be true" on topics of undecidability, and this is one of those times where the answer is in fact obvious, but it takes you 15 minutes to realize that it's obvious.

The halting problem is uncomputable (by diagonalization)--that is no computable function can solve the halting problem, rather than the weaker statement that we cannot assert that "this" function solves it. As a result, if somebody asserts a function that purports to solve the halting problem, then we can definitively say that either it isn't computable, or the thing it solves isn't the halting problem.

For the Busy Beaver function, it's obvious that the resulting program (if it existed) would solve the halting problem, so clearly it's not a computable function, and analyzing what part of it isn't computable leads you to the Busy Beaver as the only option.

For the D(N) function... well, since we assume D(N) ≥ BB(N), D(N) is still an upper bound on the number of steps a halting TM could run, so the resulting program using D(N) in lieu of BB(N) would still solve the halting problem, which forces us to conclude that it's not computable.

A different argument that may make more sense is this:

Consider the program "if machine M has not halted after f(sizeof M) steps, print not halt, else print halt." If f is a computable function, then the program is clearly computable. But since no computable program can solve the halting problem, we know that this program cannot either. Therefore, for every computable function f, there must exist some machine M such that M halts only after more than f(sizeof M) steps. In other words, f cannot be an upper bound on the Busy Beaver function.
by chemotaxis | 2025-10-27 23:05:57+00:00
To be honest, I think the main reason why films get predictable as we get older is that we've seen enough of them and it's just hard to be surprised.

I catch myself thinking that even about films / books / games that try real hard to be original. You can't surprise me with a nonlinear time loop. Oh, the protagonist is also a villain but doesn't know it? Pfft, been there, done that.
by 3cats-in-a-coat | 2025-10-27 23:06:38+00:00
I'll say the obvious. A lot of this you can just do in JSON.

Let's take the example:

{ "users": [ { "id": 1, "name": "Alice", "role": "admin" }, { "id": 2, "name": "Bob", "role": "user" } ] } users[2]{id,name,role}: 1,Alice,admin 2,Bob,user

We can keep it JSON, but use more compact list expressions, as tuples when pragmatic:

["users", [1, "Alice", "admin"], [2, "Bob", "user"] ]

The thing is the game with LLMs is not what's shortest, but what's:

1. Mainstream, so they understand it.

2. What they're tuned for, and their tuned for what's mainstream (JSON).

If you want to go extreme compression you can shove it all in JSON strings too and keep the larger structure JSON:

["users", "1:admin:Alice", "2:user:Bob", ]

You may say "how is this better". Well it's better because it's still JSON, there's less to explain to the LLM, and to your other devs. Even if we use a weird compact format like "id:role:name" this is still shorter to explain than a completely different syntax with its whole world of rules.
by OutOfHere | 2025-10-27 23:06:57+00:00
Why do you keep presupposing that a prank is a defense? I never said it is! You keep making false accusations against me alleging that I am defending the prankster when I never was. It is you who brought up the "its a prank, bro" defense, not me.

My entire point, as I had noted too clearly, is that a prank is not theft. Despite the causation, for which there could exist disparate charges, the person cannot reasonably be charged with theft in a just world (unless additional evidence is presented). Please go back and read the top level comment by silexia which forms the root of the discussion.
by nosianu | 2025-10-27 23:06:57+00:00
Okay, and now you give those mediocre humans a tool hat is both great and terrible. The problem is, unless you know your way around very well, they won't know which is which.

Since my company uses Excel a lot, and I know the basics but don't want to become an expert, I use LLMs to ask intermediate questions, too hard to answer with the few formulas I know, not too hard for a short solution path.

I have great success and definitely like what I can get with the Excel/LLM combo. But if my colleagues used it the same way, they would not get my good results, which is not their fault, they are not IT but specialists, e.g. for logistics. The best use of LLMs is if you could already do the job without them, but it saves you time to ask them and then check if the result is actually acceptable.

Sometimes I abandon the LLM session, because sometimes, and it's not always easy to predict, fixing the broken result would take more effort than just doing it the old way myself.

A big problem is that the LLMs are so darn confident and always present a result. For example, I point it to a problem, it "thinks", and then it gives me new code and very confidently summarizes what the problem was, correctly, that it now for sure fixed the problem. Only that when I actually try the result has gotten worse than before. At that point I never try to get back to a working solution by continuing to try to "talk" to the AI, I just delete that session and do another, non-AI approach.

But non-experts, and people who are very busy and just want to get some result to forward to someone waiting for it as quickly as possible will be tempted to accept the nice looking and confidently presented "solution" as-is. And you may not find a problem until half a year later somebody finds that prepayments, pro forma bills and the final invoices don't quite match in hard to follow ways.

Not that these things don't happen now already, but adding a tool with erratic results might increase problems, depending on actual implementation of the process. Which most likely won't be well thought out, many will just cram in the new tool and think it works when it doesn't implode right away, and the first results, produced when people still pay a lot of attention and are careful, all look good.

I am in awe of the accomplishments of this new tool, but it is way overhyped IMHO, still far too unpolished and random. Forcing all kinds of processes and people to use it is not a good match, I think.
by schmichael | 2025-10-27 23:07:47+00:00
The supposedly bad example is perfectly readable to anyone familiar with Go. A bit of refactoring into first class functions, and you'd have an easy to read, idiomatic, easy to test, well typed code base with obvious places to adjust useful behaviors like concurrency limits.

Meanwhile the samber/ro example is incomplete (Subscribe(...)?), and the source includes some weird stuff: https://github.com/samber/ro/blob/22b84c8296c01c4085e8913944...

Not to mention heaps of reflection and panics: https://github.com/samber/ro/blob/22b84c8296c01c4085e8913944...

The functionality and expressiveness might be fantastic, but I would evaluate it very carefully before use.
by cbm-vic-20 | 2025-10-27 23:08:54+00:00
I think there's an error in the Position Independence section:

start: auipc a0, 3 addi a0, a0, 4

The text says that this should result in 0x3004; was this example intended to be

start: lui a0, 3 addi a0, a0, 4
by abdullahkhalids | 2025-10-27 23:08:55+00:00
Re 2: on this software engineering forum, the following example will help.

If you have core dependency goes rogue, and you have to switch to an alternate library with similar features, is that a free switch? Think of how many thousands of hours of work are often needed? How many businesses have gone under because of such issues?

Growing a particular variety requires a lot of knowledge gained by each individual farmer from experience. You can't just go back to an old variety for free. It may take several years for yields to go back to previous levels and by then the farmer may have gone under.
by aryonoco | 2025-10-27 23:08:59+00:00
None of which is used by for example the Office team, which maintains their own UI Framework just for Office.

Which itself is not used by Teams, which uses electron/WebView2, even though Teams is part of Office.

And let’s not forget about MAUI, which has its own components and UI library, which as far as I know is not used by anyone at Microsoft.

And I’ve heard from people at Microsoft that the future story of .NET UI framework is “Blazor WASM”. Is that considered native? Probably not. But I’d argue it should be considered “first party”.

Let’s be honest, Microsoft’s UI framework landscape is a mess.
by didibus | 2025-10-27 23:09:20+00:00
You’re arguing against a position I didn’t take.

"Give everyone what they need to max out their potential" is not "give everyone every opportunity". That’s a strawman.

Floor, not ceiling. We set a floor of real opportunity (nutrition, basic health, safety, functional education, accessible selection processes). It doesn’t promise bespoke elite tracks for all. Removing constraints is different from subsidizing every aspiration. By doing so, you lift the average, and allow the best to develop to their fullest, growing society's total output.

If the signal of ability is suppressed by early disadvantage, you’ll misallocate talent. Low cost, well aimed supports (early literacy, assistive tech, unbiased hiring screens) improve matching, which is exactly what meritocracy needs to place the brilliant mathematician in math and the gifted teacher in the classroom.

We have noisy priors shaped by wealth, networks, and bias. They need removed so that comparative advantage can actually surface. That raises both the mean and the max.

We're talking about true meritocracy: merit, not circumstances.

Funnily enough, we agree:

> giving extra resources to worse people (with lower potential) is a waste of resources (money, human)

That's exactly my point, currently we spend resources on a bunch of people that are only circumstantially better, remember pro-sports before black people were allowed?

Spend your resources to realize the best to be the best, and to make even the worse better. That gives you full global maximum.
by flir | 2025-10-27 23:09:35+00:00
> I mean how does it know that though?

Not a clue. But apparently it does. Try a few nonsense texts yourself, see if it rejects them.

I'm saying that if you're spidering the whole web, then training an LLM on that corpus, asking an existing LLM "does this page make sense?" is a comparatively small additional load.

> guess with high efficiency

Yes, I think that's basically what's happening. Markov nonsense is cheap to produce, but easy to classify. A more subtle strategy might be more successful (for example someone down-thread mentions using LLM-generated text, and we know that's quite a hard thing to classify).
by latchkey | 2025-10-27 23:10:12+00:00
I really don't understand the difference. Either way, it is just a window into a computer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We rent bare metal on-demand and our whole business is to be able to offer compute that you probably wouldn't be able to host in your house $, as if you own it yourself.

So, we made it so that users can get access into the BMC and modify the box however they want. When they are done, we've automated the reset as well. Fully self-service.

$ These boxes are very expensive, weigh 350lbs, sound like a jet engine and consume ~10kW.