MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hansmayer | 2025-10-09 14:03:51+00:00
Again mate, stop making arrogant assumptions and read some of my previous comments. I and my team are early adopters, since about 2 years. I am even paying for premium-level service. Trust me, it sucks and under-delivers. But good for you and others who claim they are productive with it - I am sure we will see those 10x apps rolling in soon, right? It's only been like 4 years since the revolutionary magic machine was announced.
by _fizz_buzz_ | 2025-10-09 14:03:57+00:00
I recently talked to someone who works at a company that builds fairly complicated machinery (induction heating for a certain material processing). He works in management and they did a week long workshop with a bunch of the managers to figure out where AI will make their company more efficient. What they came up with was that they could feed a spec from a customer into an AI and the AI will create the CAD drawings, wiring diagrams, software etc. by itself. And they wrote a report on it. And I just had to break it to him: The thing that AI is actually best at, is replacing these week-long workshop where managers are bs-ing around to write reports. Also, it shouldn't be the managers doing a top down approach where to deploy AI. Get the engineers, technicians, programmers etc. and they should have a workshop to make plans where to use AI, because they probably already are experimenting with it and understand where it works well and where it doesn't quite cut it yet.
by modo_mario | 2025-10-09 14:03:58+00:00
Before reading the rest of the article from there the paragraphs about native brits seems a bit weird regardless of the good or bad of what's implied with it. 'Why doesn't he say white brits instead of native brits.' Because he doesn't mean that? I know Belgians more pasty white than me. wouldn't call them native flemish or native belgian. They're culturally romanian and turkish and even selfidentify as such, champion their sports teams and talk about their cultural issues. They're not indigenous even if born here and retain strong ties to the respective relevant countries and communities. They can't be subconsciously tied to a local area by dialect, name or cultural elements or the like.

If he had said indigenous i don't think the writer would have liked it any better tho.

Similarly many comments in the original thread who take great issue with the term who i don't expect to see reeling when native americans or palestinians, etc, etc are refered to.
by arka2147483647 | 2025-10-09 14:04:04+00:00
All the functions mentioned above, even the cpp one, will reserve atleast the number of elements given to resize() or resize_exact(), but may reserve more than that.

After some pondering, and reading the rust documentation, I came to the conclusion that te difference is this: reserve() will grow the underlaying memory area to the next increment, or more than one increment, while reserve_exact() will only grow the underlaying memory area to the next increment, but no more than that.

Eg, if grow strategy is powers of two, and we are at pow(2), then reserve() may skip from pow(2) to pow(4), but reserve_exact() would be constrained to pow(3) as the next increment.

Or so i read the documentation. Hopefully someone can confirm?
by resolutefunctor | 2025-10-09 14:04:07+00:00
Your perspective on your last point is interesting. I actually feel the opposite, its become a motivator for me.

I used to love coding, and did it a ton. Then it became less and less part of my job, and I started hating coding. It was so frustrating when I knew exactly what needed to be done in the code, but had to spend the time doing low value stuff like typing syntax, tracing through the code to find the right file to edit, etc when I'm already strapped for time.

LLMs and agentic coding tools have allowed me to not spend time on the low-value tasks of typing, but instead on the high-value tasks of solving problems like you mentioned. Just interesting the different perspectives we have.
by cogman10 | 2025-10-09 14:04:32+00:00
Because the common interaction people have with their insurers is "We are denying this because of <REASON>" which they have to fight to get healthcare.

When a provider rips off an insurer it's invisible to the general public.

Also, incidentally, when people talk about fraud in Medicare/Medicaid, the providers are almost always where that happens (yet that's often not pointed out).
by jermaustin1 | 2025-10-09 14:05:32+00:00
As a web developer who's first paid web site was in 1998 when I was 10-years-old, my favorite thing to do in my spare time is build web frameworks that I will never use.

- I've done CSS frameworks that replicate most of bootstrap that I use.

- I've made client-side reactive web-components (kind of) that almost replaced the parts of react that I like.

- I've built bespoke HTTP servers countless times since the VB6 days.

- And I've written my own MVC engines probably a half dozen times, just to learn a new language or library.

All of that to say, it isn't web devs who are threatened, it is developers who don't want to learn the underlying technologies that power the libraries and frameworks they use.

I actually see no fault in being that way. I've know tons of decent-to-good developers that have no desire to understand HTTP or Vanilla JavaScript, and they still do great work tying systems together. It's all about the kind of learner you are. Do you want depth, breadth, or a mixture of both (but always lacking in both - aka me).
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-10-09 14:05:58+00:00
I enjoy when people show social conscious & tie it to their work. Trying to work within the framework of the world & communicating your aspirations & hopes is great.

> Minimizing the extent of political involvement makes any hobby or interest infinitely more enjoyable and less toxic,

Citation needed. Why? I don't feel this at all. It's great to see virtue sang forth, imo.
by shagie | 2025-10-09 14:06:11+00:00
Reddit has problems with moderation being too easy and too difficult.

It is very easy to ban someone. Making the ban permanent and combining this with the moderator blocking the person (so they can't send messages), there's no appeal process.

Another part is that for any sub of reasonable volume, trying to actively moderate and shape beyond banning the most egregious actors is difficult. Deleting and locking posts for a finer level of moderation is time consuming. The judgement calls of "when is this going off the rails?" become more snap over time.

With the time consuming nature of actually moderating a sub and the ease of just banning someone - moderation becomes the policy of whoever has the most time. The stereotypical variations of this are the paid social media manager who's job it is to scrub anything positive of a competitor or negative about their brand, or a person who is moderating because of a deep interest in the subject but with strong opinions too.

With multiple active moderators, the most extreme views of each in turn become the overall "moderation philosophy" (and if those views are opposed the oldest one wins).

Combined with the echo chamber nature of the message board, the more and more extreme stances become the dominant stances.

To try to present a consistent approach to moderation (Reddit has gotten burned by inconsistent responses many times in the past) it appears that Reddit.inc is trying to be completely hands off. That in turn means that it takes extreme situations for corporate to get involved - often long after it's been a problem that they've been alerted to. Having let the problem fester for so long, when something is done, it tends to be very heavy handed, lopsided, and generates a significant amount of discontent that spreads elsewhere.

So, you've got a site that hosts thousands of message boards, that inevitably grow more and more partisan to one extreme or the other, are mostly facades for a corporation, or propaganda for a political organization.

It is impressive that it has remained "stable" for as long as it has.
by raxxorraxor | 2025-10-09 14:06:15+00:00
No, the problem is in the requirements already, not only in the implementation.

I don't want to ID myself if it isn't necessary. Proven security mechanism to minize data collection. It is a security risk, even with ZKP. It wouldn't even be hard to correlate the data, especially since governments also force ISPs to save connection info.

There is no need to a foul compromise here.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-10-09 14:06:16+00:00
>The 1961 patent for TTL never mentions 5 volts; it only specifies a “B+”, which seems like a term held over from the vacuum tube days. Source: U.S. Patent 3283170A.

Yes, the high-voltage B+ which served the same purpose from a vacuum tube power supply was soon eclipsed by the VCC or VCC+ nomenclature.

And B+ actually originated from battery powered radios before electronic power supplies were common.

The low voltage high-current "A" battery was connected to the filaments of the tubes to provide the heating, then the high-voltage "B" battery was connected to the main B+ point in the circuit to power the analog functions.

Both batteries may or may not be connected to each other or a common ground.

For tube equipment power transformers, the low voltage and high voltage are obtained from separate windings so they could basically be employed offering the same kind of wiring options.

For equipment requiring a negative supply voltage in addition, a third "C" battery would be hooked up with its positive terminal to ground. Then a third winding on an appropriate power transformer could substitute for this but that was referred to as B-.
by maybewhenthesun | 2025-10-09 14:06:28+00:00
Maintainer nightmare checklist:

- Web framework : inherently hard to maintain due to communication over evolving standards. Check.

- AI written code where nobody knows howwhatwhenwhy!? Check.

- Written in C. Check.

bwahahahaha!

edit: semi-joking. As I actually like the simplicity of pure C. But the combination of AI written,network-facing and C makes me shudder.
by jstummbillig | 2025-10-09 14:06:34+00:00
It's an interesting thought. How much not obviously connected stuff relies on the discipline that (for example) doing mundane tasks effectively/regularly asks from us, to not start breaking down in ways we really would not like?

It's us, flesh blobs. Long after we cover everything in AI and robots around us, we will not change easily. Societal drift is slow, genetic drift is slower.

(For the record: Gimme my robot, but interesting thought nonetheless)
by benrutter | 2025-10-09 14:06:41+00:00
> Consider an arbitrary SuperGiant classification that says that SuperGiant foods are harmful. SuperGiant foods are defined as any food you can buy in a supermarket plus also Polonium. You can easily produce a wide range of statistics to show harms caused by things classed as SuperGiant foods.

That's very true, but you've intentionally made SuperGiant foods to have two distinct categories. Scientists only considering SuperGiant foods might show harm, but quite quickly a study could be done to show that specifically, Polonium is the relevant item.

If that couldn't be shown, then avoiding SuperGiant foods would be a sensible precaution, even if you suspect there's something specific causing harm that isn't in all SuperGiant foods - with the obvious caveat that you've defined SuperGiant foods to more or less impossible to actually avoid.

Currently UPF is not similar to this, in that nobody has yet shown that UPFs are a category containing something else which is bad for you. That probably is the case, but until the parallel of Polonium is found, being cautious around UPFs seems like a sensible idea.
by germandiago | 2025-10-09 14:07:19+00:00
Rust is not the most productive language by any means... it is hardened AF if you avoid unsafe, but productive?

I can code much faster in almost any language compared to Rust. It creates mental overhead. For example, to compare it to siblings, Swift and C++ (yes, even C++, but with a bit of knowledge of good practices) lets you produce stuff more easily than Rust.

It is just that Rust, compared to C++, comes extra-hardened. But now go get refactor your Rust code if you started to add lifetimes around... things get coupled quickly. It is particularly good at hardening and particularly bad at prototyping.

They seem to be the opposite in the absence of borrowing without a garbage collector, since you need to mark the lifetime in some way.
by ACCount37 | 2025-10-09 14:07:30+00:00
Building the robot itself is hard enough - but it was never the hardest part.

The thing to watch out for is: deployments. How many units are they pushing and to who. What kind of tasks can those robots accomplish well enough to warrant actually using them. How hard is it to adapt those robots to deployments. How that changes over time.

The hardest problem of creating a universal robot is, and always has been, AI. If Figure can deliver sharp, highly adaptive, easy to use AI? High generalization, good performance on a diverse range of tasks and in many environments out of the box? Then they have a killer product.

And a proxy to track that is reports of how many robots they deploy and to who. If they start shipping to small companies and deploying to high uncertainty spatially complex fields like construction or maintenance? If you start seeing robots unloading trucks and restocking shelves at a small town Walmart, unannounced? Big.
by Teever | 2025-10-09 14:07:33+00:00
To me one of the best metrics for capability and design of these kinds of machines is the extent in which their manufacturer makes use of them in their manufacturing process.

That tells me that the design is amenable to aftermarket service and maintenance and that the machines are capable of participating in relatively sophisticated manufacturing processes.

A graph with one line representing the number of hours of physical labour by humans per unit produced with another line representing number of hours of physical 'labour' by these robots per unit produced would be interesting to look at.

The intersection point between those two lines and the point where human input drops to zero are key points in humanity.
by chrismorgan | 2025-10-09 14:07:44+00:00
That’s a different issue, though related.

For password safe users, auth being handled entirely on a different origin is completely fine, so long as the credentials are bound to (only used on, including initial registration) that origin. The hazard is only when login occurs via multiple domains—which in this case would mean if you had <input> elements on both tax.gov and id.me taking the same username and password, which I don’t believe you do. Your password safe won’t care if you started at https://tax.gov, the origin you created the credentials on was https://id.me, and so that’s the origin it will autofill for.
by Spivak | 2025-10-09 14:07:50+00:00
You would have to leverage the law (if you have one) that involves the state resolving the dispute because otherwise the automated disputes would probably be dropped on the floor. The insurance company has the leverage because they're actually in possession of the money and the contract that gives them stupidly high discretion on how much to pay out.

Doing nothing but flipping the burden, doctors get paid whatever they invoice and insurance have to claw it back would make a lot of this stonewalling bullshit go away. But with an openly corrupt government paid by insurance it'll never happen.
by bayindirh | 2025-10-09 14:08:02+00:00
> QUIC gives control back to application developers to tailor congestion control to their use case

If I understood modern application development correctly, this interprets as "The developers will import another library which they don't understand and will wreak havoc on other applications' data streams by only optimizing stuff for themselves".

Again, if I remember correctly, an OS is "the layer which manages the sharing of limited resources among many processes which requests/needs it", and the OS can do system-wide, per socket congestion control without any effort because of the vantage point it has over networking layer.

Assuming that every application will do congestion control correctly while not choking everyone else even unintentionally with user space's limited visibility is absurd at worst, and wishful thinking at best.

The whole ordeal is direct violation with application separation coming with protected mode.
by Diggsey | 2025-10-09 14:08:21+00:00
Agree, but I think there is a point to be made here: Go as a language has more subtle runtime invariants that must be upheld compared to other languages, and this has led to a relatively large number of really nasty bugs (eg. there have also been several bugs relating to native function calling due to stack space issues and calling convention differences). By "nasty" I mean ones that are really hard to track down if you don't have the resources that a company like CF does.

To me this points to a lack of verification, testing, and most importantly awareness of the invariants that are relied on. If the GC relies on the stack pointer being valid at all times, then the IR needs a way to guarantee that modifications to it are not split into multiple instructions during lowering. It means that there should be explicit testing of each kind of stack layout, and tests that look at the real generated code and step through it instruction by instruction to verify that these invariants are never broken...
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-10-09 14:08:41+00:00
Also important to note that in a Transformer-based LLM, embeddings are more than just a way of representing the input words. Embeddings are what pass through the transformer, layer by layer, and get transformed by it.

The size of the embedding space (number of vector dimensions) is therefore larger than needed to just represent word meanings - it needs to be large enough to also be able to represent the information added by these layer-wise transformations.

The way I think of these transformations, but happy to be corrected, is more a matter of adding information rather than modifying what is already there, so conceptually the embeddings will start as word embeddings, then maybe get augmented with part-of-speech information, then additional syntactic/parsing information, and semantic information, as the embedding gets incrementally enriched as it is "transformed" by successive layers.
by bunderbunder | 2025-10-09 14:08:47+00:00
Meanwhile, in computer land, it's not even at all. I use both a PC and a Mac at home. In the time since I bought the MacBook, I've had to replace the PC three times.

I did pay for some out of warranty repairs on the Mac about 5 years ago. (Keyboard and battery replacement.) So that evens the total cost of ownership situation a little bit. Having a PC has only cost me about twice as much as having a Mac over the past 10 years.
by notacoward | 2025-10-09 14:08:51+00:00
One possibility might be a combination of the "mostly urban" and "big SUV" factors. To put it another way: where are people driving those larger vehicles. I don't have numbers, but it does seem like vehicles that were once common mostly in suburban/exurban/rural environments are now more common in cities as well. Poor visibility plus higher pedestrian density seems like a powerfully bad combination.

Mostly, though, drivers have just gotten worse. Corner-cutting is one of my pet peeves, and a good example here. I used to see someone cutting a corner across opposing traffic - usually someone turning off an arterial vs. someone trying to come out of the side street - less than once a week. Now, even though I drive less, it seems to be everyone all the time. If they're not cutting the corner, they're swinging wide to the same effect. Ditto for running red lights. Where I used to see one person running it by half a second, I now see three running it by multiple seconds. Turning where there's a "no turn on red" same way. I've stood at a rotary and counted how many cars were not using it properly, endangering others. Yeah, I know, get a life, but the fact remains that drivers are worse.

The only real question IMO is why drivers are worse. I have more theories, of course. Breakdown of the social contract, people under more time pressure, phones (though that was already examined), etc. But those kind of aren't essential to my point so I'll leave them aside for now.
by caminante | 2025-10-09 14:08:56+00:00
It couldn't get sillier. Oh wait!

> Price levels: How should vendors set price levels when the cost of inferencing is dropping rapidly? How should they balance value capture with scaling adoption?

This is written for B2B target clients as if it's pulling back the veil on pricing strategy and negotiating. Hire McKinsey to get you the BEST™ deal in town.
by Bjartr | 2025-10-09 14:09:08+00:00
> Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

It is far from that simple. It takes understanding how people will read between the lines of what you say, seeking unsaid meaning where there was none. I fight this constantly in my life. It would be so, so much easier and simpler for me if I could just say what I mean and have others understand that.
by yfontana | 2025-10-09 14:10:09+00:00
Properly measuring "GPU load" is something I've been wondering about, as an architect who's had to deploy ML/DL models but is still relatively new at it. With CPU workloads you can generally tell from %CPU, %Mem and IOs how much load your system is under. But with GPU I'm not sure how you can tell, other than by just measuring your model execution times. I find it makes it hard to get an idea whether upgrading to a stronger GPU would help and by how much. Are there established ways of doing this?
by eesmith | 2025-10-09 14:10:21+00:00
> Completely baffled as to who said this

Follow the URL after "Quoting", on the line immediately following what you quoted. I gave URLs so you could read what actual experts are saying and doing.

> Only that industry dwarfs satellite re-entry.

You have made a hand-wavy gut-feeling conjecture about the amount of human-produced ground sources of aluminum in the upper atmosphere. You have given no stats.

I have linked to several papers and articles by people whose research (scientific and journalistic) say that, yes, the demise of megaconstellation satellites will significantly increase the percentage of aluminum in the upper atmosphere, with potentially negative effects like thinning the ozone layer.

Your belief about ground sources necessarily implies you believe all those researchers must be wrong.
by rsynnott | 2025-10-09 14:10:39+00:00
> The Global Anti-Aging Products Market size is [worth] USD 47.4 Billion in 2023

That would work out to the average woman spending about $9 on it a year. So one might still question the 'most women' claim, unless these products are considerably cheaper than I'm imagining :)

I strongly suspect that the real story is "a small minority of women and an even smaller minority of men spend quite a lot on these things, the remainder of the population doesn't use them at all."
by zahlman | 2025-10-09 14:10:40+00:00
> Had this been an impactful attack, we would not be this flippant about it. For this, though, any other tone on our part would be false.

> ...

> If you were inclined to take us up on an “airdrop” to “claim a share” of the “token” powering Fly.io, the site is still up. You can connect your wallet it [sic] it! You’ll lose all your money. But if we’d actually done an ICO, you’d have lost all your money anyways.

> Somebody involved in pulling this attack off had to come up with “own a piece of the sky!”, and I think that’s punishment enough for them.

I was amused by all of this, but I still feel like they should care more about how impactful this was for anyone who got crypto-scammed at the link. I mean, yes, those are people who would believe the story and also click a link like that. But what if fly.io were found to share liability?