MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-18 09:40:36+00:00
> They brought products that, while not top quality, had decent quality for an unbeatable price

In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to.

Not to say that isn't an achievement in itself, to build same quality gear for cheap, but I'm not sure "revolutionized" is a word I'd use to describe them.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-18 09:41:38+00:00
> If you want to enter the market you must beat their stuff price/quality wise

Yeah, if the market you're talking about is "price/quality", but most musical gear doesn't sit in that market, but a wildly different one, and in that one you don't have to beat Behringer to be successful, and granted your stuff is high quality and actually innovative enough, you can almost set the price freely.
by makeitdouble | 2025-10-18 09:43:27+00:00
Power draw is around 75W. It can be manual boosted, but will stay below 100W under all circumstances (from memory, as I was researching the Z13)

The chip itself should accept higher power draws, and ASUS usually isn't shy on feeding 130+W to a laptop, so the 75W figure was quite a surprise to me.
by jonway | 2025-10-18 09:43:51+00:00
You’re missing the point made again.

The national guard does not have a policing mandate or mission, they do not deploy police forces, aren’t deploying military police, do not have criminal justice training and none of the list you responded with before addresses any of this.

Guardsmen guard. Why do you want military riot control again?

The original comment was like: if I were police I’d be pissed off that untrained and unaccountable non-police are trying to do my job (and I have to clean up their mess)
by gregjor | 2025-10-18 09:43:58+00:00
Fewer, not less.

Two relevant numbers that frequently get conflated: Number of children per woman, and number of children per mother.

Family size (children per mother) relatively constant in developed countries for decades. If you account for much higher (50% or so) child mortality in pre-industrial times family size has declined over time but only a little.

Number of women having children, often called fertility rate, has declined dramatically in most of the world in the last 50 to 70 years because fewer women have any children at all.

Declines in either measure mean fewer children, but those declines likely have very different causes. People don't find partners to marry and have children with, for reasons that vary across cultures, but economic pressure looks like a major cause.
by fredoralive | 2025-10-18 09:45:40+00:00
It's kinda a neat idea for a fixed target CPU like on a games console, but for a general purpose CPU range you generally don't want to reveal too much behind the curtain like that, what if you did a new model with a bigger scratchpad? Would existing software just ignore it? Or a budget model with less? Do you have a crash, or just an slow fallback? The system where the CPU magically makes cache work is better when you're in a situation where the CPU and software problem aren't fixed.
by makeitdouble | 2025-10-18 09:47:38+00:00
The saddest part of this is the lack of availability: at this point there's 2 standard laptops using this chip, the Z13 being the only high perf one. There's the Framework lines as well, but they aren't available in many countries, and it's a very specific public.

And that's after half a year after the first machines to come to the market.

I love the Z13, but it's clearly a niche machine, so I'm assuming they are having a really hard time manufacturing the chips ? All the capacity is getting eaten by Apple ?
by 1oooqooq | 2025-10-18 09:48:44+00:00
your comment seems very insightful but for the layman that I am it seems to ignore the source of international law reach.

the usa does at lot of leg work to set up legal frameworks, suck as forcing transpacific "partnership", which enforce usa IP law overseas etc.

they can enforce some things, like gambling and financial rules, and now intellectual property overseas because there are specific accords for those. every thing else, even hacking and spying, they must wait for the "criminal" to land on it's jurisdiction.

why is this changing anything on all of that?

also, your example of google/china would let this play out opposite of what you suggest: uk gov would please US law to keep doing business there. i fail to see the relevance on that also.
by musebox35 | 2025-10-18 09:50:26+00:00
Honestly, if you have any actual interest in LLMs or other generative ai variants, just go after a concrete goal post that you yourself set with measurable metrics to gauge your progress. Then the predicted timeline from podcasts and blog posts will become irrelevant. Experts and non-experts have both been terrible at predicting timelines since the dawn of ai. Self driving cars and llms are no exception. When you are making predictions based solely on intuition and experience it is mostly an extrapolation. It is not useless. It always helps to ask questions and try to frame the future within the bounds of our current understanding. But at the same time it is important to remember that this is just speculation, not empirical science. That is also why there is such varied opinions on the topic of ai timelines. Relax and enjoy witnessing a major leap in our understanding of natural language, vision, and high dimensional probabilistic vector spaces ;-)
by Pooge | 2025-10-18 09:50:48+00:00
> It makes me laugh when people say stocks are risky.

I agree 100% with your thought.

However, I've come with an explanation: people save $100k and the amount in itself will not budge unless they use that money. This, of course, is a flawed argument as the amount doesn't matter; what you can buy with it does. With stocks—I prefer ETFs but I digress—you do not know the amount you will have in 40 years (even if, historically, you would have made money in absolutely all cases).

This uncertainty, coupled with lack of economics knowledge, is why people qualify stocks as "risky". However, instead of "risky", I think they mean "volatile". Cash is absolutely the riskiest of assets as it loses value in 100% of cases despite being more stable than stocks.

And my cynic mind tells me that the banking industry has all to gain from telling people that "stocks are very risky", instilling fear and, instead, selling them over-complicated products where the bank is guaranteed to make a profit on the back of their clients. Of course, they tell them it's "100% safe".
by bonoboTP | 2025-10-18 09:54:41+00:00
This also applies to many other things, such as cars. But perhaps the timeline is shifted.

But if we go earlier a bit, it was common for people to know much more about house construction, electric work, flooring, making furniture etc. IKEA emulates some of this, but it's really a different thing to live around things you truly understand, you participated in builting your house, you know how and why everything is in it, you can fix your car, you can make produce in your garden, you eat your chickens' eggs, which you can turn into baked chicken, the whole process from hatching to hen to plate is managed by you etc.

People are having less and less control and understanding of their lives. It's all "coming from somewhere" and wrapped in abstractions and euphemisms. You no longer buy things, just rent, etc. It really changes the mentality to a more child-like thinking, at the mercy of some opaque system. With AI we will get the final blow. No skills, no intellectual muscle, just as people don't even remember the and driving directions to even places they regularly visit, because GPS gives instructions so it's just not memorized. It will be the same but for everything.
by formerly_proven | 2025-10-18 09:55:45+00:00
> Electric and internal combustion cars do not cost the same though.

They do in other (non-US) markets, without subsidies.

PHEVs are a bad deal, always were. Only make sense if there's subsidies or tax advantages for buying them over pure combustion cars (unfortunately a thing in some markets). Most PHEVs are never charged and PHEV batteries are roughly 4x more expensive per kWh than EV batteries, so there is no cost benefit in the electric drivetrain.
by yodon | 2025-10-18 09:57:09+00:00
I'm really enjoying working with SpecKit, but the tutorials are all still pretty elementary.

Would be great to see how others are handling real world use cases like making incremental improvements or refactorings to a huge legacy code base that didn't start out as a spec driven development hello world project, or situations where you identify additional aspects of the spec midway through implementing the tasks as opposed to before you start implementing the tasks (because the reality is BDUF is still hard), or etc.
by scraft | 2025-10-18 09:57:35+00:00
On the PS2 there was a very small memory area, called the scratchpad, that was very quick to access, the rough idea on the PS2 was to DMA data in and out of the scratch pad, and then do work in the data, without creating contention with everything else going on at the same time.

In general most developers struggled to do much with it, it was just too small (combined with the fiddlyness of using it).

PS2 programmer's were very used to thinking in this way as it's how the rendering had to be done. There is a couple of vector units, and one of them is connected to the GPU, so the general structure most developers followed was to have 4 buffers in the VU memory (I think it only had 16kb of memory or something pretty small), but essentially in parallel you'd have:

1. New data being DMAd in from main memory to VU memory (into say buffer 1/4). 2. Previous data in buffer 3/4 being transformed, lit, coloured, etc and output into buffer 4/4. 3. Data from buffer 2/4 being sent/rendered by the GPU.

Then once the above had finished it would flip, so you'd alternate like:

Data in: B1 (main memory to VU) Data out: B2 (VU to GPU) Data process from: B3 (VU processing) Data process to: B4 (VU processing)

Data in: B3 Data out: B4 Data process from: B1 Data process to: B2

The VU has two pipelines running in parallel (float and integer), and every instruction had an exact number of cycles to process, if you read a result before it is ready you stall the pipeline, so you had to painstakingly interleave and order your instructions to process three verts at a time and be very clever about register pressure etc.

There is obviously some clever syncing logic to allow all of this to work, allowing the DMA to wait until the VU kicks off the next GPU batch etc.

It was complex to get your head around, set up all the moving parts and debug when it goes wrong. When it goes wrong it pretty much just hangs, so you had to write a lot of validators. On PS2 you basically spend the frame building up a huge DMA list, and then at the end of the frame kick it off and it renders everything, so the DMA will transfer VU programs to the VU, upload data to the VU, wait for it to process and upload next batch, at the end upload next program, upload settings to GPU registers, bacially everything. Once that DMA is kicked off no more CPU code is involved in rendering the frame, so you have a MB or so of pure memory transfer instructions firing off, if any of them are wrong you are in a world of pain.

Then throw in, just to keep things interesting, the fact that anything you write to memory is likely stuck in caches, and DMA doesn't seem caches, so extra care has to be taken to make sure caches are flushed before using DMA.

It was a magical, horrible, wonderful, painful, joyous, impossible, satisfying, sickening, amazing time.
by motorest | 2025-10-18 09:58:02+00:00
> In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to.

Your comment reads like "IBM didn't revolutionize anything. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price (...)"
by rumori | 2025-10-18 09:58:48+00:00
That is one way to look at them. The other is more akin to a parasite, wait for small companies to invest and innovate and once a product is proven in the marketplace, copy it. I don't really want to judge them, cheap music gear is certainly good for consumers but talking to small manufacturers over many years I've yet to meet anyone who likes them. If anything smaller players are now extremely careful to open source stuff exactly because of them.
by axus | 2025-10-18 10:00:12+00:00
China seems happy with the Power of Siberia pipeline and wants another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline Credit to those countries for not fighting each other, by the way!

So I agree, we can have all of the above: expansion of solar power, expansion of EVs and batteries, continued growth of fossil fuels, and climate disaster.
by the_gipsy | 2025-10-18 10:00:14+00:00
I suggest you revisit the subject with your friends, with two key points:

1. Make it clear to them that with "internal monologue" you do not mean an actual audible hallucination

2. Ask them if they EVER have imagined themselves or others saying or asking anything

If they do, which they 100% will unless they lie, then you have ruled out "does not have an internal monologue", the claim is now "does not use his internal monologue as much". You can keep probing them what exactly that means, but it gets washy.

Someone that truly does not have an internal dialogue could not do the most basic daily tasks. A person could grab a cookie from the table when they feel like it (oh, :cookie-emoji:!), but they cannot put on their shoes, grab their wallet and keys, look in the mirror to adjust their hair, go to the supermarket, to buy cookies. If there were another hidden code that can express all huge mental state pulled by "buy cookies", by now we would at least have an idea that it exists underneath. We must also ask, why would we translate this constantly into language, if the mental state is already there? Translation costs processing power and slows down. So why are these "no internal monologue" people not geniuses?

I have no doubt that there is a spectrum, on that I agree with you. But the spectrum is "how present is (or how aware is the person of-) the internal monologue". E.g. some people have ADHD, others never get anxiety at all. "No internal monologue" is not one end of the spectrum for functioning adults.

The cat actually proves my point. A cat can sit for a long time before a mouse-hole, or it can hide to jumpscare his brother cat, and so on. So to a very small degree there is something that let's it process ("understand") very basic and near-future event and action-reactions. However, a cat could not possibly go to the supermarket to buy food, obviating anatomical obstacles, because: it has no language and therefore cannot make a complex mental model. Fun fact: whenever animals (apes, birds) have been taught language, they never ask questions (some claim they did, but if you dig in you'll see that the interpretation is extremely dubious).
by kace91 | 2025-10-18 10:01:39+00:00
Coming from a language with functions as first class objects, blocks felt a bit limited to me, because it feels as if you almost have functions but not really, and they get inputted by a back door. Used for example to:

let isLarge = a => a>100;

numbers.filter(isLarge)

Blocks let you do the same but without extracting the body as cleanly. Maybe it’s a chronological issue, where Ruby was born at a time when the above wasn’t commonplace?

>When you write 5.times { puts “Hello” }, you don’t think “I’m calling the times method and passing it a block.” You think “I’m doing something 5 times.”

I’m of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I do agree that aesthetically Ruby looks very clean and pleasing. On the other, I always feel like the mental model I have about a language is usually “dirtied” to improve syntax.

The value 5 having a method, and that method being an iterator for its value, is kinda weird in any design sense and doesn’t seem to fix any architectural order you might expect, it’s just there because the “hack” results in pretty text when used.

These magical tricks are everywhere in the language with missing_method and the like, and I guess there’s a divide between programmers’ minds when some go “oh that’s nice” and don’t care how the magic is done, and others are naturally irked by the “clever twists”.
by senko | 2025-10-18 10:01:50+00:00
The thing is, achieving say, 99.99999% reliable AI would be spectacularly useful even if it's a dead end from the AGI perspective.

People routinely conflate the "useful LLMs" and "AGI", likely because AGI has been so hyped up, but you don't need AGI to have useful AI.

It's like saying the Internet is dead end because it didn't lead to telepathy. It didn't, but it sure as hell is useful.

It's beneficial to have both discussions: whether and how to achieve AGI and how to grapple with it, and how to improve a reliability, performance and cost of LLMs for more prosaic use cases.

It's just that they are separate discussions.
by inopinatus | 2025-10-18 10:02:07+00:00
For this audience it may be worth noting that Ruby’s blocks are closures and are passed to methods either anonymously/implicitly or as a named parameter, may be subsequently passed around to any collaborator object, or otherwise deferred/ignored, have the same range of argument arity as methods and lambdas, can even be formed from (and treated similarly to) lambdas, and are thereby fundamental to Ruby’s claim to being a multiparadigm language even as they also betray the Smalltalk roots.

In addition they have nonlocal return semantics, somewhat like a simple continuation, making them ideal for inline iteration and folding, which is how most new Rubyists first encounter them, but also occasionally a source of surprise and confusion, most notably if one mistakenly conflates return with result. Ruby does separately have callcc for more precise control over stack unwinding, although it’s a little known feature.
by IrakliP77 | 2025-10-18 10:03:20+00:00
’ - — - . And I won’t sugarcoat it: this started as a side project born from frustration.

GitHub: https://lnkd.in/dV6BMWeR

:

My background is in law — data protection, legal tech, AI regulation, and robotics. I understand the legal frameworks governing AI and the technical architecture needed to build compliant, production-grade systems. It’s a rare combo, and I assumed it would open doors.

Instead, I kept sending applications, interviewing, waiting, while companies with far less sophisticated systems were getting acquired for millions. I had projects in my spare time that could do twice as much.

( ):

Sentient AI isn’t vaporware or another wrapper. It’s a production-ready autonomous agent platform with:

1. 2,700+ tool integrations via MCP 2. Multimodal intelligence (vision + web browsing) 3. Isolated sandboxes with full code execution 4. Real-time data extraction (LinkedIn, Amazon, financial markets) 5. Automated presentation generation, document processing, and voice integration, and more→ 293,205 lines of production code across 1,264 files

:

You don’t need millions to build enterprise-grade AI. You need skills, determination, and the refusal to wait for permission.

This fully functional autonomous AI infrastructure can:

1. Conduct market research end-to-end 2. Generate professional presentations 3. Execute code and analyze systems 4. Process documents and extract knowledge 5. Integrate with thousands of real-world tools

Companies are paying top dollar for solutions that do a fraction of this.

: If you’re being told you need “more experience,” if you’re tired of proving yourself in interviews — build something undeniable. Ship it. Open-source it. Let the work speak.

I’m releasing Sentient AI under Apache 2.0 because the future of AI should be open and accessible.

:

If you’re excited about autonomous agents, see improvements, or want to add features — contribute. Fork it. Improve it. Make it better.
by Voultapher | 2025-10-18 10:03:28+00:00
One of the best engineers I know works for [1] Woven by Toyota, Inc. They do care about getting software right, arguably more so than the german automotive sector. Don't get me wrong they all want good software, but wanting good software and putting the right systems in place while resisting the urge to chase the next hype wave are quite two different things.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woven_by_Toyota,_Inc.
by simianwords | 2025-10-18 10:03:29+00:00
How do you quantify generality? If we have a benchmark that can quantify it and that benchmark reliably tells us that the LLM is within human levels of generalisation then the llm is not distinguishable from a human.

While it’s a good point that we need to benchmark generalisation ability, you have in fact agreed that it is not important to understand underlying mechanics.
by eqvinox | 2025-10-18 10:04:32+00:00
> If I can walk on land that says private property, it's not private. I'll remember to use that argument when I get ticketed for trespassing.

Dude. Dudette. Duderino. Did you think this through before you hit post? I'm talking about enforcement. If you're getting a ticket, it's literally being enforced. And if it isn't, you get squatters! Thanks for the point in support, I guess?

I think this is the most braindead knee-jerk HN comment I've ever gotten as a reply, congratulations.

[Ed.: god, please, this genuinely hurts my brain.]

> but it does mean that when their unanticipated use breaks things, that's on the people who ignored the warnings.

Yeah. When it breaks things for them. Not when it breaks the entire OS' UI.

Let's stay with your analogy. Things change, Electron apps break? That's analog to finally getting around to calling the cops on squatters after dozing on it. Things change, your UI goes belly up due to Electron? That's you deciding to pay the bill for electricity and indoor plumbing for the squatters. No, wait, even better: you decided you finally want to build a new house on your plot, and now have to deal with getting the squatters out first. It'll happen, but you'll have to unnecessarily sink time and money into that. Apple's dealing with evicting Electron off their private APIs. What a nice analogy.

Of course the squatters are technically wrong. But why did you leave your front door open, and neglected and didn't check in for years? The part where you're making it hard for yourself is on you, mate. You're not going to get your lost time back. Why didn't you grab a lock at home depot?

> Just because all but one cop of the force ignore people driving over the speed limit

This is generally policy, not individual cops' discretion.
by lazide | 2025-10-18 10:07:18+00:00
If they pack the alcohol up in a crate, and then ship it to the person after they make the order in person? Less clear yes?

If the consumer goes to a place it is legal, and consumes it there without bringing any back, most people would say ‘meh’. Depending on the product. Hard drugs and sex work, being two common exceptions that some countries get more worked up about even traveling to ‘enjoy’ it.

But ship it back (especially hard drugs or sex workers!), and almost all people get more concerned.

The issue here is exactly why customs typically is a mandatory ‘gate’ for packages AND passengers entering a country.

Similar, one could say, to a giant country level firewall?

And why it is so lucrative for smugglers, which are defacto performing a type of arbitrage eh?