MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bloppe | 2025-10-22 17:55:15+00:00
> would require all holders (not miners) to actively update their wallets. Basically infeasible.

It doesn't require all holders to update their wallets. Some people would fail to do so and lose their money. That doesn't mean the rest of the network can't do anything to save themselves. Most people use hosted wallets like Coinbase these days anyway, and Coinbase would certainly be on top of things.

Also, you don't need to break ECDSA to break BTC. You could also do it by breaking mining. The block header has a 32-bit nonce at the very end. My brain is too smooth to know how realistic this actually is, but perhaps someone could do use a QC to perform the final step of SHA-256 on all 2^32 possible values of the nonce at once, giving them an insurmountable advantage in mining. If only a single party has that advantage, it breaks the Nash equilibrium.

But if multiple parties have that advantage, I suppose BTC could survive until someone breaks ECDSA. All those mining ASICs would become worthless, though.
by servercobra | 2025-10-22 17:55:24+00:00
Having used XReals and Vision Pro (which I assume will be very similar), they're not even in the same ballpark for experience for movies and for desktop. XReals feel like a crappy monitor strapped to your face that bounces with your pulse, tilts, etc and not enough resolution to be good for coding. Vision Pro feels like you're in both the virtual world and real world (plus the ultra wide Mac Virtual Desktop is amazing). I tried to dev on XReal and quickly gave up. Vision Pro I've been using consistently for over a year. Is it worth it? That's personal preference, but I think so.
by thaw13579 | 2025-10-22 17:55:31+00:00
Questioning is great, but to generate scientific knowledge, we need a few more steps, roughly speaking:

1. Ask a question 2. Form a hypothesis 3. Experiment to test it 4. Analyze results 5. Draw conclusions 6. Repeat

The MAHA folks essentially disregard this as a valid process for gathering knowledge. They occasionally talk about experiments and studies, but they are selectively chosen to support their conclusions in a posthoc way, ignoring both evidence to the contrary and basic methodological issues. When people describe them as "anti-science," I believe this is the kind of thing they have in mind.
by freehorse | 2025-10-22 17:56:13+00:00
That sounds fine for those first 15 minutes and maybe first weeks though. What if a certain `curl | sh` fails after a month? What if I need some other stuff down the road? If anything the article's criticism makes sense from the perspective of needing to get work done, and omarchy seems to be focused more on the aesthetics. A package manager is exactly what is needed to get shit done instead of tweaking and troubleshooting stuff.

Omarchy is fine as an (opinionated) collection of dotfiles and configurations, but there are reasons proper distros are useful aside from wanting to spend time tweaking stuff or whatever. I don't see how the article talks about anything else than practical issues with it.
by schmidtleonard | 2025-10-22 17:56:31+00:00
If impartial non-partisan justice were your concern, you would spend your time focusing on the most egregious violations (Aileen Canon, the Supreme Court, etc) rather than grabbing the conversation by the horns and aggressively steering it towards an alleyway where you hoped to force a draw.

Your choices betray your priorities and they are not what you claim.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-22 17:56:32+00:00
> Carlsen showed an aptitude for intellectual challenges at a young age. At two years, he could solve 50-piece jigsaw puzzles; at four, he enjoyed assembling Lego sets with instructions intended for children aged 10–14. His father, a keen amateur chess player, taught him to play at the age of five, although he initially showed little interest in it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen#Childhood

I don't know you could go as far to say he was born better at chess, but he certainly seemed to be smart early on, and with his father's influence and with a supporting environment that smarts got aimed at chess.
by LorenPechtel | 2025-10-22 17:56:34+00:00
Survivorship bias. We look at our history and always survive the crisis. Because the ones that don't aren't around to see the failure.

Most species have gone extinct.

Personally, I do not believe climate change can kill us off. The worst case predictions are pretty dire (and beware the worst case makes the IPCC look tame--there is not enough data on methane hydrates for it to be in the IPCC model, but the worst case estimates are worse than the IPCC estimates and they will probably stack.) But I consider extinction likely because we can move around. An animal that loses 90% of it's habitat loses 90% of it's population but the survivors are pretty much the same as before. But are those humans who will be killed off just going to sit there?
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2025-10-22 17:57:09+00:00
> If all (ALL!) they’d wanted to do was build a giant rocket with a reusable booster and an expendable second stage, they’d already be done.

Maybe. But instead, in addition to building a giant rocket with a reusable booster and an expendable second stage, they also on want it to reach orbit, that's why it's not done yet. And likely will never be, because starship is severely underpowered.
by gethly | 2025-10-22 17:57:18+00:00
Semantics. Go at least does not restrict you to wrap every single panicky call.

func Foo() { try { maybePanic() } catch (err any) { doSomething(err) }

.. more code

}

vs

func Foo() { defer func() { if err := recover(); err != nil { doSomething(err) } }()

maybePanic() .. more code }
by notahacker | 2025-10-22 17:57:24+00:00
Since the admins aren't in space, actors that want to use administrative privileges to interfere with your data have no less access to it than if the datacentre was located on the ground.

The difference between the US government censoring a datacentre in orbit and one in California is a matter of cost rather than practicality, and it's actually easier for other spacefaring powers to interfere with it in a deniable manner if it's that important to them than the datacentre in California
by GuinansEyebrows | 2025-10-22 17:57:34+00:00
corporations are the mechanism by which bad actors are shielded from responsibility. limited liability is used in bad faith in these cases; regulating this bad-faith usage should impact the individuals responsible for the implementation, but should also impact those not directly involved for allowing it to happen in the first place, including board members, management and investors (if you really want to see change, start fucking with peoples' money when they allow bad things to happen through inaction).
by Narciss | 2025-10-22 17:57:36+00:00
Not an evangelist for AI at all, I just love it as a tool for my creativity, research and coding.

What I’m saying is that there should be a disclaimer: hey, we’re testing these models for the average person, that have no idea about AI. People who actually know AI would never use them in this way.

A better idea: educate people. Add “Here’s the best way to use them btw…” to the report.

All I’m saying is, it’s a tool, and yes you can use it wrong. That’s not a crazy realization. It applies to every other tool.

We knew that the hallucation rate for gpt 4o was nuts. From the start. We also know that gpt-5 has a much lower hallucination rate. So there are no surprises here, I’m not saying anything groundbreaking, and neither are they.
by wlesieutre | 2025-10-22 17:58:07+00:00
For consumer hardware spaces (tablets and smartwatches) they're currently acting like they care, but they have previously checked out of those spaces and then come back years later saying "Just kidding actually we are doing tablets!"

What might save this one is that the Oculus Quest ecosystem being Android based with similar hardware, so it should be pretty easy for an ecosystem of appropriately designed software to get ported over.

Kind of like how big screen Android devices have been an afterthought for most apps (hope you like enlarged phone UIs) but what might rescue tablets this time is foldable phones showing up and making developers consider "what if the screen isn't a tall rectangle?"

I still think there's high chances they have one or two generations of hardware trying to copy the Oculus Quest / Vision Pro and then pull the plug and say "forget VR we're doing AI glasses." They were ahead of the curve with Google Glass, but have that habit of bailing on things and giving up the first mover advantage.
by croes | 2025-10-22 17:58:15+00:00
So you were ok if thousand of sites would track which sites you visit?

Before the law most didn’t even know how much the get tracked.

And you misunderstand something, the law doesn’t improve you life it prevents it from getting worse.

Just look what happens when companies know everything about you

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/17/loose-flapping-ends/#luig...

Exploitation beyond your wildest nightmares.

That’s what those laws try to protect you from
by btown | 2025-10-22 17:58:45+00:00
To be sure, a browser that retains a representation of every word you read on it, constantly synthesizing a profile on your preferences, using that profile to filter everything you see through a lens that consistently enforces and limits the worldview of a snapshot-of-you - all with a level of data retention that would be controversial for Google but that OpenAI's users will happily opt into, that Palantir and its government clients are likely salivating over, and that is fertile ground for a new generation of ads that bypass pesky things like third-party cookie restrictions - must be exciting to many!

It's just not exciting to me.
by narag | 2025-10-22 17:59:20+00:00
That's a very absolute outlook. The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting, it's been painfully slow and the harm has been done and the public is suffering meanwhile.

Law making is a way of predicting the future and setting up incentives to achieve a goal. You need to foresee what can go wrong, talk to incumbents and anticipate the response. It's a technical matter and this has been a debacle.

It's useless to put the blame in the advertisers. Even if they're evil, that doesn't make the situation any better for the public.
by ctrlp | 2025-10-22 17:59:52+00:00
That matters little. It's a category error. People say things like "no one is above the law" but that isn't true. Not because of corruption, but because of the nature of politics. Law is downstream from politics and therefore in a very real sense subservient to it. To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way, since it will always support the suspicion of lawfare, which degrades confidence in the law for the rest of us. To preserve the law for the common stock, we can't use law against political figures without debasing the currency of law. It is also the case that trying to constrain political figures using the law is anti-democratic. If the will of the people can be overruled by the shrewd use of legal challenges then you have a juristocracy, not a democracy. The legal system can and will be abused when it is used politically.

Not only is it a category error, it is undesireable. Let them fight it out in the special realm of politics and leave our legal systems alone so we can enjoy their benefits.
by duxup | 2025-10-22 17:59:54+00:00
https://archive.is/C5cw5

This "rose jail" concept is interesting but also it's not at all clear if these hacks really get you access to what are actually good matches ... or if the people just think they are and want to see them because they're hidden.

The article does hint at that with a quote from a dating coach who also seems skeptical.

And as seems to be required by articles like this, the quotes all make everyone seem kinda horrible ...
by soiltype | 2025-10-22 17:59:56+00:00
This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm most interested in finding on HN. How do other developers work, and how can I get better at my work from it?

What's always interesting to me is how many of these I'll see and initially think, "I don't really need that." Because I'm well aware of the effect (which I'm sure has a name - I suppose it's similar to induced demand) of "make $uncommon_task much cheaper" -> "$uncommon_task becomes the basis of an entirely new workflow/skill". So I'm going to try out most of them and see what sticks!

Also: really love the style of the post. It's very clear but also includes super valuable information about how often the author actually uses each script, to get a sense ahead of time for which ones are more likely to trigger the effect described above.

A final aside about my own workflows which betrays my origins... for some of these operations and for others i occasionally need, I'll just open a browser dev tools window and use JS to do it, for example lowercasing a string :)
by hbn | 2025-10-22 18:00:02+00:00
> My money says this goes the way of the Pixel tablet.

I need to do a Google search every time to recall their history with tablets. I remember the Nexus tablets which came out for like a 3 year streak.

Then it was the Pixel C in 2015, then a 3 year gap until the Pixel Slate, then 5 years before the Pixel Tablet. Do not ask me about any of their capabilities or their intention in the market because every release could have been anything.

I'm so beyond getting on board with anything Google puts out, it's kinda just funny to watch and laugh at this point.
by throwaway314155 | 2025-10-22 18:00:44+00:00
> Remember how in October and in March I told you that vibe coding — in the sense of amateurs using large language models to write code to “build products that would have previously required teams of engineers”

I don't think there's an agreed upon definition for what vibe coding is - but certainly the "amateur" portion of this sentence is _not_ a requirement to be vibe coding. Vibe coding can be done with success by skilled developers with existing experience.

But sure, change the goal posts for your catchy clickbait article title.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-22 18:00:47+00:00
I guess the purpose is difference? You play chess because you want to play chess, as a fun thing (and also sometimes more serious thing), but a lot of us write code for something else, the purpose is not the code itself, but what it accomplishes, the code just happens to be a tool, so it's not necessarily the activity you want to do, it just unlocks/improves some other activity.

I think it'd be fairly easy to create a project that uses an LLM to effectively review your code, if that what's you want. But personally I'd rather do the opposite, describe what sort of code I'm looking for, how it's supposed to work, and what the goal is, and then not having to do the actual typing itself.
by constantcrying | 2025-10-22 18:01:08+00:00
Magnus Carlsen is a performer.

If people wanted to see "perfect" chess they would be watching chess engine championships. These feature some of the deepest and most thought out moves ever performed in chess. They also get a few hundred live viewers.

Magnus is objectively an inferior player to top chess engines. If there was a technological problem that requires the best chess abilities, nobody would be paying Magnus to solve that problem, they would be using a chess engine.

The analogy does not work at all, because Magnus is not paid to be a good chess player in absolute terms, but a good chess player relative to other human top chess players.
by peter_d_sherman | 2025-10-22 18:01:14+00:00
>"Imagine if every time you got into your car, you had to manually approve the engine's use of oil, the tires' use of air, and the radio's use of electricity. It’s absurd, right? You’d set your preferences once, and the car would just work."

This is an excellent analogy of the problem!

>"Yet, that’s exactly what we do online. We are asked the same questions, by every single website, every single day. This approach is broken for three simple reasons:

Consent Fatigue is Real: We're so bombarded with these requests that they’ve become meaningless. The banners are an obstacle to be cleared, not a choice to be considered. True consent requires a conscious, informed decision, not an exasperated click to get the pop-up out of the way."

Consent Fatigue -- That phrase is going into my 2025 lexicon! I love it! (Well, the phrase itself, not what it stands for! You know, the words, not the meaning -- the symbol, not the referent! :-) )

Now I like the article's ideas and all (good ideas, very thought provoking, etc., etc.) -- but if cookie consent is delegated to people's browsers, then what if a court case comes up where someone is being sued for a cookie they agreed to, they're asked in court if they agreed to the cookie, and they respond with something like the following:

"No Your Honor, I personally did not agree to that! The browser agreed to it! The browser is guilty, not me!"

:-)

(The same problem could occur outside of browsers, with AI's, if they are acting on behalf of someone... or chain of other AI's...)

Anyway, great article!
by cj | 2025-10-22 18:01:27+00:00
What are you shocked by? Genuine question.

I imagine there’s some people who might like the idea that, with less people and fewer stakeholders around, the remaining team now has more power to influence the org compared to before.

(I can see why someone might think that’s a charitable interpretation)

I personally didn’t read it as “everyone will now work more hours per day”. I read it as “each individual will now have more power in the org” which doesn’t sound terrible.
by darth_avocado | 2025-10-22 18:01:30+00:00
They’ve done this before with their metaverse stuff. You hire a bunch, don’t see progress, let go of people in projects you want to shut down and then hire people in projects you want to try out.

Why not just move people around you may ask?

Possibly: different skill requirements

More likely: people in charge change, and they usually want “their people” around

Most definitely: the people being let go were hired when stock price was lower, making their compensation much higher. Getting new people in at high stock price allows company to save money
by sorenjan | 2025-10-22 18:01:31+00:00
Another example would be Android Wear. They lost interest in that for years and let it languish, and only recently started caring again with the help of Samsung. But an old watch I bought never got an update, in fact it lost functionality compared to when I bought it, and I won't fall in that trap again. I also switched to Spotify when Google shut down their Play music, I'll much rather get my music from someone where that is their business model and not a hobby.
by jm4 | 2025-10-22 18:02:03+00:00
Who is going to lead? It's not as if we can all spontaneously take to the streets and start fighting the bad guys. It requires leadership, logistics, weapons, planning, and about a thousand other things. A would be leader would be taken out immediately. Realistically, the most feasible way a two-sided civil war happens is if a number of generals revolt. That's a big if. Soldiers need to eat and get paid. Who's going to do that? Otherwise, it's just the government - aka the orange lunatic with all the guns and money - running roughshod over everyone.

The most optimistic scenario would be an open and overwhelming revolt at all levels of government and forcing him to leave simply because there's nobody left who will obey. After that, we would need to return to some semblance of sanity and amend the constitution to prevent anything like this from happening again. It requires a competent Congress with principles and conviction. Furthermore, it requires massive public support. Unfortunately, about 30% of the population is eager to support the orange bastard and watch the world burn.

The country will be dealing with the fallout of this POS for the next 150 years, assuming the country even lasts that long.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-22 18:02:04+00:00
> You do however have reporters sitting between you and the source material a lot of the time

In cases where a reporter is just summarising e.g. a court case, sure. Stock market news has been automated since the 2000s.

More broadly, AI assistants misrepresenting news content may sometimes direct reference a court case. But they often don't. Even if they only could, that covers a small fraction of the news, much of which the AI will need to rely on reporters detailing the primary sources they're interfacing with.

Reporter error is somewhat orthogonal to AI assistants' accuracy.
by oldgradstudent | 2025-10-22 18:02:05+00:00
> motivated by Netanyahu's almost certain knowledge that he'll go to prison if and when he loses his grip on the reins.

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is determined by trial in an open court where defendent has the right to cross examine witnesses and present evidence. Do not assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.

For anyone who is not following the trial, Netanyahu was charged with bribery and a few lesser charges which do not have a direct US equivalents. As soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.

The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.

During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the prosecution had in its possession all the necssary evidence to show such a meeting could not have occurred.

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)
by dpark | 2025-10-22 18:02:29+00:00
This is like saying automated delivery drones haven’t replaced Saquon Barkley, so they won’t replace you (delivery driver).

Imagine if you will that chess engines don’t exist but apps do. A chess game company might employ a small army of excellent chess players to play games against their customers. You load up your app, request a medium difficulty game, and get connected with James, who’s playing 10 games at once for $20/hour. It’s a decent gig. Customers pay a fee for the experience but it’s worth it to them.

But now let’s say Google publishes a groundbreaking paper that lays out the foundation of an automated chess engine. Should James be worried about his job? Carlsen’s going to be fine. I’m not so sure about James.
by jama211 | 2025-10-22 18:03:17+00:00
They’re not stupid. They know this won’t sell many items, they don’t expect it to. This is what you’d call a “market signal” product. It markets them as an innovative company, with their fingers in a little bit of every pie, and reminds everyone that they exist and make cool things. It’s valuable both for your company image and for your internal experimental development to do this sort of thing now and again.
by discoutdynamite | 2025-10-22 18:03:58+00:00
Devil's take: let them die. Having drivers on the road who are not capable of following basic and obvious posted safety rules, is a hazard to everyone. They need to be "not driving" at whatever cost. Its probably not that expensive to let them get steamrolled once, and since its clearly their own fault theres no public liability. Since the safety of cars has increased dramatically over the last few decades, many more bad drivers are not being forcibly removed from the roads. People survive, and frequently without injuries, more than ever before. People have to learn how to behave on public roads, sometimes the hard way is the only way.

t. Professional Driver