MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mac-mc | 2025-10-01 04:27:50+00:00
Yes, much like wet streets are a high predictor of rain. Or smoke, firefighters and wood are a high predictor of fire. The firefighters are not causing the fire, neither do the wet streets cause rain. This is what people are trying to tell you. If you remove the firefighters only, then you might make it worse. If you do something to cause the firefighters to go away, probably because there isn't a fire anymore, then you did the right thing. The important thing is not to goodhart's law yourself into doing the wrong thing.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-10-01 04:28:07+00:00
> I do not understand making RAID and encryption so very hard,

I don't use ZFS-native encryption, so I won't speak to that, but in what way is RAID hard? You just `zpool create` with the topology and devices and it works. In fact,

> If you don't have any special needs, and you don't know what you're doing, just do it the simple way. This all just seems horrific. I've got >15 year old mdadm+luks arrays that have none of their original disks, are 5x their original disk size, have survived plenty of failures, and aren't in their original machines. It's not hard, and dealing with them is not constantly evolving.

I would write almost this exact thing, but with ZFS. It's simple, it's easy, it just keeps going through disk replacements and migrations.
by Quarrel | 2025-10-01 04:28:26+00:00
Except that the policy, in the vacuum it is in right now, is very popular in Australia.

It was one of the most agreed with policies at the most recent Federal election.

I hate it as a concept, but at the moment it is all "don't you want children to be protected?", and nothing of substance that people can meaningfully find objectionable (like imgur getting cut off).

I don't think it is particularly a policy of News Corp, although they're happy to run with populist ideas, and more just an issue the Labor party thought they could wedge the Liberals with.
by mallowdram | 2025-10-01 04:30:22+00:00
There are no world models in there, it's trained on arbitrary images/sequences. There are no world models in us, we learn from only specifics in topological space, stitched together in sharp wave ripples. Everything is from detached memories working through optic flow. That's not a world model, it's not even a model. It's an analog. This whole world model thing is another branding phase after language models failed to deliver. After world models it will be neuro symbolic, then RL will sweep in like a final boss fight, and then... it still won't work. Notice anything about these names? They're walking pneumonia paradoxes.
by ipaddr | 2025-10-01 04:34:16+00:00
We are not getting better at producing cheaper power as the cost has increased per hour a lot over the last 50 years. But we are generating more power from different sources that are cleaner.

Power needs to be given away or people paid to take it is more of a function of limited storage abilities and limited ability to scale down rather then generating unlimited power. The free power is an issue with how the system is built (and the type of power source) rather than a sign of success. The same area has to import power at higher costs when the sun or wind isn't as powerful.
by al_borland | 2025-10-01 04:34:34+00:00
This is a very biased take.

5, for example. Good design is unobtrusive.

As I was reading the post iOS 26, the address bar shrunk down to a tiny little pill and the entire screen was the content of the page. The browser chrome got out of the way. It was unobtrusive.

Or 8, Good design is thorough down to the last detail.

Is it perfect on its first release, no. Will it ever be perfect, probably not. But they did tackle pretty much everything, across every OS they have (6 of them?) all at once. How long did it take Microsoft to transition the Control Panel to Settings in Windows? They started in 2012 and still aren’t done.

I could go on, but you get the point. These are uncharitable cheap shots.
by lbotos | 2025-10-01 04:34:39+00:00
#customer-incident-channel

Lbotos: okay @jane you are leading expert on problem y. Use this thread for your debugging until next sync

Lbotos: @phil your up for rebooting all the hosts. Ack this message and thread your work here. Please get started ASAP.

Lbotos: others, is there anything else that we need to get unblocked?

—-

By having one channel you can leave that open and can be up to speed on the overarching state easily. Otherwise, if I'm making subchannels I gotta make sure to invite everyone to the sub channel or switch to the “meta coordination channel” to get unplanned collaboration.

Threads have value.
by mizzao | 2025-10-01 04:34:41+00:00
We're building Parsnip (https://parsnip.ai/), a "Duolingo for cooking" with a personalized learning platform powering it: https://parsnip.substack.com/p/vision-part-two.

We're also hiring a product designer to work on our AI learning platform; if you know anyone good we'd love to meet them! https://parsnips.notion.site/product-designer
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-10-01 04:36:10+00:00
Put aside anything I have written elsewhere in this thread.

Look at the multiple ad hominem attacks you put forth in the above comment alone. Imagine you are the person to whom you replied when reading it.

All because someone disagreed with a post you authored by writing in part:

... your comment is seemingly unhinged and unprovoked ...

I truly hope you reflect on this and can find a way to talk about it with someone.
by Terr_ | 2025-10-01 04:36:44+00:00
> The fascinating thing about cryptocurrency technology is the number of ways people have developed and how much they are willing to pay to avoid actually using it. What other transformative technology has had people desperate not to use it?

Regarding this juxtaposition between between advocacy that others buy-into the system versus, er, tactical-avoidance by advocates, I'll recycle a comment from earlier today:

> [Some proponents say] "That's fixed with private blockchain", which is the equivalent of "That's fixed with Segways that have a second set of wheels and the self-balancing is disabled."

> There's a bunch of people busy reinventing decades-old old tech/accounting, either because they never bothered to learn what was actually new about "blockchain", or because they can't bear to admit that the new stuff wasn't really good/necessary.

> [...O]utside of wild-west cryptocurrency, [unrestricted node membership] usually isn't necessary, nor even desirable when you consider the rest of the cycle-burning baggage and complexity that comes with it.

__________

> They are all either false or misleading. In most cases Nakamoto's own writings show he knew this. His acolytes were gaslighting.

Quibble: Nah, that would be classical lying. "Gaslighting" is more specific and involves trying to make someone doubt your own sanity, memory, or senses.
by dsign | 2025-10-01 04:38:27+00:00
It won't break the world, but it's warranted that it will break the world of people doing labor and getting paid for it. And when you think of it, even being a mediocre (or even moronic) investor is practicing a form of labor, so not even capital ownership is safe in the long run. And yes, generational wealth is a thing but there are tides that slowly shift wealth from A to B (e.g. from USA to China). Have a machine smart enough with even a sliver of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) to get some wealth for itself, and just watch what happens...
by buckle8017 | 2025-10-01 04:38:30+00:00
For such a well written and cited article you sadly seem to make a mistake all to common with Bitcoin.

You assume Satoshi understood what he created.

The very basis for Bitcoins security is that the real users of the system, the people who have the monetary power to not value it at anything are running nodes.

If those people don't run nodes the rules of the system are just suggestions.

Satoshi never had the chance to understand this before leaving since it's not an obvious property of the system.
by ThrownOffGame | 2025-10-01 04:38:42+00:00
What about pronunciation? Many of the assertions I've heard about adults in a foreign language is about our ability to recognize, differentiate, and reproduce the different phonemes, many which do not exist in our language.

These phonemes are even more difficult to recognize when we're not conversing face-to-face and in-person! So if you're listening to "comprehensible input" if it's on audio, or video voice-over, it is much inferior to seeing/feeling/hearing a native speaker make sound-shapes with their mouth!

I made many efforts to imitate my Spanish teachers in my youth, in terms of pronounciation, mouth shapes, accent and emphasis, etc. I credit the in-person instruction with achieving a nearly fluent comprehension and ability to make myself understood.

So the argument goes: if an adult is set in their ways and knows a particular set of phonemes, (or even tones, etc.) is it more difficult than a blank-slate child who has no prejudice about hearing and learning new sounds?
by jjav | 2025-10-01 04:39:56+00:00
> thanks to all of the cameras and sensors everywhere.

Cameras are a band-aid that help a bit, but nothing beats actual clear visibility in all directions, something which newer cars lack.

My partner has a newish VW and it's a menace to drive IMO. For example turning left onto our street, just when I need to see clearly if there is anyone on that street (it's a neighborhood of lots of kids) all I see is a giant A pillar and even more giant rearview mirror, blocking most of the view to the left. I have to contort in all directions back and forth to look around these obstacles which creates its own safety concerns. Visibility to the rear quarters is also terrible.

On my older cars with low doorlines and thin pillars I have perfect visibility into any turn, 100x safer.
by munchler | 2025-10-01 04:41:41+00:00
Here's a link to the three TorrentFreak articles that are briefly mentioned: https://torrentfreak.com/tag/hehestreams/

The thing I found most interesting in these articles is the claim that he didn't pirate the broadcasts, which would have required his site to provide a large amount of bandwidth. Instead, he connected users directly to legitimate streams offered by sports broadcasters, using misappropriated login credentials.
by xdfgh1112 | 2025-10-01 04:41:51+00:00
Most impressive to me is that he implemented apps for every single platform around (like 20?) I wonder how much work that was. If he's not lying about the 11k customer amount, I guess he must really love hacking!

> Apple TV, Android, Android TV/Fire Stick, ChromeCast, fourth-generation game consoles and newer, Roku, smart TVs, smart fridges, Tesla, and the usual web platforms.
by dwohnitmok | 2025-10-01 04:42:58+00:00
I think you're overestimating how much power LLMs consume. Let's say one video pegs a top of the line Blackwell chip at 100% utilization for 10 minutes. I think a Blackwell chip (plus cooling and other data center overhead) is somewhere around 3000 watts when running 100%. So that's about 0.5 kilowatt-hours. I suspect this is a severe overestimate because there's probably a significant amount of batching that happens that cuts down on amortized power usage, and non-pro Sora 2 might be processed with weaker, smaller models, but I'm not very confident.

Data centers seem to have wholesale rates of around 4 cents per kilowatt-hour on the higher end.

This gets you 2 cents per video. If you're generating 50 million videos per day (an estimate on the higher side of how many TikTok videos are uploaded every day), that costs you a million dollars a day.

So if you entirely subsidized for free the entirety of all of TikTok's video generation just using LLMs, I don't think energy generation costs exceed 365 million a year (and I think this might be very severely estimating costs, but there are some large error bars here).

I'm pretty sure OpenAI (or any company) would be pretty happy to pay 365 million dollars a year for the soft social power of something like TikTok. Just the influence this buys in politics and social discourse would be worth the pricetag alone.

And that's of course leaving aside any form of monetization whatsoever (where in reality you'd likely be charging the heaviest users the most).

N.B. I'm also not sure it's actually more power efficient for users to post their own content in absolute terms. It seems not unlikely that the amount of energy it takes to produce, edit, and process a TikTok video exceeds half a kilowatt-hour. But maybe you're focused solely on the video hoster.
by goku12 | 2025-10-01 04:43:34+00:00
The mistake was committed willfully well before the first crash. Their emails during the development and testing of the Max 8 show some strongly worded exchanges clearly indicating their full awareness of the troubles with the MCAS system. There was one simulated flight by a test pilot where the MCAS had activated and was deemed a catastrophic failure. In another instance, the chief test pilot said, "I basically lied to the regulators, unknowingly" - a mistake that he chose not to rectify. It was abundantly clear at that point that business as usual was going to cost lives. The entire top management knew this and yet, not one of them decided to step in.

The first crash was already too late for them. A team that behaved so callously earlier wasn't going to stop at that point without an external intervention. They were in fact attempting to scapegoat the pilots even after the second crash. Therefore, putting the blame on one CEO at the time of the first crash is illogical. The blame must fall on the team that established such an unbelievably flawed safety culture in the first place. Who was that? And why?

I'm not insisting that accountants and lawyers are unfit for top management. There are corporate portfolios that they're the best fit for - like accounting and law firms. Then there are the exceptions who do a sensible job even outside their portfolio. But I have seen both engineering heavy and accounting heavy managements. As expected, their priorities and operational philosophies are drastically different. But their influence doesn't end there. They also define the wider company culture - A culture that not even a CEO can change without significant personal effort against institutional inertia.

So, accountants or lawyers may be sufficient to lead IT companies. But if they choose to lead an industry where so many lives are at stake, they better hold back their profit-seeking instincts and understand the safety culture and the consequences of their decisions damn well.
by drdeca | 2025-10-01 04:43:53+00:00
> Things only exist when you can construct them.

This is exactly what I’m saying is presumptive! If constructivism is to earn the merit of being less presumptive by virtue of not assuming the existence of various things, it should also not assume the non-existence of those things.

Which, I think many visions of constructivism do earn this merit, but not your description of it.
by ThrownOffGame | 2025-10-01 04:44:11+00:00
That will not be a viable response for very long. Will it affect the entire fleet in one market or the entire fleet worldwide? How long will it affect the fleet? When robotaxis are an integral part of a local economy, then the incentives diminish for taking them entirely offline. The three instances you mention are fleets under testing circumstances and not commercial service, so there's a distinction!

Sooner or later we'll be making so many omelettes that the occasional broken egg will be, reluctantly, accepted, and the penalties will amount to the usual corporate wrist-slapping, and that will be that.
by parineum | 2025-10-01 04:44:58+00:00
It's listed there as a way that people use it and then calls that usage objectionable and a misunderstanding.

I don't dispute that people use it that way but it's objectively a misuse. The phrase's misuse implies that evidence against a statement supports the statement.

> In many uses of the phrase, however, the existence of an exception is taken to more definitively 'prove' a rule to which the exception does not fit.

> In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.
by mac-mc | 2025-10-01 04:47:29+00:00
It's a fairly useful tool if you know how to use it. People will also play with it as a toy. It's much like the masses getting access to cheap video cameras and smartphones with good cameras. It's going to enable different content, it's not going to make more hollywood movies. This is an early example of what people will make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwluRXtS2U . It's just one person making all of this on the side.
by jMyles | 2025-10-01 04:47:40+00:00
> Not sure why very nice people on the internet are apologizing for laws that prohibit ripping off other people's work. These laws are very important.

FYI, I'm a bluegrass musician. And I don't know who you think these laws are important for, but it sure as heck isn't us. The copyright industrial complex is screwing musicians first and foremost.

> The guy clearly understood he was stealing,

...then he understood wrong. Stealing is when you take something from someone. In that case, the person from whom you stole no longer has that thing. Copying is not stealing.

If you regard copying as stealing, then I encourage you to steal my music. And if you like it, encourage your friends to steal it from you.
by samtheDamned | 2025-10-01 04:48:14+00:00
> There a lot of people who rail against fascism in a hateful way and if you replaced the word fascism with something else other people would say “that person talks like a fascist”.

If you change the words in someone's sentence, the sentence changes it's meaning. Nothing is new there. Regardless, to your point I would like to bring up the paradox of tolerance[1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
by ThrownOffGame | 2025-10-01 04:48:15+00:00
Here, let's ask Gemini: https://g.co/gemini/share/13b5989fca49

So it turns out that some infractions in some jurisdictions are "owner liability" and so all the authority needs to do is cite the registered owner, because they're always responsible for anyone who is permitted to drive their car.

If the jurisdiction is not "owner liability" then it may be necessary to ID the driver instead, but the ticket is still sent off to the registered owner for handling, because the ticket and the car and the driver all go together.

Regarding a sibling query if the car is stolen, I'd say the owner has bigger fish to fry, and therefore would have reported the incident already, and so untangling a speeding offense would necessarily involve documenting the report and the incident of theft prior to those infractions. It may get a little sus if the owner said "hey my car was stolen and then returned to me just around the hour this photo was taken! it weren't me bruh!"

Let's not forget all the disparate jurisdictions and patchwork of laws which make up this sort of scenario. We can never make blanket statements that cover every situation.
by jrflowers | 2025-10-01 04:48:52+00:00
Your point was either that the fake video of a guy doing a backflip is the same thing as the invention of the radio or that if something bad is happening, nothing that happens can make it worse. Or somehow video generation software would have solved fascism in advance by previously not existing, which is proof that it is now good.

The first two are very smart but if you were talking plainly about the outcomes of time travel paradoxes I apologize for missing that
by rectang | 2025-10-01 04:48:55+00:00
On the surface that sounds reasonable, but when you consider that subscribers and settings (notifications, security, privacy, search, archival…) have to be managed per channel rather than per “folder”, it quickly becomes unmanageable.

And if it’s as it sounds and you are one of the people who always has full conversations in the root of a channel where other people use threads, please reconsider.
by arthens | 2025-10-01 04:50:41+00:00
> It isn't a leak if you do it intentionally.

"Do it intentionally" is a funny way to spell "I'm forcing you to do it by law and if you don't you won't be allowed to communicate with other humans in a digital form or access digital content".

And even then it's still a leak when the provider inevitably gets hacked and all your data is out there and you have no legal recourse to get reasonable compensation for it.
by jjav | 2025-10-01 04:51:38+00:00
> It's sooo extremely easy to fake everything!

The consequences part that I mentioned is where it's at, if one wanted to design a functioning system.

If there's an incident and the investigation reveals an engineer signed off on something that was contrary to process, they lose their license and get to switch careers to something else.

If it turns out management pushed the engineer to do that, personal liability on management means they get to do some long jail time.

With those two enforcement points, you cut out nearly all the cheating.
by dsign | 2025-10-01 04:51:50+00:00
Your comment makes me think that we have criminalized and squashed entertaining but obviously political writing out of existence :-) .

Say that somebody writes to make certain ideas more visible. For example, somebody wants people to buy the idea that amusing oneself to death is what we do (the book you mentioned). Somebody else perhaps has found that we are chronically depressed and cynic, when instead we should be thinking that a dead death itself is a fine trophy to hang on the wall during the march of progress[^1].

You can a) decide that you are set on your ways, thus entertainment should be pure and removed enough from reality so it doesn't mess with your deeply held beliefs and not read any of those books. or b) run the risk and read the thing with an open mind.

A lot of people are in the a) camp. Those who are in the b) camp would still like to be entertained a little.

[^1] Yours truly. I do that in fiction. https://www.ouzu.im/
by efreak | 2025-10-01 04:51:53+00:00
> any change resets the entire contents of their brain

That's because it does. Consistency is incredibly important.

The problem isn't that you're adding a feature, the problem is that you're adding a feature in an obtrusive way. Add as many features as you like (while preserving performance), but keep the day-to-day UI as stable as you possibly can. Place entry points (buttons) for new features in menus first, and make sure they're both used frequently and by many users before moving them to a crowded toolbar (and then give good thought about where it belongs on said toolbar/menu). Don't remove features unless they're truly problematic, and don't change UI.
by OutOfHere | 2025-10-01 04:53:02+00:00
> is not working

Even a calculator doesn't work if one doesn't use it correctly. Agentic coding works very well if used correctly, such as in the following way:

1. Define your task prompt as well as possible. Refine it via the LLM, having the LLM review it, and repeat this process ad infinitum until there are no important issues left to fix. If possible, use multiple LLMs to identify gaps in your task prompt. You now have your refined task specification. This is the most time consuming step. Sometimes it's necessary to add API docs and SDKs to the context.

2. Use a good reasoning LLM by OpenAI or Claude or Gemini or Grok to execute the spec.

3. Review the generated code line by line. Make any necessary changes, either manually or again using the LLM. With any luck there won't be anything to fix.

If used in this way, it works so well.