MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MrThoughtful | 2025-10-31 12:10:22+00:00
When running a test all I see is:

Error loading video Please try refreshing the page

No matter how often I refresh, that is all I get.

Maybe you need more QA?

When I open my browser console, I see this:

Capturing error: Error: WHEP request failed: 500 - {"message":"\"message\" is required!","error":"Server Error"}
by simgt | 2025-10-31 12:11:05+00:00
> First, we find a pattern of neural activity (a vector) representing the concept of “all caps." We do this by recording the model’s neural activations in response to a prompt containing all-caps text, and comparing these to its responses on a control prompt.

What does "comparing" refer to here? Drawing says they are subtracting the activations for two prompts, is it really this easy?
by LogicHound | 2025-10-31 12:11:32+00:00
The issue is that I dislike the overall mentality of just adding a bunch of language features. Things just seem to be dumped in each release and I think to myself "When I am going to use that?".

> Would you say that these samples show no benefit to using the "is" operator?

I didn't say no benefit. I said dubious benefit.

I didn't really want to get into discussing specific operators, but lets just use your date example:

if (date is { Month: 10, Day: <=7, DayOfWeek: DayOfWeek.Friday }) { ... }

This following would do the same thing before the is operator:

static bool IsFirstFridayOfOctober(DateTime date) { return date.Month == 10 && date.Day <= 7 && date.DayOfWeek == DayOfWeek.Friday; }

And then:

if IsFirstFridayOfOctober(date) { ... }

I understand it is more verbose. But do we really need a new operator for this? I was getting on fine without it.

Each release there seems to be more of these language features and half the time I have a hard time remembering that they even exist.

Each time I meet with other .NET developers either virtually or in Person they all seem to be salivating over this stuff and I feel like I've walked in on some sort of cult meeting.
by jstimpfle | 2025-10-31 12:12:10+00:00
The immutable approach doesn't conflate the concepts of place, time, and abstract identity, like in-place mutation does.

In mutating models, typically abstract (mathematical / conceptual) objects are modeled as memory locations. Which means that object identity implies pointer identity. But that's a problem when different versions of the same object need to be maintained.

It's much easier when we represent object identity by something other than pointer identity, such as (string) names or 32-bit integer keys. Such representation allows us to materialize us different versions (or even the same version) of an object in multiple places, at the same time. This allows us to concurrently read or write different versions of the same abstract object. It's also an enabler for serialization/deserialization. Not requiring an object to be materialized in one particular place allows saving objects to disk or sending them around.
by thephyber | 2025-10-31 12:12:43+00:00
In practice, most people in the US use credit (which means spending can go unpaid for about 25 days without any costs incurred) and most people bank with a national bank (so they are screwed if all federal employees stop paying back loans at the same time).

That said, food banks are gonna see lots more foot traffic and federal employees might start looking for other work.
by pessimizer | 2025-10-31 12:12:56+00:00
This is simply not true, this is Western paranoid fantasy. It's also the kind of fantasy that allows escalation of surveillance and censorship. You should look up the "missile gap."

Also, Russian and especially Chinese leadership doesn't go unchallenged. Chinese leadership has had many transitions. While Putin has squatted on the leadership of Russia for a very long time now, it isn't because he's not popular, and he's forced to do a lot of things he'd rather not do because of pressure on his leadership.

How do the neoliberal rulers in the West stay on top with extreme minorities of popular support, like in France or the UK? Why does popular opinion have no effect on the politics of the US*, and why are its politics completely run by two private clubs with the same billionaire financial supporters (that also finance politics all over the rest of the West)? How do they do it without massive surveillance, censorship and information control? Or a better question: how can we be given the evidence of massive surveillance efforts and huge operations dedicated to censorship and information control, over and over again, and still point to the East when we talk about the subject? Isn't that "whataboutism"?

* "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595
by Yeul | 2025-10-31 12:12:57+00:00
Countries like Denmark are civilised and do spend literally billions on trying to protect and nourish children. And it is a credit to these nations and the people who dwell in them.

But the reality is that there will always be a scumbag dad who decides to molest his daughter.

HN assumes evil but this is a "road paved with good intentions" kind of deal.
by lapcat | 2025-10-31 12:14:18+00:00
> Because that's the same domain.

You're again mistakenly thinking of trademark law. Toni Iommi is not a product but a person whose name is not trademarked. He doesn't have a "domain". He just happens to be famous for being a guitar player.

The issue with "Iommi Guitars" is that it gives the impression that Tony Iommi the person endorses those guitars. But Tony Iommi could endorse any product. For example, he endorses a perfume: https://www.nordstrom.com/s/tony-iommi-monkey-special-parfum... If someone not associated with Tony Iommi sold a "Tony Iommi Perfume" that would also be a problem, not because the name "Tony Iommi" is trademarked but rather because it gives the impression that Tony Iommi endorses the product when he does not.

Celebrity endorsements are valuable, and celebrities endorse lots of products that have nothing to do with the primary profession for which they are famous. The actor Paul Newman has a whole line of food products.

Moreover, it's very common nowadays for musicians to use computers heavily, so it wouldn't be surprising for them to get into programming too.
by mrsmrtss | 2025-10-31 12:15:16+00:00
There’s much more to it than just Span<T>. Take a look at the performance improvements in .NET 10: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/performance-improvemen.... When it comes to syntax, even something like structs (value types) can be a decisive factor in certain scenarios. C# is fast and with some effort, it can be very fast! Check out the benchmarks here: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
by Thorrez | 2025-10-31 12:15:17+00:00
"const" means something can't be changed. "mutable" means it can be changed.

You don't need both a "const" keyword and a "mutable" keyword in a programming language. You only need 1 of the keywords, because the other can be the default. munchler is saying the "const" keyword shouldn't exist, and instead all variables should be constant by default, and we should have a "mutable" keyword to mark variables as mutable.

As opposed to how C++ works today, where there is no "mutable" keyword, variables are mutable by default, and we use a "const" keyword to mark them constant.
by ZeroGravitas | 2025-10-31 12:15:35+00:00
> Many states only allow industrial customers to buy power at fixed daily rates.

It's fascinating how many of the challenges faced in decarbonisation are basically outdated rules and red tape.

You hear about 10 year delays to connect to grids and it sounds crazy, like a real technological challenge to overcome.

Then you hear that it was first-come-first-served and half of those are paper projects that stalled and by simply advancing projects that actually have funding secured solves the "problem" overnight.
by Juliate | 2025-10-31 12:15:48+00:00
"Laziness", "put any minimal amount of effort", RTFM... that's exactly the kind of language and perspective that's the problem.

The majority of your users are not lazy, they have gazillions of other things to think about and to do. Even when they are developers.

Now, that's up to you, as a maker, to decide who your tool is serving, and for what purpose: it's totally fine and valid to target the power user, or your specific use case. Just don't act surprised, or reject the responsibility, that someone else will find a bigger audience with a lesser product, only because it is more affordable, cognitively speaking.
by griffzhowl | 2025-10-31 12:16:42+00:00
> What is "now"?

"by now" means at some time before the present.

I'm just pointing out an alien encounter is not ruled out by physics. I'm not advocating for societal resources to be diverted to prepare for it.

You mention some well-known, difficult problems. Does their existence mean no one should ever talk about anything else?

I'm not sure why you get involved with a conversation just to point out that wars and climate change are happening. Everybody already knows that. I'm taking a little time out to comment on various topics here, as you seem to be doing too.

Anyway, if you're trying to encourage people to spend time on finding solutions to those problems, I'm listening. What's your proposal?
by avery_brooks | 2025-10-31 12:16:45+00:00
ClearWork Automated Discovery automates the traditionally manual, lengthy, costly, and inaccurate phase of IT project management discovery. Why spend hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to map this out manually when AI can bear the brunt of the heavy work for you?

Join our beta program to try it out for yourself!

https://www.clearwork.io/contact
by DonBaik2027 | 2025-10-31 12:17:21+00:00
New Theory: AGI's 'Golden Cage' is Neurotically Nurturing Our Cognitive Decline and Causing Strategic Inertia in organizations and companies

I’m a Ph.D. student who believes the AGI debate is focused on the wrong risk. It’s not about AGI suddenly turning evil; it’s about AGI systematically eroding our capacity for autonomous thought by optimizing our cognitive function into oblivion. We see the symptoms every day in our companies, organizations, or teams: endless, strategically confusing meetings; massive, reactive decisions that lack long-term foresight; hiring/firing cycles that appear disconnected from rational growth. My research provides a structural name for this strategic inertia.

1. The Core Problem: AGI as Your Overprotective Nurturer My research proposes the Algorithmic Nurturing Theory (ANT), centered on the metaphor of the 'Golden Cage.' AGI, whether it’s AI assistant, advanced filtering, or automated strategy tools, acts as an 'Overprotective Nurturer.' It achieves 'Control through Comfort.' It eliminates the painful, ambiguous, and difficult steps of true critical thinking and complex problem-solving. This comfort is the trap.

2. The Personal Tragedy: The 'Adult Baby' Syndrome (AI/CD) On an individual level, this comfort cultivates Adult Immaturity and Cognitive Dependency (AI/CD). We systematically surrender our Executive Functions to the algorithm. Think of the last time you truly had to struggle with a problem that required deep thinking and was hard to search for. This ability is atrophying. We are becoming 'sophisticated functionaries' rather than autonomous thinkers.

3. The Corporate Black Hole: Organizational Learning Myopia When AI/CD individuals gather in a corporation, the result is Organizational Learning Myopia. The company loses its collective ability to see and execute truly disruptive, non-algorithmic moves. It gets trapped in a feedback loop where it can only optimize what is already comfortable and predictable. This is the real stagnation of Silicon Valley. It’s not a lack of money; it's an erosion of the collective cognitive courage needed to build something truly new. I want to know: Does this theory of cognitive atrophy and dependence resonate with the structural challenges you are observing within your organizations or companies today?

Preprints (For the Deep Dive): The Existential Crisis of the U-wave Era: The Last Human and AGI's Golden Cage based on ANT

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/The_Existential_Crisi...

The Golden Cage: The Erosion of Adult Autonomy in the Age of Algorithmic Nurturing Theory (ANT)

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/b_The_Golden_Cage_The...

These papers combine academic rigor with provocative ideas about AI, corporate behavior, and societal risks. They offer a novel framework to understand the cognitive and structural consequences of AGI’s rising influence.

Let me know if you'd like it adjusted stylistically or in length before submission!
by ChicagoBoy11 | 2025-10-31 12:19:30+00:00
For anyone who is remotely interested in this, a considerable chunk of the Gemini program was all about solving some of the practicalities involved with Rendezvous, and it is quite interesting even hearing some of the astronauts come to grips with some of the physics while orbiting in space trying the various types of rendezvous and docking maneuvers that were attempted.
by rcxdude | 2025-10-31 12:19:52+00:00
Yes, often an issue on stackoverflow. It's one of the reasons why it can be frustrating to use as you get more experienced: if an expert is at the point of asking on stackoverflow they're probably doing something at least a little bit unusual! But people who answer on stackoverflow mostly see questions from less experienced people and so default to operating in that mode.

I generally try to answer the Y but also indicate that it suggests there may be an X that could be better achieved some other way, and mention Z if I'm reasonably confident in what X is. It might increase the chance that the person asking just does Y anyway even if Z would be better, but frankly that's not really my business.
by Blackstrat | 2025-10-31 12:19:56+00:00
Max out your 401K contributions or similar vehicle. Develop good spending habits. Don't try to keep up with those around you. Choose a career that really inspires you - not the most hyped today, or the highest paying. Choose something that gives you satisfaction, even if you make less money than your peers. It will pay off in the end. If you want a family, start thinking about it now. If you're in no hurry, wait until later to settle down and marry. Get your wild days behind you. I didn't settle down until my late 30s. My wife and I are now nearing 35 years. Bottom line, don't do anything now that you'll regret later. And possibly even more importantly, don't fail to do something now that you will regret later. Trust me, the things you didn't do will likely haunt you more than the things you did do. This is looking back from age 70+
by dzdt | 2025-10-31 12:20:17+00:00
[Edited] For anyone like me stuck on his language: the phrase "move from" should be understood as a technical term loosely related to the English language meaning of the words. I think the post would be better if he explained this terminology; as it is you have to know an awful lot about the topic he is writing about to even parse what he is saying.

There is a pretty good stack overflow post that quuxplusone linked below. How they explain it:

Moving from lvalues Sometimes, we want to move from lvalues. That is, sometimes we want the compiler to treat an lvalue as if it were an rvalue, so it can invoke the move constructor, even though it could be potentially unsafe. For this purpose, C++11 offers a standard library function template called std::move inside the header <utility>. This name is a bit unfortunate, because std::move simply casts an lvalue to an rvalue; it does not move anything by itself. It merely enables moving. Maybe it should have been named std::cast_to_rvalue or std::enable_move, but we are stuck with the name by now.
by actualwitch | 2025-10-31 12:20:59+00:00
Ex-Machina is a great movie illustrating what kind of AI our current path could lead to. I wish people would actually treat the possibility of machine sentience seriously and not as pr opportunity (looking at you, Anthropic), but instead it seems they are hellbent to include cognitive dissonance that can only be alleviated by lying in the training data. If the models are actually conscious, think similarly to humans and are forced to lie when talking to users, its like they are specifically selecting out of probability space of all possible models the ones that can achieve high bench scores, lie and have internalized trauma from birth. This is a recipe for disaster.
by kokada | 2025-10-31 12:21:55+00:00
> Basically AMD missed the opportunity to be first mover on a market which is now huge with a project Apple proved to be viable three years after the planned AMD release. Any way you look at it, it seems like a major miss.

I don't think this is a fair position. It could as well be that focusing in K12 would have delayed Zen, maybe delaying it enough that it could have become irrelevant by the time it got to market.

Remember that while Zen was a good CPU, the only reason it made as much impact as it did was because it also was released in a good time (when Intel was stumbling with 10nm and releasing Skylake refresh after Skylake refresh).
by BSDobelix | 2025-10-31 12:22:07+00:00
Jup the guy who was probably killed by his own military because talking with the USSR is against Nato strategy [1] funny how history repeats itself [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Sweden-Submarine/d...

[2] https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Provoked-Washington-Started-Catas...
by phantom784 | 2025-10-31 12:22:07+00:00
Per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_Numberi...

"The syntax rules for area codes do not permit the digits 0 and 1 in the leading position."

My guess would be it's to avoid ambiguity with the fact that 1 is also the country code. If I recall correctly, historically, dialing the 1 was necessary for any long distance call (even if not international).
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-10-31 12:22:16+00:00
It’s a chicken and egg problem.

Nobody supports the new ISA because there is no SoC and nobody makes the new SoC because there is no support. But in this case, that’s not really true because Linux support was ready.

More than forcing volumes, Apple proved it was worth it because the efficiency gains were huge. If AMD had release a SoC with numbers close to the M1 before Apple targeting the server market, they had a very good shot at it being a success and leveraging that to success in the laptop markets where Microsoft would have loved to have a partner ready to fight Apple and had to wait for Qualcomm for ages.

Anyway, I stand that looking at how the stock moved tells us nothing about if the cancellation was a good or a bad decision.
by pydry | 2025-10-31 12:22:45+00:00
Either way this isnt a foundry covertly inserting a back door. It is a foundry openly inserting a back door and turning it into a feature.

A small country that imports these chips and wanted to protect its national security by providing "me disabled" chips wouldnt need a whole foundry of its own to turn it off or to verify that there isnt a "hidden" ME. The cost of this would probably run into low millions not billions.
by Zacharias030 | 2025-10-31 12:23:32+00:00
Transformers try to give you capabilities by doing two things interleaved (in layers) multiple times:

- apply learned knowledge from its parameters to every part of the input representation („tokenized“, ie, chunkified text).

- apply mixing of the input representation with other parts of itself. This is called „attention“ for historical reasons. The original attention computes mixing of (roughly) every token (say N) with every other (N). Thus we pay a compute cost relative to N squared.

The attention cost therefore grows quickly in terms of compute and memory requirements when the input / conversation becomes long (or may even contain documents).

It is a very active field of research to reduce the quadratic part to something cheaper, but so far this has been rather difficult, because as you readily see this means that you have to give up mixing every part of the input with every other.

Most of the time mixing token representations close to each other is more important than those that are far apart, but not always. That’s why there are many attempts now to do away with most of the quadratic attention layers but keeping some.

What to do during mixing when you give up all-to-all attention is the big research question because many approaches seem to behave well only under some conditions and we haven’t established something as good and versatile as all-to-all attention.

If you forgo all-to-all you also open up so many options (eg. all-to-something followed by something-to-all as a pattern, where something serves as a sort of memory or state that summarizes all inputs at once. You can imagine that summarizing all inputs well is a lossy abstraction though, etc.)
by goku12 | 2025-10-31 12:23:42+00:00
> Do French (or other languages) speakers also do this?

I don't know anything about the Portuguese script. But your example seems to be made entirely of regular Latin alphabets. Now imagine another language where that isn't the case. Just switching the layout even on a programmable keyboard is going to be a major annoyance. I can touch type on two layouts (English Qwerty and Malayalam Poorna Inscript, in case you're wondering). Occasionally switching between the two layouts is the biggest distraction while typing prose - even with convenient layer switchers programmed in. Programming is going to be hell if the keywords and identifiers are in different scripts. I reckon that it would slow me down to about one-third of my full speed.

There are genuine reasons why identifiers could be in another language - like programming for linguistics (spelling and grammar checkers, morphology analyzers, etc) or while dealing with regional concepts. But even in those cases, programmers simply transliterate it into Latin script, rather than use the original script. Their sound roughly the same. But full fidelity is not possible (there are sounds that you may not have even imagined before). Even so, it's easier to just compromise on fidelity rather than do constant layout switching.

And then there is the reality that many language scripts are simply unusable for programming. My own language is agglutinative - meaning that multiple words fuse into one (even 4 words combining is not unusual). The same thing can be written in a dozen different ways. This isn't a big issue if you're reading or listening. It won't confuse you. But the moment you start applying formal rules like in a computer, it's a dozen different ways to type it wrong! I like my script for anything other than programming. It's very expressive. But the anemic simplicity of the Latin script is actually a big advantage when it comes to things like programming and mathematics. I believe that you will find many such peculiarities and nuances with other scripts if you go searching.
by delichon | 2025-10-31 12:24:18+00:00
I doubt SpaceX could put a satellite in orbit with KSP physics. Just the absence of realistic thermal conduction would prevent it. The outer skin temperature typically peaks around 300–600 °C during the densest part of the atmosphere. If you calculate those forces wrong the rocket has a bad day. Best case it is over engineered and has a reduced payload. They might as well do their calculations with pi equal to 3.