MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by godelski | 2025-10-08 20:23:45+00:00
> Well, do people live in this desert? If not, then I wouldn't say that's reasonable.

It stretches from Reno Nevada to Salt Lake City Utah. It also includes Las Vegas, Ogden Utah, and Provo Utah. But there are plenty of small cities in between. If you drove on the I-80 from Reno to SLC you'd pass through Fernley (23k people), Lovelock (2k), Imlay (200), Winnemucca (8.5k), Carlin (2.4k), Elko (21k), Wells (1.3k), Oasis (34), West Wendover (4.5k), and a few dozen more cities comparable to Imlay or Oasis as well as just as many ghost towns. That drive would take over 7hrs and is over 800km long.

This is not an uncommon setting in the US either. I'm sure there's a few unique paths like this in Europe, but honestly, are there that many? I once drove the majority of the US (I started in The South, so think 24 -> 70 -> 29 -> 80 -> 29 -> 90) and despite driving across almost all of America the biggest city I drove through was St Louis, which doesn't even have 300k people. I think if you counted all the people that were <5km distance from me over the subsequent several days and several thousand kilometers I doubt the number would add up to my stop in St Louis and would only have happened because I went through Sioux Falls (~200k at the time).
by cubefox | 2025-10-08 20:24:09+00:00
Yeah. One example of people mindlessly mass citing some random paper is this: Chain of thought (CoT) prompting was used in the past to greatly enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs. Usually this paper is cited when CoT is discussed:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

It has over 20,000 citations according to Google Scholar. But clearly the technique was not invented by these authors. It was known 1.5 years earlier, just after GPT-3 came out:

https://xcancel.com/kleptid/status/1284069270603866113#m

Perhaps even longer. But the paper above is cited nonetheless. Probably because there is pressure to cite something and the title of that paper sounds like they pioneered it. I doubt many people who cite it have even read it.

Another funny example is that in machine learning and some other fields, a success measure named "Matthews Correlation Coefficient" (MCC) is used. It's named after some biochemist, Brian Matthews, who used it in a paper from 1975. Needless to say, he didn't invent it at all, he just used the well-known binary version of the well-known correlation coefficient. People who named the measure "MCC" apparently thought he invented it. Matthews probably just didn't bother to cite any sources himself.
by lukan | 2025-10-08 20:24:28+00:00
So .. you are saying because modern fascists seldom use the term fascist for themself, they ain't no fascist?

Well, to me it is enough if people subscribe openly to all the main ideology of Hitlers party and that time in general.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck.

Höcke can be officially called a Fascist due to his statements. Was he removed from the party? Or shunned even a little?

Not as far as I am aware.

If a party negates the democratic foundations of the state they are - they do, see the quotes

If they connect with people and organisations who openly call for the nationalistic revolution - they do, see the quotes.

And if the Verfassungsschutz collects all that and labels them "largely radical right extremism" .. then it say exactly what I was saying. Preparation for a violent uprising. Just not in immediate action, otherwise they would be forbidden.
by dns_snek | 2025-10-08 20:24:39+00:00
> Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are.

No, it's because you keep strawmanning like this for rhetorical effect. Laissez faire capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism that exists and nobody has claimed it to be the form of capitalism that applies to Germany.
by candiddevmike | 2025-10-08 20:24:45+00:00
IMO, we desperately need standards or tooling to make frameworks easier to swap out and interoperate. Web Components was supposed to be this, but it's not quite there yet and requires awkward wrappers around everything.

No framework will stand the test of time. I encourage everyone to, at the very least, own your state and router libraries, as you'll be able to extend them when you want to jump ship in a more incremental fashion. Going all in on a single framework's state, router, and view libraries will create a ton of inertia...
by senfiaj | 2025-10-08 20:24:56+00:00
I would say modern science is more of a teamwork than it was before since nowadays it's too large and overwhelming for one person. It's almost impossible to be a solo genius nowadays. But both "Newton" and "mediocre" scientists are still needed. Just for an analogy, in software we see a similar pattern, programs were largely slow, so one person could write an entire game or OS, but today it's almost impossible, so today's programs are usually written by a large number of average developers. But there are still a few number of exceptional people who work on key algorithms or architecture. So they are still needed.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-08 20:25:01+00:00
> Just make all positions irrevocable for at least 10 seconds after posting

Sounds great for Wall Street. Spreads would necessarily widen as people buffer out. Meanwhile, you’ve turned every lit order into a 10-second option for market participants. Which means there is still a latency advantage to lifting or hitting a standing order first.
Structuring early customer deals to fund product acceleration -have you done it?
by cloneable_lia | 2025-10-08 20:25:06+00:00
We have a prototype for a parallel product that customers are validating strongly, but we're resource-constrained and it's realistically a quarter away from getting dev time. I know other B2B SaaS startups have done larger early deals that help fund the acceleration of features/products like this. How have you structured these deals? Specifically curious about:

Positioning to customers (early access pricing, co-development, etc.) Contract structure (prepayment, milestones, commitments) Timeline commitments you felt comfortable making Biggest lessons learned or pitfalls to avoid

This would accelerate something already validated, not build something unproven from scratch. Any experiences (good or bad) would be helpful!
by moomoo11 | 2025-10-08 20:25:11+00:00
Every Svelte enthusiast I have spoken to tends to lean towards the esoteric Elm and other such technologies.

They don’t really understand that software isn’t about “my framework can render 1000 elements 500ms faster” but rather my organization of hundreds or thousands of front end engineers (mix of employees and contractors both of whom usually don’t give a fuck) across the WORLD need to be able to work together on a significant product and ship constantly without breaking things.

And customers don’t give a fuck otherwise they wouldn’t be paying six figures or more for literally shit software.

That said I have tried it a couple times over the years. Not sure I like the latest direction they’ve gone though.
by DaSHacka | 2025-10-08 20:25:23+00:00
> But there isn’t a standard license for coreutils, as I’ve demonstrated.

There is for the specific coreutils they're attempting to replicate the behavior of though. They're directly targeting the GNU coreutils.

> Actually MIT is closer to what the term “public domain” means than GPLv3 is.

Yeah, that's the problem with it.

> But either way, you’re arguing preference as fact. And your preference here is basically just a license flame war. I thought the community had evolved passed this pettiness.

Is it really pettiness if one license allows for Elasticsearch situations and the other keeps the software and its derivatives free for people to use? Go and try to argue that the Linux kernel should be relicensed as MIT, surely the license doesn't matter at all and had no impact whatsoever on how things got to the point they are now. It's just pettiness, right?
by tsimionescu | 2025-10-08 20:25:51+00:00
While in absolute terms memory access has gotten faster, in relative terms it is MUCH slower today, compared to CPU speeds.

A modern CPU can perform hundreds or even thousands of computations while waiting for a single word to be read from main memory - and you get another order of magnitude slowdown if we're going to access data from an SSD. This used to be much closer to 1:1 with old machines, say in the Pentium 1-3 era or so.

And regardless of any speedup, the point remains as true today as it has always been: the more memory you want to access, the slower accessing it will be. Retrieving a word from a pool of 50PB will be much slower than retrieving a word from a pool of 1MB, for various fundamental reasons (even address resolution has an impact, even if we want to ignore physics).
by marcosdumay | 2025-10-08 20:26:11+00:00
Well, Leibniz did a different thing, with a similar part.

What does not go against the hypothesis. Both of their works were heavily subsided by less known researchers that came before them. But it's not clear at all if somebody else would do what they did on each of their particular field. (Just like it's not clear the work they built upon was in any way "mediocre".)

It's very hard to judge science. Both in predictive and retrospective form.
by saberience | 2025-10-08 20:27:06+00:00
Question, why is it seemingly so super important for you to coin a term for this?

Especially a term which comes across as so demeaning and devaluing to engineers (like me and yourself!)

I absolutely do not want my non-engineer friends and colleagues think I am "vibe engineering", it sounds trivial and dumbs down the discipline.

I personally believe being an engineer of some kind requires work, learning, patience, discipline, and we should be proud of being engineers. There's no way in hell I would go around and saying I'm a "vibe engineer" now. It would be like going around and saying I'm a vibe architect! Who would want to live in a skyscraper designed by a "vibe architect" ??
by nradov | 2025-10-08 20:27:08+00:00
I guess that's always a possibility.

Another more likely scenario in the next few decades is that Russia and/or China will collapse into violent revolution or civil way — as has happened multiple times throughout their long histories. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping aren't immortal. They have effectively concentrated decision making in their own hands and purged all other internal power centers, leaving no clear succession plan. When they die there's no way to predict what might happen.
by hinkley | 2025-10-08 20:27:22+00:00
Order is about approaching infinity.

Bucketed response times still follow a curve as the X axis goes to infinity.

It’s really the same for addition and multiplication. If the add fits into a register it seems like it’s O(1j but if you’re dealing with Mersenne prime candidates the lie becomes obvious.

That we aren’t acknowledging any of this with cloud computing is quite frustrating. You can’t fit the problem on one core? Next bucket. Can’t fit it in one server? Next bucket. One rack? One data center? So on and so forth.

Order of complexity tells us which problems we should refuse to take on at all. You always have to remember that and not fool yourself into thinking the subset that is possible is the entire problem space. It’s just the productive slice of it.
by mdhb | 2025-10-08 20:27:41+00:00
I think there’s an extremely high likelihood that we just DON’T see huge advancements at least in terms of accuracy or capabilities which are probably the two major nuts to crack to bring it to a different level.

I’m open to the possibility of faster, cheaper and smaller (we saw an instance of that with deepseek) but think there’s a real chance we hit a wall elsewhere.
by j2kun | 2025-10-08 20:27:48+00:00
> The empirical argument

> We can ask a question: how long (in nanoseconds) does it take to access a type of memory of which an average laptop has N bytes? Here's GPT's answer:

"Here's what GPT says" is not an empirical argument. If you can't do better than that (run a benchmark, cite some literature), why should I bother to read what you wrote?
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-10-08 20:28:09+00:00
> Using advanced language models (GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4),

Launching with this in the introductory sentence of a code-review tool .. is.. yep.

Luckily an easy fix, but if the product can be enhanced to detect outdated docs in the rest of the repo.. that’s an exciting feature!
by sciencejerk | 2025-10-08 20:28:19+00:00
A 13‑year Redis flaw (CVE‑2025‑49844) allows attackers to escape Lua sandbox and run code on hosts, if they are authenticated and Lua Script uploads are permitted.

Fixed releases: 7.22.2-12 and above, 7.8.6-207 and above, 7.4.6-272 and above, 7.2.4-138 and above, 6.4.2-131 and above

Exploit appears to be available, so patch quickly! https://redrays.io/blog/poc-for-cve-2025-49844-cve-2025-4681...
by closeparen | 2025-10-08 20:28:43+00:00
>accelerate the impact you can have with this new family of tools.

Tech spent the last 10 years drilling into engineers' heads that scaling your impact is not about writing more or better code, but about influencing the work of other engineers through collaboration, process, documentation, etc. Even the non-managerial "senior IC" tracks are mostly about doing this with greater and and greater numbers of people. I wonder if we will start to see recognition in career tracks for people who are actually just extraordinarily productive by themselves or in small groups, or if you'll pretty much just have to be a startup founder to get paid for that.
by pathartl | 2025-10-08 20:28:50+00:00
I seem to be the only one here that didn't have a good experience with TiVo. My parents cut the cord in 2013 and got a Roamio with a couple of the smaller streaming boxes. It was fairly easy to set up, but the UI was slow and not being able to transfer the recordings was a huge pain. Those stream boxes though, God those were terrible. If you had to reboot them it would take at least 20 minutes, if they didn't hang in the process.

I had a much better experience integrating a PC with a couple of PCIe Hauppauge tuners running Windows Media Center with a couple of Xbox 360s as streaming devices.
by dimatura | 2025-10-08 20:28:55+00:00
There's definitely a "rich get richer" effect for academic papers. A highly cited paper becomes a "landmark paper" that people are more likely to read, and hence cite - but also, at a certain point it can also become a default "safe" or "default" paper to cite in a literature review for a certain topic or technique, so out of expediency people may cite it just to cover that base, even if there's a more relevant related paper out there. This applies especially in cases where researchers might not know an area very well, so it's easy to assume a highly cited paper is a relevant one. At least for conferences, there's a deadline and researchers might just copy paste what they have in their bibtex file, and unfortunately the literature review is often an afterthought, at least from my experience in CV/ML.

Another related "rich get richer" effect is also that a famous author or institution is a noisy but easy "quality" signal. If a researcher doesn't know much about a certain area and is not well equipped to judge a paper on its own merits, then they might heuristically assume the paper is relevant or interesting due to the notoriety of the author/institution. You can see this easily at conferences - posters from well known authors or institutions will pretty much automatically attract a lot more visitors, even if they have no idea what they're looking at.
by driaforall | 2025-10-08 20:29:03+00:00
We’ve been frustrated by how scattered LLM benchmarking has become. Endless Reddit threads, conflicting posts, and inconsistent metrics across GPUs and inference engines.

So we built Inference Arena, an open benchmarking hub where you can:

- Discover and compare inference results for open models across vLLM, SGLang, Ollama, MLX, and LM Studio

- See performance trade-offs for quantized versions

- Analyze throughput, latency, and cost side by side across hardware setups

- Explore benchmark data interactively or access it programmatically via MCP (Model Context Protocol)

You can also use it in Agent Mode where an agent can search, analyze, and compare results (and even fetch new ones from the web or subreddits).

We’d love feedback from you on:

- Which metrics matter most for your workflows (TTFT, TPS, memory, cost?)

- Other engines or quantization methods you’d like to see

- How we can make the data more useful for real-world inference tuning

MCP url: https://mcp-api-production-44d1.up.railway.app/ GitHub: https://github.com/firstbatchxyz/inference-arena
by resters | 2025-10-08 20:29:13+00:00
The behavior of other participants is itself a first-class signal.

Rule 611 compresses that signal. By forcing everything to orbit a size-agnostic NBBO, it collapses a lot of the “behavioral bandwidth” (depth, imbalance, sweep patterns, replenishment, cancel/replace cadence) into a single top-of-book tick. Less resolution, less information.

High-resolution flow tells you who wants what, at what size, and how urgently. When we gate execution through protected quotes, we encourage tactics that flick the top-of-book with tiny size and discourage truthful size revelation. That’s signal destruction dressed up as protection.

Letting informed counterparties print away from the protected price (to reflect size or information) increases informational content. You get cleaner read-through from actual willingness to trade, instead of a compliance-driven dance around a fragile benchmark.

So yes: other people’s actions are the best data feed. The more of that behavior we can see—in size, time, and venue—the better our discovery gets. 611 reduces that visibility by design.
by sundarurfriend | 2025-10-08 20:30:20+00:00
> For example, the all-inference benchmarks improve by about 10%, an LLVM-heavy workload shows a similar ~10% gain, and building corecompiler.ji improves by 13–16% with BOLT. When combined with PGO and LTO, total improvements of up to ~23% have been observed.

> To build a BOLT-optimized Julia, run the following commands

Is BOLT the default build (eg. fetched by juliaup) on the supported Linux x86_64 and aarch64? I'm assuming not, based on the wording here, but I'm interested in what the blocker is and whether there's plans to make it part of the default build process. Is it considered as yet immature? Are there other downsides to it than the harmless warnings the post mentions?
by aegrumet | 2025-10-08 20:30:48+00:00
Nice, thanks!

> Obviously syncing of podcasts / listening positions is not going to work, by design?

Not sure, can you say more? Quick potential answers in the meantime.

For syncing, there's an auto-sync that runs in the background and prioritizes the shows that you've listened to most in the past month, but eventually cycles through all podcasts that you follow. There's also a manual sync on the Following page.

For listening positions, there's a Queue where you can drag individual episodes up and down to change the order, and playback will automatically cycle to the next episode in the queue when the playing episode finishes.
by cheema33 | 2025-10-08 20:31:16+00:00
> I'm no longer a fan of using any front-end libraries at all en lieu of just using standard event listeners and web components

You can get away without using frontend frameworks for small and simple projects. However, for large and complex projects you will struggle. For example, try building Google Docs without a frontend library. You will struggle even if you have an army of developers at your disposal. In fact, with a larger team, a library/framework helps standardize things.
by tsimionescu | 2025-10-08 20:31:24+00:00
This is completely false. All regularly cited algorithm complexity classes are based on estimating a memory access as an O(1) operation. For example, if you model memory access as O(N^1/3), linear search worse case is not O(N), it is O(N^4/3): in the worse case you have to make N memory accesses and N comparisons, and if each memory access in N^1/3 time, this requires N^4/3 + N time, which is O(N^4/3).
by wibbily | 2025-10-08 20:31:26+00:00
I like wireless ISPs, because radio works everywhere, and I want my regular ISP to sweat a little. Doesn’t matter who ran what wires to where, all you need is a window

I had Fios in Boston, in an apartment that was only wired for Fios. Despite that my service was pretty good/cheap - probably related to all the Starry fliers I got in the mail. Guessing it won’t be like that next year.
by douglasnaphas | 2025-10-08 20:31:27+00:00
> 4. The VPs and senior managers in the engineering org then negotiate which team will own the work.

> These [tiger] teams are given a loose mandate - like “stop the database from falling over every few days” - and allowed to do basically whatever it takes to get it done.

> The actual way around this problem is *illegible backchannels*.

The post seems to be based on organizations where teams aren't organized, and responsibilities aren't assigned to teams, in such a way as to allow teams to independently deliver value with minimal handoffs.

If you need to pull engineers from multiple teams to fix a problem with the database that the teams all share, that suggests that the teams' applications aren't restricted to communicating with each other over their external interfaces.

If determining which team should work on a project requires negotiating among VPs and senior managers, that suggests that the teams' responsibilities aren't clean, clear, and tied to the business's value streams.

I think a more fundamental way to address the problem of team A being blocked by team B is to organize the teams so as to minimize cross-team dependencies. I don't think the solution of illegible backchannels addresses the root cause of the problems observed by the author.
by dmurray | 2025-10-08 20:31:51+00:00
I can imagine some shapes like this in theory, I just think we can rule them out in practice.

For the hole example, we know there aren't any holes 500 km deep. For the pyramids, we know the line of sight is very close to flat (it's at least 500 km long and less than 10 km in elevation change). If a false peak prevents you from seeing the real peak, the angle of the mountain above the false peak is shallow enough that you can call it a plateau.
by andrewflnr | 2025-10-08 20:31:57+00:00
Technically yes, kind of, but if a feature is truly unaffected by the environment, then there's no particular reason it would get fixed, and you have to make the rather shaky assumption that it became widespread purely by chance. Most features have some cost, and the simplest explanation for that feature being widespread is that it has some counteracting benefit that leads to it being selected for. That's a reasonable first hypothesis, to say the least, which means the "spandrel" hypothesis makes sense as the less common special case.
by byearthithatius | 2025-10-08 20:32:02+00:00
But how many use _just_ React now? There is a whole stack that 90% of YC companies use: Node, pnpm, Next, React, doing SSR by default. Idk about it all. Most of the time when I ask why they do SSR they can't tell me a valid reason. Their bundle sizes are so big for what the apps do.