MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mattewong | 2025-10-09 17:10:42+00:00
> even if it's "this isn't useful because X."

OK... this isn't useful to me because I now just only use mermaid and stopped using other diagraming tools, because mermaid can be embedded now in so many places (github, in-browser editing/rendering, shareable URL, python etc), can be easily saved as text and edited (whether manually or programmatically), there are no IP issues, etc. So more useful for me would be, whatever you need to use something other than mermaid for-- do what it takes to make mermaid fill that need, so that there is no need to use anything else.
by swed420 | 2025-10-09 17:11:28+00:00
> It’s becoming exhausting to avoid all of these commonly used phrases!

That's not the only price society pays. It makes sense for us to develop the heuristics to detect AI, but the implication of doing so has its own cost.

It started out as people avoiding the use of em-dash in order to avoid being mistaken for being AI, for example.

Now in the case of OP's observation, it will pressure real humans to not use the format that's normally used to fight against a previous form of coercion. A tactic of capital interests has been to get people arguing about the wrong question concerning ImportantIssueX in order to distract from the underlying issue. The way to call this out used to be to point out that, "it's not X1 we should be arguing about, but X2." Combined with OP's revelation, it is now harder to call out BS. That sure is convenient for capital interests.

I wonder what's next.
by MarkusWandel | 2025-10-09 17:11:36+00:00
I used to roll start my last stickshift car just for fun. 2001 Honda Civic. The inertia from just rolling down my 30ft gently sloping driveway was enough, have it in 3rd or so, pop the clutch briefly and it would start right up. A diehard stick shift colleague with a 2014-ish VW tells me this won't work on modern stickshift cars any more, don't know why.
by jstummbillig | 2025-10-09 17:12:07+00:00
I think this is a moderately good idea, if you are certain that you want to remain involved with the business operationally, forever.

It's still not ever a great idea (unless, maybe, this is what you do for a living for your customers), simply because it binds your time, which will absolutely be your scarcest asset if your business does anything.

I am speaking from my acute experience.
by cnees | 2025-10-09 17:12:45+00:00
Financially, it's a bit of a wash because this affects their competition just as much as it affects them. Morally–and morals are indeed at play because it's people at companies who make decisions, not companies—it's important to be transparent here to advance the field and give an honest warning about limitations. Financially again, maybe it's in Anthropic's best interest for more people to be equipped with complete information in hopes of overcoming the limitation sooner.
by techyKerala | 2025-10-09 17:14:04+00:00
Yes, both share the same base protocol, I just wanted to play around with it for fun.

I noticed that in SIP, when a device sends an offer with sendrecv, the gateway responds correctly, but if I try sendonly or recvonly, it doesn’t seem to work only sendrecv works. I’m not sure why yet, so I’ll need to dig into it more.
by jaybrendansmith | 2025-10-09 17:14:31+00:00
There will be war crimes tribunals and court marshals. This is inevitable when the other party gets back into power, and totally justified because they are clearly and explicitly breaking US law, maritime law, and international law. My only question is: what makes them think they will not go to jail for these crimes? The only plausible answer is that they believe they will never be held accountable for their actions, because the other party will never be allowed to have power again. This is very concerning for the future of the United States, folks.
by dghlsakjg | 2025-10-09 17:14:31+00:00
You couldn't consume gigabytes because that amount of ram didn't exist. You still had apps with the same issues that would eat all your ram.

Computers crashed all the fucking time for dumb bugs. I remember being shocked when I upgraded to XP and could go a full day without a BSOD. Then I upgraded to intel OSX and was shocked that a system could run without ever crashing.

Edit: this isn't to say that these issues today are acceptable, just that broken software is nothing new.
by btilly | 2025-10-09 17:14:37+00:00
Yes, this is exactly the problem with animal models. We can tell that the animal has the same symptoms. We don't know that it has it through the same pathway as humans.

The models have worked often enough that it is reasonable to hope that what works in animals, will work in humans. And it is easier to experiment on animals. This is why they are used in research.

But when what works in animals doesn't work in humans, repeatedly, we should stop using that animal model in research.

Here are examples of treatments for Alzheimer's that worked in animals, reached human trials, then failed to help humans: AN1792 (active Aβ vaccine, Elan), Tarenflurbil (R-flurbiprofen), Semagacestat (γ-secretase inhibitor), Bapineuzumab (anti-Aβ mAb), Solanezumab (anti-Aβ mAb), Crenezumab, ponezumab, gantenerumab, and BACE inhibitors (e.g. verubecestat, atabecestat).

All of these were considered promising enough in mice to be worth expensive human trials. Where they failed. Those weren't cheap failures, either.
by dh2022 | 2025-10-09 17:14:58+00:00
Boeing uses Export / Import bank to finance some of its sales:

https://www.exim.gov/news/export-import-bank-united-states-b...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-export...

https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2015/us-export-import-b...
by tekkk | 2025-10-09 17:15:23+00:00
I'd say React has become broken. The fact you have to by default wrap everything in a hook and cycle the boilerplate from one component to another is insane. useMemo, useCallback-use this and that. What are we even doing here in the first place? Playing whack-a-hook?

And then you still can end up with stale closures.

The fact they are over-engineering the server-side rendering is a cherry on top. React used to prize itself as the minimalistic solution but now they invent abstractions just to feel smart it seems.
by thewebguyd | 2025-10-09 17:15:38+00:00
> Majority of projects don't need the web scale or whatever.

Truth. All the major cloud platform marketing is YAGNI but for infrastructure instead of libraries/code.

As someone who works in ops and has since starting as a sysadmin in the early 00s, it's been entertaining to say the least to watch everyone rediscover hosting your own stuff as if it's some new innovation and wasn't ever possible before. It's like that old MongoDB is web scale video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs)

Watching devs discover Docker was similarly entertaining back then when us in ops have been using LXC and BSD jails, etc. to containerize code pre-DevOps.

Anyway, all that to say - go buy your gray beard sysadmins a coffee let them help you. We would all be thrilled to bring stuff back on-prem or go back to self hosting and running infra again and probably have a few tricks to teach you.
by kbyatnal | 2025-10-09 17:16:14+00:00
There's definitely no shortage of options. OCR has been around for decades at this point, and legacy IDP solutions really proliferated in the last ~10 years.

The world today is quite different though. In the last 24 months, the "TAM" for document processing has expanded by multiple orders of magnitude. In the next 10 years, trillions of pages of documents will be ingested across all verticals.

Previous generations of tools were always limited to the same set of structured/semi-structured documents (e.g. tax forms). Today, engineering teams are ingesting truly the wild west of documents, from 500pg mortgage packages to extremely messy healthcare forms. All of those legacy providers fall apart when tackling these types of actual unstructured docs.

We work with hundreds of customers now, and I'd estimate 90% of the use cases we tackle weren't technically solvable until ~12 months ago. So it's nearly all greenfield work, and very rarely replacing an existing vendor or solution already in place.

All that to say, the market is absolutely huge. I do suspect we'll see a plateau in new entrants though (and probably some consolidation of current ones). With how fast the AI space moves, it's nearly impossible to compete if you enter a market just a few months too late.
by orbital-decay | 2025-10-09 17:16:15+00:00
>Yes, universally. And no, not a bit. It's 10-100x across varying components. Look no further than MS Teams.

Universal latency regression is a ridiculous claim. For one, 20 years ago it was common to have 1-5 minutes loading time for professional software, I spent way too much time staring at splash screens. Can you imagine a splash screen on a music player? It was a thing too. Nowadays splash screens are nearly forgotten, because even big software starts in seconds. SSDs have nothing to do with it either, the startup reduction time trend started in mid-2000s by big content creation shops such as Adobe, precisely because people were fed up with long startup times and started complaining. Jerky mouse movements, random micro-lags due to hard disk activity and OS inability to schedule I/O properly, it definitely wasn't all smooth and lag-free as some people paint it. MS Teams is pretty much the epitome of bloat, counterpoint would be software like Zed, which is really fluid and optimized for latency, so it's already not universal. Software like MS Word was laggy then and is less laggy now. (and crashes a lot less these days)
by kjhenner | 2025-10-09 17:16:36+00:00
I'm curious if this would apply to as well to the context-extraction and jailbreaking poisoning attacks mentioned in the Persistent pre-training poisoning of LLMs paper. Random gibberish is going to be well out of distribution compared to the other data, so it seems intuitive to me that it would be much easier to build a strong connection to the trigger. You've got a mostly-blank bit of the latent space to work in.

Other attacks rely on more in-distribution instructions. Would they be impacted differently by scaling the training data?

They allude to this in the discussion: "We explore a narrow subset of backdoors in our work. Future work may explore more complex attack vectors (e.g. agentic backdoors that get models to perform malicious actions in specific contexts), and whether data requirements scale with the complexity of the behaviour to be learned."
by porridgeraisin | 2025-10-09 17:16:37+00:00
Utilisation is counted by the OS, it's not exposed as a performance counter by the hardware. Thus, it's limited by the level of abstraction presented by the hardware.

It's useless on CPUs as well, just to a much much lesser extent to the point of it actually being useful.

Basically, the OS sees the CPU as being composed of multiple cores, that's the level of abstraction. Thus, the OS calculates "portion of last second where atleast one instruction was sent to this core" on each core and then reports it. The single number version is an average of each core's value.

On the other hand, the OS cannot calculate stuff inside each core - the CPU hides as part of its abstraction. That is, you cannot know "I$ utilisation", "FPU utilisation", etc,.

In the GPU, the OS doesn't even see each SM (streaming multiprocessor, loosely analogous to a cpu core). It just sees the whole GPU as one black box abstraction. Thus, it calculates utilisation as "portion of last second where atleast one kernel was executing on the whole GPU". It cannot calculate intra-GPU util at all. So one kernel executing on one SM looks the same to the OS, as that kernel executing on tens of SMs!

This is the crux of the issue.

With performance counters (perf for CPU, or nsight compute for GPU), lots of stuff visible only inside the hardware abstraction can be calculated (SM util, warp occupancy, tensor util, etc)

The question then, is why doesn't the GPU schedule stuff on each SM in the OS/driver? Instead of doing it in a microcontroller in the hardware itself on the other side of the interface?

Well, I think it's due to efficiency reasons and also for nvidia to have more freedom to change it without having compat issues due to being tied to the OS, and similar reasons. If that were the case however, then the OS could calculate util for each SM, and then average it, giving you more accurate values - the case with the kernel running on 1 SM will report a smaller util than the case with the kernel executing on 15 SMs.

IME, measuring on nsight compute causes anywhere from a 5% to 30% performance overhead, so if that's ok for you, you can enable it and get more useful measurements.
by tyre | 2025-10-09 17:16:38+00:00
I would guess Amazon has a ridiculous amount of access to training data in its warehouses. Video, package sizes, weights, sorting.

I’m sure they could pretty easily spin up a site with 200 of these processing packages of most sizes (they have a limited number of standardized package sizes) nonstop. Remove ones that it gets right 99.99% of the time and keep training on the more difficult ones, the move to individual items.

Caveat: I have no idea what I’m talking about.
by oxalorg | 2025-10-09 17:17:01+00:00
I left my VPS open to password logins for over 3 years, no security updates, no firewalls, no kernel updates, no apt upgrades; only fail2ban and I survived: https://oxal.org/blog/my-vps-security-mess/

Don't be me, but even if you royally mess up things won't be as bad as you think.
by nadermx | 2025-10-09 17:17:24+00:00
Tangential, but I practically owe my life to this guy. He wrote the flask mega tutorial in what I followed religiously to launch my first website. Then right before launch, in the most critical part of my entire application; piping a fragged file in flask. He answered my stackoverflow question, I put his fix live, and the site went viral. Here's the link for posterity's sake https://stackoverflow.com/a/34391304/4180276
by neom | 2025-10-09 17:17:34+00:00
Not directly related to what you're saying (I take your point), but you might find these ideas interesting! :)

https://openreview.net/forum?id=3RSLW9YSgk

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08744-2

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10100

https://www.datacamp.com/blog/genesis-physics-engine
by mkbelieve | 2025-10-09 17:17:57+00:00
I've been wondering for awhile what keeps bad actors from using bots to upvote solutions that introduce malware, thereby poisoning LLMs and making them even more untrustworthy than they are currently. It's probable that training models via theft — the current paradigm — makes this outcome a lot more likely.

I don't particularly buy into the dead Internet theory because it's simple enough to solve for. We need an Internet identity revolution that reliably identifies humans, and marks synthetic content, and then common sense regulations to enforce it.

So... Dead Internet ahoy!
by VirusNewbie | 2025-10-09 17:18:03+00:00
>but how do we accomplish that when there isn't one?

I worked for a small (~300 engineers) well run org in Verizon before I went to Google, and I was surprised at how well their training was, even with smaller budgets, and a tier below compensation wise and interviewing rigor.

This org supported being deliberate about hires, getting people who were experts and liked coaching/training along with those who were newbies with aptitude and desire. There was good documentation, good shared culture, and lots of safeguards like linting, excessive testing, example projects, if not quite the full fledged codelabs google has.

But part of it, both for Verizon and Google, was signaling that "good people work here and are well rewarded" (comparatively).
by gwbas1c | 2025-10-09 17:18:11+00:00
I can't recommend enough that you read "How Countries Go Broke" by Ray Dalio. There's even a free PDF: https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/How-Countries-Go-Br...

Dalio explains the currency cycle, which starts with hard currency, goes through some various stages until there's pure fiat, and then goes back to hard currency.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-10-09 17:18:27+00:00
Everything you said 110%

I wish I understood why some engineers feel the need to over-engineer the crap out of everything.

Is it because of wishful thinking? They think their blog is gonna eventually become so popular that they're handling thousands of requests per second, and they want to scale up NOW?

I just think about what web servers looked like at the turn of the millennium. We didn't have all these levels of abstraction. No containers. Not even VMs. And we did it on hardware that would be considered so weak that they'd be considered utterly worthless by today's standards.

And yet...it worked. We did it.

Now we've got hardware that is literally over 1000 times faster. Faster clocks, more cache, higher IPC, and multiple cores. And I feel like half of the performance gains are being thrown away by adding needless abstractions and overhead.

FFS...how many websites were doing just fine with a simple LAMP stack?
by kdawkins | 2025-10-09 17:18:28+00:00
Agreed - Effort/Cost/Time is what always nips my self-host projects out of the gate. I start working down the recursive thought experiment of everything I "need" to get an email server working (for example) and bail when I see the list.

Convincing the family to buy in is hard too because (as you put) I can't promise the same level of redundancy/service guarantees.
by nixpulvis | 2025-10-09 17:18:41+00:00
I mean, I agree it would be nice to be able to test actions locally (maybe there's a tool for this). But I keep my actions very simple, so it rarely takes me a lot of time to get them right. See https://github.com/nixpulvis/grapl/blob/master/.github/workf...

If you want more complex functionality, that's why I suggested improving your build system, so the actions themselves are pretty simple.

Where things get more frustrating for me is when you try using more advanced parts of actions like releases and artifacts which aren't as simple as running a script and checking it's output/exit code.
by rahimnathwani | 2025-10-09 17:18:58+00:00
iPads have high resolution screens.

Cheap USB capture devices usually support a maximum of 1080p@60Hz output. If you buy a random '4k' USB capture device, it probably supports up to 4k input but then scales it down to 1080p for output.

So perhaps 4k upscaling on the ipad will make the image look better.
by oxalorg | 2025-10-09 17:19:07+00:00
I left my Hetzner VPS open to password logins for over 3 years, no security updates, no firewalls, no kernel updates, no apt upgrades; only fail2ban and I survived: https://oxal.org/blog/my-vps-security-mess/

Don't be me, but have some solace in the fact that even if you royally mess up things won't be as bad as you think.

I self host a lot of things on a VPS and have recently started self hosting on a raspberry pi 5, it's extremely liberating!
by halfdaft | 2025-10-09 17:19:09+00:00
congratulations on the work so far - looks interesting, will try it out. reminds me of Microsoft’s Courier tablet [0] concept from 2009, which I was naively obsessed with for a while.

[0] https://youtu.be/pFQWc79TYcU?si=9JvYw1FVQwUrxn0M
by afzal_ali | 2025-10-09 17:19:35+00:00
Location: Lahore, Pakistan Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Ruby on Rails | React js | Next Js | Typescript | PHP Laravel | MySQL | Psql | AWS | AI Integrations

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q6IQrVH3llpEqX0CRt_YzN08_Jf...

Email: afzalali2728@gmail.com
by nodesocket | 2025-10-09 17:20:02+00:00
If you’re actually building and shipping software as a business Python is great. The advantages of Python for a startup are many. Large pool of talent that can pickup the codebase on essentially day 1. Fairly easy to reason about, mature, code velocity, typically one and only one way to do things as opposed to JavaScript. There is way more to the story than raw performance.
by saltcured | 2025-10-09 17:20:06+00:00
For a lot of folks, the derivation of joy is not as scale-free as seems necessary to move up the hierarchy in this way. The jump in abstraction kills some joy by removing the tangible process. The tactile enjoyment someone gets from knitting is not there when operating a loom, much less when managing someone else who operates the loom.

The change in agency also kills the joy for me. I thrive on abstraction in the language and mathematics sense. But I do not at all enjoy indirection and delegation through unreliable agents. I am not interested in the loss of control and the new risk management task. I would never accept a "stochastic compiler" that offered to optimize my code but with risk of randomly changing the semantics. That determinism in the semantics needs to remain for me to accept a tool as a valid abstraction.

For context, I am a computer scientist by title and a programmer at heart. I got my CS degree from a liberal arts program rather than an engineering school. My temperament is more that of a hands-on artist at an easel or typewriter and not that of a manager of an engineering department. In my long career, I have thrived with peers or betters on collaborative projects. I have zero interest in "advancing" to a managerial role.

But honestly, the loss of control, lack of trust, and associated risk management is a big problem for me. I have rarely delegated work to less skilled or less reliable juniors, and I have never enjoyed that. The scenario of a confidently wrong subordinate is a huge trigger for me. It evokes long term trauma from growing up with a mentally ill family member. It feels like all of the burden of being a caregiver to someone with delusions, but with none of the moral context to make that worth the cost.
by MBCook | 2025-10-09 17:20:15+00:00
I did that just last week to install Linux on a micro-PC I have. Its only display output is HDMI and I didn’t want to unplug it and move it over to my TV just for the short time necessary to install a base system + SSH.

Worked great!

I’ve used the app for other things too. It’s a great solution if you already have an iPad.
by mafik | 2025-10-09 17:20:56+00:00
No, I didn't experiment with modes almost at all. I had one mode where I mapped the arrows to individual keys but in the end dint't use it - it's faster to enter a chord - especially chords for Ctrl+Arrows are nice.

For a time I made the mappings a little more memorable by forcing two related keys (like a and ą or o and ó) to have their chords differ in just one finger position - and that did work but it lowered the "efficiency estamates" of the generated layouts. In the end I reserved one thumb position for my custom shortcuts and allowed the optimizer to go crazy with all the remaining chords. After playing with both styles I prefer the latter. Entering text feels more a little fast-paced maze solving game where you have to figure out which fingers to move to transition between chords.
by Dig1t | 2025-10-09 17:21:00+00:00
>no choice but to escalate and invade Eastern Europe.

They can barely hold on to Eastern Ukraine, them taking the entirety of Ukraine is not likely at all given that they have had to slog for many years just to take and hold one small part of the country.

If they can’t even take all of Ukraine, I don’t think it’s very likely they try to attack any more of Europe.
by constantcrying | 2025-10-09 17:21:04+00:00
It is paywalled. But let me just point out that "mathematical necessity" requires mathematics, which requires first and foremost rigorous definitions. "intelligence" is not a term you can define in mathematics.

>Here’s the mathematical setup: You have limited computational resources, uncertain future states, and multiple competing objectives.

Not only is that not a mathematical setup, this also applies to basically every physical system.