MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by BugsJustFindMe | 2025-10-26 21:51:26+00:00
> If you refuse to do something on a problem I raise

If you think there's a problem and you don't block, then you're the one being negligent. If you review without blocking, you're indicating that you see no reasons why the code shouldn't be merged as is.

> If you did ask me for my opinion, but ignore them

In this scenario I saw that you don't see anything that needs to change. That is a direct expression of opinion from you by reviewing and not blocking. I am following your input efficiently by disregarding optional side quests you want to invoke.

The problem in this scenario is that you want to say "I do not think you need to do anything else", which is what it means to review and not block, while simultaneously expecting the person to do something else. Your contradictory input is what creates the problem here.
by bigyabai | 2025-10-26 21:52:11+00:00
My heart goes out to all the gamers who discovered they were chopped liver during the crypto boom.

Besides that though, I don't see how Nvidia is particularly non-ethical. They cooperate with Khronos, provide high-quality Linux and BSD drivers free of charge, and don't deliberately block third parties from writing drivers to support new standards. From a relativist standpoint that's as sanctimonious as server hardware gets.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-26 21:55:01+00:00
> It's far more arrogant to expect/demand changes

That's why you are at work and get compensated. I don't need to motivate you to do your work, that's something you should discuss with your boss.

> it is for the author to take the reviewer at their word about whether the change needs additional work or not.

How can the reviewer know that? The reviewer can only point at issues that tangent their part of the code, or what problems they think this will cause. Whether this is intentional or accident can only be known by the author.

> By leaving a non-blocking review, the coworker has said that they have no strong objection to merging the code as is.

No they say e.g. they would be know they need to work around the issue on their side, but prefer no to, because this comes at a costs for the company in work-hours and whether that is something you want to cause is your choice.

It seems like you think code reviews are a way to put someone else in charge of your change and deflecting the blame to him. You are still responsible for your work. Code reviews prevent you from accidentally breaking things, reducing the error rate by having more eyes and knowledge looking at your code. They won't prevent you from willfully breaking things.

> think of ignoring non-blocking comments as equivalent to reading them and disagreeing.

This is fine and expected, but we already have that discussion elsewhere.
by nvahalik | 2025-10-26 21:55:17+00:00
I watched the show but if I remember correctly they actually didn’t die. They survived.

> The reality is much more positive than the myth, with all three men escaping such a grisly fate. Indeed, Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bespalov are believed to be both still alive as of 2024, while Boris Baranov lived until 2005 when he passed away from heart disease.

Source: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-real-story-of-the-cher...
by lolpython | 2025-10-26 21:55:56+00:00
Actually I've been informed otherwise, they crawl known links first according to this person:

> Unfortunately, based on what I'm seeing in my logs, I do need the bot detection. The crawlers that visit me, have a list of URLs to crawl, they do not immediately visit newly discovered URLs, so it would take a very, very long time to fill their queue. I don't want to give them that much time.

https://lobste.rs/c/1pwq2g
by Youden | 2025-10-26 21:56:01+00:00
The architecture of Eight Sleep is that the "Pod" – despite having a full Linux system running – is treated as nothing but a sensor and actuator. Absolutely zero decision-making happens on the device itself; it's all controlled by commands received from the mothership via an AWS service.

My cynical take has always been that this is their justification for charging a subscription fee for features that shouldn't require one (e.g. an alarm clock or the ability to change the temperature on a schedule).

There are a couple of open-source projects around jailbreaking it:

- Probably the original attempt: https://github.com/bobobo1618/ninesleep

- The much more polished and usable application built from that starting point: https://github.com/throwaway31265/free-sleep

The latter is even able to do the signal processing needed for heart rate on-device.
by georgefrowny | 2025-10-26 21:56:47+00:00
Designing these kinds of systems in the 50s and 60s must have been one of the all-time peak engineering experiences. Nearly everything on paper and drafting film, stacks of databooks, nomograms, slide rules, electromechanics everywhere, stratospheric budgets, hand wiring, manually machined parts and just generally making up and discovering things, from machining to physics, as you go along that we now consider fundamentals.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-10-26 21:57:03+00:00
Let's systematize this.

Compilers build for target triples such as x86_64-linux-gnu. It is of the form isa-kernel-userspace. If kernel is linux, the builtin can be used. The isa determines the code generated by the compiler, both in general and for the builtin. The userspace can be anything at all, including none. Sometimes compilers build for target quadruples which also include a vendor, and that information is also irrelevant.
by pertymcpert | 2025-10-26 21:57:12+00:00
This article is AI garbage:

ARM64 Architecture: Not x86_64 (limited ML ecosystem maturity) No PyTorch wheels for ARM64+CUDA (must use Docker) Most ML tools optimized for x86

No evidence for any of this whatsoever. The author just asked Claude/claude code to write their article and it just plain hallucinated some rubbish.
by copypaper | 2025-10-26 21:57:45+00:00
I think you're looking for `import 'server-only'` and not "use server";. Use server exposes functions as endpoints to the client. I.e. they are simply obfuscated api endpoints without boilerplate. Their main use is for mutations such as a form submission from the client.

Since pages are, by default, SSR, you don't need to have the server call out to itself to run an endpoint to check permissions. Instead, the server should just run the function.

I'm pretty sure Next does some behind the scenes black magic optimizations and doesn't actually make an API request over the wire, but it's still running through some layer of abstractions (causing it to be async) to run the function when instead it could simply be a synchronous function if implemented properly.

These abstractions make sense if you know how to use them properly, but I honestly blame Nextjs for the whole server action confusion. I remember when they first came out and seeing how almost every single question on /r/nextjs was about being confused about server actions. All these footguns and confusion to avoid some boilerplate... I'm not sure if they've improved it since, but I've moved to Svelte and haven't looked back.
by dmz73 | 2025-10-26 21:59:24+00:00
If the payload expands to something too large then it is easy to detect and ignore. Serve up thousands of 10kb or 100kb files that expand to 10s of MB with random garbage inside...possibly the same text but slightly modified. That will waste the time and CPU cycles and provide no value to them. Maybe also add a message you want to amplify so AI bots train on it.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-10-26 22:00:05+00:00
AI is highly educated. It's a different sort of artifact we're dealing with where it can't tell truth from fiction.

What's going on is AI fatigue. We see it everywhere, we use it all the time. It's becoming generic and annoying and we're getting bored of it EVEN though the accomplishment is through the fucking roof.

If elon musk makes interstellar car that can reach the nearest star in 1 second and priced it at 1k, I guarantee within a year people will be bored of it and finding some angle to criticize it.

So what happens is we get fatigued, and then we have such negative emotions about it that we can't possibly classify it as the same thing as human intelligence. We magnify the flaws and until it takes up all the space and we demand a redefinition of what agi is because it doesn't "feel" right.

We already had a definition of AGI. We hit it. We moved the goal posts because we weren't satisfied. This cycle is endless. The definition of AGI will always be changing.

Take LLMs as they exist now and only allow 10% of the population to access it. Then the opposite effect will happen. The good parts will be over magnified and the bad parts will be acknowledged and then subsequently dismissed.

Think about it. All the AI slop we see on social media are freaking masterpieces works of art produced in minutes what most humans can't even hope to come close to. Yet we're annoyed and unimpressed by them. That's how it's always going to go down.
by vntok | 2025-10-26 22:00:44+00:00
All it takes is a full-height screenshot of the page coupled with a prompt similar to 'btw, please only click on links visible on this screenshot, that a regular humanoid visitor would see and interact with'.

Modern bots do this very well, plus the structure of the Web is such that it is sufficient to skip a few links here and there, most probably there will dxist another path toward the skipped page that the bot can go through later on.
by nneonneo | 2025-10-26 22:00:46+00:00
You kind of can in C with bit size specifications on struct members, but you’ll still face the problem that C’s minimum alignment is one byte - so a struct containing a single 1-bit field will still occupy a byte in memory. However, it does let you “allocate” different bits within a byte for different member fields.

C++ has vector<bool>, which is supposed to be an efficient bit-packed vector of Booleans, but due to C++ constraints it doesn’t quite behave like a container (unlike other vector<T>s). Of course, if you make a vector<bool> of a single bit, that’s still going to occupy much more than one bit in memory.

There are plenty of hardware specification languages where it’s trivial to “allocate” one bit, but those aren’t allocating from the heap in a traditional sense. (Simulators for these languages will often efficiently pack the bits in memory, but that’s more of an implementation detail than a language guarantee).
by pedalpete | 2025-10-26 22:02:08+00:00
Here’s a link to the paper [1].

I work in the neurotech/sleeptech space, and Alzheimer’s is one of the endpoints we’re working toward.

On a first read, it seems the authors frame everything through a circadian lens. Their view is that circadian genes regulate glial function, and that when those rhythms are disrupted, clearance breaks down, inflammation increases, and amyloid accumulates, contributing to Alzheimer’s.

There’s another perspective in sleep science that looks at restorative function. The physiological work of sleep like slow-wave activity and glymphatic flow which may be the driver. From that view, amyloid build-up impairs glymphatic clearance, creating a downward spiral of poorer clearance and more accumulation.

Circadian timing is certainly an important modulator, but it’s not the whole story. Without EEG or even basic sleep-wake data, it’s hard to know whether the changes in circadian” gene expression reported here reflect intrinsic clock disruption or simply reduced slow-wave restorative function in these mice.

I've linked to two research papers[2],[3] in AD which are working with the same principles of our work at https://affectablesleep.com

[1] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-02067-1 [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2024.07.002 [3] https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad228
by Balgair | 2025-10-26 22:03:41+00:00
Mine has always been:

I have 2 files. One is a .pdf . The other is a .doc . One file has a list of prices and colors in 2 columns. The other file has a list of colors and media in 2 columns. There are incomplete lists here and many to one matching.

To me, if I can verbally tell the AI to give me a list of prices and media from those two files, in a .csv file, and it'll ask back some simple questions and issues that it needs cleaned up to accomplish this, then that is AGI to me.

It is an incredibly simple thing for just about any middle school graduate.

And yet! I have worked with PhDs that cannot do this. No joke!

Something this simple, just dead running numbers, dumb accounting, is mostly beyond us.
by ghaff | 2025-10-26 22:04:27+00:00
I've seen both. A CTO office that also leads engineering--typically via a direct report to the CTO--and an organization where the CTO is largely an external evangelist (typically with a small staff) while engineering is a separate organization--though hopefully aligned. The view here where CTO is also the head of day-to-day engineering operations and technical vision is more of a small company/startup thing. The two are often separated to at least some degree at larger operations.
by overfeed | 2025-10-26 22:04:29+00:00
> The thing is, when the whole world speaks one common language like Latin or English, this is a tiny bit sad for some Gaelic tribe that got wiped out culturally, but incredibly valuable for everybody everywhere.

I find this cultural Darwinism argument incredibly ironic, given how vocal factions in 2 of largest (native) English-speaking countries have been whinging about "their culture" being sullied by immigrants.
by dmitrygr | 2025-10-26 22:04:52+00:00
FIFA invented ticket options (they call it RTBs), a ticket derivatives market (their marketplace allowing trades and sales of RTBs), and then cross-bred that with loot boxes (random cheap “cards” that may or may not contain RTBs). I bet that with some effort, you could figure out how to short tickets given the tools they have created.

We finally found a worthy competitor to Ticketmaster in the “worst way to buy tickets to an event” competition, it seems.
by gambiting | 2025-10-26 22:05:39+00:00
Except that obviously the difference is that plane pilots are rigourously tested, certified, and they have their every action including their voice recorded while they operate the plane, and they are held accountable with legally required self reporting for any mistakes no matter how innocent. There is no such scrutiny with car drivers, in fact in some places in the world you can operate a car with zero formal training and a short form test that tests bare fundamentals and nothing else - to expect such a driver to take the same level of care and attention as a commercial pilot when operating a Tesla in autopilot mode is....wishful thinking at best.

But sure, Tesla's autopilot is the same as a plane autopilot in all the other respects.
by jltsiren | 2025-10-26 22:06:43+00:00
You can't measure intelligence directly. Instead, the idea is to measure performance in various tasks and use that as a proxy for intelligence. But human performance depends on other aspects beyond intelligence, including education, opportunities, and motivation, and most humans are far from reaching their true potential.

If you compare the performance of the average human to a state-of-the-art AI model trained by top experts with a big budget, you can't make any conclusions about intelligence. For the comparison to make sense, the human should also be trained as well as reasonably possible.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-10-26 22:08:03+00:00
> The standard of acceptable behavior is reading all the little signs

The thing that defines awkward behavior is being unable to read those signs. Conversely what makes someone charming is that they're better than average at reading those signs.

So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct?

It's also unclear how someone would learn to read those signs if the standard for acceptable behavior is already being able to read them. It seems like you'd need to build in the idea that learning a skill requires some failure trials.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-26 22:08:18+00:00
Hey, what an amazing project, bravo!

i would suggest to providing an iso or co-operating / looking into copy.sh which provides a large number of iso files which you can boot/play around with in the browser itself!

I was just today tinkering around with the ibm iso (exploring ibm) and others too, its always fun seeing new operating system!

I would love if you could, as I said, co-operate with copy.sh/v86 team to also include your iso and also provide iso files in github releases if possible

Source: https://copy.sh/v86/ Their github page : https://github.com/copy/v86
by Animats | 2025-10-26 22:08:46+00:00
It's sort of a random collection of images. The first image isn't the command center at all. It's network operations, which is obvious if you look closely.

For a few years after the downfall of the USSR and before 9/11, there were public tours. That was a happy, peaceful time.

Here's a partial tour from the 1970s.[1]

There is no one big control room. There are about a half dozen control rooms with different functions. There are duplicate control rooms outside the mountain, and for a few years, those were primary and the mountain only had a skeleton staff. Not any more. (Although Hegseth apparently wants to move some operations to Huntsville, Alabama.)

Modern photos are available. Modest sized rooms with flat screens on the walls, desks, ordinary monitors, and keyboards. About the only unusual thing is that there's video switching, so that monitors can be copied to a big screen, or someone else's screen, when something is happening and many people need to focus on one screen.

There's now a vast flood of crap AI art and mislabeled clickbait for the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center. Sorting out the real from the fake is becoming harder.

(One of my career achievements from my aerospace days was managing to avoid being transferred to Colorado Springs to work on their networking problems.)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd1yLwzQGO8
by albertzeyer | 2025-10-26 22:09:17+00:00
The bug was with non-contiguous data in tensors.

I also had a very similar bug a while ago, broken gradients due to non-contiguous data for masked_select: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/99638

In my case, it was easier to identify: I had another implementation of my loss function before that did not use masked_select. But then I thought I can be clever and use masked_select to take out the non-masked frames and calculate the loss only on those. But it wasn't working. Also, it only happened for some models, not for all. It turns out, it was always happening when the data coming out of the model was non-contiguous.

I think the bugs with non-contiguous data are not so uncommon. I wonder how much of that we still have.
by rfl890 | 2025-10-26 22:09:59+00:00
Kernel32.dll is loaded into all Windows processes by default, so you actually can have a valid, working Windows binary with 0 entries in the import table. See here[1] for a "Hello world" program written as such.

[1]: https://gist.github.com/rfl890/195307136c7216cf243f7594832f4...
by gambiting | 2025-10-26 22:10:01+00:00
I keep using this as an example - the Therac mechines for radiotherapy undoubtedly saved lives. They also undoubtedly administered radiation treatment better, faster and more accurately than any manual operator could have done.

And yet, they all got recalled when we realized they "sometimes" administer a lethal dose of radiation by mistake. Or do you think they should have continued operating? What was the "acceptable maximum rate at which your products can kill people" for them? Because I'd argue it's zero. And it should be zero for Teslas or any cars that have something called "autopilot".
by pedalpete | 2025-10-26 22:10:43+00:00
I found this to be a very strange architectural decision.

We work in the neurotech/sleeptech space (https://affectablesleep.com) and have a subscription service as well. We know when your subscription runs out, and have built the device to run completely offline, and even have a buffer of days if it can't connect to check you have a valid subscription.

Say what you will about subscription services, but being actively hostile to your user base because the device can't connect to a service on one night, seems like very poor planning.

I actually quite look up to 8Sleep as one of the better companies in this space, so I'm surprised this happened to them.
by runarberg | 2025-10-26 22:13:02+00:00
Human-to-human communication is different from a human-to-computer communication. The google search engine speaks the same language as you, heck even the Hacker News speaks the same language as you as you are able to understand what each button on this page mean, and will respond correctly when you communicate back by pressing e.g. the “submit” button.

Also assuming psychopaths don‘t experience emotions is going going with a very fringe theory of psychology. Very likely psycopaths experience emotions, they are maybe just very different emotions from the ones you and I experience. I think a better example would be a comatose person.

That said I think talking about machine emotions is useless. I see emotions as a specific behavior state (that is you will behave in a more specific manner) given a specific pattern of stimuli. We can code our computers to do exactly that, but I think calling it emotions would just be confusing. Much rather I would simply call it a specific kind of state.
by edanm | 2025-10-26 22:13:09+00:00
(Haven't read Tau Zero.)

I agree, and sometimes the line is drawn between SF being "things that are theoretically possible" vs. Fantasy where things are impossible. But then you have things like Egan's Clockwork Trilogy, which is "what if the laws of physics actually worked a bit differently in this specific way" but which I assume anyone would consider SF. As opposed to Brandon Sanderson's books, which could be described in a similar way, but are usually categorized Fantasy.

At the end, it's mostly a marketing and feeling thing. As one of my favorite authors put it, the different between SF and Fantasy sometimes comes down to - are you putting a tree or a spaceship on the cover of your book?
by appreciatorBus | 2025-10-26 22:13:41+00:00
You would need more than one rate: - percentage of product owner operators who are killed by the product they own/operate per year - number of other people killed by the median product owner per year - inflation adjusted property damage (belonging to other people, or to the public/govt) caused by the median product owner per year

Regulating products based on the potential to kill, maim, or injure, is not a terrible idea.

It’s why we require more training of people who fly 747, then people who operate cars.

But if it was going to work, we’d have to do it without carve outs - if it only applies to some products, then it’s really just politics.

If Tesla’s auto pilot is really so safe that it needs little or no regulation, then by definition, regular cars are so dangerous that they should be banned or require much more regulation. But I only ever hear the first half of this argument, which makes me worry this is not really an argument about safety.
by thw_9a83c | 2025-10-26 22:13:59+00:00
BTW, this is about the 8-bit Atari machines, not the more advanced 16-bit Atari ST computers that came later.

I had an Atari 800XL as a kid but had absolutely no access to a dial-up data line. BBS for Atari 8-bits sounds like a nice future-retro to me. The guys who had access to this were very lucky.