MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by delusional | 2025-10-06 20:30:52+00:00
> but that AMD has a theory but keeps it secret yet it gets the result of stock rise... is fishy.

It's not secret at all. Companies announcing a deal like this usually include some PR material alongside it [1]. In this one, the quote is:

“Our partnership with OpenAI is expected to deliver tens of billions of dollars in revenue for AMD while accelerating OpenAI’s AI infrastructure buildout,” said Jean Hu, EVP, CFO and treasurer, AMD. “This agreement creates significant strategic alignment and shareholder value for both AMD and OpenAI and is expected to be highly accretive to AMD's non-GAAP earnings-per-share.”

"significant strategic alignment", "shareholder value", and "billions of dollars in revenue" are all things that should be expected to move the market cap. The "tens of billions in revenue" would generate upwards of 100 billion in market cap alone, assuming AMD's current multiple.

[1]: https://www.amd.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-10-6-amd...
by godshatter | 2025-10-06 20:31:15+00:00
I wonder what would happen if LMs were built a bit at a time by:

- add in some smallish portion of the data set - have LM trainers (actual humans) interact with it and provide feedback about where the LM is factually incorrect and provide it additional information as to why - add those chat logs into the remaining data set - rinse and repeat until the LM is an LLM

Would they be any more reliable in terms of hallucinations and factual correctness?

This would replicate to some extent how people learn things. Probably would really slow things down (not scale) and the trainers would need to be subject matter experts and not just random people on the net say whatever they want to say to it as it develops or it will just spiral out of control.
by munk-a | 2025-10-06 20:31:55+00:00
I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruition - that may be the case and if it is then allowing them the same time to be refined and improved would be fair. I am skeptical of that being the only difference though, I think that chatbots are a way to, essentially, outsource the difficult work of locating data within a corpus onto the user and that users will always have a disadvantage compared to the (hopefully) subject matter experts building the system.

So perhaps chatbots are an excellent method for building out a prototype in a new field while you collect usage statistics to build a more refined UX - but it is bizarre that so many businesses seem to be discarding battle tested UXes for chatbots.
by yummypaint | 2025-10-06 20:31:58+00:00
This could be useful for undergrads getting their feet wet with LaTeX and the world of publishing. However, I'm very skeptical that the options are broad enough to conform to the exacting style guidelines typical of PhD theses. Usually people use a template from their school which already formats everything, autogenerates the table of contents, etc.

In fact it isn't clear what this system offers over a LaTeX document started from a template and hosted privately on GitHub. The CI pipeline can even be set up to compile the document for the people who want to be able to do everything in a web browser.
by Animats | 2025-10-06 20:32:35+00:00
Aella [1] studies that. She's an escort who is into statistical analysis. She did very well on OnlyFans, after analyzing what men wanted with questionnaires and Python programs. Now she spends more time on figuring out what men and woman really do what, which is not what most people think.

[1] https://knowingless.com/
by tgma | 2025-10-06 20:32:38+00:00
That limitation is present in the CBC mode solution presented as well. A random IV will not help you avoid "key rotation" if that's a design requirement. By design, you won't want to rotate the key as the encrypted UUID will likely be stored in external places to refer to the specific user and it cannot change unless you basically persist the encrypted ID somewhere, in which case you might as well have two IDs, one completely random.
by Fischgericht | 2025-10-06 20:32:42+00:00
Wow. Well, I believe that YOU are a bot, not me. Are you Grok?

Anyway, yes, I am a human.

And it is not that hard to find the sources for this point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_and_Starshiel...

v1 constellation was completed in 2021, and decommissioned from 2024. v2 deployed from 2023, but the sat-to-sat communication is not working, so all of them, will need to be replaced by v3, too.
by kragen | 2025-10-06 20:33:17+00:00
You mean energy payback time? Just on an economic basis we can bound the energy payback time to about four years, and in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45488310 we found a Fraunhofer report by Simon Philipps and Werner Warmuth with a more detailed estimate arriving at a 1.1-year energy payback time in Northern Europe, 0.9 years in Southern Europe: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...

Maybe you can explain in more detail what you mean by "enabled by economical disbalances around the world and not by their long-term value", but on my assumption that you're talking about EROEI and energy payback time, your assertion is profoundly incorrect.
by dylan604 | 2025-10-06 20:33:33+00:00
at least with bad search results, you had to look at them to know they were bad or become used to certain domains that you could prejudge the result and move to the next one. LLMs confidently tell you false/made up information as fact. If you fail to follow up with any references and just accept result, you are very susceptible to getting fooled by the machine. Getting outside of the tech bubble echo chamber that is HN, a large number of GPT app users have never heard of hallucinations or any of the issues inherit with LLMs.
by 9dev | 2025-10-06 20:33:50+00:00
Ah, that’s interesting. I’m considering building something similar for our product, and my solution to the schema constraints you mentioned thus far is breaking my widgets into blocks as universal as possible, as to still be useful. All of this is just ideas yet mind you, but my thinking was—maybe I can get the model to pick from a range of composable widgets depending on the task that are interoperable?

For a concrete example, think a search result listing that can be broken down into a single result or a matrix to compare results, as well as a filter section. So you could ask for different facets of your current context, to iterate over a search session and interact with the results. Dunno, I’m still researching.

Have you written somewhere about your experience with Phind in this area?
by Ucalegon | 2025-10-06 20:34:18+00:00
Please look into the Zero Data Retention policies of the subprocessors that you are using. For example, Open AI does not include files as falling under their ZDR [1], thus utilizing OAI as an LLM solution inherently adds unnecessary risk of data exposure that many enterprise clients do no want to onboard. Also, you have to think about those companies obligation to their clients/customers when it comes to data security, along with the risk of IP being exposed to 3rd party systems that they do not have control over, when they make their decisions when it comes to utilizing various business solutions.

[1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/your-data#zero-data-...
by tptacek | 2025-10-06 20:34:29+00:00
Again, to my point: you think the subtext of this post is that someone is going to break module-LWE with a Python script, because, I guess, to you these (module-LWE and supersingular isogenies) are equivalently exotic cryptography primitives. It bothers me that the author of this post is banking on you not understanding the difference here.

You saw a similar thing in Bernstein's earlier railing against the NIST contest (which he participated in), happily whipping up a crowd of people who believed Tancrede Lepoint or Chris Peikert or Peter Schwabe might have been corrupted by NSA, because nobody in that crowd have any idea who those three researchers are.

It's really gross.
by toast0 | 2025-10-06 20:34:40+00:00
> The demand is just short of infinite, it requires an extremely specialized and highly capable labor force, and it has piss poor labor productivity forever.

Just because demand (typically) outstrips supply doesn't mean demand is just short of infinite. It just means it's hard to measure the demand. This is just like highway traffic --- you can't know what the demand is when it's all full, you just know there's more demand than capacity/supply.

If you built a crap ton more hospitals, and forced everyone into mandatory service in healthcare for 20 years, I'm sure you'd have more supply than demand. That's a terrible plan, but it would solve the supply problem. You could modulate the mandatory service period to adjust to the needs, and it would still be a terrible plan. :)

Something better would be some steps to address the bottlenecks. How can we attract / train a larger labor force; how can we retain the labor force; how can we increase productivity; something about facilities. Who can make the changes and how can they be incentivized to do it.

I'm outside of healthcare, but here are some armchair ideas. There's a lot of "administrative busy work" that makes everything harder to do; if you ever need to call around to multiple pharmacies to get your meds, there's two problems there: the first problem is that shouldn't need to happen, the second one is that it's amazingly difficult for pharmacies to communicate; it's not uncommon for a physician to order a test and the wrong test is performed, etc ... it's not easy to streamline communications, but it would improve productivity if done correctly. There's also a lot of things that reduce quality of life of healthcare professionals which reduces desire to go into the field and reduces time spent in the field. And of course, there's limitations on the number of residency spots.
by AlphaAndOmega0 | 2025-10-06 20:34:57+00:00
>If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

I'm not sure that claim is justified. The primary agentic use case today is code generation, and the target demographic is used to IDEs/code editors.

While that's probably a good chunk of total token usage, it's not representative of the average user's needs or desires. I strongly doubt that the chat interface would have become so ubiquitous if it didn't have merit.

Even for more general agentic use, a chat interface allows the user the convenience of typing or dictating messages. And it's trivially bundled with audio-to-audio or video-to-video, the former already being common.

I expect that even in the future, if/when richer modalities become standard (and the models can produce video in real-time), most people will be consuming their outputs as text. It's simply more convenient for most use-cases.
by bcantrill | 2025-10-06 20:35:40+00:00
I am unspeakably biased, but I think that this talk is extraordinary -- one of the best talks (or maybe the best talk?) on the challenges of large systems software that I have ever seen.

I should really update the blog entry, but note that we had Dave on Oxide and Friends to talk about this talk, and the work it represents.[0]

[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/systems-sof...
by rediguanayum | 2025-10-06 20:36:00+00:00
Not a doctor but I know some- Viruses are notoriously hard to diagnose because they don't culture. Some big academic hospitals do have a virus panel where they use brute force PCR assay akin to many Covid-19 tests targeting different virus but they are very expensive hence not broadly available. Community hospitals will have the same diagnostic experience you have. At most they might be able to test for Flu or Covid but that's about it. Another reason is that even if you test positive, there is very little the hospital can do. For the most part, just tell the patient to rest and take Tylenol/Ibuprofen. The anti-virals are just limited to Flu and Covid.
Show HN: An open-source, RL-native observability framework we've been missing
by kaushikbokka | 2025-10-06 20:36:31+00:00
The RL ecosystem is maturing— verifiers are standardizing how we build and share environments. However, as it grows, we need observability tooling that actually understands RL primitives. Running RL experiments without visibility into rollout quality, reward distributions, or failure modes is a waste of time.

Monitor provides live tracking, per-example inspection, and programmatic access—see what's happening during runs and debug what went wrong afterward.

The future of RL observability could look like this:

You’re working alongside your model, spawning multiple versions of your environment by tweaking components at different points, much like using git worktrees for RL experiments.
by zackangelo | 2025-10-06 20:36:35+00:00
Because it depends on how much better “best” is. If it’s only incrementally better than open source models that have other advantages, why would you bother?

OpenAI’s moat will only come from the products they built on top. Theoretically their products will be better because they’ll be more vertically integrated with the underlying models. It’s not unlike Apple’s playbook with regard to hardwares and software integration.
by tpmoney | 2025-10-06 20:36:36+00:00
The lack of Easter eggs in programs I feel like is a combination of 3 things

1) more “professionalism” being expected in software. Computers aren’t quirky things anymore they’re “serious business” and “serious businesses don’t do quirky”. Or some other such nonsense.

2) Offense risk, something innocuous has serious potential to be taken wrong now or even at some future date. I worked on a system where we needed to impose some effectively arbitrary max limit on the number of items allowed to be configured. We eventually settled on “640k” and originally had an error if you exceed that that said “640k ought to be enough for anyone”. The devs who would have seen that message would have gotten the reference and hopefully had a good chuckle. But I’ve seen customers get short about innocuous jokes before and could easily have seen someone complaining that we weren’t taking their needs seriously.

3) Security liability. A lot of Easter eggs were distinct code paths or sometimes even entire tiny embedded applications. In an ever connected world where your credit card terminal might be the gateway to your entire customer database, any unnecessary code path is also a potential security hole and risk. No one really wants to be in the news because a cute joke their developers put in 4 years ago was the key to a massive exploit.

Still I do agree that I miss some the “personality” older software could have.
by araes | 2025-10-06 20:36:38+00:00
Cool paper. No propulsion, stable, cyclic orbits between the moon and Earth, with times of 45 days (1,1), 84 days (2,1), 64 days (3,1), and 74 days (3,2). Also, (3,3) were identified with no findable timeframes shown.

All the orbits are also somewhat relaxed, with relatively large windows of acceptable trajectories and distances for the later families. Perilune altitudes ranging from 750 km to over 6,000 km. The (1,1) and (2,1) are somewhat restrictive (0.1 km).

Makes a lot of interactions with the moon, exploration, resupply much less severe. It looks like you can leave Earth, at ~0.4 or ~0.6 moon orbit radius, doing some relatively low velocity, and hit a stable resonance orbit. You just have to stay out of GEO satellite orbit window where Earth is the dominant gravitation.

Also, may imply that such orbits exist with pretty much every single moon around every single planet. Implies there's a Sun-Earth orbit family group that's very similar. Probably some multi-moon orbits with places like Mars and Jupiter.

Also, implies that there may also be a bunch of objects (rocks, meteoroids, dust, asteroids, comet remains, ect...) already orbiting in these types of cyclers, since they're relatively accepting of variations on a basic theme. (3,1) is a ~250 km window, (3,3) is a 2000+ km window.
by whstl | 2025-10-06 20:36:56+00:00
Man I love how pragmatic bass players are. I also have a tiny Class D for my bass (I play a bit of fretless for fun) and it's magical how much better it is than the amps I played in the past. Granted I never had an SVT, but on the other hand my back is thankful for that.

I feel like guitar players are constantly trying to get into the technology but then fashion changes. Grunge for example made everyone sell their racks and shredder guitars.

Now that I think about it, I actually had a POD bean before I even had an amplifier, but then it became unfashionable to not have tube amps among my in-group back then. On the other hand I see lots of touring bands using Kempers, Quad Cortex, Tonex, etc. so maybe the tide has turned! For now!
by jacquesm | 2025-10-06 20:37:09+00:00
> I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind:

No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation.

The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-06 20:37:12+00:00
> when scientist have been debating this for decades?

They have been. That's what I'm basing my arguments on.

You've been mentioning a ca. 70,000-bird limit. I think that comes from Bongers & Torres [1]. Their paper runs LEGEND (LEO-to-GEO Environment Debris Model). It does not distinguish between LEO and GEO. That's material because the natural decay period for an object in LEO is on the order of months to years, for LEO, to decades to centuries, for GEO.

Kessler in GEO? Real problem. If you wanted to be a space terrorist, you could probably engineer a cascade today that would make large sections of GEO unusuable for decades if not centuries. The point is that isn't possible for LEO, where you may make a mess in a few orbits for a few years at best.

> Quibbling isn't an argument

Sorry, wasn't quibbling. I genuinely couldn't tell what you meant by "highest level." (I was picturing a food chain, where big clouds of debris "eat" smaller satellites in their way.)

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
by lioeters | 2025-10-06 20:37:16+00:00
I heard the story of Lady Bird Johnson and the bluebonnets on a sunny spring day, on a passenger seat of a pickup truck driving through the Hill Country, among endless fields and hills covered in wildflowers. We were probably listening to Merle Haggard or Willie Nelson, one of them outlaw country boys. That's how I know America the Beautiful does exist, though it may be hard to believe from the darkness that covers the land today.
by michaelt | 2025-10-06 20:37:26+00:00
> If that can be faked, are you saying that those private keys are compromised?

As I understand it, the big idea behind Confidential Computing is that huge American tech multinationals AWS, GCP and Azure can't be trusted.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the trustworthiness of huge American tech multinationals Intel and AMD should also be in doubt.
by cyphar | 2025-10-06 20:37:37+00:00
The NSA phone-tapped Angela Merkel's phone while she was chancellor as well as her staff and the staff of her predecessor[1], despite the two countries also being close allies. "We are allies, why would they need to spy on us?" is therefore proveably not enough of a reason for the US to not spy on you (let's not forget that the NSA spies on the entire planet's internet communications).

The US also has a secret spy facility in Pine Gap that is believed to (among other things) spy on Australian communications, again despite both countries being very close allies. No Australians know what happens at Pine Gap, so maybe they just sit around knitting all day, but it seems somewhat unlikely.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-g...
by rolph | 2025-10-06 20:37:45+00:00
actually, more like, if you think there is a better place off this planet for you, agreed. now go there, please.

“There are people I don’t like, and I would like to put them on one of Musk’s spaceships and send them all off to the planet he’s sure he’s going to discover,” Goodall tells interviewer Brad Falchuk during the revelatory 55-minute special discussing her life, work and legacy.
by mindslight | 2025-10-06 20:38:17+00:00
I feel like the urge to fight, sue, and demand answers is the direct result of the constructive maliciousness of the medical environment, as orchestrated by the beancounters and provider/insurance bureaucracy. Let's say doctors had the bandwidth to not cut patient discussions short, not expect patients to need an adversarial "advocate", take the time to entertain unlikely hypotheses, monitor/admit for good faith investigative reasons rather than purely on liability rubric [0], etc. Then, when the doctors failed, you would feel that the failing was of a human group that earnestly did everything they could have. But the way the medical system has been whittled down into some bare bones bureaucratic assembly line, it makes it feel like every such failure is a willful and deliberate goal of the system. Why is the medical industry primarily focused on cost optimization through tightening the screws when they aren't even able to get the right answers?

[0] Like seriously I wish I could have given this kid one of the many weeks of observation that hospitals have given my paid-by-Medicare family members. The beds are available, they're just full of elderly people who had some acute problem but the hospital won't readily discharge them due to chronic medical conditions (plus they're messed up after being starved for a day in the ER).
by bitwize | 2025-10-06 20:38:53+00:00
They're security issues, that's why. Microsoft used to have fun ones in Windows and Office (including a Doom-like engine in Excel 95) but in the late 90s or early 2000s they were all taken out by corporate fiat, because they don't add value and may contain security vulnerabilities. Since then, Easter eggs in user-facing software were rare (except for maybe Google Search's "do a barrel roll" and that).
by ricardobeat | 2025-10-06 20:38:59+00:00
So the USA is not behind on maternal mortality rate [1], minimum wages [2], time off [3], walkable cities [4] and public transport?

These things are quite apparent as a visitor: the "greatest city on earth", NYC, has a comically dirty and outdated metro system, and walking from a hotel to the nearest supermarket is basically impossible in most large cities - which are already the most walkable places.

[1] https://tcf.org/content/commentary/worsening-u-s-maternal-he...

[2] https://hellopebl.com/resources/blog/minimum-wage-by-country...

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/19/why-us-vacation-policies-are...

[4] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/why-walkable-urban-a...
by lern_too_spel | 2025-10-06 20:39:10+00:00
I understand all this very well. What I don't agree with is that the solution to this problem is to not give them any say in their government. The solution is education, and that doesn't happen when they're starved and bombed. Analogously, the slaves freed in the US Civil War were mostly illiterate and had been kept so by law. It is very difficult to run a democracy with an illiterate electorate, but nobody would suggest that we just throw up our hands and give up on having the government represent the will of the people.
by Arathorn | 2025-10-06 20:39:22+00:00
you may be mixing up Amdocs UC (which i ran) which was explicitly OTT-messaging-for-telcos… with Matrix, which is what the UC team did next. The point of Matrix is/was to replace the PSTN with a decentralised alt on the internet - so everyone (including Amdocs) could then go build cool stuff on top.