MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dangus | 2025-10-05 03:52:49+00:00
I’m just conveying my experience. Whatever copilot is at my company’s Microsoft portal seems to do absolutely nothing and connect to nothing.

Even if this is my company not paying for the license, it seems like a pretty miserable way for Microsoft to try to tempt companies into buying one by delivering a completely useless “light” experience.

Everything you’re describing that’s wonderful about the Windows copilot button is the stuff I’m already doing on ChatGPT.com because that brand name came first.
by benbridle | 2025-10-05 03:54:03+00:00
The second revision of the Bedrock specification changed very little of consequence, but I should probably add a change note to the spec. The structure of the document was reworked, becoming a single long document instead of multiple smaller ones; some sections were reworded for clarity; the behaviour in some underspecified edge cases was made explicit; the assembler specification was cleaned up; reading from the action port on the file device returns error state instead of success state. I don't expect that any existing programs other than Cobalt will have been affected. The bedrock-nds emulator uses the second screen to run a second Bedrock program (the on-screen keyboard), it isn't exposed to the main program.

My intention for Bedrock is that it will never change going forwards, other than for minor clarifications, so that existing programs will continue to work on any emulator indefinitely. Have you played around with Bedrock before, or written a program for it?
by dehugger | 2025-10-05 03:55:24+00:00
Send them to coworkers. I've had success with the same strategy. There are three important parts required to make this work though: 1) Have a reputation solid enough that people are willing to take the time to read what you send them. 2) Read the room and write ideas/proposals on topics that are of interest and are relevant to the organization. 3) Find an audience that can provide meaningful support (basically, people with clout)
by arcfour | 2025-10-05 03:56:23+00:00
This is quite concerning, and respect to DJB for fighting against it. However, I have to wonder...who would this actually compromise that matters to NSA?

* Targets with sufficient technical understanding would use hybrids anyway.

* Average users and unsophisticated targets can already be monitored through PRISM which makes cryptography moot.

So...what's their actual end game here?
by conception | 2025-10-05 03:57:16+00:00
I think lots of these issues are scale issues. Most people agree having some sort of weapon is fine up to a point.. that point may be a knife or a rifle but most folks probably think private citizens shouldn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

Likewise, license plates are fine, full real-time surveillance of all movement in your country probably not great and not something the public wants.

Almost of these slippery slope issues are scaling problems, especially in privacy. Tracking people with cookies at your site, probably fine, using third party cookies to track everything your visit on the internet, maybe less great. Etc etc.

Legislating scale seems to be something that is particularly difficult since it’s easily argued, as you did, that’s it’s not inherently bad.
by geerlingguy | 2025-10-05 03:57:27+00:00
And even better, there used to be a concept of "pingback", back before it was just abused by spammers, where you could connect blog posts together (the OG "react" medium) through a ping mechanism that was at least in Wordpress, not sure about other platforms.

But I found a ton of great blogs just scanning through other people's blogrolls.
by RoyTyrell | 2025-10-05 03:57:57+00:00
According to this article, their conclusion seems to be "if there's a big bang, what set that off? obviously it's god, like duh and stuff" Which is basically "if you can't prove it's not god, then it's god" Well I then say it's the invisble pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster that created god.
by ggm | 2025-10-05 03:57:58+00:00
Football codes of all kinds have a massive future cost associated with CTE. As more athletes donate their brain to science the extent of life changing injury detection rises.

Much though I love the rise of women's football codes across the genre (aussie rules, rugby, soccer) the terrible reality is that we're conducting an experiment on young women's future mental well-being.

We've already seen by RSI the rise of ligament and joint damage. Early career exits with wrecked joints, future arthritis and replacement. We expect too much of professional sportsmen and women. 50 years ago I met a guy at uni with wrecked legs from aggressive tackles in amateur sport. I can't believe we normalise people performing beyond stress points to the detriment of their career in sport.

CTE manifests as increased depression, suicide, alcoholism and family violence in men. An increasing association with explosive shockwaves from artillery and other ordinance is held to be the root cause for veterans.

Football codes without helmets have less opportunistic places to put accelerometers into game play. Maybe some remote sensing model can do something.

Mandatory off field time for concussion is widely used now, but is it time to ban headers?
by jameshilliard | 2025-10-05 03:58:38+00:00
> If Israel believes they are genocidal terrorists that won't surrender why are they even negotiating?

One reason would be to try and get back as many hostages as possible, regardless of whether or not the terrorists surrender.

> You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both

One can still attack an enemy while negotiating with them, I see no reason one would have to pick one option over the other.

It's not at all uncommon to negotiate with ones enemies while you attack them(including trying to kill them). If Israel explicitly gave the enemy representatives they were negotiating with diplomatic immunity then one might have a better argument against attacking those with immunity, but that was AFAIU not the case here.
by BoorishBears | 2025-10-05 03:59:16+00:00
Who said the film is glorifying violence, certainly not that review?

Certainly not the review lambasting PTA for presenting Black women in every negative stereotype possible to show that violence is bad?

Certainly not the movie that has a Black woman named Jungle Pussy (I don't care it's her stagename, she's not robbing banks on stage) shouting about how she defines Black Power while screeching and waving a gun on a bank counter, until her Black female accomplice shoots the Black guard.

Certainly not the movie where said accomplice then abandons her child (again) and places her in mortal danger while getting most of her accomplices killed.

A betrayal only made possible she cheated on her partner and was fucked and impregnated by an influential enough white man a few scenes earlier.

PTA is sick. There's a reason a Black woman has had 4 of his kids and he still won't marry her.
by rich_sasha | 2025-10-05 04:03:30+00:00
It's an interesting point.

I see your point that something cannot be a red line if it has significant support. Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable, and if there is even a significant minority who disagree then it's not universal.

Equally, for any horrible thing you will find a minority who support it. Hitler certainl had wide support for deporting Jews, if not worse. Does that mean it can't be a red line? In fact there is no point having red lines that are universally accepted, because they are already, well, universally accepted. There is little point stating that killing babies and eating their flesh whil livestreaming is a red line because no one wants to do it.

I don't have a view on Flock itself.
by arthurofbabylon | 2025-10-05 04:05:14+00:00
If we step back and examine LLMs more broadly (beyond our personal use cases, beyond "economic impact", beyond the underlying computer science) what we are largely looking at is an emerging means of collaboration. I am not an expert computer scientist, and yet I can "collaborate" (I almost feel bad using this term) with expert computer scientists when my LLM helps me design my particular algorithm. I am not an expert on Indonesian surf breaks, yet I tap into an existing knowledge base when I query my LLM while planning the trip. I am very naive about a lot of things and thankfully there are numerous ways to integrate with experts and improve my capacity to engage in whatever I am naive about, LLMs offering the latest ground-breaking method.

This is the most appropriate lens through which to assess AI and its impact on open source, intellectual property, and other proprietary assets. Alongside this new form of collaboration comes a restructuring of power. It's not clear to me how our various societies will design this restructuring (so far we are collectively doing nearly nothing) but the restructuring of these power structures is not a technical process; it is cultural and political. Engineers will only offer so much help here.

For the most part, it is up to us to collectively orchestrate the new power structure, and I am still seeing very little literature on the topic. If anyone has a reading list, please share!
by rapsey | 2025-10-05 04:06:00+00:00
Killing education please. Dept of education does not run schools. Regarding loans, the best thing he could have done is abolish the program completely as it is the main reason the cost of education has gone up so much.

He also made a great many people rich not to mention how many jobs. That does not count?

Also I have no idea what expensive mandatory maintenance you mean. As if any other car does not require maintenance.
by pessimizer | 2025-10-05 04:07:50+00:00
> Security services.

"Security services" isn't a power center, they are a tool used by power centers. We are not being attacked by nameless institutions, we are being attacked by people who have names.

I have absolutely no idea what theory of power people are operating under who believe that "civil servants" are trying to take over the world. Even if they're all secret Satanists working for the devil to impose evil upon the planet, let the devil introduce himself.

> The really odd thing is that you have people who will claim that the media is run by right-wing billionaires.

It is so odd to think that power is wielded by the powerful. No, it's actually powerless administrators on 80K/year who force heads of state to make bizarre power grabs. And I have no idea why right-wing billionaires get pointed out as absurd, and "left-wing" billionaires get off scot-free by going completely unmentioned. Unless you think that it's a contradiction for a left-winger to be a billionaire, then that's fair enough. A lot of them get called left-wing because they believe in global warming and vaccination or something (I don't remember Marx or the Jacobins writing about that, or trans people, or illegal immigrants.)

> But because so many people are making so much money from the government

That's the billionaires. You realize that there are people making money, and you realize that they're the ones that must be driving things, but you don't identify them and indemnify the most powerful people on the planet. I simply can't see this as a thought process at all. I have no idea how people are convinced to focus all of their anger on people with no power who they don't know.
by emporas | 2025-10-05 04:08:08+00:00
Couldn't disagree more.

Sorting a finite number of elements in a sequence, is a very narrow application of AI, akin to playing chess. Usually very simple approaches like RL work totally fine for problems like these, but auto-regression/diffusion models have to take steps that are not well defined at all, and the next step towards solving the problem is not obvious.

As an example, imagine a robot trying to grab a tomato from a table. It's arm extends across 1 meter maximum, and the tomato is placed 0.98 meters away. Is it able to grab the tomato from the point it stands, or it needs to move closer, and only then try to grab the tomato?

That computation should better be calculated deterministically. Deterministic computation is faster, cheaper and more secure. It has to prove that: $tomato_distance + $tomato_size < $arm_length. If this constraint is not satisfied, then: move_closer(); Calculate again:$tomato_distance + $tomato_size < $arm_length.

From the paper:

> Our system employs a custom interpreter that parses "LLM-Thoughts" (represented as DSL code snippets) to generate First Order Logic programs, which are then verified by a Z3 theorem prover.
by smj-edison | 2025-10-05 04:08:14+00:00
Yeah, this is where I find the copyright argument a little weak. Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work.

Instead, I feel like the objections are (rightly) these two issues:

1. GenAI operates at a much larger scale than an individual artist. I don't think artists would have an issue with someone commissioning a portrait say in the style Van Gogh (copyright argument). They would have an issue if that artist painted 100,000 pictures a day in the style of Van Gogh.

2. Lack of giving back: some of the greatest artists have internalized great art from previous generations, and then something miraculous happens. An entirely new style emerges. They have now given back to the community that incubated them. I don't really see this same giving back with GenAI.

Edit: one other thought. Adobe used their own legally created art to train their model, and people still complain about it, so I don't buy the copyright argument if they're upset about Adobe's GenAI.

Edit 2: I'm not condoning blatant copyright infringement like is detailed in this post.
by Aeglaecia | 2025-10-05 04:11:08+00:00
perhaps an experiment has verbally controlled its inputs and outputs in analyzing the effect of an independant variable upon a dependant variable. this does not imply that that those inputs and outputs were actually controlled for , nor does it imply that any found correlations are inherently causative. between folk wisdom that kinda works vs. corporate advice that also kinda works but happens to make someone a huge profit ....... ill take the thermal baths first
by mananaysiempre | 2025-10-05 04:13:09+00:00
See also: “IBM Made the Longest Laptop Ever” by Cathode Ray Dude, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htl_JbZIcUU. There is, per the title, some discussion of its (somehow simultaneously inspired and silly) expansion system, but also of its other features as well, such as (spoiler alert) the fact that it may be the first personal computer to have suspend to RAM.

(So I guess—expanding on a sibling comment[1]—aesthetics is not the only axis on which “this beats about 75% of the current laptop market.”)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45478692
by jcynix | 2025-10-05 04:14:38+00:00
> My biggest hesitance to self hosting email specifically is dealing with spam. What does that look like these days and do you have any pointers to share?

Postfix can easily be configured to reject incoming emails from senders without a reverse DNS mapping for their IP address, which makes it reject a lot of spam.

For spammers with reverse mapping greylisting still works fine, they almost never retry.

Certain commercial spammers (hello China :-0) use software which can be filtered with a just one rule matching their sending software, which is "nice" enough to display its name in their mail headers.

And last but not least spamassassin / rspamd work fine to filter whatever comes through.

In the end I get less than 10 spam emails per week. And these go into a separate mailbox filtered by good old procmail, based on spamassassin's ratings. I check the spam inbox maybe once a week for false positives and more often than not the box is empty.
by rakejake | 2025-10-05 04:16:06+00:00
Reviews are very hit or miss nowadays (mostly miss for me), but the verdict for One Battle After Another is absolutely correct.

For those of you who are on the fence wrt watching this movie, the politics and the revolutionaries simply form the backdrop for the story. The movie is ultimately a chase-thriller and the cinematic pleasure on screen is just incredible. If you are a fan of superbly shot and staged set-pieces, this movie is for you.
by searine | 2025-10-05 04:16:19+00:00
You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

>1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants.

There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an communication skills to convince a panel of peer-experts that your ideas are good enough to give millions of dollars to.

> 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people.

There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step, including opportunity for public commentary.

Just because you personally don't know it exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

>3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented. If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did and how they spent that money.

Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.
by 3oil3 | 2025-10-05 04:17:59+00:00
Hey that bit was for the lols, although it is quite valid to say, just missing plural and a comma. Innacurate in some ways -mainstream theory is not about coming from apes, rather is about sharing a, yet undiscovered, common ancestor. I mentionned the pigs because of promising advancement in organ transplantation, notably kidneys that reached a milesone recently, and I mentionned the hips because human hips and ape hips have an evolution-breaking distinction. I could go on and on, but let's wait for more science, it wouldn't surprise me that what knowledge we discovered and took for granted back then, when 80% of the world population did not know how to read, might be developped today.
by jorangreef | 2025-10-05 04:18:04+00:00
Thanks! Joran, CEO from TigerBeetle here!

We’re doing pretty well as a business already, contrary to Rochus’ comment, which is not accurate.

Our team is 16, we have $30M in investment, and already some of the largest brokerages, exchanges, and wealth managements, in their respective jurisdictions are customers of TigerBeetle.

We have a saying:

“Good engineering is good business, and good business is good engineering.”

At least in TigerBeetle’s experience, the saying is proving true. We really appreciate your support and kind words!
by Fripplebubby | 2025-10-05 04:18:39+00:00
One of the interesting experiences I have being a member both of this community and the baseball analytics community is seeing posts like this, where apparently the author thinks that they're the only one who had the idea to look at this, shared widely within the hacker community because it comes from one of their own. Rest assured, within the _baseball_ community, this has been discussed and analyzed to death - it just doesn't get posted here because nobody mentions using unix tools to do it, because it isn't really relevant.

See for example:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/how-have-the-new-rules-changed-t...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/rules-changes-stats....

And many others, these are two early and relatively canonical ones. If folks reading this post are interested enough in baseball, please, come join us in the baseball analytics community where this is merely the very tippy top of the iceberg of interesting things.
by breve | 2025-10-05 04:20:53+00:00
> nah, let's build hydrogen.

No, they're saying let's build cars. Because Toyota has been building hybrids for so long they already meet the fleet emissions standards they need to meet. There's no pressure on them to rapidly switch to BEVs.

BEVs will make up a greater percentage of Toyota's sales as time goes on. In the meantime, Toyota is perfectly happy setting company sales records.
by zghst | 2025-10-05 04:21:32+00:00
There is so much here to debate about. A) Never trust the cyber feds. B) The NSA is not the place anyone thinks, it’s a Wild West in the most bizarre of places, trust me from experience. C) Cryptology concerns more of than security and exchanging messages or packets, sometimes you don’t even know what kind of thing (living) can and has been decrypted. D) The NSA plays very, very, very dirty. It is like a digital CIA, they are in everything (i.e. cyber spies in various roles at tech/telecom/manufacturer company xyz). E) NEVER LISTEN TO THE DAMN NSA / DRIVEN BY A CULTURE OF EXPLOITATION
by RHSeeger | 2025-10-05 04:21:43+00:00
That's not entirely fair. It's relatively easy to learn the basics of regular expressions. But it's also relatively easy, with that knowledge, to write regular expressions that

- don't work the way you want them to (miss edge cases, etc)

- fail catastrophically (ie, catastrophic backtracking, etc) which can lead to vulnerabilities

- are hard to read/maintain

I love regular expressions, but they're very easy to use poorly.
by Joel_Mckay | 2025-10-05 04:22:42+00:00
It goes well beyond strict USB-C port WHCP compliance rules if I recall correctly, and is not about just banning old WinRing 0 nuisance drivers ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_O5JtBqODA ).

I can't put any significant time into a proper search right now, but if I recall the interview I'll post a URI. Have a great day. =3
by tptacek | 2025-10-05 04:24:06+00:00
I used to be such a fan of this guy. But he's turned into Ed Zitron, the same long rambling rants, except about cryptography, and except that he knows what he's talking about, and he knows that you have to know literally nothing at all about the field he's commenting on to associated Dual EC with anything happening in PQ. And if you know anything about the field, trying to compare MLKEM with SIKE is the same deal. It's really sad.

Dual EC wasn't a shockingly clever, CS-boundary-pushing hack (and NSA has apparently deployed at least one of those in the last 20 years). It was an RNG (not a key agreement protocol) based on asymmetric public key cryptography, a system where you could look at it and just ask "where's the private key?" There wasn't a ton of academic research trying to pick apart flaws in Dual EC because why would there be? Who would ever use it?

(It turns out: a big chunk of the industry, which all ran on ultra-closed source code and was much less cryptographically literate that most people thought. I was loudly wrong about this at the time!)

MLKEM is a standard realization of CRYSTALS-Kyber, an algorithm submitted to the NIST PQ contest by a team of some of the biggest names in academic PQ cryptography, including Peter Schwabe, a prior collaborator of Bernstein. Nobody is looking at MLKEM and wondering "huh, where's the private key?".

MLKEM is based on cryptographic ideas that go back to the 1990s, and were intensively studied in the 2000s. It's not oddball weird cryptography. It is to the lineage of lattice cryptography roughly what Ed25519 was to elliptic curve cryptography at the time of Ed25519's adoption.

Utterly unlike SIKE, which isn't a lattice algorithm at all, but rather a supersingular isogeny algorithm, a cryptographic primitive based on an entirely new problem class, and an extremely abstruse one at that. The field had been studying lattice cryptography intensively for decades by the time MLKEM came to pass. That's not remotely true of isogeny cryptography. Isogenies were taken seriously not because of confidence in the hardness of isogenies, but because of ergonomics: they were a drop-in replacement for Diffie Hellman in a way MLKEM isn't.

These are all things Bernstein is counting on you not knowing when you read this piece.