MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anonymous908213 | 2025-10-31 12:25:18+00:00
And the update message has a reference to "50µs localhost responses", indicating the comment calling the code out was directly fed into a prompt:

"Fixed Removed artificial RTT clamping that was hiding legitimate network measurements Previously clamped RTT between 0.05ms and 800ms Now reports actual values including sub-50µs localhost responses and >800ms satellite/long-distance links Added sanity check for negative RTT to detect clock issues without corrupting data This fix restores full diagnostic capability for detecting network anomalies like bufferbloat and measuring true round-trip times across all network types."

It shouldn't be legal to vibe this hard, honestly. If convicted in court, you should face punishment of, say, XXX hours doing something actually useful to society with your own two hands.
by eviks | 2025-10-31 12:25:29+00:00
Indeed, it's fantastic to see those useful

"Audio 1 #1" "Audio 1 #1" "Audio 1 #1"

"Audio 1 #1" "Audio 1 #1"

names replacing the audio wave height!

But sure, if you need names permanently right there and are ok to lose space to show them, and if the handle is inconveniently small to only fit the text, then yes, you wouldn't lose space in that case. You'd only have other issues.

But that coupling likely has other design implications, e.g., you're unlikely to get an option to only show names on hover instead of having a bar, or to show names as an overlay (in many cases the names aren't that long to need to take the height of the the whole segment)
by 20k | 2025-10-31 12:26:43+00:00
Its worth noting that the idea that great apes have learnt sign language is largely a fabrication by a single person, and nobody has ever been able to replicate this. All the communication has to be interpreted through that individual, and anyone else (including people that speak sign language) have confirmed that they're just making random hand motions in exchange for food

They don't have the dexterity to really sign properly
by zozbot234 | 2025-10-31 12:27:21+00:00
I find it slightly disappointing that they haven't stuck with the Rust practice of picking short or abbreviated words when they're clearly unambiguous - such as "fn" instead of "func" or "function". E.g. why Résultat<...> when you can write just Résu? Why PeutÊtre and not Ptêt, very common in quick language, e.g. for texting or chatting?
by thomassmith65 | 2025-10-31 12:28:04+00:00
There invariably is evidence that supports two diametrically opposed narratives; what is missing is evidence to know which is true.

For example:

The IDF claims Hamas use civilians as human shields. Hamas denies it.

Hamas claims the IDF targets civilians. The IDF denies it.

And I, with no access to internal IDF communications, and no access to internal Hamas communications, don't know what to make of all the videos and articles supporting and debunking both claims.
by IshKebab | 2025-10-31 12:28:07+00:00
ARM doesn't use micro-ops in the same way as x86 does at all. And that's not the only difference, e.g. x86 has TSO.

I'm not saying the skill of the design team makes zero difference, but it's ludicrous to say that the ISA makes no difference at all.

The claims about the M1 Ultra appear to be marketing nonsense:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/tbj4lf/d_a...
by idonotknowwhy | 2025-10-31 12:28:31+00:00
Yeah, I'm using it with Claude Code. It continued where I left off as well (using the `--resume` flag)

It's not as smart as Opus by the way. Seems to match Sonnet.

Edit: See here, they've got an anthropic-compatible endpoint for this purpose - https://docs.z.ai/devpack/tool/claude
by listenallyall | 2025-10-31 12:29:45+00:00
Imagine taking a shit on a technology platform which made it easy for interns with zero experience to successfully automate key aspects of business processes!

Love the assumption "when it inevitably goes wrong." In real life, many of these applications work perfectly for years and assist employees tremendously. The program doesnt fail, but the business changes - new products, locations, marketing, payment types, inventory systems, tons of potential things.

And yes, after the original author is gone, nobody is left to update the program. Of course, a lot of programmers or IT folks probably could update it, but ew, why learn and write Access when we can create a new React app with microservices-based backend including Postgres in the cloud and spin up a Kubernetes cluster to run it.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-10-31 12:30:09+00:00
From the abstract:

> some even claiming they are capable of generalized reasoning and innovation in reasoning-intensive fields such as mathematics, physics, medicine, and law. However, by more carefully scaling the complexity of reasoning problems, we show existing benchmarks actually have limited complexity

Can someone ELI5 what the definitions of reasoning and complexity are here?

I see they seem to focus on graph problems and representing problems as graph problems. But I didn't completely read the paper or understand it in depth. I skimmed some parts that seem to address this question (e.g. section 5 and the Introduction), but maybe there are simpler definitions that elude me.

Surely they don't mean "computational complexity"?

And what exactly is "reasoning"?

I'm aware of philosophical logic and strict logic that can be applied to natural language arguments.

But have we already agreed on a universal scale that grades answers to questions about the physical world? Or is this about mathematical reasoning?

Mixing all of this together always irks me when it comes to these AI "benchmarks". But apparently people see value in these?

I know my question isn't new.

To me it seems, that when we leave the mathematical realms, it quickly becomes fuzzy what correct "reasoning" should be.

People can be convincing and avoid obious logical fallacies, and still make wrong conclusions... or conclusions that run counter to assumed goals.
by jmhammond | 2025-10-31 12:30:20+00:00
I think it’s because you can find supports to help you learn.

I’ve been teaching math for almost 18 years at this point, and only a couple years ago learned that I lean towards aphantasia. Back in high school, geometry was HARD. Calc 3 was HARD. It was presented as visualize and imagine, and I tried my best. It just turns out other people could do that, and the fuzzy thing thing (or, more commonly, the ‘bulleted list of information’ that make up my imagination) was not “normal.”

If I’d known this (and my teachers were in a position to also know this), then maybe we’d spend more time with external visual models (what Geogebra now does for us, for example) to help me out.

Now that I teach future high school math teachers, it’s definitely something I talk about to normalize “not everyone can see in their mind.”
by a4isms | 2025-10-31 12:30:24+00:00
In languages like JavaScript, immutable and constant may be theoretically the same thing, but in practice "const" means a variable cannot be reassigned, while "immutable" means a value cannot be mutated in place.

They are very, very different semantically, because const is always local. Declaring something const has no effect on what happens with the value bound to a const variable anywhere else in the program. Whereas, immutability is a global property: An immutable array, for example, can be passed around and it will always be immutable.

JS has always hade 'freeze' as a kind of runtime immutability, and tooling like TS can provide for readonly types that provide immutability guarantees at compile time.
by pshirshov | 2025-10-31 12:30:39+00:00
Either is biased, union is not.

Probably we should say "union" instead of sum, as typescript unions are not discriminated. string | string in typescript is exactly the same as just string, while Either[String, String] is a type which is exactly a sum of two string types. Plus Either is biased towards R, the happy path value.
by rcxdude | 2025-10-31 12:31:23+00:00
Yes. I think the crux of good interface design is coming up with a model that is simple and flexible enough to be understood by the user but also allow them to achieve their goals by composing operations and options, as opposed to special-casing each possible use-case. This allows you to address the needs of a large number of users without drowning in complexity, but it's really hard to come up with the right model and in general if there's something that will make you unpopular with your users it's changing around the UI after they've gotten used to it, so you don't really get to evolve this as the product develops.

(Commercial software is far from immune to this as well: professional tools like CAD are notoriously arcane and often have a huge number of special-purpose features, and they're not incentivised to improve their UI model because it would alienate their existing users, as well as not show up on the feature lists which are often used to drive purchasing decisions)
by thalissonvs | 2025-10-31 12:31:54+00:00
Author here. I've been working on pydoll, an open-source (Python/async) web automation library. While building it, I kept hitting a wall against sophisticated anti-bot systems.

This sent me down a deep rabbit hole to understand how they actually work. It turns out detection isn't about one thing, but about consistency across multiple layers: from the OS-level (TCP/IP, TLS/JA3), to the browser (HTTP/2, Canvas/WebGL), and finally to human behavior (mouse physics, typing cadence).

I decided to write down everything I learned in this guide. It covers the theory of how each layer is fingerprinted and the practical techniques to evade it (focusing on consistency, not randomness).

Hope you find it useful. Happy to answer any questions.
by duxup | 2025-10-31 12:32:44+00:00
If they're asking the mechanic to do X and they understand the mechanic is just doing X and NOT venturing to fix your problem. I guess that is fine.

I agree though it sets up a weird dynamic where folks might come back to the expert and complain a problem isn't fixed, but that's not what they asked for / they broke the typical expert and customer dynamic.
by npteljes | 2025-10-31 12:32:47+00:00
EDIT: I improved my comprehension, and it looks like I agree actually, not disagree.

I agree, it's a great, proven tool to do away with political enemies, and to selectively enforce the law, for whatever motivation.

I just don't understand what you mean by

>We do ourselves a disservice by acting like there is some inherent flaw in it.

We (as in, "the people") don't do any disservice for us by opposing such an effort. Specifically because we are also looking at what goes on in Russia and China to name a few. Authoritarian regimes do "work", but don't, generally, want that kind of working over here in Europe for example.
by znpy | 2025-10-31 12:32:52+00:00
You’re conveniently skipping the part where x86 can run software from 40 years ago but arm can drop entire instruction sets no problem (eg: jazelle).

Had been arm so weighted by backwards compatibility i doubt it would be so good as it is.

I really think intel/amd should draw a line somewhere around late 2000 and drop compatibility with stuff that slow down their processors.
by danaris | 2025-10-31 12:33:45+00:00
Sure, it is a negotiation, and the shutdown is because neither side will agree to certain things the other side wants to do.

The Democrats won't agree to making the awful omnibus bill cuts permanent and essentially defunding the ACA, because they want to govern and actually help all our people.

The Republicans won't agree to providing and caring for Americans through programs that are already fully approved, because they want to destroy those programs without actually having the votes to repeal them, because they want to destroy the government and harm anyone who doesn't fit their particular view of what a "real American" is.

So while your words are technically true, they serve to obscure a very real difference in why each side is refusing to end the shutdown.

I don't know about you, but I think the side that actually wants to govern the country, uphold the rule of law, and help people in need, is really not the one that we should be blaming for refusing to compromise on their principles (however late they may have come to them).
by monooso | 2025-10-31 12:35:35+00:00
The main reason I was using Wise is because they made it easy to set up a US bank account. Changing the payment procedure with my current client is untenable, so for now I just ensure that my money is held by Wise for as little time as possible.

For personal foreign currency transactions, usually whilst travelling, I've used Revolut for years without issue.
by tele_ski | 2025-10-31 12:36:16+00:00
This sounds like running an event loop per thread instead of 1 event loop with a backing thread pool. Or am I misunderstanding you?

It works great for small tasks but larger tasks block local events and you can get weird latency issues, that was the major tradeoff I ran into when I used it. Works great if your tasks are tiny though, not having the event loop handoff to the worker thread is a good throughput boost. But then we started having latency issues and we introduced larger tasks which would hang the local event loop from getting those events.

I think Scylladb works somewhat like this but does message passing to put certain data on certain threads so any thread can handle incoming events but it still moves the request to the pinned thread the data lives on. One thread can get overwhelmed if your data isn't well distributed.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-10-31 12:36:47+00:00
Intel failed to anticipate the smartphone revolution despite RIM being a customer of XScale. To be fair, they only entered because they got StrongARM from a law suit settlement with DEC in 1997 and they sold to refocus on more strategic segments which turned out to be actually a lot less interesting. I don’t think Intel can really be seen as a model of good strategic thinking.

But all of this is a decade before what we are discussing here. I didn’t even remember XScale existed at Intel while writing my first comment.
by high_na_euv | 2025-10-31 12:37:07+00:00
>More than forcing volumes, Apple proved it was worth it because the efficiency gains were huge. If AMD had release a SoC with numbers close to the M1 before Apple targeting the server market, they had a very good shot at it being a success and leveraging that to success in the laptop markets where Microsoft would have loved to have a partner ready to fight Apple and had to wait for Qualcomm for ages.

Apple proved that creating your own high end consumer SoC was doable and viable idea due to TSMC and could result in better chips due to designing them around your needs.

And which ISA they could use? X86? Hard to say, probably no. So they had RISCV and ARM

Also about Windows...

If PantherLake on 18A actually performs as good as expected, then why would anyone move to ARM on Windows when viable energy eff. cpus like lnl and ptl are available
by ainti | 2025-10-31 12:37:46+00:00
Depends on if one agrees with that ECtHR judgment.

Considering that Article 8 of the ECHR is framed as a negative right (as in freedom from coercion and interference):

> Right to respect for private and family life

> 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

> 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Then it seems odd that the ECtHR decided, at some point, to start interpreting it as a positive right (as in obliging specific actions to be taken), in this case the argument that anyone should be free to instruct the state to change their sex marker on state-issued identity documentation, with minimal restrictions attached.

Also they seem to have disregarded that permitting this may have significant repercussions on the rights and freedoms of others, depending on what exactly this sex marker permits an individual to do in any particular jurisdiction, i.e. accessing services and facilities restricted to those of that sex.
by obliquely | 2025-10-31 12:37:59+00:00
In the "first look video" Ash Hewson (Affinity CEO) says "“we’ve also got full scripting capability coming very, very soon” (at 21:33). What's said in the video is that this - and some other developments - will be part of "free" and not dependent on subscription. https://youtu.be/UP_TBaKODlw?si=lJkRZ6l8ekQRF43R&t=1293
by mimasama | 2025-10-31 12:38:17+00:00
This is a very old problem, known since Chrome 49: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/41245417, https://issues.chromium.org/issues/41246063

Simply a consequence of multi-process' inter-process communication (IPC) swamping the task scheduler. Changing the title requires a message to be sent from a content process to the UI through IPC. If you sufficiently flood the IPC protocol with messages, it will bring your browser to a halt in its entirety because you're basically DoSing the browser's internal communications.

Single-process browsers (e.g. Pale Moon) and browsers that have previously been designed primarily with a single-process model in mind and only adopted multi-process later (Firefox, Safari) would've handled this better by at the very least not locking up the browser and eventually the OS with a runaway meltdown in memory allocation.

To test this theory I've forced the Brash code to run with `Brash.run({burstSize: 8000,interval: 1});` in the devtools console. Why the PoC author decided to arbitrarily restrict the running the PoC only to Chrome-based browsers, I don't know. If non-Chrome truly is not vulnerable we should be able to verify that for ourselves.

In a fresh profile of Pale Moon without add-ons (and immediately closing the devtools afterwards) the UI does slow down but it's still usable (and therefore the offending tab can be closed even after a while). If you never reopen devtools in the offending tab the memory never even reaches 1 GB. In the worst-case scenario where the browser would hang (which could happen if you try to open up devtools in the offending tab for example), the memory allocation doesn't get instantly out of control, and the OS will recognize that it's hanging and let you close it.

In Firefox the UI is still working somewhat but memory allocation is faster than Pale Moon (but a bit slower than Chrome). Memory becomes manageable though when you switch focus to another tab; it no longer allocates more memory and the garbage collector was able to free up memory in the offending tab's content process with the JavaScript engine no longer blocking it thanks to the said content process being suspended in the background. However the main UI process will still hold a lot of memory unless you switch back to the offending tab for the garbage collector to recognize it needs to free up memory there. And if you close the offending tab before that you get yourself a memory leak, i.e. the memory allocated by the UI process will never go away, at least until you rerun the Brash code again (where the garbage collector will then recognize there is memory to be freed in the UI process).

I don't know about Safari, I have no Apple device to test it with unfortunately.
by DetroitThrow | 2025-10-31 12:38:24+00:00
>I felt bad but I don't regret it at all.

Sure, it sounds like a marketing mistake, and you're owning up to it not being sustainable.

But you're burning trust with people before they even have a relationship with your company if you pretend it never happened.

It's much better to say "Sorry non-customers, this wasn't sustainable. I hope this new approach will better serve us both in the hobby use case and still be sustainable!"
by inanutshellus | 2025-10-31 12:38:25+00:00
Maybe other apps are better, but my guess is that they just work harder at copying PhotoShop's UX whilst GIMP actively worked to innovate.

Remember too that PhotoShop itself is unintuitive and hard to learn.

That unintuitiveness is a mark of honor for Photoshop ("ooo, it's so powerful you have to take _classes_ to learn it!") and a mark of shame for GIMP ("ooo, those twits didn't clone PhotoShop, the fools! It's so hard to learn!")
by listenallyall | 2025-10-31 12:38:27+00:00
Think of the management structure which arranges, and is satisfied with, tedious, repetitive, manual paper-pushing processes - such that an INTERN can immediately see the efficiency benefits that would come with automation, and doesn't just suggest doing so, but actually builds a program (in limited intern timeframe), that is so helpful it's quickly picked up by multiple employees.

Then think again of those managers getting paid manager salaries who couldn't figure this out themselves - or worse, the ones who want to shut it all down because he didn't "follow the procedure" (the procedure of not doing anything useful???)
by jimmydddd | 2025-10-31 12:38:51+00:00
A family member helped start up a call center for UPS back in the 90's, for their shipping software. The problem she was working on was that the average time for a call to be answered was 60 seconds, and they were trying to get it to 45 seconds. They also had formal tiers of agents that could quickly escalate a call to a technical expert if needed. The golden age of call centers I guess.
by iq176 | 2025-10-31 12:39:04+00:00
Scientific method is the process. Science itself includes the study and compendium of understandings, based on a belief system that includes shared understandings just like mathematics. The foundation of these are philosophical beliefs that we can know and understand these things. For example, on a metaphysical level, if the world around us were a simulation, then science could provide understandings about that simulated universe, but not about that which is simulating it.
by mrweasel | 2025-10-31 12:39:52+00:00
To me that exploitation in the porno industry and the idea that porn should be restricted is two separate issues. I'm not really oppose to limiting access to porn for children, we did that before the internet, we do the same for alcohol, tobacco and a lot of other stuff. I just don't think we should fool ourselves into believing that adding age restriction for the consumption of porn will do the slightest for improving working conditions in the industry.

Arguing for the ban of porn is easy, because very few will defend it, and if they do, you just pull out the argument that production is also bad. As if the opponents doesn't want porn to produced safely, without trafficking or exploitation.
by joss82 | 2025-10-31 12:41:33+00:00
You are not alone.

After falling in love and hacking away with Claude for a few weeks, I'm now in the hangover phase, and barely using any AI at all.

AI works well to build boilerplate code and solve easy problems, while confidently driving full-speed into the wall as soon as complexity increases.

I also noticed that it makes me subtly lazier and dumber. I started thinking like a manager, at a higher-level, believing I could ignore the details. It turns out I cannot, and details came back to bite me quickly.

So, no AI for me right now, but I'm keeping an eye out for the next gens.
by UncleMeat | 2025-10-31 12:41:36+00:00
Words do matter.

But "every member of the government needs to communicate flawlessly 100% of the time during a once-in-a-century pandemic alongside a never-before-seen social media misinformation environment, even in their internal communication" is just not a bar that we can meet.

Imagine if they didn't call it a vaccine. "Of course this thing won't work, Fauci isn't even willing to call it a vaccine!"
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-10-31 12:42:20+00:00
> If PantherLake on 18A actually performs as good as expected, then why would anyone move to ARM on Windows when viable energy eff. cpus like lnl and ptl are available

Well yes, exactly, that’s the issue with arriving 10 years later instead of being first mover. The rest of the world doesn’t remain unmoving.