MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tyre | 2025-10-26 20:45:38+00:00
There was a study[0] connected to videos[1] of particular flashing that trigger plaque-clearing rhythms in the brain.

Maybe placebo but my mind feels quietly clearer after watching. It could be that simply slowing down and clearing my mind for that time would do the same.

[0]: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

[1]: https://vimeo.com/1023275135/378186db55

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41942096
by kragen | 2025-10-26 20:45:57+00:00
Yes, when you're not on NFS. Maybe it works on NFS but I wouldn't bet my project on it. Locking reliably on NFS is easy to get wrong, and it's a comparatively little-tested scenario now compared to 30 years ago. (You'll notice that the question doesn't even mention the possibility of NFS.) Fortunately at least with Git it's easy to have lots of backups.
by fsflover | 2025-10-26 20:47:41+00:00
> Not if you're inside the walled garden.

You're conflating the vendor lock-in with attractive user experience. The latter can (and should) easily exist without the former, e.g., any good FLOSS product. You only would create a walled garden (in order to not let users escape) if you plan enshittification.

Walled gardens degrade user experience in the long term, because they artificially hinder competition by not letting users switch to a better alternative when it appears.
by dylan604 | 2025-10-26 20:47:44+00:00
I'm guessing some OCR was used to generate this by the many "typos" throughout.

Comparing these images of the COC to what was reimagined for War Games really feels underwhelming. From the few images, it just feels very complex and overloaded with information that is just a lot to take in. Maybe it gets easier to deal with when that's what you do everyday, but it definitely has that feel of "designed by an engineer" instead of "designed by a UI professional". Essentially, it feels like every single UI I've ever made.
by mewpmewp2 | 2025-10-26 20:48:24+00:00
I have used SSH for GitHub of course, but the thought that I could also use it from any random machine to machine never occurred to me. And when it might occur to me, I would have thought that maybe SSH is used as a mechanism for authentication, but it might still require some further specialized server due to some unknown protocols of mine. I always thought of SSH or HTTPS as means of authentication and talking to the git server rather than the thing that processes cloning.

E.g. maybe the host would have to have something like apt install git-server installed there for it to work. Maybe it wouldn't be available by default.

I do know however that all info required for git in general is available in the directory itself.
by vacuity | 2025-10-26 20:48:47+00:00
> Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.

This is the heart of the matter. Nothing is good or bad in a vacuum, but when two things (say, outcomes) can be compared, distintions can be drawn. Noticing flaws in the present can't be contrasted with simple models of "the better solution"; this is comparing apples to oranges. Address both the good and the bad of the present, including the days where nothing noteworthy happens and therefore below the awareness of most people, and the good and the bad of an elaborated counterpart.
by kvemkon | 2025-10-26 20:48:54+00:00
> Why?

Just because of statistic.

But actually, of course, it would be fair to make individual prices. E.g. there is a photo-camera for 7000, it makes very very good photos. Someone makes every day money with photos and buys it. Someone else wants also very good photos for non-professional private use, family and even for posts in WEB (without a fee, only donations). But this someone else must pay the same 7000.

Needless to say that in case of individual prices, additional rules and locks will apply.

BTW, some electronic devices are sold cheaper for academics (universities, students).
by kragen | 2025-10-26 20:49:09+00:00
The first update-server-info is running in the bare repo, which is the place I just pushed to, which is where sw/dev3 is going to pull from.

I'm not sure the second update-server-info is necessary.

If you're asking about the env -u, that's because Git sets that variable so that commands know which repo they're in even if you cd somewhere else, which is exactly what I don't want.
by maxglute | 2025-10-26 20:50:18+00:00
> now that its citizens are being impacted

PRC citizens were always impacted, these scam centers literally started (by twnese org crime) to target mainland retirees.

PRC would love for Junta to dismantle Kokang / northern scam centers but Junta couldn't because domestic factional power issues vs Northern states. The TLDR is scam centers are protected by pro Junta Kokang faction (BGF), so PRC got tired of Junta waffling and decided to support anti Junta three brotherhood alliance (aka rebels) who went HAM on the scam centers while PRC did military exercises to tell juntas to fuck off and understand PRC willing to patronize other internal players if junta doesn't play ball. Last year's 1027 operation only happened because PRC lost patience with Juntas and now Juntas more keen to help PRC deal vs scam centers (well at least performatively since they still need it for funding) because they know if they did nothing PRC will shop around and empower other players during civil war.
by pixl97 | 2025-10-26 20:50:22+00:00
Eh, I don't like the idea of 'intelligence' of any type using humans as the base line. It blinds it to our own limitations and things that may not be limits to other types of intelligence. The "AI won't kill us all because it doesn't have emotions" problem is one of these. For example, just because AI doesn't get angry, doesn't mean it can't recognize your anger and manipulate if given such a directive to.
by Lerc | 2025-10-26 20:50:36+00:00
That asks you to consider the statements

There is reason to believe that consciousness, sentience, or emotions require a biological base.

Or

There is no reason to believe that consciousness, sentience, or emotions do not require a biological base.

The first is simple, if there is a reason you can ask for it and evaluate it's merits. Quantum stuff is often pointed to here, but the reasoning is unconvincing.

The second form There is no reason to believe P does not require Q.

There are no proven reasons but there are suspected reasons. For instance if the operation that nerons perform is what makes consciousness work, and that operation can be reproduced non-biologicLly it would follow that non biological consciousness would be possible.

For any observable phenomenon in the brain the same thing can be asked. So far it seems reasonable to expect most of the observable processes could be replicated.

None of it acts as proof, but they probably rise to the bar of reasons.
by mycodendral | 2025-10-26 20:50:42+00:00
This is getting ridiculous.

> ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation.’

Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.
by igouy | 2025-10-26 20:50:46+00:00
> And a colleague of mine told me there are no source code files …

And that has always been not true !

$ cat fact.st Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; nextPut: Character lf.! SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true! $ bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000

Google

smalltalk sources file
by latchkey | 2025-10-26 20:50:53+00:00
Your complaint sounds more like the way that you have to access the HPC (via slurm), not the compute itself. After having now tried slurm myself, I don't understand the love for it at all.

As for debugging, that's where you should be allowed to spin up a small testing cluster on-demand. Why can't you do that with your slurm access?
by georgefrowny | 2025-10-26 20:50:54+00:00
> Who knows what values a book implicitly espouses that has no author and was optimized for being liked by readers.

There is some of this even without AI. Plenty of modern pulpy thriller and romance books for example are highly market-optimised by now.

There are thousands of data points out there for what works and doesn't and it would be a very principled author who ignores all the evidence of what demonstrably sells in favour of pure self-expression.

Then again, AI allows to turbocharge the analysis and pluck out the variables that statistically trigger higher sales. I'd be surprised if someone isn't right now explicitly training a Content-o-matic model on the text of books along with detailed sales data and reviews. Perhaps a large pro-AI company with access to all the e-book versions, 20 years of detailed sales data, as well as all telemetry such as highlighted passages and page turns on their reader devices? Even if you didn't or couldn't use it to literally write the whole thing, you can have it optimise the output against expected sales.
by gnabgib | 2025-10-26 20:51:13+00:00
Lexx (790 the robot head) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx

Starhunter (Caravaggio) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhunter

Farscape (Claudia Black before her voice was in every computer game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farscape
Ask HN: Patterns for vibe coding you found useful?
by pawelduda | 2025-10-26 20:51:21+00:00
When coding entire projects with LLMs, have you found any coding techniques that improved the quality of LLM output?

I've coded a dozen of micro projects using Claude models, actually mind-blown how fast you can test your ideas, in much less time. While remaining very usable, the quality seems to fall off after ~10 KLOC (much earlier if the entire project is a single file JS app). Then I need to somewhat start paying attention.

So it got me thinking, should I code the same way as on any codebase where I'd be working with a team, or is there something that helps LLMs scale, while the codebase remains grokkable?
by MattJ100 | 2025-10-26 20:51:57+00:00
That's unusual that you struggled to build Lua. Lua is primarily C89, and used on non-POSIX microcontrollers for example. There are some optional bits of the standard library you would have to leave out - module loading uses dlopen(). This is done simply by defining the right feature macros for your target environment: https://www.lua.org/source/5.4/luaconf.h.html

You may also be interested in this project: https://github.com/fengari-lua/fengari
by pjmlp | 2025-10-26 20:52:06+00:00
I was there, hence why it it easy to get quotes like these,

> 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux

Without big money from UNIX vendors like those, cutting down their R&D costs, Linux would not have climbed anything.

GPL was the reason why they collaborated instead of being able to assimilate the code as they were doing with BSD, like anything sockets related.

Ironically IBM has recouped its investment, now as Red-Hat owners.

That is where everything on GNU/Linux that is mainly done by Red-Hat like GNOME, Gtk, GCC, Java is being paid for.
by joshribakoff | 2025-10-26 20:52:08+00:00
If the AI did the boilerplate that implies it was not fully written by you.

The “meaningful commit messages” — again are a single period as the message for a single commit for the entire python portion of the codebase.

My question was rhetorical. Whether the AI did it or a human did, it burns credibility to refer to things that don’t exist (like “meaningful commit messages”)
by card_zero | 2025-10-26 20:52:18+00:00
I wonder what Popper did say specifically about qualia and such. There's a 1977 book called "The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism". Haven't read it.

Preface:

The problem of the relation between our bodies and our minds, and especially of the link between brain structures and processes on the one hand and mental dispositions and events on the other is an exceedingly difficult one. Without pretending to be able to foresee future developments, both authors of this book think it improbable that the problem will ever be solved, in the sense that we shall really understand this relation. We think that no more can be expected than to make a little progress here or there.

... well. Thanks a bunch, Karl.
by kiliancs | 2025-10-26 20:52:21+00:00
I see where this sort of take comes from. Reviews are not a place for subjective comments that just slow down or block progress, signaling, excessive nitpicking, etc. However, the reviewer should be thinking beyond the immediate "hey, this is progress", and also consider how this change affects the codebase and how it aligns with feature and technical direction. A few happy approvals and a great codebase becomes hard to work with, if contributors are inexperienced.

Code reviews are also an opportunity for learning, and provide real-life scenarios to inform decisions that are otherwise not grounded and mostly opinion. Of course, not all comments and discussions should block approval, but there is a balance. No one is going to die if this feature is delayed by a few days if you get a better result _and_ are investing in team growth.
by ben_w | 2025-10-26 20:53:10+00:00
Or even to come up with a definition of cognitive versatility and proficiency that is good enough to not get argued away once we have an AI which technically passes that specific definition.

The Turing Test was great until something that passed it (with an average human as interrogator) turned out to also not be able to count letters in a word — because only a special kind of human interrogator (the "scientist or QA" kind) could even think to ask that kind of question.
by RobGR | 2025-10-26 20:53:27+00:00
I would appear that you can buy it on Alibaba:

https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?tab=all&SearchText=asbe...

I have not tried, although I was tempted just out of curiosity -- would it make it through customs and get delivered to me in the US ? The rope and fabric style products should not be that dangerous because they are long fibers that should not break off and float in the air, and the cylinder head gasket material is probably chopped short fibers but it's embedded in a matrix of other stuff.

We probably over regulate the long fiber stuff. The short felt-like fibers we used to mix into plaster, cement, anything needing strength and texture, are probably correctly banned; the risk to reward seems not worth it. Many of those products could use glass fiber just as well.

However, I think the general experience of people exposed to rock or cement dust, basically anything silica based that gets into the lungs, is that is really bad. Handling short chopped mineral fiber of any type seems like something that has to have a huge payoff, like part of a rocket for satillite launches, to be worth it.

This is good to keep in mind because there are some really interesting alternative mineral fiber products out there. Basalt fiber in particular, is sold in a chopped mix for adding to concrete, seems potentially bad. There are some interesting ceramic fibers available too.

https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?tab=all&SearchText=basa...

https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?tab=all&SearchText=cera...
by mpweiher | 2025-10-26 20:53:28+00:00
LOL.

Like France's grid has collapsed every year for the last 40 years.

And of course California's grid is well known for its stability. Or was that brownouts, rolling blackouts and high prices? Well, one of the two.

Nice chatting with you. Well, amusing at least.

Sweden just approved new nuclear construction, after rescinding a nuclear exit.
by noir_lord | 2025-10-26 20:53:41+00:00
It did in Object Pascal as well - way back in a different life when I hung around a programming channel there was a big argument about C always been faster than Pascal from one of the C devs in there - so we set the challenge as "count instances of several words in a 100MB file" fastest using only language features and the standard library for each (what came out the box).

I beat the C programmer because I "cheated" - I dropped into assembly for parts of it since that was part of the core language to be able to do that, he used whatever string library was shipped with his compiler at the time, he rigged it because Object Pascals standard string functions where notoriously slow (fast enough but much slower than C implementations of the time) - one of my prouder moments and 100% not something I could do now, I've completely forgotten assembly.
by skylurk | 2025-10-26 20:53:54+00:00
> Tokyo Story

I watched it because it's on every list of best films, so expectations going in were high. It's not overrated. I don't cry from movies but I did when watching this one. Very subtle and relatable.

Edit: Since we're here, "The Fall" (2006) and "City of God" (2002) are some of my other favorites.
by YZF | 2025-10-26 20:55:35+00:00
I thought it's typically Chief Technology Officer

In most companies I've been a part off, including multiple >$1B tech companies, the CTO's focus is not on the engineering. That's the job of a VP Engineering or some similar position.

CTO (which will sometimes have a "CTO office") is to work besides the engineering on investigating new technologies and ideas that are beyond what the engineering organization would have otherwise done on the day to day. They are also an authority on all technology in the company but are not in the engineering "chain of command".

That said this is not universal, there are organizations where the CTO does lead the engineering organization. I think that's sub-optimal because there is always going to be tension between the day to day and the broader scope and those should be different roles.

In a startup, it is more common for a CTO to lead engineering because there is not yet enough to justify having both a VP Eng and a CTO and perhaps most of the work is around figuring out technologies. But as the company grows it makes sense to separate those functions.
by jal278 | 2025-10-26 20:55:51+00:00
The fundamental premise of this paper seems flawed -- take a measure specifically designed for the nuances of how human performance on a benchmark correlates with intelligence in the real world, and then pretend as if it makes sense to judge a machine's intelligence on that same basis, when machines do best on these kinds of benchmarks in a way that falls apart when it comes to the messiness of the real world.

This paper, for example, uses the 'dual N-back test' as part of its evaluation. In humans this relates to variation in our ability to use working memory, which in humans relates to 'g'; but it seems pretty meaningless when applied to transformers -- because the task itself has nothing intrinsically to do with intelligence, and of course 'dual N-back' should be easy for transformers -- they should have complete recall over their large context window.

Human intelligence tests are designed to measure variation in human intelligence -- it's silly to take those same isolated benchmarks and pretend they mean the same thing when applied to machines. Obviously a machine doing well on an IQ test doesn't mean that it will be able to do what a high IQ person could do in the messy real world; it's a benchmark, and it's only a meaningful benchmark because in humans IQ measures are designed to correlate with long-term outcomes and abilities.

That is, in humans, performance on these isolated benchmarks is correlated with our ability to exist in the messy real-world, but for AI, that correlation doesn't exist -- because the tests weren't designed to measure 'intelligence' per se, but human intelligence in the context of human lives.
by weavejester | 2025-10-26 20:56:34+00:00
> This year, Clojure didn't make it into the named languages list on the Stack Overflow developer survey (1.2% in 2024).

Clojure is clearly a niche language, but Stack Overflow is also not a place that Clojure developers typically go, so Clojure usage there is going to be under reported.

> I do wish Clojure would adopt a bit more of an opinionated way of doing things and coalesce around some solid core/common libraries that the official docs could point to.

Solid core/common libraries to do what?
by clickety_clack | 2025-10-26 20:56:45+00:00
There’s no way a PR description should be expected to have a step by step description of what the change is doing, along with a commentary. That’s what I mean by “ground up”: explaining every line of code with its thinking is something that maybe you’d do to teach coding or something.

If a dev has to take time even to review and edit an LLM generated version of this for every pull review (and it will require time to do this so that it doesn’t waste the reviewer’s time with wild goose chases due to faulty interpretation), and you are then going to have to wade through that doc in addition to reading the code, you could save everyone a lot of time and just talk to each other when you have questions.
by Aurornis | 2025-10-26 20:57:08+00:00
This is a 2017 blog post. It's a throwback to earlier hustle culture writings, before writing like this on LinkedIn became a pop culture meme.

Like most of the hustle culture writing, it's based on a single experience that may or may not have actually happened: The author approached someone in a bar and had a conversation, and now they're preaching this method as some groundbreaking business technique.

Cold approaches like this are not, in my opinion, a good idea if you want valid feedback. When you approach random people in a bar and interrupt them with some request, many people will go into defensive mode where they try to tell you what you want to hear to de-escalate and get you to go away.

Note their reaction:

> Their reaction was notably disturbed!

The author noticed they didn't appreciate his question but pressed on anyway, demanding they give him some feedback. Many people will play along for a few minutes and try to deliver something that fulfills the request and lets them get away from the situation.

That doesn't mean it's good advice. Like most hustle culture writing pieces, I don't think this advice to go to bars and interrupt random people and demand their feedback is a good idea.
by bigfatkitten | 2025-10-26 20:57:53+00:00
What makes this paper so unique, compared with the dozens of others that have preceded it (and attracted coverage in the tech media) over that past 20 years that it is going to drive such rapid change?

Black Hat, DEF CON etc seem to have a presentation just about every year that can be summarised as “DVB-S is fair game if you have a few hundred bucks and a quiet afternoon.”

Here’s a decent history of the state of play up to 2009. The authors recognised back then that this is already ground well covered.

http://archive.hack.lu/2009/Playing%20with%20SAT%201.2%20-%2...

And more of the same from 2020.

https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2028/DEF%20CON%20Safe%20M...

Then you’ve got coverage of the cool applications of this property of VSAT hops, such as the Russian intelligence services using it as a malware exfiltration vector.

https://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/SatTurla_Solution_Paper.pdf
by ben_w | 2025-10-26 20:59:02+00:00
I'll simultaneously call all current ML models "stupid" and also say that SOTA LLMs can operate at junior (software) engineer level.

This is because I use "stupidity" as the number of examples some intelligence needs in order to learn from, while performance is limited to the quality of the output.

LLMs *partially* make up for being too stupid to live (literally: no living thing could survive if it needed so many examples) by going through each example faster than any living thing ever could — by as many orders of magnitude as there are between jogging and continental drift.