MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-14 09:20:13+00:00
> Honest question as I'm curious and don't have access to a PS5: what about PS5-only games that happen to exist on other platforms that don't have such features? Can they be played with a PS4 controller?

Games that use PS5-exclusive features when played on PS5 obviously don't use those features when not run on a PS5, if it's been ported.

While your idea sounds neat in practice, with those thresholds and such, I'm not sure how practical it is in real-life. Lots of controllers eventually start reporting somewhat inaccurate values, sometimes rather large variance, so whatever you end up using as the actual values, they tend to not be perfect for everyone, so then the game will appear really buggy, almost broken.

I'm guessing they're favoring "works 100% for everyone who can run it" rather than "Kind of works for most people, broken for the rest".
by DiogenesKynikos | 2025-10-14 09:21:15+00:00
There used to be a concept of enlightened self interest, in which countries agreed to play by universal rules that they benefit from in the long run, but which might not be in their favor in every particular case.

Now, we're in an era of petty self interest, in which no one trusts anyone else, international institutions and laws carry no weight, and everyone is poorer and less safe in the long run.
by feraloink | 2025-10-14 09:21:36+00:00
In https://satcom.sysnet.ucsd.edu/ Has The Issue Been Fixed section:

>we re-scanned with their permission and were able to verify a remedy had been deployed: T-Mobile, WalMart, and KPU.

The fact that critical infrastructure (e.g. utility companies using satellite links for remote-operated SCADA) was exposed is really scary too.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-10-14 09:21:56+00:00
> However, the hardware situation you described sounds very brittle to me.

It is very britlle.

The situation described is what happens when there is significant loss of knowledge, little pressure to improve productivity and low products turnover. You start to fear changing things because you doubt you would be able to get back to the previous situation. That's a huge red flag because you are one unexpected incident/failure away from a very difficult situation.

That's why someone mentioned process knowledge in another thread. If you have mastery of the process required to setup a manufacturing chain, you are far less afraid of changes and that's indeed key to being efficient and innovative.

But the original commenter is also right that volume is key here. If your volumes are so low that short time unavailability or a small amount of failures is life threatening, you simply don't have the breathing room to properly operate.
by pols45 | 2025-10-14 09:22:09+00:00
But everything is framed in terms of performance within corporate wonderland. That is not going to change because it is structural.

Within that context people who are unable to perform either break down, find shortcuts or start doing strange things to keep up appearances leading to new problems. Asking people to be vulnerable within that context won't save anyone and just creates more confusion. It absurd watching management and HR dealing with people who have issues cause they are trained to filter out people who have issues.

What she is not saying is while it is a complex and uncertain world, corporations are optimized for Avoidance of complexity and uncertainty and and so are fundamentally flawed and highly unstable structurally if pushed into any situation requiring dealing with complexity and uncertainty.

People inside such structures will not be able to resolve the contradiction. Its like expecting farm and circus animals to change how the farm or circus works.

Don't wait for the structure to change. Get what you need and get out. There are other things going in the universe beyond the farm and circus and everything doesn't revolve around what is happening inside them.
by throwaway2202 | 2025-10-14 09:22:39+00:00
Not the case when taking into account recent history, or old history and politics. Obviously to say china was the country historically getting faraway lands to fall in line by economic means is opposite of reality. Tiktok is also political and so on. And yes they got mad when other countries do it. At least they used to, I think less so recently but I’m not sure since I don’t bother reading the news anymore when it feels like a repeat.
by physicsguy | 2025-10-14 09:23:03+00:00
They're powerful, but my feeling is that largely you could do this pre-LLM by searching on Stack Overflow or copying and pasting from the browser and adapting those examples, if you knew what you were looking for. Where it adds power is adapting it to your particular use case + putting it in the IDE. It's a big leap but not as enormous a leap as some people are making out.

Of course, if you don't know what you are looking for, it can make that process much easier. I think this is why people at the junior end find it is making them (a claimed) 10x more productive. But people who have been around for a long time are more skeptical.
by inovaitech | 2025-10-14 09:24:11+00:00
I recently launched InovAItech — a site that explores how artificial intelligence, automation, and emerging technologies are shaping productivity and innovation.

All articles are AI-assisted but carefully structured for readability and SEO. The goal is to document, test, and share practical applications of AI tools, automation workflows, and data-driven systems that actually improve work efficiency.

Topics include Automation 4.0, AI productivity tools, tech trends, and step-by-step guides for professionals.

The site is fully automated: articles are generated, categorized, and optimized through a custom GPT + WordPress integration. I’m experimenting with how far this kind of automation can go — both technically and editorially.

Would love feedback from the community on:

How to make automated content genuinely useful

Which topics around AI and productivity are most worth exploring next
by FrostKiwi | 2025-10-14 09:25:08+00:00
> There are two approaches these days

I'm aware of those, it's just sad nothing is nailed as a standard. Those are two workarounds unfortunately. A browser API not supported on Apple Safari and pixel-presnap with JS doing the CSS px calculation backwards + snapping and even that code has an extra branch to fix a macOS+Chrome bug. The whole situation smells of duct tape.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-14 09:25:37+00:00
Same thing happens with a somewhat expensive musical instrument brand that keeps using that plastic for their buttons.

As far as I can tell, it breaks down slower the more you use it, must be interacting with oils/something from human fingers, as I only have that happen for things that remain in storage for months/years at a time, but the gear with that sort of plastic that I use every day/week doesn't have that happening.
by shunia_huang | 2025-10-14 09:26:16+00:00
Quite the contrary to the points made in some of the comments mentioning that China is far ahead in applying automation tools/workflows in factories, which then shaped the competitive benifits in manufacture industries.

No, it's not.

It's actually because China is lowring the requirement/quality for delivery and makes everthing for the comsumer market to degrade rapidly so that the manufacturers has the chance to involve because of the involving needs for newer/better products.

It is a common sense here in China that a lot of manufactural products have better quality from imported sources, it is the growing needs from the comsumers that require products to have newer/more functionality even if it has shorter lifetime, or event 'better', the product is looking for growth so they are designed to be short lifetime so the manufacturer and the customer both willing to upgrade in the future.

Excuse my language/grammer.
by jkrejcha | 2025-10-14 09:27:02+00:00
I think the main point here is that... well if you can help it, don't run untrusted software, since it's by definition not trusted. There are some times where you can't really get around it (JavaScript is an increasingly big example of this and there are many ecosystems in which you are prevented from running trusted software without great difficulty) and there are many general protections that are in OSes that will help you there.

On Linux you have some combination of Landlock, AppArmor, SELinux, calling prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS), and the kitchen sink. On FreeBSD you have capsicum. Windows has integrity labeling + a bunch of stuff related to Job objects + a few things to disable win32k.sys calls.

But these are helpful and shouldn't be considered a panacea. The expectation is that you're delegating authority to a computer program to perform a certain task. Do computer programs abuse that authority sometimes? Absolutely. But nonetheless that's the fundamental model of most computer security, thanks in part to its usefulness.
by ryandv | 2025-10-14 09:27:25+00:00
Programming languages are obsolete in the LLM era. What current generation AI has revealed is that English is actually the ultimate representation of computer programs and systems, which is both sufficiently terse and precise to economically describe the operation of arbitrarily complex programs.

There is no reason to study programming languages in 2025, other than as a historical curiosity - the same way one may study languages equally as pitiable as e.g. COBOL, Lisp, or MIPS assembly.
by nashashmi | 2025-10-14 09:27:41+00:00
When these kinds of procedures were first promoted, China was a non-communist entity, aligned with western countries. After China was overtaken by CCP, China is now considered “adversary” after being called “non-aligned”, in similar vein to Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Not even Cuba is on this list.

So it is true that the Western first world aligned countries have greater access to each others assets. And there is a dark network at play at trying to limit the same to second world and third world nations.
by general1465 | 2025-10-14 09:29:49+00:00
You may not care about politics, but politics cares about you.

See Russians as they were not caring about politics and suddenly one day they were handed a slip and sent to frontlines. Granted Kremlin quickly started throwing money at the problem and use volunteers instead, but those few months after September 2022 were a reminder why everyone should always care about politics.
by loveparade | 2025-10-14 09:30:00+00:00
> Beyond this, if you’re working on novel code, LLMs are absolutely horrible at doing anything. A lot of assumptions are made, non-existent libraries are used, and agents are just great at using tokens to generate no tangible result whatsoever.

Not my experience. I've used LLMs to write highly specific scientific/niche code and they did great, but obviously I had to feed them the right context (compiled from various websites and books convered to markdown in my case) to understand the problem well enough. That adds additional work on my part, but the net productivity is still very much positive because it's one-time setup cost.

Telling LLMs which files they should look at was indeed necessary 1-2 years ago in early models, but I have not done that for the last half year or so, and I'm working on codebases with millions of lines of code. I've also never had modern LLMs use nonexistent libraries. Sometimes they try to use outdated libraries, but it fails very quickly once they try to compile and they quickly catch the error and follow up with a web search (I use a custom web search provider) to find the most appropriate library.

I'm convinced that anybody who says that LLMs don't work for them just doesn't have a good mental model of HOW LLMs work, and thus can't use them effectively. Or their experience is just outdated.

That being said, the original issue that they don't always follow instructions from CLAUDE/AGENT.md files is quite true and can be somewhat annoying.
by srean | 2025-10-14 09:30:14+00:00
> The fundamental truth is that matrices represent linear transformations, and all of linear algebra is developed in terms of linear transformations...

Not at all. It is most definitely not a fundamental truth. I think you are conflating matrix multiplication with matrices, as if that's the only operation that one does on matrices.

Matrices are a way to organize data and what operations you define over the matrices define what it represents.

There are other useful operations on matrices, for example Hadamard products, Schur products, Kronecker product, face split products of matrices that finds use in Physics and Engineering (antenna design for one) where the operation does not represent a linear transformation. They can form an algebra and/or algebraic structures different from the very familiar linear algebraic one.
by aw1621107 | 2025-10-14 09:30:39+00:00
Could you elaborate more on "fundamentally it is still copy-and-patch"? From what I can recall when I had first read about copy-and-patch a not-uncommon comparison was against Cranelift, which to me would imply that different approaches were taken. I don't recall any discussion about Cranelift's use of the technique, either, so your claim that it's at the heart of Cranelift is new information to me. Has Cranelift adopted copy-and-patch (maybe for a specific compilation stage?) in the meantime?
by lambdaone | 2025-10-14 09:31:16+00:00
It's not a spacecraft issue. Encryption can be done at the ground stations, and mandated as part of the standards for interfsce equipment, just like with DOCSIS. There's nothing, physically, to stop you passing unencrypted traffic down your DOCSIS cable, if you wanted to make a nonstandard modem and send unencrypted traffic on your local physical segment of the network. But the rest of the network will refuse to talk to it.

The same could have easily been mandated for satellite links - no encryption, your packet won't get forwarded to the internet at the ground station, and any packets sent to you from the internet will be sent to you encrypted. And all this can be implementd without needing to touch the satellite itself, which will continue to forward what it sees as unencrypted traffic without any design changes. It could even have been implemented incrementally on existing running services, with old and new equipment working side-by-side, but all new ground stations required to support encryption, and with a sunset date for old equipment, and a rolling upgrade program.

DOCSIS got this right in 1999; the satellite industry has had 25 yeqrs to catch up.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-10-14 09:31:19+00:00
> I know I could be eating my words, but there is basically no evidence to suggest it ever becomes as exceptional as the kingmakers are hoping.

??? It has already become exceptional. In 2.5 years (since chatgpt launched) we went from "oh, look how cute this is, it writes poems and the code almost looks like python" to "hey, this thing basically wrote a full programming language[1] with genz keywords, and it mostly works, still has some bugs".

I think the goalpost moving is at play here, and we quickly forget how 1 year makes a huge difference (last year you needed tons of glue and handwritten harnesses to do anything - see aider) and today you can give them a spec and get a mostly working project (albeit with some bugs), 50$ later.

[1] - https://github.com/ghuntley/cursed
by gnepon | 2025-10-14 09:31:53+00:00
Perhaps economic value can come from a more educated and skilled workforce if they're using AI for private tuition (if it can write as well as us, it can provide a bespoke syllabus, feedback etc.)

Automation over teaching sounds terrible in the long run, but I could see why learning languages and skills could improve productivity. The "issue" might be here that there's more to gain in developing nations with poor education standards, and so while capital concentrates more to the US because they own the tech, geographical differences in labour productivity reduces.
by impossiblefork | 2025-10-14 09:32:23+00:00
Photon gas normally obeys the ideal gas law. IRL almost no gases do, there's some non-ideality and this is why we can have refigerators.

They let the photon gas move around inside a crystal where they behave nonlinearly so that photons are bound or repelled to some degree, so that they behave more like CO2 or a refrigerant than like helium.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-14 09:32:26+00:00
I don't think the United States had a much different policy towards the original inhabitants than the colonial government of Britain. Slavery became illegal in european colonizer countries earlier than in the United States. (Some argue it still isn't.)

It's not the colonized people that gained freedom, it's the colonizers who were freed from taxes so they could exploit more unregulated.

In this case it is between one imperialist country vs. another, so wouldn't label that position imperialistic necessarily.
by surgical_fire | 2025-10-14 09:32:53+00:00
Depends on the vendor and how they charge. OpenAI loses money on subscriptions [1]. Maybe the people who pay 200 bucks on a subscription are exactly the kind of people that will try to use the maximum out of it, and if you go down to the 20 bucks tier you will find more of the type of user that pays but doesn't use it all that much?

I would presume that companies selling compute for AI inference either make some money or at least break even when they serve a request. But I wouldn't b surprised if they are subsidizing this cost for the time being.

[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-losing-money-...
by DiogenesKynikos | 2025-10-14 09:33:30+00:00
> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all.

This is one of the most persistent misunderstandings about China.

China had a closed, planned economy. It began opening up to foreign investment in the 1980s, but not all at once in every sector. China's general approach has been gradual, instead of the "shock therapy" that the ex-Soviet Union went through (which destroyed its economy).

China initially allowed foreign investment in certain sectors, with conditions like involvement of a local joint-venture partner. An example of this was Volkswagen building a factory in Shanghai in 1984, with the Chinese company SAIC as a local partner with 50% ownership.

Over time, the number of sectors that are open to foreign investment has increased (most sectors are now open), and the rules on investment have been loosened. For example, joint-venture requirements in the automotive sector were phased out and completely eliminated by 2022. Tesla completely owns its operations in China. Toyota has announced that it is buying out its JV partner. Other Western automotive manufacturers have taken majority stakes in their operations.

China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time, not less. It does have policies like "Made in China 2025" that are intended to move up the value chain, and avoid getting stuck making low-value plastic toys forever. China wants to be like the US and EU, after all - a developed economy that manufactures lots of high-tech goods.
by jwr | 2025-10-14 09:34:05+00:00
It has become convenient for manufacturers to treat software/firmware differently from hardware, and we should fight that. If you buy a car, phone, or a TV, you buy an appliance, not "hardware stored at your place with software/firmware controlled by us".

OTA software updates should be a convenience, not a requirement, never be automatic, and be otherwise treated just like a visit to a car repair shop.

Similarly, no manufacturer should be able to tell you "oh, but it's a software problem" if your thing doesn't work as expected (I had Apple tell me this, for example).
by maplethorpe | 2025-10-14 09:34:08+00:00
No, you were clear. I suppose I was interested to see where you drew the distinction between creating and shopping.

For example, lets say LLMs improve to the point where they can now reliably one-shot entire apps with no more input than the original prompt. Would you no longer consider that creating? What's the difference between that and typing your prompt into an infinite app store?
by FrostKiwi | 2025-10-14 09:35:30+00:00
That of course depends on the implementation. The point is not the game or the UI ignoring DPI scaling or browser zoom, in fact you would want to support that. The point is, that you cannot do so on a pixel perfect-level across the board, because the widely supported way to do so, DevicePixelRatio, is just that: a ratio with precision issues under certain combinations of screen dpi and browser zoom.

The browser can do pixel perfect rendering, it has to for sharp text. But in WebGL there is no reliable way to get the coordinates to do so as well. Browser specific ways to do so exist, but using standard APIs doesn't work browser zooms like 130% or DPI scales like 1.25 in combination with certain resolutions.
by Tepix | 2025-10-14 09:35:56+00:00
Amazingly, you can also do it on smaller hardware!

From the readme:

All code will run just fine on even a single GPU by omitting torchrun, and will produce ~identical results (code will automatically switch to gradient accumulation), but you'll have to wait 8 times longer. If your GPU(s) have less than 80GB, you'll have to tune some of the hyperparameters or you will OOM / run out of VRAM. Look for --device_batch_size in the scripts and reduce it until things fit. E.g. from 32 (default) to 16, 8, 4, 2, or even 1. Less than that you'll have to know a bit more what you're doing and get more creative.
by zweifuss | 2025-10-14 09:36:27+00:00
There is something to the existence of fads and fundamentals. When I started, it was Object-Oriented-Programming (with multiple-inheritance and operator overloading, of course), Round-Trip Engineering (RTE), XML, and UML.

IMHO, not the ideas were bad, but the execution of them was. Ideas were too difficult/unfinished/not battle-tested at the time. A desire for premature optimisation without a full understanding of the problem space. The problem is that most programmers are beginners, and many teachers are intermediate programmers at best, and managers don't understand what programmers actually do. Skill issues abound. "Drive a nail with a screwdriver" indeed.

Nowadays, Round-Trip Engineering might be ready for a new try.
by notachatbot123 | 2025-10-14 09:37:04+00:00
Is this AI generated?

The "Conventions Used in This Guide" sound like your instructions.

Use input.png and output.jpg as the filenames (extensions can change as needed). Put one switch on each line. Use future tense such as "optimize" instead of "optimizes" or "optimized". Use AP style heading capitalization. Use the newer magick command instead of the older convert command. Arbitrarily organize into what I think are the most likely use cases.
by ap99 | 2025-10-14 09:37:28+00:00
It's about leverage, which you mentioned.

If you have no leverage during a negotiation and your counterpart has can say 'no' without having to give up anything then you're screwed.

America doesn't have to be the best manufacturers, but we do need to have the ability to say, "fuck it we'll build it ourselves" when the other side of the table says something we don't like.

And anyone living in the fantasy utopia where the whole world agrees on everything and there's peace all the time... read more history.