MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by razodactyl | 2025-10-26 13:50:02+00:00
Bad take. It's not that it's hard for everyone - there's critical pushback because we don't know for certain if LLM technology can or cannot do the task in question. Which is the reason there's a paper being discussed.

If we were to take the stance of "ok, that happened so it must be the case" we wouldn't be better off in many cases, we would still be accusing people of being witches most likely.

Science is about coming up with a theory and trying to poke holes into it until you can't and in which case, after careful peer-review to ensure you're not just tricking yourself into seeing something which isn't there a consensus is approached in which we can continue to build more truth and knowledge.
by 8organicbits | 2025-10-26 13:50:32+00:00
The law doesn't directly stop anyone from doing anything, it acts much differently from a technical control. The law provides recourse to people hurt by violations and enables law enforcement action. I suspect Meta has since stopped their torrenting, and may lose the lawsuit they current face. Anyone certainly could log in to any site with credentials that are not their own, but fear of legal action may deter them.
by tonetegeatinst | 2025-10-26 13:51:04+00:00
I think the real danger is a company secretly developing and training a model that's specifically aimed at finding 0days and other attacks.

I agree AI raises the threat of phishing attacks....but the industry can adapt to this. It can't adapt to unknown threats like a well funded ATP ground that decides to innovate and create an AI that is good at finding 0days or side channel attacks.
by Max-Ganz-II | 2025-10-26 13:51:22+00:00
The instant I dropped this on HN, gptbot was scanning the site.

(Updated robots.txt, this site https://robotstxt.com/ai to the rescue. I had to update robots.txt on the Amazon Redshift site fairly recently - I had gone from something like 10mb of log file per day to something like 50mb of log file per day, from LLM crawlers.)
by gortok | 2025-10-26 13:51:41+00:00
I’m not assuming that at all.

When windows has a problem, I am confident there will be a driver fix and windows/the manufacturer will update the driver and I download an update and I’m fixed, and I’m confident in this for a few reasons:

1. Microsoft spends a lot of time and money on driver compatibility.

2. Manufacturers are incentivized to make sure their stuff works on windows.

3. The time and money has been spent for ease-of-updates and on customer service (having notices and communications that there is a problem and it will be resolved).

When this has happened to me on an Ubuntu or Debian based system, it’s typically been surfaced through a GitHub or random forum post, with consulted instructions to fix, if there is a fix. When the instructions don’t work, I need to spend more of my time figuring out why. And this happens for even mainstream hardware.

I’ve never had trouble free windows, but the time to get the problem resolved is a lot less and generally requires little to no time on my part, which given my state in life, is what I want.
by Ylpertnodi | 2025-10-26 13:52:03+00:00
>There's definitely a "dark ages" of TV shows and films from the 70s/80s/90s as digital recording wasn't as common, so unpopular shows will just slip through the cracks [.]

Perhaps letting a few 'slip through the cracks' is the Bbc's way of purging the "dark ages...of TV shows". A lot of strange things were happening around TV during those times.
by bastawhiz | 2025-10-26 13:52:34+00:00
1. The bots have essentially unlimited memory and CPU. That's the cheapest part of any scraping setup.

2. You need to send the data for the Markov chain generator to the client, along with the code. This is probably bigger than the response you'd be sending anyway. (And good luck getting a bot to cache JavaScript)

3. As the author said, each request uses microseconds of CPU and just over a megabyte of RAM. This isn't taxing for anyone.
by tremon | 2025-10-26 13:53:03+00:00
At a very high level, the processor initialization procedure is similar to most microcontrollers:

- processor is powered up with RESET pin asserted, making sure that all circuits are in a known-safe state.

- when RESET is deasserted, all autonomous circuits (e.g. core control units, cache controllers, ALUs) go through a hardware setup phase.

- the processor accesses the boot firmware according to the platform design. There's many options here, but the three most common are 1) the boot ROM is permanently mapped to a dedicated hardware address, and the processor uses its memory controller to access that memory; 2) the boot ROM is directly connected to the processor via dedicated I/O pins; 3) the initial boot code is located on the processor itself (factory-programmed EEPROM).

- if the boot ROM is not mapped to a memory address, the data is loaded into CPU cache (external RAM needs to be initialized first, and that task is usually performed by the firmware).

- the primary cpu core starts executing boot code (UEFI/BIOS/etc) from said predefined hardware address. Other cores (and processors) are usually left uninitialized throughout the startup process, and it is left to the operating system to bring up the remaining parts of the system.

Specifically for Intel, see https://binarydebt.wordpress.com/2018/10/06/how-does-an-x86-... . Or see https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/726918 and its comments to get an idea of the differences between platforms.
by nebezb | 2025-10-26 13:53:23+00:00
> Of course the capitalist cares about harming customers, she needs to sell to them

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

Internal memos from 1970s - 2000s reveal knowledge of asbestos traces. Executives, better known as caring capitalists, resisted disclosure.

In case you think this isn’t a pattern: Purdue and Oxy, General Motors and their ignitions switches, DuPont and “confirmed animal carcinogen” Teflon, Philip Morris’ cigarette campaigns, VWs dieselgate…

Each of them found to be suppressing knowledge knowingly harming consumers.
by andrewaylett | 2025-10-26 13:53:29+00:00
Sanctions are less damaging than military action. They're obviously a less extreme statement too.

I think a key part of my thinking is "projecting political pressure". That's not what's happening in Cuba, there's no "we want you to stop doing $X and then the sanctions will end".

Whether the Iranian sanctions can be effective is a matter for debate -- and for a while at least, it seemed they were, and we appeared to be making good progress towards not needing them any more.

Modern sanctions are tending towards embargoing specific classes of goods, and things that affect the elite more than the general population. For example, the UK is refusing to sell weapons (directly) to Israel. And various countries have impounded assents owned by Russian oligarchs.

My preference would be for sanctions to come with a clear policy objective stating what they're trying to change (or to avoid) and what conditions need to be met in order to have them withdrawn. The Cuban (and ICC) sanctions instead look like punishment, and the Iranian and North Korean sanctions appear to me to be a mix.
by simul007 | 2025-10-26 13:53:55+00:00
Posting this because it's a genuinely fascinating look at industrial scale account fraud infrastructure. The €5M in direct losses is notable, but what really caught my attention is how polished and accessible they made the whole operation.

The FaaS angle is what gets me. They weren't just running a SIMbox farm in a basement they had public websites, API documentation, and were essentially selling "bypass SMS verification as a service" to other criminals globally. That's a business model. That's engineering.

The scale is where it gets sobering. 1,200 SIMbox devices, 40,000 simultaneous SIM cards, 50 million fake accounts. That's not amateur hour. That's logistics, infrastructure, customer support. They'd solved the hard problems: How do you manage hardware at scale? How do you keep 40,000 SIMs operational? How do you make it easy enough that non-technical actors can integrate it into their fraud workflows?

And yeah, the systemic stuff is the real problem. We're all operating under the assumption that "phone verified" means something. It doesn't anymore, apparently. All those metrics everyone relies on user growth, engagement, review scores there's just... noise in there. A lot of noise.

Makes you wonder: for every verification layer we add, is there already a service like this being built to defeat it?
by libraryofbabel | 2025-10-26 13:54:10+00:00
He mentions he has nobody reporting to him. That sounds like he’s really a staff engineer with a vanity CTO title, plus a lot of sway in strategic decision making.

It’s not a guaranteed recipe for disaster, but it depends critically on his relationship with whoever actually manages the engineering org. If they don’t pull in the same direction, things go south very quickly and you end up with a little civil war.

Either way it’s a red flag and I wouldn’t work there. Another red flag is that he wrote this blog post at all. Given how clearly negative the reaction to it was going to be, it’s a strong signal he doesn’t really think things through and has a ego wrapped up in his “coding” prowess and ability to circumvent process. People mention Woz as an example of a technical co-founder in a non-management role, but he is a humble guy and wouldn’t brag like this.
by westurner | 2025-10-26 13:55:03+00:00
> Until now, the BCS theory based on the formation of Cooper pairs and DFT predictions based on quantum mechanics have remained separate. Liu’s team found a way to connect them.

ScholarlyArticle: "Revealing symmetry-broken superconducting configurations by density functional theory" (2025) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6668/adedbc
by seba_dos1 | 2025-10-26 13:56:10+00:00
> Yes the commit won't be on the branch you want, but you'd get about the same issue if the two repos had a bare upstream.

Not at all. The commit would have "landed" on the exact branch you thought it will. How it will be reconciled with a diverged remote branch is completely orthogonal and may not even be of concern in some use cases at all.
by dredmorbius | 2025-10-26 13:56:58+00:00
It turns out that there's a wealth of evidence which shows that appropriate introductions of stress (cardio training, resistance training, fine-motor-control practice) do in fact lead to improvements: greater heart health, better pulmonary function, increased strength, greater bone density, improved blood sugar regulation, decreased overall stress response, and more.

Yes, overtraining is possible (and not infrequent, particularly by those who fail to read or ignore the evidence). But an absolutely sedentary lifestyle is exceptionally fatal.

Medications (as with exercise) come with both intended and unintended consequences, as well as costs and inconveniences. Generally the more extreme the condition you're treating, the more likely that medications will carry some of these disadvantages (e.g., chemotherapy against cancer, where the goal is often to kill the malignancy at least slightly faster than one kills the patient). Exercise operates through complex feedback cycles and mechanisms, not all of which are well-understood (as an example, why muscle grows in response to strength training being a fundamental case despite much information on how muscle responds to which specific training protocols). Medications can amplify training response (e.g., anabolic steroids for strength training athletes), but often don't by themselves substitute for it.

This is why, in a broader sense, that the Baconian scientific method does not rely simply on a priori hypotheses, but tests these with experiment and evidence, that is, empirically. The ultimate critique of pure reason is that whilst it can be a useful guide for what you then want to test empirically, it has a phenomenal tendency to lead one to utterly fallacious and/or irrelevant conclusions.

One of the more robust sets of evidence on both the negative effects of a zero-stress lifestyle and of the benefits of regular cardio and strength training is that accumulated through long-term space missions, largely aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Microgravity would be the ultimate low-stress environment, and it turns out to be seriously harmful. Astronauts there are tested before and after missions, with various measures of fitness loss. With time-in-space being an immensely valuable resource, astronauts also spend two hours per day engaged in physical exercise (<https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/living-in-space/phy...>), or 1/8 of their waking schedule.

Online, ExRx (<https://exrx.net/>) has a large library of fitness information, including a list of online journals (<https://exrx.net/Journals>) and expert talks (<https://exrx.net/Talks>). Good books on fitness will link to research substantiating recommendations (Lou Schuler's New Rules of Lifting series is a good example of this).
by pjmlp | 2025-10-26 13:57:08+00:00
That is the wonder of BSD like licenses for big corps.

If Linux never happened, we would still be using big iron UNIXes, each taking whatever they felt like from BSD variants.

Notice how all the new FOSS operating systems for IoT devices none of them use GPL, NutXX, FreeRTOS, Zephyr, Arduino libs, IDF,...
by derriz | 2025-10-26 13:59:56+00:00
I'm not sure how you are measuring complexity.

The plant and equipment required to maintain a stable nuclear reaction and extract its heat is far more complex than that required to control a coal or natural gas firebox.

This is reflected in the fact that to run 1GW of nuclear generation, on average (in the US) requires about 700 FTE to operate. The average for coal generation is about a third of that number. And the average for a combined cycle gas plant is about 60 FTE.

And nuclear fission produces low-grade heat - around 320°C - compared to coal (around 550°C) or natural gas (over 1300°C). Thus are less thermally efficient and require huge cooling towers and much larger turbines to extract the thermal energy. Which, of course, are more expensive and complex to build and maintain.
by dfawcus | 2025-10-26 14:00:04+00:00
The increase in use of wind, being intermittent and non-dispatchable means there has to be 1-for-1 back up wind generation. That is gas.

We also have periods in the winter (so solar of little to no use), where we can have a week or two of no wind.

As the gas generators are not run constantly, they're more expensive than if they were. There are various (at least 3) UK "gridwatch" sites available, offering real time and historical generation mix. Maybe have a look.

From memory, so probably flawed, we still tend to depend upon nuclear and gas for around 40 - 50 % of our generation (nuke being low - say between 5 and 10).
by kylehotchkiss | 2025-10-26 14:00:15+00:00
Why can’t Apple work on a nicer reviews implementation? Linking out to crap like yelp is such a B-grade experience. I wish they’d just build their own and use some LLM/sentiment analysis to help filter any spam, but even then, submissions would be tied to Apple IDs and they have a pretty good handle on the legitimacy of devices associated with an account
by woodruffw | 2025-10-26 14:00:22+00:00
This is backwards: per GP, the cumulative time would be greater if there were fewer crates, because of how incremental and parallel compilation work in Rust.

(This doesn’t mean Rust doesn’t have a dependency proliferation issue, only that the way you’re substantiating it is misleading: it’s like saying that C has a dependency proliferation issue because libfoo goes from having 3 source files to 5 source files between releases.)
by tom_alexander | 2025-10-26 14:01:11+00:00
FWIW I've managed to "fix" the power button by pouring 99% rubbing alcohol over the power button while pressing the button in and out. Doesn't prevent it from happening, so this is still problematic behavior, but it at least can save you from expensive repairs or replacements.

But yes, now I disable this "feature" on my phones.
by macintux | 2025-10-26 14:01:33+00:00
Spent over a week wandering the backroads and state highways of the American southeast region, and I was amazed at how out-of-date Apple Maps was regarding local businesses. Often I’d see something on my map that had clearly been abandoned for years.

Somehow I doubt ads are going to improve the quality of their data. Very discouraging to see Apple (allegedly) headed down this road.
by user205738 | 2025-10-26 14:02:00+00:00
in principle, this is true, if the case does not have a reliable basis, then it will not go to court. If we take this into account, then the magic numbers of 99% will disappear.

These are not only criminal cases, but also administrative and civil law relations.

in principle, there was no need to discuss this at all, usually those who do not understand the legal system and who have never been to court, cry about 99%.
by pjmlp | 2025-10-26 14:02:12+00:00
If true? I usually only comment stuff I can post profs on, so is the Internet nature.

> Interpreter performance significantly improved in the Android 7.0 release with the introduction of "mterp" - an interpreter featuring a core fetch/decode/interpret mechanism written in assembly language

From https://source.android.com/docs/core/runtime/improvements
by mrweasel | 2025-10-26 14:03:47+00:00
We should encourage number 2. So much of the content that the AI companies are scraping is already garbage, and that's a problem. E.g. LLMs are frequently confidently wrong, but so is Reddit, who produce a large volume of trading data. We've seen a study surgesting that you can poison an LLM with very little data. Encouraging the AI companies to care about the quality of the data they are scraping could be beneficial to all.

The cost of being critical of source material might make some AI companies tank, but that seems inevitable.
by spwa4 | 2025-10-26 14:04:02+00:00
But all governments, or at least all the ones I deal with on a regular basis, are switching to AI for essentially everything as well. The issue I already see coming more and more is that they just don't have an escape hatch (whereas your bank's helpdesk, which no doubt is doing the same does have an escape hatch to talk to a real human ... usually after waiting 10 hours to one song). Your passport renewal gets denied? "Please try again" and back into the app + AI recognition you go!
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-26 14:04:29+00:00
> So, what do you mean by "addressed"?

Doing "something", that solves the issue that is described in the comment?

That can range from actually changing the code, putting a comment in, over updating the documentation, moving the code somewhere else, to merging the PR unchanged and opening a new PR, to not doing anything.

> You want to block me, but also want it to look like my decision instead of yours.

Because it IS your decision. What the comment means for the effect on your PR depends on how you address it. "changing the code" -> "new code review"; "putting a comment in", "updating the documentation" -> don't need approval, but expect questions; "not doing anything" -> get your approval from someone else, you won't get it from me, but if someone else is fine with it, maybe I am wrong.

I DO NOT want to block you, that's why I want to be able to only leave a comment.

Examples:

"This conflicts with POSIX and SUSv4 ..." -> (but the old code also did) "document that diversion and leave a point in todo.txt"

"This is highly surprising for users" -> "add a warning or a confirmation"

"This breaks the workflow for X people (including me), but this was undocumented behaviour" -> "Consider whether the feature is worth it and we care about this"

"This conflicts with my understanding of RFC1234 in combination with 'random blog post from The Old New Thing' and documentation in 'different vendor's codebase'" -> "Yes, I know, I did it on purpose, because of footnote in RFC5678 and random comment on HN proving why Raymond Chen is wrong; will document that".

The answer to all these comments could also be "Oops, didn't thought of that, now I need to change the code / throw everything away.", but this entirely depends on your state of mind, which I don't have introspection to. If I would start researching that problem in depth, then I could also do the PR myself, that is work, that you already did. I only want to make sure, that you are aware. If you are, consider it approved, if you are not, consider it blocked.
by Sharlin | 2025-10-26 14:04:52+00:00
Git was always explicitly a decentralized, "peer to peer" version control system, as opposed to centralized ones like SVN, with nothing in the protocol itself that makes a distinction between a "server" and a "client". Using it in a centralized fashion is just a workflow that you choose to use (or, realistically, one that somebody else chose for you). Any clone of a repository can be a remote to any other clone, and you can easily have a "git server" (ie. just another directory) in your local filesystem, which is a perfectly reasonable workflow in some cases.
by voodooEntity | 2025-10-26 14:04:52+00:00
While for certain historical scenarios interesting, for "real world" experience this to me seems like speedrunning "dystopy" - we already face young people getting more and more disconnected from reality (yeye im spending way to much time on my screen also :P) and i, at least around me, can see a clear trend from people making their own experience to people more and more shutting themself down from the "outside world" - just ingesting tons of "contents". The example video linked in another comment showing someone smell a flower, or a friendly overnighter - this should be things you really experience yourself not things you should watch secondhand. People should stop wondering why depression and loneliness are on the rise - Feels just like heading an absolutely bad way....
by pfdietz | 2025-10-26 14:05:24+00:00
I think "storage at 600 C" could provide most of its heat output at close to 600 C. It's not like the entire thermal store is tapped at the same time.

Imagine a pile with long pipes through it. Cool fluid is introduced at one end; the steam is gradually heated as it travels down the pipes, emerging as hot steam at the end. If needed, gang two of these together with the second pile acting to top off the temperature from the first one (or more than two).

So, during discharge, a wave of cold sweeps down the pile(s), while the pile near the outlet end stays pretty hot. Only when most of the piles are discharged does the temperature decline.

The Standard Thermal approach is described as heating the piles with embedded resistive heaters, but it could also use an external heater that sends in steam in the opposite direction from when it discharges. This would turn the system into a giant counterflow heat exchanger. Counterflow heat exchangers are known for their high performance, enabling almost all the delta-T between two fluid streams to be interchanged.
by eitally | 2025-10-26 14:05:38+00:00
This can work, imho, IFF the organization has both a CTO and CIO (or someone else tasked with managing the org). I've seen lots of places where the CTO is purely the technical visionary/advisor/final decision maker, and doesn't directly manage the technical organization.

This scenario is far more common outside of the tech industry, where you usually have a CIO running the IT cost center, and a CTO making decisions about technology adoption strategy.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-10-26 14:05:54+00:00
Different subject matter (space), but if anyone has recommendations, I would love love love the chance to see a poster form childhood.

It was sometime around international space year ish (1992), and was a poster of a hybrid ship, part Space Shuttle and part large sailing ship, a gallon or what not.

I kept it for many years as it fell apart but ultimately got rid of it. I love the motif, the idea of endless exploration. Every now and then I do a little web-searching for it, but no luck. Any suggestions welcome!