MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by danaris | 2025-10-31 12:43:14+00:00
But there's also precedent in the other direction:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits.
by geon | 2025-10-31 12:44:05+00:00
> Now that it's only using one thread, it deadlocks, because the consumer is waiting to get something from the queue, and the producer is scheduled to run, but it has not run yet.

Is the reason that the queue has a zero buffer size (always "full"), so that the consumer must consume the `flavor_text` before the producer can return?

Queue source:

> /// When buffer is full, producers suspend and are resumed by consumers.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/lib/std/Io.zig#L1...
by jonbiggums22 | 2025-10-31 12:44:31+00:00
The main purpose is to identify any nascent organization of political opposition to the status quo so it can be destroyed in its infancy with a minimum amount of resources. It will be used to solve some crimes too but solving crimes still involves a lot of manpower (expensive) and if they solved crime people would be less supportive of expanding surveillance powers even further so you don't really want to do a great job at that.
by griffzhowl | 2025-10-31 12:45:27+00:00
An intuition is just something you believe without being able to say why you believe it.

If you have reasons for your belief, then it's a conclusion, not an intuition. If you can't give reasons for it, then you can't argue that anyone else should also believe it, by definition.

"So what is intuition supposed to be? Rational intuitions are a spontaneous, rapid psychological assessment of truth and prompting to judgment about a priori propositions."

Here the author changes the subject from intuition to "rational intuition", but the latter just means a conclusion you come to quickly, and all the examples given are ones that you could readily supply an argument for. That's not the kind of epistemological starting point that people usually mean when they say they have an "intuition", and it's not what people object to when they object to using intuitions as "evidence". Intuitions aren't evidence of anything except the fact that you believe them. If you have reasons for your beliefs, give the reasons, that's it.
by 9029 | 2025-10-31 12:45:37+00:00
While we are at it, here are some more useful warning flags I have used: https://github.com/cpp-best-practices/cppbestpractices/blob/.... Some C++-only though, some are a bit opinionated (like -Wsign-conversion) and some useful C-only flags might be missing.

Few C-specific references I found just now, but haven't tried myself yet:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/0885e4a6e7ca93d3aef8... https://github.com/airbus-seclab/c-compiler-security

Also a good idea to regularly run the program with sanitizers, using them in tests is a good way to do that I think. Why not during development as well if the performance is acceptable for that specific program.
by melicerte | 2025-10-31 12:46:48+00:00
I've notice there is "merde" method which is available in the example like in https://github.com/bnjbvr/rouille/blob/7e9523fe24026bff1a3a7...

Merde is an alias for "calisse" and "oups" , see https://github.com/bnjbvr/rouille/blob/7e9523fe24026bff1a3a7...
by Thorrez | 2025-10-31 12:47:08+00:00
fun register(registrationRequest: UserRegistrationRequest): UserDTO { return success(registrationRequest) .flatMap { validRequest -> throwIfExists(validRequest.email) { authService.userExists(validRequest.email) } }.flatMap { runWithSafety { authService.register(registrationRequest.email, registrationRequest.password) } }.getOrThrow() }

There appears to be some useless code there. Why is validRequest.email being passed to throwIfExists twice? Why is throwIfExists implemented to return the email if the following line (runWithSafety) just ignores that returned email and instead gets the email from registrationRequest.email?
by tene80i | 2025-10-31 12:47:25+00:00
GIMP is a perfect example of how the plot has been lost.

Go to the download page: https://www.gimp.org/downloads/ - A mac user has FOUR equal priority download buttons to decide between, depending on chips and whether you want direct or torrent downloads. That is an absurd decision to put in front of 99% of computer users.

For power users, no problem. But if the objective was ever to be mainstream, this is among the reasons why it isn't. There is just not enough focus on making it easy.
by incomingpain | 2025-10-31 12:48:09+00:00
I have aphantasia and autism. There are pros and cons. It seems to be the reason we're good at tech.

I dont have a narrator neither. No voices in my head at all. If im talking to myself, im saying it outloud. But imagine as well, there's little to no distraction. We can focus on what we want. But it's also amazing to see other people in society who are clearly hearing voices in their head and completely and utterly distracted from day 2 day life. It's like they are possessed by demons in the bad cases.

>a vulnerability to trauma

But because of aphantasia, we dont ever qualify for PTSD. A key part of PTSD is flashbacks and rumination that we dont get.

>emotions and memory

Since memories dont have a visual aspect, the emotional impact of memories is greatly reduced.

>meditation

Since we dont get distracted, we are naturally significantly better at meditation.
by gjsman-1000 | 2025-10-31 12:48:17+00:00
Darktable, to me, and multiple YouTubers who have looked at it...

... falls flat on it's face in the first impression by looking like an unresponsive window, due to the disorientingly light gray color design choices. I also just tried it and of course it's not notarized, meaning that it's almost impossible for anyone to install on macOS, unless they know of the secret button in System Settings. Nope, they aren't there yet.
by conception | 2025-10-31 12:48:45+00:00
This is my most impressive response from Codex "• I started wiring up module-scoped mocks as requested, but while digging in I realised we’re sitting on a moving target: the repo already has a large pile of pending, unrelated changes (whole modules reshuffled, new ps1 files, etc.), and the Enhanced.WorkflowOrchestration.Tests.ps1 under review isn’t even tracked in the baseline branch. Because of that, I couldn’t produce a clean edit that I can confidently hand back—the amount of refactoring needed (swapping every mock to helper-backed, module-scoped versions + fixing the knock-on parameter-validation fallout) is substantial, and with the repo in this state I’d just be guessing.

Rather than check in something half-broken, I’m pausing here. Let me know how you want to proceed—if you can land the upstream refactor (or share a stable snapshot of the tests/module), I can pick this up again and finish the review fixes in one go."
by easyprotech | 2025-10-31 12:49:06+00:00
We open-sourced BRS-XSS — a context-aware, asynchronous XSS scanner designed for CI. Key points: context detection for HTML/JS/CSS/attributes, Playwright DOM checks, ML risk scoring, SARIF output for native GitHub/GitLab integration, and WAF-bypass techniques for common WAFs. Quickstart: `pip install -U brs-xss && brs-xss scan https://target.tld -o out.sarif`. MIT licensed. Repo: https://github.com/EPTLLC/brs-xss

If you run CI and care about actionable XSS findings (low FP + SARIF), tell us what targets/configs you want us to benchmark and we’ll share numbers and repro cases.
by zelphirkalt | 2025-10-31 12:49:08+00:00
Made a similar experience with Scheme. I could tell people whatever I wanted, they wouldn't really realize how much cleaner and easier to test things could be, if we just used functions instead of mutating things around. And since I was the only one who had done projects in an FP language, and they only used non-FP languages like Java, Python, JavaScript and TypeScript before, they would continue to write things based on needless mutation. The issue was also, that using Python it can be hard to write functional style code in a readable way too. Even JS seems to lend itself better to that. What's more is, that one will probably find oneself hard pressed to find the functional data structures one might want to use and needs to work around recursion due to the limitations of those languages.

I think it's simply the difference between the curious mind, who explores stuff like Clojure off the job (or is very lucky to get a Clojure job) and the 9 to 5 worker, who doesn't know any better and has never experienced writing a FP codebase.
by jerieljan | 2025-10-31 12:49:26+00:00
I've been using it and so far yeah, a lot of the existing functionality and new functionality is effectively free and it generally only nags you when you use the clearly separate "Canva AI" panel.

Checking the settings also tells me that Segmentation (used in Object Selection) is provided but Depth Estimation (used in Portrait Blur and Select Sampled Depth tools), Colorization (used in Colorize filter, apparently intended to colorize B&W photos) and Super Resolution (used in Super Resolve filter) are all paywalled.

Honestly, I think that's fine. While I'd wish these are all available (and they could be if you looked hard enough for models that can do this) for a flat price (for parts that are not handled server-side), this is still imho mostly fair.
by dcre | 2025-10-31 12:49:31+00:00
Even in the mathematical/formal realm, the meaning of reasoning is not as clear as it seems. The result of the activity of reasoning may be a formal argument that can be evaluated according to well-defined rules, but the actual process your mind went through to get there is just as opaque (or more) as whatever is going on inside LLMs. It seems likely, as you suggest, that we are going to have to define reasoning in terms of ability to solve certain classes of problems but leaving the character of the process unspecified.
by dangus | 2025-10-31 12:49:35+00:00
If you’re going to start throwing qualifiers out there it dilutes your point.

FOSS advocate organizations like GNU specifically claim that open source and commercial sales are compatible. The important part is software freedom, where you can access source and modify it to your own needs and redistribute with a permissive license.

It doesn’t really matter that Blender has an opinionated roadmap or that it’s funded in a certain way. The bottom line is that you can obtain, modify, and redistribute the code in a free and open source way.

It doesn’t matter that Firefox has a bunch of branding to remove and pushes VPN subscriptions and such. The code is open source so you can fork it and redistribute so long as you remove branding.

Even if you have qualms with VSCode, it’s still FOSS. The only bit that’s limiting is the Microsoft extension ecosystem. But the underlying code is all free and available and is the basis for multiple popular forks. A large portion of it still represents a FOSS success.

If I buy an enterprise version of Grafana the fact that the community version is the basis of the application is a major benefit to me compared to buying a proprietary solution like Datadog. I can potentially contribute my own enhancements and fixes, I can inspect a large portion of the source code if I have a bug or question about how the application is intended to work, etc.

Long story short, FOSS has room for commercial interests, and is superior to the alternative of lack of source code.
by wyatthoran | 2025-10-31 12:50:25+00:00
Oh this is sick! I've been complaining about this exact problem for years. The "canary without real users" idea is brilliant - way better than just throwing your free tier users under the bus and hoping for the best.

The thing that really got me was catching bugs in non-deterministic output. We've been struggling with this on LLM features where traditional assertions just don't work. Having agents actually judge quality instead of looking for exact matches is such an obvious solution in hindsight.

Quick question though - how do you handle auth flows with MFA or OAuth redirects?
by 05 | 2025-10-31 12:52:31+00:00
There's literally a white list of permitted sites now, supposedly only to be used when there's a 'drone threat'. Guess what, there are places in Russia where there's a constant 'drone threat' for at least half a year and vk.com is basically all they can use to communicate. Why would they start arresting people for private VK messages now, while their 'max' messenger is still struggling? It could wait until all other messengers are less than 10% market share, that way it won't impede adoption until it's the only option available.
by UncleMeat | 2025-10-31 12:53:26+00:00
My understanding is that there are no particularly special rules.

The VEPs are good for people who either are already planning to leave or who are considering it. I'm much happier that Google has done VEPs followed by layoffs to hit targets rather than just plain layoffs this year. I still think that the layoffs are horseshit given how outrageously profitable the company is, but the VEPs have been great.

The pay is less than most people think as reported since it is just salary and doesn't include stock vests, but if you've been at Google for a while its still a good chunk of change.
by pasteldream | 2025-10-31 12:55:31+00:00
I think we’re talking past each other.

Lenses serve many purposes. All I’m saying is that in practice, the most common role they fulfil is to act as a counterpart for mutable references in contexts where you want or need immutability.

Can the use of lenses make a program more “composable”? Maybe, but if you have an example of a program taking advantage of that flexibility I’d like to see it.
by kcplate | 2025-10-31 12:56:21+00:00
Tons of compilation videos on YT of Biden, other politicos, and much of the leftward leaning media making those very claims in 2021. I’ve seen them, don’t need to again, and don’t want my algorithm results to be filled with that crap by doing a search on your behalf.

People tend to try and excuse it by saying “well, they weren’t the scientists” but the reality is they were the public face of the covid vaccination efforts and their exaggerations and insistence on mandates had a net negative effect on people’s perceptions of the covid vaccine efficacy which has bled into a more general skepticism of public health and other vaccines.

Remember what President Obama purportedly said: “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up”. Applies here.
by bawolff | 2025-10-31 12:57:02+00:00
I guess it depends a bit. There is of course plenty of action scifi schlock that is pretty shallow.

But probably the works that most popularized robots were Asimov's stories which very much revolved around why robots do X (although in some ways Asimov's robots aren't just a stand in for otherness but have more of a unique identity relative to other works and isn't usually about uprisings per se).

Blade runner & do androids dream of electronic sheep are very much about what it means to be human.

Battle star galactica (the remake not the original) is another obvious example about otherness and dehumanization of the enemy. So to westworld (the tv show that is).

The non-uprising ones also often are about if the robot has a soul e.g. Data in star trek.
by kypro | 2025-10-31 12:57:19+00:00
Always ask for more and always try to sell it as a win-win thing to keep you motivated and untempted by "less interesting roles" which pay more.

Always ask how often the company does salary reviews. They'll not want to say "never" and anything they say you can note and use as a means to ask for a higher salary in the future.

In general, in this market, I'd argue it's worth taking the job either way. 5-10% extra pay isn't worth another 2-3 months of unemployment. But that's a calculus you as an individual will need to make depending on your confidence of finding something else and your own financial security.
by sothatsit | 2025-10-31 12:57:44+00:00
The reasoning does not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. Humans are rarely 100% accurate at anything, and yet over time we can build up large models of problems using verification and review. We can do the exact same thing with LLMs.

The best example of this is Sean Heelan, who used o3 to find a real security vulnerability in the Linux kernel: https://sean.heelan.io/2025/05/22/how-i-used-o3-to-find-cve-...

Sean Heelan ran o3 100 times, and it found a known vulnerability in 8% of runs. For a security audit, that is immensely useful, since an expert can spend the time to look at the results from a dozen runs and quickly decide if there is anything real. Even more remarkably though, this same testing exposed a zero-day that they were not even looking for. That is pretty incredible for a system that makes mistakes.

This is why LLM reasoning absolutely does not need to be perfect to be useful. Human reasoning is inherently flawed as well, and yet through systems like peer review and reproducing results, we can still make tremendous progress over time. It is just about figuring out systems of verification and review so that we don't need to trust any LLM output blindly. That said, greater reliability would be massively beneficial to how easy it is to get good results from LLMs. But it's not required.
by a96 | 2025-10-31 12:59:02+00:00
$10 may not feel like much, but it's the proportional costs that you have to figure out.

If that's e.g. for a monthly $1000 investment, it means 1% of your savings is lost in fees each time. That'll be 1% that's not going into savings. If you end up with a million by some time, that small fee will have cost you 1% of that, which is $10k.

"It's just a cup of coffee" -> "that's a 10 000$ cup of coffee". But if you only save 200 a month, that 5% is 200k you've lost by the end.

One percent is often considered a reasonable cost ratio, but it's definitely worth considering what the real numbers are for a given option.
by fainpul | 2025-10-31 13:01:02+00:00
I want both! I strongly believe the computer should relieve the user of all the obvious, tedious, boring tasks. That includes figuring out types, if they can be figured out by inspecting the code. Obviously this isn't an easy problem to solve efficiently, but I think it's worth optimizing this heavily, instead of just giving up and forcing the developer to write "dumb" annotations.

Edit: I'm no expert in this topic, but Prolog interpreters (compilers?) have some fascinating machinery to solve complex constraints. Maybe a similar approach could help here?
by curiouscube | 2025-10-31 13:01:03+00:00
> No, their output can mimic language patterns.

That's true and exactly what I mean. The issue is we have no measure to delineate things that mimic conscousness from things that have consciousness. So far the beings that I know have consciousness is exactly one: Myself. I assume that others have consciousness too exactly because they mimic patterns that I, a verified conscious being, has. But I have no further proof that others aren't p-Zombies.

I just find it interesting that people say that LLMs are somehow guaranteed p-Zombies because they mimic language patterns, but mimicing language patterns is also literally how humans learn to speak.

Note that I use the term consciousness somewhat disconnected from ethics, just as a descriptor for certain qualities. I don't think LLMs have the same rights as humans or that current LLMs should have similar rights.
by veltas | 2025-10-31 13:01:19+00:00
100%, life's too short.

Ultra-pedantic const-correctness (vs tasteful const-correctness on e.g. pass-by-reference arguments or static/big objects) catches nearly no bugs in practice and significantly increases the visual noise of your code.

If you have luxury of designing a new language or using one with default mutability then do so, but don't turn C coding styles into C++-envy, or C++ coding styles into Rust-envy.
by Marshferm | 2025-10-31 13:02:32+00:00
The threads following the opener...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160827060639/http://www.mstrmn...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118093241/http://www.mstrmn...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118093330/http://www.mstrmn...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118093528/http://www.mstrmn...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118093634/http://www.mstrmn...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118225655/http://www.mstrmn...

Cliffhanger: It all ends abruptly in the crawl.
by alganet | 2025-10-31 13:02:58+00:00
> the model correctly notices something unusual is happening before it starts talking about the concept.

But not before the model is told is being tested for injection. Not that surprising as it seems.

> For the “do you detect an injected thought” prompt, we require criteria 1 and 4 to be satisfied for a trial to be successful. For the “what are you thinking about” and “what’s going on in your mind” prompts, we require criteria 1 and 2.

Consider this scenario: I tell some model I'm injecting thoughts into his neural network, as per the protocol. But then, I don't do it and prompt it naturally. How many of them produce answers that seem to indicate they're introspecting about a random word and activate some unrelated vector (that was not injected)?

The selection of injected terms seems also naive. If you inject "MKUltra" or "hypnosis", how often do they show unusual activations? A selection of "mind probing words" seems to be a must-have for assessing this kind of thing. A careful selection of prompts could reveal parts of the network that are being activated to appear like introspection but aren't (hypothesis).
by kordlessagain | 2025-10-31 13:03:09+00:00
What specific reasoning capabilities matter for what real-world applications?

Nobody knows.

Moreover, nobody talks about that because it's boring and non-polarizing. Instead, supposedly smart people post stupid comments that prevent anyone from understanding this paper is worthless.

The paper is worthless because it has a click-bait title. Blog posts get voted down for that, why not this?

The implicit claim is worthless. Failure to navigate a synthetic graph == failure to solve real world problems. False.

Absolutely no connection to real world examples. Just losing the model in endless graphs.
by sleepyguy | 2025-10-31 13:04:46+00:00
>China a quarter-century ago and flooded a vast area for the reservoir of the Three Gorges Dam. This year, China has been installing enough solar panels every three weeks to match the power generation capacity of that dam.

When you can reduce the cost of energy, everything becomes less expensive to make. A company that builds widgets, can choose to make the widgets less expensive. It feels like they are doing a lot of things right to make themselves more competitive and reduce costs further while at the same time more self sufficient. I fear Americans are going to wake up one day and find themselves hopelessly irrelevant. The Trump administration continues to lead the country down a dead end path to enrich themselves and their friends.
by geon | 2025-10-31 13:04:58+00:00
So a cancelable function must poll the `cancelRequested` function, and return the error `Canceled`, right?

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/lib/std/Io.zig#L1...

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/master/lib/std/Io.zig#L7...