MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by peterfirefly | 2025-10-05 20:57:35+00:00
> and a RISC core.

not actually a RISC core. µops are simpler than the externally visible instruction set but they are not RISC.

(There were early x86 implementations that really were an x86 decoder bolted onto a preexisting RISC design. They didn't really perform well.)

Turns out it's useful to have memory operands -- even read-modify-write operands -- in your µops. Turns out it's useful to have instructions that are wider than 32 bits. Turns out it's useful to have big literals, even if the immediate field has to be shared by a whole group of 3-4 µops (so only one of them can have a big literal). Flags are also not necessarily the problem RISC people said it was (and several RISCs actually do have flags despite the Computer Architecture 101 dogmas). Just having an reg+ofs address mode turns out to be a bad idea.

Indirect addressing à la PDP-11, VAX, and 68K (and many long forgotten architectures) turned out not to be a good idea, of course.
by Levitz | 2025-10-05 20:57:44+00:00
>Not sure how it’s rational if you don’t extend the same distaste to our authoritarian government. Concentration camps, genocide, suppressing free speech, suspending due process.

It can be perfectly rational since extending the same distaste towards the US government allows you to see that any of those things you listed is worse by orders of magnitude in China. To pretend otherwise is just whitewashing China.
by porcoda | 2025-10-05 20:58:13+00:00
Sadly, based on the responses I don’t think many people have read the report. Just read how the essay discusses “exfiltration” for example, and then look at the 3 places that shows up in the NIST report. The content of the report and the portrayal by the essay are not the same. Alas, our truncated attention spans these days appears to mean a clickbaity web page will win the eye share over a 70 page technical report.
by Xenoamorphous | 2025-10-05 20:58:16+00:00
Genuine question as someone not from the US, who’s the average new Tesla owner these days?

Electric cars were seen as a leftist thing a few years back. If (again, as a non American) you asked me what the average car of a right wing American was, I’d say a ginormous pick up truck with a V8 ICE engine or something like that. Did that kind of person really start buying Teslas due to Musk’s close ties with the current US administration? I can’t see that. I also can’t see leftist American people buying Teslas due to environmental reasons alone despite of Musk either. So who’s buying those cars?

Purely anecdotical but I know at least one person who was going to buy a Tesla and he didn’t do it purely because of Musk. Also, the only time I got inside a Tesla was in a Cabify that took me to the airport (model 3), smooth ride but the interior was that of a cheap car from 10 years ago.
by rsolva | 2025-10-05 20:58:28+00:00
From what I can gather, the institutional shareholders that has signed this letter controls about 1-2% of the Tesla shares (roughly). Add the Norwegian Oil Fund to the mix, which will likely vote similarly and has roughly the same voting power, and we are up to 2-4%. That seems quite small.

I guess they publish this in advance in an effort to persuade other shareholders to vote similarly?
by ONLYHAAPY | 2025-10-05 20:58:40+00:00
Since sex is with humans, there's no way to scam them with material things. Since sex is human, the fraudulent LGBTT human existence is to SCAM sex with the same body.

VAGINA FRAUD IS THE ASS, AND HUMAN PENIS FRAUD IS THE PLASTIC PENIS:

Ultimate goal: SEX FRAUD.
by milch | 2025-10-05 20:59:24+00:00
I swapped out a "proper" parser for a regex parser for one particular thing we have at work that was too slow with the original parser. The format it is parsing is very simple, one top level tag, no nested keys, no comments, no attributes, or any other of the weird things you can do in XML. We needed to get the value of one particular tag in a potentially huge file. As far as I can tell this format has been unchanged for the past 25 years ... It took me 10 minutes to write the regex parser, and it sped up the execution by 10-100x. If the format changes unannounced tomorrow and it breaks this, we'll deal with it - until then, YAGNI
by rainsford | 2025-10-05 20:59:34+00:00
Yeah this blog post seems pretty misleading. The first couple of paragraphs of the post made a big deal that the NIST report contained "...no evidence of malicious code, backdoors, or data exfiltration" in the model, which is irrelevant because that wasn't a claim NIST actually made in the report. But if all you read was the blog post, you'd be convinced NIST was claiming the presence of backdoors without any evidence.
by hnlmorg | 2025-10-05 21:00:44+00:00
Developers make contradictory productivity claims all the time. You see it with LLMs, strongly vs weakly typed languages, GC vs non-GC, React Native vs Kotin / Swift, JIT languages vs AOT languages, and so on and so forth.

Back in the 80s and 90s the bigger concern was portability and cost of the compiler license, both of which C did better.

C was closer to the metal than vanilla Pascal too. But commercial Pascal dialects supported pointers, inlined assembly, and everything else you needed to write low-level systems code. Which again comes back to C offering better portability and cheaper licenses.
by darkteflon | 2025-10-05 21:00:48+00:00
I’ve not heard of garage before but it looks quite interesting. I use s3 a lot for work but for homelab backups I’ve always just used borg on borgbase. Now I’m wondering whether I could use garage to pair a local node and AWS glacier for cheap redundancy of a large media library (I’m assuming that ~all of the reading is automatically done from the local node). TFA doesn’t really talk much about the actual experience of using garage - would love to hear more opinions from those who use it for self-hosting.

Edit: Realised you can’t use glacier since storage has to be mounted to the ec2 compute running the garage binary as a filesystem. So doesn’t really make sense as media library backup over just scheduling a periodic borg / restic backup to glacier directly.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-10-05 21:01:02+00:00
Yes. And do we know what this leads to in history? Conflicts, violent uprising, coups, and wars. At some point, the population reaches a breaking point and outs the oppressors. This happening as recent as last month, so 2025 isn't any different from 1525.

The tool itself doesn't matter, but the people are falling into the same cycle once again. I can see LLM's used ethically and carefully managed to assist the populace. That's clearly not what's happening and is the entire reason I'm against them. It's tiring being dismissed as a luddite just because I don't want big tech to yet again recklessly ransack the populace with no oversight.
by rsyring | 2025-10-05 21:01:07+00:00
If you know you will use it often, uv has `uv tool install ...`. So, after the first `uv tool install ut` you can just run `ut md5 ...` or whatever. Don't need to keep using uvx.

uv also has a couple commands I throw in a systemd unit[1] to keep these tools updated:

uv self update uv tool upgrade --all

1: https://github.com/level12/coppy/blob/main/systemd/mise-uv-u...
by 827a | 2025-10-05 21:01:32+00:00
While I may only own a small part of Tesla, as a customer of their's, I want nothing more than the company to get rid of Elon and just become a normal, better car company. While they yell about driverless cabs and robots that can serve popcorn to you, none of the music apps have gapless playback. There's multiple stretches of 100+ miles of highway around me that have no supercharging capability, and dozens upon dozens of major population centers that need to travel 150+ miles to get to a service center. You can get the Model Y in any color you want, as long as the color you want is one of the five colors it's always been available in. These and more are all real problems that they could improve to be a better car company; but they're obsessed with constantly leapfrogging themselves and throwing away every customer they've ever won, because now they're an energy company, wait no, they're a robotics company...

I've stopped recommending Tesla to people, despite driving one. The company is way too unpredictable and unstable.
by Johnny555 | 2025-10-05 21:01:53+00:00
By default, Amazon S3 stores data across at least separate datacenters that are in the same region, but are physically separate from each other:

Amazon S3 provides a highly durable storage infrastructure designed for mission-critical and primary data storage. S3 Standard, S3 Intelligent-Tiering, S3 Standard-IA, S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval, S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, and S3 Glacier Deep Archive redundantly store objects on multiple devices across a minimum of three Availability Zones in an AWS Region. An Availability Zone is one or more discrete data centers with redundant power, networking, and connectivity in an AWS Region. Availability Zones are physically separated by a meaningful distance, many kilometers, from any other Availability Zone, although all are within 100 km (60 miles) of each other.

You can save a little money by giving up that redundancy and having your data i a single AZ:

The S3 One Zone-IA storage class stores data redundantly across multiple devices within a single Availability Zone

For further redundancy you can set up replication to another region, but if I needed that level of redundancy, I'd probably store another copy of data with a different cloud provider so an AWS global failure (or more likely, a billing issue) doesn't leave my data trapped in one vendor).

I believe Google and Azure have similar levels of redundancy levels in their cloud storage.
by themafia | 2025-10-05 21:01:54+00:00
Too slow to allow batched backups. Which means you should just make redundant copies at the time of the initial save. Encrypt a copy and send it offsite immediately.

If your storage performance is low then you don't need fat pipes to your external provider either.

They either built this too quickly or there was too much industry corruption perverting the process and the government bought an off the shelf solution that was inadequate for their actual needs.
by manquer | 2025-10-05 21:02:08+00:00
The problem is money,

you are seeing the local storage decision under the lens of security, that is not the real reason for this type of decision.

While it may have been sold that way, reality is more likely the local DC companies just lobbied for it to be kept local and cut as many corners as they needed. Both the fire and architecture show they did cut deeply.

Now why would a local company voluntary cut down its share of the pie by suggesting to backup store in a foreign country. They are going to suggest keep in country or worse as was done here literally the same facility and save/make even more !

The civil service would also prefer everything local either for nationalistic /economic reasons or if corrupt then for all kick backs each step of the way, first for the contract, next for the building permits, utilities and so on.
by zaphar | 2025-10-05 21:02:29+00:00
I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them.

Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules.

This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules.

If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.
by doctor_blood | 2025-10-05 21:02:56+00:00
I was trying to buy a copy of the Iliad and found that they combined the reviews of EVERY TRANSLATION AND EVERY EDITION - I found people talking about 30+ versions on the same listing!

Reviews for Fagles's Iliad were combined with Pope's Iliad and Lattimore's Iliad and so on and so forth.

Navigation is also borked for books with many different versions - if you play around with the 'hardback', 'paperback', 'audiobook' buttons at the top of the page you'll find there's no consistency about what edition they lead you to.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-10-05 21:03:37+00:00
> Look at the construction industry. Many buildings on this planet were built hundreds, sometimes a thousand or more years ago. They still stand today as the quality of their build quality was excellent.

True. And yet, far more buildings built then are not standing. We just don't notice them, because they aren't still here for us to notice.

So don't think that things were built better then. A few were; most weren't.
by monkeyelite | 2025-10-05 21:03:52+00:00
No it’s really not that nuanced. Society should ban things that are obvious traps and cause massive costs to society.

Banning gambling doesn’t mean hunting down gamblers, it means stopping them from being in the App Store listings and showings ads in TV.

If you want to find sketchy websites on your own after that - that’s your freedom.

Having 20 year old men bombarded with gambling media is not freedom.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-05 21:03:59+00:00
If the iterator abstracts the iteration away, it should also abstract over the modification.

> Like you cause any other simple bug.

Yes, but we don't forbid modifying other things, just because you could modify them by accident, because you want to modify them some of the time. Why does a[i] = ... needs to be prevented, but a = ... is fine?
by th0ma5 | 2025-10-05 21:04:13+00:00
The fact that adding in information to support a query at inference time has no guarantee to be limited by that information. Besides my 15 years of natural language processing experience, my first hand experience is non deterministic output using that technique because the math simply requires it to be. I know we only trade in anecdotes because the studies, perhaps considered more rigorous collections of anecdotes, like the BBC studies on summaries show that they cannot summarize only synthesize, so... I guess I mean to say that while I can't rule it out that some day it may be possible, or even that it works for some people in some contexts most of the time, there is no study to point to that shows anything resembling a "solution." Perhaps you meant something like "there is a prevailing technique" not that it is a solved problem.
by lisbbb | 2025-10-05 21:04:32+00:00
That's interesting. When SO came out, I was a big contributor, all in on getting the karma points and whatnots. Eventually, I realized I was being bullied by a bunch of Europeans who had never actually worked a real job in their entire lives and were, for lack of a better term, "software enthusiasts." Invariably, I would answer something based on actual experience only to get downvoted because some idiot hobbyist thought it was incorrect. The thing about this biz is that there are things that are blatantly incorrect for sure, but all correctness is some shade of gray, highly dependent on particular situations. People who lack experience have no sense of any of that, though.

A second major issue with SO is that answers decay over time. So a good answer back in 2014 is a junk answer today. Thus, I would get drive by downvotes on years old discussions, which is simply irritating.

So I quit SO and never bothered to answer another single question ever again.

SO has suffered from enshitification, and though I despise that term, it does sort of capture how sites like SO went from excellent resources into cesspools of filth and fools.

That LLMs are trained on that garbage is amusing.
by chongli | 2025-10-05 21:04:49+00:00
I'm actually not an American and I don't reject the proposal outright. I think the pragmatic approach is still best though: study polisci if you are actually serious about going into politics (or at least policy). But if you don't know what you want to do with your life then it's not a great idea to go into the humanities and hope for the best (while racking up a lot of debt).
by hentrep | 2025-10-05 21:06:08+00:00
Long time BirdNET fan, but I used the Merlin app for the first time yesterday and found it much more useful [0] It’ll display multiple bird species at the same time, and highlight which song belongs to which species in real-time. Recommend giving it a shot if you haven’t!

[0] https://merlin.allaboutbirds.org/
by cialowicz | 2025-10-05 21:06:16+00:00
Not the author, but I'm a VP of Eng, and one of my sub-orgs is QA. Here's my take...

Aside from writing end-to-end test automation, the best SDETs add value in many other ways. They triage bugs, use their deep product understanding (frequently the best on the team) to refine requirements and build test plans, coordinate bug-bashes and large scale releases, measure and report on quality metrics, and much more. All of this takes considerable load off other members of the team (SWEs, PMs, EMs, etc), allows the whole group to ship with much higher confidence, and increases the number of defects caught before making it to production.

If you have an organization where end-to-end tests are easy to write and very quick to execute, then I think the need for QA folks is greatly reduced. In my experience, once there's enough complexity and scale to a product, it's basically impossible to have a rapid TDD loop with enough end-to-end coverage that allows devs to ship features with perfect confidence. Combine that with all the other "hats" QA folks wear, and I think it's is a role that pays dividends in product quality and the efficiency of others across the org.
by johnfn | 2025-10-05 21:06:52+00:00
I’m not sure exactly how you mean it, but a lot of the discourse around political violence itself fits in the Overton window of acceptable discourse, so this doesn’t surprise me too much.

But I find statements outside of the Overton window to be punished quite severely, and I think most people now understand that you can very easily lose your job for stating the incorrect thing.
by alephnerd | 2025-10-05 21:07:13+00:00
They are overwhelmingly whitelabeled providers. For example, Samsung SDI Cloud (the largest "Korean" cloud) is an AWS white label.

Korea is great at a lot of engineering disciplines. Sadly, software is not one of them, though it's slowly changing. There was a similar issue a couple years ago where the government's internal intranet was down a couple days because someone deployed a switch in front of outbound connections without anyone noticing.

It's not a talent problem but a management problem - similar to Japan's issues, which is unsurprising as Korean institutions and organizations are heavily based on Japanese ones from back in the JETRO era.
by thrance | 2025-10-05 21:07:31+00:00
One could also use your reasoning to claim that no statements can ever be made about the impact of economic policies, because once they're in place, we can't compare with a world where they wouldn't have been adopted.

Best we can do is keep a set of statistics and try to correct for multivariate bias. Doesn't mean we're navigating all of this completely blind.
by hajile | 2025-10-05 21:08:13+00:00
I don't know how this has anything to do with what I said.

The original intent of uops in x86 was to break more complex instructions down into more simple instructions so the main pipeline wasn't super-variable.

If you look at new designs like M-series (or even x86 designs), they try very hard to ensure each instruction/uop retires in a uniform number of cycles (I've read[0] that even some division is done in just two cycles) to keep the pipeline busy and reduce the amount of timings that have to be tracked through the system. There are certainly instructions that take multiple cycles, but those are going to take the longer secondary pipelines and if there is a hard dependency, they will cause bubbles and stalls.
Ask HN: iPhone 17 buggy for anyone else?
by escot | 2025-10-05 21:08:29+00:00
From slow responses to taps,janky UI artifacts, weird animations that dont quite match up. Tapping on a photo in messages has an obvious half second delay before it opens.

I upgraded from an old XS and this doesnt feel any snappier.

Possibly its just bugs in the new OS that need to be ironed out?
by toomim | 2025-10-05 21:08:38+00:00
That's using ancient data from... 1948:

> We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018.

The last 8 years of politics have been very very abnormal. And in today's data, the "very liberal" approve of political violence at a rate of 24% vs. 3% for the "very conservative":

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir...

This ^^^ is the troubling statistic, and there's a 7x difference between the left and the right.
by ACCount37 | 2025-10-05 21:08:39+00:00
That depends on peer quality. And it's why so much of education outcomes depends on peer quality.

It's also why there's a considerable opposition to tracking.

If you evaluate academic ability, inevitably, the students who want to learn things are going to be closer to the top, and the ones who don't want to learn things are going to be closer to the bottom.

Now, group students up by ability aggressively: the "top end classes" are going to devour the school program - while the "bottom end classes" would devolve into a pandemonium.

Naturally, the parents of the bottom end students would want there to be zero tracking, so that the average "peer quality" pulls their children up, and the parents of the top end students want there to be the most aggressive tracking possible, so that the average "peer quality" doesn't drag their children down.

A big part of what the rich parents pay for when they send their kids into those expensive private schools is access to better "peer quality". "If a kid's parents are rich" isn't a perfect proxy for "if the kid wants to be learning things", but it outperforms the average. And if a private school is actually willing to expel the most disruptive students, then it's going to tip the scales even further.
by opan | 2025-10-05 21:08:49+00:00
IIRC this was made to solve a licensing issue with busybox (toybox being more permissive) and be included with Android. As a fan of copyleft, initially the idea annoyed me, but I eventually came to the conclusion that if it was the only way to include better tools in a particular OS out of the box, it was probably fine.

I recall busybox being often used for gpl enforcement, so I wonder now how widespread toybox is by various companies hoping to avoid that. Do modern Smart TVs and such use it?
by its_down_again | 2025-10-05 21:08:57+00:00
There’s no point comparing apples to deep fried oreos for caloric density. The 919 Evo is a fully de-restricted prototype based off a legendary homologated race car, not remotely in the same category. The BYD U9 is a road-legal EV, comparing the two doesn’t mean much.

Funny you mention the Ford SuperVan because that’s much closer to the 919 Evo in the "no homologation no limits" category than anything you could register and drive off a lot. A fairer and much more impressive benchmark is the road-legal Ford Mustang GTD running a 6:52. That's still far quicker than the BYD, with roughly two thousand less horsepower.
by Nevermark | 2025-10-05 21:08:58+00:00
> A new platform developed at MIT, named Copilot for Real-world Experimental Scientists (CRESt) is designed to work more like a true research partner.

"Copilot"? I get the convenient meaning of this word, as just a word. But as a name that has been overloaded to the point of meaninglessness by a major corporation, perhaps it should be studiously avoided in all other naming schemes.