MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Foxboron | 2025-11-12 12:35:58+00:00
> Side note: What is that massive yellow CYBER sticker that seems to be on 80% of them? Feel like I’ve missed some kind of political movement.

I'm a little bit unsure about the origins of the sticker. But in the european hacker community the "CYBER" sticker is used for a bunch of things. Package tape, stickers and security lines.

There is one webshop selling them: https://cyber.equipment/
by Amadiro | 2025-11-12 12:36:22+00:00
That's a quite different thing, OpenAI has billions of USD/year cash flow, and when you have that there's many many potential way to achieve profitability on different time horizons. It's not a situation of chance but a situation of choice.

Anyway, how much that matters for an investor is hard to form a clear answer to - investors are after all not directly looking for profitability as such, but for valuation growth. The two are linked but not the same -- any investor in OpenAI today probably also places themselves into a game of chance, betting on OpenAI making more breakthroughs and increasing the cash flow even more -- not just becoming profitable at the same rate of cash flow. So there's still some of the same risk baked into this investment.

But with a new startup like LeCun's is going to be, it's 100% on the risk side and 0% on the optionality side. The path to profitability for a startup would be something like 1) a breakthrough is made 2) that breakthrough is utilized in a way that generates cash flow 3) the company becomes profitable (and at this point hopefully the valuation is good.)

There's a lot of things that can go wrong at every step here (aside from the obvious), including e.g. making a breakthrough that doesn't represent a defensible mote for your startup, failing to build the structure of the business necessary to generate cashflow, ... OpenAI et al already have a lot of that behind them, and while that doesn't mean that they don't face upcoming risks and challenges, the huge amount of cashflow they have available helps them overcome these issues far more easily than a startup, which will stop solving problems if you stop feeding money into it.
by jt2190 | 2025-11-12 12:38:45+00:00
> Damages are not specified in the complaint, which accused the Lighthouse enterprise of committing wire fraud and violating the [U.S.] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Lanham Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, among other allegations.

I guess this is a first step toward some larger legal goal? It’s not even clear if “Lighthouse” is the name of an overseas company or just the name of the service.
by randomtoast | 2025-11-12 12:40:11+00:00
The problem is that they can repeat this game indefinitely, Chat Control 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 231.24, ... Just slightly modify the initial Chat Control proposal, make it sound less harsh, and then resubmit it until they achieve a sufficient majority in the EU Parliament, while the general public gets too tired of the topic to create sufficient resistance.
by dathinab | 2025-11-12 12:41:16+00:00
It _really_ isn't absurd.

The law doesn't care what technical trickery you use to encode/compress copyrighted material. If you take data and then create a equation which contains it based on it it which can reproduce the data trivially then yes, IMHO obviously, this form of embedding copyrighted data still is embedding copyrighted data.

Think about it if that weren't the case I could just transform a video into an equation system and then distribute the latest movies, books, whatever to everyone without permission and without violating copy right even through de-facto I'm doing exactly what copy right law is supposed to prevent... (1)

Just because you come up with a clever technical trick to encode copyrighted content doesn't mean you can launder/circumvent copyright law, or any law at that. Law mostly doesn't care about technical tricks but the outcomes.

Maybe even more importantly LLMs under hood the are basically at the core compression systems where by not giving them enough entropy to store information you force to generalize and with that happen to create a illusion of sentience.

E.g. what is the simplest case of training a transformer? You put in data to create the transformer state (which has much smaller entropy) and then output it from that state and then you find a "transformation" where this works as well as possible for a huge amount of different data. That is a compression algorithm!!! And sure in reality it's more complex you don't train to compress a specific input but more like a dictionary of "expected" input->output mappings where the output parts need to be fully embedded i.e. memorized in the algorithm in some form.

LLMs are basically obscure multi layered hyper dimensional lossy compression systems which compress a simple input->output mapping (i.e. database) defined by all entries in it's training data. A compressed mapping Which due to forcing a limited entropy needs to do compression through generalization....

And since when is compression allowing you to avoid copyright??

So if you want it to be handled differently by law because it's isn't used as a compressed database you have to special case it in law.

But it is used as a compressed database, in that case e.g. it was used to look up lyrics based on some clues. That's basically a lookup in a lossy compressed obscure database system no matter how you would normally think about LLMs.

(1): And in case it's not clear this doesn't mean every RNG is a violation because under some unknown seed it probably would reproduce copyrighted content. Because the RNG wasn't written "based on" the copy righted content.
by pjmlp | 2025-11-12 12:41:58+00:00
Here, https://www.withsecure.com/pt/solutions/innovative-security-...

Firmware is written in TamaGo.

PTC and Aicas JVMs and AOT compilers are proper Java, there is nothing on the standard regarding what kind of GC or real time constraints are required.

Additionally, real time Java is an industry standard.
by mmkos | 2025-11-12 12:42:13+00:00
I get this. I couldn't grind leetcode before the LLM AI era, now even more so. It always made me feel like I'm doing a junior's work.

I guess it comes down to the kinda work you want to be doing. I myself love building products and product features and I've never really needed any leetcode knowledge for that (I don't work on products with a massive user base). I suppose if I had a problem that required a specialised algo, I'd just consult a few AI tools.

Good luck finding that motivation though.
by ralferoo | 2025-11-12 12:42:21+00:00
Seems weird. The fact it talks about rolls of film and reading DX codes suggests that it's able to scan undeveloped film. Maybe that's possible, but I've never heard of that before.

If it only scans developed film, then it's unlikely to still be in the cannister with DX codes, and I've never seen that film delivered to a customer in a roll - it's normally cut up into strips so they can be stored flat.
by stego-tech | 2025-11-12 12:42:47+00:00
Absolutely shameful that this project - and many, many others that underpin trillion-dollar tech company valuations - aren’t fully funded already by the major consumers.

I’d like to see more projects do a breakdown of total yearly costs (including contributor compensation!), how much existing sponsorships from companies actually cover, and what number they’d need to operate properly (with full-time, paid contributors).
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-11-12 12:42:56+00:00
I mean - yes, that is what you're paying for. Bananas, like all products, are engineered.

There was the original domestication, and then there's the modern industrial process of plantation management, picking, shipping, and distribution.

All of which has to be invented, implemented, and organised.

You can - and probably should - question the ethics of same.

But that doesn't change the fact that most places that want bananas do not have have bananas, and making bananas happen in non-banana locations is a very complex process.

Good ideas and organisational ability don't grow on trees.
by simonw | 2025-11-12 12:44:04+00:00
The George Carlin thing was fake - it wasn't written by AI: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/arts/carlin-lawsuit-ai-po...

> Danielle Del, a spokeswoman for Sasso, said Dudesy is not actually an A.I.

> “It’s a fictional podcast character created by two human beings, Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen,” Del wrote in an email. “The YouTube video ‘I’m Glad I’m Dead’ was completely written by Chad Kultgen.”
by wiseowise | 2025-11-12 12:44:06+00:00
Pffft, and good riddance, comrade! Just think about native application and native performance, great native animations and native experience (and native ads, of course)! We won't have this god-awful Web (that propelled modern tech world in the first place) anymore, we can finally have personal vendetta against awful JS and DOM. No more interoperability, no more leverage against corpos, just glorious proprietary enclaves where local tyrant can do anything they want!
by fwn | 2025-11-12 12:44:26+00:00
> Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's good.

This is true, although it is a good start, right? If a cultural practice has survived for many generations, this alone already indicates that the practice might be compatible with human society, morals, sustainability, etc.

> We also shouldn't confuse self-mutilation with healthy activities like exercising simply because both "shape one's own body".

True! We should indeed not confuse self-mutilation with healthy activities just because they share some similarities.

But would you classify scars or tattoos motivated by aesthetics as self-mutilation? What about piercings, such as holes for earrings or laser hair removal?

I believe that is an interesting and unusual position. Do you have an argument in favor of your (so far implicit) take?
by theshrike79 | 2025-11-12 12:45:27+00:00
> * Culturally, it feels like .NET devs are less "passionate" about their work

Only in the "stove pipe industry" as we say here. Mobile gaming is massively C#-based for example and the people are really passionate about what they do.

And for a backend dev, the scale of stuff you get to work with is cool.
by LandR | 2025-11-12 12:46:05+00:00
> Apropos, what do they do for fun?

Odd question, but as a .NET developer myself

Mountaineering, climbing, bouldering, going to gigs, playing pool, running, music festivals, gaming, photography, watching F1, watching NBA, eating out with friends...

I'm not sure what the point of the question was ?
by parliament32 | 2025-11-12 12:46:43+00:00
I think the key problem is that a large number of startups are shipping software in containers, and dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization. It's like the old school Java JVM model. You have to ship a copy of the runtime with every container, and if you're doing proper microservices it's an awful lot of overhead.

Yes I'm aware MS makes it easy to build containers and even single executables, but languages that compile down to an ELF are pretty much a requirement once your deployments are over the 10k containers mark.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-11-12 12:47:07+00:00
I think that question is more "how many different makes of van can your delivery company afford to maintain?"

Which is an analogy for "how many different programming languages for the same task of serving a web api can you company afford to support?"

The majority of programming languages (c# definitely included!) are "general purpose", i.e. they can be used well enough for almost all tasks. They're not so different as a truck vs. a bicycle.

The issue is not so much "we need firmware in Rust and statistical analysis in R" - that's fair! The issue is more, as others have said, web apps or similar in multiple equivalent languages. This is an overhead. If you take on that overhead, recognise that 1) it has definite drawbacks and 2) for mundane tasks, the advantages aren't large. and 3) chances are your organisation is like most orgs - you don't do all of firmware, statistical analysis and web apps, in house.
by ExoticPearTree | 2025-11-12 12:47:44+00:00
> The problem is, the US sea power is being dwarfed by China rapidly, who have now surpassed the size of the US Navy and are quickly going to be even larger.

The thing is that size matters in wars of attrition, but experience almost always wins.

China's problem is that they lack the experience the US Navy gained over decades of pretty much non-stop war even if they did not go up any significant adversary since the Vietnam war.
by fainpul | 2025-11-12 12:47:54+00:00
I wanted to brush up on my mostly forgotten high school math and found a free online course which used this ALEKS [1] tool. It was perfect for my situation.

It was some course on edx [2]. Can't find it right now, but you might find another course which uses it.

[1] https://www.aleks.com

[2] https://www.edx.org
by zigzag312 | 2025-11-12 12:48:02+00:00
> But no one who opts for canvas turns around and remembers to do their landmarks.

Not completely true. Flutter has been adding some accessibility for web canvas target. [1]

I think Avalonia is in in the make it work phase. Accessibility will probably be added in the make it right phase.

[1] https://docs.flutter.dev/ui/accessibility/web-accessibility
by Defletter | 2025-11-12 12:48:27+00:00
> Your real middle class refuses to show any but the most bland books and magazines on its coffee tables: otherwise, expressions of opinion, awkward questions, or even ideas might result. -Paul Fussell, Class

The greyification of our lives, the loss of whimsy and kitsch and being too afraid to be a little cringe, I get the sense that a lot of people associate "growing up" as the loss of any and all expression: we wake up in our grey beds in our millennial grey house, drive to work in our grey car to work in our grey cubical, etc, etc. If you want a gauche laptop covered in stickers, do it, embrace the gauche. Everyone sneering at you is more miserable than you.
by AlexandrB | 2025-11-12 12:48:45+00:00
> The concept of owning is, rightfully, changing. We are a lot of people who use this planet, and the purist view of ownership simply does not make sense.

This is a bizarre statement. On the one hand, property rights are considered a fundamental human right, and for good reason. And on the other, digital goods don't take up space - no matter how many copies exist. What bearing does the number of people on the planet have in light of this?

All I see is excuses for exploitation by our corporate overlords.
by UncleMeat | 2025-11-12 12:48:58+00:00
The bay area is a bit unique though in that the physical space you occupy is covered in signifiers of tech. Virtually every billboard on the 101 and virtually every ad at SFO and San Jose Airport are some AI thing now. As you drive around you see waymos and corporate busses constantly. It is difficult to avoid tech campuses. Housing stock disproportionately targets high paying single people. When you ride the caltrain it is impossible not to overhear people talking about software engineering.

Yes, you can find community among non-tech people. The bay area is large and there are plenty of other people doing other things. SF is filled with cultural spaces. But my experience of the south bay is pretty dire if you want to escape the gaze of tech.
by gjsman-1000 | 2025-11-12 12:48:58+00:00
It isn’t.

It’s that when you have legal agreements with guilds and unions, even produced promotional material can be considered a production requiring minimum staff (I.e. makeup, camera technician, etc.) On productions, any person wearing multiple hats is tightly controlled.

A cartoon I watched growing up ran into this when they needed to insert live action, so they deliberately recorded at 1 FPS for that episode to make it ineligible for budget reasons (https://phineasandferb.fandom.com/wiki/Tri-Stone_Area).

If you’re ever wondering why a company can’t do something simple and obvious, it’s probably due to a legal agreement.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-11-12 12:49:10+00:00
> Many common [x86] instructions translate to single "RISCy" instruction for the internal microarchitecture

And then there are read-modify-write instructions, which on modern CPUs need two address-generation μops in addition to the load one, the store one, and the ALU one. So the underlying load-store architecture is very visible.

There’s also the part where we’ve trained ourselves out of using the more CISCy parts of x86 like ENTER, BOUND, or even LOOP, because they’ve been slow for ages, and thus they stay slow.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-11-12 12:49:36+00:00
> Just don't let every dev choose their own because you're gonna have a hell of a time maintaining that fleet.

Yes, this.

> I'm saying use one tool for one task.

I saw an article ages ago arguing that the number of supported languages should scale with the size of the organisation. Which makes sense to me. The threshold was larger than we might expect though, it was something large like "one fully supported language per 500 devs". In other words, small-medium orgs will have a better time supporting 1 language only.
by isp | 2025-11-12 12:49:57+00:00
The Casio CMD-40

https://old.reddit.com/r/casio/comments/15n9anq/did_we_all_f...

I am wearing one right now - it has been my daily driver for literally decades

(While it has VCR controls built-in, it can "learn" infrared frequencies for "new" inventions like DVD players - copying from an existing IR remote control. Surprisingly, still compatible with modern TVs - at least for basic functions like volume control.)

It was once "futuristic"; collectors now sell them as "retro" and "vintage"
by VonTum | 2025-11-12 12:51:02+00:00
Software Transactional Memory is an interesting idea. I looked into it with much interest as I hadn't heard of it before.

Sadly, the simplicity benefits it touts over Mutexes simply don't pan out. You still have to have some structure around your critical section, it forces you to still contend with partially-updated intermediate values, which mutexes spare you from.

Likewise, the composition issue isn't more solved with STM than with Mutexes. Implementations that wish to support re-entrant transactions still have overhead over those that don't, similar to the overhead a reentrant_mutex has over a regular mutex.

My favourite solution to the many-reader few-writer scenario is the rarely-supported "Upgradeable Shared Mutex". Like parking_lot's RwLock (https://docs.rs/lock_api/0.4.14/lock_api/struct.RwLock.html#...)

With an Upgradeable Shared Mutex one can take a simple shared read lock, an exclusive write lock, or an upgradeble read lock. The upgradeable read lock can then - without unlocking - be upgraded to an exclusive lock once you've prepared the writes you wish to do, keeping the exclusive section as short as possible. To avoid deadlock, the upgradeable read lock can exist concurrently with simple read locks, but not other upgradeable locks.
by jcattle | 2025-11-12 12:51:27+00:00
If Congress tells the Executive: "Here's some money, spend it on USAID to stabilize regions in which the US Army operates and are of strategic importance". And the Executive says, "thanks for the money! I will spend it on whatever the hell I choose." And congress just belly flops over the next time they pass a budget, without checking that overreach of power, the Executive looks more and more like a king.

You voted for congress, but apparently congress doesn't matter anymore.
by leejo | 2025-11-12 12:51:31+00:00
> Thats a good question. I wonder if the "virtual drum" was there to get over film holding issues (as in it physically bends the film) or that its a line scanner

Both.

> personally I think that technology has come on enough to move on from the imacon/hasselblad: https://emulsive.org/articles/opinion/scanning-film-the-20k-...

It's not - the issue that still remains is keeping the film flat, and this is especially problematic with smaller formats. With current solutions you can get the resolution but not the flatness, or you sacrifice something to get the flatness (e.g. ANR glass holders). It's the old glass vs glassless carrier debate, applied to a modern workflow.

I repeat myself: focus, DPI / resolution, dynamic range - these are the solved problems. In fact, modern medium format digital cameras are superior on all these factor. Keeping the film flat, however? Only drum scans and the Imacon "Flextight" solution do this well.

Of course, it depends on what you plan to do with the scans and for 99% of people the solution in the link above is more than good enough.

I've written about this previously https://leejo.github.io/tags/scanning/ # I'm going to add the fourth, and hopefully final, part in a couple of months time.
by crazygringo | 2025-11-12 12:51:47+00:00
This is obviously not plausible. They're never going to shut off browser access on people's laptops. Watching YT at work is a major thing.

I have to assume you're joking, but I honestly can't figure out what point you're even trying to make. Do it think it's surprising that an ad-supported site has anti-scraping/anti-downloading mechanisms? YouTube isn't a charity, it's not Wikipedia.
by bonesss | 2025-11-12 12:51:56+00:00
C# has incomplete and often compromised versions of the constructs F# mostly took from OCaml, and as you extend those exhaustive guarantees towards formal verification you bump into F*.

C#s adoption of language features shows their utility but they’re not a replacement, per se. Without a clear functional answer in certain language and parallel computing scenarios MS would be ignored. Scala and Kotlin are comparable answers to comparable pressures on the JVM, and even keeping pace there with new and exciting tools/libraries requires some proper functional representation on the .Net platform.

F# will disappear when/if those other languages do, and already has lots of what C# is chasing with a more elegant syntax. It inherits VM and project improvements from C#, so the biggest threat to long term investment is something like the crippling changes made to FSharp Interactive (FSI), during the .Net Core transition. Otherwise it seems to be in a safe place for the foreseeable future.
by SansGuidon | 2025-11-12 12:52:14+00:00
I still need to go back working on https://www.cinekids.info/ , a tool I made for myself to use before showing any movie to my 4 years old kiddo. It scrapes reviews from some parent friendly movie reviews websites and aggregates them.

I'm also automating more stuff around bookmarks management -> I used to manage an awesome list as a repository on GitHub for myself and over a couple of years there are relatively many stars on this repository. However I lost interest in maintaining this repo manually as I prefer to save my bookmarks on Shaarli. I'm coding a CLI tool to automate the work of syncing my shaarli links to my public "popular" (+500 stars) repo at https://github.com/SansGuidon/bookmarks

Myself and other users complain a lot about the "native" Plex -> Ombi watchlist integration being broken, I coded some sync tool to workaround the app malfunctions, by using Ombi, Plex and TMDB (The Movie Database) APIs and ensure Ombi is always up-to-date based on Plex watchlist. This works very well and allowed me to put a stop to the complains from my family members :-D

I'm also automating most of my email/linkedin interactions thanks to userscripts. And I keep automating more of the work I do around Cloudron, which is a very fun and stable platform to manage apps on VPS without the pains.
by woodruffw | 2025-11-12 12:52:17+00:00
The norm is the same for both. Perhaps there’s an argument that it should be longer for OSS maintainers, but OSS maintainers also have different levers at their disposal: they can just say “no, I don’t care” because nobody’s paying them. A company can’t do that, at least not without a financial hit.

To my original comment, the underlying problem here IMO is wanting to have it both ways: you can adhere to common notions of security for reputational reasons, or you can exercise your right as a maintainer to say “I don’t care,” but you can’t do both.