MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Aurornis | 2025-11-25 22:16:20+00:00
The language is consistent with ESL writing, in my experience.

The strange thing is that the corresponding author and the co-author appear to be english speakers, as far as I can tell. I googled the primary author and found a YouTube channel where someone by the same name speaks clearly about neuroscience. Maybe I'm looking at another person with the same name and middle initial who also happens to speak about neuroscience and brain development?
by snowwrestler | 2025-11-25 22:16:51+00:00
Most theaters don’t serve meals the way Alamo does, but the rest is still true: proper darkness, much better sound, huge bright screen, no distractions, no interruptions.

There was a time where people would go to the theater and then text, chat etc. In my experience that is rare now because those types of people just don’t go to the theater anymore. It’s expensive and less convenient than watching at home. Generally speaking, I have found that the people in a movie theater today really want to be there, and are well behaved.
by agreeahmed | 2025-11-25 22:17:04+00:00
As the Javascript ecosystem has spilled out from just the frontend to also the backend, a lot of these React devs have found fullstack responsibilities on their shoulders.

Imo you can trace a lot of how devtools, particularly webdev tools, have evolved to this. They are more React-brained. Specifically they try to take state management responsibilities off their users' plates.
by cipehr | 2025-11-25 22:17:24+00:00
Fair enough. I personally did not read push back in the questions/statements asked/made.

> Trust with regards to...?

I took this to be a good faith ask for clarification

> Orion doesn't have any telemetry... You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc...

I took this as a statement if what I could do, not specifically what I should do instead of getting it open sourced.

Maybe I read it with more good faith intention and curiosity than I should have. I see your point on how that could be perceived as push back, but I landed somewhere different from where you might have.
by lightcrafter | 2025-11-25 22:17:28+00:00
The thing to understand is how well Marble's Gaussian splat models integrate into virtual production for visual storytelling. Then it's filmmaking!

We worked with filmmaker Joshua Kerr on this project that took him back to his 8 year old zombie epic roots: https://www.worldlabs.ai/case-studies/lightcraft

It's hard to appreciate how magical this is until you get beat up by traditional photogrammetry-based set acquisition or trying to build it from scratch in 3D.

In a couple of years you are going to see high school drama groups everywhere staging film productions with this tech.
by bigyabai | 2025-11-25 22:17:50+00:00
I'm asking you to prove what you're claiming. Your assertion has nothing to do with your evidence, so I want you to re-tread the Twitter Files and find the part that documents the American government operating domestic influence campaigns.

The original comment is correct, and your diversions have done nothing to refute them. The Twitter Files was a failed PR campaign by Musk that tried to demonize Twitter and justify his leadership. Maybe Elon would have had better luck if he exposed this campaign you're describing, but he didn't. Gotta save something for the X Files, I guess.
by wahnfrieden | 2025-11-25 22:17:56+00:00
Patel takes anticommunism to such an extreme that he repeatedly brings up and speculates (despite being met with repudiation by even the staunchest anticommunist of guests) whether naziism is preferable, that Hitler should have the war against Soviets, that the US should have collaborated with Hitler to defeat communism, and that the enduring spread of naziism would have been a good tradeoff to make.
by PhotonHunter | 2025-11-25 22:18:07+00:00
I don't think that copyright would apply because the EV1 design largely serves a functional purpose, and design patent infringement would face an uphill battle for the same reasons. For copyright of a "useful article" the functional aspects of the design cannot be protected, only the artistic ("separability"). For design patents, elements of the design that are dictated by function cannot be protected (N.B., there is some nuance there for alternative designs). The strongest exposure for EV1 replicas is probably trade dress, and the iconic design ("secondary meaning") of the EV1 should strengthen those claims.

Also, trademarks do not need to be registered to be enforced, although it is wise to register them.
by nofunsir | 2025-11-25 22:18:10+00:00
I don't think this is productive, since you're so adamant [1] that "big C memory safe programs don't exist." I know for a fact they do. Most of the software you won't ever see. What do you think powers the most critical sytems in, say a fifth gen fighter, or the software that NSA relies on in their routers?

I'll give you a hint. It's neither rust- nor scrum-based. I'd rather change careers or retire than work another day doing scrum standups.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45353150
by Dylan16807 | 2025-11-25 22:18:49+00:00
> Right...so you fix it from the safe code, because the safe code is in charge of using from_raw_parts correctly.

Safe code cannot corrupt the Vec variables to make Vec do something incorrect.

> To fix this, we would not change anything in unsafe.

You're supposed to.

Some coders might implicitly count the rest of the function as trusted code that's part of enforcing the invariants of the unsafe code. So there's an implied "unsafe" block that fills up the rest of the function, as far as responsibility goes.

I won't argue one way or the other on that philosophy, but if anything outside the function with the unsafe block is part of enforcing invariants, then that is clearly wrong.

If you subscribe to that philosophy, then you could say the drop is the problem in this single-function case. But in the original the bug is still inside make_slice, because make_slice is unleashing a fragile and uncontrolled slice into the safe world of main.

(There might be some more subtleties when it comes to class API boundaries but I don't want to dig through that right now, it's not relevant to the important part of this conversation.)
by intalentive | 2025-11-25 22:18:56+00:00
>Chinese elites have warned of AI-induced labor displacement that could exacerbate challenges related to unemployment and inequality. Nie Huihua (聂辉华), deputy dean of the National Academy of Development and Strategy at Renmin University, has stated that AI adoption benefits business owners, not workers

Ruling elites that consider the interests of the majority? Novel idea.
by paxys | 2025-11-25 22:19:27+00:00
Is there any system where "people with industry experience come to teach [students]" actually happens? From what I've seen (in the USA and similar places) contribution of industry veterans extends mostly to guest lectures, which is a very rare happening and the purpose is motivation and recruiting rather than education. Industry and academia are universally two very distinct paths, and the split happens very early on in one's life. I personally haven't seen the former significantly contributing to the latter. The reverse, interestingly, is a lot more prevalent.
by saratogacx | 2025-11-25 22:19:36+00:00
At launch you had 3 themes (blue, green, and silver) as well as classic where you had all the customization of Win2k's settings. Later on (SP3-ish) you got a zone orange/dark theme which was nice.

To do more you either used WindowBlinds or just grabbed a patched UxTheme32.dll which would accept unsigned theme files. Once you did that you had an almost silly number of options to try out from various web sites.
by rtpg | 2025-11-25 22:20:03+00:00
I understand not having a link to the primary source at the top of an article because you might be trying to write an explainer, but if you want to avoid confusing your readers but still do the right thing at the very least include a bunch of source links at the bottom of the article!

I know all the cynical reasons not to do it, but I feel like even the good faith objection has a pretty straightforward solution.
by Aurornis | 2025-11-25 22:21:47+00:00
Traditional epigenetics is very different than heritable epigenetics.

Epigenetics is most definitely a factor in humans.

Heritable epigenetics is a different story. There is some early evidence suggesting that transgenerational epigenetic effects appear in humans, but it's very early. Some of the first claimed discoveries of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans turned out to be mistakes by researchers. A lot of the theories about human transgenerational epigenetic inheritance revolve around exposure to famines and food crises, which is unfortunately complicated by the way food crises shape dietary behaviors and eating habits which are also passed down via tradition (not genetically).

The difficult part is that journalists often use "epigenetics" to refer to heritable epigenetics, and a lot of commenters make the same mistake.
by projectazorian | 2025-11-25 22:21:57+00:00
Bangkok has seasonal haze incidents that can get bad enough to close schools etc. Those are a scourge across all of SEA and are generally caused by slash-and-burn agriculture practices. It's much different from having bad AQI year-round.

I'd hardly say Bangkok is a clean air capital, but it's next to the ocean with no significant mountains nearby so usually pollution gets blown out to sea.
by itissid | 2025-11-25 22:22:14+00:00
All coding agents are geared towards optimizing one metric, more or less, getting people to put out more tokens — or $$$.

If these agents moved towards a policy where $$$ were charged for project completion + lower ongoing code maintenance cost, moving large projects forward, _somewhat_ similar to how IT consultants charge, this would be a much better world.

Right now we have chaos monkey called AI and the poor human is doing all the cleanup. Not to mention an effing manager telling me you now "have" AI push 50 Features instead of 5 in this cycle.
by chowells | 2025-11-25 22:22:18+00:00
It's more a viewpoint thing. Any construct cryptographers find that runs in constant time is something that could be optimized to run faster for non-cryptographic code. Constant-time constructs essentially are optimizer bug reports. There is always the danger that by popularizing a technique you are drawing the attention of a compiler contributor who wants to speed up a benchmark of that same construct in non-cryptographic code. So maybe it's not intended as sabotage, but it can sure feel that way when everything you do is explicitly targeted to be changed after you do it.
by Joel_Mckay | 2025-11-25 22:22:30+00:00
Python has a list of issues fundamentally broken in the language, and relies heavily on integrated library bindings to operate at reasonable speeds/accuracy.

Julia allows embedding both R and Python code, and has some very nice tools for drilling down into datasets:

https://www.queryverse.org/

It is the first language I've seen in decades that reduces entire paradigms into single character syntax, often outperforming both C and Numpy in many cases. =3
by theragra | 2025-11-25 22:23:14+00:00
Afaik iq correlates highly with g-factor (scientific name for general intelligence). We don't have much better ways to measure it.

Overall, afaik, again, problem solving often needed in our society correlates with this: "general intelligence". When people say: "But there are many ways to approach a problem, many types of intelligence".

This very well may be, but data consistently shows that people having high IQ scores solve different problems better. So, contrary to popular belief, people having higher iq in general have better talent for languages, same with understanding others emotions and using it to your advantage ("emotional intelligence").

As for reframing an issue and solving it in a different way. This may be valid approach (to teach people etc). But IQ is also time-measured. If your new approach does not help you to solve previously unseen problems quickly, it is not noticably increase your intelligence.

Thus, we see consistently that people cannot really prepare for iq tests much. You only get a few points more if you prepare. Same difference as if you are sleep-deprived.
by izolate | 2025-11-25 22:23:14+00:00
Not only is Burmese food in Myanmar far better, but even the small, modest restaurants bring out a whole spread of complimentary small dishes (pickles, salads, crunchy snacks, all kinds of delicious little sides) before the main meal. It's just built into the dining culture there, and it's incredibly generous compared to what you see abroad.
by Animats | 2025-11-25 22:23:27+00:00
It's stopped being cost-effective. Another order of magnitude of data centers? Not happening.

The business question is, what if AI works about as well as it does now for the next decade or so? No worse, maybe a little better in spots. What does the industry look like? NVidia and TSMC are telling us that price/performance isn't improving through at least 2030. Hardware is not going to save us in the near term. Major improvement has to come from better approaches.

Sutskever: "I think stalling out will look like…it will all look very similar among all the different companies. It could be something like this. I’m not sure because I think even with stalling out, I think these companies could make a stupendous revenue. Maybe not profits because they will need to work hard to differentiate each other from themselves, but revenue definitely."

Somebody didn't get the memo that the age of free money at zero interest rates is over.

The "age of research" thing reminds me too much of mid-1980s AI at Stanford, when everybody was stuck, but they weren't willing to admit it. They were hoping, against hope, that someone would come up with a breakthrough that would make it work before the house of cards fell apart.

Except this time everything costs many orders of magnitude more to research. It's not like Sutskever is proposing that everybody should go back to academia and quietly try to come up with a new idea to get things un-stuck. They want to spend SSI's market cap of $32 billion on some vague ideas involving "generalization". Timescale? "5 to 20 years".

This is a strange way to do corporate R&D when you're kind of stuck. Lots of little and medium sized projects seem more promising, along the lines of Google X. The discussion here seems to lean in the direction of one big bet.

You have to admire them for thinking big. And even if the whole thing goes bust, they probably get to keep the house and the really nice microphone holder.
by Quothling | 2025-11-25 22:23:27+00:00
Not really, but there is a finite amount of data to train models on. I found it rather interesting to hear him talk about how Gemini has been better at getting results out of the data than their competition, and how this is the first insights into a new way of dealing with how they train models on the same data to get different results.

I think the title is an interesting thing, because the scaling isn't about compute. At least as I understand it, what they're running out of is data, and one of the ways they deal with this, or may deal with this, is to have LLM's running concurrently and in competition. So you'll have thousands of models competing against eachother to solve challenges through different approaches. Which to me would suggest that the need for hardware scaling isn't about to stop.
by Habgdnv | 2025-11-25 22:23:40+00:00
Ok, I am getting mad now. I don't understand something here. Should we open like 31337 different CVEs about every possible LLM on the market and tell them that we are super-ultra-security-researchers and we're shocked when we found out that <model name> will execute commands that it is given access to, based on the input text that is feed into the model? Why people keep doing these things? Ok, they have free time to do it and like to waste other's people time. Why is this article even on HN? How is this article in the front page? "Shocking news - LLMs will read code comments and act on them as if they were instructions".
by mrandish | 2025-11-25 22:24:02+00:00
> confident they can thrive in such an intensely competitive field.

I agree these AI startups are extremely unlikely to achieve meaningful returns for their investors. However, based on recent valley history, it's likely high-profile 'hot startup' founders who are this well-known will do very well financially regardless - and that enables them to not lose sleep over whether their startup becomes a unicorn or not.

They are almost certainly already multi-millionaires (not counting ill-liquid startup equity) just from private placements, signing bonuses and banking very high salaries+bonus for several years. They may not emerge from the wreckage with hundreds of millions in personal net worth but the chances are very good they'll probably be well into the tens of millions.
by asmosoinio | 2025-11-25 22:24:13+00:00
If you find a better link for the methodology please let me know.

But simplified it's maybe exactly this from the UN reports glossary:

> Cities: According to the Degree of Urbanization methodology, contiguous geographic areas with a high population density (at least 1,500 people per km2) and a total population of at least 50,000 inhabitants.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...
by xn | 2025-11-25 22:24:28+00:00
redo[1] with shell scripts has become my goto method of dealing with multi-step data problems. It makes it easy to review each step of data retrieval, clean-up, transformation, etc.

I use mlr, sqlite, rye, souffle, and goawk in the shell scripts, and visidata to interactively review the intermediate files.

1. https://redo.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
by kridsdale3 | 2025-11-25 22:24:42+00:00
I wish I had an answer for you. I spend at least half of the past year trying to make that decision. The internal LLM that can read all the docs and code, you'd think, could get the context to know what the optimal state is, but it easily gets confused by out of date documentation and recommends paths that are going to be marked as "why didn't you use the new thing?" at review time, OR it builds out a solution using "oh, this isn't ready for use yet" parts.
by asa400 | 2025-11-25 22:25:30+00:00
It's true that message sends with Erlang processes do not perform rendezvous synchronization (i.e., sends are nonblocking), but they can be used in a similar way by having process A send a message to process B and then blocking on a reply from process B. This is not the same as unbuffered channel blocking in Go or Clojure, but it's somewhat similar.

For example, in Erlang, `receive` _is_ a blocking operation that you have to attach a timeout to if you want to unblock it.

You're correct about identity/names: the "queue" part of processes (the part that is most analogous to a channel) is their mailbox, which cannot be interacted with except via message sends to a known pid. However, you can again mimic some of the channel-like functionality by sending around pids, as they are first class values, and can be sent, stored, etc.

I agree with all of your points, just adding a little additional color.
by muldvarp | 2025-11-25 22:25:36+00:00
> Again, you can invest, today, in AI stocks and ETFs, with just $100 and a Robinhood account. No need to be rich.

And then? I'll compensate the loss of thousands of dollars I don't earn anymore every month with the profits of a $100 investment in some ETF?

> If the labor is worthless, the great majority of people will be poor. Due to the law of supply & demand, property will be worthless since there will be very little demand for it.

Property has inherent value. A house I can live in. A farm can feed me. A golf course I can play golf on. These things have value even if nobody can buy them off me (because they don't have anything I want). Supply and demand determine only the _price_ not the _value_ of goods and services.

> Countries with or without resources often have poor citizens simply because being poor is the natural state of mankind. The only system that, historically, allowed the greatest number of people to exit poverty is capitalism. Here in Eastern Europe we got to witness an astonishing change of fortunes when we switched from communism to capitalism. The country and its resources didn't change, just the system and, correspondingly, the wealth of the population.

None of this has any connection to anything I've written. I'm talking about the concept of a resource curse. Countries rich in natural resources (oil, diamonds, ...) where the population is poor as dirt because the ruling class has no incentive to share any of the profits. The same can happen with AI if we don't do anything about it.

> How can they become richer when most people are dirt broke (because they were replaced by AIs) and thus can't buy their products and services?

Other rich people can buy their products and services. They don't need you to buy their products and services because you don't bring anything to the table because all you have is labor and labor isn't worth anything (or at least not enough to survive off it). Put differently: Why do you think rich people would like to buy your labor if using AI/robots is cheaper? What reason would they have to do that?

> Look at how even Elon's fortunes shrink when his company misses a sales forecast. He is only as rich as the number of customers he can find for his cars.

You're proving my point: Elon still lives in a world where labor is worth something. Because Elon lives in a world where labor is worth something it is in his interest that there are many people capable of providing that labor to him. This means it is in his interest that the general population has access to food and water, is well eduacated, ...

If Elon were to live in a world where labor is done by AI/robots there would be little reason for him to care. Yes, he couldn't sell his cars to the average person anymore, but he wouldn't want to anyway. He could still sell his cars to Altman in exchange for an LLM that strokes his ego or whatever rich people want.

The point is: Because rich and powerful people still have to pay for labor, their incentives are at least somewhat aligned with the incentives of the average person.
by stouset | 2025-11-25 22:25:47+00:00
It’s not intentional. The motivations of CPU designers, compiler writers, and optimizers are at odds with those of cryptographers. The former want to use every trick possible to squeeze out additional performance in the most common cases, while the latter absolutely require indistinguishable performance across all possibilities.

CPUs love to do branch prediction to have computation already performed in the case where it guesses the branch correctly, but cryptographic code needs equal performance no matter the input.

When a programmer asks for some register or memory location to be zeroed, they generally just want to be able to use a zero in some later operation and so it doesn’t really matter that a previous value was really overwritten. When a cryptographer does, they generally are trying to make it impossible to read the previous value. And they want to be able to have some guarantee that it wasn’t implicitly copied somewhere else in the interim.