MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sefrost | 2025-11-10 15:53:50+00:00
Actually once you are back in your home country (or in fact any other country) you can pay an optional £180/year to buy a full qualifying year.

Anybody who ever worked in the UK can do it and you don’t need to have ever been a citizen.

There are adverts on Irish radio about it quite often.

It’s an absolutely terrible deal for the British government when you consider how high the state pension annual payout is.

I live in another country right now and I do it myself!
by foxyv | 2025-11-10 15:54:04+00:00
That's not how these inertial navigation units work. They measure the acceleration of the device in six axes. Forward/back, up/down, left/right, yaw, pitch, and roll. Then they integrate these accelerations to determine current velocity. Then they integrate velocity to determine position. Really the above calculation is a bit of a spitball, because it will vary depending on the motion of the submarine.

In the inertial reference frame of Earth, the only celestial body you really need to worry about are tidal forces from the moon. Every other body is too far away for tidal forces to be a problem. They average out across the entire inertial reference frame.

Typically such systems need to be aligned every so often. This means you set the "Initial Conditions" of your integration. Typically position can be aligned easily using reference points to re-align your INS. The SR-71 did this using celestial points. Submarines can use sonar beacons and low frequency radio to passively align position. Planes and GPS/INS guided munitions now mostly use GPS to maintain alignment.

Old school ring laser gyros were unfortunately only good for about a couple hours before realign was necessary. Which is perfect for a fighter jet, missile, or bomb which will only fly that long occasionally. This new system can align every couple weeks or even months. Especially if the sub is stationary for long periods of time.
by varshar | 2025-11-10 15:54:41+00:00
Well put.

More broadly - the United Kingdom exports services worth £500+ billion each year (versus goods worth £400 billion or so).

And these service exports have grown 6-7% on average for the past decade and show no signs of slowing down.

Good exports have flatlined but certainly not collapsed.

Source: ONS UK trade, August 2025 - https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpay...
by tracker1 | 2025-11-10 15:55:38+00:00
Try it sometime... My name is somewhat common, but not even close to "John Smith" common... but even at about 1:20,000 or so I've seen a few conflicts just from my name. Another me was born the same day in the state I reside in... I've had a few things on my credit history get tangled up over it.

I've also met two others with the same name, purely coincidentally, not related. I worked on an access/security software team at a major bank (about 350k employees internationally at the time), I found 3 bugs just by being me. Since even SSN/Tax-Id varied, there were several ways to match identity and I had conflicts in a couple of them with other employees. Last Name + last-4 of tax/ssn/national-id (for whatever country the employee was in) was one of them. I don't recall the other two right now, been about 15 years.
by hienyimba | 2025-11-10 15:55:41+00:00
Currently building a service around the domain https://ScamAI.com

the service is a suite of online vetting and due diligence tools for website flippers, Fb marketplace sellers/buyers and Tiktok shoppers

The domain has an interesting backstory. I acquired if it n 2022 from Epik after they stole the $10,000 I had deposited into their Escrow service. The money was meant for acquiring a newish stable diffusion hosting website that was competing with civit.ai. When the Epik issue was discovered, the seller pulled out.

Acquiring that website could have changed my life.
by mesrik | 2025-11-10 15:55:42+00:00
The Berkeley Automounter Suite of Utilities also known as am-utils did similar arch/platform local and remote mount tweaks commonly quite easily.

https://www.am-utils.org/

The am-utils "amd" known as its running process current use I don't have much to say as I've not much seen it as at least Linux distros have had autofs-tools quite long time. But -90 something am-utils was the thing we mostly used.

Adding: Oh, that made me remember we had then also user mode nfs daemon, which allowed re-exporting remote mounts, which was at times with smaller disks and always looking where to get it more if nothing but temporary storage great help. Current kernel based nfs doesn't support it any more.
by everdrive | 2025-11-10 15:56:10+00:00
This captures my experience quite well. I can "get a lot more done," but it's not really me doing the things, and I feel like a bit of a fraud. And as the workday and the workweek roll on, I find myself needing to force myself to look things up and experiment rather than just asking the LLM. It's quite clear that for most people LLMs will make the more dependent. People with better discipline I think will really benefit in big ways, and you'll see this become a new luxury belief; the disciplined geniuses around us will genuinely be perplexed why people are saying that LLMs have made them less capable, much in the same way they wonder why people can't just limit their drug use recreationally.
by giraffe_lady | 2025-11-10 15:56:11+00:00
The important part of this is the "I feel like" bit. There's a fair but growing bit of research that the "fact" is more durable in your memory than the context, and over time, across a lot of information, you will lose some of the mappings and integrate things you "know" to be false into model of the world.

This more closely fits our models of cognition anyway. There is nothing really very like a filter in the human mind, though there are things that feel like them.
by jonathaneunice | 2025-11-10 15:56:13+00:00
Context Dependent Filesystems were one of those weird, wonderful experiments in Unix' early days that never ultimately escaped its home world. Every vendor Unix had a few. HP were true engineers in those days, so HP-UX had more than a few. But the general corporate attitude toward sharing and standardization was very different. "We want to be standards-based, but we also need some special sauce to differentiate us from the competition."

For example, HP-UX was a BSD-based Unix implementation that tried very very hard to pretend it was UNIX System V (R2/R3). "No, no really! I'm not one of that university kids!" But BSD was a far better foundation, vastly better networking etc., so that's what it was underneath.

Unix of the era was billed as a multi-user shared system, but it wasn't always great at that. It desperately lacked much of the quiet robustness and workhorse-ness of the proprietary minicomputer OSs of the day (e.g. VMS, AOS, HP's own MPE). No vendor did more to fill that gap and make multi-workload a workaday reality. HP added a fair-share scheduler (FSS), the first multi-system high availability clustering in Unix (MC/ServiceGuard), and scores of refinements along the way. As a result, in practice HP-UX was admirably hardened, and it ran more users and more concurrent competing jobs per system than any other Unix system could. Often by a wide margin.

In ~1995 HP doubled down on FSS with Process Resource Manager (PRM), which could guarantee various "shares" (weighted priorities) of total machine resources. First commercial Unix ancestor to today's containers. In production ~6 years before BSD jails and Virtuozzo, ~10 years before Solaris Zones, ~18 years before Docker/Linux containers, and ~20 or more years before container were mainstream production vehicles.

Unfortunately for HP, its workstations (the ones OP acquired) weren't nearly as popular with universities and developers as Sun Microsystems', so you tended to find HP-UX in commercial production—larger servers, more workload, but smaller numbers. And thus smaller ability to promote its innovations or be selected because of them.

Hat tip to steely-eyed missile man Xuan Bui and the many unsung engineering stars of HP in the Unix era.
by topspin | 2025-11-10 15:56:28+00:00
> And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz?

Wi-Fi 6E and later standards that unlock 6 GHz are designed to mitigate contention through several dynamic power management and multiplexing capabilities: TWT, MLO, OFDMA, improved TPC, etc. While these things aren't somehow inherent to 6 GHz, the 6 GHz band isn't crowded with legacy devices mindlessly blasting the spectrum at max power, so it is plausible that 6 GHz Wi-Fi will perform better in dense urban environments. The higher frequency also contributes because attenuation is substantially greater, although in really dense, thin-walled warrens that attenuation won't solve every problem.

I know if I had noisy Wi-Fi neighbors interfering with me, the few important Wi-Fi only devices I have would all be on at least 6E 6 GHz by now, not only because 6 GHz has fewer users, but also in the hope that ultimately, when the users do appear, their devices will be better neighbors by design. I don't actually have that problem, however. The nearest 5 GHz AP I can actually see (that isn't mine,) in Kismet (using rather high gain antennas) is -96 dB, and my actual APs hardly ever see those at all. I've yet to actually detect a 6 GHz device that isn't mine. I known there are a few because the manufacturers and model numbers of many APs are visible, but between the inherent attenuation and the power level controls, I don't see them.
by lrvick | 2025-11-10 15:56:28+00:00
Any device connected to cell towers is constantly having its location tracked via triangulation, which is sold to endless surveillance capitalism organizations and governments to monitor where we shop, and where we protest, to optimally manipulate us.

I am specifically opting out of cellular networks for this reason, though open hardware/software wifi and meshtastic solutions I am always open to.

Also whenever possible I do not want to be reachable or distracted, say when having dinner out with my family, at a concert, or just standing in line in the post office. I make the decision when to open a laptop, it cannot summon me, and it takes more intention to use.
by ajross | 2025-11-10 15:56:34+00:00
> mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space

Uh... wat? Something like 70%+ of all internet data anywhere goes over a 2.4GHz wifi for its terminal client, squashed into a paltry 100 MHz of spectrum.

There are surely engineering minutiae arguments to be made for why radios for dedicated bands can be better in some way, or public safety arguments for why unlicensed users need to be segregated from the system that provides emergency service.

But "more efficient use of the space" seems ridiculous on its face.
by viridian | 2025-11-10 15:56:44+00:00
>Society is doomed because we stopped silencing disinformation peddlers. We know what happens when Nazis are allowed to spread propaganda freely - because that happened one time in Germany, and we saw the results.

That one time in Germany, actually an 80 year long ongoing event in central Europe. Hitler didn't wake up one day with a novel idea about the Jews and the place of the German people, these were foundational ideas in the culture at least as far back as Wagner.

If anything, this pro-censorship argument is self defeating, because the "disinformation" peddlers that were silenced in the second reich were generally those of the liberal, anglo, and francophilic variety, those who would seek to decenter the goal of a collective German destiny.

Censorship is only ever a good if you find yourself a part of the group that would be doing the censoring.
by agumonkey | 2025-11-10 15:57:03+00:00
Most of the time it feels like a crutch to me. There has been a few moments where it unlocked deep motivation (by having a feel for the size of a solution based on chatgpt output) and one time a research project where any crazy idea I threw, it would imagine what it would entail in terms of semantics and then I was inspired even more.

The jury is Still out on what value these things will bring
by Chabsff | 2025-11-10 15:57:16+00:00
Yeah, but that's their interface. That informs surprisingly little about their inner workings.

ANNs are arbitrary function approximators. The training process uses statistical methods to identify a set of parameters that approximate the function as best as possible. That doesn't necessarily mean that the end result is equivalent to a very fancy multi-stage linear regression. It's a possible outcome of the process, but it's not the only possible outcome.

Looking at a LLMs I/O structure and training process is not enough to conclude much of anything. And that's the misconception.
by belorn | 2025-11-10 15:57:28+00:00
As a sibling comment mentioned, the root servers are unlikely to get such order since they deal with registries and not what I would call end user domain names.

Registries do get block orders. When the Swedish registry got that for piratebay they choose to treat it like a domain dispute and gave ownership of the domain to the police, which the police in turn could treat like any other taken property and auction it out. The trouble is when the police wanted to destroy it, as there isn't a good definition on how to destroy a name so it can never be used again, and the registry was not keen on allowing the concept of a block.
by crote | 2025-11-10 15:58:16+00:00
6GHz has worse penetration than 5Ghz, but the difference is indeed not as pronounced as it is compared to 2.4GHz.

The main benefit is going to be the additional frequency space. 5GHz effectively has 3ish channels, and 6GHz adds another 3-7 to that. Combine it with band steering and dynamic channel allocation, and you and all of your close neighbours can probably all get your own dedicated frequency.
by dylan604 | 2025-11-10 15:58:28+00:00
> The highest value thing you can do in this life is produce food.

Talk to a non-corporate farmer today, and ask them how valued their production of food is. Society, however, does not agree with your sentiment. Obviously I'm nitpicking, but if society agreed with your proposed value, the billionaires of the world would be farmers and not tech people. That's how weird and out of balance we seem to be today.
by bigfudge | 2025-11-10 15:58:43+00:00
I agree with your assessment of the UK government, but I think you overstate the degree to which we are divided, aside from the hysterical rantings of the right wing press.

You are implying division among the public when in fact the division is sown by the billionaire/corporate media agendas, not real people:

- too many immigrants - too many small boat arrivals

All parties and a majority of the public agree on these points (polling shows). The details of how to tackle small boats and relative importance differ, but I don't think anyone wants to see large numbers of people crossing Europe.

- the existence of billionaires

Most of "the left" don't care about billionaires existing, they worry they exert an outside influence on our politics and skew market fairness. There's common ground with many on the populist right here. The only people who don't want us to think about these issues are corporate shills.

- too much tax - too little tax

This is a largely manufactured concern and reflects corporate interests or interests of the rich. The difference between Corbyn' 'wild' taxation plans and Johnson's was much smaller (as a portion of GDP) than that between the UK and France, German, any other northern euro country. Our debate around tax is hugely parochial, and concern largely used as a stick to beat the left with.

- UK membership in NATO - UK being too weak in NATO

I'm not sure how many people are worried about UK being in NATO. Would love to see polling data showing this as anything other than a very fringe concern. In fact Ukraine and Russian threat has made defence spending much _less_ controversial than since the cold war.

- too much smut online that kids can see - too many attempts to control the web

Polling shows the first is a majority concern, the latter not so much (this is a HN bubble). This is not a wedge issue.

The thing you missed is culture war bullshit (who is a 'real woman' etc)... but again, most people are either nonplussed or in the thrall of Russian chatbots and the MAGA trolls infecting uk online discourse. It's not something people really care about.
by glenstein | 2025-11-10 15:58:52+00:00
>I think it's the other way around. Simply raising awareness about endangered animals may be enough to gain traction since many/most people are naturally sympathetic about it.

You're completely right in your literal point quoted above, but note what I was emphasizing. In this example, "save the animals" was offered as an example of a problem oversaturated in awareness to a point of diminishing returns. If you don't think animal welfare illustrates that particular idea, insert whatever your preferred example is. Free tibet, stop diamond trade, don't eat too much sodium, Nico Harrison shouldn't be a GM in NBA basketball, etc.

I think everyone on all sides agrees with these messages and agrees that there's value in broadcasting them up to a point, but then it becomes not an issue of awareness but willpower of relevant actors.

You also may well be right that developers would react negatively, honestly I'm not sure. But the point here was supposed to be that this pages author wasn't making the mistake of strategic misunderstanding on the point of oversaturating an audience with a message. Though perhaps they made the mistake in thinking they would reach a sympathetic audience.
by lenerdenator | 2025-11-10 15:58:54+00:00
> - Low productivity workforce. There was a huge pool of skilled, low wage, workers that had little incentive (or will) to up-skill. There were few apprenticeship schemes or other education programs to train them for the modern world.

> - Poor quality management. "Working in trade" had a low social status compared to working in, say, the Civil Service. So the best and the brightest were not interested in manufacturing.

I see these as ultimately being caused by your third point:

> - Lack of access to capital. Banks were very reluctant to lend to that sector which made modernisation really difficult. With the ever present threat of nationalization it was hard to raise capital from shareholders. Why invest in technology when you could be nationalised on a whim?

You remove the problems by paying those workers more to be more productive. You pay them more by having more capital with which to do so.

The threat of nationalization exists because capital is unwilling to do this. Why pay Tommy Adkins more when you can set up a shipbuilding yard in a country with loose regulations, low labor costs, and an authoritarian government that's willing to grind the proles into hamburger if they speak up about either of the former issues?

Ultimately, when you can do that, there's no amount of anything that the workforce in the UK, or any other developed nation, can do to keep up. You have to either instill the nationalism in capital, or scrap the entire enterprise.
by tracker1 | 2025-11-10 15:59:18+00:00
Absolutely... I've had the same issue (nickname is gmail name), and constantly amazed how many people don't "get" that you can't just claim any gmail address you like and start using it on websites anyway.

I've gotten student financial aid docs, various product mailing lists, order receipts etc... it's amazing how many places take an email address and just start spamming without any validation at all.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-11-10 15:59:32+00:00
> consider that pregnancy may be much more common than we know, but that otherwise 'normal' acts may harm these otherwise unknown pregnancies

But unintentional harm during the normal course of living is a different matter, right? There's a difference between an accident or acting out of ignorance on the one hand and intentionally harming someone. You don't provide an example of anything "normal", so I can't address it specifically.

Furthermore, moral actions involve proportionality. For instance, consider a pregnant woman who has developed cancer. Chemotherapy is quite dangerous to her child, but it may give her a very good chance of surviving. Can she licitly take chemo, knowing this risk, or even knowing that certain harm will come? Yes, she can, not because her unborn child's life is less valuable than hers, but because her life is on par with that of her unborn child, and for that reason, she may take chemo to save her life with the unintended side effect of her child's harm or even death. (She isn't using the harm or death of the child to benefit, hence "side effect".)

> I do agree that we don't consider the morality of what science is allowing us to do and I appreciate your arguments.

I appreciate your recognition. Human beings have a bad track record in the morality department, and with the power that the scientific process gives us, we are like toddlers with a a shotgun.
by jack_tripper | 2025-11-10 15:59:50+00:00
>we outsourced everything to Asia and kept "services", which aren't worth much when shit hits the fan.

Don't worry, those "services" are now being outsourced too this time around.

What's left is stakeholders, scrum masters and managers to boss those offshore workers around while they use ChatGPT.

It's all a big comedy show and we are born just in time to get the front row seats.
by gernblanstonne | 2025-11-10 16:00:01+00:00
So just how much money is OpenAI dumping on this firehose of imbecilic video? More than $5 billion annualized, or around $15 million per day, according to Forbes estimates and conversations with experts. When Bill Peebles, OpenAI’s head of Sora, observed on October 30 that “The economics are currently completely unsustainable,” he was right on the money.
by aeve890 | 2025-11-10 16:00:08+00:00
Everyone thinks they're the intelligent ones, of course. Which reinforces the repetition ad nauseam of Dunning Kruger. Which is on itself dumb AF because the effect described by Dunning and Kruger has been repeatedly exaggerated and misinterpreted. Which in turn is even dumber because Dunning-Kruger effect is debatable and reproducibility is weak at best.
by travisgriggs | 2025-11-10 16:00:16+00:00
8 months or so ago, my quip regarding LLMs was “stochastic parrot.”

The term I’ve been using of late is “authority simulator.” My formative experiences with “authority figures” was a person who can speak with breadth and depth about a subject and who seems to have internalized it because they can answer quickly and thoroughly. Because LLMs do this so well, it’s really easy to feel like you’re talking to an authority in a subject. And even though my brain intellectually knows this isn’t true, emotionally, the simulation of authority is comforting.
Ask HN: Do we understand how neat LLMs are?
by mbm | 2025-11-10 16:00:27+00:00
In about an hour on Saturday morning, I had Claude Code:

- Write, train, and test a Bayesian classifier

- Write, train, and test a 2-layer neural network from scratch in Rust

- Write, train, test, then optimize a from-scratch conv-net in Zig

- Run detailed benchmarks on several different scenarios comparing Rust vs Zig performance

Then this morning, I had it create my own Zig-based static site generator in about 20 minutes. Works perfectly.

This tech can be head-banging when writing production code, but it's pretty incredible for exploration.

Do we fully grasp the possibilities?