MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by noir_lord | 2025-11-01 01:15:14+00:00
Not noticeably any worse than over the last 15 years.

Be wary of what you are fed on YouTube (or any major social network) they are astroturfed to hell at this point.

Life here isn’t great for a lot of people but it’s not super terrible either for the most part, we have broadly the same problems as many western nations (aging population, corporations running amok, slow and expensive infrastructure development, expensive housing, low wage growth).

We are still a safe wealthy western democracy though.
by bwesterb | 2025-11-01 01:15:52+00:00
You only need to send one treehead per MTCA. From that one treehead the server can infer it must also have the previous few. If that's still too much, we can compress it even further by only sending "I trust the standard CAs of Mozilla plus/minus some CAs and the stalest treehead I have has this timestamp". That'll be just a few bytes.
by thadt | 2025-11-01 01:15:55+00:00
100%. I’m with y’all - this is what I would also call a “no-backend” solution and I’m all in on this type of approach for static data sets - this is the future, and could be served with a very simple web server.

I’m just bemused that we all refer to one of the larger, more sophisticated storage systems on the plant, composed of dozens of subsystems and thousands of servers as “no backend at all.” Kind of a “draw the rest of the owl”.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-11-01 01:17:56+00:00
It's not necessary to chase, just copy what Windows users have largely agreed to be good and stick to that.

So for example, a hypothetical Windows DE could offer XP, 7, and 10 modes which the user can freely switch between which would never change. This delivers on two fronts: first, it presents a familiar, comfortable UI for the user, and second, it offers a promise that most of the popular Linux desktops do not which is that significant changes will not occur, even over long time scales.

I disagree on LLMs/terminal use. Too many things can go wrong in too many different ways for LLMs to be of much use to users for troubleshooting in many cases, and there's also the issue of the user even knowing what to ask for in the first place (even many moderately technical users aren't going to have the foggiest clue what a Debian package, MATE, HEAD, or upstream are).

The system really just needs to be engineered to 1) be extremely robust and not break in the first place 2) when it does break, have the ability to silently self-heal 99% of the time. A non-essential but excellent bonus would be 3) to be able to express what's wrong and what needs to be done to the user in that last 1%. This won't be easy to accomplish, but the first distro that does will be richly rewarded with user loyalty.
by IgorPartola | 2025-11-01 01:20:21+00:00
I am people and I don’t want to download 900 dependencies. But if I want to use React or Vue or anything but the most trivial JS libraries or frameworks I am held hostage by the fact that their dependencies have dependencies.

Surely there are ways to just stick to absolute basics and you can get quite far with what is built in or some very small libraries, but I guess it depends on where you would be most productive.
by jgalt212 | 2025-11-01 01:20:23+00:00
> Woke/Anti-Woke · The whole point, one gathers, is to provide an antidote to Wikipedia’s alleged woke bias

According to the Manhattan Institute as cited by the Economist, even grok has a leftwards bias (roughly even to all the other big models).

https://www.economist.com/international/2025/08/28/donald-tr...
by justsomedumbass | 2025-11-01 01:20:33+00:00
qwen3 coder 30B with ollama server via continue. Big box Win11 Ryzen9-7900,128GB-DDR5,8TB,5090. Use for all of the above. Works pretty well for simple coding tasks. Haven't given it much in the way of smoke tests yet. It's quite snappy, but of course the limitation is context size if I run it solely on GPU. Haven't plugged OSS into the pipeline yet. Wanted to use code specific model.
by bwesterb | 2025-11-01 01:21:16+00:00
The biggest blocker for DANE at the moment is that it doesn't have a transparency story. There is no good visibility into whether your TLD advertises a second pair of zone signing keys to few you don't control. We can add some transparency logs as with CT, but then we have a rate-limiting problem. You could have a mix of heavily rate-limited free DNSSEC logs and some paid DNSSEC logs. This is starting to look a lot like the current WebPKI then. I must say that this is an under explored area.
by int0x29 | 2025-11-01 01:21:51+00:00
The last leak was in 2024. Hopefully somone nabs the latest iOS release information

Edit: last released leak showed they had broken the then most recent iOS release (17.5.1) in AFU state on all but the most recent hardware which was marked "available in CAS"

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-ju...

The good news is neither pixel nor iOS seems to show full file system extract under BFU state in the recent tables I can find.
by OutOfHere | 2025-11-01 01:22:43+00:00
This doesn't prove that Fauci knew of the furin cleavage site, but it does raise serious questions:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repe...?

> NIH Deputy Director and former Acting NIH Director, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, acknowledged that NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/L...

> Also, in 2018, just one year before the outbreak in a DARPA grant proposal, Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators proposed to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site, a feature associated with increased viral growth and increased transmissibility. They proposed to insert the furin cleavage site at the spike gene S1/S2 border, and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid-building blocks, and assembling them using the reagent BsmB1.

> Fourth, in 2019, a novel SARS virus having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors, a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, and a genome sequence with features enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BsmB1--a virus having the exact features proposed into 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals--emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan Institute of Virology.

> Taken together, the presence of a spike having an extremely high affinity for human SARS receptors, the presence of a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, the genome sequence enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid- building blocks using the reagent BsmB1, and the one-for-one match between these features and the features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals, make an extremely strong case--a smoking gun--for a research origin.
by bwesterb | 2025-11-01 01:23:32+00:00
Landmarks are generated every hour, but I expect clients to pull them perhaps once or twice per day. Servers will keep two signatureless MTCs around a few days apart, so even if your client didn't update in a few days you can still use the small signatureless cert. The biggest reason for needing the big MTCs is for when you need a new certificate quickly. Our intern Lena had a look how common that would be, and she estimates it'd be required for 0.1% at any given time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=72ClhykaYDHf0sND&v=f8unMB2Q...
by runlevel1 | 2025-11-01 01:24:04+00:00
That's not quite correct, but you're not a million miles off: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24833832-cellebrite-...

To calibrate your sense of time, the iPhone 15 had been released in September 2023 and that doc is dated April 2024, so ~6 months.

And just for completeness, here was the Android doc that leaked at the same time: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24833831-cellebrite-...
by wakawaka28 | 2025-11-01 01:24:44+00:00
GrapheneOS updates really fast, like on a weekly basis. The trouble is that you have to trust the developers in general. Even if you did build it yourself, did you read all the code and scripts used to build it? But I think it's still a net benefit for a certain kind of user to have the code, and it raises the minimum complexity of any potential exploit.
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-01 01:25:32+00:00
> Also current homeowners don't care about house prices, since they are locked into fixed mortgage payments - other than how it affects insurance and property taxes.

They do if they want to refinance, sell the house, or demonstrate favorable asset:debt ratios for other purposes.

> And taxes are mainly affected if your property value rises higher relative to the rest of the community.

Property taxes are usually % of value, so dependent on absolute value changes, not changes relative to the rest of the community.
by siliconc0w | 2025-11-01 01:25:41+00:00
The problem is it's part of a pattern of several 'bugs' and even 'unauthorized prompt changes' that have caused Grok to be more Elon-aligned.

And when asked by right wing people about an embarrassing Grok response that refutes their view, Elon has agreed it's a problem and said he is "working on it".
by apical_dendrite | 2025-11-01 01:26:05+00:00
Is there some objective standard for what is biased? For many people (including Elon Musk) biased just means something that they disagree with.

When grok says something factual that Elon doesn't like, he puts his thumb on the scale and changes how grok responds (see the whole South African white 'genocide' business). So why should we trust that an LLM will objectively detect bias, when the people in charge of training that LLM prefer that it regurgitate their preferred story, rather than what is objectively true?
by 9rx | 2025-11-01 01:28:59+00:00
Bugs require execution so a compiler cannot find bugs.

Exceptions also require execution, but that does not suggest that they are encompassed by bugs. The lack of a third term tells that there is no overlap. If "bug" covered both exceptions and where human expectations are violated, there would necessarily be another term just for the case where human expectations are violated. But there is no such term...

...that I've ever heard. If it is that I've been living under a rock, do tell.
by fuzztester | 2025-11-01 01:29:42+00:00
>20 bucks says this sophisticated impersonation was social engineering a $5/hour outsourced customer support employee

0 bucks says this below list of data breaches is much much more devastating. 0 bucks, because I don't have to bet on it, unlike you, because it's true:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_breaches

>This is a list of reports about data breaches, using data compiled from various sources, including press reports, government news releases, and mainstream news articles. The list includes those involving the theft or compromise of 30,000 or more records, although many smaller breaches occur continually. Breaches of large organizations where the number of records is still unknown are also listed. In addition, the various methods used in the breaches are listed, with hacking being the most common.

>Most reported breaches are in North America, at least in part because of relatively strict disclosure laws in North American countries.[citation needed] 95% of data breaches come from government, retail, or technology industries.[1] It is estimated that the average cost of a data breach will be over $150 million by 2020, with the global annual cost forecast to be $2.1 trillion.[2][3] As a result of data breaches, it is estimated that in first half of 2018 alone, about 4.5 billion records were exposed.[4] In 2019, a collection of 2.7 billion identity records, consisting of 774 million unique email addresses and 21 million unique passwords, was posted on the web for sale.[5] In January 2024, a data breach dubbed the "mother of all breaches" was uncovered.[6] Over 26 billion records, including some from Twitter, Adobe, Canva, LinkedIn, and Dropbox, were found in the database.[7][8] No organization immediately claimed responsibility.[9]

>In August 2024, one of the largest data security breaches was revealed. It involved the background check databroker, National Public Data and exposed the personal information of nearly 3 billion people.[10]
by mdasen | 2025-11-01 01:29:48+00:00
I rewrote this in Go and it also deadlocks. It doesn't seem to be something that's Rust specific.

I'm going to write down the order of events.

1. Background task takes the lock and holds it for 5 seconds.

2. Async Thing 1 tries to take the lock, but must wait for background task to release it. It is next in line to get the lock.

3. We fire off a goroutine that's just sleeping for a second.

4. Select wants to find a channel that is finished. The sleepChan finishes first (since it's sleeping for 1 second) while Async Thing 1 is still waiting 4 more seconds for the lock. So select will execute the sleepChan case.

5. That case fires off Async Thing 2. Async Thing 2 is waiting for the lock, but it is second in line to get the lock after Async Thing 1.

6. Async Thing 1 gets the lock and is ready to write to its channel - but the main is paused trying to read from c2, not c1. Main is "awaiting" on c2 via "<-c2". Async Thing 1 can't give up its lock until it writes to c1. It can't write to c1 until c1 is "awaited" via "<-c1". But the program has already gone into the other case and until the sleepChan case finishes, it won't try to await c1. But it will never finish its case because its case depends on c1 finishing first.

You can use buffered channels in Go so that Async Thing 1 can write to c1 without main reading from it, but as the article notes you could use join_all in Rust.

But the issue is that you're saying with "select" in either Go or Rust "get me the first one that finishes" and then in the branch that finishes first, you are awaiting a lock that will get resolved when you read the other branch. It just doesn't feel like something that is Rust specific.

func main() { lock := sync.Mutex{} c1 := make(chan string) c2 := make(chan string) sleepChan := make(chan bool) go start_background_task(&lock) time.Sleep(1 * time.Millisecond) //make sure it schedules start_background_task first go do_async_thing(c1, "op1", &lock) go func() { time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) sleepChan <- true }() for range 2 { select { case msg1 := <-c1: fmt.Println("In the c1 case") fmt.Printf("received %s\n", msg1) case _ = <-sleepChan: fmt.Println("In the sleepChan case") go do_async_thing(c2, "op2", &lock) fmt.Printf("received %s\n", <-c2) // "awaiting" on c2 here, but c1's lock won't be given up until we read it } } fmt.Println("all done") } func start_background_task(lock *sync.Mutex) { fmt.Println("starting background task") lock.Lock() fmt.Println("acquired background task lock") defer lock.Unlock() time.Sleep(5 * time.Second) fmt.Println("dropping background task lock") } func do_async_thing(c chan string, label string, lock *sync.Mutex) { fmt.Printf("%s: started\n", label) lock.Lock() fmt.Printf("%s: acuired lock\n", label) defer lock.Unlock() fmt.Printf("%s: done\n", label) c <- label }
by teraflop | 2025-11-01 01:30:05+00:00
That explanation doesn't really make sense to me.

If something could be built as a native app without depending on a central server, it could also be built as a PWA without a central server. You don't need to store user data centrally at all, just because it's a webapp. You can just have the clients use localStorage or IndexedDB or whatever.

You still have to host the static files for the webapp itself, but that can be made very cheap.

Of course, API feature parity between native and web apps is a separate issue. But the argument about server costs doesn't seem like a good one.
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-01 01:30:26+00:00
> Is there some objective standard for what is biased?

Generally, no.

With a limited domain of verifiable facts, you could perhaps measure a degree of deviation from fact across different questions, though how you get a distance measure for not just one question but that meaningfully aggregates across multiple is slippery without getting into subjective areas. Constructing a measure of directionality would be even harder to do objectively, too.
by jhhh | 2025-11-01 01:31:18+00:00
I read this once over and the part that doesn't seem to make sense to me is why the runtime chose, when there are two execution contexts up to the lock() in both future1 and future3, to wake up the main thread instead? I get why in a fair lock it would pick future1 but I don't get how that causes a different thread than the one holding the lock to execute.
by anal_reactor | 2025-11-01 01:31:30+00:00
1. People who have problems themselves love seeing others have more serious problems. Sex addicts think "at least I'm not a gambling addict". Gambling addicts think "at least I'm not a drug addict".

2. Fear is the emotion that's easiest to trigger because before modernity, life was indeed quite dangerous. You can make shitload of money by making people feel scared.

3. It is true that for many people, the society got worse, and they want to know why.
by LoganDark | 2025-11-01 01:32:29+00:00
Google OS-level integration is absent, and while Google Play Services can be installed, you're still missing things like Chromecast. Also, there's more manual configuration (although I don't remember exactly what, I've never used GrapheneOS). A lot of stuff you do get for free, but not all of it, and stuff that's been removed as a "feature" isn't always stuff that nobody wants.
by Forgeties79 | 2025-11-01 01:32:38+00:00
Ultimately the problem is the countless people/companies that will game the system and saturate us with mediocre same-y AI generated crap so they can scrape by with a modest income. Just like crappy blogs, review sites, “news” sites, etc. abusing SEO to cobble together something resembling consistent monthly revenue. That will be the result. Any creative expression it produces will be overwhelmed by this problem. The cons drastically outweigh the pros. We’ve seen it so many times.

These enterprises create so much chaff it’s impossible to find the wheat.
by listenallyall | 2025-11-01 01:34:05+00:00
Not implementing any solution and blaming it on "only so many developer hours available" is the problem I'm responding to.

I'm not "prioritizing" anything. The scenario we're discussing is when an intern or low-level employee is able to successfully automate, enhance, or simplify a manual, inefficient business process that management has not seen fit to improve - so the worker does it themselves.

Access and similar platforms aren't "rapid" because of shortcuts, they are rapid because they are visual-based, drag-and-drop, object-oriented and often make a component's properties and methods customizable also via a visual interface. It's a different way of programming, yes, accessible to the masses (which is likely the reason you have so much disdain), but not "shortcuts".
by Aloisius | 2025-11-01 01:35:08+00:00
> Well behaved robots do not usually use millions of residential IPs

Some antivirus and parental control control software will scan links sent to someone from their machine (or from access points/routers).

Even some antivirus services will fetch links from residential IPs in order to detect malware from sites configured to serve malware only to residential IPs.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure how one would tell the difference between a user software scanning links to detect adult content/malware/etc, randos crawling the web searching for personal information/vulnerable sites/etc. and these supposed "AI crawlers" just from access logs.

While I'm certainly not going to dismiss the idea that these are poorly configured crawlers at some major AI company, I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that is the case.
by bawolff | 2025-11-01 01:35:17+00:00
Its very unlikely he was blocked for the specific sources he used. More likely he was banned for his conduct in a debate, potentially about those sources. Its generally very hard to be banned for "being wrong" on Wikipedia, usually people are banned for how they interact with other people, which can happen both to people who are "right" as well as people who are "wrong" (being in the right is not a valid reason to be an asshole as the saying goes). For example if he engaged in an edit war about these sources, that would still be enough to blocked even if he was correct because edit wars are an inapropriate way to handle disputes.

Its also possible the sources might have been fine but OP's interpretation of them was not. For example if he was using them to support something they didn't say or drawing his own conclusions from them beyond what the text of the source says.

This is all speculation of course. If OP provided his username we would be able to see for sure as it would be a matter of public record.

For reference both of the urls OP cites are currently used on Wikipedia. The first in the article economy of India, the second on the article for Jal Jeevan Mission, so at least in modern times Wikipedia is ok with those sources
by levodelellis | 2025-11-01 01:35:29+00:00
To clarify by "your code" I mean your code excluding a library. A good library would make it impossible to deadlock. When I wrote mine I never called outside code during a lock so it was impossible for it to deadlock. My atomic code had auditing and test. I don't recommend people to write their own thread library unless they want to put a lot of work into it
by whstl | 2025-11-01 01:35:42+00:00
Bingo.

I witnessed this on the past two YC startups I worked at, on adjacent teams.

There was a very clear strategy laid out by the founders, but engineers were unable to follow it due to a filter added by a "layer" of management.

For example: In one specific case, a designer (!) was massively bloating the design and the scopes after being given carte blanche by the CEO and the absence of the PM. After a few weeks of missing targets where engineers got the blame, the tech team finally had enough and requested a review of the work methods of the designer. It was obviously all very fucked up. Basically weeks of lost work and a burned out team working overtime.
by StephenHerlihyy | 2025-11-01 01:36:34+00:00
I don’t really know who Tim Bray is and until now I had never been to Grokipedia. I don’t really like Grok - I tried Superheavy and it was slow, bloated and no better than Claude Opus.

But I have a bad habit of fact checking. It’s the engineer in me. You tell me something, I instinctively verify. In the linked article, sub-section, ‘References’, Mr. Bray opines about a reference not directly relating to the content cited. So I went to Grokipedia for the first time ever and checked.

Mr. Bray’s quote of a quote he quote couldn’t find is misleading. The sentence on Grokipedia includes 2 referencee of which he includes only the first. This first reference relates to his work with the FTC. The second part of the sentence relates to the second reference. Specifically on Grokipedia in the Tim Bray article linked reference number 50, paragraph 756 cleanly addresses the issue raised by Mr. Bray.

After that I stopped reading, still don’t know or care who Tim Bray is and don’t plan on using either Grokipedia or Grok in the near future.

Perhaps Mr. Bray’s did not fully explore the references or perhaps there was malice. I don’t know. Horseshoe theory applies. Pure pro- positions and pure anti- positions are idiotic and should be filtered accordingly. Filter thusly applied.
by dgfl | 2025-11-01 01:36:54+00:00
Basically everyone who has played videogames on pc will notice the difference. I easily notice a drop from 360Hz to 240Hz.

I also use 60Hz screens just fine, saying that getting used to 120Hz ruins slower displays is being dramatic. You can readjust to 60Hz again within 5 minutes. But I can still instantly tell which is higher refresh rate, at least up to 360Hz.