MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MangoToupe | 2025-11-08 13:13:24+00:00
> I open up the Books app to read Winnie the Pooh to my son, and the opening screen has loads of random trashy romances to try to sell me.

The books app itself is infuriating. It's more like a store with a list of purchases attached. Every single time I want to pull up my audiobooks, for instance, I hit the "audiobooks" button.... just to find the store instead. Every time I want to search through my library, I use the "search" box... just to find the store instead. Maddening.

The apple music app I actual really like, probably because it's not actually easy to purchase anything through it. The only major ask is that they stop limiting the number of recently added so I can actually find music I added
by kwanbix | 2025-11-08 13:13:26+00:00
> No, when you asked Nintendo to manufacture you a run of cartridges, you paid for them whether they sold or not. You took that risk.

That was exactly my point. Distributors like EA or Activision will charge you because they took that risk. It wasn't Nintendo or SEGA.

Valve is like Activision, not like Nintendo.

Nintendo charged you because they lost money on the consoles. Valve looses no money.
by estebarb | 2025-11-08 13:13:48+00:00
Not from one token, from one embedding. Text contains a low amount of information: it is possible to compress a few token embeddings into a single tiken embedding.

The how is variable. The calm paper seems to have used a MLP to compress from and ND input (N embeddings of size D) into a single D embedding and other for decompress them back
by dns_snek | 2025-11-08 13:14:08+00:00
> That's not error data, that's (one level of) a stack trace.

They're not talking about the stack trace, but about the common case where the error is not helpful without additional information, for example a JSON parsing library that wants to report the position (line number) in the string where the error appears.

There's no way of doing that in Zig, the best you can do is return a "ParseError" and build you own, non-standard diagnostic facilities to report detailed information though output arguments.
by 59nadir | 2025-11-08 13:15:00+00:00
If Jai is ever actually released to a meaningful amount of people I think we'll see just how little Blow's name means to people in practice. There is an artificial mystery around Jai right now and when the lid comes off the pot I think a lot of that is going to dissipate very fast.

With that said, I'll try it out. I'm not really impressed by what I've seen so far, though, it's very middle-of-the-pack with some really nonsense ideas. The possibility of easily creating your own checks with the compile-time machinery is potentially interesting but would probably turn into a nothingburger for us.

I think that's where most of this is at: After so many years of "waiting" (I think most people stopped actually waiting after a few years of mostly talking and very little actual productive doing) we'll end up with a very meh language that was touted as super special... And a painfully simple sokoban game that people are going to pretend is somehow super complex and hard to make.
by mexicocitinluez | 2025-11-08 13:15:08+00:00
> I don't buy the premise - that LLMs being trained on more React code than other frameworks is going to cause the collapse of alternatives

But if less people are exposed to those frameworks, then surely that means they will be less popular? I'm struggling to understand your argument.

> he data presented in the article isn't very convincing to me - it's absolute numbers, it's not a zero-sum game,

Of course it is. If I'm using React to build a site, I'm not using Svelte to build it. It less people are using a framework, there will be less funding. If more people use it, more money.

> I don't think it's sensible to extrapolate from current trends about LLM coding anyway.

The actual tools themselves are using React. Bolt, a UI design LLM, uses React by default. i don't even think there's an option to use a different language right now. These tools have taken over the industry, and have absolutely exploded in popularity in the few years they've been available. This is going to create a snowball effect.

> This stuff is barely a few years old and we want to make confident predictions about it?

I don't think you read the article as closely as you think you do. Saying "React has probably spiked in popularity because LLM's use it be default" isn't that controversial. And it's true. And I don't think it's a long shot to say "If there's less data associated with a framework, it'll be less likely to be used by these tools and then less likely to be used at all." In fact, it feels like a pretty obvious conclusion.

We can ignore what is clearly happening (which even as a React dev I don't want because it WILL limit my future options) or work to make sure those tools are offering other defaults.
by testfrequency | 2025-11-08 13:15:32+00:00
Most Apple veterans and current will agree and tell you they do not like the direction the company has gone/is going.

Most are still there as Apple has one of the most stable employment places, ever. I know a lot of old senior Apple folks who all come back to Apple to retire as the benefits are good, pay is ok, and it’s beyond stable.

To this end, including the way Apple operates, it’s low noise and low friction to just coast and let the leadership team duke it out over revenue streams.
by dgacmu | 2025-11-08 13:16:26+00:00
In practice, almost every implementation of Paxos uses multi-paxos. Even the "Paxos Made Simple" paper notes:

> In normal operation, a single server is elected to be the leader, which acts as the distinguished proposer (the only one that tries to issue proposals) in all instances of the consensus algorithm.

because otherwise you don't have a mechanism for ordering; the more basic Paxos protocol only discusses how to arrive at consensus for a single proposal, not how to assign numbers to them in a reasonable way that preserves ordering.
by cyphar | 2025-11-08 13:17:13+00:00
FYI, we just merged FreeBSD jail support into the OCI runtime spec v1.3[1]. There is already at least one implementation of it[2] as well.

[1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/1286 [2]: https://github.com/samuelkarp/runj
by crazygringo | 2025-11-08 13:17:35+00:00
Very curious what your browser+OS is, and what monospaced font it's using (if you have access to the web inspector).

A search on Google Fonts shows most monospaced fonts keep them vertically aligned, but there definitely are exceptions:

https://fonts.google.com/?preview.text=%3C-%3E%3D%2B-~&categ...
by noAnswer | 2025-11-08 13:17:53+00:00
You have to go to forum.vodafone.de:

1. State stat the error also occurs with the Vodafone router.

2. that you already have done a factory reset of the Vodafone router.

3. that you already have turned your Vodafone router off for 24 hours and it didn't fix the error.

4. that you already talked to the hotline multiple times.

After that you have to pray that someone with the same problem comes along and endorse your problem. Like, "I have the same problem since...". This sometimes conjures a Vodafone guy who tells you he has informed the technicians. Than you have won and within less than a day the error is gone.

I was six month without IPv6 even though the error message was clear. The forum route finally worked.
by shevy-java | 2025-11-08 13:19:11+00:00
> What made Steve an effective and visionary leader was that his values were so crystal clear.

Steve also underpaid developers - see the court proceedings here.

I am not saying Steve was not creative and effective, mind you. He was that. But he also had a criminal side, and I hate this whitewashing of praising Steve without pointing at the criminal side at the same time. See reports such as this one here:

https://www.thedrum.com/news/steve-jobs-named-top-conspirato...

The media is often not critical of the superrich, even more so when it is owned by them, which is why unaffiliated media must be a LOT more critical in general. The whole article here babbles about how great Steve Jobs is and how bad Tim Cook is. I'd rather like to think that both are or were humans with failure points.
by ethbr1 | 2025-11-08 13:19:26+00:00
We require auto manufacturers to include certain safety features in their vehicles, to decrease deaths to a socially acceptable level.

The central ill of centralized web platforms is that the US never mandated customer/content SLAs in regulation, even as their size necessitated that as a social good. (I.e. when they became 'too big for alternatives to be alternatives')

It wouldn't be complicated:

- If you're a platform (host user content) over X revenue... - You are required to achieve a minimum SLA for responsiveness - You are also required to hit minimum correctness / false positive targets - You are also required to implement and facilitate a third-party arbitration mechanism, by which a certified arbitrator (customer's choice) can process a dispute (also with SLAs for responsiveness)

Google, Meta, Apple, Steam, Amazon, etc. could all be better, more effective platforms if they spent more time and money on resolution.

As-is, they invest what current law requires, and we get the current situation.
by andai | 2025-11-08 13:20:39+00:00
I did a bunch of game jams in various wasm langauges last year and what I got out of the experience was that you can do anything if you set your mind to it, but unless you have a good reason to use WASM (e.g. the performance?) you're generally going to be adding headache (build tooling, wrangling data between languages and runtimes, etc.) rather than removing it.[0]

(Some languages in particular are remarkably inflexible regarding how they want you to use them in this context.)

So seeing no real benefit. I ended up switching back to TS. I became depressed shortly afterwards, but that's probably unrelated ;)

Still, wasm game dev was a delightful experience in many respects and I would recommend it to anyone who's interested. ("Elimination of headache" is not necessarily an unambiguous good. Some headaches are genuinely worth it! Just depends on your taste and your goals.)

[0] My "favorite" bug was spending the last day of a game jam stuck on a bizarre compiler bug that would only manifest in the wasm version of the game... but I got it figured out in the end!
by cyphar | 2025-11-08 13:20:47+00:00
Not really, OpenVZ was/is really quite good, it was just hampered by the fact it requires out of tree modules. LXC has also always been very usable (Docker even used it for several years) but it was IMHO too focused on the VM-like management scheme that Zones and Jails had.

Docker's killer selling point was that it solved a very common and specific developer problem, not that it provided operational improvements over the state of the art on Linux. From an operational perspective, Docker has generally been a downgrade compared to LXC. (I say this as a maintainer of runc, the container runtime that underpins Docker, and as someone who worked a lot on Docker back in the early days and somewhat less today.)
by Someone | 2025-11-08 13:21:21+00:00
> I've had first time notarizations on brand new developer accounts get approved even when notarizing a broken binary that doesn't actually launch

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... (emphasis added):

“Notarize your macOS software to give users more confidence that the Developer ID-signed software you distribute has been checked by Apple for malicious components. _Notarization_of_macOS_software_is_not_App_Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.”

⇒ It seems notarization is static analysis, so they don’t need to launch the process.

Also, in some sense a program that doesn’t launch should pass notarization because, even though it may contain malware, that’s harmless because it won’t run.
by autop0ietic | 2025-11-08 13:22:09+00:00
I would think GPT5 is great at high school level math but what high school level math problems are not in the training data?

I think the problem is that GPT5 is not "memorising" but conversely that doesn't automatically mean it is "reasoning". These are human attributes that we are trying to equate to machines and it just causes confusion.
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2025-11-08 13:24:27+00:00
> My issue with AI summaries is that they are not even remotely accurate, trustworthy or deterministic.

Who cares if it's deterministic? Google changes their algorithms all the time, you don't know what its devs will come up with next, when they release it, when they deploy it, when the previous cache gets cleared. It doesn't matter.
by ethbr1 | 2025-11-08 13:25:08+00:00
> a system that enables functional and effective customer support

I'm not saying that it's humans, but it's humans.

Augmented by technology, but the only currently viable arbitrator of human-generated edge cases is another human.

If a platform can't afford to hire moderation resources to do the job effectively (read: skilled resources in enough quantity to make effective decisions), then it's not a viable business.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-11-08 13:25:20+00:00
The mechanism would be prediction (learnt during training), not decompression.

It's the same as LLMs being able to "decode" Base64, or work with sub-word tokens for that matter, it just learns to predict that:

<compressed representation> will be followed by (or preceded by) <decompressed representation>, or vice versa.
by brunosutic | 2025-11-08 13:28:04+00:00
That link describes billing problems of a neobank... I mean, yes, there's a big gap between my test helpers and financial institution's problems - to the point it's not related at all.

But, in principle I agree billing, even the simple SaaS stuff, is much harder than most people expect it to be in 2025. My product (linked in the original article) is based completely on Stripe Billing - and it is still very hard to avoid all the footguns.

For people wondering, I even have an example how wrong it can go: I "audited" a successful SaaS I know uses custom Stripe billing. I paid $30 for a starter plan, but was able to "upgrade" to $2k plain for free. Here's the full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuXp7V4nanU
by mapontosevenths | 2025-11-08 13:28:18+00:00
You should try just paying the $8. Its honestly a great value for all the entertainment you get.

It is literally better in every way and helps support the content creators whose work you enjoy. As a bonus it includes YouTube music.

I guess taking those creators work without paying using adblock is one way to live, but that doesnt give you the moral high ground you think it does and your entitled attitude is kind of nasty. Do you really feel like YouTube and all of those creators owe you free shit? Just don't use it if you hate commercials that much and can't afford 8 lousy bucks.

No I don't work there. I'm just a fan who thinks the excuses people make to steal are gross.
by infecto | 2025-11-08 13:28:42+00:00
You’re arguing over nothing. All I have consistently said is scam ads/promoted videos exist in high volume on YouTube but usually only for viewer profiles where YouTube has little to no profile. Those are the cheaper spend areas hence scam ads. YouTube like most of the other platforms do little to police it.

The ads are get rich quick, unregulated powders, crypto etc.

So again I am not even sure what you are arguing about or why you use such nasty language but read what I keep saying and relax.
by dgacmu | 2025-11-08 13:28:45+00:00
otrack et al.: Thank you and congratulations! It's gratifying seeing the wheels of research make progress.

My appreciation of formal and machine-checked proofs has grown since we wrote the original EPaxos paper; I was delighted at the time at the degree to which Iulian was able to specify the protocol in TLA+, but now in hindsight wish we (or a later student) had made the push to get the recovery part formalized as well, so perhaps we'd have found these issues a decade ago. Kudos for finding and fixing it.

Have you yourselves considered formalizing your changes to the protocol in TLA+? I wonder if the advances the formal folks have made over the last decade or so would ease this task. Or, perhaps better yet -- one could imagine a joint protocol+implementation verification in a system like Ironfleet or Verus, which would be tremendously cool and also probably a person-year of work. :)

Edited to add: This would probably make a great masters thesis project. If y'all are not already planning on going there, I might drop the idea to Bryan Parno and see if we find someone one of these years who would be interested in verifying/implementing your fixed version in Verus. Let me know (or if we start down the path I'll reach out).
by DarKraD | 2025-11-08 13:30:52+00:00
Here are the two I have for iBooks. I’m using NextDNS so it will still get blocked when I’m outside the house. I only read my local epubs so I don’t know if blocking these will affect anything you bought on the store.

*.amp-api.books.apple.com *.p2-buy.itunes.apple.com
by wavemode | 2025-11-08 13:31:15+00:00
> Is it too conceited to argue that each application is more unique than each housing structure?

I would say the exact opposite, actually. Two random software applications designed for the same purpose are likely much more similar to each other than two random buildings that were built for the same purpose.

This is because, for practical reasons, the software applications are likely just going to be slight variations of the same base. Unless your application is extremely intricate, most of the complexity (and most of the code that's executing) is actually in the kernel and the libraries. You're mostly just reusing those shared components and arranging them in a slightly different way.
by simianwords | 2025-11-08 13:31:38+00:00
“ In many reasoning-heavy benchmarks, o1 rivals the performance of human experts. Recent frontier models1 do so well on MATH2 and GSM8K that these benchmarks are no longer effective at differentiating models. We evaluated math performance on AIME, an exam designed to challenge the brightest high school math students in America.”

https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/

The benchmark was so saturated that they didn’t even bother running it on the newer models.

Which is interesting because it shows the rapid progress LLMs are making.

I’m also making a bigger claim - you can’t get gpt-5 thinking to make a mistake in undergraduate level maths. At least it would be comparable in performance to a good student.
by quicksilver03 | 2025-11-08 13:31:41+00:00
I have an issue with

The geneal idea of HTMX is that your HTML will be rendered by the backend — à la Server Side Rendering.

To me this phrase makes no sense, what's the thought process behind this meaning of "render"? The only place HTML is "rendered" is in a browser (or in a user agent, if you prefer).
by fredoralive | 2025-11-08 13:32:29+00:00
Not everyone has that sort of luxury of access to source etc., people want their existing binaries to run faster.

Also, if you need to recompile to get a performance boost, why not recompile for a cleaner modern architecture? You can always use an emulator for legacy code, if it isn't going to run fast on a modern CPU either way...
by torginus | 2025-11-08 13:33:10+00:00
Ill be extremely terse. Real world world programs usually have states where you can reach a large amount of objects. This runs into problems since you can borrow too much, and the borrow checker will push you into a corner. The solutions Rust uses to deal with this are Rc, Cell, RefCell which turn compile time borrow checks into runtime ones. However using any of these (either by you or a library you use as a dependency) disqualifies your code from being multithreaded (other than the Js worker way of running multiple copies of it on separate threads).

Anyone who has written nontrival applications in Rust has encountered this.

This is an issue as threading a program will require a huge rewrite. And I concede the point, multithreading is difficult - but Rust doesn't make it easier, it merely disallows most correct programs and forces you to write code in a very particular way.

Thus fearless concurrency is a disingenious statement I don't fear concurrency, I fear the borrow checker.

As for the cowboy/nanny argument I think this is not a good way to represent safety. Freedom comes from safety - for example, you can make pretty much anything nowadays in HTML/JS without thinking about limitations, and the end user can still be confident that your website won't compromise his system.

Nannying is when you are constantly being told what you cannot do. It might not even ensure safety, but definitely restricts your freedom.

And the way you write is extremely rude and condescending, if you do decide to phrase your comments in such a demeaning way (which I don't ever recommend), please at least be right next time.
by matiasmolinas | 2025-11-08 13:33:14+00:00
Curious what you think.

We made LLMunix - an experimental system where you define AI agents in markdown once, then a local model executes them. No API calls after setup. The strange part: it also generates mobile apps. Some are tiny, some bundle local LLMs for offline reasoning. They run completely on-device. Everything is pure markdown specs. The "OS" boots when an LLM runtime reads the files and interprets them. Still figuring out where this breaks. Edge models are less accurate. Apps with local AI are 600MB+. Probably lots of edge cases we haven't hit. But the idea is interesting: what if workflows could learn and improve locally? What if apps reasoned on your device instead of the cloud? Try it if you're curious. Break it if you can. Genuinely want to know what we're missing. What would you build with fully offline AI?
by _benedict | 2025-11-08 13:33:25+00:00
“Paxos” is a term that can mean many different things, so it’s better not to get too attached to any one meaning especially in different contexts.

Multi Paxos is commonly used (especially in industry) as short hand for multi decree Paxos (in contrast to single decree Paxos), but “Paxos” most often refers to the family of protocols, all of which are typically implemented with a leader. It is confusing of course because single decree Paxos is used to implement EPaxos (and its derivatives).

It’s worth noting also that Lamport is (supposedly) on the record as having intended “Paxos” to refer to the protocol incorporating the leader optimisation.
by otrack | 2025-11-08 13:33:34+00:00
Author here.

Lamport simply calls his protocol "Paxos" to refer to both the single‑decree and multi‑decree versions. This is also the case in his other works, e.g., "Fast Paxos" and "Generalized Paxos." The term "Multi‑Paxos" is a later community/industry shorthand for the repeated or optimized use of single‑decree Paxos.
by noAnswer | 2025-11-08 13:36:36+00:00
You know who else is gold partner and at IXes?!

Inter.link! https://inter.link/google-verified-peering-provider/

"As Google discontinues its direct peering agreements at Internet Exchanges worldwide"

Wait... does that mean that "Google is killing the open internet?!" Quick "write" a AI rage bait article about it.
by cjs_ac | 2025-11-08 13:36:45+00:00
Originally, newspapers were very profitable, because they were the only mass media other than books. As representative democracy emerged in the UK, they became very politically significant, and so politicians were eager to hand out viscountcies to anyone who owned a paper in order to curry editorial favour. The legacy of this is that there are now too many national newspapers in the UK, and so they all - even the supposedly sober broadsheets - feel a need to sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers.