MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Benjamin_Dobell | 2025-11-14 00:57:33+00:00
It most certainly was. You have someone outside your organization who accessed the data, and you know about it. Here's what you just wrote about the person who accessed this endpoint:

> - The author was ultimately banned from the community not for their opinions on this matter, but because of a long streak of unrelated conduct issues that culminated in a spree of saying horribly abusive things to multiple other members of the community.

> — They have been pursuing a grudge against the organization ever since. They are not a reliable narrator, this post is a fantasy version of events that casts them as a martyred hero.

Someone who has been acting maliciously against your organization accessed that data. And you think it's fine? They're a teenager. An angry teenager, who is acting out. You honestly believe you can trust they didn't distribute this data or tell anyone else about the problem before you found out about it?

When I was a teenager, someone in my year level gained access to a lot of personal data about a bunch of people in our year level. This was a smart individual who at least somewhat understood the gravity of the situation. But they were also a kid, of course they distributed some of the data — bragging rights and what not.

What about the section titled "the surveillance infrastructure (orpheus engine)" where the teenager claims children's data was intentionally being sent out to third parties, specifically to profile kids? What's that all about?

Look, no-one read this article and thought "Wow, this is well written article by a super mature well-adjusted individual. I'm taking this as gospel." The article is clearly written by an angry teenager. I feel far more invested in this now that I've seen your responses. The way you're handling this, and yourself, is just downright absurd. Stop.
by msla | 2025-11-14 00:57:36+00:00
My punt: Compilers and transpilers are both translators, and the only meaningful difference is whether the output is meant to be easily edited by a human, which is a spectrum more than a hard dividing line. The p2c Pascal to C translator [1] is pretty clearly a transpiler in that the C it outputs is pretty readable, the Stalin Scheme to C translator [2] is more clearly a compiler in that its output, even though it's C, is not human-readable unless you're a very dedicated type of person.

[1] https://github.com/FranklinChen/p2c

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_%28Scheme_implementatio...

So, where does BabelJS sit? Somewhere in between, depending on what language features you used in the input code. Obviously generators require heavy transformations, but other features don't.
by Sevii | 2025-11-14 00:57:48+00:00
Paying better than a decent chunk of degrees isn't enough to be competitive. What are the working conditions? Is it inside with AC at a desk? Is it 8 hours a day 5 days a week? If it's not you have to factor that into total comp. Is your job still competitive with a decent chunk of degrees when you factor in an extra 20k for working conditions?

Trades people like to compare total comp but never talk about working conditions, upward mobility, how much they drive or whether their employer provides their tools.
by pedro_caetano | 2025-11-14 00:59:20+00:00
Definitely anecdata but an eye opener for me:

I've been using Anthropic's models with gptel on Emacs for the past few months. It has been amazing for overviews and literature review on topics I am less familiar with.

Surprisingly (for me) just slightly playing with system prompts immediately creates a writing style and voice that matches what _I_ would expect from a flesh agent.

We're naturally biased to believe our intuition 'classifier' is able to spot slop. But perhaps we are only able to stop the typical ChatGPTesque 'voice' and the rest of slop is left to roam free in the wild.

Perhaps we need some form of double blind test to get a sense of false negative rates using this approach.
by westurner | 2025-11-14 00:59:22+00:00
ScholarlyArticle: "Optimization by decoded quantum interferometry" (2025) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09527-5 :

> Abstract: [...] Here we introduce decoded quantum interferometry (DQI), a quantum algorithm that uses the quantum Fourier transform to reduce optimization problems to decoding problems. When approximating optimal polynomial fits over finite fields, DQI achieves a superpolynomial speed-up over known classical algorithms
by jmadeano | 2025-11-14 00:59:37+00:00
It can handle content block, but that is just a small piece of the pie.

> I think I am not fully understanding the use case yet.

Even after playing with it a long time myself, I am still surprised by the creative use cases people come up with! The biggest pause for many users we've seen so far is "This is awesome, but I don't know what to use it for"

The main post text above has some varied examples. The space of possibilities is somewhere between anything a Tampermonkey script can do and anything a standalone chrome extension can do. We plan to keep developing and sharing useful example scripts and we hope as we get more users, they can share their scripts as well to create a community dynamic that makes it easier to get started.
by rocmcd | 2025-11-14 00:59:46+00:00
The mummy example is interesting, but we're not trying to reanimate mummies in an artificial way so I'm not sure it poses the same issue. There's also an educational and historical aspect with mummies that is missing here.

This also allows for the creation of a kind of "anti-history", where someone could create a fictional history for nefarious purposes.

In fact, a common undercurrent I see with many AI use cases is accelerating the breakdown of trust in society. You can no longer trust anything you read, see, or hear.
by fenomas | 2025-11-14 01:00:34+00:00
TBH it sounds like you're just imagining a very different service than the one openAI operates. You're imagining something where you send an input, the server returns an output - and after that they're out of the equation, and storing the output somewhere is a separate concern that could be left up to the user.

But the service they actually operate is functionally a collaborative document editor - the chat histories are basically rich text docs that you can view, edit, archive, share with others, and which are integrated with various server-side tools. And the document very obviously needs to be stored on the server to do all those things.
by dinkelberg | 2025-11-14 01:01:46+00:00
According to that blog post (https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...), the vulnerability density for 5 year old code in Android is 7.4x lower than for new code. If Rust has a 5000 times lower vulnerability density, and if you imagine that 7.4x reduction to repeat itself every 5 years, you would have to "wait" (work on the code) for... about 21 years to get down to the same vulnerability density as new Rust code has. 21 years ago was 2004. Android (2008) didn't even exist yet.
by msla | 2025-11-14 01:02:42+00:00
> The cheapie appliances are the ones that will be subsidized by the insane data collection policies, just like TVs are now.

How does that work if I buy the appliance outright? I mean on their end: I buy it, I don't let it talk to the Internet, the company loses ad revenue and... what? Break into my place and steal it from me?
by TheTaytay | 2025-11-14 01:02:59+00:00
Unlike a lot of other commenters, I found this to be an interesting approach. Text files are good. Having an integrated environment that combines files and channels and collaboration seems like a neat idea, and I could imagine building all sorts of neat stuff on it.

However, I just tried it myself and was really shocked to see other people in my sidebar after I clicked on the “collaboration” stuff. I expected to be dropped into my own collaboration environment built around my own channels, like a fresh private Slack instance, but instead I saw the built-in Zed channels and as I clicked around, it looked/sounded like I was joining voice channels. It was as if I’d accidentally joined someone else’s Discord. It was so mentally jarring that I got afraid I was on a live mic or would accidentally be live-sharing stuff with strangers.
by dh2022 | 2025-11-14 01:03:46+00:00
And then came GWB and Dick Cheney with "Reagan proved deficits do not matter". Right away they slashed dividend income taxes, capital gains taxes, phased out estate tax, took away Medicare's ability to negotiate lower drug prices or re-import them cheaper from Canada [0], and started two long expensive wars (Afghanistan and Iraq).

(It is my personal opinion that the current US Financial situation is due to GWB's presidency. He started this country on this road.)

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1126891/
by gpm | 2025-11-14 01:04:43+00:00
> It's absolutely possible to bork ownership and have multiple thread trample a struct.

This is specifically the one place where go is not memory safe IMO.

> It's absolutely possible to compute wrong pointer offsets.

In Go? Without the `unsafe` package (at which point you are explicitly opting out)? How? There's no pointer offset in the first place.

> It's absolutely possible to dereference nil.

Yeah, but that's safe defined behavior in go equivalent to "unwrap"ing a None option in rust. It reliably crashes. It's not like C where it's undefined behavior and you might crash of you might just corrupt random memory or have the optimizer make your code do something even stranger.

It's (really the lack of non-nil types) is one of many reasons why go doesn't produce as reliable software as rust, but it's not a memory safety issue.

> It's absolutely possible to reinterpret memory the wrong way.

Again, without the unsafe package? How?
by numpad0 | 2025-11-14 01:04:58+00:00
This sounds plausible. Unicode as used and implemented on modern OS has a nasty quirk that texts become patchy mix of the language in use + random Simplified Chinese equivalents(apparently the opposite still randOmly haPPEn in Simplified Chinese systems too - showing Japanese pieces out of nowhere). The official Unicode Consortium sanctioned solution to this problem is to specify and switch fonts wherever and however appropriate, even mid-sentences, which isn't a great solution, if not unreasonable for a lot of developers.

Creating language-specific fonts that can be just forced everywhere to eliminate random pieces from other languages solves this problem. At least everything will be consistent.
by ryandv | 2025-11-14 01:05:57+00:00
> What exactly are people not hearing? Say the quiet part out loud already.

I thought I was fairly explicit right here, in this comment [0]. Shall I continue and post my 93 Theses?

There are no hidden messages here. If you think there are I suggest you seek a licensed psychiatrist.

> It is the fact they can no longer openly shit on women and minorities and homosexuals and trans people that they have issues with.

On the contrary - browsing through my comment history will reveal that I openly shit on women, homosexuals, trans people, people I have issues with, and more.

> The fact that being white and having a white name are not enough to be granted a favorable job.

Not sure what this has to do with anything - I am an ethnic minority, but thank you for assuming my race and ethnicity. I invite you to assume my sex and gender next.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45917800
by SigmaEpsilonChi | 2025-11-14 01:06:13+00:00
I never said anything was fine. I said it was a serious vuln, and we took it seriously.

We patched the vulnerability, quickly. We addressed it with the engineer and made clear that this is no joke. We have extensive refactoring happening within our infrastructure to move to a model where this information is handled as much as possible through secure, audited, centralized systems. Is there something else we should be doing?

The crux of the question here was about whether GDPR obligates us to email all 5,000 people signed up for this program about this vulnerability. The two lawyers we have consulted on this have both said no. One of them specifically specializes in privacy compliance. It's not a complicated legal question, the answer is just no.
by TacticalCoder | 2025-11-14 01:07:28+00:00
Refusing to pay a ransom and instead giving the money to the "ennemies" of the attackers isn't "virtue signaling" (as someone already commented: it's a "fuck you" to the attackers).

In french we call that a "pied de nez". "Turning the table" / "Poetic justice" / "Adding insult to injury" would all be more correct than "virtue signalling".

If there was no attacker and the company gave half a mil out of nowhere to a security company (or a charity) and boasted publicly about it, that would be virtue signalling.

But refusing to pay the ransom and giving the exact same amount to security researchers is just a big, giant, middle finger.

And a middle finger ain't no virtue signalling.
by jmadeano | 2025-11-14 01:07:36+00:00
> Cool idea and onboarding experience. I spun up Chrome to demo it, and although its got the rough edges of a prototype, the potential is there.

I'd love to hear more about the rough edges. We're working hard to polish everything up! Would you be willing to share the script you generated so that I can take a closer look? And any other suggestions are welcome :)

> an accessible way to find and apply vetted addons so that you don't have to (fail at) making your own

This is on the immediate roadmap. We just shipped V0 of the share/profile and sharing + discoverability are going to play an important role in upcoming launches.

Let's say it perfectly one-shotted your request for youtube: Would you be more likely to generate more scripts yourself or still lean toward vetted and relevant existing tweeks?
by Marshferm | 2025-11-14 01:08:22+00:00
Are you for real dude? Lkms is a typo of LLMs. Semantic is only in task demands, and they’re variable. They extend limitlessly from action or spatial syntax, they don’t exist in words or images. You’ve been sold junk tech, read any Gary Marcus or Rodney Brooks and yes am enjoying the ride, we are the next stage - analog entertainment.

Laughing all the way at the AI clown show.
by austinshea | 2025-11-14 01:08:54+00:00
I agree with everything you're saying, and I think other archaeologists feel the same.

My opinionated take is: I wouldn't want to use this space for the information that this tool could provide, and rather leave it as the truth.

The truth is that it was committed without a meaningful message, and now I might recognize a chain of message-less commits, representing a moment in time where the authors were trying to figure out where they wanted to end up.

If the tool is producing this info simply by reading the diffs in the code, why not just use it when you need it, to help explain what you're digging through, instead of changing the commit history?

Either way, the critical detail is: People should get that detail out before the rice has been cooked, and that's what I do for myself, in my own private repos, and when others do that for future archaeologists, we all benefit.
by nine_k | 2025-11-14 01:09:02+00:00
Yes, every separate component is doable. What looks hardest to me is the geometry: every node / drone would not only need to be perfectly synchronized with the rest of the swarm, but also understand its location within it with millimeter precision, in order to time its impulse to do beamforming, or allow locating any received signals. We should assume that near the battlefield GPS is already jammed, so it must be a sophisticated network of laser rangefinders between the drones, plus location data from land stations.

Then, there should be a super-node in a larger aircraft that would receive the data from the swarm and turn it into a coherent picture, run object detection and tracking, etc.
by system2 | 2025-11-14 01:09:19+00:00
Cynicism? The post they published is blaming the 3rd party and "legacy" bs. They are talking about "credit cards are safe," but 25 god damn percent of their merchants' data have been leaked. This is messed u, and they play it cool by saying "we donated money because the issue wasn't o big deal". I read that posts as a professional deflection.
by array_key_first | 2025-11-14 01:10:25+00:00
The idea that people occasionally throw around that C is more 'simple' and less 'complex' than C++ or Rust and therefore it leads to more maintainable or easy to understand code is, IMO, completely bogus.

C is not simple, it is inept. There are so, so many bargain-bin features and capabilities that it just cannot do that it ends up creating much MORE complex code, not less complex code.

I mean, just the pretense that simple tool = simple engineering isn't necessarily true. Building a home using an excavator and drills is fairly straight forward. You know what's complicated? Trying to build a home using only a screwdriver. Yeah. Good luck with that, you're gonna have to come up with some truly insane processes to make that work. Despite a screwdriver being so much more simple than an excavator.

Trivial example: you want to build a container that can hold data of different types and perform generic operations on them.

C++ and Rust? Easy. Templates and generics. C? Up until a few years ago, your options were: 1. copy and paste (awful) or 2. use void * (also awful).

Copy and paste means your implementations will diverge and you just artificially multiplied your maintenance burden and complexity. And void pointer completely throws away any semblance of type safety, forces you to write stupid code that's way more complex than it needs to be, and, to top it off, is horrible for performance!

That's just one example, but there's so, so many when you look around C++ or Rust enough. And these are not rare things, to me. To me, these are everyday coding problems.

Anonymous functions? There's another one. Encapsulation? Just making not literally every piece of data universally mutable? Not possible in C. Trivial in C++ and Rust, and it makes your programs SO much easier to reason about.
by WhyOhWhyQ | 2025-11-14 01:10:53+00:00
"including rapidly re-scrolling the terminal buffer" Yes this bug is brutal.

"consuming vast amounts of RAM" Also this. Claude will leave hanging instances all the time. If you check your task manager after a few days of using it without doing a full reset you'll see a number of hanging Claude processes using up 400 mb of RAM.

Claude actually has a huge number of very painful bugs. I'm aware of at least a dozen.
by jasongill | 2025-11-14 01:12:28+00:00
This article explains this new program for those (like me) who had no idea what a "mini app" was and why it matters: https://www.macrumors.com/2025/11/13/apple-announces-mini-ap...

tldr: it will let Apple charge a commission (although at 15%, it's half the normal 30% rate for the app store) on popular web app games embedded in to WeChat for the Chinese market
by m4rtink | 2025-11-14 01:13:10+00:00
Blue also has a cute little elephant robot that shows up later in the stream. :)

BTW, while the pyrotechnic welding bolts are kinda neat, I do hope they come up with something else (electromagnets ?) eventually as it could be quite a hassle tneeding to cut the booster from the deck every time you land. :)
by rainsford | 2025-11-14 01:13:19+00:00
That argument makes sense if your question is what are the odds a specific person becomes a billionaire through sheer luck, but the real question is would a population of billions of people worldwide produce billionaires even if the process of becoming a billionaire involved randomly succeeding a number of times in a row.

The answer is yes for surprisingly unlikely outcomes for any particular individual. Using your coin flipping example, assume everyone in the US was flipping a coin a number of times in a row and the billionaire winners were those who got all heads. It would take ~20 coin flips per person to produce the actual number of American billionaires. Clearly the chance of any specific individual flipping a coin 20 times and getting heads all 20 times is ridiculously small, but there are a lot of people in the US and math is math. Should we ask what special qualities those all heads people possess? Allow them outsized influence in how our country runs and how we live our lives?
by JKCalhoun | 2025-11-14 01:14:39+00:00
The "share" part is interesting.

I am imagining something slightly different perhaps? In the same way Pi Hole has a kind of global list of (ad) URLs to block, I am looking for an extension where all these edits to deshittify a site are applied for me automatically when I visit a site.

That is, if someone has already stripped out banners, etc. (deshittified a site) and (somehow?) "submitted" the edits, I just want to pull those in when I visit the same site.

I understand 1) one person's deshittifying might go too far 2) there will be multiple ways to deshittify a site depending on who does it, and 3) sites change and a deshittify strategy that worked earlier could break.

I have no good answers for the above issues.
by gpm | 2025-11-14 01:15:17+00:00
You're not allowed to sponsor the murder of people in other countries just because they won't extradite to your country. If you did this from within the US, the federal government and probably whatever state you live in would rightfully consider this murder for hire.

Your recourse within US law is to petition the government to do something about it. Negotiate extradition. Go to war. Etc.
by anamax | 2025-11-14 01:15:39+00:00
> Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation?

Probably not Crimea, but you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power".

The lack of European defense spending since 95 means that Europe doesn't have much to help Ukraine. (EU countries brag about "100% to Ukraine" but never talk about how little that 100% is.) It also means that Europe doesn't have much in the way of a defense industry. (And then they whine when money gets spent on US weapons.)

Getting serious in 2014 (after Crimea) would have given Europe options.

> EU military spending only really came up under Trump

Trump's comments, the actual words, on EU defense spending were basically the same as Obama and W's.

The difference was in how Europeans, especially the Germans, reacted.

BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"