MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tapoxi | 2025-11-29 17:36:03+00:00
Microsoft has a bad history of actually making things optional. Required Microsoft account, Edge automatically importing your browser history and syncing it to Microsoft, OneDrive automatically copying your files and sending it to Microsoft, the repeated attempts after every update to make Edge default again...

They haven't given a fuck about the user experience for years and that's colliding with AI exhaustion. There's well over a dozen different things you need to turn off in various parts of Windows at this point to make it accept your decisions and stop throwing ads in your face, all tucked behind multiple layers of dark patterns.
by Telaneo | 2025-11-29 17:36:35+00:00
I've been in discussions about Step 7, and my god, the experience was soul crushing. Even more soul crushing was that the result of that discussion was to not document Step 7, because doing that might enforce the idea of what it should be for and why it should be done.

Writing stuff down is great since it provides a baseline to agree upon, and later additions to the team will take it as given and not start to discuss minutiae and bog down discussions into nothingness. And if some point really is worth discussing, it shouldn't be hard to find support to change it. I've heard some wild misunderstandings of how things were based on how they were being done, and now I never want to do anything of any significant size without there being a clear and obvious process to it.
by abecedarius | 2025-11-29 17:36:54+00:00
> running your own node, as most people do.

Huh, surprising -- it's very different from most people using most software. (Of course HN is not most people.)

I tried to fill myself in by asking Claude Opus neutrally "do most users of Monero run their own node?" and was told it couldn't find good data, it's community-promoted behavior, but there were multiple reasons for skepticism.

I have no idea, I'm just noting my surprise.
by minifridge | 2025-11-29 17:37:44+00:00
I could not tell from the article whether the use of LLMs was allowed in the peer review. My guess would that it was not since this is unpublished research.

In general, what bothers me the most is the lack of transparency from researchers that use LLMs. Like, give me the text and explicitly mention that you used LLM for it. Even better, if one links the prompt history.

The lack of transparency causes greater damage than the using LLM for generating text. Otherwise, we will keep chasing the perfect AI detector which to me seems to be pointless.
by embedding-shape | 2025-11-29 17:37:45+00:00
> and I (and everyone else) wrote Zcash off in that time

Seemingly in the ecosystem you exists in yeah, but in the world at large Zcash seems to have at least 6x the volume. I guess "everyone else" didn't get your memo. Regardless, I don't really care personally which one is better or which one you specifically use, as long as what we say is being truthful :)
by Maxion | 2025-11-29 17:38:00+00:00
See [amocscenarios.org](https://amocscenarios.org/) for various modeled scenarios on what the future could look like with a collapsed AMOC.

Sweden, Finland, Norway would not be hit too badly. Summers will still be warmer, but shorter. Winters longer but about as cold.

The worst effects will be for the UK and specifically Scotland. Their climate wil change to look more like Finlands or Swedens. I.e. proper winters with pretty deep cold spells. This will be a complete disaster as buildings and general infrastrucure will not be able to handle it. There'll be massive issues from frost heave, buildings that are not insulated enough, heating systems specced too small to properly heat houses and so forth.

An AMOC collapse will be very bad, but not quite the Day Afer Tomorrow as some think it would be.
by mekoka | 2025-11-29 17:38:32+00:00
> Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with.

It's pretty hard to know where the opinion is.

The whole paragraph presents as though author is relating known symptoms of a disease. We're never really sure which they themself actually experienced. They look more like arguments in support of a cause.

Author is totally entitled to open that door, but then it also becomes fair game to attack the perspective.
by crazygringo | 2025-11-29 17:39:05+00:00
But why would you want to use SQLite for that?

On a Mac, you'd e.g. use and mount a disk image if you wanted to create a filesystem inside of a file. Windows has virtual hard drives, and you can do that kind of thing on Linux too.

I don't understand why you'd ever want to use a relational database for that. It's a completely different paradigm.

Although I also don't really understand why you're worried about cluttering up a directory. And if it's transient, it's that when temp dirs are for?
by throwaway0123_5 | 2025-11-29 17:40:06+00:00
This is also why I'm skeptical of claims that it would be impossible (or nearly so) for governments to meaningfully regulate AI R&D/deployment (regardless of whether or not they should). The "you can't regulate math" arguments. Yeah, you can't regulate math, but using the math depends on some of the most complex technologies humanity has produced, with key components handled by only one or a few companies in only a handful of countries (US, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Netherlands, maybe Japan?). US-China cooperation could probably achieve any level of regulation they want up to and including "shut it all down now." Likely? Of course not. But also not impossible if the US and China both felt sufficiently threatened by AI.

The only thing that IMO would be really hard to regulate would be the distribution of open-weight models existing at the time regulations come into effect, although I imagine even that would be substantially curtailed by severe enough penalties for doing so.
by wredcoll | 2025-11-29 17:40:44+00:00
> The insinuation that I "want it to be true" is silly. Why would I want cancel culture to exist

People want cancel culture to be real in the same way they want jews to be spreading the black plague. It lets you take reactionary measures based on false premises.

Everytime people bring up "cancel culture" they're using it as a justification for silencing an opposing viewpoint. Thats why they want it to exist, so they can justify a reaction to it.

What happens is that someone says something, then someone else criticizes them, and they try to shutdown that criticism by invoking the concept of cancel culture.

That's the part I object to. Criticism is just as valid as the initial speech and we need to protect it, doubly so when so frequently the ideas people are trying to protect are so objectively abhorrent.

I don't find the "cancel culture inconvenient to acknowledge"; I find talking about it as if it's real gives cover and justification for other antisocial and otherwise negative actions.

I cannot stress enough that telling some asshole to get out of your house and stop saying racist slurs is a perfectly norma and good social interaction that's healthy for society.
by hypercube33 | 2025-11-29 17:40:56+00:00
Thanks to search being trash there was a probject that let you run basically remote apps Linux to windows ie run the apps on a Linux host and the ux is handled on the windows client as a seamless local app. I think it mostly worked. I have no idea what the project was called and none of it was beyond alpha but it seemed really cool and possibly useful more than ever now
by thisisit | 2025-11-29 17:41:18+00:00
This reminds of ads on Amazon Echo and other intelligent devices. I think there was similar hype - not in terms of scale - but on personal data. Many advertisers and their moms were writing skills to tap this market.

It'll be interesting to see how they serve up ads and how it ends up working. Before the initial state is that people will find ways to serve up malware in form of ads and someone might end up writing ublock type stuff to block these ads.
by Teever | 2025-11-29 17:42:57+00:00
I was curious about whether or not the IPCC associates numerical values to words like "unlikely" so I looked it up:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertai...

They seem to be giving the word unlikely a range from 0-33%. I'm not sure how to reason about that 0% given that they also used the phrase "not impossible."
by maxspero | 2025-11-29 17:43:31+00:00
Co-founder of Pangram here. Our false positive rate is typically around 1 in 10,000. https://www.pangram.com/blog/all-about-false-positives-in-ai....

We also wanted to quantify our EditLens model's FPR on the same domain, so we ran all of ICLR's 2022 reviews. Of 10,202 reviews, Pangram marked 10,190 as fully human, 10 as lightly AI-edited, 1 as moderately AI-edited, 1 as heavily AI-edited, and none as fully AI-generated.

That's ~1 in 1k FPR for light AI edits, 1 in 10k FPR for heavy AI edits.
by itkovian_ | 2025-11-29 17:43:43+00:00
Whether it’s actually 20% or not doesn’t matter, everyone is aware the signal of the top confs is in freefall.

There are also rings of reviewer fraud going on where groups of people in these niche areas all get assigned their own papers and recommend acceptance and in many cases the AC is part of this as well. Am not saying this is common but it is occurring.

It feels as if every layer of society is in maximum extraction mode and this is just a single example. No one is spending time to carefully and deeply review a paper because they care and they feel on principal that’s the right thing to do. People did used to do this.
by flir | 2025-11-29 17:44:11+00:00
Uh.... Caught me red handed.

Ok, gonna go read it.

(Hmm. The author says "Follow Scrum, Lean / Kanban, or eXtreme Programming to the letter, and let your team focus on the product."

I disagree - quite vehmently. I guess that's obvious, given that I'm calling out the various capital-A agile methodoliges, and the parasitical industry around them, as harmful/bloated/mostly pointless. But how did you figure out I hadn't read the blog post from that? Now I have, I just think he's wrong).
Ask HN: Is it possible to get 1000 users in 10 days?
by Mikecraft | 2025-11-29 17:44:24+00:00
Hey HN:

I recently joined an hackathon where we are task to build and validate a startup in just 10 days. One of the judges said that 1000 users should be the mark we are to strive to reach in merely 10 days.

Since I haven't built any startup, I want to ask if it's remotely possible to reach that mark?

BTW you can help: https://kanjieight.vercel.app/
Ask HN: Recreate Ghost of Tsushima's tales animation?
by shlip | 2025-11-29 17:44:38+00:00
In the 2020 video game 'Ghost of Tsushima', you meet people telling you tales. These tales are illustrated by Chinese/Japanese ink style animations[1].

I was wondering how this type of animation (software, technique, etc.) could be recreated and have not found much ressources on this. Do someone here have a clue ?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTk3DRngl9A&t=749s
Show HN: LLM Simulation – Experience TTFT and tokens/SEC before investing
by hertzdog | 2025-11-29 17:44:59+00:00
I built a small tool to simulate the user experience of LLM response speeds, focusing on TTFT (time to first token) and tokens/second.

Instead of reading benchmark numbers, you can feel how fast or slow different configurations are, by adjusting TTFT, token generation rate, and output length. It streams tokens exactly as an LLM would, but without generating real content.

I was wondering which Apple should I buy and then I did it in the weekend, to better feel what does it mean to run locally a model.

The project/toy is public on github too: https://github.com/htxsrl/localllmsimulation

Thanks to the sources (cited) for the real benchmarks that allowed me to set up a small ML model to fit even futuristic hardware (like an imaginary M9 with 2048 Gb RAM and 3000Gb/s bandwidth).
by sxp | 2025-11-29 17:45:29+00:00
> At a checkup a few years ago, a doctor told me I was deficient in vitamin D. But he wouldn’t write me a prescription for supplements, simply because, as he put it, everyone in the UK is deficient. Putting the entire population on vitamin D supplements would be too expensive for the country’s national health service, he told me.

Ugh. It's amazing how incompetent medical systems are. I was also deficient in vitamin D and my doctor wrote a prescription. When I did the math, the cost was something like >$.10 per 1000IU. But if I bought the vitamins from a normal store, I would pay <$.01 per 1000IU. Since a person lacking sunlight only needs 1000IU, the price for giving everyone in the UK Vitamin D would be <$700k/day. And probably much less since most people won't need this high of a dose and bulk quantities would be cheaper.

For healthy people, taking extra vitamins is pointless, but giving them to people who are deficient in vitamins is one of the cheapest health interventions for the benefits.

PSA: if you're feeling off, make sure your doctor checks your various vitamin levels and see if cheap OTC vitamins help.
by ffsm8 | 2025-11-29 17:46:27+00:00
"just as well"?

I man you totally can radiate excess heat energy on earth, but your comment implies that the parents idea of radiating off excess "energy", specifically HEAT energy in space is possible, which it isn't.

You can radiate excess energy for sure, but you'd first have to convert it away from heat energy into light or radio waves or similar.

I don't think we even have that tech at this point in time, and neither do we have any concepts how this could be done in theory.
by jsrozner | 2025-11-29 17:47:05+00:00
There is a lot of dislike for AI detection in these comments. Pangram labs (PL) claims very low false positive rates. Here's their own blog post on the research: https://www.pangram.com/blog/pangram-predicts-21-of-iclr-rev...

I increasingly see AI generated slop across the internet - on twitter, nytimes comments, blog/substack posts from smart people. Most of it is obvious AI garbage and it's really f*ing annoying. It largely has the same obnoxious style and really bad analogies. Here's an (impossible to realize) proposal: any time AI-generated text is used, we should get to see the whole interaction chain that led to its production. It would be like a student writing an essay who asks a parent or friend for help revising it. There's clearly a difference between revisions and substantial content contribution.

The notion that AI is ready to be producing research or peer reviews is just dumb. If AI correctly identifies flaws in a paper, the paper was probably real trash. Much of the time, errors are quite subtle. When I review, after I write my review and identify subtle issues, I pass the paper through AI. It rarely finds the subtle issues. (Not unlike a time it tried to debug my code and spent all its time focused on an entirely OK floating point comparison.)

For anecdotal issues with PL: I am working on a 500 word conference abstract. I spent a long while working on it but then dropped it into opus 4.5 to see what would happen. It made very minimal changes to the actual writing, but the abstract (to me) reads a lot better even with its minimal rearrangements. That surprises me. (But again, these were very minimal rearrangements: I provided ~550 words and got back a slightly reduced, 450 words.) Perhaps more interestingly, PL's characterizations are unstable. If I check the original claude output, I get "fully AI-generated, medium". If I drop in my further refined version (where I clean up claude's output), I get fully human. Some of the aspects which PL says characterize the original as AI-generated (particular n-grams in the text) are actually from my original work.

The realities are these: a) ai content sucks (especially in style); b) people will continue to use AI (often to produce crap) because doing real work is hard and everyone else is "sprinting ahead" using the semi-undetectable (or at least plausibly deniable) ai garbage; c) slowly the style of AI will almost certainly infect the writing style of actual people (ugh) - this is probably already happening; I think I can feel it in my own writing sometimes; d) AI detection may not always work, but AI-generated content is definitely proliferating. This *is* a problem, but in the long run we likely have few solutions.
by jjk166 | 2025-11-29 17:47:59+00:00
> On the other hand, I have seen process stifle above average people or so called “rockstars”. The thing is, the bigger your reliance on process, the more you need these people to swoop in and fill in the cracks, save the day when things go horribly wrong, and otherwise be the glue that keeps things running (or perhaps oil for the machine is more apt).

This is a case of bad process. No process is perfect, but the whole point of process is so when things go wrong they don't go horribly wrong, and that you don't need rockstars to fill in the cracks. It should be making your rockstars faster because the stuff they need others to take care of gets done well. Unnecessary friction that slows people down is generally a sign of management mistaking paperwork for process.
by mschuster91 | 2025-11-29 17:48:04+00:00
> This is what routers are for.

Useless in modern days though. IP addresses with anything backed by any cloud/CDN can vanish whenever they want, you'll always need to keep track of the upstream DNS responses.

That's extra fun if you do site-to-site-VPNs with a major customer. Won't name names, but they do have a habit of going through IP renumbering sprees every year or two and it's a true pain to keep the routing table, Zerotrust provider config and firewall rulesets in sync.
by roflchoppa | 2025-11-29 17:48:09+00:00
Whats weird is that I know of at least 8 “modern cars” 2018+ that all have had cracked windshields.

3 of them are mine, my 2002 car has taken huge rocks like a champ…

Its big glass im telling you, esp because the recalibration stuff for Assistive Steering is like 7-800 bucks.
Show HN: Chess on a Donut/Torus and Deep-Dive
by mannymakes | 2025-11-29 17:48:17+00:00
Hey there! I just finished a youtube video explaining our donut chess in detail: https://youtu.be/iRcfHCPFgkM

So I thought it'd be cool to show it off here too- it can be played around with at mchess.io/donut - you can also set up an AI or online game on the site.

This is all indie dev work from a couple friends and myself.
by notahacker | 2025-11-29 17:48:35+00:00
You can't just "leave them there" though. They orbit at high speed, which effectively means they actually take up vastly more space, with other objects orbiting at high speed intersecting those orbits. The orbits that are most useful are relatively narrow bands shared with a lot of other satellites and a fair amount of debris, and orbits tend to decay over time (which is a problem if you're in low earth orbit because they'll decay all the way into the atmosphere, and a problem if you're in geostationary orbit because you'll lose the advantage of stationary bit for maintaining comms links). This is a solvable problem with propulsion, but that entails bringing the propellant with you and end-of-life (or an expensive refuelling operation) when it runs out. The cost of maintaining real estate space is vastly more than out right owning land.

Similarly, making stuff have a great life expectancy is much more expensive than having it optimized for cost and operational requirements instead but stored somewhere you can replace individual components as and when they fail, and it's also much easier to maximise life expectancy somewhere bombarded by considerably less radiation.
by thefourthchime | 2025-11-29 17:49:17+00:00
As a serial DIYer, I respect the engineering depth here, especially the custom vector index, but I disagree on the self-hosted ML approach. The innovation in embeddings is just too fast to keep up with locally without constant refactoring. You can actually see the trade-off in the "girl drinking water" example where one result is a clear hallucination.
by ronbenton | 2025-11-29 17:49:51+00:00
I have done general process automation work (usually designing new web-based tools) for 20 years now. The underlying idea has always applied, even before AI: if your process is ill-defined and/or nonsensical, trying to "automate" it isn't going to work out.

I have seen a smattering of instances along the way where the act of defining requirements forced companies to define processes better. Usually, though, companies are unwilling to do this and instead will insist on adding flexibility to the automation tooling, to the point where the tool is of no help.
by wasabi991011 | 2025-11-29 17:49:57+00:00
> Its toxicity threshold is somewhere around 4g/day for an adult.

I was surprised it was that low, but I think you misread/misremembered. From your link:

> Toxicity is likely to develop in adults at:

>12 g over a 24 hours, or 7.5 to 10 g in a single dose, or Doses 350mg/kg

The 4g/day is the dosage threshold, but it seems they set it to 1/3 of the toxicity threshold.
by hnlmorg | 2025-11-29 17:50:47+00:00
Mr Beast isn’t the internet. He’s a TV show host. And there’s been exploitative TV shows for decades. This isn’t a format Mr Beast invented.

As for security, that was always an issue. Malware, denial of services attacks, etc aren’t a recent phenomena. And hacking was so prevalent that even Hollywood caught wind, hence the slew of hacker movies in the 80s and 90s (Wargames, TRON, Hackers, Anti Trust, Swordfish, Lawnmower Man, and so on and so forth).

The problem isn’t that internet etiquette has gotten worse. The problem is that there is so much more online these days that the attack surface has grown by several orders magnitude. Like how there’s more road accidents now than there was in the 70s despite driving tests progressively getting tougher (in most countries). People aren’t worse drivers, there’s just more roads and busier with more vehicles.
by Peteragain | 2025-11-29 17:51:54+00:00
I think the argument is that yes LLMs find patterns in token sequences. Assign tokens to moves in a chess game and the tokens are predictive of what happened in the past and of what chess players will do in the future. The LLM is not doing semantics; the humans who generated the corpus are doing the thinking. The LLM has no representation of goals or plans, rooks or bishops, it's just glorified auto complete from a corpus of tokens that we humans understand as refering to things in the world.
by cgh | 2025-11-29 17:51:55+00:00
It’s worth looking at this polar map to get a visual sense of the ramifications of this happening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle#/media/File:Arct...

Notice the red line, marking where the average temperature of the warmest month is below 10°C. Notice how low it is on the west side of the Atlantic, in Nunavut and Labrador. It’s between 50° and 60° north.

Now imagine that line at those latitudes in Europe. You’d have Labrador-like conditions in the UK, a drastic situation indeed. Reykjavik would suddenly resemble Iqaluit.
by maxspero | 2025-11-29 17:52:10+00:00
I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten.

This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero false positives of 1,992 human-written documents and over 99% recall in detecting AI documents. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5407424