MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gchallen | 2025-11-25 16:48:40+00:00
As a teacher, I agree. There's a ton of covert AI grading taking place on college campuses. Some of it by actual permanent faculty, but I suspect most of it by overworked adjuncts and graduate student teaching assistants. I've seen little reporting on this, so it seems to be largely flying under the radar. For now. But it's definitely happening.

Is using AI to support grading such a bad idea? I think that there are probably ways to use it effectively to make grading more efficient and more fair. I'm sure some people are using good AI-supported grading workflows today, and their students are benefiting. But of course there are plenty of ways to get it wrong, and the fact that we're all pretending that it isn't happening is not facilitating the sharing of best practices.

Of course, contemplating the role of AI grading also requires facing the reality of human grading, which is often not pretty. Particularly the relationship between delay and utility in providing students with grading feedback. Rapid feedback enables learning and change, while once feedback is delayed too long, its utility falls to near zero. I suspect this curve actually goes to zero much more quickly than most people think. If AI can help educators get feedback returned to students more quickly, that may be a significant win, even if the feedback isn't quite as good. And reducing grading burden also opens up opportunities for students to directly respond to the critical feedback through resubmission, which is rare today on anything that is human-graded.

And of course, a lot of times university students get the worst of both worlds: feedback that is both unhelpful and delayed. I've been enrolling in English courses at my institution—which are free to me as a faculty member. I turned in a 4-page paper for the one I'm enrolled in now in mid-October. I received a few sentences of written feedback over a month later, and only two days before our next writing assignment was due. I feel lucky to have already learned how to write, somehow. And I hope that my fellow students in the course who are actual undergraduates are getting more useful feedback from the instructor. But in this case, AI would have provided better feedback, and much more quickly.
by robocat | 2025-11-25 16:48:43+00:00
Dirty upsells for recurring revenue.

Apple pushes iCloud REALLY HARD. I'm on the free plan but I paid when on holiday and now I get heavy dark patterns from Apple (phone UI, emails, yadda).

Android too? Persistently asking "Photos backup is turned off! Turn it on?" to use up storage to justify a subscription fee?

Too often you can feel a UI push towards some revenue stream - frustrating UX!
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-11-25 16:48:44+00:00
When I read this discussion on GitHub, a quite different thought than what the comments here on HN discuss comes to my mind:

Why is the person who made this AI-generated pull request (joelreymont) so insistent that his PR gets merged?

If I created some pull request and this pull request got rejected for reasons that I consider to be unjust, I would say: "OK, I previously loved this project and thus did such an effort to make a great improvement PR for it. If you don't want my contribution, so be it: reject it. I won't create PRs anymore for this project, and I hope that a lot of people will see in this discussion how the maintainers unfairly rejected my efforts, and thus will follow my example and from now on won't waste their time anymore to contribute anything to this project. Goodbye."
by foota | 2025-11-25 16:49:01+00:00
*It disregards the importance of ports. Even if an architecture isn't widely used, supporting multiple architectures can help reveal bugs in the original implementation that wouldn't otherwise be obvious."

Imo this is true for going from one to a handful, but less true when going from a handful to more. Afaict there are 6 official ports and 12 unofficial ports (from https://www.debian.org/ports/).
by slfnflctd | 2025-11-25 16:49:08+00:00
I get what you're saying. A therapist is one of the types of people I had in mind, although that obviously isn't an option for everyone.

I agree that it's important to be able to have your own independent autonomy to properly function in a healthy relationship, especially a romantic one.

The point I was trying to make is perhaps more subtle than it came across, namely that webs of trust between humans (e.g. 'community') are, in my view, essential to being a fully actualized adult. If you aren't close to anyone, I think that means something is wrong which deserves further inspection, particularly within yourself.
by xscott | 2025-11-25 16:49:54+00:00
This is some True Scotsman style counter argument, and it's hard for me to make a polite reply to it.

There are people who program with a "fake it till you make it" approach, cutting and pasting from Stack Overflow, and hoping the compiler errors are enough to fix their mess. Historically, these are the ones your pages/books cater to, and the ones who think the borrow checker is the hard part. It doesn't surprise me that you only see code from that kind of beginner and experts on some rust-dev forum and nothing in between.
Show HN: Idealane – Intuitive vibe coding for entrepreneurs and SMBs
by lluiscanadell | 2025-11-25 16:50:00+00:00
Hi HN! made a vibe coding platform with the non-technical user in mind. This means that you don’t have to integrate Supabase, Auth0, it’s automatic. Our goal is to soon also provide email, payments, and other integrations automatically. We target SMB owners and entrepreneurs. We will differentiate by talking non-technical, hide code most of the time, friendly consumery UX and support Made pricing also simpler: 1 credit = 1 prompt (drives me nuts when in other platforms you don’t know what you’re paying for) Would love any thoughts!
by cogman10 | 2025-11-25 16:50:11+00:00
The last 32bit laptop CPU was produced nearly 20 years ago.

Further, there are still several LTS linux distros (including the likes of Ubuntu and Debian) which don't have the rust requirement and won't until the next LTS. 24.04 is supported until 2029. Meaning you are talking about a 25 year old CPU at that point.

And even if you continue to need support. Debian based distros aren't the only ones on the plant. You can pick something else if it really matters.
by wing-_-nuts | 2025-11-25 16:50:24+00:00
>The reason teaching became largely a women's profession when they used to be exclusively men is because we wanted to make education universal and free so we did that by paying less, and women who needed to work also had to take what they could get.

Do you have any source on the assertion that being a teacher used to pay more? Because to my knowledge it has never been a high paying profession.
by tucnak | 2025-11-25 16:50:33+00:00
You seem to be involved with 9front.

Are you trying to suggest there is a nontrivial community of people who cannot afford modern 64-bit Linux platforms, and opt for 9front on some ancient 32-bit hardware instead? Where are they coming from? Don't get me wrong, I love the 9 as much as the next guy, but you seem to paint it as some kind of affordability frontier...
by lucideng | 2025-11-25 16:50:54+00:00
To me the solution is: Ban homework. All projects, essays, tests, etc are done at school on air-gapped machines or written by hand. Work is monitored by the teacher with video surveillance in 'test halls'. Cell phones can be kept in a small locker. If the student needs to be reached, a parent or whomever can call the school. Internet research should be done in a separate environment, printed out, then taken to the 'work' location. Like how you used to photo-copy sections of a book. Printed text can be cataloged by the school and compared to completed work for plagiarism.

Take away the internet. Except in a research/library scenario. Give them a limited time to complete tasks. This would promote a stronger work ethic, memory/recall and more realistic to time management skills. They need to learn to rely on themselves, not technology. The only effective way is to remove tech from the equation, otherwise the temptation to cheat to compete/complete is too strong.
by woadwarrior01 | 2025-11-25 16:51:03+00:00
> BFL likely should have held off the release until their Apache 2.0 distilled model was released in order to better differentiate from Nano Banana/Nano Banana Pro.

Qwen-Image-Edit-2511 is going to be released next week. And it will be Apache 2.0 licensed. I suspect that was one of the factors in the decision to release FLUX.2 this week.
by duped | 2025-11-25 16:51:42+00:00
imo the biggest single problem with C++ that the simple act of building it is not (and it seems, cannot) be standardized.

This creates kind of geographic barriers that segregate populations of C++ users, and just like any language, that isolation begets dialects and idioms that are foreign to anyone from a different group.

But the stewards of the language seem to pretend these barriers don't exist, or at least don't understand them, and go on to make the mountain ranges separating our valleys even steeper.

So it's not that CMake is a self-inflicted wound. It's the natural evolution of a tool to fill in the gaps left under specified by the language developers.
by iamnothere | 2025-11-25 16:52:00+00:00
> The services should provide a friends-only mode, and that should be the default.

This isn’t such a bad idea, although maybe it should depend on the type of game. As a kid the only place I played games with random people was Quake servers and Battle.net. This wasn’t really an issue, as there’s not much time to socialize when you’re blowing up your opponent. But Roblox seems to be primarily a social meta-game with many sub-games, so it’s riskier.

It’s a spectrum. On one end you have Second Life and VRChat, which should absolutely have a no kids policy. At the other end you have single player games which are obviously fine. In the middle there’s everything from online Mario Kart games to Counter Strike. Some are probably more ok than others. As it stands Roblox is uncomfortably close to the no-no zone.
by swatcoder | 2025-11-25 16:52:23+00:00
If you're looking to Hacker News comments for political insight like you hint at, you're expectations of the site are misaligned with what it's been established to be and what it's guidelines aim for. Seemingly, it's the same kind of misalignment that makes people loudly complain when political threads get flagged and killed.

This site is specifically a salon where a bunch of pseudonymous "too smart" nerds opine about topics that stimulate their curiosity, following guidelines on best-intent and good-faith that are essentially debate rules. Sometimes, amidst those discussions, you'll witness seemingly personal anecdotes or seemingly insider insights, which you should always be taking as a grain of salt, used only to drive (or repel) your own curiosity and desire for more discussion and debate.

It's not a great place for earnest politics, activism, or anything so serious and existential. And because it doesn't aim to be, it doesn't beg for disclosures like location. As long as you can "talk the talk" here, and follow the guidelines, you're welcome to participate in the discussion how you'd like, without being measured by your person, its history, or its geography. Its great to have a place like that online.
by RobAley | 2025-11-25 16:52:52+00:00
Their reasoning for not having 2 keyholder is that 2 people are more likley to colude to change the results (in this case announce false results) than 3. Of course 3 people could still colude to do so, so it's a matter of reducing not eliminating the risk. My understanding is that in 2 out of 3, the third can also decrypt/view the results, so (assuming number 3 doesn't lose their key) then 2 can't colude to cheat (unless they also colude to somehow "deprive" number 3 of their key (e.g. with a heavy wrench)). If number 3 does lose their key, then the risk of colusion is higher than "requires all 3", but conversly the risk of "accidental or deliberate failed election" is lower. It's (always) about a balance of risks.
by GoatInGrey | 2025-11-25 16:53:00+00:00
Judging by the site, they don't have insightful answers to these questions. It's broken with weird artifacts, errors, and amateurish console printing in PROD.

https://i.ibb.co/xSCtRnFJ/Screenshot-2025-11-25-084709.png

https://i.ibb.co/7NTF7YPD/Screenshot-2025-11-25-084944.png
by Aurornis | 2025-11-25 16:53:05+00:00
> This is breaking support for multiple ports to rewrite some feature for a tiny security benefit. And doing so on an unacceptably short timeline. Introducing breakage like this is unacceptable. I’m Normally I’d agree, but the ports in question are really quite old and obscure. I don’t think anything would have changed with an even longer timeline.

I think the best move would have been to announce deprecation of those ports separately. As it was announced, people who will never be impacted by their deprecation are upset because the deprecation was tied to something else (Rust) that is a hot topic.

If the deprecation of those ports was announced separately I doubt it would have even been news. Instead we’ve got this situation where people are angry that Rust took something away from someone.
by MrAlex94 | 2025-11-25 16:53:11+00:00
I hope I don't come across too harsh in my criticism here, but this is in my wheelhouse and I like to keep tabs on the privacy browser market in comparison to Waterfox.

> A bold technical choice: WebKit, not another Chromium clone

I don't find this a bold technical choice at all for a macOS only browser? I think this would be more impressive if it was Windows as well, as back (maybe ~5 or so years ago) when I was investigating WebKit on Windows, builds were not on an equal playing field[1]. So the engineering to get that up and running would be impressive.

> Speed by nature

Unfortunately, as of 16:40 UTC, I am unable to run the browser (installer?) to benchmark it due to "An error occurred while parsing the update feed.", but I recall 2 years ago when I tested Orion it was the slowest of all the browsers on macOS and Safari had quite a lead. I'd also be curious, being based on WebKit, how much faster it will actually be on macOS vs Safari?

I dropped speed as a focus point on Waterfox after compilation flags started making less of a difference compared to the actual architectural changes Mozilla were making for Firefox.

> Privacy etc

I think comparing to other major browsers such as Chrome the points are valid, but against Safari I'm not convinced it holds up as much. I know there is some telemetry related to Safari, but privacy is a big selling point for Safari as well and I'd be curious to see actual comparisons to that?

Safari includes iCloud Privacy Relay (MPR based on MASQUE[2]) and Oblivious DNS[3] - arguably two very valuable features that a company at a scale like Apple can subsidise.

The entire AI section also feels like trying to have it both ways as well. They criticise other browsers for rushing AI features, position themselves as the "secure" alternative, then immediately say they'll integrate AI "as it matures." This reads more like "we're behind on AI features" than a principled stance. If security is the concern, explain your threat model and what specific architectural decisions you're making differently? Currently Firefox has kept AI out of the "browser core" as it's been put, and I don't see them ever changing that.

Kudos that they have >2000 people paying for the browser directly, but I will say it doesn't excite me to see another closed source browser entering the market (I don't see any mention here of open-source apart from mention of WebKit being open source).

I do realise this is more a marketing post than an actual technical deep dive, but so much is just a rehash of every feature almost every modern web browser has?

I'll keep updating this comment as and when I can explore the browser itself a bit more.

[1] https://fujii.github.io/2019/07/05/webkit-on-windows/

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/masque/about/

[3] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340301.3341128
by locknitpicker | 2025-11-25 16:53:15+00:00
> I love and use rust, it is my favorite language and I use it in several of my OSS projects but I'm tired of this "rewrite it in rust" evangilism and the reputational damage they do to the rust community.

This right here.

As a side-note, I was reading one of Cloudflare's docs on how it implemented its firewall rules, and it's so utterly disappointing how the document stops being informative suddenly start to reads like a parody of the whole cargo cult around Rust. Rust this, Rust that, and I was there trying to read up on how Cloudflare actually supports firewall rules. The way they focus on a specific and frankly irrelevant implementation detail conveys the idea things are ran by amateurs that are charmed by a shiny toy.
by marcosdumay | 2025-11-25 16:53:50+00:00
Well, I can immediately think of two reasons:

Backtracking parsers lead people into creating bad grammars. In principle people are perfectly capable of creating simple context-free grammars and write any parser they want to read it. But on practice your tools guide your decisions for a huge extent, and the less experience people have, the more true that becomes; so it's a really dangerous tool, in particular for students.

Also, fully backtracking parsers have the most unpredictable and hard to fix error conditions for all possibilities. There exist middle grounds where the parser execution is still predictable but you do get most of the benefit from backtracking, but that's a lot of complex engineering decisions to reach and keep your project close that optimal.

Immediate edit: On a CS context there is one reason that is probably more important than any other. People use parsers as an application of automata and regular languages theory. Those two concepts are way more important than the practical implications of parsing.
by travisgriggs | 2025-11-25 16:53:53+00:00
> I love and use rust, it is my favorite language and I use it in several of my OSS projects but I'm tired of this "rewrite it in rust" evangilism and the reputational damage they do to the rust community.

Thanks for this.

I know intellectually, that there are sane/pragmatic people who appreciate Rust.

But often the vibe I’ve gotten is the evangelism, the clear “I’ve found a tribe to be part of and it makes me feel special”.

So it helps when the reasonable signal breaks through the noisy minority.
by bryanlarsen | 2025-11-25 16:53:56+00:00
Oh, it's much more interesting than that. Phoenix started as an attempt to create a gun registry. Ottawa had a bunch of civil servants that'd be reasonably compotent at overseeing such a thing, but the government decided that it wanted to build it in Miramichi, New Brunswick. The relevant people refused to move to Miramichi, so the project was built using IBM contractors and newbies. The resulting fiasco was highly predictable.

Then when Harper came in he killed the registry mostly for ideological reasons.

But then he didn't want to destroy a bunch of jobs in Miramichi, so he gave them another project to turn into a fiasco.
by martypitt | 2025-11-25 16:54:39+00:00
> As long as you have Pricing on your website your product is not open source in the true spirit of open sourceness.

It's an MIT license. That IS open source.

If they have a commercial strategy - that's a GoodThing. It means they have a viable strategy for staying in business, and keeping the project maintained.

MIT == OpenSource. Pricing == Sustainable. That's a horse worth backing IMO.
by ericmay | 2025-11-25 16:54:43+00:00
> You convinced me to add the 'where possible' clause, because there are some cases were people can't handle money.

I'm not really in favor of or against UBI, but I think that your assessment here isn't quite right. It's not that there are some cases where people can't handle money, it's actually the norm that people can't handle money, at least in America. And when you expand your scope to include folks with steady jobs and such and "can" handle money, they don't really make enough money such that their better handling of money will make a difference either. UBI kind of rests on this assumption that people will "spend their money wisely" or spend their money efficiently - but people will spend their money in obviously stupid ways and then we'll deal with the consequences anyway because as a society we are not willing to let people die on the street. To be fair, not all who would make use of UBI would do so in a poor fashion, and like you said don't let perfect become the enemy of good.

Most people who are competent and kind enough to look at these kinds of problems and want to provide a great solution for them out of the kindness of their heart, in my estimation, just do not have experience dealing with the target population and understanding the true limitations of just giving a little bit of help.

If you grew up in a roughly middle class environment, went to college afterward, etc. and you didn't know any crackheads in your family, you probably should stay far away from trying to find solutions for these problems because you're just going to wind up frustrated and wrong about worthwhile solutions for the rest of your life which will distract anyone from actually making progress. I'm not suggesting this about you or anything, just speaking broadly. Most of the time people working on these issues are like product managers who just care about what the data says instead of having a really good intuition for the "customer" or the "problem".

Back to UBI itself I actually think it should go to everyone, because at the end of the day those who are high earners are just going to net out paying for it, and it'll be simpler to administer if "everyone gets it" and there's less room to complain about it and less hand-wringing and adjustments for whatever excuse people come up with for who gets some and who gets more. If everyone gets it, there's much less arguing about that stuff.

The best part about a potential UBI implementation is that we can replace all of the government workers administering and declaring who is eligible for benefits whether that's SNAP or Welfare and one dude can be sitting at home and push the big red "send checks" button with an offshore team in India in case that guy is too drunk to do his job.

Maybe just providing free healthcare and dental care, job training and education, and a sack of fresh produce is the way to go too. I'm not sure.
by Weves | 2025-11-25 16:54:54+00:00
There are also many teams we work with that want to (1) retain model flexibility and (2) give everyone at the company the best model for the job. Every week? a model from a different provider comes out that is better at some tasks than anyone else. It's not great to be locked out from using that model since you're a "ChatGPT" company.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-11-25 16:55:04+00:00
Sometimes giving people what they want can be bad for them; management wants cheap compliant workers, management gets cheap compliant workers, and then the projects fall apart in easily predictable and preventable ways.

Because such failures are so common management typically isn’t punished when they do so it’s hard to keep interests inline. And because many producers are run on a cost plus basis there can be a perverse incentive to do a bad job, or at least avoid doing a good one.
by minimaxir | 2025-11-25 16:55:15+00:00
Looking at the file sizes on the open weights version (https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev/tree/mai...), the 24B text encoder is 48GB, the generation model itself is 64GB, which roughly tracks with it being the 32B parameters mentioned.

Downloading over 100GB of model weights is a tough sell for the local-only hobbyists.