MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by imiric | 2025-11-27 22:17:09+00:00
Whether or not that question is interesting is hardly relevant in this particular discussion. Companies building this technology are marketing it as if computers can think. They're telling us they can, and people are buying into it based on that claim.

So that quote doesn't reconcile the extraordinary claims of one side with the skepticism of the other.

And also, no disrespect to Dijkstra, but that sentiment is a bit shortsighted. If we could make computers think, it would have a profound impact on humanity. This is why there is so much excitement around this. We've been imagining this scenario for centuries, and we hope that this time around we can finally crack it. So comparing that achievement with something we can produce with classical technology is... uninspiring? Underwhelming? Selling ourselves short? I can't quite put it into words, but the possibility of answering that question would certainly be very interesting.
Show HN: I built a free astro and tailwind static site for GitHub pages
by chiengineer | 2025-11-27 22:17:32+00:00
Using my GitHub pro+ with vs code setup

This is a demonstration of how good of a site can I build essentially 100% for free + free hosting (if coded manually without a 50$ subscription)

And I went completely overboard on purpose its 99% useless for a real production deployment im sure but for mini blogs probably might be useful idk

I dont even use the new GitHub spark or whatever to slow compared to 1k+ line edits every couple minutes

im obviously working on a ton of other things I won't make public yet but will in the future
by ewidar | 2025-11-27 22:17:40+00:00
I am not an expert, but from the examples in the article I think the author is looking for a bit more than read-your-writes.

E.g. They mention reading a list of attachements and want to ensure they get all currently created attachements, which includes the ones created by other processes.

So they want to have "read-all-writes" or something like that.
by thisislife2 | 2025-11-27 22:18:16+00:00
True. But there's also the plus side - Intel Macs allowed us to run multiple OSes and that was a very desirable feature that was part of its attraction. With ARM Macs, this attraction is truly gone (even if Apple fans taut its ability to run a crippled Linux). So, many will no longer buy any ARM Macs at all. That's Apple's loss. As soon as the battery of my old iPad also conks out, I plan to buy an Android tablet with an unlocked bootloader - I am never buying a locked device that infringes on my rights, ever.
by munk-a | 2025-11-27 22:18:30+00:00
I wish LinkedIn was that good. In my eyes LinkedIn has become "Facebook but with resumes" - I accept that I should have a profile on there for resume visibility but there are so many features built into that site that just should not exist and so many genuinely valuable things around job seeking they could do that they're simply not.

It's an excellent example of a product that could be massively improved by just removing things - look back to early linkedIn days where their email notifications actually meant there was likely something relevant that you care about there. Now they've created a platform where the valuable is buried in piles of irrelevant slop.
by eschaton | 2025-11-27 22:19:08+00:00
There’s not a huge amount of _explicit_ dependency on the bit width of the system in either the 3600 or Ivory. Of course there’s still plenty of _implicit_ dependency in terms of hardware interaction, object layout in memory, collector implementation, etc. but that’s all stuff that had to be dealt with anyway to port from CADR to 3600 in the first place, and then again to port from 3600-series to Ivory.
by IgorPartola | 2025-11-27 22:22:49+00:00
Cherry are more expensive than the rest but honestly I didn’t love the feeling of their keys. To be fair I was after a particular feel of very clicky keys.

For longevity I don’t feel the need to really differentiate between 100,000 actuations and like 500,000. Both are long enough and I don’t mind replacing the switches in a few years because let’s face it, it can be fun to try some of the new stuff and switching things up.
by harry8 | 2025-11-27 22:24:33+00:00
Well even if you are sure about your intuition in the knowledge that this confidence by humans has led to huge problems and tragedies in the past, you still want to have a good estimate of the effect size.

How much resource to allocate to this treatment vs other treatments having a positive effect.

Somewhere there ends up being a trade off that I will caricature as "Do we want another hospital OR another park?"

(All the above is idealised, the biggest win that moves the efficient frontier outwards is effectively fighting corruption and being vigilant defending the gains made. This seems to be universal across countries and cultures).
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-11-27 22:25:19+00:00
Code is code, use a text editor.

3D assets can be made in your 3d program of choice.

Skeletons and animations are also somewhat standard. Use whatever tool you prefer.

Textures are bound to 3d assets, and use plenty of 3rd party tools.

USD makes scenes interchangeable. Use or write tools to fit your needs.

compute shaders are also somewhat standard. Work them out in python until you're happy with them.

Thats alot of it, if you really hate all game engine UIs. But the UI was good enough for the developer of the engine so mabie it's good enough as is.
by slurpyb | 2025-11-27 22:25:36+00:00
Its too late. Marketplaces and storefronts are neck deep in slop and generated content, with information that is so derivative, unhelpful, and constructed with get-rich-and-get-out motivations at every step. This is just another layer of obfuscation and opportunity for hallucinations to manifest themselves into the models.

If the information being consumed is biased because its sponsored content or whatever, then we may as-well just let OpenAI run their own ads platform with responses. At least then they can take some responsibility for it. They have to introduce human oversight somewhere.

It reminds me of what was ultimately the solution to gold farming in WoW; Blizzard had to start selling it themselves. The system had been gamed, it wasn’t solvable through engineering. Botting is a human problem.

Can we just take a breath and think shit through instead of creating solutions to problems to solutions to problems to solutions?
by intelec1 | 2025-11-27 22:26:02+00:00
In this investigation, we examine how four leading American newspapers—USA Today, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the New York Post—turn the same news story into four opposing narratives. Who is manipulating the facts? Why do some media outlets suppress key details, while others inflate political accusations? We compare the narrative, hidden interests, corporate connections, political motives, and omitted details. This is an in-depth analysis of media manipulation in the US and an analysis of the information games surrounding the White House shooting. If you want to understand how parallel realities are formed in the American press, this video will provide you with a map of all the hidden mechanisms.

#USMedia #MediaManipulation #Investigation #Analysis #USNews #USPolitics #MediaWar #InformationWar
by IshKebab | 2025-11-27 22:26:14+00:00
Why? I'm pretty sure I can learn the lyrics of a song, and probabilistically output them in response to a prompt.

Is the existence of my brain copyright infringement?

The main difference I see (apart from that I bullshit way less than LLMs), is that I can't learn nearly as much as an LLM and I can't talk to 100k people at once 24/7.

I think the real answer here is that AI is a totally new kind of copying, and it's useful enough that laws are going to have to change to accommodate that. What country is going to shoot itself in the foot so much by essentially banning AI, just so it can feel smug about keeping its 20th century copyright laws?

Maybe that will change when you can just type "generate a feature length Pixar blockbuster hit", but I don't see that happening for quite a long time.
by flatline | 2025-11-27 22:27:35+00:00
> gawk at

Exactly this, it’s just another outgrowth of the attention economy, and I assume there is a payoff for many people or they would not be engaged with the platform. I assume part of that is purely for the attention, but part of it must be remunerative from a professional standpoint as well. The lines get blurry fast in influencer spaces. What is work, what is personal, what is even real, and how much does any of that matter as long as you are getting attention?
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-11-27 22:27:58+00:00
Seemed to me that the author was referring to regression to the mean, as another commenter noted.

De novo mutations have a negative effect, to be sure, but it is extremely weak on an individual level. In parents who are extraordinary, the effect of regression to the mean is going to be 20x to 40x stronger than the effect of de novo mutations. For instance, if you have two parents who are both 195cm tall, the regression penalty might be 4cm, whereas the mutation penalty would be somewhere in the millimeters, so a statistically average child would be ~190.9cm. If both parents are statistically average, there'd be no regression penalty and only a vanishingly small mutation penalty.
by zdragnar | 2025-11-27 22:28:28+00:00
It tells you up front what you would otherwise have to go line by line to find out.

There's a similar argument to be made for using forEach/ map / reduce / filter instead of a for loop. Each of those iterative methods has slightly different semantic intent. The only thing the for loop adds to the mix, and therefore the only reason to use them, is the availability of continue / break.

Hell, the same argument could be made for while loops vs for loops. What does a for loop really add that you couldn't get with a while loop?

As for your last point, I don't know of any linter that complains about the use of let when you reassign it. The ones I've used only complain if you use let when const would have worked identically in your code.

The fact that people write bad code is not down to let/const or linters. People always have and always will write crap and not understand why.
by renewiltord | 2025-11-27 22:31:19+00:00
Haha, you're absolutely right. But the kind of thing he's complaining about is on HN too. "Why the Cloudflare outage should never have happened" and so on and so forth. Everyone has wisdom to share but somehow they're never equivalently successful.

"As a third-year student in Computer Science at the University of Tzatziki, I would never use unwrap, I'd use expect, so then the error log that I skipped over would be accurate..." blahblahblah
by boricj | 2025-11-27 22:31:33+00:00
I am thankful for my coworkers. I'm the kind of software engineer who is a mad scientist in disguise.

Bridging dissimilar message busses with data-driven Lua scripts. Creating a Jenkins SCM plugin that exposes the sources packages of a Debian repository (complete with binary dependency tracking) as an organization folder to turn it into a package builder. Improvising a Git proxy/cache with a hundred lines of Bash to lessen the load on the lab uplink (still load-bearing to this day). Writing a toolchain in Python that takes OpenAPI documents as an abstract syntax tree and run passes on it to parse, validate, aggregate, transform and format it for various needs (such as generating C++ code for data models, dataframe bindings and so on). Delinking programs back into object files and creating Frankenstein monsters from salvaged pieces, and somehow landing a poster presentation about that at ACM CCS 2025 as a hobbyist (this one outside of office hours, but it still triggers brain meltdowns when I talk about it). And so many, many more sins.

I honestly don't know how they are putting up with the incarnation of chaos that is me.
by mrlonglong | 2025-11-27 22:34:36+00:00
#include <iostream> #include <mutex> #include <thread> class SharedResource { private: int value; std::mutex mtx; public: SharedResource() : value(0) {} void setValue(int newValue) { std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mtx); value = newValue; } int getValue() { std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mtx); return value; } }; void threadFunction(SharedResource& resource) { resource.setValue(42); std::cout << "Value: " << resource.getValue() << std::endl; } int main() { SharedResource resource; std::thread t1(threadFunction, std::ref(resource)); std::thread t2(threadFunction, std::ref(resource)); t1.join(); t2.join(); return 0; }
by stevenhuang | 2025-11-27 22:35:21+00:00
> 21. That every expression graph built from differentiable elementary functions and producing a scalar output has a gradient that can itself be written as an expression graph, and furthermore that the latter expression graph is always the same size as the first one and is easy to find, and thus that it’s possible to fit very large expression graphs to data.

> 22. That, eerily, biological life and biological intelligence does not appear to make use of that property of expression graphs.

Claim 22 is interesting. I can believe that it isn't immediately apparent because biological life is too complex (putting it mildly), but is that the extent of it?
by soraminazuki | 2025-11-27 22:36:30+00:00
> The kernel represents itself as a process (process zero)

This isn't true of any modern operating system. Kernel code isn't confined to a single process or even a limited number of processes. Transitioning to kernel mode doesn't necessitate switching to a dedicated process. Prior to the emergence of CPU speculative execution vulnerabilities, it was common for kernel code to be mapped directly into the virtual address spaces of userspace processes.

PID 0 is merely an implementation detail of the scheduler shared among many Unices. It doesn't function like a normal process, nor is it an accurate representation of how the large part of the kernel operates.
by stephen_g | 2025-11-27 22:37:36+00:00
Visit Australia, plenty of people are! When the real paybacks are generally 4-8 years (depending on what we're talking about) why wouldn't people be? We have 4.2 million solar systems (for reference there are almost 11 million dwellings). Just this year the Federal Government started giving out grants for home batteries and over 55,000 people have already taken that up and at least 90,000 home battery installations exist so far according to these stats: https://cer.gov.au/markets/reports-and-data/small-scale-inst...

Even if people don't go to the lengths I do (I like to watch the current generation and will slightly delay my use big loads like the washing machine, dishwasher, dryer etc. to try and use as much as my solar as possible), it's still very common for people to choose to do things like set the dishwasher timer in the day to use solar - which is great because it's also taking load off the grid.
by s1mplicissimus | 2025-11-27 22:38:06+00:00
I assume the contingent universe is where my existence happens and thus a potential thankfulness should be placed on. I'm for example not gonna be thankful we're not in a higher-dimension universe, because my experience would likely be unfathomably different and things might look very different from there.

As history shows, Rome did win, so I wonder just how you imagine Carthage could have won? Should they just have "tried harder"? (i imagine they did what was possible) Was there another universe where the first apes that would later become Carthagians found more bananas, thus had higher population and resources and won this way? Honestly curious how you set the rules of this counterfactual history :D
by ggm | 2025-11-27 22:39:16+00:00
The one thing I would say off the bat is that declarative statements to geography and landscape determining MUST statements about how troops move are remarkably unconvincing. I don't know why these leaked plans insist on saying them. Surely the lesson of Ukraine is "everything, everywhere, all the time"?

I don't think troop movements en masse can ignore terrain but statements to outcome determined in advance by terrain invite what happened regarding static defences in France.

I would expect that infiltration across potential fronts simultaneously, irrespective of the difficulty backfilling at volume, and I would expect simultaneous attacks on the rear at great depth and dispersion to divert resources, and deprive the defender of power and communications infrastructure to impede movement of supplies.

I would expect any stockpile of any resource whatsoever, military or not, to be attacked. All of it. Food, oil, straw, water, sewage, domestic AM radio, ATC, rail traffic light controls, bridge and rail crossing management systems, all of it to be flooded with small incendiary and explosive drones. Tens of thousands of them, repeated over days.

The idea that NATO could rapidly move hundreds of thousands of troops to a single front in a few days needs to be challenged. There won't be a single front, and there won't be an uncontested controlled rear.

NATO should be planning to infiltrate and burn "shahed" supply chain factories to the ground worldwide. Because if they don't, they will be ignoring what is going to be done to them months before a war starts.

I also think more optimistically that Russia will need a lot more than 4 years to be ready to do this, and that age is not working in favour of the leadership. Keeping up the economic warfare is important.
by skybrian | 2025-11-27 22:40:00+00:00
The author complains about duplication in social media. It's certainly not limited to LinkedIn.

I wonder if part of the problem is that people don't see each other's posts and don't quite realize how repetitive they're being when they write them? You can't expect the same amount of coherence that you get in a small discussion where people actually read each other's posts.

Alternative theory: perhaps they don't care?
by ssl-3 | 2025-11-27 22:40:38+00:00
It appears that the recycled street numbers each appear on different blocks.

Street 6, for instance: I've found it twice so far.

But they're still distinct, in that one Street 6 is within Block M 3 B, and another is within Block M 7.

Which appears to suggest that blocks are more important at identifying an address than a street name is, and if that's the case then that works just fine.

And indeed, a distinct address appears to be something like this: Plot 15, Block M 7 Lake City, Lahore, Pakistan. Plug that into Google Maps and you'll see what I'm seeing (and note that the string doesn't include a street name at all).

It does seem weird to my wee little Ohio-trained brain to identify a building by what block it is on more than the street it is facing, but then: Canadian post codes and Hungarian addresses also look weird to me, and also work fine in the places where they're used.
by calaphos | 2025-11-27 22:45:02+00:00
That is comparing an all to all switched Nvlink fabric to a 3D torus for TPUs. Those are completely different network topologies with different tradeoffs.

For example the currently very popular Mixture of Experts architectures require a lot of all to all traffic (for expert parallelism) which works a lot better on the switched NVlink fabric as opposed where it doesn't need to traverse multiple links in the torus.
by protocolture | 2025-11-27 22:45:40+00:00
Not even just immigration. The US detains people based on the content of their phones.

Like beloved childrens authors https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-tha...

Or meme havers

https://hyperallergic.com/us-agencies-say-they-have-no-recor...

The advice is generally, that if you absolutely have to go to the US, that you start a fresh email account, and take an empty/clean phone signed in with your fresh email account through border security, then load a backup to your phone once through.
by nearbuy | 2025-11-27 22:46:31+00:00
You misunderstood me. I wasn't claiming viruses are or aren't alive. I was pointing out you chose a citation that doesn't contain support for your claim. There are plenty of sources that would back you up, but that link doesn't.

> That article (and the more general article on viruses) both pointedly avoid referring to viruses as organisms

As if you expect people to carefully read the whole article, notice it doesn't mention anywhere whether viruses are alive, and conclude that by not mentioning this it supports your claim. By the same logic, it pointedly avoids saying viruses aren't alive.

The main article on viruses has a section that addresses directly whether viruses are alive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties):

> Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell—although some bacteria such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. The virocell model first proposed by Patrick Forterre considers the infected cell to be the "living form" of viruses and that virus particles (virions) are analogous to spores. Although the living versus non-living debate continues, the virocell model has gained some acceptance.
by willis936 | 2025-11-27 22:46:44+00:00
And instead trust that subscription prices will stay constant and that the company will always stay in business and support the product you purchase?

The root issue is trust, not a lifetime license. In fact, a lifetime license is a good predictor of trust because users prefer it to subscriptions and it indicates that the company at least pretends to be interested in the customer's wants.

Trust can always be abused, as in this case. Trust is gone everywhere. That doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt. It won't be rebuilt on a subscription model that no one asked for.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-27 22:46:58+00:00
I was a manager, much of my career.

I hated it, but was actually pretty good at it (I worked for a company that didn't suffer slackers, and they kept me for almost 27 years). I mainly kept it, because I couldn't trust anyone else to do the job correctly.

But my heart has always been in the tech, and I did side projects, that whole time. Since leaving, I ran screaming back to being a technical implementation person, and am almost deliriously happy.

A good manager is actually fairly hard to find. It's been my experience that a majority of highly-talented developers, don't make good managers.
by 8fingerlouie | 2025-11-27 22:47:04+00:00
Not really.

It's part of the 3-2-1 backup setup, but where other people have their "offsite backup" in the cloud, I keep my working copy there, and have backups at home.

I outsourced operations of it though. I have self hosted for decades, and for the first time in 15-20 years, I'm able to take a vacation and not bring my laptop in case something breaks.

As for main storage, as was probably evident from my comment, I don't have 30TB of cloud storage. We have our important stuff in the cloud, and "everything else" at home, but nothing at home is accessible from the internet unless you're on a VPN.