MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tapland | 2025-11-12 19:32:43+00:00
It’s a few games, but a few very important ones.

GTAVs online ecosystem with custom servers. Rust hasn’t enabled Linux Battleye support. Valorant

Some releases that are temporarily popular like BF6, playtest of Battleye games where Linux support isn’t enabled (Fellowship, Exoborne). All games in this paragraph also by Swedish developers. Kom igen, linuxstöd
by Night_Thastus | 2025-11-12 19:32:43+00:00
Imagine if we could hook this into game rendering as well. Have super high resolution models, textures, shadows, etc near where the player is looking, and use lower LoDs elsewhere.

It could really push the boundaries of detail and efficiency, if we could somehow do it real-time for something that complex. (Streaming video sounds a lot easier)
by danudey | 2025-11-12 19:33:01+00:00
AI not writing legal briefs for you is a feature, not a bug. There's been so many disaster instances of lawyers using ChatGPT to write briefs which it then hallucinates case law or precedent for that I can only imagine Google wants to sidestep that entirely.

Anyway I found your response itself a bit incomprehensible so I asked Gemini to rewrite it:

"Google AI refused to help write an appeal brief response to my ex-wife's 7-point argument, likely due to its legal-risk aversion (billions in past fines). Newcomer ChatGPT provided a decent response instead, which led to the ex losing her appeal (saving $18k–$35k in lawyer fees)."

Not bad, actually.
by keoneflick | 2025-11-12 19:33:06+00:00
I wonder if Steam will finally implement multi-user sign on for local multiplayer games (like all true consoles).

It's something that doesn't get headlines, but a real barrier for enjoyment for a console-like PC. Hate being stuck with 'guest 1' and 'guest 2' or whatever. Many games want each player to progress and without true multi sign on, it just doesn't work. Hence games dropping local multiplayer on PC.
by godelski | 2025-11-12 19:33:19+00:00
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough in my comment. I was trying to say that being old gives some legitimacy for existing. Just because it is old doesn't mean it isn't used. Though yes, this should be better determined to make sure it isn't breaking workflows you don't know about.

But old AND obscure, well it's nice that it is supported but enabled by default? Fully with you there.
Show HN: Scribe v2 Realtime – new SOTA real-time speech to text model
by lharries | 2025-11-12 19:33:24+00:00
Luke from ElevenLabs here. We just released Scribe Realtime v2, our new real-time Speech to Text model.

We rebuilt it from the ground up around a new architecture that uses predictive transcription – it anticipates the next likely word before it’s spoken. That makes it both fast (around 150 ms latency) and highly accurate.

Scribe v2 Realtime outperforms every low latency transcription model across 30 commonly used EU and Asian languages – 93.5% accuracy, compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash (91.4%), GPT-4o MiniTranscribe (90.7%), and Deepgram Nova 3 (85%).

It supports 90+ languages including English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, and Japanese. It’s designed for live, agentic applications like AI voice agents, meeting notetakers, and captioning systems.

We also built an open-source real-time transcription UI component at https://ui.elevenlabs.io/blocks to make it easy to integrate voice into any product.

You can use Scribe v2 Realtime via our API or directly within ElevenLabs Agents.

Try it out here: https://elevenlabs.io/realtime-speech-to-text or read the docs: https://elevenlabs.io/docs/capabilities/speech-to-text

We’d love your feedback!
by llamasushi | 2025-11-12 19:34:10+00:00
"Warmer and more conversational" - they're basically admitting GPT-5 was too robotic. The real tell here is splitting into Instant vs Thinking models explicitly. They've given up on the unified model dream and are now routing queries like everyone else (Anthropic's been doing this, Google's Gemini too).

Calling it "GPT-5.1 Thinking" instead of o3-mini or whatever is interesting branding. They're trying to make reasoning models feel less like a separate product line and more like a mode. Smart move if they can actually make the router intelligent enough to know when to use it without explicit prompting.

Still waiting for them to fix the real issue: the model's pathological need to apologize for everything and hedge every statement lol.
by mrguyorama | 2025-11-12 19:34:19+00:00
>sama gets a lot of shit, but I have to admit at least he used to work on the UBI problem, orb and all.

The Orb was never ever ever meant to ever fix anything about UBI or even help it happen.

It was always about creating a hyped enough cryptocoin he could use as an ATM to fund himself and other things. That's what all these assholes got into crypto for, like, demonstrably. It was always about taking investment from fools who could not punish you for screwing them over, and then taking your bag and going home to play.

The orb was a sales and marketing gimmick. There's nothing it could do that couldn't be done by commodity fingerprint scanners.
by MostlyStable | 2025-11-12 19:34:27+00:00
No, it's not. Regulations making building new power plants, especially renewables, and extra especially nuclear, in addition to making power lines difficult to build, are to blame. Yes, in an environment where power availability is ~fixed on short-to-medium time scales, adding a new large demand will increase prices.

But a fixed supply is a policy choice, and is not the fault of AI companies.
by tracker1 | 2025-11-12 19:34:38+00:00
Silly me, using Rider (and VS Code) on Linux with C# (FastEndpoints and Dapper) with PostgreSQL...

Now the above is personal preference, while my day job is on Windows (also FE/Dapper) but with MS-SQL, which is because another group does DBA. I'm using VS Code for the work stuff though.
by ectospheno | 2025-11-12 19:34:45+00:00
My experience is 30 years old so take this with a grain of salt.

I rushed goblin mines on every character. If I hit a bunch of food in town then the run was on. Store food you can’t carry every few levels. You only need to carry enough food to reach one of your stashes.

You learn good/bad food by watching pet. If your pet wants to eat it then you are good.

I have no idea how people manage vegetarian or foodless runs.
by Spivak | 2025-11-12 19:34:52+00:00
See this has become a popular quip when talking about AI but it doesn't make any sense. Autogenerated API references are worth their weight in gold despite not being written by a human. Live captioning and transcription in Teams/Zoom is really useful when you you miss something and need to go back. Machine translations, as flawed as they might be, are a godsend despite not being written by a human translator.

You can apply this logic to procedurally generated games like No Man's Sky. Why would you want to play a level that a human didn't even bother to design?
by jsunderland323 | 2025-11-12 19:34:56+00:00
Me too. I know HN doesn't love YC companies but I was a little shocked.

I swear it isn't vaporware but there's only one way to find out.

There are definitely rough edges, we are after all a 2 man band but I don't ship things that don't work and it's admittedly not done great with older versions of React. You should try it though!
by toast0 | 2025-11-12 19:35:02+00:00
> I bought a stack of WD gold drives several years ago that had several thousand hours on them as well. I believe I got those off Newegg. When I asked, they said something about initial testing, but why didn't they reset the counters before selling them? Who knows.

Thousands of hours doesn't pass the smell test. There's no way a specific SSD goes through months of testing prior to sale. A couple of hours seems reasonable though. And I'd rather it not be easy to reset the counters, so they don't reset the counters after testing during manufacturing/burn-in.
by embedding-shape | 2025-11-12 19:35:06+00:00
> Human reaction time is very difficult to average meaningfully

Indeed, my previously stated number was taken from here: https://news.mit.edu/2019/how-fast-humans-react-car-hazards-...

> MIT researchers have found an answer in a new study that shows humans need about 390 to 600 milliseconds to detect and react to road hazards, given only a single glance at the road — with younger drivers detecting hazards nearly twice as fast as older drivers.

But it'll be highly variable not just between individuals but state of mind, attentiveness and a whole lot of other things.
by empw | 2025-11-12 19:35:14+00:00
Wasn't Intel trying to do something similar in Itanium i.e. use software to translate code into VLIW instructions to exploit many parallel execution units? Only they wanted the C++ compiler to do it rather than a dynamic recompiler? At least some people in Intel thought that was a good idea.

I wonder if the x86 teams at Intel people were similarly baffled by that.
by mattnewton | 2025-11-12 19:35:14+00:00
You have to do this algebra per state and locale, and your reward is higher advertised prices than the shop next door. I think you both underestimate the problem and overestimate everyone involved in retail, especially the consumer.

I’m not saying it’s hard, I’m saying there is enough friction where it’s just not going to happen without legislation mandating it.
by dakiol | 2025-11-12 19:35:31+00:00
Yeah exactly. I'm using codex, btw. So I feel weird to pretend I'm not using LLMs and I write all code just by using my brain. But on the other side, there's no much point on explaining one-self on how LLMs are used to do a task... like, it would look very ridiculous to share my screen and ask 90% of the solution to the LLM while the interviewer just looks at LLM output... that's like analyzing how one uses Google to search for stuff (and I swear that 100% of the engineers out there use Google to search for stuff related to coding, but I haven't heard of any tech interview that includes a session to asses your Google skills, right?)

So, if we are not pretending, and companies want people who can use LLMs, well, I think it's rather clear: No more live coding interviews, no more live system design interviews. You can just send take-home assignments because people WILL use LLMs to solve them. You just analyze the best solution offline and take the best.

If any the only "live" interview needed is: are-you-a-real-person-and-not-an-asshole?
by jasonsb | 2025-11-12 19:35:32+00:00
Of course this principle applies to Gmail too, if you’re willing to accept the absurdity. I could copy-paste copyrighted NYT snippets into emails and send them to everyone I know. Under the same logic, the NYT would be entitled to have access to everyone's Gmail account in order to verify who's sending what and get compensated if anyone is infringing their copyright.

That’s not justice. That’s legal extortion.

I get that people are angry at OpenAI. But let’s not confuse outrage over one company with support for broken systems. Patent and copyright trolls thrive when we normalize overreach, whether it’s AI training data or email threads. If we let corporations weaponize IP law to control every digital whisper, we’re not protecting creators, we’re burying free expression under a mountain of lawsuits.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-11-12 19:35:37+00:00
There isn't.

When it comes to anti-cheat on Linux, it's basically an elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.

Anti-cheat on Linux would need root access to have any effectiveness. Alternatively, you'd need to be running a custom kernel with anti-cheat built into it.

This is the part of the conversation where someone says anti-cheat needs to be server-side, but that's an incredibly naive and poorly thought out idea. You can't prevent aim-bots server-side. You can't even detect aim-bots server-side. At best, you could come up with heuristics to determine if someone's possibly cheating, but you'd probably have a very hard time distinguishing between a cheater and a highly skilled player.

Something I think the anti-anti-cheat people fail to recognize is that cheaters don't care about their cheats requiring root/admin, which makes it trivial to evade anti-cheat that only runs with user-level permissions.

When it comes to cheating in games, there are two options:

1. Anti-cheat runs as admin/root/rootkit/SYSTEM/etc.

2. The games you play have tons of cheaters.

You can't have it both ways: No cheaters and anti-cheat runs with user-level permissions.
by Night_Thastus | 2025-11-12 19:35:54+00:00
It's not just overconfidence, it's selfishness.

Speeding feels like "I'm more important than everyone else and the safety of others and rules don't apply to me" personally. It's one thing to match the speed of traffic and avoid being a nuisance (that I'm fine with) - a lot of people just think they're the main character and everyone else is just in their way.

It's a problem that goes way beyond driving, sadly.
by astrange | 2025-11-12 19:35:55+00:00
Taxi drivers were already not employees, they were exploited contractors for the taxi companies.

And do you not remember what using Yellow Cab was like in the Bay? It was like being kidnapped. They'd pretend their credit card reader was broken and forcibly drive you to an ATM to pay them.

When I first moved here I went to EPA Ikea, afterwards tried to get home via taxi, and literally couldn't because there was a game at Stanford that was more profitable so they just refused to pick me up for hours. I had to call my manager and ask him to get me. (…Which he couldn't because he was drinking, so I had to walk to the Four Seasons and use the car service.)
by zahlman | 2025-11-12 19:36:15+00:00
The last ever American penny (as the article text clarifies). Don't any other countries with a "dollar" use the same name for their 1-cent pieces?

> The penny costs nearly four cents to mint, more than the coin’s worth.

Wow. I think it was only something like 1.5c (in the local market) when Canada gave up on them.
by ltratt | 2025-11-12 19:36:28+00:00
I'm assuming you're referring to the Python finaliser example? If so, there's no syntax sugar hiding function calls to finalisers: you can verify that by running the code on PyPy, where the point at which the finaliser is called is different. Indeed, for this short-running program, the most likely outcome is that PyPy won't call the finaliser before the program completes!
by firefax | 2025-11-12 19:36:28+00:00
Let's pull back up the core line here:

>it's not "unreasonable" to ask for patches along with bug fixes, but it is unreasonable to be mad if they don't

So the ask (make a patch for your CVEs) is reasonable. It follows that to fail to do so is unreasonable. Whether the poster agrees Google is unreasonable or not is up for debate, but if they choose to espouse that the request is reasonable and that Google is reasonable, they're putting forth an irrational belief not rooted in their own logic.

But hey, lots of folks on HN are biased towards Google for financial reasons, so I totally get it.

But either their stance is how I said, or if their stance differs they are a hypocrite, there really is no middle ground here.
by ipsum2 | 2025-11-12 19:36:44+00:00
I've been using GPT-5.1-thinking for the last week or so, it's been horrendous. It does not spend as much time thinking as GPT-5 does, and the results are significantly worse (e.g. obvious mistakes) and less technical. I suspect this is to save on inference compute.

I've temporarily switched back to o3, thankfully that model is still in the switcher.

edit: s/month/week
by Terretta | 2025-11-12 19:36:48+00:00
Note even today, negation doesn't work as well as affirmative direction.

"Do not use jargon", or, "never apologize", work less well than "avoid jargon" or "avoid apologizing".

Better to give it something to do than something that should be absent (same problem with humans: "don't think of a pink elephant").

See also target fixation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation

Making this headline apropos:

https://www.cycleworld.com/sport-rider/motorcycle-riding-ski...
by monocasa | 2025-11-12 19:36:48+00:00
Foveated streaming is wild to me. Saccades are commonly as low as 20-30ms when reading text, so guaranteeing that latency over 2.4Ghz seems Sisyphean.

I wonder if they have an ML model doing partial upscaling until the eyetracking state is propagated and the full resolution image under the new fovea position is available. It also makes me wonder if there's some way to do neural compression of the peripheral vision optimized for a nice balance between peripheral vision and hints in the embedding to allow for nicer upscaling.
by mritchie712 | 2025-11-12 19:37:20+00:00
when 4o was going thru it's ultra-sycophantic phase, I had a talk with it about Graham Hancock (Ancient Apocalypse, alt-history guy).

It agreed with everything Hancock claims with just a little encouragement ("Yes! Bimini road is almost certainly an artifact of Atlantis!")

gpt5 on the other hand will at most say the ideas are "interesting".
by potatolicious | 2025-11-12 19:37:25+00:00
There's no precise criteria but the usual measure is ppd (pixels per degree) and it needs to be high enough such that detailed content (such as text) displayed at a reasonable size is clearly legible without eye strain.

> "Could you not just move your face closer to the virtual screen to see finer details?"

Sure, but then you have the problem of, say, using an IMAX screen as your computer monitor. The level of head motion required to consume screen content (i.e., a ton of large head movements) would make the device very uncomfortable quite quickly.

The Vision Pro has about ~35ppd and generally people seems to think it hits the bar for monitor replacement. Meta Quest 3 has ~25ppd and generally people seem to think it does not. The Steam Frame is specs-wise much closer to Quest 3 than Vision Pro.

There are some software things you can do to increase legibility of details like text, but ultimately you do need physical pixels.
by 542458 | 2025-11-12 19:37:36+00:00
> If they want companies to not raise prices the only answer is regulation

Or competition. Consumer electronics are much cheaper than they were in the past, and that's not because of regulation. (To be clear, I'm not saying that regulation is wrong or anything, I'm saying that "use regulation to lower prices" and "remove barriers to competition to lower prices" are both tools in the toolbox.
by glenstein | 2025-11-12 19:38:03+00:00
Meanwhile back in reality, as of today that order is being challenged, and challenging the scope of an interlocutory order in discovery is a normal thing and part of a coherent legal position. So I don't know why you're pretending you don't understand what it means not to "roll over like a beaten dog" in response to overzealous discovery.

>I don't think you read TFA.

It was in TFA. If you don't like their number which characterizes OpenAI's interpretation of what an earlier proposal required, the 20 million proposal was selected over the NYT's 120 million records proposal, which demonstrates the same point about fighting to narrow scope. So I still don't understand why you think the concept of challenging the scope discovery is somehow too mysterious to comprehend.

>You keep going on about the original discovery request, but that's not what the issue is and it's not the issue OpenAI lost on that they are now crying to the public about.

Yeah, because I was replying to a comment about that issue and I'm remaining on topic.

>Also btw, I saw you posting in other comments that OpenAI needs to figure out how to anonymize the data.

You're actually right! My mistake. I guess this makes it make sense to pretend you can't understand why a company would ever push back against the scope of discovery.
by ndriscoll | 2025-11-12 19:38:07+00:00
The library probably is mostly secure, and it might even be the best library out there for what it does. That still leaves them with no ethical requirement at all.

People are allowed to make secure, robust software for fun. They can take pride in how good of a job they do at that. They can correctly point out that their software is the best. That still leaves them with no obligations at all for having shared their project for free.

If you are not an expert in hardening computers, don't run random untrusted inputs through it, or pay someone to deliver a turnkey hardened system to you. That someone might be Adobe selling their codecs/processing tools, or it might be an individual or a company like Redhat that just customizes ffmpeg for you. In any case, if you're not paying someone, you should be grateful for whatever goodwill you get, and if you don't like it, you can immediately get a full refund. You don't even have to ask.

The person doing serious things in a professional context is always the one with the obligation to do them correctly. When I was at IBM, we used exactly 1 external library (for very early processor initialization) and 1 firmware blob in the product I worked on, and they were paid deliverables from hardware vendors. We also paid for our compiler. Everything else (kernel, drivers, firmware, tools) was in-house. If companies want to use random free code they found on the Internet without any kind of contract in place, that's up to them.
by jacobgkau | 2025-11-12 19:38:19+00:00
> Where’s the law preventing someone from doing this right now? I don’t think this cynicism is justified.

You don't think businesses take advantage of situations for more profit?

Take this year's tariffs as an example. As you may've heard, UPS is charging customs brokerage fees of dozens or hundreds of dollars on top of the actual tariff payment; identical shipments sent via FedEx or DHL are only charged a few dollars for the service of customs brokerage, so we know UPS's actual costs for providing that service aren't that high. They saw a situation where consumers would be confused about prices and took advantage of it to make a lot more money by simply charging a lot more than they need to.

"But where's the law saying they couldn't have just raised their prices by hundreds of dollars without tariffs? Where's the law?!" There wasn't one, they could've raised their prices for international shipments before the tariffs happened. But consumers would have noticed a lot more and accepted it a lot less. They took advantage of the situation because the situation allowed them to get away with it.

> Similarly, if places are willing to price stuff at $1.03 for the few extra cents they’ll collect some of the time, then they can just raise prices on 99c items right now to $1 to collect the extra cent, which they don’t do because such prices have a psychological effect on the consumer that outweighs the small gain.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You admitted the $0.99 number has a psychological effect that outweighs the $0.01 gain of charging the extra cent. That would be the reason they don't do that. It's not super relevant to the discussion of whether rounding can/will be gamed.
by jorvi | 2025-11-12 19:38:22+00:00
It looks way too chunky, just like the original Steam Controller, Steam Deck or original duke Xbox controller. Not everybody has Jack Reacher hands.

Microsoft really did it right with the XSX controller. They took the old X360 / Xone design (perfect for large and medium hands) shrunk it slightly and then added cut-outs and and angled button surfaces (perfect for medium and small hands). The Elite is similarly good, with the back buttons being elongated and thin, meaning everyone can reach them comfortably without them getting in the way.