MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by saurik | 2025-11-21 05:48:42+00:00
> IMHO, with hindsight, they should have done this...

FWIW, it was also obvious to many people--certainly anyone who had ever been part of one of these big refactors before, whether as the platform or the user--that this is how it should have been done when they started... they just didn't care, and then they spent a decade both directly and indirectly (by condoning the behavior) bullying people who were concerned about the process and insisting that people who even still today have perfectly working systems were/are committing some kind of cardinal sin by not embracing the one true path of Wayland, despite regressions. It is extremely difficult to find any sympathy for the people involved :/.
by palmotea | 2025-11-21 05:48:44+00:00
> Tech attracts the radical independent types.

No. I think it's a combination of:

1) HN being associated with a startup incubator, and thus attracting a large contingent of people who see themselves as the boss doing this, not the workers affected;

2) tech attracts a certain kind of gullible person who's easily seduced by tidy little systems like the pop-capitalism of libertarian tracts; and

3) tech workers (until recently) had more economic bargaining power than a typical worker, so could delude themselves into thinking they do better by going it alone.
by codebje | 2025-11-21 05:48:58+00:00
I think you're still describing a countably infinite set: there's a bijection between the natural numbers and the set of houses.

One way to think about it is that, even though you're defining an index that permits infinite amounts of subdivision, from any given house there's always a "next house up" in the vector: you can move up one space.

In a real-indexed vector, that notion doesn't apply. It's "infinity plus one" all the way down: whatever real value you pick to start with, x, there's no delta small enough to add to it such that there's no number between x and x+d.
by internetter | 2025-11-21 05:49:20+00:00
> How do you draw a system boundary around a volume of soil with biological activity extending down 500 feet and predict the carbon balance over the next 500 years?

Are the potential harms in the very worst case scenario more significant than the harms of failing to sequester carbon and stop its production? It’s hard for me to imagine this being so. Mind that the process that created these holes have also created tremendously large biohazards very consistently, yet are normalized by society. We must accelerate the pace we’re on.

> What is unsaid in the article is the sentiment that regulators should more heavily support the EV business, the carbon capture business, etc, in general which makes sense to those invested, but not to everyone else.

Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me? I absolutely think businesses which are working to save millions of lives should receive regulatory support, instead of the oil companies which are still to this day benefiting from price subsidies?
by ziotom78 | 2025-11-21 05:51:44+00:00
Xdotool and Xmodmap are the two main reasons why, after a few months running Wayland+keyd+dotool I went back to X11. I found really hard to have the following things working at once:

- Italian layout for my keyboard with heavily-customized AltGr keys for mathematical notation (in X11 it's just a matter of having a Xmodmap file)

- Using Espanso for many common shortcuts like :date: (current YYYY-MM-DD date) and :pidigits:

- A reasonable way to run Windows in a VM while using an Italian layout for my keyboard

- The possibility to use automation scripts using something as close as possible to xdotool

- Sometimes I use my home keyboard, sometimes I use my work keyboard, and sometimes I use my laptop keyboard. I expect the system to work in the same way regardless of my input device

It's not that Wayland prevents one from doing all this stuff, but the available solutions were fragile and complicated and took me so long before figuring solutions that only worked partially... For instance, to make keyd work as expected, I was forced to set up my Italian keyboard as an English keyboard and then remap all the keys manually... And every time I plugged a new keyboard, I had to tell keyd to enable my customizations on it, because telling it to use the layout with any keyboard conflicted with VirtualBox.

I understand that X11 is too complicated to be maintained, but from an user's perspective, so far I am far more efficient in X11.
by truekonrads | 2025-11-21 05:52:50+00:00
The writer Viktor Pelevin in 2001 wrote a sci-fi story "The Air Defence (Zenith) Codes of Al-Efesbi" where an abandoned FSB agent would write on the ground in large text paradoxical sentences which would send AI enabled drones into a computational loop thereby crashing them.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82...
by defrost | 2025-11-21 05:53:15+00:00
The defining feature of pre WWII era German National Socialists (literal Nazi's by definition) was ultranationalism originated in pan-Germanism coupled with an ethno-nationalist faction. (Also, politically, a strong anti Marxist streak expressed via redefining socialism).

The specific focus on antisemitism in that first iteration was something that worked, something that struck a chord, and something that grew with wider support from Germans at large.

In any reuse of Nazi, as in central north american post Cold War Nazi 2.0's it's the ultra nationalism and "USA culture nationalism" that again comes as a core feature. There are strongly anti jewish factions, sure, but the strong binding "fear and hatred of outsiders" is well satisfied by brown people, immigrants, Latin X non english speakers, etc.

Miller draping himself in a US flag as he unironically recreates pogroms his grandparents escaped doesn't erase his actions

As noted by others, the deportations, the smash and grab storm trooper tactics, the Us v. them attitudes and camps on US soil and off all fit the patterns of behaviour set by original OG Nazi's. This time around jewish people by descent can clearly fit in and lead pan-USAism actions.

Post Y2K USofA identity isn't the same as 1930s German identity, but ultranationism is still kill the outsider.
by thesz | 2025-11-21 05:55:22+00:00
Transformers are performing (soft, continuous) beam search inside them, the width of beam being not bigger than number of k-v pairs in attention mechanism.

In my experience, having a Markov Chain to be equipped with the beam search greatly improve MC's predictive power, even if Markov Chain is ARPA 3-gram model, heavily pruned.

What is more, Markov Chains are not restricted to immediate prefixes, you can use skip grams as well. How to use them and how to mix them into a list of probabilities is shown in the paper on Sparse Non-negative Matrix Language Modeling [1].

[1] https://aclanthology.org/Q16-1024/

I think I should look into that link of yours later. Have slimmed over it, I should say it... smells interesting at some places. For one example, decision trees learning is performed with greedy algorithm which, I believe, does not use oblique splits whereas transformers inherently learn oblique splits.
by mb7733 | 2025-11-21 05:56:18+00:00
> In a real-indexed vector, that notion doesn't apply. It's "infinity plus one" all the way down: whatever real value you pick to start with, x, there's no delta small enough to add to it such that there's no number between x and x+d.

Just to clarify, uncountability isn't necessary for this. It's true for the rational numbers too, which are countable.
by otabdeveloper4 | 2025-11-21 05:56:58+00:00
Re point 1: no, "temperature" is not an inherent property of LLM's.

The big cloud providers use the "temperature" setting because having the assistant repeat to you the exact same output sequence exposes the man behind the curtain and breaks suspension of disbelief.

But if you run the LLM yourself and you want the best quality output, then turning off "temperature" entirely makes sense. That's what I do.

(The downside is that the LLM can then, rarely, get stuck in infinite loops. Again, this isn't a big deal unless you really want to persist with the delusion that an LLM is a human-like assistant.)
by jancsika | 2025-11-21 05:57:18+00:00
> Mozart make extremely catchy music like Justin Beiber.

Mozart was the quintessential "Dark Forest" composer, hiding musical sentience in plain sight of light classical period textures.

Here he is with 2 measures of a simple major key "Justin Bieber" clarinet sequence interleaved with 2 measures from the strings that keep modulating to minor keys:

https://youtu.be/xdVo0MsJMOc?t=1074

Keep listening to the section marked "Tutti" in the score for a re-orchestration and reharmonization of that same clarinet sequence, but now in a surprisingly lush, chromatic style similar to Wagner or Brahms. It quickly disappears, too.

Similarly, Bach's own output is encoded inside Mozart's. E.g., the coda of the Rondo in A Minor doubles as a two-part invention, complete with invertible counterpoint between left- and right-hand.

He also built a nifty hash table that could be used to efficiently generate and stream music over the internet. (Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to patent and sell it to Yahoo for 6 billion dollars.)
by nebula8804 | 2025-11-21 06:01:01+00:00
Hmm I seem to recall Karpathy talk about the next era of software being like this: Essentially everything is made on demand exactly the way the user expects or something like that. it would definitely be a paradigm shift that requires rethinking how we approach software.

What do we really need? If you look at what Ai can solve today, smaller problems seem to be solved really well by AI. So just an AI with a large enough context, adequate speed to made the changes in near real time and a reasoning ability that can better handle problems vs whats available today might be adequate to realize this relality in some way.
by aussieguy1234 | 2025-11-21 06:02:37+00:00
In an actual business environment, you are right that its not a 10x gain, more like 1.5-2x. Most of my job as an engineer is gathering and understanding requirements, testing, managing expectations, making sure everyone is on the same page etc...it seems only 10-20% is writing actual code. If I do get AI to write some code, I still need to do all of these other things.

I have used it for my solo startups much more effectively, no humans to get in the way. I've used AI to replace things like designers and the like that I didn't have to hire (nor did I have the funds for that).

I can build mini AI agents with my engineering skills for simple non-engineering tasks that might otherwise need a human specialist.
by Fischgericht | 2025-11-21 06:03:14+00:00
Then this is what you should point out. In this case the file names in your promo visualization should NOT contain the search keyword.

So if a search for "fashion upcycling" also returns "case_study_on_how_to_turn_PET_into_clothings.docx", then that's a great USP, and that is what you should point out in your pitch and visualization.

This is because in real life most people already fail at finding good search terms. Many people are not even able to come up with a collection of words to put into the google search box. And the word(s) they may choose could be too specific, or not specific enough. So any kind of "unsharp" search is helping those kind of users.
by locknitpicker | 2025-11-21 06:04:01+00:00
> Some jurisdictions ban the sale whatsoever of used tires with less than a certain amount of tread.

No, not really. This appears to be the source of your confusion. In Europe+US, thread restrictions are enforced on standard road tyres marketed for use in public roads. You can buy slicks if they are marked for track use, but it's illegal to drive around with them.

But feel free to cite exactly what jurisdiction and regulation prevents you from buying tyres. I'm sure you'll eventually stumble upon the source of your confusion once you start to look up your sources.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-21 06:04:42+00:00
What else would you expect Appld to do? Keep making last years chips for no reason? They use the same processors in Macs as they do iPads except for the base iPad and the mini.

Besides there are video, graphic and sound editing apps that take advantage of the processor.

And what do you mean when it reaches Mac? There are already M5 Macs
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-21 06:05:42+00:00
> No. The article is about someone who is whining about having to comply with regulation. But not all regulation, only the one they feel they are having trouble complying with.

Which brings us to the question of whether the regulation they're complaining about is actually objectionable. And it appears that they rather have a point. Why should they have to spend millions of dollars testing for something that makes no sense in this context? Why is the government even testing for this at all, when fuel is a semi truck's primary operating cost and buyers are going to be highly sensitive to fuel efficiency independent of any government regulations?

> You can imagine all hypotheticals you wish.

This is not a hypothetical unless your contention is that all existing regulations are entirely without flaws or inefficiencies.

> We need to discuss objectively verifiable facts if you want to attack specific regulations, though.

Do you want to try to defend the rule requiring them to spend millions of dollars on certifications for no apparent benefit to anyone?
by hobs | 2025-11-21 06:05:52+00:00
The same things? You mean effectively making money laundering legal, crashing the government and starving the poor, ending health care benefits, stealing directly from the coffers, pardoning sex pests and criminals as they continue to commit crimes, ramp up terrorist action against american cities, drop bombs on boats with no justification, roll back our environmental protections to invest in dead end energy projects, double down on crony capitalism, make it so corporations either bend the knee by directly giving money to the president or have their business ended with tariffs, and generally do everything they can to rob us blind and you say "oh it's all the same!"

The president is sending the troop into cities on made up offenses, he's posting to social media shitting on american citizens, he's doing death threats on sitting politicians, this is not the same you absolute twat.

It's a silly claim made by unserious folks.
by a57721 | 2025-11-21 06:06:14+00:00
A vector is always a vector -- an element of something that satisfies the axioms of a vector space. The author starts with the example of R^n, which is a very particular vector space that is finite-dimensional and comes with a "canonical" basis (0,...,1,...,0). In general, a basis will always exist for any vector space (using the axiom of choice), but there is no need to fix it, unless you do some calculations. The analogy with R^n is the only reason the "indices" are mentioned, and I think this only creates more confusion.

> and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision)

No, if you want only rational "indices", then your vector space has a countable basis. Interesting vector spaces in analysis are uncountably infinite dimensional. (And for this reason the usual notion of a basis is not very useful in this context.)
by johnnyanmac | 2025-11-21 06:06:43+00:00
Sure people want regulation until it affects their business. Then suddenly there's studies to talk about how trace amounts of cyanide won't affect the ecosystem anyway.

> If you stop erecting strawmen, you might find you agree on more than you think.

Try to give an argument and we can talk about it. All I've gotten so far is "no they aren't". Not very convincing.

Meanwhile, the actions have shown companies will do all they can to tear down regulations but provide nothing in return. It's just greed and hypocrisy.
by scuff3d | 2025-11-21 06:07:13+00:00
Plus the incentives are totally fucked. It's bad enough with search, it's far worse with AI.

Nobody (referring to companies) wants the best model. Or the one that gives the right answer the first time 100% of the time. They want the model that's just good enough to keep you prompting, but just bad enough that you use a fuck load of tokens and see a million ads.

Unless they start making these things say more expensive, pretty soon developers are going to start seeing ads in the comments of their damn source code. Or worse, suggestions to use paid services to solve all your problems, because companies paid to have the LLM shill it's products.
by saurik | 2025-11-21 06:07:27+00:00
I would claim the dictators -- even the "benevolent" ones--tend to do this more often than committees, as they have more inherent power to do so: the committees tend to get stuck in backwards compatible land forever (for better or for worse). I mean, look at Larry Wall or Guido Van Rossom with their respective debacles. Bjarne Stroustrop couldn't mess up in that way even if he seems to want to. As another example, HTTP only started having this problem with Google being able to railroad everyone. The only major second system effect caused by what I believe is a committee that I can easily come up with is IPv6?
by mmooss | 2025-11-21 06:07:49+00:00
> Paradoxically, building affordable units is more feasible in affluent areas like Beverly Hills because developers can charge much higher rents on the market-rate units.

I've read that reasearch shows that economic integration gets better outcomes than segregating people by wealth/income. This phenomenon seems to encourage it.

(Also, I think it's more democratic, in the broad sense.)
by anigbrowl | 2025-11-21 06:07:51+00:00
People in the "smoke filled backrooms" pay attention to what third party messages are getting attention and in turn use that to inform how they change.

Kinda like how the Libertarians got ~3% of the vote 2016, and over the following years the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was taken over by groypers and the national LP endorsed Trump in 2024? I mean, in an ideal polity you'd be right, major parties would pay attention to where they're losing votes at the margin to inform their policy decisions. But we live in a far-from-ideal polity where the two major parties systematically undermine minor party candidates at anything above the county level.
by samdoesnothing | 2025-11-21 06:07:59+00:00
I agree with this. When Michael Huemer talks about political knowledge he lists several requirements:

1. Simple. For example, “Demand curves slope downward.” The more complicated a theory is, the more ways there are for it to go wrong.

2. Accepted by experts. For example, there is a broad consensus in economics that protectionism is undesirable. If a theory is well-justified, then the great majority of reasonable and intelligent people will usually come to accept the theory, once they understand the arguments for it.

3. Non-ideological. Theories that have an ideological flavor and that call forth strong emotions tend to be pseudo-knowledge–for example, the theory that behavioral differences between men and women are entirely due to socialization. Reality is unlikely to conform to ideology.

4. Weak. For instance, we do not know that free markets are always perfectly efficient. We can say only that free markets are usually approximately efficient.

5. Specific and concrete. We can be much more confident in a concrete claim such as “Ted Bundy’s murders were wrong” than in an abstract theory such as “It is always wrong to initiate violence against another person.”

6. Supported by appropriate evidence. For example, the claim “violent entertainment increases violent crime” cannot be known without empirical evidence. In this case, a study based on a large, random sample would be appropriate, rather than, say, a few anecdotes.

7. Undefeated by counter-evidence. If there is a large quantity of evidence against P, or if one does not know whether there is such counter-evidence, then one does not know that P. For example, if one has read several studies supporting gun control while having read none of the literature on the other side, then one cannot claim to know whether gun control is desirable.

The claim "Leaded gasoline should be banned" reasonably fits most of these requirements, thus it's probably a relatively safe intervention with upside.
by jonahx | 2025-11-21 06:09:16+00:00
India scores high on the Power Distance Index: https://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensio...

Seems like that would influence the behavior we're talking about. Maybe it's culturally independent of the caste system, but it feels like it would be connected. I don't have much personal experience here so I may be wrong.
by eucyclos | 2025-11-21 06:09:37+00:00
Add an 'instant pot' or similar (or replace the microwave with one if you're really short on space) and you actually have a huge variety of available meals with a regular outlet + countertop. Home kitchens are designed around old fashioned stoves that required a lot of space to produce heat, and they've stayed around because everyone likes to have lots of counter space. These days the actual cooking process can be done quite well even in a very small area.
by planckscnst | 2025-11-21 06:10:50+00:00
Whenever I use LLM-generated content, I get another LLM and pre-bias it by asking if it's familiar with common complaints about LLM generated content. And then I ask it to review the content and ask for it to identify those patterns in the content and rewrite it to avoid those. And only after that do I bother to give it a first read. That clearly didn't happen here. Current LLM models can produce much better content than this if you do that.
by II2II | 2025-11-21 06:11:54+00:00
I suspect the root of the problem is an unwillingness to take ownership for their action (or inaction). I've never been on a PIP. Even when I've given my employers reason to give me a verbal warning, their response has been: "that's not like you, don't let it happen again," and it hasn't happened again. I suspect that is true for most of those who have never been on a PIP.

Now I'm on the flip side, in a place where I may have to put someone on a PIP. What can be done has been done. There is only so much support and positive guidance that can be offered before you have to provide them with a plan backed with consequences for not following through. It is an employee that I don't want to lose because of their contributions, but it is also an employee that I can't afford to keep because (without changes) they are a liability. Unfortunately, previous interactions suggest that I will have to cut my losses. Yet the ball lies entirely in their court at this point because they are the one who has to take ownership for the issues they create.
by man8alexd | 2025-11-21 06:12:11+00:00
Everything about nuclear reactors was secret by default, no student would have known any details about the RBMK reactor.

The "positive scram effect" was discovered at Ignalina (where the miniseries were filmed) in 1983. The RBMK design organization NIKIET sent an official informational letter to the power plants and proposed changes to the design and operational procedures. The changes weren't implemented as "there was a widespread view that the conditions under which the positive scram effect would be important would never occur." The same as O-rings.

And there was no "a Soviet program to fail Jewish students". Just primitive ground-level anti-semitism.
by gedy | 2025-11-21 06:12:36+00:00
I can only speak for myself, but I think there is a naive idealist view of (modern, American) unions that gloss over the tradeoffs. I don't want another bureaucratic layer that tells me what to do, and run by yet more HR admin-types. We aren't working in the coal mines or steel mills here in the 1920s. Sorry I'm not interested in that for office jobs. I'm glad they still work in some countries and cultures.