MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mapontosevenths | 2025-12-07 15:49:27+00:00
> the primary problem was accessing it with a Windows mindset.

The early Unix systems you're talking about were mainframe based. Modern client-server or p2p apps need an entirely different mindset and a different set of tools that Linux just didnt have the last time I looked.

When they audit the company for SOX , PCI-DSS, etc we can't just shrug and say "Nah, we decided we don't need that stuff." That's actually a good thing though, because if it were optional well meaning folks like you just wouldn't bother and the company would wind up on the evening news.
by 1718627440 | 2025-12-07 15:49:31+00:00
The problem is that EDR is basically a rootkit, by using it you enable a huge attack surface instead of being able to have stuff e.g. immutable. That tradeoff only makes sense, when you don't trust and control the OS itself. This is more of a problem with proprietary OSes like Windows. Otherwise you would rather integrate this into the OS itself.
by jodrellblank | 2025-12-07 15:50:12+00:00
Pretty sure you edited that in afterwards, but here you come into a thread about Copy-Item, instead start talking about Invoke-WebRequest and when I say "start talking" I mean mic-drop calling the developers dicks with no other content. After you've successfully triggered someone into a flamewar (me), you try to take the high road saying I'm the one being rude? Calling that out as well.

> "my impersonal complaint"

There's a person behind the move whom you are calling a dick. That's not impersonal. And it is rude. I suspect it's Jeffrey Snover, but possibly Bruce Payette or James Truher.

Here I address the wider context in a reply to bryanrasmussen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46182420
by mindslight | 2025-12-07 15:50:28+00:00
The sticker price is legally binding - it constitutes an offer, and the cash register surreptitiously charging a higher price from what the customer has agreed to constitutes fraud. The problem is that asserting your rights takes time, resources, and energy that people shopping at these stores generally do not have. The people that would have the ability to push back instead just use their resources to move on and shop somewhere else that isn't immediately abusing them.
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-07 15:51:14+00:00
Personally I agree, but the world doesn't seem to. Their first project (https://sam.zeloof.xyz/first-ic/) was all the way back in 2018, and it doesn't seem like it changed all too much (yet), while since I read the first blog post in 2018, I also thought we would have reached a much more mature DIY ecosystem by now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited too about it, and can't wait to personally do some experiments as well, although not at the same scale. But I'm not sure it's world changing, at least until I've actually seen any changes :)
by charlesabarnes | 2025-12-07 15:51:19+00:00
What do you mean exactly? Some people like being able to watch YouTube and Netflix without utilizing a third party device.

The tv also has a microprocessor to upscale/decode content. Most tvs also have the ability to connect to a variety of sound systems through Bluetooth.

If your concern is additional cost for the bundled features, I believe the ads subsidize and offset the cost. (I'm not pro ad. Again, I do not connect my tv to the Internet, but let's not reject the benefits entirely).

"Non smart" TVs are prohibitively expensive in my experience. They are large format monitors. You can also consider a projector.
by thruifgguh585 | 2025-12-07 15:51:22+00:00
> crushed by an avalanche of submissions fueled by generative AI, paper mills, and publication pressure.

Run of the mill ML jobs these days ask for "papers in NeurIPS ICLR or other Tier-1 conferences".

We're well past Goodhart's law when it comes to publications.

It was already insane in CS - now it's reached asylum levels.
Company threatened Ethereum standard author over the name "Diamond Standard"
by mudge | 2025-12-07 15:51:37+00:00
I'm the author of Ethereum’s "ERC-2535 Diamonds" standard, a modular smart contract standard that has been used in the ecosystem for years.

In 2020, shortly after publishing the standard, I received a trademark infringement threat from a company called Diamond Standard Inc. They claimed I was infringing on their trademark simply by naming the standard “ERC-2535 Diamond Standard.” Because of this, I renamed it to “ERC-2535 Diamonds.”

At the time, I didn’t think an Ethereum smart contract standard could realistically infringe on a trademark — it isn’t a product or service. But the threat was serious enough that I complied, mostly to avoid an unnecessary legal battle.

I’ve now gone public with the story and released the redacted legal letter I received (link below). I’m also considering proposing a new smart contract standard that would be a simpler version of ERC-2535, and I am wondering whether the name “Diamond Standard” would still present any legal issues today.

I’d really appreciate informed opinions from people familiar with trademark law, intellectual property, or open-source governance. In particular:

Can the name of a technical standard infringe a trademark?

Does trademark law apply when there is no commercial product?

Does their original claim seem valid under U.S. trademark law?

Are there precedents involving naming of technical or open-source standards?

Here is the redacted legal letter and my post explaining the backstory: https://x.com/mudgen/status/1997650412090826959

Thanks in advance for any insights.

— Nick Mudge
by MarkusQ | 2025-12-07 15:51:56+00:00
This is as much a failing of "peer review" as anything. Importantly, it is an intrinsic failure, which won't go away even if LLMs were to go away completely.

Peer review doesn't catch errors.

Acting as if it does, and thus assuming the fact of publication (and where it was published) are indicators of veracity is simply unfounded. We need to go back to the food fight system where everyone publishes whatever they want, their colleagues and other adversaries try their best to shred them, and the winners are the ones that stand up to the maelstrom. It's messy, but it forces critics to put forth their arguments rather than quietly gatekeeping, passing what they approve of, suppressing what they don't.
by grayhatter | 2025-12-07 15:53:25+00:00
> The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does not rest heavily on all of the references in a document.

I've always assumed peer review is similar to diff review. Where I'm willing to sign my name onto the work of others. If I approve a diff/pr and it takes down prod. It's just as much my fault, no?

> They are also assuming good faith.

I can only relate this to code review, but assuming good faith means you assume they didn't try to introduce a bug by adding this dependency. But I would should still check to make sure this new dep isn't some typosquatted package. That's the rigor I'm responsible for.
by modzu | 2025-12-07 15:53:54+00:00
then why do poor people shop there? is the idea dollar general is strategically misleading them to see prices advertised lower than a normal supermarket but in fact they are higher? i didn't think the article was making that strong of a claim at all. it seemed more like, operations are minimal and staffing short (which in theory enables lower prices) and they linked the staffing issue with simply just not being on top of updating price changes on the shelves
by mrweasel | 2025-12-07 15:53:55+00:00
To some people, like myself, it has only in later years become apparent that RMS is autistic. In the late 90s, early 2000s is when I became aware of Stallman and his work on GNU and FSF. All that was pretty much always in form of writing and articles. Only semi-direct interaction was when a friend of mine invited him to talk at the local LUG, which he refused, if it wasn't change to GNU/Linux User Group, he was told "NO" and that was it. He always came across as difficult, but only in later years have many of us become aware that he might actually have a diagnoses of some form, until then he was just labeled at "difficult".
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-12-07 15:55:01+00:00
Since no one has bothered to explain how wrong you are… I’ll give you the easy version…

Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews.

The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck.

You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?
by deltaknight | 2025-12-07 15:56:03+00:00
The EV cert system is truly terrible on Windows. Worst of all, getting an EV cert isn’t even enough to remove the scary warnings popping up for users! For that you still need to convince windows defender that you’re not a bad actor by getting installs on a large number of devices, which of course is a chicken-and-egg problem for software with a small number of users.

At least paying your dues to Apple guarantees a smooth user experience.
by retSava | 2025-12-07 15:56:18+00:00
I was at the Fagradalsfjall eruption at 2023. Had been to Iceland for two weeks w wife and daughter, and on the last day (since the signs were there) I decided to postpone travel home for two days (w + child wanted to go home). On my last day, the hike opened up and I went at approx 2100 hours to the volcano. That was an approx 10 km hike one way.

Amazing experience. A bunch of us were stupid as can be, but got as close as approx 50 m. Sounds really dangerous, but the sputter were not that violent yet, and the ground sloped away from us. Still, really stupidly dangerous (the sputter wall could've broken down, wind direction change, etc). But it didn't. Lots of moss fires, and walked into a small slope and immediately felt a sting in my nose and lungs from trapped gases so took that as a nope and went back.

Started walking back at 0130 something, boarded flight at 0600, fainted (I had done Mt Esja in the morning too). Sorry other passengers, it was inconsiderate of me and I was an asshole for that. But... that experience...!
by dasil003 | 2025-12-07 15:57:16+00:00
Everything has tradeoffs and unforeseen effects and social structure is a slow moving ship. Food security is pretty obviously compelling, and creates a stability that allows a society to scale and grow more wealthy and powerful. The loss in autonomy and flexibility is part of the cost. Individuals see things different ways, but the only vote they get is within a social context that has its own momentum. What wins is not necessarily the society that the individual feels happiest in, but the one that is most evolutionarily fit over many generations and conflicts.
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2025-12-07 15:58:05+00:00
You probably misunderstood. C can represent any program's semantics, since it's Turing-complete (modulo finite memory). C can't encode the lifetimes Rust uses, but those get erased during compilation to MIR. This takes MIR from rustc (where borrow checking has been completed and lifetime annotations erased) and outputs C with the same semantics. LLVM doesn't use tokens not produceable by C, but rustc does.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-12-07 15:58:10+00:00
If you look at their examples in the "Defining Hallucitations" section, I'd say those could be 100% human errors. Shortening authors' names, leaving out authors, misattributing authors, misspelling or misremembering the paper title (or having an old preprint-title, as titles do change) are all things that I would fully expect to happen to anyone in any field were things get ever got published. Modern tools have made the citation process more comfortable, but if you go back to the old days, you'd probably find those kinds of errors everywhere. If you look at the full list of "hallucinations" they claim to have discovered, the only ones I'd not immediately blame on human screwups are the ones where a title and the authors got zero matches for existing papers/people. If you really want to do this kind of analysis correctly, you'd have to match the claim of the text and verify it with the cited article. Because I think it would be even more dangerous if you can get claims accepted by simply quoting an existing paper correctly, while completely ignoring its content (which would have worked here).
by analog31 | 2025-12-07 15:58:10+00:00
A reference is included in a paper if the paper uses information derived from the reference, or to acknowledges the reference as a prior source. If the reference is fake, then the derived information could very well be fake.

Let's say that I use a formula, and give a reference to where the formula came from, but the reference doesn't exist. Would you trust the formula?

Let's say a computer program calls a subroutine with a certain name from a certain library, but the library doesn't exist.

A person doing good research doesn't need to check their references. Now, they could stand to check the references for typographic errors, but that's a stretch too. Almost every online service for retrieving articles includes a reference for each article that you can just copy and paste.
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-12-07 15:58:16+00:00
No offense, but ask someone in the military how wrong you are.

Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews.

Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel.

In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.
by StellarScience | 2025-12-07 15:58:20+00:00
> it's much easier to remove and consolidate duplicative work than unwind a poor abstraction that is embedded everywhere.

It's not easy to deduplicate after a few years have passed, and one copy had a bugfix, another got a refactoring improvement, and a third copy got a language modernization.

With poor abstractions, at least you can readily find all the places that the abstraction is used and imorove them. Whereas copy-paste-modified code can be hard to even find.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE | 2025-12-07 15:58:27+00:00
> and all the deaths were for nothing

Deaths and destruction in wars against significantly weaker countries are never for nothing, as certain well-connected people always get filthy rich, regardless of the end result. The ones who make the decisions, they always get their share, whether through the war hardware industry, mercenary business, the reconstruction industry, the resource exploitation industry, or something else. The wider population might end up worse off and poorer, but who has ever asked them about anything when there is so much money to be made by their ''democratic representatives'' if they play along?
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2025-12-07 15:59:35+00:00
The left is weak as shit.

If the left was doing something illegal stuff that the right doesn't like, the right would have the place swarming with media and would talk about it 24/7 for months until people are on the streets looking for blood.

But since it's the right doing it, the left just goes "oh I guess there's nothing we can about this".
by isaluki | 2025-12-07 16:00:12+00:00
Came across this deep dive into using Tiny Core Linux (TCL) for specialized production deployments, particularly for Edge AI, where memory and storage are extremely limited.

The author details the process of building and managing `.tcz` extensions to package specific Python environments and ML libraries, which is the core of making TCL viable for production.

I haven't really experimented with this sort of thing myself before, but I'm now slightly fixated on the concept of building tiny applications, particularly with so many modern tools having massive wrappers like electron. Has anyone used anything like TCL for any similar applications?
by grayhatter | 2025-12-07 16:00:39+00:00
I'll continue calling them hallucinations. That's a much more fitting term when you account for the reasonableness of people who believe them. There's also equally a huge breadth of different types of errors that don't pattern match well into, "made up bullshit" the same way calling them hallucinations do. There's no need to introduce that ambiguity when discussing something narrow.

there's nothing wrong with anthropomorphizing genai, it's source material is human sourced, and humans are going to use human like pattern matching when interacting with it. I.e. This isn't the river I want to swim upstream in. I assume you wouldn't complain if someone anthropomorphized a rock... up until they started to believe it was actually alive.
by seec | 2025-12-07 16:00:40+00:00
To me it is you who is clearly confused. The vitamin parallel is very relevant; at the concentration used in the studies, vitamins would be toxic as well. The poison is the dose. Using dosages far above what could realistically be ingested makes the studies irrelevant. By the same logic I could prove that salt actually kills you.

On the pathway argument, you are just rambling; I'm clearly not talking about that. Whether there is a pathway is largely irrelevant if you cannot prove that it is toxic at expected ingestion levels.

You are just fearmongering and grasping at straws. Same bullshit as the anti-vax that would have you believe vaccines are toxic because they use aluminum (yes, in amounts completely benign).
by the8472 | 2025-12-07 16:00:42+00:00
> Where is the god damn cure for cancer the LLMs were supposed to invent?

Assuming that cure is meant as hyperbole, how about https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.14.648850v3 ? AI models being used for bad purposes doesn't preclude them being used for good purposes.
by chroma205 | 2025-12-07 16:01:05+00:00
> I've always assumed peer review is similar to diff review. Where I'm willing to sign my name onto the work of others. If I approve a diff/pr and it takes down prod. It's just as much my fault, no?

No.

Modern peer review is “how can I do minimum possible work so I can write ‘ICLR Reviewer 2025’ on my personal website”
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-07 16:01:15+00:00
> And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers?

Exactly, they're not forcing anyone to use these things, but sometimes others (their managers/bosses) forced them to. Yet it's their responsibility for choosing the right tool for the right problem, like any other professional.

If a carpenter shows up to put a roof yet their hammer or nail-gun can't actually put in nails, who'd you blame; the tool, the toolmaker or the carpenter?
by dijit | 2025-12-07 16:02:03+00:00
I'm going to be rude now, but I don't mean it to be taken that way.

"I know a guy with a leg missing, and he can still run, so clearly someone who has lost their legs is able".

I have had the discussion a bunch of times, I'm beginning to think that nobody other than me has spent a significant amount of time with severely autistic people.

Yes, some autistic people can mask quite well, and, some are mild cases.

But the crucial issue that most autistic people have is: they don't even become aware that they're being rude unless they spend active effort in first identifying, then understanding, then trying to fix it.

I'll tell you something else too: most people are uncomfortable with criticism, it makes them defensive and clam up. If you make someone defensive, enough times, then the situation becomes infected and very emotionally charged.

Now, imagine you have an illness that prevents you from processing your emotions properly, and the whole world is unkind to you, and you can't really understand why, but people call you rude.

It takes a lot of bravery and integrity to really reflect on that soberly.

Please, I implore you all to stop pretending you understand autism because you know someone- or a bunch of self diagnosed people, I keep seeing it[0], autistic people have great difficulty controlling how they're perceived, that's the whole issue.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37200502
by jlund-molfese | 2025-12-07 16:02:13+00:00
I used to work at Best Buy replacing pricing stickers before the store opened. We had a sheet of new stickers for changed prices every time and had to scan every sticker in the store to make sure they were all up to date.

It makes sense they’re all switching to e-ink tags though, probably saves a ton in labor and the occasional mistake.
by gradschool | 2025-12-07 16:02:18+00:00
I worked for a company that made dedicated FPGA based hardware for high frequency trading by deep-pocketed customers. You can certainly implement trading strategies running directly on the board with crazy fast turnaround times, but if a retail trader could benefit from them we all would have quit our jobs and become independent high frequency traders. Interestingly, at that point the Linux network stack becomes a bottleneck so you'll want to go for a proprietary alternative whose name I don't remember any more (not cheap), which I imagine might also apply to a Mac, but that's neither here nor there unless you have a server in close physical proximity to the exchange. Meta-advice: If you want to learn about FPGAs as a matter of interest, more power to you. Otherwise, skip the bikeshedding and learn enough about financial markets to find a niche where you might have an edge.
by tpoacher | 2025-12-07 16:02:36+00:00
This is true, but here the equivalent situation is someone using a greek question mark (";") instead of a semicolon (";"), and you as a code reviewer are only expected to review the code visually and are not provided the resources required to compile the code on your local machine to see the compiler fail.

Yes in theory you can go through every semicolon to check if it's not actually a greek question mark; but one assumes good faith and baseline competence such that you as the reviewer would generally not be expected to perform such pedantic checks.

So if you think you might have reasonably missed greek question marks in a visual code review, then hopefully you can also appreciate how a paper reviewer might miss a false citation.
by ozim | 2025-12-07 16:03:10+00:00
One thing that is missing that nowadays you get O365 so also management of employees access and licensing in single env.

You get backups, file synchronization, real time collaboration.

Setting and running all of that is as simple as making O365 account and clicking couple of buttons by one person.

There is no OSS solution that does that.

To replicate that with OSS you need 3 to 5 full time graybeards and it still will be annoying normal people that will not understand “why they can’t just do X as in MSFT tools”.
by layla5alive | 2025-12-07 16:03:34+00:00
Among other things (like saving on licensing fees), that's at least partially also because it's a lot more efficient to broadcast - it takes more energy and thereby cost to stream obscure bits to one user than to leverage the hot CDN caches and re-stream the same bits to millions of users. So there's a financial incentive to get everyone watching the same swaths of content (in addition to the social angle).

I expect that eventually we may even circle all the way back to time synchronized broadcasts, because it could be even more energy efficient to multicast than to unicast the bits.

We'll see.. right now, the tech for IP multicast doesn't work very well at internet scale, but if that changes...

Then again, to play my own devil's advocate, the surveillance capitalism aspect of building a profile of the users likes and dislikes and selling that data might be worth more than any savings on energy efficiency, so maybe streaming will remain flexible on the surface, to better continue to spy on users habits.