MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 15155 | 2025-12-16 22:22:22+00:00
The "wealthy" can't control the FAA or obtain TFRs (look no further than the issues Elon and Taylor Swift have had with obfuscating their jet registration), so they're basically fucked when it comes to preventing aerial video observation over private property unless this "large tract of private land" exists within 14nm of Washington D.C. (these types of tracts aren't practically obtainable there) or falls within an existing flight-restricted zone (which aren't typically permanent.)
by FloorEgg | 2025-12-16 22:22:41+00:00
1. Human potential may be orders of magnitude greater than what people are capable of today. Population projections may be wrong.

2. Kardachev? You think we are at peak energy production? Fusion? Do you see energy usage slowing down, or speeding up, or staying constant?

3. Is the evidence you're seeing appear in society just evidence you're seeing appear in media? If media is an industry that competes for attention, and the best way to get and keep attention is not telling truth but novel threats + viewpoint validation, could it be that the evidence isn't actually evidence but misinformation? What exactly makes people feel dehumanized? Do you think people felt more or less dehumanized during the great depression and WW2? Do you think the world is more or less complex now than then?

From the points you're making you seem young (maybe early-mid 20s) and I wonder if you feel this way because you're early in your career and haven't experienced what makes work meaningful. In my early career I worked jobs like front-line retail and maintenance. Those jobs were not complex, and they felt dehumanizing. I was not appreciated. The more complex my work has become, the more creative I get to be, the more I'm appreciated for doing it, and the more human I feel. I can't speak for "society" but this has been a strong trend for me. Maybe it's because I work directly for customers and I know the work I do has an impact. Maybe people who are caught up in huge complex companies tossed around doing valueless meaningless work feel dehumanized. That makes sense to me, but I don't think the problem is complexity, I think the problem is getting paid to be performative instead of creating real value for other people. Integrity misalignment. Being paid to act in ways that aren't in alignment with personal values is dehumanizing (literally dissolves our humanity).
by phantasmish | 2025-12-16 22:23:10+00:00
For people not familiar with Japanese, finding any info about a Japanese-language game can be a pain. They may have a Japanese representation, an official romanized name, a community romanized name using a different system… plus may also go by an outright English-language name, in some circles, which may (or may not) overlap with the name of an English-language port (if it exists). Then consider that some games have pretty extreme and confusing name variants in various editions or on different platforms, and those may go by different names in different contexts.

You can see the same game go by three different names on a community forum, Wikipedia, and a catalogue of games + md5sums for a system (you might think the md5sum could act as a Rosetta Stone here… but less so than you’d think, especially in the specific context of an English speaker and Japanese games, as you sometimes need some specific, old, oddball and slightly-broken dump of a game to get the one a particular English patch requires… and god knows what name you’ll find that under, but probably not the same md5sum as a clean dump)

The only bright spot in this is that if you can find a Japanese game on Wikipedia the very first superscript-citation almost always lists the official Japanese title in Japanese script on hover. That’s a life saver. (Presumably all of this is easier if you know at least some Japanese)

Though after I posted my comment I realized they mean they’re switching to another existing system (which I think is already widely used in gaming circles? Not sure though) which isn’t so bad. At least it’s not another one being added to the mix.
by maxglute | 2025-12-16 22:23:25+00:00
High skill demographics. PRC is going mint more STEM in next 20 years than US is set to increase population, all sources total. That's more or less locked in from past 20 years of births. In relative terms, PRC is going to have OCED combined in just STEM, excluding all the other technical skilled workforce. It's the greatest high skill demographic divident in recorded history, in country with superstructure to allocate talent. All the rapid catchup PRC made in last 10 years was built on fraction of highend human capita they will have.

That PRC talent cohort are going to stick around 2060/70/80s. Past that, it's hard to extrapolate, but ~50 years with that much talent advantage can build very durable advantages. Meanwhile the population PRC sheds is overwhelmingly going to be the old, undereducated etc, think 200m rural farmers left behind by modernization that bluntly is net drag on economy/system, but they're also relatively cheap to caretake vs US silver obligations.

Short of AGI, US is not a serious competitor vs PRC in terms of skilled demographics that sustains strategic hegemonic advantages, at least not in our lifetimes.
by deinonychus | 2025-12-16 22:23:26+00:00
I agree that they probably don't serve most people well.

But I know someone that has a huge truck with a cap on his bed (google "pickup truck bed cap" or "topper"). That solves the weather problem and makes you wonder why you don't see more trucks covered up. The answer is obviously it looks less cool and doesn't fit the image. But it serves him well because he works in construction and frequently has the bed full of materials, sometimes which are longer than the bed. And he uses the truck occasionally to tow trailers.

But he's not most people. And he has another car for getting around town when he's not working.
by 1718627440 | 2025-12-16 22:23:55+00:00
> Watch the CCC talk buy the person that figured this out. Turns out they were wrong.

I already did, although some time ago. Kriesel also has some other interesting talks, e.g. about the German Railway company.

Like I totally think Xerox is at fault, but what they actually did wrong was using bad defaults (and lying when they got told). This can totally occur with any software. From looking at the pictures I think part of the issue was that the input resolution was lower than what the compression was tested with, not the compression part per se.

Also I think the customers are at least partially at fault for digitalizing, but not checking. Don't be stingy on important data. And who in there sane minds throws away the originals????? Like you can throw away copies all the way you like, but NEVER the original. (Except when you really want to "destroy" information.) To me that was the most ridiculous part, assuming software (being famous for bugs like no other tool) can never be wrong and throwing away physical things only relying on your random files to exist.
by godelski | 2025-12-16 22:24:14+00:00
Baking is weird. You first should start by following instructions to the letter. Then once you get it you'll be able to break all the rules.

The bread rises because of the yeast bacteria eats sugar and expels carbon dioxide. So ask yourself, what does yeast like? Probably not hard to guess that it's a warm, moist environment with plenty of sugar. Too cold and they're slow moving. Too hot and they burn up. But the goldilocks zone is that of most bacteria, a hot summer day in the tropics.

How long to rise? That's more a question of how fluffy you want the bread and how fast the bacteria eats the sugar.

Follow instructions while you're learning but think about things like this while practicing and you'll get your answers pretty quickly. The problem is no one can actually give you a direct answer because there's variance. Besides, the more important skill is to learn to generalize and get the intuition for it. So pay attention to how sticky the dough is, how fluffy, how it stretches, and all the other little things. Think about it during and after. If you do this I promise you'll get your answer very quickly
by bikenaga | 2025-12-16 22:24:47+00:00
"Results. Dementia incidence was 0.89 per 1000 person-years. GI (mean±SD: 48.71 ± 7.68) showed an inverse J-shaped association with dementia risk, while GL (121.49 ± 39.00) showed a J-shaped pattern, with inflection points at 49.30 and 111.01, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, GI values of <49.30 were inversely associated with dementia risk [HR, 0.838; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.758–0.926], while GL values of >111.01 were associated with higher dementia risk (HR, 1.145; 95% CI, 1.048–1.251). Similar findings were observed for AD and VD.

Conclusion. Low-GI diets may offer protective effects against all-cause dementia, AD, and VD, whereas high-GL diets may increase the risk. These findings underscore the importance of considering both carbohydrate quality and quantity in dementia prevention and management strategies."
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-12-16 22:25:18+00:00
> Isn‘t it funny how that’s exactly the kind of stuff that helps a human developer be successful and productive, too?

I think it's more nuanced than that. As a human, I can manually test code in ways an AI still can't. Sure, maybe it's better to have automated test suites, but I have other options too.
by D-Machine | 2025-12-16 22:25:52+00:00
Precisely, and agreed 100%. We need far more within-subject designs.

You would still in general need many subjects to show the same basic within-subject patterns if you want to claim the pattern is "generalizable", in the sense of "may generalize to most people", but, precisely depending on what you are looking at here, and the strength of the effect, of course you may not need nearly as much participants as in strictly between-subject designs.

With the low test-retest reliability of task fMRI, in general, even in adults, this also means that strictly one-off within-subject designs are also not enough, for certain claims. One sort of has to demonstrate that even the within-subject effect is stable too. This may or may not be plausible for certain things, but it really needs to be considered more regularly and explicitly.
by nunez | 2025-12-16 22:26:36+00:00
> However tech people who thinks AI is bad, or not inevitable is really hard to understand.

I disagree. It's really not. Popular AI is extremely powerful and capable of a lot of things. It's also being used for nefarious purposes at the cost of our privacy and, in many cases, livelihoods.

> So if I produce something art, product, game, book and if it’s good, and if it’s useful to you, fun to you, beautiful to you and you cannot really determine whether it’s AI. Does it matter? Like how does it matter?

We don't live in a vacuum.

Every work that someone mostly generated from a prompt is a work results in work that another person (or people) couldn't generate. This was "fine" when the scope of the automation was small, as it gave people time to re-skill or apply their skills elsewhere. This is not fine when those with capital are talking about using this for EVERY POSSIBLE skill. This is even less fine when you consider how the systems that learned how to produce these works were literally trained on stolen data!

Yes, there are plenty of jobs that are safe from today's AI. That doesn't stop the threat of possibility, however.

I also disagree that the crop of AI art that exists today is "good." Some of what's out there is pretty novel, but a vast, vast majority of it looks extremely same-y. Same color hues, same styles (see also: the pervasive Studio Ghibli look), DEFINITELY same fonts, etc. It's also kind-of low res, so it always looks sloppy when printed on large format media. That's before the garbled text that gets left in. Horrible look IMO.

AI-generated audio is worse. Soundstage is super compressed and the output sounds low-bandwidth. This works great for lo-fi (I'm sure lo-fi artists will disagree though), however.

I'm sure all of this will get better as time goes on and more GPUs are sacrificed for better training.
by mrguyorama | 2025-12-16 22:27:19+00:00
I'm waiting for the tech world to realize that "the brightest minds of our generation" don't actually work at google, because if you are that enormously bright you don't want to work for ads or in an opaque megacorp.

Why does anyone think a brilliant mind would enjoy that? So they could make a little bit more money?

Do you honestly think brilliant people, the smartest of our generation, care about money?

IME, Google software devs aren't even the brightest minds in the parking lot.

Completing large engineering projects says nothing about individual capability, and nothing about how Google deploys shitty AI moderation and about how Google employees insist it's great and perfect and never does anything wrong gives me any reason to believe they are even competent.

It's literally a meme that people started repeating in earnest without a second thought.

Don't you think a brilliant person would work somewhere, like, interesting?

In economies where you aren't rewarded for individual competency (because software management couldn't pick out individual competency if it screamed at them), highly competent people aren't going to play the game, they are just going to find something to pay the bills and work on hobbies.

The smart people are often where the money isn't, because they are rarely driven by monetary pursuits.
by nebezb | 2025-12-16 22:27:56+00:00
I get the frustration. And I’m no GitHub apologist either. But you’re not being charged for hardware you own. You’re being charged for the services surrounding it (the action runner/executor binary you didn’t build, the orchestrator configurable in their DSL you write, the artefact and log retention you’re getting, the plug-n-play with your repo, etc). Whether or not you think that is a fair price is beside the point.

That value to you is apparently less than $140/mo. Find the number you’re comfortable with and then move away from GH Actions if it’s less than $140.

More than 10 years of running my own CI infra with Jenkins on top. In 2023 I gave up Jenkins and paid for BuildKite. It’s still my hardware. BuildKite just provides the “services” I described earlier. Yet I paid them a lot of money to provide their services for me on my own hardware. GH actions, even while free, was never an option for me. I don’t like how it feels.

This is probably bad for GitHub but framing it as “charging me for my hardware” misses the point entirely.
by shawneechase | 2025-12-16 22:28:07+00:00
If you’ve used MCP tools in Cursor or VS Code, you’ve probably noticed that each client ends up with its own configuration, auth setup, and failure modes.

We built a way to expose a set of MCP tools behind a single endpoint, so the same configuration works across Cursor, VS Code, and other MCP clients.

The endpoint handles tool routing and user-specific auth at runtime — each user auths directly with their own credentials (no shared tokens or passthrough auth). That means teammates can reuse the same setup without reconfiguring clients or leaking access.

The post walks through a concrete developer workflow (Linear → GitHub → Slack) and how having a portable, multi-client setup changes day-to-day agent usage.

Curious how others here are handling MCP portability today.
by kazinator | 2025-12-16 22:28:10+00:00
The first part of my argument is this: the word centrum still has a cognate in numerous modern languages, which use the TR letter order:

French: centre

Italian: centro

Czech: centrum # identical to Latin!

Swedish: centrum

[... numerous others ...]

The "TR" order of the letters in the "centrum" cognate is still alive in modern languages and their orthography, and so is even the "centrum" word itself.

The second part of my argument is that some contemporary dialects of English itself, like British and Canadian, use "centre"; using the "centre" spelling is a contemporary practice, and not a retrogression toward Latin.

The third part of my my argument is that changing "centre" to "center" is a gratuitous change that brings no benefit; it has no redeeming value.
by mindcrash | 2025-12-16 22:28:23+00:00
Re: Google Maps - I really like Organic Maps as a open source privacy friendly Google Maps replacement. They use geographical data from OpenStreetMaps so "pretty good" is a understatement.

They have developed a Android app (available through different and aforementioned distribution channels, ofcourse), but they have one for iOS too!

iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/organic-maps-offline-map/id156...

Droid - Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.organicmap...

Droid - Obtainium: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/wiki/Installing-O...

Droid - F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/app.organicmaps/
by bgwalter | 2025-12-16 22:28:41+00:00
No it won't. People who aren't interested in writing specifications now won't be interested later as well. They want to hit the randomization button on their favorite "AI" jukebox.

If anyone does write a specification, the "AI" won't get even past the termination proof of a moderately complex function, which is the first step of accepting said function in the proof environment. Before you can even start the actual proof.

This article is pretty low on evidence, perhaps it is about getting funding by talking about "AI".
by tavavex | 2025-12-16 22:28:51+00:00
That's not what they asked.

The poster above asked why you personally support total surveillance, despite it being ripe for abuse. How inevitable something may or may not be is completely irrelevant to whether you personally choose to support it. Acknowledging that it can be abused means you have to make that logical connection and say why something being ripe for abuse doesn't preclude you from cheering on for it.
by mmooss | 2025-12-16 22:29:12+00:00
What is that based on?

You can trust your doctor much more about your knee and much less about their billing. Trust isn't binary and isn't per person/organization/object, but varies by person and (activity?).

And anything will be trusted more or less by different people. Is there evidence of who trusts Mozilla with what, and how much? The the fact that you don't trust them or that some on HN don't trust them isn't evidence.

Also, each of us is both commentator and agent. When we say 'I trust X' or 'I don't trust X', we both communicate our thoughts and change others' thoughts.
by frio | 2025-12-16 22:29:41+00:00
This is far and away the biggest problem I have atm. Engineers blowing through an incredible amount of work in a short time, but when an inevitable bug bubbles up (which would happen without AI!), there's noone to question. "Hey, you changed the way transactionality was handled here, and that's made a really weird race condition happen. Why did you change it? What edge case were you trying to handle?" -- "I don't know, the AI did it". This makes chasing things down exponentially harder.

This has always been a problem in software engineering; of course -- sometimes staff have left, so you have to dig through tickets, related commits and documentation to intuit intent. But I think it's going to make for very weird drags on productivity in _new_ code that may not counter the acceleration LLMs provide, but will certainly exist.
by JohnMakin | 2025-12-16 22:29:51+00:00
> Based on listening to engineers on various podcasts, almost all of them describe the current level of AI agents as being equivalent to a junior engineer: they're eager and think they know a lot but they also have a lot to learn. But we're getting closer to the point where a well-thought out Skill [1] can do a pretty convincing job of replacing a junior engineer.

The people that comment as such are either so disconnected from the software development process or so bought in on the hype that they are forgetting what the point of a junior role is in the first place.

If you hire a junior and they're exactly as capable as a junior 3 years later (about how far we're in now) many organizations would consider letting that employee go. The point of hiring a junior is that you get a (relative to the market) cheap investment with a long-term payoff. Within 1-2 years if they are any good, they will not be very junior any more (depending on domain, of course). There is no such promise or guarantee with AI, and employing an army of junior engineers that can't really "learn" is not a future I want to live in as a mid-career senior-ish person.

Of course, you can say "oh, it'll improve, don't worry" but I live in the present and I simply do not see that. I "employ" a bunch of crappy agents I have to constantly babysit only to output more work "units" I could before at the cost of some quality. If I had spent the money on a junior I would only have to babysit for the first little while and then they can be more autonomous. Even if they can improve beyond this, relying on the moat of "AI" provider companies to make this happen is not exactly comfortable either.
by jampekka | 2025-12-16 22:29:54+00:00
The World Happiness Report discusses this:

"The large variations in the systems and processes to define mortality causes imply there may be very different numbers of deaths that are registered with a specific cause. This creates a problem for cross-country comparisons of mortality by cause in general, and even more so for deaths of despair, and suicides in particular.

The person responsible for writing the cause of death on the death certificate may be different across countries. In some countries, the police are responsible, while in others a medical doctor, coroner, or judicial investigator takes on this role. Differences in doctors’ training, access to medical records, and autopsy requirements contribute to these discrepancies. The legal or judicial systems that decide causes of death also vary. For instance, in some countries suicide is illegal and is not listed as a classifiable cause of death, leading to underreporting or misclassification of suicides as accidents, violence, or deaths of “undetermined intent.”[25]

Data on suicides, even when reported, can be inaccurate due to social factors as well. In some countries, suicide might be taboo and highly stigmatised, so the families and friends of the person who committed suicide might decide to misreport or not disclose the mortality cause, causing underreporting of its incidence. In other societies, such as Northern Europe, there is less stigma attached to suicides, and alcohol and drug use."

https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2025/supporting-others-...
by sosodev | 2025-12-16 22:30:17+00:00
I love how detailed and transparent the data set statistics are on the huggingface pages. https://huggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B...

I've noticed that open models have made huge efficiency gains in the past several months. Some amount of that is explainable as architectural improvements but it seems quite obvious that a huge portion of the gains come from the heavy use of synthetic training data.

In this case roughly 33% of the training tokens are synthetically generated by a mix of other open weight models. I wonder if this trend is sustainable or if it might lead to model collapse as some have predicted. I suspect that the proliferation of synthetic data throughout open weight models has lead to a lot of the ChatGPT writing style replication (many bullet points, em dashes, it's not X but actually Y, etc).
by agentifysh | 2025-12-16 22:30:23+00:00
yeah definitely impressive compared to what nano banana outputted

tried your suggested approach by unwrapaped wireframe uv as input and im impressed

https://x.com/AgentifySH/status/2001057153235222867

obviously its not going to be accurate 1:1 but with more 3d spatial awareness i think it could definitely improve