MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by swatcoder | 2025-12-03 16:45:20+00:00
Not really. It's a very recent fad to treat "research" as some kind of mechanical factory process that need simply optimize units research per unit time.

When you sit down to think about it, what does it really even mean to do "more research"? What concrete phenomenon are you observing to decide what that is?

Across the journey from "subsistence agriculture", there have been countless approaches to nurturing innovation and discovery, but abstracting it into an abstract game measured by papers published and citations received is extremely novel and so far seems to correlate more with a waste and noise than it does discovery. Science and research is not in a healthy period these days, and the model that you describe, and seem to take for granted or may even be celebrating, plays a big role in why.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-12-03 16:45:27+00:00
Very doubtful and unlikely. China, like the other East Asia countries, is very serious about preserving its culture and they see the cautionary tale that Europe has become. Not sure how much the author knows about China and the Chinese.

Even just starting by making a comparison to the UK to extrapolate how many immigrants China could absorb strikes me as odd: The Chinese are actually horrified by the result of mass immigration in Europe and the UK. Mass immigration as obviously good and inevitable is a purely Western "dogma" and in fact the Chinese even have an expression for this left-of-centre ideology in the West: 白左, which means "white left" [1]. The Wikipedia page has a strangely orientated description but it is true that it is quite widespread among Chinese who live or have travelled extensively overseas.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo
by jfindper | 2025-12-03 16:45:55+00:00
>AFAICT, they're AI generated.

What is the "tell"? I'm not saying they are or aren't, but... people say this about literally everything now and it's typically some flimsy reasoning like "they used a bullet point". I don't see anything in particular that makes me think ai over a standard template some junior fills out.

>the vulnerability was not found by a Wiz employee at all

I've re-read the Wiz article a few times. Maybe I'm just dumb, but where did Wiz claim to have found this vulnerability?
by cjbenedikt | 2025-12-03 16:45:56+00:00
Correct, subsidies for renewables. However, globally there always were and are significant subsidies for fossil fuel: How much in subsidies do fossil fuels receive? - Our World in Data https://share.google/PjTmGHrh2Dw8f53PJ Seems not worth mentioning? Talk about "head in the sand".
by coredog64 | 2025-12-03 16:46:02+00:00
I've been looking at microceph, but the requirement to run 3 OSDs on loopback files plus this comment from the docs gives me pause:

`Be wary that an OSD, whether based on a physical device or a file, is resource intensive.`

Can anyone quantify "resource intensive" here? Is it "takes an entire Raspberry Pi to run the minimum set" or is it "takes 4 cores per OSD"?

Edit: This is the specific doc page https://canonical-microceph.readthedocs-hosted.com/stable/ho...
by ivell | 2025-12-03 16:46:54+00:00
> It's that any id from a range of acceptable ids like passports, ration card, drivers license worked.

In reality different IDs were accepted at different departments and there was no consensus. It was really a pain. If someone took ration card as valid, others wanted another ID. In some states it was even worse.

It is true that the government has indirectly made Aadhar mandatory, contrary to the spirit of supreme court order.
by galnagli | 2025-12-03 16:47:09+00:00
Hey mmsc, first of all - the blogs are not AI Generated!

Second of all, the blog did add more information

"In our experimentation, exploitation of this vulnerability had high fidelity, with a near 100% success rate and can be leveraged to a full remote code execution. The attack vector is unauthenticated and remote, requiring only a specially crafted HTTP request to the target server. It affects the default configuration of popular frameworks. "

In the end - if it helped spreading the news about this risk so teams can fix them faster, then this is our end-goal with these blog posts : )
by Havoc | 2025-12-03 16:47:31+00:00
Not surprised. Just bought a office 365 sub that comes with 60 AI tokens. Cool so tried to figure out what that means.

Answer - 60 shots of generation/summarization etc per month. ie way below even casual use.

Ok so maybe the copilot chat works well if I’m logged in with my paid account then? Nope. Slow and often generates empty code cells. (The enterprise version at work never has issues).

ie between low quota and broken tech their consumer level office AI is literally of no use to me.
by carlosjobim | 2025-12-03 16:47:34+00:00
> Take a look at the comments in the thread and tell me whether there is a consensus on which AI has the best "quality".

I'm not saying there's any certain answer to which AI has the best quality. That answer depends on the user. For you, Gemini seems to fit the bill very well.

> Plus, for us USD 20 is not a small amount; it's equivalent to one of our larger utility bills we need to pay for every month.

That's not a logical comparison, since those things aren't related in any way. Your utility bill being cheap doesn't make everything else expensive. Some things are just great value, that doesn't mean everything else is not worth it. In that case, you should compare every other purchase and expense with that utility bill, and logically not spend money on anything else.
by foxyv | 2025-12-03 16:47:42+00:00
I usually keep two 5 pound ABC dry chemical extinguishers and a fire blanket in my house. They will put out a LOT of fire. People make the mistake of buying way too little extinguisher and not knowing how to use them.

My brother put out a wall of gun powder and solvents using two cheap 2.5lb ABC extinguishers.
by supreetgupta | 2025-12-03 16:47:56+00:00
A bit more context: this Gateway is part of a progression from an LLM Gateway - MCP Gateway - a future Agent Gateway. The intent is to provide a consistent control plane for tool access, authentication, and policies around agent execution. MCP offers a clean interoperability layer, so the Gateway focuses on security, observability, and operational consistency rather than tool-specific logic.

There are areas still evolving (more granular budget/rate controls, extended tool composition inside Virtual MCP Servers, richer audit traces). Input from people who’ve built multi-tool agent systems or worked with MCP at scale would be especially useful.

Refer to our roadmap here - https://www.truefoundry.com/roadmap
by shadowgovt | 2025-12-03 16:47:59+00:00
Personally, I think there's a fundamental flaw in insider training law in the same category as the fundamental flaw in copyright and patents.

You are trying to stop people from using knowledge for gain... In a system that is fundamentally designed to reward using knowledge for gain. Fully enforcing insider trading law requires slicing of categories and resolution of ambiguity that creates the same problems it does in the other knowledge market law: decisions that feel unfair even if the letter says they aren't, people getting away with things that feel wrong on a technicality, and the whole category Congress people fall into where it's impossible to do their job and not obtain enough market knowledge to be leverageable.

I don't have enough historical knowledge to know if this was always a problem and we just weren't sensitive to it or if past generations were more modest or magnanimous and either didn't take advantage of what they knew or took advantage of it and spread the wealth around, but I think we might be trying to fundamentally solve the wrong problem.

It is entirely possible that the problem is the asymmetry is the market creates themselves. There may simply be no better, more efficient solution than taxing the hell out of the rich, no matter how they got there.
by SoftTalker | 2025-12-03 16:48:42+00:00
Exactly what I was going to say. I didn't even see it in the still photo until I looked carefully. The eye focuses on the main action, and that area is relatively small. The brain "fills in" the detail around your center of vision. Illusionists exploit this regularly.

There was a post here maybe a month ago that exposes how small the actual "high definition" center of vision (fovea centralis) is. You can really see detail only in a small area at the center of your vision. Outside of that, the brain fills in what it thinks should be there.

https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM
by jsheard | 2025-12-03 16:48:47+00:00
They forced all personal accounts to "upgrade" to more expensive AI plans, but the trick was that they presented the change as if it were a general price increase when the old plans actually still existed, albeit buried at the bottom of a chasm. The only way to revert back was to attempt to cancel your subscription at which point they'd relent and offer the non-AI plans again.

Then Australia slapped Microsoft over the head and forced them to apologize: https://news.microsoft.com/source/asia/2025/11/06/an-apology...
by JoeAltmaier | 2025-12-03 16:49:12+00:00
Normal rocket development: First it fails to lift off. Then it crashes on launch. Then it reaches orbit and fails to de-orbit. Then it crashes on landing. Then it works, and works, and works.

Don't be confused by normal engineering progress. This is a hard problem to solve. Each step informs the next step, and it improves by 'stepwise refinement'.
by throwaway-0001 | 2025-12-03 16:49:33+00:00
Yeah but what’s the bottom and the top?

Bottom is 0? Or is 1mg? Or what?

Top is killing a human by dose? Killing an elephant dose? Make you feel dizzy?

What’s too much? What’s being in the middle?

You see, it’s a stupid logic “in the middle”. The point is being in the middle or moderate is not always “good”.

Also it’s hard to define. Tbh only non logical people throw words like “in the middle” etc
by Letstalk123 | 2025-12-03 16:49:52+00:00
We have infinite content, notifications, feeds, and efficiency tools — but very few places where two people can simply talk without performance, distraction, or an algorithm shaping the interaction.

It’s strange that the hardest thing to find online right now is the simplest one: a quiet, honest one-on-one conversation where people actually understand each other.

I’m curious if others feel this shift too — that we solved distribution, scale, and speed, but somehow lost basic human presence along the way.
by benmmurphy | 2025-12-03 16:49:56+00:00
I think sortition is a great idea but you would probably need a constitutional amendment if you wanted sortition in Congress or the Senate. I think the State's have some discretion over how elections are run but I don't think its enough discretion to allow appointment by RNG. I think the strongest argument you could make is its an election where everyone is forced to vote for themselves and tie-breaks are chosen by RNG but I don't think that would be valid because I assume the courts would demand electors execute some agency.

The text of the constitution for electing congress says:

> The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

and there is something similar for the Senate after the 17th amendment. I think pre-17th amendment States may have been able to use Sortion to appoint Senators but it would not have been legally enforceable. The State legislature could pre-commit to elect Senators by Sortition but then they could bail out and just decided to choose who they want when it came to the actual selection.
by luma | 2025-12-03 16:50:03+00:00
Billionaires benefit from it, they are the ones buying off our government. All the other "wedge issues" are designed to deflect attention away from our oligarchs and both parties are on the take. Look at how the DNC reacted to Mamdani for a recent example.

To be clear, because I know it will come up - not saying both parties are the same, but I am saying they are both doing the oligarch's bidding. The US government is now fully captured by billionaires and is currently being used for personal enrichment of those in power.
by mbesto | 2025-12-03 16:50:14+00:00
> For real estate, yes, but it's a quite different type of asset with a stable value that (mostly) only goes up.

It's still a tax on wealth. So you just can't use this argument (the argument that we dont tax anything based on wealth and therefore is justification not to do it now).

> is it fair to ask people to cough up some 300-500k of real cash in tax?

I actually disagree that we should tax anything on asset value. Yes, RE is illiquid and thus has "stable" values. What's worse is that the value is tied to appraised values (and potentially government imposed caps) which you have no (or limited) control over.
by gbalduzzi | 2025-12-03 16:50:22+00:00
Youtube didn't have a significant competitor, once the quality started declining and the ads started creeping up, there were no alternatives to switch to (as a user) because the content creators were in on the profit.

The same isn't true about ChatGPT.

Anthropic and Google provides a similar product, and switching to a better/cheaper platform is fairly easy as it only depends on you and not on others (content creators or friends) doing the same.
by dzaima | 2025-12-03 16:50:32+00:00
> I've added a pointless strlen(). It seems like no compiler is clever enough to remove it.

For that you could at least argue that if the libc's strlen is faster than strcmp, that improves performance if the programmer expects the function to be usually called with a short input.

That said, changing it to `if (strlen(s) == 5) return 0;` it still doesn't get optimized (https://godbolt.org/z/7feWWjhfo), even though the entire function is completely equivalent to just `return 0;`.
by maxglute | 2025-12-03 16:50:33+00:00
Looking at sales in 2010s mobile growth market is flawed. look at market share. 2010-2015 was mass smart phone proliferation, the demand denominator was expanding so companies can sell more phones while lose relative marketshare. Samsung PRC share peaked and started dropping right before/around when Xi entered office, i.e. domestic (budget) champions was grown before Xi, they were outcompeted before MIC2025 or battery/thaad drama. Samsung global sales stalled at ~300m and started dipping below (i.e. losing total sales and market share in growth market), again need to look at market share because denominator of global phone sales was exploding. Samsung Could had 40/50% of global sales 500m+ branded sales, instead Huawei+others jumped in and ate big chunk of Android pie, i.e. actual global Android shipments was like 1B, PRC brands including white labeled OEMs captured probably 50%+ of that. Huawei going from 0-200m phone sales abroad while Samsung stalling and even declining at ~300m when they had 500m+ to capture isn't Huawei struggling (aging double digit global YoY growth at the time), it's PRC brands gobbling up new demand at expense of Samsung. Samsung got short term boost after HW ban, then started stagnating again when budget PRC brands went flagship. Also there was huge change in product offering 2010-2015s in PRC, that's when domestic budget brands and then flagships proliferated. There's nothing sudden about any of this, Xi barely had any time in office to engineer some mass buy domestic movement, that only happened late 2010s across variety of domestic sectors.

Patrick McGee / Apple in China is motivated writing. Trying to sell narrative Apple taught PRC everything they instead of you know 100,000s PRC tooling engineers and manufacturing specialistists trying to troubleshoot and scale Apple design. I don't know what Chapter 26 has to do with anything, IIRC it's mostly PRC making Apple kneel to PRC soveign internet, aka follow doemstic laws and Apple complied because they need PRC manufacturing. And doing so let Apple kept their share in PRC for another 20 years which wasn't bad return. And it's not even like Samsung left PRC, they had to pivot back to PRC ODMs (wingtech, huaqin) for ~100 of millions of low end devices (I htink the As and Ms) shortly after.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-12-03 16:50:50+00:00
Any number divisible by 6 will also be divisible by both 2 and 3 since 6 is divisible by 2 and 3, so the short-circuiting is inconsequential. They're bare ints, not pointers, so null isn't an issue.

So how are they not isomorphic?
by nineteen999 | 2025-12-03 16:51:20+00:00
> Why are "artists" special?

There is a very entitled class of "artists" out there who are trust fund babies, where mummy and daddy pay for everything, their art career is for show and any money it generates is play money for them. In my personal experience frequently these are the ones that most commonly refer themselves as "artists" and are the loudest shouters on that side of the debate.

Many artists I know that struggled to afford paintbrushes or musical instruments or whatever while developing their craft seem less vocal, they are used to the idea that they are probably unlikely to ever be paid or reconised sufficiently for their work because it was like that for a long time before LLM's came along. Artists in 3D studios for example often work for way less pay than a lot of us would deem acceptable just for the ability to do what they love for a job.

The best artists I know that work professionally (eg. graphic designers etc) are pragmatically using generative AI in productive ways to streamline their workflow.

Not that there's no merit to the "theft" debate at all. I do feel like a lot of people claiming to have had their work "stolen" by big companies probably don't have a portfolio online big enough or noticable enough to have been included in the training data. But for those whose work (eg. prolific and talented indie creators on Sketchfab, Artstation, Soundcloud) they have a point and I feel for them.
by wavemode | 2025-12-03 16:51:32+00:00
I take the exact opposite view. A revolving door of congresspeople would decrease the influence of lobbying (and, for that matter, the influence of political parties in general), because once a member of congress reaches their term limit they would no longer be influenced by campaign donations.

Also, let's take a step back:

> where does the power accumulated by long-term congressmen go

We need to take a very hard look at any supposedly democratic system in which power is "accumulated" by individuals. Deeply entrenched politicians who never face term limits nor reelection resistance have no reason whatsoever to care about the will of the people.
by gonepivoting | 2025-12-03 16:51:32+00:00
Hey, researcher from Wiz here - we definitely didn't discover these vulns and all the credit goes to Lachlan Davidson. We have been investigating these vulns throughout the day and decided not to disclose the full extent of our conclusions or release a working exploit until more people get a chance to patch this (and as I mentioned in another comment, exploitation works out-of-the-box so you definitely should patch ASAP).
by Loughla | 2025-12-03 16:51:35+00:00
That's what people aren't understanding, it seems.

You are providing people with an endlessly patient, endlessly novel, endlessly naive employee to attempt your social engineering attacks on. Over and over and over. Hell, it will even provide you with reasons for its inability to answer your question, allowing you to fine-tune your attacks faster and easier than with a person.

Until true AI exists, there are no actual hard-stops, just guardrails that you can step over if you try hard enough.

We recently cancelled a contract with a company because they implemented student facing AI features that could call data from our student information and learning management systems. I was able to get it to give me answers to a test for a class I wasn't enrolled in and PII for other students, even though the company assured us that, due to their built-in guardrails, it could only provide general information for courses that the students are actively enrolled in (due dates, time limits, those sorts of things). Had we allowed that to go live (as many institutions have), it was just a matter of time before a savvy student figured that out.

We killed the connection with that company the week before finals, because the shit-show of fixing broken features was less of a headache than unleashing hell on our campus in the form of a very friendly chatbot.
by TazeTSchnitzel | 2025-12-03 16:51:41+00:00
The fact audiophiles talk about “DAC”s is really telling. Transparent digital-to-analogue conversion is a solved problem. Any computer or smartphone worth a damn has a DAC whose output is indistinguishable to the human ear from anything “better”.

The truth is that DAC is not the problem… everything else in the analogue audio chain is. Amplifiers are messy analogue devices. Speakers and headphones are incredibly messy analogue devices. Power supplies and power conditioners are messy analogue devices. And noise is not down to any one component, but is a whole-system design problem. A particularly cool thing about power supplies is that they often create noise that will be picked up by other devices on the same circuit.

Of course, when people are buying a “DAC” they are really buying a box of some kind that also includes an amplifier, but this naming choice surely contributes to people paying attention to the wrong specs.
by senfiaj | 2025-12-03 16:51:50+00:00
Yeah, this one as well:

bool is_divisible_by_6(int x) { return x % 2 == 0 && x % 3 == 0; } bool is_divisible_by_6_optimal(int x) { return x % 6 == 0; }

Mathematically x % 2 == 0 && x % 3 == 0 is exactly the same as x % 6 == 0 for all C/C++ int values but the compiler doesn't see them as identical, and produces less optimal code for is_divisible_by_6 than for is_divisible_by_6_optimal.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-12-03 16:51:54+00:00
$500,000 is a lot of money, I don't want to minimize that, but it would not be the highest paid job on the market. There's a number of roles in medicine, law, finance, and nowadays software that pay more for fewer managerial duties. There really isn't much room to argue for cutting executive pay without arguing that it's unimportant to get the best people in executive roles.

And that's an argument you can certainly have, but it seems strange to make it a precondition to fixing the healthcare system, when cutting executive pay would resolve only a small fraction of the problem.
by jjk166 | 2025-12-03 16:51:56+00:00
The logic of paying lawmakers well is that if they have enough money they won't be at tempted to do bad things to get more money. All of human history has shown that "enough money" is not a meaningful term for people attracted to such positions.

Lawmakers should be paid enough that they are not destitute, so that low income people are not excluded from participating in government, but the price of power should be that one can not become wealthy during or shortly after their stint. Tax their household 100% on all income and capital gains over the congressional salary (which should be comparable and pegged to the average DC area household income) for their term and over a reasonably small multiple of that salary for 10 years after they leave office. They can insider trade all they want, they can take a cushy job with a company that lobbied them, but all the money they would make by these efforts will go to the people. In practice I think most would not bother. Some people may choose not to go into government because they have better earning opportunities elsewhere, I consider that a feature not a bug. Some may leave office earlier than they otherwise would because they don't like the low income, again that's a good thing. Non-monetary quid pro quo is still an issue, but it's no worse than the current situation and frankly power will always come with perks.

Exempt sitting congresspeople from the change they implement and any of their past potentially ill gotten gains will be exempt from prosecution. Passing a major anti-corruption bill while legalizing your own grift? It may very well pass unanimously.