MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anima-core | 2025-12-10 09:51:08+00:00
The memory story is actually much simpler than it looks.

The teacher still has to be loaded at training time, so the footprint is whatever the original model uses. Again, the compression doesn't shrink the teacher. It produces a small student head. After training, the teacher is no longer needed and the student runs by itself. That's why the inference footprint drops to a few MB.

It doesn't increase inference time at all. It removes transformers entirely from the inference path. The student computes directly on the layer-1 field, which is why it's so small and so fast.

On the request for a distilled “few MB” head for Llama 70B,that part is already reproducible right from the repo. The head is always task specific, not a general LLM, so uploading a single checkpoint wouldn't tell the whole story. The better path is to run the extraction script and train the head for any task you want. The pipeline is fully open, end to end. I'm looking for people to validate it independently.

If you need anything else cleared up, just let me know.
by rob74 | 2025-12-10 09:51:22+00:00
When I read the book in my youth, I remember being surprised not only by the lack of muskets, but also that it was more about D'Artagnan than about the titular Three Musketeers.

Anyway, if you think about it, it makes sense: muskets were a new and unproven technology that still needed a lot of development to actually become usable firearms. While you were busy lighting the fuse on your musket, your opponent could attack and kill you with his sword. So, of course, the king's elite troops needed to be equipped with these "high-tech" weapons for prestige reasons, but due to their impracticality, it's not surprising that they didn't actually see much use...
by pjmlp | 2025-12-10 09:53:56+00:00
That looks only to be the guidelines on how to integrate Rust projects, not that the policy has changed.

The NDK officially it isn't to write apps anyway, people try to do that due to some not wanting to touch Java or Kotlin, but that has never been the official point of view from Android team since it was introduced in version 2, rather:

> The Native Development Kit (NDK) is a set of tools that allows you to use C and C++ code with Android, and provides platform libraries you can use to manage native activities and access physical device components, such as sensors and touch input. The NDK may not be appropriate for most novice Android programmers who need to use only Java code and framework APIs to develop their apps. However, the NDK can be useful for cases in which you need to do one or more of the following:

> Squeeze extra performance out of a device to achieve low latency or run computationally intensive applications, such as games or physics simulations.

> Reuse your own or other developers' C or C++ libraries.

So it would be expected that at least for the first scenario, Rust would be a welcomed addition, however as mentioned they seem to be more keen into supporting Kotlin Native for it.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-12-10 09:54:12+00:00
> Ocado has delivery vans that seem to be in no particular hurry (unlike uber eats etc)

True. the difference is that Uber eats takes an order and immediately aims to deliver it as soon as possible.

Ocado takes a grocery order, stores it and aims to deliver it e.g. "next Wednesday, between 6pm and 7pm", and you can modify the order until midnight on Tuesday.

Given that UK Urban traffic levels are unpredictable, the vans will occasionally be in position before the start time. There also is some time where the guy is in the back of the van finding the current order.

But you're right, as the public interacts with them, Ocado's role is "Deliver groceries in a van" not "automation/robotics". The latter is an implementation detail to us.

Also, several people's groceries in 1 van is more fuel efficient and less traffic congestion than all of those people each driving to a big store and back. So it's a win.
by littlestymaar | 2025-12-10 09:54:15+00:00
I agree with you that it's much more interesting than the language, but I don't think it matters for a project like the Kernel that already had its build system sorted out. (Especially since no matter how nice and convenient Zig makes cross-compilation if you start a project from scratch, even in Rust thanks to cargo-zigbuild, it would require a lot of efforts to migrate the Linux build system to Zig, only to realize it doesn't support all the needs of the kernel at the start).
by johncolanduoni | 2025-12-10 09:54:42+00:00
In embedded, HW drives SW much more than the other way around. Most microcontrollers are not capable of running a Linux kernel as it is, even with NoMMU. The ones that are capable of this are overwhelmingly ARM or RISC-V these days. There’s not a long list of architectures supported by the modern Linux kernel but not LLVM/Rust.
by lurk2 | 2025-12-10 09:54:45+00:00
> You could write a few paragraphs summarizing theology, philosophy, and family dynamics that could be read in 10 minutes, but that doesn't come close to matching or replacing Dostoyevsky.

The author of the post is not Dostoyevsky. My objection is not to meandering, it’s to the meandering done by those who have nothing worthwhile to say.
by jpfromlondon | 2025-12-10 09:56:18+00:00
>Who are losers here?

Evidently you did not read the original release or the top comment, but this has nothing to do with carriage return.

>Then why does every other language, text editor and text tool in existence deal with this single extra character?

On Windows, Emacs by default will save your files with linefeed and no carriage return, only when opening the file will it infer crlf, as it should.

But you're right, where possible I try to avoid Windows.
by defrost | 2025-12-10 09:56:41+00:00
I've read that they are down:

According to the Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File (ISAF), there were just 47 unprovoked attacks last year (worldwide, 2024), 22 fewer compared to 2023 and below the 10-year annual average of 70.

~ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/shark-attack-bite-rep...
by krisoft | 2025-12-10 09:57:22+00:00
I’m aware of the facts you say. But they have nothing to do with terrestial operations. If the same thing happened to an engine sitting next to a data center the worst thing which could happen is it knocks the neighbouring engines out too. And if you are worried about that you can add more armouring between the engines. Which you can do because they don’t need to fly. Heck you can put a row of hesco barriers between engines in a terrestial application. But either way the data center is not going to suddenly fall on a fuel recycling plant.
by prism56 | 2025-12-10 09:57:32+00:00
This seems like marketing nonsense to me... Carnot efficiency of a gas turbine is a function of the temperature the CT blade can sustain and the ambient temperature. (1-Tc/Th). So unless they've somehow had a massive breakthrough in material science they'll be as limited as all other gas turbine OEMs.

Air blast chillers are common in this power category so water usage isn't very high.

More importantly gas turbine power figures are quoted at an ISO 15C. So if you require 42MW at 40C ambient you'll buy an overrated engine to maintain your output. They've written this as a gotcha that their engine is more powerful than a less powerful engine. Well yeah...
by franga2000 | 2025-12-10 09:57:45+00:00
I agree with the sentiment, but this part is complete bullshit:

> what is the likelihood of every certificate authority on the Internet having their private keys compromised simultaneously

Who cares? It's not like all CAs would have to be breached, just one. CA certs are not scoped, so the moment one CA gets breached, we're all fucked. CT helps, but AFAIK it's still not enforced everywhere yet
by mdotmertens | 2025-12-10 09:57:52+00:00
This is acceptable. We now understand that privacy-focused solutions are not appropriate for individuals with average technological literacy, and we cannot depend on companies to self-regulate.

At present, the emphasis is on the potential of large language models (LLMs) and the related ethical considerations. However, I would prefer to address the necessity for governments or commissions to assume responsibility for their citizens concerning "social" media, as this presents a significantly greater risk than any emerging technology.
by eru | 2025-12-10 09:58:13+00:00
> If you’re having trouble designing a safe interface for your collection then that should be a signal that maybe what you are doing will result in UB when looked at the wrong way.

Rust is great, but there are some things that are safe (and you could prove them safe in the abstract), but that you can't easily express in Rust's type system.

More specifically, there are some some things and usage pattern of these things that are safe when taken together. But the library can't force the safe usage pattern on the client, with the tools that Rust provides.
by anima-core | 2025-12-10 09:59:05+00:00
As a follow up just to refresh your memory:

“Attention Is All You Need” (Vaswani et al., 2017)

Length: 11 pages of main content, 5 pages of references and appendix

2. The first GPT paper (Radford et al., 2018)

Length: 12 pages

3. BERT (Devlin et al., 2018)

Length: 14 pages

Big ideas don't require big papers. I don't know where you got that idea from.
Ask HN: Is it still worth learning a new programming language?
by xparadigm | 2025-12-10 09:59:09+00:00
I have been writing Python code for a few years now. But I feel like LLMs can write much better code than me. I used to keep myself updated with newer technology. But now I am loosing interest. I was interested in learning Rust. But I don't find any motivation now since I can just vibe code with Rust. Any thoughts in that?
by KronisLV | 2025-12-10 10:00:43+00:00
> That's reasonably close to a technical guarantee, if you ask me.

Until the feds show up like:

Okay, either you block these domains, or you're going to jail: politician-x-did-something-bad.com politician-y-is-corrupt.com country-z-did-crimes-against-humanity.com political-opposition-party-w-homepage.com blog-that-mentions-any-of-the-above.com ... (rest of the list that works for 10 or 100'000 domains)

I complained about the centralization that reminds me of Cloudflare in another place, but in general the more distributed this sort of infra is, the better. Both for technical reasons, as well as political ones. In general, one can plan around potential risks like "Okay, what if I assume that this infra of mine is actually running in Russia and the govt hates me and I need to migrate."

VPSes and domains are pretty easy to move across country borders (e.g. moving from NameCheap to INWX and from something like AWS to Hetzner, at least for simple setups), less so when you don't control the CA.
by exmadscientist | 2025-12-10 10:01:02+00:00
> Powerpoint allows you all kinds of [things] like animations or transitions

Those are not benefits. Do not do those things. Anything more complicated than embedding a video is a distraction and will not help your presentation. (And the video can be done by alt-tab to VLC or linking YouTube or ... .)

Seriously, trust me on this one.

I have seen a lot of presentations in my day, from sales engineers trying to sell me on things to literally hundreds of guest speakers from all over the world back when I was in grad school. That last one was especially valuable, because I got exposed to a huge variety of speakers and styles, not just a monoculture from one place or company.

And the best of them either never used that crap, or it passed through my brain leaving so little evidence of its existence that it may well never have been there to begin with. I only remember the bad associated with that stuff: a speaker once had to answer a question, went back a couple of slides (fine so far), then had to wait fifteen seconds or so for his dumb, contentless transitions to play out, each slide he advanced, trying to get back to the slide he wanted to be on. Stuff like that is all that's in my head when I think of transitions and animations. The best speakers really do just never bother with it in the first place.
by RajBhai | 2025-12-10 10:02:39+00:00
I have a couple of thoughts about this.

Firstly, I thought sans-serif typefaces were encouraged for digital media because they read better than serif fonts. But now that high pixel density displays have permeated the market, this might be a moot point.

On another note, I wonder how much of the hate TNR gets stems from its ubiquity for having been installed on almost all personal computers for the past n decades.

Paganis are beautifully designed cars, but the labelling of buttons and toggles inside the center console look cheap (IMO) because their font seems straight out of a quickly made flyer designed by bored teacher who just discovered Word Art.
by fasbiner | 2025-12-10 10:03:37+00:00
Mozilla leadership are quite literally ex-google and current google loyalists, who are paid to create the appearance of a competitive browser landscape for regulators, judges, and lawmakers who started out obtuse and are now increasingly openly bribed.

Mozilla's job is to go through the motions of competing for regulatory obfuscation, not to ever actually compete. That's why the salaries at this non-profit keep going up as Mozilla marketshare keeps going down.

If they wanted to actually compete they could integrate with LMStudio or similar to give their non-technical users locally running open models, that would be maximally opt-in and privacy preserving. It wouldn't even take that long.

Instead, we get another resume-padding fake "product" for someone to put on their resume before it's quietly forgotten, all for a browser with 3% marketshare and plummeting.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-12-10 10:03:53+00:00
> diversity requirements don't come with lower competence requirements

They come with certification requirements. The one that RFQ lists are NYC specific.

> are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?

I’m saying a local-only bidding pool will necessarily be smaller than a national one. And requiring local certification guarantees the former.

I’m objecting to diversity compliance. Not diversity requirements. (Though even there, one needs to be cognizant of how quickly intersecting requirements can rapidly cascade the candidate pool to small numbers.)
by astrange | 2025-12-10 10:04:12+00:00
BSD development mostly works through the classic approach of pretending that if you write C code and then stare at it really really hard it'll be correct.

I'm not actually sure if they've gotten as far as having unit tests.

(OpenBSD adds the additional step of adding a zillion security mitigations that were revealed to them in a dream and don't actually do anything.)
by adrian_b | 2025-12-10 10:04:45+00:00
The main influencer of the 8087 architecture, William Kahan, had previously worked on the firmware of the HP scientific calculators, so he was well experienced in implementing numeric algorithms by using stacks.

When writing in assembly language, the stack architecture is very convenient and it minimizes the program size. That is why most virtual machines used for implementing interpreters for programming languages have been stack-based.

The only real disadvantage of the stack architecture is that it prevents the concurrent execution of operations, because all operations have a resource dependency by sharing the stack as output location.

At the time when 8087 was designed, the possibility of implementing parallel execution of instructions in hardware was still very far in the future, so this disadvantage was dismissed.

Replacing the stack by individually addressable registers is not the only possible method for enabling concurrent execution of instructions. There are 2 alternatives that can continue to use a stack architecture.

One can have multiple operand stacks and each instruction must contain a stack number. Then the compiler assigns each chain of dependent operations to one stack and the CPU can execute in parallel as many independent chains of dependent instructions as there are stacks.

The other variant is to also have multiple operand stacks but to have the same instruction set with only one implicit stack, while implementing simultaneous multi-threading (SMT). Then each hardware thread uses its own stack while sharing the parallel execution units and then one can execute in parallel as many instructions as there are threads. For this variant one would need to have much more threads than in a CPU with registers, which combines superscalar execution with SMT, so one would need 8 or more SMT threads to be competitive.
by _ache_ | 2025-12-10 10:05:01+00:00
No, it's a waste of time.

I mean, the process should have been to contact some local academics to discuss the mater. If I say it works (or it doesn't) I'm adding near nothing to the claim, as I'm not an academic myself.

Big claims like this need clear and solid work. Here it just looks like LLM generated.
by menaerus | 2025-12-10 10:05:26+00:00
Sorry but what have I said wrong? The nature of code written in kernel development is such that using unsafe is inevitable. Low-level code with memory juggling and patterns that you usually don't find in application code.

And yes, I have had a look into the examples - maybe one or two years there was a significant patch submitted to the kernel and number of unsafe sections made me realize at that moment that Rust, in terms of kernel development, might not be what it is advertised for.

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/a.hindborg/l..

Right? Thank you for the example. Let's first start by saying the obvious - this is not an upstream driver but a fork and it is also considered by its author to be a PoC at best. You can see this acknowledged by its very web page, https://rust-for-linux.com/nvme-driver, by saying "The driver is not currently suitable for general use.". So, I am not sure what point did you try to make by giving something that is not even a production quality code?

Now let's move to the analysis of the code. The whole code, without crates, counts only 1500 LoC (?). Quite small but ok. Let's see the unsafe sections:

rnvme.rs - 8x unsafe sections, 1x SyncUnsafeCell used for NvmeRequest::cmd (why?)

nvme_mq/nvme_prp.rs - 1x unsafe section

nvme_queue.rs - 6x unsafe not sections but complete traits

nvme_mq.rs - 5x unsafe sections, 2x SyncUnsafeCell used, one for IoQueueOperations::cmd second for AdminQueueOperations::cmd

In total, this is 23x unsafe sections/traits over 1500LoC, for a driver that is not even a production quality driver. I don't have time but I wonder how large this number would become if all crates this driver is using were pulled in into the analysis too.

Sorry, I am not buying that argument.
by noroot | 2025-12-10 10:05:26+00:00
It's such a nightmare at my current job as well. Everything always just breaks and needs investigating how to fix.

Even putting aside the MITM and how horrendous that is, the amount of time lost from people dealing with the fallout got to have cost so much time (and money). I can't fathom why anyone competent would want to implement this, let alone not see how much friction and safety issues it causes everywhere.
by tim333 | 2025-12-10 10:06:08+00:00
I'm curious how the planes are going. Looking it up it seems th XB-1 prototype did mach 1.1 but then they retired it which seems odd as it's design was for mach 2.2 and a 1000 mile range. If they could say to investors we said 2.2 and look, it really happened than might be a better sell?

The top speed is interesting because they are claiming to go fast with relatively little power due to superior aerodynamics which would be more convincing if they demonstrated it.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-12-10 10:06:46+00:00
I’m comfortable doing it, and generally receive positive responses, but I’m not “a natural.”

If I have something that I need to “get just right,” like a class or main speaker gig, I have to practice a lot, and can come across as a bit “stiff.” If I don’t practice, I do well, but not predictably so, which makes me a bit of a “wildcard.”

I know quite a few folks that can walk up to a podium, in front of hundreds of people, at little notice, and knock it out of the park. They often practice.

Steve Jobs was one of the best public speakers I ever heard, and I’m told that he used to practice for hours. I knew a woman (I’m friends with her ex) that used to regularly appear on TV, and keynote finance conferences. She has an “aw shucks,” casual style. Her (ex) husband told me that she’d practice before each gig for many hours.

The folks that make it seem to be “natural,” at anything, generally practice a lot. I speak frequently, but it’s not structured practice.
Show HN: I built an app idea generator
by jelmervnuss | 2025-12-10 10:06:53+00:00
I made an app idea generator called What to Build Next that gives you inspiration for business/learning/personal projects.

I got this idea after working on some projects and needing inspiration for a new mobile app to practice working with animation in React Native.

You can enter your intention (business, learning, trend, personal), an industry, and your preferred tech stack. This will serve you several web/mobile app ideas.

Hopefully the tool can help more developers just start coding instead of dreaming.
by derriz | 2025-12-10 10:07:14+00:00
Your example of an uninitialized memory situation will not be so compelling for old-school C engineers because they've "solved" the issue decades ago by integrating tools like valgrind into their work-flows. They don't expect (or require) the compiler to help them deal with issues like this.

The problem with post-C89 is that you lose the unique features of old-school C.

For example, it can be compiled on basically any platform that contains a CPU. It has tool support everywhere. And it can be fairly easily adapted to run using older C compilers going back to the 1980s.

Or that (old-school) C is basically a high level assembly language is actually a feature and not a bug. It's trivial to mentally map lines of C89 code to assembly.

No other widely available language can tick these boxes.

So the problem with later versions of C is that you lose these unique features while you are now competing for mindshare with languages that were designed in the modern age. And I just don't see it winning that battle. If I wanted a "modern" C, I'll use Zig or Rust or something.

Just because a language (C89) doesn't evolve doesn't mean it's dead.
by dcminter | 2025-12-10 10:08:00+00:00
Netskope and the other DLP tools at my last gig would completely lock up my network connection for around 30 seconds every hour or two while maxing out 100% of a core. Fun times. The issue was still there a year after I first encountered it so I have grave doubts about the competence of those vendors.

On the other hand I am sympathetic to the needs of big regulated orgs to show they're doing something to avoid data loss. It's a painful situation.
by tialaramex | 2025-12-10 10:09:12+00:00
The whole point of the logs is that they're tamper-evident. If you think the certificate you've seen wasn't logged you can show proof. If you think the logs tell you something different from everybody else you can prove that too.

It is striking that we don't see that. We reliably see people saying "obviously" the Mossad or the NSA are snooping but they haven't shown any evidence that there's tampering