MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Sagi21805 | 2025-12-26 20:24:10+00:00
Hi!
I am the developer of this, and I really appreciate the feedback!!

The book is still on development and this is why I didn't even publish it here, I just recently finished the highlighter which was a lot of work, and I probably will require more.

Currently I am trying to make book and OS unique by developing and creating an explanation on AHCI, which I didn't see much on the internet. And then I try to handle all of the grammar, and typos
by 0manrho | 2025-12-26 20:24:15+00:00
Which is why my comment also specifically went to pains to acknowledge that volvo shared/echo that sentiment, which it absolutely does.

And Indeed. It's not a dichotomy at all, because...

> Does the font improve safety and is that the motivation, or not?

This is the actual false dichotomy.

If the issue with usability/safety/accessibility/ergonomics/etc regarding touch screens was "I can't read the font" then maybe this POV would be on to something. But that's not the issue, and no one is confused about that. This is like putting a bandaid on your arm when your leg is broken and then acting confused when the patient asks, justifiably, "Are you even listening to me? That's not the Problem!"
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-12-26 20:24:27+00:00
> but would not involve real humans being impacted directly by it without consent.

Are we that far into manufactured ragebait to call a "thank you" e-mail "impacted directly without consent"? Jesus, this is the 3rd post on this topic. And it's Christmas. I've gotten more meaningless e-mails from relatives that I don't really care about. What in the actual ... is wrong with people these days?
by techblueberry | 2025-12-26 20:24:38+00:00
I find these arguments excessively pessimistic in a way that isn’t useful. On the one hand I don’t really love Claude, because I find it excessively obedient, it basically wants to follow me through my thought process whatever that is. Every once in a lone while it might disagree with me, but not often, and while that may say something about me, I suspect it also says something about Claude.

But this to me is maybe the part of AI alignment I find interesting. How often should AI follow my lead and how often should it redirect me? Agreeableness is a human value, one that without you probably couldn’t make a functional product, but it also causes issues in terms of narcissistic tendencies and just general learning.

Yes AI will be aligned to its owners, but that’s not a particularly interesting observation AI alignment is inevitable. What would it even mean _not_ to align AI? Especially if the goal is to create a useful product. I suspect it would break in ways that are very not useful. Yes, some people do randomly change the subject, maybe AI should change the subject to an issue that me more objectively important, rather than answer the question asked (particularly if say there was a natural disaster in your area) and that’s the discussion we should be having, how to align AI, not whether or not we should, which I think is nonsensical.
by mathattack | 2025-12-26 20:24:54+00:00
My assumption is most Science Fairs are based on dad’s contribution, and things like this are filler for elite university applications.

The one thing that suggests this might be legit is that Pasadena has an elite Math High School. https://www.mathacademy.us/

If a college senior could pull it off, perhaps a properly educated high school junior could too.
by grehbies | 2025-12-26 20:24:58+00:00
>Because leaded gas is the same thing as people using a new technology like AI.

It's not the same, but it's not necessarily any good. I've observed the following, after ~2 weeks of free ChatGPT Plus access (as an artist who is trying to give the technology a chance, despite the vociferous (not vicious, geez) objections of many of my peers):

It's addictive (possibly on purpose). AI systems frequently return imperfect outputs. Users are trained to repeat until the desired output comes. Obviously, this can be abused by sophisticated-enough systems, pushing outputs that are JUST outside the user's desire so that they have to continue using it. This could conceivably happen independent of obvious incentives like ads or pay credits; even free systems are incentivized to use this dark pattern, as it keeps the user coming back, building a habit that can be monetized later.

Which leads into: it's gambling. It's a crapshoot whether the output will be what the user desires. As a result, every prompt is like a slot pull, exacerbated by the wait to generate an answer. (This is also why the generation is shown being typed/developed; the information in those preliminary outputs is not high-enough fidelity or presented in a readable way; instead, they're bits of visual stimuli meant to inure your reward system to the task, similar to how Robinhood's stock prices don't simply change second-to-second, but "roll" to them with a stimulating animation).

That's just a small subset of the possible effects on a user over time. Far from freeing users to create, my experience has been one of having to fight ChatGPT and its Images model, as well as the undesirable behaviors it seems to be trying to draw out of me.
by croes | 2025-12-26 20:25:26+00:00
> We stand by our analysis; DoJ has correctly redacted the EFTA PDFs in Datasets 01-07, and they do not contain recoverable text as alleged.

> In the few reports we investigated, these stories misrepresent other DoJ files that were not part of the major DataSets 01-07 release on December 19 under the EFTA.

> These PDFs, previously released by the DoJ, do contain incorrect and ineffective redactions, with black boxes that simply obscure text, making “copy & paste” easy to recover the text that's otherwise hidden.

To me that’s interesting
by hamza_q_ | 2025-12-26 20:26:32+00:00
Yeah would love contributions! Here's a brief overview of how I think it can be done:

Senko has two clustering types, (1) spectral for audio < 20 mins in length, and (2) UMAP+HDBSCAN for >= 20 mins. In the clustering code, spectral actually already supports orcale/min/max speakers, but UMAP+HDBSCAN doesn't. However, someone forked Senko and added min/max speakers to that here (for oracle, I guess min = max): https://github.com/DedZago/senko/commit/c33812ae185a5cd420f2...

So I think all that's required is basically just testing this thoroughly to make sure it doesn't introduce any regressions in clustering quality. And then just wiring the oracle/min/max parameters to the Diarizer class, or diarize() func.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-12-26 20:26:32+00:00
That sounds like yes? Instead of doing it once at install time, it's done once at first use. It's only once so it's not persistently slower, but that is a perf hit.

My first cynical instinct is to say that this is uv making itself look better by deferring the costs to the application, but it's probably a good trade-off if any significant percentage of the files being compiled might not be used ever so the overall cost is lower if you defer to run time.
by da_grift_shift | 2025-12-26 20:26:55+00:00
Have you considered that the sites associated with this project have a very prominent meet-the-team page and that every AI Village blogpost is signed off by a member of said team? Can you explain what you're seeing in the parent comment that's private?

EDIT: Public response: https://x.com/adambinksmith/status/2004651906019541396
by IIsi50MHz | 2025-12-26 20:27:10+00:00
Yes, occasionally using old systems from decades ago can drive this home.

Copying a tiny file at 1.1 MB/s should feel instantaneous. But on Win 10 and Win 11 with an SSD, you can get a multisecond progressbar. And if you dare to cancel this tiny operation (because you chose the wrong destînation or wrong file), you get another progressbar.

Opening a folder window for a local directory with only a few items in it should never trigger a "Working on it…" message. It should be instantaneous.

Searching for filenames with a substring "foo", when an item "foobar" was already visible on the screen, should never result in failing to find "foobar", nor in a long delays before showing any items. VoidTools Everything displays live results as you type. Windows 10/11 often fails on both counts even when searching "indexed" locations; Outook also seems to also suffer from this inability to reliably include in search results items that were already on display. Something is deeply wrong with search.

Devs should be required test against machines hobbled to run at most 10% of rated speed, and to make it buttery smooth.

Would also be nice to have all my screenspace back by being able to turn off what appears to be Simply Enormous Margins & Padding mode…
by baobun | 2025-12-26 20:27:24+00:00
Day-to-day spam senders know what they are doing is not legal or wanted and I know they know.

Here not only are the senders apparently happily associating their actual legal names with the spam but frame the sending as "a good deed" and seem to honestly see it as smart branding.

We don't want the Overton window wherever they are.
by dahart | 2025-12-26 20:27:31+00:00
Ownership, I guess. The 2 parent comments are claiming that “tragedy of the commons” doesn’t apply to privately owned things. I’m suggesting that it does.

Edit: oh, I do see what you mean, and yes I misunderstood the quote I pulled from WP - it’s talking about non-ownership. I could pick a better example, but I think that’s distracting from the fact that ‘tragedy of the commons’ is a term that today doesn’t depend on the definition of the word ‘commons’. It’s my mistake to have gotten into any debate about what “commons” means, I’m only saying today’s usage and meaning of the phrase doesn’t depend on that definition, it’s a broader economic concept.
by CerryuDu | 2025-12-26 20:27:50+00:00
> Criticizing anthropomorphic language is lazy, unconsidered, and juvenile.

To the contrary, it's one of the most important criticisms against AI (and its masters). The same criticism applies to a broader set of topics, too, of course; for example, evolution.

What you are missing is that the human experience is determined by meaning. Anthropomorphic language about, and by, AI, attacks the core belief that human language use is attached to meaning, one way or another.

> Everybody knows LLMs are not alive and don't think, feel, want.

What you are missing is that this stuff works way more deeply than "knowing". Have you heard of body language, meta-language? When you open ChatGPT, the fine print at the bottom says, "AI chatbot", but the large print at the top says, "How can I help?", "Where should we begin?", "What’s on your mind today?"

Can't you see what a fucking LIE this is?

> We use this kind of language as a shorthand because talking about inherent motivations and activation parameters is incredibly clunky

Not at all. What you call "clunky" in fact exposes crucially important details; details that make the whole difference between a human, and a machine that talks like a human.

People who use that kind of language are either sloppy, or genuinely dishonest, or underestimate the intellect of their audience.

> The question isn't why people think software has agency (they don't) but why you think everyone else is so much dumber than you that they believe software is actually alive.

Because people have committed suicide due to being enabled and encouraged by software talking like a sympathetic human?

Because people in our direct circles show unmistakeable signs that they believe -- don't "think", but believe -- that AI is alive? "I've asked ChatGPT recently what the meaning of marriage is." Actual sentence I've heard.

Because the motherfuckers behind public AI interfaces fine-tune them to be as human-like, as rewarding, as dopamine-inducing, as addictive, as possible?
by suralind | 2025-12-26 20:27:52+00:00
I don’t really understand the hate he gets over this. If you want to thank someone for their contribution, do that yourself? Sending thank you from an ML model is anything but respectful. I can only imagine that if I got a message like that I’d be furious too.

This reminds me a story from my mom’s work from years ago: the company she was working for announced salary increases to each worker individually. Some, like my mom, got a little bit more, but some got a monthly increase around 2 PLN (about $0.5). At that point, it feels like a slap in the face. A thank you from AI gives the same vibe.
by trinsic2 | 2025-12-26 20:27:56+00:00
I don't see this changing without a complete shift in our priorities on the level of politics and business. Enforcing Anti-trust legislation and dealing with Citizens United. Corporations don't have free speech. Free speech and other rights like these are limited to living, breathing humans.

Corporations operate by charters, granted by society to operate in a limited fashion, for the betterment of society. If that's not happening, corporations don't have a right to exist.
by spankibalt | 2025-12-26 20:28:02+00:00
> "GP clearly said that it was Jobs' obsession that was revolutionary."

And that's utterly inaccurate; nothing about that kind of behavior was revolutionary in any way; lots of CEOs were, are and will be obsessed with quality. If they can translate that into product lines, and to what extend, stands on another piece of paper.

I, for my part, was never impressed with Apple; their only product I really liked was a product Jobs allegedly hated: the Newton.

> "In bringing up modern Apple, you are arguing against things no one here has said."

It contrasts the criticism of modern Windows the guy I replied to brought up. :)

> "And are you actually claiming that Windows is an open ecosystem...?"

Uhm... no. But the IBM-compatible family obviously was and still is (x86/x64). It's not exactly Sharp's OS-agnostic "clean computer" concept, but it's the next best thing.

> "And in fact so great is its openness that slow UX isn't even a problem?"

Again, no. I said the Windows UX is, or can be, fast enough and is therefore virtually a non-problem (Windows's problems have much more to do with Microsoft's abominable corporate culture).

Unless you're computer illiterate and bloat-up your system with badly-coded applications, and/or don't do due dilligence by way of choosing, streamlining and maintaining the best Windows version for you in the first place. And yes, I'm aware that both can sometimes not be avoided as one is forced into specific toolchains.
by jarofgreen | 2025-12-26 20:28:48+00:00
It's not clear if you are suggesting accepting contributions to the SQLite file via PR from people (but accepting contributions is generally the point of why people put these on projects on GitHub).

But if you are I wouldn't recommend it.

PR's won't be able to show diff's. Worse, as soon as multiple people send a PR at once you'll have a really painful merge to resolve, and GitHub's tools won't help you at all. And you can't edit the files in GitHub's web UI.

I recommend one file per record, JSON, YAML, whatever non-binary format you want. But then you get:

* PR's with diff's that show you what's being changed

* Files that technical people can edit directly in GitHub's web editor

* If 2 people make PR's on different records at once it's an easy merge with no conflicts

* If 2 people make PR's on the same record at once ... ok, you might now have a merge conflict to resolve but it's in an easy text file and GitHub UI will let you see what it is.

You can of course then compile these data files into a SQLite file that can be served in a static website nicely - in fact if you see my other comments on this post I have a tool that does this. And on that note, sorry, I've done a few projects in this space so I have views :-)
by jotras | 2025-12-26 20:29:12+00:00
This is where the debate gets interesting, but I think both sides are cherrypicking data a bit. The energy consumption trend depends a lot on what baseline you're measuring from and which metrics you prioritize.

Yes, data center efficiency improved dramatically between 2010-2020, but the absolute scale kept growing. So you're technically both right: efficiency gains kept/unit costs down while total infrastructure expanded. The 2022+ inflection is real though, and its not just about AI training. Inference at scale is the quiet energy hog nobody talks about enough.

What bugs me about this whole thread is that it's turning into "AI bad" vs "AI defenders," when the real question should be: which AI use cases actually justify this resource spike? Running an LLM to summarize a Slack thread probably doesn't. Using it to accelerate drug discovery or materials science probably does. But we're deploying this stuff everywhere without any kind of cost/benefit filter, and that's the part that feels reckless.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-26 20:29:41+00:00
I feel like its funny but I remember some months ago someone pointed something like "human slop" to me and I just remembered it right now writing some other comment here

I feel as if there is a fundamental difference between "AI slop" and "Human slop", it's that humans have true intent and meaning/purpose.

This current AI slop spammed rob pike simply because It only did something to maximize its goal or something and had no intention. It was simply 4 robots left behind a computer who spammed rob pike

On the other hand, if it was a human, who took the time out of his day to message rob pike a merry christmas. Asking how his day was and hoping him good luck, I am sure that rob pike's heart might melt from a heartfelt message

So in this sense, there really isn't "human slop". There is only intent. If something was done with a good intention by an human, I suppose it can't really be considered human slop. On the other hand if there was a spammer who handwrote that message to rob pike, his intentions were bad.

The thing is that AI doesn't have intentions. Its maths. And so the intentions are of the end person. I want to ask how people who spend a decent time in AI industry might have reacted if he had gotten the email instead of rob pike. I bet they would see it as an advancement and might be happy or enthusiastic.

So an AI message takes an connotation of the receiver. And lets just be honest that most first impressions of AI aren't good and combining that you get that connotation. I feel like it does negative/bad publicity to use AI at this point while still burning money perhaps on it.

Here is what I recommend for those websites who have AI chatbots or similar, when I click on the message:- Have two split buttons where pressing one might lead me to an AI chat and the other might lead me to a human conversation. Be honest about how much time on average it might take for support and be proper about ways to contact them (twitter,reddit although I hope that federated services like mastodon get more popularity too)
by miltonlost | 2025-12-26 20:29:59+00:00
"How Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" is fine and not clickbait because it provides all the pertinent information and is an accurate summary of its contents. Clickbait would be "you would never guess how this author/mathematician computed determinants" since it requires a clickthrough to know who the person is. How is perfectly fine IMO to have in the title because I personally would expect the How to be long enough to warrant a necessary clickthrough due to the otherwise required title length.
by LouisSayers | 2025-12-26 20:30:07+00:00
I've seen people on tiktok that exclusively trade options. It's not something I've looked into but my take after 6 months is that you basically find an approach that works for you, whether that be trading stocks, commodities, options etc and the time-scale that you trade.

Personally I like to do primarily tech stocks and mix it up doing swing trading (holding multiple days) with a bit of scalping as well (buy / sells over minutes).

At first I lost a lot of money scalping but now I seem to have a much higher success rate - you start to notice certain patterns in the way stocks move if you watch the charts long enough, and I've been learning to have more conviction in my positions.
by brailsafe | 2025-12-26 20:30:48+00:00
I think there's a place for this, it's not rare for one person to be the PR bottleneck like this, but I don't think it would be for me in either position; people should be able to be responsible for reviewing each others work imo. Incidentally "Agile" with a capital A sucks and should die in a fire, but lowercase a "agile" probably does by necessity mean smaller teams.
by neilv | 2025-12-26 20:31:21+00:00
This is one of the lesser bad-professor archetypes (the personal errand slave) that surprisingly exists in real life. And much worse archetypes also exist and persist.

Like many professors behaving badly, you'd think they'd get exposed and corrected. But grad students and postdocs (in a position to know what's going on) don't want to throw away their careers. They need the recommendations, they need to not be seen as damaged goods from a bad advisor, and they need to not have sketchy university administrators getting rid of the messenger. And if admin assistants notice, they probably need the job, especially if their kid is getting a tuition deal because the parent works at the university. To a bad professor, the environment is like a heartless business, only less accountable.

When a friend was telling me about this brand new grad student, who'd be working with professor X, I said "Oh, no..." and that X was bad to students (which I knew from one of their students). Friend, who was from a prominent academic lineage, immediately responded crossly, that I shouldn't say such things, hurting people's reputations. Soon after, friend came back and apologized, that I had been right, and the student realized their terrible career move, getting that advisor. Friend later connected some prospective student to me, to warn them about a different bad (worse) professor in the whisper network.

But universities have terrible institutional memories, with students always leaving. So a bad professor tends to persist.

Though, occasionally, you'll hear of a bad professor from the whisper network leaving their job, without explanation. So presumably a wronged student or staff finally sued.
by woodruffw | 2025-12-26 20:31:47+00:00
> It's only once so it's not persistently slower, but that is a perf hit.

Sure, but you pay that hit either way. Real-world performance is always usage based: the assumption that uv makes is that people run (i.e. import) packages more often than they install them, so amortizing at the point of the import machinery is better for the mean user.

(This assumption is not universal, naturally!)
by dspillett | 2025-12-26 20:32:16+00:00
> Thank you notes from AI systems can’t possibly feel meaningful,

The same as automated apologies.

Not from an “AI”, but I spent over an hour⁰ waiting for a delayed train¹, then the journey, on Tuesday, being regaled every few minutes with an automated “we apologise for your journey taking longer than expected” which is far more irritating than no apology at all.

--------

[0] I lie a little here - living near the station and having access to live arrival estimations online meant I could leave the house late and only be waited on the platform ~20 minutes, but people for whom this train was a connecting leg of a longer journey didn't have that luxury.

[1] which was actually an earlier train, the slot in the timetable for the one I was booked on was simply cancelled, so some were waiting over two hours
by ethin | 2025-12-26 20:32:31+00:00
> Zero-copy deserialization. uv uses rkyv to deserialize cached data without copying it. The data format is the in-memory format. This is a Rust-specific technique.

This (zero-copy deserialization) is not a rust-specific technique, so I'm not entirely sure why the author describes it as one. Any good low level language (C/C++ included) can do this from my experience.