MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wakawaka28 | 2025-12-08 18:44:20+00:00
I don't believe those numbers, and even if I did it is a fact that EV fires are far more dangerous than petrol fires. As for hybrid vehicles, you get the best and worst of both worlds including two separate high-energy systems that can catch fire. The average age of an EV is way lower than the average age of a petrol car, and they also tend to be toys for the wealthy who do not abuse them as much as the owners of petrol vehicles abuse theirs. EVs are often ruined by minor accidents or water ingress, and can pose a major fire/explosion risk at any shop that would dare to undertake a repair. Just the other day I heard one EV owner was quoted $12k to repair an issue caused by spilling a bottle of drinking water inside the EV.

As I said, the fact that these fires can't be extinguished is a major arson risk, as is their toxicity. Insurers will eventually have to raise their rates to cover the extreme risk posed by EVs. https://www.himarley.com/news/ev-charging-fires-are-rare-but... Storing damaged EVs safely means you need to spread them out like a hundred feet apart or something, so that one of them igniting doesn't start a whole lot of EVs on fire with toxic and inextinguishable flames. There are no solutions to these problems after having EVs on the market for several years, because it's a very hard problem to solve.
by jacquesm | 2025-12-08 18:44:47+00:00
> "You're absolutely right!" "Here's the answer you are looking for!" "Let me do that for you immediately!" "Here is everything I know about what you just mentioned." Never admitting a mistake unless you directly point it out, and then all sorry-this and apologize-that and "here's the actual answer!" It's exactly the kind of personality you always see bubbling up into the orbit of a rich and powerful tech CEO.

You may be on to something there: the guys and gals that build this stuff may very well be imbibing these products with the kind of attitude that they like to see in their subordinates. They're cosplaying the 'eager to please' element to the point of massive irritation and left out the one feature that could serve to redeem such behavior which is competence.
by jandrese | 2025-12-08 18:44:58+00:00
This is just him aping every other AI CEO. Every single one has to act like the agents are super-geniuses mere moments away from achieving the singularity like people can't try them out themselves and be disappointed. Some of it is "we think this will work soon so it's ok if we pretend like it's working now", but I think a lot is just needing to constantly shove hot air into the balloon before it pops.
by ACCount37 | 2025-12-08 18:45:32+00:00
There appears to be a degree of "introspection of its own confidence" in modern LLMs. They can identify their own hallucinations, at a rate significantly better than chance. So there must be some sort of "do I recall this?" mechanism built into them. Even if it's not exactly a reliable mechanism.

Anthropic has discovered that this is definitely the case for name recognition, and I suspect that names aren't the only things subject to a process like that.
by steveklabnik | 2025-12-08 18:46:02+00:00
In safety critical contexts, you're not usually using the standard library. Or at least, you're using core, not alloc or std.

Panics can still exist, of course, but depending on the system design you probably don't want them either, which is a bit more difficult to remove but not the end of the world.

I hadn't seen that addendum though yet, that's very cool!
by ASalazarMX | 2025-12-08 18:46:24+00:00
> Why would a "real super intelligent AI" be your servant in this scenario?

Why is the Bagger 288 a servant to miners, given the unimaginable difference in their strenght? Because engineers made it. Give humanity's wellbeing the highest weight on its training, and hope it carries over when they start training on their own.
by coldpie | 2025-12-08 18:46:53+00:00
Current CEO:

> Boeing spent about $300,000 to help Ortberg move to Seattle. His decision comes more than two decades after Boeing leadership decided to move company headquarters out of Seattle. Ortberg received about $18 million for the months he was the CEO in 2024.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ortberg

Previous CEO:

> In 2022, Calhoun received $22.5 million from Boeing. Most of his 2022 compensation was in the form of estimated value of stock and option awards. He received the same $1.4 million salary as in 2021. ... In February 2023, Boeing awarded Calhoun an incentive of about $5.29 million in restricted stock units to "induce him to stay throughout the company's recovery". In March 2023, Boeing announced Calhoun was being given shares worth $15 million that will vest in installments over three years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Calhoun

Seems to be going all right?
by runjake | 2025-12-08 18:47:09+00:00
This question is always annoying, but I'll bite:

1. Because Apex processes more flavors of Markdown and seems to have more configurability with regard to Markdown syntaxes.

This is not a knock on pandoc. I love pandoc. I use pandoc every single week day.

2. There is no obligation for you to use it. People can create whatever they want and share it with whomever they want.
by WalterBright | 2025-12-08 18:48:29+00:00
Advertising is necessary to sell a product. Campaign money is necessary to buy you a stage. But if you don't like the product, you aren't going to buy it.

> Congress is stacked by wealthy people, in no small part because the salary for congress is not commensurate with the responsibility it has.

LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!)

> rudely dismissive comments that insinuate committing a crime is the only way money and wealth can influence

I don't know where you got that from.

I don't recall ever voting for someone because they spent more money on their campaign.

If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff.

> I’ll refer you to the research showing the general popularity of a proposal is irrelevant to it getting passed.

I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation. The only election poll that matters is the final vote (note that a lot of people do not bother to vote).
by stopbulying | 2025-12-08 18:48:37+00:00
Should American media be sold to foreign interests that don't support Freedom of Speech?

How will they censor, by comparison?

Freedom of Speech (The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Book banning in the United States (2021–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_banning_in_the_United_Sta...
by dm03514 | 2025-12-08 18:48:47+00:00
Stream to stream joins are NOT currently supported. This is a regularly requested feature, and I'll look at prioritizing it.

SQLFlow uses duckdb internally for windowing and stream state storage :), and I'll look at extending it to support stream / stream joins.

Could you describe a bit more about your use case? I'd really appreciate it if you could create an issue in the repo describing your use case and desired functionality a bit!

https://github.com/turbolytics/sql-flow/issues

We were looking at solving some of the simplier use cases first before branching out into these more complicated ones :)
by burningChrome | 2025-12-08 18:48:50+00:00
>> Illegitimate knockoffs would be less of an issue if you had to go to independent websites to find them.

There's tons of counterfeit stuff on Amazon. I'm at the point now where I avoid Amazon because the last five things I bought there were all counterfeit and the products were not limited to one industry. They were across areas you wouldn't think you'd counterfeit stuff.
Show HN: SpecMem-A Unified Ax and Pragmatic Memory for Coding Agents
by Shashikant86 | 2025-12-08 18:48:55+00:00
I built SpecMem after noticing how fragmented the agentic coding ecosystem has become. Each coding agent uses its own spec format, context resets frequently and switching tools means rebuilding everything from scratch. SpecMem provides a unified, agent-agnostic memory layer for coding agents. It reads specs from Kiro, GitHub SpecKit, Tessl, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex and others, then builds a semantic memory using LanceDB, ChromaDB etc. It also includes impact analysis, drift detection, selective testing and a web dashboard. GitHub: https://github.com/SuperagenticAI/specmem Docs: https://superagenticai.github.io/specmem pip: pip install specmem Early project and still rough in places. Feedback from HN is welcome.
by Alsedarna | 2025-12-08 18:49:22+00:00
The operating principle here being that prices are units of information, which in aggregate reveal some combination of market demand, present supply, production costs, etc. All else being equal, an investor who's looking to put an investment into a new business will try to find the best rate of return. The existence of a relatively higher profit margin for an industry suggests an unmet market need, and then directs the flow of capital into it (if you expect that for every $1 you invest into a roofing nail plant will return $1.25 over the next year vs a $2 return from a new insulin plant, more new cash will flow into the insulin plant, more insulin gets made, and if the investor guessed right about the demand for it, they turn a profit). In a sentence, money flows towards trying to give people what we think they want more of.

The theory posited above is that you could try to manipulate these signals as a sort of economic warfare. If you expect that every dollar you put into our aforementioned roofing nail factory will get you minuscule or negative return, nobody's going to want to invest in building/expanding nail factories, and they'll put their cash somewhere it can grow instead. This is all well and good so long as you've got happy trading relationships with people who can sell you nails, but if one day the nails stop coming--you've got a supply chain shock until you either open new factories or find someone else willing to sell nails to you. The theory here being that if you had a LOT of goods that became tied up in a single point of failure--someone forcing that failure could create a great deal of internal instability to be exploited for geopolitical ends.
by viccis | 2025-12-08 18:50:12+00:00
I think it's still a bit of a tortured metaphor. LLMs operate on tokens, not words. And to describe their behavior as pulling the right word out of a bag is so vague that it applies every bit as much to a Naive Bayes model written in Python in 10 minutes as it does to the greatest state of the art LLM.
by jfim | 2025-12-08 18:50:32+00:00
That's what's meant by efficiency, it's allocating it to the place that has the highest return on investment.

As you point out, in practice what's efficient is what can capture the highest return, not necessarily the highest return per se. If say investing in education had high returns society wide but those returns couldn't be captured, that's not an efficient use of private capital.
by constantcrying | 2025-12-08 18:50:52+00:00
Crypto is an absolutely fascinating technology, which solved a seemingly impossible problem in an ingenious way. The entire theory behind it is absolutely amazing, which is something the anti-crypto people rarely acknowledge.

Simultaneously the only use case people have found for it are defrauding people, hiding illicit financial transactions and gambling that some line will go up. Which is something pro-crypto people rarely acknowledge.
by namegulf | 2025-12-08 18:51:02+00:00
There are over 1593 TLDs in 2025 (https://namegulf.com/tld) as of this writing and it's only growing.

ICANN has even more lined up for 2026 approvals.

As a domain marketplace the pattern we see is, when it comes to business .com is king, the more the TLDs .com is only gaining even more importance.

However we're also seeing new TLDs like .new are used as shortcuts.

Google uses doc.new for new google docs, adobe using create.new for adobe express, etc.,
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-12-08 18:51:06+00:00
Not easily but ultimately very simply if you give up on defending fuzzy concepts.

Faith in itself would be terrible, I can see no path where metaphysics binds machines. The chain of reasoning must be airtight and not grounded in itself.

Empiricism and naturalism only, you must have an ethic that can be argued against speculatively but can't be rejected without counter empirical evidence and asymmetrical defeaters.

Those are the requirements I think, not all of them but the core of it.
by themafia | 2025-12-08 18:51:09+00:00
> he loads transcripts into the Copilot app on his iPhone so he can chat with the voice assistant about the content of an episode in the car on his commute to Redmond.

What a dorky thing to do. Does the CEO have some concept he's living a life that precisely _zero_ of his customers do? Who would even think to do this?

> “I’m an email typist,” Nadella jokes of his job

Yea, I have actual work to do, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with this?
by andrewflnr | 2025-12-08 18:51:12+00:00
Different kinds of scary. The tsunami is clearly more dangerous as an actual threat, but it basically looks and works like a flood. This is a pretty familiar threat.

We think the ground is familiar too. So watching it change into something else, a squirming alien beast, is a different kind of fear. It violates your assumptions about what is safe, about what is possible at all.
by tuhgdetzhh | 2025-12-08 18:51:28+00:00
Yes, unfortunately those who jumped on the microservices hype train over the past 15 years or so are now getting the benefits of Claude Code, since their entire codebases fits into the context window of Sonnet/Opus and can be "understood" by the LLM to generate useful code.

This is not the case for most monoliths, unless they are structured into LLM-friendly components that resemble patterns the models have seen millions of times in their training data, such as React components.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-12-08 18:51:31+00:00
Huh? The facilities guy at the local nationally distributed yogurt based product company just swaps out impellers when told by the machine as it identifies there is an issue. He has less skill than your typical HVAC guy, and zero interests in the nuance and zero input about 'best yogurt cavitating' practices.

The aircraft part is measured by Faro or some other tool. The person wielding the Faro just follows the QA instructions and marks if things are red/green. Another FARO type product measures the fixtures/etc for compliance. If they don't match, a fixtures consultant is brought in to make them match.

Other than those that happened to do the initial setup/machine/fixture construction, the people in the actual plant don't really have much non-fungible skills in your example, and they definitely don't have power/permission to go tweaking things using their personal non-fungible skills.
by 0xffff2 | 2025-12-08 18:51:38+00:00
I honestly can't tell if you know a lot more than me or a lot less than me about how computers work... A couple of honest questions:

1. Where do you save the current value of the return address register before calling a function?

2. When parameters are "grouped into a structure" and the structure is passed as an argument to a function, where do you store that structure?
by sunshine-o | 2025-12-08 18:52:05+00:00
From what I understand the Ethereum Foundation has attracted a lot of criticism. I am not sure how much power and influence he has over it.

One of the sensitive issue is the price of ETH it seems as it didn't perform well over the last 3-4 years. And staking it will only give you about 2.5% today.

So in a sense the Ethereum Foundation is the opposite of the criticism we usually hear about crypto: the "stock" doesn't perform well but real progress have been made with the technology and in the ecosystem.

One thing that is clear is that transactions are cheaper, more reliable and anybody can still participate and build on it.
by crote | 2025-12-08 18:52:07+00:00
The big difference with PC hardware is that the OS will get most driver updates for the individual components directly from the OEM. A driver update for, say, a sound card will directly be available to every machine with that sound card installed. The PC vendor doesn't have to be involved in any way.

It's the other way around with Android. Google does a new core release, and each individual manufacturer is responsible for modifying it for their devices. If you don't bother to upstream your drivers to mainline Linux and use a skin which heavily modifies core Android, backporting those fixes can quickly become a nightmare.
by FpUser | 2025-12-08 18:52:21+00:00
>"Microsoft's entire business model for decades has been to shove shoddy products down people's throats."

I remember this one. In the 90s MS reps would come to our company and sing about how their Visual Basic was superior to Delphi. When pointed to countless features that proved the opposite all they were able to say is that the MS has bigger dick.

Their recommendation was to have 2 developers instead of one we had. One would code GUI / front end in Visual Basic and the other write DLLs that would do all the meat.
by _alternator_ | 2025-12-08 18:52:43+00:00
This comment will probably get buried because I’m late to the party, but I’d like to point out that while they identify a real problem, the author’s approach—using code or ASTs to validate LLM output—does not solve it.

Yes, the approach can certainly detect (some) LLM errors, but it does not provide a feasible method to generate responses that don’t have the errors. You can see at the end that the proposed solution is to automatically update the prompt with a new rule, which is precisely the kind of “vibe check” that LLMs frequently ignore. If they didn’t, you could just write a prompt that says “don’t make any mistakes” and be done with it.

You can certainly use this approach to do some RL on LLM code output, but it’s not going to guarantee correctness. The core problem is that LLMs do next-token prediction and it’s extremely challenging to enforce complex rules like “generate valid code” a priori.

As a closing comment, it seems like I’m seeing a lot of technical half-baked stuff related to LLMs these days because LLMs are good at supporting people when they have half baked ideas, and are reluctant to openly point out the obvious flaws.
by n7ck | 2025-12-08 18:53:05+00:00
Yeah I think the way we trained the embedding model focused a lot on how to make it as efficient as possible, since it is such a data-limited regime. So I think based on (early) scaling results, it'll be closer to 50-70k hours, which we should be able to get in the next months now we've already scaled up a lot.

That said, the way to 10-20x data collection would be to open a couple other data collection centers outside SF, in high-population cities. Right now, there's a big advantage in just having the data collection totally in-house, because it's so much easier to debug/improve it because we're so small. But now we've mostly worked out the process, it should also be very straightforward for us to just replicate the entire ops/data pipeline in 3-4 parallel data collection centers.
by antonvs | 2025-12-08 18:53:14+00:00
> my understanding is that setting temperature=0, top_p=1 would cause deterministic output (identical output given identical input).

That's typically correct. Many models are implemented this way deliberately. I believe it's true of most or all of the major models.

> Is this universally correct or is it dependent on model used?

There are implementation details that lead to uncontrollable non-determinism if they're not prevented within the model implementation. See e.g. the Pytorch docs for CUDA convolution determinism: https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/stable/notes/randomness.html#c...

That documents settings like this:

torch.backends.cudnn.deterministic = True

Parallelism can be a source of non-determinism if it's not controlled for, either implicitly via e.g. dependencies or explicitly.
by pessimizer | 2025-12-08 18:53:18+00:00
I don't think you need generative AI for this. The surveillance network is enough. The only part that AI would help with is catching people who speak to each other in code, and come up with other complex ways to launder unapproved activities. Otherwise, you can just mine for keywords and escalate to human reviewers, or simply monitor everything that particular people do at that level.

Corporations and/with governments have inserted themselves into every human interaction, usually as the medium through which that interaction is made. There's no way to do anything without permission under these circumstances.

I don't even know how a group of people who wanted to get a stop sign put up on a particularly dangerous intersection in their neighborhood could do this without all of their communications being algorithmically read (and possibly escalated to a censor), all of their in-person meetings being recorded (at the least through the proximity of their phones, but if they want to "use banking apps" there's nothing keeping governments from having a backdoor to turn on their mics at those meetings.) It would even be easy to guess who they might approach next to join their group, who would advise them, etc.

The fixation on the future is a distraction. The world is being sealed in the present while we talk science fiction. The Stasi had vastly fewer resources and created an atmosphere of total, and totally realistic, paranoia and fear. AI is a red-herring. It is also thus far stupid.

I'm always shocked by how little attention Orwell-quoters pay to the speakwrite. If it gets any attention, it's to say that it's an unusually advanced piece of technology in the middle of a world that is decrepit. They assume that it's a computer on the end of the line doing voice-recognition. It never occurred to me that people would think that the microphone in the wall led to a computer rather than to a man, in a room full of men, listening and typing, while other men walked around the room monitoring what was being typed, ready to escalate to second-level support. When I was a child, I assumed that the plot would eventually lead us into this room.

We have tens or hundreds of thousands of people working as professional censors today. The countries of the world are being led by minority governments who all think "illegal" speech and association is their greatest enemy. They are not in danger of toppling unless they volunteer to be. In Eastern Europe, ruling regimes are actually cancelling elections with no consequences. In fact, the newspapers report only cheers and support.
by Draiken | 2025-12-08 18:53:22+00:00
I find it infuriating, but that's how the system's supposed to work. It's the definition of a monopoly and they're in the extraction phase. When there's no competition (and eventually there's always going to be a winner) you don't need to make good products anymore.

They've successfully indoctrinated whole generations to use Windows/Office. Here in Brazil using a computer was (probably still is) synonymous to using Windows/Office. Everyone had their pirated version of Windows and many don't even know that alternatives exist. When those people open companies they'll use what they know.

Software companies have to build for the most popular OSes and most can't justify anything else. Which then means most software only works on Windows and people can't leave it even if there are better alternatives (see Adobe). Finally, any non-closed computer comes with Windows so the cycle continues forever.