MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by trjordan | 2025-12-08 19:01:36+00:00
The verification asymmetry framing is good, but I think it undersells the organizational piece.

Daniel works because someone built the regime he operates in. Platform teams standardized the patterns and defined what "correct" looks like and built test infrastructure that makes spot-checking meaningful and and and .... that's not free.

Product teams are about to pour a lot more slop into your codebase. That's good! Shipping fast and messy is how products get built. But someone has to build the container that makes slop safe, and have levers to tighten things when context changes.

The hard part is you don't know ahead of time which slop will hurt you. Nobody cares if product teams use deprecated React patterns. Until you're doing a migration and those patterns are blocking 200 files. Then you care a lot.

You (or rather, platform teams) need a way to say "this matters now" and make it real. There's a lot of verification that's broadly true everywhere, but there's also a lot of company-scoped or even team-scoped definitions of "correct."

(Disclosure: we're working on this at tern.sh, with migrations as the forcing function. There's a lot of surprises in migrations, so we're starting there, but eventually, this notion of "organizational validation" is a big piece of what we're driving at.)
by stopbulying | 2025-12-08 19:01:57+00:00
"Letter to DOJ on Kushner - FARA (Wyden - Raskin) final.pdf" (October 2024) https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/demo... :

> Recent public reports and a Senate investigation have uncovered significant evidence that Mr. Kushner acted as an unregistered foreign agent of [SA]

Kushner - who was never credentialed by State Department, an ambassador, or registered as a foreign agent in the US or in any other country - has now, in 2025, helped sell Electronic Arts to SA and is trying to help sell Warner Brothers Discovery to SA, a foreign territory which does not support Freedom of Speech.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-08 19:02:04+00:00
Once again, I have no skin in the game at all and I do not own any nano.

Nano uses proof of work to counter scam from both sending and receiving side and it uses open representative voting.

Basically nano works from my understanding as like hey, we will host the servers for nano since its kinda cheap to do so but also that we can promote our services via the voting model, mostly done by exchanges like binance,kraken for free.

The model of nano lacks the idea of payment in the first place, its whole model is built around send/recieve proof of works and representative voting

I created a tool which did literally 10s of transactions on nano tokens I got from a faucet and they had 0 fees so I stored data like "hello world" lets say on the chains without losing a single coin (I had like 0.000001) or something

They still are sustainable and without spam by that much partially because of their proof of works and from what I know, it can get really hard to spam if one tries to do so.

Personally there is nanusd but its highly unregulated, just created by one guy, I wish if something like nano can be created at a stablecoin level but yea.

What are your thoughts now, I wish to not sell on nano (the coin) but ORV (the technology), I find it more interested than blockchain essentially, there are some minor differences like nano uses lattice structure etc.

Also please dont buy nano reading this, I find the coin still speculative and I wish if someone can create a more regulated version of a stablecoin combined with running basically a nano node internally, its all open source I guess.
by FuriouslyAdrift | 2025-12-08 19:02:18+00:00
You'd be much better off wiht any decent nVidia against the 7900 series.

AMD doesn't have a unified architecture across GPU and compute like nVidia.

AMD compute cards are sold under the Insinct line and are vastly more powerfull than their GPUs.

Supposedly, they are moving back to a unified architecture in the next generation of GPU cards.
by liversage | 2025-12-08 19:03:08+00:00
My understanding is that there are three mobile networks in North Korea: the normal one used by the citizens (they have smartphones made specifically for North Korea), one used by the government/military and one for tourists (requires a local SIM card only available in a specific hotel in Pyongyang).

The last one is connected to the internet and this is why you can see (or at least before the pandemic could see) Instagram posts from North Korea.

I have no idea if this information is still or ever was completely true though.

There's a somewhat dated but very interesting AMA on Reddit by an American teaching computer science in Pyongyang:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ucl11/iama_american_...

Reading about the internet knowledge possessed by North Korean students, I'm always surprised how they supposedly also manage to be some of the most cunning and evil actors when it comes to hacking.
by rio-popper | 2025-12-08 19:03:10+00:00
so the neural quality real-time checking was the most important thing here. Before we rewrote the backend, between 58-64% of participant hours were actually usable data. Now, it's between 90-95%

If you mean the text quality scoring system, then when we added that, it improved the amount of text we got per hour of neural data by between 30-35%. (That includes the fact that we filter which participants we have return based on their text quality scores)
by th0ma5 | 2025-12-08 19:03:42+00:00
Yes but follow this forward, what about current models would be informative about future models. We've seen waves of "insight" come and go, to the point where there are endless waves of people at different points in the journey, there's a cohort of people that would be upset at the statement that prompt engineering is useless, and others that would support that as exactly right, and still more that would have a redefinition of the word prompt to include many other things. This is my exact complaint. You would want it work like how you want it to work, that our collective discoveries will turn into education and learning, but the content in the models and the subsequent inference based on that information have all not behaved like the physical sciences with regards to discoveries providing universal and reliable knowledge.
by furyofantares | 2025-12-08 19:04:23+00:00
> I've only been using it a couple of weeks, but in my opinion, Opus 4.5 is the biggest jump in tech we've seen since ChatGPT 3.5.

Over Sonnet 4.5 maybe, but that's ignoring Opus 4.1 as well as Codex 5.1 Max.

In terms of capabilities, I find Opus 4.5 to be essentially identical to Codex 5.1 Max up until context starts to fill up (by which I mean 50% used) which happens much more quickly with Opus 4.5 than Codex AFAICT.

I think Codex is slower (a lot?) so it's not like it's just better, but I've found there are some tasks Opus can't do at all which Codex has no problem with, I think due to the context situation.

In any case it doesn't seem like a leap.
by viccis | 2025-12-08 19:04:39+00:00
Yep, this is a classic acquisition story. You go from a hungry company out there to fight to succeed and join a big corp where most projects are just endless series of meetings people have about what they want to do without any real timeline or immediate plan to start.

The worst is when your sales team (and all of its super valuable institutional knowledge of your specific market) are cut, and all your management is laid off so that the new corp's managers (who have embedded themselves into the corporate bureaucracy like a trichinosis worm) can treat all your teams as free headcount.

Soon, your company, which was acquired for growth, can't do anything and turns into an albatross around the new corp's neck. So the layoffs begin.
by adabyron | 2025-12-08 19:04:51+00:00
When was the last time Microsoft had a unified vision that was focused on building an amazing line of products that integrated well with each other?

I can only think of short snippets in history where they moved in that direction for maybe a year or two & then went scatterbrain.

Microsoft has benefited from a monopoly in the enterprise and has never been forced to innovate from a product perspective. See Slack/Teams as a case study of how they have operated when even slightly pushed.

* Edit - .NET, C#, TypeScript teams are an exception to the above. Highly underrated. Amazing talent there. Not sure who all gets credit. Anders & Mads for sure though.
by isubkhankulov | 2025-12-08 19:04:52+00:00
The fiat financial system (aka wall st and main st banking) is heavily regulated on a state and federal level.

Yet after over a decade, the government explicitly did not regulate crypto despite significant overtures from the industry. Nothing other than enforcement actions, until very recently.

This, to me, implies that the government does not want to regulate it proactively because they don’t want to legitimize it.
by Nzen | 2025-12-08 19:04:53+00:00
Did you expect some answer that decried world peace as impossible ? It's just repeating what people say [0] when asked the same question. That's all that a large language model can do (other than putting it to rhyme or 'in the style of Charles Dickens').

[0] https://newint.org/features/2018/09/18/10-steps-world-peace

If you are looking for a vision of general AI that confirms a Hobbsian worldview, you might enjoy Lars Doucet's short story, _Four Magic Words_.

[1] https://www.fortressofdoors.com/four-magic-words/
by squ11z1 | 2025-12-08 19:05:14+00:00
Experimental hybrid architecture combining VibeThinker-1.5B with quantum kernel methods. The quantum component (2-qubit circuits) was trained on IBM's Heron r2 processor.

Architecture: classical transformer embeddings (1536D) → quantum kernel transformation → classification

Current results show 75% accuracy vs 100% classical baseline on sentiment analysis. No quantum advantage demonstrated, but proves the integration pipeline between quantum hardware and transformers works.

Quantum parameters are saved and reproducible. Circuit can run on actual quantum hardware or classical simulation.

Open source (MIT): includes trained quantum parameters, circuit definitions, and full implementation.
by coolThingsFirst | 2025-12-08 19:05:20+00:00
Despite being a systems level programming expert, his criticism of OOP is utterly otherworldly terrible.

There are tons of problems where you don't need inheritance and can just use composition but let's just assume that was too impure as well. Then you can just use OOP ideas like encapsulation to map the data and the methods working on the data together. If I have a vector class, it makes sense that I overload the + operator to do things like v3 = v1 + v2.

That's orders of magnitude better than saying v3 = vector_add(v1, v2). Free functions instead of encapsulation are ridiculous. car_print(car) is a lot crapper than just saying car.print(). Hiding implementation details is how we get to build nice abstract things where we don't have to worry about implementation details. He is a low-level programmer through and through and can't even imagine why someone may prefer or enjoy a more abstract way of programming.

For more on this Ruby has excellent OOP support and it has permitted people to create insane amount of value. Rails for example is phenomenal. If you don't throw the baby with the bathwater OOP can be a phenomenal technique for organizing large codebases.
by WhyOhWhyQ | 2025-12-08 19:05:32+00:00
I personally never found Microsoft software anything but shoddy: Microsoft word, internet explorer, power shell, outlook, powerpoint... these all make me shudder... I'll give them visual studio, that one is pretty good. I think Excel is fine. Skype was okay I guess. Anyway, I think the shoddiness can't really be the actual threat to Microsoft given their track record.
by hilios | 2025-12-08 19:06:04+00:00
>At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.

We've tried that after the end of the cold war, now there is an active war in Europe. You can not unilaterally stop military spending if there are other countries ready to take advantage of it.

>When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army?

That would have been during the height of the Cold War, the resulting Reunification does have its drawbacks, but certainly beats getting overrun by the Soviet Union.
by switz | 2025-12-08 19:06:46+00:00
You can root certain models of robot vacuums and then ssh into them. Most run some variant of linux. Then just install tailscale. There are a few blogs out there of people who have done it[0][1].

It's taking a cloud-based product, de-clouding it, and then connecting it to your own private 'cloud'. Pretty cool all things told.

[0] https://kazlauskas.me/entries/tailscale-doesnt-quite-suck

[1] https://tailscale.com/blog/tailscale-sucks
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-08 19:07:03+00:00
Fascinating, I didn't know that, thank you!

Basically I dread the wall of email support sometimes because its too exhausting, assumes I am a company myself, assumes I must have a website, assumes I have a role at said supposed company.

Also I do not know in how many hours they might respond, Have they even read my message etc.

having something like telegram,matrix etc. can help but also at that point, I wonder if they all use email, can something like delta.chat be used to provide an instant experience to the email experience?

What are your thoughts on this, I am genuinely curious if delta.chat can provide a meaningful improvement over email because I dread having to open all of these things and then fear getting ghosted or fear that I would be able to explain myself only in a few messages worth of time maybe answering them to their questions,asking them questions etc. (I hope it may make sense)
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-12-08 19:07:20+00:00
The first part sounds like a basic ERP implementation. Only instead of leaning on your in-house domain experts who have years of experience/relevant knowledge/know the relevant caveats, you pay consulting rates to train up new domain experts who don't understand/know the caveats and who will charge you consulting rates to gain access to the results of the training you overpaid for.

'But they cleaned the data up'. That data was also cleaned up during all the last major system updates. And during the implementation of those systems. And the implementation of the systems before that.
by kotaKat | 2025-12-08 19:07:24+00:00
I used to mail money orders to people to buy things over the Internet as a kid, before I had access to a bank account.

Before you could just buy Pocky at any old Walmart in the US, I remember mailing Celga[1] a money order to purchase some directly from Japan…

[1] https://www.celga.com/
by wat10000 | 2025-12-08 19:08:19+00:00
It's hard to measure that directly. Market cap is a decent proxy, albeit inexact. If a coin has a market cap of $1.8 trillion, you know a lot of people are doing a lot of something with it, and it's likely that includes using it to buy and sell stuff to some extent. If it has a market cap of $200 million, then there just can't be many people buying and selling with it, and that means it's pretty likely to be difficult to use that way.
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-12-08 19:08:32+00:00
This isn’t true.

Toyota issued multiple engine controller updates. All mfgs do, all the time.

There are no changelogs.

It would also matter what their typical car lifecycle is, it could have been just before refresh so only effected a couple years.

It could have also been bad floor mats.

We’ll never know - but the point is, that their code was so bad you COULD never know.
by red-iron-pine | 2025-12-08 19:08:40+00:00
> In one word: fraud. I've worked at a company similar to Hetzner, and the "add a credit card first" is the single most effective way to weed out 99% of abusers. People that will each up swaths of compute and mine crypto, ruining the service for everyone. Or hosting CSAM material. Or participating in botnets. Or sending spam. All those makes both the company AND the clients suffer.

Seconded. Used to work at an MSP that had a customer that did "micro-hosting" on a free tier. Just sign up, put data, run w/ it.

There were weeks where I emailed my FBI contact 3-4 times with CSAM links, spam, or evidence of DDoS attacks. Crypto was just getting off the ground then but could totally see that being a thing if the timing were different.

Customer was willing to address it quickly and paid even after we gave them the "fuck-off" quote, so we kept em for a while...
by bikenaga | 2025-12-08 19:08:57+00:00
Abstract: "The FDA does not formally regulate representativeness, but if trials under-enroll vulnerable patients, the resulting evidence may understate harm from drugs. We study the relationship between trial participation and the risk of drug-induced adverse events for cancer medications using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program linked to Medicare claims. Initiating treatment with a cancer drug increases the risk of hospitalization due to serious adverse events (SAE) by 2 percentage points per month (a 250% increase). Heterogeneity in SAE treatment effects can be predicted by patient's comorbidities, frailty, and demographic characteristics. Patients at the 90th percentile of the risk distribution experience a 2.5 times greater increase in SAEs after treatment initiation compared to patients at the 10th percentile of the risk distribution yet are 4 times less likely to enroll in trials. The predicted SAE treatment effects for the drug's target population are 15% larger than the predicted SAE treatment effects for trial enrollees, corresponding to 1 additional induced SAE hospitalization for every 25 patients per year of treatment. We formalize conditions under which regulating representativeness of SAE risk will lead to more externally valid trials, and we discuss how our results could inform regulatory requirements."
by rkagerer | 2025-12-08 19:09:06+00:00
This re-designed contact page, as certain as we were of how bad of an idea it was, wasn’t a fire, so we let it through.

...it didn’t meet my internal bar for a quality product worth sticking my name on, and I feel like I’ve let down both the client and the end-users

If this was a bridge that might not stay up, would you have let it through? Or a high voltage circuit with poor grounding?

I wish our field had a higher bar in terms of professional engineering integrity, and just refused to do things we instinctively know are wrong. Commenters will make all kinds of excuses (money, someone else's decision, etc), but the world would be a better place.
by kstenerud | 2025-12-08 19:09:11+00:00
> Assuming both parties can come up with unbiased random numbers

When you're in competition, this cannot be assumed. You'll each bias the numbers you come up with towards your preferred outcome. Even with A + B mod N, you can still bias the results when you know what your opponent is trying for.

A fairer approach would be to make a long series of randomized values. Your opponent secretly chooses a starting offset, and you pick an offset to add.

So for 1d6:

2 5 1 3 6 4 4 3 5 2 1 6 5 6 3 4 2 1 1 4 3 2 5 6 3 1 2 6 4 5

You don't need a ton of rows. Each possible roll value must appear once in each row.

Your opponent places a marker on one of those numbers and keeps that information hidden.

- Let's say they choose the "1" at row=2, col=5.

Now you pick a number from 1 to 6.

- Let's say you choose 5.

Now they reveal where the marker is set (row=2, col=5).

Now you advance from the marker by 5 (wrapping around in the row if necessary).

- so from row=2, col=5, you advance by 5 like so: 6, (wrap) 4, 3, 5, 2 (ending at row=2, col=4).

You "rolled" a 2.
by jcalvinowens | 2025-12-08 19:09:26+00:00
> People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy.

I don't disagree with you there.

> This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.

The people get what they vote for, whether or not its what they deserve. The only way to move the needle on this is to educate people. Telling people they're "stupid sheep" for not wanting the thing you think they should want is not typically a winning strategy, in my experience.

> There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.

I'm simply saying I think most people care more about the first thing.
by rustyconover | 2025-12-08 19:10:12+00:00
The next major release of Tributary will support Avro, Protobuf and JSON along with the Schema Registry it will also bring the ability to write to Kafka with transactions.

But really you should get excited for DuckDB Labs to build out materialized views. Materialized views where you can ingest more streaming data to update aggregates. This way you could just keep pushing rows through aggregates from Kafka.

It is going to be a POWER HOUSE for streaming analytics.

Contact DuckDB Labs if you want to sponsor the work on materialized views: https://duckdb.org/roadmap
by geocar | 2025-12-08 19:10:53+00:00
> I am literally asking you to show me what you are talking about.

Do you see these things -> ? <- Those are question marks.

Now go look back at your last comment and tell me how many of them you see.

> Was it actually something special about Lisp or did they just happen to use Lisp while making something that could have just been as easily - or more easily - done with something else?

I don't know. Why are you asking me this?

Please read my comments carefully, because I put time into trying to tell you something, but I am not trying to tell you what I think you think I am trying to tell you, and I am not going to justify my opinions to you any more than I would ask you to justify yours.

> and they should know about it?

I have mixed feelings about this: Who are the other people you are talking about?

There are a lot of people I won't work with; I won't trade with them; sell them my products; buy theirs; No contact if I can help it. That's why the first question I asked you is what is important to you? Did you even see my question?
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-12-08 19:10:55+00:00
Yes. The answers to those questions fell out once I decomposed the problem to types of mereological nihilism and solipsistic environments.

An empirical, existential grounding that binds agents under the most hostile ontologies is required. You have to start with facts that cannot be coherently denied and on the balance I now suspect there may be only one of those.
by gen220 | 2025-12-08 19:10:59+00:00
It's disingenuous to lump AAPL in with the tech stocks that compose the top part of the S&P 500 right now. Much of their valuations are highly-leveraged bets on a massive and nearish-term realization of a dream AI business scenario (NVDA, TSLA, AVGO, and to a lesser extent MSFT, GOOG and META).

What % of AAPL is a highly-leveraged bet on AI, in comparison to those listed above? If you could only own 1 of those over the previous and incoming 10 years, it'd be challenging to not choose Apple, with maybe Google as second (albeit with a sizable regulatory asterisk).

I know there's a tendency to reduce everything to numbers, but Berkshire is playing a qualitatively completely different risk management game from the rest of the companies in the top 10 in the S&P 500 right now.

Edit: selfishly, I think you have more to gain from understanding why BRK chose to invest in Apple, than you do from aiming to "explain away" BRK as unremarkable.

If you're trying to choose where to lazily (i.e. with as little mental effort as possible) stash away your investments, that's a separate discussion. Buffet himself recommends S&P 500. But BRK is playing a fundamentally different game from the S&P. An investment in VOO vs an investment in BRK support very different theses.