MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by spamizbad | 2025-12-10 03:12:27+00:00
They still do this. The difference is, in my experience, is that parents are totally cool with their kids cheating. I've overheard parents openly mention it at line-up at school.

Hate to say "back in my day" but even as a millennial raised by laid-back parents I'd have been in deep shit if I cheated.
by phh | 2025-12-10 03:13:58+00:00
You can make frequency inertia with solar (even without batteries if you accept running with a constant reserve so with reduced efficiency). Spain showed that there is a learning curve, that's for sure, but their issue was a "simple" oscillation problem that can be fixed by adjusting frequency-follow rate and grid-disconnect rules. It wasn't like a peak of energy consumption or loss of energy production that only a rotating mass could compensate.
by Yeroc | 2025-12-10 03:14:18+00:00
Easy if you ignore the security aspects. You want to hand over your tokens to your LLM so it can script up a tool that can access it? The value I see in MCP is that you can give an LLM access to services via socket without giving it access to the tokens/credentials required to access said service. It provides at least one level of security that way.
by tomhow | 2025-12-10 03:15:17+00:00
This is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're looking for a higher standard of discourse here. These lines in particular are relevant:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

We have to ban accounts that continue to comment like this, so please take a moment to remind yourself of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by listenallyall | 2025-12-10 03:15:43+00:00
just curious - if they went through the process of providing sealable bags and (I assume) verifying the bags were in fact sealed - why not go one step further and require the sealed phones to all be placed in a bucket which could then be taken to another room to ensure no access, and also no interruptions during the exam from a rogue ring or alarm?
by jjk166 | 2025-12-10 03:16:11+00:00
I spent years working in aerospace turbines. This is BS. Power generation turbines are designed to work at ambient sea level conditions. They don't rely on ambient air being especially cold for cooling, they can keep cool thanks to the large mass flow rate.

There is no technological difference between boom's engine and conventional jet turbines. It is still a subsonic turbine, it just happens to sit behind a diffuser that slows the air from supersonic to subsonic speeds. Genuine supersonic turbines are a radically different, and much less efficient, technology. Turbines for supersonic propulsion are actually more temperature sensitive and less efficient than those for subsonic applications specifically because they need to prevent more heating in the compression stages to keep their combustion chambers stable.

The other talking points are likewise bogus. The problem with aeroderivative turbines is maintenance - planes need to be high performance and don't stay up in the air for very long, so their engines are designed around frequent maintenance events. Powerplants, especially those for datacenters, need consistent uptime, not good power to weight ratios.

Boom isn't doing anything special in terms of materials or data monitoring. Yes, power turbines have been a thing for decades, and in those decades they have been arguably the most advanced machines humans have built industrially at any given time. Going back to the maintenance thing, turns out people really want to know if there's an issue before their $200 million machine fails.

I like Boom, I have friends working for Boom. I presume this is just an elaborate way to hop on the AI investment bandwagon. I get it, but it's still ugly to see. I hope this doesn't begin a string of hype-creep that causes their actual goal to fail.
by alephnerd | 2025-12-10 03:16:28+00:00
> I was thinking about robotic baristas the other day and how you might save on costs but you give up so much...

How do they save costs?

Their operating cost doesn't beat gas station coffee, and the margins needed to service them end up pricing them the same as human barista coffee.

Automation only works if it helps reduce your COGS, not increase it, and for a product like coffee with already paper thin margins, the cost of servicing a robotic barista ends up not being much different from hiring 2-3 part time baristas while providing a subpar product.
by neo_doom | 2025-12-10 03:17:23+00:00
Big swing and a miss by the author here.

The learning is the point. Learning by nature shouldn't be optimized for efficiency. You learn deeply when you have to read sources, draw conclusions, synthesize information, and connect it to your own experiences. I recall writing essays in grade school and what mattered wasn't the end product but the process to arrive at the end product. The hours of research and analysis... figuring out what was true and what was questionable. When you skip steps 1-10 and arrive at the final deliverable a la ChatGPT, you miss the entire point of the assignment. Unfortunately, students are only judged on the final deliverable.

Truly, I think the only way we get back to real learning is through paper and pencil. The problem is that we've optimized our systems for learning efficiency, not learning efficacy.
by brookst | 2025-12-10 03:17:24+00:00
Point me to where in the article Kroger, as a corporate statement, “acknowledged” that it “went too far”? I just re-read and it’s not there.

A proper headline would be something like “facing disappointing results, Kroger shifts robotics strategy”. It’s a subtle but important difference. Main thing being that good writing does not put words in its subjects’ mouths. Unless Kroger actually acknowledged it, you don’t say they did.
by catapart | 2025-12-10 03:17:45+00:00
Since you seem like you have practical knowledge here, I hope you don't mind me asking:

Would it change the equation, meaningfully, if you didn't offer any transcoding on the server and required users to run any transcoding they needed on their own hardware? I'm thinking of a wasm implementation of ffmpeg on the instance website, rather than requiring users to use a separate application, for instance.

Would you think a general user couldn't handle the workload (mobile processing, battery, etc), or would that be fairly reasonable for a modern device and only onerous in the high traffic server environment?
by kesor | 2025-12-10 03:17:46+00:00
Why would you think its more complex? There are less permutations of generating transistor on/off states than there are all the different programming languages in use that result in the exact same bits.

Who said that creating bits efficiently from English to be computed by CPUs or GPUs must be done with transformer architecture? Maybe it can be, maybe there are other ways of doing it that are better. The AI model architecture is not the focus of the discussion. It is the possibilities of how it can look like if we ask for some computation, and that computation appears without all the middle-men layers we have right now, English->Model->Computation, not English->Model->DSL->Compiler->Linker->Computation.
by robot-wrangler | 2025-12-10 03:18:10+00:00
> the system loses legitimacy, defection becomes the dominant strategy.

Almost every sentence of this piece is a very powerful reminder that we're not really talking about education vs cheating and it's actually about real work vs optics, appearances vs reality, fake news vs information, and all the rest at the same time. A certain amount of bullshit is and always has been standard, and you see it in all kinds of folk wisdom (e.g. "the people capable of being politicians are the least qualified", "those who do not steal steal from themselves", "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"). But in a very short period of time, society itself has shifted away from rewarding real effort or real results almost everywhere.

I agree that game-theory is a pretty good way to understand it, but the conclusions are pretty dark. Defection as the only available strategy and equilibriums that add up to large-scale attractors that we maybe cannot escape.
by unsungNovelty | 2025-12-10 03:18:19+00:00
This is precisely the problem as well no?

LLMs will have limited seats for external urls. So they will eventually go for paid urls OR even organically, it logically makes sense for them to prioritise StackOverflow, Reddit, Quora kind of sites instead of independent websites. It will wield more advertising power to do this. Following money makes sense?

This is just waiting for the dust to settle in I guess.
by gorgoiler | 2025-12-10 03:18:36+00:00
This article doesn’t really jive with me. Homework is more about spaced repetition and the discipline to do it. The notion that it is about writing an insightful essay with a novel interpretation of an already well trodden topic is overly dramatic. Maybe that’s truly what happens at Ivy Academy but most of the children around me are filling in the blanks to conjugate verbs, practicing cursive, or doing some other variation of 10 - catpaw = 7? drill*.

At some point these kids will be faced with a timed pen-and-paper exam. The earlier you can show them what that’s like and how one needs to prepare for it the better.

On the other hand, I taught high school CS that was assessed solely with terminal examination. If you’re managing pupils whose mark comes from papers they write at home I concede the article’s point entirely!

* catpaw = 3
by skeledrew | 2025-12-10 03:19:01+00:00
Actually dived into this a bit just a couple days ago. It's very near impossibly for there to be a conflict since the timestamp resolves at the microsecond level, and if it's among threads, then there's a global state that, if somehow it should be hit 2+ times in the same microsecond, ensures detection and the random portion is incremented.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-12-10 03:19:15+00:00
> We had a mandatory home economics class that taught how to balance a check book, cook, do laundry, and even how taxes worked. Yet people still thought that class was bullshit and a waste of time.

Sounds about right. This author is talking about whether the kids think the material is important as if kids have good judgement and can be trusted. But that obviously is not the case. Kids are overconfident and ignorant and have no basis at all to determine what is and isn't good learning for them.
by reliefcrew | 2025-12-10 03:19:54+00:00
In the entire history of the world, no one with a choice ever bought anything from the government because they thought the government's offering was superior to that available on the free market.

Please, if you know of an example feel free to provide it. In fact, the government does not actually produce anything at all... not a single product or service. People only buy things from the government when they are coerced.

Even the very best governments out source everything and just keep graft to a minimum. So, working for the government is basically admitting you're unable to compete and need a handout. I'd consider changing careers before a move into the public sector. If you're burning out, just take a break and learn to pace yourself better.
by sleepybrett | 2025-12-10 03:19:54+00:00
I just use phoenix with some special hotkeys to move windows into positions and tile them. Macos has recently added some 'tiling' controls in, but they aren't as flexible. I wrote this phoenix config at least 10 years ago and I just keep it in my dropbox to copy onto the latest work laptop. So while it is 'yak shaving' it's a yak i shaved 10 years ago, amortized over the lifetime i've been using it I would guess it's costing me under a tenth of a second per day at this point.
by ekr____ | 2025-12-10 03:20:51+00:00
What's the incentive for individual sites or browsers to do this?

From the site's perspective, they're going to need to have a WebPKI certificate for the foreseeable future, basically until there is no appreciable population of WebPKI-only clients, which is years in the future. So DANE is strictly more work.

From the browser's perspective, very few sites actually support DANE, and the current situation is satisfactory, so why go to any additional effort?

In order for technologies to get wide deployment, they usually need to be valuable to individual ecosystem actors at the margin, i.e., they have to get value by deploying them today. Even stipulating that an eventual DANE-only system is better, it doesn't provide any benefit in the near term, so it's very hard to get deployment.
by wilsonnb3 | 2025-12-10 03:21:18+00:00
Assuming 40 hours a week of work time, you’re claiming a ~25x speed up, which is laughably absurd to me.

It will take you 2.5 months to accomplish what would have taken you five years, that is the kind of productivity increase you’re describing.

It doesn’t pass the smell test. I’m not sure that going from assembly to python would even have such a ludicrous productivity enhancement.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-12-10 03:21:50+00:00
> In that case, the edit button exists. It seems rather late in the day to be erring on the side of the benefit of the doubt

The edit button exists for 2 hours and this is not a person that frequently comments.

> That's one opinion. Here's another - they were waiting with their commentary locked and loaded, and failed to even read the source material in any detail before unloading it.

Well almost a day later they replied "you can google the papers and find the arxiv articles where the authors are listed". Unless that is a blatant lie, it seems like a pretty good reason to think they're using good-faith and non-racist reasoning here.
by ytoawwhra92 | 2025-12-10 03:22:11+00:00
I was allowed to use a scientific calculator in all my high school math exams. My parents were shocked by this because it would've been considered cheating when they were in school.

Homework, exams, essays, assignments and so on are all tools designed to help students achieve learning outcomes. Those tools are becoming less effective due to the technology to which the students now have access.

Making adjustments to the educational tools makes more sense to me than banning the technology.
by chii | 2025-12-10 03:22:13+00:00
> elaborate way to hop on the AI investment bandwagon ... hype-creep that causes their actual goal to fail.

their current goal might already be "failing" (as in, lack of real demand for hypersonic travel). Investment getting hard to obtain means they're looking for more/broader investment from other investors. Thus, the hopping on of the AI bandwagon.

It doesn't paint a pretty picture tbh.
by gcr | 2025-12-10 03:22:18+00:00
thanks for sharing! If I understand correctly, you're training a smaller model to approximate concatenate(layer[1], layer[5], layer[10], ...), using a loss function that combines reconstruction error w/ end-to-end accuracy. then, you're transferring that smaller representation into a smaller transformer model. is that right?

If i were a paper reviewer, here are a couple red flags that stood out to me. Suggest starting here if you want to rework this for an academic submission:

1. your LaTeX citations in the related work are broken, i see [?] everywhere. To a reviewer, this is often a strong sign of an AI-hallucinated bibliography, though many of your references actually do exist and are contextually relevant, so I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Similarly, figure references need to be fixed, I see references to "Figure ?" throughout.

2. bluntly, "Exact architecture details remain proprietary for production deployments" and "Production systems use architecture search tailored to target latency and accuracy constraints" is not how IP protection works in this field. Do your experiments use the "MLP baselines" or your proprietary architecture? Since you say the code "Achieves 80-90% of paper performance using baseline heuristics," this approach effectively isn't reproducible. As a reviewer, this really worries me. I strongly recommend benchmarking only the system you're able to open-source. I say this because I suspect there's a lot of "secret sauce" in the actual way you're approximating the anchor layers and the way that's transferred back to your student transformer model, and that's the part that's important to spend the most time/effort/writing on, but it's glossed over as an implementation detail in this manuscript.

3. I'm glad you ablate over hyperparameters of your system, but how does it compare to 1. an ordinary smaller model of identical size trained end-to-end, and 2. distilling from a single layer's activations? Eg. a reviewer might consider this work to be a novel method of model distillation, so what makes it better than previous distillation methods?

4. I found the paper fairly hard to read because it's full of sentence fragments rather than full thoughts. A little background on the benchmarks, failure cases, etc. would go a long way, and adding some discussion on why you think your approach improves on similar distillation methods would also be welcome here

5. "compression" is overloaded. Does 224x compression refer to (nparams(field transfer)+nparams(student model))/nparams(original model), or does it refer to reducing the representation dimensionality, 7*8192/256 ?

6. [nitpick] suggest changing the name "meaning field" to something a little more digestible, like "compressed representation" or "latent activation distillation" or something

sorry for being so critical. iron sharpens iron though. hopefully these thoughts are helpful to get you started, excited to see where this work leads
by PhiniteAI | 2025-12-10 03:22:55+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm Swapnil, and I've been building AI agents for the past year. After the 10th time setting up the same infrastructure (Kubernetes, LLM routing, secrets management, monitoring), my co-founder and I decided to build the platform we wished existed.

Phinite is a developer-first platform for building, deploying, and orchestrating AI agents.

*Core features:*

- FlowGen Studio: Visual workflow builder for agent orchestration (think n8n meets LangChain) - Developer Studio: Full IDE for custom tools with AI copilot assistance - One-click deployments to managed Kubernetes - Multi-environment support (DEV/UAT/PROD) with secrets management - 50+ pre-built integrations (Slack, JIRA, Salesforce, etc.) - Built-in observability and cost tracking

*Technical architecture:*

- Cloud-agnostic (AWS, GCP, Azure, or on-prem K8s) - Auto-scaling pod orchestration - Microservices architecture with service mesh - WebAssembly-based runtime for tool execution - Vector DB integration for RAG workflows

*Why we built it:*

Most AI agent frameworks are either too low-level (write everything in Python) or too constrained (no-code boxes that break when you need custom logic). We wanted something that works for both the "I need this done in 5 minutes" and "I need full control" use cases.

*Pricing:*

- $10 free credits (no credit card) - Pay-as-you-go: $20 base + usage-based pricing - Self-hosted option coming soon

*What we're looking for:*

- Feedback on the developer experience - Performance benchmarks vs. self-hosted solutions - Use cases you'd build (or wouldn't build, and why) - Technical deep-dives you'd like to see

We're currently in UAT with 100+ beta testers and opening to the public today.
by tzs | 2025-12-10 03:23:16+00:00
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?

The purpose of an assignment is to give the student problems that can be solved by applying the knowledge and techniques they were taught in class, so that the student can gain experience using that knowledge and those techniques and demonstrate that they have done so to the teacher.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-12-10 03:24:31+00:00
It's one of the reasons I still get my work done with macOS, despite some of the more questionable decisions it's been subject to lately. Despite it all, the defaults are by far closest to what works for me. In less than 30m I can go from a clean install to doing work.

It's also why I have a difficult time with Linux. Even the environments that are closest relatives to macOS are still quite distant, and so I end up getting sucked down a black hole trying to tweak my way closer to parity, which of course never works out. Linux only works for me for single-purpose machines where the desktop environment basically doesn't factor in.
by kldg | 2025-12-10 03:25:09+00:00
This website has guidelines? I have a friend who vomits out what an AI's response to something is to current events; drives me mad, but I resist being a dick about it (to their face).

I don't recall any instances where I've run into the problem here, maybe because I tend to arrive to threads as a result of them being popular (listed on Google News) which means I'm only going to read the top 10-50 posts. I read human responses for a bit before deciding if I should continue reading, and that's the same system I use for LLMs because sometimes I can't tell just by the formatting; if it's good, it's good - if it's bad, it's bad -- I don't care if a chicken with syphilis wrote it.
by brookst | 2025-12-10 03:25:15+00:00
That’s like asking whether you’d rather have a pizza with the same diameter but twice the area, or a pizza with twice the diameter but the same area. It makes no sense.

Stock prices were, are, and will always be rough approximations of the NPV of future profits. It’s not perfect, of course, but it’s roughly true.

Doubling revenue in any remotely sustainable way will have way more than a 2x impact on stock price because of exponential growth. So yeah, as a stockhodler, you’d rather double revenue with flat stock price because you’d buy the crap out of the stock when you realize the market has not factored revenue growth in to pricing.

Imagining that public companies care about stock price more than revenue is literally like saying a hungry customer care more about pizza radius than area.
by CaliforniaKarl | 2025-12-10 03:26:35+00:00
I'm curious: Have a look at /var/log/apt/term.log on that system. When you installed the `curl` package, did apt…

1. Also install the `libcurl4t64` package; or

2. Upgrade an existing installation of the `libcurl4t64`; or

3. Not do either (1) or (2)?

If the answer is (1), then please check if the `libcurl3t64-gnutls` package is installed. Is it…

A. Installed; or

B. Not installed?

If your answer is (1)(A), (2), or (3), then that means something already had the curl libraries installed! If your answer is (1)(B), then yes, curl had not yet been installed!