MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by stego-tech | 2025-12-12 22:59:08+00:00
This doesn’t remotely surprise me, and I can guess Apple’s AI endgame:

* They already cleared the first hurdle to adoption by shoving inference accelerators into their chip designs by default. It’s why Apple is so far ahead of their peers in local device AI compute, and will be for some time.

* I suspect this introduction isn’t just for large clusters, but also a testing ground of sorts to see where the bottlenecks lie for distributed inference in practice.

* Depending on the telemetry they get back from OSes using this feature, my suspicion is they’ll deploy some form of distributed local AI inference system that leverages their devices tied to a given iCloud account or on the LAN to perform inference against larger models, but without bogging down any individual device (or at least the primary device in use)

For the endgame, I’m picturing a dynamically sharded model across local devices that shifts how much of the model is loaded on any given device depending on utilization, essentially creating local-only inferencing for privacy and security of their end users. Throw the same engines into, say, HomePods or AppleTVs, or even a local AI box, and voila, you’re golden.

EDIT: If you're thinking, "but big models need the higher latency of Thunderbolt" or "you can't do that over Wi-Fi for such huge models", you're thinking too narrowly. Think about the devices Apple consumers own, their interconnectedness, and the underutilized but standardized hardware within them with predictable OSes. Suddenly you're not jamming existing models onto substandard hardware or networks, but rethinking how to run models effectively over consumer distributed compute. Different set of problems.
by nlawalker | 2025-12-12 22:59:30+00:00
>Now am I supposed to bundle up all those 450 initial applications that got filtered out just to send them a nice polite email that their resumes didn't even fit the position they applied for?

Yes.

>Especially as most businesses aren't going to have an automatic way to do this easily, and building that automation doesn't make my company money.

If you have the automation in place to receive and process 500 applications in the first place, and filtering that automatically cuts them down, I think it's reasonable to expect that you'd have automation that can email the people who were cut to tell them that they weren't selected and not to expect any further communication.
by neilv | 2025-12-12 22:59:53+00:00
A non-obvious reason that I think the yellow background would've looked especially bad to people at the time, is that most people doing non-gaming on PCs at the time were using MS-DOS programs in text mode, with 4&3-bit color, where it was very unusual for the background color to be bright.

(It was technically possible to get a bright background color on PCs in text mode, but very few programs did that.)
by daliusd | 2025-12-12 23:00:10+00:00
Google says following:

In some member states, like Germany, the EDIFACT format, when compliant with the EN 16931 data model, is accepted as a valid e-invoice format.

EN 16931 defines what information needs to be in an invoice (the data model), while EDIFACT INVOIC defines how that information is structured and formatted for electronic transmission (the syntax).
by zackangelo | 2025-12-12 23:00:10+00:00
No you use tensor parallelism in both cases.

The way it typically works in an attention block is: smaller portions of the Q, K and V linear layers are assigned to each node and are processed independently. Attention, rope norm etc is run on the node-specific output of that. Then, when the output linear layer is applied an "all reduce" is computed which combines the output of all the nodes.

EDIT: just realized it wasn't clear -- this means that each node ends up holding a portion of the KV cache specific to its KV tensor shards. This can change based on the specific style of attention (e.g., in GQA where there are fewer KV heads than ranks you end up having to do some replication etc)
by crote | 2025-12-12 23:00:37+00:00
If I understand correctly, a big problem is that the calculation isn't embarrasingly parallel: the various chunks are not independent, so you need to do a lot of IO to get the results from step N from your neighbours to calculate step N+1.

Using more smaller nodes means your cross-node IO is going to explode. You might save money on your compute hardware, but I wouldn't be surprised if you'd end up with an even greater cost increase on the network hardware side.
by colechristensen | 2025-12-12 23:00:54+00:00
>Evolution isn’t stupid

Evolution also isn't smart. Have so much of something in your diet and you'll tend to lose the ability to manufacture it because there's little evolutionary pressure to maintain it. If you're a VitaminCless mutant you don't die and your children survive just fine and suddenly this becomes common in the species.

It didn't get lost because it was advantageous for it to be gone, it just wasn't important enough to get maintained.
by ashirviskas | 2025-12-12 23:01:32+00:00
Yep and I find that this really worsens LLM performance. For example `Ben,Alice` would be tokenized as `Ben|,A|lice`. And having to connect `lice` to the name `Alice` does not make it any easier for LLMs. However, formatting it as `Ben, Alice` tokenizes it as `Ben|,| Alice`. I found it kind of useful to improve performance by just formatting the data a bit differently.

I actually just started working on a data formatter that applies principles like these to drastically reduce the amount of tokens without decreasing the performance, like other formats do (looking at you, tson).
by pegasus | 2025-12-12 23:01:45+00:00
These types of semantic conundrums would go away if, when we refer to a given model, we think of it more holistically as the whole entity which produced and manages a given software system. The intention behind and responsibility for the behavior of that system ultimately traces back to the people behind that entity. In that sense, LLMs have intentions, can think, know, be straightforward, deceptive, sycophantic, etc.
by Alupis | 2025-12-12 23:01:53+00:00
There is a very vocal opposition to Trump. However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.

It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals and assume everyone disagrees with his policies - but that is far from reality.
by thenaturalist | 2025-12-12 23:02:31+00:00
Laughs in German...

Honestly the main part about nuclear energy is dependence.

In Germany we saw how well that played out in 2022 when Russian gas stopped flowing.

There is a shit ton of innovation around battery technologies, extending the grid and behind the meter micro-grids.

A more diversified, autonomous (as in, wind, solar) energy supply beats Nuclear in terms of national security and long term viability any day.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-12-12 23:02:58+00:00
> You say that like it’s even remotely feasible at the frontier of mathematics and not a monumental group effort to turn even established proofs into such.

people on hn love making these kinds of declarative statements (the one you responded to, not yours itself) - "for X just do Y" as a kind of dunk on the implied author they're responding to (as if anyone asked them to begin with). they absolutely always grossly exaggerate/underestimate/misrepresent the relevance/value/efficacy of Y for X. usually these declarative statements briskly follow some other post on the frontpage. i work on GPU/AI/compilers and the number of times i'm compelled to say to people on here "do you have any idea how painful/pointless/unnecessary it is to use Y for X?" is embarrassing (for hn).

i really don't get even get it - no one can see your number of "likes". twitter i get - fb i get - etc but what are even the incentives for making shit up on here.
by mritchie712 | 2025-12-12 23:02:59+00:00
We released a meltano target for DuckLake[0]. dlt has one now too. Pretty easy to sync pg -> ducklake.

I've been really happy with DuckLake, happy to answer any questions about it.

DuckDB has always felt easier to use vs. Clickhouse for me, but both are great options. If I were you, I'd try both options for a few hours with your use case and pick the one that feels better.

0 - https://www.definite.app/blog/target-ducklake
by dalyons | 2025-12-12 23:03:24+00:00
> still fundamentally suck as cars compared to gas alternatives

i can assure you my expensive EV does not suck as a car compared to gas alternatives, its better in almost every way. insane performance compared to any gas car, superb handling, way better driving UX tech, silent, clean. & 400mil range is just fine for me thanks. Yes it cost a lot.
by stubish | 2025-12-12 23:03:42+00:00
Conversely, it might be great comfort to someone who has a job because their company didn't go out of business. The point of unions isn't to punish business. The point of unions is to empower workers. One of the things workers can do with that power is ensure their business stays afloat and jobs remain, for example policies promoting long term health and stability rather than short term stock price bumps and volatility or corporate strip mining, even if it means executives get smaller bonuses.
by Terr_ | 2025-12-12 23:04:22+00:00
Hmmm, I suppose "intent" is ambiguous since it covers more than one of these tiers:

1. I didn't notice there was anything different.

2. I noticed, but I didn't cause it.

3. I decided to alter it for a innocent reason.

4. I decided to alter it for a guilty reason.

You probably need a Florida lawyer for a high-certainty answer, but I suspect both 3 and 4 will be a violation.

If it were only 4, then it'd be a bit too easy to evade: "Oh, gee golly officer, I didn't know, I was just following that instasnaptok trend of putting glitter on it to make it pretty. The law doesn't say I can't make it fabulous."
by alwa | 2025-12-12 23:04:23+00:00
I imagine it’s a nod to the way the stated goal would normally be pursued, but in this case is not.

It sounds like a good idea to establish a uniform national policy! And the federal government can do that (although only for the very specific purposes spelled out in the Constitution). The right way to do that is to pass a law through both houses of Congress, and the president to sign it into law. Maybe the law even specifies a broad framework and authorizes the executive branch to dial in the specific details (although the court seems to be souring on that kind of thing too).

The god-king proclaiming a brand new framework governing a major new sector of the economy To Be So is.. not the normal way
by sajithdilshan | 2025-12-12 23:04:24+00:00
Why don’t you elaborate on what you meant by "stable" because you seem confused about the meaning of the word. You also appear to be confused about the difference between Trump or Elon going on a rant on Twitter and how the rule of law works in a democratic country.

Trump or anyone else can absolutely go on a rant on Twitter as a First Amendment right. It doesn't matter if you or anyone doesn't like what he has to say. But his rants are not the Law and any law that is passed in US can be challenged in the Supreme Court. If you believe that calling someone “cis” on Twitter is not hate speech and should be considered free speech, then sue Twitter, you have that choice and freedom in the US.

The situation in China is completely different. Laws there are effectively set in stone, whether you like them or not, and regardless of whether they violate your rights. Good luck challenging them.

Finally, Europe can do many things, it can switch to Chinese tech, keep using whatever they have or it can ditch modern technology altogether and go back to 1980s technology (if we're talking about what they can do). Given the current rate of deindustrialization in Europe’s largest economy, they may soon be using 1980s technology anyway.
by AndyKelley | 2025-12-12 23:04:24+00:00
There's a second problem here that musl also solves. If the signal is delivered in between checking for cancelation and the syscall machine code instruction, the interrupt is missed. This can cause a deadlock if the syscall was going to wait indefinitely and the application relies on cancelation for interruption.

Musl solves this problem by inspecting the program counter in the interrupt handler and checking if it falls specifically in that range, and if so, modifying registers such that when it returns from the signal, it returns to instructions that cause ECANCELED to be returned.

Blew my mind when I learned this last month.
by AndrewKemendo | 2025-12-12 23:05:05+00:00
> protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes

So where is this coalition that’s organized to actually make this real?

Software engineers are allergic to unionization (despite the recent id win) and 100% of capital owners (this is NOT business owner and operators I’m talking about LPs and Fund Managers) are in support of labor automation as a priority, the same people also run every government and overwhelmingly select the politicians available to vote for, so who will fund and lead your advocacy?
by yongjik | 2025-12-12 23:06:04+00:00
These kind of "all the experts are retired" take are getting tiresome.

When you think about it, until recently there were no experts in stabilizing the electric grid on a continental scale using renewables, because it was literally never needed before! Didn't stop experts from sprouting out when it became necessary.

There were no experts in building continental scale EV charging frameworks, either, until we needed them, and then there were.

Same thing all over again.

What we can say about nuclear is that it's been continuously supplying a non-negligible part of Europe's energy need for generations, and there are people who've been maintaining that. That's more than what we can say about a lot of our industrial needs in 2025.
by FireBeyond | 2025-12-12 23:06:35+00:00
Hah, you should see some of the bullshit your compatriots are trying to pull.

Start-up, competing with Duolingo, wanted me to "sign up for our service, go through the introductory levels, come up with five specific areas we could improve and how you'd go about them and in what order", as part of your application.

So, "Pump our metrics, give us specific business advice and then we'll see if maybe we'd grant you the courtesy of a conversation". The only way that could be more toxic is if you had to supply a credit card to sign up...
by coldtea | 2025-12-12 23:06:49+00:00
>A model doesn’t “know” facts or measure uncertainty in a Bayesian sense. All it really does is traverse a high‑dimensional statistical manifold of language usage, trying to produce the most plausible continuation.

And is that that different than what we do under the scenes? Is there a difference between an actual fact vs some false information stored in our brain? Or both have the same representation in some kind of high‑dimensional statistical manifold in our brains, and we also "try to produce the most plausible continuation" using them?

There might be one major difference is at a different level: what we're fed (read, see, hear, etc) we also evaluate before storing. Does LLM training do that, beyond some kind of manually assigned crude "confidence tiers" applied to input material during training (e.g. trust Wikipedia more than Reddit threads)?
by kccqzy | 2025-12-12 23:06:58+00:00
You and GP are talking about completely different things. Yes DNS at its core it’s an elegant minimal protocol. But all the complexity comes from client side configuration before the protocol is even involved.

We have complexity like different kinds of VPNs, from network-level VPNs to app-based VPNs to MDM-managed VPNs possibly coexisting. We have on-demand VPNs that only start when a particular domain is being visited: yes VPN starting because of DNS. We have user-provided or admin-provided hardcoded responses in /etc/hosts. We have user-specified resolver overrides (for example the user wants to use 8.8.8.8 not ISP resolver). We have multiple sources of network-provided resolvers from RDNSS to DHCPv6 O mode.

It is non-trivial to determine which resolver to even start sending datagrams with that elegant minimal protocol.
by terminalshort | 2025-12-12 23:07:32+00:00
What has it got to do with anything whether brains function like computers? This is only relevant if you define thinking as something only the brain can do, and then nothing that doesn't work like a brain can think. This would be like defining flight as "what birds do" and then saying airplanes can't fly because they don't work like birds.

And then what do you even mean by "a computer?" This falls into the same trap because it sounds like your statement that brains don't function like a computer is really saying "brains don't function like the computers I am familiar with." But this would be like saying quantum computers aren't computers because they don't work like classical computers.
by hackinthebochs | 2025-12-12 23:07:39+00:00
Your view is missing the forest for the trees. You see individual objects but miss the aggregate whole. You have a hard time conceiving of how exotic computers can be conscious because we are scale chauvinists by design. Our minds engage with the world on certain time and length scales, and so we naturally conceptualize our world based on entities that exist on those scales. But computing is necessarily scale independent. It doesn't matter to the computation if it is running on some 100GHz substrate or .0001Hz. It doesn't matter if its running on a CPU chip the size of a quarter or spread out over the entire planet. Computation is about how information is transformed in semantically meaningful ways. Scale just doesn't matter.

If you were a mind supervening on the behavior of some massive time/space scale computer, how would you know? How could you tell the difference between running on a human making marks with pen and paper and running on a modern CPU? Your experience updates based on information transformations, not based on how fast the fundamental substrate is changing. When your conscious experience changes, that means your current state is substantially different from your prior state and you can recognize this difference. Our human-scale chauvinism gets in the way of properly imagining this. A mind running on a CPU or a large collection of human computers is equally plausible.

A common question people like to ask is "where is the consciousness" in such a system. This is an important question if only because it highlights the futility of such questions. Where is Microsoft Word when it is running on my computer? How can you draw a boundary around a computation when there are a multitude of essential and non-essential parts of the system that work together to construct the relevant causal dynamic. It's just not a well-defined question. There is no one place where Microsoft Word occurs nor is there any one place where consciousness occurs in a system. Is state being properly recorded and correctly leveraged to compute the next state? The consciousness is in this process.
by wongarsu | 2025-12-12 23:07:49+00:00
The term was coined in 1955 to describe "learning or any other feature of intelligence" simulated by a machine [1]. The same proposal does list using natural language as one of the aspects of "the artificial intelligence problem"

It's not a perfect term, but we have been using it for seven full decades to include all of machine learning and plenty of things even less intelligent

1: https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmo...
by dinobones | 2025-12-12 23:08:03+00:00
The year is 2034. Countless attempts at re-producing the sophisticated wetware of the brain have failed. Modeling research has proved unfruitful, with the curse of dimensionality afflicting every attempt at breaking the walls of general intelligence. With only a few million of capital left, and facing bankruptcy, they knew that only one option remained.

"Bring me the rats."
by bigbadfeline | 2025-12-12 23:08:21+00:00
> China has invested so much for so long into nuclear technology... And to rebuild the same type of industry in the EU would take the same amount of effort.

You're factually wrong.

China started from 0 but the EU has kept building reactors, the French Areva/EDF finished three advanced 1600 MW reactors just 6 and 2 years ago. They are also building two reactors of the same type in the UK as we speak. The EU has never lost the expertise necessary for building nuclear reactors, they have actually advanced the state of the art since the end of the initial European wave.

Don't be confused by the lack of finished reactors in the EU, 2 of the completed Areva plants are in China and were built for a third of the time and cost of the same type reactors currently under construction in the UK. Therefore:

1. Looking at completed reactors in the EU cannot be used for judging the level of Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) expertise in the EU.

2. Cost overruns in Europe are due to politics and civil engineering chaos there while the EU's NPP expertise is the best in the world.

3. Technology-wise, a new EU buldout of NPPs won't start from zero but from the the very top of the NPP technology ladder.
by crazygringo | 2025-12-12 23:08:39+00:00
Indeed. Plus basic facts like: is it serif or sans? Proportional or monospace? Designed for GUI interfaces, terminals, or print? I still don't know.

Just showing a single screenshot of it in its intended use would go a long way.

I clicked on one of the charts and had no idea if the font itself was bitmap, or if it had just been rendered at a tiny size without antialiasing.
by oblio | 2025-12-12 23:08:52+00:00
Yes. No to rent seeking.

There should be caps overall and under the caps there should be the option to choose between lump sum and royalties.

Nobody should be collecting unlimited revenue for a brilliant idea at the start and benefit from cheap or free scaling.

This entire model is ripping apart the fabric of modern society.

And yes, I known this is blasphemy on this website.
by sh34r | 2025-12-12 23:09:41+00:00
It varies a lot by store. I’ve been to HDs where they’re all useless, and others where there’s a good number of knowledgeable DIYers working there.

I think a lot of people just expect too much from a big box store employee making $17/hr… You go to HD because you have an easy job and you’re as cheap as their MBAs. If you need help, go to a supply house or an Ace Hardware or something.
Show HN: Team-first Slack bot that turns bug reports into PRs using Claude
by madcash | 2025-12-12 23:10:34+00:00
Hey HN, I built this because I wanted my whole team to collaborate on AI-generated fixes, not just developers with Claude accounts.

The problem with Anthropic's new Claude Code for Slack: every user needs their own Claude Pro/Max subscription ($20+/mo), and sessions are tied to individual accounts. PM reports a bug, dev wants to add context, designer attaches a screenshot—they can't all contribute to the same thread.

This bot is different: - One API key for the whole team (pay per use, not per seat) - Anyone can trigger fixes, tweaks, or feature requests — no Claude account needed - Multiple people contribute context in the same Slack thread - Bot uses ALL that context to write the code and create one PR - Self-hosted on your infrastructure

Stack: TypeScript, Express, Claude Code CLI, GitHub API, simple-git. Deploys to Railway (needs persistent server for Claude CLI).

Built this for my own team first—it's been running in production for a few months. Happy to answer questions about the architecture or tradeoffs.