MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by simonw | 2025-12-17 01:37:56+00:00
All of the notable generative AI companies have policies that the won't claim copyright over your outputs.

They also frequently offer "liability shields" where their legal teams will go to bat for you if you get sued for copyright infringement based on your usage of their terms.

https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5008634-will-openai-clai...

https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanded-legal-protections-ap...

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#use-generated
by hinkley | 2025-12-17 01:38:14+00:00
I use them minimally and haven't stared at enough failures yet to see the patterns. Generally speaking my MO is to remove at least half of the moving parts of any CI/CD system I encounter and I've gone a multiple of that several times.

When CI and CD stop being flat and straightforward, they lose their power to make devs clean up their own messes. And that's one of the most important qualities of CI.

Most of your build should be under version control and I don't mean checked in yaml files to drive a CI tool.
by 15155 | 2025-12-17 01:38:43+00:00
Because these are human systems involving humans: there will always be mistakes. Advocating for the elimination of 100% of mistakes is a typical "rules for radicals" method of backdoor legislation through increased bureaucracy.

I'm not advocating to "move fast and break things," but that it's very easy and cheap for illegal immigration maximalists to advocate that society should "move never so nothing breaks." This type of obstruction is actually a form of conservative policy, but "it's for the causes I like so it's okay."

> don’t think getting a warrant before detaining people is that huge of an ask

The law doesn't require a warrant before detaining people - and shouldn't. This doesn't even make sense: "Hold on Mr. Bank Robber - I'm not detaining you, but pretty please don't go anywhere, I gotta go get a warrant first!"
by ryandv | 2025-12-17 01:39:08+00:00
> BOLD response and fMRI sampling rates

Funny, because these exact measures [0] were brought up in response to a similar claim I made over a year ago [1] about the resolution of our instrumentation.

There would appear to be a worrying trend of faith in scientism, or the belief that we already have all the answers squirreled away in a journal somewhere.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41834346

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41807867
by LeoPanthera | 2025-12-17 01:39:34+00:00
This is very similar to the Google Trends results for "frqnce":

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=frqnce&h...

You'll notice it peaks every northern hemisphere summer. On French keyboards, Q and A are reversed compared to US keyboards, and every summer, millions of French people go on vacation, and start Google searching for things back home on unfamiliar keyboards.

It declines with the rise of the smartphone, as they're bringing their keyboards with them.

Why it suddenly spikes in the last few years, I don't know.
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-17 01:40:07+00:00
> That doesn't work, they beat it so hard into ChatGPT

I don't think you're able to set either the developer or system prompt on ChatGPT, you're gonna have to use the OpenAPI (or something else) to be able to set that. Once you have access to setting text in those, you can better steer how the responses are.
by UncleEntity | 2025-12-17 01:40:17+00:00
I've been using Claude to implement an ISO specification and I have to keep telling it we're not interested if the repl is correct but that the test suite is ensuring the implementation is correctly following the spec. But when we're tracking down why a test is failing then it'll go to town using the repl to narrow down out what code path is causing the issue. The only reason there's even is a repl at this point is so it can do its 'spray and pray' debugging outside the code and Claude constantly tried to use it to debug issues so I gave in and had it write a pretty basic one.

Horses for courses, I suppose. Back in the day, when I wanted to play with some C(++) library, I'd quite often write a Python C-API extension so I could do the same thing using Python's repl.
by Izkata | 2025-12-17 01:41:42+00:00
> And anything done to make that profit will annoy the community.

I don't keep close track of this, but as far as I remember they haven't tried donations that go only to Firefox/Thunderbird/etc of the person's choice, instead of Mozilla as a whole. That's what people always claim they want in these threads. I doubt donations would be enough, but I think doing it like that would at least be a step in a direction people like instead of are annoyed by, as long as they don't go nagging like Wikipedia.
by ablob | 2025-12-17 01:42:39+00:00
A paragraph is a feature designed to help the reader understand the writer's intentions. If it is used all the time, just like here, then it ceases to be helpful in marking breaks in trains of thought; or anything for that matter.

Consider the following excerpt of the post:

The thick life doesn't scale. That's the whole point. So: bake bread.

There is absolutely no information there that would warrant three full stops. I also don't know the author nearly well enough to consider pondering its meaning: To my eyes there is only a need to stop and ponder at most once. It is essentially just noise.

There is something to be gained from the text, but it is overblown in size due to what appears to be a lack of time or skill of the author.

PS: If some context is missing in the excerpt: Well to bad that there is no natural marker signifying that a train of thought has concluded (or started).
by password-app | 2025-12-17 01:43:26+00:00
This is exactly the right approach for sensitive data + LLMs. We use a similar pattern for password automation:

- Credentials never flow through LLM context - Agent triggers actions via callbacks - Passwords injected at the last mile, invisible to the model

The key insight: you can get all the benefits of AI agents without exposing sensitive data to the model. Client-side execution + careful context isolation makes this possible.

For anyone building AI agents that handle PII/credentials, this WASM approach is worth studying.
by xp84 | 2025-12-17 01:44:00+00:00
> branded keywords aren't that great to run ads on anyway, you pretty much get all the traffic from them anyway since that's what the user wanted anyway, you don't really have to pay for it.

Haven’t finished the article yet but this jumped out at me. This doesn’t ring true to me. Google runs an extortion scheme - since you can buy ads on your competitors’ trademarks, and since no users can tell ads from results (and since the organic results are now buried so far, they rarely get clicks anyway) if you don’t buy your brand keywords your competitors will get all your traffic.
by bluGill | 2025-12-17 01:44:31+00:00
I see a high mark as a sign you lack the ability to dream. I can imangine living in a mansion with my own personal hockey rink, and dozens of other weird luxuries that I could never afford (and realistically wouldn't use often if at all). Just the difference between that dream and my normal suburban house lowers me to a three. I can think of lots of non house things my best possible life would have - not all are even physically possible and many others are not moral (a few dozen wives who are devoted only to me)
by throwup238 | 2025-12-17 01:44:47+00:00
That’s a legal point of contention because the nature of language/image models is hard to fit into the existing copyright framework. That only really applies to cleanroom-ish one shot requests where the inference input doesn’t contain the copyrighted material in question.

It’s a lot easier to argue that it’s a derivative work when you feed the copyrighted code directly into the context and ask it to port it to another language. If the copyrighted code is literally an input to the inference request, that would not escape any judge’s notice. The law may not have any precedent for this technology but judges aren’t automatons beholden to trivially buggy code that can’t adapt.
by janalsncm | 2025-12-17 01:45:09+00:00
> It's actually insane the levels of understanding the algorithms that are responsible for serving us information have and how little we, the creators of said algorithms, understand what's going on in said algorithms.

As others have said, keyboard mismatches are common enough that Google might have built out logic for it specifically. But thats not necessary and even “old school” search engines could learn these things.

The first time “alemwjsl” is searched you might not have any data, but the user will probably fix their keyboard and retype in Korean. That gives you a query correction mapping. And you can assume if query1 yields no clicks and they update to query2, q1 is a synonym for q2 and serve results for q2 instead.

Then, if a session contains a query “alemwjsl” and a click on midjourney.com and another session “midj” also contains a click on midjourney.com, those are co-clicked queries.

You can also even start to represent queries by the words in their associated clicked documents or vice versa. This helps to get around the fact that people might search “how much superbowl tickets” and “superbowl tickets price” but the official page might not contain either of those strings.

Of course there’s more advanced methods now (neural nets) but it’s cool to see how it worked in the past.

https://www.kdd.org/kdd2016/papers/files/adf0361-yinA.pdf
by yial | 2025-12-17 01:47:48+00:00
I’ve heard of “Idiot wisdom” and “wise wisdom”.

Idiot wisdom - is generic platitudes that sound nice, but aren’t actionable.

Wise wisdom- might not always sound nice, but is actionable.

My ego likes this article, if I believe that I pursue thick desires.

But some part of me thinks (and perhaps due to the written style ). That this is idiot wisdom.

Another commenter mentioned it ties to Tanha in Buddhism.

I don’t know. But- off to read some Shunryu Suzuki….
by Qem | 2025-12-17 01:47:54+00:00
> If it turns out the LLM is trying to kill us by cancelling our meetings and emailing people that we're crazy that would suck.

It's more likely it will try to kill us by talking depressed people into suicide and providing virtual ersatz boyfriends/girlfriends to replace real human relationships, what is a functional equivalent to cyber-neutering, given people can't have children by dating LLMs.
by tjohns | 2025-12-17 01:48:10+00:00
> How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]?

If you're wearing "foggles" (the technical term is a "view limiting device"), you're legally required to have a safety pilot who is responsible for maintaining visual watch.

You never, ever wear those while flying solo.

> And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)?

First, this near-miss was with a refueling tanker, which only travels at normal large-jet speed and is quite large.

If it was a fighter jet, you're right, it would be very hard to see. But frankly, compared to a fighter jet, everyone else might as well be a stationary object in the sky in terms of speed and maneuverability - so you're just relying on the fighter jet not to hit you. (They also have onboard primary radar and other fancy toys - so you hope they have more situational awareness of non-participating aircraft.)

> The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.

Most airspace below 18,000 feet is still "controlled airspace", even though you have to look out for traffic - including commercial traffic. The big jets don't like to stay down there any longer than they have to, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Being on an IFR clearance only guarantees that you're deconflicted with other IFR traffic. There's always the risk that there's non-participating traffic, especially in visual conditions (VMC). Class A airspace and transponder-required airspace help reduce this risk, but it's never completely eliminated.

Also, more importantly: The military largely plays by their own rules, entirely outside of the FAA.
by carlwgeorge | 2025-12-17 01:48:31+00:00
CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as RHEL.

While you may have considered bug-for-bug compatibility the main feature, it was a major point of frustration for many users and the maintainers. That model means you can't fix any bugs or accept contributions from the community. CentOS finally fixed both problems by moving to the Stream model.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-12-17 01:49:13+00:00
Not even close. I'm 63. You would be nearer the mark if you guessed that I was old, tired, and maybe burned out.

I've had meaningful work, and I've enjoyed it. But I'm seeing more and more complexity that doesn't actually add anything, or at least doesn't add enough value to be worth the extra effort to deal with it all. I've seen products get more and more bells and whistles added that fewer and fewer people cared about, even as they made the code more and more complex. I've seen good products with good teams get killed because management didn't think the numbers looked right. (I've seen management mess things up several other ways, too.)

You say "Maybe it's because I work directly for customers and I know the work I do has an impact". And that's real! But see, the more complex things get, the more the work gets fragmented into different specialties, and the (relative) fewer of us work directly with customers, and so the fewer of us get to enjoy that.
by AuthAuth | 2025-12-17 01:49:29+00:00
All your complaints can be resolved in a few seconds by using the settings to customize the browser to your liking and not downloading extensions you dont like. And tons of people asked for that sidebar by the way.

We have to put this all in the context. Firefox is trying to diversify their revenue away from google search. They are trying to provide users with a Modern browser. This means adding the features that people expect like AI integration and its a nice bonus if the AI companies are willing to pay for that.
by rodphil | 2025-12-17 01:49:29+00:00
> At the most basic level this means making sure they can run commands to execute the code - easiest with languages like Python, with HTML+JavaScript you need to remind them that Playwright exists and they should use it.

So I've been exploring the idea of going all-in on this "basic level" of validation. I'm assembling systems out of really small "services" (written in Go) that Claude Code can immediately run and interact with using curl, jq, etc. Plus when building a particular service I already have all of the downstream services (the dependencies) built and running so a lot of dependency management and integration challenges disappear. Only trying this out at a small scale as yet, but it's fascinating how the LLMs can potentially invert a lot of the economics that inform the current conventional wisdom.

(Shameless plug: I write about this here: https://twilightworld.ai/thoughts/atomic-programming/)

My intuition is that LLMs will for many use cases lead us away from things like formal verification and even comprehensive test suites. The cost of those activities is justified by the larger cost of fixing things in production; I suspect that we will eventually start using LLMs to drive down the cost of production fixes, to the point where a lot of those upstream investments stop making sense.
by 15155 | 2025-12-17 01:49:52+00:00
> would suggest others consider what an evil leftist

What are some things that could they do?

Right-leaning policy in 2025 typically leans towards enforcing the laws as written: in this case, immigration law is being bolstered by surveillance technology.

Which laws are liberals going to theoretically now start radically enforcing that conservatives were turning a blind eye to? Flock cameras don't exactly help the IRS make the rich "pay their fair share."
by musictubes | 2025-12-17 01:50:07+00:00
App.net was a wonderful experience with great developer buy in. It is also my understanding that it was operating at break even when it was mothballed. The VC backing it wanted Facebook returns. It was an amazing experience because it didn’t depend on advertisers. I have no idea how it would have fared through Covid and election dramas but it remains my platonic ideal for a social network.
by carlwgeorge | 2025-12-17 01:50:44+00:00
It's not a totally different distro, it's a different variant of the same distro. Back when I was on the release team I would create builds, release them in CentOS Stream 8, then a few months later release them in CentOS Linux 8. It was the same content on a different schedule, released once it passed QA rather than batching up most updates into minor versions.

CentOS Stream has major versions and EOL dates, and thus is not a rolling release. It functions as the RHEL major version branch and follows the RHEL compatibility rules, so it's the same major version stability as RHEL.

While you may have considered bug-for-bug compatibility the main feature, it was a major point of frustration for many users and the maintainers. That model means you can't fix any bugs or accept contributions from the community. CentOS finally fixed both problems by moving to the Stream model.
by racl101 | 2025-12-17 01:51:52+00:00
Agreed. Also, that fu king mascot, Wilber?, that chihuahua looking thing didn't help normies without a sense of whimsy take it serious.

It really conveyed the image of cheap and shoddy. The drab looking logos, the name, and the weird looking poodle: all that just made it harder to take serious.
by screye | 2025-12-17 01:52:47+00:00
Unlikely. He was killed in the foyer [1] of his building in an exceedingly safe city (Brookline, MA).

In a neighborhood with mixed SFHs and condos, it makes little sense to target a condo. Makes even less sense for someone to break in, but to shoot the victim outside, in the foyer.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmbmBNre5SQ
by sriku | 2025-12-17 01:52:59+00:00
I quite like Dafny, despite my first run up with it (verification aspect) being frustrating. The language is well designed for this. Also, it looks like it is a great candidate as a code generation target for LLMs because you can generate the proof of correctness and run a feedback loop with Dafny's checker.

Try writing a^b in integers and proving its correctness. The simple version works (based on a x a^(b-1)). But if you write an "optimised one" using (with handwaved details) (a^(b/2))^2 .... pulled some serious hair trying to prove this function works.
by themulticaster | 2025-12-17 01:53:17+00:00
> [...] but the real reason is their uni can't afford a PET scanner for them to use.

This is incorrect, TUM has a PET scanner (site in German): https://nuklearmedizin.mri.tum.de/de/Patienten-Zuweiser/Pet-... Can't comment regarding the other observations.
by QuantumNomad_ | 2025-12-17 01:53:17+00:00
IANAL. In my opinion, porting code to a different language is still derivative work of the code you are porting it from. Whether done by hand or with an LLM. And in my opinion, the license of the original code still applies. Which means that not only should one link to the repo for the code that was ported, but also make sure to adhere to the terms to the license.

The MIT family of licenses state that the copyright notice and terms shall be included in all copies of the software.

Porting code to a different language is in my opinion not much different from forking a project and making changes to it, small or big.

I therefore think the right thing to do is to keep the original copyright notice and license file, and adding your additional copyright line to it.

So for example if the original project had an MIT license file that said

Copyright 2019 Suchandsuch

Permission is hereby granted and so on

You should keep all of that and add your copyright year and author name on the next line after the original line or lines of the authors of the repo you took the code from.
by socketcluster | 2025-12-17 01:53:52+00:00
Might work for some projects. For really complex projects (which is what I typically work on), strong engineering helps and so a lead-by-example approach tends to work out and it helps to motivate the team.

Also, I can give my team members detailed feedback. I think they take my constructive criticisms more seriously if I also give them praise which is detailed and accurate. You need a hands-on technical person to really understand people's strengths and weaknesses in a concrete way. Being hands-on also makes you more approachable; people will tell you things that they wouldn't tell a non-technical manager.
by pron | 2025-12-17 01:54:14+00:00
> You really have to be able to reduce your models to: “at some point in the future, this will happen," or "it will always be true from now on”

You really don't. It's not LTL. Abstraction/refinement relations are at the core of TLA.

> Or even floats [0] and it becomes challenging and strings are a mess.

No problem with floats or strings as far as specification goes. The particular verification tools you choose to run on your TLA+ spec may or may not have limitations in these areas, though.

> TLA+ works for the problems it is suitable for, try and extend past that and it simply fails.

TLA+ can specify anything that could be specified in mathematics. That there is no predefined set of floats is no more a problem than the one physicists face because mathematics has no "built-in" concept for metal or temperature. TLA+ doesn't even have any built in notions of procedures, memory, instructions, threads, IO, variables in the programming sense, or, indeed programs. It is a mathematical framework for describing the behaviour of discrete or hybrid continuous-discrete dynamical systems, just as ODEs describe continuous dynamical systems.

But you're talking about the verfication tools you can run on TLA+ spec, and like all verification tools, they have their limitations. I never claimed otherwise.

You are, however, absolutely right that it's difficult to specify probabilistic properties in TLA+.
by tjohns | 2025-12-17 01:54:43+00:00
I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance.

But speaking generally, I'll just say: If you're flying in VMC conditions (good weather), you're always required to see-and-avoid. Even if you're on an IFR clearance. Everything else is just considered an aid for situational awareness.
by pseudalopex | 2025-12-17 01:54:49+00:00
> I'm not the one dismissing anything.

This statement was false.

> I'm arguing for tolerance, goodwill, and cooperation.

These qualities are not absent because people differentiate source available and open source. And you continued today to argue these qualities should be expressed by changing the meaning of open source.

> A few days ago you said "the impression the different groups have different ideals is correct."

Your point was what? You thought a group had ideals meant a group's only motivation was ideological purity?

> You've spoken mostly in mystical aphorisms so it's been hard to glean much.

No. And several other people communicated similar ideas.