MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by spijdar | 2025-12-13 02:08:37+00:00
In my experience, the cross-compiler will refuse to link against shared libraries that "don't exist", which they usually don't in a cross compiler setup (e.g. cross compiling an aarch64 application that uses SDL on a ppc64le host with ppc64le SDL libraries)

The usual workaround, I think, is to use dlopen/dlsym from within the program. This is how the Nim language handles libraries in the general case: at compile time, C imports are converted into a block of dlopen/dl* calls, with compiler options for indicating some (or all) libraries should be passed to the linker instead, either for static or dynamic linking.

Alternatively I think you could "trick" the linker with a stub library just containing the symbol names it wants, but never tried that.
by drdeca | 2025-12-13 02:08:40+00:00
There are no such experimental results satisfying the criteria I laid out. You may be right in objecting to the criteria I laid out, but, the fact remains that it does not satisfy these (perhaps misguided) criteria.

In particular, predicting something different from our best other theories in good standing, was one of the criteria I listed.

And, I think it’s pretty clear that the criteria I described, whether good or not, were basically what the other person meant, and should have been what you interpreted them as saying, not as them complaining that it hadn’t been falsified.

Now, when we gain more evidence that Lorentz invariance is not violated, should the probability we assign to string theory being correct, increase? Yes, somewhat. But, the ratio that is the probability it is correct divided by the probability of another theory we have which also predicts Lorentz invariance, does not increase. It does not gain relative favor.

Now, you’ve mentioned a few times, youtubers giving bad arguments against string theory, and people copying those arguments. If you’re talking about Sabine, then yeah, I don’t care for her either.

However, while the “a theory is tested on its own, not in comparison to other theories” approach may be principled, I’m not sure it is really a totally accurate description of how people have evaluated theories historically.

And, I think, not entirely for bad reasons?
by cxr | 2025-12-13 02:08:58+00:00
It's a tooling issue. No one has done the work to make things work as smoothly as they could.

Traditionally, cross-compilers generally didn't even work the way that the Zig and Go toolchains approach it—achieving cross-compilation could be expected to be a much more trying process. The Zig folks and the Go folks broke with tradition by choosing to architect their compilers more sensibly for the 21st century, but the effects of the older convention remains.
by tuveson | 2025-12-13 02:09:13+00:00
You were the one who changed subject to be about “switching jobs”, presumably because that issue has less to do why companies want to hire non-citizens in the US. Up until that point we were talking about employees advocating for rights at their current jobs, which is the main thing undocumented workers or people on work visas have to worry about. You were clearly trying to go for the “just change jobs if you don’t like your employer” thing, which is why you changed the subject (and then accused me of doing that, for some weird reason).

Anyway, two for the price of one, since you’re demanding it: https://www.adhrb.org/2025/02/discrimination-against-migrant...
by laurencerowe | 2025-12-13 02:09:17+00:00
> Nuclear power is dispatchable, unlike renewables.

While you can turn nuclear up and down a little bit the fuel costs are negligible so it costs the same to generate 80% or 100% of rated output. It's done in France because nuclear makes up so much of their generation capacity they have no other option.

> Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.

I think carbon-free generation options should be considered dispassionately with a focus on minimising cost and reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. But there is path dependence at this point. The wind generation capacity will already have been built out before many more nuclear plants come online. I think this will make the economics of expanding nuclear power generation unattractive because we will already have made the commitments to buy the wind generation and we will instead look for the lowest priced options to fill the gaps.

> Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway. > > One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.

The fast decreasing cost of batteries will help smooth out fluctuations in wind generation across a day or two. That should reduce the level of cannibalisation between wind projects substantially, though does not remove the need for backup power for longer periods of little wind.

I suspect the proposed SMR projects in Norway and Denmark will depend on whether anyone is able to get SMR build costs down sufficiently to make them attractive. It certainly makes no sense to ban them outright.

> The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.

That was the 2050 target from the last government. In terms of actual commitments the only planned plant after Hinkley C is currently Sizewell C. At the same time 4 of our 5 remaining nuclear plants will be decommissioned by early 2030. I think the target is highly unlikely to be met.

There is a £2.5 billion investment in SMRs (if you can call reactors around a 1/3rd the size of existing nuclear power plants small...) but will they really have reduced costs?
by dmix | 2025-12-13 02:09:30+00:00
I agree, the main reason is he has been very effective with his cult of personality to get most of the republican congressmen in line. They lose elections if they don't and politicians aren't known for sticking to their values once in power.

The actual small government republican congressmen like https://x.com/justinamash have been very critical of Trump's power grabs but he lost political favor doing so
by codeddesign | 2025-12-13 02:10:18+00:00
Asylum: “protection to people who fear political persecution in their home country due to a protected characteristic”

Example: Asylum is intended for political persecution. If you feel unsafe living in Chicago because a gang is after you, that doesn’t fall under the definition of asylum for you to move to London.

If you are being rounded up by the govt and placed in a jail because of your religion, that would be a case for asylum.

If your country wants to try you for a crime and you flee, that makes you a fugitive and that’s why there is “extradition”. This would not be a case for asylum.
by dangus | 2025-12-13 02:10:19+00:00
It’s interesting you found this tidbit because it plays into what I often think about the people who do odd endeavors like this.

Some of these “make the news for being extraordinary” obsessions really seem to be something where the person in question should be talking to a therapist/psychiatrist before undertaking them.

Any of those types of “solo sailing the Pacific Ocean” or “performing [repetitive task] [longer/further] than anyone else” or “knitting 300,000 scarves for every sick child in the country” or “visiting every Rainforest Cafe” come across as untreated mental illness when you step back from the inspirational journalistic tone that these stories often take.

I always wonder what hole in people’s lives they’re trying to plug when they do crazy stuff like that.
by f_k | 2025-12-13 02:10:53+00:00
> verifying their claims ends up taking time.

I've been working on this problem with https://citellm.com, specifically for PDFs.

Instead of relying on the LLM answer alone, each extracted field links to its source in the original document (page number + highlighted snippet + confidence score).

Checking any claim becomes simple: click and see the exact source.
by npunt | 2025-12-13 02:11:36+00:00
And your response here is a perfect example of confidently jumping to conclusions on what someone's intent is... which is exactly what you're saying the LLM did to you.

I scoped my comment specifically around what a reasonable human answer would be if one were asked the particular question it was asked with the available information it had. That's all.

Btw I agree with your comment that it hallucinated/assumed your intent! Sorry I did not specify that. This was a bit of a 'play stupid games win stupid prizes' prompt by the OP. If one asks an imprecise question one should not expect a precise answer. The negative externality here is reader's takeaways are based on false precision. So is it the fault of the question asker, the readers, the tool, or some mix? The tool is the easiest to change, so probably deserves the most blame.

I think we'd both agree LLMs are notoriously overly-helpful and provide low confidence responses to things they should just not comment on. That to me is the underlying issue - at the very least they should respond like humans do not only in content but in confidence. It should have said it wasn't confident about its response to your post, and OP should have thus thrown its response out.

Rarely do we have perfect info, in regular communications we're always making assumptions which affect our confidence in our answers. The question is what's the confidence threshold we should use? This is the question to ask before the question of 'is it actually right?', which is also an important question to ask, but one I think they're a lot better at than the former.

Fwiw you can tell most LLMs to update its memory to always give you a confidence score 0.0-1.0. This helps tremendously, it's pretty darn accurate, it's something you can program thresholds around, and I think it should be built in to every LLM response.

The way I see it, LLMs have lots and lots of negative externalities that we shouldn't bring into this world (I'm particularly sensitive to the effects on creative industries), and I detest how they're being used so haphazardly, but they do have some uses we also shouldn't discount and figure out how to improve on. The question is where are we today in that process?

The framework I use to think about how LLMs are evolving is that of transitioning mediums. Like movies started as a copy/paste of stage plays before they settled into the medium and understand how to work along the grain of its strengths & weaknesses to create new conventions. Speech & text are now transitioning into LLMs. What is the grain we need to go along?

My best answer is the convention LLMs need to settle into is explicit confidence, and each question asked of them should first be a question of what the acceptable confidence threshold is for such a question. I think every question and domain will have different answers for that, and we should debate and discuss that alongside any particular answer.
by pilaf | 2025-12-13 02:11:48+00:00
That's awesome, what size did you print it?

Are the random sparse Chinese characters floating around the main spiral a natural part of Unicode, or did you put them there for effect? I like how the whole thing looks like a galaxy and those characters like background space debris.

I also like how emoji fall neatly around the outer rim. I had fun finding the Earth emoji.
by ndarray | 2025-12-13 02:13:08+00:00
> Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product.

> (...) Every person who encounters your “fun” name pays a small tax. Across the industry, these taxes compound into significant waste

Devs who build FOSS utilities owe you, or the industry, absolutely nothing. As someone who lists Noam Chomsky under "Some works I recommend engaging with", you sure seem to think capitalists are entitled to people's free work, to the point where you start making demands.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-12-13 02:13:33+00:00
> I'm not sure English is a bad way to outline what the system should do.

It isn't, as these are how stakeholders convey needs to those charged with satisfying same (a.k.a. "requirements"). Where expectations become unrealistic is believing language models can somehow "understand" those outlines as if a human expert were doing so in order to produce an equivalent work product.

Language models can produce nondeterministic results based on the statistical model derived from their training data set(s), with varying degrees of relevance as determined by persons interpreting the generated content.

They do not understand "what the system should do."
by mikestorrent | 2025-12-13 02:14:07+00:00
The problem is that we insist on building nuclear plants like cathedrals, when we need to build them like Model T Fords.

Small modular reactors need to be rolling out of a factory ready to go, so we can do large redundant arrays of them, put them on trains to transport them around, etc.

A nuclear power station making a couple MW should cost maybe a few million tops once we have the ability to make hundreds of them a year from a factory instead of creating these 20 year projects for gigantic facilities that are all bespoke
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-13 02:14:31+00:00
> Like I think some modern cars are fly-by-wire, so you could stick the accelerator open and disable the breaks and steering.

Essentially all passenger cars use physical/hydraulic connections for the steering and brakes. The computer can activate the brakes, not disable the pedal from working.

But also, this argument is absurd. What if someone could reprogram your computer to make the brakes not work? They could also cut the brake lines or run you off the road. Which is why attempted murder is illegal and you don't need "programming a computer" to be illegal.

> It would be difficult to catch in an inspection if you could reprogram the OEM parts.

People already do this. There are also schmucks who make things like straight-through "catalytic converters" that internally bypass the catalyst for the main exhaust flow to improve performance while putting a mini-catalyst right in front of the oxygen sensor to fool the computer. You'd basically have to remove the catalytic converter and inspect the inside of it to catch them, or test the car on a dyno using an external exhaust probe, which are the same things that would catch someone reprogramming the computer.

In practice those people often don't get caught and the better solution is to go after the people selling those things rather than the people buying them anyway.
by drivingmenuts | 2025-12-13 02:15:56+00:00
Maybe it should be. The system here in the US has produced some great innovations at the cost of great misery among the non-wealthy. At a time when technology promises an easier life, it only seems to benefit the wealthy, while trying to discard everyone else. The light at the end of the tunnel is a 1%-er about to laughingly crush you beneath their wheels.
by prescriptivist | 2025-12-13 02:16:57+00:00
Agree. I'd add that a aha moment to skills is AI agents are pretty good at writing skills. Let's say you have developed an involved prompt that explains how to hit an API (possibly with the complexity of reading credentials from an env var or config file) or run a tool locally to get some output you want the agent to analyze (example, downloading two versions of python packages and diffing them to analyze changes). Usually the agent reading the prompt it's going to leverage local tools to do it (curl, shell + stdout, git, whatever) every single time. Every time you execute that prompt there is a lot thinking spent on deciding to run these commands and you are burning tokens (and time!). As an eng you know that this is a relatively consistent and deterministic process to fetch the data. And if you were consuming it yourself, you'd write a script to automate it.

So you read about skills (prompt + scripts) to make this more repeatable and reduce time spent thinking. At that point there are two paths you can go down -- write the skill and prompt yourself for the agent to execute -- or better -- just tell the agent to write the skill and prompt and then you lightly edit it and commit it.

This may seem obvious to some, but I've seen engineers create skills from scratch because they have a mental model around skills being something that people must build for the agent, whereas IMO skills are you just bridging a productivity gap that the agent can't figure out itself (for now), which is instructing it to write tools to automate its own day to day tedium.
by scrubs | 2025-12-13 02:17:20+00:00
Shareholders must be the weakest most by-passable interest group in corporate america.

Would I stand by and allow my shares and future profits flounder while the head guy goes rogue? No blankin' way.

Regardless of personal preference for politics, no serious organization should ever want to come within one light year of DC politics. It can only use, besmirch, tarnish, degrade the organization's credibility and from there hit into money. Trump makes it exponentially worse.
by 0manrho | 2025-12-13 02:18:37+00:00
> The article rebuked that claim

It did not. The article itself acknowledged that there is certainly reason to consider it a possibility, predicated on the fact that the people that make the thing stated as such and that experts in the field agree it's also a risk in general, but wasn't particularly high that day.

Average activity is not no activity. Average risk is not No risk.

And even if it wasn't the issue in that instance, it's not hard to reason why it's worth hardening against such a possibility in the absence of any other explanation given just days later "sensors mounted on UK weather balloons at 40,000ft (12km) measured one of the largest radiation events to hit Earth in roughly two decades."

Airbus didn't ground these plains because there was "No reason to believe" a known proven and observed phenomenon might have been the culprit and/or that it is on the level with something we as yet have no proof of to be generous in characterizing your comparing it to aliens.
by jessriedel | 2025-12-13 02:18:57+00:00
Do you have a source on that? The current article describes the software very differently:

> In any case, the software updates rolled out by the company appear to be quick and easy to install. Many airlines completed them within hours. The software works by inducing "rapid refreshing of the corrupted parameter so it has no time to have effect on the flight controls", Airbus says. This is, in essence, a way of continually sanitising computer data on these aircraft to try and ensure that any errors don't end up actually impacting a flight.
by coldtea | 2025-12-13 02:19:13+00:00
>Neural networks were inspired by the brain, but transformers? It is totally plausible but do we really think just in words?

LLMs might be trained via words, but as a backend transformers are not just for words.

They're for high dimensional structured sequences. To make an analogy, transformers are not working on:

Vector<Word>

but

Vector<ContextualizedEmbedding>

where words just happens to be a handy training set we use.

And, we too, might not think in words, but I bet that we do think using multi-dimensional sequences/vectors.
by gpm | 2025-12-13 02:19:21+00:00
Eh, here it's more of a simplification than a myth as used in my comment. There are two effects:

1. We've reduced infant (and childhood) mortality. My comment isn't talking about this effect but it did drag down average life expectancy substantially. Including this effect life expectancy at birth in the stone age might have been as low as 20... but as you say the bimodality means this is a deceptive statistic when used this way.

2. We've made it so you on average live longer even if you survive childhood, my comment is really just about this part of the effect. It's still a simplification because saying "on average if you survive childhood you die at 40" isn't the same as "everyone dies at 40" but closer to "adults die at all ages in a reasonable smooth monotonic curve and 40 is about the average age they live to but some get lucky and live to 80 or whatever". But then "don't use ultrasonic dehumidifiers" is like this too, using one won't kill you at some specific age, it will just slightly increase your chance of death every year for the rest of your life however long that ends up being.

The number 40 was picked out of a hat, too. It should be right for some areas at some times just by coincidence though and since I was non-specific that makes me right ;)
by cthalupa | 2025-12-13 02:19:58+00:00
> Not at all. I'm simply asking whether you can see how speech restrictions can be abused. Nothing vague here.

Speech restriction being able to be abused doesn't mean that speech restriction is never appropriate. There are countless things that are fundamental to day to day life that can be abused but are vital in their non-abusive form.

> This is an anti-scientific perspective. There is no such thing as "known falsehoods". There is only "current best understanding", which is the thing that most aligns with observations of reality.

If you are making a claim based on information you know to be incorrect, this is a known falsehood. This isn't anti-science, we're not talking about people making arguments against the scientific consensus in good-faith with some framework behind their reasoning.

> Questioning existing axioms or intermediate conclusions is a great technique to advance understanding of reality. If everyone simply referred back to the previous "foregone conclusions", we'd still be trying to discover fire.

Trying to frame this discussion as being a matter of people performing science and not people taking a politically or financially motivated stance (or people that have been conned by people that did that) is also fundamentally dishonest.

> The problem here is the gatekeeping of discussion. Humanity has spent thousands of years trying to escape the power of the societal priest class, and we are in a better place than ever.

Free speech isn't absolute, and private companies are allowed to moderate the speech that happens on their property. This isn't a societal priest class.

Even an extremely slanted Supreme Court didn't find that the actions of the government had significant influence on social media companies and their tamping down of covid misinformation.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-...
by takinola | 2025-12-13 02:20:17+00:00
I don’t get the analogy. I keep my house keys out of the hands of people I don’t want in. In this case, the age verification is being circumvented by someone simply asking another person to perform it on their behalf.

I guess the practical answer is that it’s impossible because there’s always the option to have an adult perform the verification and then hand over the device to the minor
by bgwalter | 2025-12-13 02:20:54+00:00
Pure nepotism. Trump also recently softened on cannabis. Who is involved in cannabis (and Adderall) startups? David Sacks, "Crypto and AI czar" and YouTube pundit.

We were promised a better economy, better job chances, and better housing by Mr. Sacks on YouTube.

Instead we get "crypto", "AI" and addictive substance grifting.
by ajross | 2025-12-13 02:21:13+00:00
That's really not such a weird choice. The systemd library is pervasive and compatible.

The weird bit is the analysis[1], which complains that a Go binary doesn't run on Alpine Linux, a system which is explicitly and intentionally (also IMHO ridiculously, but that's editorializing) binary-incompatible with the stable Linux C ABI as it's existed for almost three decades now. It's really no more "Linux" than is Android, for the same reason, and you don't complain that your Go binaries don't run there.

[1] I'll just skip without explaination how weird it was to see the author complain that the build breaks because they can't get systemd log output on... a mac.