MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sigmoid10 | 2025-12-19 08:15:01+00:00
I have actually worked on encoder-decoder models. The issue is, finetuning itself is becoming historic. At least for text processing. If you spend a ton of effort today to finetune on a particular task, chances are you would have reached the same performance using a frontier LLM with the right context in the prompt. And if a big model can do it today, in 12 months there will be a super cheap and efficient model that can do it as well. For vision you can still beat them, but only with huge effort the gap is shortening constantly. And T5 is not even multimodal. I don't think these will change the landscape in any meaningful way.
by uecker | 2025-12-19 08:19:03+00:00
It is entertaining to observe that how - after the bullshit and propaganda phase - Rust now slowly enters reality and the excuses for problems that did not magically disappear are now exactly the same as what we saw before from C programmers and which Rust proponents would have completely dismissed as unacceptable in the past ("this CVE is not exploitable", "all programmers make mistakes", "unwrap should never been used in production", "this really is an example how fantastic Rust is").
by fragmede | 2025-12-19 08:19:58+00:00
As an ego thing, obviously, but if we think about it a bit more, it makes sense for busy people. If you're the point person for a project, and it's a large project, people don't read documentation. The number of "quick questions" you get will soon overwhelm a person to the point that they simply have to start ignoring people. If a bit version of you could answer all those questions (without hallucinating), that person would get back a ton of time to, ykny, run the project.
by jstrebel | 2025-12-19 08:20:53+00:00
In all fairness: human senior devs see AI-written source code with some disdain, as it usually does not match their stylistic and idiomatic preferences (although being correct and fully working). I don't think that untested code is the problem here - you can easily measure test coverage and of course. every CI/CD pipeline should run the existing unit and integration tests.
by dragonwriter | 2025-12-19 08:20:55+00:00
> To complicate matters, many of these dogmas were only formalized by the Catholic church in the past 200 years. Quite a hard sell for the "sola scriptura" contingent.

There are only four things on that list, and only two of them are dogmas (and there are a whole two more Marian dogmas that aren’t on your list), so I am not sure where the “many of these dogmas” comes from; also, the various Protestant positions on the role of scripture (prima scriptura, sola scriptura, and nuda scriptura, in ascending order of how far they differ from the Catholic [or, for that matter, Eastern Orthodox] position) were themselves formalized not much less recently.
by socketcluster | 2025-12-19 08:21:16+00:00
Not a problem in itself. Also, there's not much point of encrypting tokens. The attacker could use the encrypted token to authenticate themselves without having to decrypt. They could just make a request from the victim's own browser. They could do this with cookies too even with httpOnly cookies.

XSS is a big problem. If a hacker can inject a script into your front end and make it execute, it's game over. Once they get to that point, there's an infinite number of things they can do. They basically own the user's account.
by sunrunner | 2025-12-19 08:21:27+00:00
I never said it was intuitive, only that it exists ;)

I’d argue that double-click to open a file is also not intuitive, but it is now the expected behaviour. Documents don’t have to be touched twice in real life to have them open and reveal their secrets. Plus, I do use Drag Lock, so that behaviour now does feel intuitive to me.

There’s a lot to be said for what is effectively learned behaviour in intuition.
by namibj | 2025-12-19 08:22:34+00:00
They are talking gigawatt. That pretty much implies dedicated long-distance transmission lines. The 1.4 GW they mention are very close to the full output of three mile island. This is not a small power situation that is done with existing power lines. And the moment you drag power in from 20+ miles away, you might as well just put fiber in there as it seems very easy given by how prevalent it is for long distance lines these past decade or two.
by zkmon | 2025-12-19 08:22:44+00:00
I became a big fan of David Bau about 10 years back, when I came across his conformal mapping page. My understanding of complex numbers changed forever.

There is an amusing parallel with his views on vibe coding. Back in the 90's and 2000's I noticed a pattern with the code developed by the huge influx of inexperienced programmers jumping on the dotcom bandwagon. The code can only be maintained by the same people who wrote it. There was no documentation, no intuition, no best practices and other wouldn't know where to fix if there is any issue. Probably the code aligned with the programmer's cultural habits and values (what's ok, what's not ok), which others might lack. Ironically, this has kind of provided job security for them, as it is difficult for others, to deal with that code.

I guess the LLMs are also into this "job-security" trick, by ensuring only LLMs can manage the LLMs generated code.
by sandworm101 | 2025-12-19 08:23:12+00:00
Ya, they are at the top doing what they are doing. There is little room for growth. So, to continue growing, Apple must now do something different. If ads pull money today, but threaten the brand in 5 or 10 years, then that is a problem for 5 or 10 years from now. With the monopoly in hand, now is the time to squeeze the blood from the stone.
by lachiflippi | 2025-12-19 08:23:50+00:00
>and allowed you to increase the multipliers on non-K processors

Wasn't this the other way around, allowing you to increase multipliers on K processors on the lower end chipsets? Or was both possible at some point? I remember getting baited into buying an H87 board that could overclock a 4670K until a bios update removed the functionality completely.
by faust201 | 2025-12-19 08:24:22+00:00
> One of the differentiators between iOS and Google was a lack of ads

I always wonder how apple's marketing team pulled this off.

- If you use any decent browser like Firefox* (or its different clones) one get enhanced privacy, no ads, byepasspaywalls etc. - Even Chromium forks have decent adblocking - Using NewPipe (like revanced opensource) for ad free YouTube

All my iOS friends scroll through so many ads - admittedly - SIM/data is paid for my their employers but it is awful experience.

* -> Don't be pendantic and point out yesterday's Verge article that Mozilla is becoming bad.
by BiteCode_dev | 2025-12-19 08:24:56+00:00
Wasn't that the elevator pitch for Palentir?

Still can't believe people buy their stock, given that they are the closest thing to a James Bond villain, just because it goes up.

I mean, they are literally called "the stuff Sauron uses to control his evil forces". It's so on the nose it reads like an anime plot.
by zwnow | 2025-12-19 08:25:02+00:00
I agree, why support pushing the masses into another big tech machinery that just rips off their data and collectively makes it worse for all of us again? We are already way too cool with people frying their brains on X, TikTok, Instagram and whatnot. If anything, as devs, we should help people get back to focus on their own lifes over monetization of attentionspans. But this industry has no backbone and is constantly letting people down for a quick buck.
by bgnn | 2025-12-19 08:25:08+00:00
These machines are not like John Deere tractors. If you own the hardware, you own it. They won't be connected to internet. Security first!

Smuggling part is happening on the old machines before EUV. There's a lot of them available on the second hand market thanks to Europe and US keep shutting down their old fabs. I don't think any DUV machine is smuggled. Even if they physically smuggled one, you need a team of ASML engineers to set it up and calibrate. You can guess what ASML will do in this case.

By the way, let's don't forget: ASML doesn't have any problems with China. They are incredibly annoyed with US and Dutch governments. This is potentially the biggest market they are missing out. Even then, they won't tolerate a summugling operation.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-12-19 08:25:12+00:00
This is a hill I’m going to die on, but I find 9/10 times people use the pr description for what should have been comments. “Git blame” and following a link to a pr is inferior ux to source code comments.

The North Star of pr review is zero comment approvals. Comments should not be answered in line, but by pushing updates to the code. The next reader otherwise will have the exact same question and they won’t have the answer there.

The exception being comments which only make sense for the sod itself but not the new state of the code. IME that’s ~10%.

I have bought my tombstone.
by godelski | 2025-12-19 08:25:13+00:00
It is definitely ethically unsound and it is definitely a common example even related to Nazis. Similar to "just following orders". Which I'll remind everyone, will not save you in a court of law[0]...

You are abdicating your own moral responsibility on the assumption of a deterministic reality.

The literal textbook version of this ethical issue, one you'll find in literally any intro to ethics class is

If I don't do this job then somebody else will. The only difference is that I will not get paid and if I get paid I will do good with that money where as if somebody else gets paid they might not.

Sometimes a variant will be introduced with a direct acknowledgement of like donating 10% of your earnings to charity to "offset" your misgivings (ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ ᴱᶠᶠᵉᶜᵗᶦᵛᵉ ᴬˡᵗʳᵘᶦˢᵐ ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ).

But either way, it is you abdicating your personal responsibility and making the assumption that the job will be done regardless. But think about the logic here. If people do not think like you then the employer must then start offering higher wages in order to entice others. As there is some function describing people's individual moral lines and their desire for money. Even if the employer must pay more you are then helping deter that behavior because you are making it harder to implement. Alternatively the other person that does the job might not be as good at the job as you, making the damage done less than had you done the job. It's not hard to see that often this will result in the job not even existing as truthfully these immoral jobs are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if you are making the assumption that the job will be done it would be more naive to assume the job is done to the same quality. (But kudos on you for the lack of ego and thinking you aren't better than other devs)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
by DonHopkins | 2025-12-19 08:25:20+00:00
Unless the world leaders they're simulating are laughably bad and tend to repeat themselves and hallucinate, like Trump. Who knows, maybe a chatbot trained with all the classified documents he stole and all his twitter and truth social posts wrote his tweet about Ron Reiner, and he's actually sleeping at 3:00 AM instead of sitting on the toilet tweeting in upper case.
by simiones | 2025-12-19 08:26:55+00:00
The problem is not a lack of naturalism, it's obvious mistakes in the way the naturalistic poses are attempted. Many of Rublev's icons have obvious mistakes in the way joints are painted, for example - but not all of them or the exact same thing; it's not a style, it's simply a limitation of his skills. Many later painters who were inspired by him have corrected this mistake, not sought to reproduce it.

Not to mention, Rublev lived at the end of the Medieval period, and well into the Renaissance - the period where painterly skill in Europe was revitalized.
by yourdetect | 2025-12-19 08:27:13+00:00
> Should we remove C or

Your post is curious, for the post I quoted basically argued for just that eventuality for all new code. Even as the new language introduces undefined behavior vulnerabilities.

The promises as stated previously, and the goal as stated by that lwn.net post now, are starkly different. And the poster did not even wait until the new language has proven its worth. And then a UB CVE comes by in the code in the new language.

What Linus wrote in the past:

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Torvalds-On-Rust-Maintainers

> So when you change the C interfaces, the Rust people will have to deal with the fallout, and will have to fix the Rust bindings. That's kind of the promise here: there's that "wall of protection" around C developers that don't want to deal with Rust issues in the promise that they don't have to deal with Rust.

That both you and that lwn.net poster writes these things, is extraordinarily weird and strange.
by namibj | 2025-12-19 08:27:27+00:00
I'm the one who tried to make a low-mem builder for it that would work for merge sort like tasks that do some on-the-fly consolidation, e.g. LSM trees.

> This project is neat, but it does basically just look like an rkyv-converted `BTreeMap<String, JsonValue>`.

Sure sounded like that to me; I typically don't give C developers that use it for things like lite3/tron these days the trust needed to handle their implicit-`unsafe`-block mess with worse syntax/types.
by breve | 2025-12-19 08:27:45+00:00
> Spend millions of Euros all the while fighting off a barrage of complaints that EUWord doesnt do things, costs too much, is burning taxes and productivity, etc.

Or just learn from the experience of others:

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Austria-s-armed-forces-switch-t...

This stuff can be done and already has been done in some places.
by akimbostrawman | 2025-12-19 08:28:03+00:00
>I don't know a single person who has used Monero

That's the point, its private by design and unless they tell you, nobody will ever know how much they use and for what. The true hacker spirit.

If you bother to look past news headlines you will find a vibrant community of people paying for legal goods that value privacy before FUD and ignorance.

https://monerica.com/sitemap

This kind of fearmongering is already leading us towards a cashless society because "only criminals use it". This is hackernews and not facebook or congress so it should be obvious to everybody here what the end result of criminalizing/demonizing non KYC payments will be (hint: look at china).
by blowsand | 2025-12-19 08:28:07+00:00
I mean, ok, but “scoop” is a bit much. Every fact of the deal to acquire was detailed months ago.

What would be a real scoop is reporting more details on the vast number of Bytedance employees that have been literally installed in the “USDS” organization in recent weeks. It has quickly become indistinguishable from CCP-controlled Bytedance. Allegiances are sus.
Show HN: Helix – AI-powered API mocking with strict schema enforcement
by ashfromsky | 2025-12-19 08:28:53+00:00
Helix is a dynamic mock server that generates data on the fly using LLMs (supports Ollama, DeepSeek, Groq).

Key difference from other AI generators: Schema Enforcement. One of the biggest issues with LLMs is non-deterministic output. To solve this, Helix allows you to provide a "System Schema" (using TypeScript interfaces, JSON Schema, or plain text rules). The engine ensures the generated JSON strictly adheres to your defined keys and types, while still generating realistic values for the content.

Features: - Local-First: Works completely offline with Ollama (Llama 3.2 is recommended). - Schema Safety: You can force strict structure compliance so your frontend doesn't break. - Chaos Mode: Optionally simulate latency and error rates. - Stack: Python 3.11, FastAPI, Redis, Docker.

It's open source (AGPLv3). I'd love to hear your feedback, especially regarding the schema validation approach!

Repo: https://github.com/ashfromsky/helix
by yieldcrv | 2025-12-19 08:29:01+00:00
Better than dealing with a PM though

Like look, your boss was happy, so the blockade away from your boss that your PM provides is solved

So just write an agent to summarize and read the room like the 200 EQ mastermind that it is, compared to your 0 EQ engineer brain, and move on

AI writing tickets, AI reading tickets, AI writing code from said tickets

only ones affected are middle management and site reliability engineers, poof we can write complex backend scripts too now
by arjie | 2025-12-19 08:29:02+00:00
In Masters of Doom they are depicted as taking work computers out of the office to go work on their side project. I doubt IP would be the thing they’d stand on.

To some degree this is amusing. For a decade or so, we people would talk about the “borrowed” PCs. Now hacker forums talk about who owns the IP. In my childhood I never would have guessed this culture shift towards IP maximalism but I imagine the lesson that copyleft licenses only work in a copyright enforced environment finally took!
by unsungNovelty | 2025-12-19 08:29:26+00:00
I am saying power users bring general audience. Thats alwas the case. Whether it is tesla/saas/browser or ur new notebook app... the power users pay/invest time initially. They talk, the promote they bring the initial general audience and from there, it becomes commonly used. Firefox is losing their power users and are not getting general audience.

Unless you can show increase in userbase with any of the BS Mozilla has done recently against their community, I'm not sure how I can agree with you.

They started this around 2015. One freaking decade with zero results. Apart from increase in Mitchell Baker's salary YoY, I dont see anything else increasing. In fact they sold Rust and MDN to their competition.

Most importantly, community unrest has only increased. Not decreased. And the userbase dwindling aligns with the same. So tell me, make me, a "GNU fanboi" understand how I am being unreasonable.
by kqr | 2025-12-19 08:29:58+00:00
It's still a thing and they even have world championships in it. Everyone always draws because it's basically just Stockfish vs. Stockfish. (Okay in the most recent one there were actually a shared first place, a shared second place, and one person in third place. The latter died during the tournament, and whether the others ended up in first or second place depended on whether they had drawn with third place before he died or if they won on time.)
by kleiba | 2025-12-19 08:31:01+00:00
To understand the academic publishing process better, it's a good idea to look at the four main groups of people involved in the process: authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers.

The authors write up their research results.

The editors organize the review process together with the reviewers and the publishing process together with the publisher.

The reviewers read the papers and write their reviews.

The publishers publish the papers.

Stylesheets are typically provided by the publishers and passed on to the authors early on. The reason is two-fold: for one, the publisher wants to produce a high-quality product and uniformity of layouts and styles is an important factor. But the second reason has to do with everything that happens before the publishers even comes into play: common style-sheets also provide some level of fairness because they make the papers by different authors comparable to some degree, e.g., via the max length of a paper.

On top of that, authors often want to present their research in a specific way, and often have strong opinions about e.g. how their formulas are typeset, what aligns with what else, etc. and typically spend quite a bit of time tweaking their documents to look the way they want it. That is, the authors already have an interest in using something more powerful than Markdown.

But like I wrote in another comment here, in doing so, authors do not always adhere to the style guides provided by the publisher - not necessarily maliciously, but the result is the same. For instance, authors might simply be used to handling whitespace a certain way - because that's how they always do it. But if that clashes with the publisher's guidelines, it's one of the things the publisher has to correct in typesetting.

So, perhaps that's the confusion here also to some degree: the typesetting done by a publisher is in the majority of the cases on a very fine-grained level. A lot of is is simply enforcing the rules that were missed by the authors (with the goal of fairness, comparability, and conformity) and small perfectionist's edits that you might not even notice at a casual glance but that typesetters are trained to spot.
by Veen | 2025-12-19 08:31:15+00:00
I'd always assumed that the patients in Sacks' books were lightly fictionalized composites that combined interesting features from multiple cases. The purpose being to illustrate conditions and aspects of human psychology for a general readership. Since they weren't presented as rigorous case studies, I didn't take them to be that. I find what Sacks did much less irksome than more recent psychological and social studies books that pretend to be presenting rigorous scientific fact when they are, in fact, tendentious bullshit.
by chironjit | 2025-12-19 08:33:45+00:00
In case anyone is keen for an explanation of the vulnerability, LowLevelTV has done a video on this:

https://youtu.be/dgPI7NfKCiQ?si=BVBQ0MxuDpsbCvOk

The TLDR is that this race condition happened with unsafe code, which was needed to interact with existing C code. This was not a vulnerability with Rust's model.

That said, you can absolutely use bad coding practices in Rust that can cause issues, even for a regular programmer.

Using unwrap without dealing with all return cases is one example. Of course, there is a right way to dealing with return methods, but it's up to the programmer to follow it
by rhdunn | 2025-12-19 08:33:53+00:00
If you are finetuning the model you need to replicate the training conditions so you don't remove those capabilities. If you just finetune a multi-modal model on text it will lose some of the vision capabilities as the text part of the model will drift from the vision, audio, etc. models. A similar thing happens with finetuning reasoning models.

Even if you did finetune the models with text and images then you could run into issues with using different descriptions for images to what it was trained with. Though you could probably work around that by getting the model to describe the images, but you'll still need to audit the results to correct any issues or add what you are training for.

You can also run into overfitting if your data does not include enough variations along a given training set that the original model had access to.

Using different training parameters could also affect the models capabilities. Just knowing things like the input context isn't enough.
by danielscrubs | 2025-12-19 08:34:02+00:00
This burden is on politicians. If you can extract enough value from tourism you both lessen the tourism and get people more happy about tourists.

The monetary value has to match the damage it does to have people caring less about the “environment” they are in (gossip puts pressure on people to behave, just like renting puts less pressure on people to take care of their apartment).
by gorgoiler | 2025-12-19 08:34:32+00:00
Module 8 is worded in a way that surprised me: “if we could decide the languages in NP efficiently, this would lead to amazing applications.”

My understanding of P=?NP is that all intuition points to the answer being “no”. The openness of the question doesn’t give us hope that a magical algorithm might one day arrive. It just means that despite a lot of suspicion that NP cannot be solved in polynomial time, we cannot yet prove this to be the case.

I suspect the answer to BANKACCOUNT=?1_000_000 is “no”, but although my card stops working every month, it starts working again on the last Friday of the month! My research team and I hope to visit an ATM one day to prove my bank balance is meager but until then it remains an open question (albeit likely false) in Gorgoiler Science.