MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wpollock | 2025-12-18 18:00:37+00:00
> The cgroup2 file system is now mounted with the "memory_hugetlb_accounting" mount option, supported since kernel 6.6.

> Required minimum versions of following components are planned to be raised in v260:

* Linux kernel >= 5.10 (recommended >= 5.14),

Don't these two statements contradict each other?
by pas | 2025-12-18 18:00:50+00:00
It's extremely lazy "writing".

Seems absolutely unnecessary, forced, immeasurably trite, off-puttingly boring, overused, so brazenly cliché that there has to be some kind of counter-intuitive selection going on, like with the email scammers that target those who are not immediately noticing the fraudulent intent.

... or simply our arrogance is showing, after all average minds discuss people, right?
by just_once | 2025-12-18 18:01:01+00:00
Yep, it's a real problem. No dispute there.

My intention isn't to argue a point, just to share my perspective when I read it.

I read your response here to be saying something like "I noticed that people are misunderstood about X, so I wanted to inform them". In this case "X" isn't itself very obvious to me (For any given task, why can't you expect that a cutting edge LLM would be able to write it without requiring your testing that?) but most importantly, I don't think I would approach a pure misunderstanding (tantamount to a skills gap) with your particular framing. Again, to me it reads as patronizing.

Love the pelican on the bicycle, though. I think that's been a great addition to the zeitgeist.
by renewiltord | 2025-12-18 18:01:19+00:00
I think this is just one of those instances where historians go for “most justifiable” vs. “most likely”. E.g. all dinosaurs were stretched skin, fatless, featherless because that’s the minimum thing that fits the evidence.

Likewise, where there is paint these guys have recreated it so. But over time we will find that there were more layers more likely to fail over time and so on.
by BeefySwain | 2025-12-18 18:01:25+00:00
Consider that this isn't just a random AI slopped assortment of 9,000 tests, but instead is a robust suite of tests that cover 100% of the HTML5 spec.

Does this guarantee that it functions completely with no errors whatsoever? Certainly not. You need formal verification for that. I don't think that contradicts what Simon was advocating for though in this post.
by mrbonner | 2025-12-18 18:01:58+00:00
The agentic development scene has slowly turned into a full-blown JavaScript circus—bright lights, loud chatter, and endless acts that all look suspiciously familiar. We keep wrapping the same old problems in shiny new packages, parading them around as if they’re groundbreaking innovations. How long before the crowd grows tired of yet another round of “RFC” performances?
by mvdtnz | 2025-12-18 18:02:14+00:00
I haven't used HTMX but the author doesn't make a very convincing case. On the one hand they say,

> "But what about complex client-side state management?"

> You probably don't have complex client-side state. You have forms. You have lists. You have things that show up when you click other things. HTMX handles all of that.

On the other hand,

> I'm not a zealot. HTMX isn't for everything.

> Genuinely complex UI state (not "my form has validation" complex—actually complex)

But my interpretation is that any UI which displays the same data in just two places (like a "new notification" indicator as well as bolding new messages in an inbox, or a list of articles which can change dynamically as well as a count of the number of articles) is "complex" enough that you'll need client side state.
by BeetleB | 2025-12-18 18:02:30+00:00
> Did the federal funds cover making it accessible?

All federal funds that go to universities have strings attached. One of them is the requirement that all services to the public must be accessible. Not "try to be" or "make a good effort". It's up to the university to budget appropriately.

As a faculty member, a big percentage of any research grant I get goes straight to the department - I cannot use it for my research. It's up to the department to use the money appropriately, and if they're not budgeting for accessibility, it's on them.

> Was the person suing a student or prospective student of UC Berkeley who couldn’t get in because of accessibility?

For someone arguing so passionately, perhaps you should actually go learn something about the case?

> If the student had been blind and deaf should they hace flown someone out to personally communicate with them like was done with Helen Keller?

Great question. What does the law require for such a person?
by myko | 2025-12-18 18:02:33+00:00
As an aside, firearms are the leading cause of deaths for kids in the US:

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2025/12/guns-are-the-leadi...

https://www.cnn.com/health/guns-death-us-children-teens-dg

I don't think it's particularly useful to focus on school shootings in particular vs other shootings
by red-iron-pine | 2025-12-18 18:02:56+00:00
F500s trust the paid subscriptions because it means you can escalate the issue -- you're now a paying client so you get support if/when things explode -- and that also gives you a lever to shift blame or ensure compliance.

I recall being an infra lead at an Big Company that you've heard of and having to spend a month working with procurement to get like 6 Mirantis / Docker licenses to do a CCPA compliance project.
Show HN: Shodh – Cognitive memory for AI agents (runs on edge)
by Varun_shodh | 2025-12-18 18:03:01+00:00
AI agents forget everything between sessions. Vector DBs give you similarity search, but not actual learning.

Shodh is different – it's a cognitive memory system: - Hebbian learning – memories recalled together strengthen their connections - Activation decay – unused memories fade (like biological memory) - Knowledge graphs – entities extracted and connected automatically - Three-tier storage – working → session → long-term (based on Cowan's working memory model)

Technical details: - Single ~15MB Rust binary, runs 100% offline - Sub-millisecond graph operations (entity lookup: 763ns, 3-hop traversal: 30µs) - MiniLM-L6 embeddings + TinyBERT NER, bundled - MCP server (works with Claude, Cursor), Python SDK, REST API - RocksDB for persistence

Edge deployment: Designed for local-first and air-gapped environments. Runs on Jetson, Raspberry Pi, industrial PCs, drones – anywhere you need on-device memory without cloud round-trips. Zero network dependency.

What it's not: Not a vector database. Not RAG. It's meant to give agents persistent memory that actually learns and consolidates over time.

GitHub: https://github.com/varun29ankuS/shodh-memory Website: www.shodh-rag.com/memory

Happy to answer questions about the architecture or cognitive models.
by lajr | 2025-12-18 18:03:04+00:00
Hey, congratulations on the launch. Just noticed a discrepancy in the financial 10K example:

There is a section near the start where there are 4 options: Large accelerated filer, Non-accelerated filer, Accelerated filer, or Smaller reporting company.

In this option, "Large accelerated filer" is checked on the PDF, but "Non-accelerated filer" is checked on the Markdown.
by PaulHoule | 2025-12-18 18:03:10+00:00
So I did a lot of business development in the 2010s in a space that involved: semantic web, lo/now code, schema-driven development, business rules, entity matching, "centaur" systems where people work together with ML systems to do work, etc.

There was the obvious choice of "analytics oriented" or "LoB oriented" with the complication that "centaur" and anything subjective like "entity matching" needs some analytics no matter what.

My take now is that you're basically right: overall the spend on LoB is bigger because it right on the path to delivering value whereas analytics are secondary... if you're going to get any value out of analytics you're still going to have to execute in the LoB to realize that value!

On the other hand, analytics might be an easier sell because the analytics system can be dropped on top of what's there and the "low code" capabilities could efficiently accelerate the process. Whereas, "rip and replace" on the LoB would be a huge commitment, anything missing from the new system is a dealbreaker, and if it has to interface with the old system the old system is likely to diffuse the benefits of low code. (with the caveat that maybe a framework that implements "strangler fig" might break the impasse)

One thing that was seductive at the time was being saturated with ads and conferences and sponsored blog posts and such about analytics, but you have to realize this: if something is heavily advertised people want to sell it, not buy it That is, advertising is a bad smell.
by reducesuffering | 2025-12-18 18:03:51+00:00
Not absolutely.

> not because the facts of the US backed coup damaging Iran are at all in dispute.

I mean, they are, GP just admitted they stand corrected[0] and "democratically elected government" of Mossadegh is factually incorrect. Other comments have pointed out he was installed not by the people, but by the Shah and Majles, stopped 1952 elections when they didn't go his way, then tried to dissolve parliament and vest power solely in himself

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315989
by xmodem | 2025-12-18 18:04:07+00:00
What's your point, though? Let's assume your hypothesis and 5 years from now everyone has access to an LLM that's as good as a typical staff engineer. Is it now acceptable for a junior engineer to submit LLM-generated PRs without having tested them?

> It was thought impossible for a computer to reach the point of being able to beat a grandmaster at chess.

This is oft-cited but it takes only some cursory research to show that it has never been close to a universally-held view.
by breppp | 2025-12-18 18:04:21+00:00
Generally the Saudis aren't that great supporters of terror as they are made out to be, Qatar would be a better example.

The most important difference is that the deranged things the Saudis are doing aren't aimed at the West which makes them useful allies, also their current ruler is enacting reforms while Iran is only going backwards

Regarding nationalizing, Egypt had done that and has successfully jumped ship to the western sphere, it's completely possible. Saudi Aramco used to be American owned, you can nationalize with tact
by autoexec | 2025-12-18 18:04:49+00:00
The non-DRMed steam game will stop working after a while if you haven't logged into steam after a very long time. If steam ever went under, your locally installed single player games that work offline will stop working. Ask me how I know.

I've taken to getting a cracked copy of every steam game in my library so that steam can't screw me over again in the future.
by rvnx | 2025-12-18 18:05:05+00:00
You don't even have to go that far, in Europe, to use a large social network (50M users), and the definition is very broad (WhatsApp is a social network, Telegram, Signal, TEMU, Aliexpress, etc), all users will have to provide their ID to that they are not a minor, otherwise the website can be blocked or fined.

This is to protect minors of course. Did you think about the children ?

Telegram, whether it's true or not, claims they are not a large platform (so if this is a lie, it may really pay off).

https://sumsub.com/blog/age-verification-on-social-media/

"WhatsApp is now a Very Large platform in the EU, and will face tougher regulation"

https://www.theverge.com/news/614445/whatsapp-channels-very-...
by Nizoss | 2025-12-18 18:05:44+00:00
Yes! This is something that I also value. Having demo gifs of before and after helps a lot. I have encountered situations where what I thought was a minor finishing clean up had an effect that I didn't anticipate. By including demos in the PR it becomes a kind of guardrail against those situations for me. I also think it is neat and generally helpful for everyone.
by pizzalife | 2025-12-18 18:06:08+00:00
See the AT&T/iPad data leak, where AT&T were leaking private information on the internet with no security checks at all. Someone found it, told the press, who in turn told AT&T, but the FBI still investigated it as a "crime", raided their home, charged them with "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization." AT&T go no punishment at all.

I think you are missing some nuance here. They found a vulnerability where they could just increment an "id" and get access to another user's information. They then went ahead and scraped as much as they could. Also this person (iProphet / weev / Andrew Auernheimer) is awful and certainly not a victim. AT&T did not leak the information, Andrew did!

Should they have had better security? Yes. Was the vulnerability extremely basic? Yes. Doesn't change much, a vulnerability was used to dump a bunch of private data.
by scottydelta | 2025-12-18 18:06:10+00:00
AI models will eventually do this natively. This is one of the ways for models to continue to get better, by doing better OCR and by doing better context extraction.

I am already seeing this trend in the recent releases of the native models (such as Opus 4.5, Gemini 3, and especially Gemini 3 flash).

It's only going to get better from here.

Another thing to note is, there are over 5 startups right now in YC portfolio doing the same thing and going after a similar/overlapping target market if I remember correctly.
by observationist | 2025-12-18 18:06:27+00:00
Frontier models will eventually eat all the tedious tailored add-ons as just part of something they can do.

Right now models have roughly all of the written knowledge available to mankind, minus some obscure held out private archives and so on. They have excellent skills and general abilities to construct plausible sequences of actions to accomplish work, but we need to hold their hands to really get decent performance across a wide range of activities. Skills and agent frameworks and MCP carve out different domains of that problem, with successful solutions providing training data for future models that might be able to be either generalized, or they'll be able to create a vast mountain of synthetic data following successful patterns, and make the next generation of models incredibly useful for a huge number of tasks, by default.

It might also be possible that by studying the problem, identifying where mode collapses and issues with training prevent the right sort of generalization, they might tweak the architecture and be able to solve the deficiency through normal training runs, and thereby discard the need for all the bespoke artisanal agent specifications.
by maerF0x0 | 2025-12-18 18:06:30+00:00
> The first is manual testing. If you haven’t seen the code do the right thing yourself, that code doesn’t work. If it does turn out to work, that’s honestly just pure chance.

Depending on exactly what the author meant here, I disagree. Our first and default tool should be some form of lightweight automated testing. It's explicit (serves a form of spec and docs how to use the software), it's repeatable (manual testing is done once and it's result is invalidated moments later), and it's cost per minute of effort is more or less the same (most companies have the engineers do the tests, they are expensive).

Yes. There will be exceptions and exceptional cases. This author is not talking about exceptions and neither am I. They're not an interesting addition to this conversation.
by vkou | 2025-12-18 18:06:42+00:00
Egypt has always had one foot in each camp.

The US' treatment of Cuba is the better example. It's doing none of the things the parent poster listed, yet it's still treated by the US as a pariah state. Uncle Sam doesn't care about how you treat women, or whether you have elections, but he deeply cares about you taking some corporation's stuff 70 years ago.

That is the original sin that can never be atoned for.

(For another example of that, see last night's deranged speech about Venezuela 'stealing' America's oil.)
by AlotOfReading | 2025-12-18 18:07:16+00:00
You'd hope. That's not always my experience. What I often see is cutting random bits off the development plan until the resource constraints are nominally satisfied, without much regard for whether the resulting plan is sensible. That's if there's a plan. Sometimes these systems get randomly assigned a level based on vibes, with the expectation that someone will later go back and fix the level if it's incorrect. This works about as well as commented TODOs.
by cess11 | 2025-12-18 18:07:51+00:00
He was as democratically elected as the system at the time allowed and spent basically his entire political career on increasing the power of the majlis and getting rid of colonial interests.

The UK spent a lot of resources conspiring against this project, which ultimately failed, to a large extent because he did not have a solution to the blockade that followed nationalisation of the oil production. Perhaps he also did not expect as many members of the majlis to join the foreign conspiracy as did when the blockade got inconvenient.

It's also not like democratisation followed under the shah, rather the opposite, like the establishment of rather nasty security services and a nuclear program that the later revolutionaries inherited.
by wat10000 | 2025-12-18 18:07:58+00:00
Packaging costs money. Gift cards make money. Easy fix.

Stopping the theft you describe is very easy. Don't have actual gift cards just sitting around. Require customers to get them from the cashier at the time of purchase. Have dummy cards on display if you want them to have something to hold, or make them ask.

Of course these solutions aren't free. Adding friction to the purchase process will reduce sales. Retails have clearly concluded, I assume correctly, that it's not worth the cost. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't confuse something being difficult to fix with something not being worth the cost of fixing. We can put a solid upper limit on the impact of fraud by looking at what it would cost to stop it, and conclude that the impact of this sniffing fraud is less than the impact of having cashiers exchange dummy cards for real ones at the time of purchase.

Note that this isn't a "this is easy, they must be idiots not to do this" sort of thing. The current approach is probably the smartest one, given how things currently work. If the incentives changed to make retailers bear more of the cost of fraud (say, legally putting the burden of proof on the retailer to show the card was used legitimately, otherwise they have to refund it if the customer alleges fraud), things would change quickly.
by bluesnowmonkey | 2025-12-18 18:08:07+00:00
Humans are only kind of held accountable. If you ship a bug do you go to jail? Even a bug so bad it puts your company out of business. Would there be any legal or physical or monetary consequences at all for you, besides you lose your job?

So the accountability situation for AI seems not that different. You can fire it. Exactly the same as for humans.
by bonzini | 2025-12-18 18:08:47+00:00
> Why wouldn't you want unit files instead of much larger init shell scripts which duplicate logic across every service?

Indeed, that criticism makes no sense at all.

> It also enabled a ton of event driven actions which laptops/desktops/embedded devices use.

Don't forget VMs. Even in server space, they use hotplug/hotunplug as much as traditional desktops.
by rincebrain | 2025-12-18 18:09:04+00:00
This makes sense to me.

Having spent a bunch of time with people who have had persistent issues with stable income, a lot of them internalize it at various levels as them personally not being worth anything, because so many systems involved seem to be operating in bad faith.

Anything involving the US medical system, for instance - even as someone working in tech with good health insurance, so many of my interactions with doctors can be summarized as "the doctor makes a snap judgment in the first 30 seconds of interacting with you, and arguing with it results in them interacting in bad faith thereafter".

And that's not as bad as other machinery in the US. The advice I've heard around trying to use the limited social safety machinery in the US is "plan for it to be a fulltime job for multiple years to get on it, and expect to randomly be kicked off it repeatedly".

And having the systems you interact with regularly very clearly act in bad faith, assuming by default you don't deserve things, does things to people's mental health.
by xpe | 2025-12-18 18:09:53+00:00
I don't know your priorities, but I will say this: beware the recency bias: don't overweight on a news story. Instead, take at least five minutes make a list of your concerns.

> I should probably start to work on self-hosting now that I can see I was incorrect to trust Apple...

Jumping to that conclusion might be worse. Don't think of trust as a binary bit. Better to ask:

1. To what degree can I trust Party to do Thing? - what is Party's track record? - what are Party's incentives? - what is the probabilistic distribution of outcomes? 2. What is my best alternative to #1? - ... track record? - ... incentives? - ... distribution of outcomes? 3. Pick the least worst for you

When you do this, you'll want to factor in aspects such as: What is the value of your time? What are the chances that your alternative is less secure?
by vladsh | 2025-12-18 18:10:06+00:00
Skills are a pretty awkward abstraction. They emerged to patch a real problem, generic models require fine-tuning via context, which quickly leads to bloated context files and context dilution (ie more hallucinations)

But skills dont really solve the problem. Turning that workaround into a standard feels strange. Standardizing a patch isn’t something I’d expect from Anthropic, it’s unclear what is their endgame here
by Satyam2000 | 2025-12-18 18:10:12+00:00
This is amazing and absolutely in the right direction. How do you decide, which queries are routed to less expensive models?

92% are super impressive and as with any of the impressive numbers, you have to try to understand what is behind those. Do cost savings come mostly from routing easy queries, or from heavier workloads?

Also, you mention 7-10% false-negative cases. Is this where your validator disagrees with the expensive flagship model? Are there cases where the flagship model is giving worse answers?
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-12-18 18:10:27+00:00
Many luxury items strike me as a sort of unnecessary burden. I do understand why sometimes they're nice and even worthwhile, but... I don't know, perhaps the issue is that in my culture, it's often the case that people conflate luxury with necessity, as though you're doing something wrong if you can't afford commercial luxuries by default.

At that point you're training yourself to carry unnecessary psychological burdens for virtually no gain.

I also find a lot of luxury items are kind of contrived and status-oriented rather than innately luxurious. Like, cool sparkling water with ice in summer is very luxurious to me in an innate sense. The simplest luxuries tend to strike me as the nicest and least likely to be contrived in order to separate me from my money.

I want to swim in clean, cool water. Sleep on a nice mattress with nice bedding. Cycle to work rather than drive. Have space in my home for hobbies. Have access to clean air. Have access to good food. Live in a city with a lot of green space. In the scheme of things, these seem like incredible luxuries to me. Many people in the world don't have most of these. I don't want to let myself believe they're not luxurious and that instead, I need a $150k car (for example) to feel like I've made it.
by danielbln | 2025-12-18 18:10:36+00:00
Its part of managing the context. It's a bit of prepared context that can be lazy-loaded in as the need arises.

Inversely, you can persist/summarize a larger bit of context into a skill, so a new agent session can easily pull it in.

So yes, it's just turtles, sorry, prompts all the way down.