MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by breppp | 2025-12-21 13:28:45+00:00
That doesn't explain why he visited Hezbollah and showed overwhelming support, probably aware of the organization roots and past actions such as kidnapping journalists or killing politicians or its self professed goal of creating a theocracy in Lebanon.

He of course has very complex rationalizing but essentially he assumes the opposite of mainstream western opinion and then tries to build ideological structures upon that.

That creates a very simplified version of reality wrapped in a nice intellectual wrapping
by mightyham | 2025-12-21 13:29:00+00:00
You're just asserting that without explination. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but afiak the only difference in NAT hole-punching is that clients don't know their public port mapping ahead of time. This actually doesn't make a huge difference to the process because in practice, you still want a central rendezvous server for automated peer IP discovery. The alternative being that each peer shares their IP with every other peer "offline", as in manually through an external service like IRC or discord, which is a horrible user experience.
by goku12 | 2025-12-21 13:29:26+00:00
> GPU compute units are not that simple

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. CPU and GPU cores are designed for different types of loads. The rest of your comment seems similar to what I was imagining.

Still, I don't think that enhancing the GPU cores with CPU capabilities (OOE, rings, MMU, etc from your examples) is the best idea. You may end up with the advantages of neither and the disadvantages of both. I was suggesting that you could instead have a few dedicated CPU cores distributed among the numerous GPU cores. Finding the right balance of GPU to CPU cores may be the key to achieving the best performance on such a system.
Ask HN: How do you integration-test AI / LLMs?
by tom1337 | 2025-12-21 13:29:27+00:00
We’re currently debating how to properly test integrations with external LLMs in our software.

At the moment, all LLM calls are mocked in unit and end-to-end tests. Recently, we updated a model version and it started returning responses that no longer matched our expected schema (we validate outputs strictly) and thus returned in errors. Because all tests used mocked responses, this only surfaced in production.

In hindsight, a simple integration test that sends a real (non-mocked) request to the LLM provider would probably have caught this.

One idea is to have a test suite which sends each prompt to the LLM provider and checks whether the response matches the expected schema. This has its own issues since LLMs are inherently nondeterministic and these tests might be flaky, but I’m currently lacking better ideas.

Curious to hear how others approach this.
by WillAdams | 2025-12-21 13:29:59+00:00
The one thing which I need to see in FreeCAD to be successful with it is an interface option which doesn't require a multi-button mouse, but which will work with a trackpad, or better still a tablet and stylus --- I spend 5 days a week essentially chained to a desk using a mouse (sometimes a Trackpoint) and evenings/weekends I prefer to sit somewhere more relaxing than a desk and to use a different sort of pointer.

Dune 3D seemed quite promising, but very limited --- is there a set of options for the UI in FreeCAD which will create a similar interface?
by regularfry | 2025-12-21 13:30:11+00:00
I've often come across a concept in magic performance that what the performer is aiming at is for the only available explanation for what you see would take an amount of effort that you immediately discount because clearly nobody would put that much effort into making a ping pong ball disappear. There are two ways to make the ping pong ball disappear: either the performer is cheating somehow, or they did actually do it the obvious way and yes, they did put all that effort in.

This seems the same: the idea the people shaped these stones by hand seems so outrageously profligate with human exertion that you look for how they cheated. But the answer is that it's actually slightly less exertion than you think, multiplied across far more humans than you think, but yes, they did go the long way round.
by tim333 | 2025-12-21 13:30:42+00:00
I can definitely buy a lack of understanding on my part - my understanding of all this is quite fuzzy. But I'm not sure string theories reproduce existing theories so much a say this is compatible with the other stuff in a handwavy way? I don't think there's any "we assume strings and thus can deduce quantum mechanics and general relativity" stuff? I don't think anyone can deduce quantum mechanics and Einstein's deductions with relativity are based on simple observations like the speed of light being observed to be constant and acceleration seeming similar to gravity?
by ruslan5t | 2025-12-21 13:30:45+00:00
I've noticed that videos with Sora 2 watermarks have started appearing everywhere. They often show up even on clearly AI-generated clips (for example, a talking pumpkin). I think that's a bit too much - if you just want to wish your followers a happy Halloween with a funny talking pumpkin, you really don't need that flashing watermark that only serves to advertise Sora (especially since through their own API you can generate everything without those watermarks anyway). That's why I made an app that removes them.
by danaris | 2025-12-21 13:30:47+00:00
> 40% having significant THC in their blood is a stunning statistic no matter how you look at it.

Yes, it is a stunning statistic.

So much so, that in itself it makes it worth questioning the results of this study.

If 40% of fatal crash victims had THC in their bloodstream, and only 20% of the general population did, that would imply a 100% increase in chances of dying in a car crash from having smoked marijuana. That's an absolutely massive risk factor, the kind you would expect to show up very, very clearly in any kind of statistical analysis of car crashes.

But the other thing I've seen a bunch of people cite in this discussion is that there has been no statistically significant increase in fatal crashes following marijuana legalization.

That would imply that either there was no statistically significant increase in drivers high on marijuana since legalization, or there was no statistically significant increase in the likelihood of causing a fatal crash from being high on marijuana.

Based on our knowledge of human nature, the former seems incredibly unlikely (yes, there would surely be some people who would have been smoking pot before who just stopped hiding it as much, but there would also, just as surely, be many people who had been interested in getting high before, but who had been intimidated by its legal status or had no idea how to find a dealer until there were dispensaries opening in every town).

The latter directly contradicts the implication of this study—but this is only one study, and may have methodological issues that we are unaware of.
by jleyank | 2025-12-21 13:31:48+00:00
They’re going to play the games in countries they aren’t all that fond of footy (US, Canada) with very high ticket prices. In the case of the US, fan access is going to be expensive and difficult. So I hope the tv contracts are good as they’re going to be needed for the real fans to watch the games.

And there’s a lot of games. Far too many to have nfl Super Bowl like attendance.
by morpheos137 | 2025-12-21 13:32:15+00:00
These models get things backwards. The universe is a wave function in logic space. It appears discrete and quantized because integers composed of primes are logically stable information entropy minimal nodes. In other words the universe is the way it is because it depends on math. Math does not depend on the universe. Logic is its own "simulation." Math does not illuminate physics, rather physics illuminates math. This can be shown by the construction of a filter that cleanly sorts prime numbers from composites without trial division but by analysis of the entropic harmonics of integers. In other words what we consider integers are not fundamental but rather emergent properties of the minimal subjunctive of superposition of zero (non existence) and infinity (anything that is possible). By ringing an integer like a bell according to the template provided by the zeta function we can find primes and factor from spectral analysis without division. Just as integers emerge from the wave as stable nodes so do quanta in the physical isomorphism. In other words both integers and quanta are emergent from the underlying wave that is information in tension between the polarity of nonexistence and existence. So what appears discrete or simulated is actually an emergent phenomenon of the subjunctive potential of information constrained by the two poles of possibility.
by chasing0entropy | 2025-12-21 13:32:41+00:00
There so e obvious caveats that make ipv6 migration impossible for most users: 1. Ipv6 bridges are not practical at scale which means best case is dual use protocols for a decade (or more) which no one wants to support.

2. Actual implementation MUST be ubiquitous (it never will be) some examples - glo fiber in Virginia, and while I can get pfsense assigned a ipv6 address, there is usually no upstream gateway (meaning that if I disable IPv4, I will not have internet). I say usually because of four times I've checked, once I did get assigned a gateway which was unresponsive even to icmp.

Starlink roam - assigns ipv6 but no bridge so if you disable v4 you lose access to most internet.

Frontier FiOS in Florida - does not support ipv6 at all on my node. I have seen business nodes in Orlando/Tampa assign addresses with bridging but again, without browser or dns translation it's not a practical solution.

3. 'Everyone' is not using ipv6, everyone plugs in or logs into a device that has whatever network stack it has. Those users are not suddenly going to jump through hoops simply to avoid CGNAT and get a unique network address

4. Infrastructure; I have two modest half racks on the east coast at decent sized datacenters (esolutions and peak10), neither of those hosts offer ipv6 routing blocks by default. No provider I have gotten quotes for offers ipv6 by default
by everdrive | 2025-12-21 13:33:13+00:00
The government would need to know what to subpoena, and what to prioritize as well. In principle could the government subpoena my ISP, learn I'd used a VPN, subpoena the VPN, learned I visited Wikipedia, then subpoena Wikipedia to finally learn what articles I'd written. Yes, but in practice this will never happen. There's no interest in doing so, and it's unclear a judge would be convinced that useful information could be obtained from such a path.

On the other hand, if I'm making death threats on Facebook, there's a much more realistic path: view the threats from a public source --> subpoena Facebook for private data.

Treating the two risks as similar is madness.
Let's discuss: future of refactoring in the era of LLMs
by ohcmon | 2025-12-21 13:33:17+00:00
For a long time we have designed our software in a way where we would value backward compatibility and would try to minimise breaking changes.

This is not only true for the open-source, widely used software, but also for internal software. The existence of companies with big mono repositories to support dynamic rhythm of changes that do not break in unknown parts is a good illustration of how important to have the ability to refactor without the fear.

Even in the pre-LLM era we had a technical ability to do some changes without the fear which we didn't really adopt. For over 20 years we already had tools that implement a number of deterministic refactorings for typed languages. If our change consisted of only a sequence of such deterministic changes – we could automatically generate codebase migration scripts together with the new versions of our libraries. And maybe we could even search for all the usages of our libraries on the GitHub and programmatically produce PRs with all the needed changes.

Today, with all the progress in LLMs it's not hard to imagine that instead (or together with) automated migration scripts we can distribute some automatically generated migration prompts. And for all the opensoruce code, we can actually validate the results of our migrations (by pulling all the code dependent on our library, applying migration prompts, building and running tests) – and everything that is validatable, usually reach very confident levels with LLMs.

It's not hard to imagine even better LLMs in future with the ability to do even more complex refactorings. And this might remove a lot of fear associated with the changes, which in turn will significantly improve the speed of innovation for old projects where a lot of historical decisions are cemented in the public interface.

This is the future of software engineering I would want to see, and I'm curious to hear what are your thoughts about this?

P.S. Migrating from one computer language to another should become a matter of "prompted change" at some point too!
by mbana | 2025-12-21 13:33:24+00:00
Nice write-up.

I wonder if something similar exists for the Snapdragon X Elite-based Microsoft Surface 7 laptops but is simply undocumented. There's a post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426428 (The hidden JTAG in a Qualcomm/Snapdragon device’s USB port) obviously about a hidden JTAG, so I begin to wonder.

If someone more experienced with these sorts of things could chime in that would be great.
by nheer | 2025-12-21 13:33:49+00:00
Hi everyone, author here!

I’m genuinely blown away by all the interest in what started as a silly little experiment. The project grew way beyond its original scope. My initial curiosity was simply: how could you set up a pipeline to do automatic speed comparisons? I was less interested in the results as a definitive measure and more in the infrastructure challenge itself.

But then the interest kept growing. I tried to modernize things, but one thing became quite notable: the difference between a language that gets actively optimized by its community (like Julia) versus one that just sits there unoptimized is striking.

Honestly, I got overwhelmed. Managing all those implementations, keeping versions up to date, reviewing contributions—it was a lot. I basically tapped out for about a year.

Now I’m back, and with AI assistance, maintaining this has become much more realistic—updating versions, helping optimize implementations, etc. That said, I’m always happy to accept contributions from folks who know their languages better than I do.

Thank you all for your interest and the thoughtful discussion!
by vulcan01 | 2025-12-21 13:34:05+00:00
This depends on the country. In certain countries, speed limits are set by civil engineers as a true upper limit that one is not supposed to exceed. In others, speed limits are set slightly above the average speed one is expected to drive at.

In the former sort of country, drivers are expected to use their judgement and often drive slower than the limit. In the latter sort of country, driving at the speed limit is rather... limiting, thus it is common to see drivers slightly exceeding the speed limit.

(I have a theory in my head that – in general – the former sort of country has far stricter licensing laws than the latter. I am not sure if this is true.)
by JKCalhoun | 2025-12-21 13:34:20+00:00
I don't disagree with your point, but regardless of how you or I feel about it, this flap will likely seem quaint a decade from now. It's the unstoppable way the world is moving.

I'd love for them to create a separate category for "Best non-AI game". They can fight it out over that award. Perhaps then in a decade or so they will quietly let the award category fade away.
by jlouis | 2025-12-21 13:34:27+00:00
LLMs has had a couple of years by now to show their usefulness, and while hype can drive it for a while, it's now getting to the point where hype alone can't. It needs to provide a tangible result for people.

If that tangible result doesn't occur, then people will begin to criticize everything. Rightfully so.

I.e., the future of LLMs is now wobbly. That doesn't necessarily mean a phase shift in opinion, but wobbly is a prerequisite for a phase shift.

(Personal opinion at the moment: LLMs needs a couple of miracles in the same vein as the discovery/invention of transformers. Otherwise, they won't be able to break through the current fault-barrier which is too low at the moment for anything useful.)
by craftkiller | 2025-12-21 13:34:45+00:00
That is not sane, it is dumb. With such a system, you have signs that say "100" but the actual speed limit is "110" and everyone knows the actual speed limit is "110" but they all have to do mental math to reach that conclusion. Just make the sign say the real speed limit instead of lying to you. It's like Spinal Tap wrote your laws.
by beAbU | 2025-12-21 13:35:26+00:00
My previous fibre provider in Ireland was Virgin, and as far as I could tell, it was fully IPV6. Every device in my network got a public address, and self hosting stuff from home as was easy as setting up an A record at my DNS host. No faffing around with port forwarding, proxying, nat bullshit or whatever. My memory is hazy, but there might have been some firewall stuff I had to do on the virgin supplied router.
by goku12 | 2025-12-21 13:37:09+00:00
> I'd say over 70% of all computing is already been non-CPU for years.

> If you look at your typical phone or laptop SoC, the CPU is only a small part.

Keep in mind that the die area doesn't always correspond to the throughput (average rate) of the computations done on it. That area may be allocated for a higher computational bandwidth (peak rate) and lower latency. Or in other words, get the results of a large number of computations faster, even if it means that the circuits idle for the rest of the cycles. I don't know the situation on mobile SoCs with regards to those quantities.
by t43562 | 2025-12-21 13:38:06+00:00
Errors can be recovered automatically sometimes but at the level at which you log them you don't know if that's going to happen. I therefore think this suggestion is not easy to follow.

Even if your libraries use nothing but exceptions or return codes you still end up with levels. You still end up with logs that have information in them that gets ignored when it shouldn't be because there's so much noise that people get tired of all the "cries of wolf."

Occasionally one is at a high enough level to know for sure that something needs fixing and for this I use "CRITICAL" which is my code for "absolutely sure that you can't ignore this."

IMO it's about time AI was looking at the logs to find out if there was something we really need to be alerted to.
by 9rx | 2025-12-21 13:38:45+00:00
AI has become very good at writing pointless and bad tests, at least. It remains difficult to compel it to write good tests consistently.

But even if it wrote great tests every time, the trouble is that testing was designed around the idea of "double entry accounting". Even great tests can test the wrong thing. In the old world you would write a test case and then implement something to satisfy the same. If both sides of the ledger agree, so to speak, you can be pretty confident that both are correct. — In other words, going through the process of implementation gives an opportunity to make sure the test you wrote isn't ill-conceived or broken itself. If you only write the tests, or only write the implementation, or write none of it, there is no point at which you can validate your work.

If you have already built up an application and are reusing its test suite to reimplement the software in another language, like above, that is one thing, but in greenfield work it remains an outstanding problem of how to validate the work when you start to involve AI agents. Another article posted here recently suggests that we can go back to manual testing to validate the work... But that seems like a non-solution.
by atmosx | 2025-12-21 13:39:12+00:00
Book as a generic guide.

Use LLMs as a personal tutor, ask it to evaluate your solution. Give it context, as much as possible. Discuss about new concepts. Once you think you figure it out, make sure you double check with a human otherwise you might end up wit a flawed understanding of classes, inheritance or modules.

Lean how to use your editor or IDE.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-12-21 13:40:56+00:00
It is fascinating. It's showing of course that AI has gone mainstream.

There was a time that I remember when you could gripe at a party about banner ads showing up on the internet and have a lot of blank stares. Or ask someone for their email address and get a quizzical look.

I pointed my dad to ChatGPT a few days ago and instructed him on how to upload/create an AI image. He was delighted to later show me his AI "American Gothic" version of a photo of him and his current wife. This was all new to him.

The pushback though I think is going to be short-lived in a way other push-backs were short-lived. (I remember the self-checkout kiosk in grocery stores were initially a hard sell as an example.)
by skulk | 2025-12-21 13:41:09+00:00
This doesn't pass the sniff test. How could a civilization supposedly far more advanced than the Inca vanish without leaving the Inca a single shred of evidence of their existence? No tools, no records, no memory at all? Oh, except the giant intricate stone structures they built. A coordinated conspiracy to claim their superior civilizational achievements as their own might be the only explanation of that and that's veering into comedy.
by pjmlp | 2025-12-21 13:43:50+00:00
Sure, if you ignore the SSR and SSG part, which sadly most nodejs stuff lacks.

Additionally, Next.js should only be used when SaaS product vendor doesn't allow for any other option, which sadly is the case when making themselves sellable to magpie developers, while riding VC money until the IPO takes off.

I rather deliver, than do yak shaving, but at least can deliver only HTML and CSS if I chose to.
by Aerroon | 2025-12-21 13:44:28+00:00
>The big riddle of Universe is, how all that matter loves to organize itself, from basic particles to Atoms, basic molecues, structured molecues, things and finally live.. Probably unsolvable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt research and ask questions...

Isn't that 'just' the laws of nature + the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Life is the ultimate increaser of entropy, because for all the order we create we just create more disorder.

Conway's game of life has very simple rules (laws of nature) and it ends up very complex. The universe doing the same thing with much more complicated rules seems pretty natural.
by rcxdude | 2025-12-21 13:44:45+00:00
The most typical reactions I see outside of techie and arty spaces where people are most polarised about it are:

- annoyance at stupid AI features being pushed on them

- Playing around with them like a toy (especially image generation)

- Using them for work (usually writing tasks), to varying degrees of effectiveness to pretty helpful to actively harmful depending on how much of a clue they have in the first place.

Discussion or angst about the morality of training or threats to jobs doesn't really enter much into it. I think this apathy is also reflected in how this has not seemingly affected the sales of this game at all in the months that it has been reported on in the video game press. I also think this is informed by how most people using them can fairly plainly see they aren't really a complete replacement for what they actually do.