MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JDye | 2025-12-30 01:04:02+00:00
A request to a HTTPS target through a proxy will use a CONNECT request to establish a tunnel to the target.

This tunnel operates at layer 3, where the client sends TCP segments to the proxy, the server unpacks the segments and then repacks them into new segments to send to the end target. These new TCP segments will contain the timestamp of when they were created.

The HTTP request sent through those segments is unmodified, meaning it will contain the original timestamp from the client machine.

The newer timestamp on the TCP segments means there is a mismatch between the TCP RTT and the HTTP RTT.
by tomwheeler | 2025-12-30 01:05:52+00:00
While I certainly understand the appeal of tax arbitrage, California has at least one thing going for it. Unlike most states, it generally disallows non-compete clauses as a matter of public policy.

Tech thrives on the mobility of talent, so it's no coincidence that California is where the tech industry thrives. Almost 70 years ago, eight engineers at Shockley Semiconductor had a better idea and left to start Fairchild Semiconductor. That led to Intel, AMD, and National Semiconductor, later spawning NVIDIA, SGI, Qualcomm, and ultimately creating trillions of dollars in wealth. No other state will ever overtake California's dominance here unless it allows for that same mobility of talent. Almost every state tries to _attract_ billionaires these days, but this is one reason why most states can't _create_ them.
by somat | 2025-12-30 01:06:10+00:00
> And you don't nuke ships

Not for lack of trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44_SUBROC

And the Iowa battle ships were later equipped to handle "special weapons"

But in seriousness, the restraint shown in the use of nuclear weapons is amazing, one day the genie will be let out of the lamp but it hasn't yes.

On the topic of genies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie (sigh) yes an air to air missile with a nuclear warhead was not only invented it was built and deployed... With how hard we were actively flirting with the demon that is nuclear war it is incredible that anyone is still alive.
by bsimpson | 2025-12-30 01:06:22+00:00
I don't know what the right way to handle intersecting identities is.

Most of my online identities were started when I was in college and was happy to have them tied to my real name. (This is also when Facebook was popular, still good, and college-kids-only.) Since then, cancel culture et. al. has made me more wary of having my identity-adjacent usernames show up in hobbies like gaming.

If I want to be myname in some Discord servers and anonoguy in others, is there a safe way to enforce that boundary? What about if I want to work on gaming-related open source projects or 3D prints?

As the internet moves to logged-in-and-social-by-default, it's hard to know which identity to use for which service. Moreover, when things are constantly leaking/being hacked, I don't know that I want any service to know that anonoguy and myname are personas of the same individual.

And as LLMs become the standard, I'm not sure any of this is defensible. I imagine in a decade's time, it will be trivial for an LLM to go "this account and that account have similar interests/references/ways of typing - they must be the same person."
by chatmasta | 2025-12-30 01:06:43+00:00
Add this parameter to your Google searches to get rid of trash like LLM-generated result summaries you've started seeing for Reddit posts.

Firefox extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/udm14/

Previously (2024): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40450267
by smj-edison | 2025-12-30 01:06:57+00:00
Huh, that's a really interesting approach. I just wrote my first Pratt parser a month ago, and one of the most annoying things was debugging infinite loops in various places (I had both tokenizer bugs where no characters were consumed and parser bugs where a token was emitted but not advanced). It's doubly annoying in Zig, because the default test runner won't print out stdout at all, and won't print stderr unless the program terminates by itself (Ctrl + C doesn't print). I resorted to building the test and running it manually, or jumping into a debugger to figure out recursion issues. It's working now, but if (really when) I run into issues in the future I'll definitely add some helper functions to check emitting invariants.
by sublinear | 2025-12-30 01:07:09+00:00
What? We're already so far down the list of things to try with AI that we're saying hallucinated tests are better than no tests at all?

Seems actively harmful, and the AI hype died out faster than I thought it would.

> Agents will happily be the Roomba that rolls over dog poop and drags it all over your house

There it is, folks!
by kennykartman | 2025-12-30 01:07:20+00:00
Marketing is the thing that makes uninformed people adopt thing they don't need.

I dont think we need marketing, but rather education, which is the actually useful way to spread information.

If you think marketing is the way knowledge spreads, you'll end up with millions of dollars in your pocket and the belief that you have money because you're doing good, while the truth is that you have millions because you exploited others.
by Desafinado | 2025-12-30 01:07:46+00:00
That's kind of the point of the article, though.

Sure LLMs can churn out code, and they sort of work for developers who already understand code and design, but what happens when that junior dev with no hard experience builds their years of experience with LLMs?

Over time those who actually understand what the LLMs are doing and how to correct the output are replaced by developers who've never learned the hard lessons of writing code line by line. The ability to reason about code gets lost.

This points to the hard problem that the article highlights. The hard problem of software is actually knowing how to write it, which usually takes years, sometimes up to a decade of real experience.

Any idiot can churn out code that doesn't work. But working, effective software takes a lot of skill that LLMs will be stripping people of. Leaving a market there for people who have actually put the time in and understand software.
TLHO – A domain-agnostic, fail-closed verification substrate
by tlho | 2025-12-30 01:07:55+00:00
TLHO (Patent pending) is a formal substrate designed to verify the structural integrity of a judgment rather than the semantic truth of its content. In an era of probabilistic AI and "black-box" decision-making, TLHO provides a strictly deterministic, contentless framework for high-stakes verification.
The Problem:
Most validation systems rely on domain knowledge or probability. This introduces "gray zones" where it is unclear if all requirements were met, or if the system simply "hallucinated" a high confidence score.
The Approach:
TLHO operates strictly at the meta-level. It doesn't know what is "true"; it only knows if a judgment is formally valid based on a 5-component tuple:
TLHO = < S, O, W, C, TCB >
* S (Specification): Closed description of the subject.
* O (OutCore): Binary criterion (VALID/INVALID).
* W (Witness): Finite evidence covering S.
* C (Checker): Deterministic verifier.
* TCB (Trusted Computing Base): Cryptographically anchored minimal trust base.
Key Technical Pillars:
* Fail-Closed Semantics: Any missing element or hash mismatch results in an INVALID state. No partial success.
* Delta-Analysis: Uncertainty is modeled as incompleteness. Instead of a score, TLHO returns a finite list of missing requirements: Delta = {Required} - {Provided}.
* Byte-Reproducibility: We use canonical JSON encoding and prefix-free framing) to ensure judgments are audit-stable and verifiable down to the byte.
* Implementation Independence: To ensure integrity, we develop independent checkers that must reach the same out_hash without sharing code.
Formal Assurance:
We are moving toward machine-checked proofs for the core logic:
* Coq/Lean: Proving fail-closed behavior and checker totality.
* TLA+: Modeling the verification pipeline and safety invariants.
Why I’m sharing this:
I’m looking for feedback from the community, I want to go public soon, and wonder if there are any experts who can help us out. It will be an open-core licensing, commercial use needs licence (contact: tlho-enterprises@protonmail.com).
I trully believe TLHO is the last missing layer for the digital era.
TLHO is right on time or even maybe a bit too early. This is a opportunity for early birds, and the people who really see the paradigm shift. It changes from “trust us” to “verify us”. TLHO can be wrapped and is universal, domain agnostic, healthcare, law, finance, governance and even quantum computing.. TLHO is extremely lightweight and with split responsibility it can be put on sensors and IoT. It will change the audit world, reconstructions can be done in seconds, in stead of months. Selfdriving cars, robots, and all critical softwares will need TLHO for a safe future.
This is an once in a lifetime opportunity. And we would appreciate all the help we can get. For any questions please ask as many as possible. And be as critical as possible. Dont trust words, trust the math.

Love, TLHO
by gsf_emergency_6 | 2025-12-30 01:08:40+00:00
Lee? Ah! (Was distracted by santu gonger <-> )

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B8%89%E5%85%94%E5%9B%BE/107...

I'm still trying to internalize+merge the other sense of Lagrangian (as in "L submanifold")
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-12-30 01:09:57+00:00
> Surprised to see this upvoted because the takeaway is completely incorrect

It's the standard actually. Hot takes get more votes and hot takes are usually wrong. Experts have non-controversial opinions, which are boring (so no impulse to upvote), and there are 1000x more non-experts with blogs. Add to that HN culture which values contrarian-ness. So HN front page blog posts are almost entirely incorrect, but spicy
by nineteen999 | 2025-12-30 01:10:12+00:00
I'm actually having more fun than I've had in years with this, since I've mainly focussed on my personal projects while getting the hang of what's achievable. And it turns out to be quite a lot if you're a creative thinker.

At first it kind of depressed me, but now I realised that actually writing code is only part of my day job, the rest is integrating infrastructure and managing people and enabling them to do their job as well, and if I can do the coding/integration part faster and give them better tools more quickly, that's a huge win.

This means I can spend more time at the beach and on my physical and mental well being as well. I was stubborn and skeptical a year ago, but now I'm just really enjoying the process of learning new things.
by robomartin | 2025-12-30 01:10:21+00:00
> What if I need higher contrast to make out what's happening on the screen?

The point you make isn't incorrect at all. I would say that TV's should ship without any such enhancements enabled. The user should then be able to configure it as they wish.

Plenty of parallel examples of this: Microsoft should ship a "clean" version of Windows. Users can they opt into whatever they might want to add.

Social media sites should default to the most private non-public sharing settings. Users can open it up to the world if they wish. Their choice.

Going back to TV's: They should not ship with spyware, log-ware, behavioral tracking and advertising crap. Users can opt into that stuff if they value proposition being offered appeals to them.

Etc.
by fooker | 2025-12-30 01:10:24+00:00
> Limited liability is the government interfering

I agree. That was not the point I was making.

The government interferes here for good reason, as no one would start a business if they would be personally responsible for random things. The LL in LLC is Limited Liability. Most governments want to make it easy to start a business.

This is the status quo because it has been consistently better than the government doing everything and being liable for everything. With private companies, you have various branches of the government with some ability to correct or regulate matters when a private entity is liable or responsible for something.

In the alternative scenario, when something goes wrong and the government is liable, good luck getting the government to find itself liable.
by rjzzleep | 2025-12-30 01:10:48+00:00
Yeah, I didn't feel like looking up the exact details, so thank you for adding that. I didn't know that it was rebranded like that, I was just baffled at the outcome. Our mechanical engineering professor was responsible for the ICE breaking system a long time ago and those guys were all extremely good.

The other aspect is that there is a whole host of periphery issues, one of which is track maintenance, making it so for a lot of segments the ICE will not reach its top speed.
by GuB-42 | 2025-12-30 01:11:49+00:00
They are probably going to make them obvious at first, like with Google search.

But they can also make it more pernicious. For example by having companies pay them so that they can train their AI on their products, with regular updates. Not technically an ad, but the AI will be more aware of their products so that they are more likely to be recommended to the user. In other words, that's paying for the right to advertise to the AI rather than to advertise to consumers directly.
by Quarrel | 2025-12-30 01:11:58+00:00
I don't think it implies that at all.

It is perfectly understandable that the people who really care about how their work was colour-graded, then suggest you turn off all the features that shit all over that work. Similarly for the other settings he mentions.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen the first season, so won't watch this, but creators / artists do and should care about this stuff.

Of course, people can watch things in whatever dreaded settings they want, but lots of TVs default to bad settings, so awareness is good.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-30 01:12:11+00:00
> The household that brings home $80K/yr would always spend a larger percentage of their income on taxable consumption, than an executive that takes home multiple million per year. Progressive income tax brackets are a better tool for making sure those who are able to pay a larger share of the common good, do so.

"Progressive income tax brackets" don't actually do this. The people with so much money they can't spend it all use various tax shelters as it is. They typically manage to not even pay tax on the amounts they do spend, because they borrow money and spend it instead of recognizing it as income first. So they would be paying more under a flat consumption tax than they do under the status quo. The "progressive income tax system" doesn't actually work the way it's claimed to.

On top of that, the problem is essentially fake. People absolutely can and do spend millions of dollars a year. Cardiologists making seven figures buy huge houses with multi-car garages full of exotic makes etc. It's spending billions of dollars a year that nobody is really going to do, but that's such a tiny percentage of people that it's ridiculous to design a tax system being imposed on everybody else on the basis of that, and those are the exact people who aren't paying the high rates under the existing system anyway.

Here's a proposal: Have a flat consumption tax, and then have an income tax where the rate is 0% up to the 99.9th percentile income and only the top 0.1% even have to file a tax return. The latter is going to be avoided in the same ways it is now, but at least then you can't say the billionaires don't have a higher nominal rate, right?
by Philip-J-Fry | 2025-12-30 01:12:14+00:00
This is what I tend to do. I still feel like my expertise in architecting the software and abstractions is like 10x better than I've seen an LLM do. I'll ask it to do X, and then ask it to do Y, and then ask it to do Z, and it'll give you the most junior looking code ever. No real thought on abstractions, maybe you'll just get the logic split into different functions if you're lucky. But no big picture thinking, even if I prompt it well it'll then create bad abstractions that expose too much information.

So eventually it gets to the point where I'm basically explaining to it what interfaces to abstract, what should be an implementation detail and what can be exposed to the wider system, what the method signatures should look like, etc.

So I had a better experience when I just wrote the code myself at a very high level. I know what the big picture look of the software will be. What types I need, what interfaces I need, what different implementations of something I need. So I'll create them as stubs. The types will have no fields, the functions will have no body, and they'll just have simple comments explaining what they should do. Then I ask the LLM to write the implementation of the types and functions.

And to be fair, this is the approach I have taken for a very long time now. But when a new more powerful model is released, I will try and get it to solve these types of day to day problems from just prompts alone and it still isn't there yet.

It's one of the biggest issues with LLM first software development from what I've seen. LLMs will happily just build upon bad foundations and getting them to "think" about refactoring the code to add a new feature takes a lot of prompting effort that most people just don't have. So they will stack change upon change upon change and sure, it works. But the code becomes absolutely unmaintainable. LLM purists will argue that the code is fine because it's only going to be read by an LLM but I'm not convinced. Bad code definitely confuses the LLMs more.
by ycombinatrix | 2025-12-30 01:12:28+00:00
I prefer to do a 4 shares / 2 needed for recovery.

I keep 2 on different storage media, 1 with a trusted beneficiary, 1 with a different trusted beneficiary.

This does mean that the beneficiaries can collude to rob me tho. But it is simpler than running & trusting some kind of live service imo.
by ksherlock | 2025-12-30 01:13:16+00:00
The symbian source code is available. Looks like it uses a class-specific operator new() overload.

https://github.com/SymbianSource/oss.FCL.sf.os.kernelhwsrv/b...

2. Initialisation of the CBase derived object to binary zeroes through a specific CBase::operator new() - this means that members, whose initial value should be zero, do not have to be initialised in the constructor. This allows safe destruction of a partially-constructed object.
by th0ma5 | 2025-12-30 01:13:18+00:00
Despite open plugins, and mostly open end result file formats, the entirety of the media software world is built around proprietary software primarily for several reasons: Ephemeral fads have you making money in one big upfront push, integration of some new technique doesn't lend itself to open standards, or the fact that the actual bulk of paying customers are presumably working musicians with budgets, and that market is ultimately small. The side effect of this, much like radios, rc planes and drones, and many other hobbies, is that a collection of smaller product producing organizations have an even smaller, more even playing field full of smaller professionals and some amateurs. Some of the modular hardware producers have the right idea and provide free versions of their hardware as plugins as a marketing gimmick for their actual hardware. However, outside of the Linux world, the mystique of a proprietary salve that will supplant your creative block pushes people towards short sighted sales pushes instead of trying to lock in a give and take interaction with the broader community.

But I would love every thing that you list. I think things like PipeWire for better or worse are pushing things towards sanity, or least, better ideas for managing the mess in the open source world, which is decades in the making.
by 6thbit | 2025-12-30 01:13:54+00:00
Sounds to me like Karapathy is in the "valley of despair" of the Dunning-Kruger effect of AI tools.

He knows the tools, he's efficient with them and yet he just now understands how much he's unable to harness at this point that makes him feel left behind.

Looking forward to see what comes out of him climbing that slope.
by meander_water | 2025-12-30 01:13:59+00:00
I'd like someone to do a comparison of tech company valuations pre GenAI vs post for the same vertical.

I understand there's always some optimism for new tech, but the valuations we're seeing seems absurd to me.

Like, do they expect to see x100 profit for the same vertical? Obviously some new markets have been created, but I don't see them solving any particularly novel business problems.
by jeroenhd | 2025-12-30 01:14:47+00:00
It took me seven tries across two years to get Cyberpunk 2077 playing on Linux using either raw install files with or without Lutris/Bottles, GOG Galaxy in a wine env, or whatever Heroic Launcher offers.

I'm glad it mostly works now, but i would've been better off buying it from Valve. The effort Valve put into making games Just Work is unparalleled. The minor UI issues (like context menus getting rendered in place as windows which breaks niche window managers) are nothing compared to the hours required to brute force the right Wine/Proton setup for every game to make it work.

Most of the games that now work in unofficial GOG launchers only work because Valve paid someone to make games run well on Wine, either by directly using Proton or by using one of the many libraries Valve has directly paid for work for.
by Sakura-sx | 2025-12-30 01:15:24+00:00
I think for stealth TCP proxies are more common since you can use your own TLS fingerprints and all of that, with something like an HTTP proxy you'd need to set up your requests to match with the TLS fingerprint that the proxy is using, although I guess the proxy could make the TLS look the same? There are other ways of detecting HTTP proxies like for example comparing with the RTT of websockets or something like that, the idea is that there will always be at least one thing with RTT from the proxy and at least the RTT for one thing from the client that must go trough the proxy, you measure the difference between the two and there you have it.
by wakawaka28 | 2025-12-30 01:15:48+00:00
We generally do play by the same rules in life. No system of rules is going to be perfect, but we have basically the most fair system in the world.

>Unfortunately that very belief is perpetuating the issue you’re complaining about, but your worldview may very well hinge on you not making the connection.

We just have different beliefs about what makes a thing fair. I think your worldview depends on tearing down the foundations of civilization, and I would like for you and everyone like you to recognize it sooner rather than later.
by olyjohn | 2025-12-30 01:16:06+00:00
Wow this looks pretty rad, I wish I knew about it before! Having real cars in the game really makes it more fun to me. I dunno why, but playing racing games with a bunch of fake cars isn't as exciting (Super Mario Kart being an exception). It's especially fun when you see one of your cars, or a friend's car in the game.
by clejack | 2025-12-30 01:17:13+00:00
For the folks who have more positive outlooks how often do you change your code after it's been generated?

I haven't used agents much for coding, but I noticed that when I do have something created with the slightest complexity, it's never perfect and I have to go back and change it. This is mostly fine, but when large chunks of code are created, I don't have much context for editing things manually.

It's like waking up in a new house that you've never seen before. Sure I recognize the type of rooms, the furniture, the outlets, appliances, plumbing, and so on when I see them; but my sense of orientation is strained.

This is my main issue at the moment.