MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by homebrewer | 2025-12-18 23:58:12+00:00
And this explanation is very likely to be entirely hallucinated, or worse, subtly wrong in ways that's not obvious if you're not already well versed in the subject. So if you care about the truth even a little bit, you then have to go and recheck everything it has "said".

Why waste time and energy on the lying machine in the first place? Just yesterday I asked "PhD-level intelligence" for a well known quote from a famous person because I wasn't able to find it quickly in wikiquotes.

It fabricated three different quotes in a row, none of them right. One of them was supposedly from a book that doesn't really exist.

So I resorted to a google search and found what I needed in less time it took to fight that thing.
by tshaddox | 2025-12-18 23:58:20+00:00
Given that the TV is trying to match one digital frame against another digital frame, you could probably get decent results even with something super naive like downsampling to a very low resolution, quantizing the color palette, then looking for a pixel for pixel match.

All this could be done long before any sort of TV-specific image processing, so the only source of "noise" I can think of would be from the various encodings offered by the streaming service (e.g. different resolutions and bitrates). With the right choice of downsample resolution and color quantization I have to imagine you could get acceptable results.
by wkat4242 | 2025-12-18 23:58:31+00:00
> New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers

It's because he has obviously been thinking about it. That $150M number didn't just come out of nowhere. Someone at Mozilla modelled this. The resulting analysis made it into the CEO's mind so far he even mentioned it without being asked.

This is something that's unthinkable to most of the Mozilla users. That's why it's so shocking.

It's like your son making dinner conversation like "hey I was thinking, if I would sell drugs at school I'd make at least 500$ a week! But don't worry I'm not going to do that!".
by theshrike79 | 2025-12-18 23:59:46+00:00
If we extrapolate the Dr example:

There is the one doctor who learned one way to do the operation at school, with specific instruments, sutures etc. and uses that for 1000 surgeries.

And then there's the curious one who actively goes to conferences, reads publications and learns new better ways to do the same operation with invisible sutures that don't leave a scar or tools that are allow for more efficient operations, cutting down the time required for the patient to be under anaesthesia.

Which one would you hire for your hospital for the next 25 years?
by araes | 2025-12-18 23:59:57+00:00
There's a bunch of LLMs. Not actually that difficult to find.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

There's even some pretty obviously shady ones doing stuff like purposefully evading LLM detection systems.

It also does not take that much of a search online to find people trying to buy upvotes, comments, accounts. A lot get banned, yet people are still obviously trying.

Generally agree with you. Lot of sites over the years that have eventually been turned into wastelands. Predictabot LLM SEO spew that eventually rendered interacting there meaningless. The auto-comment, auto-review stuff has been around longer than the LLM idea, it just wasn't quite so accessible. Now its like every teenager has been handed bioweapons.

Unfortunately, (opinion) most of the mainline World Wide Web has been reduced to content that's difficult to parse from Stock Market summary bots, and most of the old vibrant forums have slowly been obliterated, so there's not that many places to go to.

Huge portion of the World Wide Web that just goes from site to site ruining the experience until there's nothing left, and no reason to participate, or even glance. Their calculations wasted turning each "platform" into a pile of vomit no-one wants to interact with.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-12-19 00:00:04+00:00
And this explanation is very likely to be entirely hallucinated, or worse, subtly wrong in ways that's not obvious if you're not already well versed in the subject. So if you care about the truth even a little bit, you then have to go and recheck everything it has "said".

It cited its sources, which is certainly more than you've done.

Just yesterday I asked "PhD-level intelligence" for a well known quote from a famous person because I wasn't able to find it quickly in wikiquotes.

In my experience this means that you typed a poorly-formed question into the free instant version of ChatGPT, got an answer worthy of the effort you put into it, and drew a sweeping conclusion that you will now stand by for the next 2-3 years until cognitive dissonance finally catches up with you. But now I'm the one who's making stuff up, I guess.
by sfRattan | 2025-12-19 00:00:08+00:00
Pixels and SafetyNet are different than a console appliance (e.g. Xbox, Playstation) in that Google allows both unlocking and relocking the bootloader, without affecting the integrity of a Pixel's onboard cryptographic hardware and secure enclave. This means you can, for example:

1. Unlock the bootloader and install an alternative OS (e.g. Graphene).

2. Relock the bootloader and still benefit from the Pixel's hardware security.

The above is not possible on modern video game consoles, or other phones, for the most part. Hardware cryptography has historically been used to lock customers out of their own machines for the purposes of profit, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

In the threat environment as it exists today --- a world in which almost everyone has an always on, always networked computer which must continually reveal its location in order to interface with the global network --- something like the Pixel's design ought to be the minimum standard for a computer in your pocket. Sadly, the only other device on the market with similar hardware security features is the iPhone, and it's as locked down as a games console. Samsung's Knox is another secure hardware platform/architecture, but they burn out a fuse on their phones to disable it when you unlock the bootloader.
by capnrefsmmat | 2025-12-19 00:00:11+00:00
Outside of disciplines that use LaTeX, the ability of authors to do typesetting is pretty limited. And there are other typesetting requirements that no consumer tool makes particularly easy; for instance, due to funding requirements, many journals deposit biomedical papers with PubMed Central, which wants them in JATS XML. So publishers have to prepare a structured XML version of papers.

Accessibility in PDFs is also very difficult. I'm not sure any publishers are yet meeting PDF/UA-2 requirements for tagged PDFs, which include things like embedding MathML representations of all mathematics so screenreaders can parse the math. LaTeX only supports this experimentally, and few other tools support it at all.
by andai | 2025-12-19 00:00:16+00:00
There's a language learning method where you just listen to audio, until you develop a basic familiarity with the language. (Then learn reading and writing later.)

You listen to audio you don't understand yet, and over time your brain begins to pick up the patterns. It takes a lot of time but you can do it in the background, because that processing happens subconsciously. So you can get that time "for free".

I learned it from this guy https://alljapanesealltheti.me/index.html

But he got it from linguist Stephen Krashen and his Input Hypothesis of language acquisition. (i.e. that the way babies and kids learn languages, thru osmosis, works for adults too.)

I think the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle, starting with something like Pimsleur which is the same idea (audio and repetition) but more structured and focused, to give you that "seed" of vocabulary and grammar, before you flesh it out with the "long tail" of the language.
by hadlock | 2025-12-19 00:00:52+00:00
I noticed I am not hitting limits either. My guess is OpenAI sees CC as a real competitor/serious threat. Had OAI not given me virtually unlimited use I probably would have jumped ship to CC by now. Burning tons of cash at this stage is likely Very Worth It to maintain "market leader" status if only in the eyes of the media/investors. It's going to be real hard to claw back current usage limits though.
by beders | 2025-12-19 00:01:34+00:00
Can someone who's adapted HTMX for a larger app report about front-end-server costs?

HTMX serves fully baked HTML that needs to be created on the back-end (or front-end-facing servers)

That is more processing than sending the raw data to the front-end and baking the HTML there.

It is also more bandwidth (unless the JSON is more verbose than the HTML generated).

Lastly, I can generate different HTML fragments on the front-end from the same client-side state with the data only being transported once. How is that working out?
by theshrike79 | 2025-12-19 00:01:38+00:00
I've completed actual features by saying "look up issue ABBA-1234 and create a plan to implement it" to Claude.

Then I wait, look through the plan and tell it to implement and go do something else.

After a while I check the diffs and go "huh, yea, that's how I would've done it too", commit and push.
by 9rx | 2025-12-19 00:02:05+00:00
> You need a very different mindset to write in JS (or TS), in Rust, in Rocq, in Esterel or on a Quantum Computer.

"Senior", "principle", etc. are not about your ability to write. They speak to one's capacity to make decisions. A "junior" has absolutely no clue when to use JS, Rust, or Rocq, or if code should be written at all. But someone who has written (well-written) tests in JS, and maybe written some types in Typescript, now has some concept of verification and can start to recognize some of the tradeoffs in the different approaches. With that past experience in hand, they can begin to consider if the new project in front of them needs Rocq, Dafny, or if Javascript will do. Couple that with other types of experiences to draw from and you can move beyond being considered a "junior".

> You might be able to have "seen it all" in a tiny corner of tech

Of course there being a corner of some sort is a given. We already talked about management being a different corner, for example. Having absolutely no experience designing a PCB is not going to keep you a "junior" at a place developing CRUD web apps. Obviously nobody is talking about "seeing it all" as being about everything in the entire universe. There aren't that many different patterns, really, though. As the terms are used, you absolutely can "see it all", and when you don't have to wait around for the season to return next year, you can "see it all" quite quickly.
by kevinherron | 2025-12-19 00:02:22+00:00
We write mostly Java, some Kotlin, targeting the JVM.

Most commonly our software runs on premises on server-class hardware (or what passes for server-class depending on the industry...), sometimes hosted in the cloud, sometimes on "edge" hardware (think Raspberry Pi class power/spec wise).

One component of the software actually is a web frontend (and a Jetty backend) to go with it, but it's not your typical "web-app" and it's not SaaS. But there's much more to it than that.
by tptacek | 2025-12-19 00:02:28+00:00
What 'arcwhite said (sorry, I got dragged into a call).

1. The exploits (not vulnerabilities; that's mostly not a thing) that command grey/black market value all have half-lives.

2. Those exploits all fit into existing business processes; if you're imagining a new business, one that isn't actively running right now as we speak (such as you'd have to do to fit any XSS in a specific service), you're not selling an exploit; you're planning a heist.

3. The high-dollar grey market services traffic exclusively in RCE (specifically: reliable RCE exploits, overwhelmingly in mainstream clientside platforms, with sharp dropoffs in valuation as you go from e.g. Chrome to the next most popular browser).

4. Most of the money made in high-ticket exploit sales apparently (according to people who actually do this work) comes on the backend, from tranched maintenance fees.
by doener | 2025-12-19 00:02:30+00:00
I asked Google Gemini Pro if the article reflects current research. I found the answer interesting enough to post it here:

The linked article by Ralph S. Weir critically examines well-known color reconstructions of ancient sculptures (specifically Vinzenz Brinkmann’s "Gods in Color" exhibition). To answer your question: The text reflects current research only in part. It is primarily a polemical essay or a debate contribution rather than a neutral scientific summary. Here is a detailed breakdown of how the article compares to the current state of archaeological research: 1. Points of Agreement with Research * The Fact of Polychromy: The text correctly states that ancient statues were almost exclusively painted. This has been consensus since the 19th century. * Methodological Limitations: The author rightly points out that reconstructions like Brinkmann’s are based on detectable pigment residues. Because organic binders and fine glazes have largely vanished over millennia, these reconstructions often appear flat and garish. Today’s researchers openly admit these models are "working hypotheses" meant to show distribution of color, not necessarily final aesthetic masterpieces. 2. Where the Text Diverges or Simplifies * Aesthetic Criticism vs. Function: The author relies heavily on modern taste ("it looks awful"). Archaeology, however, emphasizes that ancient coloring was often signaling—designed for visibility from a distance, under bright Mediterranean sun, or atop high pedestals. What looks "tacky" in a neon-lit museum was often a functional necessity in antiquity. * The "Trolling" Hypothesis: The claim that archaeologists intentionally make statues "ugly" to generate headlines is a subjective provocation. In reality, current research (such as the Tracking Colour project at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek) is working hard to understand ancient layering and encaustic techniques to move away from the "plastic look." * Outdated Focus: The article focuses heavily on Brinkmann’s early reconstructions from the early 2000s. The field has moved on since then. Newer reconstructions use authentic binders and multi-layered techniques to achieve much more nuanced and naturalistic results (e.g., the recent reconstructions of Caligula). 3. Classification of the Article The article is a classic piece of reception criticism. The author uses his background as a philosopher to question how science is presented to the public. Summary: * If you are asking if statues were painted: Yes, the text is accurate. * If you are asking if the "garish" look is the final word in science: No. Modern research is moving away from flat primary colors toward complex, naturalistic painting techniques—exactly what the author demands in his essay. The text is more of a critique of museum communication than an up-to-date report on archaeometric analysis. Would you like me to find examples of more recent, "naturalistic" reconstructions that address the author's concerns?
by Mawr | 2025-12-19 00:02:53+00:00
Very weird question. What do you think most jobs entail? Driving, mining, warehousing, even office jobs all come with risks. Perhaps the most relevant example though is firefighting. Just like in policing, there is obvious risk you take on in exchange for early retirement etc.

The last mindset I want policemen to have is to go into every situation assuming the worst because of a small chance their safety may be at risk. Which is exactly what it seems happened.

You can't just shoot someone who's holding a bag with something in it just because some random person has judged it could be a firearm.

“The officers had told the inquest that Mr. Stanley had turned around ‘in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion’ and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture, which prompted Chief Insp. Sharman to open fire, hitting him in the head.” [1]

Yeah right, that definitely happened. An innocent man is dead because some damn pig wanted to kill someone. That is all this is.

"Times Online reports a “furious reaction from fellow police marksmen, who are threatening to lay down their weapons in a rebellion which could hamper security plans for the G8 summit of international leaders. Some members of the Yard’s elite SO19 firearms unit are already refusing to carry guns, saying that these arrests have shattered morale.”" [1]

barf

[1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/stan-j07.html
by MoonWalk | 2025-12-19 00:03:04+00:00
Word's "ribbon" is a shitshow, and has been since day one.

It's depressing to read about Word's entrenchment. This entire once-great application is now an execrable mess, with menus scattered under cryptic buttons (and abridged into dumbed-down menus that require you to expose yet another, collapsed one to access essential, frequently-used functions), a file... thing (not even a dialog, let alone a proper File dialog) that shows you a canned list of locations in a UI that appears to consist only of text...

The style-handling is even messed up, once one of Word's great strengths.
by listenallyall | 2025-12-19 00:03:08+00:00
To "get" HTMX, you have to think server-first. State is persisted on the server and all state-change logic is performed on the server (often triggered by http requests from a "dumb" client).

If you hang on to "possible states of the UI" that are client-side only then yes you'll have some difficulty implementing server-generated HTMX responses but more importantly, when your client has state that sometimes isn't in sync with, or shared with, or validated by your server, you're setting yourself up for errors and bugs that will exist regardless of framework.

In short, HTMX forces you to apply "single source of truth" concepts to your application.
by qwerpy | 2025-12-19 00:03:13+00:00
I do the same thing. My PC is hooked up via HDMI to a receiver which goes to the TV via HDMI. I use VNC on my phone to remote control it. It works well. The phone’s touch screen functions as a mouse and you can pull up the phone’s on screen keyboard to type. My wife is extremely non technical and does fine with it. Usually we just use the browser to watch ad-blocked YouTube or unofficial sports streams.
by renewiltord | 2025-12-19 00:03:33+00:00
An alternative manufacturer, but not a supplier, no.

The US exerts sufficient control over ASML that this will not happen without NATO ending. And the end of NATO (which would be a geopolitical shift more profound than the Fall of the Berlin Wall) and a replacement with some Chinese EUV light source risks the scuttling of all ASML facilities and devices. This is vapor above a coffee cup.
by viktour19 | 2025-12-19 00:03:41+00:00
US healthcare is expensive because prices aren’t real and complexity is profitable. Hospitals and pharma have monopoly power, insurers add massive administrative drag, and nobody sets hard price limits. ~25–30% is spent on billing and paperwork alone. Hospitals consolidate into regional monopolies. Drug companies charge whatever they want. Insurance act as a middleman for routine care instead of risk protection. Outcomes don’t justify the cost. The system is optimized to extract revenue, not deliver care efficiently.

Fixing it doesn’t require utopia: cap prices for common services and drugs, enforce antitrust to break hospital monopolies, standardize billing nationally, and let Medicare (and others) negotiate drug prices. Shift insurance back to catastrophic coverage while covering primary care publicly, and cut hospital admin while paying clinicians more. These are boring, proven levers that haven’t happened because every inefficiency has a powerful lobby defending it.
by irishcoffee | 2025-12-19 00:04:20+00:00
> I would bet that these LLMs are far more oversubscribed than 500 subs per server.

Seems like on hn a lot of people pay for the subscriptions.

I don't personally know a single person who pays for any type of llm subscription. I am a staff sw engineer, been doing this a long time.

I acknowledge this is an anecdote. I just happen to know a lot of people at a lot of different companies from my network. Nobody pays for any of this. My company has banned llms, even if I wanted to use one, I can't.

I actually even gave one a shot tonight. I asked for a list of repos I needed to clone to build a yocto image for an nxp board. This was the result:

mkdir -p sources && cd sources

git clone -b $BRANCH git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky

git clone -b $BRANCH git://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-freescale

git clone -b $BRANCH github.com

git clone -b $BRANCH github.com

git clone -b $BRANCH git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded

git clone -b $BRANCH github.com

I then pointed out that three of those lines were useless and asked it to fix those lines. The result I got was even more hilarious, and just as useless.

Disclaimer: this was the "dive deeper" button on a google search. No idea what fucking model it tried to use.
by mywittyname | 2025-12-19 00:05:06+00:00
> get along with China better.

This will probably never happen. All countries are rivals, and the semblance of cooperation is really just the manifestation of a power imbalance.

China grew into their big boy pants and can hold their own on the international stage. They have no need to be cooperative because they are in the International Superpower Club. Their strategic ambitions do not align with those of their rivals, and they are strong enough to not need to play nice anymore.

Now that the US has also dropped their visage of being the benevolent world leader, there's even less reason for China to pretend to be cooperative. At this point, it's a matter of who is more apt to invade your country, US or China? And you buy weapons from the other one.

Maybe we see more "cooperation" between China and the EU or South America. But that will be entirely because those regions are under duress.
by libraryofbabel | 2025-12-19 00:05:07+00:00
I used to teach 19th-century history, and the responses definitely sound like a Victorian-era writer. And they of course sound like writing (books and periodicals etc) rather than "chat": as other responders allude to, the fine-tuning or RL process for making them good at conversation was presumably quite different from what is used for most chatbots, and they're leaning very heavily into the pre-training texts. We don't have any living Victorians to RLHF on: we just have what they wrote.

To go a little deeper on the idea of 19th-century "chat": I did a PhD on this period and yet I would be hard-pushed to tell you what actual 19th-century conversations were like. There are plenty of literary depictions of conversation from the 19th century of presumably varying levels of accuracy, but we don't really have great direct historical sources of everyday human conversations until sound recording technology got good in the 20th century. Even good 19th-century transcripts of actual human speech tend to be from formal things like court testimony or parliamentary speeches, not everyday interactions. The vast majority of human communication in the premodern past was the spoken word, and it's almost all invisible in the historical sources.

Anyway, this is a really interesting project, and I'm looking forward to trying the models out myself!
by hu3 | 2025-12-19 00:05:21+00:00
> only a small fraction will be needed in VRAM at any given time

I don't think that's true. At least not without heavy performance loss in which case "just be memory mapped" is doing a lot of work here.

By that logic GPUs could run models much larger than their VRAM would otherwise allow, which doesn't seem to be the case unless heavy quantization is involved.
by cryptonector | 2025-12-19 00:05:37+00:00
The machines live indoors, far from being able to see GPS signals. Sure, you could require that there be an antenna run to the roof, but you can spoof that stuff.

The thing that helps prevent smuggling of ASML machines is that a) there are few of them (i.e., people would notice), b) it requires tremendous effort to move them at all, let alone without anyone noticing.