MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by didibus | 2025-12-22 21:28:26+00:00
I think you're asking a good question and it's not unreasonable at all.

The way I see it, the private sector is in a place to even potentially be able to fund research because of prior publicly funded research.

The capital expenditure needed to fund research in a way that leads to breakthroughs is massive. Private sector doesn't always have the cash needed. Definitely this was true for a long time, and is true for many countries still.

Then generally the private sector is pretty risk adverse, the majority of private sector funds are retirement and savings. People don't want to risk that, so it tends to invest in short term or more known ventures, which is rarely research.

Some private funding is research moonshots, but the pool of private money interested in that is a lot smaller.

That means, at least historically, private funding simply isn't incentivized to properly fund research, and may not always have the means to do so.

Now should the public still fund it? What kind of ROI does society gets?

Again, at least historically, the ROI has been massive. Let's just look at a short list:

- Internet
- GPS
- Semiconductor
- MRI/CT scans
- Vaccines
- Jet engine, aviation
- Lithium Ion batteries
- Touchscreens
- AI
- Fracking
- Mass agriculture
- Space exploration

You could also question investment in art and humanities. Private sector simply isn't interested. Do we want to learn about our history, preserve our arts, these don't have financial ROI, but depending on your opinion on the matter they could be societal ROI because you might want to live in a society with a rich culture and record of its heritage and a good understanding of its evolutionary roots and what not.

To be honest, it's hard to find a single private sector breakthrough that wasn't off the back of the public sector either through direct funding, prior discovery or indirect subsidy.

I feel the issue is that after the public funding achieves breakthrough, the private sector quickly capitalizes on the profits. At the same time, the private sector is really good at commercializing and finding efficiency and market fit. The ROI happens indirectly, society modernizes through access to new things, the private sector creates jobs, taxes are paid on private transactions and income generated from the discovery, etc.

At the end of the day, it's all opportunity cost. What else do we do with the money. You said paying down the dept, what's the societal ROI of that? Why not lay down the dept with some of the other tax money? Etc. It's a complex question.
by FrankWilhoit | 2025-12-22 21:28:28+00:00
"Intel x86" means the ISA. They are not talking about the ISA.

They are talking about what might be called the "common-practice" PC platform. They constantly say "overly complex", but without specifying any metric, even a comparative one. What they really mean is "unfit for purpose". Suppose we agree that it is unfit for purpose: the reasons are down to other factors as well as complexity, or even the management of complexity.

Neglecting the fact that any platform that has evolved incrementally through so many generations would necessarily look very, very much like what we find, they make the point that the excessive points of failure and attack are down to the excessive number of handoffs between responsibilities. The list of those responsibilities has grown over time; it already includes irreconcilable responsibilities; it will continue to grow. Which of them would you exclude? Which are excessive? Unnecessary? Illegitimate? Who would say? These are not technical questions and they do not have technical answers.

The point is that the addition of each successive responsibility invalidated the previous architecture. Who was it said that you cannot retrofit security? If security is what you want, then define it -- now, once, for all time -- and get it right, up front. Else your efforts will be wasted. Do you say that no definition can remain valid forever? Very well, when (not if) the definition of security changes, you must (in general) start fresh. An incremental approach would be as if you were trying to retrofit some more security, and that wouldn't work even if "security" were a one-dimensional spectrum, which it isn't.

What they seem to miss is that the number of attack vectors does not scale with the number of implementation components or the number of contributors to the supply chain, or even to the platform definition. It scales with the number of requirements. If you want fewer attack vectors, you must have fewer requirements. And then we see that this applies to all aspects of computing systems, not just security.
by pheggs | 2025-12-22 21:28:48+00:00
there are at least two reasons trump is pushing for oil:

1) the US has lots of oil reserves, which would lose lots of value if everybody was using renewables
2) oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar, allowing the US to have lots of debt relatively cheaply

That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling it in different currencies.

Now whether that whole genius strategy to gain wealth through geopolitics is worth an extinction event is a different story.
by xg15 | 2025-12-22 21:28:59+00:00
> generateKey is a JS API that allows you to create new key pairs, where the private key cannot be extracted similar to passkeys.

Is that "cannot be extracted" from JS only, or is this an actual device-locked, TPM/SEP-bound key like passkeys?

If it is, it seems kind of like the buried lede to me that there is a browser API that lets any website built its own completely unstandardized quasi-passkey system and lock the key to the current device.
by dragonwriter | 2025-12-22 21:29:02+00:00
> Always funny to see how out of touch journalists describing a new 500k car as if it was priced like a family SUV (six figures, the running costs for most luxury SUVs)

Always funny to see HN commenters treat "most luxury SUVs" as an equivalent class to "family SUVs" while making fun of “out of touch journalists” supposedly equating dissimilar vehicle classes.
by nosianu | 2025-12-22 21:29:15+00:00
We don't need automation for that, we "achieve" that through our processes already. Specifically, software creation processes of large teams with many changing developers over long periods. Example (but they are not the only one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941 -- changing or adding anything becomes increasingly burdensome.

I would like to post that every time somebody warns of the dangers of AI for maintainability. We are long past that point, long before AI. Businesses made the conscious decision that it is okay for quality to deteriorate, they'll squeeze profits from it for as long as possible and then they assume something new has already come along anyway. The few business still relying in that technical-debt-heavy product are still offered service, for large fees.

AI is just more of the same. When it becomes too hard to maintain they'll just create a new software product. Pretty much like other things in the material world work too, e.g. housing, or gadgets, or fashion. AI actually supports this even more, if new software can be created faster than old code can be maintained that's quite alright for the money-making oriented people. It is harder to sell maintenance than something new at least once every decade anyway.
by metalman | 2025-12-22 21:29:26+00:00
drones are invisible to radar.......or clearly russia(or ukrain) would not be dealing with strikes far from the front lines
also, hypersonic missles are now a thing, and the hit faster than any radar or interceptor can register
but yes if you were worried about Portugal trying a sneak attack, then clearly they would use the wind turbine shielding attack vector from weaponised shipping cans placed on container ships
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2025-12-22 21:29:44+00:00
It’s not about being scared off, I’m simply challenging the notion that Supabase is secure by default. It depends on your definition of secure, since everyone has a different threat model, but the above thread demonstrates that probably a good chunk of people would say No, it’s not actually secure by default. Being scared off would be probably the best possible outcome over the current situation which is “we don’t really have a good story to tell about whether this is secure or not”.

The fact that it takes a whole thread of conversation to even unwrap whether the default approach they took is good enough is a strong signal to me that it isn’t, because that level of complexity in the implementation often implies a model with a large enough attack surface with weaknesses that can be exploited without too much effort
by alwa | 2025-12-22 21:30:01+00:00
I agree, that’s what makes it so insidious: it’s murky how you get flagged as risky, and you normally don’t even see the evidence (if any!), much less have a means to appeal. Which would be one thing if financial institutions’ risk decisions were independent, but they’re not—see again the inimitable @patio on this [0].

That serves the integrity of the risk-identification system by making it harder to game or evade, but we’re rightly allergic to other forms of justice meted out “because trust me, he’s probably no good…”

[0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
by derriz | 2025-12-22 21:30:10+00:00
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with Chomsky on specific points.

It’s about the validity and strength of his arguments. I could continue to agree with Chomsky on some point but now dismissing his argument.

Or if I was undecided about how to judge something in terms of morality, then yes, if Chomsky was proven to have sexually abused trafficked children, I might skip consulting Chomsky on the matter.

To be honest, I don’t know where you’re trying to go with this line. It feels like you think you have some “gotcha” you feel ready to spring and will keep asking these opaque questions until you think you see an opportunity.

Why not just lay out your argument transparently and I can engage?

Or state exactly what it is about my claim that appeals to morality made by immoral people are less convincing than those made by moral people that you disagree with? Forgot about Chomsky - it has nothing specifically to do with him.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-22 21:30:17+00:00
> I assume it's cheaper to own the whole vertical slice at this scale, so you can control everything.

In general it's the opposite: Internal politics destroys value and a single point of failure is a business risk even if you own it because failure is rarely intentional.

As an example of the first, Kodak invented digital cameras but then failed to capitalize on them because it would have cannibalized their film business, and now their film business is dead anyway but so is the entire company. As an example of the second, Intel has vertically integrated fabs but now that their fabs are behind it's sinking the rest of the company. You could tell a similar story about AMD a decade and a half ago and spinning off their fabs is a big part of what saved them. IBM was also a big vertically integrated monster back in the day and they got out-competed by, well, everybody, and now they're a hollowed out consultancy.

The way out of this for a large conglomerate is to not take internal dependencies. So for example, Samsung makes both DRAM and devices, and they typically use their own DRAM in their own devices. But it's industry standard DRAM that they sell to anyone who is willing to pay them for it, and if Samsung's DRAM fabs all got destroyed by a natural disaster or their technology fell behind for some reason, their device units could immediately switch to a competitor until their DRAM unit got their house back in order. Likewise, if their consumer devices became uncompetitive their DRAM unit could still sell to the rest of the market because they're not fully beholden to a single internal customer. And having that serves as a canary; Intel didn't have external fab customers so it didn't notice them switching to TSMC, which would otherwise have been a red flag.

The "problem" is that you need to have some foresight. Everything's great until it isn't. If a company waits until one of the internal units has a problem before realizing that it's a single point of failure for other business units, it's too late to redesign the ship after you've already hit the iceberg.
by vablings | 2025-12-22 21:30:18+00:00
> Would to prefer underregulating it?

No

> How would you find the exact amount of correct regulation?

Difficult problem. The issue right now is that nobody wants to be seen to remove a regulation from a nuclear.
One of the biggest things is that ALARA/LNT needs to go away. It is not useful, and it is not based on good modern science

Creating new assessments based on modern research would be good and there is already a ton of evidence around that could be foundational for making real science based changes
by Jtsummers | 2025-12-22 21:30:36+00:00
> That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling them not in USD.

What's interesting is that the strategy you suggest (tell Europe to stop using renewables, attack nations that compete with US oil sales) only motivates other nations to move away from oil. It's a terrible strategy if the intent is to sell more US oil. Renewables are far more sustainable in many regards, and bolster national energy security while remaining on fossil fuels leaves them weak wrt energy security.
by sharpshadow | 2025-12-22 21:30:45+00:00
It was Prof. Birkmayer who bought the stable form of NADH to the market, you can find his products here[0]. As mentioned it’s not a peptide and works quite well especially for older people who can benefit from the increased energy delivery to the cells.
The unstable form in a liquid can be injected, but I would be very careful about where it was produced, how it was transported and how it was stored.

The whole peptide hype is very interesting and I can’t wait until well studied cheap over the counter options hit the market.

0. https://birkmayer-nadh.com/
by _puk | 2025-12-22 21:30:47+00:00
Both the free and paid tiers of lovable don't charge for security fixes, and before you can publish it requests you run security audits.

I've found doing this, and regularly asking "did you just make my system massively insecure" help keep it on its toes.

That said, I've seen a few "look what I just made.." that caused a double take.
by Kirby64 | 2025-12-22 21:31:08+00:00
Fake leather has a wide, wide range of quality. Polyurethane faux-leather used in many automobiles these days is considered to be superior to leather in terms of durability and longevity. Take a look at old examples of MB-Tex, which Mercedes has been making for ... 60-70 years by now.

Similarly, plenty of leather that will disintegrate and flake into trash or crack and peel, especially if not taken care of well.
by danem | 2025-12-22 21:31:21+00:00
Anytime this topic comes up, this opinion is invariably at the top of the comments. However I've never seen a non-trivial application made this way. Mind sharing one? More than the query generation, I think people reach for ORMs for static typing, mapping, migrations, transactions, etc.

I'm not doubting that it can be done, I'm just curious to see how it's done.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-22 21:31:37+00:00
well I feel like all models are converging and maybe claude is good but only time will tell as gemini flash and GLM put pressure on claude/anthropic models

People (here) are definitely comparing it to sonnet so if you take this stance of saving a few dollars, I am sure that you must be having the same opinion of using opus model and nobody should use sonnet too

Personally I am interested in open source models because they would be something which would have genuine value and competition after the bubble bursts
by kvthweatt | 2025-12-22 21:31:46+00:00
Fucking tired of this pedophile infested control ring wrapped around our necks.

It's time we just fix the files ourselves since we're not getting the truth.

DOJ deleted a doc with Trump's name in it, reuploaded with redaction OVER HIS NAME.

Fucking morons didn't vary the box dimensions and have been very sloppy the whole time so I think we can safely assume some boxes with specific dimensions are Trump. If we can cross-reference and verify with each other, we may be able to rebuild documents together.

Tired of this shit.
by numpad0 | 2025-12-22 21:31:57+00:00
There are no pixels in CRT. The guns go left to right, ¥r¥n, left to right, while True for line in range(line_number).

The RGB stripes or dots are just stripes or dots, they're not tied to pixels. There would be RGB guns that are physically offset to each others, coupled with a strategically designed mesh plates, in such ways that e- from each guns sort of moire into only hitting the right stripes or dots. Apparently fractions of inches of offsets were all it took.

The three guns, really more like fast acting lightbulbs, received brightness signals for each respective RGB channels. Incidentally that means they could go between brightness zero to max couple times over 60[Hz] * 640[px] * 480[px] or so.

Interlacing means the guns draw every other lines but not necessarily pixels, because CRTs has beam spot sizes at least.
by em-bee | 2025-12-22 21:31:57+00:00
you seem to be living in a very expensive area. (where, if i may ask?). those with lower income are not going to be living there, so your constraints are not going to apply to them.

and your math only works for middle to high income earners.

2k/month for a nanny to compensate for 5 hours lost per day means that you have to earn 20$ per hour extra. in a minimum wage job that only pays $15 per hour you would be financially better off to work less, so you don't need that nanny.

so you simply aren't going to work 15 hours per day. same for the food. 20K per year is more than $50 per day. again, you are going to work less in order to make the time to cook because the extra money earned does not make up for the higher expense of eating out.

are you suggesting that there are no jobs that demand less than 12 hours per day? so your choice is either work 12-15 hours or be unemployed? i do not believe that.
by QuantumNomad_ | 2025-12-22 21:31:58+00:00
And in particular, people might lurk for a long time without an account until one day a thread makes them want to comment so much that they go ahead and create an account to comment.

Although, the username they picked in this case does seem a bit specific to the topic of the single comment they wrote. So it remains to be seen if this particular case was a throwaway account only used once, or if they will keep it.
by ssl-3 | 2025-12-22 21:32:05+00:00
Yes.

Use NTP with ≥4 diverse time sources, just as RFC 5905 suggests doing. And use GPS.

(If you're reliant upon only one source of a thing, and that thing is important to you in some valuable way, then you're doing it wrong. In other words: Backups, backups, backups.)
by cyberax | 2025-12-22 21:32:11+00:00
> US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity)

That's when storage is not considered. Once storage is factored in, the LCOE becomes anywhere between $5 to $20. In the US, solar makes a lot of sense in the southern states, less sense in Midwest and WA.

That being said, the US still has plenty of capacity to accommodate more "sewer grade" (no battery backup) solar generation. It will provide easy CO2 savings and it can work well with flexible power consumers (AI training datacenters).
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-22 21:33:07+00:00
Although one would hope they can run it locally (which I hope so too but I doubt that with the increase of ram prices, I feel like its possible around 2027-2028). but Even if in the meanwhile we can't, I am sure that competition in general (on places like Openrouter and others) would give a meaningful way to cheapen the prices overall even further than the monopolistic ways of claude (let's say).

It does feel like these models are only behind 6 months tho as many like to say and for some things its 100% reasonable to use it and for some others not so much.
by ericmay | 2025-12-22 21:33:27+00:00
There is room between under-regulation and over-regulation.

Given that we are experiencing high costs and other barriers to construction, we can do at least two things: reduce red tape where it makes sense or where the risk is acceptable to help lower costs, or the US government can, through a variety of mechanisms ranging from basic research funding to direct subsidies, spend taxpayer money to try and alleviate costs.

Given that we supposedly (and I agree) need to build nuclear reactors to help power our country and given that we aren’t building them, we can optionally use both levers to encourage construction. There seems to be this mind virus that has infected many people on the internet that seem to think that regulations are a moral good, and so having more of them must be more good.

This is not accurate.

Regulations are simply a tool we can wield to achieve desired outcomes within various risk and need-based calculations. More regulations can be good, for example we should ban highway billboards- that would be a good regulation. Or we can eliminate regulations - allow businesses to build more housing using pre-approved designs that meet existing zoning code. Neither is good or bad, except in that it helps to achieve some aim that society has.

The regulation or lack there of, of nuclear energy in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with Boeing airlines screwing up some plane designs. Drawing a conclusion that nuclear energy must be regulated (it is) or over-regulated (it probably is or else we would build more), because of a belief that Boeing airliners weren’t regulated enough is, to put it lightly, nonsense, and you are mistakenly using the application of some regulation or lack of causing some bad things to happen, to imply that more regulation in another area would mean good things happen through this framework of regulation == good.

And further, if you’re going to suggest that Boeing is effectively unregulated, which is untrue in practice and in principal, then I’d argue that was for the best given that it is a hugely successful company that employs tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions have flown and continue to fly on their airlines every single day safely and without incident.
by dmurray | 2025-12-22 21:34:09+00:00
I never saw a need for this in HFT. In my experience, GPS was used instead, but there was never any critical need for microsecond accuracy in live systems. Sub-microsecond latency, yes, but when that mattered it was in order to do something as soon as possible rather than as close as possible to Wall Clock Time X.

Still useful for post-trade analysis; perhaps you can determine that a competitor now has a faster connection than you.

The regulatory requirement you linked (and other typical requirements from regulators) allows a tolerance of one second, so it doesn't call for this kind of technology.
by UncleMeat | 2025-12-22 21:34:11+00:00
What capital seems to be doing right now is funding products that will create an AI replacement of my grandmother so I can continue to talk to her after she dies. Not exactly a good look.

"There will be so much money to go around for philanthropy" is also rich given that the world's richest man is going online to actively tell people not to give to the poor.