MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by d-us-vb | 2026-01-01 07:17:31+00:00
Good sir, have you ever used an electric stove? Every gas stove I've ever used excels only at precise and immediate control of heat and totally sucks at actually delivering heat. making bagels on a gas stove is such a pain in the neck because even the "power" burner can barely keep a large dutch oven of soda water boiling. The small burner on the electric stove? I have to keep at half power otherwise the starchy water boils over.

I've never used an industrial gas stove, only residential. But comparing apples to apples, residential electric ranges obliterate gas when it comes to power delivery.

Cannot speak for induction as I've never used one, but I'd expect it to be the best of both worlds based on the physics.
by lopatin | 2026-01-01 07:17:53+00:00
> Hey, I'm not the OG commentator, why do I have to explain myself! :)

The issue is that you're not acknowledging or replying to people's explanations for _why_ they see this as exponential growth. It's almost as if you skimmed through the meat of the comment and then just re-phrased your original idea.

> When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to assume he will near the speed of light in 20 seconds?

This comparison doesn't make sense because we know the limits of cars but we don't yet know the limits of LLMs. It's an open question. Whether or not an F1 engine can make it the speed of light in 20 seconds is not an open question.
by esperent | 2026-01-01 07:23:11+00:00
I don't think this is true. I've been following a fairly standard progression on several of the standard exercises over the last year and half. I've seen steady progression on leg press, which is a strongly stabilized and isolated exercise. I saw the same rate of initial progression on squats but then it dropped off and I haven't really seen any progression for six months.

The issue is stability. I have to provide the stability for squats. The machine gives me stability for leg press. I won't get the stability I need for further progression, at least not at an optimal rate, just from squatting. I need to do complementary exercises.
by windexh8er | 2026-01-01 07:26:04+00:00
Do you also think LLMs "think"?

From what you've described an LLM has not invented anything. LLMs that can reason have a bit more slight of hand but they're not coming up with new ideas outside of the bounds of what a lot of words have encompassed in both fiction and non.

Good for you that you've got a fun token of code that's what you've always wanted, I guess. But this type of fantasy take on LLMs seems to be more and more prevalent as of late. A lot of people defending LLMs as if they're owed something because they've built something or maybe people are getting more and more attached to them from the conversational angle. I'm not sure, but I've run across more people in 2025 that are way too far in the deep end of personifying their relationships with LLMs.
by conductr | 2026-01-01 07:28:23+00:00
They usually succeed with me. Or if I really plan on purchasing I sign up to get the discount only to immediately opt out, so what’s the point? We’ve been furnishing a new house and so getting usually ~15% off a high ticket purchase I’m already decided on buying just for giving them my email which I also already will be giving them when I purchase is a good enough deal that I’ll do it temporarily. So much so, I can only think about how is this a good ROI for them.

That said, the sites that employ the “spin the wheel” approach to winning a discount are too much, I bounce.
by cybertax | 2026-01-01 07:28:54+00:00
We've been experimenting with quantum-inspired compression algorithms and have achieved what traditional scaling laws say is impossible: GPT-4 level performance from a 30GB model (paper releasing tomorrow).

Our "quantum-floor" encoding seems to bypass traditional parameter-efficiency tradeoffs. Early tests show 86%+ MMLU from a model that should only manage 40% at that size.

Question: Has anyone else seen compression breakthroughs that defy scaling laws? Or are we measuring something wrong?
by bgbntty2 | 2026-01-01 07:30:31+00:00
We shouldn't install apps that use the Google Play Integrity or are closed-source in the first place. That's what I do.

The issues with GrapheneOS for me are:

1. They don't support rooting the OS. This is such a basic requirement for me. Why would I use an OS that doesn't let me do anything and everything with it?

2. They only support Google Pixel phones that don't have kill switches for the microphone, camera, radio and so on, as far as I know. GrapheneOS may be very secure, but nothing is 100% secure. Except cutting power to the mic. I'd be fine with physically removing the accelerometer and other sensors that can act as mics, even the mic itself. But newer phones are a bitch to open and close as they use glue instead of screws.

So right now I'm waiting for a Linux phone that's priced normally. I tried the PinePhone a couple of years ago, but it was an awful experience. Hopefully something comes soon. If not - I'll use my dumb phone.
by AngryData | 2026-01-01 07:31:09+00:00
Yeah but what is meaningfully "nicer" becomes and exponentially more expensive and ends up being mostly wasted value. And by time someone has to start actually worrying about such questions they have enough free capital to spend that they can have a high quality version of almost anything anyone would want to possess or use other than pure displays of wealth.

Maybe if the basic needs on the average person were taken care of then random displays of extravagant wealth would be acceptable. But when something as simple as getting a rotten tooth extracted or a filling on a front tooth is too much "luxury" for many working class citizens, it is a complete misallocation of society's resources.
by hapticmonkey | 2026-01-01 07:33:55+00:00
It’s not the technology I’m dismissive about. It’s the economics.

25 years ago I was optimistic about the internet, web sites, video streaming, online social systems. All of that. Look at what we have now. It was a fun ride until it all ended up “enshitified”. And it will happen to LLMs, too. Fool me once.

Some developer tools might survive in a useful state on subscriptions. But soon enough the whole A.I. economy will centralise into 2 or 3 major players extracting more and more revenue over time until everyone is sick of them. In fact, this process seems to be happening at a pretty high speed.

Once the users are captured, they’ll orient the ad-spend market around themselves. And then they’ll start taking advantage of the advertisers.

I really hope it doesn’t turn out this way. But it’s hard to be optimistic.
by MangoToupe | 2026-01-01 07:35:07+00:00
If you need multiple allocators, and you aren't already using lisp, who cares? Just use lisp. Anyone who can use allocators against the C abi can clearly see the benefits of using a language that can cater to the developer. Zig can never do this, yea even with its shallow macros. Zig will always be a shitty B knockoff rather than something artisans actually want to use
by greatgib | 2026-01-01 07:36:48+00:00
For the moment ynsect was launched in France it was obvious that it was doomed to fail. Like often here, the only real goal was to suck public funding.

Normally, you would start a small business/factory and scale with your business. Especially growing insect doesn't require a "mega factory".

But here, from the onset, they started from scratch and announced a mega investment to build a giant factory. Obviously getting hundreds of millions or even a billion, most from public funding as we could guess.
by leonflexo | 2026-01-01 07:39:16+00:00
I thought hypertrophic focused routines were their own subset. Starting with a high rep, like 20, decreasing something like 2/week while increasing the weight. You technically can increase load, but in my experience it isn't strictly necessary. 10-12 weeks down to 1-2 reps then 3-4 off to reset. This isn't a strength routine, simply for size relative to lift.
by toomanyrichies | 2026-01-01 07:39:21+00:00
Fair enough on the personal decision part. I'm less interested in telling people what to do and more interested in whether the premise ('nicer things = happier') actually tracks with how human satisfaction works. The research suggests it often doesn't, which seems worth knowing regardless of what you choose to do with that information. [1]

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/690806/
by ksec | 2026-01-01 07:40:29+00:00
All these improvement in a single year, 2025. While this may seem obvious to those who follows along the AI / LLM news. It may be worth pointing out again ChatGPT was introduced to us in November 2022.

I still dont believe AGI, ASI or Whatever AI will take over human in short period of time say 10 - 20 years. But it is hard to argue against the value of current AI, which many of the vocal critics on HN seems to have the opinion of. People are willing to pay $200 per month, and it is getting $1B dollar runway already.

Being more of a Hardware person, the most interesting part to me is the funding of all the developments of latest hardware. I know this is another topic HN hate because of the DRAM and NAND pricing issue. But it is exciting to see this from a long term view where the pricing are short term pain. Right now the industry is asking, we have together over a trillion dollar to spend on Capex over the next few years and will even borrow more if it needs to be, when can you ship us 16A / 14A / 10A and 8A or 5A, LPDDR6, Higher Capacity DRAM at lower power usage, better packaging, higher speed PCIe or a jump to optical interconnect? Every single part of the hardware stack are being fused with money and demand. The last time we have this was Post-PC / Smartphone era which drove the hardware industry forward for 10 - 15 years. The current AI can at least push hardware for another 5 - 6 years while pulling forward tech that was initially 8 - 10 years away.

I so wished I brought some Nvidia stock. Again, I guess no one knew AI would be as big as it is today, and it is only just started.
by businessmate | 2026-01-01 07:42:05+00:00
On December 4, 2025, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee approved a recommendation encouraging the Commission to consider a disclosure framework addressing the impact of artificial intelligence on issuer operations, board oversight, and material effects on consumer-facing matters. While non-binding, the recommendation signals an emerging expectation that issuers be able to explain and support judgments regarding AI-related risks and impacts in periodic disclosures.

This paper examines the evidentiary implications of that recommendation. It argues that AI disclosure under U.S. securities law presents a structural challenge: issuers are asked to assess and disclose material effects arising from AI-mediated representations that are probabilistic, time-variant, and often generated by systems the issuer does not operate or control.
by uxcolumbo | 2026-01-01 07:42:15+00:00
That sounds unimaginably tough, and I admire the strength and mindset both of you share as a couple.

Wishing you and your wife (and your boys) a better 2026 and beyond.

And hopefully the NHS will continue to exist, I read about its struggle and the call for it to be privatized and end up like the system in here the US.

Huge respect to healthcare workers and wish they'd be compensated better.
by semilin | 2026-01-01 07:43:13+00:00
This seems like the right take. The claims of the imminence of AGI are exhausting and to me appear dissonant with reality. I've tried gemini-cli and Claude Code and while they're both genuinely quite impressive, they absolutely suffer from a kind of prototype syndrome. While I could learn to use these tools effectively for large-scale projects, I still at present feel more comfortable writing such things by hand.

The NVIDIA CEO says people should stop learning to code. Now if LLMs will really end up as reliable as compilers, such that they can write code that's better and faster than I can 99% of the time, then he might be right. As things stand now, that reality seems far-fetched. To claim that they're useless because this reality has not yet been achieved would be silly, but not more silly than claiming programming is a dead art.
by agobineau | 2026-01-01 07:43:16+00:00
legal bucket shops is exactly what they are

a market maker (MM) (citadel, optiver) etc makes money in the most part by filtering a trade from customer, and then agreeing or disagreeing with its sentiment. If you buy say msft at $480 and they think it will dip below $480 they will 'hold risk' and wait for it to dip to say $470 then execute your trade, making $10

except instead of aiming to make 2% on a single trade, they aim to make maybe 5 cents this way on a $480 stock, mostly holding for less than a few seconds, on millions of trades an hour

thus, robinhood very valuable because it encouraged retail investors to have high trading volume on complex instruments. that "order flow" then sold to MM like above for fixed rates or % shares.

MM are ultimately a good thing because they provide liquidity. there is always a person willing to take the other side of a trade when you click. if you trade in a boondocks stock market like singapore or new zealand you will quickly see the market run dry and you cant get out of a position
Why many projects fail before execution begins
by BenWebbProject | 2026-01-01 07:44:26+00:00
Across different types of projects — infrastructure, digital systems, organisational change — I’ve noticed a recurring pattern: by the time execution starts, the outcome is often already constrained.

Not because of incompetence or bad intent, but because early decisions tend to harden faster than understanding does.

A few observations that seem to repeat:

Early schedules become social facts
Initial timelines are usually created with limited information, but once shared upward they quickly stop being provisional. They become anchors for funding, reputation, and confidence. Later evidence is forced to fit the date, rather than the date adjusting to evidence.

Risk is recorded instead of managed
Risk registers are often thorough and sincere, but the act of documenting risk can substitute for actually changing decisions. Addressing certain risks would require revisiting scope, sequence, or assumptions — which is often seen as destabilising rather than responsible.

Governance filters reality
Reporting structures tend to optimise for reassurance. Bad news is delayed or softened, not out of malice, but because it feels unconstructive without a solution. By the time issues surface clearly, the remaining options are usually expensive or binary.

Complexity is deferred, not reduced
Early approvals tend to reward simplicity. Interfaces, dependencies, and operational constraints are minimised to get things moving. The complexity doesn’t disappear — it just shows up later, when flexibility is lowest.

What’s struck me is that many projects don’t so much “go wrong” as proceed logically from the assumptions they were built on - which were often incorrect from the outset.
by greatgib | 2026-01-01 07:45:46+00:00
For me it is not so bad as it is natural selection for websites.

When I encounter invasive popups like that preventing me to get the content, it turns me down directly for this website and I will just avoid the site completely after. Some media website are like that and you learn to just skip them.

What confuse me the most is kind of individual blogs, with not bad content, that welcome you with a popup to register your email in they newsletter.
I'm surprised that it is so common despite so stupid, it makes the experience worse of browsing the website of the author, worse you get that before even having looked at the content and so be able to know if it worth it. And so it will instantly give a negative feeling about a website that could be good otherwise.
by MangoToupe | 2026-01-01 07:51:31+00:00
This explains today's Pixar better than any anomaly like "expertise", "talent", or "insight". Investors should never be regarded as retarded, but it's a label they should aspire to. As it stands it looks like disney enjoys heating the home by burning pixar stock.

Zootopia 2 was pretty good tho, ngl
by andrehacker | 2026-01-01 07:51:45+00:00
Hm, the fact that he was mentioned or referenced does not prove that his role was downplayed, a quick search of the interwebs shows:

- 2018 Oscars: Despite his massive influence on Coco, none of the filmmakers mentioned him by name in their acceptance speeches for Best Animated Feature.

- Film Premieres: Lasseter did not attend the 2018 premiere of Incredibles 2, a film he was heavily involved in, further signaling his detachment from official company events.
by wolvoleo | 2026-01-01 07:53:18+00:00
I think he's an oligarch because he uses his influence to affect politics (and in a very nasty way, like demonising immigrants and lgbt members who just want to be themselves). Using his fortune and influence to influence politics is what makes him an oligarch.

How these people made their fortune (whether it's useful or not) has no bearing on the definition of an oligarch.
by globular-toast | 2026-01-01 07:53:59+00:00
My 14" portable CRT I had when I was a teenager gave me joy every time I used it. My first car cost me less than 2k and gave me joy for 5 years.

You are now unable to get joy from a TV smaller than the largest one you've ever bought. Many people are unable to get joy from a car costing under 10k, let alone 2k.

The things you own end up owning you.
by signatoremo | 2026-01-01 07:54:07+00:00
Lot of impressive points. They are also irrelevant. The majority of people also only extrapolate from the knowledge they acquired in the past. That’s why there is the concept of inventor, someone who comes up with new ideas. Many new inventions are also based on existing ideas. Is that the reason to dismiss those achievements?

Do you only take LLM seriously if it can be another Einstein?

> But a world where we used LLMs for the majority of work, would be a world with no fundamental breakthroughs.

What do you consider recent fundamental breakthroughs?

Even if you are right, human can continue to work on hard problems while letting LLM handle the majority of derivative work
by begueradj | 2026-01-01 07:55:57+00:00
>We should never idolize a person

Yes, that is how things should be.

But in practice, almost everybody is looking for or has a father like figure (idol). Jordan Peterson said it's a good thing to look up for an idol, someone you try to be like him because he's "better" (that serves him, obviously).

And lots of people who are aware of this weakness, exploit it and start to play it a (team) leader, a politician, a guru ... or simply give you advice on TikTok (influencer) ... and the corporate world -but not only- rewards that acute narcissism, falseness and the attention/validation seekers.
by FreakLegion | 2026-01-01 07:55:57+00:00
We're deep in a thread questioning a founder's choice not to sell their company. a) The company is 8 years old, b) the founder's stake is 9 figures, and c) they've done at least one secondary, meaning d) the founder has almost certainly cashed out $10m exempt from federal taxes (founder has held shares > 5 years for QSBS treatment, and $10m < 10% of founder's stake, a common threshold of concern for investors).

Your hypotheticals simply aren't relevant here.
by maxbond | 2026-01-01 07:56:01+00:00
I've read this book a couple times. I like it, but it's important to understand this is not a book about a stock trader. It's a book about a problem gambler who happens to gamble on the stock market. The biggest trade in the book is just a hunch the character has, and they make bank because of an earthquake. Having an act of God rescue your position is not a strategy.

Livermore died penniless by suicide.
by agnosticmantis | 2026-01-01 07:58:00+00:00
He shamelessly advertised companies in his portfolio, whether it was always having a can of coke or candies on the table or stopping at a McDonald's in a documentary.

I refuse to believe that his lifestyle was what was on display.

He lived in the same house for 60 years, sure, but his private jets kept getting upgraded. Good for him, but I find the frugality theater very off putting.
by vjerancrnjak | 2026-01-01 08:02:06+00:00
Asymmetry is normal and you cannot address it (outside of repeatability of movement, aiming for no form degradation during high load).

As long as your movement does not degrade horribly, asymmetry is fine.

Even before strength training, your one arm is dominant, more precise. But this has an effect on your leg as well.

Doing unilateral work will never change that asymmetry. As you get stronger, due to drastically different activations of the nervous system between the sides, you will get slightly different adaptations.

Looking at powerlifters, most of them have visibly different sizes of hip, leg musculature between sides. They even have drastic flexibility differences where one hip goes deeper, or the musculature makes the barbell sit skewed on the back.
by conductr | 2026-01-01 08:02:41+00:00
The last one is key to my entire value system as a person. I have had some financial wins in life and try not to let it impact my day to day. I avoid, sometimes with great effort, flashy things (I’ve been tempted to by exotic cars as an example but have found if I just rent one for a day or two that urge goes away, it’s just a toy to me). I usually say I’m not materialistic, but I am at times, and what I strive to be is humble, modest, and invisible. I don’t want other people seeing me as flaunting wealth. It’s not who I want to be or how I want my kids to see me act.

That said, I do, like Buffet, live in a nice house. I’m not depriving myself. But it’s also very approachable by any successful employee of a company (maybe salary of a director or VP of any large company could afford it). It doesn’t represent what I could afford if I wanted to really get into the elite neighborhoods of my city. I don’t really enjoy people in those areas. They tend to always talk about money in one way or another (vacations, private schools, cars, houses, maids, nanny’s, etc). Nothing wrong with it I suppose, just not my jam and not how I want my children raised and not the people I want as my neighbors and peers. I’ve always been much more envious of those unsuspecting rich people that drive clunker cars or live in modest homes and mow their own lawns but then you find out they paid for 16 grand children to go to college or something random like that. That’s the kind of thing I’d rather be known for than the guy with the Ferrari or yacht (even if they weren’t mutually exclusive).
by Kerrick | 2026-01-01 08:02:50+00:00
That is a pedantic distinction. You can create something that didn't exist by combining two things that did exist, in a way of combining things that already existed. For example, you could use a blender to combine almond butter and sawdust. While this may not be "novel", and it may be derived from existing materials and methods, you may still lay claim to having created something that didn't exist before.

For a more practical example, creating bindings from dynamic-language-A for a library in compiled-language-B is a genuinely useful task, allowing you to create things that didn't exist before. Those things are likely to unlock great happiness and/or productivity, even if they are derived from training data.