skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades.

The original purpose (on the Internet) was to create a space where complex ethical and moral questions could be explored and discussed in depth without risk of someone taking a hypothetical statement out of context to slander you, as people are wont to do. It would be orders of magnitude worse in this current age of people obsessed with generating click-bait for engagement, which wasn’t a thing back then. I personally found that environment to be intellectually stimulating and rigorous, I miss the standard of discourse of those days.

Chatham House Rule is going back to the old Internet, which valued novel insight and reasoned discourse highly, before the masses took over the Internet. The purpose was not to enable edgelords. Rational defense of ideas, statements, and hypotheses was expected and table stakes. Related rules of that era, such as Crocker’s Rule[0], placed responsibility on the reader to address uncomfortable or offensive feedback in the most dispassionate way possible.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288
Bro, you did read the article you are commenting on, right?
while this is a very interesting take, I think the premise is a little bit to simple.

Firstly, there are at least 3 C compilers in widespread use, from apple, microsoft and gnu, these are a long way from 1 for 1 to each other so when it says for example:

->In other words, while C can compute at compile time a simple expression by constant folding, it cannot execute a function at compile time.

Maybe the compiler he tried cannot, but another can, no idea, it wasnt tested, they can be made to (the whole point of the article), apple and microsoft cannot be made to, everything in this article could have have been submitted as a merge request to gnu.... Article doesnt even state whose C compiler they embedded afaict.

wrt to "standard" c specifically, there are for sure some hard constraints on all the wild and wacky hardware support required that must make proposing and implementing changes within the c standard extremely hard, max respect to the anonymous experts that have got it to where it is today, but imho a lot of the "why doesnt c" questions can be as easily answered as "why doesnt V8 support 8 bit pic micros".
“If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity — only a great man can stand prosperity.”
You set a timeout, like in any robust CI.
> Ah bummer. Is this a GGUF file-format issue or mostly "just" a code-doesn't-exist issue?

Just code! Technically I was working on dynamic quants for DeepSeek V3 (200GB in size), which will increase accuracy by a lot for a 2bit model (if you leave attention in 4bit), and just use 20GB more. -> But I'm still working on it!

> Ah, I totally forgot Ollama did that on their own and didn't merge upstream.

Yep they have Llama vision support! Llama.cpp has Qwen, Llava support - I think Llama V support is coming, but it'll take much more time - the arch is vastly different than normal transformers due to cross attention
That is less about header files, and more about how machine code works.

If you want to have some abstract type where you don't let people know anything about the innards, but you do have an explicit interface which enumerates what you can do with it, then yes - you can only really pass around pointers to these things and people outside your abstraction can only pass references not values.

If you want people to be able to pass your abstract type by value (among other things), then either you need to let them know how big the thing is (an implementation detail) or you have to expose the copy implementation in such a way that it could be inlined (more implementation details).

Sometimes, the "pure abstraction" approach is best where you only ever deal with pointers to things, and other times the "let's pretend that people do the right thing" approach is best. I don't see this as a header file thing though.
The problem with 4 hour SLA (I'm assuming in non-business hours?) Is that it's eye-watering expensive to scale.

If I have 100 cheap customers I need to scale it for 100. If I have 3 I can get by with putting staff "on call". (Pay the existing staff a bonus for out of hours etc.)

You can't pay $20 a month for something, and expect a high SLA
. That's not reasonable (and certainly not sustainable. ) a business that offered that would be on my "don't touch, will be out of business soon" category.

It's certainly possible to have a "free tier" - there are hood reasons for that. But the free tier had better not be costing you money. If they do, you don't have a business you have a hobby.
> Would it be unthinkable to just NOT have bright lights pointed at the sky all night?

That's possible, and directed/shielded lighting is commercially available.

However, the project's critics have already said that no plan the project comes up with will be good enough - “Even if [AES] do a perfect job, using perfect lights that probably don’t even exist and perfect shielding, there will be an impact and that will be significant [0]

[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/chilean-energy-megap...
Not wanting to admit ignorance, I’ll make up a reason on the spot. Later, in the bathroom, I’ll Google CodeSquish and discover it does everything I need, costs nothing, and is 100x more performant—even though it’s maintained by a single recluse who only emerges from their Vermont farm to push code to their self-hosted git repo.

I've built this exact open source platform, for "nearly everything you'll ever need" for full-stack web apps (from profiles, to access, control, notifications, payments, credits, even videoconferencing and livestreaming). You can build your own Facebook or Twitter pretty quickly.

Here it is: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform

But I haven't really marketed it, at all. Almost no one on HN has heard of it. Only if someone takes the time to poke around will they be impressed, start to use it, etc.

Even more than that, I started a new GitHub project recently as I plan to release v2.0 after many years. So all the stars on the original project are not even on the new one. (The old one is still on my github.)

And here is the documentation: https://qbix.com/platform/guide

So this is the extreme opposite ... I haven't started trying to market it or sell it to the world or even attract developers to it. But it's there if someone bothers to look.
Presuming he has a problem. What makes your think you think he would welcome intervention, or seek professional help, or respond to help?

He's clearly ignoring blunt feedback, and I've yet to see anything that suggests he thinks he's doing anything wrong.

Our society has been validating his behaviour with his half-billion dollar business: clearly some of his behaviour has value. Our society seems to reward and encourage similar behaviours in other founders (especially in current zeitgeist).

Sadly in my experience we don't have many options to help, and sometimes all we can do is watch someone burn themselves and those around them down.

He's losing his game and I can't see Automattic surviving the reshuffle that's coming. Business clients hate this shit and they have agency. Matt has been giving employees non-voting shares (a different class): https://ma.tt/2024/10/owner-mentality/ although he owns 84% of the normal shares (although details of control depend on agreement with investors).

The saddest thing is that I'd guess he will toxically blame Jason Cohen. I'm sure Jason can deal with it (surely dealt with in past) and Jason seems smart enough to take strong advantage of the opportunity he's been gifted by Matt.
Is it accurate to say that wavelets were a promising avenue of research in the 1990s but interest in them has kind of died because they were obsoleted by CNNs?
Sure, I don't disagree that they exist as people, but as prominent stories in the culture they generally don't; outside of Lindsey fox I can't think of any...

Real estate wealth is a bit prominent, bit doesn't really have the same tone as designing or building something, more a reflection of our current dirt obsession.
Already got one at home.
Working less might give people more time to "sharpen the axe", both on an individual level and as a society.

A large portion of workers believe their own job is "bullshit" and does nothing to benefit society. Perhaps if we had more breathing room we could find ways to move workers into meaningful jobs.

It's complicated, and working fewer hours doesn't necessarily mean less productivity.
No, they were not smart engineers.
one literally interrupted me to say “you can’t solve this using recursion, you need a for loop”. I clarified if they meant for stack space reasons and they said “no, it just doesn’t work recursively”.

The system design round, they got confused with some basic queueing concepts. It was a shit show.
Driving through Giddings you can still see signs for the annual Wendish festival.
Pondering what that was all about I did some Googling and learned about the Wends as I drove through.
>I was taking these sort of improvements for granted.

A lot of people would think so. In reality had Smartphone ( iPhone ) not taken off. The PC market alone would not be able to sustain the cost of innovation and Moore's Law would have ended at 14nm and we would have to wait 3 to 4 years for every node. Smartphone along with all the adjacent work on Internet infrastructure scaled us to 3nm. I wrote about both of these in 2014 and was expecting some slow down by 3nm. Now AI will provide the Capex to scale us to 1nm and beyond.
Why the FCC as opposed to CISA?
Dead-simple-text: Minimalist plain text editor for the web
You will be pleased to know that you are not the only one who does this.

I previously went down the rabbit hole of fancy unit test frameworks, and after a while I realised that they didn't really win much and settled on something almost identical to what you have (my PRINT_RUN macro has a different name, and requires the () to be passed in - and I only ever write it if the time to run all the tests is more than a second or so, just to make it really convenient to point the finger of blame).

The thing that I do which are potentially looked upon poorly by other people are:

1) I will happily #include a .c file that is being unit tested so I can call static functions in it (I will only #include a single .c file)

2) I do a tiny preprocessor dance before I #include <assert.h> to make sure NDEBUG is not defined (in case someone builds in a "release mode" which disables asserts)
I'm currently looking at purchasing a commercial product because CodeSquish has a fatal error and hasn't been updated in two years because the guy who maintains it has vanished off the face of the earth.
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

A lot of big cities have youth programs out of fear kids will otherwise join gangs. As an adult if you have a big mortgage payment or rent is high you must hustle. Some of this rat race is optional. Advertisers tell us making yet another purchase will solve your problem(s) or insecurity. Ironically if everyone lived modestly that would trigger a recession.
IPSec has been used for some time to provide a secure network where only trusted devices can communicate to each other or the infrastructure.

You can still argue about the endpoint security, but at least the network participants and their messages can be secured, even if an endpoint is compromised.
Wow, I would normally assume that a made-up word is proof that it wasn't AI generated, just regular bad human writing.
Compile time unit tests are as bad of an idea as "unused import/variable/result" errors (rather than warnings). They're "nanny features" that take control away from the developer and inevitably cause you to jump through bureaucratic hoops just to get your work done.

These kinds of build-failing tests are great for your "I think I'm finished now" build, but not for your "I'm in the middle of something" builds (which are what 99% of your builds are).

It's like saying "You can't use the table saw until you put the drill away!"
The EU Fined Itself for Breaking Its Own Data Privacy Law
>History teaches us where the story goes.

I think my book is missing that chapter -where does it go?
> This removes so much agency from the people involved.

No. Filling people's minds with garbage non-information does not empower them. Knowledge is power. Random bullshit ideas isn't.

> If I were dying of cancer and asked for "out there" solutions,

OP isn't dying of cancer, and as far as I can tell, their friend who is dying of cancer did not ask for solutions of any kind.

You're trying to appeal to empathy here, but as far as I can tell, the person you're asking me to empathize with doesn't exist. There is no person dying of cancer asking for Hacker News' unqualified medical advice that I'm aware of.

The vast majority of people do not share the "move fast and break things" mentality--this is actually one of the main reasons people dislike corporate culture. This is especially true with medicine. Leave the poor cancer patient alone.

> Gimme everything you got at all levels of certainty, and let me decide what I want to try and not try. If I decide I don't want to try anything, or none of the suggestions have enough evidence to be worth trying and I'd rather travel around the world and skydive with my wife the last few months, that's ok too!

Agency isn't that easy. There are myriads of advertisers and propagandists out there trying to spin a narrative, and a lot of the hare-brained ideas out there exist because someone is trying to manipulate you--to buy a product, vote for a person, etc. These people are good at what they do, and even if you catch on to a few of them and dodge their bad ideas, a lot of them are going to worm into your brain and get you to do something they want you to do. Let me reitrate: what they want you to do, not what you, at a fundamental level, want to do. That's not agency, that's you being manipulated.

There is not a shortage of information, there is a shortage of effective filters of information that separate out the truth. Humans simply are not capable of sifting through all the garbage ideas out there, and that includes you (and me!). If you open yourself up to the full stream of garbage ideas, that doesn't give you agency, that gives your agency away to the advertiser or propagandist who happens to trigger your biases most effectively. You're not doing what you want, you're doing what they've manipulated you to want.

> But none of us can pretend to know what they're actually going through, we can only offer what it asked and let them decide.

Believe it or not, OP is not the only person to have a friend dying of cancer.

A friend of mine in college was diagnosed with lymphoma late in his sophomore year and died about a year after graduation. In his last years he became increasingly hostile to the well-intentioned people who kept offering genuinely stupid ideas for how he could cure his cancer. It isn't fun for cancer patients to have to politely listen to this particularly unhealthy way of coping with their death while they are trying to cope with their own death.

Reading other accounts of people with cancer, this is a pretty common complaint.
> This is trivial if your build system detects changes based on content (like, say, bazel), but if it uses timestamps (like make) then the compiler needs to ensure the timestamp isn't updated when the declarations don't change.

This is where the traditional distinction of "compiler vs Make" makes things harder; you want dependencies tracked at the "declaration" level, rather than the file level. If the timestamp _and_ content of the exported declarations file change, but none of the _used_ declarations changed, then there's no more compilation to be done. At best with file level tracking your build system will invoke the compiler for every downstream dependency, and they can decide if there's any more work to be done.

The build system would need to know which declarations are used (and what a declaration is) to do better.
I did the same at my grandparents in Crosby, just north of Baytown. That land was passed down through the family going back to our ancestors who were part of the Old 300. The Czechs that moved into the emerging area now known as Crosby passed along amazing recipes like kolaches and my grandmother befriended the wife of a Czech coworker of my grandfathers - now kolaches are absolutely part of the family recipe book.
What the US Pornhub 'ban' is really about
To be fair, OpenAI's products are not really models, they are... products. So it's debatable if they really do have anything special.

I don't really think they do, because to me it seemed pretty much since GPT-1, that having callbacks to run python and query google, having "inner dialog" before summarizing an answer and a dozen more simple improvements like this are quite obvious things to do, that nobody just actually implemented (yet). And if some of them are not obvious per se, they are pretty obvious in the hindsight. But, yeah, it's debatable.

I must admit though, that I doubt that this obvious weakness is not obvious to the stakeholders. I have no idea what the plan is, maybe what they gonna have that Anthropic doesn't is gonna be a nuclear reactor. Like, honestly, all we are pretending to be forward-thinking analysts here, but in reality I couldn't figure out that Musk's "investment" into Twitter is literally politics at the time of it happening. Even though I was sure there is some plan, I couldn't say what it is, and I don't remember anybody in these threads expressing clearly enough what is quite obvious in the hindsight. Neither did all these people like Matt Levine, who are actually paid for their shitposting: I mostly remember them making fun of Musk "doing stupid stuff and finding out" and calling it a "toy".
They are releasing non sota models.
Show HN: Collect user feedbacks, instantly.
Easily collect user feedbacks by embedding widgets into your app.

I have multiple SaaS products but not sure how to improve them so I created SnopVote to understand what my users want. Hope this help you and me.
You're right, it's not the same mechanism. But in this particular context it has the same effect - it allows you to define functions in a source file in arbitrary order.
Weird to hear that they’re complaining. On LinkedIn, I often see Amazon employees talking about how RTO has been great or that there’s a positive side to it. Maybe they’re just managers? Or maybe the silent majority is too afraid to speak against it publicly? I feel like Amazon looks very bizarre to an outsider, almost cultish in accepting this new reality of RTO, all just to shill almost universally Chinese made low quality products.

Either way if this didn’t spur them into unionization I don’t know what will. Not that I’m pro union either - I have concerns about how many of them run. But I feel like losing 1-2 hours daily is such a big cost that it’s worth dealing with that.
I think you guys who believe this ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trump is literally a Russian asset are going to have to eat crow when Trump gets to office and Ukraine isn’t suddenly handed to Putin.
> None of the banned people mentioned a fork

Steady on, at least one of them wrote a big blog post on his own site Dec 20 basically prematurely accepting the honour.

https://joost.blog/wordpress-leadership/

I can imagine the excessive smugness there about 'taking back the commons' triggered the purge.
"Hey I got some great news. Got 20 minutes for a call later today?"
Which is to say that the quality of the sales person matters.

If your sales department is staffed by people who got hired on Monday, and are on the phone by Friday, then frankly they're not worth much.

I've seen the opposite though where sales folk know more about the software than support folk. They're equipped to help you with choices, but also understand limits and high-cost areas. Yes you absolutely can get Custom Reports, but we absolutely charge for that. And the data you're looking for is on this built-in report....

Dealing with a good salesperson, who knows their stuff, and understands that truth and trust are important, is an amazing thing.
OpenAI has infrastructure and a product around serving to people plus they have SOTA models. Joe blow can’t just take a Qwen or whatever and start making money at scale
I might be wrong about this but doesn't ollama do some work to ensure the model runs efficiently given your hardware? Like choosing between how much gpu memory to consume so you don't oom. Does llama.cpp do that for you with zero config?
Provable how? iOS software is closed source and unverifiable. New code can be added to send any data anywhere at any point. Explain to me how you prove closed source software won’t send data under its control ever.

And we don’t even need to go as far as key exchanges, and forget about Find My. Maybe those are better protected and it’s harder for them to pull a sneaky without someone noticing. The location data of your phone isn’t in Secure Enclave and the OS can do whatever the hell it likes with it, good luck verifying a huge closed source OS which phones home all the time isn’t sending your location home. At the end of the day you’re trusting them (or just don’t care because you probably aren’t pissing off TLA, which is certainly true in my case), provable security is extremely limited.
if you factor in the joy he gets each time he uses it, ROI is through the roof.
See my response to sibling. Explain to me how you prove iOS software can’t be malicious.
Secure by not securing it at all, and not attempting to seize it, instead:

"Three tugs have linked up with the Eventin and are attempting to steer it north-east, away from the coast and towards a safer area where there is “more sea space”"

Germans are trying to push it alone its way, to "not escalate".
Why do cyclists need an injury attorney when motorists have insurance? Why are there so many attorneys offering this service? High demand? Is it because personal injury law is a well paying grift? Would any of these attorneys represent a driver if it was a cyclist fault? Much harder to collect from a private person than from insurance.
The ones at the forefront of the "I need an AI" hype are selling agents, or tools that integrate in your email workflow, or some other tool with AI in the name. OpenAI is selling the shovels, the backend API those services are using. AWS/Azure/GCP are selling factory space and are providing blue-prints for shovels. Which is compelling at scale, but if you are busy selling AI tools to people who don't know better it's faster to just use an API to whatever OpenAI offering is SOTA or close to SOTA.

I'd agree there isn't much money in it. OpenAI should probably milk the revenue they get now and make hay while the sun is shining. But their apparent strategy is to bet it all on finding another breakthrough similar to the switch from text completion to a chat interface
Honestly, the fact that you used an LLM to grade the answers at all is enough to make me discount your results entirely. That it showed obvious preference to the model with which it shares weights is just a symptom of the core problem, which is that you had to pick a model to trust before you even ran the benchmarks.

The only judges that matter at this stage are humans. Maybe someday when we have models that humans agree are reliably good you could use them to judge lesser-but-cheaper models.