skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
“AI” began as a buzzword invented by Marvin Minsky at MIT in grant proposals to justify DoD funding for CS research. It was never equivalent to AGI in meaning.
I find communist analysis tiresome, especially when in this case the populist right under Trump seems to be motivated in part by anti-free market ideas. The communist kneejerk reaction to every single situation is "this can be explained by class analysis". It's them trying to shoehorn their pet theory into everything.
This looks great. I would love to know more what makes Confident AI/DeepEval special compared to tons of other LLM Eval tools out there.
So you're concerned about remote operated howitzers? Autoloaders and remote control land vehicles have existed for 40 or so years by now. If we wanted remote controlled howitzers we could have fielded them already.
> LLMs can be deterministic if you set the temp to zero.

At which point, you the major benefit statistical models like of LLMs…

A lot of performance is lost if you fix the sampling step like that as well.

That’s why nobody does it…
Warning: podcast spoilers

In the first 3 episodes (free to listen), the podcast team pulls the thread and finds that the scammers are a highly organized system of scammers.

They are based out of Myanmar, outside of the law of the central government (basically warlord country). They trick people with English skills into coming to Thailand for a job then smuggle them across the border without their know.

Recent news update: Just in the past week, Thailand used their military to invade and free thousands of people who were being held captive in these warlord towns, meaning this scam organization likely lost their pig butchering talent.
It uses the content of the UV_PROJECT_ENVIRONMENT var env, which defaults to .venv. If you pass --active, it can also look whatever is in VIRTUAL_ENV and CONDA_PREFIX.

You can also force an env passing a complete path to --python
Microsoft claims that it works. However, the Nature reviewers apparently do not yet feel comfortable vouching for this claim.
Trump even broke HN if this is the kind of discussion we're having as a result.
>In other words, it is a nice frontend to hide the mess that is the Python packaging ecosystem, but the mess of an ecosystem is still there, and you still have to deal with it. You'll still have to go through hatchling's docs to figure out how to do x/y/z. You'll still have to switch from hatchling to flit/pdm/setuptools/... if you run into a limitation of hatchling. As a package author, you're never using uv, you're using uv+hatchling (or uv+something) and a big part of your pyproject.toml are not uv's configuration, it is hatchling configuration.

Strange. The main reason I'm not using uv or its competitors (or going back to Poetry, where I was using only a tiny fraction of the functionality) is that they're all too opinionated and all-in-one for me. If I had to write down a top 10 of reasons the Python packaging ecosystem is a "mess", and give detailed reasoning, probably at least 6 of them would be problems with Pip specifically (including things that appear to be problems in other tools, but which are really Pip's fault). And at least one more would be "Setuptools is a massive pile of backwards-compatibility wrappers that are mostly useless with the modern packaging flow, that didn't even directly make the wheels (relying on a separate dependency instead) until 70.1".

(The other reason I wouldn't go back to Poetry is because Masonry was a terrible, non-standards-compliant experience for me, and its installation procedures changed repeatedly over time, and you'd end up not being able to uninstall old versions cleanly.)

(Hatchling and Setuptools are build backends, yes; where you say "flit" I assume you mean flit-core, and similarly pdm-backend for PDM.)

If uv provided its own backend, there would still be a risk of running into limitations with that backend; and regardless you'd have to go through its docs to figure out how to do x/y/z with it.

Being able to experiment with different build backends was part of the explicit rationale for `pyproject.toml` in the first place. The authors of PEP 517 and 518 consciously expected to see competing backends pop up (and explicitly designed a system that would allow that competition, and allow for Pip etc. to know how to invoke every backend), and did not (per my understanding of Python Discourse forum discussion) consciously expect to see competing workflow tools pop up.

I'm making a build backend because I have my own opinion. I don't have any interest in making a workflow tool. I want people who like uv to be able to use my build backend. That's how the system was designed to work.

I don't want someone to integrate the baseline and make all the decisions for me. I want a better-quality baseline. Which is why I'm also making an installer/environment manager. `build` is a perfectly fine build frontend. I don't need or want a replacement.
There are considerable processes to make sure that happens, including proper background checks, seniority at the job, etc. You don't just hand some rando newbie the keys to the kingdom -- any company that did that would be laughed at.
I used to love getting to know the interviewer and doing things like that but IMO the market has shifted fundamentally on both ends for this to be effective anymore for most SaaS roles. This is anecdotal for US/Canada tech market over the past 10 years so YMMV.

Developers Side:
Since developers don't have job security anymore (at least for those who work on common languages like Go, Python, Java and Typescript) they are better off learning and keeping in touch with leetcode and system design questions, looking for new opportunities and interviewing in "batch mode" when looking for a job. The idea is to clear as many interviews as possible using the same concepts, get in and make money asap before you get laid off. No incentive for collaboration or for fulfilling but esoteric stuff like Haskell and Scala. Career security > Job security.

Companies Side:
On the other end software companies have less trust in developers staying long term so they want to make the interview process as quick and risk free as possible. In essence they are betting that by perusing 100s of resumes and hiring someone who seemingly knows CS concepts they can get some value out of them before they leave. Standardized tests/vetting > team fit.

TLDR; The art is gone from this job, its become akin to management consulting or investment banking. Quality and UX seems to be regressing across the board as a result.
I found his blog to be candid and well thought out usually
Is any of the voice stuff in any way 'natural' sounding, I'd love to be able to recreate the ChatGPT app voice experience in my own app with a custom agent, but it just sounds robotic and crap
Travertine (CVE-2025-24118): Race condition in macOS kernel
Obviously LLMs are missing many important properties of the brain like spatial, time, and chemical factors, as well as many different inter connected feedback networks to different types of neural networks that go well beyond what llms do.

Beyond that, they are the same thing. Signal Input -> Signal Output

I do not know what consciousness actually is so I will not speak to what it will take for a simulated intelligence to have one.

Also I never used the word believes, I said convinced, if it helps I can say "acted in a way as if it had high confidence in its output"
There's a good balance between preventing accidents and reducing friction.

One person having "god-mode" access isn't usually that terrible.
Has anyone ever presented any solid theoretical reason we should expect language models to yield general intelligence?

So far as I have seen, people have run straight from "wow, these language models are more useful than we expected and there are probably lots more applications waiting for us" to "the AI problem is solved and the apocalypse is around the corner" with no explanation for how, in practical terms, that is actually supposed to happen.

It seems far more likely to me that the advances will pause, the gains will be consolidated, time will pass, and future breakthroughs will be required.
How about the literally unusable <select multiple> on mobile? You can't select more than one option on a touch screen...
To be fair, Esperanto is, as far as I can tell, not very widely used. The letter ĝ mostly returns Esperanto results. Using that letter in a place where others may need to communicate or type the letter would be a severe burden on almost anyone else you interact with, outside of Esperanto communities.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who share your frustration with accented letters, ñ, umlauts, etc, though. I'd hope that most systems can handle those letters, although I wouldn't hold out hope that Ĝ/ĝ would be high on the priority list.
Not really, whoever allows access could be prosecuted for failing any of a number of laws and regs for just rolling over so it would come down to a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The proper way to do it would be to work through both the organization's chain of command and send clearances through the security chain. Maybe that's being followed, but given the stories and timelines, I doubt it- Musk's war boys wouldn't even have time to obtain a clearance from scratch 3 weeks into the administration.
You can always publish on GitHub Pages using a suitable tool, like https://emanote.srid.ca/

Disclaimer: I'm the author of Emanote
Not as long as they use tokens -- it's a perception limitation of theirs. Like our blind spot, or the Muller-Lyer illusion, or the McGurk effect, etc.
Reviving-Like Prosocial Behavior in rodents
Yeah it's really tempting when you discover an interesting fact to think "that would make an interesting interview question" and turn the interview into some kind of pub quiz. Happens with all forms of technical interview though. I mean 90% of leetcode questions are "this one weird trick".
Oh, hi! Project creator here.

I am very happy that you folks are showing interest but I am also terrified because this thing is definitely not ready for primetime, yet.
The discerning astrodynamicist and/or rustacean will surely find things which are less than optimal or plain wrong.

I am also preparing for a trip so I won't be able to monitor this thread closely but I'll try to answer question wherever I can.
Don't let the facts get in the way of the "Musk is a midwit who just stumbles into founding trillion dollar companies" story. ;) It's an article of faith for these people.
I spend $2/month on AWS and could change this, but use nothing else that I can think of; is this really that hard?
> we use it to express conventions in programming

Interestingly programming is the one place where I ditch it almost entirely (at least in my personal code bases).
I cannot emphasize this enough. Coding is the EASY part of writing software. You can teach someone to code in a couple of months. Interviews that focus on someone's ability to code are just dumb.

What you need to do is see how well they can design before writing software. What is their process for designing the software they make? Can they architect it correctly? How do they capture user's mental models? How do they deal with the many "tops" that software has?
Attackers have made extremely good models of mangling that humans perform on passwords, so this kind of change just adds whatever bits of entropy there are in your selection of mangling approaches. It's almost certainly less than you think.

It might help to understand what people have done here: There have been absolutely gigantic plaintext password leaks. Armed with plaintext passwords and collections of very good 'dictionaries' (might not actually be dictionaries) attackers design rules to turn the dictionary into as many passwords as possible without duplication.
I'm not sure how to feel about this.

On one hand, it's an appealing way to manage dealing with different OS/Arch for a binary. On the other hand, this is not something I'd want to use in production, as it's very implicit. I'd rather explicitly call specific versions of installed binaries over implicitly call files installed in $DOTSLASH_CACHE (particularly if the binary is fetched on-demand).

This looks like it could be a useful tool in certain situations, such as shared/consistent dev environments. But generating the dotslash file (with hashes, urls, etc...) seems quite manual, which will limit adoption. In this way, it's not too different from traditional environmental module files, but it does automate a good chunk. If the main use-case is development, I'm not sure if this is better than devcontainers.

It seems like a useful tool, but I'm not sure where I'd actually use it. Maybe I'm missing the main use cases?
That whole comment is "With a way harder method than going to the ATM".

I understand that it's possible to get crypto through obscure methods. However if you're selling a privacy focused solution, ideally you shouldn't have to spend 3-4 weeks to acquire the funds to purchase it.
> It is extremely dangerous and even experienced engineers can cause irreparable data loss or some other bad outcome

It is literally why we never log in as root.

HERE BE DRAGONS

I don't know an admin who hasn't, on multiple occasions, unintentionally caused irreparable damage. It is easy to do even with the best of intentions and with extreme levels of care. Any one trying to rush through a dragon's den is only going to get burned. Considering how many dragons' dens they are running into, I do not question "if" damage has been done, but "what".
Plenty of server software being developed in the early 2000s. (Though minicomputers were mostly off the scene by then.)
Come on - it was already dead for a long time.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am enjoying mulling over your responses.

> You might well say...

Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.

> I have a most marvellous answer to those

Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)
If it was all about impact then ppl wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars to learn to play golf with their bosses. But you knew that already.
Research: What Consumers Find Persuasive in Online Reviews
We can apply logic to anything and everything. What makes computer science singularly deserving of this label?
Keep in mind, post hoc community notes lets misinformation run wild lomg before corrections are made, instead of active moderation or other delisting.

It makes people think its an effective counter and i posit it simply makes people smug while the misinfo spreads faster.
> His openness about his history of drunking wasn't ideal and did damage his credibility.

That’s a euphemism if ever there was one. He was a raging alcoholic, and his alcohol consumption (which he denied entirely) accounted for pretty much all of his negative health effects during the film.

> However other people have partially reproduced the health effects of what he did

But nobody has been able to reproduce it entirely, or even account for the weight gain and ill health effects he experienced based solely on his food consumption. And several people recreated his stunt and were perfectly fine, or even had their health improve. It’s not about what food you eat, it’s about how much and your overall lifestyle.

> and his level of drinking is pretty common in the USA so it's not like he's some crazy outlier.

He was reportedly drinking a fifth of vodka per day. That is excessive by any metric.
> It was its own HN thread, but got flagged to death within minutes.

Pardon me, who's flagging these posts?
> which harkened to sci-fi characters like Data or GLaDOS.

There's a truth in there: Today's chatbots literally are characters inside a modern fictional sci-fi story! Some regular code is reading the story, acting out the character's lines, we humans are being tricked into thinking there's a real entity somewhere.

The real LLM is just a Make Document Longer machine. It never talks to anybody, and has no ego, and it sits in back being fed documents that look like movie-scripts. These documents are prepped to contain fictional characters, such as a User (whose lines are text taken unwittingly from a real human) and a Chatbot with incomplete lines.

The Chatbot character is a fiction, because you can simply change its given name to Vegetarian Dracula and suddenly it gains a penchant for driving its fangs into tomatoes.

> The new "reasoning" or "chain of thought" AIs are similarly just a bunch of conventional LLM inputs and outputs stacked on top of each other.

Continuing that framing: They've changed the style of movie script to film noir, where the fictional character is making a parallel track of unvoiced remarks.

While this helps keep the story from going off the rails, it doesn't mean a qualitative leap in any "thinking" going on.
> Government should have access to its own data.

You think it didn't already have access to its own data? Please explain how it did not.
San Francisco's budget is around $15 billion, which is larger than that of many states, for a population of around 800,000
And there’s the added problem of having all this big machinery and electrical equipment atop the ocean, which is the most insidiously corrosive thing on the planet.
It's not reasonable or effective to delve into the private supply chain, IMO. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
I've had a company give me full admin access to their cloud account. Thankfully, I learned the lesson earlier in my career and immediately created myself of more mundane user. Break glass access is important, but definitely not as the usual level of access.

> I don't see why the DOGE team would need anything more than a read replica to query.

They shouldn't need more than limited read access. The fact that they have more access, very likely demanded and not accidentally given, is due to their intent to do more than simply query data.
Using ::part() was a bad idea. Part is for user-defined pseudo elements. The platform can just define real pseudo elements. I argued against using `::part()` in spec threads, and I haven't looked back recently, but I think that argument won over.
That reply… wow. What a disappointing timeline we ended up in.
Unless you tell it not to...
This is more like criticizing Asimov for allowing a magazine to be published called "Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine" where he was not the editor and it was not his magazine.
The "." to terminate input was used in FTP mail on ARPANET, defined in RFC 385 which was well before anyone outside Bell had heard of Unix.
Completely agree with this statement.

I would go further, and say we don't understand how next-token predictors work either. We understand the model structure, just as we do with the brain, but we don't have a complete map of the execution patterns, just as we do not with the brain.

Predicting the next token can be as trivial as a statistical lookup or as complex as executing a learned reasoning function.

My intuition suggests that my internal reasoning is not based on token sequences, but it would be impossible to convey the results of my reasoning without constructing a sequence of tokens for communication.
Pretty much.

Well, and mainframes. And trading and financial systems. And numerical/scientific computing. And network services. And web sites and e-commerce. And flash, java applets, and browser plugins. And control systems. And operating systems and tooling. And cell phone applications. And games. And video/image/audio/music processing. etc etc

Oh, wait... maybe not!
I will try your app while taking the L train to work for few weeks. Let's see what happens! Should be fun at least.
I don’t understand the hatred for select multiple on desktop. It’s a list box that uses standard UI conventions that have been present for three or four decades now.
This isn't being an entrepreneur. This is solving a problem. The two almost never overlap.
I wouldn't doubt that the possibility is there using it that way. But it just seems really impractical and inefficient. I think serious efforts at collecting personal data, involving databases and scripting to scrape data from websites that would not otherwise want to freely give it up, compromising passwords and so on. I don't know what actionable data you get from learning that someone judges a particular ink blot to look like a butterfly.

I think the explanation for their prevalence is just that they found their place in the regular churn of memes, jokes, and quizzes on social media.
Chrome Extension gives you ability to generate on the go.
While switching jobs after a year, I realized I had forgotten half of what I did. The WResume AI Chrome Extension solves this—letting me save key resume points as I go. Since it syncs with my profile, I can jot down accomplishments on my work laptop, and when it's time for my next job hunt, my resume practically updates itself.
But do we need the lifetime of b to be started? Isn't it enough that a1's lifetime is started? Taking of address of a1 happens after that. [0]

Upd:

There is an interesting sentence in [class.cdtor] but I don't think it applies here because B has no constructors:

"For an object with a non-trivial constructor, referring to any non-static member or base class of the object before the constructor begins execution results in undefined behavior."[1]

[0] https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.init.aggr#7

[1] https://eel.is/c++draft/class.cdtor#1
> Then the executive decides there will, then won't, then will, then won't, then will, then won't be net neutrality.

It should be noted that the backdrop here is legislative dysfunction: the congress could have resolved network neutrality at any point but that bogged down for ages. Many of the questions around statutory power look like someone trying to do something under existing rules because they see a problem which isn’t going away but legislative attempts have failed.
I think so. I don't think Ken had zero thought about UNIX and then suddenly came up with a minimum but complete solution in under 3 weeks. Previous experience also tells a lot too. Wozniak was able to quickly design some electronics, but he probably already bagged 10,000 hours (just to borrow the popular metaphor) before he joined HP.
It's for helping the super rich get richer and more powerful. Some tiny crumbs for socially backward people as reward for helping them do it.
feels like you've identified a market for a Italian Newegg....
That’s why I almost thought this was satire. Didn’t people just vote for for lower grocery prices and emergency economic improvements ? Rather than doing democracy we’re now going back to farming for our own food during a bird flu pandemic ?

“Weird”.
Acceleration is moat with AI, you get to the point where it self improve first and you create new tech that keep your lead
Yeah, same here. I'm a Gen'Xer that grew up gaming since the early 1980s. Even though I still continue to game - I feel like I've lost touch with the community aspects of gaming since I hit my 30s & 40s. I vaguely know about FiveM because I have a teenage son. But other than that, lot of the stuff in the article went over my head.
There was a huge amount of outrage since the Snowden leaks. What are you talking about?
R.I.P Mr Graeber. What a gem of a thinker.
If using AI is cheating then one solution as the author mentions is have the interview take place at an office but I'm surprised another approach isn't more readily available: having the candidate the the test remotely at a trusted 3rd party location.
I'm not so sure there is complete overlap, there were plenty of pro national security democrats.
And look how badly that worked out