skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Has there been any research on how LLMs perform as recommendation engines?

I'd assume there isn't any algorithms provided weighted comparisons based on my viewing habits, but rather a fairly random list that looks like its based on my viewing habits.

Perhaps, in practice, the difference between those two is academic, but I'm really not keen on leveraging such a heavy everything model for such a specific use case, when something much simpler, and private, would suffice.
Would the AAMN be allowed to offer scholarships for men to enter nursing school where only men are eligible for the award in the same way such awards can be made women-only for male-dominated fields?
I don't want the board to step down I want the whole organization shuttered.
Right. So what does it look like for garbage collection to be solved? You’re saying it’s not ever possible
Even Sabine Hossenfelder did a video about it today too: https://youtu.be/dOIlMdIqXbQ?si=FG4ZdDq6jkjk_nMp
I think the software bloat is being more affected by the speed of light. If only every damn thing didn't need internet access with its associated lag - often variable in timing...
I'm amazed that you created an HN account in 2014 but that this is your first comment. How did you resist the temptation to comment for so many years?
C is magic in that I can’t make any sense of it when I don’t bother to learn it.
Last time I saw a movie there there was "super thumbs up" in addition to normal one.

For clarity I'd replace rating systems with "was it a good spend of my time?" yes/no question. Then just show percentages. Could not be clearer.
and you're assuming they invest like you do in your 401k or whatever. which they most certainly don't. some are more aggressive w.r.t. private markets investment but many focus on capital preservation and don't grow as much as you'd expect. FY24 Cornell's endowment returned something like 8%. this despite an S&P500 gain of, what, 23% ish.

institutions and allocators operate with a very different mindset versus individuals or hedgies.
"search this site in google" shouldn't even be a POST request, but yeah, when we'll have better defaults for cookies it should work nicer. And if you are a web developer, you should check your session cookie attributes and explicitly set them to SameSite=Lax HttpOnly unless your frameworks does that already and unless you know what you're doing
It's interesting to see that as of the time I'm writing this, half the top-level comments in this thread are being downvoted.

I am NOT writing in support of the current slash-and-burn approach to government, but I suspect that the downvoted half are addressing a significant deficiency in this article -- it doesn't mention what has been meaningfully accomplished by the Minerva Initiative in 17 years, given that the program had a fairly discrete set of objectives. Did they prevent any terrorist attacks? Did they forestall any destabilizing uprisings in significant countries? Did they develop a real and actionable understanding of radicalization or similar movements?

This is not to say that those accomplishments don't exist (I wouldn't know, I'd never heard of the program before), but it's extraordinarily lazy writing by a supposedly-premier science publication for these not to be identified and highlighted, if they exist.

Edit: clarity.
Depends, there could be 11 dimensions to expand into.
What are you talking about? CSS is statically typed. It has a fairly strict, well defined schema.
Chatgpt can output a straight diff, too, that you can use with patch.

That's how aider commands the models to reply, for example.
We had a metal lathe in our high school shop class. I still can’t believe someone didn’t kill themselves on that. I think wood lathes are fine, but honestly that should be kept out.
That misses the overhead of having to rotate the passkeys for thousands of websites you've used them on.
It's hard not to get stuck at some point if you don't have some understanding of the internals.

If I was a beginner, I'll try to get some proficiency early on rather than having to learn the hard way when you're on the middle of a project. It's a good investment.

I've also found that learning crafting nice commits made me a better programmer. It seemed difficult at first but now it's second nature (and I assume that in most teams, one is expected to submit small and self-contained commits anyway).
Swift allows an enum to be marked `@frozen`, which is an API (and ABI) stability guarantee that the enum will never gain more cases. Apple uses this quite sparingly in their APIs.

Swift also has two versions of a `default` case in switch statements, like you described. It has regular `default` and it has `@unknown default`. The `@unknown default` case is specifically for use with non-frozen enums, and gives a warning if you haven't handled all known cases.

So with `@unknown default`, the compiler tells you if you haven't been exhaustive (vs. the current API), but doesn't complain that your `@unknown default` case is unreachable.
Saying you despise it only shows how ignorant you are.
> It also raises Omnicorp's revenue by $X per month. X is the value you forgot to consider. What is it?

It is quite possibly a negative number. Remember that forcing Jim to show up to an office requires you to have an office, which is a huge, major expense that could easily overcome the benefits of having Jim in the office instead of at home. But let's continue with your assumption that it's of some actual value to the company:

> If, for example, it is -$500, then the total cost of transferring Jim is $36,000 per year. If we split that difference evenly between Jim and Omnicorp, Jim will receive a $12,000 raise... but Omnicorp will suffer a net loss of $18,000 per year, so it's hard to see why this would happen or who it helps.

This is the part where you're confused.

Suppose that Jim refuses to work from home for less than $8000/mo and refuses to work from the office for less than $10500/mo, because his incremental cost of working from the office is $2500/mo. Meanwhile the company values Jim working from the office at $500/mo. Since $500 is less than $2500, it does not make sense for Jim to work from the office, instead it makes sense for the company to pay Jim somewhere between $8000/mo and $10000/mo to work from home, because any of those numbers make both of them no worse off than paying Jim $10500/mo to work from the office. This does not depend on what Jim is currently being paid or even whether he is currently working from home.

If the value to the company of having Jim work from the office instead of from home is $3000/mo then the company should offer Jim anywhere between $10500/mo and $11000/mo to work from the office, for the same reason. But since $3000/mo is $36,000/year on top of their expenses for maintaining an office, that value to an ordinary company of having Jim work from the office is implausibly high.
I think your reasoning is flawed because there is no fixed RTO cost to every employees commute and physical location (which I am assuming you mean by their expenses).

You could have 2 employees doing the same job, but one (Joe) has a 5 minute walk as their commute and the other (John) has a 50 minute drive in a personal vehicle. If there are enough Joe’s around to fill your roles, the costs associated with the Johns commutes don’t matter to the organization.

Facilities costs are actually pretty minor in the grand scheme of things…especially if your company has other roles that cannot be done remote. Incremental office space costs are minimal.

Your only hope to win the debate is to demonstrate with real productivity data. Perhaps things like demonstrating reduced sick time, turnover rate decreases, etc.
> That would be like if every television programme broadcast audio

Well. No. It would be more like if every television program was displayed on a screen that had a different height, width, and scaling that may depend on the state of the browser at any given moment. Which is in fact the case. And is kind of the point of what we're trying to deal with here.

What I do not get for the life of me is why you would introduce a dependency on a deeply obscure user preference that I, as a perfectly literate computer user, would not expect. As opposed to scale, which is completely in your face (and also has an obscure default setting in exactly the same place if that's what the issue is for you).

And it's not like there aren't enough dependent variables I have to deal with to make sure that my UI is responsive across all common page sizes my app will encounter without introducing another one, whose benefit, frankly, just doesn't seem that compelling.

Asking because I genuinely do not get it.
> Not when AI bots do all of those things

AI bots aren't close to doing all those things, but I'm glad the billionaires bought into the hype and tipped their hand prematurely.
I've never paid a company for C
> It sucks.

It depends on your perspective surely? As a lawyer your job is typically to protect your client from legal risk, so if users are happy to sign a really expansive set of terms (which experience shows is the case) that gives grants lots of permission to do stuff with their data then that's low risk. If you as a business don't want that then you need to make it explicit that you're willing to take on some extra risk.
So do many populated places.
germany probably has a fair case to do so but the UK hardly does given she furnished the harris campaign with a large amount of free labor, nearly 100 staffers: https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/british-labour-party-s...
> it gets deserialized as the zero value

It’s more complicated:

https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/enum/

>> What happens when a program parses binary data that contains field 1 with the value 2?

>- Open enums will parse the value 2 and store it directly in the field. Accessor will report the field as being set and will return something that represents 2.

>- Closed enums will parse the value 2 and store it in the message’s unknown field set. Accessors will report the field as being unset and will return the enum’s default value.
Regarding Tuckman's model, there are actually numerous studies validating its relevance and practical application: Gren et al. (2017) validated it specifically for agile teams across eight large companies. Natvig & Stark (2016) confirmed its accuracy in team development contexts. Bonebright's (2010) historical review demonstrated its ongoing relevance across four decades of application.

I feel we're talking past each other here. My original point was about which AI model is better for MY WORK. (I run a starup accelerator for first time founders) 4.5, in 30 seconds over minutes, provided more practical value to founders building actual businesses, and saved me time. While I appreciate your historical references and academic perspectives, they don't address my central argument about GPT-4.5's response being more pragmatically useful. The distinction between academic precision and practical utility is exactly what I'm highlighting. Founders don't need perfect theoretical models - they need frameworks that help them bridge vision and execution in the real world. When you bring up feudal production modes and von Moltke, we're moving further from the practical question of which AI response would better guide someone trying to align teams around a meaningful mission that drives business results. It's exactly why I formed the 2 prompts in the manner I did, I wanted to see if it was an academic or an expert.

My assessment stands that GPT-4.5's 30 seconds of thinking reflects well how mission operationalizes vision reflects how successful businesses actually work, not how academics might describe them in theoretical papers. I've read the papers, I've studied the theory deeply, but I also have NYSE and NASDAQ ticker symbols under my belt, from seed. That, is the whole point here.
This seems to be a bonafide FOSS project, the correct way to ask for features is either to provide patch or money not this..
OP said,

> I think it’s not coincidental that many of the people I’ve met who believe in this stuff have a relationship with amphetamines/MDMA
The test I suggested would reveal that, too.
> In dev mode, just issue a warning "loaded script that has hash X but isn't statically defined.

How does the browser know which files to warn you about? What about scripts that are generated dynamically and have no static hash? There's plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want this.
> or can force them to update.

I've used a few clients that completely lock me out for every tiniest minor version update. Very top-tier annoying imho.
Prodia – Flux Schnell
And even then, your code could pass all tests but be a spaghetti mess that will be impossible to maintain and add features to.
I've been told it depends on management's goals.

If you are a startup (many HN readers are), employee hours are relatively expensive. The goal is to get a product out as fast as possible, and most of the time you fail at making a working product anyways. Meanwhile, you only have to spend money on servers once you have a successful product. Deferring the problem makes sense here.

On the other hand, I personally write code that'll be near guaranteed to run millions of times in some factory somewhere, and there's little benefit if I ship my code before the factory starts making stuff. I'll take the time to write high-performance and high-quality software because there's now a financial benefit to doing so.

But ultimately, it's my boss who gives me insight into what I should be doing. Not a book, because the book doesn't have context that [company] will lose tens of thousands of dollars every day that I don't fix [issue].
That is a likely true to an extent, though it's hard to say at what point it cuts off.

If a model was trained 6 months ago for example it will likely have some info on shows that came out this month due to various data points talking about that show as "upcoming" but not released. Due to that it may still recommend "new" shows that have just released.

All that being said, I have to imagine that suggesting shows that have just now been released is likely the weak point of the system for sure.
If you want to create a good piece of software (let's say Photoshop) in English, create it in English. If you want to create a good Photoshop in German, create it again but in German. You can use the English one as a base, but treat it as a new product that happens to have a lot of code reuse, not a variant of English Photoshop.

Then, to reduce maintenance costs, you can fold the changes back in to the original software, using conditional statements and so on. This creates International Photoshop, of which English Photoshop, German Photoshop and Chinese Photoshop are just configuration options.

What you should not do is create International Photoshop first, and then specialize it for English and German and Chinese. You'll find places where the localizations don't fit into the framework you created, and then you'll either go back and change the framework, or (more likely) you'll just use English conventions in the non-English versions to make them fit the framework, and people in other countries will just live with with their language's equivalent of Engrish.

This is related to "a library must have 3 clients", "make a game not a game engine", etc, also "red green refactor". You have to make several specific things before you can generalize anything. If you don't make the concrete things first, you don't know what has to be generalized and how, and what doesn't. When you make the framework first, it has all the wrong generalization points.

Of course, if you already did this for a previous project so you already know how the framework should be, then you can try the framework-first approach. But beware - with that approach you might get stuck in the second system effect.

This comment has been delayed for hours by HN's rate limit.
I can easily add another one, on change conversion:

Changing case of a word can be performed by changing case of each letter individually.
Most of CSS is indeed statically typed (property have statically typed valid values). It's not true anymore when you introduce custom properties and IACVT though.
It most certainly does, if you are using the latest models, which people making comments like this never are as a rule.
I also don't think the Pentagon has the expertise necessary to tell good social science from bad.
> any kind of theorem or idea communicated to another mathematician needs to be serialized into language which would make it computable.

This is a fallacy. Just because you need to serialize a concept to communicate it doesnt mean the concept itself is computable. This is established and well proven:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

The fact that we can come up with this kind of uncumputable problems is a big plus in supprt of Penrose's Idea that consciousnes is not computable and goes way beyond compatability.
Look at a cross section of the Earth: https://www.britannica.com/science/oceanic-crust

The deepest bore of all time was 12 km deep. The crust is between 5 km and 100 km and thinnest under the ocean. The numbers involved here are staggering. One might as well hope to stop the Earth's winds with a windmill.
Any theory which purports to show that Roger Penrose is able to "see" the truth of the consistency of mathematics has got to explain Edward Nelson being able to "see" just the opposite.
Planetary Dyson Sphere.
The people who left Sunda and crossed the Weber line to settle Sahul 50 - 60,000 years ago had to traverse about 90km of deep ocean to do so.

"Passively floating on a raft" for 90km was never really plausible.
I remember my equivalent (they called it "Commerce" but it was basically law/politics/ethics) spent some significant time navel gazing at legislation that had directly influenced the private school system we were in.

"here are various ways that people have tried to determine the right thing to do throughout time" would have been vastly preferable to "heres how private schools with private funding successfully managed to extort the government for even more funding"

Maybe you can consider the teacher to be good because I remember the (many, many) lessons on the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulburn_School_Strike
The original article references cartels in Colombia, not Mexico. Also, the goal of the research is to prevent people from joining crime organizations, not how to catch existing heads of criminal organizations. It's not clear what you implied by the text that you quoted.
Literally every website that uses JSONP will stop working if that happened. This would break the web in fundamental ways. If we're going to break the web in fundamental ways, resource integrity is hardly among the things that I'd be interested in changing.
Pretty much everything you're saying is true.

> It's not widely known, and it seems to be still in the research stage.

Yes on both counts.

> A lot of things in this area never really get out of that.

I hope that doesn't happen to Fil-C, but it could!

> Getting these things to mass deployment, ticking all those little boxes, is a lot of effort.

100%

I think this is one area where I'm trying to make Fil-C different than what came before it. I'm trying to tick all those little boxes. It's a lot of work!

> Porting a distribution to a new CPU architecture is likely easier, especially after the early stages (toolchain bringup).

Not sure about this. It might be true today because Fil-C hasn't yet ticked all the boxes, but the aim is definitely to be close to the cost of porting to a new CPU. It's already like that for a lot of code.

> Perhaps the memory overhead?

Heh yeah. The invisicaps cost memory. And GC costs memory.

> Or it might turn out that the desired performance characteristics basically require a JIT that specializes code so that typed pointers can be used where the types are known to be correct.

I've thought about how a JIT might help. I don't think it would. (Most of my compiler experience is writing JITs and I wrote JavaScriptCore's JITs, so I'm biased towards seeing JIT opt opportunities - and I don't see any in Fil-C right now.)
I'm thinking about harbour automation and how it impacts productivity. Thanks.
They aren't independent ideas, effects of climate change would likely lead to higher pressures on fishing while at the same time reducing the number of fish if habitats change faster than species can adapt.
I haven't used 4.5 but have some experience using Claude for creative writing, and in my experience it sometimes has the uncanny ability to get to the core of my ideas, rephrasing my paragraph long descriptions into just a sentence or two, or both improving and concretizing my vague ideas into something that's insightful and tasteful.

Other times it locks itself into a dull style and ignores what I ask of it and just produces boring generic garbage, and I have to wrangle it hard to get some of the spark back.

I have no idea what's going on inside, but just like with Stable Diffusion, it's fairly easy to make something that has the spark of genius, and is very close to being perfect, but getting the last 10% there, and maintaining the quality seems almost impossible.

It's a very weird feeling, it's hard to put into words what is exactly going on, and probably even harder to make it into a benchmark, but it makes me constantly flip-flop between scared of being how good the AI is, and questioning why I ever bothered with using it in the first place, as I would've progress much faster without it.
My two reactions:

1) You could remove all references to tech from this and it would still be the same. For instance:

> Tech companies are run by small groups of people with the goal of making money1. Successful tech companies make a lot of money, by definition. They hire software engineers in order to continue doing the things that make that money, or to do new things that make more money.

All those things are true of all companies (if we replace "software engineers" with a more general term like "employees").

2) It always saddens me to see people talk a lot about how our entire society is geared towards making more and more money, without ever suggesting that this is bad.
Librewolf isn't going to be practical for macOS users. It isn't signed appropriately and will not run unless you xattr -c on the app package. That's unfortunate. I'm not sure if an update will re-establish the macOS quarantine flags or not.
A mistake. There is no true security from large powers without nukes. Ukraine shows this. Alliances with the USA aren't reliable or an adequate replacement.
Used cars can generate income if you lease them out. And there are firms that will do this including dealerships and rental car companies. What you don't see though (unlike real estate) is random general investors (who are not car leasing specialists) buying up large chunks of the used car supply in order to lease them out. And the reason they don't do this is because new cars get manufactured fast enough such that older cars just keep getting devalued making it a relatively low margin business. The suggestion being made by YIMBYs (of course) to continuously allow constructing high density housing such that there will always be lots of brand new units on the market in order to help devalue the older units. I would suspect at that point that general investors would likely leave the apartment leasing business, selling them either to individuals that will choose to live in them, or to firms whose specialty is home leasing - the only type of business likely to be able to profitably lease used housing at low margins at that point.
May still only yield a philosophical zombie. You can simulate gravity but never move something with its simulation.
I was looking for a web server, not a web framework. A replacement for nginx and caddy, not something to build applications on thus I never would have thought about clicking on a link talking about web frameworks.

Anybody have any suggestions beyond the one under discussion?