skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems to me that something like eLife's model is the best solution to this [0]: you still have a minimal amount of curation, but generally if a paper is written well enough and within the field it won't be desk rejected. Then, it gets published on the site and sent off for peer review. Peer reviewers assess how sound the paper is and pass a judgement which readers can view, as well as provide some recommendations to the authors make it stronger. The authors can then either revise the paper, or do nothing at all. In either case, papers don't languish in reviewer hell and the larger scientific community gets to see it.

[0] https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/66d43597/elife-s-new-...
> To go back all the way to where we started, the comment i was originally replying to said "No, C lacks encapsulation of unsafe code. This is very important. Encapsulation is the only way to scale local reasoning into global correctness."

That's fair. I was focusing more on the factual aspect of "Rust enables encapsulating `unsafe`." But you're right, this statement is making a bigger claim than that, and it crosses over into something that is a (in theory) testable opinion.

I do agree with it though. But I recognize that it is a different claim than the one I was putting forward as factual.

I think for this, I would say that my experience with Rust has demonstrated that encapsulation is working at some non-trivial scale. The extent to which it will continue to scale depends, in part, on whether people writing Rust prioritize soundness. In my bubble, this prioritization is extremely high. But will what is arguably a cultural norm extend out to all Rust programmers everywhere?

I legitimately don't know. This is why I was one of the first (but not the first) people to make a stink about improper `unsafe` usage inside the Actix project some years ago. It was because I perceived the project as specifically flouting the cultural norm and rejecting soundness as a goal to strive for. I do indeed see this as an essential piece of what Rust brings to the table, and for it to succeed in its goals, we have to somehow figure out how to maintain the cultural norm that safe APIs cannot be used in a way that leads to UB.

I think where you and I differ is both in what we've seen (it sounds like you've seen evidence of this cultural norm eroding) and what we consider encapsulation busting. I'm not at all worried about bugs in `unsafe` code. Those are going to happen, and yes, they will lead to safe Rust having UB. But those are "just" bugs. The vastly more important thing to me is intent and where blame is assigned when UB happens. If blame starts shifting to the safe code, then that will indicate the erosion of that cultural norm.

As for tooling, I think it's vital to making sure safe encapsulations are correct, but I don't see it as having a significant impact on the norm.

Then again, these are the days in which even some of the strongest cultural norms we've had (in the United States anyway) have been eroding. So maybe building a system on top of one is folly.
Yeah, this. The data I am most concerned about is not even 1GB after compression. That's all my $HOME configs and all my projects I am working on. Then I have some open datasets I like to fiddle with (mostly *.sql.zst compressed DB dumps) which I periodically dump on my Linux server (weekly with rsync) and finally -- video.

Video is obviously like 99.99% of everything but I have made sure to store all the sources of it (mostly downloaded playlists from YouTube) and I have scripts that synchronize the videos from the net to my local folders. Even tested that a few times and it worked pretty well.

So indeed, in the end, just find what's most valuable and archive that properly. In my case I have one copy in my server and 5+ copies on various cloud storage free tiers. All encrypted and compressed. Tested that setup several times as well, I have a one-line script to restore my dev $HOME, and it works beautifully.
Did you read the article?

> The price tag is much higher than the roughly $23 billion Google had offered for Wiz last year before antitrust worries forced the startup to shelve the deal. ... A harsh regulatory environment in 2024 had made it difficult for many firms to push through large deals, but Wall Street is optimistic that the Trump administration would drop some antitrust policies.
There is a new administration, and the new one doesn't have a DOJ that is extremely anti big tech, and going after them for antitrust on everything.
This is expected. People doing frontier research on humanity on shambolic wages while their finances are controlled by stakeholders who know fuck all about science.
> your whole subscription since the beginning will feel like a waste.

This is such a bizarre way of looking at something. I've canceled many subscriptions because of changes made by the company and I never felt like the time I already paid for was a waste. I got the thing I was paying for, then it changed in a way I felt like it was no longer worth paying for so I stopped. It doesn't change the time I was using it at all.

If a company taking your money and using it to make the service works is your line in the sand I've got bad news for you about how almost every single companies uses the money you pay them.
Out of curiosity, is it common to pay to use “AI” in 2025?

I have no desire to pay for any of these “products” even a little bit.
My experience reading lower level languages suggests me that this is not only possible but it seems that the higher the quality of the project (in scope, authors, products) the more of those you find.

When people focus on the _right_ implementation for _their_ problem they often find out that best practices like DRY or abstractions don't scale well at all.
We already have more ads. The "promise" is that, by paying, we will get no more ads. For now.

I didn't ask for that content. I don't understand why I have to pay it.
Has nothing to do with it but the US is learning...

"Trump administration moves to dismantle EPA’s science office" - https://www.ehn.org/trump-administration-moves-to-dismantle-...
This is such an underrated weakness of Google. When I was working at AWS ProServe, we never even took GCP as a serious competitor. Their customer service, acount management and enterprise sales team was so horrendous it was laughable.

I don’t think we even had talking points about why AWS was better than GCP like we did Azure.
This is an overreaction

I had my own anti react moment a few years back - started react in 2017

After spending a substantial amount of time playing the field i’ve come to realize every library, language, framework sucks and has massive quirks. The best one is the one that you are productive with, and can work through the quirks

The issues you mentioned with react compiler are not obviously unworkable quirks, but using beta technology without a full understanding how it works
That's true, some day in the future somebody will make 5 seconds long, long format documentary about the fascinating origins of the word :)

It has a passive aggressive character, I like that word a lot.
Archive [1] for paywall

[1] - https://archive.is/AZDCY
I'm gutted it's cancelled! Thanks for letting me know. What a pity, it was amazing. I haven't liked a sci-fi animated series that much since Final Space.
Sorry, but you seem to be continuing to misunderstand how this works. Disabling a version of HTTP on its own is not going to stop spam. You seem to be confused about how something can be one factor out of many in a statistical model.

If you don't want to talk about basic concepts like bots or fraud, and don't understand how and why detection mechanisms for them exist, I suggest you do your own research. There are lots of explanations out there. An HN comment isn't a place where I can help you with that, sorry.
I'm thinking of the Youtube videos as content.
This is .. surprisingly good tech and strategy analysis for free content on the internet, thank you.

A couple of thoughts — as you note hard infra / training investment has slowed in the last two years. I don’t think this is surprising, although as you say, it may be a market failure. Instead, I’d say it’s circumstance + pattern recognition + SamA’s success.

We had the bulk of model training fundraising done in the last vestiges of ZIRP, at least from funds raised with ZIRP money, and it was clear from OpenAI’s trajectory and financing that it was going to be EXXXPPPENSIVE. There just aren’t that many companies that will slap down $11bn for training and data center buildout — this is out of the scale of Venture finance by any name or concept.

We than had two eras of strategy assessment: first — infrastructure plays can make monopolies. We got (in the US) two “new firm” trial investments here — OpenAI, and ex-OpenAI Anthropic. We also got at least Google working privately.

Then, we had “there is no moat” as an email come out, along with Stanford’s (I believe Alpaca? Precursor to llama) and a surge in interest and knowledge that small datasets pulled out of GPT 3/3.5/(4?) could very efficiently train contender models and small models to start doing tasks.

So, we had a few lucky firms get in while the getting was good for finance, and then we had a spectacularly bad time for new entrants: super high interest rates (comparatively) -> smaller funds -> massive lead by a leader that also weirdly looked like it could be stolen for $5k in API calls -> pattern recognition that our infrastructure period is over for now until there’s some disruption -> no venture finance.

I think we could call out that it’s remarkable, interesting and foresighted that Zuck chose this moment to plow billions into building an open model, and it seems like that may pay off for Meta — it’s a sort of half step ahead of the next gen tech in training know how and iron and a fast follower to Anthropic and OpenAI.

I disagree with your analysis on inference, though. Stepping back a level from the trees of raw tokens available to the forest of “do I have enough inference on what I want inferred at a speed that I want right now?” The answer is absolutely not, by probably two orders of magnitude. With the current rise of using inference to improve training, we’re likely heading into a new era of thinking about how models work and improving them. The end-to-end agent approach you mention is a perfect example. These queries take a long time to generate, in the ten minute range often, from OpenAI. When they’re under a second, Jevon’s paradox seems likely to make me want to issue like ten of them to compare / use as a “meta agent”.. Combined with the massive utility of expanded context and the very real scaling problems with expanding attention into the millions of tokens range, and we have a ways to go here.

Thanks again, appreciated the analysis!
Particle Fall
> but I can't directly influence them back.

Opting out of viewing is directly influencing.
Do you suppose no one has ever thought of building redundant connectivity to the White House?
The difference is that Google is the worse product company among the big tech companies. It’s like the modern day Yahoo! - where acquisitions go to die.
The lower canister in the last of the three links, https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/11/07/ukrain...

Difficult to judge scale, maybe the size of a drinks can or food can? Fiber is pretty thin.
>so you can afford an Apple TV but not YT premium?

How many months of YT Premium does it take to exceed the cost of the Apple TV? They're like $150...
UK wants dirt on data brokers before criminals get there first
I'm just talking about single drive units you manually swap tapes on. That would still make an excellent long term cold backup for me even if I did have to swap the tape s once a week but they're still 4k+ unless I go all the way down to LTO-5 tapes that are just ~1.5TB which could be good enough for critical things but not really helpful for backing up everything.
They canceled it after renwing it.

Louis Leterrier is considered a journeyman Hollywood director, but his work here was insane.

And the puppetry.
To clarify, are you saying that these segments were marked incorrectly?

If so, then it is a plain case of internet vandalism. I would just ignore such segments.

But if the segments were marked correctly and there were too many of them in the video, that is the problem caused by the video creator, not by the community which publishes the segments.
Starlink still seems like an odd choice, since having access to fiber implies 5g is available, too, and the latter costs half as much and is faster/lower-latency. Maybe it makes sense as a backup for the backup, though.
This is such a weird perspective because the attitude I associate with people who go through the university system on the academic path is not obedience at all, but ruthless self advancement. Like literally where are all these obedient people you are talking about?

I would characterize the problem with science as being a failure to increase the available resources commensurate with the population of people capable of doing science. In this situation, the competition becomes sufficiently fierce that it is statistically better to lie, cheat or knee-cap your competitors in some other way than it is to actually do good science, which is unreliable. What you see as fealty to scientific authority is actually just a system which has become totally dominated by resource competition to the exclusion of its actual purpose.
But not by tomorrow.
Google is trying to pay their way into cloud leadership. Because they can’t catch up organically.
I have a rule that modifies a base password depending on the name of the site the password is for. That way I only have to remember the base password and the rule.
>since you simply being there continues to deprive other services of the opportunity to compete

If DancingBacons posted other places, I'd go other places.

Saying something like this completely ignores the realities of network effect.
Hand sanitiser is great for this. A dab of whisky on a paper towel also works well.
I'm surprised there's no framework or tool that makes creating these things easier.

I did some LLM chatting and couldn't find this so excuse me if it's well known and I'm out of the loop
Idk, I just kinda feel like maybe standing 50 yards away and shooting it with a hunting rifle would have poked enough holes in it for the pressure to slowly release.
Google acquires cybersecurity firm Wiz for $32B
Yes, I made my comment more clear.
That hasn't stopped them before. Fitbit and Nest, for example. Granted, this is an order of magnitude more money to waste. Maybe they'll come up with a better strategy this time.
It works for actors because the director controls the camera, but for a politician, it has the opposite effect (at least in a democracy, russian politics isn't too far from a TV show anyway).

Sarkozy was mocked all the time for being short and insecure about it, nobody ever noticed that François Hollande was small until they appeared together after Hollande's election: he was in fact smaller than Sarkozy but nobody had ever noticed that before.
Ah, well you don’t need a special app for that, just a phone. People searching for their lost pet put their contact info out as widely as they can so it’s very easy to find all over the place on social media.

This scam is unfortunately very common in real life, though it’s not set up as a mugging. They’ll demand a reward (they wont have the animal of course, though they may have a sorta similar picture to send you, or a fuzzy one.)
yeah, but engine/car analogy breaks down when it turns out all of the automotive engineering and customer driving data is fed to the engine so they can decide at any point to make your car or your car but better

> To be a bit hyperbolic, this is like saying all SaaS companies are just "compute wrappers", and are dead because AWS and GCP can see all their data and do all the same things.

isn't "we don't train on your data" one of - if not the - the primary enterprise guarantee one pays for when rolling out LLMs for engineers? i don't see a cloud analogy for that
I wouldn't say it is correct. A model is not just a static file containing numbers. Those weights (numbers) you are talking about are absolutely meaningless without the architecture of the model.

The model is the inference engine, a model which can't do inference isn't a model.
There's Wazuh, but it's more of an XDR (i.e. anti-virus) and SIEM solution than what Wiz is offering.

https://wazuh.com/
https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh
Just start from scratch at that point, is there much of value in the core of GIMP?

It’s all pretty antiquated and very 90s-00s level in terms of capabilities. Not even talking AI more talking text editing and non-destructive processes and GPU acceleration.

I know 3.0 aims to address some of this but it’s too little too late and you wouldn’t get much benefit being downstream from a low output team.
This represents 32 billion good reasons to build products to serve big techs platforms and customers.

Sherlocking is obviously the risk.
It's striking how little discussion there is of the underlying risks that now make the US cloud less attractive. Trump is doing a lot of damage to the US as a services provider.
The Great Tech Heist – How "Disruption" Became a Euphemism for Theft
Sure, but that doesn't seem obviously relevant to the question of whether the truck features innovation or just a triangular shape.
yes, every 8200 founder i know already has the next product ready to launch in alpha the day after the time limit on their previous acquisition runs out
I feel like this misses the most useful technique for this (or really glossed over any techniques at all): flat denormalized schemas. If you have an ENUM column, much like a human the LLM won't have enough context to query it. And much like a human, 4 way JOINs get tricky. Having one large sparse maxtrix-like table with many boolean columns like `is_sale_complete`, `is_sale_cancelled` data warehouse style is straight up the key to effectively use an LLM to generate SQL.
I see people hallucinate on HN all the time. We tolerate it. Why should we? We should if the overall inclusion of unreliable things (humans) provide value. The error rate for LLMs doesn't matter. The net value does. So if the value is great enough to tolerate the error rate, we do. We don’t categorically dismiss the technology because it can fail really poorly. We design things all the time which can fail catastrophically. Seriously. So LLMs will appear anywhere where the net value is positive. Maybe you’re taking a more nuanced stance, but I see a lot of “if it can hallucinate even once we can’t use it” rhetoric here. And that’s simply irrational. Even “we can’t use it for important things” is wrong. Doctors are using LLMs today to help collate observed data and suggest diagnoses. Trained professional in the loop mitigates the “terrible failure”. So no I don’t even agree that LLMs shall be relegated to non-important things.
The art of scientific glassblowing (2018)
> Netanyahu is also on trial for corruption. If found guilty, he could face prison. On Tuesday, a court approved Netanyahu’s request not to appear at a hearing on Tuesday “due to the renewal of the war”

When will we get to the part where he clears his good name?
Not sure if it's a very wise move to hire foreign intelligence offers and give them access to the core of your tech products and to the customers data.
note that GDPR consent section on the site is invalid, it does not have "decline" button. so might as well just get rid of it.
The – -var:; hack to toggle multiple values with one custom property (2020)
Also from the UK and have just learnt that I've likely been pronouncing it incorrectly. Here is a video where a Sikh uses the word several times and it sounds like "sick": https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kM1-DUTgTC4

It feels similar to the situation with "Muslim" or "islam", which have a proper "s" sound in Arabic (as in "messy") rather than a "z" sound (as in "music").
I'd say we're not too far away from par for the course, Western nations-wise, when it comes to civil liberties. At least for now. There are still things that you can do in the US (particularly related to speech) that are very different in Europe, for better or worse. Actually here of late it's been worse more than it's been better, but alas.

It's the whole "freedom to fail only applying to the layperson" thing that we're behind on.

EDIT:

Western nations/Common Law countries, I should specify.
That's basically the approach taken in Carpenter v. United States. The Supreme Court said, sure, the police could track people in public with dozens of cars and thousands of man hours, but using CLSI data means it can be done with a few mouse clicks.

You can't apply the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard when you get into these new electronic forms of surveillance. It's become far too cheap and easy to surveil.

Not that I fully endorse their broaded view of privacy, I see it as much more of a fundamental right. That said, I was impressed that this court(who constantly misunderstands technology) understood this.
I highly doubt that this is true. HTTPS POST data is encrypted just like any other HTTPS data. But, if one is using CloudFlare or any other proxy, by nature, that data needs to be decrypted and then encrypted again on it's way to the destination server. So, yes, of course, each and every proxy can see the data. And, no, HTTPS POST data can't be snooped over the wire otherwise.
Out of all of the changes, I find

> Permanently Disable the Security Manager

Kind of blocker for many companies to move to Java 24
> The Adam optimizer was published at ICLR, a top conference in machine learning.

Fair, must have misremembered that one.

> If you removed peer review and just relied on posting to arXiv or similar, new researchers, or researchers from less known institutions, would have no chance at all to make an impact.

I disagree on this one. I did my PhD at an institution that ranks in the top 10 in the most well known university rankings, and I distinctly remember that one time when I was submitting a manuscript to a prominent journal in my field, got some reviews back which weren't positive yet were quite valid criticisms, and my professor told me not to worry because the editor is his buddy and my manuscript will get published for sure.

When that sort of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" culture exists in journals I don't see how peer review can be an equalizer. It just means everyone who publishes at a journal, including the less well esteemed ones, can claim they went through the rigor of peer review. Of course, we all know peer review is just a vibe check and is actually not that rigorous at all, and besides no one cares unless you published in a prestigious journal anyway. The less revered journals exist to collect $5k in open access fees for the publisher in return for hosting a pdf at the marginal cost of maybe a cent a year.
They want more wizes
Turns out McKinsey is really bad at business and letting a McKinsey ghoul run your company is a good way to run it into the ground.
That statement alone does not paint the whole picture. It also has to be better in terms of some metric (e.g. accuracy, computation time, size of molecules simulatable) when compared to classical ones.
H-ARC: A Robust Estimate of Human Performance on the Arc Benchmark
Thank you.

"AI Bot, summarize the number of logins this week broken down by email address and password hash".
Given a desired message size of max_bytes megabytes (in reality the messages will be smaller due to the use of gzip), a database dump command which dumps the database to stdout, a correctly configured mail environment and a destination address of dogehouse@doge.gov:

$ RCPT="dogehouse@doge.gov" database_dump_command | split -b max_bytes M --filter="gzip -| base64 | mail -s \$FILE \$RCPT"

Next time they might want to replace | base64 | with | gpg -r dogehouse@doge.gov -e -a |' which would turn the unencrypted export into an encrypted version:

$ RCPT="dogehouse@doge.gov" database_dump_command | split -b max_bytes M --filter="gzip -| gpg -r \$RCPT -e -a | mail -s \$FILE \$RCPT"