skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-coddling-of-the-am...

A lot of these examples have been pretty thoroughly debunked as either non-existent, or about something other than the professors expressing "conservative views".

This one is, I assume intentionally, anonymized and so we can't actually verify that it happened or what the circumstances around it were. But I'll call out one of the most common "views" I've heard on college campuses from professors that got in trouble for something was that "professors should be allowed to sleep with their students." So if professors are taking heat for thinking that they should be able to take advantage of barely legal kids... I don't really care.

If there are legitimate examples of professors just expressing that they have conservative beliefs, then that is suspicious because school administrators and alumni tend to lean pretty conservative themselves, and often make the final decisions on such issues after a frustrating amount of investigation.
If your doctor says you have only 128 days to live, you count down, not up. TTL is time to live, which is the same thing.
Archeologists don't actually wear fedora hats.

And the stereotypical meme "archeologist hat" is the pith helmet.
I’m also unafraid to say it’s BS. I don’t even want to call it scifi. It’s propaganda.
True, this needs to be fixed.

What I wanted to express was that I didn’t do any of the implementation, that is, any logic.

I need to phrase this better.
Tried Flux.dev with the same prompts [0] and it seems actually to be a GPT problem. Could be that in GPT the text encoder understands the prompt better and just generates the implied IP, or could be that a diffusion model is just inherently less prone to overfitting than a multimodal transformer model.

[0] https://imgur.com/a/wqrBGRF Image captions are the impled IP, I copied the prompts from the blog post.
Sync is still an unsolved problem. The solutions that claim to do it aren't very satisfactory.
The link for U-Boot CVE-2025-26729 is actually 2 separate links that lead to different vulnerabilities depending on which half of it you click.

Odd. I wonder if the article was written by AI.
Yep, that’s the problem. If only people treated the man who mocks disabled reporters with respect then he would have lost.
A security partner program functions as a white-glove service provided by the security team, offering dedicated support to specific engineering teams. While traditional security operates as a consultancy supporting everyone, a security partner serves as a long-term, dedicated advisor to a specific organization or product line. This approach enables a security engineer to become a subject matter expert on a set of products and their technologies, foster closer collaboration with engineering, and improve communication and understanding of critical changes in product lines. The benefits of the security partnership model include:
You're way off. This is not my personal definition of generalization.

We are talking about a very specific technical term in the context of machine learning.

An explicitly programmed chess engine does not generalize, by definition. It doesn't learn from data. It is an explicitly programmed algorithm.

I recommend you go do some reading about machine learning basics.

https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~lczhang/321/notes/notes09.pdf
Then random internet routers could break internet traffic by setting it really low and the user could not do a thing about it. They technically still can by discarding all traffic whose value is less than some value, but they don’t. The idea that they should set their own policy could fundamentally break network traffic flows if it ever became practiced.
You are not wrong! I will add those infos.
This is really cool and I’m glad I stumbled upon it. I’ve played around with it for some time and am loving it, can definitely see myself being a long term and happy user. Have you thought about making this an app? Full blown launch on App Store might involve some toil and money but adding support for PWA is quite easy. Having it on my home screen increases my chances of opening it.
The curious case of binfmt for x86 emulation for ARM Docker
> Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new.

How could you possibly know this?

Is this falsifiable? Is there anything we could ask it to draw where you wouldn't just claim it must be copying some image in its training data?
It’s good science fiction, I’ll give it that. I think getting lost in the weeds over technicalities ignores the crux of the narrative: even if this doesn’t lead to AGI, at the very least it’s likely the final “warning shot” we’ll get before it’s suddenly and irreversibly here.

The problems it raises - alignment, geopolitics, lack of societal safeguards - are all real, and happening now (just replace “AGI” with “corporations”, and voila, you have a story about the climate crisis and regulatory capture). We should be solving these problems before AGI or job-replacing AI becomes commonplace, lest we run the very real risk of societal collapse or species extinction.

The point of these stories is to incite alarm, because they’re trying to provoke proactive responses while time is on our side, instead of trusting self-interested individuals in times of great crisis.
Abolishing them for billion-dollar-valuation corporations while keeping them for regular people is definitely a bad idea, though.

The argument here isn't "let's abolish copyright", the argument is "let's give OpenAI a free copyright infringement pass because they're innovative and cutting-edge or something".
Originally, DevOps was about trusting developers with production. But modern DevOps teams operate on the belief that developers can’t be trusted with production.

How is that not just a symptom of poor management?

Surely, if your company makes a living delivering software services, then all employees should be pulling in the same direction when it comes to getting code developed and into production. And surely that's up to management?
Honestly, it feels like the kind of thing that companies which actually want merit-based graduates should want to subsidize more aggressively.

If you're a billion-dollar company that only hires college grads, it feels like there's gotta be value to you in making sure there's more meritocracy in the process of getting degrees.

It would also change who the customer is so that the university doesn't "owe" the student a degree which makes the evaluation that universities do a little less rigorous.
> The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies.

I would not say their argument is wrong. My best read is that they were arguing against and completely open job forum for corporations in general and for some kind of gatekeeping.

It seemed an argument against current practices. I can not call that wrong, though I would want to see what they would want as an alternative.
Show HN: Ultra private AI meeting assistant
Hey folks,

As software engineers, we often forget why we got into the field in the first place. I still remember my time working for a German corporation—juggling a packed meeting calendar while just trying to get some code written. That’s when it hit me: the only real solution is a tool that can handle meetings for us when our attention isn’t actually needed—so we can stay focused and keep building.

We also need a way to make sure no important info slips through the cracks. A tool that lets us find exactly what we’re looking for in seconds. And of course, it has to work in enterprise environments where privacy is everything.

After over a year of hard work and research, we built that tool: Meeting Buddy.

I’d love it if you gave it a try and let me know what you think.

If you find it useful and leave us a killer review on all our socials, we’ll add 2 extra months to your account, free of charge. Enjoy!

demo: https://meeting-buddy.com#demo
>The ML world being nearly entirely in Python, much of it untyped (and that the Python type system is pretty weak) is really scary

I think this has a ton to do with the mixed results from "vibe coding" we've seen as the codebase grows in scope and complexity. Agents seem to break down without a good type system. Same goes for JS.

I've just recently started on an Objective-C project using Cline, and it's like nirvana. I can code out an entire interface and have it implemented for me as I'm going. I see no reason it couldn't scale infinitely to massive LOC with good coding practices. The real killer feature is header files. Being able to have your entire projects headers in context at all time, along with a proper compiler for debugging, changes the game for how agents can reason on the whole codebase.
I don't understand your point, sorry.

Or maybe you misunderstand (on purpose?). I'm saying you attribute those downvotes incorrectly. It's maybe natural to do so as an instinct -- "those people are against me!" -- but on HN it's expected to be a bit more introspective. It's incorrect to say that "people downvote because I'm right" or "people downvote because they have nothing to say".
Microsoft is doing just fine, for now... maybe Copilot will be the beginning of the end for them.
I like how all these articles miss the elephant in the room: using a chatbot as an assistant is offering your data, thoughts, insights, and focus of interests to a corporation that's at best neutral and at worse hostile. Moreover, that corporation may also share anything with business partners, governments, and law enforcement institutions with unknown objectives.
>Use of a dense matrix is an artificial constraint you've imposed yourself, but that only disproves feasibility of your proposed solution, not the entire problem in general.

The use of a dense matrix is the traditional way of solving the problem. The issue is that it solves the wrong problem. You need a dense tensor which requires more storage than the world currently has for an economy of 20 people.

Social interactions are sparse until they aren't. If you think otherwise try to estimate what every Europeans interaction with Gavrilo Princip was on 27 June 1914 vs 28 June 1914.

As for gravitation: I'm very happy for the planets and asteroids out there. Unfortunately the economy isn't a solar system.
https://ai-2027.com/research/compute-forecast

In section 4 they discuss their projections specifically for model size, the state of inference chips in 2027, etc. It's largely pretty in line with expectations in terms of the capacity, and they only project them using 10k of their latest gen wafer scale inference chips by late 2027, roughly like 1M H100 equivalents. That doesn't seem at all impossible. They also earlier on discuss expectations for growth in efficiency of chips, and for growth in spending, which is only ~10x over the next 2.5 years, not unreasonable in absolute terms at all given the many tens of billions of dollars flooding in.

So on the "can we train the AI" front, they mostly are just projecting 2.5 years of the growth in scale we've been seeing.

The reason they predict a fairly hard takeoff is they expect that distillation, some algorithmic improvements, and iterated creation of synthetic data, training, and then making more synthetic data will enable significant improvements in efficiency of the underlying models (something still largely in line with developments over the last 2 years). In particular they expect a 10T parameter model in early 2027 to be basically human equivalent, and they expect it to "think" at about the rate humans do, 10 words/second. That would require ~300 teraflops of compute per second to think at that rate, or ~0.1H100e. That means one of their inference chips could potentially run ~1000 copies (or fewer copies faster etc. etc.) and thus they have the capacity for millions of human equivalent researchers (or 100k 40x speed researchers) in early 2027.

They further expect distillation of such models etc. to squeeze the necessary size down / more expensive models overseeing much smaller but still good models squeezing the effective amount of compute necessary, down to just 2T parameters and ~60 teraflops each, or 5000 human-equivalents per inference chip, making for up to 50M human-equivalents by late 2027.

This is probably the biggest open question and the place where the most criticism seems to me to be warranted. Their hardware timelines are pretty reasonable, but one could easily expect needing 10-100x more compute or even perhaps 1000x than they describe to achieve Nobel-winner AGI or superintelligence.
Apologies, I was juggling multiple sources. The Xerox VC investment into Apple is a matter of public record, the figure of $10/share is widely quoted, including in the Walter Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs[0].

Exactly how and when Xerox disposed of its shares is not public record, but it's known to be around that timeframe and certainly Xerox made a profit. The book _Dealers of Lightning_ goes into more detail about the deal if you're interested[1].

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-your-computer-has-a-mous...

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1101290.Dealers_of_Light...
When I was at uni in NZ (mid 70s) me and my friends wrote a compiler for 6800s (an algol subset, it fit in 2k), we wrote it with copyrights for "uSoft" (that's a greek mu), in retrospect it was an obvious name at the time.

Later we discovered some other guys using the same name in the US (also with a mu) they had a basic interpreter, how lame! (we had a compiler) however we really didn't understand the advantages of being born in the right place .....

I really wish we'd incorporated, we could have sold the name for some silly amount of money
Tried one exercise from the article, to ask gemini to identify owner of domain (my domain). Gemini was very confident and very wrong.

I bet any OSINT person would have had my name and contact in half an hour.
Don’t assume that because the article depicts this competition between the US and China, that the authors actually want China to fail. Consider the authors and the audience.

The work is written by western AI safety proponents, who often need to argue with important people who say we need to accelerate AI to “win against China” and don’t want us to be slowed down by worrying about safety.

From that perspective, there is value in exploring the scenario: ok, if we accept that we need to compete with China, what would that look like? Is accelerating always the right move? The article, by telling a narrative where slowing down to be careful with alignment helps the US win, tries to convince that crowd to care about alignment.

Perhaps, people in China can make the same case about how alignment will help China win against US.
A Swirl of Intrigue Surrounds Swedish Painter Hilma Af Klint's Newfound Status
Why would anyone want to use this instead of Aider?
In both endings it's saying that because compute becomes the bottleneck, and US has far more chips. Isn't it?
Well, statistics would be the only mechanism. If a player was on average playing at level X in one setting, but at a lower level Y in a setting where it was considered impossible to cheat, that's about as good as you can do.

But it's pretty impossible to point to a single move and say "that's definitely a cheat move".
What do you mean by that? I don't understand the comparison, but would like to. Is it about monopoly?
The more we use GPS, the worse we become at finding our way on our own.

What is wrong with using GPS? Before GPS, we were using maps. GPS is a huge improvement.
If you don’t want your software used for things you don’t approve of, don’t give it away for free.
Physically stressed bees expect less reward in active choice judgement bias test
They may have a slightly stronger case for defamation or similar because chess.com said the account was closed for "fair play violation", but still.
> is offering your data, thoughts, insights, and focus of interests to a corporation that's at best neutral and at worse hostile

For a second I thought you were talking about the fact we all have jobs doing exactly that!
You 100% wouldn't be allowed to sell your Indiana Jones drawing services.
> If you don’t want your software used for things you don’t approve of, don’t give it away for free.

They aren't stopping, or even trying to stop, Anduril from using it, though.
My income is tied to the labor time I exert in creating/supporting services. I don't sit back and collect royalties on the code itself. Software is one of the first fields where the fundamental worthlessness of content revealed itself, hence FOSS.

When you watch a musical performance, you are also paying for labor. Even when you buy a physical art object, all the costs involved decompose back to labor. When you have a digital copy of something, there is no labor input to its creation, so guess what the inherent value is.

Animators drew actual cels. Theater workers clocked in and screened the films. The guys at the DVD factory pressed the discs. We paid for all of this already. It's double-billing to charge for copypasting the mere likeness of something. Nobody's doing any work for that.
Read up on 1900s world history and what path dependency is. The dollar is the reserve currency because the USA won the title of world power near the end of the first of half of the 1900s. It was formalized in the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944. The US helped win the war and gained enormous trust and goodwill around the world which it has slowly been squandering since then. POTUS hit the turbo button just a few months ago.

The PRC has strict controls of their money because that is how they can became the factory of the world. They played the hand that were dealt with and battled adversity and they are reaping the rewards.

The president said today that the US trade partners and allies/friends have been taking advantage. You can easily verify if that is true or false. US capitalists moved production overseas to make more money at the expense of the local workers. That's the scam.
That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible.

The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise.

The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason.

> effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.
Right; this is only for large pools of servers.
The world will slowly, slowly converge on this but not before many years of hyping and preaching about how this shit is the best thing since sliced bread and shoving it into our faces all day long, but in the meantime I suggest we be mindful of our AI usage and keep our minds sharp. We might be the only ones left after a decade or two of this.
NotebookLM Discover Sources: Add web research to your notebook
>Downvoting pushes peoples comments down and greys them out

I don't see how that's a problem. People that agree with them can upvote them and ungrey them out and push them back up.
Discussion a few weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393478
Meritocratic hiring of the best candidates is equality of opportunity, not equity/equality of outcome. Equity requires discrimination and dehumanization of individual people to achieve because racial distributions vary at an earlier stage than the hiring process. I agree that a responsible company tries to remove bias and doesn't discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics, however...

It's not the people criticizing them that have lumped them all together. People in support of these programs have failed to self police entirely, for example IBM/Red Hat, google, apple are suffering very firmly evidenced racial discrimination lawsuits for discriminating against people with white skin using quotas, firing hiring managers for refusing to discriminate, and so on. These lawsuits were initiated long before the 2024 election, it's not a trump thing for example though he has made use of it because his dem party opponents support these practices.

If someone makes a blatant racist comment on twitter with their employer directly implicated, if the target race is white that person does not end up being fired in today's companies. These public and frequent appearances of unfairness stack up in the public eye. It's enough evidence there's a failure to self-police within the general DEI and HR landscape and i think people are very much done with the entire concept.

It appears to be a common view of many that "you can't be racist against white people" (direct quote of a kotaku journalist journalist, who was not fired for the statement, they also had a couple statements supporting racial violence against whites, big surprise), but obviously such a view is in itself race based discrimination that generalizes and dehumanizes individual experiences on the basis of race.

You can also look up the Dani Lalonders racist tirade, she's a game developer who has not been fired from EA for her comments despite openly admitting to illegal discrimination and only hiring black people to her team and just generally being insane.
Same here on Firefox 128 ESR.
https://archive.is/DWCN1

Wonder if he refused to install Signal?
Was hoping this to be about development happening on my host OS instead of containers/orchestrators.
There's some interesting history around scientists collecting soil samples from across the world to look for novel antibiotics.

I learned about it through this video, but there's a lot to explore beyond this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ig6ktJGTWk
The web is powerful.
Is html less structured than json? I thought with LLMs the schematic of structure is less relevant than the structure itself.
Does MCP or OS 2200 have any well known users, or was there a niche that they fill(ed)?

Also, I noted in those two roadmaps that they offered continuity - Clear Path Forward -> "Don't worry about migrating or refactoring your apps", but also stated that "none of these new features are guaranteed to show up, and if that damages your company financially, it's not our fault".

I don't know if this is just a standard legal cop-out
The key is understanding the purpose of the rules, its pros and cons, and recognizing the impact of your behavior, both its benefits and harm, considering the feelings of others at the same time. That's essential and most challenging part - the part that requires wisdom.
Die cut is one way to do it, but there are other approaches. I worked in a Christmas card factory for a bit and there are a lot of ways to make patterned bits of flat paper. The point about machinery import costs is spot on though.
Yep. Offline RL is especially full of these types of papers too. The sheer number of alternatives to the KL divergence to prevent the offline distribution from diverging too far from the collected data distribution... There's probably one method for each person on earth.
I meant it is difficult relative to fingerprinting TLS and HTTP. The information is not exported by the berkeley socket API unless you use raw sockets and implement your own userland TCP stack.
And if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, it makes a sound by definition.

…and yet that answer entirely misses the point that the question is about the choice of definition.
probably wouldn't take a bribe
There would be more, but Easter Eggs are banned at Microsoft (and probably other companies).