skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was talking about this issue with a friend a while ago: If an LLM often hallucinates the same package name for a common problem you could copy an existing library, adapt the API to fit the hallucination, use the same hallucinated name and finally include a backdoor.
Not something you would do if there was any chance of a larger deal near term
There are valid reasons for tariffs:

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good

Especially when it comes to certain areas of the economy:

> Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car.

> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

> China has rapidly established itself as the world’s dominant shipbuilding power, marginalizing the United States and its allies in a strategically important industry. In addition to building massive numbers of commercial ships, many Chinese shipyards also produce warships for the country’s rapidly growing navy. As part of its “military-civil fusion” strategy, China is tapping into the dual-use resources of its commercial shipbuilding empire to support its ongoing naval modernization

* https://www.csis.org/analysis/ship-wars-confronting-chinas-d...

But none of the current "reasons"—which may simply be rationalizations / retcons by underlings for one man's fickle will—really make much sense:

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/all-the-arguments-for-tariffs-...
> They hold all the cards now

What do you mean "now?" With the amount of trade imbalance they had the ability to simply block exports at any time. It perhaps only works once but it's a very powerful lever.
>This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example.

You, nor others, have not actually proven that.

>Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on.

Right, and that’s not what I’m doing.
I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). (Though admittedly I don’t know exactly what that looks like) They should be serving the people, not themselves.

But if I tell you sandwiches should be banned because they are bad for you and I bring you a bowl of pasta as an example of their harmful ways, I’m going to look silly, aren’t I?
Yes. Health insurers are partially hired villains to take blame and ire. My employer has a multi-vendor plan that is mostly UHC. They even have specialist cancer care that will pay in full for just about everything, including travel and food. We have almost none of the issues that you hear about insurance nightmares.

That's because they negotiated and paid for such a plan.

My sister works for a similar large employer. They hired Cigna as the insurer/benefits administrator, and every interaction is a problem. Your two kids have an ear infection? Cool, we've determined that the second one is due to an auto accident. It's so bad that the company hired another company to argue with Cigna for you.

End of the day, the employer controls the purse, and the insurer is doing what the employer paid for. It's cheaper to hire another company to argue for the folks who have noticed problems than to pay for a level of service.
This reeks "pay to play" very typical for banana republics.

Donations to presidential inauguration fund to get access to the president was already tradition in the US. Trump government just exploits it without shame.
Are you genuinely surprised?

We’ve legalized bribery. Politicians are genuinely very cheap to buy.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for. Everyone has a price.
I am 50/50 on this particular argument for why OSes are in a rut. I think there is actual competition in the form of the various distros out there and they have passionate advocates with real skill trying new things but they don't really take in a more mainstream way and they rarely feel revolutionary. I think this is more of a track gauge problem. It is hard to provide a truly novel OS without building all the infra around it so that people can actually use it. That takes resources at a scale that few can muster. What if I wanted to build something that kills off the idea of a file system? All the apps out there are written at their very core with this concept in them so even if it is a better idea, it is incredibly hard to bring it out to market and only huge companies can do it. At the same time though the huge companies are pushing their versions of things which makes it hard to compete and have even small innovation in the space. I don't have a solution here. I had hoped things like web assembly would have led to OS breakaway by now but it hasn't really happened. Maybe it still will.
>it's better when everyone has a (place?) they feel welcome

Yes, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people using sites like Reddit or Discord are not choosing it. They are there because it has become their only alternative.

And it has become their only alternative because all these hobbyist forums can only exist when they are serving some tiny, exclusive priviledge few. If they grow too much, they either will crumble or will find themselves becoming a "professional" service with people on payroll and revenue targets.
Well if a human consistently hallucinates as much as an LLM, you definitely not want them employed and would probably recommend they go to rehab.
I’m so sorry. No one should have to deal with this stress.

It might be worth reaching out to your state (local, not federal) rep and also your state’s insurance commissioner.
Anyone can read a file, split it by newline and split it by comma, but what if values contain newlines or commas? How do you unescape? What about other edge cases? In Rust an existing library would handle all that, and you would also get structure mapping, type coercion, validation etc for free.
Pump and dumps run from the white house, blatant insider trading, no checks or balances - welcome to post-America.
Huh, let's just forget that women had to e.g. fight for the right to vote, or the whole civil rights movement... OK, fine, it's 2025, and let's see, is the discrimination that's in people's heads about "what's normal" totally gone? I can admit that if you ask me to imagine a CEO, I'd imagine a middle-aged white man, am I the only one? And what does this image of normality do to the idea of who will be picked for a particular job, by a group of people?

Yeah if I'm looking for a caretaker for my child, a male candidate would also make me go "Huh, interesting". Women have the advantage for this job, and men have it for the CEO job, I wonder which job is more powerful in the world (if we don't pull out a philosophical idea of "powerful"...).
I get to be one of the lucky few to learn today that ffmpeg was ported (well, transpiled) to WASM. This is more specifically built on that port: https://github.com/ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm

That project has an interactive playground that essentially describes and demonstrates how it works: https://ffmpegwasm.netlify.app/playground

This also means that despite being a locally hosted ffmpeg frontend, it's still slower than native ffmpeg and bound to WASM limits like file size (still a generous 2GB for images and audio, but not as viable for big video conversions).

Still weird that this project doesn't seem to acknowledge that anywhere.
(a) in most of the US not owning a car isn’t an option

(b) if we had a reasonable market then some people could have an alternative like paying out of pocket
Delay, deny, defend by another name.
The strategy is to sow fear and uncertainty to drive capital from stocks to government bonds and drive down the bond yield. Bessant is pretty clear about this. Once they get the bond yields down and refinance a lot of the short term debt into longer term debt they free up operating budget. Combine with Elon’s DOGE cutting costs and Lutnick raising some capital from tariffs, and it is a pretty good strategy. I don’t agree with Trump’s policies generally nor am I American, but this is a good short term strategy.
IMO at the very least we should have free catastrophic coverage covered by taxes.

Otherwise we end up paying more anyway. Someone needs to bail out hospitals.
That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.
What's all that undefined behavior? Closest I can think of is executing unsupported instructions, but you have to mess up pretty hard for that to happen, and you're not gonna get predictable behavior here anyway (and sane hardware will trap of course; and executing random memory as instructions is effectively UB on any architecture).

(there's a good bit of unpredictable behavior (RVV tail-agnostic elements, specific vsetvl result), but unpredictable behavior includes any multithreading in any architecture and even Rust (among other languages))
> feminism has succeeded when the military is all women.

*when the draft is all women, but men are allowed to serve voluntarily
I mean commodity hardware usually did ok in games consoles prior to then too. NES was a modified commodity chip
UK to take emergency control of British Steel, with nationalisation on the table
>Low pay selects for rich and corrupt politicians.

Ignoring all the other non-salary pay they get, I'll buy that low pay can select for rich politicians because it means you can't rely on your Congressional salary to make ends meet. But it only selects for corrupt politicians if the main motivation is to make money. That is the presupposition that seems to frame your whole argument, and the one I have been pushing back on since the original comment. That sentiment undergirds the premise that pay is commensurate with ability. We can create systems that don't select for people with a primary motivation related to financial gain. $10MM salaries ain't it, though.

Someone who just wants to be in Congress to make a sweet $10 million in honest pay would be infinitely better than most of the people there right now.

This just doesn't make sense in the context of what you've previously said. Based on your above post, you're saying low pay selects for corruption because they're in it for the money. But giving $10MM a year selects for people who are in it for the money, meaning you have the same problem. I fail to see how that selects for better people than are there currently if it gives the same incentives.

If you re-read my original comment, I advocate for a "reasonable" salary, but not one that selects for people who have money as their primary motivation. I think there's an argument that $174k/yr is not reasonable for Congress person. We could increase that (and there are proposals to do so*) while also having the guardrails in place that don't disproportionately select for people who care more about money than their constituents.

*I suspect there is more at play than just Congressional salary. E.g., the civil servant salary ceiling is pegged to Congressional pay, so there are second-order effects to consider.
When using AI, you are still the one responsible for the code. If the AI writes code and you don't read every line, why did it make its way into a commit? If you don't understand every line it wrote, what are you doing? If you don't actually love every line it wrote, why didn't you make it rewrite it with some guidance or rewrite it yourself?

The situation described in the article is similar to having junior developers we don't trust committing code and us releasing it to production and blaming the failure on them.

If a junior on the team does something dumb and causes a big failure, I wonder where the senior engineers and managers were during that situation. We closely supervise and direct the work of those people until they've built the skills and ways of thinking needed to be ready for that kind of autonomy. There are reasons we have multiple developers of varying levels of seniority: trust.

We build relationships with people, and that is why we extend them the trust. We don't extend trust to people until they have demonstrated they are worthy of that trust over a period of time. At the heart of relationships is that we talk to each other and listen to each other, grow and learn about each other, are coachable, get onto the same page with each other. Although there are ways to coach llm's and fine tune them, LLM's don't do nearly as good of a job at this kind of growth and trust building as humans do. LLM's are super useful and absolutely should be worked into the engineering workflow, but they don't deserve the kind of trust that some people erroneously give to them.

You still have to care deeply about your software. If this story talked about inexperienced junior engineers messing up codebases, I'd be wondering where the senior engineers and leadership were in allowing that to mess things up. A huge part of engineering is all about building reliable systems out of unreliable components and always has been. To me this story points to process improvement gaps and ways of thinking people need to change more than it points to the weak points of AI.
oh, they'll be repercussions. We, as a nation, will be paying for this for years and years to come.
No, that's a classic misconception. People claimed that windows "flowed" because really old ones were thicker at the bottom, but that was just how some old window glass was made.
Because they want to punish and humiliate the establishment that let this happen and so they pick the person that seems to also hate and be hated by the establishment.
He's getting more well known pretty fast, over all this. His explainer videos of what's going on and why it's so dangerous are often kinda boring and basic if you're a politics nerd–but that's great, because we don't need to be told, it's the folks who aren't politics nerds who need to be educated on this stuff.
"Name literally any other technology that works this way"

Since you don't like my animal examples, how about power tools? Chainsaws, table saws, lathes... all examples of tools where you have to learn how to use them before they'll be useful to you.

(My inability to come up with an analogy you find convincing shouldn't invalidate my claim that "LLMs are unreliable technology that is still useful if you learn how to work with it" - maybe this is the first time that's ever been true for an unreliable technology, though I find that doubtful.)
Trade imbalance causes debt. Debt causes payments. As debt grows, payment grow. Eventually it causes default.

It's OK to have trade imbalance for some time. It can't last forever.
> So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men?

Well, obviously not. But there is always the caveat that suggesting government providing adequate child care to working women is communism of whatever. Is it feasible to have some compromise here?

> And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university students, nurses, teachers?

This sounds like a perfectly legitimate ask if young men do really care about it. Why not contact your local representative and explain the issue in an articulate manner?
What do you think AWS decided to sell? Both companies had a significant interest in making infrastructure easy to create and scale.
Perhaps this chapter can help? https://jax-ml.github.io/scaling-book/tpus/

It's a chip (and associated hardware) that can do linear algebra operations really fast. XLA and TPUs were co-designed, so as long as what you are doing is expressible in XLA's HLO language (https://openxla.org/xla/operation_semantics), the TPU can run it, and in many cases run it very efficiently. TPUs have different scaling properties than GPUs (think sparser but much larger communication), no graphics hardware inside them (no shader hardware, no raytracing hardware, etc), and a different control flow regime ("single-threaded" with very-wide SIMD primitives, as opposed to massively-multithreaded GPUs).
You can. Then again, I'm paying.
Is this move in response to all the trade uncertainty of recent weeks/months or was there such a move in the works prior to the tariff chaos?
> Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others

Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.
You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
Thanks, I stand corected. Rust does not allow to initialize globals with arbitrary code running before main even with unsafe.

One more point to consider Rust over C++.
Because Capital flight is the problem, not declining value of USD.

The fall of dollar was caused by capital flight. Money is moving mainly into Euro-area. Not UK, not elsewhere.

Investors are taking money out from the US. They sell assets, get dollars, then covert them to other currencies and take them out of country.
So they vote for the shenanigans? As that’s what they did.

The American people basically legalized fraud and looting for the next four years.
If intent doesn't matter, is it still lying when the reality happens to coincide with what the machine says?

Because the OP's name seems way more descriptive and easier to generalize.
Where is the supreme court and the friggin senate in this? Are they just looking on while everything burns down around them?
I don't use Deep Research or NotebookLM myself (or any other generative AI product). But every example of a NotebookLM audio overview I've seen was actively misleading and ignored critical context. However the voices were very personable and entertaining! Likewise Deep Research uses terrible sources and often gets things wrong, I have yet to see a single example that holds up to scrutiny...but it sure goes down smooth compared to reading a bunch of disparate papers!

I suspect Deep Research and NotebookLM aren't used to get information so much as to provide extremely low-quality infotainment. I read Wikipedia recreationally and I can definitely see the appeal of having a Wikipedia-like article/podcast for anything you can think of. But they seem miserably bad for actually learning stuff (especially the stupid podcasts).
You can never doubt that things can get a lot worse, no matter how bad they currently are. This is what we're finding out now.
Anecdotally, it's come a long way since 5 years ago

I hear this trope for two decades now.

my Thinkpad

Are you even surprised that I'm not?
Two people is many people. The general trend I see is that Rust is exploding in adoption.
At least they do in the Settings:

"The vertd project is a server wrapper for FFmpeg [...]"
So you can get the benefits of Rust on platforms that rustc doesn't support. Seems pretty straightforward.
So you're saying deliberate deception, mistaken statements and negligent falsehoods should all be considered the same thing, regardless?

Personally, I'd be scared if LLMs were proven to be deliberately deceptive, but I think they currently fall in the two later camps, if we're doing human analogies.
It’s about maintaining the manufacturing capability as a national security concern.
Most of our “brains” are mercenaries, who are actually a net loss to the country if you judge by anything other than the stock market. Look at what happened to SoCal! You are all welcome to our fintech/biotech/adtech/surveillance “geniuses”.
AI startups were easy cash grabs until very recently. But I think the wave is settling down - doing real AI startup turned out to be VERY hard, and the rest of the "startups" are mostly just wrappers for OpenAI/Anthropic APIs.
>but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options.

Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same?

>"Annual, billed monthly" is set in smaller italicized type right under the actual price of US$59.99/mo on the main pricing page[0].

I might be sympathetic to this reasoning if this was a $2 coffee or something, but $60/month is nothing to be sneezed at, and I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag. Otherwise, this makes as much sense as complaining about supermarket price tags that show "$4" in huge font, and "/lb" in small font, claiming that it misled buyers into thinking an entire package of ground beef costs $4, because the $4 price tag "primed" them or whatever.

>While it mentions a fee for cancelling after 14 days, you'll find nary a mention of what that fee actually is until you track down a legal page[1] that isn't linked to any point during the payment process up until the sign-in prompt (I didn't bother creating a new account to look beyond that). At the very least, it's not present during the stage when you're still relatively uncommitted and somewhat more likely to notice any more onerous terms were they present.

Okay but if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed. There's approximately zero people who were aware the termination fee existed, found it too hard to figure out what it actually was, but somehow still went with the "Annual, billed monthly" option.

>Finally, there's an option for a 30-day free trial of Adobe Stock. I'd have sworn it was pre-selected a few years ago, but I may be mistaken on that. If it was, then at least that's a change for the better. Anyhow, did you notice how it's on a 30 day trial period whereas the normal plan has a 14 day cancellation window? Let those deadlines fall to the back of your mind for a week or two, and will you remember which is 14 days and which is 30? There was no reason why Adobe had to use 30 days for Stock or only 14 days for their other offerings. But it adds to the confusion, and that's the entire purpose of a dark pattern. Stock is also an "annual, billed monthly plan," but nowhere in the checkout process is it mentioned that Stock also has a large cancellation fee. That's hidden in a separate part of the Subscription Terms page.[1]

This feels like grasping at straws. If we're going to invoke "people might get two numbers confused with each other", we might as well also invoke "people can't calculate dates properly, and therefore a 14 day cancellation window is misleading because they think 14 days = 2 weeks, and set up a cancellation reminder for the same day of the week 2 weeks afterwards, not realizing that would be just over 14 days and thus outside the window".
Both of which are encumbered with regulations that want them to need this.
Do people not realize 80% of companies are self-insured, which means they are the ones actually paying for procedures? Not insurance companies.

Insurance companies are just doing what their clients, our employers, want which is reducing cost at every possible angle. Just like how companies cut every possible cost everywhere these days.

It's all the same problem: cost cutting across the board, at any price, by American businesses.