<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: 20k</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=20k</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 01:05:29 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=20k" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>In some of the experiments, the same random noise background exists with different black blobs superimposed at where you expect the correct value to be. Ie they took a fixed realistic-ish looking background, and drew in the 'correct' values<p>Its hard to argue that that isn't fraud as a result. It isn't touching up existing data, its fully fabricating data</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 16:14:43 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48447260</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48447260</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48447260</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "How's Linear so fast? A technical breakdown"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Sure, but I'd like it to be good</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 15:19:11 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446514</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446514</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446514</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "DeepSeek V4 Pro beats GPT-5.5 Pro on precision"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There is absolutely no data, review, evidence, or any indication whatsoever of how this is being used, or what the efficacy of it is<p>The current trend of every industry is to jump onto anything, call it AI, and pretend its being used everywhere. There's absolutely good reason to be sceptical of this</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 15:18:43 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446500</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446500</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446500</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "DeepSeek V4 Pro beats GPT-5.5 Pro on precision"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Usage isn't really a good indicator of quality currently in the AI space, the issue is that there's inherently no way that an AI physics sim can be as good as a real physics simulation, which makes it a very low value prospect</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 09:57:22 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48443286</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48443286</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48443286</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "DeepSeek V4 Pro beats GPT-5.5 Pro on precision"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I've consistently tried to apply LLMs to physics problems and they're utterly useless. They'll just confidently lie, or blatantly plagiarise source materials<p>The issue is once you hit niche physics simulations there simply isn't any training data available, so the limitations of them become incredibly apparent. Its also problematic because a field itself will contain lots of wrong information (its research!), and AI picks all this up uncritically<p>I thought I'd give chatgpt a quick spin on my favourite question, which is "is the adm formalism strictly equivalent to general relativity", to which it consistently gives the wrong answer<p>>Ah, now you’re hitting the subtlety head-on—that’s exactly where the “strict equivalence” claim needs nuance. Let’s unpack this carefully.<p>I don't know how anyone can stand these tools. Its just an obnoxious glazing machine that tells me I'm a genius consistently<p>Gemini gives a little more of a robust answer, but fails catastrophically for the question "is the bssn formalism numerically stable", where just about the entire answer is completely wrong from top to bottom. It certainly looks convincing. Its got all the right terminology. It manages to piece together the right set of words, but all the informational content is wrong, which isn't exactly a small problem<p>I struggle to see how these tools are of any use</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 08:23:52 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48442666</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48442666</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48442666</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "How's Linear so fast? A technical breakdown"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Trello is still my goto for everything. I sincerely hope that it doesn't get enshittified</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 06:31:17 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48441933</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48441933</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48441933</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "The back cover of C++: The Language raises questions not answered by front cover"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Its crazy to me how little effort publishers put into the basic parts of their job sometimes. Its even funnier that raymond chen of all people is the one calling this out</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 05:22:09 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48421651</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48421651</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48421651</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Uber's $1,500/month AI limit is a useful signal for AI tool pricing"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Datacentres aren't the same as infrastructure or research though. All the hardware in them has a finite, useful lifespan. In 10 years time it'll be totally useless<p>Hardware fails, and also scales out in terms of efficacy to run it as more power efficient, modern hardware turns up. It requires constant investment to keep it useful, and cost efficient<p>When AI pops, we'll temporarily have some extra compute capacity that will be horrendously uneconomical to run due to the high grid load and low consumer demand, before they get shutdown. There's simply no real use for them at this scale</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 06:32:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48394829</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48394829</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48394829</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Go: Support for Generic Methods"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The C++ way to do it currently would be:<p><pre><code>    std::array<std::array<T, N>, M> data;
</code></pre>
Which is contiguous<p><pre><code>    int data[M][N]; 
</code></pre>
also works fine and is contiguous in C++<p>Edit:<p>For the stack at least. On the heap, you'd need to use a single std::vector<int> and do the indices manually, or use mdspan</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 03:24:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304095</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304095</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304095</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Go: Support for Generic Methods"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Its very funny watching certain segments of the programming industry rediscovering incredibly basic programming principles, after railing against them for so long. The AI people are starting to try and create formal specs to force the AI to generate an exact output, which is absolutely hilarious to me<p>Dynamically typed/untyped languages finding that strict and visible typing is actually good is another</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 03:21:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304069</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304069</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48304069</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>>Am I overthinking all this?<p>Nope, if AI were to realise the hype, you have to take into account macroeconomics. Usually this isn't a problem for most businesses<p>>The more AI causes productivity increases, the less and less number of workers will be needed. This will heat up the job market even more and bring salaries down.<p>People also underestimate that the reason why companies are so excited about AI isn't to increase productivity, its to fire workers and crack down on worker rights. They won't lay people off because AI means they don't need as many people to get the job done, they'll fire everyone while doing a much shittier job, because they hate having to abide by worker's rights and pay people</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 21:12:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48300771</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48300771</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48300771</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Stack Overflow’s forum is dead but the company’s still kicking"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I've seen chatgpt word for word plagiarise stack overflow answers</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 19:11:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48284460</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48284460</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48284460</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Performance of Rust Language [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The problem is that the implementation burden with C is so high, that people tend not to do it even in relatively performance constrained situations</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 04:22:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48274960</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48274960</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48274960</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "Leave Me Behind"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>>And for some use cases, some crappy software is better than no software<p>The best use case i've seen for AI is people generating random one shot projects for themselves, which is honestly so cool. You can make some basic app that does something very specific, that would have taken objectively a lot longer to make by hand. This is when 'crappy' software is more than good enough for a specific problem</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 17:25:58 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269318</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269318</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269318</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "-​-dangerously-skip-reading-code"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>As people are discovering, natural language is insufficiently precise to be able to specify edge cases. Any language precise enough to be formally verified against <i>is</i> a programming language</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 17:55:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249674</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249674</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249674</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "The quadratic sandwich"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is a great article and its super helpful, thanks to whoever wrote it!</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 17:53:33 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249659</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249659</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249659</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "-​-dangerously-skip-reading-code"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>What we really we need is some kind of more detailed spec language that doesn't have edge cases, where we describe exactly what we expect the generated code to do, and then formally verify that the now generated code matches the input spec requirement. It'd be super helpful to have something more formal with no ambiguity, especially because the english language tends to be pretty ambiguous in general which can result in spec problems<p>I also tend to find especially that there's a lot of cruft in human written spec languages - which makes them overly verbose once you really get into the details of how all of this works, so you could chop a lot of that out with a good spec language<p>I nominate that we call this completely novel, evolving discipline: 'programming'</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 17:39:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249526</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249526</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48249526</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>>You might not know, many people don't, that ad vendors came to the table little over a decade ago to make a truce with Ad Block Plus. ABP and advendors both saw that an "ad supported internet" was unsupported with no ads. So ABP was looking to set terms for what would be deemed as acceptable ads. Creators/service providers get incentive, users get manageable ads.<p>I'm very aware of this, most ad vendors did not come to a truce with ad-block plus. ABP tried to position itself as the gatekeeper of what ads users were allowed to use (a hugely financially beneficial position for them), and immediately ended up letting through a bunch of terrible ads<p>It was a nice idea, but it was never going to work. There was simply too much money for the advertisers to make to allow abp to be the gatekeeper of ad content<p>The nature of ads has gotten significantly more invasive over time, and blocking ads today is a mandatory part of security. Ad companies *do not* have a god given right to track you, or infect your PC with malware<p>Users rioted because ABP did a terrible job at managing the situation<p>>What I have never seen though, and have zero examples of, is internet users trying to reconcile the situation. It's just a relentless entitlement to free everything, with a small fraction sometimes subscribing, and an even smaller fraction sometimes donating. The users are unquestionably the biggest assholes in this situation. They won't even acknowledge they have a problem.<p>As I mentioned in the comment you replied to, there are lots of alternative forms of advertising that users have not revolted against to anywhere near the same degree, eg sponsored content segments in youtube videos</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 21:57:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48229336</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48229336</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48229336</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yes, LLMs fundamentally operate as a lossy compression scheme for their training data. There's been countless examples of them reproducing their training data with very high accuracy<p>People claim that the data isn't stored, but clearly a representation of it is encoded and reproducible. I saw chatgpt word for word plagiarise a stack overflow comment just two days ago</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 17:58:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226624</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226624</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226624</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by 20k in "AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The problem is that the ad vendors couldn't keep it in their pants. The ads you're talking about are a common vector for delivering malware onto people's PCs, and absolutely destroy the usability of sites. Between tracking cookies, popups, full screen banners, autoplaying video, flashing ads, and their unbelievably high weight in bandwidth - the internet is fairly unusable if you don't block <i>any</i> ads<p>Bear in mind that many basic privacy features destroy ads by breaking tracking and fingerprinting. Its impossible to get a browser in that doesn't filter out behaviours that have been used to deliver ads<p>Creatives can and have adapted their strategies away from what is a very specific form of ads: the disruptive full screen ads, or banner ads. That's only <i>one</i> form of advertising that everyone utterly detests. Sponsored content is much more popular with the end users, and much more effective as well because its way less disruptive. Some people hate that, but overall the tradeoff is significantly better<p>We shouldn't confuse a single type of widely blocked advert with all advertising being blocked. Banner ads have very poor efficacy at delivering sales anyway</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 17:53:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226560</link><dc:creator>20k</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226560</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226560</guid></item></channel></rss>