Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tensor's commentslogin

The difference, of course, is that they can inspect the source, and should the US try to use it as leverage they can just fork and continue on.

There is no ANC that can block those, both because of volume and also because ANC only blocks constant noises like hums. It's terrible and sudden noises like alarms and honking.

With all the road noise and now noise makers required even for silent EVs, noise cancelling headphones are the last resort for people to get some relief from the constant noise pollution in cities.

And now you want to take that away too? No thanks. I get safety is important, but so is relief from noise pollution. Noise pollution is very damaging to your health. There needs to be a balance, and currently the safety police are weighing the scales inappropriately low.


It's pretty easy to run a pi on a battery.

If a parent can buy their kid a computer, they can pay 1 euro a month for a CDN in the rare case they need it. This is a bad argument.

I had trouble explaining to my parents what a BBS was. I wouldn't want to explain what a CDN is.

I think the point is that many HNer’s had parents who couldn’t or wouldn’t do “computer things”

Pay 1 Euro a month... or 1000s if their kid fucks up.

If entering a credit card is too much you probably aren't a potential customer. Part of keeping a service low cost is keeping services efficient. Having a large pool of people using it for free who will never become customers will force the cost higher for those who do pay.

Good riddance to the "free" model. It's never actually free. You either pay with your data, or have to consume ads, or you're forcing other customers to pay for your free usage.


Did you read the article at all? Or just the title? The article is about bringing gold back to France by selling US bars and buying new bars in Europe. The alternative would be melting the bars down and recasting them to the new standard.

The capital gain is just a by-product, standard financial stuff, but apparently broke HN readers brains.


I did read the article, thanks for asking.

Sounds like you agree with me, France has the same amount of wealth in gold that they had last week.


I don't care about that. That's not what the article is about.

>> The article is about bringing gold back to France by selling US bars and buying new bars in Europe. The alternative would be melting the bars down and recasting them to the new standard.

> Sounds like you agree with me, France has the same amount of wealth in gold that they had last week.

What did I miss?


No, capital gains are simply the amount you earn when selling capital for profit. They may be taxed, or may not be taxed, depending on the country or location they occurred in.

The article even says exactly that:

"Due to rising gold prices, the move helped the bank to generate a capital gain of 13 billion euros ($15 billion), bringing it to a net profit of 8.1 billion euros for the 2025 financial year after a net loss of 7.7 billion euros in 2024."

I would have thought the audience here would understand something as straight forward as a capital gain.



This is one of the most confusing claims I've seen in a long time. Grep and others over files would be the equivalent of an old fashioned keyword search where most RAG uses vector search. But everything else they claim about a file system just suggests that they don't know anything about databases.

I'm not familiar with how most out of the box RAG systems categorize data, but with a database you can index content literally in any way you want. You could do it like a filesystem with hierarchy, you could do it tags, or any other design you can dream up.

The search can be keyword, like grep, or vector, like rag, or use the ranking algorithms that traditional text search uses (tf-idf, BM25), or a combination of them. You don't have to use just the top X ranked documents, you could, just like grep, evaluate all results past whatever matching threshold you have.

Search is an extremely rich field with a ton of very good established ways of doing things. Going back to grep and a file system is going back to ... I don't know, the 60s level of search tech?


I get what you’re saying, and you’re right, however I can also see where they’re coming from:

Empirically, agents (especially the coding CLIs) seem to be doing so much better with files, even if the tooling around them is less than ideal.

With other custom tools they instantly lose 50 IQ points, if they even bother using the tools in the first place.


Sorry, this still makes no sense. LLMs don't care about files. The way most codings systems work is that they simply provide the whole file to the LLM rather than a subset of it. That's just a choice in how you implemented your RAG search system and database. In this case the "record" is big, a file. No doubt that works for code, but it's nonsensical outside that.

E.g. for wikipedia the logical unit would likely be an article. For a book, maybe it's a chapter, or maybe it's a paragraph. You need to design the system around your content and feed the LLM an appropriate logically related set of data.


>LLMs don't care about files.

Oh but they do. These CLI agents are trained and specifically tuned to work with the filesystem. It’s not about the content or how it’s actually stored, it’s about the familiar access patterns.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen a coding agent figure out it can get some data directly from the filesystem instead of a dedicated, optimized tool it was specifically instructed to use for this purpose.

You basically can’t stop these things from messing with files, it’s in their DNA. You block one shell command, they’ll find another. Either revoke shell access completely or play whackamole. You cannot believe how badly they want to work with files.


> LLMs don't care about files

They do. I highly suggest not try to derive LLMs' behaviors (in your mind) from first principles, but actually use them.


They do care about files. They also care about how you express yourself, your tone, all sorts of seemingly unimportant details.

Yeah, some of the uplift people are anecdotally seeing from “just using the filesystem” is, imo, on account of how difficult it is to take a principled approach to pre-chunking when implementing other approaches.

They've been RLHF'd to the nth degree around working with *nix tools and filesystems, in practice.

Yeah I’ve had a lot of success with agentic search against a database.

The way I think of it, the main characteristic of agentic search is just that the agent can execute many types of adhoc queries

It’s not about a file system

As I understood it early RAG systems were all about performing that search for the agent - that’s what makes that approach “non agentic”

But when I have a database that has both embeddings and full text and you can query against both of those things and I let the agent execute whatever types of queries it wants - that’s “agentic search” in my book


Absolutely, agentic search is much more robust to the specific implementation details of your search setup (data quality issues, too) than the early one-shot approaches were. Anyone watching Claude Code work can see this for themselves.

I didn't get into the details too much, but I kept thinking, why isn't he just having an agent discover things from various data sources? I've had much better success with that.

Also odd in that most filesystems implement directories and file names as...a database. You can use a filesystem as a database but you're not being as clever as you thought.

Isn’t this the approach described in the article?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: