MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Clubber | 2025-04-04 21:55:27+00:00
The steel man argument is:

1. Bring jobs back on-shore. Lots of US companies shut down factories over the last several decades and shipped jobs to Mexico and other countries. The UAW supports the tariffs.

https://uaw.org/tariffs-mark-beginning-of-victory-for-autowo...

2. Bring manufacturing back on-shore. If we have to fight a war, we need a strong manufacturing base (see #1). If it's a war with China, or with a country where China decides not to sell to us, we wouldn't have the manufacturing base to supply the war effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2lTMdlWDuk

3. These are mostly reciprocal tariffs. The countries that were are putting tariffs on already have tariffs on our goods. 4. Additional treasury income. 5. Combat unfair practices like dumping.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/business/china-goods-exports-...
by claiir | 2025-04-04 21:55:33+00:00
I am in the minority here. These tariffs are fairly reasonable. Here's why:

(1) The state has a compelling interest in regulating market risk tolerance. When the FED sets the risk-free interest rate, it controls the price of risk, and thereby the risk of the entire market. It is often advisable to temper the risk-eager market for long-term stability.

(2) Likewise, when the POTUS enacts tariffs, it is similarly setting the market's risk tolerance--namely against the risks concomitant of economic dependency on foreign nations.

(3) This will inoculate the economy against external supply chain shocks (at the extreme: war) by reducing our liability. It's not just consumers who are price-sensitive; given goods within a class will not be affected equally, natural price advantages will emerge, shifting demand and consumption as all levels of economy begin to price-in these tariffs.

The "economic consensus" against these tariffs just isn't real? It's exceedingly likely that the US likely will be better off because of them :)
by romaaeterna | 2025-04-04 21:55:39+00:00
The things that dominate middle class budgets: food, housing, medicine, education, are surprisingly local, and have become increasingly unaffordable in recent decades even as economic numbers have gone up.

The question that really matters to most people is, "What will these tariffs do to the prices of these things that actually matter?" And that it actually rather hard to predict.

The economists who claim that tariffs will harm normal Americans were also the economists who claimed that sanctions would destroy the Russian economy. They had the opposite effect, for reasons that still remain somewhat unclear. It may be that global trade makes certain classes of society very very wealthy, while not necessarily being such a positive for the middle class.

It is also notable that Chinese competitiveness has only increased as they have engaged in decades of state economic planning and market barriers. The economists who have told us since Reagan that this is inefficient and stupid might be ... wrong.
by patapong | 2025-04-04 21:56:01+00:00
This is a great question. For me, the steelman argument is the following: Without trade barriers, the local production economy is disadvantaged. Local companies have to comply with things like environmental and labor law regulations, making it more expensive to produce things. Other countries may not have these regulations. Therefore, by institution these rules without tariffs, the net effect is a reduction of environmental and social standards, as manufacturers move to locations where they do not exist.

A strong version of the policy would thus involve directly tying tariffs to environmental and labor laws of the producing country, thus equalizing the field with the local companies. Not only would this allow for fair international competition, it would also economically incentivise the global development of good standards.
by zh3 | 2025-04-04 21:56:24+00:00
Ref. manufacturing, any serious-scale company is not going to commit to a decade-long (or more) plan to building factories in the US with this sort of uncertainty; I'm sure a few will pay lip-service to the current POTUS but what CEO is going to commit to the long-term in a country in turmoil?

And even when this is past, those same CEO's - and their successors - will think long and hard about committing to any long-term investment in the US.
by gdiamos | 2025-04-04 21:57:02+00:00
If the cost of labor plummets I wonder if it will accelerate the timeline for AI, automation, and robotics.

I gave this a shot at home a month ago by cutting my kids off from toys online and getting them a 3D printer. They have already printed more toys than the cost of the printer. The only problem is that the printer was manufactured in China.
by bosky101 | 2025-04-04 21:58:10+00:00
Here is my feedback after spending 15 mins on your docs.

Nice work on the lite mode, open source, logging, dx interface.

You may want to replace Hello world examples with real world scenarios.

The workflows that involve multiple steps tasks, dag in your terminology - the code simply isn't intuitive.

You now have to get into the hatchets mindset, patterns, terminology. Eg: the random number example is riddled with too many. How many of the logos on your homepage did you have to write code for? Be honest.

Knowing to program should be 90% enough. Eg for js:

// send("hi", user => user.signed_up_today) // .waitFor("7d") // .send("upgrade", user => !user.upgraded)

Just made this up, but something like this is more readable. (PS:would love to be proved wrong by an implementation of exactly the above example here in the comments). The whole point of being smart is for your team at hatchet to absorb difficulty at the benefit of an easy interface that looks simple and magic. Your 5 line examples has types to learn, functions to learn, arguments to know, 5-10 kinds of things to learn. It showed little effort to make it easy for customers.

An engineering post on what's under the hood makes sense. But customers really don't care about your cloud infra flexes in a post introducing your company pitching the product. It's just koolaid.

Same with complete rewrite so early. I'm glad you are open to change. But the workflow market today with so many options, i don't belive this is the last rewrite or pivot to come.

The DAGs itself aren't very readable. You are better off switching to something like react flow that lets you nocode edit as well.

Focus on automation journeys that are common. Like cookbooks. And allow folks to just import them or change some configurations. like drip marketing, renewals, expired cards, forgot password handlers, shortlink creators, maybe pdf merging, turning a bunch of saved links to a daily blog post, etc

How does a workflow replace a saas they are paying $99 for. That's powerful.

Tough to serialize a worflow to json . Or atleast didn't see it. this makes it easy to have workflows as code, create nocode editors in your own roadmap. You want people to hop from 1 company to another taking their hatchet workflows with them

Good luck, and sorry for coming off as rude. It's just a space I am very passionate about.
by codedokode | 2025-04-04 21:58:30+00:00
$300 is somewhat inflated estimate - for example, the breadboard's price is estimated as $4-$9 but I usually buy breadboards at $1.5 each (well, there is a warning that they might be worse quality but I am not used to expensive breadboards so don't notice any issues and I don't care if they are slightly different shade of white).
by kllrnohj | 2025-04-04 21:58:32+00:00
> I'd love to see any sort of human rights justification for Tariffs against Canada though.

It'd probably be the opposite - Canada/EU put tariffs on the US to offset their higher standards of living and environmental considerations. But then the US should similarly do that to, say, China for the same reasons

> Sorry, but this "idea" originates from mercantilist thought and has been thoroughly dismantled and discredited. Even when one country is less wealthy and less productive, both countries benefit from expanded trade. This is Comparative Advantage...literally Econ 101.

https://www.thesling.org/the-failed-assumptions-of-free-trad...

Unfortunately for econ 101, just like the spherical cow in physics 101, reality is different and more complicated
by timewizard | 2025-04-04 21:59:29+00:00
TCL stands for "tool command language." In terms of non trivial tools that have been built with it there have been several. AOLServer, MacPorts, tons of CAD and engineering software. There's a whole wikipedia category just for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software_program...

Aside from that there was Tk which was used to create many UIs in an era where scripted UIs were otherwise painful to create and maintain. A prominent example here is 'xconfig' from the linux kernel.

Like any good environment a little bit of practice with it can see you overcome it's apparent shortcomings and see you producing reliable and useful software in far less time that you might have in a more traditional way.

Programming is about trade offs. It's not a checklist of "good ideas."
by tyushk | 2025-04-04 21:59:41+00:00
You put into words something I've been struggling to describe for a long time. Gemini gives short, succinct responses with whatever information you need and minimal anything else. ChatGPT, Claude both fill text with mannerisms, formatting, etc.

I didn't realize just how big the difference was until I tested it.

"How do I clear a directory of all executable files on Debian?"

Gemini 2.0 Flash: (responses manually formatted)

find /path/to/directory -type f -executable -delete Replace /path/to/directory with the actual path.

ChatGPT: (full link [1])

To clear (delete) all executable files from a directory on Debian (or any Linux system), you can use the find command. Here's a safe and effective way to do it: # [checkmark emoji] Command to delete all executable files in a directory (not recursively): [..] # [magnifying glass emoji] Want to preview before deleting? [..] # [caution sign emoji] Caution: [..]

[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67f055c8-4cc0-8003-85a6-bc1c7eadcc...
by ivan_gammel | 2025-04-04 21:59:57+00:00
Some counterarguments:

> it is better for a country to have a diverse manufacturing base

A country can exist and be wealthy without diverse manufacturing base.

> a net positive balance of trade

A country can have stable and growing economy with negative balance of trade, as long as certain conditions are met. In short, this country may offer something else to compensate trade deficit, i.e. there can be a price tag on military and political power.
by chimpanzee | 2025-04-04 22:00:08+00:00
Long negative beta securites, short positive betas, on margin. Sell calls on ETFs, buy puts on ETFs, etc. There's risk though because his actions are rather unorthodox and the full effects aren't known (and resulting fear can cause betas to shift drastically)

Or if the necessary capital is out of reach for margin trades or options (for his friends it isn't), buy long 3x inverse ETFs as much as you can risk.

If you expect him to play yo-yo some more, rinse and repeat buying either regular or inverse 3x ETFs as needed.

Is this happening at some scale? Surely. Is it the main purpose? Probably not. I'd expect there are easier ways for corrupt politicians and their cronies to profit.
by sleepyguy | 2025-04-04 22:00:35+00:00
Whether he is right or wrong, when Lighthizer was on 60 Minutes, he said they have tried everything to level the playing field, and nothing worked. So this time, there is nothing to lose.

It is a very good interview and discussion.

https://youtu.be/KwUG2bOHqFA?si=DKm2Y_I53Qdfuh-b
by darksaints | 2025-04-04 22:00:57+00:00
There are people (notably, Ha-Joon Chang) that have claimed that those protectionist policies have made South Korea more competitive, but I think you'd find a lot of economists disagree with that, and that South Korea become competitive in spite of those restrictions.

Keep in mind North Korea has had even stricter trade restrictions, and they don't have any functioning modern industry at all. Trade restrictions reduce export market size, insulate companies from competitive pressures, and those problems only serve to reduce capability, not increase it. Maybe there is some sort of happy medium of protectionist policies, but I've never seen any sort of framework for understanding how you could derive where that happy medium lies.

If trade restrictions only ever made countries more competitive, we wouldn't use them as a punishment.
by typewithrhythm | 2025-04-04 22:01:18+00:00
The problem is rarely "capitalism", since most of the most glaring issues are either in highly regulated systems, or cases where the person receiving a service is not the one paying for it.

I think the average english person fundamentally lacks the mindset for capitalism to work, there is little trust in an individual, and too great a desire to have daddy government come make it safe. It's the unquestioning faith in top down measures that has lead to the current system, and pulling things back to public ownership won't fix that.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-04-04 22:01:23+00:00
Not sure what you mean. Export tariffs are very rare because nearly everyone agrees that it's good for a country to export lots of stuff. The question is whether imports are also uniformly good for a country. Free trade advocates say yes (and I think they're right), "typical" protectionists say they become bad when they undercut local producers, balance-of-trade protectionists say they become bad when they exceed exports.
by mindslight | 2025-04-04 22:01:36+00:00
The Atlantic blew it, by continuing to equivocate around whether a "trade deficit" should be considered bad in the first place. Like all these Orwellian upside-down terms [0], it should really be called a trade surplus, as in we are getting more stuff from the other country than we're giving to them! Like duh, this is a no-brainer beneficial and enviable position. And Trump's goal is to end this, presumably to turn this country into an impoverished work camp ruled over by hollow charlatans like himself.

[0] eg "the deficit" should really be named the surplus as it's money representing the collected proceeds from our world wide demurrage currency that other countries still keep buying into because using it is just that advantageous.
by pertymcpert | 2025-04-04 22:01:53+00:00
I think even in open ground if you have a big enough group you can still trade well. Ethiopian arbs fire 25% faster. If you micro the arbs to focus on individual paladinsthey can one shot paladins and their attack surface area increases with the sqrt() of their numbers. For sure it's a lot more work than spamming halb.
by recursive | 2025-04-04 22:02:13+00:00
I have music stuck in my head more or less constantly. It's never bothered, and I'm kind of surprised to find all the remedies suggested here. For me, instrumental music is no different from vocal music. It can be a riff from a solo, a chord change, an interesting timbre, or pretty much any sound. Sometimes I think they're not from songs that have yet been recorded. Just the imagination of sounds that turn over and over. I've always kind of liked it. I'm a musician myself, and I think it helps me think of old music in new ways.
by arghandugh | 2025-04-04 22:03:08+00:00
Trump and the Republican Party have forcibly assumed control of the federal government, dismantled it, voided every function of the Constitution and replaced people critical to the functioning of global affairs with morons and lunatics. The economic and social and international underpinnings of the planet have been detonated on purpose so the remaining pieces can be reordered for their exclusive benefit.

This is just the beginning, and I can’t wait to see even more threads here trying to rationalize why this is all Good, Actually before a thread discussing the end of Pax Americana gets killfiled by an Altman acolyte.
by AngryData | 2025-04-04 22:03:24+00:00
I use them daily, in not being some poor serf, by not risking famine every year, and not living in a land beleaguered by war.

Those things are sort of like having competent IT security. If they are doing everything right, they will seem like they aren't doing anything at all, but when they are gone all of a destruction and doom is always just a day away.
by gnabgib | 2025-04-04 22:04:01+00:00
https://archive.is/AjZbe

Not really Trump's new tariff math looks a lot like ChatGPT's (65 points, 26 commentS) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43572947

This is The Formula Trump's Team Used to Calculate Tariffs (13 points, 3 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43568191
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-04-04 22:04:17+00:00
The Metamath Proof Explorer (AKA the set.mm database) works on a similar principle, of all theorems forming a tree of backreferences that ultimately lead to the axioms [0].

Though it wouldn't make sense to build something like that on top of such a fast-moving, complex, and bug-prone target like Lean.

[0] https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html
by odo1242 | 2025-04-04 22:04:17+00:00
Well, the idea is that you’d be writing low level CUDA kernels that implement operations not already implemented by JAX/CUDA and integrate them into existing projects. Numba[1] is probably the closest thing I can think of that currently exists. (In fact, looking at it right now, it seems this effort from Nvidia is actually based on Numba)

[1]: https://numba.readthedocs.io/en/stable/cuda/overview.html
by Marsymars | 2025-04-04 22:04:31+00:00
> Instead, we are seeing countries match with import tariffs in the other direction, and a deterioration of global trust.

Right, because e.g. if Canada has no tariff on car imports and the USA has tariffs, then the logical course of action for car manufacturers is to move all of their manufacturing for Canadian-sold cars to the US, because it's more flexible to have manufacturing in the place that incurs fewer tariffs overall. Canadian import tariffs take that incentive away.

Export tariffs make more sense for resources where the manufacturing base can't be moved.
by netsharc | 2025-04-04 22:04:36+00:00
Hasn't there been too many "Surely they can't be that stupid/incompetent?", starting with "Hillary is surely going to win it"... and until yesterday everyone thought "Surely the regime in charge of the world's biggest economy isn't going to agree to the geriartic-in-a-full-diaper[1] wanting to implement his first-grader logic of how the world economy should work?".

[1] "I’ve heard from a reliable source, that Trump smells of soiled diapers, Axe Body Spray and hotdog burps.": https://www.indy100.com/politics/trump/trump-smell-kinzinger...
by noosphr | 2025-04-04 22:05:35+00:00
>Last week, the ARC Prize team released an updated test, called ARC-AGI-2, and it appears to have sent the AIs back to the drawing board. The full o3 model has not yet been tested, but a version of o1 dropped from 32 percent on the original puzzles to just 3 percent on the new version, and a “mini” version of o3 currently available to the public dropped from roughly 30 percent to below 2 percent. (An OpenAI spokesperson declined to say whether the company plans to run the benchmark with o3.) Other flagship models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have achieved roughly 1 percent, if not lower. Human testers average about 60 percent.

Arc AGI is the main reason why I don't trust static bench marks.

If you don't have an essentially infinite set to draw your validation data from then a large enough model will memorize it as part of its developer teams KPIs.

Forget all these fancy benchmarks. If you want to saturate any model today give it a string and a grammar and ask it to generate the string from the grammar. I've had _every_ model fail this on regular grammars with strings of more than 4 characters long.

LLMs are the solution to natural language, which is a huge deal. They aren't the solution to reasoning which is still best solved with what used to be called symbolic AI before it started working, e.g. sat solvers.
by dijksterhuis | 2025-04-04 22:05:58+00:00
> That's why Doom/Quake resonated. People want these simulations to be as realistic as possible.

Doom/Quake is about as realistic as Escape From Tarkov is easy-going, light hearted, non-at-all-sweaty fun.

> People don't strictly want to play games as much as they want [an] experience

this would ^ probably be more accurate version of your statement. it's not always about realism.
by ChuckMcM | 2025-04-04 22:05:58+00:00
I don't see that happening. I reason to it this way;

In 2024, $15 BILLION dollars was invested in AI startups, and a record $250 BILLION dollars by established companies (nVidia/Microsoft/Google/Facebook/Apple)

I don't believe that AI making any meaningful progress on the "timeline" will occur just because you throw even more money at it.
by joquarky | 2025-04-04 22:06:19+00:00
In the past few decades, hedge funds have had a significantly negative impact upon the following industries:

- Manufacturing - Retail - Local Journalism/Media - Private Prisons & Detention - For-Profit Education - Healthcare Services - Veterinary/Pet grooming Clinics - Mortuary/Funeral Homes - Pharmaceuticals - Housing/Real Estate, - Toll Roads - Hospitality - Restaurants - Addiction Treatment Centers - Daycares - Hospice

What's next?

Doh, I keep forgetting that this site doesn't do markdown.
by mikestew | 2025-04-04 22:07:04+00:00
Not to dismiss Chollet’s work, but I’m starting to think he need prove nothing to even the muggles. For example, nearly any endurance athlete stands a good chance of being a Strava user. If you run in those circles, have you heard a single person with anything good to say about Strava’s “Athletic Intelligence”? Garmin is rolling out a beta right now that includes “AI Insights” or summat. Same deal: useless summaries like “you ran 5 miles today, which contributes to your aerobic base”. I could do better with a database and some if/else statements. And Garmin wants a subscription for this. (It’s included in Strava’s subscription, but I suppose you’re still paying for it.) And so now the memes tend toward “dumb AI insight of the day” on many online forums.

Seems to me that a lot of folks are enjoying having an LLM rewrite their email or whatever, but I wonder how many are actually buying the rest of it? The companies themselves sure aren’t helping.
by spwa4 | 2025-04-04 22:07:34+00:00
Musk is explainable. Tesla WAS going to fail, and that became inevitable long before the election. Musk was going to lose big whether Trump or Harris (or Biden) got elected. Granted, probably less dramatic and slower failure than what we see now, but it was always going to fall big. Musks' new design, the cybertruck is a disaster, and he would have been the first to know. BYD is eating Tesla's lunch ... and BYD is merely the first and currently highest profile of 10 Chinese companies coming out with electric cars.

And yet, I do think Musk is actually worse off in his current position than he would have been under Harris. Which shows, yet again, what a "great thinker" he is cough. He acted, because he's under threat, that makes sense, but his actions made his situation worse than it would have been had he done nothing.

Then again, in this market, I bet a lot of people feel like that.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-04-04 22:07:40+00:00
The trouble is that no company is going to want to invest in new/expanded US manufacturing facilities that only make sense under the just announced tariff regime, unless they have confidence that this is the new normal, and won't be rescinded any time soon. Would you want to bet that current tariffs will be largely the same next week, or next year, or in 4 years time?
by mmooss | 2025-04-04 22:07:45+00:00
> It stands to me in real contrast to the "fake it till you make it"

They are the all-time greatest in fake-it-til-you-make-it. They got the IBM PC OS contract without having an OS, which they bought from someone else (iirc).

> What stands out to me about Gates and Allen is the serious technical chops. Writing an emulator for the PDP-10 and then an interpreter, line editor, I/O system all in 4KB of memory.

Is that really so impressive? Everything then was in 4K, from all coders.