MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-04-16 05:30:36+00:00
> The Democrats say "we feel your pain" Fuck them, truly. Voters do not want some Harvard educated lawyer to "feel their pain".

Yeah, apparently they want some billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes, who was given millions by his daddy, and who famously stiffed small business contractors at his buildings, to say he feels their pain.

That said, I actually upvoted your comment because right now it's heavily downvoted but I actually think there is an important point behind your comment. It may feel insane to me, but Trump is so beloved by his base because he was the first one to really acknowledge their anger and give it validity. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that works because a lot of people have seen their financial and social position deteriorate over the past 30-40 years and they want to go back and they want someone to blame (even if going back is impossible and they're blaming the wrong people). Trump understood this, the Democrats didn't, or worse, branded anyone who harbored some of this anger as a bigot. This is basically how all fascist leaders come to power - the parallels with Mussolini are uncanny, right down to having a minor body part shot off in an assassination attempt.

Relevant recent example to me: a lot of folks can't understand the hypocrisy about bitching about inflation under Biden, but then saying "we'll hunker down" in response to the expected inflation from tariffs. The difference is the Trump base believes he is taking them "back to the promised land", and for better or worse Trump is definitely a man of action, so they're more willing to put up with temporary hardships if they think the direction is right. With Biden and the Dems, they just believe they'll get more of the "slow slide."
Is Product Hunt Dying?
by ashmil | 2025-04-16 05:31:01+00:00
I've noticed a surge in low-effort launches, copycat products, and templated AI spam.

What’s worse? Paid upvotes are winning the day. Quality no longer equals visibility.

Real builders pouring months into crafting unique, valuable products are often buried under noise. Meanwhile, “Weekend hacks” with fancy landing pages and fake engagement top the charts.

It used to be a place where innovation got discovered. Now it’s a leaderboard of who has the better hype machine.
by revskill | 2025-04-16 05:31:34+00:00
The power is in react context for children to refer to parent state. Rsc completely solved the restful thesis. A rsc returns a spa with streaming data. It also solved the microfrontend architecturally. It is the end game.

Spa developers missed the point totally by reinventing broken abstractions in their frameworks. The mising points is in code over convention. Stop enforcing your own broken convention and let developers use their own abstractions. Things are interpreted at runtime, not compile time. Bundler is for bundling, do not cross its boundary.
by andsoitis | 2025-04-16 05:34:00+00:00
> investors will expect revenue and profit to go brrr quarter after quarter forever. It's a treadmill you can never get off.

When you have money to place somewhere, it is natural to look for a place that gives you a great return. Since share price is a function of future expected earnings, it stands to reason that the company will try to grow earnings for the shareholders (since they, collectively, own the company).
by petesergeant | 2025-04-16 05:35:32+00:00
> Knowing implies reasoning

That's not really clear-cut, that's simply a position you're taking. JTB could (I reckon) say that a model's "knowledge" is justified by the training process and reward functions.

> LLMs don't "know" things. These statistical models continuate text.

I don't think it's clear to anyone at this point whether or not the steps taken before token selection (eg: the journey through their dimensional knowledge space provided by attention) are close to or far from how our own thought processes work, but the description of LLMs as "simply" continuating text reduces them to their outputs. From my perspective, as someone on the other side of a text-based web-app from you, you also are an entity that simply continuates text.

You have no way of knowing whether this comment was written by a sentient entity -- with thoughts and agency -- or an LLM.
by giardini | 2025-04-16 05:36:03+00:00
beeforpork says >"That is not the best case. I never burned myself on a stove."<

So you really have no idea! Sad!

I suppose you have also never been hungry and bitten into a wonderful-smelling and -tasting hamburger only to find that a finger (yours, to be clear) is in the bite, and thus you become at one moment both ravenous attacker and fearful prey struggling to escape?

Such experiences are part of life, to be embraced only afterward.
by Uptrenda | 2025-04-16 05:36:10+00:00
Watching hacker news try use cold analytical intellect to deconstruct 4chan's jokes and culture (and still missing the point) has got to be the funniest joke ever. Perhaps a little more analysis will yield the answer to understanding the complexity of a green frog or running bear. Though I wouldn't count on it. It has to mean something nefarious. Much like the soft 'schlop schlop schlop' of a dog's tongue lapping up water -- its meaning to us is a mystery.
by markhahn | 2025-04-16 05:36:28+00:00
I think it's more of a principle: if it looks like someone could charge money for it, they think that would make the country stronger, because all they understand is first-order profit. Trump's ethics is "get away with whatever you can".

For instance, most people find healthcare middlemen (pharmacy benefit managers, etc) to be grotesque parasites. But to a laissez-faire fundamentalist, they're smart for finding a way to liberate some profit, even laudable.
by pests | 2025-04-16 05:36:46+00:00
I think they are confusing "conflict of interest" and just "in their interest".

If you asked me if my friend Bob should get a free $100 or if I should get a free $100; of course I'm going to choose myself, as that's in my best interest. There is no conflict though.

I believe the core point being "of course particle physicists want more funding of particle physics"
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-04-16 05:36:54+00:00
Setting aside questions like why the AI company is entitled to use these materials for free to develop commercial products, why would you even want to use art to learn factual information like how many fingers are on a hand? And how can you claim that this is what they pull from that art, right after we've just been through a wave of unmistakable AI Studio Ghibli copies?
by brigandish | 2025-04-16 05:37:19+00:00
From [1]:

> Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What came out of the documents in that court case was used as research by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and was published[2], so we can see very well how they were screwing over poor, hard-working Asian students.

> Data on admissions—particularly at elite universities—is tightly guarded, making it challenging to identify both the students who benefit from racial preferences and the importance of race in admissions decisions… The data made public in the SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC lawsuits are important because they make it possible to look behind the admissions veil to see how racial preferences operate.

It wasn't just Harvard, the University of North Carolina was included. The poor part is handled right there in the abstract:

> Both universities provide larger racial preferences to URMs [under-represented minorities] from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.

Echoed later on:

> Those who benefit the most from racial preferences (at least in terms of advantages in admissions) are those who come from higher socioeconomic status homes.

Asians weren't and probably still aren't benefitting from this, as:

> Looking first at the applicant columns, African Americans are most likely to be labeled disadvantaged followed by Hispanics, Asian Americans, and whites.

So not only do these "diversity" policies hurt Asians, they don't even help black Americans from lower socioeconomic classes, which seems to me to make all of it racist, including against black Americans - the ones most purported to be helped by this - and even against disadvantaged whites, who lose a whopping 25% of their chance to be admitted:

> a white, male, disadvantaged applicant with a 5% chance of admissions would only see his admissions probability rise to 32.1% if he were instead treated as an African American applicant

But the easiest misdeed to see is that done against Asians, hence the lawsuit.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

[2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w29964
by transpute | 2025-04-16 05:38:52+00:00
Thanks for the pointer. Is this a lobbying org? https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/21/delaye...

> While NIST has since reallocated $8.5 million to NVD for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, this funding remains a fraction of the $300 million to $400 million estimated to be needed annually to fully restore capacity, with an additional $120 million to $150 million required to prevent further system “deterioration.”

Did NVD receive 300MM annual funding pre-2024? That would be a 98% funding cut.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-04-16 05:40:01+00:00
> Did the study control for this?

No, because that's not how the study worked, i.e. it wasn't actually tallying cancer rates from people who had CTs. It basically just looked at the amount of radiation that a CT scan gives a person, and then extrapolated the cancer that would be expected from that radiation dose based on other data we have of e.g. people exposed to radiation in their jobs, and nuclear fallout occurrences.
by eagleislandsong | 2025-04-16 05:40:05+00:00
> 17% ... When we ran a surplus during Clinton's admin, we were at 20%.

Where did you get these figures from? According to OECD, the US' tax revenue-to-GDP ratio was 27.6% in 2022 and 25.2% in 2023: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-i... It was 28.3% in 2000, when Clinton was still President.
by popol12 | 2025-04-16 05:40:51+00:00
Please watch the documentary “Cow”, by the author of movies “Fish tank” and “American Honey” (both are unrelated to animals btw)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_(2021_film)

There’s a scene where cows finally run out of the barn at the beginning of spring. Their joy is obvious.
by PaywallBuster | 2025-04-16 05:40:58+00:00
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/04/18/mango-markets-exp...

Avi Einsenberg did the same with Mango Markets,

got away with 110M and is now looking at 20 year sentence

And Mango was being sued by the SEC too https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-154

> SEC Charges Entities Operating Crypto Asset Trading Platform Mango Markets for Unregistered Offers and Sales of the Platform’s “MNGO” Governance Tokens

> Pair of affiliated entities separately charged for acting as unregistered brokers
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-04-16 05:42:20+00:00
> If you think of AI like a programmer, no we shouldn't throw away such tools because we accept them as imperfect and we still need to review.

This is a common argument but I don't think it holds up. A human learns. If one of my teammates or I make a mistake, when we realize it we learn not to make that mistake in the future. These AI tools don't do that. You could use a model for a year, and it'll be just as unreliable as it is today. The fact that they can't learn makes them a nonstarter compared to humans.
by Nursie | 2025-04-16 05:42:23+00:00
> The real high earners will be the ones who can deliver live, unassisted art that showcases their skills with instruments and their voice.

We already have so many of those that it’s very hard to make any sort of living at it. Very hard to see a world in which more people go into that market and can earn a living as anything other than a fantasy.

Cynically - I think we'd probably end up with more influencers, people who are young, good looking and/or charismatic enough to hold the attention of other people for long enough to sell them something.
by theonething | 2025-04-16 05:42:31+00:00
You spend your comment dancing around the fact that everyone makes mistakes and yet you claim you trust your team not to make mistakes.

> I "trust other developers to write good code without mistakes without getting it reviewed by others". Of course I can trust them to do the right thing even when nobody's looking, and review it anyway in the off-chance they overlooked something.

You're saying yes, I trust other developers to not make mistakes, but I'll check anyways in case they do. If you really trusted them not to make mistakes, you wouldn't need to check. They (eventually) will. How can I assert that? Because everyone makes mistakes.

It's absurd to expect anyone to not make mistakes. Engineers build whole processes to account for the fact that people, even very smart people make mistakes.

And it's not even just about mistakes. Often times, other developers have more context, insight or are just plain better and can offer suggestions to improve the code during review. So that's about teamwork and working together to make the code better.

I fully admit AI makes mistakes, sometimes a lot of them. So it needs code review . And on the other hand, sometimes AI can really be good at enhancing productivity especially in areas of repetitive drudgery so the developer can focus on higher level tasks that require more creativity and wisdom like architectural decisions.

> I will pick the domain expert who refuses to touch AI over a generic programmer with access to it ten times out of ten.

I would too, but I won't trust them not to make mistakes or occasional bad decisions because again, everybody does.

> You don't need to constantly train younger developers when you can retain people.

But you do need to train them initially. Or do you just trust them to write good code without mistakes too?
by 9rx | 2025-04-16 05:43:59+00:00
> it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that

I still only see two states there. "I don't know", and should you be able to reach a conclusion, "I do know". I did suggest that there was a possible subdivision of "I don't know" into "I don't know and I don't care" and "I don't know but wish to learn more". You could argue that taking in observations only applies to the latter case, maybe?

Or, perhaps the middle ground, if we are to call it that, is making up your mind on the scientific method? If you believe in the scientific method then you don't need to transition beyond "I don't know" for anything it observes. You can simply lay your trust in the scientific method and forget about the rest.

> Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place

It could be that walking through the wall is the best way to leave a house but I (and presumably you) just haven't figured out how to do it yet. I don't know.
by theturtletalks | 2025-04-16 05:45:24+00:00
This is true but Cursor’s problems are a bit worse than a normal paywalled service.

Cursor allows users to get free credits without a credit card and this forced them to change their VSCode fork on how it handles identification so they can stop users from spawning new accounts.

Another is that normally, companies have a cost for each free user. For Cursor, this cost is so sporadic since it doesn’t charge per million context, they use credits. Free users get 50 credits but 1 credit could be 200k+ context each so it could be $40-50 per free user per month. And these users get 50 credits every month.

Lastly, the cursor vip free repo has trended on GitHub many times and users who do pay might stop and use this repo instead.

The Cursor vip free creator is well within his rights to do what they want and get “free” access. This unfortunately hurts paying customers since Cursor has to stop these “hacks.”

This is why Cursor should just move to a VSCode extension. I’ve used Augment and other VSCode extensions and the feature set is close to Cursor so it’s possible for them just to be an extension. The other would be to remove free accounts but allow users to bring their own keys. To use Composer/Agent, you can’t bring your own keys.

This will allow Cursor to stop maintaining a VSCode fork, helps them stop caring if users create new accounts (since all users are paying) and lets users bring their own keys if they don’t want to pay. Hell, if they charge a lifetime fee to bring our own keys for Agent, that would bring in revenue too. But as I see now, Roo and Cline’s agent features are catching up and Cursor won’t have a moat soon.
by DonHopkins | 2025-04-16 05:45:54+00:00
And that's what The Other AI Industry is all about.

A.I. Kits:

https://www.bovine-elite.com/general-ai-equipment/artificial...

>We have all the equipment to design an A.I. Kit to fit your needs, so if one of the following options do not quite fit what you are looking for, just tell us what you want in your A.I. kit and we will build it for specific order.

Angus AI Certificates:

https://www.bovine-elite.com/ai-certificates-signings/angus-...

>Angus AI Certificates: Please read this important information!

>Make sure that you have your Angus Member Number available when ordering. All Angus certificate orders are prepaid and will be transferred electronically to your member account as soon as possible. We have over $10,000.00 worth of AI certificates on file at any one time, but may not have all that you need when you order. We will service your order as quickly as possible, but if we do not have all the certificates necessary to fill your order, it may take more time. A typical order for certificates that we have on file will show up in your account in approximately three working days from the day placed and confirmed. Since we do not profit from the sale of each certificate, we charge a small service fee for all certificate orders. Our clients find that it is easier to contact us to purchase AI certificates from one source as opposed to contacting various sources for AI certificates from multiple bulls. Our minimum service fee is $15.00 for the first certificate owner source and $5.00 for each additional owner source for each order placed. If you do not understand this policy, ask us to explain it again when you contact us.
by fmxsh | 2025-04-16 05:47:00+00:00
The expectation of mine is that there should be a "technical" perspective to general topics. What I mean is there need to be more critical thinking and intelligent analysis, just as is the case with all technical topics. Just consider the other post about decensoring pixelated videos with Ai. If the same kind analysis and style of thinking about the topic is brought to political discussions... that's what I mean. For example, intelligent sociological analytical perspective of the political thing at hand. An unconditional exercise of critical thinking...

However, political discussions seem to not even devolve from a higher standard, but remain at the most infantile level of emotional outbursts. Oppiniated without interest in analysis. Well... likely exaggerating, but anyway. (perhaps my bias)
by seanhunter | 2025-04-16 05:47:19+00:00
Hmm. I'm not an expert, but some of this seems definitely not to be accurate. Some of the "Bullshit" turns out perhaps to be quite important.

Take the statement:

> Markov Chain is essentially a fancy name for a random walk on a graph

Is that really true? I definitely don't think so. To my understanding, a Markov process is a stochastic process that has the additional (aka "Markov") property that it is "memoryless". That is, to estimate the next state you only need to know the state now, not any of the history. It becomes a Markov chain if it is a discrete, rather than continuous process.

There are lots of random walks on graphs that satisfy this definition. Like say you have a graph and you just specify the end points and say "walk 5 nodes at random from this starting node, what is the expectation that you end up at a specific end node". This could be a Markov process. At any point to estimate the state you only need to know the state now.

But lots of random walks on graphs do not have the Markov property. For example, say I did the exact same thing as the previous example, so I have a random graph and a start and target node and I say "Walk n nodes at random from the starting node. What's the expectation that at some point you visit the target node". Now I have introduced a dependency on the history and my process is no longer memoryless. It is a discrete stochastic process and it is a random walk on a graph but is not a Markov chain.

An example of a Markov and non-Markov processes in real life is if I have a European option on a stock I only care about what the stock price is at the expiry date. But if I have a barrier option or my option has some knock-in/knock-out/autocallable features then it has a path dependence because I care about whether at any point in its trajectory the price hit the barrier level, not just the price at the end. So the price process for the barrier option is non-Markov.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-04-16 05:47:22+00:00
Sadly America was founded on principles that too 200 years to try and undo. And given the last year alone, they are still stripping rights as we speak. I don't know which fork we turned on that made us so reliable on racism and sexism to function and band together as a country that much of the EU seems to have navigated better. Maybe reconstruction should have had an actual Nuremburg trial instead of "forgiveness" (aka pushing the can down the street until someone could assassinate the one trying to compromise).
by ericye16 | 2025-04-16 05:47:48+00:00
I was hit by this while working on a project for class and it was the most frustrating thing ever. The bot would completely hallucinate functions and docs and it confused everyone. I found one post where someone did the simple prompt injection of "ignore previous instructions and x" and it worked but I think it's delted now. Swore off ultralytics after that.
by diputsmonro | 2025-04-16 05:48:01+00:00
> Here's a machine that verifies 95% of calculations, but you'd still have to do 5% of the work.

The problem is that you don't know which 5% are wrong. The AI is confidently wrong all the time. So the only way to be sure is to double check everything, and at some point its easier to just do it the right way.

Sure, some things don't need to be perfect. But how much do you really want to risk? This company thought a little bit of potential misinformation was acceptable, and so it caused a completely self inflicted PR scandal, pissed off their customer base, and lost them a lot of confidence and revenue. Was that 5% error worth it?

Stories like this are going to keep coming the more we rely on AI to do things humans should be doing.

Someday you'll be affected by the fallout of some system failing because you happen to wind up in the 5% failure gap that some manager thought was acceptable (if that manager even ran a calculation and didn't just blindly trust whatever some other AI system told them) I just hope it's something as trivial as an IDE and not something in your car, your bank, or your hospital. But certainly LLMs will be irresponsibly shoved into all three within the next few years, if it's not there already.
by brigandish | 2025-04-16 05:48:29+00:00
That's not what the paradox of tolerance says, nor is it relevant. Popper gave two explicit standards for working out who is intolerant:

- they shun debate ("begin by denouncing all argument", "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument")

- they use violence instead ("answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols")

I, for one, prefer having peaceful Nazis to the other sort, and to - as Popper puts it - "counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion". Unless 4chan officials or the Nazis on 4chan were meeting both standards then I fail to see a connection.

Were 4chan or the 4chan Nazis doing so?