MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ttyprintk | 2025-04-06 23:45:23+00:00
I would say that they oversee the Pentagon and ensure that the military stays in civilian control. In the past, theories from war games percolate through the Joint Chiefs, who meet with SECDEF before presenting options to the President.

I was surprised Hegseth even desired a side channel that had the potential downside that he could accidentally text the coordinates of a carrier. Stuff like that gets Generals relieved immediately.
by yencabulator | 2025-04-06 23:45:27+00:00
Yes, sure. In a normal computer, the differentiation between data and executable is done by the program being run. Humans writing those programs naturally can make mistakes.

However, the rules are being interpreted programmatically, deterministically. It is possible to get them right, and modern tooling (MMUs, operating systems, memory-safe programming languages, etc) is quite good at making that boundary solid. If this wasn't utterly, overwhelmingly, true, nobody would use online banking.

With LLMs, that boundary is now just a statistical likelihood. This is the problem.
by ethbr1 | 2025-04-06 23:45:53+00:00
Because the EU tariffing Chinese exports will be one of the asks for an EU-US trade deal.

The ability of tariffed countries to sell their output elsewhere is understood by the people doing this.

A better way to look at this is the first salvo to economically re-partition the world into spheres of influence. (i.e. circa 1960s)

The principals have all written about how they see political-economic-military alliances as being inherently tied together.

So their intent is to make this a US-dollar-NATO choice, rather than any of those in isolation.

(Agree or disagree with their premise, feasibility, and/or morality, as one might)
by ddulaney | 2025-04-06 23:46:04+00:00
Rust’s Optional does close this altogether, yes. All (non-unsafe) users of Optional are required to have some defined behavior in both cases. This is enforced by the language in the match statement, and most of the “member functions” on Optional use match under the hood.

This is an issue with the C++ standardization process as much as with the language itself. AIUI when std::optional (and std::variant, which has similar issues) were defined, there was a push to get new syntax into the language itself that would’ve been similar to Rust’s match statement.

However, that never made it through the standardization process, so we ended up with “library variants” that are not safe in all circumstances.

Here’s one of the papers from that time, though there are many others arguing different sides: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p00...
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-04-06 23:46:16+00:00
I genuinely think a Great Depression sized 90% reduction is plausible. If the Trump administration somehow makes a trusted ironclad commitment that they will never ever reduce the tariffs, but doesn't actually convince anyone that the tariffs are good, the market will still expect Congress or the next administration to reduce them. And thus capital investments will still be largely impossible in any sector exposed to them. (Even if your investment isn't directly exposed, can you be confident that Trump won't blow it up on some other quixotic crusade?)
by recursivecaveat | 2025-04-06 23:46:22+00:00
I don't really want narrowing conversion to be harder, I just want checked conversion to be at least nearly as convenient. `x as usize` vs `x.try_into().unwrap()` becomes `x tiu usize` or something even. I'm not picky. It's kindof funny that this is the exact mistake C++ made, where the safe version of every container operation is the verbose one: `vector[]` vs `vector.at()` or `*optional` vs `optional.value()`, which results in tons and tons of memory problems for code that has absolutely no performance need for unchecked operations.
by kittikitti | 2025-04-06 23:46:56+00:00
This will be a bad week in general for Wall Street as the most significant tariffs hit on Wednesday. Because of the chaos or lack of organization from the White House, it will still fall afterwards because markets can't be certain what will happen.

I have a price target for the S&P 500 that I would be very surprised if it stayed lower because the last time the markets were at the price point the economy was worse. All I want to say is there might be another 10% drop before it gets any better.
by jeffbee | 2025-04-06 23:48:17+00:00
Well "the cloud" will generally store exactly one logical copy of your static jpg, one of the reasons why clouds are pretty good for efficiency.

There is really no sense at all in the article's claims that "we are destroying the environment" to do x y and z thing the author whines about. We are destroying the environment to drive a Dodge Ram to the Circle K to buy a 52oz Polar Pop. Information sector doesn't even show up on top ten lists of things that are destroying the environment.
by dyhi55 | 2025-04-06 23:48:52+00:00
Sure, choose any platform before 1990. The modern ansi / iso c didn't exist before 1990. The c language is from 1970's. So code from any old tarball will assume c literals are writable, and will crash if not. It's a common complain when compiling old code, google it. The c standard library is full of functions that assume strings are writable: mktemp() sscanf() strtok() etc.

Quote from gcc manual, explaining why you need to compile old code with -writable-strings option: "you cannot call mktemp with a string constant argument. The function mktemp always alters the string its argument points to.

Another consequence is that sscanf does not work on some systems when passed a string constant as its format control string or input. This is because sscanf incorrectly tries to write into the string constant. Likewise fscanf and scanf."
by the__alchemist | 2025-04-06 23:49:38+00:00
I am overall suspicious of the degree of confidence used in papers in conjunction with the sheer number of assumptions regarding luminosity, the model of gas and stars in galaxies etc, vs what is discernible in the images (It's a low-resolution set of pixels). Of particular note is inferring mass (or lack thereof) that doesn't correspond to leading-edge luminosity. I.e. gas and stars that are away from the camera, and dim gas.
by eappleby | 2025-04-06 23:49:43+00:00
I believe Gumroad uses Stripe to process payments, so I'd guess this entire validation process is coming from Stripe. When the CEO paid you via Zelle, he probably just wanted to help you out with the hope that you would continue using Gumroad and have a positive experience with the company. I wouldn't look at any of this as a negative reflection of the company. (I've personally never used Gumroad, so this opinion is only based on your comment and my experience with Stripe)
by throw10920 | 2025-04-06 23:50:19+00:00
> I agree the term is vague. But what then would you have us call it?

That right there is an admission that you're just using the term as a generic "person bad" term, which is bad in itself. It's evil to intentionally conflate and manipulate language to serve political goals. You would object to taking a person that's known to be a Nazi and calling them autistic, or vice-versa. That you are not objecting here is malicious.
by zozbot234 | 2025-04-06 23:50:49+00:00
> Once China figures out tech and India takes American services, America has nothing.

This is an economically illiterate argument - it ignores the fact that new jobs are created precisely when old ones become redundant. It's like saying that China and India "have nothing" because first-world countries have figured out everything already. It's good for a country when others become better at what they're doing - that's what enables broader supply chains, bigger markets and ultimately a higher variety of products and services.
by 2muchcoffeeman | 2025-04-06 23:51:10+00:00
These people understand this. However they are not willing to have waste in the system. They want to help exactly who needs help and not scammers. If this cannot be done, then help no one.

I’m all for having better checks and stopping fraud. But not at the expense of helping no one. I’d rather keep a system running even if there is waste as long as it mostly works.
by pessimizer | 2025-04-06 23:51:20+00:00
> GNU did not have a working system until Linus released Linux in 1992. They had pieces and components which were worthless on their own.

Whether or not GNU had an OS or would ever have an OS has nothing to do with anything, though. What are you trying to illustrate? Those "pieces and components" are some of the most used pieces of software in history.
by _kst_ | 2025-04-06 23:51:46+00:00
The C standard, since 1989, has said that attempting to modify the array object corresponding to a string literal has undefined behavior. Whether it "works" or not is not the issue.

The problem is that it's currently legal to pass a string literal to a function expecting a (non-const) pointer-to-char argument. As long as the function doesn't try to write through the pointer, there's no undefined behavior. (If the function does try to write through the pointer, the behavior is undefined, but no compile-time diagnostic is required.) If a future version of C made string literals const, such a program would become invalid (a constraint violation requiring a diagnostic). Such code was common in pre-ANSI C, before const was introduced to the language.

The following is currently valid C. The corresponding C++ code would be invalid. The proposal would make it invalid in C, with the cost of breaking some existing code, and the advantage of catching certain errors at compile time.

#include <stdio.h> void print_message(char *message) { puts(message); // *message = '\0'; // would have undefined behavior } int main(void) { print_message("hello"); }
by jimsmart | 2025-04-06 23:52:02+00:00
This comment explains the reason for its existence quite well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43605846

Companies fund things because they're useful or necessary. My guess is that some of the companies listed might use BSD — and perhaps wanted/needed an implementation of rsync that was not GPL3 licensed.

And/or they simply have an interest in funding Open Source projects / development.
by ldjkfkdsjnv | 2025-04-06 23:52:06+00:00
its too complicated to explain, and i am completely shook by these losses. but there is a growing theory that there is a relationship between government debt/spending and asset prices. the last few years, up to 25% of total USA employment is indirectly from the government. the last 25 years has been a hallowing out of actual economy, replaced with debt, financial engineering, low interest rates, and the like. the growth is mostly fake, which is the why the middle class is almost gone and no one can afford anything
by alephnerd | 2025-04-06 23:54:28+00:00
My hunch is some staffer probably flagged this issue early (the Carvallo and Gopinath paper had significant traction in the Biden admin and the EU when crafting policies against China Shock - especially in EVs and Pharma), but if they followed the correct model, they could not force a decoupling from China, as it would place China in the same bracket as much of the rest of the world.

The story about "bringing manufacturing back to the US" is just a fiction, and this tariff is a de facto blockade against China by placing a total tariff rate of 65% against China compared to other Asian countries (20-30% range for Taiwan, India, Japan, and SK) [0].

It's basically another Project 2025 foreign policy initiative.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-03/us-tariff...
by infecto | 2025-04-06 23:54:41+00:00
Equally bewildered as there is no real upside to this and the other folks on the line dont have any purpose of knowing prestrike information.

I am not as educated in these manners but this type of information seems to be of the type you don’t text on commercial applications and would be on a need to know basis. Maybe you can communicate the idea that something is planned to happen but not timelines of the specific assets.
by icedchai | 2025-04-06 23:55:15+00:00
In the early 2000's, Linux was practically unusable as a desktop OS because the only "fully functional" web browser was Internet Explorer. Netscape 4.x "worked" but was incredibly unstable and crashed roughly every half hour. Mozilla / Phoenix / Firefox wasn't done yet. Chrome didn't exist.

It was a very different world. We won't even talk about audio and video playback. I was an early Linux user, having done my first install in 1993, and sadly ran Windows on my desktop then because the Linux desktop experience was awful.
by Jtsummers | 2025-04-06 23:55:52+00:00
It might be reasonable to say they shouldn't own individual stocks (of their own selection), but not owning stocks is unreasonable. They get paid well, but not that well.

https://radiotv.house.gov/house-data/salaries

That's several times over median but many of us on this site make that much or more. More reasonable restrictions would be things like requiring them to use a blind trust, to restrict investments to index funds or managed portfolios, or something.
by hayst4ck | 2025-04-06 23:55:54+00:00
I'm curious how people try to estimate where bottom is -- especially if it is a non dogmatic and non institutional analysis.

There was an analysis a month ago where someone had the idea to look at total US energy consumption as a proxy variable for total economic productivity. To me that makes a lot of sense. Energy is the capacity for work.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

It appears we peaked in energy consumption in 2007 before the great recession at which point energy usage has been in slow decline. We decided that in response to the recession that the best way to handle it was to completely deregulate wall-street and tell them they are above the law because they are so big, that creating consequences for their actions that hurt Americans is too costly to do. They promised severe punishment for regulation, and reward for letting wall street continue to be consequence free. Citizens united was ruled on in 2010 to cement the authority of those with money over the US government in an act that should be considered a proper coup against the constitution, and was by some.

If you take energy consumption as a proxy for real actual productivity, that implies a bottom of 22,000 for DOW (inflation adjusted value of dow ~2007), and that's not including damage done to ability to import or America not looking appealing for investment because we are almost certainly heading towards civil unrest and there is a very real threat of trade not being conducted in USD.

It's easy to imagine a company that owns property, an asset that has no meaningful economic output, increasing in value which could be seen as economic growth, but is very much not that.

I'd certainly love to hear why this is absolutely ignorant because I am not an economist, nor am I in finance.
by jjeaff | 2025-04-06 23:55:57+00:00
they want to make IRS data available to other branches of the government, namely ICE, FBI, DOJ, etc. Which of course is illegal, but of course this administration doesn't care about that. They also don't seem to understand that part of the reasoning of keeping that information secret is to avoid discouraging criminals or undocumented immigrants from paying taxes.
by capitainenemo | 2025-04-06 23:55:59+00:00
One ambiguity for anyone reading this in future would be... I would hope that both experiments already had worked in the impact of the angle of the board on the gravitational force, and the 6.8 the op turned in was with that taken into account. But without taking into account inertia and friction.

I feel like this is one I'm going to have to try at home.
by slicerdicer2 | 2025-04-06 23:56:05+00:00
more interesting benchmarks:

- Make as much money as you can in a 24 hour period doing only legal, moral and non-annoying things

- Make a depressed person who calls a suicide hotline feel really happy doing only legal, moral and non-annoying things

- Do something really useful for society with measurable outcomes doing only legal, moral and non-annoying things
by KoolKat23 | 2025-04-06 23:56:29+00:00
The idea does not make sense. The consequences and cost of a "correction" would outweigh any interest savings from lowered interest rates due to the lack of demand and lack of inflation. Interest rates are percentages of the whole which would have to go down, the fed also doesn't willy nilly reduce rates, tariff led inflation despite shit conditions would mean they would hold off on decreasing rates.
by giantrobot | 2025-04-06 23:56:57+00:00
Most organizations don't have many billions of dollars at stake. I doubt you'll find many Fortune 500 companies with a flippant attitude towards the GPLv3. You don't even see the GPLv3 used much by the "we love Open Source" crowd. Most externally released FOSS is under non-viral Open Source licenses.

No big company wants to spend a million(s) dollars defending themselves from an NPE with an East Texas mailbox in a frivolous licensing suit. Worst case is a judge deciding the license infects their proprietary code because they're built on the same cluster.

The rest of the world has hardly moved on. I've heard of multiple companies with the same GPLv3 policy as Apple for largely the same reasons.
by ethbr1 | 2025-04-06 23:57:14+00:00
You left out exchange rates and therefore purchasing power.

Historically, tariffs have led to a widening of currency spread between the tariffed (weakens) and tariffing (strengthens) nation.

Which generally acts in opposition to inflation, ceteris paribus.

E.g. importers pay more in dollars to import goods from a tariffed country, but if the imposition of tariffs causes the dollar to strengthen and the foreign currency to weaken, some competitive exporter will say "You know, I can sell those to you for less, in dollar terms, because my costs are in my (devalued) currency."
by infecto | 2025-04-06 23:58:39+00:00
I don’t like Waltz but I think this is the better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis and to folks that have no benefit know before hand. This is the primary issue and I believe a disqualification for being SECDEF. Others would get immediately fired and a healthy chance of being prosecuted.

The other issue is having this chat outside of formal means. I am not as well educated but having civilians that serve at the pleasure of the president I would assume must follow some rules around formal and recorded communications.
by sn9 | 2025-04-06 23:58:59+00:00
St John's also has an Eastern Classics master's program reading list for works from India, China, and Japan: https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/graduate/masters-easte...

Other good sources include the list of books in the back of Mortimer Adler's How To Read A Book for a Western Canon and Wm. Theodore de Bary's The Great Civilized Conversation: Education for a World Community and Finding Wisdom In The East Asian Classics for East Asian Canons.
by gruez | 2025-04-06 23:59:39+00:00
>We observe that the HW3 forward cameras have a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels resulting in a arc-resolution of ~25.6 pixels per degree for the 150m camera and ~11 pixels per degree for the 60m camera, the camera used for the majority of actions. Both values are below minimum vision requirements for driving with most states with the wide angle view within a factor of two of being considered legally blind.

This isn't as much as a slam dunk as you think it is. The fallacy is that assuming visual acuity requirements are chosen because they're required for safe maneuvering, when in reality they're likely chosen for other tasks, like reading signs. A Tesla doesn't have to do those things, so it can potentially get away with lower visual acuity. Moreover if you look at camera feeds from HW3/HW4 hardware, you'll see they're totally serviceable for discerning cars. It definitely doesn't feel like I'm driving "legally blind" or whatever.

https://youtu.be/Odu9O4MhfW0
by Dylan16807 | 2025-04-07 00:00:36+00:00
> The requests are endless and I'm convinced there are people who if they could would do their entire job from their inbox and get everything and anything an application can do via email.

That sounds like a reasonable goal for a whole lot of job duties. And yes some entire office jobs. (Excluding some direct human communication but a lot of jobs already have too much of that in situations that could have been an email.)

> "I didn't get the email!" is a constant refrain (yes they did, they always did).

Well having to manually check wouldn't improve that, would it?
by Nesco | 2025-04-07 00:01:55+00:00
From my own experience on a codebase using a lot of custom algorithms on trees and sometimes graphs.

There were qualitatively leaps in my day-to-day usage:

Claude Sonnet 3.5 and ChatGPT O1 were good for writing slop and debugging simple bugs

Grok Thinking and Sonnet 3.7 were good to catch mildly complicated bugs and write functions with basic logic. They still made mistake

But recently, Gemini 2.5 pro has been scary good. I liked to made fun of the feel-the-AGI crowd but for the first time a model made me raise an eyebrow

It can one shot unusual function with complicated logic and subtle edge cases
by daxfohl | 2025-04-07 00:02:04+00:00
Yeah, some more concrete examples would help. LSP docs make a lot more sense in that they lay out the problems that it solves: the many-to-many issue and the redundant-implementations-of-parsers-for-a-language issue. Maybe the USB(-C?) comparison is more apt, though I imagine most software engineers know less about that one. And IIUC the "-C" is just a physical component and not part of the protocol(?)

Anyway, sounds like we'll see a v2 and v3 and such of the protocol before long, to deal with some of the issues in the article.
by __mharrison__ | 2025-04-07 00:02:17+00:00
I'm seriously considering writing a custom creator platform.

(I use Gumroad too, but my platform of choice just pulled the rug out from under me. I pay a substantial amount for "unlimited courses". Yet a month or so ago they informed me that while courses were unlimited, video uploads were not. They suggested I delete courses if I want to make new ones. I use this platform for public facing courses as well as private courses that I offer my clients. The support staff, while not a chatgpt, was not particularly helpful.)
by izacus | 2025-04-07 00:02:47+00:00
I wonder if that conviction would actually survive you being dependent on the income of that garden (and the ability for crops to survive, grow and be sold at a good price to sustain you) or if you're just dreaming of vacation where you poke at the land a bit.

I worked on a farm and I find this romanticising outright ridiculous because I don't think a lot of you understand just how hard is it to actually make a living from the land.
by NeutralCrane | 2025-04-07 00:02:56+00:00
I don’t think it would be onerous nor ill defined. Simply make it illegal to pay someone to or receive payment for making a public announcement for a product, service, or brand. If no payment is involved, it’s fine. People are free to promote their own or others products on social media, YouTube, the side of their car or house, so long as they aren’t paid to do so. That is hardly any more convoluted or ill-defined than dozens of other laws on the books.

And yes, word of mouth and non-paid advertising is absolutely capable of spreading awareness on its own.
by ionwake | 2025-04-07 00:03:33+00:00
Yes but you would sure as heck bump into it if it was big.

Like literally in the middle of your sitting room. Isn’t it a known meme horror thing - monster slices from another dimension splicing across into ours as they move through their planes .

Basically it doesn’t happen but the dimensions do exist so they must be small.

Hence why we don’t bump into them.