MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ccapo | 2025-04-04 17:42:24+00:00
Location: Kitchener, Canada

Remote: Yes

Willing to Relocate: No

Technologies: Golang, Python, Node.js, C/C++, Fortran, Docker, RabbitMQ/Kafka, Grafana, MySQL/Postgresql, Redis, AWS, Keras/PyTorch/Tensorflow/Scikit-learn, OpenAPI, Streamlit, Flask, Django, FastAPI, Express.js, OpenMP/MPI, Differential Equations, Regular Expressions, Bitcoin/Blockchain

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chriscapobianco, https://chriscapobianco.com/Christopher_Capobianco_Resume.pd...

Email: contact [at] chriscapobianco [dot] com

With more than 10 years of software development experience, I have developed a strong foundation in cyber-security, web development, machine learning, and cryptocurrency/blockchain. My background in Astronomy and Astrophysics (H. BSc and MSc) has provided me with strong analytical, mathematical, programming, and communication skills.

In the cyber-security domain, I have spent four years mastering Golang, PostgreSQL, Grafana, and GitHub Actions. At Arctic Wolf, I was a team lead for the past two years, where I managed five developers. I guided the team on a modularization project of our end-point Agent, and where I managed the biannual release cycle of our software. My back-end web development experience spans five years, where I have worked with Node.js/PHP/Golang, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Redis, RabbitMQ, and Docker/Docker-Compose. I also have more than a decade of experience in scientific programming, using FORTRAN, C/C++, Python and Bash.

Some of the work I am most proud of includes the parallelization of the SWIFT numerical integrator, a ML document classifier for OCR text, my contributions to the Bitcoin code base, and my entry in the 2016 Halite AI Challenge where I ranked in the top 3%. To see my ML portfolio, visit: huggingface.co/spaces/ccapo/portfolio

Outside of my professional career, I am passionate about pushing the boundaries of my personal projects. Currently, I am building a high-altitude balloon equipped with a Raspberry Pi and an Arduino. I also enjoy crafting rogue-like video games, blending creativity with interesting game mechanics. For a glimpse of my work, visit: github.com/ccapo
by InsideOutSanta | 2025-04-04 17:43:18+00:00
>She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth

>She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).

These do not seem like contradictory statements. They are just different ways of phrasing the same concept: There is no moral duty to help others, and if people can't get somebody to desire to help them, they deserve to die.
by notahacker | 2025-04-04 17:43:38+00:00
You're also going to have to take into account whether it's compelling for you, considering the non-zero risk of devoting a lot of time to businesses with limited product-market fit. That's obviously less risky if you're sticking with markets you know well, or if you end up with a massive portfolio of products so you can switch to pitching something else as soon as you see the customer's eyes roll...

There's an adverse selection problem where the businesses that aren't market ready are the ones most likely to be intrigued by the idea of someone who isn't an employee and doesn't cost anything doing their sales for them.
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-04-04 17:43:45+00:00
John Stewart had a pretty good interview with Oren Cass that helped me understand a bit about what the Trump administration might be thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g

Also Money & Macro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2VilC9EzI
by MadnessASAP | 2025-04-04 17:44:26+00:00
> Being a peak Objectivist would be to not care about being an Objectivist or not, basically making it impossible to be an Objectivist if you follow the philosophy, even at the top of it because you are dependent on your followers for influence, status and power.

So basically objectivism is the punk of the philosophical world?
by simianparrot | 2025-04-04 17:44:33+00:00
So many arguing that "copyright shouldn't be a thing" etc., ad nauseam, which is a fine philosophical debate. But it's also the law. And that means ChatGPT et. al. also have to follow the law.

I really, really hope the multimedia-megacorps get together and class-action ChatGPT and every other closed, for-profit LLM corporation into oblivion.

There should not be a two-tier legal system. If it's illegal for me, it's illegal for Sam Altman.

Get to it.
by shawnz | 2025-04-04 17:44:46+00:00
I think that is a uselessly reductive interpretation of what secure boot is because you could apply the same logic to any security technology. Why should we allow login passwords or user permissions or disk encryption, since those could be used as lock-out technologies by manufacturers, if they just ship them with defaults you can't control?

Manufacturers don't need any user-facing standardized controls to implement lockouts. So the possibility of a feature being used as a lockout shouldn't be a justification for taking away the option of having a user-controlled security feature. Taking it away from users isn't going to stop manufacturers from doing it anyway with proprietary technologies instead.
by 1270018080 | 2025-04-04 17:44:48+00:00
A huge difference the 2025 crisis is done by 1 person over a 2 month span, it was entirely predictable with even a modicum of economic literacy, and entirely avoidable.

Yes 2008 was also avoidable and a lapse in economic judgement, but no one saw it coming until it happened. This one was obvious from the beginning.
by wg0 | 2025-04-04 17:45:57+00:00
Very detailed effort. Predicting future is very very hard. My gut feeling however says that none of this is happening. You cannot put LLMs into law and insurance and I don't see that happening with current foundations (token probabilities) of AI let alone AGI.

By law and insurance - I mean hire an insurance agent or a lawyer. Give them your situation. There's almost no chance that such a professional would come wrong about any conclusions/recommendations based on the information you provide.

I don't have that confidence in LLMs for that industries. Yet. Or even in a decade.
by abofh | 2025-04-04 17:46:16+00:00
That's the same argument as CAPTCHA's - as far as I know there are no bots protesting them making their lives harder, but as a human - my life is much harder than it needs to be because things need me to prove I'm a human.

Clean for data ingestion usually means complicated for data creation - optimizing for the advertisers has material cash value downstream, but customers are upstream, and making it harder is material too.
by skybrian | 2025-04-04 17:46:23+00:00
It’s not nothing in return. That’s pretty much impossible, unless it’s pure charity.

Countries with a trade surplus are buying foreign investments with their exports. That’s not necessarily a bad thing - more foreign investment can be useful if it’s invested in something productive, and it diversifies risk. But if foreign investors get spooked, it can result in a financial collapse, like happened during the Asian financial crisis.
by disambiguation | 2025-04-04 17:46:29+00:00
You know it's kind of rude to dismiss someone when they clarify and then stuff words in their mouth?

Totally inverted? Of course not. But there is a very real portion of individuals for whom debts exceed earnings and it is very much in the data. But if you want to ignore reality to win on semantics go right ahead.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-...
by cess11 | 2025-04-04 17:46:41+00:00
They spend a lot of effort trying to get good at predicting user preferences, through modeling of personality, behaviour patterns and more.

You can find out quite a lot in their blogs and publications:

https://research.atspotify.com/2022/02/modeling-users-accord...

https://research.atspotify.com/user-modeling/
by pcwalton | 2025-04-04 17:46:46+00:00
Rayiner of 10 years ago started his arguments from axioms other than "the Republican Party is correct" as he does now. I miss old Rayiner. His arguments against the Democratic position on e.g. Citizens United and Bush v. Gore were persuasive back then. Nowadays virtually nothing he says is persuasive, because it's incredibly obvious that he's starting from the position that the Republican Party is correct and working backwards from there.

(He's also getting about as close as you can get to the "out-and-out racism" line as you can get without maybe technically crossing it. Though I think he did cross it when it comes to Irish Catholics.)
by airstrike | 2025-04-04 17:47:03+00:00
Here's the best explanation I've found: https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379

It's a very good analysis. However, it does not explain why the administration used the formula they did in establishing the rates per country and why they used a list of TLDs instead of actual countries, leading them to impose tariffs on an island inhabited only by penguins.
by dhosek | 2025-04-04 17:47:09+00:00
The Wozniak method was how I used to write 6502 assembler programs in high school since I didn’t have the money to buy a proper assembler. I wrote everything out longhand on graph paper in three columns. Addresses on the left, a space for the code in the middle and the assembler opcodes on the right, then I’d go through and fill in all the hex codes for what I’d written. When you work like that, it really focuses the mind because there’s not much margin for error and making a big change in logic requires a lot of manual effort.
by empath75 | 2025-04-04 17:47:10+00:00
> Or a team loses that would have won because of said penalty and does not go to the world championship.

What if they lost the bet because they missed a goal because they slipped on the ice? What if they missed the goal because they blocked it? Taking a strategic penalty isn't _cheating_, it's acting within the rules of the game. The rules are _if_ you take such an action, _then_ the following consequence occurs.

It's sort of dependent on the game and the penalty, though, what the norms are. In soccer, basketball, hockey and football, strategic fouls/penalties happen all the time to prevent scoring opportunities -- holding, etc. That's not considered cheating, it's just part of the game, you trade a sure goal for a penalty.

There _are_ some actions that are considered cheating though -- think inflategate in the NFL, or stealing signs with cameras in baseball. Stuff that isn't generally caught and penalized in the game -- that's the kind of thing that most players won't do, even at the top level.
by throwaway389234 | 2025-04-04 17:47:44+00:00
Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying. In particular not having consequences from the government. Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech. Free speech in the US is about being able to be an asshole to 10%, 50% or 90% of the population without having to be responsible for what that part of the population does. And even more so what they do with the government. As such if you believe in free speech the government's actions stand on their own. What you actually don't get to say is that it is a consequence. Because that is what free speech in the US is supposed to prevent. Consequences from the government.

In many countries in Europe we have hate speech and defamation laws, we don't have at-will employment and many of our universities are public. This means there is less freedom to make others upset, questioning someone's character, firing them and ways to affect our education. This is by definition illiberal. (Worse or not is an open question). In Europe we can't say that "I might have offended 50% of the population, but sending me to prison is worse" because our laws says it isn't. In the US you can.

Does US law also say that the government can do all kinds of things, including pardoning criminals? Yes, but it still goes against the credibility of free speech in the US. One of the things the US still had over other countries.
by treetalker | 2025-04-04 17:47:50+00:00
The government is not a reasoning individual.

There are many explanations why that goal might be pursued (whether rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintentionally).

One good explanation, though, is usually that one or more groups of one or more actors who have power in the system find certain actions and/or decisions to have the systemic effect of benefiting them, regardless of whether the governed (or the system itself — institutionalism) benefit.

I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility.
by hinkley | 2025-04-04 17:48:03+00:00
Right now the amount of energy it takes to extract every gallon of oil from the ground is creeping up decade by decade. So you end up having to consume your own supply to make it fit for consumers.

I can see a day where solar powered refineries exist. Either under their own power or by being grid-tied.

But there will come a time when it’s just too expensive to pull it up from many places and we end up with dozens of wells and optimize cracking for petrochemicals other than fuel.
by sejje | 2025-04-04 17:48:04+00:00
> what else is AI but a tool for taking other people's work and reassembling it into a product for you

Well, what I'd like it to be is a tool for generating what I've asked it for, which has nothing to do with other people's work.

I've been asking for video game sprites/avatars, for instance. It's presumably trained on lots of images of video games, but I'm not trying to rip those off. I want generic images.

> we go to AI because we want to avoid paying a human.

No, I go to AI because I can't imagine the nightmare of collaborating with humans to generate hundreds of avatars per day. And I rely on them being generated very quickly. And so on.
by x0x0 | 2025-04-04 17:48:12+00:00
well, see, if you just hand wave away the really difficult part, and ignore the other really difficult thing (we have a perfect track record over 40+ years of users being terrible at sysadmin of their own computers), then this local first thing is super easy.

edit: to be clear, local first is interesting in theory, but I need a little more than draw the rest of the fucking owl.
by egypturnash | 2025-04-04 17:48:33+00:00
I mean we could start taxing the ultra-rich, who have a greater share of the pool of dollars than they have at any point during history. Pick a number, ooh maybe 200% of the median income, something well below the point where you stop being human and become a giant bag of money pretending to be human, anything above that gets taken away by the state and redistributed to everyone. Rip up all the laws that create ways for people to hide money from taxes. The giant bags of money pretending to be people will scream, and try to make this stop; their money can buy a lot of politicians, and perhaps it will only happen if it’s that or the guillotine.

We could also acknowledge that money is a fiction; money is continually created by the banks under the authority of the government, and money can just be destroyed when it’s taxed instead of thinking it has to “balance the federal budget”. “A dollar” is not tied to any physical store of value but we still love to pretend it is. It’s just a fraction of the overall economic worth of the entire US, and entirely too many of those fractions are in the hands of huge bags of money pretending to be people.

Or we could just ditch “money” entirely. Add things like “lodging” and “food” to the Bill of Rights. There’s probably a lot of problems with this! And a lot of them probably rhyme with the problem that some people just really want to become big bags of money pretending to be people!
by mindslight | 2025-04-04 17:48:54+00:00
"Produce nothing and import everything" is a straw man. The goal was to produce different things, hopefully more valuable ones. That hope has been shown to be a bit specious. But regardless, being able to obtain real goods by giving other countries arbitrarily-devaluable IOUs is still a no-brainer win, period.

If your goal is to make the country manufacturing independent, then plunging us into a depression while cutting off existing supply lines is abjectly stupid! When it comes to building domestic industry from the ground up, tariffs are the equivalent of "sending thoughts and prayers". And they're even more specious knowing how volatile this administration is, and that the economic pain will mandate some course correction long before the foundations of any new factories are even poured. Never mind the cost of filling those new factories with equipment has now skyrocketed! (Or are we supposed to think that the tariff announcement has magically made the invisible hands of the market start rubbing three flattish surfaces together?)

The actual way to have carried out the purported policy goal was to spend some of the massive surplus the US gets by USD being the world reserve currency ("the deficit") on deliberate targeted import substitution - direct subsidies for US based manufacturing activities. It's top-down centralized action but that's essentially unavoidable due to that massive centralized wealth collection from having the world reserve currency. That would (/would have) also prevent that collected wealth from simply being given to the financial industry in support of their overgrown products.

Breaking up massively consolidated megacorpos into manageable entities that have to actually compete with each other would have gone a long way as well.

The only first-principles ways I can earnestly explain Trump's actions is that either he's either confusing symptoms for causes, is mentally compromised (dementia and/or social media addiction), or is working for Russia/China. Likely some mix of all three.

Hopefully the Democrats can get over their general ineptitude, spin this as a 30% National Sales Tax paying for Handouts to Most Favored Billionaires, get some Republicans to defect from the maggot party line, and fucking impeach+convict already. That's really the only course of action that can leave our country with a hope of remaining intact.
by Supermancho | 2025-04-04 17:49:26+00:00
The targeted reduction in US influence across the globe, does seem intentional. This is not specific to Trump.

What is gained by reducing a US influence/footprint? The resources used to maintain that footprint. Why? To focus them, which increases impact and minimizes vulnerabilities.

Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is less useful when you want to devalue imports. Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is vulnerable to drones and other techniques that effectively counter the protection smaller groups of ships can provide. This also reduces the expectation that the US might get involved in a conflict, if less US assets are visiting every corner of the seas.

Now you need less small ships to be made and can aggregate these assets in potentially hotspot conflict areas. An opponent can't disrupt shipping if the US has prematurely done it to themselves (and the world).

Removing the US from NATO reduces the chance of a long range exchange that the US will have to participate in, to the detriment of its own resources (missiles, air power, ships, manpower, etc).

This all leads to indicators of a large scale conflict being planned, decades out.

I suspect Trump is hamfistedly enacting policies based on some grand long term plan that he is directed to participate in. As usual, he's making a mess, to get as much done as possible. Why? To take credit ofc.

Edit: This is a thought experiment, not some sort of factual accounting. If you have a better idea other than "duhr Trump is dumb", share it.
by trod1234 | 2025-04-04 17:50:15+00:00
Unfortunately, the paper does nothing that I can see to address the criticisms of UBI in general, such as the pivotal 1930-1950 works of Mises on Socialism.

In such an environment, those with the majority marketshare will simply cooperate and adjust their prices upwards through artificial constraint of supply, inevitably creating imbalances which result in chaotic shortfall that will need to damped, and these people do so with a plausible fallback, "we live in chaotic times". The people will need to be bailed out for the shortfall.

Cooperation prevents economic calculation, leading to the chaotic whipsaws described by Mises as the Socialist Calculation Problem.

The only way to dampen the whipsaw is through money printing, and there is a hard upward limit to money printing after which the currency collapses.

That point is what is generally considered stage 3 of a ponzi scheme, after diminishing returns, where outflows exceed inflows. With regards to debt-based money printing (non-reserve/basel3 [based in objective value]), that transforms when GDP < debt growth.

The limit is silently enforced by legitimate market participant producers who exit the market once profit can no longer be made (as the stable store of value is debased and as a monetary property is lost). Since most companies use financial engineering, the time when this is noticed will be long after the critical period since that type of engineering decouples decision-making from short term constraints.

This can lead to catastrophic failure, as the dynamics cascade in similar ways to an avalanche, or a dam break where the trigger is not noticed, and the consequences of mass and motion following a conservation of energy cannot be stopped.

While we are talking about the dynamics of human action, which are not nearly as well defined as physics, the dynamics are no less powerful.
Show HN: MCP server for your browser
by namuorg | 2025-04-04 17:50:18+00:00
Hi HN,

I made an MCP server that allows automating your local browser.

It's great for having apps like Claude, Cursor, and Windsurf automatically test code end-to-end after generating it or for automating repetitive tasks like filing out forms.

It's inspired by the Playwright MCP, but it uses your existing Chrome instance rather than spinning up a new browser. This means that you can have AI automate tasks on a tab you're already working on rather than having to log in on a new browser and recreate the context.

I'd love to get your feedback!
by csomar | 2025-04-04 17:50:54+00:00
There is no trade deficit in that sense and can never be; no one is sending free shit. However, this is “goods” trade imbalance. There are lots of other types of cash flows happening in an economy. For example, if your country has a high % of remittances, it’ll have a chronic trade balance. (which is essentially the exercise of these remittances at foreign markets)
by bryanlarsen | 2025-04-04 17:51:04+00:00
Note that the big battery in a BEV is a great averaging mechanism. As long as your average drive is less than the amount you get from an overnight charge, you're likely fine. If you're adding 40 miles of range a night to a 300 mile battery, you have to have 4 consecutive days of 100 mile usage before you have to hit an external charger. Mix a few days of 20 mile usage between those 100 mile days and external charger usage is exceedingly rare.
by mrguyorama | 2025-04-04 17:51:27+00:00
No, this is a completely unsolvable problem with just a camera.

You cannot differentiate a high calorie meal from a low calorie meal on sight alone.

The waste is selling a lie, enabled by AI bullshit artists and the public's seeming inability to understand that the US has no legal (or market most of the time) requirements to be truthful, upfront, or honest in marketing.

Like people just take this shit at face value and I don't understand how you can live in the US for more than a few years and not recognize that marketing is just lies, like not even smart or clever lies.