MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cruffle_duffle | 2025-04-04 16:44:57+00:00
Just trying to explain it to you made me think of a very good reason why an MCP is preferable to just telling it to fetch a page. When you tell ChatGPT or Sonnet or even cursor/windsurf/whatever to fetch a website do you know exactly what it is fetching? Does it load the raw html into the context? Does it parse the page and return just the text? What about the navigation elements, footer and other “noise” or does it have the LLM itself waste precious context window trying to figure the page out? Is it loading the entire page into context or truncating it? If it is truncated, how is the truncation being done?

With an MCP there is no question about what gets fed to the model. It’s exactly what you programmed to feed into it.

I’d argue that right there is one of the key reasons you’d want to use MCP over prompting it to fetch a page.

There are many others too though like exposing your database via MCP rather than having it run random “psql” commands and then parsing whatever the command returns. Another thing is letting it paw through splunk logs using an MCP, which provides both a structure way for the LLM to write queries and handle the results… note that even calling out to your shell is done via an MCP.

It’s also a stateful protocol, though I haven’t really explored that aspect.

It’s one of those things that once you play with it you’ll go “oh yeah, I see how this fits into the puzzle”. Once you see it though, it becomes pretty cool.
by silisili | 2025-04-04 16:45:10+00:00
> Packaging and deployment will soon be solved problems

I really hope you're right. I love Python as a language, but for any sufficiently large project, those items become an absolute nightmare without something like Docker. And even with, there seems to be multiple ways people solve it. I wish they'd put something in at the language level or bless an 'official' one. Go has spoiled me there.
by hinkley | 2025-04-04 16:45:15+00:00
I can remember two ad campaigns with an Elvis impersonator, and they used multiple people in both of them. I think we can safely assume that if you represent multiple people as a specific public figure, that a reasonable person must assume that none of them are in fact that person.

Now of course that leaves out concerns over how much of advertisement is making money off of unreasonable people, which is a concern Congress occasionally pays attention to.
by trod1234 | 2025-04-04 16:45:24+00:00
That is not a solution because it blindly solves one problem in isolation while creating a whole host of other problems that are equally if not more destructive.

It is improper to say this is a solution when you swap out the problems for something worse as a surrogate at the same time.

When you are tied to one physical ID, you give disproportionate power to the game manufacturer, which enables them to monopolize, and engage in coercive, and corrupt behavior more readily.

Say they decide after the fact that they don't like your objective review of a game you bought because shocker it was "unfinished". They decide to ban you, that ban alerts all other manufacturers, and they block you as well. Or someone who can issue those bans decides to blackmail or extort you.

If you don't comply, in the process, they revoke access to all your licensed purchases. It is tied to a real ID, so there's no way around it. You've just been cancelled from games/entertainment as a whole.

If this touches on physical aspects like interfering with your ability to get food, hold a job, etc, you've just been forced into the dregs of society with no due process outside a rule of law. "There are plenty of people that haven't had this scarlet letter attached, ... we'll just choose anyone but them", is how it will go.

This is not a new concept, in fact it is one of the common elements found in Maoism and collectivism in general.

So the solution you propose is communism by another name. Any educated person knows Communism fails in common ways intractably, and as a result this cannot be a solution.

A good rule of thumb is, if it involves a centralized hierarchy structure; its more likely than not going to be some form of communism/socialism (fabian/globalist/its gradual neighbor)/or collectivism, and one must consider slippery slopes where once you adopt one thing, you slip all the way down to another.

Ludwig von Mises wrote a book back in the 1930s-1950s covering all of the intractable failures, under the title "Socialism". The detailed problems he describes are intractable, and naturally occur in such systems.

Communism and its derivatives are all about obscuring its origins deceitfully to trick you into thinking and agreeing its a solution. They don't give you the whole picture and they strive to mislead towards pipe dreams which never happen in practice, towards control you can't take back.
by yapyap | 2025-04-04 16:45:49+00:00
That is pretty funny, in the ironic sense.

What it feels like to me is the leaders of the Objectivism movement are all narcissists and the followers are paradoxically not Objectivists because they’re following a philosophy instead of being guided by the self.

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.

The irony of it all, turns out a philosophy based on self sufficiency is as big of a grift as a political movement trying to convince everyone that in this day and age self sufficiency is the best move, mostly cause they can’t fathom sharing.

One of the _most_ ironic bits being that if everyone were truly self sufficient there would be no social hierarchy and no money anymore.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-04-04 16:45:53+00:00
The problem is that before they could train the model on the book, they had to copy the book from somewhere.

That, in itself, raises kind of an interesting point.

Right now there's a post on the front page where people are exercising conspicuous outrage because ChatGPT rendered a good Indiana Jones likeness in response to a vague query asking for a 1930s archaeologist with a bullwhip. Was that particular response generated by ChatGPT because it "copied" Indiana Jones? Or because it was influenced by the same pulp fiction stories and deeply-embedded cultural archetypes that led Spielberg and Lucas to create the character in the first place?
by AlotOfReading | 2025-04-04 16:46:30+00:00
Colors don't even require photons. There's a phenomenon called phosphenes that produces colorful lights (green and purple for me). You can see them by rubbing your eyes sufficiently hard, or copy Newton and stick a blunt needle in your eye. They're caused by mechanical deformation in your optical cells rather than any photons being captured, but they produce the experience of color regardless.
by RcouF1uZ4gsC | 2025-04-04 16:46:32+00:00
Kerosene did save the sperm whale.

And the author missed the reason:

> As I mentioned earlier, right from the start whale oil had other uses, beyond lighting. It was used to grease naval clocks, as well as being deployed in pharmaceuticals, paints and explosives.

Kerosene replaced the widespread, low margin, highly price sensitive use of spermaceti oil.

If the common person is using spermaceti oil for light every single day, there is no politically tenable way you can restrict the supply.

Kerosene replaces that, and now the common person doesn't really know or care about spermaceti oil.

Notice also the other use cases are generally higher up in the value chain than just burning it for light. Naval clocks, pharmaceuticals, paints, explosives. In addition, the users are more concentrated. Everybody burned spermaceti oil for lamps. There are only a few places that make naval clocks, pharmaceuticals, paints, and explosives. And they have the ability to absorb R&D costs for different lubricants because that is a high value use case.

A similar example of this is CFCs being banned. They were used in high value use cases with a limited amount of users. And even there, there was pushback with regard to home AC units - things that affected the common people.

The lesson we should take from this is that we need technology to provide us with alternatives for the common, price sensitive, widespread uses of something, before it becomes tenable to enact any type of supply restriction on it.

And then we can rely on the high value use cases finding alternatives.
by ytpete | 2025-04-04 16:46:33+00:00
Yet he's already changed the amounts and/or start dates how many times in just a couple of months? It will continue like that because chaos is the nature of his whim-driven presidency.

Further, he won't be in power long enough to ensure nothing changes for 40 years – US trade policy isn't read-only form here on out. Painful tariffs might not even survive until the midterms next year, if Congresspeople start fretting about keeping their jobs.
by hsiuywbs630h | 2025-04-04 16:46:39+00:00
Listen, this is not theoretical. In my realm, we had people getting in trouble for otherwise benign speech, because someone's feeling matter more than basic.common sense. The pendulum has swung pretty hard not because sjw bogeyman, but because it has gotten to the point people skilled in ignoring corporate idiocy had enough AND the chronic complainers were demanding increasing superpowers.
by yencabulator | 2025-04-04 16:46:47+00:00
Let's try this as an example.

fn foo() -> Result<u32, MyError> { ... } let x = foo(); match x { Ok(num) => println!("foo is {num}"); Err(error) => eprintln!("no foo for you: {error:?}"); }

So I have in my head a thing that has the name "x" and a spatial connection to that area of the source code where foo is called.

x is a Result<u32, MyError> and in my head that's a vague abstract shape with the "potential" to be either the uint32 shape (in my mind, a "brick" of a certain size) or a MyError shape (vague blob and since I know it's an enum it also has its own "potential" to be multiple shapes; it kind of has the branchiness of a tree without being tree-shaped; this is all abstract and concepts, not concrete shapes).

When "x" meets the "match" the "x" shape splits into its "potential" shapes, and "num" has the uint32 brick shape.

None of this has anything to do with visual programming like Scratch. It's just that I never say in my head words like "x has value of what foo returns" or "num is an uint32"; those just are.

Does that make any sense to you?
by andreygrehov | 2025-04-04 16:46:48+00:00
Here is the data from 2016 on tariffs the apply to the US:

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/TUN/part...

Here is the data from 2022 on tariffs the US applies to Tunisia:

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/USA/part...

Tunisia applies a shit ton of tariffs on the US imports.
by kyle-rb | 2025-04-04 16:47:01+00:00
I didn't read JS The Good Parts until it was well outdated, and I was glad to see that a lot of the sharp edges that Crockford lists have largely been eliminated. The book was written circa ES3, so some problematic features were removed in strict mode, we have replacements for some (let/const, for-of loops, etc), and we can sweep prototypes under the rug with ES6 classes, sometimes arrow functions even avoid awkward this-binding issues. The rest, like you said, TypeScript + a linter takes care of.
by georgeecollins | 2025-04-04 16:47:14+00:00
Less typing-- I mean keystrokes.

All the things that are not great about it make it easier to learn. No static typing, no control of memory, no threads.

When I started there was a language like BASIC or Visual BASIC that was easy to learn (or also quick to use) and C or C++ that was performant. If the world now is Python and Rust or Go, I think that it is just a better word for programmers. I say that as someone comfortable with C/ C++ / Java. They had their time and will still be with us, but the improvement is real.
by splix | 2025-04-04 16:48:08+00:00
I'm wondering what should be the right way here. Taking the doorframe trim for £10K.

I see there could be like 3 options: 1) hide wealth / do not spend this money; 2) distribute to economy / i.e. pay a tradesman to curve the frame; 3) donate money to a fund or throw from a balcony to the crowd.

It doesn't seem that 1 cold be helpful to anyone. We see 2 in those examples, but it seem you imply that it's not the best way. So we have the only the 3rd option left, with donations. Is that what is considered as the best option? Is it sustainable in a long term?
by dismalaf | 2025-04-04 16:48:36+00:00
> But to have a direct pipeline to the GPU via Python

Have you ever used a GPU API (CUDA, OpenCL, OpenGL, Vulkan, etc...) with a scripting language?

It's cool that Nvidia made a bit of an ecosystem around it but it won't replace C++ or Fortran and you can't simply drop in "normal" Python code and have it run on the GPU. CUDA is still fundamentally it's own thing.

There's also been CUDA bindings to scripting languages for at least 15 years... Most people will probably still use Torch or higher level things built on top of it.

Also, here's Nvidia's own advertisement and some instructions for Python on their GPUs:

- https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-python

- https://developer.nvidia.com/how-to-cuda-python

Reality is kind of boring, and the article posted here is just clickbait.
by Vegenoid | 2025-04-04 16:48:41+00:00
I have what I believe is "decent" employer-sponsored health insurance, but using the healthcare system is still an enormous pain in the ass, as is getting insurance to pay for the things that they are supposed to. I'm pretty healthy and young. I keep wondering "are there really that many people whose experience getting healthcare system doesn't suck ass and feel like getting robbed"? My partner insists that our health insurance must actually not be that good, I believe that our health insurance is above average and Americans have been conned into ignoring their own direct experience, but neither of us have much of a reference.
by jeroenhd | 2025-04-04 16:48:47+00:00
I don't see it. It's probably an addon issue. Have you tried running the browser without addons?

I know, for instance, that Dark Reader seems to affect my CPU usage when mass updating DOM elements like that.

And I suppose it depends on your CPU, if you're running modern browsers on a fifteen year old laptop you're going to see CPU spikes all over the place.
by Joker_vD | 2025-04-04 16:49:02+00:00
But... humans kinda behave the same? Your FPS is 50/60 Hz and your reactions are pretty much tied to it; and human behaviour is a pretty lousy RNG, that's been known for ages.

> A bot running on random pixel events with perfectly human response times, while appearing "random", is not correlated with anything meaningful outside that one pixel being monitored

So would a human who is tunneled-vision at the center of the screen.
by sillywalk | 2025-04-04 16:49:08+00:00
> When they were the only 64 bit systems

They were never the only 64 bit systems. MIPS introduced their 64 bit R4000 in 1991, a year before the Alpha came out. Sun released the 64 bit UltraSPARC in '95, along with IBM's 64bit PowerPC AS for their AS/400 systems. HP released the 64bit version of their PA-RISC in 1996.
by slg | 2025-04-04 16:49:15+00:00
As another Jew, the way non-Jews are using us as a cudgel to crack down on free speech certainly doesn't feel like "support". As one of history's leading targets when it comes time to scapegoat a minority, I get more antisemitic vibes from the "we have to sacrifice our American ideals to protect the Jews" folks than the "stop killing Palestinians" ones.
by intrasight | 2025-04-04 16:49:43+00:00
Think about it. Copyright and trademark are only a thing because of the constraint of the speed of light (or as some people believe, the constraint of the simulation running the universe). In an infinite universe, everything that has ever been invented or created by a human has already happened thousands of times in another place and another time.

I want to add, to give credit where credit is due, that this thought was conveyed to me in first grade by another 1st grader sitting with me at the lunch table. That was a day and conversation that I will never forget. 1972.
by kashunstva | 2025-04-04 16:49:46+00:00
> what this reveals about how Objectivism operates in practice...the movement's central contradiction

Is it only the gatekeepers of Rand's legacy that exhibit this discrepancy, or was it contradiction from the beginning? I seem to remember the first Objectivist herself accepted assistance from the Federal government near the end of her life.

Anyway, to someone with a distant outsider's view of this movement, it can seem that it misses something fundamental about the human psyche as it evolved to operate in co-dependent groups.
by ManuelKiessling | 2025-04-04 16:50:39+00:00
Because I wanted exactly this experience: can I get to the desired result — functionality-wise, if not code-wise! — even if I choose the stack that makes sense in terms of technology, not the one that I happen to be proficient in?

And if I cannot bring language-proficiency to the table — which of my capabilities as a seasoned software&systems guy can I put to use?

In the brown-field projects where my team and I have the AI implement whole features, the resulting code quality — under our sharp and experienced eyes — tends to end up just fine.

I think I need to make the differences between both examples more clear…
by potato3732842 | 2025-04-04 16:50:51+00:00
The bit about the usefulness for lubrication is fairly wrong. To put it simply, it's useful because it's a corrosion inhibitor. And while it works it degrades pretty rapidly in a hot gearbox. Synthetic alternatives were simply better. And they were developed and gaining traction before the ban, because they were better. Industrial machinery mostly doesn't need those properties. Whale oil is a poor lubricant by itself though it can look decent if your frame of reference is what's available in the 1860s.

Between what you found and what I found I think the whole thing is kinda sus.

Edit: To clarify, Whale oil is hydroscopic-ish but in a weird way, not like glycol (I'm not a chemist so IDK). My understanding is that it makes some sort of film that's protective against condensation. Gearboxes operated outdoors don't generally need this corrosion inhibitor. It has to do with the glues used on or in automatic transmission friction material and how very sensitive they are to water. You can't have water building up from ambient conditions and short trips or they'll delaminate. Your alternatives without something like this are rivets or different glue, both of which perform worse and cost more.
by kube-system | 2025-04-04 16:51:33+00:00
It's not directly or criminally illegal. It's civilly illegal in the sense that Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders in their business decision making. In practice, there are quite broad interpretations of what might be considered "good for your shareholders", but someone's personal interests generally wouldn't qualify as that.

If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it.

Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
by TimTheTinker | 2025-04-04 16:51:40+00:00
I read something recently that said the rise of American suburbia can be traced to increased rates of crime in the cities due to immigrant populations (this was over the last 50 years or so).

Now that Europe has seen such a huge increase in immigrant populations (and the corresponding crime increases), perhaps suburban-type environments will become more desirable there in the near future.
by s1artibartfast | 2025-04-04 16:51:43+00:00
That wasn't my reading. It was the bread or death part that did for me.

To me it seemed like melodramatic self pity, like the person complain that they had no other choice but go to the party but be alone. If someone hates company, they should go be a hermit, not show up and tell everyone about it.

It's okay to be a loner or a hermit. If you're not doing it, then either you are choosing the trade offs or you don't actually want it.

People should own their choices. Self pity and denial of agency are two of the most self destructive cognitive phenomenon.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-04-04 16:51:46+00:00
This reminds me of the stories that Gary's economics shared with his time at Citigroup which corroborates some of the stories my dad had as an accountant in investment firms.

That is, a lot of dicey stuff happens and management tends to only care about the results and intentionally places the responsibility on the traders by operating a very loose leash. This is combined with a % based commission which encourages rule breaking, given how high the rewards can be. The loose leash means when something bad is discovered (and this was the sort of thing my dad would uncover as an accountant) supervisors had this plausible deniability they could fall back on. This meant they could reap the rewards of positive returns while mitigating the blowback on them in the worst case outcomes.

Gary specifically shared a story when he tried to quit in that he was threatened with an investigation to dredge up all the bad stuff he'd done in order to be one of the more successful traders, which ultimately ended up as a big nothing burger as he didn't break any rules to get his returns. What was telling, was the assumption that they _would_ find something to use a cudgel to keep him there, as if it was almost expected.
by somenameforme | 2025-04-04 16:52:10+00:00
The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did, even if only out of spite. So most of the stuff being cancelled in contemporary times should be viewed more as being rebooted, with a bit of a delay.

But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? USAID was funded with tens of billions of dollars. How much does one lab/plant cost?

In any case, shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish.