MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by StevenWaterman | 2025-04-12 14:47:20+00:00
The paper doesn't seem to actually define their categories anywhere. Am I just missing it? Or am I meant to intuitively know the difference between "spied on / watched" and "spy / surveillance"?

Edit - upon re-reading, it seems like they're just using the themes present in the underlying literature, with _extremely_ conservative merging. Which makes the headline claim, that there are 37 distinct themes, pretty pointless. Is "spied on" really a distinct theme from "surveillance"? More likely, there's just no standardised name for it.
by abustamam | 2025-04-12 14:47:29+00:00
Good question. I think it's really just status quo. I got Peacock for free thru Xfinity and it was ad supported, but when I left Xfinity I just kept the same tier. Same with Hulu; my wife had ad Hulu before we got married and when we merged finances I had to reason to upgrade. But Netflix/HBO with ads just seems weird to me.
by zwnow | 2025-04-12 14:47:40+00:00
Because I dont want to work with AI agents? I like my work to be fun, as in "I could bear working 8 hours a day with this." I like thinking about the problems and solutions and how that translates to code. I like implementing it with my own hands. Substitute that with writing prompts and I'll look for a different career thats actually fun.
by diggan | 2025-04-12 14:48:00+00:00
If the LLM is "making up" APIs that don't exists, I'm guessing they've been introduced as the model tried to generalize from the training set, as that's the basic idea? These invented APIs might represent patterns the model identified across many similar libraries, or other texts people have written on the internet, wouldn't that actually be a sort of good library to have available if it wasn't already? Maybe we could use these "hallucinations" in a different way, if we could sort of know better what parts are "hallucination" vs not. Maybe just starting points for ideas if nothing else.
by CyberDildonics | 2025-04-12 14:48:07+00:00
That was 40 years ago. If people wanted to program inside out with lots of nesting then unfold it in their head, they would have done it at some point a long time ago. It just isn't how people want to work.

People don't work in postfix notation either, even though it would be more direct to parse. What people feel is clearer is much more important.
by p_ing | 2025-04-12 14:49:03+00:00
Okta was going to charge us $6/user/month just for MFA. So I migrated my company to Azure AD with free MFA. We still had AD DS in the mix, but endpoint management was moving to cloud w/ Autopilot + Intune.

An on-prem AD DS is going to be difficult to move away from. From a management cost perspective, it is still cheaper than every other LDAP + Kerb + endpoint policy solution out there. And since a CAL is provided with every copy of Windows Enterprise, thinking about CALs for clients is a non-issue.
Ask HN: Would you buy full-featured, well-documented boilerplate if I built it?
by kalashvasaniya | 2025-04-12 14:51:03+00:00
Everything you need to go from 0 to launch:

Authentication – Powered by Supabase + Auth.js with Magic Links (signup, login, logout)

Database – MongoDB & Supabase to store all user actions

Payments – Fully integrated with Stripe, LemonSqueezy & DodoPayments

Security – Fully protected routes and APIs

Frontend – Clean, blazing-fast UI/UX built with Next.js

Backend – Logic-ready with Node.js, JavaScript & TypeScript

Notifications – Built-in email and push notifications via Resend (with custom templates via Newdot Email)

Analytics – Track everything with Vercel Analytics & DataFast

Hosting – Deploy to Vercel, Netlify, Render, or AWS — your choice

Support – Real-time feedback and support with Crisp & Insight

Legal Pages – Terms, Privacy Policy, and Imprint included with ready-made prompts

SEO & Marketing – Meta tags, social previews, and more

Performance – Optimized for 100% uptime

Would you buy this if I built it as a production-ready boilerplate with clean code and solid documentation?

Drop a if you’re in.
by mppm | 2025-04-12 14:51:42+00:00
This is pretty much how I expected this to play out, at least for now. Trump acts all tough and doesn't back down publicly, but China actually doesn't back down. So what happens is that some businesses get exemptions to mitigate the impact. Then some fine print gets changed about how the rules are enforced. Like, suddenly it turns out that Kiribati is a major electronics supplier to the US :)

End result - US economy takes a hit, China takes a smaller hit. Trade balance widens further, most likely. The rich get richer, while many small companies struggle to survive.
by tetha | 2025-04-12 14:51:54+00:00
From being in a company with places across all of Europe, I've also found that "heated" means very different things in different places. Like, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but the calm discussion where to get dinner in Spain can be a lot more energetic than a very heated discussion about a strategic problem between some Brits and Germans.

But with less jest - I think we have a very good discussion culture in the team at work. No one on the team is scared to disagree, or to point out that this doesn't seem to go towards a positive direction. It's just not a heated discussion.

At times during these planning sessions, we just sit in silent thought and maybe doodling something in Excalidraw or on paper for a few minutes until someone is like "I need more input on X", or "So I have a rough plan I think?" or "I think there is an issue with that idea", even if it's not clear why - if 2 or 3 people are vaguely not fine with something, it's probably a bad idea. And we've also started to learn each others tells if we're not happy.
by toshinoriyagi | 2025-04-12 14:52:21+00:00
Correct, the above posted ignored the four prongs of fair use:

1. Is the work more educational or commercial.

2. What is the nature of the underlying work (creative works are more protected).

3. Is the work transformative.

4. What will be the impact on the underlying work's market.

Search engines do not make their internal copies available, compete in an entirely different market (that benefits the makers of the underlying works) and are considered quite transformative because they enable discovering vast information on the internet.

On the other hand, almost zero LLMs/Text-to-Image generators are educational in nature (certainly none of the ones being sued for copyright infringement). They frequently are trained on highly creative works like art and writing. Some of the work could be transformative, depending on where the learned data manifold the output of your request lies on, but a huge amount is similar to the training data. Lastly, these models have an outsized negative impact on the underlying markets, by being vastly cheaper compared to a human's labor, and for dubious quality at that.
by fpoling | 2025-04-12 14:52:45+00:00
Most languages have that early init problem. C++ allows global constructors, Java has class statics, Rust can also initialize thing globally.

Even C allows library initializers running arbitrary code. It was used to implement that attack against ssh via malicious xz library.

Disabling globals that are not compile-time constants or at least are never initialized unless the application explicitly called things will nicely address that issue. But language designers think that running arbitrary code before main is a must.
by A1vis | 2025-04-12 14:53:45+00:00
The media coverage seems a bit weird to me. The primary source was released 12 hours ago, but when I did a bit of research 4 hours ago I only saw a few reports from dubious Chinese sources like this: https://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/1277768.html

Then about 2 hours ago all major media outlets were covering it.
by mistrial9 | 2025-04-12 14:54:17+00:00
this is called Identity Politics.. basing your judgement of other adults by their demographic classifications.. Replacing skills-based and merit-based promotion with "balancing" is racist and sexist in a polar opposite way from the historical trajectory. This parent statement is part of the unrepentant position of many in the USA. This position lost at multiple levels in a massive open election in the USA.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-04-12 14:54:33+00:00
> But it's the person that causes the creation of the infringing material that is responsible for the infringement, not the machine or device itself.

That's simply not good enough. This is not merely a machine that can be misused if desired by a bad actor, this is a machine that specializes in infringement. It's a machine which is internally biased, by the nature of how it works, towards infringement, because it is inherently "copying:" It is copying the weighted averages of millions perhaps billions of training images, many of which depict similar things. No, it doesn't explicitly copy one Indiana Jones image or another: It copies a shit ton of Indiana Jones images, mushed together into a "new" image from a technical perspective, but will inherit all the most prominent features from all of those images, and thus: it remains a copy.

And if you want to disagree with this point, it'd be most persuasive then to explain why, if this is not the case, AI images regularly end up infringing on various aspects of various popular artworks, like characters, styles, intellectual properties, when those things are not being requested by the prompt.

> If you ask a human artist for an image of "an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip" you're also going to get something extremely similar to Indiana Jones unless you explicitly ask for something else.

No, you aren't, because an artist is a person that doesn't want to suffer legal consequences for drawing something owned by someone else. Unless you specifically commission "Indiana Jones fanart" I in fact, highly doubt you'll get something like him because an artist will want to use this work to promote their work to others, and unless you are driven to exist in the copyright gray area of fan created works, which is inherently legally dicey, you wouldn't do that.
by mistersquid | 2025-04-12 14:55:07+00:00
> One pattern I've seen in lower functioning teams with lots of conflict is some members being very well spoken, typically more classically trained like a philosophy background, probably a past debate club type kid. "Strong opinions, loosely held" type behavior where bad ideas were passionately argued by the more eloquent & aggressive team member until everyone else was exhausted and just let it run.

> The kind of guys that would steamroll the rest of the team as a bunch of idiots for not agreeing with him, but flip to a charismatic "ah good point" when incontrovertible proof of their idea not being correct was presented. The problem is you can't provide incontrovertible proof in real time in most cases, and lots of managers confuse their passion/certitude for correctness.

The problem is not that incontrovertible proof cannot be provided real time. Yielding evidence from complex, esoteric systems is always difficult and time-consuming.

The problem is the well-spoken people in the above example are not well-listening. Hearing a poorly-worded argument whose conceptual outlines might be worth considering is an important skill. Ignoring an argument because it is not eloquently delivered is hubris.

Because such people do not listen well, they cannot claim to have “Strong opinions, loosely held”. Requiring hard-to-yield evidence before changing one’s mind is “Strong opinions, tightly held”.

In the end, heated arguments are usually an indicator of dysfunction, even in high functioning teams. Teams are usually better off having honest, dispassionate debate.
Show HN: DSM-5 based panic attack analysis AND AI-companion Elissa
by hyuntak | 2025-04-12 14:55:52+00:00
Launched my first app today on PH —“Elissa - My Panic Ally”

Elissa is an AI-companion helping people manage panic & anxiety. AI chat, Panic SOS, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy based logger, mood tracker included.

Paused med school & taught myself dev to help loved ones who suffered alone. Would love your feedback!
by jmull | 2025-04-12 14:56:10+00:00
> assuming one even exists

Why would you assume that?

I don't know why people keep expecting Trump to be different than what he has consistently shown us for all these years. There's no subtle plan. There's no long-term plan. He's cranking the levers immediately available to him for the drama, as he has always done.

People around him may have ideas and plans. They can sometimes get him to agree to one of these, but it never lasts long.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-12 14:56:48+00:00
> Though, the trend I'm seeing a lot of is greenfield projects just migrating their MCUs to ARM.

That’s what I would expect, too.

The Venn diagram of projects using an old architecture like alpha but also wanting to adopt a new programming language is nearly two separate circles.

The parent comment even included HPPA (PA-RISC) which almost makes me think they’re into either retro computing or they have some arbitrary completionist goal of covering all platforms.
by kijin | 2025-04-12 14:57:21+00:00
> Prima donna developers who publicly call managers/teammates stupid in meetings ... (snip) ... telling newer team members to get a new job if they don't like how things are done.

I think the author covers that point to some extent:

> The focus stays on the problem: “This approach might not scale” instead of “Your idea sucks.”

As soon as you deviate from that focus, the discussion becomes toxic.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-04-12 14:57:33+00:00
I mean, his rich friends made 340 billion in the stock market chaos. So I suspect there is at least a vague plan, but it has nothing to do with anyone but himself and those who support him getting richer. But that's the only plan I think Trump has ever had in his entire life, or will ever have.

Like he's just not that deep. He's an incredibly shallow, inexperienced, dim, incurious old man who has never worked a job in his life, never built anything, never did anything. He arrived on top and his greatest achievement in life was managing to not lose it, in a country where it is specifically very hard to do that.

And hearing his supporters talk about how strong he is is just objectively hilarious. Man looks like 4 steepish flights of stairs would kill him stone dead.
by patapong | 2025-04-12 14:58:07+00:00
I agree with these. Here are some third party tools that can help with some of the gripes though:

> - No instant search (macOS has had it for how many years now?) Everything search somehow does instant search across the entire file system. It is the first thing I install when I get a new computer, cannot stress enough how much time this has saved me: https://www.voidtools.com/

> - No tool to graphically show where my diskspace went; allowing me to find and delete large files

This one takes a while to scan but produces an excellent visualization: http://www.steffengerlach.de/freeware/ (Scanner)
by istjohn | 2025-04-12 14:58:23+00:00
> No guarantees that Google discover a meaningful business model here...

I don't understand this sentiment at all. The business model writes itself (so to speak). This is the company that perfected the art of serving up micro-targeted ads to people at the moment they are seeking a solution to a problem. Just swap the search box for a chat bot.

For a while they'll keep the ads off to the side, but over time the ads will become harder and harder to distinguish from the chat bot content. One day, they'll dissapear altogether and companies will pay to subtly bias the AI towards their products and services. It will be subtle--undetectable by end users--but easily quantified and monetized by Google.

Companies will also pay to integrate their products and services into Google's agents. When you ask Gemini for a ride, does Uber or Lyft send a car? (Trick question. Waymo does, of course.) When you ask for a pasta bowl, does Grubhub or Doordash fill the order?

When Gemini writes a boutique CRM for your vegan catering service, what service does it use for seamless biometric authentication, for payment processing, for SMS and email marketing? What payroll service does it suggest could be added on in a couple seconds of auto-generated code?

AI allows Google to continue it's existing business model while opening up new, lucrative opportunities.
by nonrandomstring | 2025-04-12 14:58:45+00:00
All of that. A couple more thoughts. As a project it brings together energy to a task/configuration: namely that of making sure all those disparate command-line tools or bits of lib code are brought together for the specific purpose of serving file translations from some spot in a transactional fashion. So that's some value.

Why on the front page? That question might also have a non-technical answer. What's going on in news and events? Who's been setting up file translators and then "Dude I have over 4,000 soundfiles, pictures, address-books..." ... "Whoah? Like. howdy manage that one?" ... "People just submitted it. Zuck fucks"
by perihelions | 2025-04-12 14:59:44+00:00
This reads to me as "we're doubling-down on 145%+ tariffs for everyone else".

This is getting frighteningly close to a Russian-style economy. As in, a handful of powerful, connected "insiders" will be allowed to operate businesses, and will dominate... while everyone else gets wiped out, by acts of government. The furthest system possible from the free-market paradigm that built the American economy as it stands today.

Russia is not a prosperous nation.
by jonplackett | 2025-04-12 14:59:46+00:00
This is the only explanation that has made sense to me so far. And it makes even more sense based on these exemptions.

https://www.instagram.com/share/_jW_V1hwM

This is Senator Chris Murphy explaining it’s not economic policy, it’s an attempt to blackmail corporations into submission by making a deal with him in return for sanctions relief.

Keep an eye out for what Apple and nvidia might have agreed to give.
by tofof | 2025-04-12 15:00:00+00:00
It depends, what are you charging for the new features in the update/version? Twenty years ago, you'd put out a new version and I could go find what new features it had and decide for myself whether those were worth the price you ask to get them. If the answer is yes, I pay and I get the new features. If the answer is no, I don't pay and I keep using the program I already bought.

Why do you think the company is automatically entitlted to rent seeking and the removal of user choice just because they tweaked the ui?
by hylaride | 2025-04-12 15:00:20+00:00
There were pre-release 64 bit alpha versions of win2k, but otherwise you needed XP/2k3 for 64 bit. XP for amd64 was a bit of a shitshow with drivers (especially on consumer-grade computers), though. It wasn’t until vista that it ironically got better on that front, though people held out upgrading because of how terrible it was…
by osigurdson | 2025-04-12 15:01:18+00:00
The issue I have with SSE and what is being proposed in this article (which is very similar), is the very long lived connection.

OpenAI uses SSE for callbacks. That works fine for chat and other "medium" duration interactions but when it comes to fine tuning (which can take a very long time), SSE always breaks and requires client side retries to get it to work.

So, why not instead use something like long polling + http streaming (a slight tweak on SSE). Here is the idea:

1) Make a standard GET call /api/v1/events (using standard auth, etc)

2) If anything is in the buffer / queue return it immediately

3) Stream any new events for up to 60s. Each event has a sequence id (similar to the article). Include keep alive messages at 10s intervals if there are no messages.

4) After 60s close the connection - gracefully ending the interaction on the client

5) Client makes another GET request using the last received sequence

What I like about this is it is very simple to understand (like SSE - it basically is SSE), has low latency, is just a standard GET with standard auth and works regardless of how load balancers, etc., are configured. Of course, there will be errors from time to time, but dealing with timeouts / errors will not be the norm.
by jm4 | 2025-04-12 15:01:34+00:00
It’s total bullshit. Part of my business involves direct import and that’s now impacted by tariffs. The cherry on top is that what I import is not and cannot be produced in the U.S. I source a number of other products from suppliers in the U.S. and literally every single one of them is impacted by tariffs somehow, whether it’s ingredients, packaging, etc. that comes from somewhere else. Some of my materials originate in the Dominican Republic, which is now subject to a 10% tariff, although it’s more common for others in my industry to source those same materials from China. Now that China is prohibitively expensive, they will be quickly pivoting to other suppliers, which will further drive up prices. Supply chains are in chaos right now.

It burns me up that massive companies like Apple and Nvidia get a free pass while everyone else is subject to the most brain dead economic policy anyone alive today has ever lived through.
by LurkerAtTheGate | 2025-04-12 15:01:59+00:00
> How does one even go about accusing someone of insider trading? The illegality sounds pretty unenforceable.

Much of it is data analysis. My favorite examples of this are actual hacks - once foothold is established instead of encrypting & ransoming, the attacker just listens to the CEO/CFO. One hacked a law firm that handled some sizable mergers.

Personal tangent: Once had an opportunity to insider trade on a particular huge aerospace company. Playing a squad-based PvE game, matchmade into a team with 3 real-life friends at said company who chatted on in-game voice comms about their day, talking about court cases and senate hearings, and later panicked when they realized I could hear it all. They were nice guys, and I assured them that I wouldn't misuse what I overheard - I don't work in a relevant industry, and my investments do just fine without an illegal edge (plus I know Matt Levine's Laws of Insider Trading #1: Don't).
by gchamonlive | 2025-04-12 15:03:08+00:00
People who solely code and are not good software architects will try and fail to delegate coding to LLM.

What we are doing in practice when delegating coding to LLMs is climbing up the abstraction level ladder.

We can compensate bad software architecture because we understand deeply the code details and make indirect couplings in the code. When we don't understand deeply the code, we need to compensate it with good architecture.

That means thinking about code in terms of interfaces, stores, procedures, behaviours, actors, permissions and competences (what the actors should do, how they should behave and the scope of action they should be limited to).

Then these details should reflect directly in the prompts. See how hard it is to make this process agentic, because you need user input in the agent inner workings.

And after running these prompts and with luck successfully extracting functioning components, you are the one that should be putting these components together to make working system.
by ajross | 2025-04-12 15:03:09+00:00
The horrifying thing is that they don't have to. They hold all the cards now. They can drop their new trade barriers at will. Maybe they'll ask for concessions. Maybe they'll leave them in place to kill off troublesome competitors. Maybe they'll coerce the affected companies into selling to Chinese-owned interests at a steep discount. Maybe they'll just take a bunch of bribes.

This is how a trade war looks. And we're losing. Badly.