MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by josefresco | 2025-04-30 19:44:36+00:00
That photo of "Bison crossing the road in Yellowstone National Park" triggers me. When I visited there was a family of bison crossing the road, and the young bison became separated from parents. I stopped my truck to give them space, but people behind me kept racing around and past me oblivious or uncaring. Park Rangers were were nowhere close, I can only assume (hope?) it's a frequent occurrence given the traffic but overall it was fairly traumatic.
by thamer | 2025-04-30 19:45:06+00:00
The following CSS equivalent worked for me, using the "Custom CSS by Denis" Chrome extension[1]:

ytd-rich-grid-renderer div#contents { /* number of video thumbnails per row */ --ytd-rich-grid-items-per-row: 5 !important; /* number of Shorts per row in its dedicated section */ --ytd-rich-grid-slim-items-per-row: 6 !important; }

I first tried it with the "User JavaScript and CSS" extension, but somehow it didn't seem able to inject CSS on YouTube. Even a simple `html { border: 5px solid red; }` would not show anything, while I could see it being applied immediately with the "Denis" CSS extension.

If someone can recommend a better alternative for custom CSS, I'd be interested to hear it. I guess Tampermonkey could work, if you have that.

[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/custom-css-by-denis...
by SoftTalker | 2025-04-30 19:45:29+00:00
AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch).

If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.
by Gracana | 2025-04-30 19:45:58+00:00
This definitely works. I've uploaded 720p drone footage (which already looked pretty crappy), and youtube avc1-encodes it with low bandwidth settings. The video looks like absolute garbage. If I upscale it to 2k (it has to be above HD for this to work), youtube will vp09-encode it and use a significantly higher bitrate, and the resulting video retains most of the original detail. I consider this a requirement for all of my uploads.
by runako | 2025-04-30 19:46:56+00:00
Point taken. I was mostly addressing the larger question of whether the Executive is breaking the law wrt appropriations. Likely yes.

With science funding grants, the administration likely has latitude to make some changes, but the specifics of that latitude are going to be embedded in a thicket of overlapping statutes of different vintages.

Without going through all the specific statutes, I relied on the suggestion that if they are okay breaking the law around USAID funding passed in March, they likely are not going to find religion and adhere to laws governing science funding. But I guess anything's possible.
by ClumsyPilot | 2025-04-30 19:47:07+00:00
So what is the scenario, Russia does <what> to cause the president to be evacuated, and hopes he will fly through this route on a Blackhawk, as opposed to any other option, places an agent with a rocket launcher along the route, hopes it gets through countermeasures and shoots down the helicopter.

After this unlikely series of events, what is achieved? Do American people give up because someone killed an easily replaceable politician with bad approval rating?
by epistasis | 2025-04-30 19:47:30+00:00
We instituted many processes during the Biden era for bringing manufacturing to the US. They were all carrot based: provide stability for capital investments and even some tax benefits. This resulted in massive investments in factories in the US, the most in a generation.

Tariffs do not provide capital security, they do not make it cheap to build the factories and in fact gigantically jack up the cost because we need to import a lot of the machinery to get the manufacturing going, and building the entire supply chain from scratch would add massive lead time to the other factories that use the machinery.

Further, the need for onshoring cheap tshirt manufacturing is far from clear. We have massive amounts of our workforce in far more productive areas that produce absolutely massive amounts of GDP, and reallocating the workforce to tshirt manufacturing makes us far poorer.

We are cutting drastically from scientific research, where each dollar spent by the government generates 2x-10x GDP, and telling those scientists to go work in factories. The very same types of factories that our trading partners would give up in an instant if they had the hi tech scientific research instead.

What do we need? Certainly not tshirt factories. We need scientists, services, and more productive sectors of the economy. It is absolute idiocy to give up the higher tiers of the economy only possible in the US in the 21st century, to return to far lower 20th and 19th century productivity level.
by Zamaamiro | 2025-04-30 19:47:56+00:00
Yes. The port traffic data discussed in this thread is one such example.

I'm not an economist or supply chain expert myself, so I rely on actual subject-matter experts to interpret and contextualize the raw numbers for me. So far, they're all painting a pretty gloomy picture.

Good people to follow on this are CEO of Flexport Ryan Petersen [1], Jason Miller from MSU who had a great podcast with Derek Thompson [2], CEO of FreightWaves Craig Fuller [3], etc.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/small-businesses-buying-impo...

[2] https://www.theringer.com/podcasts/plain-english-with-derek-...

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/04/28/its-about-to-get-much-...
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-04-30 19:48:46+00:00
>This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive.

Directly or indirectly the people of the United States have power over all three branches. One can easily make strong arguments that the problem here is both that Congress as abdicated its powers to the executive (rather than delegated), and that the people have ignored that Congress should retain those powers while focusing on the presidency as the important election to the exclusion of all others.

This has been going on for decades or longer.

>So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.

Sure. Definitely means he can't spend it on something else. But how much wiggle room is in this? Does it say on which day, hour, and minute it must be spent? Sure, it's probably tied at least to the fiscal year (in which case it needs to be spent by September, one would suppose), but that's months away. Does allocating a budget imply that it needs to be spent at all? If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness? Are these funds earmarked for specific universities? What if he just goes shopping for alternative recipients?

To say that he has no discretion at all is absurd, if that were the case then Congress would have mandated that these be automatic electronic bank transfers without any human intervention (or oversight). The nature of the job not only implies but practically demands some (if limited) discretion.
Any good new CRMs out there?
by beto_carvalho | 2025-04-30 19:49:18+00:00
Hi, I’m looking for a true “client relationship management” platform (not sales funnel centric). I thought for sure there’d be a number of modern options to Salesforce.

Still looking, but I’m not finding anything that impresses me.

RelateIQ was probably one of the last impressive alternatives, which is why Salesforce acquired it.

I'm very versed in Salesforce (previous admin and SFDC business analyst), and actually like what it does, but was hoping to find something fresh.

Any suggestions on something you really like?

What do you love about it?

What don't you like about it?
by cgriswald | 2025-04-30 19:49:24+00:00
We don't have to pretend. The original poster thinks he knows what the world looks like if every marriage that ends in divorce just never happened. Those marriages do happen, though, and to place all the damage generated by that marriage strictly on the divorce is incorrect. Usually one or both parties know the consequences of the divorce and prefer them to the state of the marriage, because the damages are less than if divorce wasn't an option. Claiming divorce is some kind of undesirable 'damaged' state is just as stigmatizing as claiming it is 'bad' or 'evil'.

The alternative to divorce isn't perfect marriages, it is failed marriages that are inescapable.
by scarface_74 | 2025-04-30 19:49:40+00:00
Microsoft a monopoly in 2025??

In what?

- operating systems? The Mac has over a 20% market share in the US. I haven’t used a Windows PC for work since 2017. I’ve used Macs across 4 companies

- Office Suites? GSuite has a higher market share and the company I work for now uses it.

- Chat? Slack has 25%.

Absolutely no one in the industry is afraid of Microsoft anymore
by Jolter | 2025-04-30 19:49:46+00:00
Another use case is documentation - as they do activities, the teacher will use their cell to snap photos of the kids doing stuff. They can then use the school's app ("platform", I suppose) to send out a short note/summary at the end of the day, which parents can read on their end in the parent app. Also, reminders about things to bring tomorrow, notices about upcoming activities, etc. I am assuming they use these documentation items at the end of the year for grading, etc.
by akikoo | 2025-04-30 19:49:46+00:00
This is a really tragic thing that happened in Finland on April 1st:

https://yle-fi.translate.goog/a/74-20158685?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x...

It's usual in Finland to let babies sleep outside in the strollers (even when it's cold) but in this case no one checked how the child was doing for 3 hours.

In the news he/she was called a baby.
by ziddoap | 2025-04-30 19:49:50+00:00
Looks interesting, and I'll be diving into it a bit deeper, but I just wanted to mention that this quote:

"even non-experts can guarantee the security of their cloud environments"

Even though I understand that this is part of a marketing blurb, not a literal guarantee, it was an immediate yellow-flag for me. No tool can possibly guarantee the security of my cloud environment, so please don't imply/say your tool can. It reminds me of shady VPN companies guaranteeing my security by providing me with "military-grade encryption".

To be abundantly clear, I am not saying that this product is shady or anything -- I have not had the time to evaluate it in the depth needed -- but statements like that make the rest of the pitch an uphill battle. For me, at least.
by ath3nd | 2025-04-30 19:50:26+00:00
Since when is the US govt legally able to make permanent residents "end up somewhere"?

He's a permanent US resident, if the state wants to do something, they gotta follow due procedure, charge him with something and actually win. People have both the freedom of speech and the right to organize, so if the state goes against that, it'd paint a clear picture what kind of state it is.
by sargstuff | 2025-04-30 19:50:26+00:00
> Excel is not even Excell anymore.

?? LAMBDA: The ultimate Excel worksheet function ( https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/lambda-the-ult... )

or "Autocorrect errors in excel still creating genomics headaches" ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02211-4 )

Guess time to bump things up to a higher order portable programming language. Python for excel anyone vs. go "R".
by banannaise | 2025-04-30 19:50:47+00:00
One of the biggest challenges for the FAA et al. is preventing both individuals and organizations from developing this kind of complacency, where something extremely dangerous becomes "just how we do it here, and it's fine".

Unfortunately, they don't always succeed. Every crash is a lesson learned too late. We endeavor to learn earlier than that, and when we don't, we make sure we learn in the aftermath.
by const_cast | 2025-04-30 19:51:19+00:00
While this is all true, you've sort of pointed out what the problem is here: the private sector.

Conservative policies consistently "outsource" public services to the private sector, allowing corruption and greed to grow. When things are done publicly, they're very efficient. We don't do that here. We outsource steps A-X to private companies which outsource to other private companies which all essentially launder government funds. At each "hop", there is a massive loss, because each party needs to turn a healthy profit. In addition, each "hop" introduces communication barriers, which further drives inefficiency and even results in failures.

Doing it all under one roof is just good sense. The American Republicans are explicitly against this, and will dismantle it whenever possible. They're not actually "starving the beast". They're just taking the beast's food and giving it to their buddies, who have no intention of helping the public.

The unfortunate reality is that simply cutting funds doesn't do what we think it will. DOGE will cut funds to service X but service X still needs to be done. Now, it will be mostly conducted by the private sector at 10x the cost, and will be paid for by government contracts. Congratulations, everything is worse.
by heresjohnny | 2025-04-30 19:51:25+00:00
Neat! Wonder though if you should be even offering the BYO option as a separate lite package. As a dev I would not buy this and as a non-tech person I would be confused by your pricing page.

But I do see the value! Think sales or marketing folks looking to get a bit more hands on. These will likely be your first visitor and be okay with your 50 dollar price. Then, their IT department will say “we want to hook up our own API key for that,” to which you can confidently say “sure, we can do that too.”

N=1, just my two cents. Good luck!
by rallyvite | 2025-04-30 19:51:31+00:00
1000% agree, distribution strategy and ideally a unique way to drive adoption built into the product or service creates the most value and thus optionality for founders.

I've personally tried many bootstrapped companies with little success but a couple that did get escape velocity (one hit 9 figure revenues by year 8), the common denominator was a well-thought out, embedded customer acquisition tightly integrated into the core product. Very hard to couple given how excited we tend to get building a solution to a problem we see. But super critical, really good insight here.
by Jolter | 2025-04-30 19:52:07+00:00
Yes, you're right, we should ban smart phones (or at least certain types of apps) for adults, too. But sadly there is no political majority in favor of that opinion, in Finland or elsewhere. (Wait, maybe they're banned in North Korea or somewhere? Not sure.)

(This is irony/sarcasm, please don't downvote. Haha only serious.)
by otterley | 2025-04-30 19:52:24+00:00
It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit.

We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
by atoav | 2025-04-30 19:52:27+00:00
This is btw. one of the reasons why many US cars don't sell on the EU market. The rules for pedestrian safety are much stricter and require more proof and certification than US manufacturers are willing to accept.

Pair that with the other reasons, e.g. too big for the infrastructure here and worse efficiency and you have a cocktail that won't sell.

That means US cars could sell well in the EU, if the US manufacturers decided to make cars that fit that market (e.g. like asian brands).
by kristopolous | 2025-04-30 19:52:53+00:00
this is also true for scammers. Their objective is to get through the machine, not construct things of value.

It's an endemic property of con-artists and these systems.

They're often designed poorly.

How many times have you had to be dishonest to jump through hoops and get something honestly done? At my last job, their receipt checking system for recomp was terrible. We had to create receipt forgeries with the proper values that were formatted in the way the system wanted because it only accepted forgeries.

It would be like a vending machine that only accepted crisp pristine flawless money so you had to feed it with counterfeits out of necessity.

Anyway, don't design these systems wrong otherwise perversity thesis in full effect.
by joshstrange | 2025-04-30 19:52:58+00:00
Depressingly true. Also the Google Play changes that require indie devs (if they have an LLC/business) must have their address publicly listed. For many of them (us) that's our home address. I'm not at all a fan of having my house's address publically available, especially since some of my apps are for local events.

There is no scenario in which having my address public benefits me. Zero. Only downsides.

I don't make apps that are controversial but there are a lot of less-than-sane people out there.
by behnamoh | 2025-04-30 19:52:59+00:00
> Persian

I'm glad the name of my native language is written correctly. In many cases, people say "Farsi", which is offensive to many Iranians because it's the Arabic version of the word "Parsi" (unlike Persian, Arabic doesn't have "p", "g", "ch", "zh").

It's like someone calling English "Anglaise" because that's how the French say it.

PS: Contrary to common belief, Persian and Arabic are totally different languages, though they have borrowed words from one another (think English and French). Persian is an Indo-European language whereas Arabic is Aramaic (same roots as Hebrew).
by Arcuru | 2025-04-30 19:53:02+00:00
From the paper, I was intrigued by how they handled their RL step for Code Data. They trained against hard but solvable code generation tasks by running unit testing. Is that training step done by the other models?

> Code Data For coding problems, we curate a high-quality training set comprising open-source datasets and our newly collected problem set. We remove problems without test cases. For problems with golden solutions, we exclude those where the golden solution failed to pass all test cases. For problems without golden solution, we discard problems where no test case can be solved in 16 rollouts of advanced reasoning models. Similar to math data, we utilize an SFT version of MiMo-7B to filter out easy problems that are perfectly solved in all 16 rollouts. This rigorous cleaning process yields 30K code problems.

> During each RL iteration, we evaluate thousands of problems to compute the rewards, with each problem potentially containing hundreds of test cases. To improve reward computing efficiency and eliminate GPU idle time, we developed an online judge environment that enables parallel execution of extremely high-volume unit tests.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-04-30 19:53:02+00:00
I do not think it is fair to compare people’s motivations before the advent of healthcare that could extend their lives for 10+ years to people’s motivations after the advent of healthcare.

It is possible both groups of people were just as self-interested, but one did not have the capacity to spend more resources in retirement, simply because they did not have the option to live as long.
by _bin_ | 2025-04-30 19:53:07+00:00
Yep, I've heard many people have much stronger results with o3 and am glad it's working for them! I think it would help if you could dig up and publish at least a few of your chats through ideation/architecture, initial implementation, refinement, testing, etc. It might help those of us luddites who can't seem to make even o3 work the way we want it to.
by jpster | 2025-04-30 19:53:11+00:00
I mistakenly assumed Scott Bessent knew better and would do better, given his financial markets experience.

From Wikipedia: “He was hired by Soros Fund Management, eventually becoming the head of its London office. In this role, in September 1992, he was a leading member of the group that profited by $1 billion on Black Wednesday, the British Pound sterling crisis.”
by bdhe | 2025-04-30 19:53:14+00:00
> Despite extradition treaty Canada has become a safe harbor of terrorists and refused to extradite terrorists even after repeated requests by India.

This seems troubling. Can you share some examples of this?

> Canada has not provided even a single proof for Indias involvement in extrajudicial killings

I don't know about Canada, but did you read this about the case in the US?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-c...

It's pretty comprehensive that the person hired was connected to the Indian govt.
by nostrademons | 2025-04-30 19:53:18+00:00
That’s not really what research on state formation has found. The basic definition of a state is “a centralized government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force”, and as you might expect from the definition, groups generally attain statehood by monopolizing the use of force. In other words, they are the bandits that become big enough that nobody dares oppose them. They attain statehood through what’s effectively a peace treaty, when all possible opposition basically says “okay, we’re submit to your jurisdiction, please stop killing us”. Very often, it actually is a literal peace treaty.

States will often co-opt existing trust networks as a way to enhance and maintain their legitimacy, as with Constantine’s adoption of Christianity to preserve social cohesion in the Roman Empire, or all the compromises that led the 13 original colonies to ratify the U.S. constitution in the wake of the American Revolution. But violence comes first, then statehood, then trust.

Attempts to legislate trust don’t really work. Trust is an emotion, it operates person-to-person, and saying “oh, you need to trust such-and-such” don’t really work unless you are trusted yourself.
by hectormalot | 2025-04-30 19:53:26+00:00
The story is from a co-host with Boris Johnson for some award ceremony. It’s a great read: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2449074521979085...

With Johnson I at least had the impression that he understood the showmanship aspect of it really well. Less so with Trump, at least it seems less polished.
by freejazz | 2025-04-30 19:53:28+00:00
It is dictatorial, not because one person gets to make the decision, but because the US constitution delineates the powers of the gov't, to which the President does not have this power. I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many people here to grasp. The separation of powers is such a fundamental aspect of our government that I am astounded to see you miss this point. When any one branch usurps the power of another branch it is the *EXACT* kind of tyranny the constitution was created to avoid.
by dgfitz | 2025-04-30 19:54:15+00:00
All I did was a quick google search, but I searched what the US imports from China, to fill in the word "stuff" from your post:

"The U.S. imports a wide variety of products from China, with the top categories including electronics, machinery, and furniture. Specifically, significant imports include computers, smartphones, electrical equipment, toys, and furniture."

I just don't think there will be riots in the street over this stuff. Maybe there will be, maybe there should be, I can't say for sure. I do know kids will survive just fine without toys, and I don't see riots over furniture. I don't know about the rest of it.

The other side of the coin is interesting: What if China decided they were never going to sell anything to the US? Would people riot in the street? Even more interesting, if China really wanted to play that game, why don't they? Why are they so mad? If this wasn't a threat to them it would be a giant nothingburger on their end.