MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by spwa4 | 2025-04-07 00:44:14+00:00
You forget what has already happened. Canada has escalated the trade war ... that cannot be explained by your reasoning. And the flaw is this: yes, Canada cannot seriously hope to defend against Russia without the US, and needs a US alliance, but they also see the US has no choice but to defend any Russian attack. Either that, or face Russian nukes in Ottawa. So, Canada escalates.

Plus, I get that it makes sense for you to think about it this way. But given the choice to get fucked militarily BUT get a few more euros now, I guarantee every EU government will choose to get fucked militarily. 95% of the EU countries only have to "sacrifice" in that OTHER countries get fucked militarily, so it's not a hard choice.

And that is before you factor in that Russia is not in any shape to attack any European nation of importance right now, not even Poland. In other words: the politicians choosing to act on the military problem or choose a quick buck ... will be out of office by the time their military decision matters!

And, lastly, I put forward the history of the UN. The great forum for international cooperation and making compromises in shared interests. The first 3 things the UN was going to solve with this cooperation-not-obstinate-refusal-to-accept-reality was the "Arab Issue" (now better known as Israel-Palestine), Kashmir (which under UN guidance has lead to such "successes" as the Partition wars, which when combined made more victims than WW2 according to some sources), and the Congo-Rwanda issue (which has raged on, with no-one actually caring after colonialism ended, and is now at risk of turning into a pan-African war involving every country from Morocco to South Africa). I'm glad they got all those issues solved to everyone's satisfaction before they were going to try forcing the US, EU and ... to cooperate because otherwise absolutely no-one would believe they have any chance whatsoever.

Besides: your hope that foreign governments will act in the interests of "the citizens of the world" (when the vast majority won't even act in the interest of their own citizens) ... what exactly is that idea based on? 12% of the world are free democracies and mostly do that. What about the rest?
by zozbot234 | 2025-04-07 00:44:47+00:00
> Foreign startups still come to the US for capital.

Not only that, but foreign capital also flows to the U.S. for higher returns. This is why all the scare-mongering about the trade deficit is yet more economic illiteracy. Every trade deficit is really an investment surplus, and the kind of investment surplus the U.S. is running can be surprisingly beneficial in the longer run.
by Ericson2314 | 2025-04-07 00:44:55+00:00
Look up balance-of-payments-constrained growth.

In a developing country, you really want to be careful with your dollars/imports. Local labor is almost certainly cheaper and more abundant. The question is, can they do it all. If they can you save dollars and you build local skills that transfer, a double benefit. If they can't, yes you might be forced to buy and import the tech.
by csdvrx | 2025-04-07 00:45:59+00:00
The randomization doesn't matter: you can very easily link the addresses if you have a few datapoints, even if it's just the time you observed the addresses: the basic method is discussed in https://inria.hal.science/hal-03045555/document

See https://inria.hal.science/hal-02394629v1 for the theoretical bases then hop to https://samteplov.com/uploads/shmoocon20/slides.pdf for an example applying to Apple devices

Those who said the randomization and other techniques were sufficient were wrong: https://petsymposium.org/popets/2020/popets-2020-0003.pdf will show you how they changed their mind :)

It's not just apple: google nearby has also been reversed: https://publications.cispa.saarland/2748/ and https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/nd... talks about attacks, but there's no need for that: just find identifiers that let you link the addresses

Even if you don't have any identifiers, the Bluetooth address randomization happens only about every 15 minutes: the manufacturer specific data in the public advertisement (or even the frequency and the length of these advertisements) during these 15 minutes periods can be used for linking the randomized addresses
by ein0p | 2025-04-07 00:47:55+00:00
A gross underestimation, IMO. When I was in big data, fewer than 5% of data written was ever touched again, and only a single digit number of our large customers (out of tens of thousands) actually made real use of their "big data", and created most of the load. That's the trouble with "checkbox driven development" - 10 years ago you were required to have a "big data strategy" for anyone to take you seriously, even if your strategy boiled down to just ETL-ing a bunch of crap you're never going to need into the cloud and never touching it again. Now I'm in AI, and the same thing is happening to AI. It's great if you're selling shovels, so to speak, but not so great if you plan on selling them for an extended period of time.

This, by the way, has implications on storage systems design. You want something that's cheap yet dense to encode, potentially at the slight expense of decode speed. Normally people really lose sleep about decode speed first and foremost, which, while important, does not minimize the overall resource bill.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-07 00:48:14+00:00
I also started following Sahil when I joined the startup world. His name seemed to be all over Twitter and HN. It was through him that I also started following Austen Allred. Sahil was the first guest on Austen’s podcast and the two of them showed up in a lot of articles together.

Both of them seemed like startup superheroes at the time. I remember being amazed when startup sphere heroes would Tweet praise about Sahil or when Paul Graham wrote one of his rare articles defending Austen Allred, of all topics.

It was a learning experience for me to watch as Gumroad laid off all of the engineers who built the site and then investors gifted the company to Sahil, leaving him to operate it as a profitable enterprise for himself while the early engineers saw their equity wiped out (though supposedly he helped some of them to unspecified degrees). It was further eye opening to see the collapse of Austen Allred’s Lambda School after watching Paul Graham and others sing its praises in ways that were at odds of the realities of their students.

I suppose it was all a valuable lesson in learning how to separate the hustler marketing from the reality.

I, too, have followed with interest as Sahil jumped from trend to trend. Pivoting hard into LLM assistants (including the flash-in-the-pan Devin AI coding tool which disappeared as quickly as it entered the scene) and now into DOGE isn’t too surprising. Meanwhile Austen Allred is off on a new pseudo bootcamp, pumping his Gauntlet AI bootcamp via Tweets about how their students are creating SaaS companies in weeks or something, nearly repeating the same marketing he was doing years ago about his bootcamp grads landing high paying jobs (including the famous sample size of 1 debacle).

Austen also swung hard right on his Tweets to the point of hurling expletives at people critical of Trump’s policies lately, which finally prompted me to give up on my curiousity follow. Seeing Sahil lean hard into DOGE is equally on brand.

It’s like these guys have such a deep drive to align with tech industry trends that they sense them coming, go all-in, and do the most status-seeking moves they can make to be seen as on top of those trends. I also don’t know what to say about it other than it’s been interesting to observe.
by Jonovono | 2025-04-07 00:50:01+00:00
Not sure if its been fixed by now but a few weeks ago I was in the Golden Gate park and wondered if it was bigger than Central park. I asked ChatGPT voice, and although it reported the sizes of the parks correctly (with Golden gate park being the bigger size), it then went and said that Central Park was bigger. I was confused, so Googled and sure enough Golden gate park is bigger.

I asked Grok and others as well. I believe Perplexity was the only one correct.

Repeated it multiple times even with a friends account. It kept doing the same thing. It knew the sizes, but thought the smaller sized one was bigger...
by ants_everywhere | 2025-04-07 00:53:24+00:00
I'm curious if you remember any of the specifics.

At a big company I worked for, GPL licenses were strictly forbidden. But I got the vibe that was more about not wanting to wind up in a giant court case because of engineers not being careful in how they combined code.

I'd be super curious if there are explicit intentional acts that people generally think are okay under GPL but where lawyers feel the risk is too high.
by dahart | 2025-04-07 00:55:11+00:00
Oh I totally agree, a blanket ban on advertising isn’t remotely realistic, ever. It’s a silly idea, and I doubt what most people want. I’m just sayin’ the Central Hudson test makes commercial speech less protected than, say, political rants, and it could in theory be used to reduce protections, even if that’s not happening right now. Either way, banning ads and free speech protections are two somewhat separate issues, ads could be legal without having any free speech status.
by jmclnx | 2025-04-07 00:55:15+00:00
I was a Notes user before IBM bought Lotus. IIRC Notes was morphed into Domino.

Before IBM forced changes on Notes I would say it was a very nice environment. But IBM, maybe customers and maybe others wanted it to work like cc mail (Is that was it was called?). The changes they made to me ruined the environment.

I wonder how Domino is doing, I hope it can continue being used by some people.
by Jtsummers | 2025-04-07 00:57:00+00:00
> If they are truly people-oriented as they oath when they join public service, why allow them to own stock at all?

I take this to mean you think that civil servants and members of the military should also be barred from holding stocks?

> But isn't that a significant conflict of interest if they are public service employees?

There is no inherent conflict of interest in owning stocks. The risk is when they own (especially if they are heavily invested in) individual stocks. Use a blind trust like I mentioned or disallow holding individual stocks if they want to manage their own portfolio, then they still have a vested interest in the economy (how well businesses are doing as proxied by the stock market) but their conflicts are limited or removed.
by fncypants | 2025-04-07 00:58:29+00:00
It's important to keep in mind what the government is saying here. Set aside the specifics of who this individual is or where they originally came from and grasp what Trump is trying to argue here.

> Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garcia’s case is categorically different—there were no legalgrounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal. Nor does any evidence suggest thatAbrego Garcia is being held in CECOT at the behest of Salvadoran authorities to answer for crimesin that country. _Rather, his detention appears wholly lawless._

In short, they kidnapped someone--I'm using that word precisely because it was "lawless" and that's what elevates a detention to a kidnapping--and flew them to a foreign prison without notice, without hearing. From the street, transported hooded to a plan, and imprisoned in medieval conditions.

It was a mistake they concede. Oh well. Can't do anything about it now.

Do not argue that this individual should not have received a chance to have a court recognize the mistake. There is nothing separating your position from his. If they can kidnap him they can kidnap you. The government's position is, simply put, no one can stop them if they do.
by jodrellblank | 2025-04-07 00:58:29+00:00
It's a problem for us when it comes to the GDPR and rights to be forgotten; companies will say they store your data carefully, will say they have shown you everything they have, will say they delete it, but "the company" in aggregate has no idea there's a thousand SharePoint sites and ex-employees mailboxes and filestores, and copies of old filservers from before a migration, and test databases containing copies of real data from a half-abandoned project where new management fired the contractors and then never got around to hiring new ones.
by justsomehnguy | 2025-04-07 01:00:11+00:00
Nope.

Back in the day Exchange offered SIS but in 2010 they ditched it. It's plainly not effective any more. Even regarding the OP' "the jpg signature logo" - it's a part of multipart in the message, not a separate file.

And one more thing - you can't just turn the dedup and be dandy, now you need to check against the hashes to determine if this chunk is unique or you already have it. And with TBs of data you need TBs of hashes to check. Until you have like 99% dedup efficiency, ie 99% of your incoming data is literally the same data you already have - it doesn't worth it.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/exchange/dude-where...
by merek | 2025-04-07 01:01:05+00:00
> Other than Warren Buffet, nobody has done this

Berkshire's had $334 billion cash at the end of 2024, double the previous year. This is still only 30 percent of their total assets (see link). So while there were some preparations for a major decline (perhaps more so than most companies), they are still very exposed to the market turbulence.

https://www.investmentnews.com/rias/berkshire-hathaway-is-pi...
Show HN: Wiederhol – GitHub for Checklists
by ivandenysov | 2025-04-07 01:02:53+00:00
Greetings!

My wife and I built a collaborative platform for reusable checklists.

Users can share templates of checklists with few select users or everyone, copy templates of other users (like forking a repository on github), submit suggestions for checklists (like opening a PR on github).

I've got the idea after reading Atul Gawande's 'Checklist Manifesto' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Checklist_Manifesto). Plus I kept forgetting things when going to the office, gym or traveling.

We've tried a few other checklist apps, like Microsoft To Do. But they all seem more geared towards one-off lists or lists that repeat on schedule. Plus web versions and collaborative features always felt like an afterthought.

Wiederhol is free for private use.

iOS users can install our app via https://apps.apple.com/de/app/wiederhol/id6739186169. Android users can install https://wiederhol.com/ as a PWA (Progressive Web Application).

Tech stack: Ruby on Rails, React, PostgreSQL, https://dokku.com/ for hosting on Hetzner, https://pwabuilder.com for the iOS app.

PS: Wiederhol means 'repeat' (imperative verb form) in German.
by moefh | 2025-04-07 01:02:57+00:00
I'm not sure what you mean. In `writable()`, there's no read-only data; `s` is a non-const char array (it has to be static because the function returns a pointer to it). The string literal is only there to tell the compiler how to initialize the array, `s` is not actually the string literal.

If you change `writable()` to receive a `const char *` (and then cast it to `char *` to write), then clang will be forced to compile it with a store (even though it sees you storing to a `const char *`) because it doesn't know if the function will be called with a pointer to actual read-only data or just a pointer to writable data that was gratuitously converted to `const`.
by 999900000999 | 2025-04-07 01:02:58+00:00
Honor System + a paypal donate link at the bottom of your page.

Itch has no mandatory cut at all.

Theirs an argument that taking any payment at all is more trouble than it’s worth.

Say you sell 15 copies of the book per month for 10$ each. After taxes and merchant fees , and the occasional chargeback, you’ll be lucky to net half.

Is 75$ a month really worth the stress ?

This is a part of why I’m going FOSS for my side projects. Even trying to collect a single legit dollar gives people a right to complain.

Of course you can complain on GitHub anyway when it doesn’t work right, but it’s MIT, fork , send a PR or leave me alone.
by billybuckwheat | 2025-04-07 01:03:01+00:00
I didn't get my driver's license until I was 24 or 25. Partly because I never drove anywhere and partly because I couldn't afford a car before that. Not sure I was able to afford a car after I got my license ... The only reason I did learn to drive was because I was starting a job in an area of the 'burbs that had horrible public transit coverage. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably still be car and license free.
by sanxiyn | 2025-04-07 01:04:22+00:00
Nope, no LLMs reported 50~60% performance on IMO, and SOTA LLMs scoring 5% on USAMO is expected. For 50~60% performance on IMO, you are thinking of AlphaProof, but AlphaProof is not a LLM. We don't have the full paper yet, but clearly AlphaProof is a system built on top of LLM with lots of bells and whistles, just like AlphaFold is.
by josephg | 2025-04-07 01:05:37+00:00
> it is never good when the protocol is defined by it's only implementation

I don't know that I'd go that far. The benefit of having only one implementation of a protocol is that the protocol can evolve much faster. You don't have to have committee meetings to tweak how it works. And as a first pass, the more iterations you make of something, the better the result.

Rsync is mature enough to benefit from multiple implementations. But I'm glad it had some time to iterate on the protocol first.
by epc | 2025-04-07 01:05:44+00:00
I was a Notes user inside IBM in the months before the acquisition. It was so, so much better than anything IBM had on the desktop, either as a product or the many internal hacks. At the time IBM had OfficeVision/2 perennially under development to replace PROFS on Windows and OS/2.

I think that some of the changes in Notes 4 were good to make it more usable inside a large organization, but many things like adding a web server and IIRC some sort of Java subsystem? turned it into bloatware. And some of the changes were prompted by IBM’s disastrous internal rollout of Notes, which had more to do with IbM internal messaging culture and less to do with any flaws in Notes.
by dangus | 2025-04-07 01:05:55+00:00
The jury is still out on whether what you are saying is hyperbole. We can't assume the worst-case outcome despite the serious danger of that outcome should it occur.

We definitely should think about how Russian elections are different and why they're different.

For one thing, in the US the executive branch and federal government has very little control over elections by design. The current administration can say whatever it wants about elections, it has no power to stop a disaster for them in 2026 if the pendulum swings enough.

It is extremely hard to change the constitution like was done in Turkey or Hungary. It is extremely hard to remove lifetime appointment judges from the opposition administration. Executive orders are easily reversed and laws must be repealed to undo them. If laws were easy to undo the ACA would be gone by now.

Just because the current administration is acting like it completed a successful coup doesn't mean that it actually has in reality. Don't take what they say to be truth, because they constantly lie. The would love for the opposition party to think that they have taken over and that there is no hope. All they've done is won one single election by very slim margins and tossed out a bunch of executive orders.

The current administration loves tariffs simply because it's the most impactful lever the president can use without congressional approval besides commanding troops. The current administration literally cannot do much else in terms of lasting policy and they are too lazy and incompetent to approach congress with any actual ideas (something that the Obama and Biden administrations excelled at, e.g. the ACA and Bipartisan Infrastructure bill).

The US constitutional system has survived authoritarian-minded presidents before. And of course, that's not to say the US system is perfect or even an especially fair and representative system. But it has very strong protections against permanent dictatorship or an outright coup.
by jcalvinowens | 2025-04-07 01:06:34+00:00
> because it doesn't know if the function will be called with a pointer to actual read-only data or just a pointer to writable data that was gratuitously

That's exactly my point yeah, the optimization you described is only possible because you gave the compiler extra knowledge about the argument to that function (because it was static in the same compilation unit). It's artificial, typically that won't be the case.
by delichon | 2025-04-07 01:07:21+00:00
How about if we don't make lots of wide authoritarian bans to make people behave according our will instead of their own. How about if we rule the world from the bottom up instead of the top down? What if we just mostly, you know, live and let live? Going with free speech, including billboards, is a good place to start trying out such a wild plan.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-07 01:07:37+00:00
Analyzing the fundamentals doesn’t matter much because this isn’t driven by fundamentals. This crash was caused by this administration demonstrating that not only do they have no understanding of economic policy, but they’re determined to make extreme and brash decisions.

I don’t think many people expect the current tariff absurdity to hold as-is. The problem is that nobody knows if he’s going to wake up and roll it back one day or if he’ll decide to make the tariffs higher to try to prove a point.

Or he could launch a real war as a distraction.

It wasn’t a secret that Trump didn’t understand economic policy, but the assumption was that he wasn’t going to actually do anything different than his first term. Instead he came out with the most unbelievably bad tariff gambit beyond what anyone could have imagined, and now everyone is resetting assumptions.
by josephg | 2025-04-07 01:09:31+00:00
Me too. I agree that its not a bed of roses - and all the memory safety guarantees in the world don't stop you from making a huge mess. But I haven't run into any of the impossible-to-debug crashes / heisenbugs in my multithreaded rust code that I have in C/C++.

I think rust delivers on its safety promise.
by dangus | 2025-04-07 01:09:47+00:00
It is not a "one-party state." It's a two-party state where one party has a temporarry slim majority.

The Republican Party cannot pass significantly polarizing legislation since it can't overcome a filibuster.

The Republican Party does not have the senatorial votes to impeach and remove any federal judges.

On top of that, the US system divides power in a way that gives states and localities a lot of control where the federal government has no say. Almost all police by quantity of officers are operated by local municipalities who don't take orders from the federal government. The fact that cannabis was able to be legalized while being federally illegal shows how that works very well: without state and local police to enforce those laws, there is nobody to arrest you for violating federal law.
by llm_nerd | 2025-04-07 01:10:37+00:00
He clearly is an outsider. He seldom has any idea what is going on and seems panicked. Even Lutnick, despite being used in an unending series of cable news soundbites saying incredibly out of touch, stupid thing, clearly is just a bystander.

Trade policy is being set by Trump, Navarro (you know, the guy who made up a trade expert to launder his own idiotic ideas) and that vile goblin Stephen Miller. An idiot council.
by eszed | 2025-04-07 01:11:35+00:00
> THE COURT: Can we talk about, then, just very practically, why can’t the United States get Mr. Abrego Garcia back?

> MR. REUVENI [the Government's lawyer]: Your Honor, I will say, for the Court's awareness, that when this case landed on my desk, the first thing I did was ask my clients that very question. I’ve not received, to date, an answer that I find satisfactory.

The people doing this are not serious people. I don't know whether that should scare me more, or less.