MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ModernMech | 2025-04-16 18:28:33+00:00
Here's how you determine who brings more value to society: If they were to just stop coming to work tomorrow, would society keep going?

If every ticktocker quit tomorrow, would society still function? Yes. Things would go on like nothing ever happened.

If every surgeon quit tomorrow, would society still function? No, people would die, they would become timid and afraid of being hurt, because minor injuries would be fatal and life changing. Not only that, we would lose centuries worth of knowledge and be forced to learn it all from scratch again from books instead of trained surgeons.

The danger in your logic is it leads to thinking like this: "ticktockers provide more value than surgeons because they can scale their reach, therefore in order to maximize total value to society, we can maximize the number of ticktickers and we don't have to worry about surgeons. We can just offset the lost value by the value brought by all the ticktockers."

That's an obvious bad idea and straw man, but people really try to go down that slippery slope in non-obvious cases. The realm of education comes to mind. "MOOCs are more valuable than universities because they have more reach, therefore in the future we will close down universities and only have MOOCs" is something I've heard seriously proposed before.
by rhubarbtree | 2025-04-16 18:28:53+00:00
No, asset price is built on yield, not on scarcity. That is exactly my point.

It's a bit brain-melting, but once you realise it, the talk of NIMBY-ism etc. is just irrelevant.

If you add more assets with a good yield, assuming that yield is better than bonds etc., then those assets will get bought.

The only other brake on that is diversity of portfolios, but it doesn't strike me as particularly important, especially if many landlords only own a few properties.
by paul7986 | 2025-04-16 18:28:59+00:00
chatGPT should be built into my iMessage threads with friends. @chatGPT "Is there an evening train on Thursdays from Brussels to Berlin?" Something a friend and I were discussing but we had to exit out of iMessage and use GPT then back to iMessage.

For UX The GPT info in the thread would be collapsed by default and both users have the discretion to click to expand the info.
by mdp2021 | 2025-04-16 18:29:15+00:00
Yes, it happens that some people create bots and have them post in these pages. They (some?) do not pass the "naïve Turing Test" though: there is one that tries to speak like an "inspiring lifecoach" and has zero juice squared. Check the shadowed posts around...

And on the other side, I have been accused a few times - writing outside expected canon (of form and content) can be sufficient.

So, bragging I will say, accusations hit both tails of the juice curve ;) .
by eddythompson80 | 2025-04-16 18:30:11+00:00
As it has been mentioned before, MCP isn't "vulnerable". It's just on the other side of your air lock. Think of your MCP as a different client application. The whole thing is just a client. The fact that you need to write a client for your client is.... something, but your MCP app is a client app. It's boundaries with your service should be understood as such.

Saying MCP is vulnerable is like saying "Web applications are vulnerable. Anyone can see the API calls you're making and modify them or trick your UI app to make a different call and hack your system". Obviously that's mostly nonsense, but not 100% wrong either. You see it a lot with very very inexperienced developers who think "just because my App is Android/iOS only I don't need to worry about authn/authz". There was just a story on here few weeks ago about some New Zealand startup that did that
by reverendsteveii | 2025-04-16 18:30:20+00:00
He was functionally immune from prosecution when he wasn't president. If they want to actually try to rein him in now they're gonna run up against the supreme court ruling that says that anything he does as part of being the president he's already immune from and a potential (one would say extremely likely) future supreme court ruling that hinges on the idea that the constitution never explicitly said he can't pardon himself. I guess this is better than just rolling over and doing nothing but I'm pretty jaded on the idea that the law will ever tell the wealthy what to do in a way that actually compels them to listen.
by fpgaminer | 2025-04-16 18:30:25+00:00
On the vision side of things: I ran my torture test through it, and while it performed "well", about the same level as 4o and o1, it still fails to handle spatial relationships well, and did hallucinate some details. OCR is a little better it seems, but a more thorough OCR focused test would be needed to know for sure. My torture tests are more focused on accurately describing the content of images.

Both seem to be better at prompt following and have more up to date knowledge.

But honestly, if o3 was only at the same level as o1, it'd still be an upgrade since it's cheaper. o1 is difficult to justify in the API due to cost.
by woodruffw | 2025-04-16 18:30:59+00:00
The "end game" is mentioned explicitly in the article:

> Shorter lifetimes mitigate the effects of using potentially revoked certificates. In 2023, CA/B Forum took this philosophy to another level by approving short-lived certificates, which expire within 7 days, and which do not require CRL or OCSP support.

Shorter-lived certificates make OCSP and other revocation mechanisms less of a load-bearing component within the Web PKI. This is a good thing, since neither CAs nor browsers have managed to make timely revocation methods scale well.

(I don't think there's any monetary or power advantage to doing this. The reason to do it is because shorter lifetimes make it harder for server operators to normalize deviant certificate operation practices. The reasoning there is the same as with backups or any other period operational task: critical processes must be continually tested and evaluated for correctness.)
by specialist | 2025-04-16 18:31:57+00:00
My bestie works in sales and marketing. Events, promotions, audience engagement. Long time experience with national brands, loves helping local businesses (side hustle).

A huge part of her job is recruiting and hiring. Part of her pitch is proactive career development.

Paraphrasing: I want you to join our team. I also understand that this job is just one stop on your journey. While you're here, what can I do to help you get the skills and experience you want for your next job?

Consequently, she has a HUGE network, built over decades. Something comes up and she knows just the right person. She has her pick of new opportunities.

Wouldn't you love to have her as your boss?

I've had precisely 2 bosses in my career that had any impulse for nurturing, mentoring, career development. Whereas I've tried to be that kind of boss, given the limits of our current system.
by 9rx | 2025-04-16 18:32:11+00:00
> "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?"

I don't know. Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward.

> Which of the two does this statement itself fall into?

I don't know.

> If it's with the certainty of math, why do you make an exception for this non-mathematical proposition, and how do you justify it

I don't know. And I don't have a justification. For what reason would I need one?

> and how do you deal with the ensuing infinite vicious regress?

Infinite regress implies making up a mind, no? But since there is no real need to do that...
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-04-16 18:32:35+00:00
You're right in that it's possible that the silent majority doesn't exist.

But personally, the reason I believe it does exist is two-fold:

1. The "My vote won't change anything" rhetoric only ever gets expressed by left-leaning people.

2. Only left-leaning people require endless purity tests for their political candidates and will refuse to vote for anybody that they don't think is the perfect candidate. These are the ones that talk about being fed up for having to choose between the lesser of two evils, then look like a Surprised Pikachu when Trump wins.
by zenlikethat | 2025-04-16 18:32:40+00:00
That’s a great question. Diffing is one area we’ve thought a bit about but still need to dedicate more cycles to. One thing I would be curious about is, what are you doing in these notebooks to check? For what it’s worth, could possibly have an intermediate Python model that does some calculation to look at differences and materializes the results to a table, which you could then query directly for further insight.

One thing we do have support for “expectations” — model-like Python steps that check data quality, and can flag it if the pipeline violates them.
by Lammy | 2025-04-16 18:32:52+00:00
> Soon, however, the game market became saturated. Too many players for too small (at a time) a market meant it became impossible for most developers to scale and recoup their costs.

I had to re-read this sentence a couple of times. Players is an overloaded term here when we're already thinking about video games, and the other interpretation would mean the opposite (too many customers) of what the author intended (too many sellers).

> Three years later, competitor Sega introduced the Genesis (also known as the Mega Drive). Both companies had learned from the crash and took steps to prevent third-party developers from releasing unapproved games.

This implies that the MD/Genesis shipped with a lockout mechanism, which is not true. TMSS didn't exist until the seventh revision (VA6 board) of the console: https://segaretro.org/Sega_Mega_Drive/Hardware_revisions

It also focuses on the Sega vs. Accolade case and fails to mention EA's clean-room reverse-engineering: https://web.archive.org/web/20211116035017/http://bluetoad.c...
by dawnofdusk | 2025-04-16 18:33:11+00:00
>rent is very likely to be correlated with food costs - so, if rent is high, food costs are also likely to be high

Not sure I agree with this. It's reasonable to have a model where the mean rent may be correlated with the mean food cost, but given those two parameters we can model the fluctuations about the mean as uncorrelated. In any case at the point when you want to consider something like this you need to do proper Bayesian statistics anyways.

>In general normal distributions are rarer than people think - they tend to require some kind of constraining factor on the values to enforce.

I don't know where you're getting this from. One needs uncorrelated errors, but this isn't a "constraint" or "negative feedback".
by const_cast | 2025-04-16 18:33:16+00:00
> The "line goes up" sarcasm really doesn't work

No it still works, because "but make a lot of money!" is _never_ an acceptable argument for anything. It may be a supplemental argument, but you need something else to be the foundation. Making a lot of money doesn't explain why something is good or why we should do it over other things.

I mean, we can make a lot of money through theft, or selling tobacco, maybe legalizing heroin. But those things are bad.
by dguest | 2025-04-16 18:33:21+00:00
As a left handed person I learned to write everything differently.

I cross the t's going the opposite way that this font recommends, and I write some numbers (like 4 and 7) with some strokes going the "wrong" way.

Most of the world (writing included) isn't designed for lefties. But sometimes doing things the "wrong" way works better when you're in the minority. I'm not sure if this font helps or hurts.
by _bin_ | 2025-04-16 18:33:33+00:00
Politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime because people feel the local level has been so totally captured by people divorced from their priorities. So, they turn to the feds hoping they can fix things instead.

I don't think wanting a safe neighborhood clean of debris and crime is necessarily "right-wing", and this is precisely my point. A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth, got to know them and their parents well. One of the primary complaints their parents had was the fact that "justice" initiatives and policing changes had increased the level of crime in bad neighborhoods which victimized them. They weren't any less hurt than the suburbanites who wanted to avoid their cars getting burgled. They weren't less-affected because they didn't live in 1000+sqft houses commuting an hour each way.

I don't think crime exists because of low revenues in inner cities. Everything I know about American history shows it flowed the opposite way: people expanded because they didn't want to be around crime and other inconveniences of living close into cities; that crime didn't show up because people expanded.

I don't think Tan wants to punish people intrinsically, I think he wants to focus on the 99% of people who are victimized by crime rather than the 1% who commit it. This isn't really about country-club isolation, it's just as much, maybe more, about people living in cities being able to live in peace. Without feces on the streets, without fear of property or violent crime.

Social spending on poor people predisposed to these types of crime has only gone up over the past decades. Crime hasn't magically fallen in proportion with that spending. This suggests that it's not the silver bullet for solving this problem. Additionally, SF has spent huge amounts of money on "housing-first" policies which have broadly failed because they don't recognize that a large number of the homeless aren't really that willing to seek treatment or to go to inpatient psych care where they belong.

And lastly, the middle class is still the bulk of America. Telling them that they must sacrifice their dreams of raising a family in peace, consign themselves and their families to petty crime so Fred Junkie can buy fent, accept their wives and daughters won't feel safe being out past dark, is just a non-starter. I consider it deeply immoral, but politically, it's simply not expedient. No party that holds up this as its moral paradigm can be expected to win.
by anonfordays | 2025-04-16 18:33:43+00:00
>The stocks get a one-time relief from capital gains as it moves to the heir.

Yes, that estate/inheritance taxes need reworking. This is not a wealth tax as discussed, this is an estate/inheritance tax which is different.

>This gives opportunity for the heirs (or the estate) to sell the stocks to pay back the loan. That is the loophole.

The loans are made whole by the estate, no one is taxed on proceeds from a loan, nor should they be.
by bitbuilder | 2025-04-16 18:34:10+00:00
This was incredibly irritating at first, though over time I've learned to appreciate this "extra credit" work. It can be fun to see what Claude thinks I can do better, or should add in addition to whatever feature I just asked for. Especially when it comes to UI work, Claude actually has some pretty cool ideas.

If I'm using Claude through Copilot where it's "free" I'll let it do its thing and just roll back to the last commit if it gets too ambitious. If I really want it to stay on track I'll explicitly tell it in the prompt to focus only on what I've asked, and that seems to work.

And just today, I found myself leaving a comment like this: //Note to Claude: Do not refactor the below. It's ugly, but it's supposed to be that way.

Never thought I'd see the day I was leaving comments for my AI agent coworker.
by smcin | 2025-04-16 18:34:23+00:00
Co-opting of which data, from which groups/editors, on which topics?

I think you're referring to the Wikimedia governance change vote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41049562), not acceptance of content:

"How the Regime Captured Wikipedia" (piratewires.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41167891

... or more recently, content written by/assisted by AI.

Or else what?
by ModernMech | 2025-04-16 18:34:36+00:00
If they want to prosecute him they'll have to state a rationale to get around the pardon. That rationale will be used to prosecute them when they pardon themselves. If they want to weaken the pardon power, they are welcome to. Biden ensured they have to go to maximum lawlessness if they want to do that. They have the power to, no one is disputing that. But in choosing to exercise that power, they will hang a sword over their heads.
by like_any_other | 2025-04-16 18:35:24+00:00
I didn't notice it before, but these are not per capita numbers. In 2000, the US population was 281 million, and in 2024 it was 340 million [1]. So per capita, manufacturing went from 97.2 in 2000, to 81.5 in 2024.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
by ogurechny | 2025-04-16 18:35:24+00:00
No, those people (or sometimes groups of people) go to great lengths to camouflage themselves, especially after repeated bans. This is not the case of “all accounts registered to the same e-mail” or “10 different posts from the same IP address” (though those are not uncommon, too, and might be allowed if community rules aren't broken). 4chan is hardly an outlier.

Moreover, you can make hundreds of anonymous posts on your own, but if no one reacts (and considers the thing/idea/joke uninteresting), they will still remain the only replies in your precious shilling threads.
by saurik | 2025-04-16 18:35:32+00:00
When I use a service over TLS on a network I don't trust, the premise is that I only will trust the connection if it has a certificate from a handful of companies trusted by the people who wrote the software I'm using (my browser/client and/or my operating system) to only issue said certificates to people who are supposed to have them (which these days is increasingly defined to be "who are in control of the DNS for the domain name at a global level", for better or worse, not that everyone wants to admit that).

But like, no: the free Wi-Fi I'm using can't, in fact, MITM the encryption used by my connection... it CAN do a bunch of other shitty things to me that undermine not only my privacy but even undermine many of the things people expect to be covered by privacy (using traffic analysis on the size, timing, or destination of the packets that I'm sending), but the encryption itself isn't subject to the failure mode of SSH.
by rhodey | 2025-04-16 18:35:54+00:00
After EFF Lets Encrypt made the change to disable reminder emails I decided I would be moving my personal blog from my VPS to AWS specifically. I just today made the time to make the move and 10 minutes after I find this.

I could have probably done more with Lets Encrypt automation to stay with my old VPS but given that all my professional work is with AWS its really less mental work to drop my old VPS.

Times they are a changing
by BeetleB | 2025-04-16 18:36:10+00:00
Yes. I've written my own server and feel totally secure in using it, because I have complete control over what it can do (example, I let it send mail, but only to my email address).

If you want it to write to disk, you can put explicit controls on where, and what file size, and whether it can overwrite.

If you want it to read from disk, you can restrict to a simple whitelist that doesn't have confidential/private information.

I have not yet used open source servers out there, because it's a lot of burden for me to limit it to only what I allow.
by EvanAnderson | 2025-04-16 18:36:32+00:00
I love making music. I haven't written a ton, and I haven't done it recently, but for a time in the early 2000's I participated in a fun Internet songwriting "competition"[0], played some live shows in various places around the country, and met a lot of cool people.

I hear enough incidental similarities in what I've written to make me wary of ever actually trying to make money from it. The Marvin Gaye lawsuit for "Blurred Lines" was ridiculous.

All the music and lyrics I've written (crap though it all is) has always been distributed as public domain (or as close as I can get away w/ Creative Commons CC0 for those asinine jurisdictions where you can't waive your rights). (I have a lyric "You can't own the beat and you can't own the rhyme" in one song, because I believe it very strongly.)

[0] http://www.songfight.org/
by NathanFlurry | 2025-04-16 18:36:59+00:00
Appreciate the kind words!

There’s definitely a lot of inspiration from Erlang. We’re far from the first actor-ish framework, but we’re hoping ActorCore sticks by working seamlessly with existing tools, instead of forcing people to learn a new paradigm.

We’re open to contributions – feel free to join our Discord if you have questions.
by tetha | 2025-04-16 18:37:10+00:00
Our internally provided certs of various CAs have a TTL of 72 hours and should be renewed every 48 hours.

It's been a huge pain as we have encountered a ton of bugs and missing features in libraries and applications to reload certs like this. And we have some really ugly workarounds in place, because some applications place a "reload a consul client" on the same level of "reload all config, including opening new sockets, adjusting socket parameters, doing TCP connection handover" - all to rebuild a stateless client throwing a few parameters at a standard http client. But oh well.

But I refuse to back down. Reload your certs and your secrets. If we encounter a situation in which we have to mass-revoke and mass-reissue internal certs, it'll be easy for those who do. I don't have time for everyone else.
by ToValueFunfetti | 2025-04-16 18:37:13+00:00
>went without reply

Yeah, I was getting a little self-conscious about replying to everyone and repeating myself a lot. It felt like too much noise.

But my first objection here is to repeat myself- none of my examples are sensitive to this problem. I don't need to understand what conditions cause the calculator/IDE/medical test/LLM to fail in order to benefit from a 95% success rate.

If I write a piece of code, I try to understand what it does and how it impacts the rest of the app with high confidence. I'm still going to run the unit test suite even if it has low coverage, and even if I have no idea what the tests actually measure. My confidence in my changes will go up if the tests pass.

This is one use of LLMs for me. I can refactor a piece of code and then send ChatGPT the before and after and ask "Do these do the same thing". I'm already highly confident that they do, but a yes from the AI means I can be more confident. If I get a no, I can read its explanation and agree or disagree. I'm sure it can get this wrong (though it hasn't after n~=100), but that's no reason to abandon this near-instantaneous, mostly accurate double-check. Nor would I give up on unit testing because somebody wrote a test of implementation details that failed after a trivial refactor.

I agree totally that having a good model of LLM uncertainty would make them orders of magnitude better (as would, obviously, removing the uncertainty altogether). And I wouldn't put them in a pipeline or behind a support desk. But I can and do use them for great benefit every day, and I have no idea why I should prefer to throw away the useful thing I have because it's imperfect.
by woodruffw | 2025-04-16 18:37:15+00:00
> I disagree. Think about every time you use a service (website, email, etc.) you've used before via a network you don't trust (e.g. free WiFi).

Hm? The reason I do use those services over a network I don't trust is because they're wrapped in authenticated, encrypted channels. The authenticated encryption happens at a layer above the network because I don't trust the network.