MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mdp2021 | 2025-04-04 22:08:44+00:00
> In 2019, Chollet created the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence, or ARC-AGI—an exam designed to show the gulf between AI models’ memorized answers and the “fluid intelligence” that people have

There are a number of skill signals we demand from an intelligence.

Mind you: some of them are achieved - like the ability to interpret pronouns (Hinton's "the trophy will not enter the case: it's too big" vs "the trophy will not enter the case: it's too small").

Others, we meet occasionally when we are not researching said requirements systematically: one example is that detective game described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43284420 - a simple game of logic that intelligences are required to be able to solve (...and yet, again some rebutted that humans would fail etc.).

It remains important though that those working modules are not clustered (solving specific tasks and remaining unused otherwise): they must be intellectual keys adapted into use in the most general cases they can be be helpful in. That's important in intelligence. So, even the ability to solve "revealing" tasks is not enough - the way in which the ability works is crucial.
by reducesuffering | 2025-04-04 22:08:52+00:00
> If on one hand your goal is to build "super intelligence", i.e. way smarter than any human or group of humans, how do you expect to control that super intelligence when you're just acting at the middling level of human intelligence?

That's exactly what the true AGI X-Riskers think! Sama acknowledges the intense risk but thinks the path forward is inevitable anyway so hoping that building intelligence will give them the intelligence to solve alignment. The other camp, a la Yudkowsky, believe it's futile to just hope it gets solved without AGI capabilities first becoming more intelligent, powerful, and disregarding any of our wishes. And then we've ceded any control of our future to an uncaring system that treats us as a means to achieve its original goals like how an ant is in the way of a Google datacenter. I don't see how anyone who thinks "maybe stock number go up as your only goal is not the best way to make people happy", can miss this.
by nine_k | 2025-04-04 22:09:22+00:00
> So, which pins could be combined with SDIO's three? After much thinking, the solution is obvious. RAM's nCS can be the SD card's CLK. RAM's CLK can be the SD card's CMD. RAM's MOSI can be the SD card's DAT. Try and figure out all the possible interactions with each device and what that would look like to the other, to convince yourself that it will work safely.

This is truly a brilliant hack, well worth publishing at Hacker News.
by pyk | 2025-04-04 22:09:29+00:00
During a world war, you cannot trade with your international “enemies.”

This level of tariffs is to discourage international dependency and trade as a prelude to war. Look who does not have a tariff.

This is not good policy - leading economists have written about this [1] as “…perhaps the worst economic own goal I have seen in my lifetime.”

[1] https://www.thefp.com/p/tyler-cowen-liberation-day-was-even
by usr1106 | 2025-04-04 22:09:45+00:00
I have known about Tcl since the 1990s. I remember Stallman advising not use it. Maybe he did not like the license?

Yesterday, over 30 years later I was forced to write my first code. Noticed that a Cisco switch had an incredibly bad ssh implemtation, so to automate some commands I needed expect scripting. Expect is based on Tcl.
by darth_avocado | 2025-04-04 22:10:35+00:00
I didn’t see any other responses mention this, but a Reddit tinfoil hat argument that’s going around, which sounds more plausible than the other theories like wealth consolidation and systemic destruction of middle class, is the national debt that needs to be rolled over in the near future. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to roll over the debt and intentionally tanking the economy to increase unemployment and force the fed to lower the interest rates could make it cheaper for the government to roll over the debt in a manageable fashion.
by HenryBemis | 2025-04-04 22:10:46+00:00
1a) it's not AI, it's LLM. The companies who create/train/operate them may (wink-wink) pitch them as "AI" with half-truths, but we (here) know it's LLMs "all the way down" 1b) just like I disliked the "autopilot" in Teslas because it was never autopilot. 2) I know that I wanted to write some software tools, and I have been successful at this for the past many months, and I got top-shelve tools, that work, do their tasks, send alerts, etc. etc. And I am not the only one. So if the purpose is to "show it's a stupid AI".. well.. it's not AI.. so yeah. If the purpose is "it is not perfect", yes, because it draws a hand with 10 fingers. What else is new?

LLMs are a tool, still under development, still early in the curve, they can do A-B-C well but not X-Y-Z well (or at all). Congratulations :)
by dismalaf | 2025-04-04 22:10:53+00:00
Argument for tariffs: Make foreign made goods expensive to encourage local production. And it has worked. Usually tariffs are more focused though. For example, the US has had tariffs on trucks for a long time; as a result, most foreign automakers have US plants to build trucks/SUVs.

The main problem with the tariffs is this: the US has benefited mightily from globalism. What actually happened is that the US, being at the cutting edge of technology, outsourced mostly low paying jobs, while developing more innovative/productive industries and sold goods all across the world.

Apple's a prime example. All the difficult (read physical) and low-paying aspects of production are outsourced to Taiwan and China, meanwhile Apple employs tens of thousands of high paid engineers in the US. Ditto for all the big tech companies.

Now, globalism has negatively affected a certain segment of the population and it was definitely a mistake to ignore that (rust belt great example). But bringing manufacturing back won't fix that now that the cat's out of the bag. Engaging in a trade war will destroy a ton of high paying jobs (every multinational is going to take a sizeable revenue cut) just to bring back a small amount of low paying jobs, if any are brought back... Firms will likely build highly automated US factories.

The best possible version of this policy would be focused tariffs on specific goods you want manufactured in the US... Semiconductors, autos, steel, boats, that sort of thing.
by 9283409232 | 2025-04-04 22:11:01+00:00
I would love to not use Airbnb as a consumer but there is no real alternative here. I hear a lot of people say that Airbnb is just as expensive as hotels but I just don't see it. I'm looking at traveling and a hotel in the area is $900 to $1200 while Airbnbs are $500 to $800.
by ivan_gammel | 2025-04-04 22:11:07+00:00
>The economists who claim that tariffs will harm normal Americans were also the economists who claimed that sanctions would destroy the Russian economy. They had the opposite effect, for reasons that still remain somewhat unclear.

They didn’t have the opposite effect. They were ineffective in general, because Russia has large trade partners not aligned with the West and it has been preparing for it, optimizing the government apparatus for 20 years (financial bloc for 30 years). There are plenty of A-players (head of central bank, minister of finance etc), working industrial policy and digitalized processes, and they can make decisions very fast both politically and bureaucratically.
by sadcodemonkey | 2025-04-04 22:11:17+00:00
I love this.

My most satisfying side projects are often not necessarily my "best" work, in terms of code cleanliness, best practices, efficiency, etc. They're ones where I had a particular creative itch I wanted to scratch. Is this kind of solution possible? What would a certain unusual approach to a problem look like? How can I use this algorithm or library in this situation where it doesn't quite fit, as an experiment?

Projects with extremely loose parameters and no particular "skill acquisition" goals are great ways to grow in ways you didn't anticipate. Which is one way to think about artistic creation, I think: non-goal oriented growth.
by annjose | 2025-04-04 22:11:27+00:00
This! I love the pure joy of picking both the destination and the path. No pressure, no goal — just the joy of building for its own sake.

These two lines really hit home:

> You don’t have to listen to any other voices here, except that quiet one inside of you that’s gently urging you to do the thing you know you need to do.

> You don’t need to know where it’s going to lead. For that matter, it doesn’t have to lead anywhere. Nothing ever has to come of it.

That freedom is everything. Just creating because it feels right (to me).
by cheschire | 2025-04-04 22:11:36+00:00
Thanks! Yeah another side project I used was once I got home assistant running I used ChatGPT to write a lot of ESP32 code for me to get some soil moisture sensors working for my outdoor garden. It also gave me a lot of input on the wiring up of the sensor and ESP32. And it helped me with the general concepts of ESP-IDF versus Arduino frameworks for ESP32, getting an SSD1306 OLED screen running on it and and and...

So yeah, it enables my brain to just chase the inspiration rabbit without getting too bogged down in infrastructure.
by ggm | 2025-04-04 22:12:14+00:00
Peter Jackson's recovery of the footage leading to "Get Back" on the roof of the Apple building shows a lot more normal interaction between the Beatles, Linda Eastman and Yoko.

If anything, Ringo is the disruptive one (albeit briefly) when the others ego trips get him down.

Yoko was mythologised into the evil influence by fans distraught at the breakup of the group. Was she wierd? Sure.

Was she wierder than anyone else in those times? Not really. The Chuck Berry gig is just a moment, it doesn't define her. The screaming shtick was a thing, sure.
by vkou | 2025-04-04 22:12:39+00:00
The speech isn't why he would go to prison in a just world (that would be Georgia, the fake electors, and the toilet paper documents), and the impeachment that was a consequence of the speech is always a purely political trial. Someone can be impeached for any reason and no reason whatsoever, that is unfortunately how the system is designed. Two kinds of justice, with a few batshit SCOTUS rulings that make a criminal president unprosecutable as long as 34 senators are willing to go to bat for him.

It's not his speech that gave him trouble with the DOJ (before he dismissed all charges against himself), it's all the other parts of his conspiracy to steal the election.

Notice how none of the talking heads on TV were in legal trouble over their speech on the matter.

Every one of the cases against him had a bit more to it than 'well he said some bad words', the same way that a conman doesn't go to prison just for saying some bad words, or the same way that a war criminal gets a noose, despite simply saying words - giving orders.
by mixermachine | 2025-04-04 22:13:28+00:00
Prices will very likely go up for products that are not 100% local. Some resources for end products are currently mostly imported. The new tarifs also affect resources and unfinished products.

New trade routes and spinning up local production will take time (likely longer five years) so the consumer will pay a price. Question is how high it will be.

To purely imported goods (a lot of tech for example): cost will go up substantially.

To Russia: They are currently in a war economy. You will likely not really see a collapse coming until it is to late. Banks have been forced to give far to cheap loans to the arms industry complex which are unlikely to ever pay them back. This partially masks the true cost of the war.

Let's so how this proceeds.
by hollerith | 2025-04-04 22:14:01+00:00
Slightly more detail: until about 2001 Yudkowsky was what we would now call an AI accelerationist, then it dawned on him that creating an AI that is much "better at reality" than people are would probably kill all the people unless the AI has been carefully designed to stay aligned with human values (i.e., to want what we want) and that ensuring that it stays aligned is a very thorny technical problem, but was still hopeful that humankind would solve the thorny problem. He worked full time on the alignment problem himself. In 2015 he came to believe that the alignment problem is so hard that it is very very unlikely to be solved by the time it is needed (namely, when the first AI is deployed that is much "better at reality" than people are). He went public with his pessimism in Apr 2022, and his nonprofit (the Machine Intelligence Research Institute) fired most of its technical alignment researchers and changed its focus to lobbying governments to ban the dangerous kind of AI research.
by kcplate | 2025-04-04 22:14:21+00:00
I keep asking this of people making the argument of “when tariffs are felt…”?

Where do you think they will be felt and by who?

My guess is among Trump supporters, especially among those solid blue collar middle class vocal MAGA ones, most of these tariffs will not be felt in any really meaningful way. The tariffs that might affect the middle class (basically east Asia) will be the first ones that end up negotiating them away before American consumers feel them…because it’s in those countries best interest and they know it.

The biggest danger to Trump from these tariffs are from the GOP politicians and conservative retirees and nearing retirement age who will not be happy with the stock market if it doesn’t stabilize soon. The price increases don’t hurt them, it’s the impact on their portfolios.
by mancerayder | 2025-04-04 22:14:59+00:00
Are you arguing with me or the person I am replying to?

I object to people casually paraphrasing, you have a right to free speech but not consequences of that speech. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" Aside from sounding vaguely like a threat, it's a paradoxical attack on freedom of speech. Here's my point again:

Freedom of speech means a lot of things. One of them is the American-centric perspective of "1st Amendment" + Supreme Court precedent, which is that the government should not be involved in unduly prohibiting speech, and we define a bunch of speech as protected. For example, we exclude imminent threat, which in the U.S. is not protected - I can't go up in a speech and rile people up to go attack another race tomorrow. But I can rail against a race (which in most of Europe would be prohibited speech as it's Incitement)).

Now that I've established it means a few things, let's talk about 'consequences.'. The 1st Amendment protects you from government prosecution for protected speech. It doesn't protect you from getting fired, people following you around with placards because of your speech, Instagram banning you, your ISP blocking you, your bank canceling your accounts, etc.

Yet these are the (non-1st-Amendment-centric) attacks on Freedom of Speech. You can argue they're good, they're not good, whatever.

Summary of my argument: freedom of speech CAN mean freedom from SOME consequences.

Consequences are the WHOLE point. In the U.S. we had McCarthyism, where if you were vaguely left-wing you would lose your job, you would lose your life. In the USSR if you didn't follow party lines you'd lose your job, or be reassigned a shitty job. These are Consequences.

In the Reign of the last decade of a new racialized political activism, some people lost jobs for reasons that were dubious, because they had unpopular views. The Left did it.

Today, the Right is doing it, and they're taking in an extra step.

When does it stop? Ahh, good question! It stops when we begin respecting Freedom of Speech as a principle and not a recycled way to attack our enemies.

Again, apologies for both-sides-ism, as someone who believes in civil liberties, I am a both-sides-ist.
by Barrin92 | 2025-04-04 22:15:22+00:00
>it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I encountered when I was younger.

because that is exactly what it is. Rand idolized and worshipped great men and industrialists the way the Soviets taught you too, except through an American funhouse mirror.

Her individualism wasn't an authentic lived inner freedom of for example Tolstoy (in a religious way) or Stirner (in an atheist way) but simply worship of individuality and particular individuals. It's why it made for a fantastic mass movement and fandom of sorts.
by jillyboel | 2025-04-04 22:15:48+00:00
It might scale up but if you're anywhere near efficient you're way overprovisioned to begin with. The compute cost should be miniscule due to caching and bandwidth is cheap if you're not with one of the big clouds. As an example, according to dang HN runs on a single server and yet many websites that get posted to HN, and thus receive a fraction of the traffic, go down due to the load.
by immibis | 2025-04-04 22:16:06+00:00
As a general rule, with some exceptions of course, Democrat politicians tend to "roll over and take it". If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is the president from 2028-2032, expect blue state leaders to just go "oh ok" and then accept that he is the president.

You can contrast it with what red states would do if Obama had a third term.
by jrflowers | 2025-04-04 22:16:08+00:00
Intentionally cratering the economy raises unemployment, which applies downward pressure on wages, and allows entities that are cash-rich and privy to the timings of the intentional market shocks to buy up large swathes of the country for pennies on the dollar, which makes the merger of corporate and government power smoother and more easily total.

J. Paul Getty happened to be in the right place at the right time for the 1929 market crash to result in an explosion in his net worth, what’s happening here is akin to ultra wealthy individuals recreating Black Thursday with the only difference being that it has been very publicly engineered and telegraphed in advance.

That is the steelman, if you think that those things are good things.
by pbhjpbhj | 2025-04-04 22:16:48+00:00
We've effectively done that with streaming on-demand programming and local storage allowing pausing of OTA programming.

Also, Octopus Energy is now the UKs largest provider, they have tariffs with variable rates (demand-based pricing). Very occasionally you can be paid to use electricity. That's certainly encourages some users away from boiling the kettle at peak times.
by krapp | 2025-04-04 22:17:46+00:00
No, why would it?

The United States has burned trust and credibility that can never be recovered. Its collapse into a pariah state like North Korea or Russia, cut off from diplomatic ties and trade and left by most of the world to decompose into an irrelevant husk is inevitable. The market will adapt, likely after years of global depression, with China and Europe competing to become the new global hegemon. The normal that existed prior to Trump, like all those jobs he promised, is never coming back.

If you see a Trump supporter, be sure to thank them.
by lvl155 | 2025-04-04 22:17:48+00:00
First of all, I don’t like Trump. I’ve voted blue all my life. Having said that, Trump is the only one willing to play ball with the Chinese. And the US national debt is not sustainable at this level. Something has to break in order to bring down servicing costs. I am not saying this is the right way to do all this. Far from it. But we do have a huge debt problem in this country and Chinese corps do not play by the rules (ie IP is nonexistent).

This could go wrong in so many ways and eventually undermine US strength while boosting Chinese global influence even further.
by _fs | 2025-04-04 22:17:50+00:00
New trade routes and spinning up local production will take time (likely longer five years) so the consumer will pay a price.

The main issue I see is that in 3.5 or possible 1.5 years, a new president ( or laws passed through congress ) will just vacate all Trump executive orders, tariffs in included. So that $100 million you invested in a new factory that is 3/4 built? Sorry, tariffs are gona and now you are out $100 mil. Why would any corp assume that risk?
by kikki | 2025-04-04 22:18:30+00:00
Both - but primary the cloud offering. The main author (https://x.com/heyandras) is pretty open about the project revenue its sources. If I remember correctly they're at about 10k MRR mostly from Coolify Cloud.

Edit: Latest "post" (xeet?) https://mobile.x.com/heyandras/status/1901894087604916396 I could find about revenue
by cj | 2025-04-04 22:18:49+00:00
I'm hoping the lesson we learn is "do everything possible to maintain 3 separate but co-equal branches of government"

Tariffs are supposed to be imposed by congress, not the president. The president is using a loophole (declaring a national emergency) to give himself authority to bypass congress.

It shouldn't be possible for 1 branch of government to take such drastic measures unilaterally.
by topspin | 2025-04-04 22:19:16+00:00
> Meanwhile a protocol like SPI is ridiculously simple

Yes, it is. It was intended to require as little silicon as possible to minimize the cost to the transistor budget. SPI doesn't contemplate power supply, hot-plug, discovery, bit errors, or any other of a host of affordances you get with USB.

I think there is some value for software developers to understanding SPI and the idioms used by hardware designers with SPI. Typically, SPI is used to fill registers of peripherals: the communication is not the sort of high level, asynchronous stuff you typically see with USB or Ethernet and all the layers of abstraction built upon them. Although there is no universal standard for SPI frames, they do follow idiomatic patterns, and this has proven sufficient for an uncountably vast number of applications.
by settrans | 2025-04-04 22:19:35+00:00
It sounds like you're against the idea of national self determination altogether. Can you think of an example of a successful assertion of the right to self determinism which didn't involve a national entity asserting sovereignty over a body of land populated by a diverse group of people?

As we have already established, the population in the land of the historical mandate has exploded, including a manifold increase of Arabs (living peacefully within the borders of modern Israel as equal citizens, I might add), so clearly it is possible to accommodate this diverse population in a Jewish state.

Are you against all national self determination? Or is there some threshold of homogeneous concentration of one people after which it becomes legitimate? If the Zionist pioneers had managed to achieve a 99% majority of Jewish population in Palestine through legal immigration before asserting sovereignty, would that pass your test?

Or would you just prefer to see the European Jewry perish in toto under the Holocaust and Eastern European pogroms?
by bofadeez | 2025-04-04 22:19:57+00:00
The piece misses a crucial layer of spiritual depth, reducing complex human struggles to mere moral conflicts without grappling with the existential weight they carry.

Al Goldstein’s brash claim—that porn defies Christian culture and elevates the self above God [1] points to a deeper void that this article’s clinical focus ignores.

Its data-driven approach feels hollow when it sidesteps the soul-searching questions that often define these experiences.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Goldstein#Views_on_religion