MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ziml77 | 2025-04-12 18:54:07+00:00
I looked at their plans a few years back and it was very clear that they had 3 payment options: Monthly, Annual, and Annual billed Monthly. Of course if you get the third option, getting out of the contract is going to cost you. Otherwise what would ever be the point of choosing the Monthly plan when both Annual options have a discount for going with a longer subscription period?
by brookst | 2025-04-12 18:54:58+00:00
Sure. But at the cost of the time that I currently use to do other things.

Are you moving the argument from conflating budget and trade deficits to saying the United States’ multi-century economic focus on consumer spending is a mistake, and we need to shift to a savings-focused economy like China used to be? I also think that’s wrong, but it has nothing at all to do with the federal government’s budget deficit.

Or are you under the mistaken impression that trade income is the only income the country has?

This is all very confused and nonsensical.
by wat10000 | 2025-04-12 18:55:15+00:00
> But it only selects for corrupt politicians if the main motivation is to make money.

Everyone has some motivation for money. So this introduces bias towards the corrupt at any level. That’s especially true for a pay level that really is not enough for the expenses the job requires.

You seem to be assuming that being in it for the money implies corruption. I don’t think that’s even remotely true. There are plenty of honest people who value high pay. As it currently stands, Congress attracts dishonest people who are in it for the money because there are plentiful opportunities to make money dishonestly in that job. It doesn’t attract honest people who are in it for the money, because the honest pay sucks. If you pay them really well then that second category will compete for positions. It won’t be corrupt people versus true believers, it’ll be corrupt people versus true believers and honest people who want a well paid job. This would be far better than what we have now.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-04-12 18:55:19+00:00
> Auto as it is now has been in C++ since C++11, thats more than a decade ago...

> anyone teaching or using C++ in 2025 should have an understanding of how to to program well in a 14 year old version of said language...

If the current year is 2025 then 14 years ago is 2011 which is not that long ago.

> If your argument was C then sure thats a C23 feature (well the type inference type of auto ) and is reasonably new.

Grandparent comment is arguing that Linux was written in C89 until a few days ago so decades old books on C aren't actually outdated.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-04-12 18:56:36+00:00
> I don’t understand this concept.

It's because it's wrong. If you decelerate the same vehicle at the same rate, the tires can't even tell whether the deceleration is from regenerative braking or friction braking, so the only difference is less brake dust with regenerative braking.

If anything it's the opposite because regenerative braking is more effective when braking is gradual, giving the driver a direct convenience and financial incentive to brake less aggressively (better range, buy less gas or charging), which generates less tire wear.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-04-12 18:57:38+00:00
Yes, that’s the marketing working. People are basically purchasing a dream in the same way Rolex actually sell the idea of James Bond and Roger Federer. The brand wants people to somehow think that owning a random bunch of expensive metal connects them to people who did compete from the Longitude Prize more than just thinking about them.

It’s completely fine if it makes people happy but it’s also in a lot of way manipulative and disingenuous. That’s why I hate industries which are purely marketing based.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-04-12 18:57:56+00:00
> Maybe most of them are good, rational developers and were chosen for that reason.

This seems to be purpose-driven guess. To zero-in on what is, that info is trivial to find.

ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=what+we+know+about+doge+tech+...

ref: https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/12/the-people-in-elon-musk-do...
by throwawaysleep | 2025-04-12 18:58:04+00:00
The party put in power did not even claim to oppose those things. The man put in power did the opposite when he was last in power.

As an analogy, I understand why someone might not trust the Boeing 737 Max. I would consider them in need of a court appointed guardian if they determined the alternative was to jump off a building as a safer way to fly.
by kouteiheika | 2025-04-12 18:58:28+00:00
I see this misconception all the time. Filtering out LLM slop is not much different than filtering out human slop. If anything, LLM generated output is of higher quality that a lot of human written text you'd randomly find on the internet. It's no coincidence that state-of-art LLMs increasingly use more and more synthetic data generated by LLMs themselves. So, no, just because training data was produced by a human doesn't make it inherently more valuable; the only thing that matters is the quality of the data, and the Internet is full of garbage which you need to filter out one way or another.
by gruturo | 2025-04-12 18:59:32+00:00
> I don’t understand this concept.

Because it's completely wrong. The tires indeed experience the same force and don't care where the energy is dumped. As other posters wrote, the increased tire pollution from EVs is because they tend to be heavier, and because their considerable extra torque is likely to be (ab)used by their drivers. Yours truly included, guilty as charged, though I do practice restraint... often.
by theamk | 2025-04-12 19:00:11+00:00
Self-driving car senses objects and must make difficult decisions: Is this radar reflection from stationary light pole or from a moving object? Is this a parked car or a moving car? Will this pedestrain/biker jump on the roadway? What if the car next to me going to turn left sharply?

No such thing exists in the air. The air is mostly empty, there are no stationary objects next to the route. If there is a building, aircraft can fly as far as 500 meters away from it - try finding a driveable road with no obstacles at that distance. There is no people or large animals. There is not even curb to hit.

Importantly, I bet there are no legacy vehicles in the approved routes - and I am sure they will have some sort of V2V tech to ensure that all objects in the air will transmit their position and intention.
by skort | 2025-04-12 19:00:36+00:00
I've seen this "car free utopia" idea dismissed as an idea by and for "elites" (see Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's comments on people who ride the subway in NYC) plenty of times as a tactic to avoid doing anything about reducing dependence on cars. It's quite a counterproductive argument in my opinion. Even if there are well paid tech workers who are able to enjoy a "car-free lifestyle", why should it end there?

Just because the system we created means that currently the only affordable place for the working poor is in suburbs where they must rely on cars doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be that way. You can support building infill housing and adding transit to eventually reduce the need for so many people to have cars.

It's one thing to call it "bias" and use that as an argument to not make things better instead of coming up with ways to help make car independence available to everyone across classes.
by wat10000 | 2025-04-12 19:01:20+00:00
A self driving car needs to be able to reliably drive within ~1 foot of arbitrary obstacles, recognize junk in the road, recognize people in the road, obey vague hand signals from random cops, obey every weird traffic sign in the world, obey every traffic law, and disobey signs and laws when convention requires it.

Helicopters don’t have to deal with any of that. There won’t be any random obstacles. No human drivers to contend with. No conflict between legality and practice to navigate.
by _kava | 2025-04-12 19:01:34+00:00
It is both amazing and sad to see China is literally in the future compared to the US in terms of infrastructure and social development.

A trip to one of the major cities in China made it clear to me that they are ahead of the world right now. The amount of tech and the level of integration are unbelievable. In comparasion, the streets of SF, one of the crown jewels of the US technosphere, are just so "normal" I find it hard to believe.

It is the same feeling I had decades ago walking into a then-modern metropolis in the US for the first time. All the cool tech, the convenience, the upscale atmosphere, the extravagance of it all were striking. I have not felt that again for a while and I just think it can't happen again with what I am already used to now. Incredible that China managed to evoke that sense of awe in me again.
by mk89 | 2025-04-12 19:02:10+00:00
Out of curiosity I went to their website to understand how they sell it, because it wasn't clear...

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/plans.html

I am not sure why this should face FTC or any similar mechanism to prevent "deception".

It's written right there:

US$22.99/mo Annual, billed monthly

And if you slightly scroll down the very first question is how much it costs:

> There are several Creative Cloud plans that include Photoshop. You can purchase it as a standalone app for US$22.99/mo. for the annual billed monthly plan or opt for annual billing at US$263.88/yr.

Buying it with the annual billing would save you 1$ per month.

I have seen this model used elsewhere: if you opt in for the yearly subscription, you still pay per month but you save X% over the monthly subscription.

Not sure what could they do to make it more obvious, besides writing big: we only offer yearly subscriptions, although you can pay monthly..

Edit: if you click on buy it, it leads to another option too, the monthly one. Is this the scam one? Because it says you cancel any time...

Edit again: it seems that they did quite some nasty stuff in the past and then US sued them, so now they are more transparent about their subscriptions.

God bless such organizations that sue the hell out of such bad actors until they behave well.
by baosoy | 2025-04-12 19:03:10+00:00
I worked on a project that did something fun with SVGs like this. It was built with React, and we had a series of still illustrations with an animated element, with its colour controlled by a CMS.

The frontend would basically call an API that would return an SVG image with the right colour assigned and the animation done by hiding and showing svg elements.

You can see an example here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221020133516im_/https://uncrow...
by AIPedant | 2025-04-12 19:03:40+00:00
> Take the moment where the Cowardly Lion first pounces on his soon-to-be companions. The camera pans back and forth between the Scarecrow and Tin Man, with cuts to Dorothy hiding behind a tree in the distance. The experience at Sphere called for keeping all these elements together, in hyper-realistic detail.

This sounds awful, as if Google thinks direction and editing are technological limitations rather than artistic choices. This entire project seems fit for a culture that loves content and hates art. If these tasteless jokers ever do this to Stalker I will probably riot. (“Carefully composed shots is for anachronistic dweebs, our society demands an Experience Like No Other.”)

> Every change, Hays notes, was made in close collaboration with Warner Bros., to ensure continuity with the spirit of the original.

Considering Warner Bros. Discovery’s track record is 3 years of selling out their own directors and writers, I would be more confident if Google were left to their own devices! DeepMind likely has more respect for the film than Warner Bros. management.
by PorterBHall | 2025-04-12 19:03:54+00:00
They can be held in contempt and fined. I suppose it’s possible that someone in the administration (but not the president) could be jailed, but I don’t know that has ever happened in US history. If a judge ordered the arrest and confinement of an official, it would fall to the US Marshals to perform that task on behalf of the court. The US Marshals are a part of the Justice Department, which is overseen by the administration. If this were to happen, and the president ordered the justice department to free the official, then we would have a genuine Constitutional crisis in our hands.
by bitbasher | 2025-04-12 19:04:05+00:00
Progressive enhancement isn't about supporting the minority of users that disable JavaScript. It's about sound engineering and building a robust system that is tolerant to errors. A system that can fail gracefully.

There's nothing wrong with using JavaScript. There's nothing wrong with depending on JavaScript for specific functionality. However, I don't think it's acceptable to completely break down if that JavaScript fails to load.

With SPAs and "modern" web development practices, it's all or nothing. Either everything works, or nothing works.

Not with things I build.
by klipt | 2025-04-12 19:05:02+00:00
Men are still the vast majority of workplace fatalities: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/industry-incidence-rates/wo...

But the left will never prioritize men.

The left believes that any metric where women are worse off needs urgent attention, and any intervention must prioritize women.

But any metric where men are worse off can either be ignored, or fixed with an intervention that is either gender neutral, or preferably, prioritizes women again.

The left is the Party of Women.
by Zigurd | 2025-04-12 19:05:14+00:00
A friend of mine is writing a history of the Massachusetts Hill towns. The Strathmore paper company plays a big part in that history the mill owners built housing for their workers within walking distance of the mills.

I also know of a tourism industry company that is buying up older hotels that are no longer competitive in the local market to use as seasonal worker housing.

There are solutions other than having someone drive a beater for 45 minutes to get to a low paying job.
by prewett | 2025-04-12 19:05:25+00:00
According to the linked Wikipedia article, he did not go broke from the gold rush. He went broke because he invested the pickaxe windfall in land, and when his wife divorced him, the judge ruled he had to pay her 50%, but since he was 100% in land he had to sell it. (The article is not clear why he couldn't deed her 50% of it, or only sell 50%. Maybe it happened during a bad market, he had a deadline, etc.)

So maybe if the AI pickaxe sellers get divorced it could lead to poor financial results, but I'm not sure his story is applicable otherwise.
by Juliate | 2025-04-12 19:05:51+00:00
You’re confusing the tools (which are their own marvels) and the practice (which is art, using the tools).

However good or not is the camera, it’s not the camera that dictates the inner qualities of a photograph, there is _something else_ that evades the technicalities of the tools and comes from the context and the choice of the photograph (and of accident, too, because it’s the nature of photography: capturing an accident of light).

The same camera in the hands of two persons will give two totally different sets of pictures, if only because, their sight, their looking at the world is different; and because one knows how to use the tools, and the other, not in the same way, or not at all.

It’s not a matter of « feeling artsy » or special, it’s a matter of « doing art ».

Everyone is an artist, if they want to: it’s a matter of practicing and intent, not a matter of outputting.

Art is in the process (of making, and of receiving), not in the output (which is the artefact of art and which has its own set of controversial and confusing economics and markets).

Generative AI on the contrary of tools that stay in their specific place, steals the insight from previous artists (from the training set) and strips the prompter from their own insights and personality and imprint (because it is not employed, but only through a limited text prompt at an interface).

Generative AI enthousiasts may be so. They have every right to be. But not by ignoring and denying the fundamental steal that injecting training sets without approval is, and the fundamental difference there is between _doing art_ and asking a computer to produce art.

Ignoring those two is a red flag of people having no idea what art, and practice is.
by KaiserPro | 2025-04-12 19:07:32+00:00
A smartwatch in a 45mm case is now pretty easy to build. it won’t be fancy, but an esp32 plus screen in a 3d printed case is something I could make.

A basic mechanical watch movement is something I can’t make. (I have made a case and dial out of aluminium/brass though.)

But, the point I was trying to make is that adding a complication to a smart watch is trivial, something that can be done in a few hours and shipped to everywhere. Adding a complication to a mechanical movement is a lot harder, especially as the iteration time is long.
by telotortium | 2025-04-12 19:07:53+00:00
> I don't think there's any healthy level of private cars coexisting with humans in a city

Concentrating humans together into a small locality, which is what a city is, will inherently have a significant environmental impact. Cities before private cars were still quite polluted, because transportation still has to take place just to keep the city running. Electric vehicles are the best-case scenario for truck deliveries, construction vehicles, and everything else you need to keep a city running on a day-to-day basis.

Moreover, you have to consider all cities in this analysis, not just posh, post-industrial cities like those in the US and Western Europe. Manufacturing has to take place somewhere, and logistics considerations imply that most manufacturing will be located next to transportation infrastructure. Just like any other economic activity, manufacturing benefits from talent clusters (a major reason cities exist), so manufacturing will tend to concentrate in cities as well, or at least the suburbs, which you can easily observe in China.

If you really hate air pollution, move to the country and be willing to sacrifice the advantages of cities.
by LeafItAlone | 2025-04-12 19:08:22+00:00
>In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole.

Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens.

Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up.

>it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market

Yes, by doing exactly what the the Pelosis and many of us did in the same time period: invest heavily in tech. I have have about double the rate of return since 2020 than the Pelosis. Many of my moves independently mimic theirs. I personally got out of Visa in Spring of 2024, also in favor of NVDA. Am I insider trading?
by flomo | 2025-04-12 19:08:23+00:00
It's interesting, in San Francisco, the streetcars got too heavy for the old tracks so they replaced them with about 4 feet deep of concrete. That is actual infrastructure and not "fake". (along with all the stops and handicap ramps and etc. obviously, a paved street is going to exist either way.)

Bribes and the mafia may have been a factor[0], but that's how American cities do things.

[0] eg. https://www2.startribune.com/streetcars-buses-minneapolis-st...
by techpineapple | 2025-04-12 19:08:26+00:00
What the fuck are we using these things for? Are they a toy to argue about the culture war or are they serious tools for getting work done.

And like, if you’re really maximum truth seeking, there are no “sides”, there’s just ideas and nuance. But “both sides” is an extremely problematic place to start if only because of the false dilema cognitive fallacy. It leads me to believe Mark Zuckerberg is not a serious person who is doing this purely for political reasons.
by simpaticoder | 2025-04-12 19:09:26+00:00
Regular LLMs are quite bad at it (see simonwillison's blog post). However this paper [0] describes an apparently sound approach using Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs), however their github repo [1] has been "code coming soon!" for months now, so you can't really use it.

0 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.03992

1 - https://github.com/SagiPolaczek/NeuralSVG
by Saline9515 | 2025-04-12 19:09:35+00:00
Paris is not a city of 10 millions, it has only two million habitants. And cars are not reserved to rich people, why would they be? I grew up in Paris, my parents weren't rich, we were living in public housing and we had a car.

Families are not second-tier citizens, and currently the public transports are not suited for them. On top of the other problems, such as the pleasure of having to deal with crackheads and various homeless people in the metro when you have a baby.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris
by sea-gold | 2025-04-12 19:09:43+00:00
Supported features:

Creating and running JVM, Android, iOS, Linux, and macOS applications.

Creating Kotlin Multiplatform libraries.

Running tests.

Mixing Kotlin, Java and Swift code.

Code assistance for module files in IntelliJ IDEA and Fleet.

Multi-module projects.

Using Compose Multiplatform.

Using Compose multiplatform resources.

Integration with Gradle version catalogs.

Gradle interop, including combining Amper and Gradle modules in one project.

Gradle-compatible project layout for the smooth migration of existing Gradle projects.

* only in Gradle-based projects