MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by djoldman | 2025-04-04 01:28:03+00:00
I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws.

That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for their creation and they'll never create.

Even in the case where the above is assumed true, the length of time that a protection should be afforded should be no more than the length of time necessary to ensure that creators create.

There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for 1 year past death.

For that matter, this argument extends to other criminal penalties, but that's a whole other subject.
by dcow | 2025-04-04 01:28:47+00:00
Yes, and notably the source recipe can’t be copyrighted. Trade secrets and recipes are not copyrightable. That’s the point. We have entire vastly profitable industries built around protection of trade secrets, with no copyright in play. Competing to make make the best cola flavored beverage or the best burrito is a thing. Competing to make the best rendition of Snow White, is not. What’s the rub? They don’t seem that different at all.
by aaron695 | 2025-04-04 01:29:29+00:00
It's just because he is white male looking isn't it, academia hates white men. Why are we over thinking this?

Personal statements like job apps are about bragging which is hard for anyone to do, the comments putting this down are piss poor.

Otherwise the comments are he shouldn't have written it as a normal 17 year old, he should have paid an experienced adult to faked it like everyone else. They could have helped him fake the "diversity" universities chase.

If universities wanted true diversity he is it. He's already worthy to have on their alumni which for the adults in the room, when all information is on your phone universities are the mostly connections you create . i.e. Gates, Wozniak , Jobs
by neilv | 2025-04-04 01:29:53+00:00
> “Rule breaking appears to signal a team member’s commitment—a willingness to do whatever it takes to get the job done,” wrote Wakeman, Yang, and Moore, all of whom are hockey fans.

Beyond "taking one for the team", in business, I didn't see the article make some key distinctions:

* What is the origin of the rules? (Originated in the interests of the organization, or came from outside, such as regulatory requirements.)

* How much does the organization care about the rules? (Some rules they just need to make a paper trail show of effort, and worst impact is a transactional cost-of-business fine, or an unflattering news cycle. Other rule violations could dethrone a CEO, or even send them to prison.)

* Would the organization actually love to get away with violating that rule, when the right individual comes along to execute it without getting caught? (Say, some very lucrative financial scheme that's disallowed by regulations.)

* How aligned is the manager with the organization wrt the rules in question? (Say, the company actually really doesn't want people to violate this one rule, but a manager gets bonuses and promotions when their reports have the advantage of breaking the rule.)

Depending on those answers, a manager's claim of "Doing what it takes to get the job done!" can sound very different.
by colechristensen | 2025-04-04 01:30:50+00:00
The unpopular choices that need to be made in America are the centrist ones.

One of them being "whether it's left- or right-aligned, let's not engage in your social agenda on the federal level for a while"

>where a person can't be a candidate to a position more than one level higher than the highest one they were previously elected for

For much of the time in the Roman Republic they also had this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum
by sepositus | 2025-04-04 01:30:58+00:00
> The idea that everyone is either full lazy or not lazy is a bit reductionist.

Fair point. My intention isn't to be absolute, though. Even in a relative sense, I can't imagine a scenario where some level of laziness didn't contribute to the problem, even in the presence of external factors.

It seems like the author was eliminating laziness with their statement and instead putting the primary force on the LLM being "confident." This is what I'm pushing back against.
by defrost | 2025-04-04 01:30:59+00:00
> One, make the rest of the world pick a side. And two, attempt to disconnect global dependence on China.

Logically this may well push many to greater trade with China.

China has a growing middle consumer class already greater in number than the total population of the USofA. China already has global scale manufacturing in place, now looking for fresh markets as US markets lower demand due to tariffs.

Smaller countries, say Australia, can trade their wagyu beef to China now that the US has tariff'd the US demand down towards zero .. in a number of ways the US has removed itself from global trade which will continue on with or without it.
by 758597464 | 2025-04-04 01:31:39+00:00
> This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past.

Tried, and succeeded in. In times where people held more power than today. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

> Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear.

I agree that most of humanity has empathy for others — but it's been shown that the prevalence of psychopaths increases as you climb the leadership ladder.

Fear or hope are the responses of the passive. There are other routes to take.
by duxup | 2025-04-04 01:33:10+00:00
>Dr. Oz, 64, has for years been a vocal proponent of Medicare Advantage, the private insurance plans for older Americans, despite federal inquiries and lawmakers’ concerns that insurers have overbilled the government by tens of billions of dollars a year. He promoted it on his TV show and acted as a broker for one company that sells the plan.

It really seems like many of these departments are for sale and all we get are people with clear conflicts of interest ... money / friends in the game they're now deeply involved in.
by vitorgrs | 2025-04-04 01:33:11+00:00
Honestly wouldn't compare Vargas with Trump here. Trump policies for me seems similar to what the military regime did (1964-1985)

Before Vargas rule (around the 30-40's), Brazil was an agrarian state, basically commanded by coffee barons and so on.

Brazil got the independence in 1822, and abolished the slavery in 1888. During this time, it was reigned by Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II. When the empire ended the slavery (one of the latest countries to end), the military and the agrarian folks, did a republic coup. In Brazil we call this republic "Coffee with Milk republic", because it was not a democracy yet (only 4% could vote), and the power was divided by São Paulo (Coffee state) and Minas Gerais (Milk state).

It's a long and complex story, but in short, in 1930, Vargas did what we call "1930 Revolution". It was a dictatorship, he persecuted the Brazilian integralists (fascists) and communists (and banned foreign languages aimed at banning italian/german/japanese speakers etc). The dictatorship ended, he got removed, and later he comes by election, in the first Brazilian proper democracy, with huge people support.

Anyway, besides all that, he basically industrialized the country. Moved the country from an agrarian state to modern industrialized state. But not only because of import substitution, he created like Ministry of Health, Education, all the modern BR state that we know. Penal code, and everything is still from 1940.The industrialization was mainly led by state-owned companies. He created a state owned oil company (Petrobras), created a state owned car company (FNM), steel company (CSN), mining company (Vale), etc.

The development during this time, was basically making the state to be the one that would industrialize the country.

The military dictatorship goal was different, after all, it was a coup against "the communists", with the U.S support at the time. So the industrialization was also led by the private sector, protected by the state with the huge tariffs, and some areas they just banned imports.

Instead of the FNM car company for example, we had then Gurgel, a private company making cars.

Of course, a lot of these companies died when Brazil opened the economy in the 1990s, exactly bcause they were not competitive and wasn't exporting anything anyway.

But one thing that people need to keep in mind always, it's how all of that makes the product expensive. A car in Brazil it's way more expensive than in the U.S and so on.
by achierius | 2025-04-04 01:33:27+00:00
Let's be clear. You can be for free software, against copyright, etc., and STILL be in favor of these firms being punished for violating copyright as they have. Because frankly, we -- normal people -- have always known that we would be punished if we did anything close to this: so many people have been thrown in jail, even killed themselves, because they distributed some film or hosted some books. But now, when a big corporation does it, and in doing so seeks to replace and impoverish thousands, millions of hard-working, law-abiding people, now is when we should expect the government to finally say -- oh, that copyright thing was silly all along? No. Perhaps if the deal was that the whole system would go away entirely -- that we, too, could do what these firms have done. But that's not what's being proposed. That will not happen. They want the laws to be for them, not for us, and I will always be opposed to attempts at actualizing that injustice.
by baranul | 2025-04-04 01:33:57+00:00
> Zig bdfl himself accused vlang of committing fraud a while back.

That was truly foul. On top of that, begged readers to give their money to Zig. Clearly some have no limits on what to say and do against other languages or to sell their language.

That's why whatever bad things a creator or evangelist says about another language, people shouldn't just swallow, and instead take with a grain of salt and some skepticism.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-04 01:34:05+00:00
> ACT post where Scott Alexander provides some additional info: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027

The pattern where Scott Alexander puts forth a huge claim and then immediately hedges it backward is becoming a tiresome theme. The linguistic equivalent of putting claims into a superposition where the author is both owning it and distancing themselves from it at the same time, leaving the writing just ambiguous enough that anyone reading it 5 years from now couldn't pin down any claim as false because it was hedged in both directions. Schrödinger's prediction.

> Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no

> So maybe think of this as a vision of what an 80th percentile fast scenario looks like - not our precise median, but also not something we feel safe ruling out.

The talk of "not our precise median" and "Not something we feel safe ruling out" is an elaborate way of hedging that this isn't their actual prediction but, hey, anything can happen so here's a wild story! When the claims don't come true they can just point back to those hedges and say that it wasn't really their median prediction (which is conveniently not noted).

My prediction: The vague claims about AI becoming more powerful and useful will come true because, well, they're vague. Technology isn't about to reverse course and get worse.

The actual bold claims like humanity colonizing space in the late 2020s with the help of AI are where you start to realize how fanciful their actual predictions are. It's like they put a couple points of recent AI progress on a curve, assumed an exponential trajectory would continue forever, and extrapolated from that regression until AI was helping us colonize space in less than 5 years.

> Manifold currently predicts 30%:

Read the fine print. It only requires 30% of judges to vote YES for it to resolve to YES.

This is one of those bets where it's more about gaming the market than being right.
by kouteiheika | 2025-04-04 01:34:11+00:00
Indeed. Especially when a lot of papers are just using cherry-picked results that show some improvements just so they can publish something, but their method doesn't work that well when it comes in contact with reality (e.g. see the deluge of papers which claim to have come up with an optimizer better than AdamW), and when the majority of people are not even properly benchmarking their new methods wrt to the time overhead (no, it doesn't matter if your method achieves 1% better loss if it takes 10% longer to train, because if I'd trained for 10% longer without your method I'd get an even better loss; and don't even get me started on people not tuning their baselines).

I've been burnt way too many times by fancy new methods that claimed improvement, where I spent a ton of effort to implement them, and they ended up being poop.

Every person working in the field and pushing papers should read this blog post and apply what's written in it: https://kellerjordan.github.io/posts/muon/#discussion-solvin...
by jemmyw | 2025-04-04 01:34:18+00:00
I don't think I agree with this article at all. Yes, it's true that the modding scene has largely gone away, and that's a shame. But Android is still the platform that things are tried out on. There are cheap phones like the Nothing phone doing stuff with customization and LED lighting. There are flip phones and foldables. Android gets the more interesting camera stuff before Apple does. Some things have gone away or gone the same path as the iPhone, especially if you look at Samsung who are Apple's main competitor. My most recent Android phone is from Oppo and has the best camera I've had on a phone, a really fantastic battery life, and it was cheaper than the last 3. And I can still install the browser I like with full ad-blocking, I can still replace the launcher, and I can still use alternate app stores.

Companies make what they think people will buy. Not enough people cared about certain features so things moved on.
by kortilla | 2025-04-04 01:34:47+00:00
That’s not how that works. If Japan needs USD it goes to the forex market. That market represents a massive trade flow.

It doesn’t matter which currency you pick in that world apart from capital control. As long as it’s reasonably stable you flow through it with many billions of dollars a day with ease. The conversions are effectively free because the spreads are tiny.

Using the US dollar to trade between two countries that are not to US does nothing to the the currency. It just shifts a deficit.
by timr | 2025-04-04 01:34:51+00:00
You're just using new terms ("cost-push inflation") to disagree without actually disagreeing.

> so of you care just about near-term price levels, the same monetary interventions make sense as for demand-pull inflation....Cost-push inflation tends to be an effect of forces outside of monetary policy which tend to slow the economy, so throwing tight money policy on top of it accelerates the slowdown. This is particularly bad if you are already in a recession with cost-push inflation (stagflation).

Again, you're just saying the same thing that I wrote above, but arguing (?) that it's actually called "inflation".

If your point is that tariffs are bad, fine. We both agree that what you call "cost-push inflation" is not something you'd rationally raise interest rates to counter.
by gerdesj | 2025-04-04 01:35:38+00:00
How do you suggest you protect your "thing"?

* If I make a thing that is different and I get a patent - cool. * If I create a design that is unusual and I get copyright on it - is that cool?

Both concepts - patent and copyright - are somewhat controversial, for multiple reasons.

If you invented a thingie, would you not want some initial patent related protection to allow you to crack on with some sort of clout against cough CN? If you created a film/creative thang, would you not want some protection against your characters being ... subverted.

Patents and copywrite are what we have - do you have any better ideas?
by jryle70 | 2025-04-04 01:36:03+00:00
I seriously don't know what you meant by the following:

> When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.

My example is clearly a colorful painting, very vibrant, yet certain tones stand out. What you said is literally wrong. It's neither simple nor obvious. Spell out what you meant. Your counter example isn't obvious either.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-04-04 01:36:10+00:00
I wouldn’t call what they wrote as “contempt.” It seems to me, to be cynical realism; something I tend to exhibit, myself.

I like people. I really do. I especially love the users of the software I write, and go well out of my way, to craft the best UI possible.

But I am constantly being blindsided by knuckleheads; some of whom, are really, really smart, educated, and inquisitive people.

I write iOS apps, and spend many, many hours, testing and tweaking. Right now, I am completely rewriting an app, because I couldn’t get the UI right, at the final stage. I realized my fundamentals were borked, and that I needed to go back to the ol’ drawing board, as Wile E. Coyote would say. Many developers would have shipped, but I have the luxury of being able to redo it (I have done it before).

It’s a cool trick, and one that I’d probably use, if I was dedicated to Web design, the way I am, to app design.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-04-04 01:37:05+00:00
I read this when I was younger, but I only now get it, and realize how true it all is.

13) Humans writing code is an inherently flawed concept. Doesn't matter what form the code takes. Machine code, assembly language, C, Perl, or a ChatGPT prompt. It's all flawed in the same way. We have not yet invented a technology or mechanism which avoids it. And high level abstraction doesn't really help. It hides problems only to create new ones, and other problems simply never go away.

21) Loosely coupled interfaces made our lives easier because it forced us to compartmentalize our efforts into something manageable. But it's hard to prove that this is a better outcome overall, as it forces us to solve problems in ways that still lead to worse outcomes than if we had used a simpler [formal] logic.

34) We will probably end up pushing our technical abilities to the limit in order to design a superior system, only to find out in the end that simpler formal logic is what we needed all along.

55) We're becoming stupider and worse at using the tools we already have. We're already shit at using language just for communicating with each other. Assuming we could make better programs with it is nonsensical.

For a long time now I've been upset at computer science's lack of innovation in the methods we use to solve problems. Programming is stupidly flawed. I've never been good at math, so I never really thought about it before, but math is really the answer to what I wish programming was: a formal system for solving a problem, and a formal system for proving that the solution is correct. That's what we're missing from software. That's where we should be headed.
by lmm | 2025-04-04 01:37:43+00:00
> If you think the piece only really starts when the first note of the melody is played, then you've got problems. Either:

> 1. You hear the first articulation of the melody as the downbeat. But that would mean the first measure is in a disparate (and probably irregular) meter. Radical!

> 2. You hear the incomplete first measure as an anacrusis, or a kind of unaccented lead-in, to the second measure: OMG even more radical!

Why? Why can't you just say the piece starts partway through a bar, and we notate that with a rest for convenience? Just as when a piece ends partway through a bar we would generally accept that it ends when the last note ends (and while we might notate that as being a full bar in the case of a long held note, we don't always play it that way), not after some trailing rests, and we wouldn't consider this as being some kind of radical accented thing.
by alphan0n | 2025-04-04 01:39:23+00:00
You are responsible for the output, just like any other tool.

If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox.

If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright.

If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.
by h2zizzle | 2025-04-04 01:39:59+00:00
Yes, the hard part is convincing owners to part with their wealth in order to fund better pay. This is partly because they themselves are wrapped up in a massive obligatory apparatus; call it "the financialization of the economy." I'm by no measure a Trump supporter, but I do hope that what we're seeing is a proper crash that wipes out some of these folks. Once defaults are rampant, you'll have destroyed a lot of wealth, but also a lot of the obligations that necessitated all of this shifting of wealth upward in the first place. You'd also have a lot of very sophisticated people in the clock-in line, suddenly very interested in pay equity. That's one of the happier scenarios, at least.
by taurath | 2025-04-04 01:40:34+00:00
This really gets to an acceleration of enshittification. If you can't tell its an LLM, and there's nobody to verify the information, humanity is architecting errors and mindfucks into everything. All of the markers of what is trustworthy has been coopted by untrustworthy machines, so all of the way's we'd previously differentiated actors have stopped working. It feels like we're just losing truth as rapidly as LLMs can generate mistakes. We've built a scoundrels paradise.

How useful is a library of knowledge when n% of the information is suspect? We're all about to find out.
by genewitch | 2025-04-04 01:40:35+00:00
> I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example).

https://www.findlaw.com/lgbtq-law/housing-discrimination-pro...

> At the federal level, you can find protections for renters in the following:

Federal Fair Housing Act Bostock ruling The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Equal Access Rule
by justonceokay | 2025-04-04 01:41:32+00:00
+1. In my relatively uninformed opinion what trump is doing is accelerating a kind of global arbitration in which the US is no longer the dominant economic power. We are going to have to share our toys. The “3rd world” is developing and it isn’t as easy to bully the globe into doing all our dirty work.

In my imagination, 50 years from now we will have a quality of life more similar to Central Europe: fine, but nothing special. Most people will live much more simply, rent smaller spaces, drive less ostentatious cars that they share. People will live with their families out of necessity and strawberries won’t be available in December.