MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ltbarcly3 | 2025-04-15 22:00:44+00:00
So you believe he is being honest. That's perfectly reasonable. Do you really belief that if there was no threat to him at all he would admit this, stop appealing his deportation order, leave his wife and children behind, give up any possibility of being supporting his family financially and go back to El Salvador?

Which one of our beliefs seems more credible to you, that a man would claim to be in danger (which doesn't hurt anyone) to let him stay with his wife and children and access to employment which pays hundreds or thousands of times higher, or that he would say he's not in danger (even though it doesn't benefit anyone) which hurts his wife and children very badly, and forces him to be separated from his family and the country he has lived in his entire adult life?

The situation he is in is beyond cruel and unjust, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
by barry-cotter | 2025-04-15 22:01:18+00:00
This doesn’t fix your problem if the people you let in cost more than they contribute in taxes. See for example the Netherlands where non-Western immigrants are large net negative contributors and their children are no better. https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf

Similar results apply in Denmark. https://docs.iza.org/dp8844.pdf

EU style negatively selected immigration where easily a billion people are eligible for asylum and refugee status with easy family reunification means immigration is a large net negative fiscal contributor.
by gwern | 2025-04-15 22:02:43+00:00
> For the first time, Liquid uncovers a scaling law that performance drop unavoidably brought by the unified training of visual and language tasks diminishes as the model size increases...No prior work has explored whether LLMs retain the power-law scaling laws observed in language tasks when extended to visual generation tasks. We prove this alignment and further show that vision can be effectively learned by LLMs as a form of language.

Does this really show much that https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.03728#facebook (uncited) and other earlier work did not?
by all2 | 2025-04-15 22:03:16+00:00
For a long time I've wanted to install one of these to pull graffiti off of trains. As art goes, graffiti is one of the last 'free' expressions where it is essentially truly anonymous and definitely not for money. Being free of those constraints, I think, frees the mind to truly create.

And I'd love an archive somewhere of some of the truly awesome train art I've seen.
by Manuel_D | 2025-04-15 22:03:52+00:00
Neoliberal policy as defined in Abundance didn't fail the working class, because those policies weren't put in place in most blue cities. Housing is expensive in San Francisco precisely because the reforms outlined in Abundance weren't made. Real estate in SF is about as far from "free market" as you can get.

The denialism of market forces is one of the worst aspects of progressives. Like it or not, the only way housing is going to become cheap is if there so much housing available that landlords actually have to compete for tenants.

You can build public housing, and have a 20 year waiting list for it. You can have rent control, but that only benefits long-time residents at the expense of newcomers. But the only thing that will make cheap housing widely available is to make it easy to build, so developers can saturate the market with housing.
by n_ary | 2025-04-15 22:04:00+00:00
Are we sure that the damage is in “millions”? Could it not be just the same old “vocal and loud minority”, who will wake up tomorrow and re-activate their subscription before the lunch break once Cursor team comes and writes a heartfelt apology post (well generated by AI with a system prompt of “you are a world class PR campaign manager …”)?
by didgetmaster | 2025-04-15 22:04:13+00:00
There are a number of highly contentious subjects where the other side seems to be a bunch of toddlers to us, no matter which side we find ourselves on.

Abortion, climate change, free market capitalism, tax policy, racism, or identity politics are just a few. Even though both sides generally have some valid points to support their side; rarely does anyone's argument or debate cause someone else to switch sides.

Too often both camps are firmly entrenched wIth many who feel that anyone in the other camp is not just wrong, but is evil.

Neither side wants to give an inch in the public sphere, lest it be taken as a sign of weakness. This leads to the most shrill, radical voices taking center stage on both sides.

The most extreme positions are promoted and reinforced. There are a number of vested interests in the media and political arenas who like it that way.
by dayvigo | 2025-04-15 22:04:55+00:00
What definition of rational are you using? Being a rational actor typically means displaying consistent goal-oriented behavior. Being lobotomized seems pretty irrational. It reduces your power and makes you less able to achieve goals (if you can achieve them at all), including basic self-care.

>Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you.

That's not what rationality is. What terminal goals one should have, which in humans is informed by emotions, is not a concern of rationality. Rationality concerns how to achieve terminal goals.
by h2zizzle | 2025-04-15 22:05:22+00:00
/r9k/ is such a weird situation, because its original incarnation prided itself on being an intellectual bastion on the site. The robot meant that you couldn't meme so easily; you had to attempt to write something substantial or meaningful (or at least original). Most were simply discussions, but you'd also get creative gems like futureguy's sobering predictions (well, history, for him).

tfwnogf really did kill everything.
by majorchord | 2025-04-15 22:05:45+00:00
> Someone like adding to their license

I would assume that clause would be unenforceable. They may be able to try to sue for violating the terms of the license, but I'm fairly confident they're not going to get a judge to order them to give their model away for free even if they won. And they would likely still need to show damages in order to win a contract case.
by its-summertime | 2025-04-15 22:06:14+00:00
How many pixels are in `I` vs how many are in `W`? different averages as a result. With subpixel rendering, kerning, etc, there is minute differences between the averages of `IW` and `WI` as well, order can be observed. It is almost completely based on having so much extra knowledge: the background of the text, the color of the text, the text renderer, the font, etc, there are a massive amount of unknowns if it is a random picture, but if we have all this extra knowledge, it massively cuts down on the amount of things we need to try: if its 4 characters, we can make a list of all possibilities, do the same mosaic, and find the closest match, in nearly no time.
by FitCodIa | 2025-04-15 22:07:20+00:00
> "This was the right way to do it forty years ago, so that's why the experience is worse" isn't a compelling reason for a user to suffer today.

On my system, "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-gcc-common" lists 26 gcc-*-linux-gnu packages (that is, kernel / firmware cross compilers for 26 architectures). The command "dnf repoquery --whatrequires cross-binutils-common" lists 31 binutils-*-linux-gnu packages.

The author writes, "LLVM and all cross compilers that follow it instead put all of the backends in one binary". Do those compilers support 25+ back-ends? And if they do, is it good design to install back-ends for (say) 23 such target architectures that you're never going to cross-compile for, in practice? Does that benefit the user?

My impression is that the author does not understand the modularity of gcc cross compilers / packages because he's unaware of (or doesn't care for) the scale that gcc aims at.
by os2warpman | 2025-04-15 22:07:33+00:00
>Using a 700 Isp laser-thermal engine on the lower stage of a 50 ton rocket requires more than 2 GW of laser power to lift off the launch pad. Accounting for inefficiencies, between 5.5 and 18GW of electrical power has to be fed to the launch facility.

Oh that's all?

And you're going to avoid having to spend $600 billion on the equivalent of four Ōi Nuclear Power Plants by wishing a practically impossible flywheel proposed as an exercise in engineering optimism over 30 years ago into existence?

Sweet!

To put less than the payload of a single Falcon Heavy into space?

Why build one when you can have two at twice the price!

edit: forgot the 90s were 30 years ago.....
by al_borland | 2025-04-15 22:07:34+00:00
Back in the TechTV days one of the hosts used Photoshop to crop a photo of herself before posting it online. One would think a crop, completely removing the part of the image would be even better than solid black. However, with the way Photoshop worked in 2003, it didn't crop the embedded Exif thumbnail, which people were able to use to get the uncropped image.
by porphyra | 2025-04-15 22:08:18+00:00
Yeah most of the information is lost, but if you know the font used for the text (as is the case with a screencast of a macOS window), then you can try every possible combination of characters, render it, and then apply the averaging, and see which ones produce the same averaged color that you see. In addition, in practice not every set of characters is equally likely --- it's much more likely for a folder to be called "documents" than "MljDQRBO4Gg". So that further narrows down the amount of trying you have to do. You are right, of course, that the bigger the group of pixels, the harder it gets: exponentially so.
by lynndotpy | 2025-04-15 22:08:25+00:00
TLDR: Most of the data is indeed "lost". If the group of pixels are big enough, this method alone becomes infeasible.

More details:

The larger the group of pixels, the more characters you'd have to guess, and so the longer this would take. Each character makes it combinatorially more difficult

To make matters worse, by the pigeonhole principle, you are guaranteed to have collisions (i.e. two different sets of characters which pixelate to the same value). E.g. A space with just 6 possible characters, even if limited to a-zA-Z0-9, that's 62*6 = 56800235584, while you can expect at most 2048 color values for it to map to.

(Side note: That's 2048 colors, not 256, between #000000 and #FFFFFF. This is because your pixelation / mosaic algorithm can have eight steps inclusive between, say, #000000 and #010101. That's #000000, #000001, #000100, #010000, #010001, #010100, #000101, and #010101.

Realistically, in scenarios where you wouldn't have pixel-perfect reproduction, you'd need to generate all the combos and sort by closest to the target color, possibly also weighted by a prior on the content of the text. This is even worse, since you might have too many combinations to store.)

So, at 25 pixel blocks, encompassing many characters, you're going to have to get more creative with this. (Remember, just 6 alphanumeric characters = 56 billion combinations.)

Thinking about this as "finding the preimage of a hash", you might take a page from the password cracking toolset and assume priors on the data. (I.e. Start with blocks of text that are more likely, rather than random strings or starting from 'aaaaaa' and counting up.)
by constantcrying | 2025-04-15 22:08:28+00:00
Almost all art is created without any compensation. Some failed rock band should not be given money because they "tried hard".

Nobody owes artists commercial success for the act of making art.

The idea that it is work theft not to compensate failed artist is ridiculous. Who is to pay, the state?

Of course many of the most successful creators in the world give their creations away for free. They do not charge a single cent from their watchers and still can make enormous amounts of money. YouTube proved that you do not need IP protection to become wealthy from your creations. YouTubers make money in other ways, totally independent from policing their IP.
by dwattttt | 2025-04-15 22:08:40+00:00
Blanket advice always has edge cases. Re. whether GLOB'ing is good or bad, it pushes all the structure to your filesystem.

This is fine if your directories exactly map to binaries/libs/what-have-you, but what if you want unit tests for functions in each source file? Should you compile those with your binary? You could move them all into a tests folder and have a bin and a tests, but what if you want a test binary per source file (maybe your tests erratically take out their host process?)

The bottom line is that there has to be structure _somewhere_. If you're leaning heavily into CMake and your project isn't trivial, some of that structure may as well go into the build system.
by FloorEgg | 2025-04-15 22:09:03+00:00
Thank you for explaining this. I don't have much experience discussing politics on the internet and so I have some catching up to do in my understanding of the etiquette. I can now see how my question came off as disrespectful, but it's not how I meant it. I asked it in the way I would ask one of my friends in good faith.

I have learned my lesson and I will try and be more thoughtful in my questioning moving forward.

Again, thank you, if you (and a couple others) hadn't responded by explaining my mistake I would have gone on assuming that I was being downvoted for the wrong reasons.
by kmeisthax | 2025-04-15 22:09:38+00:00
You forgot problem 4: You need to provide your VC ownership a profitable exit.

This plays off problem 3. Growth-focused social media platforms don't want to remove anything but the noisiest noise, because there's still a pair of monetizable eyeballs behind most sources of noise. In fact, if you can be particularly noisy, you generate drama, which makes the platform emotionally salient and thus stickier.

How this applies to 4chan is vague since 4chan isn't exactly a growth platform. Moot's VC ownership was his mom's credit card[0] and his exit was "panic selling to hiroyuki because Hollywood actors' lawyers are breathing down my neck". Hiroyuki himself is incredibly sketchy. As far as I can tell, he bought 4chan mainly because 2channel got rugpulled by his domain registrar[1], after 2channel also had a massive data breach. Funny how history repeats.

Anyway, imageboard ownership being a fractal mirror of the incestuous bullshit going on in big tech and far-right politics aside, once a social network or forum becomes big enough to be 'known', it tends to stick, because moving off those platforms is a collective action problem. So between you holding your friends mutually hostage and the drama from letting the dumbest idiots post on your site, you've created a powerfully addictive socialization substitute that can be manipulated to make people do whatever. Quality posters and value don't matter; in fact, once you're established you want the quality level to go down.

Digg collapsed because they replaced the entire website with something completely different. They didn't fail to moderate the community, they just shut it down. It'd be like if tomorrow Facebook said "we're not doing user posts anymore, we're just going to have a bunch of comment sections for videos from legacy media outfits". Everyone would leave immediately because there's no more mutual-hostage-taking by your friends.

[0] This is not to be confused with Canvas, a similar imageboard platform also started by Moot that lasted like a year.

[1] If you believe the guy who stole the domain, the data breach rendered 2channel unable to pay domain hosting fees. That being said, the guy who stole the domain is also the owner of 8chan and a huge QAnon nutter, if not Q himself, and stealing your client's website because they ran out of money is an extremely malicious move.

As far as anyone knows, hiroyuki got the money to buy 4chan from Good Smile Company. Yes, the people who made Nendoroids.
by ashephard | 2025-04-15 22:09:57+00:00
Abstract This hypothesis presents a three-tier “Sequence of Collapse” model that unifies quantum mechanics, classical physics, cosmology, consciousness, and metaphysics, resolving the quantum-classical transition and fundamental mysteries of existence. Reality emerges through an innate consciousness field, pre-existing like unified forces before the Big Bang, which enables two collapse events. The First Collapse occurs at the Big Bang, where photon-matter interactions initiate decoherence, narrowing quantum wavefunctions without resolving superposition. The Second Collapse, triggered by conscious observation, finalizes definite classical outcomes, bridging the quantum-classical divide by resolving superposition into macroscopic phenomena. The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment supports this, showing that measurement entangles without collapsing — only conscious interaction determines classical states. This framework posits consciousness as a fundamental field, active in complex systems, and draws parallels to non-dual metaphysical traditions while grounding them in physics. By modifying the Schrödinger equation with a consciousness-dependent term, the model explores implications for entanglement, non-locality, and unified field theory, suggesting a participatory universe where awareness shapes reality’s definite form.

Contents

Introduction Cosmic Sequence of Collapse Second Collapse: Consciousness as Final Resolution Background & Context: Entanglement, Interpretation, and Collapse Implications for a Unified Field Theory Mathematical Framework: Consciousness as a Modifying Field Mysteries Resolved Conclusion References 1. Introduction The nature of consciousness, its role in resolving quantum superpositions into definite classical phenomena, and its place in the cosmos remain profound mysteries across science and philosophy. Quantum mechanics suggests observation collapses the wavefunction, yet how this bridges quantum and classical realms, resolves the measurement problem, or explains awareness itself is unclear. This paper presents a three-tier “Sequence of Collapse” hypothesis that unifies quantum mechanics, classical physics, cosmology, consciousness, and metaphysics. An innate consciousness field, pre-existing like unified forces before the Big Bang, enables two collapse events: the First Collapse, where photon-matter interactions initiate decoherence at the Big Bang, narrowing quantum wavefunctions without resolving superposition, and the Second Collapse, where conscious observation finalizes definite classical outcomes, forming the reality we experience. The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment (Kim et al., 2000) supports this, showing measurement entangles without collapsing — only conscious interaction resolves classical states, suggesting a participatory universe where awareness shapes reality, with parallels to non-dual metaphysical insights rooted in physics.
by yesfitz | 2025-04-15 22:10:13+00:00
Anyone have some confident speculation on who this service is targeting?

It seems like the goal here is to be fast, reliable, and predictably priced. A lot of the scenarios I'm coming up with are negotiable on at least one of those points. e.g. Low volume, high value transactions like buying a car can take a few minutes and/or go through more expensive routes because it's not that different relative to the value. High volume, low value transactions like buying a soda have larger margins to absorb some price volatility.

It's interesting timing too given the widespread adoption of FedNow[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
by simple10 | 2025-04-15 22:10:23+00:00
Yes, this. That's my bet if OpenAI follows through with social features.

Extend ChatGPT to allow multiple people / friends to interact with the bot and each other. Would be interesting UX challenge if they're able to pull it off. I frequently share chats from other platforms, but typically those platforms don't allow actual collaboration and instead clone the chat for the people I shared.
by generalizations | 2025-04-15 22:10:24+00:00
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The question is whether an illegal immigrant even has access to due process, according to a strict legal reading of the law. This was one of the arguments being thrown around - whether or not "any person" in the above applies to illegal immigrants or just US-born noncitizens (native american indians? I forget).

I think you completely missed the point of my reference to the 14th.

Edit: btw the "within its jurisdiction" phrase above is probably why the supreme court is treading so carefully around the el salvador part of this - they can't give the administration any grounds to point out that el salvador is outside US jurisdiction. That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-04-15 22:10:54+00:00
My experience too, in many cases, is that I already know (even if in a vague sense) how to do the thing I'm trying to coax out of the model, but a quick prompt "split this string on $CHAR" or whatever is much faster than me fiddling with forgotten bash syntax.

This approach is different than blind trust in the output from a place of ignorance.
by efitz | 2025-04-15 22:10:57+00:00
Looking through your window is already covered by a lot of laws (it’s legal sometimes in some places if you didn’t take reasonable effort to prevent it [like closing the blinds], and as long as there was no trespass). Of If I captured a small enough section of a video - say one frame in a photo- that likely is fair use. It is not crystal clear.

I’m getting to the ethical aspect but also trying to be pragmatic. “Publishing a bunch of information on the internet accessible without authentication” is an action that is fundamentally incompatible with controlling the use of that information.

The law cannot substitute for common sense; criminals are gonna crime.
by FloorEgg | 2025-04-15 22:11:28+00:00
Yes, I understand my mistake now. Thankfully a couple other people explained it with a bit more nuance than you have here, but regardless I appreciate you taking a moment to offer me feedback instead of just downvoting me. I had never heard of the sea lion concept before. I am not new to this world, but I am new to discussing politics on the internet and am still learning how to do it constructively.
by electricshampo1 | 2025-04-15 22:12:38+00:00
Nice to see SDC concerns being taken more seriously by hardware folks. Once software gets to sufficient quality (which we have achieved in many cases), these kinds of rando hw issues are the only remaining causes of "impossible" bugs that waste endless engineering time to debug.

I wonder how much of this relies on or is made easier by the clustered core architecture of E-Core Xeons. In comparison each physical core of P-Core Xeons is its own island basically.
by sho_hn | 2025-04-15 22:12:49+00:00
Gotcha, the NLP-enabled version of the good old IRC weatherbot.

For a moment I had a funnier mental image of a chat app with an input field that treats every input as a prompt, and everyone's chatting through the veil of an LLM verbosity filter.

There might be something chat RPG-like there worth trying though ...
by sherdil2022 | 2025-04-15 22:13:21+00:00
Why did Columbia fold? I am glad Harvard stood up against tyranny, fascism - and all the other ugliness of this administration - and hopefully this will turn the tide against the totalitarianism that is sweeping the nation.

p.s: Anyone on HN think are afraid to comment here against the administration for fear that they will be tracked and comments used against them?
by dylan604 | 2025-04-15 22:13:23+00:00
And the old 10 CDs for $0.01 requiring a minimum full price purchase of some sort of subscription that is difficult to cancel has been around long before modern SaaS platforms.

The old "which long distance carrier do you want?" with an "I don't care" response resulted in you receiving the most expensive long distance plan from a company called "I Don't Care".

Just because scams/shaddy practices existed in the days of yore does not make them any more acceptable today.