MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by colechristensen | 2025-04-05 21:33:05+00:00
That's not really what I mean.

What I'm saying is set a minimum wage on imports. Set a global minimum wage. Anyone importing something from somewhere that doesn't meet that minimum wage would have to pay a tariff greater than the amount saved with low wages.

The goal is to increase competition and improve fairness between locations. You wouldn't want to do it all at once at first, rather a gradual increase. You wouldn't want to distort the local economy too much so don't insist somewhere pay 10x the median local wage. Lots of things you would do which are more complex with an eye for fairness and competitiveness and definitely not trying to raise everyone by force to American levels of wages, but always measured amounts of pressure.
by throwanem | 2025-04-05 21:34:45+00:00
I mean I get that, what I don't get is why screwing around that way is not explicitly defined as "don't do this, here's why it isn't supported and here's what you should try to do instead; if you ignore all that and still break something, you get to keep both its pieces" in the documentation, rather than trying to work around it with some kind of global reset.

Why should the engine burden itself with an undo stack (even if only one frame deep) for every client, on behalf of a minority so incoherently implemented that it can't keep straight what it's doing across the span of two (application and ORM library) codebases? A metaphor already exists in the interface for getting a fresh connection: you do this by creating a fresh connection. If you want some other way to accomplish the same task, it's fair to require justification for the effort of providing that second option, and no such justification is presented in the article under discussion.

I don't like ORMs, I think it's long obvious. But to be excruciatingly clear, I grant them the same courtesy as any other library in that they absolutely may declare things explicitly out of scope. Seeing that not done, in a case where the consumer is pretty explicitly screwing around with internals of a database connection belonging to the library, is what's surprising, even in the context of ORMs as a category, where maximalism seems so constantly the order of the day.
by colechristensen | 2025-04-05 21:36:32+00:00
Protectionism is France and England putting tariffs on each others cheese. America putting tariffs on Canadian lumber.

Putting tariffs on places that have a 20x factor difference in wages is something else.

And protectionism isn't necessarily a dirty word. It's often valuable to save your local industries from being wiped out and to not have a foreign country have complete control of a necessity.
by godelski | 2025-04-05 21:36:39+00:00
First off, I love the game. Your mom isn't just placating you. It is fun.

Second, I think given all this advice a real clear example can be seen by looking at NYT's Wordle[0]. Instructions are the first thing you see and cover the puzzle. You then click start.

Importantly, the instructions have an example. While the puzzle is extremely intuitive, an example can eliminate almost any ambiguity (intuitive for most people but maybe not kids, non-native English speakers, or just things like someone shoves the game into their friends face. Who knows). There can be a button on the side to show instructions again, which should cover the puzzle and stop the timer.

> Having a timer (urgency) is usually not a very good idea for thinky games.

Personally, I like the timer. The game is simple and clearly meant to be played in a small fast setting, so I think this works. Can also reduce pressure (as well as induce) since someone might think "oh, I got 5 minutes to play" instead of having to "sit down".

There's plenty of "thinky games" that have timers: Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune are two good examples. Almost any TV game is timed. I don't think there's a problem with this and the pressure can make it fun while also conveying that it won't take a person all day.

> There’s no point of having a “Play again”

Could be good to show solutions. If not, maybe also count "attempts"? IDK

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/games/wordle/index.html
by danhon | 2025-04-05 21:36:43+00:00
"In a GitHub ticket viewed by WIRED, Lavingia also suggested abandoning Drupal, a content management system (CMS) that the VA uses for publishing updates and information about the agency and the services it provides on VA facility websites. “I think we should consider removing Drupal as part of our workflow, and all content should just live in the codebase,” he wrote."

https://archive.is/2025.04.05-020504/https://www.wired.com/s...
by junga | 2025-04-05 21:36:47+00:00
> Advertising is cancer, and I’m tired of pretending it’s not.

That's the most "hacker" newsy thing to me. Whenever advertising critical articles come up, there's a large percentage of people commenting pro advertising. Yeah, I get it, you don't bite the hand that feeds you but come on. Does working in ad tech somehow influence your brains like the ones you are targeting?
by CRConrad | 2025-04-05 21:38:14+00:00
"Income"?!? Did we read the same article? The author got a pittance.

> ...inked a deal with a publishing house - explicitly that means doing it for the money

Reads to me much more like in this case, it rather explicitly means doing it for the purpose of getting her story out, knowingly taking the hit of getting just a pittance for it.

> and the result is a whinging about how sour they feel about the whole thing.

No, the result is a factual account about how prospective authors should go into this stuff knowingly, not expect anything close to a living income just from being an author, and be prepared to take the hit of getting just a pittance for getting their story out, if that purpose is important to them. You really must have read some other article.

> The is ain’t Anne Frank’s diary in the slightest.

Yeah, TBH I am also not expecting an immortal masterwork. But, hey, won't we both be surprised as fuck if it turns out to be one? It could happen. :-) (And, hey, it's been many decades since I read Anne Frank’s diary... But as I recall it, purely as a piece of literature that really wasn't an immortal masterwork either. So this might well equal or better that level.)
by an_aparallel | 2025-04-05 21:39:07+00:00
As long as capitalism is the current zietgeist, nothing wrt advertising changes.

In Australia, liquor ads were banned on sports jerseys and stadiums, tv (i think) and so on. But now we have this ridiculous Orwellian environment where literally every jersey is plastered with an online betting platform, online and tv advertising for these same (addictive) platforms. Each ad is suffixed with a tiny disclaimer that "gambling destroys lives/gamble responsibly". Fucking please....

I used to work in advertising. One thing is clear, the biggest advertisers have insane amounts of money to throw around. It doesnt have to be effective, all it has to do is repeat itself, everywhere at all times.

Advertising is very closely linked to oversupply of products we dont need. Governments are to be very clear not in existence to safeguard the public from anything. If they were, the law would penalise large producers for planned obscelesence, poor quality products designed to break, which in turn requires incessant advertising to keep the machine moving.
by tomp | 2025-04-05 21:40:21+00:00
> individual tokens are routed to different experts

that was AFAIK (not an expert! lol) the traditional approach

but judging by the chart on LLaMa4 blog post, now they're interleaving MoE models and dense Attention layers; so I guess this means that even a single token could be routed through different experts at every single MoE layer!
by throwuxiytayq | 2025-04-05 21:40:29+00:00
I only use Copilot for code completion, the other features are insufferably bad, at least in my IDE. I’m beginning to feel like I’m seriously overpaying. Does MS not update their completion model, or is it just my impression that suggestion quality has been stagnant for literally years? Do you guys know any cloud based code completion services with performance superior to Copilot?
by ModernMech | 2025-04-05 21:40:40+00:00
> as we fall into secret police and citizens being taken in the night and put in camps or falling out of windows, that's the line for me.

When this happens, it's already too late. Because it means they've already disappeared all the easy people, and they're comfortable enough to start disappearing citizens. So you should move your line waaaaaaay up to when they start disappearing the undesirables.

A really good line would have been calling for free and fair elections to be overturned. They made their intentions very clear that day.

Now secret police are disappearing people off the street but that's still not crossing the line, because the status of their citizenship is under question.

But you see there's only one more step for them to cross your line. So let me ask you: what are you going to do when (not if) it's crossed?
by willsmith72 | 2025-04-05 21:40:57+00:00
But why? The whole premise seems wrong.

> The financial incentives to create addictive digital content would instantly disappear

No they wouldn't.. the business model would change. Facebook sells ads to businesses and entertainment to consumers. People still want to be entertained.

What about the positive effects from advertising? Many products which I never knew existed have gone on to improve my life.

To kill addictive digital content (especially those targeted at young people), just go after them directly. I agree the world will be a better place once we don't spend 10-16 years old online. But the advertising argument doesn't make any sense to me.
by balamatom | 2025-04-05 21:41:07+00:00
>how well an idea as simple as "find patterns in sequences" actually works for the purpose of sounding human

What surprises me is the assumption that there's more than "find patterns in sequences" to "sounding human" i.e. to emitting human-like communication patterns. What else could there be to it? It's a tautology.

>If the recent developments don't surprise you, I just chalk it up to lack of curiosity.

Recent developments don't surprise me in the least. I am, however, curious enough to be absolutely terrified by them. For one, behind the human-shaped communication sequences there could previously be assumed to be an actual human.
by UncleEntity | 2025-04-05 21:42:40+00:00
The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes.

The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons.

They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.
by pseudalopex | 2025-04-05 21:42:45+00:00
With no evidence the proper assumption would be no assumption.

But evidence was presented child sexual abuse declined since 1990. The question was how to explain it.

Punishment severity doesn't much reduce child sexual abuse probably. But not because it's a sick compulsion. Punishment severity doesn't much reduce most crimes. Financial crimes included.

They mentioned chances of being caught also. Punishment likelihood is an effective deterrent generally.

Pornography could be a factor. Many studies found rape decreased in countries when pornography became more available.
by kragen | 2025-04-05 21:43:42+00:00
It's not a well-enough-thought-out proposal to call "radical"; it assumes that making advertising illegal would make advertising go away and that there would be no drawbacks to this. Even if we all agree that it's bad for people to say things they're paid to say instead of what they really believe, there are many possible approaches to writing specific laws to diminish that practice. Those approaches represent different tradeoffs. You can't say anything nontrivial about the whole broad set of possible policy proposals.

To me it sounds a lot like "What if we made drugs illegal?"
by paxys | 2025-04-05 21:44:01+00:00
Google has already been through countless lawsuits because of its indexing, and what we see now is the sum total of all the wins/losses/settlements constantly happening in every jurisdiction in the world. The number of words they can show in the snippets, how they must respond to takedown requests, how they must share revenue for content, what they can and cannot cache, how personal info is removed upon request, how someone's house is blurred out, what content fee they must pay news publishers...everything is regulated. So "Google does it" is not at all an excuse that OpenAI or anyone else can use.
by metalman | 2025-04-05 21:44:44+00:00
There was a hard won battle? there was most defintly not, but itcs worth a try, so lets start with exterminating rats, mice, cockroaches. And then providing a minimum standard of care and funding for the millions of poor, unhealthy, disease carrying humans. And then worry too much about the dumb fucking cats, which as you might be able to discern, do not have my sympathy, but I am coward enough, not to mess with the legions of cat lovers......,..but did get down voted for the following Rat?, Bat!, Splat!, how bout that.
by parkaboy | 2025-04-05 21:44:45+00:00
Even if it seems like everyone is saying this, it's just statistically not true / in the aggregate, at least in the context of direct online ads. Otherwise the direct ad industry would be totally dead (ad performance is measured to death by companies).

Conversion (getting someone to purchase) at scale with ads is not so simple as person sees ad, clicks, and buys. There are many steps along the funnel and sometimes ads can be used in concert with other channels (influencer content, sponsored news articles, etc). Within direct ads you typically have multiple steps depending on how cold or warm (e.g. have they seen or interacted with your content previously) the lead is when viewing the ad and you tailor the ad content accordingly to try to keep pushing the person down the funnel.

Generally if you know your customer persona well and have good so-called product-market-fit, then (1) you will be able to build a funnel that works at scale. So then (2) the question is does the cost to convert a customer / CAC fit within the profit margin, which is much more difficult to unpack.

However, it's worth keeping in mind that digital ad costs are essentially invented by the ad platform. There is a market-type of force. If digital ads become less effective and the CAC goes too high across an industry/sector, the platform may be forced to reduce the cost to deliver ads if the channel just doesn't make enough financial sense for enough businesses.

All this is to say, the system does/can work. Tends to work better for large established companies or startups with lots of funding. In general, not a suggested approach as a first channel for a small startup/small business. Building up effective funnels is incredibly expensive and takes a lot of time in my depressing personal experience.
by LinuxBender | 2025-04-05 21:45:26+00:00
.monster has been associated with spamming and phishing.

I block it on my firewall and my self hosted mail servers. Zero regrets doing so. All the TLD's that go for real cheap are instantly picked up by spammers and phishers. This is why we can't have nice things.

grep monster /etc/unbound/_*/*nxdom*conf local-zone: "monster" always_nxdomain
by cauch | 2025-04-05 21:47:07+00:00
I think the problem is that everyone is claiming they don't remain in the bubble, including you. Why should I trust you when you say you don't remain in your bubble or that you are motivated in finding the truth, especially when you write an article that checks all the boxes of someone who is satisfied with comfortable conclusions?

It's the problem with this sentence:

> Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there

The behavior of other people makes way more sense if you just consider that people have different values and different interests. If you take your list of values, people that are not aligned with you will, by definition of not being aligned, look to you as they are not desiring to seek the truth. For two reasons: 1) because some of the things you believe being truth are just BS. You are wrong (as we all are sometimes on some topics), and you are just seeing them dismissing something false and, in fact, they are the ones being interested in seeking the truth while you are not, 2) because some of the things you believe being an important truth is not important or relevant for them. I'm pretty sure you don't "display a desire to seek the truth" when it comes to the VIIth century Buddhist philosophy. Sure, if someone talks about it to you, you may say you are interested and follow what they say, but you still will look "not desiring to seek the truth": if they bring a conundrum in this topic to you, you will not drop everything and scream "oh my god, I need to find the answer, nothing else matter now". That's an extreme example, and there is a spectrum, but that illustrates that some of these people who you categorize as "not desiring to seek the truth" are in fact desiring to seek the truth, just not with the same path as you are, so they look like that to you. And, guess what, _you_ look like you don't desire to seek the truth to them.

That sentence is, to me, very very telling: it did not even one second occur to you that maybe they are interesting in seeking the truth but are doing it in a different way or on different subjects. And by doing so, by not carefully considering all the possibilities, you show that yourself you have equally no desire to seek the truth. (if you see what I mean: you see Mr A not exploring all the possibilities on the subject that you like, so you conclude that they have no desire to seek the truth, but then, Mr A sees you not exploring all the possibilities on some subjects that you are overlooking. How is that different?)

That is exactly the same problem with the "consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble": a majority of them are not in a bubble, but it looks like that you because you are not aligned with them. And you are explaining that moderate like you, some of them are in a bubble, but others are not. The only possibility to your eyes to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with you. The only possibility for them to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with them.
by Delk | 2025-04-05 21:47:42+00:00
I really don't see why you wouldn't expect to find cache-sensitivity in Python, or in some other similarly high-level language.

Python sequences are defined as "support[ing] efficient element access using integer indices" [1]. Python lists are sequences and thus must support random access. In practice that means the implementation is a (dynamically resizing) array allocated contiguously. That means spatial locality is relevant.

If the list type were defined simply as an iterable collection, with no requirement of constant-time random access, the definition would be abstract enough that an implementation might end up being something else than a contiguous array. But if you define the type so that it supports constant-time random access [2], you pretty much end up with cache-friendly sequential access as well.

If you don't define the list type as supporting random access, you also sacrifice asymptotic algorithmic efficiency for lookups by index. Any language that cares about efficiency at all separates collections that support efficient random access from those that don't. (For example, Python has lists and dicts/sets for different access patterns. The Java standard library has separate types for contiguous arrays/lists, hashtable-backed collections and tree-backed collections because the three have different algorithmic efficiencies for different access patterns. In practice it leads to different properties in terms of cache-friendliness as well.)

[1] https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-sequence

[2] As usual, the Python documentation is a bit vague on the details. It doesn't really say random access has to be constant-time, only that it has to be "efficient". So you might be able to have a non-constant time implementation such as an indexable skiplist while arguing that it's efficient, but you'd have to go out of your way to do that.
by mrajcok | 2025-04-05 21:48:50+00:00
Yes - I'm able to run Llama 3.1 405B on 3x A6000 + 3x 4090.

Will have Llama 4 Maverick running in 4bit quantization (typically results in only minor quality degradation) once llama.cpp support is merged.

Total hardware cost well under $50,000.

The 2T Behemoth model is tougher, but enough Blackwell 6000 Pro cards (16) should be able to run it for under $200k.
by nmstoker | 2025-04-05 21:49:18+00:00
Nice idea but so utterly unenforceable. If you want to look at challenges around regulating advertising, the ASA in the UK is an interesting case, as when being set up in the 60s, they foresaw many of the difficulties and structured themselves to minimise them. If you're overly specific, people look for loopholes, so they focused on the spirit and they also went with a strong element of self-regulation whilst still having teeth where necessary. Even so, in the modern world, the internet spanning jurisdictions makes it all very hard to deal with.
by Ferret7446 | 2025-04-05 21:49:58+00:00
> imagine a world without advertising

I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable.

It's impossible. How do you even define advertising? If you define it conservatively, then advertising will skirt through the loopholes. If you define it liberally, then you have an unfair, authoritarian system that will definitely be selectively enforced against political enemies.

And in all cases, you are self-imposing a restriction that will give other nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-term sovereignty.
by saagarjha | 2025-04-05 21:50:04+00:00
A couple of reasons. One is that NASA is an arm of the United State's advanced research, and if you want to get compounding returns there the goal is that you allocate a proportion of your spending there rather than a fixed value, because every year some of that research will drive gains to your GDP. Another is that the services that NASA provides gradually expands as it provides more things to society: I expect that alongside space exploration there is an increasing budget allocated to dealing with civilian spaceflight. So if you keep the budget constant then you are necessarily prioritizing some things over others, which means a net decrease to specific programs.

Of course, none of this means it should be pegged at a specific fraction of the GDP, it's just a helpful metric to compare against when we look at overall spending. I expect its budget to fluctuate naturally as our needs from it change, and there are certainly programs that have fixed budgets (or even need less money as time goes on) that we should still be looking at. But in general the spending for things like NASA should gradually increase because of its goals.
by al_borland | 2025-04-05 21:50:59+00:00
I would be OK with the death of using user data to hyper target ads to people. I think they can be targeted enough based on context, such as a fishing blog having ads for fishing stuff. Modern advertising by the likes of Google and Facebook has too much information, to the point where it can manipulate and target people directly, as they can do with their algorithmic feeds as well.