MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dfltr | 2025-04-15 18:59:19+00:00
I think there's an additional step of "Find out what they want" that was left out of the original comment because the desires of actual toddlers are (usually) not fundamentally evil.

Do they want to exterminate your loved ones? Do they want to ship dissenters off to concentration camps? Do they want to simply profit off of the people in power who are doing those things? If so, the whole process has an early return case that's more along the lines of "Antifa rally at Omaha Beach."
by pier25 | 2025-04-15 18:59:27+00:00
Look, it's your article Dan, but it would be in your best interest to provide a tldr with the general points. It would help so that people don't misjudge your article (this has already happened). It could maybe make the article more interesting to people that initially discarded reading something so long too. And providing some kind of initial framework might help following along the article too for those that are actually reading it.
by nyrikki | 2025-04-15 18:59:47+00:00
You are assuming input-transformation based defenses in the image domain transfer to the music recognition domain, when we know they don't automatically even transfer to the speech recognition domain.

But 'protection' of any one song isn't the entire point. It only takes less than a fraction of a percent of corpus data to have persistent long term effects in the final model, or increase costs and review requirements to those stealing their content.

As most training is unsupervised, because the cost and limited access to quality, human labeled data, it wouldn't take much if even some obscure, limited market, older genres which still have active fan bases, like Noise rock to start filtering into recommendation engines and impact user satisfaction.

Most of the speech protections, just force attacks to be in the perceptible audio range, with lo-fi portions like those of TripHop, that would be non-detectable without the false positive rate going way up. With bands like Arab On Radar, Shellac, or The Oxes, it wouldn't be detectable.

But it is also like WAFs/AV software/IDS. The fact that it can't help with future threats today is immaterial. Any win of these leaches has some value.

Obviously any company intentionally applying even the methods in your linked paper to harvest protected images would be showing willful intent to circumvent copyright protections and I am guessing most companies will just toss any file that it thinks has active protections just because how sensitive training is.

Most musicians also know that copyright only protects the rich.
by dale_glass | 2025-04-15 18:59:59+00:00
I expect hosts to be neutral to the maximum possible extent.

For example I expect a host not to have an arbitrary beef with Bing or Kagi, or to refuse to allow connections from France. Blocking can of course be rarely necessary, but what I want from a host is a blocking policy as minimal and selective as possible.

Yes, I understand it's a lot of work and is quite inconvenient, but especially if I'm paying for a service, I'm interested in my interests, not in what's convenient for the host.
by resters | 2025-04-15 19:00:19+00:00
> That's a uniquely radical progressive take

"Radical left-wing lunatics"

I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else:

Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places).

In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere.

SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.
by wredcoll | 2025-04-15 19:00:20+00:00
Let's start from the beginning. There is, by and large, no such thing as ideological censorship in american university settings. Ideas are free to be advanced and argued with.

Certain ideas have been so heavily criticized that people have stopped bringing them up. Criticizing a speaker at a college is not censorship, it's criticism and argument. Having a protest outside a speaker's event isn't censorship either, it's free speech.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here since perhaps you genuinely don't know that the people you're aligning your argument with are asking for their own ideas to be free from criticism.

This might be a good starting point: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...

> This is sheer nonsense from the jump. Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. The very notion is completely incoherent. Someone else shaming me is their free speech, and someone else shunning me is their free association, both protected by the First Amendment.

When you bring up an abhorrent idea and I call you an idiot and ask you to leave, I'm not censoring you. If I refuse to invite you over next week, I'm still not censoring you. Nobody owes you a platform and demanding one is one of the more pernicious forms of free-speech-rights violations there are.
by caconym_ | 2025-04-15 19:00:59+00:00
> Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

> All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

In the context of copyright law, this is absurd. Fair use exists and it generally isn't even required to "allow" artistic and cultural influence to propagate. If I want to write a sci-fi novel that is heavily influenced and arguably even derivative of my favorite work of some other author, I am completely free to do so---i just can't copy it wholesale. Established fair use doctrine is certainly subject to criticism and future reform, but in a much more nuanced scope than you are applying here.

If you're talking about patents, that's a different conversation. But based on context, that isn't the conversation we're having here.

> burning it all down

Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure. Notably, people said that about both of Trump's presidential terms to date. I will let you make up your own mind on how that is going for us.

edit: I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.
by jack_h | 2025-04-15 19:01:24+00:00
Even if those attribution studies are 100% correct that doesn’t mean this system optimally allocates resources.

The ultimate issue with our social programs is due to demographics. An aging population whose replacement rate is projected to go negative (more deaths than births) within the next few years is catastrophic for the way we fund those programs. We absolutely should try and reduce their operating costs though; I agree with that.
by breppp | 2025-04-15 19:01:33+00:00
I am not sure if we know that Palestinians are native to this area, we have many things pointing otherwise. For example waves of migrations from Arabia after the arab conquest and soldiers being given land and settled there as reward.

Wikipedia is not the best of sources for this topic, but you can read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_migrations_to_the_Levant

Your perception of colonization is a bit anachronistic. Your understanding of what colonizing means is a bit different than what they had in mind, as evident by the difference of what Zionism means and what colonization means today.

Main differences are, no host country, no goal of economic exploitation, no goal of subjugating the locals and most importantly, as a means to return a people to its historical homeland by creating a national movement. This never happened anywhere else, which means colonization is a misnomer, decolonization in this case, if was not overloaded would be the closer term, but also non-exact
by senfiaj | 2025-04-15 19:01:47+00:00
Interesting, I did some testing, just opened the task manager and run this js code in the browser without opening dev tools in order to see how the browser will behave when I don't prevent any optimizations.

Then I commented withArrayTransform and uncommented withIteratorTransform and did again in a fresh tab to prevent the browser reusing the old process.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

const arr = Array.from({length: 100000000}, (_, i) => i % 10);

function withArrayTransform(arr) { return arr.slice(10, arr.length - 10).filter(el => el < 8).map(el => el + 5).map(el => el * 2).map(el => el - 7); }

function withIteratorTransform(arr) { return arr.values().drop(10).take(arr.length - 20).filter(el => el < 8).map(el => el + 5).map(el => el * 2).map(el => el - 7).toArray(); }

console.log(withArrayTransform(arr)) //console.log(withIteratorTransform(arr))

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The peak memory usage with withArrayTransform was about ~1.6GB. The peak memory usage with withIteratorTransform was about ~0.8GB. Results sometimes vary, and it honestly feels complicated, but the iterator version is consistently more memory efficient. As of the speed, the iterator version was about ~1.5 times slower.

So probably the GC quickly cleaned up some temporary arrays when it saw an excessive memory usage in the process of running withArrayTransform(arr).

But imagine you use flatMap which unrolls the returned iterable and it can create even a bigger temporary array than the original and the final one. So using iterables still has an advantage of protecting from excessive memory usage and potentially crashing the browser tab or the whole Node server. I think it's still a nice thing to have.
by blululu | 2025-04-15 19:02:18+00:00
>> Prior to WWII the U.S was a distant second in science and engineering. By the time the war was over, U.S. science and engineering had blown past the British, and led the world for 85 years.

Citation needed. The United States has been a scientific powerhouse for most of its history. On the eve of WWII the United States was the largest producer of automobiles, airplanes and railway trains on earth. It had largest telegraph system, the largest phone system, the most Radio/TV/Movie production & distribution or any country. It had the highest electricity generation. The largest petroleum production/refining capacity. The list goes on. This lead in production was driven by local innovations. Petroleum, electricity, telephones, automobiles and airplanes were all first pioneered in the United States during late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We can debate the causes of this but saying that the United States was a 2nd tier power behind the British or the Germans is demonstrably false.
by andrei_says_ | 2025-04-15 19:02:25+00:00
Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the child’s world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.

Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the context of a goal.

A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.

But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track of the rest. It’s a lose-lose scenario.
by jasonmarks_ | 2025-04-15 19:02:38+00:00
> Weird to see my home county pop up on HN

I second this sentiment. It is sorta bizarre, there is not really a tech scene in the area except for a few niche roles in support of Pax River Naval Base (I'm also operating my SaaS down here https://weatherthetrip.com/download :peace_sign:). I remember visiting this store back in the 2000's and was surprised when I saw it still in business a few months back.
by Etheryte | 2025-04-15 19:02:47+00:00
Out of curiosity, why do you think being as rational as you possibly can is a goal in and of itself. Mark Manson has a whole bit on this, in The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck if I recall correctly, that lobotomized people would fit that description pretty well, purely rational. 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. I don't think being more right is a noble goal. We all know the type, people who pick at every little thing to be technically right, but mostly they're just asshats who miss the forest for the trees.
by hintymad | 2025-04-15 19:03:16+00:00
I used to discuss my different views and presented data or facts that I gathered The facts, of course, could be wrong, as I have limited faulty to verify everything. Yet, instead of pointing out what I said was wrong, I got angry posts attacking my motives and my posts were flagged. So, now I know the game, and for such politically charged posts, I know what I can do easily: flag it away.
by dclowd9901 | 2025-04-15 19:03:35+00:00
I've found that putting arguments into simple, general terms tends to make people rethink their positions.

I had an argument with my dad a while back about single payer health care. A lot of people on the left might frame it like "don't you think everyone is entitled to access to health services?" But an idea like this is like nails on a chalkboard to my dad, who believes everything should be merit based, even access to health care.

Instead, phrasing it as "wouldn't you prefer it if we paid the same amount of money every month and when we go to the hospital we don't have to worry about any out of pocket costs?" This really nailed the point home to him. It's not about entitlements or whatever. It's about people not being destroyed financially by bad health. We skip over the feely stuff, we skip over the specifics of cost. We can both agree that this mechanism makes a lot of sense for most people, and the current system is rather arbitrary.

Anyway, he's still firmly a MAGA trumper but I do think on the aspect of health care, he does see single payer as a viable alternative.
by FloorEgg | 2025-04-15 19:03:51+00:00
You stated: "I don't understand why "rightward" viewpoints need affirmative action in the form of government regulations?"

And I attempted to explain (steelman) why some people may feel that this is necessary. For the record I think that this government letter, the precedent for it, etc. are authoritarian, and I don't support it.

My point is that schools have drifted in the values they support, and distinctly away from politically right values (both the good ones and the bad ones), which has made America more fragile and led to an increase in authoritarianism. I am not condoning an authoritarian solution to the problem, but I am aware of and attempting to explain the problem, because I thought you were inviting an explanation.

Little did I know your "I don't understand" wasn't an expression of curiosity. This is a great example of expressing values, since I place a higher value on curiosity, and I guess you place a higher value on judgement?
by LinuxBender | 2025-04-15 19:04:03+00:00
But I remember they had stuff like "ngger chimpout" compilation threads*

I guess that's why we don't really see quite eye-to-eye on this. I've seen all those threads and to me that's just kids being edgy because they know it triggers or activates people. Every group has it's trash and they are just singling out one specific groups shenanigans. The same behavior can be found of every breed of human and they would post it if it was edgy to do so. My breed has no shortage of dumb behavior but when it's posted people feel comfortable laughing at it thus it's not edgy or taboo enough.

As a side note, most of the kids on 4chan are also here on HN. They talk about this site, its users and dang all the time. I'm sure they are not happy that I am pointing out they are just LARPing.
by andrewflnr | 2025-04-15 19:04:11+00:00
Literally nothing about their approach resembles an attempt at efficiency. Efficiency is a ratio of input resources to output. No part of the DOGE program I've seen or heard of even considers that relationship. Simply firing people at best results in reduced output, or hiring more expensive contractors. And you've flushed institutional knowledge down the toilet. It's like turning a car off and pretending you've boosted its fuel efficiency because nothing is burning. Except that the car saved you time on other tasks, oops. Firing people and then immediately having to rehire them is hilariously inefficient. Rewriting legacy software like they're attempting at Social Security is a classically inefficient blunder.

I don't know if it's all about revenge, but it's absolutely not about efficiency. It's an edgy teen's idea of tough governance. It's the epitome of penny wise, pound foolish. It's false economy all the way down.
by jltsiren | 2025-04-15 19:04:21+00:00
The fundamental question is about basing research funding on merit: Should government funding go to the best researchers with best ideas, regardless of which university they are affiliated with? Rich elite universities can attract many of the best researchers, because of the resources and prestige they offer. And those researchers then win competitive grants from the government.

Some argue that research grants should be deliberately spread wider in order to fund a wider range of ideas. Instead of considering each funding call in isolation and awarding grants to the top 10-20% of applications, maybe existing funding should be considered a negative merit, regardless of its source. Or maybe there should be stricter limits on how many grants a single PI can have at the same time.
by actualwitch | 2025-04-15 19:04:58+00:00
Again, I provided a whole list, you just refuse to count them. Even the SSA cut alone will result in people being unable to access the services they need, as repeatedly discussed in media:

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-social-security-office-cl...

If you still insist that none of what I posted fits your definition of social net being dismantled, I invite you to post a definition that you have in mind. Given that I am confident I can find a match for it in activities of the admin.
by reissbaker | 2025-04-15 19:05:10+00:00
The British didn't split anything; the U.N. did. Who do you think has the right to draw country borders other than the U.N.? There was no "Palestine" on a map prior to the British: it was the Ottoman Empire, and there wasn't even a region or subdivision of it that mapped to the current or British-era borders, and the Ottomans themselves were oppressive colonizers. Do you demand that the Turks be given control? Where do you stop? Perhaps the Greeks should be given control of all of Turkey, and take back the Hagia Sophia; after all, it was theirs first. And who, pray tell, lived in the land of Israel before the Islamic conquests, and before Roman imperialism...?

As for Jews supposedly being able to live in peace prior to the British — you are once again incorrect. Jews were considered dhimmis, with various insane accompanying laws: Jews were legally required to dismount horses/donkeys and simply walk whenever any random Muslim passerby demanded it; a Muslim man could take a Jewish woman as a wife, but if a Jewish man tried to marry a Muslim woman he would be killed; Jewish orphans were systematically taken from the Jewish community by law and raised as Muslims — in fact, this is legally genocidal! — and in parts of the Ottoman Empire, the "Dung Gatherer's Decree" mandated that Jews clean the literal poop from Muslim sewers; in other parts they were forbidden from wearing shoes; Jews were killed in massacres by the thousands and synagogues burned; and of course, there's the famous Benny Morris quote from the 19th century in Jerusalem:

I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mohammedan.

Naturally the Jews were not eager to return to this state of affairs. And so just as India and Pakistan were created out of British India, Israel and Palestine were attempted to be created out of the British Mandate. The Muslim residents were very eager to return to the prior state of affairs, refused partition, invaded, and... lost. And again; most of their territory was taken by Egypt and Jordan, not Israel.
by mikepurvis | 2025-04-15 19:05:11+00:00
The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as you having also agreed with their assessment of the situation, perhaps even including second order judgments around things like the motives and character of other participants (I felt hurt ==> the apology wasn't sincere enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person ==> other people who like that person must be bad people).

It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding persists over time, and they continue not to be self aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in a way that is more congruent with the version of reality that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.
by deckard1 | 2025-04-15 19:05:11+00:00
It pretends to be. But in reality it's always been a VC honey pot.

I've stopped commenting here. I've made it a personal rule to only speak out against this tyranny and never talk about tech fluff, which is 100% of the front page of HN. I don't give two solid fucks about SQLite when the US government is throwing people in death camps in El Salvador.

This site is straight tech bro fascism. People are finally realizing that Elon isn't the guy his PR team created. He's not Tony Stark.
by vjerancrnjak | 2025-04-15 19:05:24+00:00
I did not insist people do not store future datetimes with offsets. I wondered if it's a mistake. People who store future datetimes with tz obviously have to parse all of them and would need performance, but my opening statement was questioning when this is actually necessary, as it looked rare to me.

RFC 5545 introduces floating time to -- I assume -- avoid this silliness, so that your lunch is actually forced to be rendered at 12 regardless of tz.