MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jeswin | 2025-04-12 16:13:38+00:00
I am among the few who think it might eventually prove itself a good idea.

To start with, Europe has no good cards to play. Ultimately, Europe will side with the United States while it builds self-sufficiency on several fronts, especially defense. Europe also recognizes that the complete relocation of production capacity into China wasn't good in the long run; it's just that they had no ability to act on their own.

The US has repeatedly suggested publicly that it's not entirely about tariffs, and more might have been said privately. The tariffs the EU and Britain will drop are probably not what the US is after; what the US wants is to reduce global demand for Chinese manufacturing. Europe will find it easier to sell this—bringing manufacturing back and protectionism even at the cost of say, welfare and environment—to the public due to the violent shakedown over the past two weeks, as well as what happened with Ukraine and Russia. Ongoing European emergency measures to increase defense spending will be followed by incentives to rebuild strategic industry—like how China supported civilian–military partnership with policy.

Meanwhile the Indian government is already looking for ways to replace Chinese imports with US imports, where it can [1]. Japan and North Korea will follow suit; Trump is already saying that Korea needs to pay for US troops.

The US is (in my view) on solid footing here. At the very least, they get better trade deals from everyone else—Europe, India, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. A number of companies will move production back into the US, and the government can prioritize those with more military value (chip-making, batteries, cars, shipbuilding [2] , etc.). And if the US can convince others to start decoupling from China, this will weaken Chinese manufacturing capacity.

Given the pain it's going to inflict in the short term, Trump is the only person who could have started this trade war. There might have been ways to do this without such a shake-up, but I am not convinced that this was a stupid move.

This was an anti-China move right from the beginning, disguised as an outrage against everyone's tariffs.

[1]: https://www.financialexpress.com/business/industry/replace-c...

[2]: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3306177/u...

To clarify: none of this is China's fault. They did a fantastic job for their country, pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
by codr7 | 2025-04-12 16:14:10+00:00
I know, feel the same about codes of conduct. People who need those kinds of rules are the least likely to follow and most likely to weaponize them.

But I think we can agree it's a good thing to feel assured that having different opinions and occasionally being wrong is not going to be a problem, that this is something that could potentially affect the team in positive ways?
by steveBK123 | 2025-04-12 16:14:27+00:00
Well yes, either position was dismissibly stupid.

No president is going to ride out a self-imposed multi-year global trade reconfiguration triggering inflation, shortages and unemployment.

Nor is putting the genie back in the bottle possible now and so even if you return to status quo trade policy, you've now spooked the world re: reliability of US as partners, US dollar, US debt, etc.

Worst of both worlds really. Incredible self owns over and over.
by dragonwriter | 2025-04-12 16:14:31+00:00
> There is no American brain drain, unlike claimed in leftist media.

There is vanishingly little US "leftist media", and none of it is concerned with a brain drain from the USA. It's mostly outlets in the historically center-right media, including some of those who went out of their way to kowtow to Trump immediately before and/or shortly after the election, that have done so. Unsurprisingly, because "brain drain" is a concern of their corporate capitalist constituency, and not so much of the anticapitalist left.

(That said, it is a real and measurable thing, irrespective of what political faction finds it most concerning.)
by jm4 | 2025-04-12 16:15:05+00:00
It’s pure stupidity and most people don’t even realize it. Last night I met a couple at a country club where I was a guest - one of those $100k/yr places - and they asked me if my trade partners are charging me more with the tariffs. I told them the U.S. government is charging me more with the tariffs and my trade partners are charging me more because the value of the dollar is down. This was the first time anyone told them it’s the importer who pays the tariff and that it will be passed to the customer in multiples to maintain the same profit margin. Man, to be wealthy enough to be a member at a place like that and to be able to live in ignorant bliss… What a life.
by macintux | 2025-04-12 16:15:13+00:00
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/migrants-in-u-s-legally-an...

- https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-legal-migrant-detained-...

- https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/nx-s1-5282379/trumps-mass-dep...

- https://truthout.org/articles/trump-administration-has-detai...
by 01100011 | 2025-04-12 16:15:26+00:00
No. This reads as capitulation by Trump who is now finding out his long held, half-baked economic theories are wrong. Trump got spanked by the bond market and realized how weak his position was. He can't walk it all back overnight without appearing even weaker than he already is. He's going to slowly roll back most consequential tariffs to try to escape blame for damaging the economy.
by sokka_h2otribe | 2025-04-12 16:15:34+00:00
Why do we have freedom of speech for Americans?

One reason is that it is a check on power.

The protestors and editorial writers were typically not arrested for breaking laws. Typically there are some rules on protests, and when they are not followed then police are free to arrest people.

These people are part of the fabric of free speech that adds value to America. It's messier to live in a country like that, but it stops crazy authoritarian bubbles. I think it's slower at times, but leads to a better outcome.

Many American friends I know don't have the same family history surrounding governments like the Nazis, ussr and CCP. These things are worth protecting, and by the time you realize it -- you're too late.

This is my response you asked for. Does it help ?
by reissbaker | 2025-04-12 16:15:36+00:00
Mmhm. And not only can I read — it would be quite amazing if I could write the posts you're angrily responding to without being able to read — I'm also pointing out that there is nothing that qualifies as a 77-year genocide in which the population grows year over year the entire time. No serious scholarship exists that even claims a 77 year genocide starting in 1948. Every time someone dies in a conflict, does not equate to an attempt to destroy a people "in whole or in part" — quite obviously, or else even a murder would count as a genocide, along with every single war ever. Certainly Palestinians have killed Israelis with the intent to destroy them — even prior to 1948. In fact, it was Israelis who accepted the 1948 partition plan, and the Palestinians who rejected it in favor of a war that they subsequently lost (but intended to win, and killed many people while trying!). Have the Palestinians been committing genocide for 100 years? No, obviously not. Your claims do not hold water and do not support a 77-year supposed genocide. Please try again.

BTW the five acts are: killing — typically systematic, targeting civilians rather than militants; bodily/mental harm (e.g widespread slavery, systematic rape); deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy the group (e.g. mass starvation); forced birth control e.g. the Uyghur genocide; or forcible transfer of children outside of the group. If any of these things had been systematically happening for 77 years straight as you claim, the population would not have grown: it would have been demolished, like in every other case. That's the whole point of the term genocide, vs other, lesser terms. If the group wasn't meaningfully destroyed, it's pretty unlikely there was a genocide.

Even if it were true that the end goal of Zionism has always been the complete expulsion of the Palestinians — which isn't the case, and in fact many early Zionists advocated for peacefully living together, as do plenty of modern ones — expulsion is not genocide, or else India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for even longer. Even with that steelman you're still wrong!
by haswell | 2025-04-12 16:15:56+00:00
Without defending or justifying the practices of health insurance companies (I’m going through a hellish denial/appeal process at the moment), there’s a major difference between advocating for and resorting to violence as a way of attempting to bring about change and the very real consequences of a broken system.

The world is filled with complexity and systems that are broken. They require thoughtful solutions, not chaos. Setting aside the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise, advocating for the murder of company leaders is essentially a roll of the chaos dice attached to a wish that somehow the resulting situation will sort itself out.

If you remove all moral/ethical considerations (not the least of which is that blame is shared by many people), it’s far from obvious that the result would resemble the thing people want. Pragmatically, it’s a poorly considered idea that introduces potential for equivalent or greater harms.
by ivan_gammel | 2025-04-12 16:16:02+00:00
The primary reason why Russia can exploit the failures of the system is that those failures exist. Western political elites are locked into old alignments and captured by special interests groups. They became more opportunistic and less values-driven, ignoring modern challenges and demographic changes and becoming less competent in general. This is why in Europe, which is more democratic than USA, we see significant changes in political landscape with new parties emerging on the right and on the left and getting visible share of votes. USA has a major flaw that doesn’t allow the country to escape bipartisan system, so it’s going to agonize in its current state until it finally breaks. Foreign influence here is really a secondary matter.
by brandall10 | 2025-04-12 16:16:19+00:00
There's a wide berth between ignorance of how a thing works at a deeper level and true useful/societal applications, and simply being ignorant of its what it is entirely.

It's like hating social media in 2003 because MySpace was being used by pedophiles to target minors vs not understanding WTF it is entirely. The former is reductionist, but it was something that indicated one is aware of its presence, what it looks like, how it functions at a basic level, etc, that could be used to springboard further discussions.

The fact that someone who is in charge of public policy is so wildly ignorant of something they allege they'll implement, in a public speech, is shocking, and should draw no parallels to even the most basic get rich quick tech bros.
by klipt | 2025-04-12 16:16:43+00:00
Let's look at a concrete example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title

About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser.

Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims.

How would you improve the situation for male victims without making people on the left hate you?

The same people who say that "firemen" is sexist, will hypocritically say that the naming of the law isn't sexist.
by naenin | 2025-04-12 16:17:20+00:00
The point of this is explained further down in the article:

> But some people argue that previous research on trans regret and related issues have been poorly done and is outdated.

> "We are starting to see much greater numbers of young people who are seeing that they went down the wrong path for them and they're now left with irreversible changes to their body and they no longer identify as transgender," says Evgenia Abbruzzese, the co-founder of the group Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. "But they are left with these permanent effects."

> She adds: "There are a lot of negative impacts of transition. And regret is definitely one of them," she says. "It's a very important area of medicine to study."

> Others agree.

> "The research on detransition is very useful, it's a very important area," said Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oxford. "This is an understudied population to collect systematic data on."
by gafferongames | 2025-04-12 16:17:51+00:00
Tom I'm afraid you're misreading the tone of my posts and their character.

I could post anything objectively true in this thread like "the sky is blue", and some idiot will post a one sentence response that in fact it's not. This idiot likes to be the last person getting snark in responding to a completely reasonable statement of fact or opinion by an expert in the space.

What I do differently is that yes, I do reply to the snark with a rebuttal. Is this rebuttal snarky? Potentially, but is it earned? Definitely.

You're moderator so let me speak to you that way. If you don't let people rebut bullshit in this comment section, you'll just end up with a bunch of uninformed discourse, where the final word is made by some idiot, who doesn't even make multiplayer games and everyone ends up thinking the sky is fucking green. This has real world consequence when future game developers try to build games on poorly made technology, which ruins game studios and people's lives.

Then again, it's hacker news, and what do a bunch of wannabe startup guys know about making games in the first place. Unskilled and unaware of it. Moderate away sir!
by alabastervlog | 2025-04-12 16:18:21+00:00
Having to fight to get payment for anything major has been more common than not, in my immediate family's experience and from what I've heard from friends and relatives, for a long time.

The tens or even hundreds of hours on hold with insurance providers and hospital billing departments and calling state regulatory agencies and time sorting through the fifty bills scattered over ten months from nine different entities, all for a couple days in the hospital, are a massive unaccounted-for cost of our already-record-settingly-expensive healthcare system.
by fzeroracer | 2025-04-12 16:18:36+00:00
> Obamacare destroyed a system that made most people very happy with it. I've experienced it myself. I was perfectly happy with my insurance until its price skyrocketed and they denied me all sorts of stuff in the last 10 years.

People were not happy with the system. I'm old enough to remember the pre-existing condition bullshit insurance companies pulled to avoid paying out in all situations. They classified the stroke my mother had in 2004 as a preexisting condition and refused coverage sending my family into bankruptcy.

It was still a bandaid solution on a rotting wound but this revisionist history of the pre-ACA era does not exist.
by sublimefire | 2025-04-12 16:18:36+00:00
I would prob say the hospital knows the optimal price already. It might not be 100% applicable to the US but here is an example in Ireland, if I go to the hospital without any referral or by not being brought in an ambulance which would make it free, I have to pay. The funny thing is that they ask you beforehand if you have insurance and substantially increase the price of an overnight stay, etc if you do, to which point insurers are suggesting customers to withhold such a fact and lower the bill.
by tom_m | 2025-04-12 16:18:42+00:00
Absolutely agree Microsoft is better there - maybe that's why Google hired someone from Microsoft for their AI stuff. A few people I think.

I also agree the business models aren't known. That's part of any hype cycle. I think those in the best position here are those with an existing product(s) and user base to capitalize on the auto complete on crack kinda feature. It will become so cheap to operate and so ubiquitous in the near future that it absolutely will be seen as a table stakes feature. Yes, commodities.
by depierre | 2025-04-12 16:18:47+00:00
SAP can mean so many things that it's easy to get lost in the weeds, and I'm just talking about getting familiar with their landscape... While working on that post, I found new vulnerabilities that SAP is now addressing.

I'll be honest, I've never been on the other side dealing with red tape. It'd probably drive me mad. But from the researcher/consultant side, it's definitely gotten easier to report vulnerabilities. Vendors now have security contacts, coordinated disclosure policies, and even bug bounty programs. Not all vendors, of course. But compared to 10 years ago, it's night and day.
by simonw | 2025-04-12 16:18:48+00:00
More recent models are producing much higher quality code than models from 6/12/18 months ago. I believe a lot of this is because the AI labs have figured out how to feed them better examples in the training - filtering for higher quality open source code libraries, or loading up on code that passes automated tests.

A lot of model training these days uses synthetic data. Generating good code synthetic data is a whole lot easier than any other category, as you can at least ensure the code you're generating is gramatically valid and executes without syntax errors.
by overu589 | 2025-04-12 16:19:10+00:00
You are exactly right.

When I read of a man from California killing his kids in Mexico because they are possessed by lizard people, or mothers killing their kids because the voice of God in their mind says so, I think of this quote I cannot quite place: to be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

No greater evil in this world exists than American Thought Control, thought controlled Americans, or an America thought controlled.

I am quite sincere friend.
by torginus | 2025-04-12 16:19:26+00:00
Free might as well be a curse-word to me, and I'm not alone. I'm old enough to have experience in pre-internet era magazines, and the downgrade in quality from paid publications to free ones has been quite substatial.

Free-to-play is a thing in video games, and for most, it means they'll try to bully you into spending more money than you'd be otherwise comfortable with.

I think everyone at this point had enough bad experiences with 'free' stuff to be wary of it.
by rcpt | 2025-04-12 16:19:39+00:00
Yes. Immigration is hard. You need to learn a new language, adapt to the local culture and city design, navigate the increasingly hostile immigration system, and distance yourself from your family.

In the past, dreams of American opportunity made the tradeoff worth it. But now we're Magaland when the president sometimes crashes the economy on purpose and immigration officials randomly detain scientists at the airport. It's hard to believe that top engineers and aspiring scientists will continue to give it all up for a shot at life here
by tbrownaw | 2025-04-12 16:19:44+00:00
> In the end - the absolute best of everything is expensive. Very expensive. I doubt a system can afford to have that happen for everyone,

It's not a question of money. If there's one person who's acknowledged as "the best" at something, that puts a hard limit on the number of people who can hire "the best" for that thing in any particular time window. Paying more won't give that one expert more hours in their day.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-04-12 16:20:20+00:00
Firstly, the First Amendment legally speaking, applies to American citizens, not visitors on a visa.

Secondly, there's big difference between free speech (as in saying what you want openly), and congregating to occupying public or private spaces to generate protests, be loud, obnoxious, block foot traffic, cause litter, incite to violence etc.

Your speech is free as long as it doesn't inconvenience others. Can I come outside your house, occupy the sidewalk and shout in a bullhorn my political opinions at your window 24/7? No? Why is that? It's just my free speech bro. You see how free speech works?
by Krssst | 2025-04-12 16:20:37+00:00
You can express disagreement loudly with the power in place while still following the laws and not causing "issues" in the way most people think about issues.

Whether visa holders have such right depends on the countries however; I don't believe France has such restrictions (https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2190 does not mention "political activities" as a valid motive for refusing entry). I think some other countries do restrict political activities for non-citizens.
by LeafItAlone | 2025-04-12 16:20:42+00:00
Well that was very short sighted. Because the other person was clearly saying how they’d make it much much worse.

But nobody had ever accused the voting public of the U.S. of being able to see the past the end of their nose.

https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/project-2025-could...
by quickthrowman | 2025-04-12 16:21:22+00:00
I mean the guy that is shaking down law firms and countries and universities and immigrants. The guy that launched a multi billion dollar pump and dump crypto scheme on the eve of his inauguration. The guy that is almost certainly selling pardons to people like the former CEO of Nikola. The guy that is possibly tipping off his friends and donors about when a tweet of his will send the stock market up 10%.

I don’t give a shit about Hunter Biden, he wasn’t the president. Nepotism happens everywhere, good luck stopping it. Hunter Biden is a crackhead and shouldn’t have had the position he did, but he is a sideshow to distract you. Trump himself was impeached for withholding foreign aid from Ukraine to try and boost his reelection chances, but you conveniently left that part out. I’ll admit it was partly political, but it still happened.

If the Biden family was doing corrupt things like receiving bribes, by all means prosecute them. If there’s evidence Joe Biden got kickbacks from Burisma, the DoJ should file charges. There’s not a personality cult for Biden like there is for Trump.

Trying to compare an actual convicted felon who is nakedly corrupt in public vs a guy who has a few accusations is ridiculous in the same way as presenting young earth creationism as equally valid as the universe being 13.7B years old. It’s “but both sides!” at its worst. Joe Biden is no saint, he’s a politician after all, but he’s not even close to Trump. Bob Menendez (D, NJ) is much closer to Trump than Biden, he was actually tried and convicted for corruption. I’m glad he was found guilty.
by Eggpants | 2025-04-12 16:21:24+00:00
It’s not a miracle, it’s statistics. Once you understand it’s a clever lossy text compression technique, you can see why it appears to do well with boilerplate(crud)/common interview coding questions. Any code request requiring any kind of nuisance will return the equivalent of the first answer of a stack overflow question. Aka. Kinda maybe in the ballpark but incorrect.
by chuckadams | 2025-04-12 16:21:45+00:00
It's a story all right, but that's all it is. Windows has a GetVersion function that returns a struct of major/minor/build, and they're all ints. That's how you've always checked for versions, with older versions checking against a single int that contained both major/minor.

Microsoft had no reason to support blatantly stupid development practices that no one ever actually did. They were trying to avoid brand confusion with the consumer, because even people who know about versions will still do a mental double take at seeing "Windows 9", expecting another digit. The confusion might not last long, but it still detracts from the brand.
by atonse | 2025-04-12 16:22:15+00:00
Indeed. In case I didn't explicitly state it, I was expressing more of a fascination that there are these companies that seem to make high priced luxury items (so they have to be low volume, and likely handmade) but are still large enough in scale to afford these massive fancy buildings, as opposed to be boutique watchmakers, which is how I would intuitively think of this class of craftsmanship.