MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tweetle_beetle | 2025-04-09 19:25:41+00:00
Quoting Wikipedia's source, Forbes estimated her donations were $120 million to date in 2012. However, she co-founded her own charity in 2005, of which she is the president, and I suspect most of it has been donated in that direction.

Personally, I'm always dubious of the rich and famous genuinely finding unmet cases for charitable organisations. Especially when they've made a fortune outsourcing being morally dubious to others - she can save children because others are paying her to be allowed to sell low quality merchandise almost certainly made in exploitative conditions.

She's not alone, there's many more e.g. Messi donating lots to children's cause through his own charitable organisation after gladly being a global ambassador for unhealthy snacks targeted at children.
by neilwilson | 2025-04-09 19:25:48+00:00
The only aggregate alternative to holding T-bills is to hold dollar bank accounts. At which point the bank holds the T-bills instead or the Fed does as balancing assets to the account liability.

It could all be refinanced to three month bills without any issue at all.

Ultimately balance sheets have to balance. In a floating exchange rate system there is no aggregate out.
by mmooss | 2025-04-09 19:25:52+00:00
> Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality.

I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself.

But do you think there is more equitable distribution with mercantilism or protectionism? Why would that be? In those systems government officials choose who gets the benefits; you can't get them for yourself. Also, they tend to oppress less powerful countries - globalism's astounding record of raising people from poverty all over the world is absolutely unmatched. People take for granted the relative prosperity in China, India, Brazil, ... - nothing like it ever happened before.

> if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing.

You assume this mercantilist government can effectively manage manufacturing, and that it wouldn't deteriorate, having no competition. Industry without competition tends to do that. Basically, enshittification is doing that intentionally.

With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs.

Finally, keeping people in manufacturing (how? by force?) would prevent them from taking the newer, higher productivity jobs that followed.

The US was much less wealthy - order of magnitude at least - in the 1950s (or whatever golden age people think of). You don't want to go back to that economy.

> The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country.

If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.
by ReptileMan | 2025-04-09 19:26:00+00:00
>What seems most likely to me in the future is that the US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now.

Not quite. USA is big enough to be able to be self sufficient if they keep mexico and Canada tightly bound via NAFTA or military might. UK have no option but to trade. UK was rarely able to feed and fuel itself after the industrial revolution.
by scarface_74 | 2025-04-09 19:26:06+00:00
We have nine months of expenses in cash outside of retirement accounts and working up to 12 by the end of next year. But besides that, I’m not changing anything about our investment plans or our travel plans.

I have been in the job market since 1996 and had to find a job both last year and the year before. I’m on my 10th job. None of the fundamentals ever change:

Live below your means so you can take a job that pays less than you are making, keep an emergency fund, keep an updated resume and career document. Also keep an active network and always be interview ready.

Also play the political game at your job and be sure to be in profit centers not cost centers. Market yourself both internally and externally.
by boelboel | 2025-04-09 19:26:10+00:00
No their population decline is felt already, they don't have enough people to fill the factories right now and too many highly educated people. This is mostly about people in non stem related fields and non elite universities. If you're a young chinese with a so-so degree you're basically fucked. The UN estimations are fully off for all countries in the world (look at the actual fertility rates published by countries). If you look at UN you'll see like 1.7 fertility rate for colombia, in reality it's 1.0. All countries are kinda demographically fucked, the US is the one that's doing the best. They have been forging their demographic numbers for years already as well. I'm not saying it looks rosy for the US but it's not great for china either unless you believe in some kinda rapid rise in robotisation in the next 10 years.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-04-09 19:26:19+00:00
> congress and specifically the Republican majority which controls it can act to reclaim the power of tariffs from the president _at any time_.

After overriding a veto, which Trump has already stated he'll use, to block Congress taking back the power of tariffs:

https://bsky.app/profile/sahilkapur.bsky.social/post/3lmak2w...
by _diyar | 2025-04-09 19:26:22+00:00
When in the supply-chain you are creating the "taxation" matters to the final cost, assuming 1) the gross margins remain the same and 2) the costs scale linearly.

Consider a fictional supply-chain with three players A, B, C. Assume that B and C have 50% gross margins.

In a no-tax world, if A sells the product to B for 10$, then B to C for 20$, C will sell it retail for 40$. (A:10$ -> B:20$ -> C:40$)

Now imagine a 100% tariff scenario for the transaction between A and B. Now, A sells the product to B for 20$ (10$ + 100% tariff), then B to C for 40$, C will sell it retail for 80$. (A:20$ -> B:40$ -> C:80$). This nets the government 10$

In a third scenario, imagine a world where this 10$ is not charged as a tariff but as a sales tax. A sells to B for 10$, B to C for 20$, and C to the customers at 50$ (40$ + 10$ freedom tax).

By changing where in the supply chain the tax is levied, we arrive at a lower retail price for the same tax income. This is a natural consequence of the above two assumptions, especially the idea that costs scale linearly. If maximum income from the taxation of imported goods is your goal, this is the way to go. Whether this would have the desired effect of discouraging imports is another matter.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-04-09 19:27:45+00:00
The President's advisors are saying multiple contradictory things. You're right that they're saying that the reciprocal tariffs are a negotiating ploy, which implies that they'll negotiate a much lower rate. But at the same time they're also saying that they're going to use the tariffs to raise enough revenue to replace income taxes as the main way of funding the government, which implies that the tariffs will stay high. Then they're also saying that the tariffs will be used to support domestic manufacturing, which implies that the tariffs will stay high and predictable.

It doesn't make sense that the tariff policy can be both leverage in a negotiation with the ultimate goal eliminating trade barriers and also so high and predictable that they can raise something the 10-20% of GDP.

The logical conclusion is that there is no plan here - we're living in a world like England under Henry VIII, where everything is done based on the whim of the king, and the advisors try to justify it ex post facto.
by slibhb | 2025-04-09 19:27:48+00:00
> there is a consensus that we need a harmonious, stable and positive society

It's not clear to me that there's any link between China's authoritarian government and its harmony/stability. Taiwan is richer per-capita than China and just as stable, without an authoritarian government.

In fact, I suspect that China will be rich and harmonious as long as it's not at war (with itself or a foreign power). The authoritarianism is just a historical coincidence.
by the_af | 2025-04-09 19:27:58+00:00
> Well, unless congress grows a collective sack (unlikely) or President Trump comes to his senses on macro economics

We in Argentina feel for you: it's exactly the same for us, replacing Trump with Milei. And with the added humiliation of Milei being a lapdog to Trump.

This phrase of yours "unless congress grows a sack" is exactly how we feel about our own congress in Argentina.
by xracy | 2025-04-09 19:28:00+00:00
How would they be risking it?

Who is incentivized in this system to say that this product is actually coming from China? Is it the US government regulators who just lost their jobs? Or the Businesses themselves who don't want to pay higher tariffs? Is it China who avoids the tariff? Is it Vietnam who just got paid for doing nothing?

The answer would typically be that the US gov't would monitor this. But that is not a muscle this administration is capable of. That would require nuance and strategy, and it's very clear from this move that this administration doesn't have that capability.
by Animats | 2025-04-09 19:28:10+00:00
There was the Bulova Accutron,[1] which used a 360 Hz tuning fork. This was the most accurate watch in the 1960s. Here's high frame rate video of the mechanism.[2] It's an electrically powered tuning fork ratcheting a toothed wheel forward. This is backwards from an escapement clock or watch.

Worked fine, used by astronauts, made obsolete by quartz watches.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulova

[2] https://youtu.be/CPS7aNCAwAA?t=194
by efitz | 2025-04-09 19:28:29+00:00
The title of the article on the website is misleading and actually untrue.

The memo did not say “no longer targeting fraud”- it said that it was no longer targeting individuals and exchanges for regulatory missteps. The theme of the memo is “we’re not going to use mountains of regulations written for non-crypto regulation to go after crypto exchanges”, which is in line with a general regulatory themes of the Trump administration to avoid “lawfare” type activities and reduce regulatory burdens.

In fact, the memo specifically said (according to the article, near the end) that the government would focus their efforts on fraud against crypto investors.

Now you might or might not agree with these goals, and you might or might not support the Trump administration, and you might or might not like Trump, but the article headline was at odds with the article content and with the DoJ memo.
by shadowgovt | 2025-04-09 19:28:49+00:00
Correct. In general, the backstop would be Congress saying "Enough" and threatening impeachment were the law not enforced.

There have been interesting examples on both sides of the aisle of strategic non-enforcement. When states began legalizing marijuana, the law is quite clear (as per the supremacy clause) that federal law enforcement can still enforce the restrictions on growing and selling it. The Obama administration made extremely clear that within the states where it had been legalized, enforcing the federal law would be a career-limiting move for the relevant federal agents. AFAIK, every administration since has de-facto kept that policy regarding those states, even though Congress has never moved to make marijuana legal to use and distribute.
by re-thc | 2025-04-09 19:28:57+00:00
> The idea would be that different parts of the supply chain would build factories in the US to avoid tariffs.

Right, because the US doesn't have diamonds, vanilla, coffee beans or the many other things it needs? How do you avoid tariffs like this?

The US still needs fish from the penguins. What's the plan? To tell penguins to stop fishing and come to the US and work in factories?

> The end goal would be 0% corporate and income taxes, funded with high tariffs.

Well you have that right. When there's 0% of the people working no 1 will be paying corporate and income tax. It'll just crash.

> Over time the US re-industrializes.

Like it's gone? You do know the US is the 2nd largest global manufacturer right? That is even today. So do we need to blow that up 1st in order to re-industrialize?
by trgn | 2025-04-09 19:29:35+00:00
aestheticism is a feature of fascism. the late night phone call, the strong words in the oval office, boarding air force one with retinue in tow, hurry hurry... it's less about what is being achieved, and more about the pageantry that something is being achieved. change, action, disruption, violence (metaphorical or not) are good in and of itself, pomp is the reification of these impulses. i disliked succession precisely for this reason, the idolization of these processes (whether it was under the guise of irony is irrelevant).

these fetishes can start to supplant material reality, real banana republic stuff. we should give the wasps and neoliberals credit to always have been somewhat immune to and disdainful of these practices.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-04-09 19:29:51+00:00
Gemini 2.5 is awesome, but when it screws the pooch, it really screws the pooch (e.g., https://gemini.google.com/share/374ac006497d ). It has delivered some of the best responses I've seen lately but also some of the worst.

I have been tempted several times to kill my GPT Pro account, but it is still valuable for cases where Gemini and Claude don't get the job done for whatever reason.
by adamweld | 2025-04-09 19:30:40+00:00
The material used by genuine Crocs seems to last much longer. My brother bought some knock-offs at the same time that I picked up a new pair. He wore through the soles in about two years while mine are still kicking after almost 8 years of near-daily use.

You can get the genuine ones for $18 to $35 on ebay depending on the color, so while I'm sure you can save some on clones it's not worth it for the durability and comfort.
by ginko | 2025-04-09 19:30:40+00:00
>The escapement will have a longer overall lifespan, and may need servicing every couple decades, as opposed to a new battery every couple years.

My Citizen Ecodrive needed the first capacitor change after 17 years of daily wear. Literally zero service to the watch before that.

Also I really really don't buy that this mechanical movement won't need service every couple years like pretty much any mechanical watch out there. Where do you take the decades part from?
by devilbunny | 2025-04-09 19:31:04+00:00
They aren't, but I live in a hot, humid climate where it often rains. So a scooter is not the best there. And then my workplace is right on a highway - I can take lower-speed roads to get there, but even the slowest path involves 35 MPH roads (~55 km/h), and it's longer.
by ajross | 2025-04-09 19:31:19+00:00
> other countries’ willingness to negotiate fair trade terms

This is a fabricated justification. There has been literally zero public reporting of any trade negotiations post-tarifpocalypse. The only people saying there are deals being made are the White House, who have produce zero evidence of deals.

No, Trump was responding[1] to the movement of the market and in particular to the sudden spike in federal bond rates. This was absolutely not a win for Art of the Deal. There was no Deal.

[1] In "good faith", to be sure.
by throw4847285 | 2025-04-09 19:31:42+00:00
I don't believe it's being done so strategically. He's not Franklin D Roosevelt.

I forget all the details, but some constituency once came to FDR to ask him to do something. He likely leaked that he was planning on doing so to major Catholic organizations in America, and when there was outrage, turned to the first party and told them that he'd love to, but his hands were tied. He never intended to do anything in the first place, he just wanted a convenient scapegoat.

This doesn't make any sense. Why not just go with 10% tariffs across the board? There wasn't going to be any pushback, it should be clear at this point. Or why not just leak the plan, and then say "I guess it has to be 10% because business leaders won't accept higher."

This isn't masterful juggling, it's improv comedy.
by yieldcrv | 2025-04-09 19:31:51+00:00
I actually like Claude over ChatGPT specifically because of how their web UI distinguishes.

Its clear that neither company prioritizes their flagship chat UI, over their other offerings. So if it will be in stasis, I definitely like it

There are other web AI offerings now (deepseek web, perplexity, to name a few). This is what I like between these two:

The speed of responses.

The reliability. ChatGPT web UI often times out or has server errors for random things.

Different censorship. Overall better for my use cases, and how errors are handled.

Initially search of old chats was a first class citizen in Claude. ChatGPT didnt have it, needed third party plugins, it has since updated, but is still lackluster in this regard.

The diagrams, charting and coding interface is great and better. Easier for seeing how something compiles and runs, easier to copy and paste.
by Gardinengleiter | 2025-04-09 19:32:07+00:00
Are you struggling to find the right mental health videos on YouTube? As a gamer, you may often think, "This is exactly the video I needed right now!" while watching content from healthygamergg. But what if you could get that feeling on demand? This tool is designed to help you. Simply describe your mental health challenges in english, and our smart algorithm will suggest the most relevant healthygamergg videos tailored to your needs. Whether you’re dealing with stress, anxiety, or burnout, we’ve got the right content to guide you toward mental well-being—just like a gaming strategy, but for your mind. Start finding the support you deserve today!
by vosper | 2025-04-09 19:32:37+00:00
> Typically the scam is that an offshore consultancy wants to place some roles to collect wages. Many of these agencies are from collectivist cultures, so in the mind of the agency, they all work in our project. This may not be true, but the agency sees the position as theirs, not the recruit's. So they typically don't the issue with putting recruit A in front of the interviewer and then slotting recruit B in after the position is secured.

I've run into this with a Ukrainian consultancy. It wasn't even a scam. They told us up-front that they were prepared to pull their best engineers from some other clients and put them on our team in order to win our business. Our obvious reaction: and when you get another opportunity, you will pull those engineers from us and we'll get the B-team, just like you're about to do to someone else.

Naturally we didn't move forward with them (this was before the war, so very lucky decision)
by listenallyall | 2025-04-09 19:32:53+00:00
> But I'd prefer to have D3 documentation in the form of free, interactive Observable Notebooks rather than to have no documentation at all

This is the core point. Yes of course the existing d3js docs are better than nothing. That isn't the complaint. The complaint is the current docs are significantly worse than older d3js docs that weren't notebook-based.
by taftster | 2025-04-09 19:33:53+00:00
If I were to go and try to bench 300lbs, I would absolutely need a spotter to rescue me. Taking on more weight than I can possibly achieve is a setup for failure.

Sure, I should probably practice benching 150lbs. That would be a good challenge for me and I would benefit from that experience. But 300lbs would crush me.
by Tainnor | 2025-04-09 19:34:13+00:00
> For example, we assume that arbitrary arithmetic takes constant time.

Arithmetic on fixed-width number types is constant. It's very much not constant on arbitrary precision integers, something that underpins much of cryptography. Indeed, if you try to e.g. use Gaussian elimination (which uses O(n^3) arithmetic operations) to compute the determinant of a large integer matrix, you'll run into trouble, which is why there is another algorithm for this use case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bareiss_algorithm

(Disclaimer: Also not a researcher)
by Cieric | 2025-04-09 19:34:18+00:00
I believe they've done more complicated physics in their game bitcraft, but that code hasn't been released yet (no idea if it will be.) But there has been work in the discord recently and 2 member have individually implemented rapier[1] at this point. I can't say anything about the related netcode however as I don't know how much they've focused on it. At the very least work has been done.

The unity tutorial is just to get up and running as fast as possible in the simplest way possible, not to make the perfect decisions for a networked physics based game.

I however do think they should provide an actual reference to prove the claim,

[1] https://github.com/dimforge/rapier
by 0x63_Problems | 2025-04-09 19:34:22+00:00
Very cool!

Yup I definitely see confusion in our responses around the product and brand names. We do another pass through an LLM specifically aimed at ‘canonicalizing’ the names, but we’ll need to get more sophisticated to catch most issues.

In that case you mentioned, the brand confusion is what accounts for the top three omission for QBO. Both OpenAI and Perplexity rank it #1, but Anthropic ranks the slightly different “Quickbooks” product as #1. Our overall ranking prioritizes products that appear in all three responses, so both are dropped down.
by bitsage | 2025-04-09 19:35:08+00:00
China could also use the US’ dependence on it as leverage to discourage them from intervening in Taiwan. We just saw this play out with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We routinely see Turkey threaten the EU with migrants over the bloc’s reliance on Turkey. We also saw Azerbaijan make a move for Artsakh knowing the EU needed their gas following the invasion of Ukraine. I believe China would prefer being able to extort the US rather than face the possibility of fighting an unbowed US.
by mmooss | 2025-04-09 19:35:33+00:00
> This is manufacturing economy 101

What is? You haven't spelled out your theory. And I know economics well, and class 101 is free markets and specialization.

> how the US built and defended it's manufacturing base before the pivot to a "service" economy

Who wants to return to an economy of decades ago? The US was much poorer then. I want to move to the future. Services are much easier on people physically - you don't want to work in a coal mine.
by taeric | 2025-04-09 19:35:47+00:00
Any action they are taking around deciding whether or not there is a national security interest in managing tariffs is easily covered by everyone's understanding of what is in the presidential duties. As such, it is fully off limits for any review, per last year's immunity ruling. No?

Now, congress can take away that delegation. They could also cancel any declarations. But actions taken by the admin in pursuing this will almost certainly be seen as core duties by the supreme court. As such, I don't see any real opening for review in this?
by Animats | 2025-04-09 19:35:50+00:00
It is. "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - former Rolex CEO.[1] Rolex was originally a maker of working watches for rugged environments. Pilots and divers might wear one.

Today, the watch of choice for people who need accurate time is the cheap Casio G-Shock. For about US$100, you can get solar power, WWV corrections, good waterproofing, and resistance to being banged on. It doesn't need any attention. It just works. Popular with military types.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-rolex-watches-so-exp...