MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cyberax | 2025-04-30 17:42:34+00:00
> That said, I'm willing to bet this will finally put the nail in the inflation coffin. Taking money away from consumers and "burning it" by returning it to the government is the best way to deal with inflation.

Nope. Tariffs are associated with higher inflation, as consumers have to pay more. Over long term, if tariffs depress the economic growth and cause a recession, they indeed _might_ lower the inflation.
by jmyeet | 2025-04-30 17:43:15+00:00
Trump is the culmination of the 50+ year Republican project, a project intentionally designed to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. He's not an anomaly. He's the inevitable end product of decades of consistent insitutional destruction and corruption.

I agree that Trump is delusional about tafiffs but think abou tit: income tax is pretty much the only progressive tax left. There's serious momentum in the conservative movement to get rid of it for that reason: it's further wealth transfer to the ultra-wealthy.

It sounds like you're not seeing the bigger picture here: the wealthy view themselves as inherently better. In tech circles (including Elon and Thiel) transhumanism is popular.

What is transhumanism ultimately? it's eugenics. It's why these weirdos fill the world with their IVR fetishes, spreading their "superior" genes. It's co-opted the conservative movement, which itself is rooted in eugenics (ie white supremacy).
by yumraj | 2025-04-30 17:43:29+00:00
I'm genuinely curious how important regularly feeding the starter in the fridge is if you're not a frequent baker?

I leave it in the fridge, unfed for weeks/months, till I decide to bake. I take it out, feed it 50g flour and 50g water, leave it for a day or so and then use it. After using, throw a bunch, add another 50/50 and put it in fridge for the next time.

Has anyone noticed changes in the quality of the starter/bread if they don't feed regularly while in the fridge.
by preordained | 2025-04-30 17:43:37+00:00
They are utterly cooked. The only ones I've ever seen on the "it's not so bad" side of this argument are aloof boomers and anyone young enough to never have experienced at least a good swath of the 90s--i.e. has no truly visceral basis for comparison/has no clue how bloodless and sick the vampires have left society
by tonyarkles | 2025-04-30 17:43:38+00:00
>> It can be applying its maximum power into a grid that is still short of power, which is probably a better situation than if it was not doing that.

> One of the parent posts correctly identified there are thermal issues with operating at significantly off nominal frequencies for extended time periods

Yeah, that's very much the problem. Power sources that burn fuel to generate electricity generally don't like being run at 100% throttle for long periods of time. In a low frequency situation you've got potentially multiple countries of generators all running flat out trying to get the frequency back to where it's supposed to be. If they reduce throttle without having something else come online to take the place of the energy they were producing, the line frequency drops further.

Nuclear has its own issue with running full throttle: once a plant has been running at 100%, it takes time for it to throttle back down and might not be possible to immediately throttle back up. There's decay heat from the fission products and there's short-ish lived (up to 40-50 hours though) neutron poisons.
by TJSomething | 2025-04-30 17:44:24+00:00
My issue with REPLs is that they're often too transient. Sometimes I make a mistake on step 2 that I realize while iterating on step 10 of exploring some data. Then I need to iterate on step 2 a little, taking advantage of the ability to easily just run some of the calculations. Once I've got that, I can run the whole notebook again and make sure all my intermediate graphs look good.
by _cs2017_ | 2025-04-30 17:45:06+00:00
"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered the topic of whether the president has the power to withdraw funding.

(On a side note, the word "framing" is also the wrong word to use.)

One way to phrase your message correctly would be: "This article is about the impact of the president's decision, but I wish it also talked about whether the president has the authority to make that decision in the first place".
by odo1242 | 2025-04-30 17:45:16+00:00
Actually, when I uploaded stuff on YouTube I’d notice sometimes that it was best to, even if the source footage was 1080p, upscale / upload it at 4k or 8k resolution so that people with sufficiently good internet could view it without as much compression. (In fact, when the original video uploaded is upscaled to 4k, even the 1080p version of the final video looks closer to the source footage)

These were unlisted videos, so I’m not a YouTuber or anything, but I’m pretty sure this is one thing some people do to make their videos appear better sometimes
by libertine | 2025-04-30 17:45:16+00:00
> Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?

Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done? Pretend that nothing is happening and that there's no support at all for the war and only one man, Putin, is to blame?

> Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine

Well by the definition of genocide and the actions Russia is taking, it is genocide:

- Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people (a very clear admission of genocide by Putin in his speech denying the existence of Ukraine - he just happened to fail to achieve it in full).

- The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;

- Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;

- Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid, all with the goal to bring suffering and inflict on Ukrainians conditions of life;

These are elements of the crime of genocide[0]. You might not like that reality, but that's what's happening. It's not about the number of civilian casualties - the Nazi Germany was committing genocide before the Final Solution. I'm not even addressing war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Just speaking of Genocide.

What baffles me is that it's like you don't grasp the scale of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, where 700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians, there are more than 10.000.000 refugees, and God only knows how many were filtered in Russia.

> I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.

The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility. I wasn't making a case for Sanctions, that's self evident by many laws, such as International Law, UN Charter, etc.

[0]https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
by ipsum2 | 2025-04-30 17:45:18+00:00
Do people find NotebookLM useful? For my use case of converting papers into podcasts, the explanations are too general (which misses the important parts of the paper) and contain too much fluff.

I suspect that changing the underlying model to Gemini 2.5 Pro would produce better transcripts, but right now there's no way of determining what model is being used.
by supportengineer | 2025-04-30 17:45:25+00:00
If we had universal health care and guaranteed basic income, then I might be inclined to agree with you.

Fluoride in drinking water is supposed to be a cost-effective way to prevent a lot of suffering from those who cannot afford to take care of their teeth, for example, children in poor families.

I grew up in an area with fluoride in the water and most of my peers had no cavities until we had moved away and were in our late twenties.
by hbsbsbsndk | 2025-04-30 17:45:29+00:00
2019 public-facing Tobi is probably the least insane version. He has gotten worse and more egocentric (and more explicitly right-wing) since then.

Early (pre IPO) Shopify had a pretty toxic internal culture with a lot of drinking and sexual harassment. I was lucky to be there around the post-IPO, pre-pandemic era when there was a bit of structure and the techbros were getting reigned in a bit. Once the pandemic hit I think he just lost his mind.
by keybored | 2025-04-30 17:45:57+00:00
I’ll save it as the ultimate “just be positive” slogan as the world gets worse and worse.

Young adults got tossed into Covid lockdown as teens and higher education students. They worry about climate change. Wars have always happened but now with Ukraine it’s happening in proximity to the West. The second Trump administration is much worse than the first. The old “getting a better life than your parents” isn’t looking great, in fact it’s trending downward.

That people are perhaps more toxically “tuned in” to what everyone else is doing is just the cherry on top of objective reality.
by amitu | 2025-04-30 17:46:40+00:00
Wireguard is def comparable to iroh, so you are correct. We could have used Wireguard to build malai had malai been in Golang. iroh is wireguard for Rust (and slightly better because it is lot smaller / simpler to use as a library, with no special access, like Wireguard is almost full blown VPN, talks about IPs etc, a bit more than what iroh does, but both are awesome).

"privater Pinggy.io", yes :-)

We have not yet created access control stuff, it is in our roadmap, we are going to do not just HTTP, but TCP, ssh, folder sharing etc etc. And our access control stuff will span across all these use cases, like a unified / simplified access control so you can create interesting network stuff, without learning about complex firewall rules etc.

It is a hard problem because of the audience. Most networking tools are written for a very specific networking geek audience, we are trying to create a solution to be used by more general population.

Like who wants to share a folder? Not just networking geeks, or even just geeks, but virtually everyone using Dropbox/Google Drive. So why not create an open source peer to peer versions of these tools. Which is what we are trying to do.
by Jensson | 2025-04-30 17:47:05+00:00
> Economic inequality surely is contributing to depression in young people. Exposure to wonderful people, products, opportunities and ideas from all around the globe is not.

Those two are linked though, exposure to competition from all around the world is the problem you are talking about. You can't have both these opportunities and avoid competition.

I do think this freedom is a good thing, but I also understand it leads to inequality. That is why globalism was typically a right wing position since it helps the rich.
by simianwords | 2025-04-30 17:47:06+00:00
No I disagree. I would want ChatGPT to abstract away expert models - biochemistry model, coding model, physics model and maybe O3 would use these models as tools to come up with an answer.

The point being that a separate expert model would be better at its own field than a single model that tries to be good at everything. Intuitively it makes sense, in practice I have seen anecdotes where finetuning a small model on domain data makes the model lose coherence on other topics.
by ericmay | 2025-04-30 17:47:07+00:00
It's also just not the general lesson from history either. Plus you have to recall that in many cases war is about resource acquisition as much as anything else, and sometimes wars are popularized as ideological crusades when they are masquerading as resource disputes in order to motivate a populace.

Something that has become apparent to me is that in our years of somewhat peaceful economic growth, we seem to have forgotten that there are haves and have-nots and that the economic system that was created to hopefully replace war with peaceful competition only works so much as the large powers decide that it works well enough. Those who are have-nots tend to not have the proportional military leverage to do something about their position.

Our rejection of colonialism, mercantilism, and imperialism in favor of a "rules based international order" has blinded us a bit through abstraction and legalese to the reality of how the world works and the limits of resource availability given the size of the planet and the population numbers.

> As such it should be the priority of all democracies to extinguish authoritarians whenever possible.

I used to think this as well, but I recently re-read George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address [1] and it aided me in coming to the conclusion that such a moral crusade is neither wise, nor moral, and least of all practical.

There will always be some nations that have governments, authoritarian in our eyes or otherwise, that we disagree with from a political perspective. But we simply do not have the time, resources, or motivation to do something about all of them, and even as we try to do something about one or more of them we wind up with others popping up. Instead we should seek to treat fairly where possible, and treat not at all where necessary due to immoral behavior and stop trying to control the entire world. That doesn't mean we should never intervene or do anything, as in the case of Nazi Germany or perhaps other atrocities, but a national policy of extinguishing authoritarians seems to me to be one that isn't in our best interest.

[1] https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp
by ahmeneeroe-v2 | 2025-04-30 17:47:29+00:00
>Is your thought process really this empty?

No but we are so far apart on foundational beliefs about the state of the country over the last 20ish years that it really isn't worthwhile for most of us to discuss this anymore.

One side says we're saving the country, the other side thinks we're destroying it [another side thinks the first two sides are both crazy]. It's time to see who's right.
by yamazakiwi | 2025-04-30 17:47:34+00:00
While not all that is old is great, it's still a solid example.

There are people who would buy a $160 toaster (I've seen different estimates closer to $130, I'm not sure how you calculated yours) if they knew it would last 50 years today.

This shift has more to do with what businesses want than with consumer demand. Companies moved toward manufacturing goods that don’t last as long, increasing demand by ensuring products deteriorate sooner, giving them more opportunities to sell.

>Some things do get better with time, home appliances are the best example. They consume on average less energy today, are lighter, have more safety features, etc.

While that’s partly true, putting a smart screen on a fridge doesn’t necessarily make it better. More often, businesses make changes to improve their bottom line, not to create better products overall. More durable materials were used in the past, and I would rank durability high among the most important features of physical products.
by bequanna | 2025-04-30 17:47:37+00:00
I think what the parent means is that traditionally society is run with all age groups considered important.

A strong focus on the future with the aged proud of the sacrifices they make for the young.

Elders now are concerned with maximum, selfish value extraction and consumption.

They seem to detest and resent the youth and have done whatever possible to structure society in their favor with little regard for what will happen when they are gone.
by qhiliq | 2025-04-30 17:47:47+00:00
For anyone into this vein of criticism, I highly recommend `The Technological Society` By Jacques Ellul [0].

Among other things it makes the point (paraphrasing poorly) that politics is intrinsically technological. More precisely, he says modern politics and technology are both instances of the same underlying process of "technique". It's heavily informed my way of looking at technology, politics, and their interconnection.

[0]: https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...
by rgbrgb | 2025-04-30 17:48:20+00:00
Incredibly crowded space, but this is a great insight and UI... engineers probably have to integrate the model but we should empower non-technical customer-facing people to give feedback to the model in a way that improves it.

The blocker for me (and likely other cost-conscious early stage groups)? I have free credit and existing integrations with more mainstream platforms (OpenAI, anthropic, together). Trying this out will cost both eng time and money, so I won't be an early adopter. I wonder if there's a way to pass the cost through / use my API keys with credits. Maybe it's more for enterprise teams or cases where you're already confident about the fine-tuning approach.

Anyway, congrats on the launch!
by bobxmax | 2025-04-30 17:48:24+00:00
lol and any children you have will likely die horribly before your eyes, good chance you'll die of something terrible like diarrhea or the plague, and whenever you need medical care there's no anesthetic (your wife will LOVE childbirth)

oh and you're probably dragged into war at some point, and you eat stale bread once a day. you didn't "have a good meal" at the pub.

the lack of perspective priviledged westerners have blows my goddamn mind. and no, people didn't get "happiness" in the past by being in a constant state of alcoholism - they did it because they couldnt' afford clean water

modern man isn't happy because they have no resilience and are deeply entitled. that's why you have more than any of your ancestors could have dreamed of but you think you're opressed and struggling

sorry but it's pathetic
by WorldPeas | 2025-04-30 17:48:24+00:00
>guy creates bad art, doesn't want to practice

>ai is able to skip right to the middle of the skill range, but original user has no capacity to modify the work and it doesn't have a distinct style

art is about doing less and making people think. What you did here "gets the job done" it is not, and never will be great. Maybe that's the point, there is a place for that.
by 9rx | 2025-04-30 17:48:31+00:00
> It builds in a fault to the program that doesn't need to be there.

Not really. You're just exploring an unknown frontier. Once the frontier is known and you actually understand what you are trying to solve you're still going to put in the right algorithm.

I mean, you might not if you're vibe coding, which I guess is apparently a thing somehow, but I'm assuming we're talking about actual engineering here, not speaking the sordid tales of cowboys. The "premature optimization" line was definitely not directed at those who think code is a feeling.

When the frontier is unknown, whatever algorithm gets something operating as soon as possible is the right one. The given example may be so contrived that the hash map would be what you see as the quickest and dirtiest solution anyway, but with a little more complexity loops do tend to be easier to reason about on a first-pass basis.

> Now all the sudden this method becomes a fault in the application you developed that needs to be rewritten.

In the same way that finding out that a blue button doesn't resonate with users, requiring you to rewrite your application to make the button green. Such is the life of building software. But that's why engineers get paid the big bucks – nobody else is stupid enough to do it.

> A lot of the code I've fixed has been due to this.

You're not really fixing it, you're updating it to reflect the information you gleaned during the exploratory phase. I mean, unless you're coding on vibes or something, but, again, assuming actual engineering is taking place here. Nobody should be coding non-prototypes by the guide of their feelings.
by lenerdenator | 2025-04-30 17:48:35+00:00
> Because the entire discussion around colleges of all sizes, who gets to go and who pays has been turned entirely into yet another fucking stupid culture war issue by Republicans, putting rural/tradesman "real" Americans against the "educated coastal elites" of which it is far easier to cast Ivy league schools, professors and students as, rather than your local grocery store stock boy who is attending a tech school to go into STEM.

That can't happen in a vacuum, though.

50 years ago, there was a far narrower gap between the two groups. Now it's expanding. That "no more free lunch" crowd was that "educated coastal elite" of the time. Remember, Reagan was elected governor of California twice.
by hackyhacky | 2025-04-30 17:49:18+00:00
> . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan.

You are really pushing both-sides-ism to its limits.

It goes without saying that if you have to go back that far in history to find an analogy to today's abuse of power, you are proving GP's point: the lawlessness of the Republican party is unprecedented in modern history.
by criley2 | 2025-04-30 17:50:19+00:00
Imo current models can already break things up into bite sized pieces. The limiter I've seen is twofold

1) Maintaining context of the overall project and goals while working in the weeds on a subtask of a task on an epic (so to speak) both in terms of what has been accomplished already and what still needs to be accomplished

and 2) Getting an agentic coding tool which can actually handle the scale of doing 50 small projects back to back. With these agentic tools I find they start projects off really strong but by task #5 they're just making a mess with every change.

I've played with keeping basically a dev-progress.md file and implementation-plan.md file that I keep in context for every request and end each task by updating files. But me manually keeping all this context isn't solving all my problems.

And all the while, tools like Cline are gobbling up 2M tokens to make small changes.
by lief79 | 2025-04-30 17:50:30+00:00
The last part is accurate, but equating the two is a bit of stretch. The democrats went out their way to do everything by the book. They also generally took the time to understand the systems they were working with.

The current presidency went in with the assumption that everything was wasteful, and didn't take the time to understand what they were cutting. Hence, emergency rehires, judicial blocks on firing, etc.

The amount of noise about it was the same, but the root causes and support are far from equivical.
by jajko | 2025-04-30 17:50:33+00:00
Its basically shitty parenting disguised with 'we care' and similar arguments as mentioned. Lets not forget about pedophile scare, that should convert the last remaining parents and make sure opposition is silent.

We raise kids mostly without screens (just some short old school cartoons on TV before bed if they behave well). Its harder, but kids behave much better compared to most peers (which can have 1000s of reasons and some out of our control, I know). We also limit sweet stuff, eat tons of veggies (so they do too and ie love broccoli, not sure where the proverbial hate comes from... maybe lack of basic cooking skills?). But the key is we eat same stuff, healthy food can be very tasty easily. We lay them down to sleep pretty early too.

Simply restrict highly addictive stuff, be it in food or behavioral like screens. It has no place when growing up, no matter how folks wrap it as a need. It forms neural pathways that are extremely hard to shed for rest of their lives, no need to fuck them up properly for life before they have a chance to forge their own path and make their own choices.