MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mystified5016 | 2025-04-06 16:48:41+00:00
Not as far as anyone is aware. There were massive archiving efforts running leading up to the shutdown. One archive reproduced the directory tree and most GeoCities links could be replaced with reocities and simply worked.

I think the main bulk of the archives for slurped into the internet archive. I don't know if any of the independent GeoCities archives are still online, but everything that was saved should be in the IA by now.
by NickC25 | 2025-04-06 16:48:58+00:00
I mean it's estimated that 1/5th of Russians have no access to indoor plumbing.

This is a country where its leader/president/dictator/mafia don/caporegime is quite literally a multitrillionaire.

Russia asking for sanctions relief is just relieving pressure for Putin as the people who keep him in power (the oligarchs) need access to the money they've stolen and want to be able to buy more yachts and football teams. Putin and his circle, as well as the oligarch class, don't give a fuck about the average Russian.
by acabal | 2025-04-06 16:49:17+00:00
> "Don't like it? Here is a full refund and you are free to read some other version."

That is not at all what I said.

> You can't claim to care about preserving the works while changing them, and that is changing them.

We do not and have never made that claim. We are creating our own editions of these public domain books, not engaging in historical preservation.

If you want to read classic books in their original spelling, then you must locate first editions. Editors and publishers have updated both spelling and punctuation as a matter of course for centuries. Just look at any three editions of any Jane Austen novel - and you could never read an edition of Shakespeare more recent than 1800.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-04-06 16:49:50+00:00
I just think this is an unreasonably charitable way to frame the observation. "The machine" identified, in Trump's first term, that many of the policies he wanted to implement would be bad for the country or would violate the law. It's true that moving more quickly and chaotically provides fewer opportunities for people to identify and mitigate the problems in advance - but that's not good, even for someone who wants big changes, unless you view causing problems in and of itself as a good thing. (In that vein, I should note that Trump shared a video last week from a guy saying he intentionally crashed the stock market.)
by rayiner | 2025-04-06 16:50:04+00:00
Interesting point. I hadn't thought of it this way before:

> But imagine that the Japanese both want to get out of their U.S. real estate and entirely away from dollar assets. They can’t accomplish that by selling their real estate to Americans, because they will get paid in dollars. And if they sell their real estate to non-Americans—say, the French, for euros—the property will remain in the hands of foreigners. With either kind of sale, the dollar assets held by the rest of the world will not (except for any concurrent shift in the price of the dollar) have changed.

> The bottom line is that other nations simply can’t disinvest in the U.S. unless they, as a universe, buy more goods and services from us than we buy from them. That state of affairs would be called an American trade surplus, and we don’t have one.

> But under any realistic view of things, our huge trade deficit guarantees that the rest of the world must not only hold the American assets it owns but consistently add to them. And that’s why, of course, our national net worth is gradually shifting away from our shores.
by rickyc091 | 2025-04-06 16:50:37+00:00
This is exactly why I don't trust FSD in stop and go traffic. The follow distance is too close on some versions where it will accelerate hard and start braking around 10 feet. One misstep and that's a rear end. The latest version is better, where I feel more confident with it's easing, but there's constantly regressions where it goes back to an aggressive braking where I'm always afraid it'll rear end the other driver.
by hatsix | 2025-04-06 16:52:04+00:00
According to Musk, my car was supposed to be unsupervised driving by now. The shift to vision only has consumed all of their resources for the past several years, and my car has been left behind. There have been giant leaps in vision only, but it still isn't better than the vision+radar.

So, I was deceived. I didn't buy the car because of the deception, but I did buy FSD because of it.

Also, FSD disengaging when it gets sensor confusion should be considered criminal fraud. FSD should never disengage without a driver action.
by rayiner | 2025-04-06 16:52:25+00:00
> Also due to the reserve nature of the USD the dollar and international trade mostly done in USD there is a huge demand for dollars keeping it strong compared to other currencies. This fundamentally is at odd with an export driven economy.

What if the Dollar weren't the world's reserve currency, either due to deliberate policy by the U.S., or the inevitable fact that the U.S. economy will shrink as a share of the world's economy as India and China develop?
by pjdemers | 2025-04-06 16:52:29+00:00
I've always asked for better non-monetary things in writing: title, spot on the org chart, automatic promotion soon, which parts of the product and stack I will work on, even as trivial as whether my desk will have a window. I state with constant certainty that those things are more important to me than a bigger paycheck. Most of the time I was offered far more money (in one case, 2 years pay signing bonus) in return for my agreeing to accept an offer with none of those things in writing.
by xrd | 2025-04-06 16:52:48+00:00
I love dokku (and Jose is amazing!). I would also love to know what's different.

The only thing I'm unsure of after reading the comments is that coolify can migrate to another server using a GUI. If that's correct, I don't know how to do it with dokku. But given that it is merely a small, secure and REALLY thoughtful shim over docker, I can imagine doing that myself in a few commands.

I absolutely love dokku so I'm biased but willing to learn.
by hwillis | 2025-04-06 16:52:53+00:00
Backing this up: automotive radar uses a band at ~80 GHz. The wavelength is ~3.7 millimeters, which lets you get incredible resolution. Not quite as good as the TSA airport scanners that can count your moles through your shirt, but good enough to see anything bigger than a golf ball.

For a long, long time automotive radar was a pipe dream technology. Steering a phased array of antennas means delaying each antenna by 1/10,000s of a wave period. Dynamically steering means being able to adjust those timings![1] You're approaching picosecond timing, and doing that with 10s or 100s antennas. Reading that data stream is still beyond affordable technology. Sampling 100 antennas 10x per period at 16 bit precision is 160 terabytes per second, 100x more data than the best high speed cameras. Since the fourier transform is O(nlogn), that's tens of petaflops to transform. Hundreds of 5090s, fully maxed out, before running object recognition.

Obviously we cut some corners instead. Current techniques way underutilize the potential of 80 GHz. Processing power trickles down slowly and new methods are created unpredictably, but improvement is happening. IMO radar has the highest ceiling potential of any of the sensing methods, it's the cheapest, and it's the most resistant to interference from other vehicles. Lidar can't hop frequencies or do any of the things we do to multiplex radar.

[1]: In reality you don't scan left-right-up-down like that. You don't even use just an 80 GHz wave, or even just a chirp (a pulsing wave that oscillates between 77-80 GHz). You direct different beams in all different directions at the same time, and more importantly you listen from all different directions at the same time.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-04-06 16:53:12+00:00
> Well, Fox News is is probably one of the most influential sources of propaganda in our era, and they're just publishing news with a strong political slant.

Actually (and hilariously) Fox News according to their own court filings do not publish news, they are an entertainment product.

And I say ironically because that's exactly the mechanism people are clamoring for in this discussion: it's the courts. Lawyers argue and courts eventually decide definitions all the time, because it's highly impractical to belabor and endlessly debate passing new laws because we don't have ironclad definitions in them beforehand.

If you want my humble opinion, in a legal/ban sense, I would define advertising as:

> Communicative material that is placed strategically by publishers or media for a price/by way of other agreement to drive awareness of products or services with the intent to generate attention and sales of said products or services.
by JumpinJack_Cash | 2025-04-06 16:54:38+00:00
This whole balancing the trade deficit is utopia.

I will just give a small example using black leather jackets.

Black leather jackets are indestructible, you can spill any sort of fluid on them, try to light them on fire (they won't catch fire) throw them in the dirt etc.

They never go out of style either, there is basically no reason why an adult should own more than one black leather jacket.

Now think of how many black leather jackets do you own.

See? People have to find within themselves the will to stop their consumerism , not with this sort of central planning idiocy. And it's not granted that doing away with consumerism is desirable either.

Like for example Trump's impact on American society was much better when he was buying planes, yachts, supercars and foreign models than what it has become of him now that he has stopped pursuing those things.
by leereeves | 2025-04-06 16:54:51+00:00
I fear that Congress will be unable to pass anything that isn't a budget resolution for the foreseeable future.

The filibuster rule requires bipartisan agreement to implement any proposed policy, and neither party wants to give an administration from the other party any kind of win.

Perversely, the better the idea, the less likely it is to pass Congress.

Better idea -> it will be successful -> it will be popular -> the administration will benefit politically -> the other party will oppose it -> it won't get 60 votes in the Senate -> it won't become law
by margalabargala | 2025-04-06 16:54:55+00:00
The current state of the government is that Congress has tacitly ceded their power to the President. They are allowing him to do things that generally would not be permitted with out Congressional approval, because the majority is aligned with him anyway.

An intelligent or competent leader who had the power currently enjoyed by the President would be able to implement the system suggested by Buffet, and it would likely see less opposition than the current tariffs have.
by netsharc | 2025-04-06 16:55:00+00:00
If the URL claiming uploaded in 2015 can be believed (i.e. in the time before the Internet was 95% sewage), this could be that original article: https://www.gettingclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Body...

It's much more fucking concise than the drivel of the republished stuff.
by dcminter | 2025-04-06 16:55:57+00:00
My Dad was a software developer in the UK with Honeywell in the 1960s and after a stint with Wang (yes, I know, ha ha) went independent. As a result we had a variety of Wang minis in the house in the mid-70s when I was a toddler, which must have been fairly unusual. I learnt to write on green-banded continuous stationery!

Thereafter it was the more conventional British route into computing via Clive Sinclair's cheap but, er, cheap, ZX81 for me... but those minis lit the fuse.
by Brian_K_White | 2025-04-06 16:56:16+00:00
Considering the thrust of my comment, I don't understand the question. Obviously paraphrasing someone else's words into ones you like better is a fine and acceptable thing to do. So clearly I am just illustrating the problem by example.

The real answer is twofold.

1. We don't have a special 3rd kind of quote or other punctuation mark for reinterpreted references.

2. The real one: This is not a quote that lies as you imply. It is a new message, that merely uses quotes to denote a speaker, as in a pure fictional work, where the characters dialog is in quotes, even though no actual human was actually quoted.

Are there any other conundrums and baffling mysteries I can clear up for you?
by Retric | 2025-04-06 16:56:34+00:00
You can get out of a car on railroad tracks. However, “safely come to a complete stop” includes turns and freeways which are more serious concerns.

That’s why I said 30 seconds / 30 minutes not 3 seconds. The idea is to go to somewhere safe and pull off the road not just slam on the breaks and hope your not on a curve.
by vitus | 2025-04-06 16:57:44+00:00
What? I was responding to the specific claim that two independent sensors always make your failure rates go down. Not that any particular source of sensor data is strictly inferior.

I agree that optimizing for vehicle cost and shipping shoddy software at the expense of human lives is the wrong tradeoff, and having different sensors that provide more coverage of situations is generally preferable if you can afford it.

But suppose you have a radar sensor that's faulty, and so it periodically thinks that there's something right in front of it, and so it causes the car to slam on its brakes. That's likely going to cause an accident if you're traveling at highway speeds. Does that mean that we shouldn't use radar in any circumstances? Of course not. But sensors are not infallible, and we need to keep that in mind when designing these systems.
by freen | 2025-04-06 16:57:46+00:00
The answer to the problem of the US’s work as only mitigating, rather than solving is not abandonment: it is true leadership and collaboration.

Smallpox, the hole in the ozone layer, etc.

It is possible.

Shrinking away because you can’t fully solve it alone or others aren’t helping as much as you’d like?

Cowardice and/or avarice to a degree that is, in my humble opinion, indistinguishable from evil.
by mystified5016 | 2025-04-06 17:00:02+00:00
We do observe really weird gravitational effects. Dark matter, for instance. Under Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, galaxies shouldn't be able to form in the way we observe. The way galaxies and their contents move makes no sense with our present understanding of gravity-- unless we assume there's a lot more mass. So we invented dark matter as a sort of placeholder variable to make the math make sense.

More anomalies: simply being near a large gravitational field alters the flow of time. Frame dragging around black holes (spacetime itself twists into a rotating spiral). The final parsec problem (co-orbiting black holes bleeding energy as gravitational waves). And don't forget the gravitational singularity of a black hole.

But perhaps the most important thing to know is that we've only just gained the ability to examine gravitational waves. Once we build more detectors (especially LISA), we'll probably discover a lot more is wrong with our understanding of gravity.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-04-06 17:00:12+00:00
The point of the article is that he accidentally updated his contact on his personal phone (from the campaign, when he was not a government official and did not have a government-issued phone) with the wrong number because he clicked on an iOS suggested contact update generated by receiving a text message. Then, he imported that contact into Signal and then added it to the group chat.

So there are three explanations:

1. Everything happened on his personal phone

2. He was logged into Signal on his personal phone to update the contact, and was also logged into the same Signal account on his government-issued phone. He imported the contact on his personal phone and then added it to the chat on his government-issued phone. From an infosec standpoint, this is not much better than #1 because he still has an unsecured device logged into the same Signal account that he's using for secure comms.

3. He was only logged into Signal on his government-issued phone and then manually copied the number into his government phone from his personal phone, not noticing that it was the wrong number. For anyone who has worked with users, this doesn't seem realistic. These guys have huge numbers of contacts, are very busy, and they do the most convenient thing possible for them. They do not sit around for hours copying information from one phone to another.

Let's assume that Waltz only used Signal from his government-issued phone and manually copied the number from his personal phone. He thought that the number he was copying was from Hughes' personal phone - it was in his personal contacts and he had been using it before either of them were in government. So even if Waltz himself was using a government-issued phone, which seems unlikely, he was simultaneously assuming that his subordinate was using a personal phone.

Even if you take the most generous interpretations you end up with the conclusion that NSC personnel were routinely using personal devices and accounts for secure comms.
by inglor_cz | 2025-04-06 17:00:15+00:00
Poorer countries and generally countries with worse governance have a real trouble controlling tuberculosis. Given how much of it is asymptomatic, you have to have a real screening program including X-rays in order to catch cases, and that is beyond the ability of most developing countries - which are precisely the countries where most of the population boom is taking place.

I don't believe that USAID can cover, say, the whole of Africa with preventative care. The US cannot cover even all of its own citizens, for a host of reasons, much less 1,5 billion people in exotic regions far from its borders.

Purge of USAID is likely to make the situation worse, but only marginally worse. The real problem is that at least third of humanity doesn't yet have any reasonable healthcare infrastructure, reliable grid (for medical machines to work), public safety (for doctors to survive), etc., etc., etc. If we had a functional recipe to solve such problems, they would likely be solved already.
by Falimonda | 2025-04-06 17:00:27+00:00
I agree it's far from perfect. In addition to the existing "beta" label, I'll consider adding a disclaimer/warning to users that the system is still in beta and will suffer from inaccuracies in translation.

What am I doing to fix this long term?

I'm currently building an optimization mechanism to ensure the highest quality translations for any given language pair.

I really appreciate your detailed feedback. Do let me know if anything else comes to mind.
by throwaway31131 | 2025-04-06 17:00:43+00:00
I guess it boils down to this.

Earlier in the thread people were saying removing lidar was bad becuase multiple sensors types is good, presuming the camera stay either way, and one is not replacing camera with radar. I agree with this. It's usually trivially easy to corner case defeat one sensor type, as your example shows, regardless of sensor type. They all have one weakness or another.

That's why things like military systems have many sensor types. They really don't want to miss the incoming object so they measure it many different ways. Defeating many different sensor types is just way harder and therefore more unlikely to occur naturally.

And yes, control systems can absolutely reliably combine the input of many sensors. This has been true for decades.

Frankly I surprised more of these systems don't take advantage of sound. It's crazy cheap and society has been adding sound alerts to driving for a long time (sirens, car horns, train horns, etc.)
by analog31 | 2025-04-06 17:00:44+00:00
I'm not going to quibble with you on this, because I think you're right, but I can think of a secondary use. A country with weak governance could use tariffs to raise money because it's easy to manage at the point of entry, rather than requiring more sophisticated systems such as income or property value reporting.

This could explain why, for instance, poor countries use tariffs on goods that have no chance of building a local industry.
by chgs | 2025-04-06 17:01:42+00:00
The corn laws were interesting. They were tarrifs on food imports, supported by the land owners.

> the repeal of the Corn Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners in the United Kingdom economically, while causing income losses for the top 10% of income earners.

Obviously it’s not hard to see why the wealthiest like tarrifs.
by throw0101d | 2025-04-06 17:02:39+00:00
That's from 2003.

In a more recent interview in March 2025:

> Asked about how tariffs will affect the economy, Buffett stated, "Tariffs are actually, we've had a lot of experience with them. They're an act of war, to some degree."

> I asked, "How do you think tariffs will impact inflation?"

> "Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" he laughed. "And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, 'And then what?'"

* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-buffett-on-legendary-was...
by Fade_Dance | 2025-04-06 17:03:23+00:00
It works the other way as well. Ex: exporting dollars solidifies a bid for US debt (because by far the easiest way to use excess dollars is to buy US treasuries), which allows the US to keep easily exporting dollars. When capital flows to the US are sustainably strong, the dollar performs well (which is amplified from being the reserve currency for international trade), which means foreign capital is incentivzed to join the bandwagon (strong dollar + strong US assets performance = great returns for international participants). It's self reinforcing to the upside, and it's theoretically somewhat self-reinforcing if it unwinds as well.
by darksaints | 2025-04-06 17:03:24+00:00
It seems like the XNU kernel is architecturally super close to the Mach kernel, and XNU drivers architecturally work like Mach drivers, but just that they are compiled into the kernel instead of running in userspace as a separate process. And it seems like the only reason for doing so is performance.

That makes me wonder: how hard would it be to run the XNU kernel in something like a “Mach mode”, where you take the same kernel and drivers but run them separately as the Mach microkernel was intended?

I feel like from a security standpoint, a lot of situations would gladly call for giving up a little bit of performance for the process isolation security benefits that come from running a microkernel.

Is anybody here familiar enough with XNU to opine on this?
by ceejayoz | 2025-04-06 17:03:30+00:00
> Bernie is for tariffs in his own words.

If you read only half of them, sure. I’m for jailing some people, but if you say you’re gonna jail everyone we disagree, yes?

> AOCs comment was from months ago.

Thats during Trump’s current and second term, during which he promised these tariffs as a campaign issue. Pretending her comments aren’t related is getting a bit desperate now.