MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by freedomben | 2025-04-04 14:01:58+00:00
Can you explain this logic a bit more because it genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often that I feel I must be missing something. I find it helpful to walk through the logic:

For example, it is frequently framed that there are only two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if you're talking to someone more on the left, and is Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right, but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously can't both be correct.

It seems to me that the choice isn't actually binary. At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also conclude that a person actually gets two votes, because consider the following scenario:

Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote, with the following possible outcomes:

1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A: 11, B: 10, C: 1

2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 11, C: 1

If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible outcomes. Yet,

3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 2

4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 1

All four of those outcomes are mathematically different, which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
by palata | 2025-04-04 14:02:21+00:00
I meant 10-15 years as in "when they are 16-20 years old and actually start to understand how fucked we are".

> Realistically if this is a problem it's my adult grandkids at most or great-grandkids who it would begin to impact.

It's already impacting us. We are measurably living in a mass extinction that is happening faster than the one of the dinosaurs.

The way it's going, GenZ (probably millenials) are more likely to die from this than from age. After having lived in global war times. Anyone in their thirties or less being anxious about their retirement are missing the bigger problem they will be facing at that age.
by James_K | 2025-04-04 14:03:03+00:00
I doubt Britain's problems will ever really be solved. We only seem interested in making them worse. I blame the media, mostly. They're not interested in telling people the truth as much as getting Nigel Farage on every other week to argue about immigration. The issue with news is that you can only really report on new stuff, whereas the problems we face are chronic and old. My faith is our political system is utterly crushed, and I suspect the same is true for many other people. The ground is ripe for fascism.
by eob | 2025-04-04 14:03:08+00:00
An aspect of these self-improvement thought experiments that I’m willing to tentatively believe.. but want more resolution on, is the exact work involved in “improvement”.

Eg today there’s billions of dollars being spent just to create and label more data, which is a global act of recruiting, training, organization, etc.

When we imagine these models self improving, are we imagining them “just” inventing better math, or conducting global-scale multi-company coordination operations? I can believe AI is capable of the latter, but that’s an awful lot of extra friction.
by alabastervlog | 2025-04-04 14:03:14+00:00
Yeah, I could triple the "read this to learn more" links and it'd still not cover all of it.

"The entire history of the Republican Party since Goldwater, our bad system of elections, the entire history of postwar 'think tanks', the McLuhan-sense 'message' of TV and especially the Internet, and a slow-motion more-successful knock-off of the Business Plot" covers a lot of ground.
by InitialLastName | 2025-04-04 14:03:17+00:00
The same Accuweather whose previous CEO (and founder's brother) was Donald Trump's nominee to run NOAA in the last administration?

Color me shocked that, under the last administration and when it looked like the Trump campaign had a good chance of self-destructing, they wrote a milquetoast "we don't support this at all ;-)" press release about his agenda.
by spacebanana7 | 2025-04-04 14:03:26+00:00
I definitely agree there were some individuals who made money from the imperial project, but it wasn't rational at the level of the British state/monarch.

> Like with every colonial power...

Some colonial powers may have genuinely increased the wealth of the imperial state. The Spanish and Mongol empires stand out in my mind here, although I don't have a precise source of accounting.
by morsecodist | 2025-04-04 14:04:07+00:00
> If the US is consistent with the tariff policy

This is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The US can say it's tariff policy is whatever it wants but the administration is under constraints. If there was some extremely compelling data that the economic effects caused by the retaliatory tariffs would cause an overwhelming democratic victory at the midterms that would have a much bigger effect on policy than the formula for tariffs the administration wrote down. I am not predicting this definitely will happen but it is the kind of thing I am sure people are considering when they are imposing retaliatory tariffs.
by llmsolutions | 2025-04-04 14:04:40+00:00
SEEKING WORK

LLM Solutions provides advisory and implementation services for everything LLM-related. We have developed novel approaches for leveraging LLMs against problems such as text classification, named entity recognition, semantic search and retrieval, and question/answer systems. If you have needs beyond typical "prompt engineering" and RAG-based systems, feel free to reach out.

Email: hello@llmsolutions.ai
Show HN: Cream11 – IPL Fantasy Team AI on Steroids
by Vaib215 | 2025-04-04 14:04:43+00:00
I, along with my friend, vibe coded this tool that suggests you the best 11 of the two teams playing this season of Indian Premier League(IPL). Its powered by strong dataset which includes playerwise performance on year basis.

Open to suggestions and improvments.
by mapt | 2025-04-04 14:04:52+00:00
> The immanent rise of autonomous machines is the sudden emergency exit from capitalism we (or rather: some of us) have been rooting for.. IF we can convince the people of this planet that a non-commercial post-scarcity open-access open-source commons economy is a more hopeful trajectory into the long future.. Let's not give up on this one yet.

Or, it's an invitation to plug us into the Entertainment-Marketting-Hyperstimulus-Feed that is eminently personalized and replace all our human culture with persuasive slop, until we cease to be of use, bankrupt husks with no friends and no avocations other than those that provide a reliable revenue return. Quite possibly with individualized radical ideologies because whatever hits your dopamine button, the Algorithm pumps more into you (See Neal Stephenson's "Dodge").
by MobileVet | 2025-04-04 14:05:02+00:00
Numbers looks wonderful, but for deep business needs it has a LONG way to go before it is at all comparable. It is great they are adding functionality, but I am curious what market segment they think they are meeting?

We just broke down and bought a Windows based machine because MS Excel is so limited on a Mac that it was forcing our accountant into time wasting inefficiencies and general hair pulling.
by TomiTom291 | 2025-04-04 14:05:03+00:00
TMDB Player is a browser extension designed to enhance your movie and TV show experience on the TMDB website. This extension adds a custom play button to TMDB pages, allowing you to stream movies and TV shows for free from various video streaming servers.

Get it for:

- Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tmdb-player/

- Edge: https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/tmdb-playe...

- Chrome/Chromium (quick manual installation for now): https://github.com/TomasTNunes/TMDB-Player?tab=readme-ov-fil...

Let me know what you think of this and if you have any question/suggestion.
by Rexxar | 2025-04-04 14:05:08+00:00
> At the time GDP of the Eurozone was comparable to the US' now the US is almost twice as big

No, You're just comparing change in the EUR/USD exchange rate here. In 2007, the euro was at a high point of 1.48, and in 2024 it's at a low of 1.02. Inflation has not been higher in Europe than in the USA over that period.

If we look at GDP at purchasing power parity from 2007 to 2023 we have this:

- European Union: 31,162 → 61,217, +96% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...)

- USA: 48,050 → 82,769, +72% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...)

Which shows a slight catching-up by the European Union over the period.
by ajross | 2025-04-04 14:05:49+00:00
> Civil disobedience and dedication to political action is not what you should expect of an average alien.

How does one square that with "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" though?

Absolutely amazing how the "freedom" party turns out to not care about the actual freedoms when they're used by the wrong people to do the wrong things.
by fmap | 2025-04-04 14:05:58+00:00
> The idea is, if we don't think of anything more efficient, we'll at least be able to simulate a cat, and then an idiot, and then Einstein, and then something smarter. And since we almost certainly will think of something more efficient than "simulate a human brain", we should expect superintelligence to come much sooner.

The problem with this argument is that it's assuming that we're on a linear track to more and more intelligent machines. What we have with LLMs isn't this kind of general intelligence.

We have multi-paragraph autocomplete that's matching existing texts more and more closely. The resulting models are great priors for any kind of language processing and have simple reasoning capabilities in so far as those are present in the source texts. Using RLHF to make the resulting models useful for specific tasks is a real achievement, but doesn't change how the training works or what the original training objective was.

So let's say we continue along this trajectory and we finally have a model that can faithfully reproduce and identify every word sequence in its training data and its training data includes every word ever written up to that point. Where do we go from here?

Do you want to argue that it's possible that there is a clever way to create AGI that has nothing to do with the way current models work and that we should be wary of this possibility? That's a much weaker argument than the one in the article. The article extrapolates from current capabilities - while ignoring where those capabilities come from.

> And, even if you think A or B are unlikely, doesn't it make sense to just consider the possibility that they're true, and think about how we'd know and what we could do in response, to prevent C or D?

This is essentially https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

It might make sense to consider, but it doesn't make sense to invest non-trivial resources.

This isn't the part that bothers me at all. I know people who got grants from, e.g., Miri to work on research in logic. If anything, this is a great way to fund some academic research that isn't getting much attention otherwise.

The real issue is that people are raising ridiculous amounts of money by claiming that the current advances in AI will lead to some science fiction future. When this future does not materialize it will negatively affect funding for all work in the field.

And that's a problem, because there is great work going on right now and not all of it is going to be immediately useful.
by cess11 | 2025-04-04 14:06:05+00:00
From the title I expected to see some mention of privatisation or foreign squatters owning real estate for credit and tax purposes rather than use or friction and waste in the NHS due to corrupt IT procurement, and things like that.

The proposed recommendations to Starmer et al are also very vague, at least to me, Labour insiders or public affairs consultants might have obvious context to fill them in, I don't know.
by vr46 | 2025-04-04 14:06:09+00:00
I did push for all my digital images to be DNG, and they are, up to around 2018, and two out of four cameras use it natively - Pentax, Leica - while the other two use their own formats - Canon, Fuji.

The reason I’m less fussy now is because the combination of edits, metadata and image data in a single file didn’t necessarily help me when I switched from Lightroom to Capture One. I would love to be able to update the files to use newer RAW processors and better IQ, but I lose the Lightroom edit information in C1. That makes sense as they do things differently. But I hoped that with DNG there was a universal format for handling edits.

My JPEGs remain the definitive version of the images but I would love to be able to recover all those original edits again in C1, or any other editing program.
by cdecl | 2025-04-04 14:06:32+00:00
> I find all advertising to be the sort of implicit-mugging the grandparent is describing.

Unfortunately, it's a useful thing that people have used to prey on our inquisitive simian brains.

Personally, I'm in favor of doing things like banning billboards &c, but it's hard to draw a line on banning advertising in general.
by danaris | 2025-04-04 14:07:02+00:00
...and?

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying it's normal or acceptable to have your expectations be that a "convicted criminal" is automatically a bad person?

If so, then particularly given the large and very-well-documented racial biases in arrest, prosecution, and conviction for crimes here in the US, perhaps you should consider adjusting those expectations?

If not, then please actually say what you mean clearly.
by acdha | 2025-04-04 14:07:03+00:00
It’s especially hard when those beliefs have lead you to justify treating other people horribly. If you’ve gone around accusing people of grooming children for abuse because they thought gay or trans people deserved basic human rights, if you’ve said supporting immigration means supporting rapists and murderers, etc. it’s much harder to come back from that than if it was more traditional policy differences like whether we should have a particular tax rate. I think that’s intentional in some cases, just as with cults where pushing extreme claims and breaking outside ties makes it harder to leave.
by 0xCE0 | 2025-04-04 14:07:08+00:00
I have read many these kind of books, and I have found none of them to be helpful. They are just mangling delicious-sounding sentences.

I have found that the most effective way to think is to write your own book, your own expedition of the matter at hand. When you write a sentence/paragraph, you notice how poor/ugly/erroneous your writing is, and then you rewrite it. I love being noticing how wrong I am, because at that point I have learned something. This way, you have iterated and learned the matter, and learnings are not just in your brain with you all the time, but you also have externalized it in writing, and the passing of time shows if it is timeless bulletproof understanding/thinking/learning/whatever.
by bitshiftfaced | 2025-04-04 14:07:26+00:00
Yes, we're on the same page I think. For context, this thread was originally about to what extent VAT is comparable to tariffs. For example, say country A has a end-consumer tax of 20% and country B has one of 10%, and neither has tariffs or other trade barriers. On the surface, we might expect country B to have a trade surplus due to having comparatively cheaper exports. But what if they instead they have a deficit?

Country A is less dependent on B than the other way around, and they are able to enrich their country with the extra tax revenue. Maybe they even use this tax revenue to invest or incentivize what's needed to become even less dependant on country B. Now suppose country B increases their tariff until the trade balance is zero. In this scenario, all country B is really doing is increasing their own tax revenue to match that of country A.
by rimunroe | 2025-04-04 14:07:33+00:00
> the headline is positively wrong

The headline is "US Weather Agency Websites Set to Vanish with Contract Cuts". Are you seeing a different version than I am? Your complaints don't make sense otherwise.

> NOAA uses cloud providers including AWS and GCP to host a bunch of services and sites under its "research division". The contracts under which these hosting arrangements are provided are to be terminated shortly. At that point those services and web sites will go offline.

The headline says that sites are going to go down because of contracts being cut. That seems like an accurate summary of this paragraph.

> it's nothing to do with the actual weather service data feeds

The headline doesn't say anything about data feeds.
by miltonlost | 2025-04-04 14:07:53+00:00
> Liberals were promoting people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has extreme views, they were "cancelling" anyone who dares to think differently about anything: from climate to abortion or covid vaccines.

That you think we should not be "cancelling" anti-vaxxers and your implication of we should listen to anti-vaxxers (because they "dare to think differently", as if this is about their dyed hair color or something) says a lot about you. And that you use "canceling" in quotes because you can't point to a real thing "liberals" did.

> As a result they kicked off from public discourse huge groups of electorate, polarizing society.

OHHHHH, the liberals are the one who polarized society? Not Trump from the start saying these people are my enemies? Your right-wing bias is showing

> There were topics that you just could not discussed, twitter (pre Musk) was looking to it, same Facebook or Youtube (still, good luck having a monetized film with the forbidden word like Gaza Strip), similarly mainstream media.

And there are now topics that can't be discussed on Twitter (post-Musk) like the word "cisgender". And Facebook and Youtube had TONS of anti-vax misinformation, anti-abortion groups, and general right-wing algorithmic boosting. That maybe "some" topics aren't allowed then but a ton of others still are is you trying to pick one spoon out of a pile of knives and saying its full of spoons.

What other topics could not be discussed? The value of white supremacy? How homosexuality is a choice? That the Jews run the world? Be specific please.
by econ | 2025-04-04 14:07:58+00:00
>the average person speaks and thinks in these terms,

(Trademarks aside) Even more surprising to me is how everyone seems concerned about the studios making enough money?! As if they should make any money at all. As if it is up to us to create a profitable game for them.

If they all go bankrupt today I won't lose any sleep over it.

People also try to make a living selling bananas and apples. Should we create an elaborate scheme for them to make sure they survive? Their product is actually important to have. Why can't they own the exclusive right to sell bananas similarly? If anyone can just sell apples it would hurt their profit.

It is long ago but that is how things use to work. We do still have taxi medallions in some places and all kinds of legalized monopolies like it.

Perhaps there is some sector where it makes sense but I can't think of it.

If you want to make a movie you can just do a crowd funder like Robbert space industry.
by spencerflem | 2025-04-04 14:08:10+00:00
I think the motivation is important. Many FOSS projects are sharing something the author considers useful to the world, as a way of making it better in a way that they know how. Its a lovely gift and I'm happy to know about it.

Others are there to promote lock in to some cloud service, or increase the authors rep as a 10x hacker and those are skeevy because the author is skeevy and did not have joy in their hearts.

All corporate ads ate the second kind.
by Ukv | 2025-04-04 14:08:18+00:00
Average phone allegedly uses 30 kWh per year (charging + data transfer)[0], which in turn uses about 26 gallons of water[1].

Which I feel is well worth it for the value each user gets out, but does start to add up to lakes and power plants worth of water/energy when there are billions of phones.

[0]: https://www.bryceenergyservices.com/2024/10/03/the-total-ene...

[1]: Using same electricity water intensity as used in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271
by mapt | 2025-04-04 14:08:37+00:00
You don't need to "First, we end capitalism" to recognize a problem that has already gone out of bounds and promises to go further.

Hawaii bans billboards, and has, since 1927. Look into that. They manage to do so without some kind of slippery slope that ends in authoritarian oppression, or some kind of guillotine wielding anti-corporate mob. There are lots of ways to limit the harm without trying to completely erase our political economy.

We used to ban gambling. Gambling was regarded as slightly harmful. Now we have legalized gambling, and we've plugged it into modern marketting, and the harm has expanded to the point that some of us regret the entire idea; The gambling industry is in the process of consuming all of sports entertainment. "Decriminalization" of small gambling concerns and an almost total ban on paid advertising is probably, it turns out, a better outcome.
by palata | 2025-04-04 14:08:52+00:00
Wait, what? "Stop blaming individuals who proudly say that they don't give a shit, because it's counter-productive"? Is that your point?

We're at a point where whoever thinks we're fine is totally uninformed. We're living in a mass extinction that is measurably happening faster than the one of the dinosaurs (spoiler: they disappeared). We're going for 4 degrees warming (and that's a conservative estimate), which means that half of the planet will become uninhabitable (as in, if you stay outside without life support, you die). What happens when half the planet wants to move (together with all their military force) where the other half of the planet is?

And what's the answer to that? "Hmm I think we will miraculously find a solution, in the meantime I want my burger".
by Arisaka1 | 2025-04-04 14:08:53+00:00
I think the argument made is, if there's no added value by understanding something deeper when it will inevitably do better than now, the only reason to dig deeper is for one's curiosity.

All that digging now translates to expertise that is critical and potentially lucrative. But if it's only going to get better then for how long will this be true?
by OtherShrezzing | 2025-04-04 14:09:06+00:00
>This is also a cultural issue. In large cities, people often don't feel as being part of the community and they don't take pride in their surroundings. They put rubbish everywhere, vandalise. There is little done to change that. They see neighbour has nice flowers in the garden? Instead of admiring, they will cut them off.

I don't think this aligns with the lived-experience of most Britons. The big cities are mostly litter-free areas, and people can have well tended gardens go unmolested by neighbours.