MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Workaccount2 | 2025-04-15 18:07:47+00:00
>who actually do the labor under those people are being paid less

No, that's where you have it backwards they are being paid more. That's the exact reason why they are buying that house when you say "who the fuck can afford that".

Ironically, they are also the ones being exploited the most by the top 1%.

An amazon warehouse sorter will never create or do anything that makes amazon much more money than what they are paid. They get $18/hr for producing $21/hr of value, doing the same static task all day everyday. Amazons "profit margin" on these workers is almost nothing.

The lead cloud architect though gets paid $350k/yr, but can design a single change that will make amazon $30-40 million/yr. The profit margin on them is insane. And they are the ones outbidding everyday people on things, driving up costs.

Back 60 years ago, everyone was much more clumped around the same (lower) income, so the houses where smaller and the prices more amenable to more people.
by Tuna-Fish | 2025-04-15 18:07:52+00:00
> A star "lasts" about 10 billion years, so you'd expect about 1 in 10 billion stars to 'die' each year, but only a tiny proportion (the very largest) go supernova.

This analysis really doesn't work. Star lifespan is inversely correlated to size. A star large enough to just barely go supernova is only going to live for ~100M years, and as they get bigger, the lifespans fall rapidly.

(Why? Because gravity is what provides the pressure for fusion to happen, and so more gravity means fusion happens faster. For large stars, the luminosity is something like the mass to the 3.5th power. Also, convection works less well for larger stars, so as stars grow bigger, ever smaller proportion of the star takes any part in the fusion reactions in the core.)
by AlotOfReading | 2025-04-15 18:09:35+00:00
Most colorblind people are so-called "anamolous trichromats" who have 3 functioning color channels, but one or more has some kind of deficiency. Instead of being completely unable to distinguish UI elements, they might simply take longer at it, or more likely to spend 10 extra minutes hunting for the red key the boss dropped in the grass.

That's more subtle to test.
by kombine | 2025-04-15 18:09:39+00:00
> Like the people who want to relocate Palestinians from Gaza are, to my knowledge, a minority.

Not sure what "minority" you are talking about, because this is actually unfolding right in front of our eyes over the past 18 months with the backing of the most powerful country on the planet. Talking about this as if its some fringe idea is disingenuous.
by mrandish | 2025-04-15 18:09:43+00:00
I think Scott's take here is fair because he acknowledges that most of the Ivy League did (and largely still does) have huge problems with adequately protecting Jewish students and perspectives, and more broadly, intellectual viewpoint diversity of any kind. And prior administrations did push regulatory and funding requirements and policies to support DEI and other hot point issues to an extent that was clearly agenda biased.

But, as Scott observes, unfortunately the current administration has gone far beyond trying to correct those excesses to a more neutral or balanced median and is, instead, doing the same things (and much worse) that "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. That makes the current administration just as wrong as the prior ones were. Only now we're hearing much more about it because the current agenda-driven biases are ones that >85% of academia doesn't hold themselves.
by Spooky23 | 2025-04-15 18:09:58+00:00
I think the key is to have a sort of risk framework. Things that handle data, are a fire risk or are direct knockoffs avoid.

Otherwise it’s often a good value, and sometimes the “brand” name is really the knockoff with a trademark on the box.

The carburetor on my leaf blower failed and needed a rebuild. The “name brand” kits were $40-60 at Home Depot and Lowe’s. I got some random kit on Amazon that was the same main part, with a different (and better) kit of tubes, etc than the retail one.

Same thing with clothes. I’ve had great luck with workout clothes, my girlfriend did well with dresses and other stuff. Just be smart about it — $10 jeans are gonna be garbage.
by rofo1 | 2025-04-15 18:10:06+00:00
You say that they are "demands". As if the taxpayers should automatically give billions to Harvard, no matter what Harvard does. That's insanity (to me at least).

"Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment."

"The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. "

So basically, they are claiming that the Federal government will not invest money until Harvard gets rid of the communist/socialist rhetoric. As far as I can see, they are free to burn their money to fund communist ideals. Who says that they deserve taxpayers money by default?

It's amazing how communist problems always end with: "you eventually run out of other people's money"
by jdeibele | 2025-04-15 18:10:45+00:00
I literally got a Firewire to USB converter yesterday to try and pull video off a DV Camcorder. A video capture card in the same price range had worked great for letting me stream VHS tapes through OBS Studio.

There are various YouTube videos showing a daisy chain of Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 1/2 adapters connected to various Firewire cables and adapters. I was hoping to avoid all of that but the camera doesn't show at all. Fortunately, nothing seems damaged on either side.

I've only got 6 tapes so I'm sending them off to a service and sending the adapter back to Amazon.
by TonyTrapp | 2025-04-15 18:11:00+00:00
You can easily put phpMyAdmin behind basic auth as an additional security layer, completely bypassing any PHP execution and letting the web server completely handle the authentication. It's exactly what I have done multiple times in the past. Arguably phpMyAdmin's direct integration is a less secure way of doing it, but do we even know if it's the basic auth itself that was bypassed, or was it just the case of a weak password?
by oyshiu | 2025-04-15 18:11:28+00:00
Recently, I read about the number 52! — the mind-blowing fact that a standard deck of 52 cards can be arranged in more ways than there are seconds since the beginning of the universe. It’s a simple concept, but it truly stunned me. If shuffled properly, there’s an incredibly high chance that a specific sequence of cards has never existed before… and may never exist again.

I’d been wanting to build a small side project, so I took on the challenge of creating an ode to randomness and built Infinite Shuffle.

How does it work? Each time you shuffle, the new sequence is compared to all those that came before, checking how far it matches from the start. How far can we go?

A touch of gamification To make it a bit more fun (at least for the first few shuffles), I added some gamification — you can see your longest matches and how they compare to others.

I plan to leave this online for as long as I can. Maybe one day there’ll be too many shuffles to support. Maybe it’ll fade quietly into the void, never finding a perfect match. Either way, it was a silly, fun project to build.

Shuffle away!

https://www.infiniteshuffle.net/
by jacobgkau | 2025-04-15 18:12:34+00:00
Exactly. And most people think, "well, I'm super technical, so I'll know," but that only works for your own field. I can tell if a USB-C charger is genuine or not, but I know that I don't know enough about clothing irons or magazine sleeves or a hundred other items to tell if it's crap or not within the return period. Sometimes, I may never know if I don't try a different one for an extended period of time.
by pixl97 | 2025-04-15 18:13:06+00:00
>find small perturbations that are undetectable to humans but produce a large change in model behavior.

What artists don't realize by this they are just improving the models relative to human capabilities. The adversarial techniques like, for example making a stop sign look like something else, well likely be weeded out of the model by a convergence of model performance to average or above average human performance.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-04-15 18:13:34+00:00
> they are claiming that the Federal government will not invest money until Harvard gets rid of the communist/socialist rhetoric

They're changing the terms of the trade after a contract was signed. At the very least, this is the U.S. defaulting on commitments.

That said, I broadly agree with you--the U.S. shouldn't be funding Harvard. And the public shouldn't have a say--or continuing economic stake, the way we do with publicly-funded research--in what Harvard does and produces.
by aylmao | 2025-04-15 18:13:43+00:00
> The main advantages of having a boundary is that you can have the best representation of data for each side's logic, converting only when needs.

RSC doesn't impede this. In fact it improves it. Instead of having your ORM's objects, to be converted to JSON, sent, parsed, and finally manipulated to your UIs needs, you skip the whole "convert to JSON" part. You can go straight from your ORM objects (best for data operations) to UI (best for rendering) and skip having to think about how the heck you'll serialize this to be serialized over the wire.

> With JSX on the server side, it's abstraction when there's no need to be. And in the wrong place to boot.

JSX is syntactic sugar for a specific format of JavaScript object. It's a pretty simple format really. From ReactJSXElement.js, L242 [1]:

element = { // This tag allows us to uniquely identify this as a React Element $$typeof: REACT_ELEMENT_TYPE, // Built-in properties that belong on the element type, key, ref, props, };

As far as I'm aware, TC39 hasn't yet specified which shape of literal is "ok" and which one is "wrong" to run on a computer, depending on wether that computer has a screen or not. I imagine this is why V8, JSC and SpiderMonkey, etc let you create objects of any shape you want on any environment. I don't understand what's wrong about using this shape on the server.

[1] https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/e71d4205aed6c41b88e36...
by generalizations | 2025-04-15 18:13:45+00:00
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin).

What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the due process question is. Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama).

Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".

I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
by endominus | 2025-04-15 18:13:46+00:00
>So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion

I have no idea what you mean by this. I explained in detail what changing one's mind entails. It has nothing to do with "irrefutable" or deeply held convictions.

You have a nonstandard definition of belief.

First of all, "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance. It is acceptance that the information is not fully reliable. Most things are unknowable; the vast majority of held beliefs are not arrived at through irrefutable logic but by simple trust in consensus. I believe that certain food is nutritious, even though I have not run tests on it myself. Data might arise later showing my beliefs to be false; that is why I assign probabilities to my beliefs, rather than certainties.

Second of all, your fallback to a dictionary definition is flawed in two ways. The first is that various definitions of "belief" exist; one of which (from https://www.wordnik.com/words/belief) is "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence." (emphasis added) Another definition given is "A conviction of the truth of a given proposition or an alleged fact, resting upon grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge."

The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive. That is to say, dictionaries are not arbiters of truth in language but merely reference documents for possible meaning, and where they differ from common usage, it is the dictionary that is incorrect.
by mdp2021 | 2025-04-15 18:13:57+00:00
You should check Eugene Volokh's space ( https://reason.com/volokh/ ).

I would reply with the point made by the Supreme Court of the USA, that the "courts cannot interfere with prerogatives of the executive branch". Which of course leaves big questions about power and apparent abuse of the same, and about what cynics call "collaterals".

One detail in clearer terms: if «federal courts [had] no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way», where lies the responsibility of the State towards its victims?
by const_cast | 2025-04-15 18:14:02+00:00
Well no, because the right's argument for why what they're good is good is:

1. We're not doing that.

2. If we are, it's not that bad.

3. If it is that bad, it's not our fault.

4. If it is our fault, just have faith it'll work out.

A lot of their belief system relies on Trump being a liar. Literally, they're hoping for and arguing that it's all a-okay because Trump is a liar so him saying XYZ terrible thing doesn't matter.

The right isn't trying to push anyone in their direction because even they don't believe their direction. They're currently in a suspended state, a type of dissociation.
by ivewonyoung | 2025-04-15 18:14:07+00:00
> I wouldn't mind that so much, except they're minimally-active in the comment section and instead use flagging. At least defend your beliefs.

From what I see, even good comments with facts and sources that go against the prevalent narrative are either downvoted or flagged a good chunk of the time, which discourages people from commenting(as it's meant to be) because of lack of visibility. It can also make the commenters unable to post comments for hours because HN's rate limiter kicks in, so they are effectively silenced.

Also, many times they're attacked personally and those comments violating HN's etiquette are not downvoted or flagged. Not to mention very low quality Redditesque are also not downvoted or flagged, but are upvoted, which lowers the quality of HN as a whole.
by visarga | 2025-04-15 18:14:15+00:00
> By training a model on a copyrighted work, you can launder that work into your own new work, and make money from it without sharing that money with the original artists.

Not sure if "you" refers to model developers, hosting company or end users. But let's see each one of them in turn

- model development is a cost center, there is no profit yet

- model deployment brings little profit, they make cents per million tokens

- applying the model to your own needs - that is where the benefit goes.

So my theory is that benefits follow the problem, it is in the application layer. Have a need, you can benefit from AI, don't need it, no benefit. Like Linux. You got to use it for something. And that usage, that problem - is personal. You can't sell your problems, they remain yours. It is hard to quantify how people benefit from AI, it could be for fun, for learning, professional use, or for therapy.

Most gen-AI usage is seen by one person exactly once. Think about that. It's not commercial, it's more like augmented imagination. Who's gonna pay for AI generated stuff when it is so easy to make your own.
by EvanAnderson | 2025-04-15 18:14:42+00:00
Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

To state it in an arguably hyperbolic manner: The "moneyed interests" you're railing against exist because of the current scheme of "intellectual property". They reap virtually all the benefits of human intellectual toil in the system already. Wiping away their stranglehold on the market would be a good thing for creators. Taking away the legal framework their existence is predicated upon would do that.

The copyright industry's influence on social norms, including the massive shift of the social contract in favor of their interests ( functionally infinite copyright terms, attacks of fair use, plundering the public domain to sell it back, works being lost forever because they are "orphaned", etc), all seems natural to you because they want it to be that way. The concept of someone "owning" an idea, which seems perfectly normal to you, was taught to you by people who want the world to be that way, not because it's some natural law. You've been conditioned to believe it your entire life.

I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down, but the needle has moved so far away from fair that burning it all down seems pretty satisfying.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-04-15 18:15:05+00:00
> For many travelers, it’s not about politics or safety.

Tourism Pullback and Boycotts Set to Cost U.S. a Staggering $90 Billion - https://www.thedailybeast.com/tourism-pullback-and-boycotts-... - April 15th, 2025

World Travelers Are Rethinking Vacation Plans to the US - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-08/is-it-har... | https://archive.today/h56ar - April 8th, 2025

Europeans:

European tourists shun US following Trump election - https://www.yahoo.com/news/european-tourists-shun-us-followi... - April 12th, 2025

European travellers cancel US visits as Trump’s policies threaten tourism - https://www.ft.com/content/6dc16a54-8de1-4f3b-8409-ecb566118... | https://archive.today/yLUvW - April 11th, 2025

‘It’s like our friend started a fist fight with us’: These Europeans are skipping US travel - https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/travel/european-travelers-ski... - April 9th, 2025

Canadians:

Canadian Car Travel To U.S. Plunges 32% In March As Boycott Escalates - https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/04/14... | https://archive.today/RdlUN - April 14th, 2025

Airlines Cut Seats to the U.S. as Canadians Stay Away - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/world/canada/air-canada-f... | https://archive.today/SkgBu - March 28th, 2025
by atoav | 2025-04-15 18:15:14+00:00
First I think people who recognize there are problems is what is needed now. You leaving makes things worse.

Then again, it is understandable not everybody has the luxury to be in circumstances that allow adequate forms of resistance.

If you ask about which country, I'd say it depends. It depends on who youaare, what your skills are, which climate zones and cultures you prefer, whether you're willing to learn a new language and so on.
by ryandrake | 2025-04-15 18:16:10+00:00
Accessibility typically doesn't cost much. With many modern OS UI frameworks, you get it for free as long as you don't go out of your way to customize shit that you probably shouldn't be customizing in the first place. If you stick to standard controls and not try to use crazy ways to override user preferences, your application should be accessible to things like screen readers mostly out of the box.
by ncallaway | 2025-04-15 18:16:32+00:00
> allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either.

Those things are *not* the same as validating their emotions. That's *not* what that means.

If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.

> telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault

That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't get hurt again".

Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of their actions aren't their fault.
by skydhash | 2025-04-15 18:16:42+00:00
From the article:

Replacing innerHTML wasn’t working out particularly well—especially for the highly interative Ads product—which made an engineer (who was not me, by the way) wonder whether it’s possible to run an XHP-style “tags render other tags” paradigm directly on the client computer without losing state between the re-renders.

HTML is still a document format, and while there's a lot of features added to browsers over the year, we still have this as the core of any web page. It's always a given that state don't survive renders. In desktop software, the process is alive while the UI is shown, so that's great for having state, but web pages started as documents, and the API reflects that. So saying that it's an issue, it's the same as saying a fork is not great for cutting.

React is an abstraction over the DOM for having a better API when you're trying not to re-render. And you can then simplify the format for transferring data between server and client. Net win on both side.

But the technique described in the article is like having an hammer and seeing nails everywhere. I don't see the advantages of having JSX representation of JSON objects on the server side.
by pixl97 | 2025-04-15 18:16:47+00:00
Yet because of that the issue they were concerned about was shown to the thread readers without having to read 75 pages of text.

Quite often people read the form thread first before wasting their life on some large corpus of text that might be crap. High quality discussions can point out poor quality (or at least fundamentally incorrect) posts and the reasons behind them enlightening the rest of the readers.
by jacobobryant | 2025-04-15 18:17:18+00:00
The framework checklist[1] makes me think of Fulcro: https://fulcro.fulcrologic.com/. To a first approximation you could think of it like defining a GraphQL query alongside each of your UI components. When you load data for one component (e.g. a top-level page component), it combines its own query with the queries from its children UI components.

[1] https://overreacted.io/jsx-over-the-wire/#dans-async-ui-fram...