MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gnabgib | 2025-04-24 03:03:28+00:00
You submitted this 8 days ago (11 points, 4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692341

And 21 days ago (8 points, 6 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43556127

And 23 days ago (3 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43538382

And 24 days ago (9 points, 7 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523873
by nivrayreteP | 2025-04-24 03:05:28+00:00
I don’t think the example you applied is applicable, you’re using the randomness of a coin flip to a deterministic issue, biasses. Why would it be an issue if 10 homes were sold to a specific identity group and to give preference of the 11th home to a different identity group? I don’t understand why there’s an aversion to promote a heterogenous effect.
by seec | 2025-04-24 03:06:03+00:00
That's hilarious, I got a bit of the same "problem" but with Facebook (I don't use Instagram), but it's generally pretty actress or (for some reason) ballerinas. I'm not gonna lie, I kinda like it.

I have found out that the algorithm will adjust itself relatively quickly if you don't click on stuff (at some point it decided I was into foot fetish and it disappeared quickly). With that I get stuff about philosophy, math (memes), science and technology stuff with a lot of animals videos.
by frumplestlatz | 2025-04-24 03:06:43+00:00
Your argument is that they are so inexperienced and insufficiently monitored that they immediately leaked just-granted NLRB login credentials (how?) to Russia, while rolling out an LLM system (what system?), and the Russian assets that acquired those credentials were so inept that they risked their access — and had their logins rejected — by immediately attempting to use them directly from a Russian IP block?

Furthermore, that the NLRB data would somehow be of sufficient value to Russian state actors to justify risking burning their access to DOGE employees/data/credentials through frankly idiotic OPSEC, despite there being much higher value targets than the NLRB?

This even remotely doesn't pass the smell test.
by quantadev | 2025-04-24 03:06:59+00:00
I had the exact same reaction to the plural "MCPs". That's silly wording. There are no multiple MCPs. It's a single protocol. It's hilariously awkward wording to say you built "an MCP". It's like saying you built "an FTP", or "an HTTP". I guess every Web App is really just "an HTTP". We've been talking wrong all these years. lol.
by thrwaway438 | 2025-04-24 03:08:48+00:00
1. DOGE is acting in this way to uncover the "deep state" (unironically).

2. DOGE is committing treason.

3. DOGE is humiliating those who were formerly in control.

A little of column A, B, and C in my opinion. At this point it doesn't matter what's true. I think all parties are involved to commit terrible acts, whether they're directly assets of a foreign power or just have something to gain. Inept, traitorous, opportunistic, inhumane, careless.. the whole party is here.

I hope when all is said and done, a true accounting is performed and those who committed the damage are held responsible. It won't matter what their associations or intent was. Manslaughter is manslaughter.
by eth0up | 2025-04-24 03:08:56+00:00
We'll be seeing increase in other parasites too. Strongyloides (angiostrongylus) is spreading and pretty well embedded in the food chain, with cuban tree frogs and snails as a primary carrier. Baylisascaris tends to stay with racoons, but squirrels and other critters get it too, as well as any predators that eat them. Both are every bit as bad as the fox tapeworms. Strongyloides may be functionally the worst though, because contamination of crops is much easier or probable.

All are very difficult to treat, sometimes impossible
by lud_lite | 2025-04-24 03:10:46+00:00
Booleans also force the true/false framing.

E.g. a field called userCannotLoginWithoutOTP.

Then in code "if not userCannotLoginWithoutOTP or otpPresent then..."

Thus may seem easy until you have a few flags to combine and check.

An enum called LoginRequirements with values Password, PasswordAndOTP is one less negation and easier to read.
by cantrecallmypwd | 2025-04-24 03:11:44+00:00
There's 2 kinds of CG and there's long-line-induced EM.

Ordinary -CG is 30 kA / 30 C / energy of 1 t of TNT. +CG is 10x that.

Direct hits are survived all the time by lightning rods for the past 275 years.

Long, unshielded lines of any sort can induce massive transient voltage transients (low current) that need to be protected with appropriate TVS circuits that will wear more in storm-prone areas. EMI from nearby lightning in unshielded computing systems with antennas or even without antennas can also be a factor.
by plorg | 2025-04-24 03:12:50+00:00
I spend a lot of time using proprietary CAD package A to redraw things from Who Knows What, but that's mostly because the proprietary CAD data my vendor would send me is trapped behind an NDA for which getting legal approval would take more time and effort than just modeling the things in front of me with minimum viable detail, or else my vendor is 2 businesses removed from the person with the CAD data that I need (and may require a different NDA that we can't sign without convincing our vendor to do the same). Anyone I've ever been able to request CAD data from will just send me STEP or parasolid files and they will work well enough for me to do my job. Often I spend more time removing model features so my computer will run a little faster.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-04-24 03:13:41+00:00
> And it’s even debunked in the original article.

No, it's not. That article does not mention digital cameras anywhere. It briefly says that scanners give a gaussian, and I don't want to do enough research to see how accurate that is, but that's the only input device that gets detailed.

It also gives the impression that computer rendering uses boxes, when usually it's the opposite and rendering uses points.
by beloch | 2025-04-24 03:14:14+00:00
It's less like a ship and more like a house made of wood that's been lit on fire. The parts that have already burned will take considerable time to repair, but that's no reason to let the fire continue burning.

Yes, the U.S. has now destroyed trust built up over a century that will take several decades to restore. People around the world have realized that, although Trump's term will be up in four years (probably), the U.S.'s vaunted system of checks and balances doesn't work and a similar president could be elected at any time.

However, much of the house yet remains unburned. If the Republican party, the judiciary branch, etc. make a concerted effort, they can check Trump and mitigate the damage he's doing. They might not be able to magically restore the trust that's already been lost, but they can prevent things from getting even worse.

The world is watching.
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-04-24 03:14:21+00:00
> They also implemented AES with S-boxes in pure JavaScript (no bitslicing), which adds a cache-timing leak. Yay.

From the DEKRA security review certificate [1]: "Proven implementations of cryptographic primitives." is marked as a pass... (I also couldn't find a way to verify the authenticity of this certificate).

[1] https://appdefensealliance.dev/reports/com.mess.engerx_17179...
by schoen | 2025-04-24 03:16:39+00:00
Maybe a bank of (extremely) huge capacitors that get charged up very quickly, and are then connected to a battery pack to charge it more slowly?

Keeping control of those charges seems like a huge challenge, as they literally contain the electrical energy of a lightning bolt. I guess for physically plausible capacitors you'd also need to step the voltage way down (by six or eight orders of magnitude!?) before it reaches the capacitors. Are there physically-plausible transformers or other devices that could do that?

Or something that somehow captures the lightning as (lots and lots of) mechanical or thermal energy and then gradually converts that back into electricity?
by tptacek | 2025-04-24 03:17:03+00:00
Why? Everybody can just not buy the wallet if they care about this term of use. Who's being harmed?

This isn't nitpicking. At some point you're really effectively just arguing that there should be a ceiling on what you can charge for a typeface. That's not an argument that respects the art and craft of type design; it's one that privileges convenience.
by pmontra | 2025-04-24 03:18:33+00:00
Ultimately all the money Apple is making from the store comes from the pockets of people. If apps won't have to pay a cut to Apple, people would be left with more money in their pockets.

If all apps were free and no sales would be forced to go through those apps, Apple still sells the phones and makes money from them. Would it be left with less money? Not my problem. Would it increase the cost of phones (maybe only in the EU) to compensate the missing revenues? Fair. Let's see how it affects sales.
by robocat | 2025-04-24 03:19:23+00:00
> A not-very-technical person could change browsers three times between now and dinner and have no issues

Unlikely. Maybe if they have no saved bookmarks, no saved passwords, and no saved cookies (which isn't most users). Let alone usability differences. They might get lucky for certain OSes and certain browser current combos that auto-import, or they might not.

Whenever I watch someone change to a new browser, there are multiple serious issues to deal with.
by SenHeng | 2025-04-24 03:19:27+00:00
It depends.

Basecamp 1 was nice to use compared to Redmine or excel sheets. It stood out during that era because everything else on the market was terrible.

Around Basecamp 2, competition starting catching up. It still was better than Jira and plain GitHub issues but we preferred the simplicity of Trello or the more powerful Wrike depending on the team.

By the time of Basecamp 3, we felt there was little need to use it unless you were a fan of 37 Signals. GitHub Projects (despite its flaws) was good enough for personal projects, and work preferred something else more full featured. Nowadays we use Linear for both work and personal projects. Also, DHH was always controversial but he became more so around the time of Basecamp 3 so it was definitely a huge minus.
by mandevil | 2025-04-24 03:19:35+00:00
This is wildly wrong. Ever since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (1) companies are forbidden from using monopoly powers to force other parties to sign deals, which is the question about which Perplexity is testifying- whether Google is using it's market monopoly power in one area (cell phone operating systems) to force other companies to sign deals that unfairly hurt competitors in a different market (AI assistants). And that's been illegal for a very long time.

1: Named for John Sherman, General William Sherman's younger brother, who was a Senator from Ohio. That's how long this law has been around!
by Dylan16807 | 2025-04-24 03:20:29+00:00
> Why? Everybody can just not buy the wallet if they care about this term of use. Who's being harmed?

Either because it's ridiculous and fun to laugh at, or to scare other companies off the idea, or both.

It being a luxury product that people can avoid is not a reason to keep my mouth shut.

> At some point you're really effectively just arguing that there should be a ceiling on what you can charge for a typeface. That's not an argument that respects the art and craft of type design; it's one that privileges convenience.

Okay, to switch back to typefaces, I don't get the impression they're complaining about the high end, I get the impression they're complaining about the average.

And if an entire class of product suddenly becomes luxury with onerous terms... that sucks! Do complain! It was working fine before!
by anenefan | 2025-04-24 03:20:40+00:00
Nasty and the cure seems more like surgical and chemical follow up. [1] [2]

Being a tapeworm I would have thought ivermectin or one of the newer mectins to be very effective on its own. Apparently that's not the case [3]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39606163/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5055586/

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5931691/
by godelski | 2025-04-24 03:21:51+00:00
Actually, they are. It's really more a question of with who and of course don't apply to classified material.

But the SHARE IT act really helps formalize what was already happening. Most code is shared and made public. It's paid for by the public. Though it's usually not easily searchable as it's distributed via different platforms, means, and may even require submitting a freedom of information request first. But in more cases than not, there is obligation to share when requested.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9566
by tptacek | 2025-04-24 03:24:04+00:00
I don't think TLM is intended to obscure anything; I claim instead that it is used as a tool of obscurantism for a fringe movement within the church. Everything you're saying that's good about TLM, I agree with. I'm the weirdo on the thread that actually took Latin, and, thanks to a work experience with a Latin scholar (hey Jon!) currently reads a little bit of Latin for fun.

I would claim as well that most people who attend TLM services do not in fact have any fluency in Latin, and would in support of that argument (but not that much support because I'm not going to take the time to dig up the source right now) point out the English bishop's observation that TLM-enthusiast priests in his diocese couldn't pass a simple Latin test.
by rahimnathwani | 2025-04-24 03:25:48+00:00
It's an issue because people are individuals and we should treat them fairly as individuals, not discriminate based on the colour of their skin or other irrelevant attributes, including membership in identity groups.

Should each NBA team be required to make sure the next player they hire has what you call a 'heterogenous effect' on the team composition with respect to identity groups?
by dangus | 2025-04-24 03:26:35+00:00
1. That's an anecdote, but you know that. I'm going to guess that the wife of someone on this forum is nerdier than average.

2. Even if you WANT a face PC, that doesn't mean you'll love using it and keep it once the honeymoon wears off. Supposedly over half of VR headset owners use their device less than once per month.

I used to want a headset. I bought a Valve Index. Everything about the device was fantastic. The games were fantastic. But then I sold it about 6 months later because, meh, it's just not something that was practical and usable frequently enough.

So right now we have basically ideal headsets Meta Quest 3/3S which are excellent, dirt cheap, lightweight, and have a large software catalog but they still struggle to retain users and grow the market.

The Vision Pro hasn't even resolved motion sickness for 100% of users. You can love it and still be forced to discontinue use one by something you can't control about your own body.
by zzrrt | 2025-04-24 03:27:15+00:00
Infiltrating Azure, hacking a third-world CA, or evil maiding DOGE employees’ computers would be among the easiest tasks the deep state would undertake. On one hand, sure, criminals fail at easy things all the time, but this is the supposed most powerful secret organization; you can’t assume you have a technical solution they can’t crack. Focus on data they didn’t show you just because you said “tenant admin.”
by GianFabien | 2025-04-24 03:27:17+00:00
Similar angst was commonly expressed back in the days when high level languages were replacing assembly language and also when OOP was intruding upon FORTRAN, COBOL spaces.

With each technological advance we are able to work at a higher level of abstraction. As you already suggest, broadening your knowledge to domain specific areas is a good idea.

>people will be able to build their own applications Not so fast. Most people aren't willing to spend hours learning prompt engineering to get the latest tools to produce a correct application program that covers all the edge-cases, security and privacy requirements, meet performance targets, etc.

Application systems builders for specific domains will still be in demand. You will need both domain knowledge/expertise as well as prompt engineering (or whatever it is going to be called) skills to have the tools produce exactly what is required.
by tptacek | 2025-04-24 03:27:31+00:00
But that clearly isn't happening. You have never had more access to high-end typefaces than you do today. What people are mad about is the licensing attached to --- literally --- the Hermès of type design. To get higher-level than the targets of these complaints you have to get into bespoke design.

This came up earlier in the thread, and I kept someone else on the hook on this: I honestly think that it would be a good thing for the world if font licensing got more onerous, not less. Type design is a very difficult field to make a living in, and the world could use more of it. The social cost of making high-end type more expensive is negative, not positive.
by eimrine | 2025-04-24 03:28:24+00:00
This requires to have a homoiconic AI which does not have a learning-time. If the learning is just compressing some data in data-center, the AI quickly will get obsoleted.

And one more thing, this kind of artificial living will be the easiest in many sences if it is going to specialize in all kinds of scam/fraud especially. Technically it is doable, but Sams Altmans are too interested in their own money, not in yours.
by marcus_holmes | 2025-04-24 03:28:55+00:00
Which makes it just a matter of priorities. If the USA spent 10% of its defence budget for a year on it, we'd be done. Would humanity benefit more from a Mars base than it does from 10% of the USA's defence budget? Almost certainly.

Though, to be fair, there are a lot of other things we could spend 10% of the USA defence budget on that would benefit humanity a lot more in the short term.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-04-24 03:29:16+00:00
So is this a cheap gotcha because I only said "my monitor" and "most screens" the first couple times and didn't repeat it a third time? It's the one labeled just "LCD".

Or are you arguing that the slightly rounded corners on the rectangles make a significant difference in how the filtering math works out? It doesn't. On a scale between "gaussian" and "perfect rectangles", the filtering for this shape is 95% toward the latter.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-04-24 03:29:31+00:00
If your whole career will be using higher order languages with very little data stored on stack (vs heap), why should those programmers care? It seems like normal progression of more abstraction in the tools that we use. Similarly, I have programmed a lot of C and C++ in my career and I never once need assembly language. (I am expecting someone to pop in the convo here and tell me about how I am a terrible C/C++ programmer because I don't know any assembly.)
by jcelerier | 2025-04-24 03:31:15+00:00
I definitely had my eyes on slint for quite some time (pretty much since it was announced - I highly value the technical skill of their team) but it's still quite far from the whole QWidget offering. I don't know anything else that is even remotely in the same ballpark - certainly not Tauri or egui for instance. Anything that is GPU based is blacklisted from the get go (including QtQuick) - people who preach gpu based GUI have definitely never tried to have a quick debug feedback loop with an app built using AddressSanitizer where just opening the simplest GL or Vulkan context takes up to 20 seconds on a good day.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-04-24 03:31:40+00:00
It is worth noting that one of the main reasons why C++ standard evolution is faster nowadays is because the "bare minimum" for consideration of acceptance in the standard is working examples on a fully functioned compiler. This tends to make it a lot easier for other compilers to implement those features as there is at minimum a working reference to compare against (vs older still unimplemented features like modules where nobody really ironed out how to properly implement them until after they were shoehorned into the standard)
by zacksiri | 2025-04-24 03:31:45+00:00
I recently used Gemini and Google search (with overview) to confirm whether a snack i bought from japan has expired. Used gemini to take a picture of the label written in japanese

One item said 25/7/25 the other one said 25/7/24 as you can imagine I was sure the first one was safe but the second one was confusing.

It told me that it's safe to eat because japanese date format is Year / Month / Date.

I looked up japanese date format in google (with overview) just to confirm. I guess we'll find out. Will report back soon.
by cantrecallmypwd | 2025-04-24 03:32:01+00:00
Where I used to live in Paradise, foxes would eagerly come over to within 3m/10' and watch what I was working on outside.

Just remember the failsafe approach to wildlife: assume they are carriers of communicable diseases like rabies, hantavirus, anthrax, plague, bird flu, EEEV, and rare and novel diseases unknown to most doctors or all scientific literature.
by oofManBang | 2025-04-24 03:34:45+00:00
Googling "belttop" just shows belts. To what are you referring? Are you suggesting wiring the glasses to some battery stored elsewhere? Sure you can do that, but I thought people these days hated wires (in spite of an objectively superior interface to wireless). But you certainly can't power streaming for it (for more than say an hour) with the battery you can actually store in glasses.

I've never even heard of an iVert.

> Plus people shell out $600 for the glasses

I want to sell these people a bridge. Pray tell me where I can find them because their money is absolutely begging to be taken for a pittance. Who the fuck is paying $600 for $5 of plastic?

Edit: i realize i only addressed part of your comment. I think I get that you're trying to convey an iVert as an apple product, right?

> Now you can charge $3000 for you VR kit, but claim it only costs $2400. Plus people shell out $600 for the glasses even though they don't have the CPU. They just want to look like they do. Or they buy multiple pairs for different locations or as backups or whatever. The profit on the glasses could be huge. Especially if they could replace the Apple Watch for some people.

Do we have evidence they aren't subsidizing this? If you can't look at production cost this speculation seems useless. And to claim that $2400 is any more within the realm of affordability is insane. If they actually wanted normal people to bite they'd have priced it at ~$700. This is for rich people and reviewers only.
by hakfoo | 2025-04-24 03:35:41+00:00
The appeal I imagined for a particular type of person was the promise of sovereignity.

It's very difficult to bootstrap a new state on Earth. The failure of seasteading initiatives suggests land is a requirement for credibility, but virtually all land is either claimed or considered not viable (i. e. Bir Tawil).

But other planets offer new land that you could prop a flag on and potentially get existing states to acknowledge. You can set up a captive legal system, potentially find a way to domicile your paper wealth there, and potentially blow out the airlock of anyone who dares question you.

It's not that someone wants to be king OF MARS, they want to be KING of Mars.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-04-24 03:38:13+00:00
> What people are mad about is the licensing attached to --- literally --- the Hermès of type design.

Hmm, okay. If that's true then OP is just wrong.

The problem is this argument wasn't clear from your initial comment. You claimed that there were plenty of excellent free options, while they claimed that the market had generally gone to very onerous pricing. Both of those can be true at the same time.

But if most of the market hasn't done that, and they're only looking at the top, then okay they're wrong.
by threeseed | 2025-04-24 03:39:47+00:00
a) No one knows how Russia had the credentials but they did.

b) This system: https://www.wired.com/story/doge-is-just-getting-warmed-up-d...

c) DOGE under its current form will end in the next weeks/months as Musk moves on. So if you’re Russia the best bet is to get as much data now as you can.