MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-04-15 20:05:24+00:00
> * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed

Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they don't view as solvable, then validation only is what they're looking for.

e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just want emotional support.

Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the more annoying response.

https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-s...
by potato3732842 | 2025-04-15 20:05:53+00:00
It's hilarious (by which I mean facepalm worthy) that people spend so much effort trying to distance YIMBY from the right and from libertarians. Their movement isn't exactly built in the image of Ron Fucking Paul and it does do a lot of steamrolling municipalities which the more socially right types don't like but despite that they've created something the rights seems able to like at least not take issue with on the principal level. And so a lot of these "righter" types do support it, despite there being some minor elements and undertones they might not like. But as soon as someone to the right of center actually tries to fan the flames or actually endorse anything, all the lefties who make up the bulk of movement get all pissed off because it's "their movement".

Any sane person would be happy they've found something that almost the entire political spectrum considers common ground. Winners like that are rare. Embrace it.
by uh_uh | 2025-04-15 20:06:19+00:00
That would amount to 10 mrem of radiation per year. I don't believe this is a realistic estimate for a CT scan though. From epa.gov [1]:

- Head CT: 2.0 mSv (200 mrem)

- Chest CT: 8.0 mSv (800 mrem)

- Abdomen CT: 10 mSv (1,000 mrem)

- Pelvis CT: 10 mSv (1,000 mrem)

So for a head CT, one would need to spend more than 13 hours per workday in the station. OP was off at least an order of magnitude.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/frequent-questions-radiation-m...
by constantcrying | 2025-04-15 20:06:26+00:00
I do not mind if these artists do not get paid. I absolutely realize that much of corporate art would not exist without IP laws and I accept that.

For books, most of the ones I read are passion projects and if I like them I buy them as thanks to the author/publisher.

I also have absolutely no problem with paying people for their work, I just do not believe they have any rights to their so called "IP".
by Workaccount2 | 2025-04-15 20:06:41+00:00
It will always be subjective. There will always be holdouts who will denounce any AI work as "bad" simply because it was created by AI.

Even when AI is objectively better and dominates in blind ratings tests, there will still be a strong market for "authentic" media.

For instance we already have factories that churn out wares that are cheaper, stronger, better looking, and longer lasting than "hand made", yet people still seek out malformed $60 coffee mugs from the local artistan section in country shops.
by Uzmanali | 2025-04-15 20:07:36+00:00
I’d personally love something like this. A year ago, I got hooked on Notpron and The Codex of Alchemical Engineering, and what really pulled me in was the evolving logic. Every level challenged a new way of thinking. Since then, I’ve sought out games and puzzles that train lateral thinking, not just pattern recognition. I’d definitely subscribe if you built it.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-04-15 20:07:44+00:00
Yes, it looks like a flash was used. A pyrotechnic "big chemical flash" was the standard kind in 1921, so that too.

I am not sure if it was "bounced against a wall to soften" or not, I don't think that our experience about what an electric flash looks like with and without bounce will apply, the pyrotechnic flash won't look exactly the same. The pyrotechnic won't be such a point light source for a start. So I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that there has to be a deliberate bounce.
by dylan604 | 2025-04-15 20:08:01+00:00
What it suggest to me is that delivery fees are too cheap. Amazon subsidizing shipping to the point customers expect same-day as an option on something as insignificant than it was just a simple button click. No other thought given to the actual cost. Where going to the store probably means putting on clothes, driving somewhere, dealing with other humans, before driving back. The original online purchase meant possibly saving taxes, but now everyone collects taxes so no savings there. If there was a tipping point of being able to save brick&mortar, COVID pushed it over to the non-recoverable side.
by exceptione | 2025-04-15 20:08:27+00:00
If you don't do the post-mortem of "how did we end up here", no project, no plan makes a change.

* First understand every point on the curve between a healthy democratic society and autocracy is slippery, not stable.

* Next, understand how autocracy rises. If you want to look at the drivers toward autocracy, you will find them invariably in the same places.

* The US problems

- Braunhemde, already before WOII, then imported more of them afterwards. No press coverage, they are real. Even the "Sieg Heil"s on CPAC did not draw media coverage. - Cultism. Serious, deep cultism. - As a specialization: Christian nationalism + conservatism, replay of the '30s - https://xcancel.com/YourAnonCentral/status/1910179753430299043 - https://xcancel.com/sola_chad/status/1802398272293581272#m1 - Incredible concentrations of (inherited) wealth, deformed perspectives of the other 99% cultivated over generational spans - No real journalism, instead, career in media house depend on commercial ownership. Narratives tailored to segment, but no deep and critical impact of analysis. - "Let us talk about the tariffs today, they make zero economic sense" - "I think what he meant is..." - "Of course this is not entirely correct, but..." - "President Trump has said.." - "Rubio did a press conference today" - Only drama, never the Big Picture. - Elections? According to the press, those are just - The latest polls! - Repeat marketing from spin doctors at affiliated media houses - "Debate" = Reality TV, scores are given on wit and emotional play - Fake news is allowed as a business model. - Rigidity => distorted beliefs. See rigidity about "free speech" via decades of pushed narratives. Now look at all the book banning, canceling of research based on keyword match. - Rigidity about free markets. Now you pay 5 million for a dinner with The Suppreme Sovite to get your business free. Tariffs, because, you know? - No concept of "Paradox of Tolerance". Parties that don't want to participate in a democratic society with rule of law and separation of powers CANNOT be part of the system. Period. - Overall corruption by oligarchy. The GOP has been killed, but the Dems have the problems too, making it difficult to make any postmortem - Exceptionalism - Vast information deserts (there are states where information cannot reach people at all ), where nothing is served but right-wing reality distortion as commercial fast-food - Normalization of personal retaliation against political enemies (that is why everybody is obeying in advance, people are used to be abused by power). Americans are frightened. - No concept of common good, everyone hustling. Also: competition means *killing* the competitor. That playbook is deeply normalized, see Big Tech. Microsoft, Intel->AMD, Google etc - Regulatory capture, rules for thee, exceptions for me - "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?" Deep cultural programming - State capture, this is reaching the critical stage now. - Normalisation of sado-populism. "I don't care, I want the other suffer". - Class-based society

This was my TED talk.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-04-15 20:08:28+00:00
Even if it's a few. Imagine if honest researchers start chasing the fraudulent results. Now you have several people's time wasted. If the honest researcher is junior (PhD or Postdoc), their career is almost certainly over. Worse, assume the junior researcher is dishonest or marginal. The incentive is to fudge things a little bit to keep a career. The cycle begins anew... inherent in our system there is positive selection (in the 'natural selection' sense) for dishonest researchers.

This should give you pause.

Without claiming that any given administration is taking any action with deliberateness or planning... What is even more counterintuitive is that if the dishonesty hits a certain critical point, defunding all research suddenly is net positive.

I would also suggest you keep your ear to the ground. Almost every scientific discipline is in a crisis of reproducibility right now.
by iLemming | 2025-04-15 20:08:29+00:00
Awww, thank you. As a Clojurian, I aspire to be kind and helpful. The Clojure community is renowned for its friendly, coaching-oriented attitude. Anyone with questions (even those unrelated to Clojure) should absolutely reach out to Clojuristas — just go to http://clojurians.net and don't be shy.

I'm forever thankful for Clojure for reigniting my passion for programming, but particularly, I'm indebted to the many individuals in the Clojure community. Whenever I pose a question expecting just straightforward guidance or documentation links, I consistently receive profound, thought-provoking answers that surpass my expectations. Virtually every discussion I initiate with them ends up being incredibly educational, teaching me far more than I initially sought. I can confidently admit - yes, learning Clojure has made a better programmer out of me, but most importantly, it made me a better person.
by trealira | 2025-04-15 20:08:29+00:00
"By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse."

They are calling for Republican commissars in universities and accusing you of being the one who wants to enforce a single viewpoint and call you the enemy of pluralism. Not surprised, but I continue to be infuriated to witness such shameless insincerity from Republicans.
by whartung | 2025-04-15 20:08:33+00:00
Well the bigger question is how big does the system have to be to warrant breaking out a new technique, much less adding a new runtime or other large dependency.

Now, I have no direct experience with any of the common logical programming systems. I have familiarity.

But anytime I came upon anything that might justify such a system, the need just didn’t seem to justify it.

Talking less than 100 rules. Most likely less than a couple dozen. Stacking some IFs and a bit of math, strategically grouped in a couple aptly named wrapper methods to help reduce the cognitive load, and it’s all worked pretty well.

And, granted, if I had solid experience using these systems, onboarding cost would be lower.

When have you found it to be worth cutting over?
by constantcrying | 2025-04-15 20:09:20+00:00
>If you take someone's work, and use it to make money, you should pay them for that work. Its really not that hard of a concept.

How many paid products are using foss software without paying the developers. 99%? I do not consider that being evil.

If there are no IP laws nobody will have the expectation to have control over what other people do with their creative output. If you are unwilling to accept that you do not get to make art, the same is true now for art as well. If you do not want someone to make a parody of your art your only option is to never publish it.
by 9rx | 2025-04-15 20:09:25+00:00
> "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance.

Yes, it absolutely is acceptance that you don't know. It is belief in not knowing. But that's not what we were talking about. Context must be considered.

> Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact...

Curious choice. The GCIDE is not among the usual 'authoritative' dictionaries, and for good reason. It takes its definitions from a publication written in 1913. It is not a modern dictionary. Unless you've invented a time machine... It is interesting from a licensing perspective, but little more.

Of course you are absolutely right that anyone can make up a random definition for a word on the spot. They can even publish it in a book if they so choose. But you know that wasn't what you were talking about when you brought up "definition" and you know that didn't change going forward. Context must be considered.

> The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive.

Hence the poking fun of your "By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind." comment. It even prefaced with "_If_ we want to lean on definitions" to highlight that it could not be taken in a serious way. Did you not read the thread in full before landing here? Context must be considered.

I, for one, thought the discussion we were having was rather interesting. I have no idea why you thought anyone would want to read this blatantly obvious, horribly off-topic slop.
by wredcoll | 2025-04-15 20:10:07+00:00
The irony of you citing a work that critiques placing "subjective emotion over objective moral truths" and attempting to apply it to the "modern left" is almost physically painful.

You and everyone like you owe so much of your current life to the modern left that your ingratitude is astounding. The very computer you're using to send your words to me is a product of science and rational thinking that you seem to abhor.
by Sanzig | 2025-04-15 20:10:34+00:00
Not a technical question, just want to say I really appreciate your projects! I work with a group of radar engineers and they were absolutely floored by your €800 C-band polarimetric SAR drone.

Any tips for working on hobby RF/microwave projects and staying motivated while doing them? I am an EE and have a long list of projects I want to do at home, but I can never seem to find the time to do them.
by dextercd | 2025-04-15 20:10:34+00:00
No idea how many are first-party or vetted by Microsoft. Probably none of them. But I really, really doubt you can only run software that ticks one of those two boxes.

Certify The Web has a 'Microsoft Partner' badge. If that's something your org values, then they seem worth looking into for IIS.

I can find documentation online from Microsoft where they use YARP w/ LettuceEncrypt, Caddy, and cert-manager. Clearly Microsoft is not afraid to tell customers about how to use third party solutions.

Yes, these are not fully endorsed by Microsoft, so it's much harder to get approval for. If an organisation really makes it impossible, then they deserve the consequences of that. They're going to have problems with 397 day certificates as well. That shouldn't hold the rest of the industry back. We'd still be on 5 year certs by that logic.
by seafoamteal | 2025-04-15 20:10:51+00:00
Seems cool, but overloading the term agentic development is a risky play. I almost clicked away when I saw that because, my opinions about LLMs for development aside, I do not want them anywhere near my blog, because that's where I want my own voice to come through strongest.

That aside, this looks really cool and I wish you all the best!

(addressing erlend_sh because I saw them in the thread)
by soylentcola | 2025-04-15 20:10:55+00:00
Can confirm. Finally got the GPU for my new PC in 2020 by (first) showing up at Microcenter on days when deliveries were expected, then eventually joining a discord where people posted daily updates when stock actually showed up (once I got tired of driving a half hour there and back a few times).

In the end, a helpful discord member was already at the store, purchased a GPU for me, and held it until I could get there and buy it off him. Due to the shortage there was no risk of him stuck holding the "bag" but it was a huge favor from my end. Wasn't scalping but I still threw in an extra $20 just for helping out.
by mschuster91 | 2025-04-15 20:11:10+00:00
> It's not particularly constructive to talk about "extermination camps" when there is no particular evidence of that.

Just FYI: Trump's border czar Tom Homan literally said he plans to "eradicate" supposed "foreign threats" on Fox News [1].

I seriously don't know how many more masks have to fall before people finally take this administration and its actors beyond Trump serious. There is no way to downplay, deny or otherwise misinterpret Project 2025. It is happening right in front of your eyes.

[1] https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmuqfzef7l22
by bch | 2025-04-15 20:11:14+00:00
> CMake gets a lot of hate because a lot of large projects use it poorly and the syntax is strange

Sounds like a ”you’re holding it wrong”[0] defense. In my experience, it’s exciting to start using it, then you start pushing it and it’s annoying or simply falls down. I’ll admit I’ve avoided it for years now (maybe it needs a revisit), but I bought the book, I drank the koolaid, and I tried to like it. But imo it really is problematic, and I’m one of those people who’s since settled on basic (BSD) Makefiles.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/06/25/iphone.problems.r...
by AceJohnny2 | 2025-04-15 20:11:16+00:00
I do not think I like this author...

> A critical piece of history here is to understand the really stupid way in which GCC does cross compiling. Traditionally, each GCC binary would be built for one target triple. [...] Nobody with a brain does this ^2

You're doing GCC a great disservice by ignoring its storied and essential history. It's over 40 years old, and was created at a time where there were no free/libre compilers. Computers were small and slow. Of course you wouldn't bundle multiple targets in one distribution.

LLVM benefitted from a completely different architecture and starting from a blank slate when computers were already faster and much larger, and was heavily sponsored by a vendor that was innately interested in cross-compiling: Apple. (Guess where LLVM's creator worked for years and lead the development tools team)
by reverendsteveii | 2025-04-15 20:11:35+00:00
I think you're equivocating between the value of the actual goal itself and the value of the actions they're taking in the context of fulfilling that goal. Blowing up the economy to maximize your personal power is short-sighted, I agree, but once you accept that as Trump's goal you'll see that arbitrary tariffs (and other financial manipulation, look at how he's using federal funding to thought police universities and punish dissident state governors) is a ruthlessly effective strategy. If you don't do what he wants, he'll starve out you and your underlings until either you give up or the people beneath you revolt and replace you with someone who'll do what he says.

Do not, my friends, become addicted to [federal funding]. It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence.
by markx2 | 2025-04-15 20:11:51+00:00
IIRC in the late 80's it was said that a F1 car could create so much downforce that it could travel upside down.

This video shows something, something in very controlled conditions. It is impressive.

I am sure many here will have played Sonic the Hedgehog with it's looping and corkscrewing tracks. The latter would bring challenges.

Are we yet at the Men in Black tunnel congestion solution? And if we are, wow to how the road markings work.
by inglor_cz | 2025-04-15 20:12:36+00:00
typically

Pure science may not be a typical case, though, because the people who control the funds don't really have any idea whether the work they are funding is ultimately going to turn out productive or not. The work involved is far from routine and basically a jump into the unknown.

I get the risk of fraud and nepotism, but in some other situations (Bell Labs etc.), "choose very good people and let them improvise within certain limits of a budget" turned out to be very efficient. The devil is in the "choose very good people" detail.
by qwertox | 2025-04-15 20:12:44+00:00
Maybe you're referring to "aCropalypse". Also there was an issue once where sections with overpainted solid black color still retained the information in the alpha channel.

https://www.wired.com/story/acropalyse-google-markup-windows...

https://www.lifewire.com/acropalypse-vulnerability-shows-why...
by s1artibartfast | 2025-04-15 20:12:47+00:00
I personally dont think his extreme position is realistic. It would take too long. Foundations are too big, public schools pose a major challenge, and the public is mixed on the topic

I think a much more interesting idea is breaking the Council for Higher Education Accreditation monopoly on accreditation, and replacing it with some standard metrics.

Letting incumbent universities decide if new universities can exist causes the same problems as giving hospitals a veto over new competition, and education is ripe for disruption.

I would love to see accreditation to any program that produces students that could pass some standard tests or metrics.
by cycomanic | 2025-04-15 20:12:50+00:00
An excellent text about engaging with extremists... (I don't agree with the authors simplification as toddlers) is the book "Subversive Denken, wie man Fundamentalismus diskutiert" (Unfortunately it's only available in German). The author distinguishes between different types of fundamentalists and makes the point that discussions with the convinced fundamentalist is often not possible, because even agreeing on facts is impossible as denying some facts is a proof of faith in the fundamentalist ideology. The discussion is then about convincing listeners instead via different techniques. Despite the title it is not primarily about religious fundamentalism but also political (quite timely at the moment) and the author gives historical examples of the type of techniques employed against fundamentalists.
by wlesieutre | 2025-04-15 20:12:52+00:00
> If I hadn't moved around my Finder window in the video, I don't think it would've worked. You might get a couple letters right, but it would be very low confidence.

> Moving forward, if I do have sensitive data to hide, I'll place a pure-color mask over the area, instead of a blur or pixelation effect.

Alternately - don't pixelate on a stationary grid when the window moves.

If you want it to look nicer than a color box but without giving away all the extra info when data moves between pixels, pixelate it once and overlay with a static screenshot of that.

For bonus points, you could automate scrambling the pixelation with fake-but-real-looking pixelation. Would be nice if video editing tools had that built in for censoring, knowing that pixelation doesn't work but people will keep thinking it does.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-04-15 20:13:08+00:00
Dude, background checks are brutal. You can be denied because your parents (not you) struggled to pay taxes. You could have acedemic dishonesty that disqualifies you (that one small area where "permanent record" in school may actually cost you something). There are so many little things that no other kind of high paying job cares about in background checks that are suddenly red flags for clearance.

There's a reason Musk especially kept dodging trying to get proper clearance. He isn't even fully cleared to see all aspects of SpaceX. Some of his employees he brought in probably aren't better off.
by constantcrying | 2025-04-15 20:13:21+00:00
>As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion.

IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd.

If you think IP should not exist then creative output is free to use by everyone and of course corporations are also free to profit from it.