MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-04-07 02:10:23+00:00
Also, I can imagine such schemes getting ditched for the same reasons of "now people can detect whether we already have a copy of the file, which is a privacy hole!" that killed cross-origin caching in browsers.

Or if everything in the year 20XX gets pushed into using E2E encryption, since that's pretty much antithetical to deduplication.
by superkuh | 2025-04-07 02:10:50+00:00
>however it is never good when the protocol is defined by it's only implementation

One counter-example to this is in desktop GUI environments. You want one single strong reference implementation there for stability/consistent expectations of what will run. Pretty much everything that will run on the eleventh X protocol will work X.orgs X11 everywhere. Whereas the core wayland protocol is not feature complete and the reference implementation weston is weak. So every wayland compositor implements what should be core wayland protocol features in their own choice of third party lib or custom code. Like libei vs libinput vs no support at all (weston) for normal keyboard/mouse features. Software that works on one wayland won't work on others.

My point here is that strong single reference implementations prevent fragmentation. And sometimes that's important. This is not one of those cases and I'm glad to see more rsync protocol implementations.
by marcusb | 2025-04-07 02:10:50+00:00
That’s interesting, because I read the article and it seems like a straightforward rant against billboards. The discussion here - except for your comment - is about either billboards or advertising in general.

If the article is really a metaphor for something else (racist town ordinances? zoning in general? something else?) I think a lot of us have missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
by atomicnature | 2025-04-07 02:11:33+00:00
Go's CSP model works well, if you first take the time to study it up a bit. The only drawback with the docs is they don't focus on correctness and potential concurrency bugs sufficiently. In the very least the stdlib could mark whether particular functions are goroutine safe or not. If you stay guarded for such things, you should be able to get a lot done with very few mistakes.

I have limited experience with Rust, but the ownership model and the borrow checker help with avoiding concurrency bugs as well. And personally for me, Rust slowed down the speed at which I could proceed solving the problem at hand. If you have time on your hands or you're very fluent with it, rust may give better results.
by kelnos | 2025-04-07 02:11:37+00:00
I don't really care if companies -- of any size -- can reach me or not. If I want a service they provide, I will actively seek them out.

Large companies already have a huge advantage over small/new companies in that they have much more money to spend on marketing and advertising. If anything, banning paid advertising helps level the playing field.

People will still find out about small and new businesses if paid advertising was banned. In fact I learn about most smaller players through word of mouth and other non-paid sources.
by andrehacker | 2025-04-07 02:11:53+00:00
Really enjoyed this writeup. I'd come across Don Tarbell’s name before, but didn’t realize how influential he was in the pre-Altair era—and even in setting the stage for the Apple I. Fascinating stuff.

I also wasn’t aware of this site—some really well-researched essays on early computing. Great work, and thanks for putting this together!
by orbital-decay | 2025-04-07 02:13:19+00:00
Actual paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ads1176

>based on the Sony IMX219 (...) Its 1.12 μm by 1.12 μm pixels are 50 times smaller than that of Timepix3 and of size similar to that of nuclear emulsions grains.

I never expected the tiny pixel size to be an advantage anywhere, to be honest.
by system7rocks | 2025-04-07 02:13:39+00:00
My favorite parkway in the US (at least for now) is the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. It's a National Park. It's gorgeous during the spring and fall with leafy trees exploding in color. No billboards too.

Spain also prefer no billboards along their highways - at least, the one time I visited. Our tour guide pointed it out. The only billboards were from the Barcelona Olympics, I believe.

It really does make a difference.
by wruza | 2025-04-07 02:13:52+00:00
Templating doesn't write in the middle. Writing in the middle is a medieval rudiment of manual configuration helpers. Automated config generation simply outputs a new file every time you run "build" and then somehow syncs it to the target server. All "user" changes go into templates, not outputs. What you're talking about can exist, but it is a mutable hell that is not reproducible and thus cannot be a part of a reliable infrastructure.

If this is not how modern devops/fleet management works, I withdraw my questions cause it's even less useful than my scripts.
by dcre | 2025-04-07 02:14:00+00:00
Silly comment, but I concede this bit is very ugly — they should have extracted the inner type to an alias and used that twice.

options: [ Omit<ChatCompletionParseParams, 'model'> & { model: Model }, Omit<ChatCompletionParseParams, 'model'> & { model: Model }, ],

like this

type Options = Omit<ChatCompletionParseParams, 'model'> & { model: Model } options: [Options, Options]
by Taek | 2025-04-07 02:14:08+00:00
The difference between an advertisement and a post on HN is that the HN comment (presumably) is not a paid comment - people are saying things on HN because they genuinely believe them, not because someone with an agenda paid them to pretend to believe them!

And that makes all the difference. I am very happy to read that an HN commenter prefers one specific brand of car - assuming that this is an unbiased comment and the commenter was not paid to say that. On the other hand, if they *were* paid to say they like a specific brand of car, they are deceiving me! They are exposing my brain to ideas and associations that are inauthentic, and making me more likely to buy a certain brand of car even though that car cannot get mentioned on its own merits, and instead needs to pay for attention.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that "advertising is how monopolies are broken" - my read on the advertising industry is that larger companies today have a massive advantage over smaller companies, and that smaller businesses would be more able to succeed if advertising was removed. And the advantage more or less comes from the larger brands ability to afford to expose a larger number of people, and that exposure has superlinear effects on purchase behavior (because not only are you exposed to it, but your friends are talking about it, and their family is talking about it, etc).
by famouswaffles | 2025-04-07 02:14:18+00:00
That might be overstating it, at least if you mean it to be some unreplicable feat. Small models have been trained that play around 1200 to 1300 on the eleuther discord. And there's this grandmaster level transformer - https://arxiv.org/html/2402.04494v1

Open AI, Anthropic and the like simply don't care much about their LLMs playing chess. That or post training is messing things up.
by gus_massa | 2025-04-07 02:14:37+00:00
Someone discovered that the properties were very similar to Copper Sulfide. The problem is that to make it you must mix two powders and heat them, but the heated mixed powers also produce Copper Sulfide as a contamination. In this case the contamination has very interesting properties that make it look similar to a superconductor, but it's not a superconductor. And that probably caused the mistake.

:(

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259023852...
by brauliopf_hn | 2025-04-07 02:15:15+00:00
Location: Boston, Preferred. Open to others.

Remote: Yes. Open to hybrid/full-time onsite.

Willing to relocate: Yes.

Technologies: - Fullstack: TypeScript, node, React, Next, Zustand, Tailwind CSS. - Backend: Python, FastAPI - Data: SQL, Pandas, NumPy, Scikit-Learn, Seaborn, TensorFlow - AI/LLM: Hugging Face (Hub) - Smolagents, LlamaIndex, LangChain

Résume/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10WJBPeZ03mk-DQkeYJ2tCcmkrTb...

Email: brauliopf 'at' gmail

I am a seasoned product engineer, with experience in building consumer platforms from scratch to early stage and growth stage. I collaborate well with diverse backgrounds, focused on delivering experiences that wow users. I am interested in working with data and AI Agents.

US work authorization: Green Card.
by kelnos | 2025-04-07 02:15:23+00:00
I don't think that would be the case. If people want to find an org that is doing what you are doing, they will find you. If they aren't interested in whatever it is you're doing, then they won't hear about you.

And that's exactly the point. I don't want products and services pushed at me. I don't want companies telling me that I need what they offer, even if I've never really thought about it before.

And remember, this is just a ban on paid advertising. This doesn't mean you can't put up a website to market your product. You can sell through Amazon or whatever, and appear in search results (results that aren't affected by anyone paying for ad space or better rankings). You just can't pay others to advertise it for you.
by gnabgib | 2025-04-07 02:16:12+00:00
> Google Trust Services is planning to drop support for Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) information for most certificate chains.

Why

> Many leading certificate authorities are moving away from OCSP.

Deep link: https://pki.goog/updates/april2025-ocsp-notice.html

Probably related to Intent to end OCSP service (415 points, 8 months ago, 144 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41046956
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-04-07 02:16:23+00:00
Why should we tolerate amplified messages at all? If you've got something worth hearing to say, people will repeat it. We've been doing that for a million years or so, we're good at it.

I mean, let's make exceptions for events where everybody came to hear the thing, where consent for the amplification can be assumed because we all bought tickets or something, but if you're standing on the corner with a bullhorn shouting at passers-by, that's hostile behavior in the same way that billboards are. Please don't do it.
by horsawlarway | 2025-04-07 02:17:06+00:00
Both perspectives have truth.

Some ads are abusive. Some ads compel behavior that is obviously bad for the participants.

Take all the sports gambling ads right now.

Take loot boxes with flashing visuals for children.

Some ads are fine. They are informative and useful, and can provide value.

I'm my opinion, we have leaned too far towards the bad. The useful is being drowned out by ads that take advantage of any social or emotional vulnerability we have. Banking on physical rewards systems geared towards smaller, more meaningful social groups to make us give up attention, time, and money.

I'm in favor of banning ads. Let's try the other end of the spectrum for a bit.

To be crass: let God find his own in the ads world. The good products will still spread organically. It's still advertising. It's just not the bullshit we have today.
by dumbledoren | 2025-04-07 02:18:10+00:00
> If I pulled the trigger, it would be to a similar CoL location, but that still gets to their point: if many people do the same, prices go up. Housing availability goes down. And all the knock-on effects that could result in "gentrification."

Precisely. You don't need to put gentrification in quotes. It invariably happens. And it gentrifies both the locals and the recent immigrants.

> How do I balance that (and all sorts of other things) with my desire to keep my family safe and give my children a chance at a solid future, though?

From the dynamics that seem to go around such white-collar immigration for these reasons, there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent gentrification and CoL rise. The only exception may be going to places that sorely lack people, like the American North Midwest - places that not only risk depopulation, but also places that can carry immense amounts of people and are open to development.

The majority of the world is not like that. The majority of European population centers are squeezed between river valleys between mountains or short strips of land between the mountains/hills and the sea. And they are already built to hell. The depopulated mountain regions of such places could use some people, but they can in no way handle the amount of emigration that the richer countries seem to be generating. That is one reason why Europe gets higher CoL and gentrification so fast from such immigration.

South America fares a little better because it has at least some more space, but it suffers from the same in the end: The desirable locations are limited and the immigrants go to those locations, causing skyrocketing costs.

Looking at Asia and Africa, it may be a little better because in certain locations there are vast spaces and major cities that could handle immense amounts of people and could use development, but those don't seem to be popular destinations for such white-collar immigrants.

So it again comes back to the US: The 'flyover country' between the coasts in the US is an immense space that is open to a level of development that no other place on the planet can provide. Most of that space seems to be occupied by either unused public land, or by the cattle industry. There was recent research that detailed how the cattle industry sits on top of a gigantic amount of land almost for free despite propping itself up with government subsidies and how it could solve the housing woes of the US and provide unparalleled development. But until citizens, investors and planners start putting pressure on politicians to offset the influence of the cattle industry lobby, that land will keep propping up the cattle industry instead of being used for urban development.
by kelnos | 2025-04-07 02:18:14+00:00
> It takes time and effort to feature a product, how could they make a living?

That's exactly the point. People shouldn't be making a living promoting other people's products. If they like something and want to promote it, for no compensation, then they should.

Imagine someone with a home improvement YouTube channel. They really, genuinely like certain brands for the tools that they use. So those tools will be visible in the videos, and the person making the videos is free to tell viewers how much they like those brands.
by BobbyTables2 | 2025-04-07 02:18:26+00:00
Ironically the companies with the most widespread advertising are the LARGE companies! They pollute our daily lives with stupid ads.

I’m really not concerned about the car I don’t have, the quality of my floor mop, or the latest prescription pharmaceutical that my primary care doctor is too stupid to even spell.

I really feel for the small companies. But outside extremely industry specific mediums, they just can’t afford to advertise much. They have to be known from reputation and search engine results.

So, while I see the point you are trying to make, by volume, the bulk of advertising is utter crap.
by notepad0x90 | 2025-04-07 02:19:39+00:00
I dunno, the billboards in movies like Blade Runner were kind of cool.

Advertising in my opinion has a UX problem, it is however inextricable from a capitalist society. It needs to look great, it needs to be consistent and it should respect user consent and privacy. That's pretty much it.

Billboards don't invade your privacy or require consent, so they just need to look modern/great and be placed in areas where they won't disrupt natural and residential scenery. Unlike web-ads, they're more or less consistent but like i said earlier, I wish they were more "cool" like in scifi movies.
by cmurf | 2025-04-07 02:19:39+00:00
No.

Article I §8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

There's no question the founders did not want tax and spend power in the executive branch, that was what kings did, and led to war and tyranny.

Congress wrongly delegated the power ostensibly to enable the president to have trade negotiation leverage, and for emergencies.

This is plainly abuse of power. Congress needs to do its job.

The tariffs are not bringing a dime into the country at all. The tariffs are paid by import distributors, increasing the cost to the merchants, and paid by the consumer. Trump is lying, per usual.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1142935810188...
by kelseyfrog | 2025-04-07 02:21:00+00:00
The law:

Section 1. Ban on Commercial Advertisements All commercial advertisements, in any medium, are hereby prohibited throughout the United States.

Section 2. Definition For purposes of this Act, “commercial advertisement” means any paid or otherwise sponsored message intended to promote the sale or use of goods, services, or commercial ventures.

Section 3. Enforcement and Penalties Violations of this Act shall be subject to civil or criminal penalties as determined by the courts.

The thing is going to hit the courts anyways. Just craft it in a way that hits the Pareto curve on effectiveness vs legality.
by stevenwoo | 2025-04-07 02:21:42+00:00
That Peter Navarro item resurfacing on news today (he is the chief advisor to Trump on tariffs) explains a lot. He made up at least one of the experts he quotes on trade in his non fiction books using an anagram of his own name. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser... If something looks entirely stupid one the surface, it is exactly what it looks like, there's no 4-D chess with any of these guys except exploiting inaction of Congress to do things it could, like revoke the law that gave Trump these wide powers to tariff given for the "war on terrorism".
by posterguy | 2025-04-07 02:21:58+00:00
Counterpoint: Paul Newman was absolutely a famous drunk, as evidenced by this Wikipedia page.* Any query for "paul newman alcohol" online will return dozens of reputable sources on the topic. Your post is easily interpretable as handwaving apologetics, and it gives big "Its the children who are wrong" energy.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_Day
by AstroBen | 2025-04-07 02:22:39+00:00
My point wasn't chess specific or that they couldn't have specific training for it. It was a more general "here is something that LLMs clearly aren't being trained for currently, but would also be solvable through reasoning skills"

Much in the same way a human who only just learnt the rules but 0 strategy would very, very rarely lose here

These companies are shouting that their products are passing incredibly hard exams, solving PHD level questions, and are about to displace humans, and yet they still fail to crush a random-only strategy chess bot? How does this make any sense?

We're on the verge of AGI but there's not even the tiniest spark of general reasoning ability in something they haven't been trained for

"Reasoning" or "Thinking" are marketing terms and nothing more. If an LLM is trained for chess then its performance would just come from memorization, not any kind of "reasoning"
by WillAdams | 2025-04-07 02:22:42+00:00
Previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33267518

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569799

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42987951

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235120

It's something I've been considering for my current project:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

as I reach the limits of Literate Programming and so forth, but not convinced that the added overhead will pay off. Does anyone have a before-and-after of a project where this has been really useful? Bonus points if in Python.
by dumbledoren | 2025-04-07 02:23:29+00:00
> China and the cultural revolution/great leap forward should be a warning of what can happen when there is no oppositional veto power.

In the Angloamerican West people always bring up the Cultural Revolution as a cautionary tale, but the Cultural Revolution removed the influence and power of the old Chinese elite from the society and established the dominance of people's congresses unshakably. Despite the undesirable happenings around it, it changed China's culture fundamentally. Even the father of the current president of China was purged from power during that revolution, leading to Xi being raised as a normal person and rising to the top from the village level, like almost all of the Chinese governing cadres - ending up with the ordinary people dominating the establishment.

That is why China has a lot of street sweepers, garbage men, electricians etc in their people's congress while you won't see one single person with such a job in the US Congress or even a few in the major European countries' parliaments. They are dominated by the elites from the same social circles, or in the case of various European parliaments, by hundreds of years old aristocratic families and their relatives with similar surnames.

So using the Cultural Revolution as a cautionary tale for the Trump administration not only does not make sense because it's not an accurate comparison, but also the assumptions behind the usage of it as such an example are misplaced from the start.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-04-07 02:23:34+00:00
This is a good article that goes into more detail, including more examples. In fact I'm not sure there's anything in the OP link that's not here.

> This is VERY VERY VERY important.

I think we'll look back in decades to come and just be bewildered that it was ever possible to come up with an exploit that depended on the number of times you wrote "VERY" in all caps.
by jay-barronville | 2025-04-07 02:24:02+00:00
> Your assumption is that the challenge or concern about regulation is the difficulty of dealing with vagueness. As I pointed out, this is not the case, but the hesitancy and destructive power of imposing your will on others.

> […]

> I think a judge would also demand a consistent principle and definition to guide regulation.

Very well said across the board.

My stance is that any time—literally any time—someone is proposing and/or promoting a policy that can stifle, chill, and/or suppress free speech in any way, even if indirectly, the bar for justifying such a policy must necessarily be extremely high.

In theory, I actually agree with many of the arguments against advertising, but there’s a clear slippery slope with this “let’s ban advertising” line of thinking, so yes, the bare minimum is being able to concretely define what advertising even is in such a context.
by DonHopkins | 2025-04-07 02:25:18+00:00
The "Unix Philosophy" is a bankrupt romanticized after the fact rationalization to make up excuses and justifications for ridiculous ancient vestigial historic baggage like the lack of shared libraries and decent scripting languages, where you had to shell out THREE heavyweight processes -- "[" and "expr" and a sub-shell -- with an inexplicable flurry of punctuation [ "$(expr 1 + 1)" -eq 2 ] just to test if 1 + 1 = 2, even though the processor has single cycle instructions to add two numbers and test for equality.
by kelnos | 2025-04-07 02:25:27+00:00
One thing that I think makes only targeting paid advertising a problem: companies often do more than one thing.

Is it ok that when you're watching broadcast/network TV, they advertise internet or cellular service, because the conglomerate that owns the TV station also owns an ISP and cell carrier?

Is it ok if you're using a popular web search engine, and they advertise their own hosted business productivity suite?

I think no, we should not allow these things. But no money (or consideration, or whatever) has exchanged hands here.