MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by agile-gift0262 | 2025-05-12 14:58:20+00:00
Another alternative to mapy.com you could try is Here WeGo. I prefer it to any other Google Maps alternative I have tried. And there are some things, like the car navigation, that I prefer on it over Google Maps. I don't find their privacy policy creepy, and the most creepy parts are opt-in and the toggle clearly explains what you'd be opting into and what feature you are missing out on by not opting in. Mapy's privacy policy is less creepy than Here's in some aspects, but some of the creepiness that's opt-in in Here, like location data sharing for traffic, it's on with no opting-out on Mapy.

I'd prefer an open-source alternative, but as you said, there isn't any that currently fits my needs.
by cmrdporcupine | 2025-05-12 14:58:39+00:00
In the end the amazing research work done at Bell Labs or Xerox PARC and (to some degree) IBM Research didn't benefit their benefactors so much as they benefited the industry and arguably the world as a whole.

Which is a specific weakness of the model of capitalism we have moved into in the west during my lifetime -- the gradual defunding or deprecation of state sponsored planning and research means there's little room for improvements that travel across the walls of corporate ownership.

Instead this work is being done on the whole voluntarily in the open source domain, and is likely undercompensated.

Where companies cooperate on cross-company technical standards committees, it's often very painful and the results often dubious.
by pjmlp | 2025-05-12 14:59:25+00:00
I wouldn't count on that, since Java 9 there has been a more agressive approach towards deprecated code, hence why @deprecated(forRemoval=true) is now possible.

https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/24/docs/api/java.base...

=> "The following methods in this class for user-based authorization that are dependent on Security Manager APIs are deprecated for removal: "
by psadauskas | 2025-05-12 14:59:37+00:00
> trumps not a warmonger

In the last 3 months, Trump has threatened to invade:

- Greenland - Canada - Mexico - Panama - Cuba

> people like to act like he's on the side of the russians

Trump has said that Ukraine is the one that started the war, and the "deal" he negotiated to end the war excluded Ukraine from the discussion and would give Russia everything it asked for.

> People have lost their minds.

You're right on that point, but its probably not the people you're thinking of.
by sofixa | 2025-05-12 14:59:38+00:00
> So the only government that would enforce this is the one that has no chance of competing in this space in the first place (EU)

Mistral waves hello. They're alive and well, and competing well.

Also, while the AI Act and copyright are handled at the EU level, I always get the impression that anyone talking about a "EU government" simply doesn't understand the EU. If you think Germans or Slovaks are rooting for Mistral just because they're European you'd be wrong - they'd be more accepting of it, maybe, due to higher trust in them respecting privacy and related rights, but that's.
by ModernMech | 2025-05-12 14:59:41+00:00
> The rest of the details is neutral, however. It's so unusual that one wonders whether who wrote that was actually pro-DEI, or merely compelled to put in something to that effect in order to appease someone.

This is how it usually works:

You want public money so you can research your pet interest. But the public wants to know how your research will benefit the public before they will give you public money to do your research. But for some (many) academics, they are loathe to think of anything aside from their direct special interest research topic that they can't even articulate how their research can benefit the public. So they go with the lowest effort idea "I will teach local kids about my subject in a creative way".

Frankly I'm concerned so many people here want to give money to researchers without them having to articulate how it will benefit society. That's what "broader impact" statements are all about.
by jfengel | 2025-05-12 15:00:46+00:00
I'm not sure I understand your question. It's reasonably clear that transformers get caught reproducing material that they have no right to. The kind of thing that would potentially result in a lawsuit if you did it by hand.

It's less clear whether taking vast amounts of copyrighted material and using it to generate other things rises to the level of copyright violation or not. It's the kind of thing that people would have prevented if it had occurred to them, by writing terms of use that explicitly forbid it. (Which probably means that the Web becomes a much smaller place.)

Your comment seems to suggest that writers and artists have absolutely no conceivable stake in products derived from their work, and that it's purely a misunderstanding on their part. But I'm both a computer scientist and an artist and I don't see how you could reach that conclusion. If my work is not relevant then leave it out.
by int_19h | 2025-05-12 15:01:13+00:00
The problem of "how do artists earn enough money to eat?" is legitimate, but I don't think it's a good idea to solve it by making things that inherently don't work like real property to work like it, just so that we can shove them into the same framework. And this is exactly what copyright does - it takes information, which can be copied essentially for free by its very fundamental nature, and tries to make it scarce through legal means solely so that it can be sold as if it were a real good.

There are two reasons why it's a problem. The first reason is that any such abstraction is leaky, and those leaks are ripe for abuse. For example, in case of copyright on information, we made it behave like physical property for the consumers, but not for the producers (who still only need to expend resources to create a single work from scratch, and then duplicate it for free while still selling each copy for $$$). This means that selling information is much more lucrative than selling physical things, which is a big reason why our economy is so distorted towards the former now - just look at what the most profitable corporations on the market do.

The second reason is that it artificially entrenches capitalism by enmeshing large parts of the economy into those mechanics, even if they aren't naturally a good fit. This then gets used as an argument to prop up the whole arrangement - "we can't change this, it would break too much!".
by csours | 2025-05-12 15:01:18+00:00
Some assumptions are so obvious no one bothers to state them, or even remember them.

Assumption: Medical professionals are trained to use Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).

One might assume that EBM means something specific, and I'm sure it does, but that specific thing is different for different people.

One thing that EBM sometimes means is: common sense is no substitute for evidence. There are uncountable times that common sense has been wrong in the medical context.

So, you have a lot of people commenting here that this is obvious common sense, but many medical professionals will pull out a reference chart of caloric content and glycemic index and say "look at the evidence".

So, it is very useful to do studies that bring evidence to common sense.

---

My other pet peeve with EBM is that it does a poor job of understanding that different interventions work for different people - it is time consuming and expensive to do that kind of investigation, thus some/many medical professionals do not understand or believe it.

This comment is intended as a critique, not a dismissal.
by hiAndrewQuinn | 2025-05-12 15:01:19+00:00
It is undeniably useful, and people who are denying this have no recollection of what it was like to learn to program for the first time. Anything that helps you surmount the brick wall difficulty curve of that first programming language is a godsend, and I can tell you this from having seen real motivated undergraduates in action during their CS degrees.
by stryan | 2025-05-12 15:01:23+00:00
I have a similar thing in my WFH office where Home Assistant will play a chime during at canonical hour[0], plus it plays the Westminster Quarters[1] at 5pm to remind me when the normal work day is ending. I find the chunks of time match up well to work/eat periods[2] versus the granularity of each hour.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_hours#Western_rites ; for the work day the main chimes are at 7am, 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 7pm

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Quarters

[2] I originally stole the idea from the game Pentiment, which uses the canonical hours as it's in game time system since you're working in a 16th monastery. A web app version of the clock is at https://pentiment-clock.vercel.app/
by throwaway1854 | 2025-05-12 15:01:41+00:00
Apples and oranges - and also I don't know if anyone is really supporting IP maximalism.

IP maximalism is requiring DRM tech in every computer and media-capable device that won't play anything without checking into a central server and also making it illegal to reverse or break that DRM. IP maximalism is extending the current bonkers time interval of copyright (over 100 years) to forever. If AI concerns manage to get this down to a reasonable, modern timeframe it'll be awesome.

Record companies in the 90s tied the noose around their own necks, which is just as well because they're very useless now except for supporting geriatric bands. They should have started selling mp3s for 99 cents in 1997 and maybe they would have made a couple of dollars before their slide into irrelevance.

The specific thing people don't want, which a few weirdos keep pushing, is AI-generated stuff passed off as new creative material. It's fine for fun and games, but no one wants a streaming service of AI-generated music, even if you can't tell it's AI generated. And the minute you think you have that cracked - that an AI can create music/art as good as a human and that humans can't tell, the humans will start making bad music/art in rebellion, and it'll be the cool new thing, and the armies of 10Kw GPUs will be wasting their energy on stuff an 1Mhz 8-bit machine could do in the 80s.
by AustinDev | 2025-05-12 15:01:47+00:00
Many if not all of the recent and living presidents have used the whole 'Presidental Library' grift as a way to bypass the emoluments clause. More recently they've used 'Charitable Foundations'. Nothing has ever really been done about it for the last few folks to hold the office. Maybe because it's Trump this time, we can get some serious reform to this form of naked corruption. I expect him to go big on the library / foundation grift.
by dmoy | 2025-05-12 15:01:49+00:00
Not a ton of expert programmer + copyright lawyers, but I bet they're out there

You can probably find a good number of expert programmer + patent lawyers. And presumably some of those osmose enough copyright knowledge from their coworkers to give a knowledgeable answer.

At the end of the day though, the intersection of both doesn't matter. The lawyers win, so what really matters is who has the pulse on how the Fed Circuit will rule on this

Also in this specific case from the article, it's irrelevant?
by seabrookmx | 2025-05-12 15:01:57+00:00
Ah, fair. That is an area we struggled with. We run next in kubernetes (GKE) and really wanted to be able to promote the Docker/OCI image up through our environments (ie: not bake environment variables into the build artifact). We settled on having them dumped in a meta tag in the root document, and then have some helper functions to access those. We still have to use process.env for any secrets though, which makes them inaccessible to the frontend code (but that's sort of the point).
by miki123211 | 2025-05-12 15:02:54+00:00
Neither conda nor venv really solve the underlying problem.

Most ml project authors only supply a "top-level" requirements file, that is, one that only contains the list of dependencies directly required by the project, not a full graph of both direct and indirect dependencies.

Those dependencies are often unversioned. This means pip will fetch their latest versions, which might be incompatible with what the project actually requires, e.g. numpy 2 instead of the numpy 1.x that the project was actually developed with.

Even if the dependencies are versioned correctly, it's likely that one of those dependencies has its own improperly versioned dependency. Maybe the project doesn't depend on numpy directly, but it depends on foo 0.8.14, which depends on bar 3.11.4, which is sloppy and depends on improperly numpy, which will resolve to 2.x nowadays even though it actually needs 1.x.

You can `pip freeze`, but that doesn't always work, as the graph of required dependencies might differ across platforms and Python versions. It also has the problem of not distinguishing between the actual project constraints and those mechanistically added by pip.

Then there's the fact that pip installs dependencies one-by-one instead of looking at the whole list and figuring out what versions will work together. If you need both foo and bar, where foo needs numpy 1.x and the latest version of bar needs >2.0, you will get >2.0 and a broken foo, instead of a working foo an an older working bar that still worked with numpy 1. This is actually one problem that conda solves, at a serious performance cost.

Not to mention the fact that requirements files often fall "out of sync" with what is actually there. It is too easy to follow the suggestion in some exception and just `pip install` a missing package, forgetting to add it to requirements.txt.

Then there's the python version debacle, people often don't specify the version of Python needed, which sometimes just makes the requirements uninstallable (or, even worse, subtly broken).

The solution to all these problems is using uv. It keeps a package lock of the exact set of working versions (which is always resolved for multiple platforms), and which is separate from the version constraints imposed by the project author. It resolves packages all at once without Conda's performance problems, Rust probably helps here. It encourages commands like `uv add`, which install a package and track it as a dependency in a single step. It even tracks Python versions, fetching the exact version needed when necessary.
by xeonmc | 2025-05-12 15:03:00+00:00
I wonder if Phil Schiller were at the helm instead of Tim would the devolution would be staved off for longer?

I still remember the “can’t innovate anymore my ass” quip which revealed a bit of a personal chip on Phil’s shoulder, contrasting Tim’s lack of enthusiasm towards to product experience and general billionairy apathy that’s perfectly symbolized by his flaccid flag-waving at the Miami F1 race.
by anticodon | 2025-05-12 15:03:00+00:00
> that actually changed the functionality under test - that's all an argument for doing exactly the opposite of what you recommend.

It was an old functionality. Someone wrote a super class that for the need of testing filesystem functionality created extremely large images. Not only there was no need to test with such large images, other developers eventually inherited more testcases from that setup code (because there were other utility methods), and now setUp code was needlessly creating images that no test used.

Generating a huge 4k image takes a significant time using Pillow.
by Mystery-Machine | 2025-05-12 15:03:02+00:00
Just tried to edit this icon so that the arrow is in the center of the circle. The mask wasn't properly recognized and so it only shows a black circle:

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 20 20" stroke-width="2" stroke="black"> <circle cx="10" cy="10" r="10" fill="currentColor" mask="url(#maskArrow)"></circle> <mask id="maskArrow"> <circle cx="10" cy="10" r="10" fill="white"></circle> <path d="M15.41 16.59L10.83 12l4.58-4.59L14 6l-6 6l6 6l1.41-1.41z"></path> </mask> </svg>
by margalabargala | 2025-05-12 15:03:40+00:00
> Someone has to pay the cash back and we like to think it is the merchant, but in the end it is the consumer who pays for all these cash backs and card fees.

Well, specifically, it is the other consumers who frequent that merchant and pay in cash/debit. In the US anyway, at any business that does not charge CC fees, people who do not pay with a CC are subsidizing people who do.

Businesses generally are happy to pay the CC fees, because in the local minimum in which we exist, that is the price to pay to access a large segment of the population's purchasing power. Businesses are not required to accept CCs, and some do not, but those that do do so because the income brought in by the people with CCs who would not show up to a cash-only location outweighs the price of the CC fee.
by untrust | 2025-05-12 15:04:03+00:00
This form of banter reminds me of Maddox from the early 2000s, which funnily enough is still active at https://maddox.xmission.com/

I agree its relatively played out at this point. Really this page is just a showcase of HTML features for web developers who don't have much experience with HTML, and I think the insulting attitude and comedic approach may hold reader's interest than a more dry technical presentation of the content.
by mnmalst | 2025-05-12 15:04:05+00:00
I started using osmand a lot more lately while biking and I agree route calculation on the phone (hi Pixel 4a :) ) are super slow but for that reason you can configure alternative (online) routing engines in the settings https://osmand.net/docs/user/navigation/routing/online-routi.... I use https://openrouteservice.org/ which generates long routes in seconds and works great in general.
by gus_massa | 2025-05-12 15:04:23+00:00
This problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_cover_problem

> Now however I have a very efficient algorithm (on paper)

Why not code?

> I’ve spent a whole year just proving that it works for any problem of this category the same boring way

I don't know enough about this problem, but it's common that most examples are easy and can be solved with an efficient heuristic, but there are an infinite family of rare corner cases were the heuristic fails and the solution is very slow.

[IIRC, for the traveling salesman problem, the hard cases are when the distances are just small differences 1.0001912876; 1.0010221987; 1.01002112; 1.030152322; 1.01026; 1.0102131287; ... or something like that (this are just numbers I typed randomly).]
by SoftTalker | 2025-05-12 15:04:54+00:00
"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too."

That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)
by JohnMakin | 2025-05-12 15:05:23+00:00
It has nothing to do with fear. Have you ever tried to call in and cancel one of these services? If you're even able to find the right number to reach anyone, or after you've already waited an absurdly long time to do so, you'll be transferred around until you get frustrated and give up, or be subjected to extremely aggressive sales tactics trying to pressure you to stay on. I got to the point with one of those DNA sites where I had to ask about next steps for legal action to the representative before they'd even consider getting to the step where I could cancel my subscription - and even after that, still got charged and had to call again.

It's maybe comforting to think "oh, people just don't want to call, they'd rather eat the fees" when this is way over simplifying the problem and giving way too much credit to sites that operate this way.
by InsideOutSanta | 2025-05-12 15:05:40+00:00
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're asking me, but I said "on the other hand" because the person I was responding to was concerned about sounding patronizing by pointing out that laws protect uneducated people, while the article outright states that this targets uneducated people. It wasn't intended to introduce a criticism of what the person I was responding to was saying.
by alganet | 2025-05-12 15:05:57+00:00
What a dilemma. Isn't it?

Fight for big copyright, or let it all be scraped?

It's not just about famous works now. We live in a gray area era. Every post on social media, tap on a keyboard, click, can be used to train AI.

Who owns that intelligence? It feels like AI products should acknowledge the names of billions of contributors. Common people, feeding the machine, mostly unknowingly.

So, copyright could be an unusual ally. It's often a villain for common folk, but again, we live in a gray area era regarding those rights. Copyright has a precedent with pedigree. Most scraped content is not famous songs and movies, it's random internet stuff.

We need to remember we want AI, but we also want good songs and movies for entertainment, and we also want to have our lesser works protected (internet banal stuff). There is a fine line connecting all that stuff somewhere.
by int_19h | 2025-05-12 15:06:03+00:00
The problem is that regardless of any innovations, scale still matters. If you figure out the technique to, say, make a model that is significantly better given N parameters - where N is just large enough to be the perfect fit for the amount of training data that you have access to - then someone else with access to more data will use the same technique to make a model with >N parameters, and it will be better than yours.
by pstuart | 2025-05-12 15:06:06+00:00
I think a lot of that sentiment comes from the conservative/religious right, which sees college as a dangerous thing that turns their obedient children into free thinkers and other forms of deviancy.

Another aspect of this is simply pandering by reframing the class war into "intellectual elites" vs the owner class.

College isn't for everyone, but it should be accessible to all that want it.
by naasking | 2025-05-12 15:06:15+00:00
> How do you prove in ~O(1) time that someone did some operation with their GPU? You don't.

The work in this case could be that the weights after the was done work have lower loss than the input weights. Applying the new weights to input to check that it's lower is much cheaper than calculating the weights, which is the same trend as proof of work (not sure about the magnitude of difficulty being enough to replace proof of work though).
by hovering_nox | 2025-05-12 15:06:20+00:00
Nobody is building commercial plants any time soon; it's still in the experimental phase, with new discoveries happening almost every month.

I see it similarly to the difference between a car with a combustion engine and an electric one. Combustion engines are fully developed. We're reaching the maximum possible performance and utilisation. It's a dead end. However, with electric cars, for example, new battery development is far from over. E.g sodium batteries.

And just off the top of my head, in fusion, the discovery of better electromagnets, as happened a while back, can quadruple energy output.It's not a dead end, and writing it off would be short-sighted.