MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by invalidname | 2025-05-17 04:52:17+00:00
> I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen.

Right now the Israeli court system is prosecuting the individual assaults from Sde Teiman (the rape claim). During the evidence stage it turns out that the allegations seem to be very overblown, there was an assault. Not rape. The problem is that it's very hart to have a properly functioning justice system when people from the extreme right are blaming you of "working with the enemy". External action and social media are causing a problem instead of focusing on specific wrongdoings.

This is deeply problematic and doesn't help.

> > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day.

> That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed.

Because there is literally no evidence of that. The only evidence ICC brought forth is declaratory intent. Members of the government said some pretty horrible things. That is indeed awful, but not a war crime, genocide or even ethnic cleansing.

After the last ceasefire, Palestinians returned to their homes disproving a large part of the ethnic cleansing allegations. By modern definitions of war in an urban area this was relatively clean.

Like all western democracies Israel has separation of branches. The army is separate and even if a minister wants to perform a war crime, he can't just command it. There is a chain of command and the legitimacy of the orders is evaluated along the command chain.

That means war crimes do happen, like they do in every war. Due to social media and the nature of this specific war they are far more visible (and often faked). Should they be prosecuted, sure. But focusing on that alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict.

This is a political problem, not a legal problem.
by dreamcompiler | 2025-05-17 04:52:19+00:00
Java frustrates the absolute shit out of me. An objectively terrible language coupled with insanely great garbage collectors, insanely great JIT compilers, and insanely great IDEs.

Why couldn't we have had these things for Lisp?* I mean, if 1/1000 of the intellectual horsepower that's been thrown at Java had been thrown at Lisp, we'd all be driving to work in orbit-capable flying cars that used a teaspoon of fuel per year.

* Of course Lisp invented the insanely great IDE around 1984 but then everybody forgot about it and had to rediscover the idea 30 years later.
by baby_souffle | 2025-05-17 04:52:42+00:00
The number of companies that does this _is_ growing.

Shelly was early, the cheep chineese stuff was easy to hack but they eventually moved to cheaper and more esoteric chips where custom firmware is non existent or not as mature. This is changing back, though! The number of ESP-32 powered LED light controllers that I've seen on Ali that feature a USB port for reprogramming / have all the GPIO labeled ... even have a HA/ESP-Home/WLED logo on them is infinitely more than I saw in years past (a few is infinitely more than zero, right?)
by dlubarov | 2025-05-17 04:53:09+00:00
The jurisdictional argument you're alluding to is based on this bit of the Rome Statute:

> the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute ... (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ...

The alleged crimes occurred in Gaza, so the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction if the associated state is a signatory. The argument goes that the PLO signed the Rome Statue on behalf of the "State of Palestine", which claims Gaza as part of its territory.

The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. The international community can declare another entity it prefers as the de jure government, but it's fairly meaningless when that other entity has never controlled or governed Gaza.

Even if we accept the idea that the ICC has jurisdiction under its own rules, that means nothing to a country like Israel which never accepted those rules, and also can't really expect a fair trial.
by toast0 | 2025-05-17 04:53:48+00:00
I think it is worth optimizing, there's a noticable, but small, dip in handshakes per second going from 1 to 2 threads.

If I were to optimize it, and the cycling rate is fixed and long, I would have the global storage be behind a simple Mutex, and be something like (Expiration, oldval, newval), on use, check a threadlocal copy, use it if it's not expired, otherwise lock the global, if the global is not expired, copy it to thread local. If the global is expired, generate a new one, saving the old value so that the previous generation tickets are still valid.

You can use a simple Mutex, because contention is limited to the expiration window. You could generate a new ticket secret outside the lock to reduce the time spent while locked, at the expense of generating a ticket secret that's immediately discarded for each thread except the winning thread. Not a huge difference either way, unless you cycle tickets very frequently, or run a very large number of threads.
by _blk | 2025-05-17 04:54:38+00:00
Hi Peter,

Thanks for all that great insight.

I'm currently a Swiss national on E2 with my own biz but looking at partnering with an American (the form could be a partnership or S-corp but it's not set in stone.. Recommendations welcome. State of CO or potentially Wyoming). All the work I do for them currently is consulting under my biz (SMLLC) as investment but apart from my biz paying for some PCB manufacturers there's no flow of money, just a lot of time.

Now my current E2 business has only me as an employee and I'm not sure how the chances of renewal look in 1.5 years if stays that way. End goal is a good partnership on the new venture and US citizenship but AFAIK there's no path from E2. Do you recommend reapplying for a new E2 with the new venture or extend the current one or something else entirely?

From what I understand from the last E2 is that the embassy prefers majority control from the treaty investor which we'd have to discuss if that's a hard requirement

Thanks!
by luisacoutinho | 2025-05-17 04:55:22+00:00
While I can somewhat relate to this post, I can't help but think this sort of thinking is expected and even part of a cycle. AI isn't the first time technology takes over something that humans had to do manually. Like photography? You used to have to paint, or pay someone to paint your picture. Then all of a sudden you didn't anymore. Painters might've argued that photographs remove the need to think, plan and decide on how best to execute a painting - photo cameras make all of that so easy. Even the output comes out faster.

I don't see anyone lamenting the existence of cameras. No one wants to go back to a reality in which, if you want pictures of you and your loved ones, you need to draw or paint them yourself. Even painters have benefited from the existence of cameras.

AI is, of course, more powerful tech than a camera - but when I find myself getting stuck with thoughts of "what's the point? AI can do it better (or will be able to)" - I like to think about how people have gone through similar "revolutions" before, and while some practices did lose value, not everything was replaced. It helps to be specific, because I'm sure AI cannot replace everything we currently do - we're just in the process of figuring out what that is.
by motorest | 2025-05-17 04:57:15+00:00
> Uninitialized variables reads can only sometimes be detected statically. -Wuninitialized is still good, but it will miss a lot of cases when the read is in a different translation unit.

From my experience, you're exaggerating the number of false negatives, which is more a factor of how you write your code than what static code analyzers do.

Also, your comment reads like an attempt at moving the goal post. We start this discussion being very adamant in accusing C++ of being impossible to detect uninitialized var reads. Once that assertion is thoroughly proven to be false and resulting from clueless ignorance, now we try to reframe it as being... Imperfect in some hypothetical scenarios? So what's supposed to be the actual complain?

The main problem with C++ is that some people somehow are personally invested in criticizing it from a position of complete ignorance. The problem is not technical, it's social.
by kadoban | 2025-05-17 04:58:38+00:00
> No it can't, the pattern for chess worked since it was an invented problem where we have a simple outcome checks, we can't do the same for natural problems where we don't have easily judged outcomes.

You might be interested in some of the details of how AlphaGo (and especially the followup version) works.

Go is a problem where it's very difficult to judge a particular position, but they were still able to write a self-improving AI system that can reach _very_ high quality results starting from nothing, and only using computing power.

There does not appear to me to be any fundamental reason the same sort of techniques can't work for arbitrary problems.

> But I'd argue that such a judge needs to be AGI on its own, so its circular.

But is it circular in a way that means it can't exist, or can it run in circles like AlphaGo and keep improving itself?
by theamk | 2025-05-17 04:59:36+00:00
I think your response will select a different kind of people that Kagi wanted do.

"I would tell them to write more about the UI/UX, do a mockup whatever." is effectively changing the take-home task from "write code", to "write spec, including mockup, get it approved, and then write code". This can be a valid skill, depending on position - but it also means that applicants waste their time on the writing documents that are not part of grading rubric.

And this brings us to a second part: "Emphasize that the people doing the evaluation looove TUIs..." - this is giving a really big hint. It would be a valid response _if the goal was to get this particular candidate_, say because unethical recruiter is getting paid for each candidate placed, and does not care about Kagi's own needs. But does Kagi (or anyone else, really?) want the kind of candidates that could not even parse out the simple doc? Because they were not subtle about loving TUIs in the requirements, mentioning them multiple times and giving examples.

So I am pretty sure that these kinds of strong hints would be against the interview rules, and there is no "fuckup" in this regard.

If I were to write those replies... I don't actually know their policy about how much help can they give to candidate over email.

If reviewing intermediate docs is too much, I'd have to refuse the candidate firmly: "Reviewing documents mid-assignment is against a spirit of this question. Please write the code using the best understanding of the assignment, and I am looking forward to receiving your submission."

If reviewing those docs is OK, I'd say something mildly encouraging - as the document as sent is not wrong, it's just incomplete. "This document contains no glaring defects"? "I can imagine a passing submission that would follow the plan outlined in this document"? "The results will depend on quality of implementation and how well you've followed the assignment, but so far I see no blockers"? "I cannot promise anything until I see the code, but that can potentially lead to passing assignment"?

Some of those would be better than "This is all very exciting. Thanks for keeping me updated" -- but looking at the candidate, would this make a difference? Judging by the tone of the post, and how he decided to proceed because "this is somewhat of a positive answer", even those harsher responses would end up the same way.
by potholereseller | 2025-05-17 04:59:44+00:00
Sortition (the formal term for this) is very attractive, because it seems it would eliminate corruption and other political ills. The problem is that the bureaucracy (he part of the executive branch that has some legislative power) would grow, become more corrupt itself, and become very effective at manipulating the citizen-legislators. I don't think you can eliminate the Federal or State bureaucracies without also parallelizing the legislative process.

Now, don't get me wrong, sortition may improve things for a time. But like code, people figure out how to take advantage of laws. Re-writing the US Constitution on a regular basis is very risky; instead, SCOTUS changes it's opinion on what the Constitution means periodically; it's like updating the interpreter's code instead of changing user-submitted code.

You might also be interested in the districting method in which you draw district boundaries through the middle of high-population areas. Half the population would be on either side of each boundary. You keep subdividing until you have as many districts as needed. (Sorry, I don't remember the name for this, but it was the best option I could find when I last looked into this topic more than a decade ago.)
by sherdil2022 | 2025-05-17 05:00:27+00:00
This is what ChatGPT gives for the above prompt - which I guess you could’ve done too!!!

It sounds like you’re echoing a growing sentiment—people are feeling fatigued by the term “AI”, even if the underlying technology remains important and fascinating. There’s a case to be made for reframing the conversation with more precise or refreshing terminology.

Here are a few alternative terms or framings that could shift the tone or focus:

1. Cognitive Tools

Emphasizes augmentation rather than replacement. Think of it as an assistant, not a replacement brain.

2. Synthetic Intelligence

More neutral and technically descriptive. Doesn’t carry the Hollywood baggage of “AI.”

3. Machine Assistants / Digital Assistants

Grounded in function, not hype. This feels more relatable, especially in business and productivity contexts.

4. Automated Reasoning Systems

Focuses on what these systems do rather than what they are.

5. Language Engines / Code Engines

For LLMs and coding copilots, this term narrows the focus to specific domains, which can help with clarity.

6. Model-Based Systems

Technical and grounded—useful when talking to engineers or product teams.

Or if the goal is just to avoid the buzzword soup entirely, using role-based language like “copilot,” “advisor,” or “co-creator” can work wonders in keeping conversations productive.
by dustbunny | 2025-05-17 05:01:35+00:00
I'm a Canadian moving to the US under TN status. Im looking for tax advice on what to do with my TFSAs and my American income, planning on returning to Canada in a few years. I've struggled to find an accountant who seems to really know what they're talking about. Any tips?

Also, the moving company wants me to get a visa before they book my movers, but the TN status thing happens at the port of entry. Can I get the TN status now even if I don't start for another 6 weeks? Can I get the TN "visa" from a consulate even as a Canadian citizen?
by noduerme | 2025-05-17 05:05:29+00:00
>> People are literally being grabbed off the street and sent to die in storm troop units. Massive corruption, the main method of protection of which is that those who fight against it (or all their male relatives) are simply sent to die.

This description sounds suspiciously similar to the situation in Russia for any male of fighting age or anyone who fights against corruption. I suppose a difference being that one country is forced to throw all its resources at stopping an invasion, and the other country is taking all its young men off the street simply to invade its neighbor.
by qzw | 2025-05-17 05:06:47+00:00
Ok I actually went and read the article by Allen, and I think LessWrong's paraphrasing is a bit sloppy. Allen's actual argument is that because all Royal Navy captains (not just those on half pay) are not permanent employees, they have the right to refuse any commission offered to them. They could then reject any commands that seem too dangerous or unprofitable. This would lead to adverse selection if there were no prize money (for capturing or sinking enemy ships, etc.) and they only received fixed wages. There would be little incentive for captains to take the unfavorable commissions. But the RN did have a very generous prize money system, and the prize money was often much greater than the regular wages. This means that even if a commission looked pretty bad, there was still the possibility of getting rich. Whereas there's no such opportunity at all if one's sitting on the shore. So captains rarely rejected commissions. It's basically akin to how startups usually offer more stock options and the chance to get rich in order to offset the higher risk and worse work/life balance compared to the BigCos.
by kypro | 2025-05-17 05:07:36+00:00
Firstly, LLM chat interfaces != agentic coding platforms.

ChatGPT is good for asking questions about languages, SDKs, and APIs, or generating boilerplate, but it's useless if you want to give an AI a ticket and for it to raise PRs for you.

This is where you need agentic solutions like Codex which will be far more useful because they will actually have access to your codebase and a dev environment where they can test and debug changes.

They still do really dumb things, but a lot of this can be avoided if you prompt well and give it the right types of problems to solve.

In my experience at the moment there's a sweet spot with these agentic coding platforms which makes them useful for semi-complicated tasks – assuming you prompt well they can generate 90% of the code you need, then you just need to spend the extra 10% fixing it up before it's ready for prod.

Tasks too simple (a few lines) it's a waste of time. You spend longer prompting and going back and forth with the agent than it would take to just make the change yourself.

Then obviously very complicated tasks, especially tasks that require some thought around architecture and performance, coding agents really struggle with. Less because they can't do it, but because for certain problems simply meeting ACs is far less important than how the ACs are being met. Ideally here you want to get the architecture right first, then once that's in place you can break down the remaining work for the AI to pick up.
by sagarpatil | 2025-05-17 05:08:35+00:00
I am working with a 3rd party API (Exa.ai) and I hacked together a python script. I ran a remote agent to do these tasks simultaneously (augment.new, I’m not affiliated, I have early access)

Agent 1: write tests, make sure all the tests pass.

Agent 2: concert python script to fastapi

Agent 3: create frontend based on fastapi endpoints

I get a PR, I check code and see if it works and then merge to main. All three PR’s worked flawlessly (front end wasn’t pretty).
by anoplus | 2025-05-17 05:11:10+00:00
I think the unhappiness we experience from AI is not because of AI, but a symptom of a society that lacks more humanism. I currently like to define AI's level of intelligence as its ability to reduce human suffering. By this definition, if AI failed to keep you and society happy for whatever reason, then it is stupid. If you or people around you feeling worthless, anxious, depressed, starving, because of AI, it is stupid! And society needs you to fix it!
by motorest | 2025-05-17 05:11:11+00:00
> Yes it's too hard to follow or understand.

I don't think so. There might be tough topics, but special member functions ain't it. I mean, think about what you are saying.

* Is it hard to write a constructor?

* Is it hard to understand that a C++ compiler can help you out and write one for you when you write a basic class?

* Is it hard to understand if you step in and start defining your own constructors and destructors, C++ compilers step out of your way and let you do the work?

Let's now frame it the other way around: why don't you write all the constructors and destructors you need? Would it be nice if the compiler did at least some of that work? I mean, not all of it, but at least just the basic stuff. It could safely fill in constructors and destructors at least for the most basic cases without stepping on your toes. When you need something fancy or specialized, you could just do the work yourself. Does this sound good? Or is this too hard to understand?
by jrvarela56 | 2025-05-17 05:11:58+00:00
My initial hunch and many answers in this site say ‘it’s boring I wouldn’t read that’.

There’s something to that: a good author synthesizes experiences into sentences/paragraphs, making the reader feel things via text.

I have a feeling LLMs can’t do that bc they are trained on all the crap that’s been written and it’s hard to fake being genuine.

But I agree you can generate any amount of filler/crap. It is useful, but what I got from GP was ‘ultimately, what’s the point of that?’. Hopefully these tools help us wake up to what is important.
by Dracophoenix | 2025-05-17 05:13:49+00:00
It would be helpful if you have a budget in mind and expected usable lifespan for the device. If you need to make an immediate purchase, I would personally recommend Thinkpad P14s Gen 5 (Intel) with maxed specs in everything but RAM (which remains unsoldered). It even has a dedicated GPU option (Nvidia), albeit with a paltry 4GB of VRAM. If you can wait, the Intel Gen 6 should come out in the next month or so. Alternatively, the AMD Gen 6 is currently available as well as equivalent T-series versions (that is the T14 without the "s") that are cheaper but somewhat lower-specced and given a polycarbonate build.
by visarga | 2025-05-17 05:13:59+00:00
It would be a mistake to take the banality of current LLM outputs and extrapolate that into the future. Of course they are going to get better. But that is not the point - it is that in the chat room the human and LLM spark ideas off each other. Humans come with their own unique life experience and large context, LLMs come with their broad knowledge and skills.