MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bentley | 2025-05-09 08:43:19+00:00
I primarily source my copyrighted audiobooks from Libro.fm and Downpour. Both have large (though not universal) catalogues.

Librivox has free, public domain audiobooks. The narrators are volunteers, so performance and recording quality varies, but there are some very good ones there.

Some podcasts provide legitimate audiobooks of copyrighted works, generally with similar quality caveats to Librivox. For example, the blog “Readings from Under the Grapevine” has a free, legally licensed recording of the Narnia series (except for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe).

I never buy audiobooks with DRM, even if the DRM is trivial to break. Amazon has made clear their intentions to lock media down ever further. I shouldn’t have to put up with that, so I’m not going to support them financially.

If I can’t find a copyrighted audiobook at one of the DRM‐free shops, I get it from my library, either through Libby or by checking out a physical copy. Not that these would be helpful for someone using Audiobookshelf…
by overfeed | 2025-05-09 08:44:29+00:00
> I would argue reusing private keys worldwide is slapdash engineering

I wasn't suggesting it, and frankly can't see how that could be a solution in this instance. I was making a comparison against current practices on a harder problem to solve , i.e. safely scaling a single private key in an SSL certificate across many servers is solved today without a 1:1 server to certification ratio
by londons_explore | 2025-05-09 08:45:21+00:00
Fun thing to try:

Ask an LLM: "Say the word APPLE", but modify the code so the logits of the token for Apple/apple/APPLE is permanently set to -Inf - ie. the model cannot say that word.

The output ends up like this:

"Banana. Oh, just kidding. Banana. Oh, it's so tasty I said it wrong. Lets try again: Orange. Whoops, I meant to say grape. No I meant to say the tasty crunchy fruit known as a carrot".....
by leslielurker | 2025-05-09 08:46:16+00:00
Hi thank you for trying it and finding that bug, I can see the bug with creating the new repos but only happens when published. I'll work on a fix for this.

In the meantime if you create a private repo called `lurkhub-data` and a public repo called `lurkhub-posts` on your account then log back in it should hopefully work.
by reissbaker | 2025-05-09 08:46:35+00:00
There are generally a few answers to this. But they all boil down to:

* You never used to be fat.

Once you become fat, your body's homeostatic set point is permanently altered. Your body never destroys adipocytes — it only shrinks them. If you stay within some range of your current homeostatic set point, your body will either increase the size of your adipocytes, or decrease their size, depending on whether you're over- or under-consuming. But, after a certain amount of overconsumption, your body will actually create new adipocytes... And once you have them, you can never get rid of them, minus expensive and dangerous surgery.

The best you can do is shrink them. But, keeping the adipocytes shrunken takes significant willpower. So basically, once you get fat, you're going to have a hard time.

Pretty much the only alternative is somehow tricking your brain/gut into not getting hungry when it "should." Ozempic, etc seem to somehow allow you to not feel as hungry even when your adipocytes shrink, or at least alter your perceived set point to be more-shrunken. Bariatric surgery is similar although much more dangerous. (Liposuction actually removes adipocytes, but it's quite dangerous — and it doesn't remove visceral fat cells, which are the worst kind of fat from a health perspective.)

Now, there's a separate question of "why do some people get fat initially?" And that can result from poor childhood nutrition, or genes (e.g. Samoans), or exposure to certain chemical compounds (e.g. certain psychiatric medications), or natural aging (recent research indicates middle-aged mice, and probably thus middle-aged humans, have their stem cells trigger more adipocyte production), or just lifestyle. But it's the initial weight gain that ends up trapping people into the higher homeostatic set point, which is very difficult to recover from, even with dieting and exercise, since you will need to keep yourself basically constantly hungry either by eating less or by exercising much more even after you "lost" the weight — because while you lost weight on the scale, you didn't lose adipocytes, and adipocytes do not want to be kept empty.
by dns_snek | 2025-05-09 08:47:34+00:00
What is the average person supposed to do if their insurance stops covering their home after decades of ownership? Just saying "there are lots of other places in the world" ignores the reality where their only major asset has become close to worthless through no fault of their own, which makes it impossible to relocate without going bankrupt.

Should the government assist or are you of the opinion that it's just bad luck that they need to deal with on their own?

Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years where affected families could be relocated. I don't think they should be pumping money into rebuilding homes in the exact same vulnerable location though - I don't know if that's happening or not.
by hiq | 2025-05-09 08:48:20+00:00
> I didn't read anything about tm-guimaraes "expecting the whole world to agree on a stablecoin-based solution" and you didn't bother to quote him, if he did say it. In fact, multiple stable coins and quick arrangements between individual banks are a big part of the value provided by stable coins.

Why would that go faster than agreeing on existing currencies? If you want to go from, say, EUR to USD, going through more currencies just adds overhead. And again, why do you expect quicker arrangements when stablecoins are involved (and all the other elements still are)?

> two banks can agree and use a stable in no time at all

If they can (meaning they're also legally allowed to) agree to that, then they can agree to using their main currencies as well. Let's not pretend that EUR -> EUR-based stable currency -> USD-based stable currency -> USD is somehow simpler than EUR -> USD.

> the convenience and speed of stables is there for all to see

Where can we all see that? Which product has stablecoins as part of their implementation instead of as a marketing point? I gave examples above that seem to do what you both seem to argue stablecoins are good for, namely transferring money independently of currencies. AFAICT Wise does not use stablecoins, and I'm pretty sure they would if it could make things more efficient to reduce their fees while still increasing their margins. The fact that they don't and are still in business years after stablecoins have been out (and again, legal stablecoins traded by known actors could have existed before proof of work was created anyway) indicates that it's not the competitive advantage you think it is.

OP was talking about legal money and how banks could use stablecoins to improve their connectivity for legal money flows. Regulations are a given constraint for them, so the risk and lack of compliance you mention is actually a deal-breaker here.

I also fail to understand this notion of "unstable coin" to refer to currencies "stable coins" are pegged to.
by londons_explore | 2025-05-09 08:48:36+00:00
Note that OP's traffic light problem would suffer the same problem.

Ie. a smart model, knowing it cannot say a word, will give the next best solution - for example maybe saying "A P P L E" or maybe "I'm afraid I'm not able to do that".

However, a constrained model does not know or understand its own constraints, so keeps trying to do things which aren't allowed - and even goes back and tries to redo these things which aren't allowed, because to the model it is a mistake which needs correcting.
by vector_spaces | 2025-05-09 08:48:49+00:00
If it were that straightforward, then yes, I agree, but it wasn't, see e.g. [1] or the various articles written at the time

Quality of instruction was poor, instructors were often students from bootcamps with no work experience. They misrepresented the nature of the debt agreement that students were entering into:

> The contracts stated,[45] "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code." This was false, and lead students to believe that it was impossible to discharge their debt.

It turned out that they sold the ISA contracts -- the "X% for next two years income" contracts -- to third parties before the students had finished their education. This means their claim about alignment of incentives with the student was bogus.

They ended up getting fined for deceptive practices by the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also sued by former students for misrepresenting job placement rates (claiming 86% to prospective students but in internal memos claimed around 50%).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Institute_of_Technology#...
by shayginsbourg | 2025-05-09 08:49:22+00:00
"From Vibe Coding to Vibe Testing"

Testers are now embracing the creative and innovative spirit of "vibe coding," adopting similar tools and techniques to enhance their testing processes.

Welcome to our exploration of AI's transformative impact on software testing. We'll examine current capabilities and predict how AI will reshape testing by 2025.

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/from-vibe-coding-to-vib...
by blitzar | 2025-05-09 08:49:44+00:00
> letting it sit in investments

I havent looked, and frankly can't be bothered [0], but I expect that even after giving away an unfathomable amount of money, the foundation and gates are probably richer (dollar net worth) than they have ever been.

It has been sat in investments, they have been giving it away, but they can't keep up with it.

[0] Turns out I could be - https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/william-h-ga...
by asaddhamani | 2025-05-09 08:52:46+00:00
Sonnet in Copilot is crippled, Copilot agent mode is also very basic and failed every time I tried it. It would have been amazing 2 years ago, but now it's very meh.

GitHub is losing money on the subs, but they are definitely trying to reduce the bleed. One way to do that is to cut corners with LLM usage, by not sending as much context, trimming the context window, capping output token limits, these are all things Cursor also does btw, hence why Cline, with almost the same tech (in some ways its even inferior tech) achieves better results. I have hit $20 in API usage within a single day with Cline, Cursor lets you have "unlimited" usage for $20 for a month. So its optimised for saving costs, not for giving you the best experience. At $10 per month for Copilot, they need to save costs even more. So you get a bad experience, you think its the AI that is not capable, but the problem is with the companies burning VC money to corner the market, setting unrealistic expectations on pricing, etc.
by a3w | 2025-05-09 08:53:06+00:00
Nice. LLMs can prove barely anything, providing some sources, or doing pure math that already circulates. AFAICT, so far, no novel ideas have been proven, i.e. the "these systems never invented anything"-paradox for three years now.

Symbolic AI seems to prove everything it states, but never novel ideas, either.

Let's see if we get neurosymbolic AI that can do something both could not do on their own — I doubt it, AI might just be a doom cult after all.
by overfeed | 2025-05-09 08:53:44+00:00
> Is it a better idea to share private keys

It is not, amd I can't see how my earlier comment can be read as recommending that. This is a solved problem for private keys (using load balancers, for example) , so public keys are lower-hanging fruit than that.

Edit: upon rereading, I cam see how the word "share" would be ambiguous in the context of if a private key. I meant "jointly make use of", rather than "distribute copies throughout the fleet". I have exited my root comment to make my meaning clearer.
by exe34 | 2025-05-09 08:53:54+00:00
Has anyone had success running it on NixOS? I have an account with deepinfra which I'd like to try with this.

Sadly when I try to add a model, I get the error: > Error while encrypting the text provided to safeStorage.encryptString. Encryption is not available

vscode and Cursor work perfectly fine this way:

> nix-shell -p appimage-run > [nix-shell:~/Downloads]$ appimage-run Cursor-0.49.6-x86_64.AppImage
by JackSlateur | 2025-05-09 08:55:19+00:00
One great way to have stability is to rebase old code against new code

Say, you have the first function, with a specific signature and it does its stuff

Then later, you improve the stuff and the signature changes with a breaking change

Do not do that

Instead, create a new function (with a new signature) and push in it the whole code

And rewrite the old function to use your new function

This way, you keep one "production code": the new function. And you keep one interface-to-legacy code: the old function (which is nothing but a compatible gateway to the new function, and can be easily forgotten)

Old users have no breaking, new users have features, you keep a single code and are only burdened with a small compatible layer
by jjav | 2025-05-09 08:55:28+00:00
> An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants.

This can work, but only in an alternate universe where the federal government doesn't get nearly all the tax income. If we abolished federal tax and increased state taxes proportionally, this would totally work. But not the world as it exists today.
by beAbU | 2025-05-09 08:55:55+00:00
The Apollo programme is another example of this for me. You need an existential threat, or the threat of eternal embarrassment and suddenly everyone is pulling in the same direction.

IMO most of the world's woes these days are persisting because of a lack of political will to fix them.

I sometimes feel that China is able to achieve the things it's achieving because the government's near-absolute control over the population. The political power is absolute, and it's wielded in a very very effective way. If China decides tomorrow that they want to colonize Mars, they will probably get it done within a decade.
by miki123211 | 2025-05-09 08:56:14+00:00
Most users demand:

1. That their messages won't be lost when they migrate between devices.

2. That their messages won't be lost when their device is stolen and they set up the new one from nothing but a password.

3. That Apple's password recovery flows work like any other password recovery flows, AKA that forgetting your password is a minor inconvenience, to be overcome at the Apple Store at worst, not a data loss disaster.

4. That they don't have to spend $$$ on some strange device called a "Yoobby Key", which they don't understand and will lose anyway.

There's no way to satisfy those demands and have your desired level of security, hence why iCloud backup encryption is a strictly opt-in feature.

There are tradeoffs to be made here, and Signal made different tradeoffs, which makes it significantly more secure but also significantly more annoying to use for somebody whose main life interest isn't figuring out why tech works the way it does. Apple does the best it can under the constraints they are given.
by throwaway_0351 | 2025-05-09 08:56:32+00:00
Back when I used dial-up, I experienced a lot of stress when I was connected. I felt I had to be as effective as possible, because we had to pay for every minute spent.

When I switched to DSL the stress went away, and I found myself using internet in different ways than before, because I could explore freely without time pressure.

I think this applies to Claude as well. I will probably feel more free to experiment if I don't have to worry about costs. I might do things I would never think of if I'm only focused on using it as little as possible to save money.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-05-09 08:57:12+00:00
Automation doesn't work where high dexterity and quick adaptability is required. You can much cheaper and quicker to train a human worker to move from sewing a Nike shoe to an Adidas shoe than you can reprogram and retool a robot.

Robots work for highly predictable high speed tasks where dexterity is not an issue, like PCB pick and place.
by asaddhamani | 2025-05-09 08:58:23+00:00
I wrote about this on my blog: https://www.asad.pw/llm-subscriptions-vs-apis-value-for-mone...

But basically you get ~300Mn input tokens and ~100Mn output tokens per month with Sonnet on the $100 plan. These are split across 50 sessions you are allowed, each session is 5 hrs starting from the first time you send a message until 5 hrs after the first message. During this time, you get ~6Mn input and ~2Mn output tokens for Sonnet. Claude Code seems to use a mix of Sonnet and Haiku, and Haiku has 2x the limits of Sonnet.

So if you absolutely maxed out your 50 sessions every month, that's $2400 worth of usage if you instead had used the API. So it's a great deal. It's not $100 worth of API credits you're buying, so they don't run out like that. You can exhaust limits for a given session, which is at most a 5 hr wait for your next one, or you can run out of 50 sessions, I don't know how strongly they enforce that limit and I think that limit is BS, but all in all the value for money is great, way better than using the API.
by InsideOutSanta | 2025-05-09 08:58:36+00:00
The Ars Technica article is a bit confusing, if you click through to the original article, the case they make is much clearer. It's not that his credentials were found on Have I Been Pwned, which is the case for most people through no fault of their own. Instead, it's this:

>But some of the datasets that Schutt is included in are much more concerning than normal data breaches because they're from stealer logs.

Logs from information-stealing malware were leaked multiple times, and if your credentials appear in multiple of those, that's reasonably good evidence that you are doing something wrong.

So I don't think the headline is clickbait, but I do think that the Ars article could be clearer in making its point.
by nikin_mat | 2025-05-09 08:58:39+00:00
Good question. Personally, I feel that answer engines will go the same route as search engines and start monetizing brand mentions and I feel this will be done openly, similar to ads. That being said I feel that there is room for brands to improve their presence as well. Most models claim neutrality at the moment, but we’ve already seen anecdotal cases where some brands consistently outperform others in AI responses with no clear reasoning

On your question regarding how influence can be detected..... That’s a big part of what we’re working on at MentionedBy.ai. We track brand mentions across multiple models over time and flag sudden shifts — e.g., a competitor showing up overnight in all responses, or factual distortions creeping in. Think of it as version control + monitoring for the "AI perception layer."

As for llm.txt abuse..... Yes, totally possible. We expect a wave of LLM-targeted SEO — structured data, vector bait, invisible prompts, etc. One idea we’re exploring is a kind of “LLM spam index” — patterns of over-optimization or hallucination correlation that could indicate manipulation attempts.
by miki123211 | 2025-05-09 08:59:29+00:00
via USB (or possibly local Wi-Fi) and your computer.

iTunes (or Mac OS's built-in iPhone sync) is the recommended way to do this, although the protocol has been reverse-engineered to hell and back and third-party software exists for it. iMazing is the most notable one, although there are probably others, and you could hack something on top of libimobiledevice if you really wanted to.

Getting those backups from your computer to the NAS is an exercise for the reader.
by supermatt | 2025-05-09 09:00:19+00:00
> That would not work in EU. Every EULA has a clause that you are required to secure your device

In the EU, an EULA does not override statutory rights - especially in cases involving minors, lack of legal capacity or unauthorised transactions.

> rat out your children for identity theft, and maybe risk they get criminal record.

A child cannot commit identity theft because they lack the criminal capacity.
by asaddhamani | 2025-05-09 09:00:22+00:00
Nope, it can be even a dozen (because agentic). Claude usage limits are actually based on token usage, and Claude Code uses a mix of Haiku and Sonnet. So your limits are split among those two models. I gave an estimation of how much usage you can expect in another comment on this thread, but you will find it hard to max out the $100 plan unless you are using it very, very extensively.
by rsynnott | 2025-05-09 09:00:43+00:00
> The people certainly were not free.

Oh, no, definitely not. I mean, it was the early 19th century; not _literally having slaves_ was considered a dangerously radical experiment that even revolutionary France could only half-commit to. Freedom wasn't a big thing in the early 19th century.

But Egypt under Muhammad Ali was about as independent as any country was at the time, really. It controlled its own domestic and foreign policy, had its own military, and _invaded its nominal suzerain_, taking Syria off the Ottomans.
by vidarh | 2025-05-09 09:01:34+00:00
In my 30 years of software development, maybe 5 of them were in places were getting people to provide a formal spec was ever an option.

It's also irrelevant if LLM's can follow them - the way I use Claude Code is to have it get things roughly working, supply test cases showing where it fails, then review and clean up the code or go additional rounds with more test cases.

That's not much different to how I work with more junior engineers, who are slower and not all that much less error-prone, though the errors are different in character.

If you can't improve coding speed with LLM's, maybe your style of working just isn't amenable to it, or maybe you don't know the tooling well enough - for me it's sped things up significantly.
by dangus | 2025-05-09 09:02:43+00:00
This unfortunately is why anonymity is so important on the Internet. I would not want to be a part of many of these communities with an account that is connected to my real life accounts in any way. Different email, different username, no discernible connection to my real identity.

But also, shame on Meta and most other gigantic companies for having no due process for anything like this. I have no idea how they just go along with it and decide in favor of the reporter with zero evidence. Sure, maybe bans need to be proactive but there should at least be an appeals process.

There should probably be more laws that cover permanent bans for business platforms that have a marketshare above a certain size. You shouldn’t be able to be permanently banned from services like this that dominate their respective markets without a robust process. There should probably be cases where even the violation of certain aspects of ToS can’t get you banned permanently, where law overrides ToS. Imagine if you were banned from getting phone service from AT&T in the 1980s and how devastating that could be.
by asaddhamani | 2025-05-09 09:03:45+00:00
In my experience, there are areas where Gemini did well but Claude didn't, same for o1 pro or o3, but for 90% of the work, I find Claude way more trustworthy, better at following instructions, not making syntax mistakes, etc. Gemini 2.5 Pro is way better than all their prior models, but I don't get the hype about it being a coding superstar. It's not bad, but Sonnet is still the primary workhorse. Sonnet is more expensive, so if Gemini was at the same level I'd be happy to save the money, but unfortunately, I've tried it with various approaches, played with the temperature, but in the vast majority of cases Claude does a better job.