MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CPLX | 2025-06-20 16:15:58+00:00
> 1) It's a regressive tax on everyone living here -- even if you never use a car. Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this.

That's an empirical question, you're going to have to prove it. The time saved by delivery drivers or contractors, for example, has value. If they can make more deliveries, or fix more elevators in the same day those services get cheaper. If the only downside is that the assistant patrol supervisor deputy liaison that would have driven to 1 Police Plaza takes the train instead it's clearly a net savings and economic improvement and makes everything we buy and use in the city cheaper.

> 2) That same regressive tax is used to provide a lifeline for an exceptionally wasteful public organization (the MTA) that needs budget discipline, not additional funding.

The MTA is chronically starved for cash and unable to do large scale long term projects because of unstable funding. If this policy, which as we saw above might well have literally zero aggregate economic downside, also builds more efficient transit, it's a virtuous circle of winning.

> 3) (more minor) By definition, the point of this tax is to make it so that only rich people can drive. As the article notes, of course this is great if you're rich enough to afford it...but the article doesn't quote the people who can't now.

Rich people can already drive. Now those rich people give money to transit for everyone else. Working people or people who need to drive (like those with a van full of stuff that needs to be somewhere) are able to do so much more efficiently and most likely face net lower costs.

The "downside" is midly affluent people who do have cars and regularly drive in the central area take fewer trips or take the train a few more times instead. And the other downside is that the tens of thousands of assholes who've been abusing the city parking placard process for decades have to find another way to get to work like the rest of us.
by foobarian | 2025-06-20 16:16:16+00:00
They may not replace the current gamut of phone features. However; I question how much of current phone functionality is actually something users strongly need/want, vs. how much is pushed by big tech. It would be pretty great if a small core feature set done well in-glass turned out to be enough to kick off large scale adoption. Ultimately I think the input is probably going to be the hardest issue
by benoau | 2025-06-20 16:16:24+00:00
> There’s urgency to get a deal done right away. Apple’s search partner, Google, is at risk of losing its ability to pay Apple for the default search position on Safari, a deal worth billions of dollars per year. If Apple acts now, it could start integrating Perplexity into its products and figure out how to make money from the service before it’s too late.

Aside from the revenue being question marks, they're at risk of losing that deal because of Google's antitrust, and Apple are about to face their own antitrust trial for restricting competition...

> Perplexity would get access to the 2 billion+ Apple devices in circulation and become an AI force on par with ChatGPT.

There is nothing they are proposing that requires Apple acquire Perplexity vs empower them to create value upon their platform and reaping those benefits: more device sales and associated service revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
by mason55 | 2025-06-20 16:16:26+00:00
> The price will determine how poor you have to be to get forced to do without so the wealthy can benefit from an increase in quality of life.

Doesn't that basically describe access to all scarce resources?

If you don't like the idea of money being used as a way to allocate scarce resources then another way to look at it is forcing people to pay for negative externalities (traffic, pollution). And I don't see why poor people should have to pay less for creating the same negative externalities.

> Why should my taxes get used to build infrastructure that's going to be subjected to congestion pricing that prices me out of using that infrastructure?

I think the arguments here are

1. Rich people pay a much higher percentage of the cost of the infrastructure. If you're so poor then you might not be paying for any of it anyway.

2. You still benefit from the infrastructure - fire trucks, police cars and deliveries are all using the roads to your benefit, even if you don't even drive on them

3. This is very similar to someone saying "why should I pay for roads when I don't own a car?"

4. It's also similar to "why should I pay for schools when I don't have a kid?" These things better society as a whole even if you don't use them directly*
by naasking | 2025-06-20 16:17:02+00:00
> If things are going to get better in Africa, it will be because Africans grow their economy and pay taxes and their governments can provide the services that they want

The problem with this argument is that the path to achieve this is unclear, and everyone who has tried has failed. In the absence of a clear path, it seems rational to set aside lofty ideals and do whatever good you can now.

> If you are looking for low-probability events to worry about I think you could find a lot of them.

Name one that hasn't already been considered that would be a serious threat to modern technological civilization.

> Although it is run by people who say they are militant atheists, the movement has all the trappings of a religion

Supposing you're correct this thought is incomplete. Take it to its logical conclusion: a religion centered around open rational debate is bad because...?
by abelanger | 2025-06-20 16:17:05+00:00
Thanks! Our favorite resources on this (both have been posted on HN a few times):

- https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-age...

- https://github.com/humanlayer/12-factor-agents

That's also why we implemented pretty much all relevant patterns in the docs (i.e. https://pickaxe.hatchet.run/patterns/prompt-chaining).

If there's an example or pattern that you'd like to see, let me know and we can get it released.
by rafram | 2025-06-20 16:17:19+00:00
It's a max of $21 for a truckload of goods, and that's if they deliver during the day. It probably costs the shipper more than that when the driver stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Obviously the numbers will vary significantly depending on what the vehicle is carrying, but a truckload of groceries might go for around $100,000 retail [1]. The congestion charge is 0.02% of that.

> By definition, the point of this tax is to make it so that only rich people can drive.

That's not true. There's a tax credit for low-income residents and a full waiver for disabled people. The average person who drives in Manhattan makes $130,000, 40% more than the average income in the city as a whole [2], so letting them do it for free (while creating negative externalities that we all bear) is just a handout to people who don't need it.

[1]: https://selectliquidation.com/collections/grocery-liquidatio...

[2]: https://fiscalpolicy.org/impact-of-payroll-mobility-tax-on-n...
by foxyv | 2025-06-20 16:17:34+00:00
This reminds me of a story my dad always told.

One time the organs of body had an argument. The brain said "I am the most important. I allow the body to think and avoid danger. If I die the whole body will die with me." The heart screamed "I am the most important! If I stop even for a few minutes the entire body will die."

So the argument continued. The kidneys, the liver, the skin, and the spine joined in. No one could agree who was the most important.

Then the butthole closed up!
by jcranmer | 2025-06-20 16:17:50+00:00
The biggest improvement are for the very poor, who rely more heavily than other socioeconomic classes on bus transportation, which has seen the greatest efficiency improvements from congestion pricing. The merely poor or middle class, in NYC, are already reliant on mass transit (although more likely the subway rather than the bus system), which sees somewhat more indirect benefits from increased funding as a result of the congestion charge.

The people whom congestion pricing hurts the most are those who feel that public transit is beneath them but still rely on driving in Manhattan to a degree that the congestion charge is a significant tax. Which unfortunately seems to include most of the media class in NYC, hence the incessant whining about it.
by tacticalturtle | 2025-06-20 16:17:50+00:00
In Massachusetts it’s the voters themselves to blame.

Massachusetts passed a law mandating upzoning in communities well served by public transit:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requir...

And town voters in certain communities have instead consistently voted down plans to move into compliance, and instead choose to endlessly sue the state to delay it:

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/27/timeline-t...

These voters aren’t hypothetical scapegoats - they’re real.
by PicassoCTs | 2025-06-20 16:17:50+00:00
This is one of the reasons, why climate-change risks can not be priced into home prices. Take europe- after several instances, homes in mountanous regions and near small rivers/springs are to be expected to be regularly destroyed or damaged with high statistically likelihood. Examples abound:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_European_floods

Now, if the risk was assessed reasonable, the risk would be priced into the housing in those regions and industrial activities in these regions. Austria, germany and some other regions would see significant drops in value. Same goes for florida and california, with forrest fires and hurricanes. The market can not be rational, if your lifelihood and pension depends on it.
by shipscode | 2025-06-20 16:18:43+00:00
Yep. The people who agree with congestion pricing either hate or ignore these people, along with the thousands of lower Manhattan small-business employees, subsidized housing residence that have cars or street park daily.

I postulate it's because they don't actually live there, or just moved there, if they do actually live there, they'd have to be severely socially inept to never speak to a store or restaurant owner and ask what their commute is like.

To act as though it affects nobody of moderate or lower income is downright dishonest, when 22% of Manhattan households own one - it's no longer an upper class activity, just a basic tool to get to work.
by bumby | 2025-06-20 16:19:10+00:00
The government took a risk on an unproven launch provider. The fact that they were unproven is precisely why private money wouldn’t bet on them. When they secured large government contracts the risk balance changed and private money started increasing.

I’m not making an argument about reusability. I’m talking about the business risk. Note my original statement is about business strategy.

The Feds do bear most of the launch risk. That’s exactly what “self-insured” means. If you have enough wealth, many states allow you to self-insure your car; that means if something happens the resulting financial responsibility is yours. In the case of spaceflight, when a govt loses its payload, the taxpayer just eats that cost; no insurance company reimburses them. Many in the govt aren’t thrilled with that risk dynamic because it subsidizes the risk but privatizes the profit. But when the risk of a new industry is too high for private industry to shoulder, the government is about the only game in town with that level of risk tolerance.
by weinzierl | 2025-06-20 16:19:51+00:00
In computer science we are taught it's turtles all the way down but in the real world you learn that you hit the world of bits and bytes really fast.[1]

My point is that every virtualized environment needs a layer that talks to real hardware down below. We have enough diversity in the upper layers but not enough in the lowest layer.

[1] I heard it expressed like this from an Azul Systems employee first, but unfortunately don't remember who it was.
by donmcronald | 2025-06-20 16:20:04+00:00
> It's making mass transit more efficient.

> Buses are travelling so much faster that their drivers are having to stop and wait to keep to their schedules.

This makes sense to me as long as that infrastructure exists and is kept up. There needs to be a balance where taking public transit is a practical option. The city I live in (in Canada) has pretty brutal public transit. It's 1-1.5h on the bus for something that takes 20-30m by car and the busses are already full because of the price of parking.

If you introduced congestion pricing where I live, commute times for people driving cars might go down even more as people are priced out of driving, but there aren't enough buses so you would simply be left with no viable options.
by badsectoracula | 2025-06-20 16:20:09+00:00
> I suspect that I have an outdated version of hotspot Linux profiler, but I can’t just go and download a fresh release from GitHub, because hotspot is a KDE app, and I use NixOS.

KDE (not to be confused with the Plasma desktop) is just a bunch of C++ libraries that can work on a variety of desktop environments and even OSes (though Hotspot being a perf report alternative is clearly meant for use with Linux).

I just went and downloaded the latest CI build from[0] and it ran just fine on my openSUSE Tumbleweed, running Xorg with Window Maker. I do have a bunch of KDE apps installed, like Kate (my currently preferred text editor), Dolphin (the file manager i use whenever i want thumbnails, usually for videos and images), Spectacle (for screenshots), Falkon (i use it as a "clean" browser to test out things), etc so i also do have the KDE libraries on my system, but that is just a `zypper install` away. Or an `apt-get install` or `pacman -S` or whatever package manager your distro uses, i've used a bunch of them and they all pretty much behaved the same. I'd expect Hotspot to be installable in the same way in any of them (and i'd expect the AppImage to have these libraries bundled in anyway so you probably wont need them[1]).

If there are issues with NixOS (i don't know, i haven't tried it) i think it might actually be a NixOS issue and not a KDE issue.

[0] https://github.com/KDAB/hotspot/releases/tag/continuous

[1] EDIT: i checked with --appimage-extract, it contains pretty much everything
by kjkjadksj | 2025-06-20 16:20:24+00:00
I hate to put the blame on the cyclist, but as a cyclist myself you have to expect a dooring event and ride accordingly. I am out about 4 feet away from doors at least. If it means I am blocking a single lane of traffic to ride safely without door risk, so be it.

What really sucks about getting people used to all these little things that save your life in urban cycling, is there is no way to get the info out to people. With driving there is at least drivers school and short of that a lot of good info in the DMV handbook you need to read to pass the written drivers test. There is no equivalent for cycling so most other riders I do see are doing something unsafe (not taking the lane, salmoning, sidewalk riding with a lot of blind driveways, etc.).
by setr | 2025-06-20 16:20:32+00:00
Ok what happens in scenario

Player A fires at B at time 0

Player B moves at time 0, causing A to miss

Due to lag, player A receives B movement at time 3

So player A fired at a still target, and hit. Player B moved, and dodged. Rollback would apply to player A.

Does the hit register or no?

If player A receives the rollback, and now witnesses B dodge, but the hit registers anyways, then I don’t see how there can be a server validity check — from the perspective of the server, the state of the game in which A landed the hit never existed

My understanding of AAA fps games is they show the hit animation as a prediction, but it’s still up to the server whether the hit registers. Eg, if I lag in overwatch and everyone stands still, nothing I shoot lands (except by accident). When my inputs finally reach the server, reconciled and replayed on my machine, it turns out I was shooting at a wall.
by awinter-py | 2025-06-20 16:20:40+00:00
not having investigated this tool, I'll say that the key thing for 'open alternatives' is simplicity of hosting, + many tools have failed me in the past

thinking specifically of immich + simplenotes, which have complex docker compose stacks, and at least immich requires a lot of TLC to keep the backend in sync with the frontend. fail at this and your images will not sync.

(and I am not knocking it, I use it + love it)

these apps are in a sense featureful, with ML indexing and other search features, but in a sense just auth wrappers on file storage; hosting them they should, somehow, be simpler than it is
by gavinray | 2025-06-20 16:21:18+00:00
That's great to know! Do you have an example on-hand by chance?

If that's possible, I guess the only thing I'd request is interopability with the REST Client ".http" files that VS Code/JetBrains IDE's support then.

UPDATE: Found it, looks like you can do it via the below

POST https://example.org/api/tests Content-Type: application/json file,insert_user.request.json; [Asserts] body == file,insert_user.expected.json;

So that just leaves the IDE integration bit.
by mason55 | 2025-06-20 16:21:18+00:00
There's a very large lower-middle to upper-middle class that is going to be price sensitive.

And that's the point. Maybe I'm pretty well off but $15/day is still painful for me to drive in every day. But! Occasionally I REALLY need to drive my car in to the city, so instead of driving in five times/week I just drive in once/week. That's 80% fewer trips, a huge reduction.
by collingreen | 2025-06-20 16:21:55+00:00
Even if profit isn't involved this entire op argument seems really weird to me. It seems exceptionally entitled and also myopic? Somehow the author wants the good (??), popular (??) open source projects (made of thousands and thousands of opinionated decisions, many aesthetic and not "rational") to decide to cooperate and suddenly share opinions and aesthetic (while simultaneously maintaining the unique opinions and aesthetic that made the project popular in the first place?). The whole thing feels a lot like consumers demanding even more from open source maintainers and continuing to pay nothing.
by graemep | 2025-06-20 16:22:34+00:00
> So if you're using GNOME, try not to depend on something that depends on having the whole KDE installed.

I disagree with this bit. When i used a Gtk desktop I still used KDE applications so I had lots of KDE libraries installed. I use KDE now and I still have lots of Gtk applications installed.

Its slightly wasteful of storage and memory but is still a lot less resource hungry than Windows.
by kaycebasques | 2025-06-20 16:22:51+00:00
So there's no AR aspect to the lens on any of these Meta-partnered smart sunglasses, right? I assumed that was standard on all of them. Naive, I know, because that would require some amazing hardware. But it does go to show that we're still far from the Star Trek future that other simpleton consumers like myself might be hoping for / expecting.
by ashwinsundar | 2025-06-20 16:23:13+00:00
Yes, I definitely want all these things. The one extra thing that will get my vote (and money) is - self-hosting. Yes, it's a niche developer desire, but I want to be empowered to own my data, not have it vacuumed off to another faceless organization that intends to sell it all to the highest-bidder as soon as possible.
by CPLX | 2025-06-20 16:23:32+00:00
> It's a bit absurd though. The roads are paid by tax payers from the general fund of the city, but they discriminate on how much it costs to use those roads based on where you live. If everyone entering the zone paid the same then it would be one thing. But they have exemptions and deductions based on residency and income. If they are going to charge people who don't live in the area and not charge the people who do live in the area, then the people in the area should have to buy all the roads and pay for the upkeep.

These aren't deep moral questions. You're trying to draw some sort of universal fairness doctrine around this that doesn't apply. It's just public policy. The people who live in the area are buying all the roads, through various taxes and fees.

Roads don't work the way you describe. Are you aware that there's literally no way to drive to Long Island without going through New York City? Or that driving from Princeton New Jersey to Providence Rhode Island requires going through New York City or driving about 40-50 miles out of the way? Why is all this solely the problem of people who live in Manhattan below Central Park again?
by krainboltgreene | 2025-06-20 16:24:05+00:00
I've wasted a lot of time and energy on stuff that doesn't matter, so I can hardly judge anyone else on what they focus on, but man does it feel bad to have community leaders actively focus on building out tooling that is anti-worker. I think the only way I'd feel more conflicted is if Fly.io started building weapons systems for the military. I guess that wouldn't be shocking considering some of their lead's beliefs.
by frollogaston | 2025-06-20 16:24:10+00:00
What I mean is, they changed the entire desktop environment, which was sorta the IT dept's choice but also a forced decision based on the Linux desktop landscape. I can see why other places prefer Windows. Ours doesn't of course because we're a software company that uh doesn't write Windows software, but even then, they're phasing out Linux laptops in favor of MacBooks because of driver issues.

I would totally use Linux on desktop if I didn't have a Mac. But it's only because I'm stubborn enough not to tolerate Windows treating me like dirt, not because it's actually a rational decision to use Linux.
by rafram | 2025-06-20 16:24:19+00:00
> The default is not to tax.

No it isn't. The government pays for public transit, for the bridges and tunnels that vehicles take into the city, and for the infrastructure that they use when they're here. The government funds its spending with taxes. Either it taxes everyone (payroll/income tax) or it taxes the people who are specifically putting the highest toll on the infrastructure (congestion pricing). The MTA has tried the former — general fund, MTMCT — and it wasn't enough. Now they're trying the latter.
by Gregaros | 2025-06-20 16:24:27+00:00
Curious if anyone has thoughts on going even further: eschewing soft-ware based inference in favor of a purely ASIC approach to a static LLM. Cost benefits? Software level additional, fine-tuneable layers to allow a degree of improvement and flexibility? We are quickly approaching ‘good enough’ for some tasks—at what point does that mean we’re comfortable locking something in for the ~2-4 year lifespan of a device if there _were_ advantages offered by a hyper-specialized chip?
Show HN: I Built a Rust Docs MCP Server for Agents
by snowmead | 2025-06-20 16:24:36+00:00
This already has proven to be really reliable for agents to debug issues, implement features, etc. without any intervention from my part.

The agent is capable of getting all the context it needs while not knowing anything about some rust project/crate.

It adds the capabilities for it to explore and dig all the way down to the source code to find what it needs.
by taylodl | 2025-06-20 16:25:08+00:00
> We also know that the actual transition to PQC algos will take years.

Yes, but they can get boardroom funding for it now. Your Security Operations Center has a vested interest in keeping everyone in a state of fear, especially when something happens, and notice I didn't say if, nobody wants to be the executive who advocated for cutting the cybersecurity budget.