MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vkou | 2025-06-20 01:51:58+00:00
Not to mention that if you are innocent, and the government wants to fuck with you in particular, they won't need to go through this dog and pony show to do so.

They'll just send a half-dozen masked men to disappear you and then say to anyone that asks that you were an illegal immigrant with an unpaid parking ticket from 2005.

All of this stuff only matters if they are stupid enough to ever let you see the inside of a courtroom. And if you do, you're free to raise the obvious, believable defense that this is the flimsiest, most circumstantial of evidence imaginable. If that's the best evidence they have, you should ask for a bench trial, no judge with an above-room temperature IQ will convict you.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-20 01:52:40+00:00
Also, more people seem to be driving with their bright lights on 100% of the time. I once rode as a passenger at night with an ex-coworker driving and I noticed he used his brights the whole time, even when there were oncoming cars. I asked him why and he looked at me like I was stupid and said “because they’re brighter and let me see better.” When I pointed out that they blind other drivers he just shrugged and said “fuck em, not my problem.”
by mdaniel | 2025-06-20 01:53:08+00:00
> At some point you won't need a fully dedicated ops team

I think programmers are more likely to go extinct before that version of reality materializes. That's my secret plan on how to survive the alleged AI apocalypse: AI ain't running its own data flow pipelines into its own training job clusters. As a non-confabulation, I give you https://status.openai.com. They have one of every color, they're collecting them!
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-20 01:54:58+00:00
What makes it really bad is that you can't add different people's utility functions, or for that matter, multiply the utility function of some imagined galactic citizen by some astronomical amount. The question of "what distribution of wealth maximizes welfare" [1] is unanswerable in that framework and we're left with the Randian maxim that any transaction freely entered into is "fair" because nobody would enter into it if it didn't increase their utility function.

[1] Though you might come to the conclusion that greeder people should have the money because they like it more
by fc417fc802 | 2025-06-20 01:55:19+00:00
> considerabe case law on whether performing songs infringe on the author's copyright

But then you're no longer talking about "contains copyrighted material" you're talking about "actively reproduces copyrighted material in an immediately recognizable form".

> Generally I don't think copyright holders have agreed to have LLM ingest their works.

Aren't you essentially speculating about whether or not the training data was obtained in compliance with IP law?
by absurdo | 2025-06-20 01:56:16+00:00
What kind of commentary here have you heard here around the Rust community? I haven’t heard much. Certainly nothing close to violent. I’ve heard lots of shit talking regarding Go because they refused to introduce generics - and to be fair, the reasoning behind the refusal was smug arrogance led by the pompous cock rpike.

I will say as someone who has been programming before we had standardized C++ that “programming communities” aren’t my cup of tea. I like the passion and enthusiasm but it would be good for some of those lads to have a drag, see a shrink and get some nookie.
by bell-cot | 2025-06-20 01:57:25+00:00
> When it comes to the nuclear waste issue, for instance ...

Nuclear waste issues are 99.9% present-day political/ideological. Huge portions of the Earth are uninhabitable due to climate and/or geology. Lead, mercury, arsenic, and other naturally-occurring poisons contaminate large areas. Volcanoes spew CO2 and toxic gasses by the megaton.

Vs. when is the last time you heard someone get excited over toxic waste left behind by the Roman Empire?
by zzo38computer | 2025-06-20 01:58:41+00:00
I would rather buy a incandescent light (even if I have to pay 3x or 5x) which is not as bright as the LED (forty watts or possibly even lower, should be sufficient; I have a few 40W incandescent light and they are good enough), and then not turn it on in the day time when it is light outside.

(Unfortunately, other people where I live like to turn on the light even in the day time and that bothers me.)
Why should we read books frequently?
by Caelus9 | 2025-06-20 01:59:00+00:00
If a person does not read books, then his values are determined by the people around him, because he has no other input channels, he can only imitate the people around him, or slowly be changed by the environment, follow what is popular around him, and never find himself. Reading is to enrich your soul. Even if you don’t remember the content of the books you have read, they still exist in your conversation, in your temperament, in the boundlessness of your mind and the breadth of your spirit. Books are ladders to upward, good medicine for healing, a good way to enlighten wisdom, and a dojo for awakening the mind.
by Filligree | 2025-06-20 01:59:06+00:00
> If you drew a Venn diagram of the people that objected, people who sneered at the objections[2] and people who identified as rationalists you might only need two circles though...)

I’m a bit confused by this one.

Are you saying that no-one who identifies as rationalist sneered at the objections? Because I don’t think that’s true.
by lechatonnoir | 2025-06-20 02:00:35+00:00
> They don't really ever show a sense of "hey, I've got a thought, maybe I haven't considered all angles to it, maybe I'm wrong - but here it is". The type of people that would be embarrassed to not have an opinion on a topic or say "I don't know"

edit: my apologies, that was someone else in the thread. I do feel like between the two comments though there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". (The original quote above I found absurd upon reading it.)
by T3OU-736 | 2025-06-20 02:02:58+00:00
Interesting.

Hit the front page (Android, Firefox Focus) Have a feed. Tried to follow https://atac.seraum.com/event/did-16-billion-login-credentia...

Got:

``` 404 - Not Found

The event you are looking for (did-16-billion-login-credentials-leaked) does not exist.

Return to the Live Feed

```

Hitting back gave a header, but instead of the feed items, I see `Could not load the feed. Please try again later.`
by stephc_int13 | 2025-06-20 02:03:53+00:00
I think we very rarely can measure things as soon as they have more than one dimension and unit. Measurements aggregate are weighted and thus arbitrary and or incomplete.

This is a common and irritating intellectual trap. We want to measure things as this gives us a handle to apply algorithms or logical processes on them.

But we can only measure very simple and well defined dimensions such as mass, length, speed etc.

Being measurable is the exception, not the rule.
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-06-20 02:04:36+00:00
Comic sophism ain't gonna make hypernormies reconsider lol

(Aside from the semi-tragic one to consider additive dilogarithms..)

One actionable (utility agnostic) suggestion: study the measureable consequences of (quantifiable) policy on carbon pricing, because this is already quite close to the uncontroversial bits
by petesergeant | 2025-06-20 02:05:34+00:00
Current line-up for paid is WSJ, WashPo, and The Economist.

WSJ has been excellent. Coverage and analysis are absolutely top notch. The editorials are … right wing trash, but usually well written. The Economist is slower news which is a good alternative; inserts its editorial stance into the actual news, but as a classical liberal I’m fine with that.

I’ll probably let WashPo lapse; not sure it’s providing anything more than WSJ is at the moment for me.

Others I’ve subscribed to: FT — it was good, slightly slower news than WSJ but faster than The Economist. Spectator — right wing trash but exceptionally well-written — if you want to know what the mean-spirited right are feeling on any issue, this will tell you. Foreign Policy — great analysis but honestly felt like news that was too slow.
by setr | 2025-06-20 02:06:57+00:00
It is weird, and if I’m reading this right a single player with a poor connection will trigger repeated rollbacks for everyone. It also seems to be client-authoritative? Which is just 100% illegal if you’re at all concerned about cheating. All the problems of peer-to-peer in a client/server package?

It should be:

1. Client input is either dropped or the input is applied but in an unexpected position (because when the user input occurred the client visible state was wrong)

2. On correction, client is rubber banded into the correct positions to match server state; rollback/replayed with correction if the game is deterministic

3. Server-authoritative; if it never reaches the server, the input never existed.
by wildlogic | 2025-06-20 02:07:19+00:00
My kundalini awakened when I fell 20 feet onto a 3 inch PVC pipe in more or less a seated position and got impaled - it smashed right up through my tailbone, sacrum, and spinal vertebrae, severed a ton of nerves, and whatever energy was coiled up in the base of my spine shot straight up out the top of my head!
by OJFord | 2025-06-20 02:08:12+00:00
I'm not sure about the 1.0/2.0/3.0 classification, but it did lead me to think about LLMs as a programming paradigm: we've had imperative & declarative, procedural & functional languages, maybe we'll come to view deterministic vs. probabilistic (LLMs) similarly.

def __main__: You are a calculator. Given an input expression, you compute the result and print it to stdout, exiting 0. Should you be unable to do this, you print an explanation to stderr and exit 1.

(and then, perhaps, a bunch of 'DO NOT express amusement when the result is 5318008', etc.)
by FeepingCreature | 2025-06-20 02:08:17+00:00
There are certain parts of the history of the rationalist movement that its enemies are orders of magnitude more "fixated" on than rationalists ever were, Neoreaction and the Basilisk being the biggest.

Part of evaluating unusual ideas is that you have to get really good at ignoring bad ones. So when somebody writes a book called "Neoreaction: a Basilisk" and claims that it's about rationality, I make a very simple expected-value calculation.
Ask HN: Socializing AIs Through Games
by lukas099 | 2025-06-20 02:08:31+00:00
Hi,

I feel game theory explains how we socialized; why not train AIs that way?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L0: Prisoner's dilemma (find tit-for-tat) L1: Prisoner dilemma (cutthroat) . 3 AIs . Should all be able to cooperate L2: Dealing with baddies . 3 good, 1 selfish . They can evolve but odds favor coop- eration

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...and so on and so forth.

I'm not a game theorist, but I'm sure one could divine some games easily enough?

Eager to hear your thoughts.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-20 02:09:11+00:00
Liquid Glass feels like a reprisal of all the visual garishness of Aqua with none of the usability lessons. Aqua was good because it could be learned quickly, it made a lot of sense to copy back then.

Apple's current design language is sterile, but at least it's easy to read. The modern design trends are just a series of downgrades in usability, arguably continuing since System 7. Somehow, it looks like "overlapping low-contrast window content" has become the haute couture of UX, much to the dismay of grandmas everywhere.
by Spivak | 2025-06-20 02:09:25+00:00
The fundamental tension is that there is real complexity to running services in production that you can't avoid/hide with a better abstraction. So your options are to deal with the complexity (the k8s case) or pay someone else to do it (one of the many severless "just upload your code" platforms).

You can hide the ops person but it but you can't remove them from the equation which is what people seem to want.
by airhangerf15 | 2025-06-20 02:10:33+00:00
WindowMaker and XFCE on X11 both support mouse based copy/paste. The wine/systray issue would be present on Sway and most other tiling wayland composers. Also the requirement to have a daemon to handle wallpaper is present on all Wayland composers too (I used wpaperd last time I tried Wayland).

Very few of his issues have anything to do with Hyprland. They're almost all problems directly with Wayland composers ... all of them.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-06-20 02:10:44+00:00
There were plenty of Kaleidoscope schemes and Appearance Manager themes for those with Macs who liked Aqua but either couldn’t or didn’t want to upgrade to OS X yet. There were some interesting “remixes” of Aqua too, including one that gave it BeOS-like tab titlebars!

There was even one Aqua scheme that through some feat of wizardry managed to give menus soft, 32-bit transparency drop shadows just like OS X had. I have no idea how that worked, classic Mac OS itself was only capable of 1-bit transparency as far as I'm aware.
by rxtexit | 2025-06-20 02:11:01+00:00
Without irony, I actually find the South China Morning Post probably the most unbiased, straight on US news.

It also acts as a filter for important US events since they aren't motivated to put out 24/7 bullshit like US based news.

Major US news organizations, be it right or left leaning are just complete trash. Not much higher standards than the National Enquirer at the grocery check out line.

I can't blame the news organizations though since news/politics have become a type of dominate team sport for entertainment in the US in the last decade. Really only second in popularity to the NFL.
by timschmidt | 2025-06-20 02:13:23+00:00
I've seen similar. I wonder if traditional organizational solutions, like those employed by the US Military or IBM, might be applicable. Redundancy is one of their tools for achieving reliability from unreliable parts. Instead of asking a single LLM to perform the task, ask 10 different LLMs to perform the same task 10 different times and count them like votes.
by creatonez | 2025-06-20 02:13:50+00:00
Nope. Has nothing to do with them being nerds. They are actively dangerous, their views almost always lead to extremely reactionary politics. EA and RA are deeply anti-human. In some cases that manifests as a desire to subjugate humanity with an iron fist technocratic rule, in other cases it manifests as a desire to kill off humanity.

Either way, as an ideology it must be stopped. It should not be treated with kids gloves, it is an ideology that is actively influencing the ruling elites right now (JD Vance, Musk, Thiel are part of this cult, and also simultaneously believe in German-style Nazism, which is broadly compatible with RA). The only silver lining is that some of their ideas about power-seeking tactics are so ineffective they will never work -- in other words, humanity will prevail over these ghouls, because they came in with so many bad assumptions that they've lost touch with reality.
by libraryatnight | 2025-06-20 02:14:16+00:00
I get Harpers, the Economist, and the London and New York Reviews of Books delivered. At a news stand I'll usually grab The Atlantic, WSJ, FT, and/or the MIT Tech Review depending on what looks interesting. I also need to go give Axios some money, I've been using their local reporting and keep meaning to do the yearly membership thing.
by roxolotl | 2025-06-20 02:14:22+00:00
This is a remarkably well started comment.

One thing I'd like to add though is that I do think there is an additional piece being discarded irrationally. They tend to highly undervalue everything you're describing. Humans aren't Vulcans. By being so obsessed with the risks of paperclip-maximizing-robots they devalue the risks of humans being the irrational animals they are.

This is why many on the left criticize them for being right wing. Not because they are, well some might be, but because they are incredibly easy to distract from what is being communicated by focusing too much on what is being said. That might be a bad phrasing but what I mean is that when you look at this piece from last year about prison sentence length and crime rates by Scott Alexander[0] nothing he says is genuinely unreasonable. He's generally evaluating the data fairly and rationally. Some might disagree there but that's not my point. My point is that he's talking to a nonexistant group. The right largely believes that punishment is the point of prison. They might _say_ the goal is to reduce crime, but they are communicating based on a set of beliefs that strongly favors punitive measures for their own sake. This causes a piece like that to miss the forest through the trees and can be seen by those on the left as functionally right wing propaganda.

Most people are not rational. Maybe some day they will be but until then it is dangerous to assume and act as if they are. This makes me see the rationalists as actually rather irrational.

0: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...
by wat10000 | 2025-06-20 02:15:07+00:00
The iOS UI languages (ObjC and Swift) have three different mechanisms that are in the realm of exceptions/errors.

ObjC has a widespread convention where a failable method will take an NSError** parameter, and fill out that parameter with an error object on failure. (And it's also supposed to indicate failure with a sentinel return value, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.) This is used by nearly all ObjC APIs.

Swift has a language feature for do/try/catch. Under the hood, this is implemented very similarly to the NSError* convention, and the Swift compiler will automatically bridge them when calling between languages. Notably, the implementation does not do stack unwinding, it's just returning an error to the caller by mostly normal means, and the caller checks for errors with the equivalent of an if statement after the call returns. The language forces you to check for errors when making a failable call, or make an explicit choice to ignore or terminate on errors.

ObjC also has exceptions. In modern ObjC, these are implemented as C++ exceptions. They used to be used to signal errors in APIs. This never worked very well. One reason is that ObjC doesn't have scoped destructors, so it's hard to ensure cleanup when an exception is thrown. Another reason is that older ObjC implementations didn't use C++ exceptions, but rather setjmp/longjmp, which is quite slow in the non-failure case, and does exciting things like reset some local variables to the values they had when entering the try block. It was almost entirely abandoned in favor of the NSError* technique and only shows up in a few old APIs these days.

Like C++, there's no language enforcement making sure you catch exceptions from a potentially throwing call. And because exceptions are rarely used in practice, almost no code is exception safe. When an exception is thrown, it's very likely the program will terminate, and if there happens to be an exception handler, it's very likely to leave the program in a bad state that will soon crash.

As such, writing code for iOS that throws exceptions is an exceptionally bad idea.
by hackyhacky | 2025-06-20 02:15:32+00:00
Ubuntu, for all their faults, were the first to make Linux really easy to install and made it "just work." That counts for a lot. Since then, their output has been disappointing.

Part of the problem, is that "Linux/Unix culture" is very averse to coordination. When someone does try to establish a common baseline, there is inevitable pushback. The classic example is systemd, which fills a desperately needed hole in the Linux ecosystem, but is to this day criticized for being antithetical to the ethos of, I guess, gluing together an operating system with chewing gum and bits of string. The fact is that many users would rather have a pile of software that can be hand-assembled into an OS, instead of an actual cohesive, consistent platform.

So I can't blame people too much for not trying to establish standards. If OSS had created LSP, there would be 20 different incompatible variations, and they would insist "We like it this way."

EDIT: averse, not adverse
by EPWN3D | 2025-06-20 02:17:30+00:00
I said they lost their appreciation, not their obsession.

Furthermore, the art of the trade is not "pretty code"; it's a design and implementation that can last decades and not require a rewrite to accommodate new feature demands. There is a balance to be struck between business interests and legitimate engineering concerns around technical debt. And as we've gotten more of these MBA wunderkinds at software companies, the balance has swung very far toward the "Just get it out the door, engineers are just spoiled brats who are never happy with anything" end of the pendulum. Pretty much the entire attitude you espouse in your second paragraph.

You're not wrong that it's not the engineer's dime in terms of money. But it's also not the manager's dime on the technical debt credit card. Engineers have to make the trash solutions forced by their management work and scale for years. That doesn't show up on a quarterly report, but that doesn't mean it's free.
by charcircuit | 2025-06-20 02:18:41+00:00
We are getting derailed talking about centralized vs decentralized software distribution vs what my original comment was bringing up.

>What you are proposing is a change to the Linux kernel which allows it to not be modified in some way.

Linux already supports attestation and it doesn't prevent the kernel from being modified.

>That's not something that is a distribution concern

It is because distros like Android already support such an API to apps.

>Which will never be implemented in the kernel for the reasons already specified.

Again it already exists in the kernel.
by smitty1e | 2025-06-20 02:18:45+00:00
Org-babel[1]:

"Literate programming (LP) offers 2 classical operations:

Tangle: Extract the source code blocks and generate real working code files for further compilation or execution, eventually outside of Emacs. Weave: Export the whole Org file as literate, human-readable documentation (generally in HTML or LaTeX)."

[1] https://org-babel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-06-20 02:19:05+00:00
One could argue the primary (not the only) risk addressed by DNSSEC is third party DNS service, i.e., shared caches accessible from the internet

If this is true, then one might assume DNSSEC is generally unnecessary if one is running their own unshared cache only accessible from the loopback or the LAN

Software like djb's dnscache, a personal favourite, has no support for DNSSEC

NLNet's unbound places a strong emphasis on supporting DNSSEC. The unbound documentation authors recommend using it

https://unbound.docs.nlnetlabs.nl/en/latest/getting-started/...
by dankwizard | 2025-06-20 02:20:14+00:00
I'm sorry but what?

You have been lifting weights somewhat regularly for 25 years, majority 3x8-12, and the switch to 5x5 increased your dumb bell bench press from ~20kg to ~35kg?

There is just no way. That is extremely light weight. Like, most beginners who follow any sort of progressive overloading system will be at that level in 4 weeks starting from essentially 0
by brudgers | 2025-06-20 02:21:41+00:00
I'm curious how would you defend against this in court?

If by “you” you mean Google or OpenAI or Microsoft, etc., you use your much much deeper pockets to pay lawyers to act in your interests.

All authors, publishers, etc. are outgunned. Firepower is what resolves civil cases in one party’s favor and a day in court is easily a decade or more away.