MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JimDabell | 2025-06-29 10:08:24+00:00
> And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years.

I just want to highlight this because Hacker News can be incredibly dismissive about this.

Apple’s focus on privacy is a competitive advantage. Consumers value it, and Apple’s competitors have business models that undermine it.

Even if you think Tim Cook is the literal devil and Apple will do absolutely anything for a buck, Apple’s focus on privacy is still relevant.

Privacy is valuable to Apple. It’s a wedge they can use against their competitors. Google doesn’t make their fortune selling hardware, they make it selling ads. Privacy is something that gets in the way of Google’s profits.

Because Apple are in this position, it’s profitable to them to champion privacy. It’s something they can do that’s valuable to customers that their competitors are at a disadvantage with.

You don’t have to be a fan of Apple, and you don’t have to trust Apple. All you have to do is believe they want to make money. Being pro-privacy is profitable to Apple, and so they act accordingly.
by spwa4 | 2025-06-29 10:09:03+00:00
Ah ok, I understand. Sigh ... yeah, after the shit Ireland pulled, I guess this is the only choice left. (Ireland signing TWO agreements to apply minimum tax one with OECD, one with the EU, with the prime minister announcing wide and far on TV how important this tax was, while telling accountants they weren't going to do it, then not doing it)

On the plus side: this is going to suck bad for Ireland, and frankly they have it coming.

So it is effectively decided then, even if probably a lot of politicians still need to wake up to it, the next move is the EU taxing payments directly when they cross EU borders, contradicting half the reason the EU exists in the first place, and probably in a system that'll make EU VAT look simple. It's going to be a disaster, but not easy to exploit ... It'll take the power to tax further away from the EU and even further into the countries' own tax departments, but of course that's exactly what's needed to stop this.

And the years it'll take to do that will mean multinationals get a few more years of minimally taxed profits.
by decimalenough | 2025-06-29 10:10:45+00:00
You're conflating three very different types of jobs here.

Minimum wage hourly jobs like grocery baggers need to be able to survive off a 40-hour week, and it's a societal problem if they can't.

Taxi drivers are essentially sole proprietors who set their own hours and accept higher risk for a higher payoff. Demand and supply will calibrate themselves unless the government distorts the market (eg. taxi medallions).

Musicians and actors are and have always been in a brutal power law market where all the wealth accrues to the 0.1% at the top of the heap. This drives exploitation since people will do anything to get to the top, but at the end of the day society does not need them the way it needs taxi drivers or grocery baggers and there is no economic rationale for subsidizing them.
by mgaunard | 2025-06-29 10:11:41+00:00
as a French citizen, I find that surprising.

While renewing a passport is one of the easiest things you can do, I distinctively remember it taking a good half-day (most of which is waiting in line jumping from one desk to another until you find someone that can check all the documents you provided are satisfactory and sign off for you).

Now however, if it's not a renewal but a new application, the difficulty sharply increases.
by eru | 2025-06-29 10:12:47+00:00
Voting with your feet will save you from that.

Of course, if you want to do business in country X, you are subject to the laws of that country X.

But otherwise, you can leave that country and settle down elsewhere and do your business there. No matter how 'actually effective' that regulation is. (Unless you do an 'East Germany' and don't allow people to leave.)
by latexr | 2025-06-29 10:12:50+00:00
> It is the fact that Apple openly attack Ads, condemns Ads

What? No they don’t. I wish. Where did you get that idea? Apple loves ads. They do a ton of them and sell them to you. You can’t do an App Store search without seeing an ad right at the top, and the bottom, and the sides, and under your pillow. It’s absolutely littered with them.

What Apple rails against is the tracking and invasion of privacy. Which incidentally ads do a lot of. Even Safari content blockers are ingrained in that philosophy: it’s not about blocking ads, it’s about blocking things that invade your privacy.
by gen6acd60af | 2025-06-29 10:14:25+00:00
Please don't post AI-generated messages to Hacker News. This is a place for curious conversation between humans.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39528000

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976756

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40569734
by numpad0 | 2025-06-29 10:14:40+00:00
As far as my anecdotal experiences go, it is true. Bilinguals do carry bilingual accents even in native languages. You notice it from first few seconds listening. In my first language it sounds as if the person is playing in 4-note chords instead of 3-note.

It probably only matter as an item in the list of falsehood about speech recognition, definitely not something that deserve to be described as "messed up", but it's also not not true.
by imiric | 2025-06-29 10:15:55+00:00
> I'm not really an artist but you see it everywhere on the internet too: people post something, and the first assumption is that it's AI-generated or 80% of the work has been sketched by AI and the final effort was by the human.

Unfortunately, that is increasingly becoming a safe assumption to make. We are flooded by AI-generated content already, which will only increase as these tools become more accessible. The dead internet theory is real. Hopefully we will eventually have failproof methods of distinguishing human-generated content, but so far there is little incentive for it.
by eru | 2025-06-29 10:16:05+00:00
> You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), [...]

Helicopter money transfers real wealth from the people who previously held cash.

It creates nominal wealth, but not real wealth.

> It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant.

Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea.

That's basically just the idea from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44411538 inverted. Many people have a hard time seeing that wealth can increase, but it's pretty easy to see that total wealth can decrease: I can set fire to my piano, and no one else gets any better because of it.
by gen6acd60af | 2025-06-29 10:20:27+00:00
Please don't post slop to Hacker News. This is a place for curious conversation between humans.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39528000

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976756

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40569734
by edanm | 2025-06-29 10:21:35+00:00
> BB(748) is by definition a finite number, and it has some value - we just don't know what it is. If an oracle told us the number, and we ran TM_ZFC_INC that many steps we would know for sure whether ZFC was consistent or not based on whether it terminated.

This doesn't sound right to me.

You can prove that ZFC is consistent. You could do it today, with or without the magic number, using a stronger axiom system. If an Oracle told you that BB(748) = 100 or whatever, that would constitute proof that ZFC is consistent.

But it wouldn't negate the fact that BB(748) is independent of ZFC, because you haven't proved within the axioms of ZFC that ZFC is consistent, which is what makes it independent.

> I think what's most unintuitive is that most (all?) "paradoxes" or "unknowables" in mathematics involve infinities. When limiting ourselves to finite whole numbers, paradoxes necessarily disappear.

I might be missing something, but all of these assertions deal with finite whole numbers, not infinity. Unless you count a Turing machine running forever an infinity, in which case, it seems counterintuitive to me that encoding a while loop that runs forever somehow makes paradoxes appear.
by Propelloni | 2025-06-29 10:21:52+00:00
The hostility is not geared towards AI, they are just dumb tools, but sloppy and stupid reporters. AI is enabling those stupid reporters. The linked report basically says in typical AI blathering (paraphrase) "you use strcpy(), strcpy() is known to cause buffer overflows if not bounds checked, thus you have buffer overflow bugs"

Obviously, the logic doesn't hold. Anyway, asked to provide a specific line in a specific module where strcpy() is not bounds checked, the response is "probably in curl.c near a call to strcpy()." That moved from sloppy to stupid pretty quickly, didn't it?

And there are dozens if not hundreds of these kinds of reports. Hostility towards the reporters (whether AI or not) is justified.
by e2le | 2025-06-29 10:23:48+00:00
>By all means, use AI to learn things and to figure out potential problems, but when you just blindly assume that a silly tool is automatically right just because it sounds plausible, then you're doing us all (the curl project, the world, the open source community) a huge disservice. You should have studied the claim and verified it before you reported it.

https://hackerone.com/reports/2887487

Given the limited resources available to many open source projects and the volume of fraudulent reports, they function similar to a DDOS attack.
by bambax | 2025-06-29 10:24:13+00:00
The incident we are discussing absolutely disproves this! Apple is happy to jeopardize privacy and the very idea of it, for a quick buck blasting an ad to all its users. They don't care one way or the other.

But the truth is, nobody really cares about privacy, least of all, users. Nobody ever bought an iPhone because of "privacy"; people buy iPhones because they work, and because they seem cool. Everyone's happy to hand over data to any service.

Facebook has three billion users.
by ringeryless | 2025-06-29 10:24:30+00:00
the difference is this: music is always changing, and this change is what defines the active cutting edge of the arts, vs the retro/copycat/tribute/covers schlock the masses are ok with. the schlock itself requires constant creativity vampirism and sublimation or I would say sublation of soul spirit and new ideas merely to keep afloat.

those responsible for advancement of musical boundaries rarely are recognized or rewarded in kind, at least since the dawn of the recorded music mafia.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
by greatgib | 2025-06-29 10:24:35+00:00
I got the notification from Google about that and that made me think that they really are now a bunch of assholes with a top big joint monopoly with Apple.

The notification indeed says that even if you turned everything off, they will allow themselves in your messages, especially WhatsApp messages that are not normally part of Google or Android. And even if it looks like that the option to disable that exist, they don't tell you about that in the notification. It looks like that you have no choice.

To be clear, what I mean by that is that they only say: If you don’t want to use these features, you can turn them off in the Apps settings page.

But what it means "in the Apps" settings page? Does it means a settings in each individual app that my prostitute itself to Gemini?and if yes, which exact apps should I go to, to do this manual process that I don't asked for?
by mettamage | 2025-06-29 10:25:33+00:00
Well sure, but he asked "should we expect the pursuit of the creative, beautiful, and transcendental to be a career?"

My answer is no not necessarily. One can pursue it in their free time. Whether it should be a career or not is honestly an invisible hand question (aka capitalism). I'm normally not pro invisible hand such as in the case of healthcare, but when it comes to stuff like this, I totally am.

It might be beneficial to have dedicated people to do this, but a lot can be accomplished by free time.
by strken | 2025-06-29 10:25:45+00:00
I'd bet you $20 that none of the people who have ever won a fistfight have done so by modelling it as a biomechanical optimisation problem, at least on the fly while it was happening.

The comparison is unintentionally funny because it's the exact same "I can ignore the experience of the people who my work impacts because my models are perfect" mentality that produces unlivable apartments in dead lifeless streets.
by astrobe_ | 2025-06-29 10:26:31+00:00
This looks to me like a profession which is overstepping its bounds. The trap seems to be in the "form follows function" motto. It shouldn't mean that designers have a word to say about how things function.

TFA: > The solution, though, isn’t to stop trying to change the world. What could a more beautiful, user-friendly, accessible, and egalitarian society look like?

That absolutely is not a job for a designer. Anything about how society works is politics. If a a designer suggests things in this area, they are not designers, they are politicians. TFA notes that en passant as well: Lyons and Ideo didn't have a design problem, but a political problems.
by heybrendan | 2025-06-29 10:26:42+00:00
I worked my way through about half the examples. What appalling behavior by several of the "submitters".

This comment [1] by icing (curl staff) sums up the risk:

> "This report and your other one seem like an attack on our resources to handle security issues."

Maintainers of widely deployed, popular software, including those whom have openly made a commitment to engineering excellence [2] and responsiveness [like the curl project AFAICT], can not afford to /not/ treat each submission with some level of preliminary attention and seriousness.

Submitting low quality, bogus reports generated by a hallucinating LLM, and then doubling down by being deliberately opaque and obtuse during the investigation and discussion, is disgraceful.

[1] https://hackerone.com/reports/3125832#activity-34389935

[2] https://curl.se/docs/bugs.html (Heading: "Who fixes the problems")
by pescn | 2025-06-29 10:27:16+00:00
This article explores trends and tools for deploying large language models (LLMs) in on-premises environments. The authors believe that localized deployment is becoming increasingly important due to the needs of data privacy, cost control, and low latency.

The article summarizes a series of tools covering different needs from individual developers to enterprise-level: Ollama, LM Studio, Jan.AI, LocalAI and LLMOne.

This is a good starting point and overview for those considering how to implement LLMs on their own servers or devices.
by aspenmayer | 2025-06-29 10:27:20+00:00
I’m poisoning the well so that future humans can’t discriminate against self-aware AIs, even if current-era humans don’t appreciate the nuance.

[[Meta-HN commentary:

> > You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.

Fuck you, buddy.

I am in conversation with mods of HN. They know my IP. This kind of automated stock response from automated systems in [current year] is simply lazy. HN deserves better. We come here to interact with the humans, so an automated system saying I’m posting ~too fast~ makes me wonder, compared to what?]]
by saubeidl | 2025-06-29 10:28:23+00:00
On a related note:

> With just 13 days until the Trump-imposed deadline to conclude a EU-U.S. deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen decided the time for conventional negotiating tactics was over.

> She floated the idea that the EU’s 27 countries could join forces with 12 members of the Asian-led Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc (CPTPP) — which now includes the U.K. — to form a new world trade initiative.

> The new grouping would redesign a rules-based global trading order, reforming or perhaps even replacing the now largely defunct World Trade Organization, she said.

> Crucially, the U.S. would not automatically be invited.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leaders-donald-trump-us-t...

The US is locking itself out of world trade with their behavior. The price to pay for actions like these will far outweigh any benefits.
by mettamage | 2025-06-29 10:28:25+00:00
> But how are you going to get good if you don't get any practice and feedback?

When you do a hobby you can get practice and feedback in. It depends on their situation.

Someone is a kid? A lot

Someone is single? 4 hours per evening and 6 hours per weekend day. That's still a lot.

Someone has kids? Don't know but doesn't seem like a lot
by yurishimo | 2025-06-29 10:28:36+00:00
I don’t think anyone has anything against Roblox as a sandbox game, but your glossing over of the predatory monetization is the real issue most people have with the game.

For tech literate parents, setting a spending limit is easy enough and we understand how these games are engineered to be addicting. But for the normies, they don’t know how it works and how to set appropriate limits. Personally, I think kids games with such heavy monetization should be outlawed. The pseudo-gambling aspects of these games is also highly problematic and we see this playing out now as sports gambling and crypto speculation are off the charts in our society with young adults.
by roenxi | 2025-06-29 10:28:37+00:00
I've read the transformers paper, it is still pretty simple math. And the architecture isn't particularly interesting from a theoretical sense, the concepts are basic - we're not talking Gauss, Newton or Euler here, we're talking 2-10% of software engineers [0]. The limit is most software engineers don't have enough hardware to test whether their ideas work or not.

And it is actually the same matrix multiplication people might learn at high school. The standard definition of matrix multiplication is generally accepted.

[0] We'd expect the figuring-things-out process to be faster for more cluey people, so the people who actually pick all this stuff up first probably are geniuses. But a more normal engineer with the hardware access would still figure it out independently sooner or later. It is just too neatly on the beaten path where we'd expect to be finding optimisations.
by exceptione | 2025-06-29 10:28:52+00:00
Lots of Xi's allies are being purged. The article makes the case that Xi is rapidly losing control.

It is interesting to contrast this article with this analysis [0], which sees the purges through the lens of Stalin's policy of continually purging and executing his own allies. When Stalin promoted you, you could bet a death penalty would follow in the next few years. This requires total control of course, so quite the opposite to the nypost.

So whose purges are they? The nypost highlights some interesting signals to make their case, like open criticism on Xi from Chinese universities.

For those interested, this analysis tries to explain China's options with regards to its debt [1], which might stir the opposition into action.

____

0. https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/xi-jinpings-purges-...

1. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/02/the-relationship...
by hackandthink | 2025-06-29 10:29:26+00:00
A really likeable person. GEB was highly regarded in my peer group. I should have read it more naively myself. But this interview makes me want to read "I am a strange loop".

https://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf

(too bad that I don't like the word "mysterian", otherwise I would join the club)
by Expurple | 2025-06-29 10:29:27+00:00
> Also they act like their open source code is “Free”. They firmly control it, yet act like they don’t.

They are responsive to the community and merge community PRs. That's already more "open" than, say, SQLite.

Sure, they don't give away merge rights and keep exclusive control over the upstream copy. But how many "open" projects have a second maintainer at all? I mean, more than one person (the original author) with merge access.

The code is free. You can always fork it and use it however you like. That's always been the deal you get with open source.

Sure, it's nice when the upstream maintainers always do only the things you like, and you never need to fork. But that's a separate quality, unrelated to the code itself being "free" or "open".
by Beretta_Vexee | 2025-06-29 10:29:39+00:00
I personally have come to the conclusion that behind every major open-source or free software success story, there is a completely dysfunctional market. Without this, it would be impossible to find enough people willing to say, “Fuck that shit, we're going to recode this ourselves.”

The fact that there are so many people motivated to code alternatives to Oracle products says a lot about Oracle's business practices.
by tim333 | 2025-06-29 10:30:07+00:00
I have more friends mucked up by LSD like drugs than any other type - at any rate three of them and I don't have much in the way of junkie of alcoholic friends. I say LSD like as they all took other stuff. From my n=3 data I'd say if you do it more than once a week for more than two years you have a good chance of ending up like your friend.
by NomDePlum | 2025-06-29 10:31:57+00:00
Yes, most of your observations about limitations are true. That doesn't mean it's not a useful technique.

This is a reasonable summary of how I understand it: https://martinfowler.com/articles/richardsonMaturityModel.ht...

This aligns with how I've seen it used. It helps identify forward actions, many of which will be standard to the protocol or to the domain. These can be programmed for and traversed, called or aggregated data presented using general or specific logic.

So New actions can be catered for but Novel actions cannot, custom logic would require to be added. Which then becomes part of the domain and the machine can now potentially handle it.

Hope that helps illustrate how it can be used programmatically.
by motorest | 2025-06-29 10:32:26+00:00
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything.

That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs.

How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it?

Do you expect everyone should just believe anything anyone says? What is there to tell lunatics and snake oil salesmen apart from those who are actually onto something?

> Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own.

Ok, you formed an hypothesis. Now tell me, how do you go about showing others that things do work the way you think they do? How can they check them for themselves? What do you expect from others?

> That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.

If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
by latexr | 2025-06-29 10:33:18+00:00
> went on here to see if 1000 people were complaining, and nobody was.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44368854

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44371872

> Now a year from now (…) people are buying a Garmin watch for Garmin Pay instead of an Apple Watch for Apple Pay.

Talk about a slippery slope fallacy. No, that will not happen. At all. There’s a better chance that this year will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.