MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ivape | 2025-06-06 09:07:19+00:00
To me it's pretty clear the way this will happen. You will need to buy additional credits or subscriptions through these LLMs that feedback payment to things like NYT and book publishers. It's all stolen. I don't even want to hear it. This company doesn't want to pay up and willing to let user's privacy hang in the balance to draw the case out until they get sure footing with their device launches or the like (or additional markets like enterprise, etc).
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-06 09:07:48+00:00
I have aphantasia now and I miss being able to visualize anything at all.

I have the opposite of face blindness and subconsciously process every face but I have lethonomia (cannot remember people's names). Years ago, I was once riding my bicycle from campus at probably 21 mph / 30 kph and recognized the brother of a lab partner when they were completely to the side of me and 75' / 22 m away in profile after seeing a photo of them once. I'm probably not as good as I once was due to a TBI.
by joha4270 | 2025-06-06 09:09:45+00:00
Yes, you can buy an IMU as a single IC for less than $5[1]. Otherwise your smartphone probably already have all the required sensors.

Of course, those have significantly less performance than the one you put in an airliner or ballistic missile.

As you mention yourself, its a question of good enough. You need to be a lot more accuracy to hit a city after a twenty minute sub-orbital coast, than to find the nearby trench. And yes, computer vision is used to correct for drift.

[1]: IMU's on DigiKey: https://www.digikey.com/en/products/filter/motion-sensors/im...
by stevesimmons | 2025-06-06 09:10:30+00:00
At the risk of asking a dumb question, what really is mental fatigue and do all people experience it the same way?

On one hand, I understand -- and feel very directly -- physical fatigue, and the metabolic limitations if I try to say run slowly versus push hard up to my lactate threshold. I am currently training for a marathon, and know to train by following progressively heavier loads of long distance runs, interval training, stretches and rest periods to develop my speed and endurance.

But mental fatigue really just isn't a phenomenon that I personally relate to. I know some people say they can perhaps work 4-6 focused hours in a work day, and that's it. Whereas my brain seems to be able to work at essentially the same intensity for as long as I want it to, up to 18 hours a day, and then I need a bit of sleep to recover. So I don't quite comprehend mental fatigue, or what a cure for it would be. I don't even know how I would increase my ability to avoid mental fatigue other than minimising distractions (like HN!) and just keep thinking more for longer.

How do other people here experience mental fatigue (or not)?
by blacklion | 2025-06-06 09:10:35+00:00
It is all very wired.

> a) you'd like encryption between the UI and the device

No, I don't. It is on my local network. If device has public IP and I want to browse my collection when I'm out of my local network, then I do, but then Let's encrypt solved this problem many years ago (10 years!). If device doesn't have public IP but I punch hole in my NAT or install reverse proxy on gateway, then I'm tech-savvy enough to obtain Let's Encrypt cert for it, too.

> b) browsers lock down a lot of APIs, sometimes arbitrarily

Why does GUI which is served from server co-hosted with mediaserver needs any special APIs at all? It can generate all content on server side and basic JS is enough to add visual effects for smooth scrolling, drop-down menus, etc.

Its all look over-engineered in the sake of what? Of imitating desktop app in browser? Looks like it creates more problems than writing damn native desktop app. In QT, for example, which will be not-so-native (but more native than any site or Electron) but work on all 3 major OSes and *BSD from single sources.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-06 09:11:44+00:00
> Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist.

No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.
by Latty | 2025-06-06 09:11:59+00:00
I explicitly said that the UK wasn't free of issues: my pointing out the US was worse wasn't defending our own, simply making the point that some Americans tend to massively exaggerate the UK's issues while pretending the US doesn't have any.

Average people from the UK are going to assume that any pushback on speech controls is nutters if the message comes with absurd exaggerations and outright lies. There are legitimate cases of overreach from our legal system, but too often the focus is on someone actively calling for violence, and those are not the same.
by thaumasiotes | 2025-06-06 09:12:27+00:00
That's all true, but I should point out that there are finer grains of behavior, and some of them asymmetrically make it easier to learn that "actually it's OK to eat those". Predators could evolve the ability to tell the difference between mimics and originals (which is generally rare but extant; consider how human children are taught to tell the difference between coral snakes and king snakes, or how certain birds can reject eggs that they didn't personally lay, but most can't), or they could evolve the behavior of "don't eat things that look poisonous, unless you're really hungry" (which is not rare, and which doesn't work well in a low-mimic environment, but does work very well in a high-mimic environment).

As you note, the behavior you end up with is determined by how much stress the mimics place on you.
by BlueTemplar | 2025-06-06 09:13:05+00:00
Publicly shame people that use platforms. Especially the kind of scum that still does it professionally.

2025 has given a great opportunity to ratchet it up a notch (outside of USA) : with Trump 2 the pretense that USA is an ally of EUrope is gone, so the decade old conclusion that US laws aren't compatible with fundamental rights (Patriot Act => Schrems 2), and therefore US infocoms are illegal — is not something that ought to be ignored any more (so far it was, out of convenience).
by simiones | 2025-06-06 09:13:11+00:00
> No wonder EU's tech industry and economy in general aren't doing well, when we let so much money flow to America, even though we absolutely have the talent to build good enough systems over here.

You have to be careful with this line of thinking, because as you've stated it, this justifies concepts like Trump's tariffs based on trade deficits.

The reality is that Finland won't be any richer (nor poorer, of course) if it spent 1+ billion euro on some EU or even Finnish alternative to MS; nor if it were spent on consulting and/or a government IT office. Trade is not a problem in itself.

The real concern is that letting Microsoft be the only game in town for business software of this type lets them control prices - that just having some trustworthy alternatives would allow the same services to be obtained for, say, 500M euro instead.

The other concern is related to tech dependence - that the government's reliance on MS services allows the US to use a threat of denying access to MS products as a strong-arming tactic in any negotiations.

Finally, the concern that a US company - and, implicitly, US security services - has access to potentially highly confidential data is a national security risk, though the impact is hard to measure.
by sigilis | 2025-06-06 09:14:20+00:00
The context of the scenario, the meme if you will, is that there is no fire. You're just shouting it for the fun of it, to see the crush of panicked bodies running just because you willed it. That is why it was used as an example of speech that is harmful.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
by olllo | 2025-06-06 09:14:44+00:00
I built a tool called Data.olllo that helps split huge CSV files—like multi-GB datasets—into smaller parts by size, row count, or column value. It’s 100% offline, runs on your desktop, and doesn’t require any coding.

We just published a detailed article explaining how it works: https://olllo.top/articles/article-24-Split-Huge-CSVs-in-Sec...

Would love feedback from folks who deal with messy or oversized data. What features would you want in a CSV splitter?
by ulrikrasmussen | 2025-06-06 09:14:49+00:00
The problem is the nature of YouTube, which is a platform with the main purpose of generating revenue based on advertisement while minimizing their own operational risk. YouTube does not care one bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions (only if the legal repercussions carry a significant cost, of course). This naturally leads them to err on the side of caution and implement draconian automated censorship controls. If the machine kills off a niche content creator then it means nothing in the grand scheme of things for YouTube. YouTube is a lawnmower, and you cannot reason with a lawnmower.

This is very different from past "platforms" such as niche phpBB boards on the old internet, book publishers or even editorial sections in newspapers who at least to some extent are driven by a genuine interest in the content itself even though they are, or were, also financed by advertisements.

The main problem here is that we allow commercial companies to provide generic and universal "free" content platforms which end up being the de facto gatekeepers if you have something to say. These platforms can only exist because the companies are allowed to intersperse generic user-generated content with advertisements. In my opinion, it is this advertisement-financed platform model that is the core problem here, and automated censorship is only one of the many negative consequences. Other problems are that it leads to winner-takes-it-all monopolies and that it strongly incentivizes ad companies such as Google to collect as much information about people as possible.
by bubblyworld | 2025-06-06 09:16:08+00:00
When the likes of Peter Scholze (fields medal!) and other very high profile mathematicians find (serious) flaws in every posted manuscript about this... I mean, it's pretty clear to me what's going on. The proof just doesn't go through.

I think the intrigue is mainly that it's at such a high level that lay mathematicians (like me) have no hope of understanding the debate. It's a situation that lends itself to crazy speculation, because nothing you say about it can easily be challenged.
by chvid | 2025-06-06 09:17:30+00:00
Maybe start by asking what does it mean to think?

From the article: "Jamadar’s analysis showed that a brain performing active tasks consumes just 5% more energy compared to a resting brain. When we are engaged in an effortful, goal-directed task, such as studying a bus schedule in a new city, neuronal firing rates increase in the relevant brain regions or networks — in that example, visual and language processing regions. This accounts for that extra 5%; the remaining 95% goes to the brain’s base metabolic load."

To me it is fairly obvious that those tasks are not what creates the highest loads on the brain. The "thinking load" from active, in-person, social interactions is much higher.
by user_7832 | 2025-06-06 09:17:43+00:00
I forgot to mention and wanted to add, I would recommend you to go to forums with people far more knowledgeable than me.

Reddit’s r/nootropics is one, I seem to remember blue light forum and longecity also have lots of info about more “cutting edge” experimentation.

As always, be cautious, and oftentimes common and well tolerated things (for example theanine) can be much better than some research peptides.
by komali2 | 2025-06-06 09:17:59+00:00
Enshittifiction is in full swing in Youtube and like the article says, creators are effectively golden-handcuffed in. In a normal world, youtube would twist the knobs until their bureaucratic momentum causes them to twist too far, and also cause them to take too long to twist back, during which time a competitor can come and steal all the advertisers and creators.

That won't happen in our world, because of www.google.com. The existence of that website guarantees that nobody can ever create a competitor to youtube, because youtube can just undercut on ad costs or pay out creators at high enough rates to run a loss for basically fucking centuries if it has to, until everyone else's funding runs out.

Imagine building just one of the datacenters needed to feed Youtube... They're what, 200 million a pop?

Within a capitalist mode of production and without any real regulatory guardrails, I just don't see Youtube going away, ever, and I don't see any real competitors, ever. Happy to be proven wrong.

I try to do my part - I host a tubearchivist instance that at this point is mirroring a couple TB of content from channels some friends and I enjoy. So, .00000000000000000000001% of Youtube. I use it to watch youtube without the stupid ads, and every once in a while buy a mug or whatever from my favorite creators. I'm not sure what else consumers can do about the situation.
by Arainach | 2025-06-06 09:18:02+00:00
>If this is successful (and I hope it is), the world will have no choice but to follow.

Why do you believe this is so?

It's important to remember that many of the dominant enterprise software companies aren't there as the result of a secret conspiracy - it's because they're very good at listening to what their customers want and delivering it.

Saying "we want this open" sounds nice, but the sticker shock of paying for development, maintenance, and hosting is the tip of the iceberg. The real problems and expenses are in support and training.

Companies like Microsoft excel here - they have dedicated support teams to escalate to empowered to understand the problems of large customers and get them fixed. Paying an engineer to investigate why your USB badge reader doesn't work on Linux on Lenovo laptops on Thursdays is more expensive than a significant number of Windows licenses.

Your comment could be pulled directly from Slashdot back when the German Government decided to try SUSE.
by lambertsimnel | 2025-06-06 09:18:14+00:00
Indeed, but I'm speculating that they do that without owning the data or even claiming to. That's consistent with the article, but I haven't read the other relevant documents. Maybe they have a license to use the data. Maybe the license allows or requires them to try to restrict others' AI training, regardless of their non-ownership of it. Maybe that serves multiple purposes, in which case they could point to whichever shows them in the best light.
by simiones | 2025-06-06 09:18:29+00:00
I think Linus Torvalds has been very explicit that he believes the GPL has been critical to the success of Linux - specifically, the copyright-enforced obligation to contribute back any modifications you make. In a world without copyright, companies would be free to make their own modifications and keep them secret, making it more or less impossible to integrate them into a cohesive whole the way they are more or less forced to do today.
by efitz | 2025-06-06 09:18:34+00:00
This is reason #597 why you just don’t allow platforms to censor.

If a site wants to be a publisher, by all means, be a publisher, and don’t monetize user content.

If a site wants other people to provide the content for free, then sorry- no censorship for you.

“Community guidelines” etc are just censorship with a nicer name.

“The algorithm” is just opaque censorship by making content undiscoverable. “un-content” in Orwell speak.

There are valid use cases for on-topic/off-topic. User content sites should have to declare whether they are a single-topic community or not, and act in good faith either way. If you are a single topic site then you must aggressively prune everything that is off topic (not just some off-topic). If you are multi-topic then no censorship for you.

And multi-topic sites like Reddit have to do so per channel/subreddit/etc. but the key points are “on/off topic” is the only valid filter criteria, and it must be applied consistently and in good faith.

If your algorithm is the secret sauce that makes your platform worthwhile/profitable/whatever, then people must be able to opt out, eg opt into a “only stuff I follow, all of it, most recent first”.

Or if you care about your users then implement curated feeds, allow users to create their own curated feeds, and implement your algorithm as the first curated feed.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-06-06 09:19:02+00:00
Quite - the nature of the speech has to bear some resemblance to reality. There's people complaining about the crackdown on completely false mis-information that gets shared amongst right-wing circles that ended up causing the Southport riots. Clearly that's hate-speech that is aiming to incite violence and it's only fair that people should be held to account for that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zshjs82
by imiric | 2025-06-06 09:19:13+00:00
> Or, the general populace just doesn't understand the actual implications.

That might've been the case in the first generations of ad-supported business models on the web. But after two decades, even non-technical users have understood the implications of "free" services.

IME talking to non-technical people about this topic, I can't remember the last time someone mentioned not being aware of the ToS and privacy policies they agree to, even if they likely hadn't read the legalese. Whereas the most common excuses I've heard are "I have nothing to hide", and "I don't use it often".

So I think you're underestimating the average person's tech literacy. I'm sure people who who still don't understand the implications exist, but they're in the minority.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-06 09:19:16+00:00
I guess it depends on each person's values, situation, tolerance level, and ability to delay gratification.

America is great if you are well-off/rich 1%, but terrible for everyone else.

Some European countries are better for everyone else but not so good for the very rich, relatively.

YMMV, as they say. There are no utopias anywhere and cannot be. In my view, we should be aiming for peaceful, liberalized societies with maximum journalistic freedom, social safety nets, high social trust communities where neighbors know each other, and minimal deprivation where struggling people are given the tools to help improve their condition rather than being fined, humiliated, arrested, and/or deported without due process.
by rollcat | 2025-06-06 09:19:50+00:00
"Think of the children" is the primary justification for so many abusive laws and efforts. The public is buying into it, despite the simplest solution being: parents should pay more attention to how they're raising their kids.

"We don't have the time". True. We've improved the efficiency of an average worker by orders of magnitude each $TIME_PERIOD for about two centuries; yet the length of a mean working day has long remained the same. "You dirty communist". Sure, go suffer.

This system is abusive. We continue to agree to the status quo, because we're constantly being manipulated over the much less important things, like religion, the gays, or the immigrants. You can't get spiteful over the ruling class if you can be kept happy through being spiteful to your neighbor.
by solarwindy | 2025-06-06 09:19:58+00:00
Hmm, I should say that in the legacy case, it’s only been with legacy I’m already (painfully) familiar with, and knowing how difficult that code has been before to disentangle or to carefully stack another card on the already teetering house, I know upfront it’ll be a waste of time to let the LLM try.

In legacy that I don’t yet understand, maybe I am missing something in using a model with all that code in its context as an aid to build my understanding. I just cannot imagine handing off responsibility of modifying that code to the mystery machine. Tedious as it might be, I’m firmly of the view that I’d do myself and my team a disservice if I introduce changes I don’t fully comprehend, in fear that it’d only bite us later.

That fear comes from a couple cases of being bitten by changes made by other supposed seniors where I had my suspicions they let the LLM do the work for them, and went against my judgement in accepting their assurances that they’d tested everything worked.

Although, OK, for the legacy case, perhaps I should loosen my embargo in legacy frontend code where there’s a tight enough ‘blast radius’—meaning, the damage of a bad change is constrained to the bit of UI in question not working. Especially if that’s back-office frontend code where I have responsive users who I know will let me know if I broke something (because they surely know the warts of the system inside out, unlike me). In mission-critical backend code? Not a chance.

On the question of ‘fighting’ the LLM, maybe I do need to loosen up in how I want something done. In fairness I’m much more tolerant of that in a human, because a) there’s just often more than one way to do things; and b) with some devs I know there would or could be a fight that just isn’t worth it.

Which does come to an interesting point about ego and ownership, that if I regard the LLM code less as ‘my own’ perhaps I’d be more forgiving of its contributions. Would honestly make a difference if it’s not got my name on the commit.

Also comes back to one of the cases where I got burned. If the other dev hadn’t put their name on code which I’m sure was not theirs, then we could have had an honest discussion about it, and I could have better helped figure out whether what seemed to work was really trustworthy. Instead I had to weigh challenging them on it, and the awkward implication that I didn’t think they could have come up with the code themself.

To your two fears, totally agree, and undoubtedly some variant on these two cases has put a very bad taste in my mouth. Witnessing a junior essentially cheat their way through their final project for school, making a mockery of the piece of paper they got at the end. Being a victim not quite of a top-down mandate—somehow worse, with an exec head-over-heels bought into the hype, thinking they could lose a chunk of expensive headcount to no ill effect; not firing people, just making the situation miserable enough that people quit.
by LeonM | 2025-06-06 09:21:32+00:00
Kinda disappointed the article doesn't mention what happens with the remaining items at the end of the week...

I'm guessing most of it goes to the trash/landfill. But maybe some of it is packaged up again and distributed back into other bin stores? Maybe they keep it for a while in storage in case some week they have a haul too small to fill als the bins?