MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rasz | 2025-06-11 19:26:40+00:00
>Spanish-language chatroom transcripts

let me guess, its about that Spanish superSega scammer

eldr: some Spanish scammer with history of crowdfunding grift decided to replicate Amico Intellivision scam (selling preorders for nonexistent hardware). Made a crowdfunding campaign for FPGA Sega console demonstrating PCB with few components soldered in random places and random lol routing and pretending to play games on it. After being called out he doubled down bringing "independent third party" to verify legitimacy of his claims who happens to be his girlfriends brother/sisters boyfriend? Very sloppy as far as scam crowdfunding campaigns go, on a level of African prince.
by km144 | 2025-06-11 19:26:42+00:00
I think that is a fair perspective. When I say "to what end" I am mostly implying the "end" of a product for the market. I think writing in particular is always a thing where if you tell people you do it as a hobby, they assume your goal is a published book, not the process itself. Creativity as the end is a wonderful thing, but I just have a feeling AI is going to be more widely adopted to pump out passable (or even arguably "good") content that people will pay money for.

Again the same thing with writing software, where you can be creative with it and it can enhance the experience. But most people just use AI to help them do their job better—and in an era where many software companies appear to have a net negative effect on society, it's hard to see the good in that.
by dailyplanet | 2025-06-11 19:26:44+00:00
Brian Wilson cited "Strawberry Fields Forever" by The Beatles as one of his favorite songs -- he apparently had to pull over because he was having a nervous breakdown after hearing it on the radio, and he was in tears and said "They got there first." Pet Sounds was the response to Rubber Soul, and then Sgt. Pepper was The Beatles response to Pet Sounds.
by p_ing | 2025-06-11 19:28:08+00:00
> Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.

In the case of AI, it can absolutely be both. Yes large companies/rights holders use it to hammer home their IP, but theft from smaller companies or even individuals by AI does happen, it's just a lot of money to litigate.

I imagine my technical books have been scooped up by AI and while I'm not the publisher, it still impacts the number of cardboard boxes I can purchase with royalties.
by sandworm101 | 2025-06-11 19:29:38+00:00
But it does sound like you didn't know how to repair a flat. Any hardware store and most gas stations will have either a plug kit, or some of that horrible blow-in sealant in a can. Either will get you back on the within an hour.

(Fyi, if anyone reading this does ever use that sealant stuff, when you get to a proper repair shop TELL THEM about the sealant before I pop the bead and spray it all over the shop.)
by ath3nd | 2025-06-11 19:30:09+00:00
> working class salaries would go up even faster than the inflatino it would cause.

Good, working class salaries need to be high! We can't function as a society without all the people who dispose of our garbage, maintain our plumbing and water supply, grow our food, provide our electricity, and support our IT infrastructure.

Only one clarification: there is no difference between lower class, middle class and working class. White collar or blue collar, we are all collared.

The middle class construct is artificially invented so the owning class (people who don't have to work for their money) have something for the workers to aspire to. A software engineer with $300k/y is far closer wealth wise to a minimum wage worker in Mickey-D than they are to your Tim Cooks, Jeff Bezos and Adolf, pardon, Elon Musk.

In a Tesla, Prius or in a old Dodge, you are still stuck in traffic while they are flying with private jets.
by lurking_swe | 2025-06-11 19:32:07+00:00
tell me you haven’t been around old suffering people without telling me. I literally think your comment is crazy. Like batshit crazy.

Go into a nursing home in the U.S. sometime and walk the halls. Tell me if you think the majority of those people are waking up with something to look forward to? Some of them are sitting in their own shit for hours because the nurses are too short staffed. I’d rather be dead than sit in my own shit for hours while being in chronic pain, and abandoned in a nursing home.

There are other reasons to choose death too of course. But i digress. I’m not in the mood to make an exhaustive list.

If you’re old and in okay-ish health, and have _something_ to look forward to (hobby, seeing grandkids, reading, etc), then it’s a different story.
by x0x0 | 2025-06-11 19:33:19+00:00
The risk is the same reason we don't allow any of our servers to make outgoing network connections except to a limited host lists. eg backend servers can talk to the gateway, queue / databases, and an approved list of domains for apis and nothing else.

The same guard helps prevent accidents, not maliciousness, and security breaches. If code somehow gets onto our systems, but we prevent most outbound connections, exfiltrating is much harder.

Yes, people do code review but stuff slips through. See eg Google switching one of their core libs that did mkdir with a shell to run mkdir -p (tada! every invocation better understand shell escaping rules). That made it through code review. People are imperfect; telling your network no outbound connections (except for this small list) is much closer to perfect.
by sndean | 2025-06-11 19:33:21+00:00
This might be referenced in one of the replies but basically 1) it doesn’t have the normal verse-chorus structure, 2) not really any drums, 3) the chord progression don’t follow an obvious pattern for the time and genre, and 4) the end just fades out where you can imagine it simply continuing forever. I really like the song, and maybe it stands out as a favorite because of these features like someone commented above. I just wanted to point out that it’s unusual unlike nearly every other pop song.
by sumtechguy | 2025-06-11 19:33:42+00:00
Yeah. The base problem is redump doesnt have parent clone. Some of MAME has it, retool has the currently basically static version. The name inference is ok for some of them because they are just basically the same name but diff regions. Others are in the native language or just totally different names but same game. Then there is TOSEC. That is a monster I have been trying to figure out what to do with and has similar problems as redump. No-intro and MAME are pretty good with its relationship metadata. The other two not so much. Some websites have it for particular systems but kinda not a cool move to scrape them. One of the cool parts I liked out of retool was its compilation part where there could be three games and it is in another 'game' thigs like '5 in 1'. Which is where p/c falls apart.
by wat10000 | 2025-06-11 19:33:52+00:00
A centenarian relative did this. But it's not actually legal where they lived. So instead of doing it properly, it was done by withholding food and water and they slowly faded over the course of a few days.

It is absolutely insane the way we do this stuff.

I understand why people are concerned about medically assisted death, but this is the sort of thing that happens without it.
by jbotz | 2025-06-11 19:34:09+00:00
Plants are our cousin eucaryotes, and they've been evolving as long as we animals have and so there is likely to be equivalent information processing complexity to be found in them, we just don't know how to recognize it because it's so different from animal intelligence. There might even be something comparable to animal consciousness, not at the level of an individual plant, but more collectively, even including multiple species, whole ecosystems of plants and fungi together having an awareness and intelligence that can not only rival ours, but even transcend it, having lifespans in the thousands of years.
by NoTranslationL | 2025-06-11 19:34:28+00:00
Good question. I'm realizing I did not really communicate this well.

The full story is that we went to a conference for biohacking, spreading the word about Reflect, and businesses wanted to white label the product so that they could have the same capabilities but for their own niches.

Those businesses wanted to be able to do things like create surveys using our form building library and have users collect their own data for things like N=1 experiments with their products.

What those businesses wanted to use that functionality for was up to them and their privacy policies, but the terms we talked about were something similar to "you can't use our SDK without users explicitly opting into any data collection". We never ended up actually licensing the SDK or making any deals with any companies.

Hope that makes things a little clearer. As far as Reflect the app, that was started from the beginning with privacy in mind and local-first. I have a long blog post I've been sitting on explaining the whole story, which I will publish soon hopefully, but I've been revolted by surveillance capitalism for a long time and originally made Reflect to help my partner get off of using google forms for tracking mood.

You have a good point regarding the privacy policy. We haven't found a way to lock in that commitment, and that's obviously not ideal from a user's perspective. People do place trust in Reflect not to pull the rug out from under them.
by wpm | 2025-06-11 19:36:37+00:00
The Dock is a personalized thing. Apple should not be forcing app's icons into anything, or rendering them in any way other than what the developer provides. If the developer, or more chiefly, the user, chooses to use a different icon, Apple has no fucking right to change it, get in the way, or do anything but display the pixels I told the icon to be.

This kind of crap is an example of the worst of their hubristic tendencies.
by ath3nd | 2025-06-11 19:36:53+00:00
I find it super funny that the average Joe will condemn an "illegal" worker for undercutting another, but never ask themselves the question who employed that "illegal" worker.

How come the blame is not solely on the businesses willingly employing thousands of "illegal workers", not paying tax on them nor health benefits, and not even minimum wage, and in that way undercutting the value of blue collar labor?
by crazygringo | 2025-06-11 19:38:08+00:00
Revenue isn't taxed. Profit is.

I suppose you could tax a proportion of your profit at a higher rate, according to the proportion of your revenue that came from advertising.

But advertising isn't a "free cash stream that can be bolted on everywhere". It's part of a business model that either is sustainable or isn't.

If you taxed it that much higher, a lot of businesses would simply go out of business, because people aren't willing to pay a subscription instead. Especially businesses that survive on a lot of users who use something only occasionally. Is that really what you want? Think carefully about how much journalism would be even further eroded...
by M95D | 2025-06-11 19:38:20+00:00
> educational value

> shouty toxic merch pusher

> pictures of her things

> to contacts (friends, relatives)

Too vague. Much, much to vague. There's no way to define these items and they won't prevent bullying which is basically text.

I would ban any child-to-child communication, including any text and any child-to-adult communication unless the adult is pre-approved by parents.
by sandworm101 | 2025-06-11 19:38:28+00:00
I ran into a stat recently that gave me pause. Medical air in dying, what canadians call "MAID", is now a significant cause of death. It's roughly 1 in 20 of all canadian deaths. That is far higher than I would ever have expected.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications...

>>> In 2022, there were 13,241 MAID provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada.
by quesera | 2025-06-11 19:38:29+00:00
> It was a Sunday morning. Literally our only option to get it replaced that day was a Walmart location 15 miles away. So we had to wait for AAA for an hour and a half to tell us we were stuck using a donut to get there.

I would describe that as "inconvenient" but actually very fortunate!

Walmart was only 15 miles away? You have a donut/spare, or AAA has provided you with one? That's lucky! Nowhere near "problem" territory at all.

Just an interruption to your schedule, but that happens on road trips.
by buran77 | 2025-06-11 19:38:32+00:00
> But your judgment that god's word must be understood in this way just reflects your own belief about how god has chosen to communicate with us.

I'm trying to understand it in the most likely way it would have been understood by the first man who heard it, and put in that context (as much context as I can have from back then).

> when you read scripture, does does it seem more like an instruction manual or a piece of literature?

If you read them you know they very much sound like both. So the way I read it (and I read the "major" ones as a religious agnostic) is that if I take the freedom to interpret everything from that book always in a way that's aimed at making my life or religion more convenient, then I'm in it more for show. Something that's probably true for most religious people I've met.
by ModernMech | 2025-06-11 19:38:47+00:00
But you dodged my question. You had said a single car on fire was enough to shut down a protest. So then answer the question: how do you know who set the car on fire?

From my perspective, all it would take to manipulate you would be for a cop or agitator to set a car on fire and broadcast the picture blaming protestors.

So then what happens, in your preferred world? It would seem like if you got your way, that would be the end of the first amendment. Anytime anyone stands up to protest, police can just set a single car on fire, and based on your statement, you would want the protest to end at that point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does the first amendment survive in your utopia? Or is it not meant to?
by mjburgess | 2025-06-11 19:39:00+00:00
There are two follow up papers showing the representations are "entangled", a euphemism for statistical garbage, but I can't be bothered at the moment to find them.

However the whole issue of othello is a nonsequiteur which indicates that people involved here don't really seem to understand the issue, or what a world model is.

A "world model" is a model of a data generating process which isn't reducible-to or constituted by its measures. Ie., we are concerned for the case where there's a measurement space (eg., that of the height of mercury in a thermometer) and a target property space (eg., that of the temperature of the coffee). So that there is gap between the data-as-measure and its causes. In language this gap is massive: the cause of my saying, "I'm hungry" may have nothing to do with my hunger, even if it often does. For "scientific measuring devices", these are constructed to minimize this gap as much as possible.

In any case, with board games and other mathematical objects, there is no gap. The data is the game. The "board state" is an abstract object constituted by all possible board states. The game "is made out of" its realisations.

However the world isnt made out of language, nor coffee made out of thermometers. So a model of the data isnt a mdoel of its generating process.

So whether an interpolation of board states "fully characterises", someway, an abstract mathematical object "the game" is so irrelevant to the question it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of even what's at issue.

No one is arguing that a structured interpolative model (ie., one given an inductive bias by an NN architecture) doesn't express properties of the underlying domain in its structure. The question is what happens to this model of the data when you have the same data generating process, but you arent in the interpolated region.

This problem is, in the limit of large data, impossible for abstract games by their nature, eg., a model classifying the input X into legal/illegal board states is the game.

Another way of phrasing this is that in ML/AI textbooks often begin by assuming there's a function you're approximating. But in the vast majority of cases where NNs are used, there is no such function -- there is no function tokens -> meanings (eg., "i am hungry" is ambigious).

But in the abstract math case there is a function, {boards} -> Legal|Illegal is a function, there are no ambiguous boards

So: of the infinite number of f* approximations to f_game, any is valid in the limit len(X) -> inf. Of the infinite number f*_lang to f_language, all are invalid (each in their own way).
by thomashlvt | 2025-06-11 19:39:28+00:00
Converge (YC S23) | Founding Product Engineer | NYC ONSITE | Full Time | 230k + 0.85%

We're a small team of 4, but scaled to $1M+ in ARR across ~200 customers and recently raised $5.6M from YC and the founders of Posthog, Algolia, Showpad, Shipbob, etc.

We're building the entire data stack of a marketeer in-house and deeply integrated. This offers them a 10x better product experience to understand where they're acquiring customers from.

Our infra processes ~4000 jobs/s and billions of $ in e-commerce transactions. We're building realtime data pipelines and complex data analysis tools -- lots of interesting challenges.

Have a look here for more info - https://runconverge.com/careers
by j-krieger | 2025-06-11 19:39:37+00:00
> I’ve explained my reasons more fully to people who are close to me, but they basically boil down to the fact that an organ transplant requires a full commitment to the process, and I’m not willing to make that commitment.

I can't imagine being that indifferent to life. I would give all I could to live just one more day if I were in that position.
by adverbly | 2025-06-11 19:39:53+00:00
> The idea is that we will all spend more money on AI that we spend on phones

AI is not a consumer product.

Businesses will pay for AI. They will use it for whatever they are building. We will buy what those businesses build.

The medium term here is that AI is going to become part of the value chain. It's gonna be like stripe or insurance or labor.
by addaon | 2025-06-11 19:40:06+00:00
> I think that's right, and not a problem in practice. It's like asking a human why: "because it avoids an allocation" is a more useful response than "because Bob told me I should", even if the latter is the actual cause.

Maybe this is the source of the confusion between us? If I see someone writing overly convoluted code to avoid an allocation, and I ask why, I will take different actions based on those two answers! If I get the answer "because it avoids an allocation," then my role as a reviewer is to educate the code author about the trade-off space, make sure that the trade-offs they're choosing are aligned with the team's value assessments, and help them make more-aligned choices in the future. If I get the answer "because Bob told me I should," then I need to both address the command chain issues here, and educate /Bob/. An answer is "useful" in that it allows me to take the correct action to get the PR to the point that it can be submitted, and prevents me from having to make the same repeated effort on future PRs... and truth actually /matters/ for that.

Similarly, if an LLM gives an answer about "why" it made a decision that I don't want in my code base that has no causal link to the actual process of generating the code, it doesn't give me anything to work with to prevent it happening next time. I can spend as much effort as I want explaining (and adding to future prompts) the amount of code complexity we're willing to trade off to avoid an allocation in different cases (on the main event loop, etc)... but if that's not part of what fed in to actually making that trade-off, it's a waste of my time, no?
by johnfn | 2025-06-11 19:40:24+00:00
I read the quote just fine. I don't understand 100% of what my junior engineers do. I understand a good chunk, like 90-95% of it, but am I really going to spend 30 minutes trying to understand why that particular CSS hack only works with `rem` and not `px`? Of course not - if I did that for every line of code, I'd never get anything done.
by robomartin | 2025-06-11 19:41:08+00:00
Ha! 1969. Massachusetts.

Well, time to exit this thread. The problem with HN having become a monoculture forum is that it is impossible to have conversations. I never downvote or flag anyone, particularly those who disagree with me. The same is not true on the other side, if you don't tow the line you get attacked, downvoted and flagged mercilessly until you shut your mouth. So, yeah, you win. Have a good day.
by cycomanic | 2025-06-11 19:41:13+00:00
> It is built in major metro areas, and requires endless subsidies to stay afloat in all but one of those areas.

So how do you thing roads are build? Is that not a subsidy? Especially out in rural areas where people always complain the loudest that public transport doesn't work because it requires subsidies. If you would make people pay for their road use, rural living would very quickly become unsustainable for most.

Let's not even talk about all the externalities like land cost of those roads especially in metropolitan areas.
by WorldMaker | 2025-06-11 19:41:50+00:00
When they started getting rid of passenger service had a lot less to do with losing ridership and money and lot more that cargo contracts paid a lot more and with a lot more regularity. The "Robber Barons" get that nickname for a lot of reasons, but one of them was using public land and eminent domain tactics under the "public utility" excuse of providing passenger service for a time for an area, while negotiating for the shortest possible passenger service requirements and the least possible public oversight of their use of once public land, because they knew all along the real, big money was in cargo. A lot of passenger services ended to the day of passenger service requirements contracts ending, even if they were profitable and had high ridership.

The scam was in from the beginning. The car helped exacerbate the problem and the train companies made big fusses about all the lost ridership to the car, as things went along, but even at the beginning a lot of the US rail companies were built on the knowledge that cargo was lucrative and passenger travel the necessary trojan horse to pickup land for cheap.
by csallen | 2025-06-11 19:41:51+00:00
This applies to AI, too, albeit in different ways:

1. You can iteratively improve the rules and prompts you give to the AI when coding. I do this a lot. My process is constantly improving, and the AI makes fewer mistakes as a result.

2. AI models get smarter. Just in the past few months, the LLMs I use to code are making significantly fewer mistakes than they were.
by shadowgovt | 2025-06-11 19:41:52+00:00
The WebGL API is based on the OpenGL ES standard, which jettisoned a lot of the procedural pipeline calls that made it easy to write CPU-bound 3D logic.

The tradeoff is initial complexity (your "hello world" for WebGL showing one object will include a shader and priming data arrays for that shader), but as consequence of design the API sort of forces more computation into the GPU layer, so the fact JavaScript is driving it matters very little.

THREE.js adds a nice layer of abstraction atop that metal.
by divan | 2025-06-11 19:42:05+00:00
It's funny, but originally I had written a codegenerator that just reads protobuf and generates/modifies code in other parts. It's been ok experience until you hit another corner case (especially in UI part) and need to spend another hours improving codegenerator. But since after AI coding tools became better I started delegating this part to AI increasingly more, and now with agentic AI tools it became way more efficient than keeping maintaining codegenerator. And you're right about DB part - again, now with task description it's a no brainer to tell it which parts shouldn't be touched.