MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by krosaen | 2025-06-20 18:23:54+00:00
I pay for YouTube premium (which gives me YouTube music too) and am happy with the lack of ads, even though many creators still mix paid sponsors into their videos. It seems the creators are motivated to keep things minimal or they will lose engagement.

What I am not happy with is a lack of control over the homepage and recommendations. I would really like to be able to easily block channels from ever showing up, but you can only sort of do this if you click "don't recommend this channel anymore" from the homepage. But you can't do this if a video shows up recommended from another video. And overall, it just feels like they are spending so much effort trying to get me to watch the next video instead of enjoy the one I am trying to watch.

For my kids, I came up with an ad hoc policy where they can watch from the homepage / recs on weekends but during the week have to stick to a personal playlist they can only add videos to on the weekends. This removes the algorithmically driven addictive nature of YouTube and unsurprisingly they end up moderating their use of Youtube within their alotted screen time much better. It distinguishes between, "I want to watch this" and "I want to pull the slot machine lever." But I would be a lot happier if I could better curate access to content for my kids too. Youtube Kids sucks, it ends up filtering out a bunch of interesting stuff like carpentry and nature content that hasn't been marked "for kids" in favor of videos of kids shopping for toys and stuff.
by naikrovek | 2025-06-20 18:24:07+00:00
You and I do things differently I guess.

The things like this that I write stay small. It is when others take them over from me that those things immediately bloat and people start extending them with crap they don’t need because they are so used to it that they don’t see it as a problem.

I am allergic to unnecessary complexity and I don’t think anyone else that I have ever worked with is. They seem drawn to it.
by jayd16 | 2025-06-20 18:24:13+00:00
The current trend is to count the hit. Its very frustrating for the shooter to make a valid hit under the crosshair and miss. Whereas the player that moved has no real obvious way to tell exactly where the player aimed. If this was a defensive move like a shield, then its up to the game mechanics to decide that sort of thing.

> If player A receives the rollback, and now witnesses B dodge

Why would they witness the dodge? They would likely see the VFX of the hit and then the target move slightly faster than they should for a frame.

> from the perspective of the server, the state of the game in which A landed the hit never existed

You can validate that player positions and visibility raycasts and such that you're verifying plausibility. You say "the state never happened on the server" but what does that even mean? You're not replicating look rotation with enough fidelity to know that and its not the job of the server to simulate "what actually happened." The point is to make a fun game so its fine to reward the player.
Show HN: CTO as a Service
by goodpanda | 2025-06-20 18:24:19+00:00
In my journey of "building" startups, I have found time and time again that although I am interested in both business and technical, I tend to do much better in the latter.

I know vibe coding is THE thing now but I also believe having strong technical founders is also paramount for your success as a non-tech founder. So here's what I offer:

- Connect with me and let's chat and get to know each other.

- If we come to an agreement, I'll make you an MVP(for $1000 just to make sure you're serious. If we actually make the effort you'll get this back!)

- I'll help you iterate and move things forward until we become profitable/get funding/die :D

This is a rough idea and will probably refine the process as I go but hopefully it gets things rolling.

I know startupschool and other solutions exist. This is mainly for me to quench my coding/startup thirst and help others do the same.
by Viliam1234 | 2025-06-20 18:24:27+00:00
> wealth accumulation's primary function being the further accumulation of wealth

Then we are lucky that EA promotes giving more to charity as the primary function of accumulation of wealth.

> EA seems pretty irrationally focused on excusing antisocial behavior.

Is a guy getting a well-paid job at Microsoft and donating half of his salary to African charities really your best example of antisocial behavior?
by ssl-3 | 2025-06-20 18:24:41+00:00
Yeah. HID/LED are the usual offenders.

I've found that yellow-tinted glasses help a bunch with those types, and I keep some in the car that I do use occasionally.

(There's a grossly misinterpreted study that people sometimes point at when saying that yellow glasses can't help and can only hurt, but the study itself doesn't support that conclusion.)
by etbebl | 2025-06-20 18:24:45+00:00
I wonder how much overlap there is between users of array languages and of scientific programming languages/dialects like MATLAB, Numpy, and Julia, which are also optimized to operate over arrays. In other words, do K/Klong/whatever proponents realize that there is already a huge community of people who appreciate and utilize powerful operations on arrays to do real work, but just prefer to write something like "max(diff(x))" instead of "|/--:'x"? It's almost the same number of characters and it doesn't require learning a new writing system.
by anonymars | 2025-06-20 18:24:51+00:00
I think t-shirt sizing is madness. "How long is a piece of string?" But we've had tickets to create other tickets, because, as you point out, speccing out the feature (including what does it do and what does it not do) is itself a ton of work

In fact I wager that coding is...20%, maybe 25%? of the work that goes into providing value*? So Amdahl's law says having AI optimize that part isn't going to move the needle all that much

*it's certainly possible to expend lots more effort coding, but is it coding in the right direction?
by jtagliabuetooso | 2025-06-20 18:25:07+00:00
You mean on the data side? Data access in the example (and in real-world) is mediated by production-grade Iceberg compatible catalog, sandboxed changes, and full auditability trail (https://docs.bauplanlabs.com/en/latest/concepts/git_for_data...). Or do you mean something else?
by kunzhi | 2025-06-20 18:25:07+00:00
I’m a 90s kid so there’s something poetic about Zuck choosing Oakley for this, feels on-brand for him.

In my mind it was inevitable that we would reach this point. The novel Snow Crash predicted this exact phenomenon (along with the Metaverse, of course, which is where they are trying to drive this). It’s the same with companies issuing cryptocurrencies and the like.

We aren’t totally locked in to the techno-feudal state just yet, but we’re getting there. Pretty fascinating how foreseeable these last many years and decades have been.
by supertrope | 2025-06-20 18:25:51+00:00
Sidewalks can fit an order of magnitude more people than roads can fit cars. Especially if one car lane was re-allocated to make sidewalks wider. Less traffic means less air pollution.

It's almost never needed to faregate sidewalks. Tourist districts can organize a special improvement district tax on stores to fund sidewalk upgrades, trash collection, shuttles, security, parking, and planting flowers. This makes the zone more even more attractive to tourists.
by burlesona | 2025-06-20 18:26:04+00:00
> The issue with an industry awash with cheap dross, is that it becomes prohibitively expensive to produce high Quality stuff.

This seems to be one of the brutal truths of the modern world, and as far as I can tell it applies to everything. There's always a race to the bottom to make everything as cheaply as possible, and the further the industry goes down that "cheapness" scale, the more "quality" loses market share, the more expensive "quality" must be in order to operate at all, and finally things that used to be just "normal" and not too expensive are now luxury goods.

Consider textiles, carpentry, masonry, machine tooling, appliances, etc. etc.

This doesn't feel like a good outcome, but I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it.
by znpy | 2025-06-20 18:26:09+00:00
The user you're responding to probably doesn't really understand how kubernetes works, and the trade-offs that the etcd has taken to allow in order to be "distributed".

But you're right. You launch node pretty much anywhere, as long as you have network connectivity (and you don't even need full network connectivity, a couple of tcp ports open are enough).

It's not really recommended (due to latency), but you can also run the control-plane across different regions.
by next_xibalba | 2025-06-20 18:26:27+00:00
This is a very “inside baseball” take. The average person just does not care at all about privacy from large corporations. It’s not even on their radar as a topic about which to have an opinion.

I think the biggest hurdles to widespread adoption are ease of connectivity (getting pics and videos “out” of glasses and onto phone/laptop/cloud), ultra high def images, size of on device storage, and battery life. Those are tough, given the form factor. But, if cracked, these will be huge.
by xnorswap | 2025-06-20 18:26:48+00:00
YouTube is the system, you've not heard of "don't hate the player, hate the game"?

If I "blamed" the creators, you'd be telling me it's not their fault, they're just incentivised by the system, they're just playing the game.

But when I "blame" the system, you're telling me the system is not at fault, that it's individual choice to choose a near-monopoly on video discoverability that is propelled by and heavily benefiting from the same company's actual monopoly of search.

Is it "YT's problem?"? No, it's to YT's massive benefit, it's my problem when I have to suffer through adverts.
by mm263 | 2025-06-20 18:27:02+00:00
You are not making an argument you think you are making. We switched from one set of problems to another set of problems that didn't exist before industrial agriculture: soil erosion, pest explosion, entire harvests wiped out by disease because genetic uniformity, which means one pathogen can destroy everything - think Irish potato famine but now it's scientific and modern.

The mess of traditional farming - with its scattered plots, mixed crops, and local varieties adapted to every microclimate - was too complicated to tax and control, so they (that Xe talks about, *they*, the ones who stand to profit) bulldozed millennia of accumulated agricultural wisdom and replaced it with neat geometric fields of single crops that any bureaucrat could count from his desk. This wasn't just an ecological disaster waiting to happen (and it did happen - you not knowing about it doesn't mean that it didn't; maybe in the end you'll notice when our last species of corn dies out), it was also an epistemic catastrophe, a murder of local knowledge that understood why you plant these three things together here but those two things there, replacing it with the kind of simplified, one-size-fits-all stupidity that makes perfect sense in a government report and absolutely none in actual soil where actual plants have to actually grow.

Anyway, I recommend Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott.
by ctkhn | 2025-06-20 18:27:17+00:00
There were some negative effects at a construction shutdown of a street recently where it temporarily did hurt some business, mostly retail shops but not the restaurants/bars which had a big boost in business. These boutique style shops were more patronized by people from suburbs or far flung parts of the city than actual locals, and their location was based on the owners wanting to live in the city vs their actual customers.
by rich_sasha | 2025-06-20 18:28:35+00:00
...is my point - UK did it multiple times, overall successfully I would say: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_towns_in_the_United_King...

These towns often have a bit of a reputation for being full of, well, 1960s architecture and being a bit dated and unexciting, but frankly that's just a lot of the UK. Functionally, I have been to a few of them and they are just fine, if a little boring, places to live.

> [is it] okay to have the government take over properties that are simply poor uses of land even if the owners don't want to sell?

I mean, happens all the time with infrastructure projects - roads, railroads, power plants.
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-06-20 18:28:47+00:00
This is a fantastic comment, but it also underscores the thing I really dislike about most internet conversations about philosophy: a lack of reading prior art. Utilitarian morality certainly isn't a new concept though the rationalists today are some of its strongest standard bearers. But around the time when utilitarianism was starting to take hold, rigorous philosophical thinking had exactly the debates that come up here.

Part of the reason I enjoy rationalist discourse more is because, even if they are unabashedly utilitarian, they try to rigorously derive philosophy. Most internet discourse on philosophy is, as you say, just vaguely derived around gut feelings. But philosophy can and has been thought of rigorously. Virtue ethics and continental morality are both schools of thought that reject utilitarian ethics but are much more meaty than the sort of internet "no but my neighbors" intuition that you see in full force, and the weird insistence that these internet commenters continue to use their vague moral intuition without being rigorous about their own thoughts.
by 2Gkashmiri | 2025-06-20 18:28:53+00:00
In manual system, we used to have a "page total" for a single page of a ledger/book so you just had to query last page total and bring that forward. In immutable ledgers, if you have a running total, the last balance is your current one.....

And you are certain about going 1 month (or period) going back that at a particular date, at he last entry the balance was something.

Same as in paper books. Just see page total of that particular date....
by genewitch | 2025-06-20 18:28:54+00:00
> racialized pattern of CPS calls (Blacks high, Asians low, Whites and Latinos somewhere between)

Predominantly "black" schools receive less funding in general (per student over $2000 less), and as such, need all the student-age people in class. So a "black" family removing their child(ren) from school becomes a fiscal issue, coupled to racial issues, coupled to history; like >60% of "black" children live in a 'single parent household' due to "no man about the house" policies dating back to the 1960s, just as a single example.

I am quoting "black" because i am sensitive to this, and if i had started out with ADOS or NBA/FBA (native black american, foundational black american) i just assume it'd brook argument.

To wrap this all up - "more testing equals more cases."
by timr | 2025-06-20 18:29:13+00:00
> In many case, I don’t even think it’s conscious: many business owners, especially people who started / inherited successful small businesses in city neighborhoods, moved out to the suburbs for bigger houses/schools/etc. and are thus completely car dependent.

I don't know if you live in Manhattan, but there's a far more parsimonious explanation than "business owners are suburban car people": in order to operate most kinds of businesses in the city, you need easy access to deliveries, which means easy parking.

Anyone who has ever tried to arrange logistics for any kind of delivery in NYC knows what a nightmare it is. You routinely see cars and trucks double-parked, because there's no alternative. Trucks park illegally, because the risk of the occasional ticket is cheaper than circling the block for hours.

I can easily see how this would be a subject of top-of-mind importance to any business owner in the city.
by bobmcnamara | 2025-06-20 18:29:22+00:00
1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely

2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd...

3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump...

4) fires

5) lack of a safety culture

6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here

7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)
by Viliam1234 | 2025-06-20 18:30:06+00:00
> "The Singularity" was talked about by Jesuit Priest Teilhard de Chardin long before sci-fi writer Vernor Vinge used it as the hinge of a mystery novel.

Similarly, Big Bang was talked about by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, and Bayes' Theorem was invented by Presbyterian minister Thomas Bayes. Does that prove anything beyond the fact that there are many smart religious people?
by bluefirebrand | 2025-06-20 18:30:12+00:00
I think that at this point people have to let go of "Scrum is not the only way to do Agile"

It's "technically" true, and I admit that, but this battle is lost If someone says they are doing Agile they mean Scrum. Otherwise they will specify Kanban (or whatever else) by name

I know it's not technically correct, but that's just how it is, sorry
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-20 18:30:14+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

"Cities like Helsinki and Vienna in Europe have seen dramatic reductions in homelessness due to the adaptation of Housing First policies, as have the North American cities Columbus, Ohio, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Medicine Hat, Alberta."

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

"A decade ago, Utah set itself an ambitious goal: end chronic homelessness. As of 2015, the state can just about declare victory: The population of chronically homeless people has dropped by 91 percent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Finland

"Finland has adopted a Housing First policy, whereby social services assign homeless individuals homes first, and issues like mental health and substance abuse are treated second. Since its launch in 2008, the number of homeless people in Finland has decreased by roughly 30%,[1] though other reports indicate it could be up to 50%. The number of long-term homeless people has fallen by more than 35%. "Sleeping rough", the practice of sleeping outside, has been largely eradicated in Helsinki, where only one 50-bed night shelter remains."

Having a stable housing situation turns out to make a whole bunch of other related social changes more feasible.

> If by 'mental health' you mean involuntary commitment, then yes, that will do the job

I mean, I'd start with therapy, addiction services, social supports, and the like. But I do think the complete removal of long-term inpatient mental health in the 50s/60s was an overshoot. Some people need that much help.

(I also believe there's a lot more we can do to prevent people from becoming that "kind of people" in the first place.)
by bee_rider | 2025-06-20 18:30:20+00:00
I don’t think I missed anything. But maybe my post was not very clear?

The post I was responding to clearly meant “like smartphones replaced […] laptops,” which is to say, they don’t think AR glasses will replace smartphones (because smartphones didn’t completely replace laptops). I get that.

Then I pointed out that smartphones did more-or-less replace a number of other electronic devices. And there are some reasons they didn’t fully replace laptops. Then I went on to think about the niches that could exist should AR glasses become a major thing.
by brooke2k | 2025-06-20 18:30:48+00:00
I feel this is a slightly disingenuous argument - mismanagement and poor planning can happen in both the public and private sectors. The US healthcare system is just one fantastic example of the private sector absolutely failing to deliver even a bare minimum standard of service. Gas lines are one thing - waiting fifteen hours in the emergency room to be seen, only to be charged thousands of dollars for some tylenol and a pat on the head is another.
by lisper | 2025-06-20 18:30:52+00:00
I am the author.

> I can only say that I have never met a proponent of MWI who meant this.

What can I say? There are a lot of MWI proponents who profess to believe this. Here, for example, is Sean Carroll answering the question, "How many parallel universes are there?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tQiy5iCX4o

Of course, he doesn't actually give a concrete answer, but he very strongly implies that the question has an answer, i.e. that the question is a meaningful one to ask, and that implies that the MWI does in fact mean that there is a discrete number of clearly separated worlds.

In fact, I challenge you find a single example of a prominent MWI proponent saying something in public (which is to say, in a public forum or a publication whose target audience is the general public) that even implies that the many-worlds of the MWI are not distinct, countable entities. I only know of one example, and it is very well hidden.

There is a more fundamental problem: if the MWI does not mean "a discrete number of clearly separated worlds" then it fails as an interpretation of QM, i.e. as a solution to the measurement problem. The whole point is that measurements appear to produce discrete outcomes despite the fact that the math says that everything is one big quantum superposition. If all you have to say about this is, "Yeah, it's all one big quantum superposition" then you have failed to solve the problem. You have simply swept the hard part under the rug.
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-06-20 18:30:59+00:00
Why is "theory of power" a necessary framing? "Theory of power" seems to be only a popular idea in "online left progressive" circles which are based on pop readings of post-structuralist continental philosophy. There's plenty of other schools of thought out there and there have been many criticisms of the idea of "theory of power" altogether.

Reading critiques of Hegel is a great starting point for this reading.

Whether you accept it or not though, there's lots of non-rationalist schools that reject the need for a "theory of power".
by yesfitz | 2025-06-20 18:30:59+00:00
My point was to illustrate that not all population growth is fungible, so comparing birth-driven growth from the '50s to migration-driven growth since the '80s will miss things.

To your point about phase-shifting though, I think that's a definite possibility, but relies on preferences of each community, and how they change by generation.

Urbanization is not solely driven by immigrants, but how likely are immigrants to move into lower density housing when they have kids? What about their kids? And their kids, etc? And compare that to non-immigrant (or non-recently immigrated) preferences.

The relative productivity of babies and immigrants is not of interest to me in talking about housing preference, but you're correct that babies don't directly add much to GDP for the first two decades.
by thmsths | 2025-06-20 18:31:00+00:00
We already require juniors to go through a 4 years university degree. It takes a fair bit of time of real world work to get to the senior level. So unless we expect people to do another 5 years of schooling, I am not sure how this will happen (and even in that scenario I believe there is a difference between hands on, on the job experience and classroom experience).