MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by seanp2k2 | 2025-06-03 20:37:29+00:00
Elon Musk Predicts Level 4 Or 5 Full Self-Driving ‘Later This Year’ For the Tenth Year In A Row

(2023) https://www.theautopian.com/elon-musk-predicts-level-4-or-5-...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grift

ways of getting money dishonestly that involve tricking someone

So, they got money dishonestly by tricking someone into buying their cars based on the belief that they'd offer real full self driving now or very soon, then they didn't actually deliver that.
by comte7092 | 2025-06-03 20:37:30+00:00
What does that project have to do with buses?

Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc.

I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-03 20:37:48+00:00
As you said, luminosity increases. It isn't a matter of survival, it's a physics problem. If a planet absorbs more energy from its star than it's capable of radiating away, it will rise in temperature forever until and unless energy output increases above energy input.

And when you consider that by this point energy input is on a permanent increase, there's really not much you can do apart from moving the whole damn planet out of the way.

It's kind of pointless to speculate what kind of technology we'll have in 500m years (or indeed if there is a 'we' left in the system). The time scale is so enormous that there's simply no way to predict anything at all involving humans or human-derivatives.

The planet (without literally unimaginable intervention) will heat up and become uninhabitable sometime around 500m years from now.
by ethbr1 | 2025-06-03 20:38:01+00:00
The "unique" part is two-fold.

1. It's cheap. 2. It's anonymous.

The fact that we haven't had more drone terror attacks says more about the technological slowness of terrorists than its infeasibility.

And eventually terrorists catch up. (Probably after the Russia-Ukraine war ends and some skilled people from both sides are unemployed)

It's infeasible to blanket every inch of civilian space with kinetic or EW anti-drone systems.

They may become commonplace at mass events (concerts, parades, gatherings, etc.) but will never cover all soft targets.

And unlike the nearest analog in chemical weapons, drones are dual-use, stable, and easily assembled.

The only reason the 1995 Tokyo Subway attacks [0] weren't worse was because of ineptitude.

Someone could be a quarter as intelligent and successfully fly an FPV drone into a target.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack#Ch...
by os2warpman | 2025-06-03 20:38:06+00:00
Jaywalking was an invented term but it was not a new concept created as part of a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.

Prior to the invention of the automobile, if a pedestrian walked onto a public street and was struck and killed by a vehicle, the pedestrian was 100% at fault unless the driver was negligent. Merely operating a vehicle in a normal manner was not negligence.

It has been understood since the construction of Pompeii at the latest, that pedestrians belong on sidewalks and vehicles in the road.

Pont Neuf, the oldest bridge in Paris was built in the 1600s with sidewalks.

All of the oldest photos from the 1800s of major cities show a separation of vehicles and pedestrians.

If you have access to a newspaper archive like I do you can run a search for jaywalking and sort by oldest result.

Most of the pushback to jaywalking laws was because they required crossing at corners, not the middle of the street.

People instinctively (wrongly) believed that crossing in the middle was safer. Statisticians know that corners are safer.

Fun fact: you were more likely to die being run over by a horse in New York City prior to the invention of the automobile than you are to be struck and killed by an automobile today.

Much MUCH more likely.

>Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difficult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.

https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/20...

344 is a lot. In 2024, there were 252 auto-related fatalities (drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians) in NYC.

I once saw an article that in the 1800s there were over 150 fatalities per year in San Francisco due to street cars alone so I wager the increasing value of human life in the early 1900s also contributed to jaywalking laws.

Everyone just used to accept people dying left and right due to horses and trains.

But again, it WAS NOT a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.
by dalke | 2025-06-03 20:39:15+00:00
That name threw me for a loop. In the 1990s I worked at a company named Bioreason. https://web.archive.org/web/20010401171900/http://www.biorea...

It was an AI company during the AI winter, so we couldn't say "AI". Instead, "Bioreason provides information technology that uses data mining and computational intelligence techniques to extract drug discovery knowledge from massive amounts of data."
by kiitos | 2025-06-03 20:39:28+00:00
Currently if you want to return from a function/method you need to type `return` in the source code. And return is a single expr, it can't be chained or embedded, and in almost all cases it exists on its own line in the file. This is an important invariant for Go, even if you don't understand or buy its motivation. `?` would fundamentally change that core property of control flow. In short, chaining is not considered to be a virtue, and is not something that's desired.
by realitybit3z | 2025-06-03 20:39:33+00:00
IN RESPONSE TO Even the Soviet Union made people go to school, and getting a degree was a route to higher status.

Also people did that to avoid Dedovshchina

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

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/russia1004/2.htm
by aerotwelve | 2025-06-03 20:39:34+00:00
Tech workers will start creating unions once they get sick and tired of the current system. That's the one we all live in today where

1) Young developers are pitted against older developers in an effort to drive down the salaries of everyone in the industry.

2) You can be fired at any time for any reason.

3) The whims of management (i.e., workplace politics) are the primary force behind whether or not you are promoted, whether or not you are disciplined, your work assignments, and your career progression.

4) Your working conditions (see "remote work) can be changed at a moment's notice in an effort to make you quit your job, accept a lower salary, or as a backdoor justification to otherwise discriminate against you.

5) Layoffs can happen at any time for any reason (or a reason that's completely made up by your CEO -- see "AI" for the current made up reason of the year), and you have no recourse. You have no right to transfer to another position in your company, return to your job after the economic conditions improve, and often have to sign NDAs or agree to ridiculous conditions to collect your severance (if one is even offered)

6) Threats to outsource your job to a foreign company/"AI" are constantly in the air in an effort to make you feel like you deserve less, work more hours, and constantly audition for your job day in and day out.

You're not exempt from any of this if you're a highly-paid IC who is reading this, by the way. In fact, you should know that they really resent having to pay you your big salary (that's their money), which is why you're always going to have a target on your back. You don't think the managers who currently make less than you get paid aren't resentfully eyeing your line on their spreadsheet?

The way to stop all of this is to unionize. Don't you think it's about time?
by ty6853 | 2025-06-03 20:39:49+00:00
I have no idea how this tracks to births, but I did some studies before of Nordic homicide rate, and if you drop an actual Nordic citizen in similarly white homogenous states like new hampshire their murder rate isn't terribly worse than it is in a Nordic nation.

My hypothesis is there may be something like this effect happening, where once you control for nordic people in similarly white states I bet they'd have much closer to nordic birth risk.
by ednite | 2025-06-03 20:39:53+00:00
Thanks for your comment, that’s exactly what I was wondering about.

For me, I actually tend to see things the other way around where authors often inspire tech. Example, engineers who watched Star Trek as kids and ended up designing the first flip phones. Sometimes we build things simply because technology finally makes them possible, and only later do we realize it’s straight out of a story we grew up with.

Especially when a whole generation grows up with the same sci-fi stories, certain ideas just start to seem “normal” or even become things people expect to see for real. A kind of relationship between our collective dreams and the inventions that follow, i guess.
by trilbyglens | 2025-06-03 20:40:03+00:00
This is why I think ai is basically the death of startups as we know them. Only big players can even take a swing. No more underdog garage startups, unless you're just downstream getting dorty bath water from the big boys.

Ai all around is purely about consolidation of power and money. It's bad for workers and ultimately probably bad for the startup world and competition more broadly.
by creesch | 2025-06-03 20:40:09+00:00
> Wow, so many assumptions here that don't make sense to me, but I realize we all have different perspectives on this stuff.

I realize they don't make sense to you, otherwise the website would contain different information. If I had to try to frame it more clearly I'd say that for a company whose core product revolves around clear writing, your website's information is surprisingly vague and evasive in some areas. I simply think it would make for a stronger and confident message if that information was just there. Which, might I remind you, I have said is true for many companies selling LLM based services and products.

> language support: I don't believe we're being disingenuous. Sudowrite works well in many languages.

I am sure it does, those languages with the highest presence in the training data. French and German doing well doesn't surprise me given the numbers I have seen there. I think this FAQ section could be much clearer here.

> we do not market to students as you claim.

I guess that your pricing page specifically has a "Hobby & Student" tier which mentions "Perfect for people who write for fun or for school" doesn't count as marketing to students?

> I don't believe AI use in education is unethical.

Neither do I, if it is part of the curriculum and the goal. For many language related course including writing using assistive tooling, certainly tooling that highly impacts style defeats the didactic purpose.

> So many of these objections feel bizarre to me because they're trivial to fact-check. Here's a New York Times article that mentions us, written in 2020. We were one of the first companies to use LLMs in this wave and sought and gained access to GPT-3 prior to public API availability.

Okay, I already went out of my way to go over the entire website because you asked. I am not doing a hit piece on you guys specifically as I specifically said you just happened to be linked by the other person. It was an assumption on my side, but reasonable given the age of most LLM companies. More importantly, that is not the main point I am making there anyway.

Since 2020 the landscape around LLMs changed drastically. Including the way privacy is being handled and looked at. You would think that this would result in changes to the policy in that period. In fact, I would think that the introduction of your own model would at the very least warrant some changes there. Not to mention that using copy pasted boilerplate for 5 years to me does not give a confident signal about how seriously you are taking privacy.

While you are not obligated to respond to me as I am just one random stranger on the internet. I would be remiss if I didn't make it clear that it is the overall tone and combined points that make me critical. Not just the ones that piqued your interest.
by more_corn | 2025-06-03 20:40:16+00:00
lol, you think we’ll live a hundred years let alone a couple billion? Given our pathological inability to solve even the most basic and obvious existential risks, I give odds of seeing the end of humanity in my lifetime at around 50%.

I mean we still put forever chemicals in our food containers. There’s a segment of the population that aggressively opposes efforts to save humanity from global warming (the earth abides but humanity is quite fragile). We’ve had at least six known near misses in nuclear annihilation. We’ve been utterly unable to stamp out obvious misinformation, lies and utter bullshit in public discourse (so we can’t even talk about the real problems with anything approaching consensus on facts)

The good news is we really don’t have to worry about the timeframes where the death of our star would cause problems.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-06-03 20:40:52+00:00
I want to agree with you. In fact I do agree with the point you're making about how policies, cultural values, and outcomes are intertwined.

However you need to realize that the country you're holding up as a counterexample brands people as felons over some fairly absurd things and more generally has a remarkably dysfunctional justice system that exhibits precisely the same cultural failures that you're objecting to here.
by glitchc | 2025-06-03 20:41:00+00:00
Already tested. Success rate is too low. A great deal of aenergy gets wasted.

Remember, this is about asymmetric warfare. If the number of rounds or amount of energy required costs more than the drone it shoots down, then it's not an effective deterrent. Militaries are looking for single-shot weapons to take down drones. Fire once and move on. It's the only way to deal with a swarm. Think about it for a bit and it will become very obvious.
by deng | 2025-06-03 20:42:39+00:00
Specialty keyboards like the TiPY are indeed very expensive, here in the EU it's a thousand (!) Euros:

https://tipykeyboard.com/en/produkt/tipy-keyboard-black-en

However, if your relative is employed and needs to type for the job, then there's a good chance the employer will pay for it if it means they can work more efficiently during these months. Another option, which however is much less likely to succeed and will probably take much longer, is to try to get this through health insurance.
by creesch | 2025-06-03 20:42:49+00:00
1) Open source projects see plenty of commits where people happily work for "free".

2) Did you stop reading after that sentence? Because there is a whole lot more that follows, specifically:

> If I need to target it even more directly, why am I a not seeing hints of this being applied on code agent repositories? Call me naive, but you'd think that these specifically want to demonstrate how well their product works. Making an effort to distinguish PRs that are largely the work of their own agents. Yet, I am not seeing that.
by muzani | 2025-06-03 20:42:56+00:00
Selling for a fixed price has worked for decades. Microsoft did it. They made money, used the money to make new products. Early cash is good.

The whole SaaS ARR model was popularized by VCs because it's easy to calculate and a healthy indicator of exit size.

The logic falls apart if you're not VC-backed – there's no guarantee that 5 years from now, customers won't switch to the competitor that has $100m in funding.

Also by playing the one time purchase model, you're pricing it below what the big guys can sustain. You strip mine the market from the competitor, while offering the customer a good(?) deal.

It opens up some markets too. I used to sell SaaS to construction projects, and they preferred to make a single purchase far higher than LTV because it's easier to get the budget approved and "own" the system.
by milk3422 | 2025-06-03 20:43:22+00:00
Aventic AI | aventic.ai | DevOps/Platform Engineer | Hybrid, Baltimore, Boise, USA | Full-time

Aventic is trying to change the way people talk with companies. We’re building an intelligent platform with custom LLMs and deploying them in the cloud and on-premise. We’re looking for someone who enjoys working with Kubernetes in the cloud and deployed locally on-site; enjoys autonomy and is able to take large features from conception to deployment; and wants to be able to have a large impact on an early stage product.

You’ll work on automation, observability, CI/CD, and infra-as-code; and partner closely with product and engineering teams to ensure reliability and velocity. Tech stack: LLMs, Javascript, Python, Node, React, Ruby, Kubernetes, Terraform, GCP

Ideal experience: - 3+ years in DevOps/SRE/Platform roles - Cloud infrastructure (GCP) - Infra-as-code (Terraform, Ansible, etc.) - Kubernetes and container orchestration - Strong Python - Bonus: Experience deploying Kubernetes on-premise

We’re a small, fast-moving team with experienced founders and strong product traction. Join us early and shape the foundation.

Apply: apply@aventic.ai
by skydhash | 2025-06-03 20:43:37+00:00
> And I actually find collaboration functions / easy PR contribution on Github highly beneficial. At the same time I hate the friction of all those private Gitlabs, Giteas or, God forbid, gitweb.

FOSS is more about:

1. Finding some software you can use for your problem

2. Have an issue for your particular use case

3. Download the code and fix the issue.

4. Cleanup the patch and send a proposal to the maintainer. PR is easy, but email is ok. You can even use a pastebin service and post it on a forum (suckless does that in part).

5. The maintainer merges the patch and you can revert to the official version, or they don't and you decides to go with your fork.
by tguvot | 2025-06-03 20:43:38+00:00
Did you read the article ? It starts with

>In a historic breakthrough, the IDF on Wednesday announced that an unnamed laser defense system similar to the much celebrated Iron Beam laser system has shot down dozens of aerial threats during the war.

>Already in fall 2024, The Jerusalem Post had learned that the IDF had used laser defense systems in operational situations but was barred from reporting on that at the time.

It was all over Israeli news together with videos of operational intercepts.

it has nothing to do with "february cookoff" of different systems and orders for iron beam were placed in january with deployment by the end of the year
by mrighele | 2025-06-03 20:44:21+00:00
The 90% reduction doesn't necessarily have to be related only to GC.

In my experience Java is a memory hog even compared to other garbage collected languages (that's my main gripe about the language).

I think a good part of the reason is that if you exclude primitive types, almost everything in Java is an heap-allocated object and Java objects are fairly "fat": every single instance has an header of between 96 and 128 bit on 64-bit architectures [1]. That's... a lot. Just by making the headers smaller (the topic of the above link) you can get 20% decrease in heap usage and improvements in cpu and GC time [2].

My hope is that once value classes arrive [3][4], and libraries start to use them, we will see a substantial decrease in heap usage in an average java app.

[1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/450

[2] https://openjdk.org/jeps/519

[3] https://openjdk.org/jeps/401

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhn-JgZaBWo
by Aurornis | 2025-06-03 20:44:44+00:00
"Fake it till you make it" was about presenting yourself as an established, stable company to overcome objections about using a startup. Things like having a "Customer Support" phone number and e-mail address that just go to the founders, for example. It's fair game if the founders are actually picking up the phone and doing customer support, and it overcomes one objection people might have about using a startup instead of a big company.

Claiming you can do something specific (use AI to do something) and then using humans to do the labor is something else entirely. If you raise money on that, it's just fraud.
by guax | 2025-06-03 20:44:47+00:00
So less than 10x already.

Question, how familiar are you with the used technologies? My experience on where Ai have been useful so far is things I don't have a good understanding on but, when I do, its a different ball game, mostly because coding it directly seems faster since I know exactly the behaviour I am looking for and I am not having to deal with unintended consequences.

I see it as the Alice cat thing, when you don't know where you going, any road will take you there. So its been great for exploratory work and prototyping.
by tom_ | 2025-06-03 20:45:05+00:00
The whole point of gofmt is that you type in whatever you like and gofmt sorts it out for you. So if you're typing your code in a HN comment box, you'd surely just enter it roughly like that - though i recommend not even including the syntactically irrelevant spaces shown here. Your space bar does have a MTBF you know, and it's measured in activations... let gofmt take the strain. It can waste your screen space for you!

gofmt is the good bit about working in Go. Pretty much everybody uses it, and so you can use it too. Some other languages have similar tools, but they're not as pervasive, so it's far too easy to end up in a situation where you can't use the tool because it would just make too much of a mess of the inconsistently manually-formatted stuff that's already there.
by lolinder | 2025-06-03 20:45:26+00:00
It rings true but as with many things that seem intuitive it's an illusion.

Hacker News doesn't have opinions. Individuals on Hacker News have opinions. Different sets of individuals comment and vote on different threads. There's zero reason to suppose that it's the same people expressing both ideas or even that it's the same people voting on those ideas. To the contrary, I've spent enough time on this forum (way too much time) to know that there are whole sub-communities on HN that overlap very imperfectly. We self-select based on titles, topics, and even on time of day.

The only thing this kind of logic is good for is producing fallacious arguments dismissing someone's opinion because someone else holds a contradicting opinion.