MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Terr_ | 2025-06-06 17:36:17+00:00
I've been wondering if there's some way to put something into legally-defensible clickwrap around one's own content to deter or annoy misuse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42774179

TLDR: Use contract law so that I provide my content and they give me rights to all outputs.

So if anybody doing this can prove Acme Model contains their artwork, and Acme Model was used to generate some scenes used in a major movie, then Acme has already given the artist a right to share/resell those scenes. If Acme Inc. "sold" exclusive rights to a movie-studio, then either (A) they broke the contact with every contributor, or (B) they lied to the studio in that other contract.

Remember, the goal isn't some amazing "gotcha" where the latest blockbuster movie becomes public domain, but rather to create chronic legal pain and risk for companies like Acme so that they stop stealing stuff.
by bloomingeek | 2025-06-06 17:37:10+00:00
Your question is important because we need to understand nothing is private online. Yes, thankfully our bank accounts and other important info is PW protected, however, these PW's are eventually stolen by data breaches. (Didn't we all recently have to change our PW's on FB, Microsoft, Google and Apple?)

To think that anything used on AI is going to stay private is nice, but not likely.
by nosianu | 2025-06-06 17:37:34+00:00
> but when I did the math to see how much more it would have been

I have a suggestion for all the many similar problems around probability: Reframe it to be more correct.

Instead of looking against the arrow of time, backwards with full knowledge ask yourself the corresponding question looking forward, from where you are right now.

And then remember that that was the position you were in back then.

Questions that deal directly or indirectly with probabilities become confusing, and frankly stupid, when you violate the arrow of time and make "backward predictions". One should just not ask that question, not even for fun. They not only make no sense, our psyche suffers when we try, even if just a little.

This is part of another kind of problems: Asking why a given answer is wrong, for example in multiple choice questions. One of the best courses I took was an audio cassette pilot license theory course. One thing the speaker said about the multiple choice part of the exam was this. DO NOT (with a lot of emphasis and repetition in the audio) try to dwell on why a point is wrong. Concentrate on the true statements alone. Reason was similar to why raising the question why person XYS is NOT a pedophile still creates the association in the brains of people exposed to statements like that repeatedly. Apart from that, the number of potential wrong statements exceeds the valid ones by many orders of magnitude.

Similarly, just do not think about problems that deal with probabilities and predictions looking backward. It's just not a valid way to think about them. If you must, reformulate to make them forward-looking.

The problem of words and thoughts is the universe checks their validity only very rarely directly and immediately. If we don't restrain ourselves, our thoughts end up not representing reality more and more. Thinking requires quite a bit of self-discipline, we have to place the missing rails ourselves.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-06 17:37:48+00:00
> because it ultimately plays into their hand.

How? Scared criminals aren't going to make themselves easy to find. Three-letter spooks would almost certainly prefer to smoke-test a docile population than a paranoid one.

In fact, it kinda overwhelmingly seems like the opposite happens. Remember the 2015 San-Bernadino shooting that was pushed into the national news for no reason? Remember how the FBI bloviated about how hard it was to get information from an iPhone, 3 years after Tim Cook's assent to the PRISM program?

Stuff like this is almost certainly theater. If OpenAI perceived retention as a life-or-death issue, they would be screaming about this case from the top of their lungs. If the FBI percieved it as a life-or-death issue, we would never hear about it in our lifetimes. The dramatic and protracted public fights suggest to me that OpenAI simply wants an alibi. Some sort of user-story that smells like secure and private technology, but in actuality is very obviously neither.
by 9rx | 2025-06-06 17:39:59+00:00
To be fair, while what you say is no doubt true, the Federal Reserve didn't gain the tools that it would now use correct for that until the mid-1930s and in some ways not until the 1950s — when the Great Depression was already well on its way to being over/was ancient history. It was something quite different leading up to/during the beginnings of the Great Depression.
by numpad0 | 2025-06-06 17:40:02+00:00
That's called domain fronting. CDNs already switch between virtual hosts with headers on HTTP requests and HTTPS TLS SNI, so this even passively happen sometimes.

Now, HTTP headers and SNI are both unencrypted, so oppressive governments abuse these. Obvious fix is to make'em encrypted by enforcing HTTPS everywhere and upgrading SNI to ESNI with DoH-obtained per-server public keys.

Some of offensive side fixes to the defensive side fix are: blocking ESNI, blocking DoH, forcing use of MITM proxy, just blaming strawman terrorist groups for having to block affected IPs. etc.
by xelxebar | 2025-06-06 17:40:10+00:00
I love these explorations! Thanks for sharing.

> Hui can list the entire interpreter in the appendix because it’s just that single page, 122 lines of incredibly cryptic C, which you can view here:

I count 41 lines, but more interestingly and by pure luck, I just happened to make a post about this less than an hour ago:

https://blog.wilsonb.com/posts/2025-06-06-readable-code-is-u...
by trod1234 | 2025-06-06 17:40:10+00:00
The problem is that most people don't know how to invest, and this has been done by purposeful intent. Financial education was removed from centralized education long ago.

Bonds necessarily need to exceed the yearly inflation to retain their purchasing power. People claim these are risk free, but they aren't, even when held to maturity. You lose money from the inflation when the rate of interest is below the inflation rate which it almost surely was given the several decades of almost zero low-interest rates in that time period.

There are some general rules that anyone should know. Rule #1 is don't lose your principal investment (don't lose money). Rule #2 is don't invest in a casino, always manage your risk, and know when its unmanageable. Rule #3 invest in yourself, understand the business, limit debt, and focus on value.

People today don't realize the market has been rigged through a number of convoluted ways into that of a casino.

Price discovery is gone because most transactions happen off exchange in the dark. In 2024, over 50% of transactions occurred off-exchange in dark pools. You then also have payment for order flow, synthetic shares via options through predatory middlemen, and no real law enforcement mechanism for when those big players break the rules; and they do on the regular as they did in GME/FRC, and too many other places to count. You've also got large banks pumping the prices up through non-fractional reserve based debt backing options contracts which they use to yield farm, and profits funneled away from businesses into stock buybacks hollowing them out of any value.

No visibility, no price discovery, no economic calculation. These things fail when about 1/4 of the market is off-exchange, its been at crisis for a long time.

There is no real opportunity for investment when you allow those rules to be broken. Its not an actual investment.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-06 17:40:32+00:00
You're talking about two different things.

One is, you want to install Linux on your PS5. A PS5 is basically just a PC, so what are you getting out of that when you could much more easily just install Linux on a normal PC? The incentive to find a way to do it is low. Meanwhile the PS5 is manufactured by a company that doesn't want you to do it, so they make it take effort to do it.

The other is, people want to watch sports. Huge incentive. And they can use any device or service they want, not just one made by an adversarial company. Preventing this is basically having an effective censorship apparatus. The internet is an effective anti-censorship apparatus, because it connects everybody to everybody, and any single path through the network is enough to defeat censorship.

"We'll just block this path they're using over here" is like installing a single fence post in the middle of the ocean. Or worse than that, because that single fence post causes collateral damage to random innocent people (e.g. blocking Cloudflare IPs) which then gives those innocent third parties the incentive to start developing better anti-censorship tech.
by beart | 2025-06-06 17:40:41+00:00
A root cause analysis would probably suggest the question - Why are our representatives passing intractable, unreadable documents as law and how can we prevent them from doing that? Or more generally, what changes can be made to our government institutions to improve clarity in communicating actions and decisions to votes?

Yeah, it's naive thinking, and I'm well aware the obfuscation is sometimes the point.

But I digress... My main takeaway here is that we should be considerate of what problems adding AI to the equation may cause. I'm old enough to have seen how "the new big thing" ends up getting applied to every problem space, without really thinking about the consequences.
by theGeatZhopa | 2025-06-06 17:40:59+00:00
send some soldier back in time to protect the leader of THE RESISTANCE from assassination, so he can lead THE RESISTANCE against the machines. Thats the only solution. Humanity will survive, but will be decimated by figures.

.. this might and will lead to a time loop, somehow. In each scenario, AI can't be defeated without much losses. And, not when it fully evolved. We need to stop the development, now!
by taylodl | 2025-06-06 17:42:13+00:00
The Domino's analogy is clear, but it oversimplifies a very complex system.

Pizzas are delivered FIFO, healthcare isn’t. Patients are triaged by urgency, not order. That alone makes "order tracking" way more complicated.

Also, pizza isn’t regulated. Hospitals deal with HIPAA, malpractice risk, and life-or-death consequences. There’s no “free pizza” equivalent if something goes wrong (free tombstone, maybe?)

Transparency is important, and healthcare providers are striving to improve, but it’s not a fair 1:1 with food delivery.
by hanspeter | 2025-06-06 17:42:39+00:00
People share AI chats all the time on Twitter, Reddit, etc.

I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense in Meta AI.

However it's a lot more likely their product team genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely they intentionally wanted to give users a bad experience and risk more bad press (again, Meta would benefit nothing from people sharing by mistake).
by paxys | 2025-06-06 17:43:08+00:00
This was the obvious outcome of the rich tech crowd trying to play politics. No, you were never "one of the good ones" in the American right wing's eyes. They hate you and everything you stand for. They are not interested in building an efficient government. They are not interested in fiscal conservatism. They are not interested in freedom of speech or any other kind of freedom. Libertarianism is just a fantasy in your own head. They, like all other political blocs, want power, and will use you however they need to get it. All they needed to do was stroke your ego a little bit ("yeah, you tech people are smart and can totally fix the government in a week") and here we are.
by carlosjobim | 2025-06-06 17:44:28+00:00
> YouTube had plenty of content on it before the partner program was launched, and the content was better.

It's not even comparable, not by a long shot. There is an immense amount of the highest quality video content you can find on YouTube, and the trend has only accelerated in the past few years.

The ratio of good to bad content was better in the past, but that doesn't matter to the watcher. You subscribe to good stuff and get recommended good stuff. Just like it doesn't matter that all the front aisles of the super market is full of toxic slop. What matters is if the meat, dairy and vegetable section is of good quality in the back of the store.
by hombre_fatal | 2025-06-06 17:45:14+00:00
These are just concrete examples to get the imagination going, not an exhaustive list of the ways that you are revealing your true self in the folds of your LLM chat history.

Note that it doesn't have to go all the way to "he gets Claude to help him win text arguments with his gf" for an uncomfortable amount of your self to be revealed by the chats.

There is always something icky about someone observing messages you wrote in privacy, and you don't have to have particularly unsavory messages for it to be icky. Why is that?
by remus | 2025-06-06 17:45:22+00:00
My assumption would be that it is a complexity thing. As a consumer of the service having a rate limit that is easy to understand and write retry logic for is a big plus. If the criteria is "x requests per 5 minute window" and I start getting rate limit errors it's very clear what back off behaviour I need to implement. If the criteria is CPU usage of my requests, as a consumer it's hard for me to reason about how much CPU a given request is going to take so my retry logic is going to be fairly dumb.
by MarkusQ | 2025-06-06 17:45:36+00:00
It's also because in the interest rate range we're normally dealing with (5%-10% APR) the approximation of 1+x/100 as 1.01^x in the derivation of the rule is off a bit, and something like 1.0097^x works somewhat better. ln(2)/ln(1.0097) is about 71.8, thus the use of 72 and it's convenient divisors.
by pawelkomarnicki | 2025-06-06 17:45:55+00:00
Ruby on Rails full-stack developer here, available remotely for anything from short contracts to full-time. More about me: https://cubitoo.com

Location: Berlin/EU

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Ruby on Rails, JavaScript, Hotwire, CSS/SCSS, Postgres, mostly anything that has API ;-)

Résumé/CV: https://cubitoo.com

Email: pawel@cubitoo.com
by threecheese | 2025-06-06 17:46:37+00:00
This product is positioned as a personal copilot, and future iterations (based on leaked plans, may or may not be true) as a wholly integrated life assistant.

Why would a customer expect this not to be private? How can one even know how it could be used against them, when they do t even know what’s being collected or gleaned from collected data?

I am following these issues closely, as I am terrified that my “assistant” will some day prevent me from obtaining employment, insurance, medical care etc. And I’m just a non law breaking normie.

A current day example would be TX state authorities using third party social/ad data to identify potentially pregnant women along with ALPR data purchased from a third party to identify any who attempt to have an out of state abortion, so they can be prosecuted. Whatever you think about that law, it is terrifying that a shift in it could find arbitrary digital signals being used against you in this way.
by pierrebeaucamp | 2025-06-06 17:47:25+00:00
This is almost exclusively just online behaviour. Everyone I met in person is very nice :).

The conference I mentioned was ZuriHac. After the key-note Q&A there was a small hallway discussion around how to grow the adoption / reach of Haskell. The conversation revolved around mostly technical points (like how Haskell is superior to x, because of y). What I found interesting was that there was little to no talk about the steep learning curve, developer ergonomics or business use-cases.

The thing is, if someone has not yet learned about functional programming, strong type systems or category theory, why / how would they see the advantages or the power of pure functions, lazy evaluation, Monads, etc. At the same time, their opinions or struggles are often dismissed due to their lack of knowledge. The parent comment is a prime example of this.

Edit: This is a great 10-minute talk that touches on the general topic: https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/419859c5-6a8f-4a49-b324-0f225... She covers a lot of this better than I can.
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-06 17:47:36+00:00
The new physics teacher at my high school in the late 1990s helped us start a computer club which, among other things, collected obsolete computers [1]

I brought home a Coleco ADAM from the club and was really amused at how the cassette deck made sound effects by rewinding during this game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers:_Planet_of_Zoom

I also remember it being very heavily built with a strong metal frame.

In the early 1980s there was an expectation of rapid change but things hung in the air for years because those machines were built around the display controller and had clocks locked to the video system so they couldn't make a Commodore 65 that was 30% faster than the 64 and do the same with a Commodore 66 the year after that. Plus there were no real operating systems, no hardware independence so you couldn't count on porting software to a better machine.

Many of the successful machines like the Apple ][ and C-64 had brilliant cost reductions around the disk drive, my TRS-80 Color Computer didn't so a $399 computer mated with a took a $599 disk drive. By 1985 though cost-reduced disk drives were about become a commodity (see IBM PC) and it was too late to come out with an advanced tape. Adding a daisy wheel printer was a really cool and different idea, I had plenty of dot matrix printers and even pen plotters in the 1980s but it was the only daisy wheel printer I played with. 1985 was kinda late for a machine with a 40 column display if you wanted to do serious word processing.

[1] I think the best was a PDP-8 that had a printing terminal and two strange DEC terminals that were not VT-52 or VT-100s but instead supported both normal operation and a block mode similar to the IBM 3270. I hooked up one of those as the main terminal and had it catch on fire when I turned it on because it was choked with dust, we cleaned the other terminal carefully.
by themagician | 2025-06-06 17:47:55+00:00
> Am I seeing something different than anybody else?

Maybe. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.

As others have mentioned, the core problem with Meta today is the dark patterns. They move, edit, and remove UI elements specifically to optimize against whatever behavior they want the user to take. I'm always amazed when things end up posted, shared, or alterated in a way I did not intened or can't even remember having taken an action against. Things just seem to happen with Meta products… even for accounts that are idle.

And if you spend enough time with Meta products, you'll start to realize that no two users are guaranteed to have the same experience. There is no standard experience. The experience changes based on region and langauge and honestly who knows what else. They are constantly testing and optimizing for dark patterns in production. Spend an hour with the Meta Business Suite. The entire platform is essentially a dark pattern labyrinth of broken links, broken features, and UI elements that go nowhere or to deprecated functions. One team is trying to get you do X and use feature Y, and another team is trying to get you to do Z and use feature W. Business Suite just mashes it all together. You could freeze the codebase today and study Business Suite for months and you'd find that it's dark patterns all the way down.
by JCattheATM | 2025-06-06 17:48:06+00:00
> And the correct course of action is a separate, downstream project

Except that there is explicitly no need for that.

> Not a weakening of the GrapheneOS security model.

There is no weakening for those people like yourself that feel they need the extra security provided by using pixel devices.

> I don't know what is nonsensical about claiming that a project whose principal goal is to be maximally secure shouldn't weaken its hardware security requirements.

The fact that you are claiming a weakening is happening at all is ridiculous. If it was made available for more devices, you, using it on a pixel, would be exactly 0% less secure.

Do you have an understanding of the point you are arguing, or are you repeating things you've heard?
by taylodl | 2025-06-06 17:48:11+00:00
AI isn't the problem - people wielding AI are the problem. The same was true with the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution. Our economic system is entirely man-made, it's not real. If AI puts people out of work and as a result they're no longer able to support themselves, then that's on us, not AI.

We make the rules. Economics is a game of our making and rules of our choosing.
Show HN: ConvoQueen – AI-powered conversation tracker for dating and networking
by coolwulf | 2025-06-06 17:48:16+00:00
Hi HN! I built ConvoQueen (https://convoqueen.xyz) – a personal conversation companion that helps you track chats with people in your life and get AI insights about relationships.

What it does: - Record conversations via voice-to-text (Whisper) or manual entry - AI summaries of each conversation using GPT-4 - Behavioral analysis after 5+ conversations to understand communication patterns - People management with photos, notes, and conversation history - Mobile-first design with responsive UI Why I built this: Dating apps are terrible at helping you remember meaningful conversations. Same with networking events, casual friendships, or even family relationships. I kept forgetting important details people shared, or couldn't recall what we talked about last time. ConvoQueen solves this by letting you quickly log conversations and letting AI help you understand patterns and insights. Tech stack: - Frontend: SvelteKit + Tailwind CSS - Backend: Flask + SQLAlchemy (SQLite) - AI: Azure OpenAI for summaries and analysis - Voice: Web Speech API + Whisper for transcription - Auth: Google OAuth + email/password Key features: - Voice recording with real-time transcription - AI-generated conversation summaries - Personality radar charts based on communication patterns - Mobile-responsive design (works great on phones) - Privacy-focused (each user has isolated data) Demo features: - Try voice recording (requires HTTPS for microphone access) - Add people with photos and notes - See AI summaries of conversations - View behavioral analysis after multiple conversations The app is live at https://convoqueen.xyz (free to use, Google sign-in). I'm particularly proud of the voice recording implementation – it uses hybrid transcription with both browser Speech API for instant feedback and Whisper for accuracy. Would love feedback from the HN community! What other relationship/conversation insights would be useful? How do you currently track important conversations?
by foxyv | 2025-06-06 17:48:23+00:00
Most opioids do not damage organs. They typically just change our central nervous systems and suppress breathing which is how they ultimately kill. The brain will die long before organs during oxygen depravation.

Alcohol, amphetamines, and other drugs do in fact damage organs before they kill but opioids do not unless they also contain something like Tylenol which is a liver toxin.
by WorldMaker | 2025-06-06 17:48:25+00:00
I loved the book "Real World Haskell" [1] when it first came out in 2008. It feels like a shame it hasn't aged well and there hasn't been an updated edition since then. Especially because it was focused on things like "here's how you build example web services" as a good place to discuss everything else by having the end goal of the book's "narrative" structure be real world things you might build. It may still help to glance at a little, but things have advanced so much in the decade and a half since the book was written it is hard to recommend, but it still feels like there should be a book like it updated for current day to be out there to more heartily recommend. If there is one I don't know of it, but I haven't followed Haskell as much as I'd like in my professional career.

[1] https://book.realworldhaskell.org/