MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-06-04 23:48:45+00:00
Yeah. You should read what Schopenhauer had to say about government, and this was barely 150 years ago, in the mid 19th.

> "In general, the monarchical form of government is that which is natural to man; just as it is natural to bees and ants, to a flight of cranes, a herd of wandering elephants, a pack of wolves seeking prey in common, and many other animals, all of which place one of their number at the head of the business in hand.

> "Every business in which men engage, if it is attended with danger — every campaign, every ship at sea — must also be subject to the authority of one commander; everywhere it is one will that must lead. Even the animal organism is constructed on a monarchical principle: it is the brain alone which guides and governs, and exercises the hegemony. Although heart, lungs, and stomach contribute much more to the continued existence of the whole body, these philistines cannot on that account be allowed to guide and lead. That is a business which belongs solely to the brain; government must proceed from one central point. Even the solar system is monarchical. On the other hand, a republic is as unnatural as it is unfavourable to the higher intellectual life and the arts and sciences. Accordingly we find that everywhere in the world, and at all times, nations, whether civilized or savage, or occupying a position between the two, are always under monarchical government. The rule of many, as Homer said, is not a good thing: let there be one ruler, one king.

In general, I think that those experiments in autocracy that have taken place between 1850-Present rather disprove this notion. (One of the rare things old Schop was wrong about!) The Athenians were right: The affairs of state must be the affairs of every citizen. England's problems won't be solved by a restoration of the Stuarts (I think that the current Stuart heir is a 50 year old banker who is exceedingly uninterested in the job) but they can possibly be solved by dispensing with parliament and enabling qualified citizens to vote directly on laws and regulatory matters. I dare say you won't end up with butter knife bans this way.
by fn-mote | 2025-06-04 23:48:53+00:00
Cannot emphasize this enough. If your psychologist’s records can be held for ransom, surely your ChatGPT queries will end up on the internet someday.

Do search engine companies have this requirement as well? I remember back in the old days deanonymizing “anonymous” query logs was interesting. I can’t imagine there’s any secrecy left today.
by godelski | 2025-06-04 23:49:33+00:00
> the math of the LLM doesn't matter to the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that to make effective use out of a tool, you should know what the tool can and can't do. Really the "all models are wrong, but some models are useful" paradigm. To know which models are useful you have to know how your models are wrong.

Sure, you can blindly trust too. But that can get pretty dangerous. While most of the time we leverage high levels of trust, I'm unconvinced our models allow us to trust them. Without being able to strongly demonstrate that they do not optimize tricking us (in our domains of interest) then they should be treated as distrustful, not trustful.
by shawn_w | 2025-06-04 23:49:40+00:00
The text screenshot is in one of the original Reddit posts: https://old.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1l0cz89/update...

How he bought it is in a comment:

>Bought it through a smaller sized dealer who got it off their dealer auction or whatever. Dealer said there's not much they can do, contact Tesla. Tesla said to send paperwork and due to circumstance they can transfer same day. Only have paper saying I bought it from dealer, but no registration or title currently, should have those next week. Guess I should have paid a little more and gone with a "big dealer" but I saved some $

https://old.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1kszl4j/how_to...

Edit: I suspect the linked article is indeed ai slop created after someone threw the original reddit posts at a llm and asked for a story about them. That weird aside about depreciation was inspired by some of the comments.
by hsbauauvhabzb | 2025-06-04 23:50:01+00:00
> but in a way that helps common people

That’ll be the day. But even if it does happen, major AI players have the resources to move to a more ‘flexible’ country, if there isn’t a loophole that involves them closing their eyes really really tight while outsourced webscrapers collect totally legit and not illegally obtained data
by pixl97 | 2025-06-04 23:51:16+00:00
At a certain point intelligence is a loop that improves itself.

"Hmm, oral traditions are a pain in the ass lets write stuff down"

"Hmm, if I specialize in doing particular things and not having to worry about hunting my own food I get much better at it"

"Hmm, if I modify my own genes to increase intelligence..."

Also note that intelligence applies resource constraints against itself. Humans are a huge risk to other humans, hence the lack of intelligence over a smarter human can constrain ones resources.

Lastly, AI is in competition with itself. The best 'most intelligent' AI will get the most resources.
by krick | 2025-06-04 23:53:19+00:00
In all fairness, the essence of it doesn't have to do anything with copyright. "Pro-copyright" is old news. Everyone knows these companies shit on copyright, but so do users, and the only reason why users sometimes support the "evil pro-copyright shills" narrative is because we are bitter that Facebook and OpenAI can get away with that, while common peasants are constantly under the risk of being fucked up for life. The news is big news only because of "anti-ChatGPT" part, and everyone is a user of ChatGPT now (even though 50% of them hate it). Moreover, it's only big news because the users are directly concerned: if OpenAI would have to pay big fine and continue business as usual, the comments would largely be schadenfreude.

And the fact that the litigation was over copyright is an insignificant detail. It could have been anything. Literally anything, like a murder investigation, for example. It only helps OpenAI here, because it's easy to say "nobody cares about copyright", and "nobody cares about murder" sounds less defendable.

Anyway, the issue here is not copyright, nor "AI", it's the venerated legal system, which very much by design allows for a single woman to decide on a whim, that a company with millions of users must start collecting user data, while users very much don't want that, and the company claims it doesn't want that too (mostly, because it knows how much users don't want that: otherwise it'd be happy to). Everything else is just accidental details, it really has nothing to do neither with copyright, nor with "AI".
by cmhernandez | 2025-06-04 23:54:17+00:00
Location: Sparks, Nevada

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: TypeScript, JavaScript, Express, React, Ruby, PostgreSQL, AWS, Docker, Kafka

Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WexkTSZo0d-A0vi-YvDJDUkQLjo...

Email: cmhernandezdev@gmail.com

Hi I'm Cruz, an experienced full-stack software engineer proficient in the JavaScript/TypeScript ecosystem, Ruby, PostgreSQL, Docker, and AWS. Most recently, I developed Tumbleweed, an open-source framework that uses Change Data Capture and the outbox pattern to monitor and capture database changes and sync that data to microservices in near real-time. Lets chat!
by paxys | 2025-06-04 23:54:19+00:00
Not only does this mean OpenAI will have to retain this data on their servers, they could also be ordered to share it with the legal teams of companies they have been sued by during discovery (which is the entire point of a legal hold). Some law firm representing NYT could soon be reading out your private conversations with ChatGPT in a courtroom to prove their case.
by WalterBright | 2025-06-04 23:54:20+00:00
The "feel forces" exerted by the pilot are taken into account for the maximum ability to control the airplane.

A Boeing airliner has a travel limiter on the control surfaces that is automatically adjusted based on the speed. Exceeding that travel puts enough torque on the airplane to literally tear the structure apart.

There was an Airbus incident years ago where the pilot stamped on the rudder pedals to violently move the rudder full travel lock to lock, and it tore the rudder vertical stabilizer off.

There are also situations where no amount of control input is going to wrest control back from an uncontrolled dive.

In other words, designing the "feel forces" and travel has a large number of variables to it, and is not simple at all to get right.

For a dive fast enough, you run into an effect called "separation". This is where the air flowing over the wing no longer converges at the trailing edge, but separates. This separation can engulf the elevators such that even at full travel, the elevators are operating in dead air and from then on, you're just along for the ride into a crash.

This is a problem for many, many aircraft designs. You always gotta watch your airspeed.

This happened to a 727 once, where the autopilot went berserk and sent the airplane in a dive so bad that separation happened. The quick thinking pilot decided to lower the landing gear in a desperate attempt to slow the airplane down. He succeeded, although the slipstream tore the doors off and bent the gear backwards, and saved everyone.

It also happened to a 707, where the pilots weren't paying attention and the airplane slipped into a dive. By the pilots realized what had happened, they no longer had pitch control. One of them desperately began cranking the trim wheel by hand, and they managed to pull it up just before it hit the ocean.

Yeager's X1 rocket aircraft had this problem, as did the F-86 jet fighter.

For another fun anecdote, the F-80 Shooting Star had a problem in that its engine was too powerful. If you oversped the airplane, it would go unstable and pitch up, tearing the wings off. That meant the pilot always had to have one eye on the airspeed (yes, my dad was an F-80 pilot, and flew them in combat). One day, a pilot had a Mig on his tail he couldn't shake. He thought, I'm dead anyway, let's see if I can pitch up and lose the Mig. So he firewalled the throttle, and sure enough the F-80 went through a violent maneuver and miraculously the wings stayed on and he shook the Mig off his tail. When he landed, the wings were bent up and the airplane was scrapped.

Dive bombers used "dive brakes" to keep from overspeeding the airplane. My dad's favorite method for attacking an anti-aircraft gun emplacement was to dive straight down on it. AA gunners did not want to fire vertically (think about it). But it required my dad to have one eye on the target, one eye on the airspeed, and his third eye on the altitude.
by pixl97 | 2025-06-04 23:54:44+00:00
> However, they tend to memorize unwanted information, such as private or copyrighted content,

I mean humans don't forget copyrighted information. We just typically adjust it enough (some of the time) to avoid getting a copyright strike while modifying it in some way useful.

We don't forget 'private' information either. We might not tell other people that information, but it still influences our thoughts.

The idea of a world where we have AI minds forget vast amounts of information that humans have to deal with every day is concerning and dystopian to me.
by ianbicking | 2025-06-04 23:55:14+00:00
Seeing him back in the news made me think more about Urbit, his decentralized computing project. For a bit of a discussion of the technical parts of Urbit this is decent: https://wejn.org/2021/02/urbit-good-bad-insane/

I have this feeling that Nock, effectively the bytecode of Urbit, is inspired by Paul Graham's Hundred-Year Language essay: https://paulgraham.com/hundred.html – for instance Nock only defines minimal math operations, as proposed in the essay.

The thing is, Paul's ideas in that essay were quite bad, based on a mathematical aesthetic that is both inefficient and aesthetically a poor fit for computing. That's fine for an essay, you throw some ideas out there and maybe they work or maybe they don't.

Then in Urbit Yarvin actually built the thing. And it's _terrible_. Hilariously bad. Some of the worst architecture you'll ever see. As a minor example they have a hexadecimal integer type... I understand i32, i64, etc., but a hexadecimal type is something you come up with if you don't understand how numbers work. There's literally a hundred other things just as embarrassing as that in the design.

It's fine to take a bad idea and explore it. But he didn't just try out the idea, he got people to invest, to develop the system, emotionally commit to this thing. Seeing community posts is sad, it's naive folks hoping to find a home and seeing some phrases that connect with them, and they don't know enough to see Urbit for the fraud that it is. The obscurantist terminology helps maintain the fraud, since people think there must be something there if only they could understand it... but there isn't, and most of them will never understand it. Every cool demo is just a regular web frontend with a half-assed Urbit backend.

All of which is to say, I think this is Yarvin's schtick: grab onto some ideas, explore them in a way that is so confusing that it hids how moronic the ideas are, while successfully appealing to some latent desire in the audience.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-04 23:55:36+00:00
Because at some point we have to stop riding the treadmill and just pick a tool and use it to make stuff. Cursor was the first to really arrive at a useful agent mode. It does everything I need it to and more. It's not worth it to me to keep hopping to new tools every time a new one becomes the hyped up hot thing.

Like it or not, we're hitting the slope of enlightenment and some of us are ready to be done with the churn for a while.
by wolfgang42 | 2025-06-04 23:56:08+00:00
> there is nothing preventing the development of software to overwrite data before unlink(2) is called.

It’s not that simple: this command already exists, it’s called `shred`, and as the manual[1] notes:

The shred command relies on a crucial assumption: that the file system and hardware overwrite data in place. Although this is common and is the traditional way to do things, many modern file system designs do not satisfy this assumption.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/shre...
by CamperBob2 | 2025-06-04 23:56:37+00:00
It's probably similar to the question of why commercial real estate is allowed to sit empty for years. If they lower the rent to attract tenants, suddenly the building is "worth" less than it was. That makes it harder for the developer to borrow money using the building as collateral, and potentially triggers some awkward clauses in the terms of existing loans.

In the case of the unsold Tesla inventory, marking to market would make the whole company worth less. Tesla stockholders expect the company to tell them a good story, and writing down the entire fleet of Incel Caminos would be a bad story.
by trealira | 2025-06-04 23:57:57+00:00
>For example, the way in which power is so widely distributed means that anyone who manages to come to a powerful position is strongly incentivized to spend all their efforts simply maintaining their power lest they quickly get removed and replaced by someone more power hungry.

I don't see what's wrong with that in a democracy. "Maintaining their power" means passing bills for their constituents and campaigning for the next election. If they keep getting elected, the people clearly want it
by dardeaup | 2025-06-04 23:58:51+00:00
Regarding the number of options, C++ has quite a few IDEs: Visual Studio, Xcode, VSCode, CLion, and probably more (Oracle probably still sells the one they had for Solaris). For command-line compilers, C++ has: Visual Studio, Xcode, g++, clang++, IBM C++ compilers for their OSs, Oracle compilers for Solaris, etc.

For Ada, is there anything other than AdaCore? Is that the same as GNATStudio?

Edit* - fixed Ada capitalization
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-06-04 23:59:43+00:00
I'd think a video game arcade, especially one with laser tag, would be the best option.

Especially if you stick with quarters instead of using game cards like most modern arcades. Since quarters would be recycled anyways (Taken from the games and restocked into the quarter machine), it makes it easy to just deposit the cash you want to launder as if it had been fed into the quarter machine.
by godelski | 2025-06-04 23:59:50+00:00
> Asimov laid the groundwork for ethical AI way back in the 1940s with his Three Laws.

I'm a big Asimov fan and kinda shocked by this statement.

His robot stories constantly highlight the difficulties related to alignment. How the 3 laws always have unintended consequences. So they write the 0th, add a 4th, remove the 3rd, and other such things.

I loved them as a kid because they highlighted how immense complexity hides in plain sight. It always looked like magic, and that's what made me so interested in science in the first place. To start unraveling these hidden complexities that lay all around us.

If anything, I think Asimov was trying to encourage us to start thinking about these tough questions. To bring them to wider audiences. Because frankly, many of the answers will not be possible to answer in a lab, but need be answered through a society.
by matt-p | 2025-06-05 00:00:04+00:00
In theory I think you're right, but you do need a really smart control plane. Just because a connection is fast doesn't mean it's not metered (let's say fast 5G, starlink, rural fiber) and so on.

Are all of the issues P2P brings really worth it?

I'd say this definitely opens up streaming from your desktop with 1 CPU core handling a SFU for say 100 viewers = 500Mb or from a $5/month VPS if you've not got the capacity at home. That's pretty awesome, for most people no need to use P2P.
by mullingitover | 2025-06-05 00:00:37+00:00
This all assumes that PI couldn't amend the rules or find other workarounds to its problems (as it had already done).

> Finally, their arguments were sound. All humans would enter into despair - either consuming boundless soma or forever playing the death game.

I don't trust their arguments, these were two extremely warped reactionaries who just happened to have root on the system. The story mentioned that there were people who just opted for pretty normal lives (before they were all exterminated by the protagonists). Nothing was preventing PI from deciding "this was a mistake, no more drugs and ultraviolence, it's making you into monsters" and calming things down.
by drewcoo | 2025-06-05 00:00:39+00:00
> Violence was one of the main ways actors resolved conflicts in this period

Violence or threat of violence are still powerful tools.

> because we know how much time they spent marching around their areas putting down revolts and fighting off invasion

Medieval war was mostly seasonal. Also, war was mostly fought against neighbors or sometimes in the holy land. as far as revolts go, post-enlightenment slave revolts were much more common than revolts in the middle ages, though they're often not well-taught in schools. In today's world, my country is involved in hot and cold conflicts all over the world. I'd claim we're more warlike now because we can be.
by SchemaLoad | 2025-06-05 00:01:15+00:00
I recently had a high school assignment document get posted on a bunch of sites that sell homework help. As far as I know that document was only ever submitted directly to the assignment upload page. So somewhere along the line, I suspect on the plagiarism checker service, there was a hack and then 10 years later some random school assignment with my name on it is all over the place.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-06-05 00:02:08+00:00
I'd change the end of that list to C, Pascal, Lisp, Python.

But in the end no one learns "assembler". Everyone learns a specific ISA, and they all have different strengths and limitations. Assembler on a 36-bit PDP-10, with 16 registers and native floating point, is a completely different experience to assembler on a Z80 with an 8-bit accumulator and no multiply or divide.

You can learn about the heap and the stack and registers and branches and jumps on both, but you're still thinking in terms of toy matchstick architecture, not modern building design.
by m463 | 2025-06-05 00:02:55+00:00
makes perfect sense to me.

previous generation Model S with a dashboard and stalks is much nicer to control than the new s/x/3/y/truck.

You can flash your headlights, you can control details of autopilot, you can shift quickly into forward/reverse when doing a tricky parking maneuver, you can separate controls on center screen from info on the dashboard. direct wiper controls. There is a place to rest your finger while hunting for a control on the central screen. navigation highlights upcoming turns ahead of you on the screen.

then 3 takes away dashboard. The smaller central display has extremely cluttered information along the left edge. The controls require attention, and hard right from the direction you should be looking to drive.

And each generation this seems to go a little further. Removing the stalks is too far imho.

the cybertruck main screen where you adjust everything is just a wall of on-screen touch areas.

I personally think all of this is the classic presales vs postsales dilemma.

Something that looks clean and modern in the store only ends up showing its shortcomings when in daily use.

Just my opinion. Personally I think tesla should add a $2k option for stalks, a dashboard and a couple dedicated buttons. I'll bet it would help with sales.
by kody | 2025-06-05 00:03:38+00:00
> I’m no longer an artisan enjoying the journey of creating

me the first time my boss forced me to unit test my code

...

The best thing you can do is listen to your gut and try to act as rationally as you can.

Talk with trusted mentors if you've got them. Don't listen to me and for the love of god don't listen to people on HN or reddit or Youtube or any other social media.

Nobody knows what they're talking about and they certainly don't know how it'll impact you.

If somebody is making you feel afraid, left behind/out, inferior -- they're trying to sell you shit. Don't listen to the bullies and con artists.

You're entitled to your opinion. If you think AI output is crap, it's crap. Don't be pressured to conform. This is supposed to be hackernews after all. There are plenty of companies using java 8 today. You won't be unhireable.
by mastazi | 2025-06-05 00:04:04+00:00
I'm seeing HN hug of death when attempting to open the link, but was able to read the post on Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20250604224036/https://mastodon....

I think this is a private Mastodon instance on someone's personal website so it makes sense that it might have been overwhelmed by the traffic.
by bee_rider | 2025-06-05 00:04:13+00:00
I’d also prefer single payer, but nothing except ourselves has been stopping us from doing that, and we haven’t changed much. Maybe it’ll happen. But I don’t see any recent tech changes making it so.

Unless somebody manages to make hyper-convincing LLMs and use them for good, I guess. (Note: I think this is a bad path).
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-06-05 00:05:19+00:00
In the Senate, they could force filibusters on everything, and impose maximal procedural roadblocks on everything. They did this successfully for a Duckworth-sponsored anti-trans bill, which could not muster 60 votes to break the filibuster.

In the House, or rather out of the house, they could get their media circus in 10,000% better shape than it is in right now, and consistently deliver a powerful, viral, troll-y, and savvy message about Trump, 8 times a day, across many different media environments.