MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by _wire_ | 2025-06-17 00:04:47+00:00
This is a formal statement that Waymo knows people are going to get hurt in surprising new ways characteristic of AVs, and that they don't know how, but when they do get hurt it will be due to the "unreasonableness" of the situation, creating a carve-out for their defense during future litigation.

Your honor, as a prerequisite to review of the hazard of institutionalized overt pure design of mechanical harm, let's consider all the benefits that come from this technology.

Re-write the lede as "Safe for us to deploy, factors for plausible deniability and limits of liability."

Key points:

- We all did this together; read the literature, note all the stakeholders, consider our "aggregate", "holistic" approach to safety.

- There's "no user in charge", so no one to fault; it's all systemic edge cases.

- Look at our due diligence, we have ample data we submit as principled quantitative evidence that it hasn't gone too wrong.

- Legally speaking, we aim to dazzle with brilliance, but sometimes we have no choice but to baffle with BS.

- Philosophically, who's to say what's appropriate system behavior?

- To understand our approach, please refer to table 1 of 1 which is organized by the industry standard convention of rows and columns. In this table we set forth the language of criteria of all future litigation. Whatever goes wrong has a place in this table. To make litigation more approachable given the uncertainty of the venues in which we expect to defend, and the near total lack of a common vocabulary, we have helpfully pigeon-holed and enumerated the points around which we will organize every defense.

- Accountability, see figure 1 of 1, will be sloped and narrowed away from us and our release program and up towards the "safety board". They sign off and they're accountable, while we just build this stuff. When the Safety Board must answer to expected harms, a perfect cycle will be closed by the Safety Board referring down towards the Safety Framework Steering Committee. With concentrated denials and give and take, we'll minimize liability and reassure that whatever goes wrong won't happen again.

Finally, impugn us as you will, but such approach to liability mitigation follows an industry template and offers no innovations, so it can't be fair to single us out.

—Note list of citations showing that all this thinking came from elsewhere, so don't blame us.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-06-17 00:04:48+00:00
> The amount of effort required to design and implement such a device makes it difficult for a single company to invest in, but many interested users of it could band together to create a viable open source implementation.

There are lots of companies that have their own high-performance accelerator cores (though not general purpose). Multiple generations. Eg every FAANG (except Netflix, that I know of).

There are exactly zero such OSS cores.

So I think you have this exactly backwards.
by TuringNYC | 2025-06-17 00:04:59+00:00
"The U.S. labor market is holding steady despite extraordinary economic upheaval. But it is a bad time to be a job seeker—especially if you are young.

Recent college and high-school graduates are facing an employment crisis. The overall national unemployment rate remains around 4%, but for new college graduates looking for work, it is much higher: 6.6% over the past 12 months ending in May. That is about the highest level in a decade...."
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-17 00:05:01+00:00
Lots of work, you need hundreds of steps across the snapshots, and patches for each one to get them to work. (E.g., the makefile had hardcoded -Werror for ages.) Not to mention that if you want to make it portable, you must always start with the i686 version and cross-compile from there. (Preferably leaving x86 as late as possible: the old LLVM versions are full of architecture-specific quirks.)
by xp84 | 2025-06-17 00:05:51+00:00
Whatsapp is messaging-focused, but I'm willing to bet the quotation you just gave is not even 10% of the reason people choose to use it.

If I understand it correctly, people use it mainly because MMS was a dumpster fire and WA was the first platform which got critical mass in most countries, which it achieved by being both pretty good overall and by being cross-platform.

The encryption is a nice bonus that everybody likes, but you can't prove that is a primary or even major reason why plumbers in India, tour guides in Dubai, and school parent groups in the US all choose to communicate with it, personally and professionally. If anything, I feel like Signal must have by now poached a good number of the people whose main concern is "How encrypted is it?"

Also, Gmail is not a public forum and people don't mind that it's 'ad-ridden' either.
by bawana | 2025-06-17 00:06:43+00:00
the statistical mechanical definition of entropy relies on the number of possible arrangements of particles in a system. In a closed system entropy approaches an equilibrium which has been sensationally described as the 'heat death of the universe'. But since we know our universe is expanding, the number of possible arrangements is also increasing so entropy may never reach equilibrium. If the universe is expanding faster than its components redistribute, then entropy could be decreasing. With this in mind, any theory involving entropy as a component of gravity would suggest a changing gravity over time
by luuio | 2025-06-17 00:08:01+00:00
let's say you have an object like this when you started: {count: 10, etag: 1}. then for some reason, something failed.

when you retry and load the object, you get {count: 12, etag: 3}. how do you know if your previous attempt had successfully persisted or not, or if the updates to the object came from other processes/requests?

you're mixing up conflict handling vs. idempotency
by labrador | 2025-06-17 00:08:22+00:00
This topic has been of interest to me but I've approached it from different directions: Japanese Shintoism, the idea that objects can be numinous and panpsychism.

I wonder if the "sadness" referenced in the paper's title stems not from object personification itself, but from living in a culture that lacks frameworks for these experiences.

In cultures with concepts like Shinto kami (where objects can have spiritual essence) or similar animistic traditions, someone who senses that their broken tool has been "disrespected" or feels that a neglected room carries emotional weight wouldn't be pathologized. These experiences would have cultural validation and shared language.
by jeffhwang | 2025-06-17 00:09:26+00:00
Thanks for the interest! Here are my other aromatic posts, and beyond benzene, I have posts on these PAHs:

* 1,3,5-tris(biphenyl)benzenei -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxZgDpWLk2b/

* hexa-cata-hexabenzocoronenei -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxW0-PkRbK4/

* rubrene -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CUdK6MhPw9p/

* coronene -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxRfv6yx0VL/

* tetracene -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxHuVt2uKBk/

* dibenz[a,j]anthracene -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxKLUXTOq2o

* benzene -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxCtSEWOEuu/

* summary of 10 molecules in pen and ink -- https://www.instagram.com/p/CxbtJZHPGGL/
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-17 00:09:48+00:00
> people would never pay for software.

I see this and not see this.

See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.

not see = Steam
by thayne | 2025-06-17 00:10:45+00:00
Psychology has a pretty significant reproducibility crisis.

From what I've seen as an outsider, a lot of studies are taken as fact without any confirmation with attempts to reproduce the results. And many results suffer from questionable methodology.

A big part of the problem is that doing psychology well is really, really hard. You are dealing with human subjects, which means there are a lot of ethical and regulatory constraints. A lot of experiments that might give you important insights are unethical and/or illegal. Getting people to participate in studies is difficult and expensive, which means sample sizes are often much smaller than they should be. And there are often significant biases in the population sampled (I believe most psychology studies are done on college students... often psychology students). And then there is the inherent complexity of the subject. Every person's brain is different, and finding general rules that apply to the incredible diversity of human minds is very, very difficult. And finally, I suspect that a lot of psychologists are not trained in statistics and experimental methodology to the same degree as scientists in "harder" sciences.
by bigiain | 2025-06-17 00:11:53+00:00
Also in Australia, and yeah feedin tariffs are a thing, but during midday "off peak" times when solar has excess energy, they're down around 1-2% of the retail cost of electricity and that's been going down for years.

Anecdotally, amongst my social circle, people are buying house batteries because the feedin tariffs are so low it's worthwhile spending $10k or so to store your daytime solar for use in evenings/night - because it costs 40 or 60c per kWHr to buy electricity off the grid in the evening, and they only give you a cent or two to if you feed it on during midday solar peaks. It's way better value to charge your house battery (and you car if you can) than to sell solar generated electricity back to the grid.
by simfree | 2025-06-17 00:11:58+00:00
I think the concept of a user having an existing Gmail account if they aren't in the Google ecosystem is a bit of hubris.

There are many people I run across who bypassed the whole Gmail and Google Workspace ecosystems and have rolled along merrily with me.com and other email providers.

It's not a given that users will have bothered to register for a Google account unless they grew up in the Bay Area after a certain time period.

Wind back the clock to when Google tried to roll out Hangouts and the Gmail penetration rate was even lower among the non-Android users out there.
by crote | 2025-06-17 00:12:14+00:00
The specification is explicitly designed to allow for it, but I honestly doubt it is very popular - if used at all.

There are two main issues here. The first is that the standard EDID EEPROM is very limited in size, and a lot of monitors need more space. VESA solved this by adding a dummy "segment selector" register, located on a separate I2C address. This makes it incompatible with off-the-shelf I2C EEPROM chips, so you'd need some kind of custom EDID-specific EEPROM chip anyways.

The second issue is that most monitors have multiple input ports. A regular EEPROM chip can only be hooked up to a single port (I2C itself supports it, but the spec forbids it), so you'd need one EEPROM chip per port. That gets expensive quite quickly.

If you're already implementing DDC/CI via some kind of microcontroller, why not have it deal with EDID as well? Heck, you could even give the microcontroller a separate connection to an EEPROM to make it easier to program! The EDID part is absolutely trivial, I bet you could implement it in two dozen instructions without even trying very hard. No reason to make it even harder for yourself by keeping it separate.
by lelanthran | 2025-06-17 00:14:00+00:00
> Why use ZJS instead of HTMX?

Because it does one thing and one thing only: instantiate an HTML element object. You literally cannot write a book about zjs-component the way it was done for HTMX: you'd be done on page one after demonstrating how zjs-component works!

To me there is value in lowering the cognitive burden this significantly; while HTMX is indeed a lower burden than almost everything else, zjs-component is even lower and gets you 80% (or more) of the way there.

You may disagree that the trade-off is worth it, but in many contexts the trade-off is certainly worth it.

In any case, with the way I use zjs-component, all I use are static files for the fragments (fragments are not generated by the server).

When I used HTMX the fragments returned in response to a request were almost never static files, they were all generated on the server (in Go, if you must know) so values could be interpolated. This, by its very nature, is not reusable.

When I create a component that is a zjs-component, the calls it makes to hydrate itself gets data in the responses (JSON, or similar), not HTML. It means that I write an object that has a snippet of HTML, has Javascript that is scoped to that object, and has DOM calls that can be scoped to that specific instance of the object.

HTMX has no scoping or containment of of the code in the HTML, nor can code in a fragment be written to only nagivate/search the DOM in that specific instance because HTMX does not have instances of objects.

The whole reason I use zjs-component over something like HTMX is because zjs-component has the concept of "Objects" (containing HTML and methods), "Instances" which are isolated from each other and a way to instantiate these objects in a page using nothing more than `<zjs-component remote-src='some/remote/path/SomeObject.zjsc'>`.

It is clear to me that having an object containing HTML and methods, with instances isolated from each other, is not of value to you. Even though you do not find value in the trade-off it offers, you must understand that HTMX is not a replacement for zjs-component, and zjs-component is not a replacement for HTMX.

Some of what zjs-component offers cannot be done easily in HTMX (like having nothing but static files for defining objects, scoping DOM nav to the instance of the object that is running that method, etc), and some of what HTMX does cannot be done in zjs-component (such as interpolating values into a template) because it makes no sense to do so in the context of zjs-component.

Seeing as how neither is able to replace the other, why the fixation on HTMX as a replacement for zjs-component?
by t-3 | 2025-06-17 00:14:49+00:00
Agreed. I really enjoy both acid and shrooms, but beyond appreciating the fractal beauty of trees and the patterns in carpets a bit more I wouldn't describe them as anything life-changing, let alone some kind of spiritual awakening. MDMA is similarly hyped up, but no, I never felt "connected to the mass of humanity" or whatever people talk about, I just got high and danced while gritting my teeth and rubbing on my head.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-06-17 00:14:57+00:00
I didn't find the perfect phrasing for what I meant:

> Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling

The last part makes it interesting to me again! For example, I love "ice nine" and "dragon's egg" (more "hard" sci-fi), and I adore the sci-fi/fantasy story SCP-1425.

I also have a passion for PKD (to steer away from technology a little).

What I mean is boring descriptions of fictional technological details, not the effects of technology.

And, in general (unrelated second point), I do not like "McGuffins" and "action".

> a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator

I love that! Have I mentioned Philip K Dick yet? Regardless, he's pretty much on the other end of the scale of what I meant: techno-centric vs more "philosophical" sci-fi.

I don't care about detailed descriptions of space-station machinery or interstellar travel–unless of course, it's written in a way that helps me imagine being in that world, and how it would feel like.
by sally_glance | 2025-06-17 00:15:14+00:00
Who or what will review the 5 PRs (including their updates to automated tests)? If it's just yet another agent, do we need 5 of these reviews for each PR too?

In the end, you either concede control over 'details' and just trust the output or you spend the effort and validate results manually. Not saying either is bad.
by razemio | 2025-06-17 00:16:11+00:00
It is but very limited. I use API only, since this is the only plan, without usage limits and on demand pricing:

5x Pro usage ($100/month)

20x Pro usage ($200/month)

Source: https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/11145838-using-cla...

"Pro ($20/month): Average users can send approximately 45 messages with Claude every 5 hours, OR send approximately 10-40 prompts with Claude Code every 5 hours."

"You will have the flexibility to switch to pay-as-you-go usage with an Anthropic Console account for intensive coding sprints."
by neilv | 2025-06-17 00:17:34+00:00
Same here. For one interim pragmatic purpose, I do have a dedicated setup that has DRM, which I use only for that purpose. I hope to get rid of the nasty DRM altogether in the future.

(For the browser part of the DRM setup, I use Chrome/Chromium, the violate-me-all-the-ways browser. For all other browser purposes, I use both Firefox, the violate-me-fewer-ways browser, and Tor Browser, the draw-fire-of-state-actors-but-thwart-techbro-actors browser.)
by ninjin | 2025-06-17 00:18:05+00:00
We are struggling badly with review quality in natural language processing though. Most likely due to the unprecedented expansion of the field over the last ten or so years. Reviewers are suffering with review loads far exceeding what one reasonably can manage mentally (used to be two to three papers per reviewer and now five would be considered rather generous). Authors and area chairs suffer from worse quality reviews due to reviewer inexperience and overload, not to mention how good reviewer/author correspondence with author and area chair comments frequently being ignored by the reviewers. To me, the last holdout of good peer review in the field is Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), but there the acceptance bar is sky high compared to ACL Rolling Review (ARR) for better or worse.

The ACL leadership and senior members of the field are very much aware of this and are trying their best (ARR being an attempt to improve the situation, but I am unsure how much better it really is compared to the old system of conference reviewing now that we are a few years in). But there appear to be no easy fixes for a complicated, distributed system such as peer review. Every discussion I have with said leadership and other senior members always ends with us agreeing on the problems and likewise agreeing that despite considerable mental effort we are failing to come up with solutions.

Returning to the main topic. Nature is worthy of praise for making their peer review transparent and I say this as a massive Nature critic. It is a move I loved seeing from NeurIPS (then NIPS) and ICLR over a decade ago, as it helps younger researchers see what good (and bad) communication looks like and that even papers they know now are greatly appreciated received a fair amount of criticism (sometimes unwarranted). I have argued for ACL to introduce the same thing for nearly a decade at this point, but we still do not and I have never heard a solid argument as to why not (best argument was the technological effort, but OpenReview, with all its flaws, makes this even easier than with Softconf; not that it would have been that hard with Softconf either).
by nsonha | 2025-06-17 00:18:33+00:00
Why does that have to be a pro-plastic misinformation?

Many of the same reasons that makes recyling plastic a myth, make recycling a myth for many materials. Unless you're disposing perfectly good stuff, most of glass will end up being broken glass in landfill. I really don't see how those broken pieces is gonna be picked up for recycling, they're gonna be in the environment for MUCH longer than plastic.
by tiagod | 2025-06-17 00:18:35+00:00
That article is concluding that decriminalisation in Portugal didn't work, by comparing drug users in 2022 with the year of decriminalisation in 2001, and comparing overdose rates between 2018 and 2022. I don't find that very honest.

Consumption is rising worldwide, and nobody knows what these metrics would show had Portugal not decriminalised consumption of hard drugs.

Also, the reason for decriminalisation wasn't simply to lower addiction rates, it was mostly to stop getting people in jail for consuming, which was making the issue worse.
by kevinsync | 2025-06-17 00:20:13+00:00
I can't really speak for psychology as a field other than a spectator, but I find it to be quite subjective. What I really meant was related to cocaine and nitrous oxide -- two very different substances that both result in wild egos, wild ideas, hard-to-sustain invincibility and a host of other effects, unlike psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, DMT, etc) which are arguably closer to (and provide) positive psychological responses / breakthroughs / perspectives.

For a current-times look into nitrous, observe Kanye West. The rumor mill (plus believable evidence) suggests he is out of his MIND on large amounts of N2O frequently, and his erratic and grandiose behavior reinforces the idea. That's probably not ideal for American psychology if "the father" of it is similarly whacked lol.

For a historical look into cocaine, observe Sigmund Freud. There was a great book called Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography [0] by Dominic Streatfeild, the second-third of which covers Freud's discovery and promotion of cocaine as a cure-all.

TL;DR Freud was searching for a drug, any drug, that hadn't been claimed yet by a scientific promoter to then market as his own for fame and fortune, stumbled upon cocaine (hydrochloride, not freebase), started doing a lot of it, proselytizing it (it could cure your heroin addiction!) etc, before the whole thing kind of collapsed around him.

While arguably fun, it's a substance that is the polar opposite of "introspection" and drives a lot of behavior that honestly a person might seek a therapist or psychologist to resolve LOL, so for a psychologist to promote it early in his career who eventually progresses into more or less defining psychology as a field, well ... I just find it curious and would wonder what theories Freud would have put forth had he come to be in a time with psychedelics available instead. That's all!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine:_An_Unauthorized_Biogr...
by carlosjobim | 2025-06-17 00:21:34+00:00
But how is it "unchecked capitalism" to pay for something that you use and enjoy? Unchecked is when people who work full time cannot afford even a simple home – which is 90% of young workers practically world wide. Unchecked is endless debt slavery.

But paying a fair price for a service which has actual value for you is not "unchecked". That's sieving flies and swallowing camels.
by seadan83 | 2025-06-17 00:22:23+00:00
>> I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet.

> I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now.

Yeah, no, the other end of the bet is that the 20% unemployment outcome will not happen (and it is implied that anything close to that would count, like say 15% or 17%, and of course anything over 20% would qualify too).

20% unemployment is massive depression level of unemployment; so the other end of the bet is that there won't be a massive depression. That is why I stated you present a false dichotomy that the bet is either "depression" or "full employment", the other end of the bet is "not depression"
by jml78 | 2025-06-17 00:22:54+00:00
If you actually want to learn………

I have experienced multiple instances of junior devs using llm outputs without any understanding.

When I look at the PR, it is immediately obvious.

I use these tools everyday to help accelerate. But I know the limitations and can look at the output to throw certain junk away.

I feel junior devs are using it not to learn but to try to just complete shit faster. Which doesn’t actually happen because their prompts suck and their understanding of the results is bad.