MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by RangerScience | 2025-06-29 03:02:26+00:00
Note: many neurospicy brains do not get the thing where something happens on “automatic”. If you’ve tried to “build a habit” and never got to the “now it’s automatic” stage, don’t beat yourself up about it. AFAIK, we have to rely on patterns and explicit attention and reinforcement (“everyday I do this, I have a good day, so now I’ve got more motivation every day to do it”)
by AlotOfReading | 2025-06-29 03:03:14+00:00
Physical extraction doesn't seem like an O(N) thing to me, but granted.

Honestly, couldn't tell you what the failure rates are for SOTA in the real world as I don't work in that industry and numbers about anything DRM-related are kept quiet. Single digit error rates would be fantastically useful to the kind of person that thinks that's a good technology though, and it's usually pretty tunable.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-06-29 03:04:20+00:00
> when groups become to large people vie for attention which causes the most egoic people to try and dominate the areas that they are in.

You may be interested in this essay from the feminist movement in the 60s: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm. It describes how the lack of structure or process forces the group to be run primarily by social dynamics like friendship, charm and influence.

There are lots of effects that happen as groups scale. But this capture of consensus-based and flat groups by ego-centric charismatic members happens in even tiny groups.

That's why successful flat groups (e.g. parliaments) have structure (e.g. Robert's rules) and make decisions by majority vote rather than consensus.
by Kranar | 2025-06-29 03:05:36+00:00
Yes the issue has to do with "never stops". One of the machines that never stops in one model will stop in another model.

So in one model a Turing Machine called R never stops. In another model R stops after Q steps. But here's the issue... Q isn't an actual natural number, what it is is some mathematical object that satisfies all of the properties of a natural number in ZFC, but is not an actual natural number. What it actually is is some infinitely large object that satisfies all of the Peano axioms of what a natural number is as well as satisfies the following set of rules:

Q > 0 Q > 1 Q > 2 Q > 3 ...

Q is basically some infinitely large construct that from within the model appears to be finite, but from outside of the model is not finite.

So within this model, the Turing machine R halts after Q steps, and since from within the model Q is finite then from within this model BB(748) is at least equal to Q.

If BB(748) is actually 10,000, then we can add this as an axiom to ZFC to get a new formal theory ZFC + "BB(748) = 10000".

In this new theory the previous structure that contained Q as an element will not satisfy the definition of a natural number, so we don't have to worry about Q anymore... however, there will exist some number T > 748 where BB(T) is independent of our new theory. For BB(T), there will exist some other model that has its own Q* which satisfies all of our axioms including the axiom that BB(748) = 10000, but also that

Q* > 0 Q* > 1 Q* > 2 Q* > 3 ...

And rinse and repeat...
by vunderba | 2025-06-29 03:06:44+00:00
People have been wanting to stuff an AI companion into a plushie ever since the 1980s with the release of Axlon's AG "Talking" Bear - even if its method of communication was only really comprehensible if you were fluent in some ancient Q-bert dialect.

http://www.theoldrobots.com/AxlonBear.html
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-29 03:07:03+00:00
While that question depends on what you count as an 'enumeration', there's the related question of "What's the richest logic that cannot prove the halting status of all 5-state TMs?" That is, what's the richest logic that some 5-state TM's halting status is independent of?

I've pondered that version of the question a bit, but I couldn't get very far due to my lack of expertise in first-order logic. What I do know is that Skelet #17 [0] is one of the toughest machines to prove non-halting on a mathematical level [1], so any theory sufficient to prove that Skelet #17 doesn't halt is likely sufficient to decide the rest of the 5-state machines.

[0] https://bbchallenge.org/1RB---_0LC1RE_0LD1LC_1RA1LB_0RB0RA

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02426
by acheong08 | 2025-06-29 03:08:43+00:00
This sounds like a black mirror episode to me. I've briefly used Windows Server 2012 a while back but otherwise used Linux my whole life. The way people complain about needing to learn how to type 'sudo dnf install' is too much work when they have to either install a bunch of tweaks to fix win11 or remove bloat from win10… I can't tell if I'm the insane one
by fzil | 2025-06-29 03:09:22+00:00
> While somebody from Palestine side did fire the opening salvo on oct7.

Now, that's a re-writing of history if I've ever seen one.

> Israeli and Palestinian deaths preceding the 2023 Gaza war. Of the Palestinian deaths 5,360 were in Gaza, 1,007 in the West Bank, 37 in Israel. Most were civilians on both sides.

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%...

See the chart on the top right with the orange bars
by duskwuff | 2025-06-29 03:10:37+00:00
> I didn't have access to a JTAG probe at the time (I'm not even sure the Raspberry Pi could be debugged that way)

The BCM2835-based ones can - I don't know about the modern ones - but you have to change the configuration on a couple of GPIOs to make it show up. (Which makes it difficult to debug early startup, unfortunately.)
by ars | 2025-06-29 03:11:25+00:00
Such hyperbolic comments!

The DMSP program was discontinued in 2015 by a vote in congress[1]. Virtually every working stallelite in this program has failed. As best as I can tell there's just a single working one specifically NOAA-19[2].

Instead the program has switched to JPSS[3] which is part of GEOSS[4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Meteorological_Satelli... (scroll up slightly)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Polar_Satellite_System

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Earth_Observation_Syste...
by absurdo | 2025-06-29 03:12:17+00:00
Maybe I missed it but which FPGA did they use for this? I’m interested in learning FPGAs but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of freewheel documentation or software out there, it’s mostly vendor locked. I’m spoiled by the availability of STM32, AT, TI, etc MCUs and how easy it is to kludge things together.
by vjvjvjvjghv | 2025-06-29 03:13:45+00:00
That’s the case for everything. I remember training in a boxing gym with some pros. Everything was on a level so much higher than I had seen before and I raised my own level a ton until I had to realize that my natural speed and strength was just not sufficient to really make it.

I think that’s also why children from high achieving families usually do better in adult life. What they view as “normal” is just a higher standard than what most children see. I remember being friends with the son of the local (big) factory owner. They communicated with their children on a totally different level than what I was used to with my parents. When they entered professional life they had a better understanding of the business world than most of us will ever achieve.
by bionhoward | 2025-06-29 03:14:09+00:00
This is a cool concept, but for comparison, I can’t help but wish there was more comparison between the treatment group and a control group that doesn’t see any universal pretraining data.

It’s good to compare various model sizes and evaluation tasks and random data generators. I just think the paper would more effectively prove its point if it could show models of same sizes which see this random data can learn better from evaluation data later on.

Could even take the initial checkpoint of the model before universal pretraining against the pretrained checkpoint. If the method works, the one that did UP will win.

Maybe I’m way off, I’ll admit I only skimmed it so far. Seems promising, just wishing for some controls.
by hollerith | 2025-06-29 03:14:18+00:00
I was addicted to reading newgroups using Larry Wall's trn program.

In trn, it is very easy to get a new screenful of text to appear, but it is hard to go back to what you were reading 3 screenfuls ago (unless you are still in the same message you were in 3 screenfuls ago, in which case, to get back, you could scroll up 3 times) which discourages reflection, which leaves fewer reasons not to constantly seek out the next dopamine hit (namely, the next passage of text that teaches you something).

My point is that neither trn nor the newsgroups were in any way VC-funded. There also weren't any non-VC-funded startups or companies involved: when I started browsing them in 1991, the software that ran the newsgroups was entirely designed, implemented and operated by volunteers. Yes, these volunteers mostly worked for tech companies, universities or governmental research labs (because in those days, most people with internet connectivity got it through their workplace and most normal workplaces did not have internet connectivity) but their involvement in the newsgroups did not figure into their employer's evaluation of their work performance.

My point is that VCs are not the whole of the problem. Not even the profit motive is the whole of the problem. The problem can show up in a program distributed under an open-source license for hobbyist or communitarian reasons.
by zzo38computer | 2025-06-29 03:15:49+00:00
I use Heirloom-mailx, which is not listed there. It uses bottom posting, and has no support for HTML.

The recommendations they mention are good ideas, although I might also add a few more:

- Allow the sender to prefer purely ASCII when applicable. (ASCII should not be mandatory (since you may want or need to use other character sets for other languages), although it should be possible to prefer it. This can also improve compatibility with the receiver.)

- When forwarding or replying to a plain text message, the reply should also be plain text by default.

- When the author of a message attaches a picture to a message and includes it inline in the HTML message, use a placeholder when converting it to plain text to make it clear to the receiver that there is a picture attached.

- Allow signatures to be disabled, and if a signature is added, then in the plain text format it should precede the signature by a line with two hyphens and one space.
by troad | 2025-06-29 03:16:23+00:00
I intuitively agree with this perspective, even if I'm unsure about the consequences, and would probably need to think more deeply about them.

Once, when criticising the toxic effects of advertising, I got a response to the effect of 'but how will streamers be able to support themselves?!'. Which I was really struck by, because it presumes that streamers should be able to support themselves by streaming. Should they? Is this actually a desirable outcome? Yes, the financial viability probably leads to more streaming, but what about the quality of the overall streaming? And what about the opportunity cost when someone gives up their job and puts their labours into the business of streaming?

There will always be some level of cultural output, since there will always be passionate people. But has making the arts an industry (through an ever expanding artifice of 'intellectual property', and the ever expanding criminalisation of its subversion) actually led to better arts? Would this be a better or worse world if people built bridges in their day job and played rock gigs at night, solely for the love of it?

I'm not trying to do a Socratic dialogue here, I genuinely don't know. But I suspect the answer is much more nuanced than 'more money = better art', and I am sceptical of certain legal or economic distortions based on that assumption (e.g. life + 70 copyright terms, surveillance advertising, surveillance DRM software, billion-dollar industries that subsist solely on 'IP', fines and prison terms for unauthorised sharing, or the reversing or bypassing of DRM, etc).
by energy123 | 2025-06-29 03:16:31+00:00
Another reason is optimization for profit, combined with competition making it a survival necessity to do this.

Early in a nascent industry, you focus on the core product. You bring scale and scope economies. You make the supply chain more efficient. You improve the logistics. More abundant basic food stuffs for everyone, and more profits for agriculture shareholders. A true win-win.

Later on when the industry matures, the easy wins are all gone. Logistics and agriculture is fully optimized. The only scope for improvement is in marketing, adding sweeteners, and cutting out expensive ingredients. Now it's a lose-win, but from the shareholders perspective only, it's a win.

The problem is, you can't just ask companies to act nicely. While that would be a good start, even if they genuinely wanted to, competition largely forces their hand. The solution is careful and minimal regulation, to deter the pathological late-stage optimizations.
by absurdo | 2025-06-29 03:17:38+00:00
That has been the case for a very, very long time. Classical music is basically one big orgy of wealthy people. Musicians born into families of musicians that were well off. Same goes for other artistic pursuits such as painters etc.

I found very little actual insight in this article. I think musicians have been struggling for decades and the parents have known for at least as long to tell their kids to get a degree regardless of their talents. Schools like Berklee are… questionable at best. Lots off nepo babies just taking a few years to fuck about, basically.
by wat10000 | 2025-06-29 03:17:44+00:00
What do you mean, Q isn’t a natural number? If you had unlimited time and paper, you could sit down and run the machine by hand, counting each step, until it reaches the halting state. You will have counted Q steps. Or the machine never stops. There’s no such thing as a machine that stops after a number of steps defined by an infinitely large construct. There are machines that stop after some whole number of steps, and there are machines that don’t stop. There are no others.

If there’s another model where this machine doesn’t stop, then that means that at some point during this process, you reach a particular machine state and tape contents and transition to a different state than you did in the first model. That has to happen, because otherwise the execution follows the same process as before, and halts at Q steps. But the mechanics of the machine don’t depend on your theory. They’re just state transitions and tape operations.
by dsign | 2025-06-29 03:17:44+00:00
Hm? You could do a search, but here is an article: https://www.discoversormland.com/blog/?postglacial-rebound . Another fun exercise is to simply look at Google maps. If you squint just right, you’ll see extremely flat valleys (ocean bottom) punctuated by old islands.

I live 300 meters from the present coastline and have toured the area a bit. There are telltale signs everywhere, including towers and docks that were built at the waterline sometime AC and that now stand a fair bit inland.
by quantadev | 2025-06-29 03:18:21+00:00
I stand corrected. You found 3 more. :)

And I like Praying Mantises because I think they're probably secretly alien robots. I wonder if biologists have ever taken one apart to see if they're truly biological or a machine. I've seen one take down a humming bird, so it's gotta be some kinda machine bro.
by to11mtm | 2025-06-29 03:19:15+00:00
> Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality.

Oh 1000%.

I once worked at a company where the founder had famously said many times that he would never take the company public. But then, he had a stroke. And within two years they had an IPO. Started doing what every other 'big company' did instead of their own thing. And from what I heard from folks on the inside, Enshittification happened pretty quick after I left.

The lack of addressing the loose ethics of 'Behavioral Psychologists' working in these fields, is TBH a bit of a stain on the whole profession.
by klabb3 | 2025-06-29 03:20:54+00:00
No, things can change but we programmers tend to see everything as a technical problem, and assume that if only we can find a good technical solution we can fix it. But the problem isn’t technical – the APIs were shut down because consumer tech is governed by ads, which are not part of APIs (or would be trivial to remove). You have surely noticed that APIs are alive and well in enterprise, why? Because they have customers who pay money, and API access does not generally break their revenue stream (although even there some are skittish). As mere ”users” our economic function in consumer tech is to provide data and impressions to advertisers. Thy shall not bypass their sidebar, where the ads must be seen.

Nowadays the shutdown is not just of APIs but even anti-scraping, login walls, paywalls, fingerprinting, and so on and so forth. It’s a much more adversarial landscape today than during Web 2.0. When they threw copyright in the trash with the fair use loophole for AI, that obviously causes even more content lockdown panic. And in the midst of this giant data Mexican standoff, people are gonna take down their guns and see the light because of a new meta—API protocol?
by artlessmax | 2025-06-29 03:24:13+00:00
Founder of a social-media-adjacent startup here — 100% agree that monetization model, moreso than funding etc is the core problem.

The decisions for which I am most grateful my co-founders and I have made, from day one, were to 1) have a monetization model that's not reliant on usage and 2) not set goals against usage.

Granted, we're a bit of a peculiar case because of the market we serve (giving parents a screen-free alternative to smartphones and social media for their kids). But personally, my experience here has given me hope that other monetization models _can_ pave the way for non-addictive social products to flourish.
by Gigachad | 2025-06-29 03:24:57+00:00
It’s already happened to DJing. Used to require very expensive gear, crates full of expensive records, and a ton of talent.

Now someone with a $400 controller, pirated music, and some free time can do it. Loads of people willing to play at venues for free just for the fun of it have crushed the viability of doing it as an actual job.
by absurdo | 2025-06-29 03:25:55+00:00
As expected a lot of the comments here are anecdotes. I’m assuming there exists a class of highly technical articles that get posted regularly that incite ancillary discussion, but no real contribution involving the article.

For me, I don’t like that this is about a mathematical model. I don’t want a mathematical model. I like the theory, and I think it’s interesting. I don’t need further digressions into a model. I want to see the real thing. Prove it, replicate it, codify it.
by the_g0d_f4ther | 2025-06-29 03:26:27+00:00
Idk, i quite like the West, doesn’t mean that i can’t see the rule based order and the UN as instruments of American imperialism etc. People that just realize this now seem to never have bothered imho. The same politicians that can lie to you about trickle down economics and social reforms can also lie about foreign policy and good vs evil.
by Kranar | 2025-06-29 03:26:37+00:00
>What do you mean, Q isn’t a natural number?

Q isn't a natural number because natural numbers must be finite, but Q is infinitely large.

>If you had unlimited time and paper, you could sit down and run the machine by hand, counting each step, until it reaches the halting state. You will have counted Q steps.

What if the machine never stops? How many steps will you run before you decide that the machine never halts?

>There’s no such thing as a machine that stops after a number of steps defined by an infinitely large construct.

There's no such thing as an actual machine that stops after an infinite number of steps, but that's not the issue. The issue is that ZFC has different models with conflicting definitions of what infinite is. In one model there is an object called Q that satisfies all of the properties in ZFC of being a natural number, but is infinitely large. In this model the Turing Machine halts after Q steps. But there is another model, called the standard model, and in this model there is no Q, all elements of this model are actually finite, and in this model the Turing machine never halts.

ZFC doesn't know which of these two models is the "real" model of natural numbers. From within ZFC both of these models satisfy all properties of natural numbers. It's only from outside of ZFC that one of these models is wrong, namely the model that contains Q as an element.

You can add more axioms to ZFC to get rid of the model that has Q as an element, but if the resulting theory containing your new axiom is consistent, then it necessarily follows that there is some other model that will contain some element Q* which is also infinitely large but from within the theory satisfies all of the new/stronger properties of being a natural number.
by jamal-kumar | 2025-06-29 03:29:42+00:00
It's kind of worse with alcohol because the psychosis associated with that as an exacerbating factor is more related to alcoholic encephalopathy, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome etc... much of which can be brought on with self medicating with alcohol. Definitely a component but more like psychosis and mania drive you to drink because these experiences are awful more than a causative factor that's been proven

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459134/
by teleforce | 2025-06-29 03:30:29+00:00
>Palestinians are genetically closer to the jews that populated those lands centuries ago. The reality is palestinians ancestors were mostly jews who decided to convert to islam.

Thank you for pointing this fact, if this is true it makes the Israel govt as self-hating Jews, and is very sad and ironic at the same time. The Israel govt should perform thorough DNA test on the Palestinian people. Potentially many Palestinians can have higher Jews ancestors percentage than the emigrants themselves.
by ajkjk | 2025-06-29 03:30:29+00:00
sure, but it is still very hard to wrap one's head around how the value of a function can be independent of ZFC, and how it could not be for (e.g.) 642 but then be true for 643. That was the point of my post. It seems like you could just... run the function on every 643-state input and see what the value is, which would in some sense constitute a "proof" in ZFC? but maybe not, because you wouldn't even know if you had the answer? That's the part that is so intriguing about it.
by bettercallsalad | 2025-06-29 03:31:17+00:00
As someone who is currently dating someone with history of psychosis, I have vested interest.

90% of the time she is truly the most amazing, compassionate, full of life and thoughtful person one can ever meet. Then there are times when it’s truly awful. She can barely sleep at all, leaves house without telling anyone seemingly thinking the presence of third person around. And she strongly feels others around are judging her hard, giving non verbal communication. It’s truly awful.

I didn’t know to the full extent her symptoms when we started dating. But one thing that was clear was she could barely sleep at night. Or sleep too long. There was no “normal sleep cycle”.

Over the time, some triggers are noticeable. Places with crowds, bright lighting, or sometimes stress at work. Aripaprazole so far seems to be holding up, no one knows for how long. I hear meds become resistant at some point. I don’t know what future holds. Kids are probably not an option. Although she very much wants it.