MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sarchertech | 2025-06-07 23:23:48+00:00
>It lets you get loans based on 100% of your pre-gain money with zero taxes paid.

You already paid taxes on the money you used to buy the asset. You aren’t using any part of the unrealized gain.

>You wouldn’t do that if it was actually all your money.

People take out loans secured by assets that haven’t appreciated all the time, they even put up assets that haven’t appreciated depreciated as collateral.

>only to yo to 90% of the post—gain asset value

Unsecured creditors come last in bankruptcy. They routinely end up taking pennies on the dollar. That’s the extra risk of making an unsecured loan vs a secured loan and the reason interest rates on unsecured loans are generally somewhere around 20% higher.

It would be very easy to some tweaks to bankruptcy law to increase the difference.

>stop unsecured loans from happening

We don’t have to stop them, but I think stopping unsecured loans over some large value would be a lot less problematic than taxing unrealized gains.

>15% tax is pretty big

It shouldn’t be the same rate as capital gains. You’re not getting the same value as if you’d sold the asset because you have to pay back the money with interest.

Even at 15% you only need to get the delta between a secured and unsecured loan to 3 points before the additional interest costs more than the tax.

>I don’t like this one at all

Well I mean if you don’t like it at all.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-06-07 23:24:41+00:00
Surprised he was only at Apple for 12 years. A wild ride, I'm sure.

When I moved out to "the Valley" in 1995, the apartment I picked out turned out to be right next to General Magic (on Mary Ave.).

I knew it as a "spin off" of Apple but at the time did not know the luminaries that were there. It was just a cute rabbit in a hat logo — lit up when I got home late and was turning off to my apartment.
by bobxmax | 2025-06-07 23:25:32+00:00
This wasn't because of racism. This belief is why the left keeps losing to him... a total misunderstanding of what brought him into power.

Some of the earliest figureheads of the so-called "alt right" movement were homosexuals and racial minorities

Trump's win was a revolt against the social justice age. His win was a revolt against emergent phenomenon like "cancel culture".
by overu589 | 2025-06-07 23:25:52+00:00
> brutal distinction

True Truth is brutalist.

> is itself a symbolic construct

Only in the most obvious context that we are using a symbolic language communications strategy.

Exotic shit is where mind grows. Objective existential reality, aka “true Truth” is as hard core straight edge as it comes.

This word “integrity” is a gauge of consistency with true Truths. It means a representation which does not embellish or contradict any true Truth. This can be creatively or crudely articulated (expressed) yet the “do or die” imperative remains, this must accurately represent an occurrence in existential reality.

OR IT IS A LIE!

Those other things which confuse you, such as how dreams logic or poetry can be not Truths thus must be threatened as LIES are your apprehension.

We are complex creatures who approximate for our successes. Beat the averages and you’re doing better than most others. By definition. Our “truths” only need to be good enough to get us by, even if they are more convenient than correct. Most of all when they are pleasant. This is a part of humanity.

When it comes time for someone to die for lying, remember: True Truth is a “perturbation” of existential reality (that’s what the stack of bibles is for right? In case only God knows.) Why someone did it or what they felt is not the true part of Truth however it may be a human truth to have such experiences.

And perturbation is exactly what the English language word means.

Any disturbance whatsoever is a manifest Truth of existential reality. Anything measurable whether or not anyone has the ability to measure or if it got measured at all. A disturbance of existential reality is what physicists are all very excited about.

The Truth is it having occurred, and the “truth” is our best effort to approximate through discovery. If your “truth” is too wildly off you are incorrect, inexperienced, or a fraud. Keep practicing.

All scientists do is worry about this very same question about perturbing existence. What is there to know, how do I find out? How do I interact with the phenomena? Does it make predictions? All questions about true Truth of objective existential reality, only knowable through perturbation. That is, some kind of reaction. Any kind, even not what was expected or clearly understood.

And we all argue about every detail and context and interpretation and extrapolation and application and moral consequences and so on. This is the symbolic correlation bit. It also happens and is important to humans, however not to Truth! Truth don’t care. If Truth must suit the tastes, it is a sign of corruption.

True Truth isn’t an ultimate answer, it is a happenstance in a long line of whatever comes of whatever goes. The forensic science of piecing that together only cares about existential being however interpretive the apparatus of our minds must be.

Do not feel threatened that we all dwell in this in between place of quasi truths. Only be concerned with how you affect the world, for that is the truth of your Truth. Philosophically or otherwise. Every idea worth having develops in its own time.

Truth is the hardest core. No bullshit.
by joe_the_user | 2025-06-07 23:26:38+00:00
I agree that simply stopping one propaganda outlet would have been insufficient to stem the tide of violence.

I disagree with blaming the genocide on "culture". It seems clear that this event like many others came from a nexus of interests, money, ideology and, sure, culture.

And btw, if you blame massacres on culture, you have a whole lot of cultures you can blame, given the history of mass murder and genocide around the world.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-06-07 23:27:21+00:00
>> The technology powering this next generation title is doing so much more than simply making everything look great, it’s also changing the rules of how virtual game worlds function. As mentioned before, the area of Tamriel that is the setting for Oblivion is populated with 1,000 NPCs. Unlike current games, these characters don’t simply disappear once the player leaves the area, they exist 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Every character has its own virtual life and its own schedule to follow.

You know who really did this? It's a game called Rain World [1]. In Rain World, the world keeps turning when you're gone. Literally: predators and prey go about their way, chasing and fighting and eating each other, after you die. When you come back they don't respawn. The game simulates their actions while you're away and you meet them again in medias res, doing whatever they were doing while you weren't there.

And what was the reaction of the gaming public to that? A typical reaction on release was this article by Brendan Caldwell on Rock Paper Shotgun, whence I quote:

Modern platformers that want to be difficult have learned the value of a quick and nearby spawn. Fell into some spikes? Never mind, says the game, and one second later you are at the last brick wall you leapt from. The slugcat doesn’t get this treatment, instead it is transported back to the nearest save point, the last hibernation chamber. The things you have done to the environment have been undone, the parts of the map you revealed have been recovered in shroud. You are ten screens back from where you were, only now the predators and prey will be in different places.

(...)

The oddest thing about it is that, like the controls, this difficulty feels entirely deliberate. It is like Rain World wants to have the strength of difficulty we find in Dark Souls. But that classic of dying and re-dying had the impetus of soul currency, a sense of gambling, a sense of pace, and the relief of clever shortcuts with near-perfect geography. Not to mention the HUGELY SIGNIFICANT gesture of always putting the enemies reliably in the same place, like a solid, immovable set of spiky hurdles. You always had the means to overcome and defeat them. You just needed to learn.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/rain-world-review

In other words: "What? I can't just memorise enemies' positions so I can defeat them by muscle memory alone??? I have to think?? Each time?? During a game????"

:Throws controller:

Yeah, so much about AI simulating enemies that have an independent existence.

________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_World
by wtallis | 2025-06-07 23:28:35+00:00
You're completely ignoring that there are several distinct market segments that want hardware to do AI/ML. Matrix multiplication is not something you can implement in hardware just once.

NVIDIA's biggest weakness right now is that none of their GPUs are appropriate for any system with a lower power budget than a gaming laptop. There's a whole ecosystem of NPUs in phone and laptop SoCs targeting different tradeoffs in size, cost, and power than any of NVIDIA's offerings. These accelerators represent the biggest threat NVIDIA's CUDA monopoly has ever faced. The only response NVIDIA has at the moment is to start working with MediaTek to build laptop chips with NVIDIA GPU IP and start competing against pretty much the entire PC ecosystem.

At the same time, all the various low-power NPU architectures have differing limitations owing to their diverse histories, and approximately none of them currently shipping were designed from the beginning with LLMs in mind. On the timescale of hardware design cycles, AI is still a moving target.

So far, every laptop or phone SoC that has shipped with both an NPU and a GPU has demonstrated that there are some AI workloads where the NPU offers drastically better power efficiency. Putting a small-enough NVIDIA GPU IP block onto a laptop or phone SoC probably won't be able to break that trend.

In the datacenter space, there are also tradeoffs that mean you can't make a one-size-fits-all chip that's optimal for both training and inference.

In the face of all the above complexity, the question of whether a GPU-like architecture retains any actual graphics-specific hardware is a silly question. NVIDIA and AMD have both demonstrated that they can easily delete that stuff from their architectures to get more TFLOPs for general compute workloads using the same amount of silicon.
by solarwindy | 2025-06-07 23:28:42+00:00
> I think that's... up for debate

Been trying to inform myself on how these models work, and it’s pretty interesting, I have to say.

Came across this paper from Anthropic, Scaling Monosemanticity [0], where they’re extracting features (via a trained sparse autoencoder) from the ‘middle’ layer of Claude 3 for the purpose of interpretability, and quite convincingly find features corresponding to abstract concepts that do seem to encode a model of computation of sorts. Most remarkable to me is their example of a feature that activates for functions implementing addition, which holds up under function composition.

I guess there’s more going on under the hood than I’ve been giving credit. Of course, that one example is a tiny window into it, and I recognise that even being able to extract that kind of insight into the model’s workings is a feat.

> What they don't have is an ability to infer constraints you didn't explicitly or implicitly spell out. And only limited capability to ask clarifying question.

Interesting to think about how the concept of clarification can be formalized and whether it’s possible to work in to the next-token prediction paradigm. I have too many holes in my understanding at this point to go much further with the idea...

> They also are horrible at correcting mistakes through ongoing conversation

I guess this one is somewhat understandable with how the models work, though it’s unfortunate that the typical chat interface strongly encourages you to attempt to resolve your issue through conversation.

> a lot of code is in between those two lane markers

Yup.

[0]: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticit...
by PunchyHamster | 2025-06-07 23:29:36+00:00
Nah, the problem is that the enjoyment vs effort graph is a valley. Just adding some simple procedural behaviours isn't all that interesting and possibly creates bugs.

You need to spend a lot of work and add a bunch of behaviours and interacting systems for line to start going back up and arrive in place where games like Rimworld, M&B: Bannerlord or Dwarf Fortress are.

Like if your Radiant AI makes NPCs bandits go and attack NPC caravan, that's not all that interesting, and hell, player might not even notice and think it is scripted. Because aside from some quick loot there is no impact whatsoever on world, you can get rid the world of every banding within 10 mile radius and nothing will change aside from amount of loot in your inventory.

But if you do similar thing in M&B:Bannerlord... there is actual (if simplified) economy there. You CAN starve a city if you just kill all merchant caravans going in, and raid the villages, and the city economy will go down, they will man less guards on siege and have less resources... and on other hand you can make sure local economy flourishes and that will cause prices to go down on stuff, which will cause city that now has access to cheaper weaponry to have more guards.

If killing a bunch of bandits made city prosper a bit more (or vice versa, attacking traders and caravans made it poorer), if clearing local mine made some miners to move in to provide to city, if sabotaging army camp made a dent into political situation (imagine winning Skyrim rebel/empire conflict by sabotage like that), now we're starting into it being interesting rather than a gimmick.
by bobxmax | 2025-06-07 23:30:34+00:00
The social justice age wasn't a rejection of bigotry. It was a Mccarthy-esque movement of dividing everybody between sexual and racial lines into a hierarchy of who was and wasn't allowed to speak. Speaking against the party line meant exile.

The SJW/Wokeism movement had nothing to do with true equity and "rejection of bigotry". That's why there was such a revolt against it.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-07 23:33:34+00:00
Historically, Section 174 allowed everyone to opt in or out of R&D amortization. That amortization is required from anyone for R&D is new.

Further, software is the only type of R&D explicitly called out as required to count as R&D. Which means it should be taken as a given that most other industries are finding ways to count their R&D as anything else, while we've been intentionally given the short straw for some reason by having our specific field be the only one identified by name so as to leave no wiggle room. I'd say that definitely counts as being a special case. The section is even labeled "Special Rules".
by lostlogin | 2025-06-07 23:33:43+00:00
It’s pretty incredible. NYT now:

“President Trump said on Saturday that he believed his relationship with Elon Musk was over after the two sparred publicly on social media this week, and he warned there would be “serious consequences” if Mr. Musk financed candidates to run against Republicans who voted in favor of the president’s domestic policy bill.”

So the president can decide who someone supports?

Two truly awful humans fighting it out.
by martinald | 2025-06-07 23:33:54+00:00
If you look at it through the eyes of just Starlink though it makes a lot of sense. The new v3 sats do solve a lot of the problems with Starlink in more (suburban) areas with much more capacity per sat.

In a happy path if Starship works and v3 works, each Starship launch would launch ~60Tbit/sec of downstream capacity and ~10Tbit/sec of upstream (ideal world figures yada yada).

With falcon 9 and v2 mini, each launch provides ~2Tbit/sec of downstream and ~0.2Tbit/sec of upstream.

So roughly 30x the downstream and 50x the upstream.

The upstream is probably the critical part to improve as well for congestion (usually upstream gets saturated before downstream in most retail ISP configs, on asymmetrical technologies like DOCSIS and causes terrible user experience).

So Spaceship could be ~40x the cost per launch of Falcon 9 and it would still make sense financially. I assume it won't be anywhere near that. And this doesn't take into account how much further Starlink will be on all the other competitors that are trying to spring up.

I think if you ignore everything else and just focus on Starlink (which has the potential to be a $100bn/yr business easily) it is worth them rolling the dice. Whether it actually works or not is interesting to discuss - but figures like $500m/launch is really pocket change for the scale/potential scale that Starlink operates in.
by zargon | 2025-06-07 23:33:58+00:00
Isn't this "no-delete permission" just a made-up mode for testing the borg storage layer while simulating a lack of permissions for deleting and overwriting? In actual deployment, whatever backing store is used must have the access control primitives to implement such a restriction. I don't know how to do this on a posix filesystem, for example. Gemini gave me a convoluted solution that requires the client to change permissions after creating the files.
by recursivecaveat | 2025-06-07 23:33:59+00:00
Honestly I think there is a fundamental incompatibility between: some sense of simulation or realism, and a high enough density of interesting events per character per hour to meet the player's entertainment expectations. A functioning society just can't supply enough arrests, trysts, bandit kidnappings, secret identities, feuds, marriages, etc etc, without rapidly tearing itself completely apart. There's a reason basically every TV show feels like it going off the rails after a few seasons: you can't lay rails in front of you as fast as episodes consume them. It only works at the beginning because you're borrowing against the stock of events that occurred in-universe before the show began.

Dwarf Fortress kindof solves this by zooming out to increase the character count, as well as the standard fantasy trick of super-charging the economic productivity of everything. Letting 1 dwarf feed 15 by working part-time on a 25 square meter plot of mushrooms helps a lot.
by cianuro_ | 2025-06-07 23:34:12+00:00
There is value in fast iteration and delivery. These are early stage startups, the clock is ticking. I wouldn’t do it with JS but I understand why it would be used.

Now we can argue how good or bad the nodejs (or any alternative JS implementation) is. At the end of the day the objective is most likely to rock the boat enough to be acquired and have a payday. With enough discipline you can get far before the footguns show up.
by whartung | 2025-06-07 23:34:38+00:00
My singular issue with self hosting specifically with email is not setting it up. Lots of documentation on setting up an email server.

But running it is different issue. Notably, I have no idea, and have not seen a resource talking about troubleshooting and problem solving for a self hosted service. Particularly in regards with interoperability with other providers.

As a contrived example, if Google blackballs your server, who do you talk to about it? How do you know? Do that have email addresses, or procedures for resolution in the error messages you get talking with them?

Or these other global, IP ban sites.

I’d like to see a troubleshooting guide for email. Not so much for the protocols like DKIM, or setting DNS up properly, but in dealing with these other actors that can impact your service even if it’s, technically, according to Hoyle, set up and configured properly.
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-06-07 23:36:07+00:00
Thats your opinion, Obama could have been white, and he still would have been voted for by 99.9% of those who voted for him. Young Kennedy-like candidates are rare (eg Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) but are incredibly electable when they show up.

Towards the end of his presidency, most of us forgot he was even black. Just those white southerners and a certain old guy in New York who were fixated on his race from the beginning still thought he was a DEI elect.
by roenxi | 2025-06-07 23:38:17+00:00
Says the person whos missed most of the spending - US Federal spending hasn't dropped below 10% in 80 years. You might not have read the title of the graph you're looking at?

US Federal spending over any recent time period is basically sum(GDP over however many years)*20%. You're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that, which potentially didn't even involve actually lowering spending since we're talking a % of something that is growing.

Y'know, well done Clinton and all that - balancing a budget is challenge. But if that is going to get called a drawdown it was about as effective as DOGE. It didn't bump Federal spending off the trendline and the small amounts render it largely meaningless in the big picture. It is literally statistical noise.
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-07 23:38:31+00:00
When you convert a generic Turing machine into a Tree Evaluation instance, you end up with square-root space with respect to the original runtime t, but the new runtime will be far, far slower. IME, with these types of circuit reductions, the runtime typically becomes exponential in the space required, which is just about 'as long as possible'.

If we're being pedantic, it's trading time for the space guarantee.
by 9d | 2025-06-07 23:38:38+00:00
My incompetent prediction you should ignore: we will see an AI burst similar to the stock market crash or something (I dunno what that is tbh), where everyone uses AI to do practically magical things with computers, and for a short while it seems like technological paradise, but then the decay starts to show through very quickly, and the code decay will speed up exponentially, and everything will break nearly as quickly as it all began and shortly thereafter too. But in the end, we will have a fresh start, and all the old wisened devs from the 90s will have new jobs recreating everything from scratch since AI broke everything. And we will have hindsight to lean on too, so everything will be better than when we made it in the 90s the first time around.
by demosthanos | 2025-06-07 23:39:14+00:00
> O wait obviously that’s not what code is a liability means. Code is a liability in the same way roads or buildings are a liability, they incur an ongoing cost, but removing the US highway system would be just as idiotic as a startup deleting their source repository from a misunderstood idea.

I love this example! It perfectly illustrates a case where the government intentionally subsidizes a liability that no sane company would take on without government funding. Well said.

So we're agreed that the government should incentivize R&D with a favorable tax code that makes it not completely insane to take on the risk of doing something new.
by wefinh | 2025-06-07 23:39:24+00:00
Yeah, only the issue here is that @realFascists are in opposition to Trump. And reading this text in that light - it check out and not really a news.

Also, frankly, you folks need to stop monopolizing these topics, based on highly polarized ideological filter, because even before Trump there was dissatisfaction about how Musk monopolized NASA contracts on the promise, that he would deliver more efficient and cheaper solution, while in reality the result is that NASA is currently paying more for Musks private solutions, than when it had to do it by itself. There are sure many other options to what Musk offers and if Trump is there to break up that monopoly and open up the market, then it is a win situation.
by KennyBlanken | 2025-06-07 23:39:27+00:00
First off, Trump skyrocketed to political fame with his nonsense claims about Obama's citizenship.

The slide started in the 80's when Reagan killed off the 'fairness doctrine' which meant news outlets could present completely one-sided coverage of an issue.

Couple that with massive consolidation of newspapers and TV news stations where all the programming is heavily coordinated and groups like Sinclair started pushing identically worded "false news" narratives across all their stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo