MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by benreesman | 2025-06-27 22:09:01+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Olympic_Games

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations
by lelandbatey | 2025-06-27 22:09:02+00:00
Indeed, how terrible! Those kids who then grow up in other countries outside the US will eventually be adults who have to pay taxes without sucking up any physical resources of said United States, whatever will we do about this huge drain on our resources? </sarcasm>

Why am I supposed to be mad about people doing this, exactly? Because of hazy "rules are rules" talk?
by laughing_man | 2025-06-27 22:09:40+00:00
Agreed. The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies.

In theory it's just an injunction, but the reality is this kind of stuff takes forever to get hashed out in the courts, and Trump will be well out of office before it gets settled.

I have no problem with SCOTUS injunctions, but there are too many district courts for this to work.

The way things were heading the president was going to be forced to start ignoring injunctions, and he would have been right to do so. The Roberts court had to make this ruling for the government to function.
by ejstronge | 2025-06-27 22:09:56+00:00
It’s curious you don’t link to a source even though you pasted something that contains references - I suspect you know that you are misinterpreting this willfully.

> The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. >> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]
by Spooky23 | 2025-06-27 22:10:24+00:00
What benefits are you collecting?

The core premise of your racist rant is built around a the massive edge case. Reality is this policy will probably disenfranchise more children of American soldiers born abroad than prevent the alien invasion you’re scared of.

The notion that the sins of the father impact the child is repugnant. The interests of the nation as a whole not allowing a clear violation of the birthright of our fellow citizens have to be addressed in a lower court, as the Supreme Court isn’t even required to hear their case.

You’re allowing yourself to be manipulated into expanding the power of an executive who will never leave and a court whose power and individual avoidance of culpability for bribery and corruption. I suppose you’ll shrug when we decide that the electoral college can choose to follow the “silent majority” as opposed to the voters.
by dylan604 | 2025-06-27 22:10:35+00:00
this is one of those where a missed alignment is going to be a huge bummer. 550AU * arcseconds is a long way off looking not at what you wanted. you wouldn't know until you were at minimum distance which is going to take generations to achieve. voyager 1 is only ~166AU and that was >40 years. so if you try to nudge your coarse, how many more generations would it be before it was aligned correctly?
by ticulatedspline | 2025-06-27 22:10:45+00:00
it's not success aversion it's because 10% of the work is 90% of the work.

Basically every project it's easy to "rough in" about 90% of stuff. but the devil's in the details and most of the work is that last refinement. be it code documentation,testing,cleanup refactoring etc in a tech project or sanding/staining furniture, or whatever. typically at the 90% point you're not even half done as far as labor is concerned and those last bits are the most tedious and least rewarding.
by vipbackchannel | 2025-06-27 22:11:19+00:00
Not done, but hedging my bets. I started licensed life insurance business, also a licensed day trader. I have 40 years of experience. Got laid of in 2003, 2021, and recently 2025 a few months ago. Software development is now just a hobby for me now. From what I have seen the job market is very specific. The recruiters are only looking for rare skill sets, but also folks who have the update skill sets for cloud migration projects. What has made the field bad is fragmentation of development. C/C++ was the meal ticket years ago. I remember in 2003 I had to get a java programmers cert just to get a job, back then 1000 people would apply for 1 job, then in 2004 the job market opened back up.

After a few months I finally got a job interview this week. Someone called back from a previous job I worked on.

I have noticed that a lot of places development is offshore in India or eastern europe.

It's not just ai that is taken jobs, but also cutbacks in government contracting. The tech layoff wave that started in 2022 was partially fueled by a change in the US tax code, specifically Section 174 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This change significantly altered how companies could deduct research and development (R&D) expenses. Previously, companies could fully deduct R&D costs in the year they were incurred, but the TCJA mandated that these expenses be amortized over several years (5 years for domestic and 15 years for foreign). This resulted in higher tax burdens for tech companies, especially those heavily invested in R&D.
by magicalist | 2025-06-27 22:11:46+00:00
> After reading her dissent one could not imagine anything Kavanaugh said would even be possible, yet he writes a concurrence with the majority.

What? Seems like you're working backwards from wanting to spout about Sotomayor. This is exactly the gamesmanship she pointed out the majority allowed the Trump administration to play with.

Look at all these fun, lengthy, expensive legal remedies you can attempt over the next few years to protect your basic rights while the executive branch enacts plainly unconstitutional policies. Someone count the number of nationwide injunctions during the last four years where the majority could have stepped in to swat down the trend but didn't, but instead chose this one.
by kasey_junk | 2025-06-27 22:12:14+00:00
> There was a time when the system worked better for people (at least for white males) - say the 1950s or 1960s

Even before adding qualifiers like “in America, in certain industries”, etc. You have to be very specific about what you mean by better and how you measure it.

There are certainly things that are worse now than then, but most of the time when someone actually measures it’s mostly true things were worse in the 50s and 60s.
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:13:50+00:00
In that case than this change seems entirely pointless. Obviously there are plenty of states that are highly partisan in either direction. So it seems like the judicious thing to do would've been like "the status quo is fine, rulings that higher courts think are egregious can still be stayed pending appeal."

It's hard to believe it's so innocuous given that (a) it is such a new approach to the issue for a not-new feature of US law and (b) the broader literature being pushed by the people pushing for this change.

Instead it feels like the song and dance around how some Senators would try to get SC justice nominees to say they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade - distractive performance that's utterly non-binding and an obvious smokescreen.
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-06-27 22:14:57+00:00
Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values.

People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't happen here" beliefs being an actual impediment to authoritarianism.

[0]: https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introd...
by BryantD | 2025-06-27 22:15:31+00:00
There was lots of debate in the Senate during the passage of the 14th Amendment; much of it revolved around birthright citizenship. Both those who wanted the Amendment to exclude people who were born to those temporarily in the US and those who did not acknowledged that, in the form passed, it did not.

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania said "I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" He didn't think that child should be.

Sen. Conness of California said he thought it should cover "the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States." And let's remember, as Conness was certainly aware, that many of those Chinese laborers had been imported illegally.

They knew what they were passing, and they knew it included birthright citizenship. Senators who wanted to alter the Amendment to exclude some people failed.
by avoutos | 2025-06-27 22:16:21+00:00
At the end of the day, the outputs simply reflect the inputs. Initially I was of the "if it looks, walks like duck" view when it comes to LLMs and thinking. But as time progressed and I did more research it became increasingly obvious that the current LLMs, even with chain-of-thought, do not think or at least think remotely close to how a human does.

Advancement of LLM ability seems to be logarithmic rather than the exponential trend AI doomers fear. Advancement won't continue without a paradigm shift and even then I am not sure we will ever reach ASI.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-06-27 22:16:56+00:00
It was all but inevitable already as of two weeks ago. This just makes it official. I submitted news of it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44256169

A very dark day for my country. I fully expect social media companies to engage in large scale preemptive AI-assisted content removal in order to dodge liability. I might even witness Venezuela tier arrests over government criticism within my lifetime.
by newman314 | 2025-06-27 22:16:58+00:00
I have been a Resilio Sync user for a while but find it increasingly fragile and prone to randomly breaking. Reconnecting always seems to be a roll of the dice if something gets deleted and I suppose this is a good time to figure out if there are better alternatives.

Syncthing on iOS still seems to be iffy so I'd be interested if Sink can help fill in this space eventually.
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:17:29+00:00
> Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping.

What chaos that would be worse than the chaos of jurisdictional fracturing they're asking for here and the possibility to not let cases escalate to courts with supposed national jurisdiction? Rulings were stayed all the time.

The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national. Voiding it only locally, or only in regard to specific plaintiffs, seems like a huge wishful reach.
by techpineapple | 2025-06-27 22:17:34+00:00
Yeah one thing I’ve wondered (and maybe they do this) but find ways to cross encode different kinds of data, words yes, but auditory and visual data too. The algorithms to do this might be complicated (or incomprehensible) but for sure lots of creativity say comes from the interrelationship between senses, combine that with emotion as well, and I imagine it partially comes down to, our writing ability isn’t limited to the collection of what we’ve read.

Then maybe the other thing is that rules and relationships must be encoded in a special way. In LLM’s I assume rules are emergent, but maybe we have a specific rules engine that gets trained based on the emotional salience of what we read/hear.

Maybe another reason is what’s encoded in our DNA, which might imagine our brain structure is fundamentally designed for some of this stuff.
by mopsi | 2025-06-27 22:19:52+00:00
Not only is this realistic, but the affected countries are taking remarkable steps to counter it. Sweden withdrew its military presence from Gotland in 2005 and disbanded the Gotland Regiment. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Sweden re-established the regiment, returned tanks and IFVs and radars and air defense systems to Gotland, and is building up a brigade-strength task force to defend the island by 2027.

Are the UK or the US prepositioning forces in Gibraltar and Alaska to repel an invasion, renovating bunkers and shelters, and making preparations to evacuate the civilian population?
Show HN: Practice and Improve Your Conversational Skills with AI
by Kehvinbehvin | 2025-06-27 22:21:49+00:00
Hi HN,

I’m Kevin. I built this tool to improve my own conversational skills. I was practicing scenarios (inspired by The Fine Art of Small Talk by Debra Fine) using ElevenLabs AI agents, and found it helpful to copy transcripts into ChatGPT for feedback.

This project streamlines that workflow. It lets you practice conversations with AI agents and get feedback on your conversations. You can choose from a few preset avatars and scenarios, I'll likely add/remove based on what's useful.

It’s an early version, so I’d love any thoughts, suggestions, or critiques: https://conversly.space

Thanks!
by mjburgess | 2025-06-27 22:22:13+00:00
The SC was asked to consider a relatively narrow question of what the limits on equitable remindies in the discrict courts are. In a significant majority of cases they've exceeded their clear authority on anything like a plausible reading of what non-constitutional courts are supposed to do.

Ironically, imv, I think in this case, they didnt. This was, imv, a case where a universal injunctions was actually within the power of the disctict court -- because (and here Sotomayor is correct) the states were being obligated to take on burdens that "crossed state lines" and a complete remedy to relieve them of these burdens actually requires a universal injunction. So, imv, under the history of what equitable remedies are supposed to do, this would be one rare case where the action of the courts could be legally defensible.

However, the SC was extremely fed up with district courts sending inumerable number of cases their way -- trigger happy judges at the distict level deciding they're going to rule for the whole US in a federal system. So, by this point, they've tried many times to stop it, and it hadnt worked.

Here all they said is that you can have UIs only where congress makes explicit that courts have this power. They have done something kinda similar in the APA (creating judicial review of exec action), and can do again here (eg., a democratic congress could give the power in immigration cases; I think its plausible something like this happens). They also themselves retain the right to make such orders.

So they have only really moved where in the system such action is taken, retaining district court's rights to still -- very broadly -- give quite wide injunctions. And congress still has the power to empower the courts (though, as per usual, Thomas indicates he's on crazy pills and implies he would prevent congress from doing that -- that's not a serious outcome though).

Given the problems they faced with district courts, something had to give. They were persuaded, plausibly correctly, that there are enough avenues to prevent this executive overreach without empowering the lowest rung of judges to rule for the whole of the US.
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-27 22:22:53+00:00
So I like the example photos a lot.

The big concern I have is that you might get a date and if you look really different from your picture you're in trouble -- particularly when it involves things that you can control, like clothes.

$15 a month is cheap compared to a good tailored suit but really, the good tailored suit could be a great investment because it will help you not just look good but feel good.

As a semi-pro photographer I've thought about what kind of services guys could use in this department, my skill set can help but many guys could also use a good barber/hairdresser or a fashion consultant too so practically I'm imagining a "dream team" of 2-3 people could help somebody out to not just get a good photo but look better in general but this would probably cost a few hundred bucks not including clothes and stuff. I can see how I'd team up with a few people to serve a few customers in my town but how you make it scalable business seems tougher.

As for now though I'd really recommend photofeeler for anybody who is concerned about how they come across in photos whether it is for dating or something like LinkedIn.
by dylancm | 2025-06-27 22:23:04+00:00
Similar. Yesterday things seemed to be going okay. It was trucking along, making code changes.

Then I hit the rate limit. - Fine, no worries, it'll be interesting to see if the quality changes.

Then it starts getting stuck and taking forever to complete anything. So I shut it down for the day.

Today, I start it back up and ask it to pickup where it left off and it starts spinning. I forget about it and come back 7.5 hours later and it' still spinning. When I kill it it said: 1 Turn, 90k input tokens, 6.5 hours of API time... WTH?

And now I'm just totally rate limited - `status: 429, statusText: 'Too Many Requests'` - every time. Also, I can't find any kind of usage data anywhere!
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-06-27 22:23:18+00:00
> If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will.

They're 100% coming for Obergfell and it's clear now how. They'll arrest a legal US citizen who has naturalized citizenship from illegal parents, born in a state that received an injunction but residing in a state that has not.

The representative of that person will say that they by being a citizen in the other state, they must be respected as a citizen in the other. They will cite Obergfell.

The SCOTUS will revoke their ruling on Obergfell and say, no, you are not a citizen just because there's an injunction in that other state.

The astute reader may notice that this is literally a replay of Dread Scott.
by im_down_w_otp | 2025-06-27 22:24:54+00:00
"passionate about aviation" and "passionate about nice UX" definitely described Noah and the rest of the team!

Honestly, I don't remember Re: NSDate. It was many jobs and Dante's levels of burnout ago. :-)

What I remember from that time was a lot of fighting with Apple's early iCloud syncing. Because it had a habit of being incredibly fraught and flakey using SQLite-backed Core Data stuff.
by hyper57 | 2025-06-27 22:25:01+00:00
Loved using OCaml for a compiler course at uni when I was a student. But I've always felt that the tooling side is pretty rough, especially on Windows. Opam recently added Windows support, but it involves installing MinGW, and when following the official docs https://ocaml.org/docs/installing-ocaml#install-platform-too... the process breaks down with an error when trying to install utop due to a path separator error, which one has to fix manually (at least that was the case last time I tried). By comparison, installing Python or Rust on Windows is a breeze.
by tzs | 2025-06-27 22:25:44+00:00
It's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people.

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US.

2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty.

3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 extended it to children of US citizens who are born outside the US.
by firesteelrain | 2025-06-27 22:27:12+00:00
But, we did get conflicting nationwide rulings from different district courts, which encouraged forum shopping and rushed litigation. Federal law is national, but relief in equity has always been limited to the parties before the court unless a class is certified

> The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national

That’s a clever line.

See, there is a difference between saying “this law is unconstitutional” and saying “this law is blocked for everyone, everywhere.”
by majormajor | 2025-06-27 22:27:57+00:00
> because (and here Sotomayor is correct) the states were being obligated to take on burdens that "crossed state lines" and a complete remedy to relieve them of these burdens actually requires a universal injunction

> However, the SC was extremely fed up with district courts sending inumerable number of cases their way

Well hold on then.

So you think the Court was wrong in this case? That they were just on tilt? Because if this case is a case for a universal injunction then does the executive have standing to ask about that issue here?

But if Sotomayor is correct on the relevance of a universal injunction here, then why is your "non-hysterical reaction" defending the decision instead?

---

I also find it hard to agree with "judges are creating problems" vs "an increasingly aggresive executive is creating problems." The legislature hasn't been able to do much for a long time because the splits are so close, so presidents try to do more directly. Is enabling that despite how closely split the legislature is ANYTHING like in line with how the US government system is supposed to work?

Cause really, awww, they have more cases than they used to? Welcome to the computer driven future, it sucks for all of us, don't make us suffer because you're tired of it.
by feoren | 2025-06-27 22:28:22+00:00
> Whatever comes out of any LLM will directly depend on the data you feed it

Right, and whatever comes out of Conway's Game of Life will directly depend on its initial setup as well. Show me a configuration of Conway's Game of Life that is tailored to emulate human speech and trained on the entire internet and then tell me your prediction of how it will evolve. You will get it completely wrong. Emergent behavior is a real thing.

> There is nothing unknown or mystical about it.

Almost all researchers and practitioners in the field seem to disagree with you on this. It is surprising that teaching a system to be extremely good at auto-completing English text is enough for it to develop an ability to reason. I happen to believe that this is more of an emergent property of our language than of neural networks, but it was definitely not predicted by almost anyone, not easily explainable, and maybe even a bit mystical-feeling.

Ph.D. dissertations have been published about trying to understand what is happening inside large neural networks. It's not as simple and obvious as you make it out to be.
by speakfreely | 2025-06-27 22:28:29+00:00
> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.

> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.