MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-06 22:48:02+00:00
> I guess their idea is to just make it obnoxious enough for casual users.

This is always the excuse, but how does that ever work? People want to be able to do it, technical people know how to do it, non-technical people ask them to do it for them. If the number of non-technical people is large, a single one the technical people will make a one-click installer to automate it so they don't have to keep doing it manually for people, and then the inconvenience is gone for everyone.

The companies peddling this stuff are desperate to rationalize that it can do any good. A million games will have DRM and their customers will hate it and they'll collectively lose billions of dollars by inconveniencing legitimate customers or have people pirating their stuff out of spite when they would have actually bought it. Then some game doesn't get cracked for a while because it's a statistical anomaly or it's just not very popular and nobody bothers and they get to congratulating themselves without ever considering how many of the people who didn't pirate that game actually bought it instead of just pirating a different one, or if the number of people who bought it is smaller than the number of sales they lost through destruction of goodwill -- for not only that game but also all the games that were cracked right away.

And then they double down with this kind of website blocking overreach where they're unapologetically causing collateral damage to innocent people as if to demonstrate just how little they care about anything but the dubious pretense that it was worth it.
by echelon | 2025-06-06 22:48:51+00:00
> If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art."

> People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.

Thank you! I'm sick of sounding like an apologist. This is simply the science of economics.

>> No shame in proudly presenting a tool with "putting people out of work" as a feature.

I am so tired of this type of attitude. I've read this endlessly and it does a whole lot of nothing for nobody.

This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.

Someone might not pursue game dev because they can't build the art for it themselves. Now they have options.

>> Lovingly handcrafted artwork is what I like in video games [...]

Then you go buy that thing and stop dunking on people for making tools.

Give those artists you care about your money. Let the rest of us enjoy the new tools and the work created with them.

You don't weep for all the i18n experts when someone makes a nice open source datetime library. So stop doing it here.

Software engineers constantly have to learn new things and adapt. The artists will do the same.

If they actually start using the tools, maybe they can start making games and movies and things of a scale and scope they could never have done before.

The things you can accomplish with video models are downright impressive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAAiiKteM-U

Someone told me, "But you didn't hire any hard-working stop motion animators."

Yes, that's right. Because it never would have been made before. Because stop motion animating a 4-minute Superman fandom short didn't make economic sense.
by ty6853 | 2025-06-06 22:48:51+00:00
It isn't unscientific to hypothesize that if you give people a certain set of bunk questions that based on some arbitrary scoring system that the differences will appear correlated to genotype, and then test it and find out genotype results in some weak correlation of the results. In my case, the bunk questions I am referring to are those in one or two tests commonly referred to as 'IQ tests.' It might not be scientific to decide it measures intelligence, but it is scientific to test and observe the difference.

What you're attempting to do here is debase your argument to semantics, by excluding what you don't like out of science, which is quite typical on HN when you have nada for an argument. I simply unequivocally reject this sort of 'heads I win, tails you lose' redefinition of science.
by spacebanana7 | 2025-06-06 22:49:25+00:00
I see what you mean - although articles 1 & 2 seem to be treated more like guidelines rather than rules.

Otherwise I struggle to understand how any NATO member could’ve engaged in any of the overt or covert expressions of military force in Iraq 2003, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Egypt, or Algeria to name but a few.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-06-06 22:50:19+00:00
I will say that the philosophical remarks are pretty obtuse and detract from the post. For example...

"Physics–and more broadly the pursuit of science–has been a remarkably successful methodology for understanding how the gears of reality turn. We really have no other methods–and based on humanity’s success so far we have no reason to believe we need any."

Physics, which is to say, physical methods have indeed been remarkably successful...for the types of things physical methods select for! To say it is exhaustive not only begs the question, but the claim itself is not even demonstrable by these methods.

The second claim contains the same error, but with more emphasis. This is just off-the-shelf scientism, and scientism, apart from what withering refutations demonstrate, should be obviously self-refuting. Is the claim that "we have no other methods but physics" (where physics is the paradigmatic empirical science; substitute accordingly) a scientific claim? Obviously not. It is a philosophical claim. That already refutes the claim.

Thus, philosophy has entered the chat, and this is no small concession.
by yieldcrv | 2025-06-06 22:51:11+00:00
This bill is goated for upper middle class and tech and defense sector

And I’m tired of pretending like we aren’t going to be beneficiaries

Every Congress increases the debt, we can acknowledge that the cuts they picked are going to wreck the lower class especially with the medicaid, we can acknowledge that it won’t meet its goals of cuts

but are you guys just scared to acknowledge its going to super charge things that you are a beneficiary of too? so busy saying it just benefits billionaires as if we’re trying to avoid guillotines. not gonna happen and many people here are going to try to take advantage of new programs
by axus | 2025-06-06 22:51:32+00:00
To me, Facebook is the service I use as login credentials on McDonalds app and other companies, separate from my offline and online identities. Also it is a social network I don't engage with. Owned by Meta.

WhatsApp is a chat program I use almost every day. Owned by Meta.

Oculus was a brand of VR goggles, but now the brand name is Meta. Owned by Meta.
by epolanski | 2025-06-06 22:51:57+00:00
> The only explanation is that you care about people losing money in ways you don't approve of.

I don't see a way for this discussion to find a middle ground.

Ludomania is classified as a mental disorder and a very real illness.

I've seen it's effects along the effects of other addictions and my two cents is that it can be more devastating to people surrounding the addict than others.

Misery is misery regardless of the disorder, addiction or illness, we don't need to have a competition between it.

But it is very important to underline that gambling is not only increasingly legal but increasingly deregulated too.
by Alupis | 2025-06-06 22:52:43+00:00
> Even if you get the clearance of some level, it doesn't mean you get immediate access to everything you want. There are still limits on what work you're actually given.

Right, and that's the case here too. They are receiving access to systems and data relevant to the tasks they have been assigned to do. There are consequences if any individual acts maliciously or abusing the access and data they have been granted - just like any other government department/agency/employee.

There's so much fearmongering going on regarding this story it's seriously amusing. Just a few years ago Equifax leaked every adult's financial information, including social security numbers and more - and yet the mere possibility of a potential leak (of the exact same information, by the way) is being treated like armageddon.

It's politics ramped up to the maximum level...
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-06-06 22:52:46+00:00
They briefly describe the process in the article, and very different from the "transparent wood" I think you are referring to. I'll try to summarise from my brief understanding.

- Transparent wood takes wood, dissolves the lignin (natural wood glue-ish) with a solvent, and replaces it with epoxy under pressure. It's a pain to make, but is very cool and preserves the wood fibre structure.

- This transparent paper involves dissolving very pure cellulose (long starch) and then allowing it to reconnect tightly (with heat) before drying. It appears to be composed primarily of cellulose at the end and exhibits plastic properties. I presume the chemicals change the cellulose properties to allow this.

"lithium bromide-water" is (apparently, I was corrected) not very toxic and lilley recycled in the process. If this can be scaled and the solvent process can be done safely, then its very clever. It's effectively plastic but using a more "natural" carbon chain, which nature has had a few million extra years to figure out how to break down.

They describe it as paper and compare it to polycarbonate... so my guess is that it is a bit brittle, and cannot nicely replace plastic wrap or plastic bags... but it has some nice properties to replace a group of plastics we don't have very good alternatives to. One open question I have is UV resistance. Most transparent plastics tend to become brittle over time... but I don't know my chemistry enough to know if cellulose has the same issue. Greenhouses would otherwise benefit from it (as they're often made from polycarbonate sheets rather than glass)
by trod1234 | 2025-06-06 22:52:53+00:00
Its sad, I know quite a few people that would fall into this category.

While they are generally good-natured and personable but private people, they are often equally blind in many respects, and that blindness in a fair discussion often tips the scales towards them doing some quite evil things without them knowing it, or being able to recognize it because its always indirect but inevitably leads to said outcomes which they've blinded themselves to.

They don't consider adverse choices and outcomes on the people they interact with as their responsibility in many cases, and this extends to their businesses, and personal lives as well.

This is even more true with some of their children who suffer arguably worse than anyone else, and directly as a result of being wholly dependent and under the thumb of the person holding the purse strings, and never actually growing into mature thinking independent adults having been coddled their entire lives.

There is a point where the rich win so much that they lose everything.

That point is coming up in the near future where a reckoning will occur because the opulence and ostentatious lifestyles they lead in private are unsustainable and gathered on the backs of others who had little if any agency.

Worse, the rule of law, and our systems of governance acted as safety-wheels preventing the worst destructive outcomes right up until they were changed through corruption originating in the same cohort.

Some were not directly involved, but they all benefited from tax breaks, education, and other benefits which after they made their fortunes they then sought to remove, and as a result they equally share in the responsibility in failing to act to correct the deficiency they caused as a cohort.

Its quite problematic, and dark times are ahead as always happens when societal systems get out of balance, and are driven into crisis.
Bonobara – REST API Integration Developer
by benkatzir | 2025-06-06 22:52:56+00:00
We're building an AI automation system for a mobile car wash business (Apex Detailing) and preparing to present this project to VCs in mid-July 2025. We’re looking for someone who can integrate and manage REST APIs across CRMs, schedulers, payment platforms, and internal tools.

This is currently an equity-only opportunity, with potential to grow into a lead engineering role post-funding.
by throw0101c | 2025-06-06 22:53:56+00:00
> The Nikkei 225 is still below its peak value from December of 1989.

Okay, and how many people put 100% of their money in at December of 1998? Versus how many people have been dollar cost averaging for the last 30+ years?

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/now-do-japan/

Further, it's not like the US is immune to long periods of minimum returns:

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/12/17/the-lost-de...

Perhaps these examples are a lesson for what's important: diversification.
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-06-06 22:54:43+00:00
No, that lawsuit doesn't allege that, as the article explains. Self-exclusion lists are not maintained by gambling companies, so there is no way to market to them (and also, the lawsuit is being brought by a city...not an authority responsible for regulation). Just generally, there is no upside to doing this either. It makes literally zero sense if you apply rational thought.

What the lawsuit alleges is that at-risk users with promotions. This is undoubtedly true because people who have gambling addictions use gambling products and there is no way to identify someone with a gambling addiction prior to them using the product (contrary to what the article says, there is no way for companies to identify these users either, there are multiple third-party vendors in the industry who claim to have developed ML models to identify at-risk behaviour...none of them work).

The lawsuit does not identify whether these users opted-out of promotions (every regulated provider has this option...if you don't want these promos, just turn them off). And does not identify what aspect of existing regulation is insufficient (as I just explained, if you are a gambling addict, you have the option of being unable to open an account at any regulated provider).

In other words, this is the equivalent of Baltimore suing Budweiser because alcoholics drink their beer. It misunderstands at a very fundamental level how society should operate and tells you everything about US society where companies are expected to have a social role (and btw, what is most odd about this is that MD has a state gambling regulator, Baltimore is complaining about things that government already has the power to fix...I suspect the issue is that this revenue source is not being distributed their way, govt officials need to eat too).
by mrguyorama | 2025-06-06 22:54:48+00:00
The reality is the same for "Race" and "Ethnicity", and all sorts of other words that humans have used to categorize "not my family".

French colonists to the new world freely intermarried (and had kids) with Native Americans and people brought over from Africa, and eventually those same groups were prevented from marrying under racist american laws.

So there's lots of french blood in black people in the southern united states, but they were eventually prevented from marrying white french people, even when they were literally part of the same large family tree! There are long lines and families of black people who literally descend from my ancestors that I wouldn't have been allowed to marry!

Which should clearly demonstrate that it was never about your genetic or biologic ancestry, as modern science knows.

Wikipedia claims America's "blacks can't marry whites" laws have no precedent.

Similarly, there was lots of inter-racial relations before some colonies banned it, and other colonies never banned it.
by xiphias2 | 2025-06-06 22:55:08+00:00
Since Codex web ui came out I stopped using Cursor and just direct pull requests on Codex web interface. I love it so much, I belive most people will move to this kind of development as models are getting stronger, and the whole agent+user workflow will switch to pull request based development.

It’s not like I’m not using Cursor at all, it just became the 10-20% of my workflow compared to almost 100% before.
by Kye | 2025-06-06 22:55:58+00:00
Some more context/info: https://bsky.app/profile/bnewbold.net/post/3lqxuz2ck6k2n

This might be the model example for how AT isn't just for social media like Bluesky. Most of the early tools and platforms have been that, but it's a whole new way of making stuff available and findable on the internet.
by rufus_foreman | 2025-06-06 22:58:20+00:00
"When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”"

-- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1063_6j37.pdf
by yawaramin | 2025-06-06 22:58:36+00:00
Suppose you need a template that renders some component inside a <div> tag. Now suppose you need to allow the template user to pass in any attributes they want into the <div> tag, but you need to make sure that when it is finally rendered, one of its CSS classes must be `dropdown`.

Eg, suppose the user passes in the following attributes to the div:

<div id=foo style=color:red class=my-component>

You need to make sure that the final rendered version is:

<div id=foo style=color:red class="my-component dropdown">

How do you do that?
by bayindirh | 2025-06-06 22:58:52+00:00
You don't have to enter any e-mail address to get an HN account. You login from a (Firefox) incognito window and get your cookies deleted the moment the window is closed.

Why you're so afraid to let your ideas and views collect under a single account? Are they that controversial or are you weary of your own thoughts and don't want to see them again, or are you afraid to own your views as yours?

We're talking (mostly) tech here, and nobody is forced to comment.
by sarchertech | 2025-06-06 22:59:25+00:00
My wife is a pediatric ER doctor. There has been no decrease in visits since ChatGPT came out. If anything there have been more because ChatGPT over recommends ER visits.

Expert systems have been able to diagnose many illnesses better than doctors for decades but they have replaced precisely zero doctors for many reasons, but the biggest is that they can’t accept liability for their recommendations.

No company will ever release a consumer medical product that doesn’t tell 99% of patients they should check with their doctor.

Also do you have any idea how many times my wife has said something to friends and family like “no you don’t need to go to the ER, you can wait and if their fever doesn’t go away in X days see their pediatrician during normal hours. It’s likely a virus and nothing can be done anyway”, only to have that person take their child to the ER because they want a doctor to look at their kid and tell them face face that nothing is wrong.

A phone call with an expert they know isn’t enough to replace an in person visit. ChatGPT will never be enough.

As far as radiologists go, they haven’t been replaced yet despite people saying it would happen for years. And they are in a unique position where people never actually see them.

But even if all image reads are done with AI, they can always retrain as interventional radiologists.
by cameldrv | 2025-06-06 23:00:25+00:00
Regular sportsbooks (i.e. non-exchange, they're making the market) don't necessarily want the "liquidity." At least many years ago when I was doing this professionally, there were "sharp books" and "square books."

The sharp books more or less operated the way you're describing. They would try to set the line as close to the true odds as possible. They knew who the sharp bettors were, and they may have limited their bets to some degree, but they would take them and adjust the lines accordingly. You have to be a very good bookmaker for this strategy to work, because every line that's a little bit off is going to get pounced on for the max bet.

The square books' strategy was to keep the sharp bettors out by limiting their bets severely or kicking them out entirely. This also lets them set the lines in a way that makes them more money, because there are a number of biases recreational bettors tend to be subject to. In particular, they tend to overbet on favorites, and they tend to underappreciate the home team advantage. There's also an effect where people will tend to bet on their favorite team, and so teams from large markets get more bets than teams from small markets. By moving the line a few percent one way, they can make significantly more money on average.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-06 23:02:06+00:00
> IQ may not be real but IQ tests are and black expressing genotypes

"Black expressing genotypes" is the kind of phrase you'd expect someone to come up with if they wanted to mean "phenotype" but had a political motive for wanting something that sounded like "gene" to be in it.

> reliably score lower on them on average.

No, they don't. In the US there has been a significant—but inconsistent over time, racial IQ gap—but both the variability over time in that gap and all the studies that explore more details besides just broad racial contours show that that gap is at least largely and likely entirely due to socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors correlated with race, and not genetic.
by wk_end | 2025-06-06 23:02:22+00:00
There's a lot in this article that I really identify with: the preference for a functional style (even if I'm just not smart enough to do the whole ultra-abstract symbol soup Haskell thing); the comfort I feel leaning on the compiler; "it also always feels like I’m tricking Lisp into doing what I want, rather than simply expressing what I want" feels like it came right from my brain.

God, Lisp...the core language isn't exactly that interesting in this day-and-age. Dynamic typing, garbage collection, anonymous functions, this has been the bread-and-butter of Python, JS, Ruby, etc. developers for like 20 years now. It's got some really powerful features like conditions and CLOS. But then the bulk of the language and library built on top is such a mess: it's missing so much basic functionality, but also has so many niche functions that can be configured every which way with niche keyword arguments, and they all turned out to be evolutionary dead-ends and much worse than what the rest of the world settled on (actually CLOS probably falls into this category too). I think it's this, more than anything, that makes programming in Lisp feel like an act of trickery rather than clear thinking.

But I'll also say that I've been hobby programming in Lisp a bit recently and, despite that, I've been finding it immensely pleasurable, the first time I've really enjoyed working with a computer in years. The highly interactive, image-based workflow is just so much smoother than my day job, where I'm constantly jumping between VSCode and Chrome and a console and manually rebuilding and sitting around waiting...

Macros may be a double-edged sword - they encourage monstrosities like LOOP, rather than building more powerful/regular/comprehensible language features like iterators or comprehensions. BUT when paired with that interactive development experience, it really feels like you're in a dialogue with the computer, building out a little computational universe.
by whatever1 | 2025-06-06 23:02:41+00:00
The replacement driver's license of a colleague of mine was stolen from his mail, and since then his financial life has been ruined.

Cars were rented in his name across multiple states and never returned, At&T charged dozen of apple products in his account, SoFi approved and disbursed loan in his name, credit cards were opened, credit score completely ruined. Some of them happened even after he froze his SSN.

And the answer he gets is "Too bad, there is nothing we can do". He is now fighting multiple legal cases against him.

Every time I think about it my blood boils.