MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-29 17:02:55+00:00
Schizophrenia is pretty interesting this way. It's rare for it to show up outside of a certain age range, somewhere around 20 to 35 iirc.

It's strongly correlated to genetics, and most people are totally asymptomatic, no idea they have it until one day they do.

The story of sudden-onset schizophrenia inducing a psychosis making the patient unwilling to consider treatment is depressingly common.
by _annum | 2025-06-29 17:03:21+00:00
Your colleague is wrong and this is a tired debate, but neither are easy.

Engineering deals mostly with objective outcomes. Space shuttle designers have a clear goal and measurable performance metrics. The problems are extremely hard but the design constraints permit a more focused development process.

Architecture is technical but mostly subjective, and deals with a host of multi-disciplinary and social concerns. It's quite open-ended and difficult to settle on an optimal approach. Extreme budget limitations, building code, zoning restrictions, public consultation, and the idiosyncrasies of personal taste complicate this process further. Full-size prototyping is also less common and it's almost impossible to truly test the outcome of a design before actually constructing something.

Building a house and building a perfect house are drastically different accomplishments. A lot of people will even hate the perfect house – there's no winning!

I have a great deal of respect for engineers and (competent) architects. The latter are rare.
by geoctl | 2025-06-29 17:03:22+00:00
Thank you. I think your description is great but I, as a user myself, might see it as an identity-aware proxy (i.e. something like Pomerium and Ory Oathkeeper IaPs which are great projects) as opposed to a complete Kubernetes-tier platform that does the entire process of remote access, access control, visibility and auditing, user and identtiy management, centralized policy management, etc... from a data-plane and control-plane perspective for an arbitrary number of resources that need to be protected.
by surgical_fire | 2025-06-29 17:03:27+00:00
I use Google Wallet for some things because I am an Android user, and sometimes the most convenient way to pay for shit online is using the mobile wallet. I just happen to hate Apple more than I hate Google.

That said, both Apple and Google are shit companies that should jot be trusted with this. I with there was a third option

Also, please not FB. I have to be careful with what I wish sometimes.
by KittenInABox | 2025-06-29 17:03:53+00:00
If all the people who passionately pursue art decided to pursue only profitable full-time jobs, you bet that your software developer job would pay shit like an art and you'd be way worse off than if you just paid a few hundred bucks (at most, let's be real, unless you have serious assets in which why would we pity you) annually to allow to a civilized society that actually allows for cultural innovations.
Show HN: StopAddict – A minimalist, gamified app to quit addictions
by skyzouw | 2025-06-29 17:04:31+00:00
Hi HN,

I built StopAddict, a minimalist, gamified tool to help people quit addictions like nicotine, porn, social media, sugar, etc., by tracking streaks and earning XP for each day clean.

Existing habit trackers felt too generic and didn’t give me the push I needed during the hardest moments. StopAddict is designed specifically for quitting: • Gamified streaks: Earn XP and level up each day you stay clean. • Relapse-friendly: If you relapse, your streak resets, but your XP remains, so you don’t lose all progress. • Progress charts: Visualize your journey over weeks and months. • Private-first: Your data stays private, with export options if needed. • Clean interface: No distractions, just your progress and goals.

I would love your feedback on: • What would make a tool like this genuinely helpful for you? • Would you want community features, or do you prefer simplicity? • What has worked (or failed) for you when trying to quit an addiction?

Link: https://www.stopaddict.net/

Thanks for reading, and happy to answer any questions.
by ringeryless | 2025-06-29 17:04:33+00:00
as the rights holder, creator of content, of COURSE it is reasonable for me to assign these rights as I see fit, and scraping my works without my consent is brazen theft. I am free to not grant usage to pattern rip-off machines, that explicitly are NOT humans consuming my work in manners i have in mind.

spare me the false equivalence of pattern theft from human beings learning or reacting.

the express purpose of said pattern ripoff machines is to obviate me and regurgitate likenesses of my work, so, no, i shall not participate in my own murder.
by skyzouw | 2025-06-29 17:04:53+00:00
Thanks for checking this out.

I’m especially looking for feedback on: • What would actually help you quit an addiction with a tool like this? • Would you prefer a completely private, simple tool or would community/accountability features help you more? • Is gamification (XP, levels) motivating for you, or does it feel unnecessary? • What blockers have you faced when trying to quit in the past that a tool could help with?
by stogot | 2025-06-29 17:05:02+00:00
> A few years ago I was reading a story about FOX News (know your enemy) and the author (who’s name I apologize for not remembering) mentioned that FOX News’ main goal was to make people afraid to leave their house

This isn’t knowing your enemy. It’s admitting you knowingly read articles that reinforce your bias. Reading or watching FOX News would be to know thy enemy
by hinkley | 2025-06-29 17:05:51+00:00
Malware has bugs. In fact some viruses have done far more damage than the author intended due to bugs.

There was a substantially effective virus years ago that made it around the world in 90 minutes, and it turns out a bug in its networking code caused it to spread half as fast as it should have. Meaning it should have been everywhere in 45 minutes. You can still do a lot of damage without hitting every machine in existence.
by giantg2 | 2025-06-29 17:05:58+00:00
This has nothing to do with subsisting while learning your craft. This is about a supply and demand difference and the inequality in entertainment roles. If you have too many actors, then the nobodies get paid next to nothing while the famous people get the lion's share. And many of those nobodies never make even close to earning a living because the supply side is saturated and the demand side doesn't want to pay for that art. You have to have buyers.
by hylaride | 2025-06-29 17:06:22+00:00
> What am I missing?

Right now, nothing major. At some point the big companies (Google, cloud flare, etc) may very well tire of having to pay more and more for ipv4 address that they may provide incentives for IPv6 (eg they could start throttling IPv4). There are some early moves going on already here. AWS used to only charge for unused IPv4 elastic IP addresses and now charge for them regardless of their use.

Honestly, the next time you upgrade your gateway/router you may as well set it up to be ready, but you're otherwise not missing anything right now. You can also use IPv4/v6 at the same time. You can enable it on your router and your IPv4-only devices will still work perfectly fine. One note, auto-discovery on IPv6 was a bit of a shitshow (SLAAC, IPv6 auto-addressing, and DHCPv6 all were a thing and the original auto-addressing didn't even support getting DNS servers), but things are settling on SLAAC (though ISPs will be using dhcpv6 for a loooong time).
by xyst | 2025-06-29 17:07:39+00:00
The trick is to become a company like "CrowdStrike", get your crappy software that runs at kernel level signed, then you can run all of the "suspicious" calls to sys apis all you want. Forget determining if it’s a VM or not.

Just push untested code/releases on production machines across all of your customers. Then watch the world burn, flights get delayed, critical infrastructure gets hammered, _real_ people get impacted.

_Legitimate_ companies have done more damage to American companies than black hat hackers or state actors can ever dream of.

The folks behind xz util within libzma aspire to cause the amount of damage companies like ClownStrike and SolarWinds have caused.
by diggan | 2025-06-29 17:08:13+00:00
Then of course we have Node-Red too, which probably is too developer focused (and generally just lacking any sort of focus at the same time, strangely), so also doesn't sit somewhere closer to the middle.

Do we really not having anything coming close to the usefulness of Yahoo Pipes yet? What would a modern alternative look like and how would it work? Someone has to thinking about this.
by scarface_74 | 2025-06-29 17:08:31+00:00
No they can’t according to the latest Supreme Court ruling. It’s up to the states now and states where abortion is not allowed or performed by Planned Parenthood are forbidding Medicaid reimbursement for non abortion services.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/5-things-to-know-a...

> But the state-federal health insurance program for lower-income people does pay for other services from Planned Parenthood, including birth control, cancer screenings and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overruled lower courts and said that patients don't necessarily have the right to sue for Medicaid to cover their health care from specific providers.
by voidhorse | 2025-06-29 17:08:57+00:00
> And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist.

I don't have a problem with differences in wealth. My problem is with (a) differences so extreme that they border on the inhumane (we arguably have enough resources amassed to end world hunger, yet people still starve. Why?) (b) People are fed the lie that this system is purely meritocratic. That is plainly untrue. That was my point about the relative "distance" your money can go. If you are born into a wealthy family, you can basically live a zero-labor life and continue to reap rewards, generate more income, gather more resources for yourself, concentrate capital. When your origin is the greatest determining factor in wealth, it's a gross lie to suggest to day laborers that if they just "work hard" they too can strike it rich.

Sure, I would agree that under the current system manhattan remains unaffordable. But this is not an essential property of manhattan, as you seem to think. It is a side effect of the current economic structure we have. Alternative structures would lead to significantly more affordable living in the city. In fact the NYC dems just voted for a mayoral candidate who wants to establish such an alternative. People who think like you are increasingly becoming the minority, and it's because it's glaringly and exceedingly obvious that there are massive problems of wealth distribution in the current system. You can honestly identify that there are issues and ask for solutions without being anti capitalist.

People get so caught up in morality when it comes to wealth, which is absurd. As if somehow wanting some of Bezos money to be redistributed so that it can feed people instead of paying for 500mil dollar yatchs is a moral affront. How about we instead focus on the moral affront of underpaying workers, having them the piss in bottles in warehouses, gaming the system by incorporating offshore, the list is endless. It's hilarious that anyone would defend the rights of these robber barons. You've got to be either seriously brainwashed or an extreme ideologue to think that there are no issues with inequality today. Even staunch capitalists are starting to admit there are problems. Its simple systems dynamics. Any system that maximizes singular variables is necessarily unstable and heading toward collapse.
by latexr | 2025-06-29 17:10:11+00:00
> It's genuinely getting depressing watching HN try to justify Tim Cook's actions ad-hoc.

Your comment is absurd. I criticise Tim Cook all the time.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Try to understand what people are saying without injecting your own preconceived notions and maybe you won’t get as depressed. Making a correction about a point is not the same as defending it.
by ringeryless | 2025-06-29 17:10:28+00:00
i think there is a fundamental rather simple insight you should probably grasp, instead of shooting the messenger:

the humans, writ large, do not want this LLM revolution. a handful of well connected folks overruling this and ramming AI everything down everyone's throats will not alter this sentiment to become acceptance instead.

polling is consistent with the articles simple conclusion, so your claim of manufactured outrage rings hollow.
by pizlonator | 2025-06-29 17:11:11+00:00
> The problem is that data races in C and C++ do in fact get combined with other memory safety bugs into exploits.

Because C and C++ are not memory safe.

> A definition from first principles is still missing, but imagine it takes the form of "all memory access is free from UB". Then whether the pointer is in-bounds, or whether no thread is concurrently mutating the location seem to be quite similar constraints.

I think it's useful to work backwards from the languages that security folks say are "memory safe", since what they're really saying is, "I cannot use the attacks I'm familiar with against programs written in these languages".

Based on that, saying "no UB" isn't enough, and only looking at memory accesses isn't enough.

WebAssembly has no UB, but pointers defined to just be integers (i.e. the UB-free structured assembly semantics of a C programmer's dreams). So, attackers can do OOB and UAF data attacks within the wasm memory. The only thing attackers cannot do is control the instruction pointer or escape the wasm memory (unless the wasm embedder has a weak sandbox policy, in which case they can do both). Overall, I think that memory-safety-in-the-sense-of-wasm isn't really memory safety at all. It's too exploitable.

To be memory safe like the "MSLs" that security folks speak of, you also need to consider stuff like function calls. Depending on the language, you might have to look at other stuff, too.

I think that what security folks consider "memory safe" is the combination of these things:

1) Absence of UB. Every outcome is well defined.

2) Pointers (or whatever pointer-like construct your language has) can only be used to access whatever allocation the originated from (i.e. pointers carry capabilities).

And it's important that these get "strongly" combined; i.e. there is no operation in the language that could be used to break a pointer's capability enforcement.

Java and Fil-C both have a strong combination of (1) and (2).

But, long story short, it's true that a definition of memory safety from first principles is missing in the sense that the field hasn't settled on a consensus for what the definition should be. It's controversial because you could argue that under my definition, Rust isn't memory safe (you can get to UB in Rust). And, you could argue that wasm meets (2) because "the allocation" is just "all of memory". I'm not even sure I like my own definition. At some point you have to say more words about what an allocation is.
by clickety_clack | 2025-06-29 17:11:29+00:00
There’s bad ideas like “it wasn’t possible to execute this the way we thought we could”, and bad ideas like “this goes against the core values of what this company is”.

The first is something that might have gone better in better circumstances, so it’s a learning opportunity. The second shows you either don’t understand the company and decided to carry on despite that, or you just don’t care about the company, but either way it reflects poorly enough on an individual that a firing should be on the table.
by martin-t | 2025-06-29 17:11:39+00:00
They probably should not by copyrightable by the person prompting the model, at least not to the full extend of normal copyright.

But they are still based on the training data. An untrained model is a random noise generator. A model trained exclusively on GPL code will therefore obviously only generate useful code thanks to the GPL input. The output is literally derived from the "training data" input and the prompt.

Now, given the input is a much more substantial than the prompt by orders of magnitude, the prompt is basically irrelevant.

So what the license of the output should be based on is the training data. The big players can only avoid this logical conclusion by pretending that the model ("AI") is some kind of intelligent entity and also by training on everything so any license is only a minority of the input. It's just manipulation.
by dropkick_koala | 2025-06-29 17:12:00+00:00
If you are feeling attacked, I get it. Most people are building or vibe coding in oversaturated or non-existent markets.

I was not about to have my 21st failed project, that was an L I could not accept. So I obsessively collected every signal I could since the new year

- abandoned repos - expired business domains - saas marketplaces - reddit and twitter sentiment - trademark records - removed apps - libraries gone quiet etc etc

The data is interesting but you still need to know how to use it. I threw together a newsletter since Mar and have climbed past 3k. Go figure it is the most successful thing I have build, giving away shovels for free.

I also am almost ready to release an MCP server so you can just tie it into your favorite frontier model and rubber duck with some more focused data points. You can vibe code an app, but not an idea.

Let me know if you want a sample from last month or to know if specific sources are being used that you are interested in.
by DoctorOW | 2025-06-29 17:12:12+00:00
This doesn't work in practice. Marketing for instance rewards spending far more than skill. Sure social media/viral marketing can theoretically be free, but that just kicks the can down the road. My friend's band is (in my opinion) terrific, but despite constantly playing shows and posting everywhere haven't gotten "instan" success". They haven't gotten the recommendation algorithms or playlists skewed in their favor by signing with a major publisher but that comes with its own problems
by abeppu | 2025-06-29 17:12:28+00:00
> If consciousness exists on a gradient rather than as a binary state, then each architectural advance might add layers of cognitive sophistication that could eventually support conscious experience.

It's 2025 and I'm frustrated that after decades of discussion we still can't get people to be clear about what they mean about consciousness. This article is all about cognitive capacities and behaviors and just assumes that these lead up to/are linked with conscious "experience".

The Global Workspace Theory the author cites is about how we put attention on the most important stuff. Yes, one can make an analogy to how AI models today integrate information, but that's in part because Baars was making a cogsci analog to what 1980s AI models were already doing:

> Bernard Baars derived inspiration for the theory as the cognitive analog of the blackboard system of early artificial intelligence system architectures, where independent programs shared information.

But describing how we highlight information doesn't at all speak to why/how we have a qualia of that highlighted thing. Later in the wikipedia article, Baars' own "theater" metaphor is described, and you'll note it bears a striking resemblance to the "Cartesian Theater" as described by Dennett. This basically just shifts the qualia question: Roughly, who is watching the stage?

If a rat can have qualia (and we use them to test depression meds) but not "recursive self-reflection", and a scheme interpreter can have "recursive self-reflection" but not conscious experience, then "consciousness" might not be a binary, but also isn't a "gradient" which implies you just have more or less of it. We have no clear signal from LLMs, no matter how sophisticated their responses, are _experiencing_ anything.

I'm not taking a position on the consciousness of models; I think it's genuinely possible that a system of [tokenizing/embedding "perception"] -> [transformer-based generation] -> [recursive self-invocation] -> [actions/"tools" to interact with env], or something similar is potentially a really interesting tool for exploring cognition. But we shouldn't be using LLMs that have been trained on the speech / behaviors of already conscious beings. Consciousness arose in animals perhaps multiple times but not by copying pre-existing conscious creatures. Using language models specifically to examine this stuff muddies the water because we should absolutely expect them to produce text about an internal experience (we gave them examples like this!) whether or not that experience actually exists.
by spacemadness | 2025-06-29 17:12:28+00:00
This reminds me of the guy that told me he didn’t need to travel anywhere because the internet exists and people already write about it and leave pictures. This was in the 90s. Not the same obviously. And I agree that crowds can be super annoying sometimes. And it obviously depends on the context of the type of music created, etc. But in your nicely controlled environment you can miss out on spontaneity or energy that can’t be replaced.
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-29 17:12:54+00:00
Radio buttons were also often round. The age of radio (and phenolics) was full of over-inflated round shapes.

But also, when you have a dozen monochromatic pixels to work with, 'square' and 'round' are pretty much the only usefully distinct shapes. Checkboxes were square for obvious reasons, so to distinguish a similar set of controls, you pretty much have to use a circle.

I'm pretty sure these concepts moved directly from physical systems to digital ones. Every person alive then knew what an empty square next to a line of text meant, and everyone understood the concept of ganged push-buttons. Just map it onto a pixel grid and you're good to go
by pstuart | 2025-06-29 17:13:01+00:00
There was a very large bee colony in the walls of a neighboring house that was in disrepair, and it would emit swarms on a regular basis - which prompted me to capture one and get it in a hive so I could join in the beekeeping adventure.

It was a failure and a lesson learned: bees like sunny locations that can help keep their hive warm, and a shaded yard will not hold them long -- they will abscond.
by graemep | 2025-06-29 17:13:18+00:00
The west is very naive. A lot of the current state of the world is a result of western politicians believing the "end of history" theories of the 1980s - the idea that any country would naturally become a free market liberal democracy as it grew richer.

China is building soft power. We have Chinese funded teaching in British universities, lecturers moved from teaching a course because they upset Chinese students (who supported the regime), open apologists at places like Jesus College, Cambridge, agents building influence with MPs....

I agree Taiwan is unlikely to easily agree to be taken over by China, but that is because they know what living under Chinese rule will be like, not because of the soft power of the west.
by jruohonen | 2025-06-29 17:14:02+00:00
"Low Quality Output: Most of these are built on old, poorly-trained AI, resulting in clumsy English, generic designs, and obvious mistakes."

Although I can only provide an anecdote, the above is really my feeling too. Despite the widespread fearmongering, they're not really delivering (yet). That said:

"Scams aren’t just getting smarter, they’re getting sloppier, too. It only takes a moment’s distraction or worry to fall for a bad one."

Ref.:

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=44414235