MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by joshvm | 2025-07-11 18:31:48+00:00
> Fix the cables in place. This can be very fiddly. It helps greatly to have a fine pointed set of tweezers to assist with placement, bending and the application of pressure whilst screw-down is underway. Take your time and try to get all the cable core under the screw or at least a fair amount.

If you do this mod, you should really use crimped ring connectors instead of just hooking the power cables around the screws. It greatly reduces the risk of pull-out since the screw retains the connector, which also means less chance of shorts and a much easier install. Also since the terminals are uniform and flat, you get much more even clamping. I would also add heat shrink over the crimp.

I don't have a Mini so can't comment on the right size to buy, but you can buy ring terminals in practically any diameter for next to nothing:

https://www.digikey.com/en/products/filter/terminals/ring-co...
by itake | 2025-07-11 18:32:06+00:00
> It is a fact that Elon was personally unhappy with some of Grok's answers and tried to "fix" it, i.e. align it with his personal political views.

Cool! You can also replace "Elon" with "Sundar" as Google’s CEO openly pushed for more PoC and women in image search. Did you grab your pitch forks then? Or are you just upset when CEO's align AI away from your personal biases? or you a reflexive Musk opposer?
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-07-11 18:32:07+00:00
Strongly disagree with #2. I think every foreigner who visits the big Japanese cities gets charmed by its quirky land use and small shops, but the reality of Japan is that most things are owned by conglomerates and that depopulation means that increasingly blue collar work is being done by immigrants (sound familiar?) Japanese lifestyle resembles America from the 2000s in broad strokes. China and India still have a lot of their older culture present. Indians often dress in clothing that's recognizably non-Western in every day situations and both countries have food cultures that are pretty different from the West.
by lelandfe | 2025-07-11 18:32:07+00:00
Yes, it’s your bubble. There are American states still charging people over marijuana. Having grown up Christian I personally know people in their 30s who view psychedelic and heroin users similarly. Those people would have the opposite view of you.

Years back, my friend’s parents asked me to stage an intervention for him after they found out he regularly took LSD. He was 19 at the time.
by patmcc | 2025-07-11 18:32:19+00:00
>>>I content that it is simply not possible to evaluate the "unimproved value" of a given parcel.

I think there's a perfectly fine way; you estimate it the way we currently estimate properly values for tax purposes. If they owner doesn't like that value, you allow them to contest it, and we immediately accept any contested claim and value it as the owner desires, with two small caveats: a) they pay tax on the claimed value, to ensure they don't over value and b) they are required to sell to anyone at claimed value + 10%, to ensure they don't under value.

edit: two points to address some responses. First, it can be claimed land value + assessed/claimed improvement value + 10%, that's fine. Second, I'd only require they sell at that value if the owner contests the original appraisal. If they accept it, nobody can buy their stuff out from under them for any price.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-07-11 18:32:28+00:00
Usually, it’s only “states rights” when conservatives want something. To be determined if this sticks as it rolls out to more states, or the federal government attempts to infringe on state authority. No different than the Missouri governor overriding voters and repealing voter-approved paid sick leave and minimum wage law, Ohio conservatives attempting to override voters on reproductive healthcare, Florida raising the bar for ballot initiatives, Texas gerrymandering efforts currently in progress, etc.

“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum

https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights
by brilee | 2025-07-11 18:33:06+00:00
As a former big tech engineer, I can't help but come up with a gazillion ways to work around these sorts of seemingly straightforward policies.

Here's one way they could get around their own privacy policy: keep track of what % of Claude-generated code is retained in the codebase over time (as an indicator of how high-quality / bug-free the code was); A/B test variations of Claude Code to see which variations have higher retention percentages.

No usage data is retained, no code is retained, no data is used (other than a single floating point number) and yet they get to improve their product atop your usage patterns.

Here's another idea: use a summarization model to transform your session transcript into a set of bits saying "user was satisfied/dissatisfied with this conversation", "user indicated that claude was doing something dangerous", "user indicated that claude was doing something overly complicated / too simple", "user interrupted claude", "user indicated claude should remember something in CLAUDE.md", etc. etc. and then train on these auxiliary signals, without ever seeing the original code or usage data.
by yorpinn | 2025-07-11 18:34:14+00:00
You will have deeper and better conversations if you know what questions to ask.

Things that work for you might not work for others. Communication and connection is a need, not a vice.

The idea that you can tell them that their relationships aren't important is so chauvinistic and inappropriate. You ought to take a step back and reflect before commenting further, that's out of line.
by wahern | 2025-07-11 18:34:33+00:00
> The government has incentives to inflate their estimates of the value of unimproved land

In fact, the opposite is the case. In the few US cities--historically and present--with an LVT, the political pressure was and is to consistently undervalue the land. Because the quickest way for your administration to get voted out of office is for your tax assessors to be hard-asses about applying the LVT formula, let alone inflate assessments. As the article highlights, one of the problems with LVT is that your assessment can rise preciptiously through no "fault" of your own, which engenders a strong sense of insecurity wrt your property. That has tax-payer revolt written all over it.

Yet underassessing has its own problems--it erodes legitimacy of the government. Prior to Prop 13 property assessors were consistently underassessing the property of senior citizen homeowners. But this engendered a sense of capriciousness that was felt most acutely by, ironically, senior citizen homeowners.

None of which is to say LVT could never work, but it requires a tremendous shift in the political culture. The legitimacy of the existing property tax structure and its relationship to our conception of property rights is baked into our political culture; shifting to a new system will necessarily be incredibly difficult and destabilizing.
by willguest | 2025-07-11 18:34:40+00:00
This is a well-written piece, but I generally found the author to lean too much in to the 'we can't be absolutely sure, so we know nothing for certain' type of argument. He points this out himself, saying that the presence of conflicting data suggest that we need to "reason under uncertainty".

I think his approach is characterised well by the following section: "1. Yes, okay, that line is pointing very slightly down, and apparently this is statistically significant.

2. But also, the data are very noisy. Some studies from 2005 show higher sperm counts than most studies from the 1970s. The biggest pre-1980 study shows sperm counts very similar to today’s."

The style of language "yes, okay" and "apparently" soften the position of statistical significance and the counterpoint is vague and dated. Again, there seems to be a bias towards claiming "we just don't know", whereas the data show that there is a statistical trend.

I am not saying that I take any single paper as gospel, but the general conclusion he comes to: 'let's wait 20 years and see what happens", feels like a call to inaction, which can be risky.

Also, for a meta-analysis, the article is not very well-referenced and doesn't seem all that broad. Having done a couple of these myself, I would have expected some kind of summary of the number and size of studies pointing to each/no conclusion. This shortcoming makes it easier to come to his stated conclusion that 'we just don't know'.
by adverbly | 2025-07-11 18:35:50+00:00
Happy to answer anyone's questions on LVT if they have them!

It sort of breaks your head the first time you try to think about it because we are just not used to thinking about supply and demand in cases where supply is actually fixed, and that's where all the magic benefits come from. Happy to answer any questions people have.

Full disclosure though I'm a huge proponent!

As with any policy, there are some advantages and disadvantages but I think on the whole LVT is probably the single best policy change we could make as a society.
by zarzavat | 2025-07-11 18:36:31+00:00
Hmm. As a Brit I would not consider a trip to Paris to be "tourism". It's just a trip over the border. Yes they speak a different language there but it's a language that I was forced to study in school. No doubt Germans feel the same way.

Going to Spain on the other hand would be tourism. I don't speak Spanish, it's not a neighbouring country, you arrive in an airport, etc.

If an American or a Chinese person goes to Paris I feel they likely have different motivations and itinerary than a Brit, Belgian, etc who is taking the train possibly only for the day.
by wk_end | 2025-07-11 18:36:34+00:00
I agree with OP that this seems a little unfortunate, even though it's pretty par for the course.

"Bugs are not recoverable errors" is such a fuzzy idea. On the one hand, indexing an array with an out-of-bounds integer could just be considered a program bug. On the other, the point of making the indexing operation return an optional value is to force the program to handle that scenario, preventing it from being a bug. One of the examples they give of a "recoverable error" is illegal user input, but in the case of "the user enters an index and it might be invalid", the language does nothing to keep the recoverable error from turning into an unrecoverable program bug.
by niam | 2025-07-11 18:36:46+00:00
> which starts to defeat the claimed purpose of a Land Value Tax.

What do you think others claim the purpose of an LVT is?

> every LVT discussion eventually comes back to some inclusion of other factors to adjust the taxes or provide exemptions

This argument seems only to follow from a belief that carving exceptions out of policy here is either: inherently bad, lends to a slippery slope towards badness, or is fundamentally incompatible with the professed aims of an LVT (hence my asking).

I don't believe any of those are true, so this sounds to me an unfair indictment against the otherwise legitimate strategy of "keep what's good; change what's bad", which is practical and works for other policy all the time. While I'd scorn the complexity of our current tax code, I wouldn't do so on principle of exemptions being bad, but rather that we've made poor tradeoffs or struck a bad balance.
by jjice | 2025-07-11 18:37:13+00:00
Yeah it's actually one of the things I like most about Obsidian - your "vault" is literally just a directory. Everything is just a markdown file and it's just a normal directory structure and it's all exactly as you'd expect.

I used to take my normal notes as plain text or markdown in a similar structure, so "moving" to Obsidian was just opening the directory. It doesn't show plain text by default, so you'll have to rename them to .md files, but other than that, you're up and running immediately. It's saved the exact same way on mobile as well.

It's the most extensive note management software I've used that also doesn't remove the basics like letting me control the files myself.
by searine | 2025-07-11 18:37:42+00:00
>my point is that regulation is a burden

By definition. Like a laws against murder are a burden to murderers.

The key to stopping murders isn't "get rid of the murder laws", but fix what made these people people violent (like lead poisoning?). Or in the context of this kind of regulation, the solution isn't to get rid of regulation, but make business account for the costs of their externalities from the beginning (rather than being forced to be moral by the government).
by hasanhaja | 2025-07-11 18:37:47+00:00
But if you don't know the underlying platform, how can you be sure that your framework is high level enough or that it can do everything that's possible on the platform? You either have a framework with escape hatches (that'll require you to drop down to the bad stuff) or you have to wait until the framework catches up to the platform. Actually now that I think about it, React would fall in both camps.
by stego-tech | 2025-07-11 18:37:49+00:00
> So: what platforms are available?

I couldn't tell you, but what I can contribute to that discussion is that orchestration of AI in its current form would focus on one of two approaches: consistent output despite the non-deterministic state of LLMs, or consistent inputs that leans into the non-deterministic state of LLMs. The problem with the former (output) is that you cannot guarantee the output of an AI on a consistent basis, so a lot of the "orchestration" of outputs is largely just brute-forcing tokens until you get an answer within that acceptable range; think the glut of recent "Show HN" stuff where folks built a slop-app by having agents bang rocks together until the code worked.

On the input side of things, orchestration is less about AI itself and more about ensuring your data and tooling is consistently and predictably accessible to the AI such that the output is similarly predictable or consistent. If you ask an AI what 2+2 is a hundred different ways, you increase the likelihood of hallucinations; on the other hand, ensuring the agent/bot gets the same prompt with the same data formats and same desired outputs every single time makes it more likely that it'll stay on task and not make shit up.

My engagement with AI has been more of the input-side, since that's scalable with existing tooling and skillsets in the marketplace instead of the output side, which requires niche expertise in deep learning, machine learning, model training and fine-tuning, etc. In other words, one set of skills is cheaper and more plentiful while also having impacts throughout the organization (because everyone benefits from consistent processes and clean datasets), while the other is incredibly expensive and hard to come by with minimal impacts elsewhere unless a profound revolution is achieved.

One thing to note is that Dr. Ng gives the game away at the Q&A portion fairly early on: "In the future, the people who are the most powerful are the people who can make computers do exactly what you want it to do." In that context, the current AI slop is antithetical to what he's pitching. Sure, AI can improve speed on execution, prototyping, and rote processes, but the real power remains in the hands of those who can build with precision instead of brute-force. As we continue to hit barriers in the physical capabilities of modern hardware and wrestle with the effects of climate change and/or poor energy policies, efficiency and precision will gradually become more important than speed - at least that's my thinking.
by simonw | 2025-07-11 18:37:51+00:00
"Agentic" and "agent" can mean pretty much anything, there are a ton of different definitions out there.

When an LLM says it's "agentic" it usually means that it's been optimized for tool use. Pretty much all the big models (and most of the small ones) are designed for tool use these days, it's an incredibly valuable feature for a model to offer.

I don't think this new model is any more "agentic" than o3, o4-mini, Gemini 2.5 or Claude 4. All of those models are trained for tools, all of them are very competent at running tool calls in a loop to try to achieve a goal they have been given.
by TechDebtDevin | 2025-07-11 18:38:19+00:00
I grew up with this, born in 90, have witnessed gun violence in real life. I'm still not prepared to see someone getting executed in 4k immediately after I wake up. My past experiences don't prevent the type of anxiety that it causes, nor am I going to sweep for Instagram because I'm less of a pussy than the 12 yr olds seeing it right when they wake up also.
by 999900000999 | 2025-07-11 18:38:36+00:00
>NYC has been culturally more hostile to the upward mobility and long-term settlement of immigrant populations,

>On May 3, 1913, California enacted the Alien Land Law, designed to deny Japanese families their foothold in America by denying them the right to own land.

https://eji.org/news/californias-alien-land-laws/

I was done with this thread, but your not going to rewrite history.

Even well into the 60s non white people weren't allowed to buy homes outside of certain areas.
by aaaja | 2025-07-11 18:39:37+00:00
Not sure what you find objectionable about my use of language. I thought I was being very clear.

Point is that the female category in sports is constructed around female bodies, not identities. The category exists because if it didn't, sport would be dominated by male athletes and we would not be able to appreciate female athletic excellence. So, changing this to include a subset of male athletes with male physiological advantage undermines its main purpose.

This executive order, and similar policy elsewhere, which ensures male athletes are excluded from competing in the female category isn't "anti-trans" because, in fact, athletes with a trans identity can and do still compete in this category. Some examples: Keelin Godsey, Hergie Bacyadan, Iszac Henig.
by majormajor | 2025-07-11 18:39:41+00:00
If you're concerned with "it's underutilized because the population density is low and other people need more housing" than it would be much easier and more effective to directly pursue building housing on low-population-density non-residential land. Direct construction driven by the government, vs a multi-step strategy of "make people miserable with tax payments until they sell, hope the people they sell too will be deep-pocketed developers who will build super-high-density stuff instead of just fancier homes for richer families, and hope all this happens quickly."

Cause a tax amount that goes up based on what people with more money than you do on other pieces of property simply gives more power to the wealthy. "Underutilized" as far as tax implications go then means "people with more money than you would like there to be something else there."

And, of course, this already happens with US property taxes in many jurisdictions. And people absolutely hate it.

"Tax incentives to downgrade to a smaller property" sounds great in theory for retirees sitting in huge properties, but I think is limited in practice. The people with the really big places are wealthy and politically influential, so you'll get Prop 13s, or you'll get the recent cuts to property tax in Texas. "Make housing more affordable by cutting the taxes!" And the people impacted by more aggressive taxes will less be the boomers in giant houses and more be the poorer retirees in multi-generational living situations, or ones in fairly small condos.
by benreesman | 2025-07-11 18:39:44+00:00
Carmack did very much almost exactly the same with the Trinity / Quake3 Engine: IIRC it was LCC, maybe tcc, one of the C compilers you can actually understand totally as an individual.

He compiled C with some builtins for syscalls, and then translated that to his own stack machine. But, he also had a target for native DLLs, so same safe syscall interface, but they can segv so you have to trust them.

Crazy to think that in one computer program (that still reads better than high-concept FAANG C++ from elite lehends, truly unique) this wasn't even the most dramatic innovation. It was the third* most dramatic revolution in one program.

If you're into this stuff, call in sick and read the plan files all day. Gives me googebumps.
by Mathnerd314 | 2025-07-11 18:40:20+00:00
Ok so jank is Clojure but with C++/LLVM runtime rather than JVM. So already all of its types are C++ types, that presumably makes things a lot easier. Basically it just uses libclang / CppInterOp to get the corresponding LLVM types and then emits a function call. https://github.com/jank-lang/jank/blob/interop/compiler%2Bru...
by arp242 | 2025-07-11 18:40:22+00:00
It's always been like this as well. Back when Slack first started gaining prominence ten years ago it was the only webapp that made my laptop's fan spin loudly. We actually migrated to HipChat because of that.

Same with how much space the entire thing wastes: it's clearly designed by people with 8K 30" monitors and perfect vision.

I have many more gripes, but that would be too off-topic. I don't understand how it got so popular.
by XenophileJKO | 2025-07-11 18:40:44+00:00
Yes, Shikoku and Kyushu are both very pleasant from my experience. Shikoku felt the least visited. In Matsuyama, I saw only a handful of western tourists and even those were mostly blended families probably visiting relatives.

It was really pleasant. I keep trying to move farther off the beaten path on each trip.
by RyanOD | 2025-07-11 18:40:50+00:00
Have you ever considered where you would be if all the hours you channeled into the sport you hated had been channeled into something you loved? Maybe you could have had the best of both worlds? Who knows...

But I totally understand what you're saying, I can't say I ever (EVER!) enjoyed going to practice, but I stuck it out and ended up making it to the Big Ten level as a walk-on. I'm very proud of that accomplishment.
by EMIRELADERO | 2025-07-11 18:40:55+00:00
> The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads.

The whole "user agreement" thing is one of the biggest problems, because it means Apple thinks you buying an iPhone doesn't inherently entitle you to the advertised functionality of it.

Which is, to out it mildly, highly misleading and potentially illegal. The "small print" shouldn't contradict the big picture. You can't pretend you're selling a device and then turn around and declare that those sales were only about raw hardware and not actual functionality. That's not how products work, and most importantly, not how consumer protection laws see it.

The reason why Apple is so adamant in this line of reasoning is clear once you factor in the App Store rationale. From that perspective, any time a third-party app runs on a user's device and calls iOS APIs in order to actually function, it's not part of what the user actually paid money for. Any execution of any software that uses those APIs is an additional transaction altogether, dealt with separately through the iOS EULA. In short, Apple's position is that any time iOS does anything, either by default or powering a third-party app, it's not actually part of the functionality that was paid for in full by the iPhone's owner, because the owner never paid for ANY functionality at all, only the hardware.
by dcre | 2025-07-11 18:40:57+00:00
Reasonable question, simple answer: "New breed of model" is overstating it — all these models for years have been fine-tuned using reinforcement learning on a variety of tasks, it's just that the set of tasks (and maybe the amount of RL) has changed over time to include more tool use tasks, and this has made them much, much better at the latter. The explosion of tools like Claude Code this year is driven by the models just being more effective at it. The orchestration external to the model you mention is what people did before this year and it did not work as well.