MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JKCalhoun | 2025-07-15 14:25:55+00:00
Not disagreeing with the economics behind it, but this movie-goer walked away decades ago when the "super hero" genre became Hollywood's focus.

Even before that though otherwise decent movies were starting to play heavy handed and treating their audiences for children that need lecturing — need "The Moral of the Story" spelled out for them. I disliked the "book-ending" that was popular when Titanic, Saving Private Ryan (and even Schindler's List) were released.

Music in film too has, for some time now, been telling us how to feel much too often. In romps or swashbuckling films it's probably an expected part of the genre. I just wish there were more quiet films where we are left to feel for ourselves.

Billy's death in The Last Picture Show (and as metaphor for the death of the town) is an excellent example of old-school film making where you just let the film do the talking. And then it is us, the viewers, who are left talking about it, thinking about it afterward.

Maybe the biggest tragedy of heavy-handed film making is it leaves nothing to really even ponder afterward. I kind of like films that leave you thinking about them much, much later.

While I remember seeing great films like Cool Hand Luke, Summer of '42 and The Last Picture Show, working through the "1001 Movies to See Before You Die" has been a real eye-opener to how much film can be art and how far we fallen from anything close to that.

Perhaps we'll get another "New Wave" of young filmmakers to break the corporate log-jam.
by dahart | 2025-07-15 14:26:03+00:00
Yep you can read in the same article that the word “meritocracy” was originally coined as a perjorative word intended to highlight how “merit” is obviously a function of social class and money. It’s wild that everyone is using “merit” and “meritocracy” as though it somehow avoids elitism, when in reality it’s a sneaky way to cement biases without the appearance of bias. Of course people should be judged on their skills and not their wealth. But, how’d they acquire those skills, and why would anyone assume the money didn’t help? Of course it’s a self-reinforcing system. What I don’t know is what the alternative is. Randomness? Maybe, but I’m not convinced.
by TheMagicHorsey | 2025-07-15 14:26:23+00:00
The author seems to forget that no matter how he "frames" LLMs and AGI more generally, its really not up to him, or even any one nation (or block like the EU) to make this decision about what future they "want". If you can't build an international consensus to, for example, restrict AI, then whatever you say is pointless and someone else will build it and eventually overpower you.

The only way that doesn't happen is if AI doesn't produce huge productivity boosts or huge R&D boosts. Does anyone still think that's going to be the case ... that AI is going to be a no-op in the economy?

Seems like OP either thinks their wishes will be the world's command (somehow) or that AI won't matter to him if he (and his community) choose not to develop it for themselves.

He seems hopelessly naive to me.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-07-15 14:27:27+00:00
How does the vendor make sure you're not doing anything malicious if they don't have the skills to understand the change?

It sounds like the issue here isn't that the vendor doing the escort is a Chinese national, it's that the engineer making the change is a Chinese national in China and they're using this escort system to check a box saying that because the changes themselves are being made by US nationals, they won't send PII or passwords back to China. But fundamentally a system where an untrusted person gets a less technical person to make a change for them seems inherently extremely high-risk.
by bryanlarsen | 2025-07-15 14:27:32+00:00
> literally the ones watching the electricity prices like the weather and timing their charging to perfect.

A critic will read that and think "most people won't do that." Except it's really easy. You just tell the car "make sure you're charged by 7AM", and the car will do the right thing.

I hope you got something out of your excellent comments since you're talking to somebody who isn't listening, and the story is long past off the front page.
by sombragris | 2025-07-15 14:27:36+00:00
Running Plasma 6.4 with Slackware64-current.

I agree with TFA on the matter of the absolute atrocity that is the hamburger menu and the ergonomic regression it entails.

However, I have no issues with Wayland as described in the article. My GPU usage is normal, and the default scaling is 100%. Perhaps because I'm using the vanilla Intel onboard GPU of my laptop?
by SkyPuncher | 2025-07-15 14:28:19+00:00
For me, the most time consuming parts of coding don’t require deep meaningful thought. It’s often things like stepping through code to figure out where something breaks (answer is often obvious once you find it) or iterating through broken specs or simply playing with a library/interface enough to figure out how it actually works (vs how’s it’s documented)

This type of stuff is great to have an LLM tackle while I work on something else.
by belter | 2025-07-15 14:28:48+00:00
> If we're talking about changing the industry, we should see some clear evidence of that.

That’s a great point...and completely incompatible with my pitch deck. I’m trying to raise a $2B seed round on vibes, buzzwords, and a slightly fine-tuned GPT-3.5.. You are seriously jeopardizing my path to an absurdly oversized yacht :-))
by soulofmischief | 2025-07-15 14:28:54+00:00
My calling out your ad hominem and straw man, gatekeeping, etc. is not insulting you. I said nothing that should be insulting. And there is nothing wrong with refusing to engage with a bad faith argument that is riddled with fallacies.

Now you're calling me childish and pretentious, is this how you usually respond to criticism of your argumentative approach? To me this looks like projection. Discussions are not about winning or losing, and you shouldn't approach them in such an antagonistic manner.

Again, if you want to actually address my prior argument without insults, fallacies or deflection, then let's get back on track. Otherwise, you're continuing to be aggressive and I will again suggest that we end this discussion here.
by torginus | 2025-07-15 14:28:56+00:00
It doesn't have to be dynamic 99% of the time, most/all of your dependencies tend to be static in the sense that you know them in advance. Yet you'd still have less memory footprint than static linking, better startup time than both dynamic linking (no symbol resolution) and static linking (less stuff to load).

Not sure what you're suggesting with position dependent code. All libraries would still be position independent, but libfoo would be loaded at 0x5000000 in executable A and 0x6000000 in executable B.

For ASLR, you'd have the exact same performance and security characteristics as statically linked code. Either you could go position dependent and forgo ASLR, or go position independent and randomly shift your base address, in which case the loaded libs would need to account for that (for example if ASLR decides to load your process at 0x10 then libfoo would be loaded at 0x5000010).

Also I don't see any reason why you couldn't combine this with dynamic linking, and static linking in the same process.
by mlyle | 2025-07-15 14:28:57+00:00
Cycle costs aren't a fair metric unless/until we know what refurbishment really costs.

Given that we amortize other bits of electrical infrastructure over 30-40 years, amortizing a new bit over 20 years when A) it has a wear component inside, and B) we don't have 40 years of experience with it seems fair.

> Will we just keep polluting for decades while waiting on this nuclear plant? Is that what you propose?

Right now our intercept involves us polluting for decades beyond that nuclear power showing up. I propose doing more of everything low-carbon, including more nuclear.

> I love how you pounced on a figure

I said $100-200 13 hours ago. You said a different, similar number, so I used your number.

> The people with EVs and hourly contracts are literally the ones watching the electricity prices like the weather and timing their charging to perfect.

Most charging happens overnight. Lots of transport loads will be forced to charge overnight, too. Yes, they have some flexibility to dispatch load, but not enough to substantially hold up a truck for cheaper electricity or shift the time in the day when it is driving.

My big issue talking to you: you're engaging in a lot of hyperbole, don't really seem to be responding to my arguments, and you're continually being abrasive:

> I suppose you don't have an answer.

> when you need to paint

> Ahh sorry. I love how you

> But you desperately want

> if you had knowledge on the topic.

I don't think I'm talking to you like that (if I am, please point it out so that I can stop). If your objective is to just chase me away by making discussion unpleasant, you're having some success.
by IAmBroom | 2025-07-15 14:29:13+00:00
I think you're playing fast-and-loose with the notion of "colliding".

First define what you mean by "colliding".

By analogy, I'm defining it as the Event Horizons intersecting, at which point nothing in side "either" black hole has any physical meaning to us ever again. For all we know, the insides could be chocolate ice cream on one half of the now-double-sized Event Horizon, and pure neutronium on the other. It's meaningless to even pretend we know anything about that volume.
by bluGill | 2025-07-15 14:29:21+00:00
I want the judge to keep the lawyers in check so they cannot. Judges are trustable because the jury limits their power. If I am a lawyer I know whothe judges are and it is to my advantage to figure out their bias (including judge shopping if there is more than one in the area), looking for embaressing things or blackmail material, what bribes they will accept (often in form of donation to a family charity) and so one.

which is to say the reason I trust judges is the jury keeps them in check by ensuring there isn't value in the above corruption.
by mlyle | 2025-07-15 14:29:32+00:00
> You just tell the car "make sure you're charged by 7AM", and the car will do the right thing.

If we end up with a surplus of nighttime electricity, sure.

But if my car needs to be charged sometime from 8PM to 6AM, it's going to be some mix of nuclear, storage, and wind that goes in, and one cannot reasonably build enough wind to cover more than doubled nighttime use.

> I hope you got something out of your excellent comments since you're talking to somebody who isn't listening,

I'm listening, and I don't understand why my counter-commenter has to call names and call people out like that -- or why you do.
by buildingsramen | 2025-07-15 14:29:34+00:00
Hollywood has always been a little bit dumb, a little bit over-written. It's hard to have both artistic individualism and a reliable business. This is not a new trend.

The examples are not very good. I would take Gladiator II, but Megalopolis was a self-funded project which is completely out of left field, and The Apprentice... I'm not sure what it's an example of. Many more titles are dismissed with a couple words. They really lose me when it comes to Anora. That's quite possibly the worst take I've heard about that film yet, and I've read some Letterboxd reviews.

> What feels new is the expectation, on the part of both makers and audiences, that there is such a thing as knowing definitively what a work of art means or stands for, aesthetically and politically.

Before rushing to judge today's movies, shall we remind ourselves what popular movies 20 years ago were? There were some real stinkers there, too, and they were not more smartly written in this regard. They just weren't.

> The point is not to be lifelike or fact-based but familiar and formulaic—in a word, predictable.

Has this person forgotten Titanic, one of the best-selling movies of all time? It's extremely formulaic, predictable, and intentionally so. It's basically opera, not really a new genre.
by like_any_other | 2025-07-15 14:29:36+00:00
> the beta could attempt to improve their status through “looksmaxxing” (enhancing their physical appearance). This might take the form of working out (gymmaxxing) or even seeking physical modifications through “Surgerymaxxing.” With this cynical, deterministic cognitive frame dominating 4chan’s discussion boards, the modern “blackpill” began in earnest.

> Beauty influencers on #GirlTok would demonstrate how to use canthal tilt to put on eyeliner, or post video filters rating themselves on metrics like forehead size and interocular distance. Eventually, people began picking up on the phrenological absurdity of these ideas and turned them into more memes.

Dressing well and staying fit to improve dating odds is "cynical determinism"? The notion that skull shape affects beauty is "phrenological absurdity"? If incels had recommended drinking water, I suspect the author would be dead from dehydration.
by fpoling | 2025-07-15 14:30:07+00:00
From our perspective there is no event horizon since the collapsing star has not reached the black hole state. In fact it takes infinite amount of time from the point of view of an external observer for the event horizon to form.

In almost all situations it does matter as the collapsing star will behave as it is a black hole. But for the merge of black holes it is significant as it allows to release energy as there is no event horizon.
Show HN: Trained an AI model to launch my TikTok app
by saascouple | 2025-07-15 14:30:30+00:00
Hey HN — Chris here.

I just launched Glyp, and I wanted to share the story behind it.

A few months ago, I was running content marketing on TikTok for one of my previous apps.

I tried influencer marketing. Paid $200+ per video. Waited days to get the content. Then crossed my fingers hoping it would perform.

Sometimes it worked. Most of the time, it didn’t.

So I switched to AI tools like Arcads. It helped—but only up to a point.

The problem? I couldn’t scale.

Most tools lock you into a pre-made library of actors. You can’t reuse the same face across different scenes. And those same actors? They're already used by other brands. Which kills any chance of building a consistent TikTok presence.

I needed something more flexible. Something I could control end to end.

So I spent the next two months building it.

I trained a custom image-to-speech model that lets you upload a photo of an actor, match it with a voiceover, and generate a 15-second video. Under the hood, it uses WAN 2.1, with custom LoRAs trained for facial expressions, realism, and mouth sync.

Getting the actor to actually express emotion was the hardest part. Neutral faces were easy. But getting them to look surprised, annoyed, or confident—on cue—took weeks of training tweaks and failed outputs.

I also built:

- A scene builder for product references, clothing, and camera angles - A Claude-based script generator trained on UGC ad formulas - Natural-sounding voice filters—like lav mic, car, gym, etc.

The goal wasn’t just to generate videos...

It was to make it possible to run a full TikTok account using a single AI actor— Posting daily, testing angles, holding your product—without ever filming anything.

So I launched Glyp.

If you're a marketer, solo founder, or content creator trying to scale UGC without influencers or production teams, you might find it useful.

If you decide to give Glyp a try, you'll get unlimited image generations and 5 video credits to test it out.

https://glypmagic.com

I’d love your feedback—technical, product, or just gut reaction. Happy to answer any questions.

– Chris
by 827a | 2025-07-15 14:31:20+00:00
One thing we're seeing in the software engineering agent space right now is how many people are angry with Cursor [1], and now Claude Code [2] (just picked a couple examples; you can browse around these subreddits and see tons of complaints).

What's happening here is pretty clear to me: Its a form of enshittification. These companies are struggling to find a price point that supports both broad market adoption ($20? $30?) and the intelligence/scale to deliver good results ($200? $300?). So, they're nerfing cheap plans, prioritizing expensive ones, and pissing off customers in the process. Cursor even had to apologize for it [3].

There's a broad sense in the LLM industry right now that if we can't get to "it" (AGI, etc) by the end of this decade, it won't happen during this "AI Summer". The reason for that is two-fold: Intelligence scaling is logarithmic w.r.t compute. We simply cannot scale compute quick enough. And, interest in funding to pay for that exponential compute need will dry up, and previous super-cycles tell us that will happen on the order of ~5 years.

So here's my thesis: We have a deadline that even evangelists agree is a deadline. I would argue that we're further along in this supercycle than many people realize, because these companies have already reached the early enshitification phase for some niche use-cases (software development). We're also seeing Grok 4 Heavy release with a 50% price increase ($300/mo) yet offer single-digit percent improvement in capability. This is hallmark enshitification.

Enshitification is the final, terminal phase of hyperscale technology companies. Companies remain in that phase potentially forever, but its not a phase where significant research, innovation, and optimization can happen; instead, it is a phase of extraction. AI hyperscalers genuinely speedran this cycle thanks to their incredible funding and costs; but they're now showcasing very early signals of enshitifications.

(Google might actually escape this enshitification supercycle, to be clear, and that's why I'm so bullish on them and them alone. Their deep, multi-decade investment into TPUs, Cloud Infra, and high margin product deployments of AI might help them escape it).

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1m0i6o3/cursor_qual...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1lzuy0j/claude_co...

[3] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/07/cursor-apologizes-for-uncl...
by deafpolygon | 2025-07-15 14:31:40+00:00
There is no evidence as to piracy even being a cause for the decline, I say this not as a supporter (I do not pirate) but to correct a misconception.

2002 is when tvs got larger, fidelity with cable tv improved, dvds were readily available, etc. it was also an era where more people started gaming (the industry took off around this time), so people were shifting away from movie theaters as a social activity.

The rise of literalism (as in the article) is probably a partial response to increasingly shorter attention spans.

Songs are shorter (<3 minutes) and lyrics simpler as a result. People don’t want to think anymore.
by cornholio | 2025-07-15 14:32:30+00:00
> As always, this benefits the privileged at the expense of the less privileged.

This is all quite a naive look at the world. The least privileged don't have any money, so by definition aren't hurt by KYC.

Capital is power and power makes the world go round. If the powerful of the world desire one thing above all else, it's not to have any scrutiny over how they acquire more power and make use of it, with financial privacy being a very large part of that.

Financial privacy is without doubt important for the regular citizens, and we should have laws in place that protect it. There is no reason for the government to have access to your transactions outside a well-functioning system of checks and balances, court orders and warrants etc.

But financial privacy maximalists strike me as useful idiots for unrestrained power. There is nothing good that society has to gain from allowing anonymous transfers of billions of dollars across borders. Once you tolerate anonymous finance, an entire bestiary of crimes and abuses become possible or easier, without any benefit for the common man. This was widely the case in the second half of the 20th century, and the financial industry had no problem laundering the profits made from the misery and death of the wretched of the earth, as long as they got their cut.

KYC is foremost a tool for democracy and checks on power. It's not the only tool and it can't operate by itself, but you need it in place before you can even ask the question "what are the reasonable and socially useful limits of financial privacy?"
by dylan604 | 2025-07-15 14:32:34+00:00
There absolutely are limits on how much can be spent. That’s why Man City is under investigation of 100+ charges for violating FFP, financial fair play, rules.

Even the Yankees were deemed unbeatable because the power of their checkbook, yet they haven’t won the World Series since 2009 (according to quick search. I don’t follow baseball). So the big purse isn’t always the thing people make it to be. Sure it helps, but no guarantees. Otherwise, moneyball wouldn’t have been a thing
by cratermoon | 2025-07-15 14:32:49+00:00
The DeepSeek method requires spending money on very good programmers and giving them the tools and time to build out optimizations. The hype-driving LLM cycles and companies with multi-billion dollar valuations prioritize time-to-market and throw money at more and bigger GPUs to solve performance bottlenecks.

It's "impractical" if the goal is to make as much money as possible before the bubble pops.
by komali2 | 2025-07-15 14:32:52+00:00
A Medici could hold a store of gold throughout their properties for the last 700 years and during that entire time, they can be a bank just on the fact that they can guarantee deposits against that wealth. At minimum they can ensure their wealth and that of their descendants, because gold has always been valuable. Even the communists hoarded gold - so much for building a currencyless society!

It is thus absurd to compare bitcoin to gold, yet. In 2000 years, if it's still around, I'm happy to accept the comparison.

I can find you people today that would take a gold coin for their services instead of a bitcoin (obviously worth far more), because they don't care / understand / trust it. The only reason I can think gold would no longer be valuable would also nullify the value of bitcoin - the demise of capitalism or anything like it, and the advent of a currencyless society.
by soulofmischief | 2025-07-15 14:33:38+00:00
You've doubled down on the straw man. Literally no one is talking about "giving massive amounts of unlimited porn to children" but you.

> So what? This isn't one of those times.

It 100% is, and you cannot see it because you yourself are caught in the fervor.

If you don't want to visit a website, don't visit it. If you don't want your child to visit a website, block it. But to force website operators to check IDs at the door through sketchy third party services so that other consenting individuals can use their services is just batshit insane and a gigantic slippery slope towards a State-run internet that criminalizes all non-sanctioned speech. You need to look past your little hang up and understand the bigger picture.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-07-15 14:34:06+00:00
It’s a KPI just like any KPI and it’s gamed. A lot of random financial metrics are like that. They were invented or coined as a short hand for something.

Different investors use different ratios and numbers (ARR, P/E, EV/EBITDA, etc) as a quick initial smoke screen. They mean different things in different industries during different times of a business’ lifecycle. BUT they are supposed to help you get a starting point to reduce noise. Not as a the 1 metric you base your investing strategy on.
by grogenaut | 2025-07-15 14:34:38+00:00
just turn those off, it's just 2 includes one at the top and one at the bottom of your shell... file a ticket about making it optional or not. I believe that the shell integration / autocomplete is where they started the product so it's probably one of those core features in the product team's minds.

I generally like the integration but in some cases it's getting in the way of other ai that is runnin q to quit and all of a sudden its in q... I renamed it to amazonq and removed it from my zshrc and added it as a command to integrate, amazonqinit