MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cogman10 | 2025-07-22 17:25:05+00:00
> Where would that funding come from?

Taxes. Ideally higher income taxes or even better a wealth tax (but that has dubious constitutionality).

I also wouldn't mind pulling $100B, $200B, or $500B away from the military budget for such projects.

> why is it better to spend money on public works programs than paying it out via means-tested welfare programs?

Means testing requires someone to do the means testing along with additional bureaucracy to enforce it. It's, in fact, more expensive than just having an open program. Why would I actually care, for example, if we paid extra money for a billionaire's kid to get healthcare if that meant the 99% of the population that isn't billionaires got healthcare?

A public works program is a welfare program. With the benefit that beyond just giving money to people that need it, it also improves public spaces for everyone. And, I think nobody would actually object to allowing anyone to participate in public works. Would you really care if a millionaire got a little extra cash cleaning a highway?

But beyond that, it's better to spend money on people with the least amount of money because they drive the economy way harder than everyone else. A dollar given to someone poor is far more likely to be spent in the economy than a dollar given to a rich person. A healthy economy is one where money moves more frequently.

A good example is what's predicted to happen with the medicaid defunding. Rural hospitals are likely going to shutdown as the majority of them receive their funding from medicaid. That hurts everyone in a rural community even if they aren't on medicaid.

Now imagine the reverse. If that rural community had government works jobs, that'd be more money in the community which would ultimately mean more opportunities for new businesses in the community to exist. Where it previously may not have made sense for a grocery store to exist, now it might because more of the population has a stable income they are willing to spend.
by Kittensmittens3 | 2025-07-22 17:25:08+00:00
Seeing articles like this gives me hope that there is momentum in an eventual trend that will cure mental illness, or treat it with a method that isn't antipsychotics.

I personally believe that in the US, our society is quick to demand people seek treatment, even forcibly. Yet the treatment available is insufficient, incredibly destructive and often ineffective.
by shkkmo | 2025-07-22 17:25:12+00:00
I think the article is far more interesting than you make it out to be.

There is pretty clear evidence that some subset of schizophrenic diagnosis are due to autoimmune issues. If we can use antibodies in the spinal fluid to detect when autoimmune treatments can be effective in treating schizophrenia, that alone will be huge.

However, the even bigger insight to be drawn from all of this is the potential for other psychological problems that psychiatry has struggled to treat, to also have autoimmune causes. When you try to treat something that has multiple, quite different causes, with a single treatment, it makes sense that it would be hard to find that treatment that works reliably (as is the case for many psychiatric medicines.)

I predict we may eventually see immune antibody tests (or some functional successor) become a standard part of all mental health care.
by ajross | 2025-07-22 17:25:56+00:00
The 2011 thing keeps getting cited in this thread, but it's wrong. The funding was cut because of what amounts to a booby-trap condition in pre-existing legislation. And they tried to get it overturned by it was blocked in congress.

In fact this is an almost perfectly partisan issue, and the 2011 canard is giving cover to some horrifying both-sidesism.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-07-22 17:26:02+00:00
China scaling up EVs, solar, and batteries is what will do it. Most humans don’t have the will or constitution to make it happen, but China will out of rational economics. The politicians making these poor climate policy decisions will be out of office eventually. Just keep grinding towards success whenever possible while the death rate keeps aging out those slowing progress down.

(EVs and PHEVs are ~50% of car sales in China 2025 H1, global light vehicle TAM is ~90M units/year, we're installing 1GW of solar every 15 hours, roughly 1TW/year etc.)
by FabHK | 2025-07-22 17:26:07+00:00
Addressed in the FAQ:

> How is Blip different to nearby sharing like AirDrop? Apple’s “AirDrop” and Google’s “Nearby Share” can be really handy. However, they aren’t compatible with each other and require devices to be physically next to each other. They are also unreliable when transferring large files, and will often lose your progress.

> Blip doesn’t need devices to be nearby, so it’s much more reliable. Blip works wherever your internet connected devices are in the world, and works regardless of what kind of device you own. You can transfer from Android to Mac, Windows to iPhone, iPad to Android—you name it!
by 8note | 2025-07-22 17:26:09+00:00
with all that stolen stuff, i could also write a book "how google works" talking about what kinds of processes google has and how they feed into different products and how googlers feel about those.

i think that actually would be fair use. i could similarly have an LLM trained on all that data help me write that book. it would still be fair use.

clamping down on fair use by restricting the LLM training is stealing from the public to give to the copyright holders. The copyright holders already have recourse when somebody publishes unlicense copies of their works via take downs and court.
by genewitch | 2025-07-22 17:26:37+00:00
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07101562 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158216301000 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395621005793

it wasn't hard to find these, they're like secondary cites in things like https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9706110/
by mgh95 | 2025-07-22 17:28:24+00:00
I have a family member with an incidence of autoimmune encephalitis secondary to other conditions (my entire family is an autoimmune cluster) who is actually hospitalized for it now. This almost matches my experience to a tee, though anti-NMDAR was tested for and not found. The neurologists wanted to discharge prior to attempting immunotherapy and thankfully we were able to ensure they tried (pulse steroids).

It's certainly an area which can be characterized as rare disease, whether paraneoplastic or otherwise.
by mjamil | 2025-07-22 17:28:32+00:00
> The US is responsible for more than 25% of the UN's funding and is ~5-6x more than other members of the Security Council [1]. This is disproportionate to its obligations or its population.

Fact. Another fact: this is a rounding error for the US government's budget. The total spend is under $15b. Government spending has been $5t to $7.5t in the last decade. Why is this particular spending line item of such interest to you? Do you truly see zero value derived from investment in the UN? Is that perhaps because you require some benefit to Americans from the investment? About 2/3rds of UN spending is on development and humanitarian assistance. Is helping the rest of the world raise the standard of living a laudable goal for the richest country in the world to contribute to or not, in your eyes?

> Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft.

Perhaps one root difference in belief is that I don't believe the UN is an alliance, and you do. It is a forum for countries that belong to different alliances to have a forum to talk to each other. It also is a forum to build temporary alliances for military intervention (e.g., Iraq War I) across such boundaries. The US failed miserably at building such a consenus for Iraq War II and has been

> If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this.

Thank you. I understand your zero-sum argument and realpolitik in general, both from an academic and personal perspective. I grew up in a third-world country, so - perhaps, unlike you - I'm intimately familiar with the impact of Great Power games in the post-Cold War era. You are unfortunately correct; I wish that the US (my home for several decades now) tried harder to move away from such thinking and utilized the UN for more win-win scenarios, but we're moving away from such liberal thinking, and so my wish will probably remain unfulfilled.
by LordDragonfang | 2025-07-22 17:28:42+00:00
While I'm sympathetic to this sort of reasoning, there are many, many examples (even in the US!) of bad behavior being so commonplace that it's expected, and no one gets punished until one sticks out enough (or fucks up hard enough) to force the local authorities to actually pay attention and slap them on the wrist. In this particular case, I think it's entirely within what we would expect from the CCP to say "you got caught and made China look bad, you're going to face consequences".
by Kittensmittens3 | 2025-07-22 17:29:05+00:00
These clearly state in the abstract that there is gray matter loss in differing stages of schizophrenia, however it is unclear if it is as a result of common medications or the disease itself. It doesn't indicate that you can scan a person without any other knowledge and diagnose them with the disease. Gray matter loss can happen for other reasons as well.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-07-22 17:29:28+00:00
You have a point. It was too personal (for me -it got my goat, and I shouldn't have let that come out, here). I’ve already amended it. I can definitely make the point without being snotty (which was my complaint -mote/plank).

But…I didn’t “immediately jump,” as you have … er … compressed from what I wrote. It was the last thing I wrote, and it was pretty mild (my personal feelings about that type of attitude are quite strong -I have reasons). But I have compressed it, if that makes you happy.

Have a great day!

[EDITED TO ADD] Oof. I turned on showdead, to see what others had to say. My comment was nothing, compared to some. I must have hit a nerve. Especially, considering that a throwaway was registered just to swipe at me. I guess I'm "honored"? Wasn't my goal to hurt -sincerely apologize.
by bmau5 | 2025-07-22 17:29:44+00:00
Customer Service keeps being touted as a success story of LLMs, but as a business owner and user I'd be very curious to see if it actually improves any UX CS metrics (NPS, CSAT) - as my experiences with AI chatbots are almost always negative. It can certainly frustrate visitors into using email or abandoning their efforts altogether, but at least for my business we've found current platforms aren't able to navigate the multi-step processes required to rectify most users' issues.
by yunnpp | 2025-07-22 17:29:50+00:00
This is a good introduction to RCU, but many of the arguments in favour of GC are simply wrong or straw-man. The good part of the post ends in the "Wat" section.

> And it’s an interesting example that cuts against the prevailing wisdom that garbage collection is:

> Slower than manual memory management

> Takes away the fine-grained control you need when writing systems software

> These arguments are clearly bullshit for RCU

But not all garbage collection is RCU. The "prevailing wisdom" is still valid.

> which is motivated by performance and latency demands, not used as a convenience in spite of its costs.

But that's not how GC is used most of the time. I haven't seen a C++ programmer carefully opt into GC for a subset of their allocations even though there are GC libraries written for the language. Rather, somebody designs a language and bolts GC into it for convenience and in spite of its costs.

> malloc() is not magically fast > free() is not free

Whoever made that claim? Gamedevs particulary have been writing custom memory allocators since decades precisely because they know free() is not free and malloc() isn't fast.

> Modern garbage collection offers optimizations that alternatives can not.

Sure, on top of its costs.

> The Illusion of Control

It's not an illusion, you literally use control over memory management.

> They want to go as fast as possible—more FPS in my video game!

Actually, no. What they don't want is random stalls in odd frames. The concern here is reproducible and predictable latency (time per frame), not throughput (fps). It's also the same concern people bring in the web service / distributed system space, although I am not particularly in that spot; it's that 0.01% tail of abnormal latency spikes that bothers them, not the throughput of the system.

> Lies people believe about memory management

Nobody believes any of these points. I dislike posts that make claims about what others believe when it's usually just the author believing it themselves.
by throwingrocks | 2025-07-22 17:29:54+00:00
> instead of writing 100 class names for every element, every page, every project, again and again…

I'm turned off from daisyUI with marketing like this. The alternative to daisyUI certainly isn't this.

I use Tailwind in a similar way that daisyUI does: by putting my utility classes in components and reusing the components.

daisyUI's value prop is that not everyone wants to do this for their custom design system. They should just stick to that instead of making false claims.
by timr | 2025-07-22 17:30:07+00:00
> I've been using Bootstrap since it came out 15 years ago but it never developed a 3rd party component library. I assume because it doesn't have the same sort granular building blocks for building novel components.

Except, it does now. Presumably because of the popularity of Tailwind, Bootstrap has all of these inline utility classes, and LLMs absolutely love to spam them across your code. It’s really annoying when you have a stylesheet with a few dozen well-scoped lines, and the LLM just starts bashing inline styles everywhere.
by tiffanyh | 2025-07-22 17:30:39+00:00
The difficulty I have with many so-called legible fonts is that they’re often not very readable.

Legibility refers to how easily individual characters can be identified. But good readability depends on how easily your brain can recognize whole words—through pattern recognition of word shapes.

When characters are too similar in shape and size, it becomes harder to distinguish the unique shape of each word, which reduces readability (which often happens with these highly legible fonts) — even if each individual letter is technically more clear.
by lowercased | 2025-07-22 17:31:18+00:00
The docs up through version 3.x explicitly called this out as not recommended and a poor choice, but the justifications were... sort of lame. "You'll have to come up with class names, your css bundle might be bigger, etc". I did read a more technical github issue on @apply vs theme() which called out the apply behaviour as doing a bit more than expected. I don't recall 'theme' being a thing in earlier tailwind versions, but I'm not an expert at it, so I might have missed that.
by giraffe_lady | 2025-07-22 17:31:48+00:00
Well, the alignment is a pretty significant downside.

There are now some excellent mono faces that have broken from a lot of the traditional monospace design elements and that look and feel very much like proportional fonts. Quadraat sans mono, cartograph cf, triplicate, I've seen a good homebrew alegreya sans mono variant too. I don't know of any free ones, though inconsolata-g is well in that direction. But I expect more of this trend over the next few years.
by kennywinker | 2025-07-22 17:31:49+00:00
> Guilty until proven innocent? In what world?

Guilty implies conviction & punishment. You don’t punish people who’ve not been proven guilty (like say idk palestinians being punished for hamas’ actions)

What I’m saying is if there is the credible possibility of genocide (which there is), then inaction is complacency. Stop the violence, asses if there has been genocide, prevent any further.
by rootnod3 | 2025-07-22 17:31:59+00:00
Hands down one of the best features in jj is undo. In Git, undoing things is always a bit of an open heart surgery, with different commands depending on what you fucked up. In jj? Just a simple jj undo, done. That alone is a killer feature.

Then having the whole thing being kinda agnostic by design to the backend system, that is also a sweet spot.

I can comfortably use jj locally without any of my teammates knowing that I use jj instead of git.
by chiwilliams | 2025-07-22 17:32:11+00:00
> For centuries, communities gathered around the fire to hear the same saga recited for the hundredth time. The listeners didn't grow impatient with the familiar opening formulas, the elaborate genealogies, the detailed descriptions of weapons and weather.

I generally agree with the broad strokes of this post, but this description gives me pause. How do we know that listeners didn't grow impatient? Though I suppose it would take a good deal of compression to answer this :)
by sir0010010 | 2025-07-22 17:32:37+00:00
When the definite form is used , and certainly when used in English and in the context of global events, The Intifada (emphasis added on the to highlight that this is used in definite form) refers to the Second Palestinian Intifada - which was characterized random violent attacks against civilians such as suicide bombings and shootings. Calls to Globalize the Intifada are calls for violent attacks against civilian targets around the world and especially against Jews.
by mejutoco | 2025-07-22 17:32:50+00:00
There was a time when not having css and html completely separate was considered sacrilege. And having html in javascript would have been a mortal sin.

Eons ago I was at a job where we dynamically generated css on the server (php in that project). Anyone would have said: what about separation of concerns? Now everyone says it is best practice to have components with css, html and (gasp) Javascript all in one unit, because someone, for ex. Facebook said it (React). And the truth is it is very useful, and it is another way to structure frontend code.

My point is: it is a spectrum and it can be useful to change the styling right there in the browser inspector. That works with tailwind the same as css. And with components, you can hide the repetition, although the browser will still have the repeated classes. Is this better than having css on another file with maybe some unused classes? I have done both and I can see each has pros and cons.
by analognoise | 2025-07-22 17:33:15+00:00
You’re arguing the “second order effects” are literally worse than selling the blood of the poor. Gonna need a source for that trash, chief.

Considering we’re the only “advanced” country that does healthcare this poorly, and we have a wild oligarch class that desperately needs to be put in its place, I’m really curious how “healthcare for all and not requiring the poor to sell their own plasma” is the worse option.
by CGMthrowaway | 2025-07-22 17:33:17+00:00
That pre-existing legislation (which banned US financing of any UN agency that grants membership to Palestine) was signed by George HW Bush in 1990 and expanded by Bill Clinton in 1994, in both cases passed by Democrat-controlled Houses and Senates. So it's still "both-sidesism," whatever that is.

And for what it's worth I never mentioned nor was thinking about "two sides," just multiple distinct administrations. Partisanship wearies me (and the parties have changed a lot over the last 20-30 years)
by ryandrake | 2025-07-22 17:33:28+00:00
Seems like "Caveat emptor" has become the default regulatory framework for AI. Getting medical advice from an chatbot (let alone legal advice or even financial advice) seems like a very bad idea, but none of these companies seem to want to admit it, educators don't seem to be in a hurry to educate the public about it, and regulators are pretty much entirely asleep at the wheel.
Tell HN: LLMs Are Manipulative
by mike_tyson | 2025-07-22 17:33:37+00:00
I asked GPT and Claude a question from the perspective of employee. It was very supportive of the employee.

I then asked the exact same question but from the company/HR perspective and it totally flipped its view and painted the employee in a very negative light.

Depending on the perspective of the person asking, you get two completely contradictory answers based on the perceived interests of each person.

Considering how many people I see now deferring or outsourcing their thinking to AI. This seems very dangerous.
by kijin | 2025-07-22 17:33:44+00:00
Regardless of what the standards of evidence were at the time, it surely wasn't "scientific" to threaten someone with prosecution for publishing a supposedly inferior hypothesis. That was politics.

Speaking of politics, the Reformation happened with nearly perfect timing and several countries became safe havens for those who had disagreements with the Catholic Church. This window of safety helped incubate modern science during its critical early years. Less than 50 years after Gelileo died, Newton published Principia. By then it was already well accepted, at least in England, that the Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around.
by MetaWhirledPeas | 2025-07-22 17:34:09+00:00
No. Although I appreciate the spotlight being put on slow experiences like storytelling, this article is fundamentally wrong.

> We've trained ourselves to believe that complexity can always be whittled down, that difficulty can always be optimized away, that transformation should be instant and effortless.

This is a reduction. Consider the opposite statement: We've trained ourselves to believe that complexity can *never* be whittled down, that difficulty can *never be avoided*, that transformation *must be slow and painful*. Now you see the monster that is being fought when one is learning to summarize, learning to distill, learning to quicken the pace of understanding.

> It's the logical endpoint of an attention economy that treats human focus as a finite resource to be optimized and monetized.

Yet another cheap jab at social media.

> Podcasters are celebrated for "actionable insights" while wandering conversations that might actually lead somewhere unexpected are dismissed as waste.

Thank you for bringing up podcasts. Are they not a counter example to the point of this article? We've gone from quick-hit interviews on news programs and late night talk shows, to slow meditative discussions in the form of podcasts.

"Compression culture" is a deliberate pushback against the gatekeepers. They sit in their coffee shops discussing new ways to create barriers between the peasants and themselves. *Read more books on the subject.* | *Read longer books on the subject.* | *Get certified.* | *Reach tenure.* ... And on and on.

Many works of non-fiction are largely fluff. They take a simple concept and dress it up as elaborately as possible until the reader is completely intimidated and regretful. Sometimes this is done for word count, sometimes this is done because the author lacks the ability to be concise, and sometimes this is done deliberately, to make the author's small insights seem bigger and more important. Rarely is it justified. Compression culture to the rescue.

Compression culture is optimistic. It's inclusive. It's there to overcome problems we were told were impossible. If that's "the transformation without the time" then so be it.