MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wahern | 2025-07-28 23:43:30+00:00
The obligations in this context were war reparations. Basically, Luther would permit issuing bonds to pay reparations, but not for counter-cyclical government investment. Germany had been experiencing significant deflation when the Weimar Republican collapsed, which exacerbated unemployment. The rise of Hitler wasn't because of the infamous hyperinflation a decade earlier, it was because of overly fiscally conservative economists like Hans Luther.

Ironically, I think Hans had just oversawn the issuance of bonds for the final traunch of war reparations repayments when he was ousted. The Americans (for a second time) had helped negotiate a settlement with France to minimize the devastating effect of reparations on Germany.

I think this Atlantic series (part book shill) is trying to draw parallels with Trump's administration. But it's doing so clumsily, twisting history to make a point.
by j45 | 2025-07-28 23:43:48+00:00
Sincerely enjoy and appreciate Claude, feedback based on that:

- It would be nice to know if there was a way to know or infer percentage wise the amount of capacity a user is currently using (rate of usage) and has left, compared to available capacity. Being scared to use something is different than mindful.

- Since usage it can feel a little subjective/relative (simple things might use more tokens, or less, etc) to things beyond a user's usage alone, it would be nice to know how much capacity is left both on the current model and in 1 month now to learn.

- If there is lower "capacity" usage rates available at night vs the day, or just slower times, it might be worth knowing. It would help users who would like to, plan around it, compared to people who might be just making the most of it.
by 9rx | 2025-07-28 23:44:39+00:00
> We have 3 objects: doc, test, spec. How do you prove they are the same thing?

You... don't? There is nothing good that can come from trying to understand crazy. Best to run away as fast as possible if you ever encounter this.

> You are arguing that they all point to the same address.

Oh? I did say if you document something the same way three different times (even if you give each time a different name, as if that somehow makes a difference), you are going to pointlessly end up with the same thing. I am not sure that necessarily equates to "the same address". In fact,

> I'm arguing they all have the same parent.

I also said that if they don't end up being equivalent documentation then you will only find difference in information that isn't useful. And that often that information becomes detrimental (see some of the adjacent comments that go into that problem). This is "having the same parent".

In reality, I "argued" both. You'd have better luck if you read the comments before replying.

> you should simplify things as much as possible but be careful to not simplify further

Exactly. Writing tests, documentation, or specs (whatever you want to call it; it all caries the same intent) in natural language certainly feels simpler in the moment, but you'll pay the price later. In reality, you at very least need a tool that supports automatic verification. That could mean formal verification, but, as before it's a beast that is tough to wrangle. More realistically, tests are going to be the best choice amid all the tradeoffs. Industry (including the Haskell fanbois, even) have settled on it for good reason.

> docs are written in natural language, tests are written in programming languages.

Technically "docs" is a concept of less specificity. Documentation can be written in natural language, that is true, but it can also be written in code (like what we call tests), or even pictures or video. "Tests" carries more specificity, being a particular way to write documentation — but ultimately they are the same thing. Same goes for "spec". It describes a different level of specificity (less specific than "tests", but more specific than "docs"), but not something entirely different. It is all documentation.
by flumpcakes | 2025-07-28 23:45:53+00:00
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/degenerate

> as in corrupt > having or showing lowered moral character or standards > a movie about a gang of degenerate drug dealers

> as in pervert > a person who has sunk below the normal moral standard > a degenerate who is uninterested in anything but his own gratification

Seems to fit perfectly to describe a video game that is pro sexual assault and rape.
by throwaway328 | 2025-07-28 23:46:26+00:00
Hmm. Are you aware that I was responding to this comment?

> Why do people use obvious spyware when free software exists?

So, even though the poster was referring to ByteDance when they said "obvious spyware", I was feigning incomprehension in order to ask the question, how do we differentiate ByteDance from what Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon (and the rest) do.

It's a real question - why do technical people, who arguably should know better, and can do something about it - continue to use these data-harvesting and user-selling platforms? The answer is obvious when it's the case of an employee of those companies, I grant you that.

My apologies if you feel your response did address that, and I missed it. If so, please help me see what I missed.
by curiouscoding | 2025-07-28 23:46:28+00:00
> they test lookup by sequential memory access, i.e., iterating buckets from 0 to n, and iterating from first to last element in each bucket

Yeah; that completely eliminates the cache misses / memory latency you'd have in practice. Of course eliminating that bottleneck is useful if you want to purely optimize CPU speed, but probably not quite as representative of real workloads. Also makes sense then that different array sizes give similar results: streaming tends to be fast anyway, regardless of the array size.
by chrsw | 2025-07-28 23:46:54+00:00
It's not just a Google annoyance, these types of things are all over the web. I have uBlock Origin settings to limit these types of things, like others in this thread have explained.

But there's a bigger issue with the modern web. Here's my message to any web developer, company, organization, anyone who has control over content on the public web: if I visit your page and I have to click away something in order to do what I came to do, you have failed miserably.
by sparkie | 2025-07-28 23:47:36+00:00
PEGs are closely related to recursive descent, and have some of the same problems.

A PEG is always unambiguous because it picks the first option - but whether that was the intended parse is not necessarily straightforward. In practice these problems don't usually show up, so they're fine to work with.

The advantage LR gives you is that it produces a parser where there are no ambiguities and every successful parse is the one intended. An LR grammar is a proof, as well as a means of producing a parser. A decent LR parser generator is like a simple proof assistant - it will find problems with your language before you do, so you can fix your syntax before putting it into production.

In "real-world" parsing tasks as you put it, the problems of LR parser generators is that they're not the best suited to parsing languages that have ambiguities, like C, C++ and many others. Some of the complaints about LR are about the workarounds that need to be done to parse these languages, where it's obviously the wrong tool for the job because those languages aren't described by proper LR grammars.

But if you're designing a new language from scratch, surely it's better to not repeat those mistakes? If you carefully design your language to be parsed by an LR grammar then other developers who come to parse your language won't encounter those issues. They won't need lexical tie-ins and other nonsense that complicates the process.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-07-28 23:48:05+00:00
You can't avoid it, but you can choose to refuse unless there is a legitimate need for it. Very few brick and mortar interactions require it, and at least historically a copy wasn't retained but rather verified on the spot by the business agent.

We really don't need a standard for sharing it online, at least nothing easy for businesses to implement. There are very few legitimate scenarios for an online service to ask for that. Online pharmacy, online signup with a bank, and online government interactions are the only that immediately come to mind.

I'm not even sure that the pharmacy case is legitimate now that I think about it. I don't need ID when I go in person. The prescriber can validate the mailing address for them.
by churchill | 2025-07-28 23:49:43+00:00
For now. Eventually, the injuries your system takes over time grinds your gears to a halt.

And I can provide numerous examples: Portugal's colonial holdings (Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique) were unwound after the carnation revolution because the overseas wars were consuming 50% of the national budget while the Estado Novo at home was a corrupt, violent, authoritarian, corporatist state.

The Brits could not square a global empire while their countrymen were rationing food, etc. at home. That had to go as well.

Despite all the Cold War propaganda spread since the fall of the USSR, in 1991, the Soviet Union was still a first-rate military power, with 35k to 40k nuclear warheads and >150 divisions, totaling 3.4M troops. It could easily suppress any of those pro-democracy protests, and all the CIA's burrowing in the Sovbloc would come to nought.

But there was no longer anything worth fighting for. Even people within the Party infrastructure had come to admit that they'd been living for a lie, lying for a lie, killing for a lie-all that for a lie!

The Qing dynasty faced massive internal revolts (Taiping, Boxer), external invasions (Opium Wars), and technological stagnation. The empire resisted modernization too long, then tried too little, too late.

Overwhelmed by foreign powers and internal revolution (1911), it died because it could no longer defend the illusion of legitimacy.

In France's Ancien Regime, nobles were exempt from taxes while peasants starved; France had a bloated, corrupt court and massive debt (partly from helping America fight the British!), yet refused reforms.

Nazi Germany claimed to be defending “Western civilization” while practicing industrial genocide and totalitarian control over - wait for it - Europeans!

One contradiction doesn't bring down a political system, but it cascades, because a hypocritical system dives deeper into hypocrisy until it eventually collapses.
by imchillyb | 2025-07-28 23:50:00+00:00
Removal of occupants from West Bank and Gaza, completely, was always the overall goal here. Israel doesn't seem to care overly much how this occurs, but they're making it happen. The goal is almost reached.

There will be no Palestine. Egypt doesn't want the refugees. Jordan doesn't want the refugees. Qatar doesn't want the refugees. UAE doesn't want the refugees. Syria doesn't want the refugees. Lebanon doesn't want the refugees. Iran and Iraq don't want the refugees. America doesn't want the refugees. Europe doesn't want the refugees. Russia & China don't want the refugees.

When the fortnite-circle closes in Gaza and West Bank, where do you think these people will go? To a gigantic concentration camp? They'll fight -and die- first. Israel, and all of the surrounding nations are counting on this fact.

Palestine is done. Over. Finished. They have nowhere to go. They won't accept permanent incarceration. That leaves rebellion unto death.

That is the option the world has given these people. Do we help them? Move them? No. We condemn Israel's actions and blah-blah-blah.

Humanity makes me nauseous.
by BLKNSLVR | 2025-07-28 23:50:29+00:00
Big upside to the provider, not necessarily the consumer.

Perplexity has a "sign in with Google" pop up that loads late, often when I've already started typing in my query, and thus blocks the rest of my typing, negatively affecting the UX of the service. So I looked up how to get the fuck rid of it and added that method to uBlock Origin, and now I'm a happy (freeloading) chappy.
by zahlman | 2025-07-28 23:50:50+00:00
> Are there any examples where someone got "de-banked" or "de-payment-processored" because of misogynistic (but legal) content?

You don't even have to express misogynistic ideas to attract that kind of attention; you only need to question the current mode of politically correct thought.

They tried to prevent the distribution of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game) , and were temporarily successful.

For that matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_video_ga...

> [Super Seducer] came under fire by a number of video game critics; one described it as the "world's sleaziest game",[37] and another criticized the game for "normalizing rape culture"[38] Prior to its release, the game had its crowdfunding campaign suspended by Kickstarter. According to its press release, this was due to "inappropriate content, including but not limited to offensive or pornographic material", and "spamming or abusive behavior, offering rewards in violation of Kickstarter's rules."[39][40]

This is absurd characterization of the gameplay, but the entire concept of "pick-up artistry" causes strong prejudice.

Literal debanking etc., I wouldn't know. I haven't kept tabs on these kinds of stories for many years.

That said, Collective Shout is explicitly arguing that the porn content they're trying to censor via these tactics is inherently misogynistic.

And it wasn't, as far as I can tell, right-wing groups complaining about the Senran Kagura series several years back, either the games or the anime. Just look at the domain names that come up in searches if you try to look that one up; you don't get conservative forums, but you do get ResetEra and VICE, along with the usual "gaming news" rags.
by umanwizard | 2025-07-28 23:51:27+00:00
I do not particularly think the Muslim conquest of half the world was a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

History is not merely an epic struggle between Muslims and Israelis where one of those are the good guys and the other are the bad guys. It is possible that Muslims were in the wrong at some point in history, and that Israel is in the wrong now.

Ancient Hebrews, who Jews traditionally identify as the originators of their culture, lived in what is now Palestine during the Roman Empire, correct. However this is unrelated to the point that was being made.
by jeffbee | 2025-07-28 23:51:43+00:00
Yeah, it's so common that literally nobody in high-level road cycling has ever been found doing it. "Motor doping" is the chupacabra: universally feared, never seen.

The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.
by Arch-TK | 2025-07-28 23:52:27+00:00
It would be relatively difficult to add a physical GPS tracker to a modern phone. Also, it's unnecessary, the government just needs to take a note of the IMSI and/or IMEI and then use the cell tower records to track you (rather accurately I should add).

The problem is not the tracking inherent in the design of mobile telephony networks, which you can circumvent by using burner phones. The problem is for example abuse of tools such as cellebrite to gain warrantless access to your phone at various opportunities.

This is also why proper baseband isolation is important. Baseband firmware is unaudited and likely to have government backdoors.

If the government wants to surveil me, they'll have to put in some actual effort instead of just taking opportunities.
by wredcoll | 2025-07-28 23:53:09+00:00
> Jewish people occupied the entire region long before Islam existed or Islamic Arabs took it over?

And other peoples occupied the region long before judaism was an idea in some shepherd's preaching.

The problem with this logic is, where do you stop. At what point do you declare "these people were the special first ones and anyone before them doesn't matter"?

Much less the mental gymnastics required to believe that which human owned which land in 500bce is relevant to how to deal with things in 2025.

It's not that we should ignore history, it's absolutely worth understanding how we got to the current position, but we shouldn't privilege it over the lives and wellbeing of actual people living right now.
by audinobs | 2025-07-28 23:53:18+00:00
It is especially stupid because there is nothing analogous to Tiananmen Square in the west.

On the other hand, have it write a dirty joke. It just wrote me a few jokes that silicon value wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Not sure about the utility overall though. The chain of thought seems incredibly slow on things that Sonnet would have done in a few seconds from my limited testing.
by cstrahan | 2025-07-28 23:53:41+00:00
> Also, that gitignore doesn't even work.

It's not terribly far off. This works:

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore.new index 7dc7aea..fc9ebfe 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore.new @@ -3,17 +3,21 @@ !.gitignore # whitelist `src` directories and their children, regardless of place +!src !src/**/ !src/**/*.rs !Cargo.{toml,lock} # whitelist root `pysrc` directory +!/pysrc !/pysrc/*.py !pyproject.toml !poetry.lock +!/cmd !/cmd/*.go !main.go !go.{mod,sum} +!/docs !/docs/*.md

This is how I've been managing my dotfiles for over a decade (https://github.com/cstrahan/dotfiles/blob/master/.gitignore).

This is the email thread I started back on 2016/03/3 to pin down the gitignore behavior that we now have today (there was a regression between git version 2.6.0 and 2.7.0):

https://lore.kernel.org/git/1457057516.1962831.539160698.3C8...

(For posterity: the subject line was "Change in .gitignore handling: intended or bug?")
by Esophagus4 | 2025-07-28 23:53:46+00:00
Having written software used by call centers, you’d be surprised at how much call volume is the simple “happy path” like scheduling an appointment, paying a bill, or checking your balance.

We’re not trying to automate the edge cases… we’re automating the easy stuff so agents can spend time on the hard stuff that can’t be easily automated.

(I view customer service as a value add offering, but there are some companies that view it entirely as a cost center and will do everything possible to prevent you from speaking to someone who can help… looking at you, Uber / Airbnb...)
by patrickthebold | 2025-07-28 23:55:04+00:00
I've been toying with an idea of a pattern. I'm curious as to if it has a name. I'll write a blog post once I have an app using it. In the meantime, it's (roughly):

- No Hooks. - Don't try to sync any state. E.g. keep a dom element as the source of truth but provide access to it globally, let's call this external state. - Keep all other state in one (root) immutable global object. - Make a tree of derived state coming from the root state and other globally available state. (These are like selectors and those computations should memoized similar to re-select) - Now imagine at any point in time you have another tree; the dom tree. If you try to make the state tree match to dom tree you get prop drilling. - Instead, flip the dom tree upside down and the leaves get their data out of the memoized global state. - Parent components never pass props to children, the rendered children are passed as props to the parent.

You end up with a diamond with all state on the top and the root of the dom tree on the bottom.

One note, is that the tree is lazy as well as memoized, there's potentially many computations that don't actually need to be computed at all at any given time.

You need something like Rx to make an observable of the root state, some other tools to know when the external state changes. Some memoization library, and the react is left with just the dom diffing, but at that point you should swap out to a simpler alternative.
by giraffe_lady | 2025-07-28 23:55:25+00:00
It was clear to me and many other people from the first days after oct 7 that the actions taken by israel in gaza did not align with their stated goals, and that genocide was the likely outcome.

I hope people changing their view of it now will reflect on at what point they could have seen that, and what prevented them from seeing it, and what prevented them from taking seriously the people who did see it. Does everyone hold the belief that everything was fine until two days ago? I don't think that's a very strong position.
by averageRoyalty | 2025-07-28 23:56:01+00:00
> The system is so ripe for disruption.

Is it? Assuming nobody opposed you, you'd need to convince merchants to have a different payment terminal and train staff on it. You'd need to convince POS providers to provide an integration. You'd need to convince banks to allow your card to be accessible in their systems (or find an alternative way for your customers to pay their card). Once this is done you have to convince people to become your customers for a card that only works in some scenarios.

Assuming absolutely everyone felt neutral about this, what's the incentive for any of the above parties to say yes? For everyone involved it seems to be a lot of work for little benefit.
by westurner | 2025-07-28 23:56:22+00:00
There are hardware AV1 encoders and decoders.

Objective metrics and tools for video encoding and source signal quality: netflix/vmaf, easyVmaf, psy-ex/metrics, ffmpeg-quality-metrics,

Ffmpeg settings for low-latency encoding:

# h264, h265 -preset ultrafast -tune zerolatency # AV1 -c:v libsvtav1 -preset 8 -svtav1-params tune=0:latency-mode=1 -g 60

It's possible to follow along with ffmpeg encoding for visual inspection without waiting for the whole job to complete with the tee muxer and ffplay.

GPU Screen Recorder and Sunlight server expose some encoder options in GUI forms, but parameter optimization is still manual; nothing does easyVmaf with thumbnails of each rendering parameter set with IDK auto-identification of encoding artifacts.

Ardour has a "Loudness Analyzer & Normalizer" with profiles for specific streaming services.

What are good target bitrates for low-latency livestreaming 4k with h264, h265 (HDR), and AV1?
by fc417fc802 | 2025-07-28 23:56:23+00:00
> It's fascinating that "fair" ends up being that the drug developer has to capture the correct amount of the value they are providing the patient, and the patient gets the rest.

Keep in mind that the value is only "theirs" by force of IP law which at least officially exists for the benefit of society as a whole. Permitting a situation where people are priced out of a cure because the only available alternative is exorbitantly expensive doesn't seem moral or useful.

If the concern is ensuring corporate investment into R&D then public policy could be adopted to subsidize R&D expenses either up front or after the fact.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-28 23:56:55+00:00
> Organisms that produce the larger of two gamete sizes are female, and organisms that produce the smaller of two gamete sizes are male.

That's one of many ways sex is defined and it's definitely useful for some purposes, but I have no idea why some people think that is appropriate for making social distinctions.

> Women have a right to sex-specific sports

Gender (social, including legal, categories based on sex traits are gender, not sex) categories in sports were almost without exception created to prevent men from having to compete with and potentially lose to women. There is certainly an existing practice of gender segregated competition in some some sports and other competitive domains, but I’m not sure where the idea that this practice of segregation is a matter of rights comes from, no matter what basis of assigning gender is used. (Gender segregation has been frequently used as a means of preserving unequal treatment while meeting the US legal obligation for numerically equal opportunities in school sports insuring, but that’s obviously not the same thing as gender segregation being a right.)