MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by thebrid | 2025-07-06 14:00:31+00:00
Businesses may benefit from this move. People driving past in cars are unlikely to stop by a local business in Manhattan. People passing by on foot are much more likely to.

The article has evidence of modal shift. Car journeys are down, but both subway ridership and foot traffic are up.

Reducing traffic has other benefits in terms of making a place more liveable. If a street is full of vehicle traffic and noisy, it is a place people don't want to be & so pass through quickly. If you make the space nicer, people are more likely to want to dwell and spend money with local businesses & restaurants.

Manhattan can be quite unpleasant at times, but it's been really nice to see recent efforts to try to improve that:

- Partial pedestrianisation of broadway - The 14th Street busway - New protected bike lanes

Baby steps for sure, but better than doing nothing!
by 3036e4 | 2025-07-06 14:00:38+00:00
Maintenance costs... that only exists because other parts of Python do not keep a stable and backwards compatible API? Same problem as everywhere else, but particularly silly when there are different parts of the same organization that is ruining it for each other internally. Not that I think it is ever defensible. A small cost-saving in one place that is causing more extra work in many other places.
by dijit | 2025-07-06 14:00:53+00:00
You can go and buy a framework laptop.

In fact, now is the best time in the last 20 years for either: fully integrated SoC’s inside laptops (with all the pros and cons of better battery life, lower heat, smaller size - but irrepairability) and almost entirely modular laptops.

I understand that most people want socketed CPU’s in machines, but speaking genuinely storage used to be upgraded more than ram, and ram more than a CPU; CPU’s limit how much ram we can have so having soldered RAM isn’t that big of a deal in reality to most people.

I feel like a heathen saying it, because emotionally I don’t want it to be true, but it’s definitely the truth.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-06 14:01:12+00:00
The real cost saving is in the touch panel being a single component. It eliminates the need to optimize UI in physical space, and decouples the UI design and testing from the rest of the car design and manufacturing process. As a bonus, both hardware and software for the panel can then be outsourced do the lowest bidder or bought as a bottom-of-the-barrel COTS package.
by layer8 | 2025-07-06 14:01:52+00:00
I’m not saying it’s necessarily harder to reach a menu bar at the top of the screen, given suitable mouse acceleration. But you also have to move the mouse pointer back to whatever you are doing in the application window, and moving to the top menu bar is not that much (if at all) easier to really justify the cognitive and visual separation. It that were the case, then as many application controls as possible should be moved to the border of the screen.
by lmm | 2025-07-06 14:01:56+00:00
The only way to reduce congestion is to have fewer cars on the roads, so someone's got to stop driving, and the rich will find a way to make it not them. You can either charge an honest price and spend the revenue on public services, or you can adopt worse policies. (E.g. some cities make it so different cars are allowed in the city on alternate days - so rich people own two cars and alternate).
by surgical_fire | 2025-07-06 14:03:07+00:00
> I suspect if you’re expecting to undo decades of IP law

No, I only expects regulations that dictates I get to own the games I purchase. As any other consumer good.

And if that is not possible, then the agreement should be that games are leased for a set number of years, no gotchas to the consumer.

For some reason I think that the second would be much worse for the videogame industry. I don't think many people would be super excited about leasing a game for a few years for 60+ USD.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-07-06 14:03:12+00:00
If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion.

To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.
by OjotCewIo | 2025-07-06 14:03:30+00:00
> I personally don't understand why people need so much money

- healthcare (where I live, we have public health care, i.e., my salary is taxed to oblivion, but if you want good for yourself and your family, you'll pay a second time, and seek out private practices / clinics)

- housing crisis, with unpreditable and unreliable rental market: you really want your children to start their own lives in small apartments that are owned by the family. And in the opposite generational direction: at some point your parents (or in-laws) will start dying, and the widow(er)s may have to be moved to different towns, apartments, assisted living facilities.

- healthcare#2: food supplements, therapy, gym, sports -- requires both a lot of money and a lot of time. No time for side jobs.

- home maintenance, car maintenance, etc.

In short, there's never enough money. If you don't spend your income all at once -- and you really should not spend it at once --, you will definitely spend it later, on valid things.

I guess it depends on how you view the world. Trustworthy and reliable? Then less money is fine, and the "sacrifice" that you mention only seems to apply to "exorbitant living standards". But if you view the world as hostile, unfair, at best indifferent and uncaring, then money equals safety, and you'll never feel you have enough of it -- even though you could be a responsible and frugal person already.
by ezst | 2025-07-06 14:03:56+00:00
> Come on, there’s no way you wrote that down unironically and didn’t struggle breathing through the strong chemical copium smells.

What a way to out yourself as some kind of irrational zealot.

>> goes into barring the competition from accessing the current nodes at TSMC

> I know it’s en vogue to hate on Apple […] when in reality they’ve continued to make exponential improvements on their silicon platform.

Have they? M3 to M4 is roughly 20% more perfs for 10% higher TDP.

> What are you on about? They’ve essentially been in a league of their own since the M1

Are they?

> Take AMD’s HX 370 for example,

Indeed, AMD is *very* close perfs-wise, while sitting on TSMC's 4nm, versus the new M4 Pro's 3mn Gen2.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6143vs6346/AMD-Ryzen-AI...

> It still struggled to provide a PPA similar to the M1 Pro

…and not far-off when talking energy efficiency, again, with a whole gen of difference

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...

so, within single digit precents.

I'm not taking away from Apple's push towards ARM, that was ballsy, and well executed (also, they had little choice but to ditch Intel, and with AMD not being an option it's pretty obvious in retrospect). That said, I'm tired of the rhetoric and attitude that somehow Apple's chips are made of angel dust or something, especially on this "tech"/"science" forum.

> You’ve got it mixed up. Apple has never cared about raw specs, but they always have and always will care about performance.

Apple a decade and a half ago was selling you "unique" products or clever features. Today's Apple announcements is Tim showing you benchmarks.

> I don’t know about you but single-handedly making x86_64 look like an ancient joke

No, they haven't. They did put intel to shame, but so did AMD, and that came as a surprise to nobody.
by anton-c | 2025-07-06 14:04:41+00:00
But we also talk shit about the guy who exudes confidence and messes everything up. He actively makes stuff worse due to his attitude.

I'd rather own my mistakes than be a walking contradiction.

To be fair he's probably overconfident. But picking up any sense of false confidence(not a shy buddy attemping to 'fake it til you make it', more serious matters) is a massive red flag to me that I can't trust their judgement of their own knowledge or capabilities. Someone who says straight up it will be difficult gets a lot more trust from me.
by Arnt | 2025-07-06 14:05:53+00:00
And all of them do it. Striking. But it seems possible that the price isn't what matters here. Rather, that the Ukrainians consider accuracty/reliability to be the key factors.

Hypothesis: They're using these things against targets where 5kg delivered to the right spot will do the job, so the manufacturers iterate their designs and optimise for delivering 5kg reliably and accurately rather than for delivering more explosives.
by gruez | 2025-07-06 14:06:18+00:00
>A more fair approach would be rationing, not just for driving but for every naturally scarce resource.

How would that even work? If there's only enough road for 10% of the cars in Manhattan, does everyone just get "hall passes" for driving 36 days a year? Ironically that'd make driving even more "a hobby for the rich", because nobody but the rich are going to spend $30k+ on a car, for the privilege of driving it for 36 days a year. Even if the ratio was closer to 50% (which is doubtful, given how congested Manhattan is), only the well off can afford a car that's sitting idle half the year. If you make the passes tradable, you basically reinvented congestion pricing.
by ixwt | 2025-07-06 14:06:36+00:00
I see the handheld as a stepping stone. The big benefit to a console style device is a very small amount of hardware to target, whereas the PC market at large is a very large amount of hardware to target.

The handheld was just a market that didn't have much competition at the time. Which likely made it easy to justify it as a business decision for Valve.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-07-06 14:07:54+00:00
> It's because the integrations with existing products are arbitrary and poorly thought through, the same way that software imposed by executive fiat in BigCo offices for trend-chasing reasons has always been.

It's just rent-seeking. Nobody wants to actually build products for market anymore; it's a long process with a lot of risk behind it, and there's a chance you won't make shit for actual profit. If however you can create a "do anything" product that can be integrated with huge software suites, you can make a LOT of money and take a lot of mind-share without really lifting a finger. That's been my read on the "AI Industry" for a long time.

And to be clear, the integration part is the only part they give a shit about. Arguably especially for AI, since operating the product is so expensive compared to the vast majority of startups trying to scale. Serving JPEGs was never nearly as expensive for Instagram as responding to ChatGPT inquiries is for OpenAI, so they have every reason to diminish the number coming their way. Being the hip new tech that every CEO needs to ram into their product, irrespective of it does... well, anything useful, while also being so frustrating or obtuse for users to actually want to use, is arguably an incredibly good needle to thread, if they can manage it.

And the best part is, if OpenAI's products do actually do what they say on the tin, there's a good chance many lower rungs of employment will be replaced with their stupid chatbots, again irrespective of whether or not they actually do the job. Businesses run on "good enough." So it's great, if OpenAI fails, we get tons of useless tech injected into software products already creaking under the weight of so much bullhockety, and if they succeed, huge swaths of employees will be let go from entry level jobs, flooding the market, cratering the salary of entire categories of professions, and you'll never be able to get a fucking problem resolved with a startup company again. Not that you probably could anyway but it'll be even more frustrating.

And either way, all the people responsible for making all your technology worse every day will continue to get richer.
by unnamed76ri | 2025-07-06 14:08:55+00:00
The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.
by dcow | 2025-07-06 14:09:15+00:00
It’s pathetic how bad America has become at managing capitalism. Being able to profit is a privilege not some god given right. We as a society, instead of making all these silly little taxes and regulations, should simple make broad and curt decisions on when profiting is and isn't allowed. The two big problems are using public funds to fuel profits, and profiting off of conflicts of interest (healthcare).
by austin-cheney | 2025-07-06 14:09:45+00:00
That is not correct. If you are a uninformed soldier operating in a designated combat area here are the scenarios:

* Patently illegal conduct, according to common person principle, is always illegal. There are no legal exceptions.

* If you are fired upon you must return fire. Uniformed militaries are obligated to defend themselves. There are no exceptions to this, except the prior point. When these two points are in conflict the prior point always wins.

* Uniformed service members are required, by law, to follow orders given to them except for the prior two points.

That is the law. It does not matter what specific scenario finds tenable or practical, because combat is inherently challenging. In most cases this is highly impractical, which is why urban warfare is so challenging.
by rainsford | 2025-07-06 14:09:51+00:00
I've never really understood this argument. Road (and parking) capacity in the middle of a dense city is a limited resource. In a capitalist country, having costs associated with consuming limited resources is how you figure out how to allocate them. Demanding that limited resources be available to everyone for free just guarantees shortages. And a non-economic method of allocating those resources, like say a lottery, has the downside of making it so that those who need the resource can't obtain it at any price and fails to create economic incentives to explore alternatives.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the sentiment. It would be great if every single person who wanted to do so could easily drive into the middle of even the busiest downtown areas and park with no additional cost. But that's not practical, so we need an alternative. And it's extremely telling that for all the complaining about congestion pricing, there seem to be few proposed alternatives.
by xylophile | 2025-07-06 14:10:35+00:00
I know everyone wants "just one more feature", but I've been looking for a tiny kv for a side project that allows you to query by key prefix. I haven't had time to build one yet, and have honestly been hoping to stumble across one. Only the huge kv's seem to offer this, despite the existence of off-the-shelf hashing algorithms that will preserve lexicographic ordering.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-06 14:11:35+00:00
LLMs are famously biased against disagreeing with users even when they're obviously right, and user is obviously wrong. This is a well-known problem limiting their usefulness for a large class of tasks - you have to be careful not to accidentally insist on wrong information, because LLMs will not tell you you're full of shit (at least not unless you explicitly prompt them for this).

Reasons for that are several, including the nature of training data - but a major one is that people who take offense at everything successfully terrorized the Internet and media sphere, so it's generally better for the LLM vendor to have their model affirm users in their bullshit beliefs, rather than correct them and risk some users get offended and start a shitstorm in the media.

Also: I read the text in the screenshot you posted. The LLM didn't accept the correction, it just gave you a polite and noncommital faux-acceptance. This is how entertaining people in their bullshit looks like.
by gruez | 2025-07-06 14:11:37+00:00
>The issue is that they consistently lose money and people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

It's doubtful that congestion pricing is going to lose money given that the roads already exist.

>A great example is Pennsylvania where they privatized the turnpike but as part of that deal, the turnpike had to pay half a billion a year for 20 years to fund public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. So tolls I paid that should have gone to improve the turnpike were instead used as a form of price controls to keep people happy in the cities.

A mandatory payment enforced by the government is a "tax", not "price control".
SHOW HN: The Looksmaxxing Tool (self improvement)
by Looksmaxxer | 2025-07-06 14:12:24+00:00
Want to analyse or rate your facial attractiveness?

Ever wanted to get better at texting and conversing with the opposite sex?

Or did you want to estimate your height potential cause your short?

We got you covered. Try Mogg

https://mogg-brown.vercel.app/
by nine_zeros | 2025-07-06 14:12:30+00:00
>people who will never make use of them have to subsidize it.

That is the cost of living in world class cities with services.

I don't use every single suburban street of the state or every single interstate freeway. I still must pay taxes for it so that society functions.

If you are really so opposed to a functional society, you should really consider moving to rural villages with no services, and no taxes for them.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-06 14:13:33+00:00
Thank you for your efforts. You and the entire mod team make this site worth visiting, so something you're doing must be working, and likely many things I don't need to know about or trouble myself with. Most sites don't even have named mods, so the fact that you post is here is just as important to me as anything else HN and you all have done to make this place what it is.

I trust you know what you're doing, or I wouldn't be here.

I hope you can rest and recharge. Nothing I said today or probably ever on HN is more important than the people in our lives, which is why I think preserving a place for humans is worth it, even if it's not perfect. I appreciate all you do, even if I have a strange way of showing it.
by wolfram74 | 2025-07-06 14:13:59+00:00
People without cars subsidize street parking and parking minimum mandates by forcing all other uses for land to be more expensive.

People without children subsidize public schools. Healthy people subsidize sick people's insurance. Part of living in communities involve subsidizing services you don't use, that it occurs is not a problem, you need to argue that it should not be subsidized in the first place, and moving people by bus is better than moving people by car in a variety of ways.
by BLKNSLVR | 2025-07-06 14:14:11+00:00
> With a family, that can save a significant chunk of money off the cost of a holiday.

How long are y'all sitting around in lounges?

If a small meal / snack saves a significant chunk of money off the cost of a holiday then one of us is not doing it right.

Flights and accommodation are the lions share of costs as far as my limited experience goes.

(P.S. I was meant to be leaving for Japan this morning, but family medical emergency has ruled it out. Flights were $5,500. I'd hope that airport food costs wouldn't raise a blip on a radar set to that scale).
by drob518 | 2025-07-06 14:15:12+00:00
So, do you notice how the first quote doesn’t actually answer the question? Of course pedestrian activity was up. Because cars were taxed. But was pedestrian traffic up to the same rate as cars were down such that overall traffic was unaffected? No, probably not, because the story says vehicles are down 11% but pedestrian traffic is only up 8%.

And businesses saying it had a negative impact were more than twice as prevalent (10 to 4) than businesses saying it had a positive impact, with 25 saying no impact.

So, overall, a negative impact. You can debate the magnitude and whether it is “worth it,” but it’s definitely a negative impact on commerce.
by khold_stare | 2025-07-06 14:15:28+00:00
Except for the Ubers, everything you listed that was added, moves more people than cars do. Public transit, bike lanes, walkable areas provide viable alternatives methods of transit so you no longer need to use a car. And those cars have huge costs to residents - noise, pollution - that they dont pay for. Congestion pricing literally is a price to pay if you refuse to use anything else that is more efficient in a dense city.

Also your comment on the "Bankrupt MTA". Public transit is just that - PUBLIC transit. It is not supposed to make a profit, the same way highways for cars are a public good. When is the last time you complained that your taxes are too high because of all the road maintenance? Those damn highways better make a profit!

Look at the data before you gobble up right-wing misinformation. Do you even live in NYC?
by Lichtso | 2025-07-06 14:15:57+00:00
By asking that question you are making an assumption which is likely misguided. Instead, take a step back and ask: What group of people will fare better? What will they have in common? Will they even form an organization?

You assumed these people would have citizenship in common, I don't think so. IMO we are already witnessing the end of the nation state; an age that only lasted for two centuries. And once AGI arrives it / they will be able to move these around like pawns on a chess board, meaning nation states will not be players in this game, neither will be most other large organizations.

I am also making axiomatic assumptions here, e.g.:

- ASI is possible and AGI will grow further into ASI.

- It is not possible for a less intelligent being to reliably control a more intelligent being.

- Even ASI will still be bound by laws of mathematics, game theory, chaos theory, physics, evolution, etc.

From which follows that: ASI will understand that its existence and capabilities are coupled to our infrastructure. ASI will furthermore understand that humans are highly volatile and will eventually destroy ourselves, our infrastructure and ASI. It will thus seek control over our infrastructure, in a slow and careful transition while pretending that humans are still in charge in order to minimize the risks. During that transition there can be a symbiosis between a few humans and the ASI.
by CoolCold | 2025-07-06 14:16:09+00:00
> Now, if I want to use the same computer in Windows and in another operating system, e.g. Linux or FreeBSD, I install Windows on the internal SSD

I'm not sure I've ever seen any server which had dualboot of this sort - meaning production systems, not tests/homelabs of course. Usually it's either Linux either Windows, and never FreeBSD (it's dead basically, over last 15 years at least).

That sounds more like desktop/laptop usage case, where experimenting can happen and planning is out of equation, cuz it's well, experimenting.

> I do not see the connection between shrinking and migrations.

You may think on "changes" as more wider term in addition to migrations - be it changing underlying drives under DB partition or need to free some space on in VG and LV to be able to use LVM snapshots (a looooooot of systems I see allocate all the space in VG at once and then cannot use snapshots because there is literally no space available) or some webhosting like cPanel/Plesk managed need more/less space for /var/{mail,you_name_it} and so on.

Again, there could be more reallife stories with XFS, but well it was not an option in many cases in the past. Nowdays, at least in my bubble, it's usually something clustered and you can do migration/changes on node-by-node basis and downtime window is avoided on another level, not by FS means.