MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by trealira | 2025-07-08 12:29:35+00:00
The passive voice just switches the roles so that the patient is the subject and the agent is the object (e.g. in "The ball was kicked by John," the ball is still the patient despite being the subject). It's just that with English word order, it also switches the places of the things in the sentence.

In languages with more flexible word order, you could just switch the two without passive voice. You could just say the equivalent of "The ball kicked John," with it being clear somehow that the ball is the grammatical object and John the subject, without needing to use the passive voice at all.
by Mooty | 2025-07-08 12:31:00+00:00
Did you use any library to go from html to json ? Did you have any inconsistensies with stuff like "<div>text<span> is <span> really</span><b> difficult to convert to json</b><span></div>" ?

I think using 3rd party API might help with latency as they won't have the same latency problem.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-07-08 12:31:21+00:00
If someone sued Gmail for assisting with piracy and demanded every single email from every single customer, then said, "especially the ones your customers wanted private/deleted", a judge would say that it is an absurd breach of privacy for (hundreds of) millions of Americans.

I fully expect these chats from discovery to be leaked, token, or show up in the form of analytics in a NYY expose.
by 1970-01-01 | 2025-07-08 12:35:39+00:00
They're going too deep into detail. This is another example of getting lightning in a bottle on the first try. Jurassic Park was done very well by Spielberg. The bar was set extremely high for another. But regression to the mean takes hold, and you see a worse result on the second, third, and nth attempt. Popular movies that have snapped this trend are also guilty of survivorship bias.
by frozenseven | 2025-07-08 12:35:49+00:00
(1) Did you really? You pivoted to a version of the argument where "scale matters". That's also not a thing. If scale matters, it doesn't in terms of style. You could conceivably make an argument based on competition, but even that is very hard to prove in court.

(2) "Copying", as in verbatim using/memorizing sizeable chunks of content and suchlike? No, the goal of ML training is to generalize across concepts. I didn't make an argument based on some direct connection to neuroscience, but I also reject the idea that there isn't one.

(3) So it's an irrelevant point. Some people are upset about technology? I honestly don't care.

(4) You said that the big bad corporations are making money. I'm saying that FOSS alternatives are all over the place.

(5) That so? My code of ethics says that Luddites getting steamrolled is an immense moral good.

(6) See (1).
by ACCount36 | 2025-07-08 12:35:59+00:00
Perhaps they think that by forcing everyone to go through the sales dept just to get the basic docs, they'll get better sales opportunities.

How do you upsell a hardware engineer who just wants to buy a specific chip, and already has everything to evaluate and use it? You don't. So you force everyone to go through sales, and then sales wants to talk to non-engineering higher-ups, and then the upsell happens - while the people who actually knew what they wanted remain as far away as possible.

And if you don't have the pockets deep enough for the sales dept to acknowledge your existence, then you might as well not exist.
by bell-cot | 2025-07-08 12:36:13+00:00
What happened?

Capitalist optimization. Wall Street, and tech company C-suites, noticed that relatively few users bothered to vote their bucks and clicks for high-quality tech. Flip-side, making high-quality tech is far more difficult and uncertain than making crap and selling it with hype and BS.

"Show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome."
by theworIdismine | 2025-07-08 12:37:55+00:00
i don't think you understand what wasm does. it cannot substitute html because wasm and html do completely different things!! the web is not just about speed, people buy things because they are pretty too, not just because they are useful. if you need speed, you download a program.

and if you are passing your words through a llm before submitting them here, please stop, i'd rather see honest yet broken english
by atmavatar | 2025-07-08 12:37:56+00:00
Here's the rub: the current polarization and championing of censorship have come from abuse of free speech protections.

We've had decades of Fox News and the like declaring things like "War on Christmas" and "War on Christianity" to make people in the majority feel like victims, presenting immigrants as subhumans that take jobs and commit crimes as they invade our country, and presenting trans people as deviant threats to our children, trying to make them all trans, too.

This is a completely fictional world, but such a large number of people have become believers that they've now been able to take over political power.

As a result, we get state laws that directly attack freedom of speech via book bans and scrubbing school curriculum of anything parents deem objectionable, which can include innocuous things like acknowledging gay people exist or that the civil war was fought over slavery. We also got our current administration, which has used lawsuits and other threats to attack any speech the president doesn't like.

I don't see where it gets better anytime soon - and I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's going to get a lot worse before they do get better, because a large cohort of people are cheering it on.

And before anyone chimes in that this is a both sides issue: I've yet to see actual legal action taken by the left wing to curtail speech. Instead, I've seen social pressure levied - largely in the form of freedom not to associate with individuals or businesses that engage in speech people find objectionable. This is the correct way to engage in an environment of free speech, even if I find it distasteful how far it's been taken and how petty it's been in some cases.

I'm not really advocating for censorship myself. Ultimately, I'm merely reflecting upon how an environment of nearly absolute adherence to free speech has been eroded by a number of bad actors utilizing propaganda and lies to chip away at that very free speech over the decades, bringing us to a point where we're sliding down the very same slope towards destruction of freedoms that free speech absolutism was intended to prevent. The whole exercise feels like a Catch-22, hence my prodding for something a little more concrete yet specific than "censorship = bad".
by andrewl | 2025-07-08 12:38:08+00:00
For a lot of these people the term Communist is basically a synonym for sick or evil. I have seen very extreme people using Communist and homosexual interchangeably as terms for what they consider immorality. "They're homosexual, communists trying to destroy America." "It's a Jewish, homosexual agenda." "What about Senator John Smith's wife?" "She's a homosexual, too."
by mytailorisrich | 2025-07-08 12:38:16+00:00
It was not clear to me if she was really "acquitted" or released without charge so I looked it up and she was indeed charged and acquitted in court.

In France there is an offence called "outrage à personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique", contempt/insult to someone holding 'public authority' (police, elected official, etc), which is the basis for this. There is a similar offence for insults against civil servants and public workers (inc. teachers, public transport employees, etc).
by trq01758 | 2025-07-08 12:38:16+00:00
Andy Serkis was great, but not as good at shape-shifting. For LOTR renderfarm WETA bought a bunch of SGI 1200 dual core Pentium III 700MHz servers with 1GB RAM, 9 GB SCSI disks all running RedHat Linux. I've read at some point they had 192 SGI 1100 and 1200 servers working.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-07-08 12:38:24+00:00
This isn't a targeted request for one user's Facebook messages. This is a request for every Facebook user's message. And when they don't hand over private DMs, they point and go "especially those, you're obviously hiding something by not giving us the most sensitive user data you have".

It is an absurd breach of user privacy at the scale of tens of millions of Americans that goes well beyond the reasonability for a civil copyright lawsuit.

This sets the precedence that if Gmail gets sued for privacy, now all our emails are leaked. Télécom companies? All of our text messages. Cloud image storage? Woops, gotta hand us every photo any American has taken with a Samsung phone! After all, it might have content that infringes on my copyright!
by saghm | 2025-07-08 12:38:27+00:00
The main reason I'm not super fond of the way it currently works is that it can be a bit confusing in code reviews. I've joined several teams over the years working on Rust codebases around a year old where most of the team hadn't used Rust beforehand, with the idea that my Rust experience can help the team grow in their Rust knowledge and mature the codebase over time. I can recall numerous times when I've seen a trait like Debug or Clone manually implemented by someone newer to Rust where the implementation is identical to what would be generated by automatically deriving it, with a roughly equal split between times when they did actually need to manually implement it for the reasons described in this article and times when they totally could have derived the trait but didn't realize. If I can't look at a Clone implementation that just manually clones every field exactly the same way as deriving it would and immediately know whether it would be possible to derive it after over 10 years of Rust experience, I can't possibly expect someone with less than a year of Rust experience to do that, so my code review feedback ends up having to be a question about whether they tried to derive the trait or not (and to try it and keep it like that if it does work) rather than being able to let them know for sure that they can just derive the trait instead.

I guess at a higher level, my issue with the way it currently works is that it's a bit ambiguous with respect to the intent of the developer. If it were possible to derive traits in the cases the article describes, seeing a manual implementation would be immediately clear that this was what the developer chose to write. The way it works right now means that I can't tell the difference between "I tried to derive this, but it didn't work, so I had to implement it manually as a fallback" and "I implemented this manually without trying to derive it first". It's a minor issue, but I think small things like this add up in the overall experience of how hard it is for someone to learn a language, and I'd argue that it's exactly the type of thing that Rust has benefited from caring about in the past. Rust has a notoriously sharp learning curve, and yet it's grown in popularity quite a lot over the past decade, and I don't think that would have been possible without the efforts of those paying attention to the smaller rough edges in the day-to-day experience of using the language.
by whatevertrevor | 2025-07-08 12:38:34+00:00
I will not dispute what you claim here. But it doesn't address the main thrust of my comment.

The point I was making wasn't that De-id is a solved problem, or that your data is "safe" with FAANG companies. The point was more about the malice that's attributed to them as a blanket measure, in comments such as these:

> (especially all the FAANG people that curiously always stay silent in threads like this one), has worked very hard to make everyone believe that online privacy is a thing, while working even harder to undermine that at every possible step.

There are many people and execs at these companies who are unscrupulous. But there are also many parts of them that are trying to work on doing things the "somewhat right" way when handling user data.

De-id and anonymization is a hard problem. But there's a lot of concrete evidence for me that many people in the FAANG world are at least trying to make progress on it (sinking billions of dollars of eng and research resources on them), instead of blatantly making bag, which they totally could.
by stego-tech | 2025-07-08 12:39:51+00:00
Author uses a bunch of maps and charts to support their own narrative, one which all but ignores the reality they get at in the fourth paragraph:

> Furthermore, weather model forecasts indicated the potential for a major precipitation event over this historically flood-prone region during the prior days.

So the answer is yes. Yes, it could have been entirely avoided had the landowners built in such a way that respected the land’s tendency to flood. Yes, it could have been avoided if landowners took warnings seriously, paid attention to past flood events, if the state had put flooding mitigation measures on a river or area known for flash flooding, or if literally anyone had observed that putting dormitories at or near river level was a generally awful idea from a safety perspective.

The fact people died in one of the most predictable types of disasters out there, yet are still trying to weasel around blame or fault, is beyond shameful, and something we don’t need Op-Eds about so much as we need more people calling it what for it is:

A wholly preventable tragedy.
by saghm | 2025-07-08 12:40:06+00:00
Arc _does_ allow clone without the underlying implementation not being clone. That's exactly why it's so unexpected that having an `Arc<T>` field in a struct doesn't allow deriving clone unless `T` is also clone; it doesn't actually matter to the implementation, and you end up having to write the exact same thing manually that would be generated by deriving it if the compiler actually allowed it.
by loudmax | 2025-07-08 12:40:33+00:00
There is plenty of natural selection pressure on not being eaten. If a mold or something could evolve to live off of a dry atmosphere plus sunlight and whatever minerals it can eek out of rocks, it could blanket millions of square kilometers of desert. Presumably other living things would find it hard to digest because its protein and chemical structures are so different. Nature is constantly finding weird little niches at the edge of sustainability. Waterless deserts should present an enormous opportunity for something to fill, but it hasn't happened.
by kcaj | 2025-07-08 12:40:59+00:00
From the talk: “Intelligence is the conversion ratio between past experience and potential operating area [where the potential operating area of interest is the area of problems that system has no experience of].”

So we might say, “General Intelligence is the ability to do the things we haven’t yet thought of.”

“Like what?”

“Well, as soon as I name something it stops counting.”

Gödellian - I like it. Does that mean a constructive definition of General Intelligence is uncomputable?
by danogentili | 2025-07-08 12:41:23+00:00
Fibers are incredibly powerful, as they can be used to implement seamless go-like concurrency with async, colorless functions.

They were added to PHP by the maintainers of amphp (https://amphp.org), which is the best library for async PHP out there, providing a clean, object-oriented and async API for files, databases and everything that can make use of async I/O.
by NackerHughes | 2025-07-08 12:41:44+00:00
Have they fixed 'Open in Conversation', the position of the New Message button, total number of messages indicator, tabs and toolbar buttons sharing the same row, the settings button, laggy UI, compatibility with various extensions or the search bar, all of which have been either completely broken or borderline unusable since their utterly unnecessary UI mangling in version 115, their self-proclaimed 'most beautiful Thunderbird yet'?

Or have they just added more padding around everything, more wasted screen space, more laggy animations, all the while making routine operations like, oh I don't know, checking and replying to email more unpleasant and niggling by the day?
by yubblegum | 2025-07-08 12:43:11+00:00
This can give a false sense of what Google (Alphabet) actually knows about you. That above is Google playing the game of 'ok, here is what we know of your activities on youtube when logged in!'

But Google and the rest of the "advertising" (euphemism for surveillance) industry track and create "profiles" based on a basket of data points, from ip/MAC address to the rest of their bag of tricks.
by lupusreal | 2025-07-08 12:43:30+00:00
I think the most coherent answer is that it was simply a throwback to 20th century science fiction, in which psychic powers were commonly treated as "real in the future". The Matrix in particular borrowed a lot from anime and eastern mysticism, so a break from strict materialism isn't too out of place. It's just part of the style of this kind of media.

(Psychics in sci-fi: Foundation, Ringworld, Akira and about a million other animes, The Demolished Man, The Stars My Destination, Dune, loads of Phillip K Dick, Starship Troopers,... If you read a lot of 20th century sci-fi it comes up A LOT.)
by mjevans | 2025-07-08 12:43:44+00:00
What sort of _technical_ solution might exist to this problem?

Likely __hightly__ targeted mobile device alerts. Localize to cell tower and maybe even quadrant and issue warnings like "You are in a flood plane that might experience a flood based on heavy rainfall."

It can't be like the 'smoke alarms' which I've been trained are just 'battery eating middle of the night awakeners'. I've only _only_ ever had those go off because it's a low battery, or on a muggy hellish night because it cooled off enough for the relative humidity inside to become condensing. False alarms literally Pavlovian train someone that it is not an emergency, it's an annoyance.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-07-08 12:43:49+00:00
The customers can earn investment returns just like the insurance seller, so you have to reduce foregone returns from the insurance buyer’s benefit so it ends up canceling out.

>For the insurer to make a profit, the amount reimbursed to legit claims simply has to be less than Sales-Expenses that year, which basically translates to having Z customers claims on any given year where Z << NbOfCustomers.

That inequality does not “basically translate”. Insurance sellers have to exist for multiple years, not just 1 year.

If every single year, “customer claims” are less than the net benefit of customers, which is what I think you wrote although it is hard to interpret, then your “net benefit of customers” includes a non cash component (such as feeling secure)”.

There is never a free lunch, and the insurance business is not at all like a Ponzi scheme (that’s the whole point of actuaries performing calculations…to ensure sustainability without an ever growing income stream).
by hibikir | 2025-07-08 12:44:02+00:00
I have a service using them a lot. It ultimately relies on a couple dozen downstream dba and endpoints, with some calls requiring strict dependencies, and others running in parallel. So I just draw the dependency chart among the functions, and let the service manage all the parallelism and asynchronous bits with minimal babysitting. If it was all chained, then sure, it's not a significant gain
Ask HN: Who Is Looking for a Cofounder?
by mafiaboi | 2025-07-08 12:44:28+00:00
Haven't seen one of these Ask HNs for a long time, in fact the last one I saw was from 5 years ago. Met incredible people so far from Hacker News, hence reposting this.

If you are looking for a cofounder, comment like this: [Your name] | Your social (Linkedin, Twitter etc) - Who are you in short - Are you technical, non-technical? - What did you build so far (impressive things for you) - Where are you located? - Looking for remote or in-person - What kind of person are you looking for?
by Greed | 2025-07-08 12:45:10+00:00
You may be reaching the limits of the metaphor here, but restaurants are absolutely responsible for the e coli if it's found in significant quantities whether it's in the initial ingredients or the cooked end product. A restaurant is required to vet its suppliers and ensure food safety protocols throughout the entire process with several independent checks at many points, and is ultimately directly responsible if a customer sues. A restaurant does not get to cook bad ingredients well and then point at the supplier. They will find themselves shut down immediately, andpermanently if they do not resolve the situation.

In this context, this would be the equivalent of Suno explicitly placing stop points throughout the training, tokenization, and generation processes to verify that there was absolutely no chance of it generating copyrighted material through some kind of clean room reconstruction test. They would also need those tests to be audited at random by a third party governing body. Obviously they are not doing this, so the metaphor definitely does not track here.
by jsjohnst | 2025-07-08 12:45:24+00:00
> The truth is, if there was no AI tech developed, we would not need to regulate it so that greed does not take over.

Same could be said for the Internet as we know it too. Literally replace AI with Internet above and it reads equally true. Some would argue (me included some days) we are worse off as a society ~30 years later. That’s also a legitimate case that can be made it was a huge benefit to society too. Will the same be said of AI in 2042?
by 542354234235 | 2025-07-08 12:45:31+00:00
No, it is because you can’t tell the same story in a different medium and expect it to work. Things that work in a book, like a character’s internal monolog, don’t work in a movie. Just taking that “facts” from a book and filming them almost never works. You have to look at the theme, tone, and the overall message being portrayed in the book and make a movie that captures those.

The book has two tyrannosauruses, but is that important? Or is the singular focus on one tyrannosaurus work better in a movie? In the book, Hammond falls into a ditch and is eaten alive by compies. Would showing that in the movie been the best way to convey to the audience his downfall due to his own hubris, or would have felt more like a “cool dinosaur death”? Maybe it is better to show him looking old, sad, and defeated taking one last look at his park, before being helped into the helicopter by Dr. Grant. Him being slightly startled when Grant takes his arm shows how lost in thought he was, and the audience can imagine what thoughts are running through his mind about how his life’s work and legacy came to such utter ruin.

Adaptation is an art and there is no one right way to do it, and the more I here people talk about “make it just like the book” the more I realize people have very little understanding about what makes good movies, or good stories in general.
by bookofjoe | 2025-07-08 12:45:32+00:00
And, WAY back in the day, other rocks.

>The models estimated that Oldowan stone tools originated 2.617-2.644 million years ago, 36,000 to 63,000 years earlier than current evidence. The Acheulean’s origin was pushed back further by at least 55,000 years to 1.815-1.823 million years ago.

https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/28246/the-worlds-earlies...

>Statistical inference of earlier origins for the first flaked stone technologies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
by avadhesh18 | 2025-07-08 12:45:47+00:00
1. I enabled them by default because I thought most people won't even know about their existence if they weren't there but if someone is bothered by them they will definitely find the menu item and disable it.

2. I will add an option to enable auto advance in future update.

3. That typo is embarrassing — thanks for catching it! There’s always something that slips through.