MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-07 18:39:43+00:00
The first paragraph sounds absurd, so I looked into the PDF, and here's the full version I found:

> First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such. Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable. For centuries, we have read and re-read books. We have admired, memorized, and internalized their sweeping themes, their substantive points, and their stylistic solutions to recurring writing problems.

Couldn't have put it better myself (though $deity knows I tried many times on HN). Glad to see Judge Alsup continues to be the voice of common sense in legal matters around technology.
by impossiblefork | 2025-07-07 18:40:16+00:00
They actually should, because generally an equal playing field is more important that correct law.

As an extreme example, consider murder. Obviously it should be illegal, but if it's legal for one group and not for another, the group for which it's illegal will probably be wiped out, having lost the ability to avenge deaths in the group.

It's much more important that laws are applied impartially and equally than that they are even a tiny bit reasonable.
by KoolKat23 | 2025-07-07 18:40:23+00:00
The use is to train an AI model.

A trillion parameter SOTA model is not substantially comprised of the one copyrighted piece. (If it was a Harry Potter model trained only on Harry Potter books this would be a different story).

Embeddings are not copy paste.

The last point about market impact would be where they make their argument but it's tenuous. It's not the primary use of AI models and built in prompts try to avoid this, so it shouldn't be commonplace unless you're jail breaking the model, most folk aren't.
by badc0ffee | 2025-07-07 18:40:28+00:00
It looks good in a maximized window on an external retina display on my MBP.

One thing, though, is that it "stutters" every 15 seconds or so. Like, it pauses for a noticeable time, like hundreds of ms. The UI shows a consistent 119-120 FPS, even when this is happening.

It's possible the fault is Firefox, and not your page. I do have 64 GB of RAM, but also a zillion tabs open.
by mike_hearn | 2025-07-07 18:40:35+00:00
Yeah Google's infrastructure is unique because Blaze is tightly integrated with the remote execution workers and can shard testing work across many machines automatically. Most places can't do that so once you have enough hardware that queue depth isn't too big you can't make anything go faster by adding hardware, you can only try to scale vertically or optimize. But if you're using hosted CI SaaS it's often not always easy to get bigger machines, or the bigger machines are superlinear in cost.
by nine_k | 2025-07-07 18:41:18+00:00
Google tells us:

In 2021, the median annual salary for software engineers in Ukraine ranged from $30,000 to $48,175, depending on location and experience. Some specific figures include $30,000 in Kyiv, $29,000 in Lviv, and $24,000 in Kharkiv. Remote software engineers in Ukraine had a median salary of $48,175.

It's quite below the EU median, but definitely not $100 a day.

BTW $100 a day is $12.50 a hour, which is more than the federal minimum wage in the US ($7.50 or so), and only $4 below California's minimum wage, $16.50.
by felishiagreen12 | 2025-07-07 18:41:46+00:00
Hello everyone I would like to share my experience with you all. I lost over 100,000 dollars to these fake so called BO merchants and after several attempts to recover my money all efforts failed. I was looking through the internet then I saw Recovery Expert. They were recommended as a good and reputable so I reached out to them To my surprise I was able to recover all my funds Contact (recoveryexpert326@gmail. com)
by rorylaitila | 2025-07-07 18:41:47+00:00
I never really got the almost code, but still not code appeal of figma. Like the author, I get the design into real code asap. I'll even use a sketch CSS library just so the client can interact and give real feedback. Clicking through an interactive but fake UX is just not real enough for me. Too much bike shedding.

As far as web application design, there are only so many useful idioms. Iterating over actual working interfaces I find the most rapid and satisfying way to design. I built my last app this way. Albeit I'm in ultimate control of the design and build. Experience may differ if these are separate responsibilities.
by TimorousBestie | 2025-07-07 18:41:51+00:00
> It's the maximum statutory damages for willful infringement, which this has not be adjudicated to be. it is not a fine, its an alternative to basis of recovery to actual damages + infringers profits attributable to the infringement.

Yeah, you’re probably right, I’m not a lawyer. The point is that it doesn’t matter what number the law says they should pay, Anthropic can afford real lawyers and will therefore only pay a pittance, if anything.

I’m old enough to remember what the feds did to Aaron Schwarz, and I don’t see what Anthropic did that was so different, ethically speaking.
by aimanbenbaha | 2025-07-07 18:41:57+00:00
If Arabic had to cater to afro-asiatic dialects phonemes then the script would have been even more messier. I'm a speaker of one, and my dialect is heavily influenced by the indigenous Tamazight language. and I think this is why many of the Amazigh community were and some still disappointed with the neo-Tifinagh script. While it carries symbolic weight, it doesn’t offer practical readability, phonemic clarity and tech accessibility of a modern script that Tamazight deserves. Latin script, ironically, fits Tamazight much more naturally.
by adolph | 2025-07-07 18:42:04+00:00
For the record, Wikipedia states they are diacritics. I'm leaning toward agreeing due to this observation: "In most Latin-based orthographies, the lowercase letter i conventionally has its dot replaced when a diacritical mark atop the letter, such as a tilde or caron, is placed." Ex: aeiouyj, âêîôûyj, äëïöüÿj, áéíóúyj́ (oops, my example shows an accent above the J's tittle–down one, but three up)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tittle
by gopalv | 2025-07-07 18:42:20+00:00
> Is aging bad though? Seems like natures way of helping humanity evolve.

We're not undoing death, dying healthy would be better than aging the way we do right now.

Increasing healthspans as a society would be great in a more family integrated society rather than an individualistic one.

I'd love my retirement years to be spent helping my kids and grand-kids instead of the other way around.

A senior community that can stay involved actively has been part of the "it takes a village" until very recent times.
by bee_rider | 2025-07-07 18:42:24+00:00
> Polytheism is likely flawed as an organizational concept because it's clear that gods were creations of man. Monotheism flips it and makes God the master of the universe while man struggles to understand the nature of God.

I don’t think that’s true of polytheism at all. That the gods aren’t everywhere or all-powerful doesn’t mean they were invented by the local humans, just that they were discovered by them.

They just look made-up by humans to us because we don’t believe in them. I’m sure ancient people believed in their gods’ stories just as much as some modern ones do, and most religions don’t feature some “humans created the gods” story, right?

I’m not sure what it means to be “flawed as an organizational concept.” States that had polytheistic religions as the main one stuck around for a long time of course. It is hard to say what’s predictive and what’s a coincidence in history I guess.
by eesmith | 2025-07-07 18:43:10+00:00
> but I believe that only applies to French writing in English for English people

Shrug. Yes, languages have different paths in their evolution. Film at 11.

I still like what this linguistics PhD wrote about the specific history of one aspect of English language evolution.

> English doesn't make sense

That is of course an exaggeration. Just because the rules are complex and full of exceptions doesn't mean there's no sense. Even if you reject all of linguistics, Shannon in “Prediction and entropy of printed English”, demonstrated that English is compressible, which means there must be some patterns.

Now to drink some maté.
by khedoros1 | 2025-07-07 18:43:18+00:00
> If you do not intend to monetize on Google Play, you can create a new account and transfer your app there, and we will assist you in closing your current account.

> On May 14th, 2025, my old account was suspended as this was the deadline for providing legal information.

Google's message seems to say that they would help you close your original account. But it sounds like you didn't get the account closed; it was suspended because you missed the deadline for providing the extra information.

Suppose you'd done what they suggested, and formally closed your old account before the deadline, so that it was never in violation of Google's policy. Do you think they still would have closed the new account in that case?
by CaptainFever | 2025-07-07 18:43:20+00:00
> It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.

Sorry for the long quote, but basically this, yeah. A major point of free software is that creators should not have the power to impose arbitrary limits on the users of their works. It is unethical.

It's why the GPL allows the user to disregard any additional conditions, why it's viral, and why the FSF spends so much effort on fighting "open source but..." licenses.
by stevenAthompson | 2025-07-07 18:43:40+00:00
This is a really great question. I checked.

Turns out that the poorer a nation is, the less reported autism they have. That could be because there is no benefit to the diagnosis or it could be because they have less healthcare in general and a real diagnosis can easily take 4-8 hours of clinical time.

Interesting either way.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9386174/
by jama211 | 2025-07-07 18:44:03+00:00
Reducing the language used or making it harder does have measurable effects, it’s a logical fallacy in general that unless you can prevent something perfectly that thing will occur with the same frequency.

See many examples such as “padlocks are useless because a determined smart attacker can defeat them easily so don’t bother with them” - which conveniently forgets that many crimes are committed by non-determined, dumb and opportunistic attackers who are often deterred by simple locks.

Yes, people will use other words. No, this does not make this purely performative. It has measurable effects on behaviour and how these models will be used and spoken to, which affects outcomes.
by J7jKW2AAsgXhWm | 2025-07-07 18:44:12+00:00
I have seen a couple of these in Berkeley. They were all the rage and still are in some ways.

I personally was initially enthusiastic. However, I think there is much easier ways to get the benefits. For example, by adding trees and landscaping in Parks, medians and other public spaces.

Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
by travisgriggs | 2025-07-07 18:44:26+00:00
Can someone help me understand when this bifurcation happened. As a Mechanical Enginneer who worked their way through college doing software, and then... just kept going for the next 30 years, I find this increasingly role based demarcation difficult to understand/accept. I came out of an era where we called ourselves engineers, but we were designers too. And a whole lot of other things. And the mantra regardless of label, was to solve the right problem for the right people.

I feel like software creation in this decade is increasingly about the creation of beauracracies. Different roles. Different processes. More people than ever before. Everyone vying that their contribution is essential, and that others need to stay in their lanes. I miss the old days honestly. I told myself I would not be like this as I aged. I'm struggling to execute on that hope. :|

I often call them the D's of organizations. Doers, Deciders, Discussers. We seem to have less and less respect for the plight of the Doer, and more and more desire to legitimize the others in disproportionate amounts. Pournelle's Law I guess.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-07-07 18:45:06+00:00
That seems to be a misunderstanding of what's disputed. One fact that is disputed is whether or not the use of the work qualifies as fair use and the judge determined that it is because the result is sufficiently transformative. Another disputed fact is whether the books were acquired legally and the judge determined that they were not. The reason the case is still ongoing is to determine Anthropic's liability for illegally acquiring copies of the books, not to determine the legal status of the LLMs.
by noduerme | 2025-07-07 18:46:16+00:00
>> an object going through a number of states with state transitions was general and much better than the 15+ date columns

It amazes me that anyone would write a schema with a dozen date columns, but I've seen such things. Once you're dealing with a large database of something like that, it's tempting to just add one more column rather than pitch why you should refactor the whole thing.

I try to keep my schemas relational as possible. Actions and immutable records should obviously be stored in separate tables from the objects they reference. However, this does make the UX form design / CRUD process less amenable to simple solutions where forms are just generated right out of a schema.

Your phone number example highlights this. In general of course you want to store contacts in a separate table from customers. But that means you're probably going to need a separate contacts sub-form within your customer form, rather than just inline phone fields. Then form will need to be required or inlined for any new customer before the main customer form can be saved. Stuff like that.

Over the last 15 years or so I've built and refined my own form generator, really a DSL for designing forms that fit this type of thing. In its more basic use cases, each form lives as a row in a database, with each form_item linked to it in a separate table. The form runs a pre-fab query that expects N inputs that it binds to :variables (usually in WHERE or HAVING clauses) and then renders a pre-populated visual form with various input types like dropdowns, checkboxes, calendars, etc (based on those form_items, which can all be styled, required/not required, required based on other answers, etc). Each form_item has its own standard validation or custom validation function on both the client and server side. The form knows which table it wants to write to and which bound variable is the id field it's going to target for update. Sending it a blank id field renders the form with nothing populated and then does an insert instead of an update when it's submitted. It's very slim, about 500 LOC of Typescript and 700 LOC of PHP, including most standard kinds of validations on both ends. I've always toyed with the idea of releasing it it for people to use, but here's the rub: If you want to do anything involving writing to more than one table, you need to write a custom final function for those additional insert/updates.

So, it's a lovely system, but someone coming to it naively would run the risk of designing schemas that were not expressive enough, to try to keep the CRUD system happy. And I think this is just an inevitable problem with all low-code solutions: They don't handle multi-dimensional data the way you want a clean schema to handle it. (And neither do users).
by sershe | 2025-07-07 18:46:27+00:00
Yeah, look at union successes like dockworkers holding economy hostage via a legalized monopoly, while having more striking non-working members long useless due to automation than actual workers! I sure aspire to work in an industry like that.

Or like teachers in new York getting paid to sit in the rubber room as union fights for months to defend them after chronic drinking at work. I miss my beers in my terrible non unionized workplace.

And it's not like I plan on doing anything illegal, but if I ever misuse user data or whatever it would be nice to have a wall of silence (just need a color, blue is taken), instead of all those pesky whistleblowers.

I would especially love to be paid based on seniority and have (the small minority, but still) useless, lazy and incompetent coworkers I had keep their job and be paid the same, especially the guy I repeatedly caught playing fantasy baseball. He got fired (I didn't say anything, his lack of performance was also pretty obvious), I think it would be much more equitable and would really motivate me if he got to keep his job and was paid same as me.

Where do I sign up to pay only a small fee for these benefits?
by taylodl | 2025-07-07 18:46:57+00:00
I would argue even science is a slog - who's hiring them? At some point, you have to realize you're either working for research or academia and there are very few positions available, and they almost always require a Ph.D.

I know we keep stressing STEM, but the 'S' is tough. Here on HN we're all fully aware that even the 'T' is a tough sell in college these days.

What does that leave college for (BROADLY speaking):

- Engineering (absolutely)

- Medicine (absolutely)

- Law (absolutely)

- Science (absolutely, but better have a backup plan)

- Business (not needed, but helps)

- Technology (not needed, but may help)

As you say, it's great to learn different things in college, but one needs to be mindful as to whether it's the most economical means for learning.
by obirunda | 2025-07-07 18:47:50+00:00
Do you understand what conflating means? Maybe ask your favorite gpt to describe it for you.

I'm talking about the entire stack of development, from the architectural as well as the actual implementation. These are intertwined and assuming they somehow live separately is significant oversight on your part. You have claimed English is the programming language.

Also. On the topic of conflating, you seem to think that LLMs have become defacto pre-compilers for English as a programming language, how do they do that exactly? In what ways do they compare/contrast to compilers?

You have only stated this as a fact, but what evidence do you have in support of this? As far as the evidence I can gather no one is claiming LLMs are deterministic, so please, support your claims to the contrary, or are you a magician?

You also seem to shift away from any pitfalls of agentic workflows by claiming to be doing all the due diligence whilst also claiming this is easier or faster for you. I sense perhaps that you are of the lol, nothing matters class of developers, reviewing some but not all the work. This will indeed make you faster, but like I said earlier, it's not a cost-free decision.

For individual developers, this is a big deal. You may not have time to wear all the hats all at once, so writing the code may be all the time you also have for code review. Getting code back from an LLM and reviewing it may feel faster but like I said unless it's correct, it's not actually saving time, maybe it feels that way, but we aren't talking about feelings or vibes, we are talking about delivery.
by stevepotter | 2025-07-07 18:48:10+00:00
Great question. I'm okay with someone who doesn't have public code, although they will have to work a little harder to verify their skills match their story.

You have some public repos. That's plenty. Even some gists will work

I tell people all the time, if you want to make it easier to get hired, put some work online. This is especially helpful for those without great credentials or history. Take advantage of this, as it's not possible in many other professions.
by cheese_van | 2025-07-07 18:48:23+00:00
Speaking of junk, I was in Syria, many years ago, when it had about 250k tourists yearly, under Hafez al-Assad . I was in the company of an Assyriologist and in a shop of a vendor I knew (who sold artifacts under the table).

The vendor proudly showed us a new acquisition, an ancient cylinder seal. The archeologist examined it and told him it was a fake, because he explained, "I can read this language, and it is gibberish."

The UCLA archeologist, then excavating at Tel Mozan with Giorgio Buccellati, had 2 dead languages under his belt, a requirement for his Phd. I was rather in awe of the fellow - 2 dead languages!

Pro-tip: never buy artifacts without an archeologist to advise you. It's likely ethically wrong anyway, and likewise stupid unless you're an expert.
by zzo38computer | 2025-07-07 18:48:54+00:00
Visible controls are helpful, but good documentation (especially if context-sensitive help is available) is much better. If you read the documentation then you should know that the DOS command to list the files is "DIR", as well as other details. One reason to hide controls is to save space for the other things being displayed, although it should be ensured to not be made unusable from such a thing.
by beefnugs | 2025-07-07 18:50:28+00:00
"dont you play resume games with me" shut up. The most callbacks i ever got was when i decided to say fuckit and just made a wanky graphical resume turning it into this elaborate parts explosion diagram. Nobody cared about any real experience and wouldn't shut up about how cool and original this resume was, "we need people just like you" I have never felt so strongly the world was so full of cruel incompetent idiots gatekeeping the entire worlds work force behind pure wankery
by jama211 | 2025-07-07 18:50:36+00:00
No, it’s them saving their butts from an “incident” where the LLM otherwise spits out something controversial at the devious manipulation of the user and says something political and someone writes an article and it all goes haywire.

If you were in charge of apple you’d do the same or you’d be silly not to. That’s why _every_ llm has guardrails like this, it isn’t just apple, sheesh.
by IgorPartola | 2025-07-07 18:50:49+00:00
It’s not tricky if you understand how both work. If you don’t it will be a challenge, especially if you add all the correct error handling and cancelation. Bonus points if you make it work with only up to N tasks running at a time.

None of these interview questions are hard. They are just either domain specific (like callbacks/promises/async/await) or designed to trip you up on details.
by b112 | 2025-07-07 18:51:49+00:00
This sort of discourse really grinds my gears. The framing of it, the conceptualization.

It's not creative at all, any more than taking the sum of text on a topic, and throwing a dart at it. It's a mild, short step beyond a weighted random, and certainly not capable of any real creativity.

Myriads of HN enthusiasts often chime in here "Are humans any more creative" and other blather. Well, that's a whataboutism, and doesn't detract from the fact that creative does not exist in the AI sphere.

I agree that you have to judge its output.

Also, sorry for hanging my comment here. Might seem over the top, but anytime I see 'creative' and 'AI', I have all sorts of dark thoughts. Dark, brooding thoughts with a sense of deep foreboding.