MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by t1234s | 2025-07-11 17:14:01+00:00
I had to do this to my 2012 MBP (along with fixing the gpu solder problem) and I found it wasn't that hard to disassemble / reassemble. Also replacing the battery, upgrading the ram/storage was very easy to do. Contrast this to my 2017 MBP which has to score on the top 10 list of worst apple products of all time as far as quality and ease of repair go.

Have these new M3/4 MPBs gone back at all to being easy to dismantle or change the battery in? The OP with their M1 mentioned tearing overly thin ribbon cables.
by sethhochberg | 2025-07-11 17:14:02+00:00
The part I have a hard time with as a corporate purchaser is that the failure/repair/replacement rate on our small number of Dell machines is upwards of 50%. We've only got about a dozen in use, and less then half of them have just worked reliably. At a certain point I don't really care how repairable the Macbooks we buy for almost everyone else are/aren't because the failure rate on those is so low by comparison.

I'm glad the Dell repair guy who gets sent out has a pleasant experience when he replaces the guts of a machine but my team still has to spend time and money shipping around replacements and dealing with warranty repair at a rate we just don't see with the Apple gear.

Once upon a time our entire corporate fleet was all Macbooks but the only thing we had worse luck with than these Dells was training nontechnical users on how to get to their Excel or specialized actuarial/compliance software through virtualization
by vunderba | 2025-07-11 17:14:28+00:00
Tangential to this but I lived in Taiwan for years and every time I saw a new Starbucks or McDonald's go up, I'd have to restrain my gag reflex.

To hell with these multinational corporations that erect their sterile altars to unbridled capitalism, resulting in the mass homogenization of culture. A culture that caters to "everyone" caters to no one.
by jjulius | 2025-07-11 17:14:30+00:00
I don't see that comparison at all. Rather, I see an idea that's more akin to, "This is the sum testament to our overall technological capabilities at that time", for both YT and the Great Wall.

That's why I question whether it's actually a "miracle". I don't mean to suggest that it's not quite the feat to make something like that exist, but I see it as more of a representation of where we're at technologically, rather than some sort of improbable, inexplicable thing that otherwise shouldn't be. The fact that the response to my post seems to clearly understand how it exists kinda-sorta supports that, IMO - you can draw a clear path towards understanding how it came to be.
by diggan | 2025-07-11 17:14:37+00:00
> Ok, but you're a citizen, which is a higher status than a "permanent resident."

That sounds like a immigration/social hierarchy/importance rather than something that matters in discrimination contexts, what exactly you mean with "higher status"?

If a bar bans non-US residents, if a US-citizen+Spanish-residency tries to enter, then it shouldn't matter if they're US citizens or not, because the criteria is residency, not citizenship. Or is there like a priority/order for OK/not OK discrimination criteria?
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-07-11 17:14:43+00:00
I made a 16TB external SSD RAID0 using four 4tb SATA drives and a Terramaster external enclosure... for less than $700 [1]

Not as fast as a single nVME in external Acadis enclosure... but it is fast.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/TERRAMASTER-D4-320-External-Drive-Enc... [sold out]
by fossorialowen | 2025-07-11 17:14:45+00:00
It looks like there might be some overlap. There are a bunch of solutions in this space! It looks like they do provide public access to resources which is what Pangolin does. We might have a bit more of authentication options but dont hold me to that.

We are working on some "client" based solutions as well similar maybe to what Zrok is doing which we may release in Beta in the next couple of weeks!
by amiga386 | 2025-07-11 17:14:45+00:00
I haven't listened to the podcast, but I think you may be oversimplifying.

The origin of Horizon is that ICL won the tender for a project to computerise the UK's benefits payment system -- replacing giro books (like cheque books) with smart cards (like bank cards):

https://inews.co.uk/news/post-office-warned-fujitsu-horizon-...

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtr...

Sure, it was also expected to detect fraud, but overall it was a "modernising" project. The project failed disastrously because ICL were completely incompetent at building an accounting system, the system regularly made huge mistakes, and the incoming government scrapped it.

ICL was nonetheless still very chummy with government, as it was concieved of by 1960s British politicians who basically wanted a UK version of IBM because they didn't want Americans being in control of all the UK's computer systems. ICL used to operate mainframes and supply "computer terminals" to government and such, which is why they needed a lot of equipment from Fujitsu, which is why Fujitsu decided to buy them.

ICL/Fujitsu still kept the contract to computerize Post Office accounting more generally -- Horizon. Post Offices could literally have pen-and-paper accounting until this! Yes, the project was also meant to look for fraud and shrinkage, but at its heart it was there to modernise, centralise and reduce costs. If only it wasn't written by incompetent morons who keep winning contracts because they're sweet with government.
by FabHK | 2025-07-11 17:14:47+00:00
Indeed. Permissionless blockchain is much less of a technological innovation, but more of a governance innovation, specifically an accountability sink, where instead of a named entity (corporation, institution, person) being in charge, you have this amorphous blob in charge that does come together if its interests are affected (this 184 bn Bitcoin bug, the DAO hack, etc.), but otherwise even in the presence of heinous crimes shrugs and says: "who, me? what can I do?"

I don't understand why that's so attractive to so many participants - possibly because the enormous negative externalities of such a thing more often than not don't fall on themselves, but other, more vulnerable people.

(Not always though: when 200 Bitcoin were stolen from ultra-libertarian Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr, he came crying for help from the bad bad centralized FBI rather quickly...)
by SCdF | 2025-07-11 17:15:49+00:00
Sort of.

We were in the middle of an election cycle. If you were paying attention you were aware of the scandal slowly grinding its way through legal slop, but most people probably weren't that clued in (as per normal).

But that mini-series threw it into the current public consciousness, and so suddenly it wasn't just the judicial system working through it but the Tories now gave a shit (briefly), because they thought showing that they care might save them (it didn't).
by sim7c00 | 2025-07-11 17:16:08+00:00
there are tools pretty good at detecting DGAs these days, but not often implemented.

the best thing to do afaik is use services normal user shave access to, and communicate via those. its hard to tell for anyone who's extracting the data from the third party so the server is hidden. (e.g bot posts images to twitter, and server scrapes the images from twitter, this is also already old news but easier and more likely to sail through that next gen firewall -_-)

i'd say having ur 'own' servers and domains is maybe even a bit dated ( though sadly still very effective!)
by potato3732842 | 2025-07-11 17:17:22+00:00
>I mean, take a look at the freaking Epstein episode -what the fick is that all about? If that’s not the “swamp” calling the shots, I don’t know what in hell is.

And to muddy the waters even further, some people believe there is conspiring going on, some people don't. Some believe that it's so big everyone in DC is just kinda dropping it because they're all afraid they'll know someone on it or something like that. That is hugely different degree of "conspiracy theory" from the folks who believe something along the lines of the spooks have the list and are blackmailing everyone and of course there's beliefs everywhere in between. Some of the theories involve literal conspiring, many do not. The whole thing stinks to high heaven so much so that the idea that the official narrative is false is likely the majority opinion. Where do we even draw the line on what constitutes a conspiracy theory here?!
by blipvert | 2025-07-11 17:17:56+00:00
Part of the answer is that the Post Office had (has?) special legal status in that it can prosecute cases by itself - no need to present a convincing case to the CPS like the police do.

Many people were scared into pleading guilty just to avoid the upfront legal costs and the ruinous fines if contesting and found guilty (“the computer is always right”).

Often the PO knew that they didn’t have much of a case but just used their special status to bully them into submission.
by kelnos | 2025-07-11 17:18:03+00:00
Because they unfortunately largely have the law on their side.

Unless you're saying we should take extra-legal means to usurp the government. Then we'd be no better then the January 6 Capitol rioters.

As long as the American electorate is largely uneducated or mis-eeucated about politics, and continues to gullibly believe the words of wannabe dictators, we'll continue to slide into fascism.
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-07-11 17:18:36+00:00
I live here. We actually have fairly decent consumer protections... at least against product misrepresenation.

For example, our state constitution prohibits products being sold in containers which misrepresent the amount of their contents (albeit, it still happens).

Conversely, we also founded the pay-day-loan industry, which is just disgraceful (about a dozen states have banned entirely). Only passed because Allan Jones ("father of payday loans") donated $30,000 to PACs in the mid-90s.

I'm currently looking for greener pastures, up-to-and-including expatriation. This state overall has politicians' heads so far up their own...
by FabHK | 2025-07-11 17:19:14+00:00
> There is a huge scientific merit of the algorithms for reaching a distributed consensus when not all participants can be trusted

Not quite. Distributed consensus had been solved in the 1980's theoretically and the 1990's practically, even in the presence of byzantine nodes. What Nakamoto consensus was first in was to extend this to the permissionless setting (at enormous expense & inefficiency, and with no benefits, in my view; though enabling large scale rule breaking or "censorship resistance", which some see as a benefit).
by noqc | 2025-07-11 17:19:35+00:00
Sure, but my point stands regardless.

All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.

Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
by bananalychee | 2025-07-11 17:19:45+00:00
Very dramatic, but funding scientific studies is no antidote to groupthink, authoritarianism, and cruelty towards the non-conforming, in case you missed the last 5 years.

There's a pretty clear causal chain between the abuse of public trust and social influence from educational and scientific institutions in the last decade or so and the anti-intellectualism we're witnessing today, abuse which was and is driven by the same hubris you demonstrate by conflating intellectualism with All That Is Good. And needless to say since I am posting on HN, but I say that as an intellectualist.
by tartoran | 2025-07-11 17:19:58+00:00
> All over the US are locations that used to be the place where a people would go for a three day weekend or summer getaway. But now they are ghost towns because the cost of travel and the algorithm have reframed travel as global and not regional.

I find that local travelling within the US is often more expensive for the quality they offer and travelling outside the US may cost the same but give you a better experience, or at least novel.
by hrhrdorhrvfbf | 2025-07-11 17:20:02+00:00
Rust’s interface for using different allocators is janky, and I wish they had something like this, or had moved forward with the proposal for the mechanism for making it a part of a flexible implicit context mechanism that was passed along with function calls.

But mentioning the borrow checker raises an obvious question that I don’t see addressed in this post: what happens if you try to take a reference to an object in the temporary allocator, and use it outside of the temporary allocator’s scope? Is that an error? Rust’s borrow checker has no runtime behavior, it only exists to create errors in cases like that, so the title invites the question of how your this mechanism handles that case but doesn’t answer it.
by anonfordays | 2025-07-11 17:20:07+00:00
Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws:

The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application. That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings.

https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-...
by 123yawaworht456 | 2025-07-11 17:20:19+00:00
>Well you’re basing your conclusion on a 2 year blip of not being able to stop LLMs from hallucinating.

to this day, the improvement since the original API version of GPT4 (later heavily downgraded without a name change) has been less than amazing. context size increased dramatically, yes, but it's still pitiful, slow and brutally expensive.
by godelski | 2025-07-11 17:20:20+00:00
You're right, but you're also wrong.

The problem is you can never close the bug report if you can't reproduce. I guess, you could, as the other commenter suggests, mathematically prove that it can't happen, but otherwise you're prematurely closing it.

How do you differentiate that you solved the bug and not a similar looking bug?

> the code can be changed to be more defensive and only ever delete the original when the new data has been successfully written and verified.

But this doesn't solve the problem.

- What if it is an upstream issue? They have to be connected, since they are deleting data. Maybe it is completely a bug on their end? Doesn't matter how defensive you are if the bug was "anytime an email has 'man man' and is pulled between 00:00-00:04 everything deletes" then what can you do? - What if the user was hacked and the hacker just deleted all the data? - What if the user was just dumb and deleted the data themselves. Either not knowingly or were embarrassed to say anything. - What if it is another program on the user's computer that is deleting the data because of some weird unexpected collision?

I'm sure you can think of more situations that still won't solve the problem.

How do you close the report if you can not make strong guarantees that it is resolved?
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-11 17:20:52+00:00
Have to enter an email address to the read the full story?

In any case: author does not factor in Anthropic's potential gross margins on the tokens via the API. He assumes if $10,000 is consumed via the Claude Code API tokens, then Anthropic must be losing $10,000.

We don't know. What's their cost of inference?
by throw0101c | 2025-07-11 17:21:15+00:00
> Or you can spend half a billion dollars to solve the issue in hardware.

And hope that your hardware/firmware doesn't ever get bugs.

Or you can do checksumming at the hardware layer and checksumming at the software/FS layer. Protection in depth.

ZFS has caught issues from hardware, like when LBA 123 is requested but LBA 456 is delivered: the hardware-level checksum for LBA 456 was fine, and so it was passed up the stack, but it wasn't actually the data that was asked for. See Bryan Cantrill's talk "Zebras All the way Down":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE2KDzZaxvE

And if checksums are not needed for a particular use-case, make them toggleable: even ZFS has a set checksums=off option. My problem is not having the option at all.
by toastercat | 2025-07-11 17:21:21+00:00
I've traveled to Japan twice in the last 6 years; once pre-pandemic in 2019, and again in 2023, both times in the Fall. It is unbelievable how tourism has exploded there in such a short amount of time, and I thought it was bad in 2019. Areas that were quiet and mostly traversable in 2019 were impossible to navigate with the crowds four years later.

I've been to other big touristy hotspots like Rome and Venice, but overtourism in Tokyo/Kyoto was more noticeable to me, perhaps because of the culture (loud groups of tourists entering quiet orderly establishments). I recall in 2019 going to teamLab Tokyo, and there was a large group of Western tourists who had removed their shoes and were lying on the ground in the mirror room.
by lupusreal | 2025-07-11 17:21:49+00:00
Can anybody steel man the practical value of this kind of research for me? It seems to me that almost all astronomy, particularly the sort studying very large scale phenomena like this, is essentially useless for humanity. The best it does is satisfy our curiosity about the nature of our reality, but when the subject of study is something so huge there's no chance of it ever having practical application to humanity (unlike quantum mechanics!) As for the argument that it "kills private companies" who are contracting for the government on projects like this, it seems very much like a broken windows fallacy. If the government went around breaking everybody's windows that would be great for the private companies that replace windows, but so what?

The most useful kind of astronomy is searching our solar system for dangerous rocks so that we might avert disaster. Anything beyond our solar system is just useless stargazing, everything out there is too far away for us to do anything with or about. Theories about reality which can only be validated or ruled out by looking at things so far away cannot have local relevance to us, or else whatever local phenomenon they govern which might be useful to us could also be used to test that theory.

(For the record, I think this administration are a bunch of morons.)
by nivertech | 2025-07-11 17:23:02+00:00
1. 1/3 malicious nodes under some conditions and BGP

This is backed by academic papers. Ask google or GhatGPT. You may argue that these papers are wrong or outdated, but then you need to tell this to the researchers who wrote them, not to me.

2. finality is binary, probabilistic finality is an oxymoron

3. > This conflates implementation bugs with protocol design flaws.

there is no formal spec for Bitcoin, there is a short informal whitepaper and a reference C++ implementation. Anyway the paper named "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", and for this specific purpose design is flawed, without regards to bugs.

4. > Bitcoin is a lottery.

Now you're hallucinating quotes I never wrote.

> Honestly, your critique reads more like cope than a technical argument.*

can you show a specific example of the "cope"?
by danielcid | 2025-07-11 17:23:18+00:00
And they are often used with random sub domains as well (but they did not include sub domains in their list).

Ex:

https://dnsarchive.net/search?q=cmidphnvq.com

https://dnsarchive.net/search?q=xmqkychtb

https://dnsarchive.net/ipv4/34.126.227.30
by rzz3 | 2025-07-11 17:23:21+00:00
We are very much still in the middle of tangible year over year progress. LLMs are changing the world in big ways, and the progress has never been faster. On the programming side of things, the libraries and frameworks and languages have never been better and yet still have a long way to go. Consumer hardware has never been better and continues to rapidly evolve.

TikTok has changed the way people communicate and interact more than Twitter or Instagram ever did. I agree that not all things have gotten better and some have gotten worse, but it’s mostly just that the world has changed and it’s required a lot of adaptation. The same could have been said 20 years ago too.
by thewebguyd | 2025-07-11 17:23:23+00:00
> how do you rationalize anything coming into being?

Why does it need to be rationalized at all? I don't need a rationalization for existing - beings arise, exist, change, and then they cease. The world's current existence isn't something that requires external justification, it just simply is.

I guess you could say the higher power to me would just be the continuous process that leads to existence and ceasing to exist - but to me it has no meaning, and no "power" other than simply being the way things are as I experience them.
by FabHK | 2025-07-11 17:23:58+00:00
> Of course distributed consensus algorithms existed long before - but they depended on the fact that all participants are trustable.

No. They depended on the fact that all participants were known (in other words, the permissioned setting). Among those known ones, some (less than n/3) could go bonkers, all the way byzantine, and the honest nodes would still be guaranteed to find consensus (with consistency and availability).
by barrell | 2025-07-11 17:24:01+00:00
Well it’s only iterating on lists because I’m recurring with a function that returns a list. I could use

(recur (subvec coll 1) …)

If I needed to maintain the vector throughout the loop. However you need to change your base case and there’s no reason to have a vector at all in this case.

There is a reason most of the Clojure core functions return lists and not vectors. When you start learning Clojure, you use vectors for everything — after a while you realize how sufficient a list is for 90% of programming.

Also, I believe you could still get the performance guarantees and dynanicism with a dotimes and a volatile. You can definitely get it using nth on the remaining collection with a conditional if you don’t mind a bit of verbosity. Regardless of the goalposts, I promise you there is an ergonomic solution ;-)
by perihelions | 2025-07-11 17:25:13+00:00
That doesn't sound technically plausible to me—there aren't any inexpensive tests. Do you mean something like this 3M product[0], that's intended for paint not food, and is documented as "LeadCheck™ Swabs reliabily detect lead in paints at 0.5% (5,000 ppm). 3M™ LeadCheck™ Swabs may indicate lead in some paint films as low as 0.06% (600ppm)."? If so, those aren't remotely suited for this purpose—those detection lower-bounds represent astronomically high amounts of lead, for a food item.

The highest end of Pb contamination in turmeric in Bangladesh (as in OP) is, from a cursory search, maybe 483 ppm [1]. Regulatory limits in the US are in the low parts-per-billion [2]. This metal bioaccumulates over a lifetime.

[0] (.pdf) https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1581338O/3m-leadcheck-in...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25214856/ ("Contaminated turmeric is a potential source of lead exposure for children in rural Bangladesh" / "Results: Lead concentrations in many turmeric samples were elevated, with lead concentrations as high as 483 ppm")

[2] https://www.consumerreports.org/babies-kids/baby-food/fda-pr...
by mgkimsal | 2025-07-11 17:25:39+00:00
My inlaws ran a rural UK post office for a time (70s, maybe early 80s?). I'm not sure how they got in to it, but seemed to enjoy it while they did it. Small village, low volume of foot traffic, etc. I got a sense it almost felt like a civic duty, but I may be reading too much in to the earlier conversations.