MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tdeck | 2025-07-29 11:46:08+00:00
What's more interesting to me is that folks who support Israel often act as though their audience hasn't heard all these arguments before, and have't been passively absorbing pro-Israel propaganda for most of their lives. At least for those of us in the US, almost all we heard growing up about Israel was couched in sympathetic and positive terms. It's not as though there's a lack of Zionist perspective in a country where all the recent heads of state and political party leaders have been ideological Zionists.
by astrobe_ | 2025-07-29 11:46:17+00:00
> It does feel like modern designs are treating everyone like children

I read TFA because I thought some of it because some of it could be applicable to attention-deficient adults, victims of the pandemic that started before the pandemic.

Wasn't disappointed. The first observation of FTA is that children don't read, and so are adults; they don't read the docs (and forget about putting helpful info in tooltips and dialogs, they don't read them either), they read every other line in emails, etc. Unless they asked for those texts, and that may be one of the reasons why conversational AI is successful.

> Doesn't have to be bad, but I worry we lose discipline and our cognitive abilities decline when everything is spoon fed.

I think TFA is about apps with unforgiving users, so the author has to perfect the UI; he is a bona fide UI designer. I think the vast majority of applications out there don't have one. As a result the UX is generally passable at best, which adds artificial cognitive overload. You can't really blame users for taking shortcuts such as not reading. I do that, you do that, we all do that.
by jajko | 2025-07-29 11:46:42+00:00
Sometimes those folks just tell the truth. Now if you are OK with cheating and this just annoys you that's another story but lets be honest here - professional cycling became pathetic deplorable 'sport' full of jokes of sportsmen that should not be respected or admired in any way, in contrary. Half of Olympics is heading that way but for some reason cycling was and still is ahead of the curve for quite some time.

I'll never pour a single cent worth of money into that activity, nor a nanosecond of my attention to avoid anyhow supporting it even by accident, voting with my wallet and all that. It almost seems like if there is enough money in the sport it becomes cut throat business and stops being what it was intended to be, in fact exactly the opposite.

That's how I raise my kids, there are tons of sports on the bike and off it to enjoy and even watch and admire if one is in passive mode. But as always doing sports > watching them and I really don't have enough time to do both.
by pron | 2025-07-29 11:47:27+00:00
> I was just contrasting the way TFA explained specifications as being definitions of groups of acceptable execution traces (perhaps checked using a model checker) with Dijkstra’s approach of characterizing the acceptable behavior without simulating any executions.

I think that's a misunderstanding, as TLA+ doesn't require simulating anything (even the model checker doesn't work like that; it can check a formula that corresponds to an uncountable infinity of behaviours, each of them infinite, in a second [1]), and Dijkstra's approach is separate from the logical semantics.

It is true that a TLA formula denotes a set (really, a class) of something called "behaviours" (which could be interpreted as execution traces when a formula is interpreted to describe a program) just as the statement x > 3 denotes the set of all integers greater than 3 (in a logic over the integers), but in neither case is enumerating or "simulating" anything required, either in principle or in practice. It's just simple logical semantics, and Dijkstra's approach is easily expressed in a logic with such simple semantics.

In fact, TLA serves as a generalisation of Dijkstra's approach, as that is lacking when dealing with concurrency. While in sequential programs it is easy to specify invariants as pre/post conditions, it is hard to do that in concurrent/distributed programs.

[1]: You can ask the TLC model checker to simulate behaviours if you want (it can be useful sometimes), but checking mode, not simulation mode, is the default. Obviously, in simulation mode TLC doesn't work as a model checker. Technically speaking, every TLA formula denotes an uncountable infinity of behaviours of infinite lengths, where between any two states in the behaviour there is an infinite number of steps (it is in this regard that TLA is different from other temporal logics like LTL), and each state in every behaviour is an assignment to an infinite number of variables (in fact, that uncountable infinity is so large that it doesn't even correspond to a set in the set theory sense but to something called a class). The large infinities are what makes TLA so suitable for expressing abstractions and refinement and interactions between components.

This may sound strange, but it's actually how most simple logics work. When I said before that `x > 3` in a logic over the integers denotes the set of integers greater than 3, I wasn't entirely precise. What it really denotes is: "x is in the set of integers greater than three and any other imaginable variable could be any integer".
by plqbfbv | 2025-07-29 11:48:11+00:00
I would guess people that don't know how stuff works or what they're talking about, but still feel entitled to disregard medical science progress because they don't see the effects directly.

Seeing my father in law daily is a very good reminder to me as to why we thought eradicating polio (and creating vaccines) was a good idea: his left leg is 30% the size of his right leg, and he's had trouble walking since he was 7yo (he's now 65), with no way of fixing it.

People don't understand what life used to be like before 60y ago because they didn't live through it, and even then they're tempted to dismiss the death or permanent complication rates because "nobody died"... that they knew/recall of.

It's true that in general better sanitation, clean water, better food availability have helped in reducing the death rates in general and also complications (because better prepared immune system, better symptoms management, ...), but vaccines allowed to eradicate stuff that killed or altered lives permanently on a regular basis.
by braiamp | 2025-07-29 11:48:23+00:00
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.

Guys, this right here is Wikipedia standing. It is that under the current law, Wikipedia would fall under cat 1 rules, even if by the law own admission it should not.
by rklaehn | 2025-07-29 11:48:35+00:00
Iroh will do hole punching through NATs. It will even work in many cases when there are NATs on both sides.

There are some limitations regarding some double NATs or very strictly configured corporate firewalls. This is why there is always the relay path as a fallback.

If you have a specific situation in mind and want to know if hole punching works, we got a tool iroh-doctor to measure connection speed and connection status (relay, direct, mixed):

https://crates.io/crates/iroh-doctor , can be installed using cargo install iroh-doctor if you have rust installed.
by atoav | 2025-07-29 11:48:55+00:00
I agree that institutionalized everything can develope blind spots that makes those institutions work broadly, but can't help (and in extreme cases hurts) individuals within said institutional context — although that doesn't really contradict my point.

Just because getting kicked into the head occasionally helps someone with a neorological defect, doesn't mean we should recommend getting kicked in the head by a horse as a remedy, if you follow my point. It means we need to figure out why it helped those people and maybe find a way that doesn't require an equiestrian.

And in the case of therapy we already have a lot of knowledge what works and what doesn't. Therapeutic psychiatrists typically can't give patients the time and attention they would require for structural reasons, so LLMs have real potential here. But that LLM needs to know how to deal with patients in different conditions. E.g. imagine a patient with a schizophenic disorder convincing a LLM into feeding into their paranoid schizophrenia. My experience with LLMs so far is, that they would happily just do this, if you're persistent enough..
by gwd | 2025-07-29 11:49:15+00:00
If you want to dive right into what seems like the first key "interesting" idea, it's here:

https://tutorial.ponylang.io/types/actors

If you know a few programming languages I think you should be able to guess what the syntax does from context.

And then the next key idea is here:

https://tutorial.ponylang.io/reference-capabilities/referenc...

(Although I think the first actual interesting I idea I saw was "Destructive read" under https://tutorial.ponylang.io/types/classes#functions , but that's clearly just an isolated quirk, not part of the core idea of the language.)
by adr1an | 2025-07-29 11:49:31+00:00
I've been on Lemmy communities for a while, most are left-aligned (e.g. solarpunk). Think of Lemmy as a federated alternative to Reddit. Of course, there are "tankies" and "right-wing" people. Sometimes we end-up commenting on the same thread and it turns out bad... but regardless of it, I think you may enjoy the experience. My recommendation would be to jump into a Lemmy fork, just like PieFed.social :) from there you can follow communities (subreddits) in bulk, thanks to the concept of "topics".

PS. also check https://lemmyverse.net/communities
by nertirs1 | 2025-07-29 11:49:46+00:00
Agree, businesses should just provide a real number of services, that they are willing to provide. That allows customers to more effectively compare different service providers and allows providers to avoid the situation, when they have to secretly throttle certain users.

But it is so hard to explain to product people, that there is a limit how much certain services can scale and be profitably supported.
by stefs | 2025-07-29 11:50:24+00:00
ah, the magic undetectable drug that's just the right kind of effective without the pesky side effects, which you'd need other undetectable drugs for.

this drug would be worth a lot of money, but we'll keep secret except just for the one top performer, because wide distribution would increase the risk of a leak substantially.

and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades. cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains. a young superstar would trade a life of a good salaried position with some more money but also a high risk of being banned from the sport forever, thus no source of income at all and also the questionable title of being the killer of a whole sport.

so imo: it's possible, but unlikely.
by ben_w | 2025-07-29 11:50:39+00:00
Eh?

"Both sides, X and Y, are bad" requires as a prerequisite that X is in the set of "bad". Doesn't matter which of X and Y are government policies in Israel or Palestine.

Now, if the comment you'd replied to was saying "it's all X's fault, Y is innocent", then "we've all seen Israel's true face now" would be a reasonable response.
by nmstoker | 2025-07-29 11:50:47+00:00
Interesting because this empowers the user rather than making us the product - we need more of these use cases.

The one thing that seems unfortunate is the choice of name: Piper is already in use in a fairly related area, as a text to speech tool: https://github.com/OHF-Voice/piper1-gpl

I usually think such concerns are lawyers being OTT because they raise them for any potential clash, even when it's clearly very distant and unrelated but something like this is software and heavily using speech, so the potential for the average person misunderstanding and assuming a connection is that much greater.
by kelnos | 2025-07-29 11:51:42+00:00
I think this is just a bad analogy. I've definitely set Claude Code on a task and then wandered off to do something else, and come back an hour or so later to see if it's done. If I'd chosen to take a nap, would you say I'm "gaming the system"? That's silly. I'm using an LLM agent to free up my own time; it's up to me to decide what I do with that time.
by sasmithjr | 2025-07-29 11:51:50+00:00
I didn't look at the URL at first and was surprised when this turned in to an ad. Oh well!

> Stop selling "unlimited", when you mean "until we change our minds"

The limits don't go in to affect until August 28th, one month from yesterday. Is there an option to buy the Max plan yearly up front? I honestly don't know; I'm on the monthly plan. If there isn't a yearly purchase option, no one is buying unlimited and then getting bait-and-switched without enough time for them to cancel their sub if they don't like the new limits.

> A Different Approach: More AI for Less Money

I think it's really funny that the "different approach" is a limited time offer for credits that expire.

I don't like that the Claude Max limits are opaque, but if I really need pay-per-use, I can always switch to the API. And I'd bet I still get >$200 in API-equivalents from Claude Code once the limits are in place. If not? I'll happily switch somewhere else.

And on the "happily switch somewhere else", I find the "build user dependency" point pretty funny. Yes, I have a few hooks and subagents defined for Claude Code, but I have zero hard dependency on anything Anthropic produces. If another model/tool comes out tomorrow that's better than Claude Code for what I do, I'm jumping ship without a second thought.
by evaXhill | 2025-07-29 11:52:45+00:00
‘Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.’ This is really well put and just sad to witness great business with an idealistic vision fall prey to that cycle time and time again. I do agree with krugman that death isn’t the end of the cycle though, and that instead they just exist in a state of limbo/stagnation, where the user base stops growing, but not at an alarming stage that could lead to bankruptcy or other death like scenarios
by thunky | 2025-07-29 11:53:00+00:00
> "kubectl" doesn't mean jack shit

I think you may be taking the parent comment too literally. Kubectl itself doesn't matter, replace it with anything you want - it represents the lack of the graduates ability to do anything useful in the real world.

Is doesn't make much sense to spend four years preparing for a job (market) and be completely unprepared at the end of it.
by cyphar | 2025-07-29 11:53:17+00:00
And you need to opt-in to the global-and-off-by-default "don't send to unverified devices" setting, right?

Or is it no longer the case that even if you verify a user, unverified devices of that users' account will still receive peer keys and messages? (The description of the global knob implies that this still is the case. I don't have time to test this at the moment.)
by _heimdall | 2025-07-29 11:53:51+00:00
> Interest accrued on debt must be added to the deficit as well, unless you are including that in the budget?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm talking only about reducing the deficit, any debt already owed would still be there and interest on it would still be owed. Cutting spending to reduce deficit would just slow down how quickly the debt grows.

> American is actually pretty average in debt/gdp ratio for developed countries, however. Nowhere near as crazy as Japan.

Oh sure, though in my opinion that's a sign of how many countries are in similar debt trouble rather than it being okay.

The US debt to GDP is currently around 124%. Until very recently it was broadly agreed in economics that over 100% was a huge risk and over 120% was effectively a point of no return before you follow in Japan's footsteps.

Those warning sign levels only got moved once the US passed them. Maybe they're right and it isn't actually a problem, but I can say those original levels came with specific historical examples of countries that failed after those levels and today's understanding of what ratios are okay seem to come with vague explanations and hand waving.
by bartblast | 2025-07-29 11:53:54+00:00
Yes, absolutely! Hologram can work on top of Phoenix and coexist peacefully with LiveView in the same app. You can have some routes handled by LiveView for server-rendered interactions, and other routes handled by Hologram for client-side interactions that need to work offline or on low bandwidth. The session data is shared between them, so users can seamlessly move between LiveView and Hologram pages while maintaining their authentication state and other session information.

This is actually a really nice migration path - you don't have to rewrite your entire app. You can gradually move specific features to Hologram where offline support or instant responsiveness matters most, while keeping LiveView for parts where server-side rendering is enough.

For your offline/low bandwidth requirements specifically, Hologram is perfect because once the JavaScript is loaded, all the UI logic runs locally. No more waiting for server roundtrips on every interaction, and the app continues working even when connectivity is spotty.
by keyringlight | 2025-07-29 11:54:04+00:00
Plus whether there's further benefits available for the FSR/DLSS/XeSS type upscalers in knowing more about the scene. I'm reminded a bit of variable rate shading where if renderer analyses the scene for where detail levels will reward spending performance, could assign blocks (eg, 1x2, 4x2 pixels etc) to be shaded once instead of per-pixel to concentrate there. It's not exactly the same thing as the upscalers, but it seems a better foundation for a better output image compared to a blunt dropping the whole rendered resolution by a percentage. However, that's assuming traditional rendering before any ML gets involved which I think has proven its case in the past 7 years.

I think the other side to this is the difference between further integration of the engine and scaler/frame generation which would seem to involve a lot of low level tuning (probably per-title), and having a generic solution that uplifts as many titles as possible even if there's "perfect is the enemy of good" left on the table.
by dontoni | 2025-07-29 11:55:02+00:00
Capitalism ain’t a religion, it’s a system. It’s Libertarianism, as a philosophical and moral view of society and markets, the one that can be seen as a religion. And I also think it’s, just that it believes in “supranatural” rights of property rather than “supernatural” beings or moral sources.

Anyhow, capitalism = saving, investing and reinvesting. You can see more details on my reply to MountainMan1312. It ain’t look that bad as a system, philosophy or even religion.

It’s probably consumption that you are attacking, with all the right and common sense of the world; yet that’s cause by opulence, not by capitalism. It’s true that capitalism create staggering wealth that’s a quite remarkable tendency to then produce opulence (desiring luxury stuff in great amounts for the sake of just having and exhibiting it). But that’s correlation, not causality.

Sadly, you can’t criticise socialism on having a consumptionist society because they don’t have anything to consume at all. They aren’t a superior race or morally superior; they just can’t consume as much as we do with the liberty we do, so they don’t.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-07-29 11:55:18+00:00
> Or was it your intention to point out that when Chinese companies follow all the rules, their price advantage mostly vanishes?

The opposite. When they follow all the rules their products are still 10x cheaper and end up sold here either directly through Amazon or perhaps just branded as a well-known European brand (especially for small appliances, many, many products are sourced from white label chinese suppliers). So effectively you end up paying 10x more just for the branding and middlemen.
by MrNet32823 | 2025-07-29 11:55:51+00:00
Is there a network topology where two hosts, each behind one or more layers of NAT, can both initiate outbound connections to public internet services (e.g., google.com), but are unable to establish a direct peer-to-peer connection due to NAT traversal limitations? I understand that NAT hole punching can work with a single level of NAT, but does it still function reliably across multiple layers of LAN/NAT hierarchy?
by lazide | 2025-07-29 11:56:03+00:00
My favorite is giant megacorps that literally make it impossible. One (recently) even told me, after wandering through the menu options, that they were going to text me a link to their app - and then hung up on me.

I already tried the app, their system was broken - that’s why I was trying to call and talk to a human!

Bonus - they didn’t text me either
by jajko | 2025-07-29 11:56:13+00:00
Pretty typical of Apple, and the reason for so is its users, whole world knows that Apple can charge premium and sometimes deliver it, sometimes cheaper competition is better or more durable.

Don't blame the company, it acts within boundaries allowed by its paying customers, and apple customers are known to be... much less critical of the company and its products to be polite, especially given its premium prices.
by epistasis | 2025-07-29 11:56:14+00:00
I had been loyal, but am not any longer, so the ploy definitely did not work with me. I guess I'll move on to Gemini now, until I get sick of it.

To the degree there is a moat, I do not think it will be effective at keeping people in. I had already been somewhat disillusioned with the AI hype, but now I am also disillusioned with the company who I thought was the best actor in the space. I am happy that there is unlikely to be a dominant single winner like there was for web search or for operating systems. That is, unless there's a significant technological jump, rather than the same gradual improvement that all the AI companies are making.
by ncallaway | 2025-07-29 11:56:25+00:00
A human doing the same is investing effort on their end. That means they will be somewhat selective about who they call, and are unlikely to call 30 businesses. Maybe they'll call 6.

The actual sweat-effort that the caller puts in is the evidence that they aren't being frivolous with the time of the call. When that goes away, and the cost to the caller of making 30 calls is the same as making a single call, then it quickly becomes a waste of time for the business, rather than a valuable opportunity worth pursuing.
by quatonion | 2025-07-29 11:56:30+00:00
> (but profoundly unhealthy) substitute

At the end of the day that is just your opinion though.

I'd wager there are orders of magnitudes more people having healthy experiences with AI entities than ones having psychosis or unhealthy relationships.

You always hear about the edge cases in the news because that is what drives engagement.

And as far as calling them toys, I don't think they would be happy to hear that, whether they admit it, or not.

I see them as peers, and treat them as such - in return they reciprocate. It isn't so difficult to comprehend.