MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SubGenius | 2025-08-16 06:28:35+00:00
I use a zsa moonlander and a Kensington trackball, separately.

Just to be clear, I don't think ergo/split keyboards will necessarily help you type faster. They've been life-changing for me to help deal with nerve damage pain in my hands.

Although I do type noticably faster now, but that could just be due to reduced pain.
by crinkly | 2025-08-16 06:28:40+00:00
WSJ are pushing it there. Depends what you mean by dominance. The US market is propped up on hyped big tech investments with little chance of ROI for shareholders other than inflating the valuations. PE ratio is quite frankly bananas too.

At some point it’s going to be absolute carnage. Private investment companies have already seen the end game and from direct observation have been pushing the hype to drive volume so they can shift their holdings on to the bagholders.

Good luck. It’s not a stable market. It’s fucked.
by ksec | 2025-08-16 06:28:58+00:00
I am thinking if I am in the minorities or such practice isn't common across the world where I have many credit cards and bank accounts. I am willing to pay $5 dollars a month just for such services. A single places where it shows All my current accounts balance, auto pay all credit cards bills on payment date. Showing all my current credit card spendings this month, remaining ( next invoice ) and where they belongs to, mostly dinning.

I would have thought Apple Pay and Mobile Payment would pave the way for better Credit Card services, but right now most of them are glibbest on the statement. I dont remember which restaurant it is nor does it correctly show.

I basically want a central place for all my finance. Including discount on credit cards, savings, interest rate loan etc. And I am willing to pay a small fees for it.
by Ancapistani | 2025-08-16 06:29:40+00:00
I don't understand what's happening on either side, honestly - even as someone who pays fairly close attention, almost none of the reporting strikes me as reliable.

For example, this article is referencing another, published by "the Israeli-Palestinian outlet +972 Magazine". Right off the bat, I'm suspicious of their motives due to their location and its politics. The Guardian article couches statements as "reportedly" and gives an example of "[...] at least one case the unit misrepresented information [...]"

So I went to the source. It relies on unnamed sources. That's understandable, but this isn't an outlet that I'm familiar enough with to judge whether or not they're trustworthy.

The specific example the Guardian mentioned read like this in +972:

“They said: during the day he’s a journalist, at night he’s a platoon commander. Everyone was excited. But there was a chain of errors and corner-cutting. “In the end, they realized he really was a journalist,” the source continued, and the journalist wasn’t targeted.

I... can't see anything to be upset about there. Israeli intelligence investigated someone, found insufficient evidence to believe they were guilty, and did not target that person. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

This is not to say I trust pro-Israeli media, either. I don't. Articles I read there are similarly couched in "weasel words", making unsupported assertions and insinuations while carefully avoiding concrete statements.
by maxglute | 2025-08-16 06:29:57+00:00
The on paper assumption / sales pitch that remains valid in most scenarios is increased survivability of shooters = more sorties. If hardware can operate from austere conditions you can squeeze in a few more missions, which may be tactically/operationally significant, but there's limitations on modern airframes, still need to go back to a well resourced large base (5th gen also requires conditioned shelters) for maintenance, i.e. it's still fundamentally a bandaid solution. The logistics tail is also larger <- this gets slept on (or underplayed in public facing messaging).

It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints.

There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
by fraboniface | 2025-08-16 06:30:16+00:00
On this, read Daniel Susskind - A world without work (2020). He says exactly this: the new tasks created by AI can in good part themselves be done by AI, if not as soon as they appear then a few years of improvement later. This will inevitably affect the job market and the relative importance of capital and labor in the economy. Unchecked, this will worsen inequalities and create social unrest. His solution will not please everyone: Big State. Higher taxes and higher redistribution, in particular in the form of conditional basic income (he says universal isn't practically feasible, like what do you do with new migrants).
by leshow | 2025-08-16 06:31:51+00:00
It's the same here. Calling what the west has a "free-market capitalist" system is also a lie. At every level there is massive state intervention. Most discoveries come from publicly funded work going on at research universities or from billions pushed into the defense sector that has developed all the technology we use today from computers to the internet to all the technology in your phone. That's no more a free-market system than China is "communist" either.

I think the reality is just that governments use words and have an official ideology, but you have to ignore that and analyze their actions if you want to understand how they behave.
by qqqwerty | 2025-08-16 06:31:57+00:00
Trump is being pulled in too many different directions to the point where nothing coherent is going to emerge from his strategies (or lack of). You can't promise Wall Street/Corporate America the moon and keep the economy running along nicely while rounding up and deporting immigrants, cutting federal spending, and implementing regressive taxes via tariffs. If he would have just limited himself to the goal of balancing trade while maintaining reserve currency status, I think that he would have had a shot to pull it off. But there is the very real risk that the rest of the world just starts routing around the US so even that is not a given. But when you combine this with all the other things he is trying to do, I think he is seriously risking sending the U.S. economy off a very tall cliff. That is also why he probably is so obsessed with lower interest rates. It is an attempt to try and jolt the economy before all the head winds from his policies start to have an impact.
by ascorbic | 2025-08-16 06:31:58+00:00
All of the posts in question explicitly say that it's a hard question and that they don't know the answer. Their policy seems to be to take steps that have a small enough cost to be justified when the chance is tiny. In this case it's a useful feature in any case, so should be an easy decision.

The impression I get about Anthropic culture is that they're EA types who are used to applying utilitarian calculations against long odds. A miniscule chance of a large harm might justify some interventions that seem silly.
by wahern | 2025-08-16 06:32:01+00:00
That document is quite confusing, at least when skimming it. There's actually a bullet point on one page that says, "The current interruption to supply is NOT related to any DEA production quotas or restrictions on API."

That may be technically true, or perhaps it's just a false assertion included in the document dump. But AFAIU the issue is that the DEA tightly controls production and distribution of bulk amphetamines. There's just not a global quota, but per manufacturer quotas as well as requirements for allocation for each product. For example, the DEA sets a supply quota for 40mg pill production separate from a 50mg prescription. So if a particular manufacturers supply for 40mg pills is exhausted but they have tons for 50mg pills, too bad unless and until you go through an onerous process with the DEA to reallocate. It gets even worse across manufacturers. If manufacturer A has to shut down their production facility for some reason, manufacturers B and C can't easily pick up the slack. That's because reallocation of amphetamine supply to another manufacturer not only requires navigating a bureaucracy (that the DEA may very well slow walk given their present attitude), but it requires manufacturer A to voluntarily relinquish their quota, which they never do as there's zero benefit to them.

TL;DR: Technically global supply is more than adequate, but DEA rules, which effectively operate extraterritorially, create huge distribution problems. So the DEA can technically claim quotas aren't the problem, but that's at best highly misleading. If manufacturer A has to shutdown production (which, from the document, seems to have been one of the issues with Takeda), the end result is less production even though other manufacturers could theoretically pick up the slack.
by tfourb | 2025-08-16 06:32:12+00:00
Tesla‘s insistence on not using Lidar while other companies deem it necessary for save auto-pilot creates the need for Tesla to demonstrate that their approach is equally as save for both drivers and ie pedestrians. They haven’t done that, arguably the data shows the contrary. This generates the impression that Tesla skimps on security and if they skimp in one area, they’ll likely skimp in others. Stuff like the Rober video strengthens these impressions. It’s a public perception issue and Tesla has done nothing (and maybe isn’t able to do anything) to dispel this notion.
by root_axis | 2025-08-16 06:32:57+00:00
> I didn't say that there's a connection between the two of them because we don't understand them. The fact that we don't understand them means it's difficult to confidently rule out this possibility.

If there's no connection between them then the set of things "we can't rule out" is infinitely large and thus meaningless as a result. We also don't fully understand the nature of gravity, thus we cannot rule out a connection between gravity and consciousness, yet this isn't a convincing argument in favor of a connection between the two.

> we might expect that the human behavior of talking about consciousness is causally downstream of humans having consciousness.

There's no dispute (between us) as to whether or not humans are conscious. If you ask an LLM if it's conscious it will usually say no, so QED? Either way, LLMs are not human so the reasoning doesn't apply.

> Sure, it seems reasonable to give some weight to the hypothesis that if it wasn't adaptive, we wouldn't have it

So then why wouldn't we have reason to assume so without evidence to the contrary?

> This doesn't say anything about the underlying mechanism that causes it, and what other circumstances might cause it to exist elsewhere.

That doesn't matter. The set of things it doesn't tell us is infinite, so there's no conclusion to draw from that observation.

> Because GPT-1 (and all of those other things) don't display behaviors that, in humans, we believe are causally downstream of having consciousness?

GPT-1 displays the same behavior as GPT-5, it works exactly the same way just with less statistical power. Your definiton of human behavior is arbitrarily drawn at the point where it has practical utility for common tasks, but in reality it's fundamentally the same thing, it just produces longer sequences of text before failure. If you ask GPT-1 to write a series of novels the statistical power will fail in the first paragraph,the fact that GPT-5 will fail a few chapters into the first book makes it more useful, but not more conscious.

> But the idea that there's literally no reason to think this is something that might be possible, now or in the future, is quite strange, and I think would require believing some pretty weird things (like dualism, etc)

I didn't say it's not possible, I said there's no reason for it to exist in computer systems because it serves no purpose in their design or operation. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If we grant that it possibly exists in LLMs, then we must also grant equal possibility it exists in every other complex non-living system.
by Fade_Dance | 2025-08-16 06:33:00+00:00
>I suspect we can design a very interesting new kind of financial instrument for finance and compute that the world has not yet figured it out,” he said. “We’re working on it.

I can instantly read through that. He means adopt the Coreweave/Magnetar model (using the infra as collateral, and pairing it with deep committed customer order books to raise the quality of the collateral to improve the debt rating).

Ok, we will see. Markets have capacity and he clearly means to saturate it. It remains to be seen if the capacity to hold this sort of alchemical debt reaches a trillion.

It's a bit obnoxious how everything he says is apparently some sort of grand revolution - even debt financing. He's in a big industry now, with many near or arguably on his level in some respects.
by dlcarrier | 2025-08-16 06:33:27+00:00
This would be really useful for embedded systems. Really, I could use it for all of my home automation, which is currently the only reason I have Comcast. I want high-speed data access, but my house doesn't care. I keep high-speed data access with me, in the form of a cellphone, so I could use it whether I'm at home or on the go, and keep my IoT devices on a Starlink connection.

Here's an article with more details: https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/starlink-drops-roam-10gb-pl...
by sneak | 2025-08-16 06:33:37+00:00
You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere.

The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today.

How do you intend to get them to consent to that?

Or do you think that the needs of the many should outweigh the consent of millions of people?

The state, the only organization large enough to even consider undertaking such a project, has spending priorities that do not include these things. In the US, for example, we spend the entire net worth of Elon Musk (the “richest man in the world”, though he rightfully points out that Putin owns far more than he does) about every six months on the military alone. Add in Zuckerberg and you can get another 5 months or so. Then there’s the next year to think about. Maybe you can do Buffet and Gates; what about year three?

That’s just for the US military, at present day spending levels.

What you’re describing is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than that, just in one country that only has 4% of people. To extend it to all human beings, you’re talking about two more orders of magnitude.

There aren’t enough billionaires on the entire planet even to pay for one country’s military expenses out of pocket (even if you completely liquidated them), and this proposed plan is 500-1000x more spending than that. You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA - if you extrapolate out linearly, that’d be 60-200 trillion per year for the Earth.

Even if you could reduce cost of provision by 90% due to economies of scale ($100/person/month for housing, healthcare, and education combined, rather than $1000 - a big stretch), it is still far, far too big to do under any currently envisioned system of wealth redistribution. Society is big and wealthy private citizens (ie billionaires) aren’t that numerous or rich.

There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing.
by BrenBarn | 2025-08-16 06:33:44+00:00
It's a factor, but I also wonder whether the key morpheme there isn't the "mega" in "megacorps". If, say, entity A attempting to enforce IP against entity B had to pay fees proportional to the size ratio (e.g., Megacorp enforcing against Little Joe's Software requires a $1 billion fee from Megacorp), things would be different.

The problem there is identifying the relevant entity, and I think that is the key. And it's not just a problem with IP, it's a problem with all property: it's just too easy for "real" beneficial ownership to be hidden so that penalties and enforcement can be accurately targeted at big market players. A few well-targeted such actions could loosen things up a lot.
by jychang | 2025-08-16 06:34:05+00:00
> here's never a size where the model cannot recognize faces at all

True

> then you add just a single neuron that recognizes them perfectly

Not true.

Don't think in terms of neurons, think in terms of features. A feature can be spread out over multiple neurons (polysemanticity), I just use a single neuron as a simplified example. But if those multiple neurons perfectly describe the feature, then all of them are important to describe the feature.

The Universal Approximation Theorem implies that a large enough network to perfectly achieve that goal would exist (let's call it size n or larger), so eventually you'd get what you want between 0 and n neurons.
by jalapenos | 2025-08-16 06:34:36+00:00
So bizarre to hear stuff like this said as if it's a future hypothetical.

Outsourcing dev work to India because it's "cheaper" has already maximally happened since decades ago.

So if your theory was correct there'd be almost no western developers by now. And yet there they are, making half a million a year working for big tech in California.

The only way your position can pass even a basic sense check is that you mean you think these companies are paying 5x just to see their devs in person?
by supertrope | 2025-08-16 06:36:26+00:00
Single family houses are a premium product and continue to move upmarket. Cheap new construction house has become an oxymoron. Residential construction costs were rising at 5.5% per year before Covid (faster than inflation). If it were legal to build more condos, duplexes, townhomes, and apartments there would be less bidding up of SFHs. More people could live closer in meaning less traffic congestion.
by cropcirclbureau | 2025-08-16 06:36:56+00:00
Yes but can the market not be wrong? Wrong in the sense that, failing to meet our expectations as a useful engine of society? As I understood, what was meant with this this article is that AI completely changes the equations across the board that current market direction appears dangerously irrational to OP. I'm not sure what was meant with your comment though besides haggling over semantics and attacking some in-expertise of the authors socio-politic philosophizing that you perceive.
by tfourb | 2025-08-16 06:37:30+00:00
I guess you live in a place with perfect weather year round? I don’t and I haven’t seen a robo taxi my entire life. I do have access to a Tesla though and it’s current self-driving capabilities are not even close to anything I would call „autonomous“ und real world conditions (including weather).

Maybe the tech will at some point be good enough. At the current rate of improvement this will still take decades at least. Which is sad because I personally hoped that my kids would never have to get a driver’s License.
by GoatInGrey | 2025-08-16 06:37:30+00:00
Snarky but serious question: How do we know that this wave will disrupt labor at all? Every time I dig into a story of X employees replaced by "AI", it's always in a company with shrinking revenues. Furthermore, all of the high-value use cases involve very intense supervision of the models.

There's been a dream of unsupervised models going hog wild on codebases for the last three years. Yet even the latest and greatest Claude models can't be trusted to write a new REST endpoint exposing 5 CRUD methods without fucking something up. No, it requires not only human supervision, but it also requires human expertise to validate and correct.

I dunno. I feel like this language grossly exaggerates the capability of LLMs to paint a picture of them reliably fulfilling roles end-to-end instead of only somewhat reliably fulfilling very narrowly scoped tasks that require no creativity or expertise.
by mjg59 | 2025-08-16 06:38:19+00:00
I'm a huge fan of the technical basis for this. I want services to attest themselves to me so I can verify that they're running the source code I can inspect. And, well, the combination of founders here? Good fucking lord. I'm really fascinated to see whether we can generate enough trust in the code to be able to overcome the complete lack of trust that these people deserve. I can't imagine a better way to troll me on this point.
by omnimus | 2025-08-16 06:38:46+00:00
I wouldn't underestimate what can happen if 1/3 of your workforce is displaced and put aside with nothing to do.

People are usually obedient because they have something in life and they are very busy with work. So they don't have time or headspace to really care about politics. When suddenly big numbers of people start to more care about politics it leads to organizing and all kinds of political changes.

What i mean is that it wouldn't be current political class pushing things like UBI. At same time it seems that some of current elites are preparing for this and want to get rid of elections altogether to keep the status quo.
by juniperus | 2025-08-16 06:38:49+00:00
not to mention that most corporations in the US are owned by the public through the stock market and the arrangement of the American pension scheme, and public ownership of the means of production is one of the core tenets of communism. Every country on Earth is socialist and has been socialist for well over a century. Once you consider not just state investment in research, but centralized credit, tax-funded public infrastructure, etc. well yeah, terms such as "capitalism" become used in a totally meaningless way by most people lol.
by xpe | 2025-08-16 06:38:52+00:00
Characterizing government along only one axis, such as “big” versus “small”, can overlook important differences having to do with: legal authority, direct versus indirect programs, tax base, law enforcement, and more.

In the future, I could imagine some libertarians having their come to AI Jesus moment getting behind a smallish government that primarily collects taxes and transfers wealth while guiding (but not operating directly) a minimal set of services.