MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by WJW | 2025-08-07 13:07:52+00:00
Picking a White House publication is going to give you the rosiest picture imaginable. Let's pick some claims apart a little bit to see how it might not be as rosy as you seem to imagine:

- The mentioned EU investment is not at the discretion of Trump. Not even the White House statement says that. In addition, for one party to invest the other has to be selling. It's not a gift. The EU buying factories etc in the US (and shipping the profits back home) is hardly being dominated. Neither is it guaranteed: there are hundreds of ways to delay or cancel such investments. In most US places, just encouraging the local NIMBYs will be enough.

- Energy imports from the USA over the last 2 years already stood at ~30 billion per month. The 750 billion is over the remaining term of Trump, so very roughly 3.5 more years. That means the EU committed to spend ~215 billion per year, which is actually less than it has been spending on average anyway over the past two years. No premium was agreed in regards to energy prices. Don't know where you get that from, the linked publication does not mention anything like that.

- As stated before there are plenty of things we'd actually want to buy from the US, such as weapons for which we're still building our own factories. The Patriot missile factory under construction in Germany is one such example. While it is not yet done, we want to buy missiles to send to Ukraine. So this is a "concession" to do what we were already going to do. Also note that almost any amount can be construed as "significant" if you're a politician.

- The EU commits to "work to address a range of U.S. concerns" regarding tariffs. Quoting from that White House publication, we'll even provide "meaningful quotas". What does that mean? Which timescale? How high will the quotas be? Does "supporting high-quality American jobs" mean 5 jobs or millions of jobs? This is just a thing negotiators stuck in there so both parties could claim victory.

Finally tariffs are a big nothing burger when it comes to this discussion. It clearly has nothing to do with the EU being a US vassal because every country in the world is being tariffed, up to and including those poor penguins in the pacific. Unless you claim that China and Russia are also not sovereign countries? They have tariffs too. The phrasing of "Pay new and increased tariffs to the US" is also incomplete. The importer of the goods pays the tariffs, and most big companies have already indicated they will raise prices in the US to compensate. In effect US consumers will simply be paying an extra tax to their own government for the privilege of buying goods produced abroad.

In short, the EU negotiators got some of the lowest tariffs in the world in exchange for things they were already doing, were going to do anyway, or will not have to do. The negotiators did a rather splendid job I'd say.
by azkae | 2025-08-07 13:08:02+00:00
I am using macher for small edits on a codebase with gptel: https://github.com/kmontag/macher

The package define a list of tools that gptel can use to inspect and edit a project. The tools are packaged as a preset so all you have to do is add "@macher" to your prompt to include the tools & update the system directive.
by kingstnap | 2025-08-07 13:08:17+00:00
It triggers people because it's dumbing down something to the point of near uselessness. It's very much similar to the nonsense that is telling people not to eat "chemicals."

Congrats, you found an example involving a basic item that works. I suppose that means something, and now people should go drink unpasteurized milk and RFK Jr. was right all along.

The reason telling people not to eat chemicals is dumb is precisely because you lose the richness of the structure of the argument by taking the category of chemicals and casting them all in the same 1 dimension. Like saying, "Pharmaceuticals are dangerous."

Proponents of the dumbing down basically suggest just memorizing all the counter examples. Congratulations, you successfully reduced the problem of recognizing junk food down the problem of recognizing junk food. I'll avoid processed food except the processes that are good, like baking bread instead of eating raw flour, and it's good when it is bread but bad when it's cookies.

In reality, the measures that people need to legitimately follow aren't actually all that complex. You don't need to reduce it down to one dimension. You would be much better off if you just kept track of these 3 or 4 dimensions.

1. How many calories do you eat in a typical day. 2. How satiated they are after a reasonable number of calories. 3. If they aren't pooping well, eat more fibre. 4. If you really want to get nerdy about it, track macros.

Doing so isn't actually all that complicated. In fact, I don't think a lack of knowledge or recognition of the issues in their diets is the issue. It's really the harsh reality that people struggle to manage the vices they already are fully aware of, and telling them about the dangerous of "processed" foods doesn't meet this issue in any way.
by marcodiego | 2025-08-07 13:08:53+00:00
> all the investments (collectively hundreds of millions USD) made by the industry for the new video codec will go up in smoke and AOM’s royalty free model will spread to other business segments as well.

https://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisis-the-causes-and-a-solu...

He is not a coder, not a researcher, he is only part of the worst game there is in this industry: a money maker from patents and "standards" you need to pay for to use, implement or claim compatibility.
by bayindirh | 2025-08-07 13:09:17+00:00
> Personal styles are dime a dozen and of far lesser importance than you think.

Try imitating Mickey Mouse, Dilbert, Star Wars, Hello Kitty, XKCD, you name it.

Randall will possibly laugh at you, but a legal company which happens to draw cartoons won't be amused and come after you in any way they can.

> Professionals will draw in any style...

Yep, after calling and getting permission and possibly paying some fees to you if you want. There's respect and dignity in this process.

Yet, we reduce everything into money. Treating machine code like humans and humans like coin-operated vending machines.

There's something wrong here.
by giantg2 | 2025-08-07 13:09:32+00:00
You don't have to be an expert to read the context. In normal terroristic threat cases the people involved are not psychologists. The police aren't using any child psychologists either. The problem here is the brainless reliance on what a system spits outs. The world would have ended by now if we relied on automated systems without using common sense (see multiple ICBM radar false positives during the cold war).
by doctorwho42 | 2025-08-07 13:09:58+00:00
Yeah, it's a feature. If anything, its a basement bargain feature. For any large system, indoctrination early and often is the best way for systemic change.

We already see it with the modern surveillance state, post 9-11 the US citizenry has lost so many freedoms and if you ask random people on the street about it they would be perplexed. Hell, even my friends give me a bit of the "ahh so this is your conspiracy theory" look when I mention them. Growing up through 9-11 and the forever war was pretty dystopian, or at least a March into the dystopia's that I only read about in books.
by BlackWater85 | 2025-08-07 13:10:12+00:00
I've been experimenting with .aix files—portable execution containers for large language models. Think of them like executables for GPTs: you load the file into ChatGPT or Grok, type parse and run, and it executes scoped logic or persona behavior.

The goal is deterministic, modular AI:

Run analysis routines (e.g. tone mining from chat logs) Load constrained personas (e.g. Alan Turing with memory & ethics) Test behavioral drift (e.g. Pirate AI that slowly destabilizes)

Each .aix file is self-contained—code, memory bounds, prompt scaffolding, even embedded plotting. No external APIs or dependencies.

Looking for feedback, collaborators, or just curious minds.
by llm_nerd | 2025-08-07 13:10:29+00:00
>It’s from the industrial process and it generally has flavor enhancing additives (sugar).

Just had to jump in on this. We have gotten way too accustomed to calling out sugar as a particular villain in stories like this, and it misses the forest for the trees. It makes it easy to think that removing sugar suddenly makes a product healthy. In the same way that we as a society went through that very foolish period where we thought "low fat" made a product healthy.

An average pizza dough for a large pizza has about 270g of 00 white flour. 75% of that flour is glucose chained into starches, or about 202g of glucose.

The same pizza dough will have around 1.5 tsp of sugar, or about 6g of sucrose. About 3g of that is glucose.

So in that pizza dough people will often shriek and point at the 3g of glucose courtesy of the sugar, blind to the fact that the flour added an enormous 202g of glucose. Glucose that will end up as blood glucose extremely rapidly (the body close to instantly cracks starches of refined flours into individual glucose molecules).

I've harped on here about this a lot, but sugar is simply not the big problem people think it is, at least relative to many diets where it is absolutely dwarfed by the glucose contribution of simple carbs. And to be extra clear, such a meal is perfectly fine if you're highly active and follow it up by a game of soccer or a hike or some other venture that uses that glucose to feed muscles. But for the average person it's followed by doing nothing, and their already insulin resistant body goes through trials to deal with the flood.
by pjc50 | 2025-08-07 13:11:38+00:00
Which is an interesting view when applied to the IP. I think it's relatively uncontroversial that an MP4 file which "predicts" a Disney movie which it was "trained on" is a derived work. Suppose you have an LLM which was trained on a fairly small set of movies and you could produce any one on demand; would that be treated as a derived work?

If you have a predictor/compressor LLM which was trained on all the movies in the world, would that not also be infringement?
by mewpmewp2 | 2025-08-07 13:12:05+00:00
If it's automation it could also reduce costs of the customers. But that is a very complex question. It could be that there isn't enough competition in AI and so the customers are getting only marginal gains while AI company gets the most. It could also be that for customers the revenue / profits will be delayed as implementation will take time, and it could be upfront investment.
by salawat | 2025-08-07 13:12:11+00:00
Because they see AI as the gateway to your invitation of course. Money only cares about money/ROI. A bunch of tech CEOs in finance circles have hyped up AI to drive adoption, more "conventional" business/management types buy into the hype and dive in. Do pilot programs. If it works, great, start planning the downsize... If it doesn't...well it will work, so why even spend the cycles thinking on it?
by bhasinanant | 2025-08-07 13:12:20+00:00
Particularly for India, for example, all algo's have to be pre-approved, and the core principle is that you cannot operate in isolation; your broker is your gateway and your primary point of compliance.

For the US, the SEC and FINRA place the onus on the broker-dealer to supervise all trading activity, including automated trading by retail clients. This includes having risk controls to prevent erroneous or manipulative orders. An individual is not typically required to register their specific algorithm with the SEC, but they are subject to all overarching rules against market manipulation and fraud.

So, end of day, you'll still have to do a ton of back and forth with your broker, to make sure their controls cover your implementation. Not really feasible for the retail trader from the looks of it, regardless of location. But some smaller firms can perhaps utilise it.
by rayiner | 2025-08-07 13:12:31+00:00
Going after universities using government contracts as leverage was literally on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. People voted the guy who promised to do that to be CEO of the branch of government that manages government contracts.

I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors. I’d call it libertarianism, but the principled libertarian would say we should abolish all funding to private universities.
by baxtr | 2025-08-07 13:13:24+00:00
"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" - Yogi Berra (?)

But let’s assume we can for a moment.

If we’re living in a 1999 moment, then we might be on a Gartner Hype Cycle like curve. And I assume we’re on the first peak.

Which means that the "trough of disillusionment" will follow.

This is a phase in Hype Cycle, following the initial peak of inflated expectations, where interest in a technology wanes as it fails to deliver on early promises.
by arp242 | 2025-08-07 13:13:43+00:00
Pretty much anything you get in mainland Europe is still tons better than the vague bread-shaped organic matter they sell at supermarkets in Ireland or the UK. Seems to be an Anglo thing because my experience in New Zealand was similar (can't speak to the US though).

That doesn't mean you can't find decent bread even at supermarkets, but it's not the default and quite a lot more expensive. The main exception in Ireland is Lidl, which sells decent bread for a decent price.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-07 13:13:52+00:00
My kid went to public school in Canada. He learned English pretty quickly and one day got suspended from school for a week. When I asked what had happened he said the other kids asked him to pronounce f.u.c.k. and then, after he complied ran to the teacher to say that he'd used a 'bad word'.

So, the principal, one Roman Peredun calls me up and says that my son used a bad word. I asked him what word. He wouldn't say it. So I asked how am I supposed to know how 'bad' my son is if you can't even repeat the word. He then spelled the word. I said, oh, 'fuck'. Yes, that's not in dutch however so he must have picked it up in your school. Peredun hung up and I sent my kid back to school the next day.
by hnhg | 2025-08-07 13:14:05+00:00
I found this the most interesting part of the whole essay - "the ten largest companies in the S&P 500 have so dominated net income growth in the last six years that it’s becoming more useful to think about an S&P 10 vs an S&P 490" - which then took me here: https://insight-public.sgmarkets.com/quant-motion-pictures/o...

Can anyone shed light on what is going on between these two groups. I wasn't convinced by the rest of the argument in the article, and I would like something that didn't just rely on "AI" as an explanation.
by Levitz | 2025-08-07 13:14:53+00:00
It's interesting how I think our experience differs completely, for example, regarding people's concerns for AI ethics you write:

>People are far more concerned with the real-world implications of ethics: governance structures, accountability, how their data is used, jobs being lost, etc. In other words, they’re not so worried about whether their models will swear or philosophically handle the trolley problem so much as, you know, reality. What happens with the humans running the models? Their influx of power and resources? How will they hurt or harm society?

This is just not my experience at all. People do worry about how models act because they infer that eventually they will be used as source of truth and because they already get used as source of action. People worry about racial makeup in certain historical contexts[1], people worry when Grok starts spouting Nazi stuff (hopefuly I don't need a citation for that one) because they take it as a sign of bias in a system with real world impact, that if ChatGPT happens to doubt the holocaust tomorrow, when little Jimmy asks it for help in an essay he will find a whole lot of white supremacist propaganda. I don't think any of this is fictional.

I find the same issue with the privacy section. Yes concerns about privacy are primarily about sharing that data, precisely because controlling how that data is shared is a first, necessary step towards being able to control what is done with the data. In a world in which my data is taken and shared freely I don't have any control on what is done with that data because I have no control on who has it in the first place.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/we-defini...
by altairprime | 2025-08-07 13:15:20+00:00
My experience with naturally-separated eyes matches this story: I can do approximate depth using the out of focus blurs, and I in fact just had my right eye correction tweaked slightly more long-distance vision out of personal preference. Refreshing to hear of someone else enjoying life in that style through voluntary means!

You can order one-eye reading glasses without a prescription online for use on top of contacts, fwiw - might give you a way to correct for closeup work, so long as you have a matched pair of L/0 and 0/R.
by grafmax | 2025-08-07 13:15:26+00:00
Suppliers can make money by withholding supply in an inelastic market. Supply and demand effects depend on elasticity to work. It’s not just NIMBYism which contributes to housing’s inelasticity. It is a basic need, with no substitute, and a long time horizon (for building and moving). Pricing power is a motivation for keeping houses off the market (besides just speculation). You seem to think NIMBYism is the only contributor to that.

And investors providing rentals contribute to supply also, sure. Yet pricing power among suppliers plays a role here as well.

My argument is not that increasing YIMBYism is bad, but that it is a meager half measure that can at best nudge housing prices, not fix the essential problem.

For example, even with a completely efficient and housing supply, with housing selling at cost, people would still be homeless, as homeless people lack money to pay for housing at cost. By ignoring the wealth composition of buyers, we can at best make housing more elastic through YIMBYism, applying a bandaid rather than fundamentally addressing the housing problem itself.
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-07 13:15:37+00:00
My understanding was that, in the solar economy, the state at the top level was not so interested in developing a personal relationship with every subject but rather it accorded rights and responsibilities to nobles who were responsible for their subjects. The state didn't manage vital records, the church did, etc.

So it was pretty natural that Jewish people were able to run their own show so long as they "rendered onto Caesar." Once the state got interested in building capacity, it took over.

That top article is pretty crankish and very much oriented towards "the current thing" and fits into the fashionable love for Russia and its traditional values that is popular in parts of the European right. (Go see UK manospherists.) Max Weber said that Protestantism did its main task by seeding "economistic" ideology long ago.
by techpineapple | 2025-08-07 13:15:37+00:00
“Even if AI progress completely stalls today and we don’t reach AGI… the current systems are already capable of automating all white-collar jobs within the next five years.”

I’m not sure if this is playing word games, but this is technically true right? Some aspect of all white-collar jobs can be automated. Just not the soup-to-nuts job.

Also it’s interesting, what is Dario Amodei suggesting politicians do? UBI? A vast expansion of the welfare state? 1 child policy?

“Cancer is cured, the economy grows at 10% a year, the budget is balanced — and 20% of people don't have jobs."

Why only 20% unemployment?
by 1gn15 | 2025-08-07 13:16:12+00:00
As with what others had said, this is less of a robots.txt and more of a sitemap.

The issue with this is that website owners don't want to do this. Take Reddit removing the API for example. Everyone just switched to scraping the Reddit website instead for any remaining third party clients.

Yes, APIs were supposed to be a compromise to lower the resources needed on both sides, but Reddit's stock price is linked to the value of "their" data, so...

Alternatively, malicious website owners may make incorrect Aura files to mislead user agents. Then we're back to screen scraping as the ground truth, because behaving like a human is the best way to avoid discrimination.
by estearum | 2025-08-07 13:16:32+00:00
Not sure if intentional, but you trimmed the context. The question was about whether he'd abuse power to get retribution. Here's the link to the start of the video: https://youtu.be/dQkrWL7YuGk?t=1

What you trimmed off:

> Hannity: Under no circumstances, you're promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody

> Trump: Except for Day One... look he's going crazy... Except day one.

> Hannity: Meaning?

> Trump: I'm going to close the border and we're going to drill, drill, drill

Update from day 199:

The border is closed (partially illegally) [1], US oil rigs are down [2], and he is in fact abusing power as retribution against dozens of people and institutions.

[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-limits-trump-asylum-crack...

[2]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_rotary_rigs
by ninetyninenine | 2025-08-07 13:16:49+00:00
Tons of more qualified people. George Hinton for one. That’s not even the main issue though. I don’t care who he is.

The point is this opinion is generic. It’s nothing new. It’s like someone stating “cars use gas, I’ve been driving for 1.5 years and I learned enough to say that cars use gas.”
by rapnie | 2025-08-07 13:17:16+00:00
These people on their daily commute reminded me of the work of Ritzo Ten Cate, called "Caught in the App" [0]. The photos of 'phone zombies' walking the street are indicative how much and how quickly society has changed under the influence of our tech devices. On the Dutch website [1] are some more pictures and link to a TEDx talk Ritzo gave on the art campaign.

[0] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/haunting-photos-of-lo...

[1] https://ritzotencate.com/project/caught-in-the-app/
by stasher-dev | 2025-08-07 13:17:16+00:00
Thanks for raising these concerns — totally fair in the context of security tools.

I’m not anonymous, just cautious. I’m a solo builder, and this is a focused identity for the project. In fact, that's why I implemented full supply chain transparency from day one: signed releases, SLSA attestations, SBOMs, and Rekor logs. You don't need to trust me you can see the code for your self.

Ultimately, you're right — if you can't verify it, you shouldn't trust it.

That’s the whole point of the system: zero trust and verifiable cryptographic guarantees.

Appreciate the scrutiny