MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by reactordev | 2025-08-15 13:32:46+00:00
Just going off my own experience. While violent crime has diminished, other crimes are going on in plain sight with prudence from the courts. Because privatized prisons are a thing in the US, they need product... You'll be charged $4/day - $80/day while you're there. I remember when "debtor's prison" was illegal. Now it's not. So you can brush it under a rug, claim things are better, claim we are more just than we used to be, but I never claimed that we ever were 100% just. Only that we used to be more just than we are today.

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/states-unfairly-burdening-incar...

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/amer...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/653897/americans-pass-judgment-...

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/the-withering-of-public...

https://www.idea.int/blog/how-independent-us-supreme-court-u...
by simpaticoder | 2025-08-15 13:32:49+00:00
Arguably justice in general started declining with the invention of the typewriter, and injustice accelerated with the invention of the word processor and will get far worse with LLMs. The cost and time of litigation scales like n^2 where n is the textual length of the law. Personally I'd like to require that laws be written out by hand by the lawmaker(s) proposing them (NOT their staffers), and read aloud by them before a vote.
by krapp | 2025-08-15 13:32:56+00:00
>In the story, Adam and Eve did not learn about good and evil until after they ate the fruit.

Did they though?

They knew that eating the fruit was wrong, so they clearly already understood the concept of good and evil, and they could be talked into disobeying God (arguably by appealing to their envy of God,) so they already had the ability to choose.

The sin wasn't the ability to choose to eat the fruit, or to comprehend the choice, because humans were already made in God's image as moral beings, but in making the choice itself. They "knew good and evil" because they already knew good, and then chose evil, in the same way you "know comfort and pain" by stabbing yourself in the arm with a knife. The knife doesn't grant you the ability to feel pain, that's just the consequence of your actions.

That's just my interpretation, and I'm not a believer. As a mythological narrative, it makes more sense to me that the forbidden fruit is a moral test. But I have no idea what the original authors intended.
by kelipso | 2025-08-15 13:33:13+00:00
Noticing a contradiction when making a statement is just one way writers find contradictions, and that kind of immediate noticing would only be for obvious contradictions.

There are tons of other things you do, like recalling relevant facts related to the new statement and making sure the statement fits into the facts. You go through a timeline, make sure the statement fits into the timeline. You look at the implications of the statement, make sure those fit with other relevant facts. You opt to do these things depending on what the sentence means and implies. This is not just you "noticing" a contradiction, it's a process.

And what does how real brains work mean anyway. You can't compare writers thinking and writing a novel to some six year old writing a paragraph.
by makeitdouble | 2025-08-15 13:33:40+00:00
This is a fascinating subject, that would merit some input from other languages IMHO.

> Admittedly, I've never heard of someone forgetting how to write a letter from the Latin alphabet.

In alphabetic languages with separate pronounciation (French, English etc.) people forget spelling instead. And of course we recognize spellings we know, even if we couldn't recall it cold from memory.

Another point: the article defines kanji as images, but each character can be parsed as a composition of base blocks (radicals), and people primarily remember those. Put in computer terms, kanji are not bitmaps but overlayed vectorial blocks. That I think makes a world of difference for how we handle them, foreigner and native alike.
by kashnote | 2025-08-15 13:33:44+00:00
I actually don't have doubts that LLMs are quite good at writing software.

The problem for me is one of practicality. If, after hundreds of lines of AI-written code, I noticed some sort of issue (regarding scale, security, formatting, logic, etc.), I'm basically forced to start over.

We all know that reading code is way less pleasant than writing code. So, for me, LLMs can be very useful for writing code that I know is going to be correct without having to go back through it. For example, basic TRPC CRUD functions.
by lazide | 2025-08-15 13:34:41+00:00
Eh, this is someone in SIG leadership using every scapegoat and excuse they can to avoid having to acknowledge or take responsibility for their screwup, instead compounding it to the point where it will seriously hurt the company - maybe even torpedo them.

The things you’re talking about give them some cover/mechanisms, but most other manufacturers are looking on in horror at this, not copying them.
by mrbigbob | 2025-08-15 13:35:09+00:00
while arctic make fairly good high performing fans for cheap their bearings/acoustics are kind of bad. i bought 5 of the original p12 max fans with the ball bearings. they all made a chirping noise at various rpms (even after getting 5 new ones from arctic). the new p12 pro fans perform great but around 1200 rpms the motor is very loud and annoying

really wish arctic would now focus on the acoustics of their fans because its there weakest point. i wouldnt mind spending a bit more per fan if the sound profile wasnt just straight terrible which personally theirs are to me at the moment
by schrijver | 2025-08-15 13:35:12+00:00
Hobbyists aren’t forced to buy anything.. I blame youtube for turning hobbies into an exercise at buying stuff. Affiliate links are one of the few ways to make money online and the reason why the majority of videos in the hobby space seem to be gear reviews. Yet as a hobbyist chances are you won’t practice enough to outgrow your tools anyway, and neither do you have the economic incentives of business owners.
by marvinborner | 2025-08-15 13:35:13+00:00
I think emiT [1] comes quite close!

A time paradox from [2]:

create x = 10; time point; print x; //prints 10 in first timeline, and 20 in the next create traveler = 20; traveler warps point{ x = traveler; traveler kills traveler; };

[1] https://esolangs.org/wiki/EmiT, https://github.com/nimrag-b/emiT-C

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1golf...
by lm28469 | 2025-08-15 13:36:41+00:00
The problem in that case is that it kills unintentionally when it's used in a way that shouldn't end up in a discharge at all.

If you put your gun in your pants pocket and shoot your balls while running around it's on you, if you safely put your gun in a safe holster and it shoots your balls while your walking it's the gun's problem.

A nuke is a killing device, we never made one go boom unintentionally despite abusing some of them way past what's reasonable.
by bluGill | 2025-08-15 13:36:54+00:00
I find this argument tired and poorly thought out. As a hunter there are many times kill is my goal. I also use my guns for target practice where kill is not the goal. Just because a gun's purpose is to kill does not mean it has to kill anything, or that car drivers should get off for their killing. A death is a death, it needs to be intentional killing only with either a gun or a car.

Most gun owners are very aware of how deadly their tool is, and are careful with it. Most car owners do not put anywhere near the safety thought into how they drive (it is rare to see someone maintain a 3 second following distance even though that along could save a lot of lives)
by dgb23 | 2025-08-15 13:37:25+00:00
There's some truth in what you say, but unfortunately there are also NIMBY regulations in place that delay/prevent infrastructure projects. I would prefer if our direct votes would shield _better_ against those mechanisms.

However, I think the bigger cultural norm at play here is that public infrastructure is very cherished. We publicly own (at least 51% of each of) our energy companies, public transport system, telecommunications system etc. Long term planning and investment is also ingrained into our culture.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-08-15 13:37:49+00:00
Reduction in childcare cost in my linked comment, not real estate. Unsure how you made such a connection. From that comment:

> It doesn't make sense if you need both incomes to survive. It just pushes the total fertility rate down faster when prospective parents realize they cannot afford childcare nor one parent to remain at home.

In the context of this thread, there are not enough houses for demand, that is why they are expensive, but if an administration beats on the economy hard enough, causing job destruction and increased unemployment, those who cannot continue to afford to service their mortgages will be forced to sell. This would contribute to real estate price softening. Child care costs will never come down (as I assert in my other comment) because the government refuses to subsidize it and there are labor shortages, with childcare providers unable to find staff for the childcare wages on offer. Labor shortages will persist well into the future due to prime working age population compression due to structural demographics. Citations for this are in my comment you linked to, but I can provide as many as you would like.
by sam_goody | 2025-08-15 13:37:58+00:00
The real issue is that we allow patents at all.

Given the lopsided cost that courts bring to the table, patents only help the big players- since only they canafford to play.

I invented something I ttruly think could change the world. Went to a patent attorney. He said basically - create a patent, wait till someone unsuspectingly builds a product with the same basic idea, and then sue the pans off them. If you try to develop it yourself, the patent will not help - the chinese will copy it and laugh, and the americans will copy it, modify it, and then sue you because they can push more patents than you can defend yourself against. In the best case, they may offer to settle for a small fee if you give them all your IP for free...

I have yet to see anything good from patents, but over the years I have seen just how much they prevent anything new from coming to the world.
by giarc | 2025-08-15 13:38:19+00:00
One anecdote/example that has stuck with me is a heard of caribou in the Canadian north. In winter, they typically dig through the snow to find plants to eat. One year, with rising temperatures, a large area was left with a thick layer of ice on top of the snow. Precipitation was falling as rain (instead of snow) due to warmer temperatures, then freezing overnight creating this thick layer of ice. The caribou couldn't punch through the ice and ended up starving to death resulting in a mass die off.
by galangalalgol | 2025-08-15 13:38:58+00:00
Probably 50s-70s? The golden age of capitalism oddly enough. Among other things taxation maintained a more even wealth distribution during this time in many western countries. Combined with a record large generation that had few children and parents that dies in wars (almost everyone working), this lead to a surplus. When there is a surplus the overlords are generous. Now that generation is old and dependent on the handful of children they had. There is no longer a surplus. There is hope that the technologies we are creating could bring enough productivity gains to return to surplus conditions, but the population decline that will have to overcome is extreme. IP laws aren't encouraging these productivity gains like we need them to, so we should ignore them. The west deciding to ignore chinese IP won't be the thing that starts the war, and it isn't like china ever respected the IP of the west. We should be buying up all the tooling we need to painfully bootstrap automated manufacturing ourselves and reverse engineer it.
by jameshart | 2025-08-15 13:39:01+00:00
Seems like you might be loading it into a context where you feed in a ‘you are a helpful assistant’ system prompt at the beginning of input. This isn’t a chat finetune - it’s not oriented to ‘adopting a chat persona’. Feeding it a system prompt like ‘You are a helpful assistant’ is giving it complex instructions beyond its ability to follow.

The purpose of this model is to be fine tuned towards specific tasks. Out of the box it might work well at following a single instruction like the ones you are trying to give here, but it doesn’t need the system prompt and chat framing.
by johnisgood | 2025-08-15 13:39:05+00:00
I presented government statistics and crime data from official sources and the discussion should be about whether those numbers are accurate and what they show, not about where I live or my motivations (I have no agenda).

People can reasonably interpret crime statistics differently based on their personal experiences and risk tolerance. Your experience feeling safe in London is valid, just as the experiences of those who feel unsafe are valid. The data I cited simply provides broader context beyond individual anecdotes.

Crime statistics are publicly available precisely so they can inform public discussion, regardless of who's discussing them. If you think the sources I cited are inaccurate or the comparison is flawed, I'm happy to discuss that.
by KaiserPro | 2025-08-15 13:39:22+00:00
> now have a third category of “legal but harmful”

I'm sorry but the police always have had that. Again, ASBOs, public order offences, "please move along now", town dispersal orders.

Specifically ASBOs give the police the power to stop someone doing almost any action, the courts have deemed antisocial.

A good example of that is street preachers being stopped from using megaphones, which must have happened as early as ~2005

> which has resulted in real door knocks

from the OSA, I'm not aware of any cases yet?

> This is subject to political outlook and therefore as “loosey goosey” as it gets.

The law is always subject to political outlook. Even a constitution is no match for a concerted effort to undermine it. For example: article 124/125 of the 1936 USSR constitution allowed freedom of press, religion and the right to gather.

Look, unless we get someone extreme in power, and they are uniquely competent, they we are mostly safe. What will change that is the steady drip drip drip, of both economic hardship, and a willing medium to blame that on minorities.

So 2028 is around the time that jenrick will attempt to lock us all up.
by eertami | 2025-08-15 13:39:42+00:00
> As a country the UK is so quick to dismiss initiatives from other countries that are shown to work there

I found British culture so depressingly defeatist that I stopped trying to argue for improvements and ended up moving away.

Switzerland isn't perfect but for day to day life it's just much easier to live in. I believe that's partly being a higher trust society but also higher ambition to make infrastructure and town planning improvements.
by krapp | 2025-08-15 13:40:52+00:00
You weren't dead for infinity. Death is a state that only exists after life, because by definition death is the cessation of life. The state of non-being before birth and the state of non-being after death may be the same, but the context of the existence of a physical living body in the interim matters.

I stood beside the caskets of my mother, my father and my grandmother. Trust me, life is finite and death is real.
by appointment | 2025-08-15 13:41:30+00:00
But the WCML is at capacity, so it is not in fact adequate.

"There is no available capacity without significantly impacting performance and causing a reduction in timetable resilience due to the resulting requirement for successive services to run on minimum headway"

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/wcml-capacity-...
by SkiFire13 | 2025-08-15 13:41:42+00:00
If you want them only to "escape" down the stack then it's not necessary. If you want them to escape up the stack then of course you can't have them capture a pointer to the stack variable, because that will no longer exist once the current function returns. However if you capture all variables by value and make the lambda an unique type containing all the captured variables then you can return it up the stack. Of course the downside of this is that each lambda gets its own different type, but you can add ways to convert them to a common type at the cost of having to then deal with the allocation issue at that point.
by boxed | 2025-08-15 13:42:07+00:00
You, I mean you singular, can't decide to believe that 1+1=4. You know that it's not to the core of your being. There is literally no choice possible when the facts are in.

This is what it's like to be a strong atheist.

> Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist.

She did become a turturer of the most vulnerable people though. So... yea, I guess that's another type of argument against faith.
by 1718627440 | 2025-08-15 13:42:42+00:00
Not sure if you know, but the CDU (christian democratic union, conservative) currently is in a coalition with the SPD (socialdemocratic party of germany) not with Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Union '90/ The Greens). But yes they need to compromise with them when the want to pass laws where a simple majority isn't sufficient. This isn't their biggest issue though, because in that case they also need to deal with Die Linke (The Left, former sole party of the GDR), which CDU voters very much don't want.
by baggachipz | 2025-08-15 13:42:53+00:00
> Devices are supposed to work as intended, implied is WHEN intended. If you have a circular saw that randomly cuts when not asked, is a mature response "oh no our cutty thing cuts" ?

Yes, always assume that you will get cut and treat it as such.

> That is why your post was flagged.

I don't care. I knew it was gonna get downvoted to hell. I'm not trolling, I'm trying to point out that people shouldn't be surprised when something like this happens. That's why you're "never supposed to point a gun at something you don't want to shoot", right? The logic there is that it could always go off unintentionally. In this case, it goes off unintentionally a little more often.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-08-15 13:43:24+00:00
> What you really need to understand about inflation, is that we've had particularly exceptionally low long-term inflation in America for the last 50 years, outside of stagflation in the '70s.

What you really need to understand is that we can, and we must absolutely, generally and non-exceptionally have low inflation at all times. There's absolutely no sane reason to have high inflation in a low-corruption financial system - none!

> Globalization... US Navy... US military... China hybrid... American lack of enthusiasm for guaranteeing shipping trade on the oceans.

A bunch of red herrings meaning nothing... It's not lack of enthusiasm, it's the overabundance of enthusiasm for tariffs and sanctions backed by the same US Navy & US Military to maintain a restricted trade regime which, not-accidentally, results in the US public being trapped in a monopolized and inflationary market.

> And that involves a huge amount of switching costs, which essentially is going to be inflation.

You mean, the population will bear the costs via the inflation tax, while the rich will be getting richer, because... historical norms should not be broken, especially this one?

Historically, messed up trade led to global wars, actually, it's either global trade or global wars, there's no middle ground. You failed to mention that important historical norm which is also one of the ways to make the rich richer.

The historical norms are something we should absolutely steer clear of, not use them as excuses for more nonsense in the future!
by GuB-42 | 2025-08-15 13:43:51+00:00
Had Apple offered a good licensing deal to the company, it would have been good for the company too. Especially if said employees had stocks as part of their compensation package.

But it was cheaper to Apple to just hire a few key people and screwing over everyone else.

Good or bad depends on how Massimo compare to Apple. Which one of the two offers the most growth potential. If Apple just keep the employees long enough to steal the tech before laying the off, not building on it, then it is terrible for all but Apple shareholders. If Apple "saved" these employees from an exploitative company, providing the with growth potential and further development then it is a good thing.
by dcow | 2025-08-15 13:44:24+00:00
But it would also make patent spamming much less valuable and arguably more expensive for the spammer. If you spam patents and get one issued for something that isn't novel and/or already has prior art, everyone can fight it and it quickly gets its metal tested in court.

I imagine a fine for egregious patents could also be implemented. If your patent is demonstrated in court to lack standing, the civil liability is on you, not the patent office.

The hard reality is that nobody actually knows a priori what innovation is. Or how much an innovation is actually worth. If you removed patents that would pretty easily and trivially stop the spam.
by infecto | 2025-08-15 13:44:28+00:00
You’re clearly frustrated here, but let’s keep it in the realm of facts rather than snark. I didn’t “leave out sources” to hide anything, I was speaking from the same public data you can find in FERC/NERC’s joint report on the 2021 event.

SPP did in fact suffer significant generation losses, around 30% at peak, during the February 2021 storm. Causes were mixed: natural gas supply constraints, plant equipment failures, and yes, winterization gaps. Prior to that event, FERC’s winterization guidance was minimal and largely voluntary, so both SPP and ERCOT were operating without strong federal mandates.

The difference in outcomes wasn’t that SPP magically avoided the same issues, it was that SPP is interconnected with MISO and other regional grids. That allowed them to rotate outages in short windows to maintain stability, while ERCOT’s ~50% generation loss, combined with its isolation from other grids, meant load shedding had to be longer and deeper to prevent collapse.

If we’re going to critique Texas’s market, we should separate the “market structure” question from the “operational standard” question. A competitive market like ERCOT’s can work, but without binding requirements on winterization and resource adequacy, you’re just betting the grid on ideal conditions. SPP’s experience shows that interconnection alone doesn’t prevent failures, but it does give operators more options when the weather turns.

Can you drop some of the hyperbole and passive aggressiveness? You don’t even understand my position yet being quite passive aggressiveness for no reason.
by ndiddy | 2025-08-15 13:44:37+00:00
> But around the year 2020 we registered the first mention of 3D printing as a strategic industry by the Chinese government. We know that now, after a few years of research. We first realized something is off when the price of the parts is higher than the sale price of a complete machine in some cases. That is what sparked our interest and research into the subsidies. They exist, and are very efficient https://rhg.com/research/far-from-normal-an-augmented-assess.... Our industry, desktop 3D printing, faces a bleak future. Comparable to the automotive sector as if only one high volume car brand, say Audi, remained outside of China. That’s it. An inch away from complete dependency on China in an vital piece of tech, the one absolutely critical for creation of new IP.

It seems like the real problem here is that China is able to identify strategic industries, subsidize them, and see the subsidies result in increased production and lower prices, while Western countries aren't. I'm not sure if Prusa themselves can do anything about it, but unless the West gets its shit together and decides to actually try to compete, it seems like eventually every advanced manufacturing industry will be mainly Chinese.