MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fabian2k | 2025-08-29 13:09:27+00:00
Deleting after a certain time makes sense, certainly. Deleting immediately seems dubious to me. Though the descriptions in the article are vague enough that we might be missing some big aspects.

But in the end we wouldn't be discussing this at all if Tesla had simply handed over the data from their servers. If they can't find it, it isn't actually there or they deliberately removed it this affects how I view this process.

Two copies are better than one. If you immediately erase the data, you better be sure the transmitted data is safe and secure. And obviously it wasn't.
by bob1029 | 2025-08-29 13:09:29+00:00
Imagine the environmental impact of POW running on everyone's browser all the time globally just to use the internet. What is the point of having these gigawatt class hyperscale datacenters if we are still going to make clients run laps for every request?

Performance is the most important feature at some level. If an unauthenticated request from the public internet ties up your web server's CPU for more than a few hundred microseconds, you are eventually going to get screwed no matter how you slice it.
by john-tells-all | 2025-08-29 13:09:50+00:00
I adore RSS! Use it literally every single day. I have many feeds on Feedly.com, and add to it every week or two.

Tip: use a service to stream quality content to your RSS feed reader. For Hacker News, http://hnapp.com/ does the trick for me.

I subscribe to a couple dozen authors on Hacker News.

Example: in hnapp, search for `author:bob1029`, there's an RSS link, paste that into your RSS feed reader to see that person's Hacker News comments.

I have an entire "Hacker News" section in Feedly, just with author's comments. Very useful!
by motorest | 2025-08-29 13:09:56+00:00
> And it’s easy to fix - sponsor a contributor. It’d be cheaper than the many meetings that were needed to make the removal decision.

I don't think that's how it works. I mean, how many problems did you ever fixed by dictating how others should spend their own money?

Also, apparently some of these issues exist for over a decade. That alone tells you how serious the problem is, and how urgent it needs fixing.
by klabb3 | 2025-08-29 13:10:20+00:00
> They need data, and they want YOUR data, now, and are gonna do increasingly shady things to get it.

But unlike the 100s of data brokers that also want your data, they have an existing operational funnel of your data already that you voluntary give them every day. All they need is dark pattern ToS changes and manage the minor PR issue. People will forget about this in a week.
by chrisoverzero | 2025-08-29 13:11:30+00:00
> Luckily, since type constraints are part of the signature of the method and there is no ambiguity, I am allowed to make this overload.

This isn’t the case. It’s allowed because the question-mark syntax means two different things in value- and reference-type contexts. The signatures really look like this:

public static IEnumerable<TR> SelectNotNull<T, TR>( this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, TR> fn) where TR : class // …and the nullability of TR is tracked by the compiler public static IEnumerable<TR> SelectNotNull<T, TR>( this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, Nullable<TR>> fn) where TR : struct

This is an allowable overload.
by fabian2k | 2025-08-29 13:11:34+00:00
If Tesla securely stored this data and reliably turned it over to the authorities, I wouldn't argue much with this.

But the data was mostly unprotected on the devices, or it couldn't have been restored. And Tesla isn't exactly known for respecting the privacy of their customers, they have announced details about accidents publicly before.

And there is the potential conflict of interest, Tesla does have strong incentives to "lose" data that implicates Autopilot or FSD.
by wtcactus | 2025-08-29 13:11:47+00:00
I’ve bought an Ugreen NAS right when they came out. Installed TrueNAS and it’s been rock solid and with a lot of hardware features Synology doesn’t offer all this time.

There’s really not a lot of reasons to use Synology anymore (only thing I miss was the sync solution they had. It was indeed better than Syncthing and the likes).
by lenkite | 2025-08-29 13:12:14+00:00
People were writing to UWP. There were hundreds of UWP apps that got cancelled and abandoned when Microsoft ditched their Windows Phone once Nadella got in. He kill Windows Phone, he killed native Edge (Chakra JS) and a lot of other stuff to focus fully on Cloud and then AI.

Before that ex-Microsoft guy was responsible for killing Nokia OS/Meego too in favor of Windows Phone - which got abandoned. What a train-wreck of errors leading to the mobile phone duopoly today.
by _Algernon_ | 2025-08-29 13:12:17+00:00
Plenty people of here work doing basically the same to maximize the amount of time people, including children and teens, spend staring at rectangular lights to show them ads.

Some amount of extremely competent engineers worked on the tech that made it possible to target beauty ads to insecure teen girls when they deleted a selfie.

Some amount of extremely competent engineers where complicit in building the tech that stoked the fire under the Rohingya genocide.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.
by jve | 2025-08-29 13:13:28+00:00
And can we have bounties for fixing know CVEs in that abandoned code?

Abandoned Code home should only allow security changes and if someone wants to revive the project, bump the major version and get out of abandoned code home. That is to prevent abuse by introducing new CVEs into software.

While the abandoned code home hosts that piece of software for as long as some corporation wants to keep it alive with low investment.

Found CVE in abandoned code and fixed yourself? Good for you, still eligible for bounty.
by arethuza | 2025-08-29 13:14:09+00:00
Apologies for the rampant paranoia but that all sounds great - but how do I know that advice like this can be trusted, after all you could be an agent of a state security service directing people towards services they want people to use.

NB Just to be clear, I'm not doubting you, but if I was in a situation where my life or liberty was at threat I would be very worried about whose advice to take.
by ineedasername | 2025-08-29 13:14:38+00:00
>"Retrieval based on reasoning — say goodbye to approximate semantic search ("vibe retrieval"

How is this not precisely "vibe retrieval" and much more approximate, where approximate in this case is uncertainty over the precise reasoning?

Similarity with conversion to high-dimensional vectors and then something like kNN seems significantly less approximate, less "vibe" based, than this.

This also appears to be completely predicated on pre-enrichment of the documents by adding structure through API calls to, in the example, openAI.

It doesn't at all seem accurate to:

1: Toss out mathematical similarity calculations

2: Add structure with LLMs

3: Use LLMs to traverse the structure

4: Label this as less vibe-ish

Also for any sufficiently large set of documents, or granularity on smaller sets of documents, scaling will become problematic as the doc structure approaches the context limit of the LLM doing the retrieval.
by skydhash | 2025-08-29 13:15:02+00:00
Another datapoint of one.

It's not really that I think in code. It's more like code is as much as a language to me as writing english, or holding the pencil to draw something. I got a change request, or I read something from the docs, and the the mental concept I have realign itself to the new knowledge. Getting code out is always effortless. There's no difference between

return the list of names of all the books that have the fantasy tag

And

return books.filter(b -> b.tags.contains('fantasy')).map(b -> b.name)

If I can describe something, I can code it.
by pax | 2025-08-29 13:15:06+00:00
So much this. I for one haven't opted out. I feel it's in our best interest to have better models. It would be ideal to be able to opt in/out per thread, but I don't expect most users to pay attention / be bothered with that.

In this aspect, it would've been great to give us an incentive – a discount, a donation on our behalf, plant a percent of a tree or just beg / ask nicely, explain what's in it for us.

Regarding privacy, our conversations are saved anyway, so if it would be a breach this wouldn't make much of a difference, would it?
by rsynnott | 2025-08-29 13:15:21+00:00
At a random 10% everyone could and should be worried that they'd be in the next 10%. That's 10% chance of being executed per year! That's really bad!

It's not at all similar to a _rare_ phenomenon, or at least it _shouldn't_ be, but some people are inclined to treat very fringe risks (or at least some very fringe risks; there are likely more people worried about being killed by terrorism than food poisoning, say) as very great risks.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-08-29 13:15:26+00:00
Note that it was before kimi k2 (I think) and as such back when anthropic was truly the best in class back then at coding and there wasn't any competition and every day on Hackernews would be filled about someone writin something about claude code.

And the underrated comparison was more towards the fact that I couldn't believe scaleAi's questionable accquisition by facebook and I still remember the conversation me and my brother were having which was, why doesn't facebook pay 2x, 3x the price of anthropic but buy anthropic instead of scaleAI itself

well I think the answer my brother told was that meta could buy it but anthropic is just not selling it
by wyager | 2025-08-29 13:15:28+00:00
I used to work there, so with the appropriate deference to that Upton Sinclair quote about paychecks:

Market makers like JS vastly increase market liquidity across all sectors, which is required for modern high-efficiency economies to work. McDonalds prices are possible because there's enough liquidity in corn futures.

More abstractly, high market liquidity corresponds to higher-confidence information about the future, which hedge funds generate (and distribute for a low fee via markets), allowing for more impressive planning ahead.

Also, you know how when you buy stocks it doesn't cost you anything and you often get better-than-public-book execution prices? That didn't happen prior to modern electronic market makers. Multiply that efficiency gain by umpteen trades every day.

In general, "being in the business of making money" inherently requires you to do something useful to get paid, to the extent you're not just abusing a principle agent problem or something. The most credible argument for hedge funds making money without doing something useful is that they're doing cantillon effect harvesting or something. I think that's pretty small overall.
by joshcryer | 2025-08-29 13:16:02+00:00
The problem with this is that it destroys any chain of evidence. Tesla "lost" this data, in fact. You would never want your "black box" in your car delete itself after uploading to some service because the service could go down, be hacked, or the provider could decide to withhold it, forcing you into a lengthy discovery / custody battle.

This data is yours. You were going the speed limit when the accident happened and everyone else claims you were speeding. It would take forever to clear your name or worse you could be convicted if the data was lost.

This is more of "you will own nothing" crap. And mainly so Tesla can cover its ass.
by infecto | 2025-08-29 13:16:14+00:00
I’m not being naive or sociopathic here, I’m pointing out how securities law actually functions, at least in the U.S. It’s rarely as cut-and-dry as you suggest. The courts exist precisely to resolve ambiguity, and there’s always some ebb and flow depending on the administration and the legal environment.

Before throwing around labels like “naive” or “sociopath,” it’s worth recognizing that a capitalist system relies on efficient markets, and efficient markets depend on laws being tested and clarified through the courts. That process benefits everyone.

I’m not making an ethical defense of any specific behavior. I’m saying that just because someone benefits from mispricing in a market doesn’t automatically make it unethical. The courts help define those boundaries. If you reject that premise and prefer a system without capitalism, then we’re simply talking past each other.

And for what it’s worth, tossing out loaded terms like “naive” or “sociopath” isn’t exactly an argument, it’s just lazy rhetoric. It’s ok for us to disagree but why use such a lazy argument?
by razemio | 2025-08-29 13:16:17+00:00
That's something different. The problem with the level is, that it only focuses on the attention the human driver needs to give to the automation. In this sense my Kia EV6 is also Level 2/3, same as FSD. However FSD can do so much more than my Kia EV6. That's a fact. Still the same level. Where did Tesla say FSD is SAE Level 5 approved? They would be responsible everytime FSD is active during a crash. Tesla is full self driving with Level 2/3 supervision and in my opinion this is not missleading.

Also "All this demonstrates is the term “full self driving” is meaningless." prooves my point that it is not missleading.
by zeroc8 | 2025-08-29 13:16:30+00:00
Yes, of course, it's not completely dead yet. But very few new native Windows business applications are being written. That's why there are no jobs, no investment, no fresh blood. The old guard is hanging on until they can retire. But that's pretty much it. Which is a shame. Delphi to this day has been my favorite dev environment ever.
by const_cast | 2025-08-29 13:16:31+00:00
Okay they're not going to be learning in real time. Its not like you're getting your data stolen and then getting something out of it - you're not. What you're talking about is context.

Data gathered for training still has to be used in training, i.e. a new model that, presumably, takes months to develop and train.

Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. It won't catch things specific to YOUR workflow, just common stuff across many users.
by MontyCarloHall | 2025-08-29 13:16:31+00:00
Perhaps with the exception of space weapons, none of those would pay Jane Street-tier salaries.

All I'm saying is that I wish our economic system were set up such that people with the mental aptitude to work at a place like Jane Street could earn commensurate salaries for applying that aptitude towards problems with much greater positive externalities than proprietary trading. Alas, it is not so.
by aredox | 2025-08-29 13:16:40+00:00
It is a car. A vehicule which can be involved in a fatal accident. It is not a website. There is no "oversight", nor is it "pretty standard" to do it like that: when you don't think about what your system is actually doing (and that is the most charitable explanation), YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE AS IF YOU HAD DONE IT ON PURPOSE.
by kossTKR | 2025-08-29 13:16:55+00:00
This is why we need actual regulation, and not the semi fascist monopolist corporatocracy we've evolved into now.

Its only utopian because it's become so incredibly bad.

We shouldn't expect less, we shouldn't push guilt or responsibility onto the consumer we should push for more, unless you actively want your neighbour, you mom, and 95% of the population to be in constant trouble with absolutely everything from tech to food safety, chemicals or healthcare - most people aren't rich engineers like on this forum and i don't want to research for 5 hours every time i buy something because some absolute psychopaths have removed all regulation and sensible defaults so someone can party on a yacht.
by Syzygies | 2025-08-29 13:17:10+00:00
Claude assists me in my math research.

The scenario that concerns me is that Claude learns unpublished research ideas from me as we chat and code. Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work.

Clearly commercial accounts use AI to assist in developing intellectual product, and privacy is mandatory. The same can apply to individuals.
by latexr | 2025-08-29 13:17:11+00:00
So far, no one in this thread seems surprised (or is admitting to it). But I genuinely would like to know if someone is surprised. I’d also like to know what lead you to believe this wouldn’t happen and if there’s anyone in the LLM space you’d trust to not pull the same stunt (and why do you still believe that).

I genuinely want to know and would like to have a productive conversation. I would like to identify what made people trust them and not realise they’re the same as every other.
by Aurornis | 2025-08-29 13:17:11+00:00
Why are we linking to Perplexity.ai AI-generated slop summaries of other news articles instead of the actual announcement? Reading the actual announcement is more clear : https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms Some important points:

An in-app notification pop-up will alert you to the change. You can opt out in the pop up.

I was able to opt out right now by going to the Privacy section of Settings.

It doesn’t take effect until September 28th. The app will apparently prompt people to review the new terms and make a decision before then.

Only applies to new or resumed sessions if you do review the new terms and don’t turn it off. The angry comments about collecting data from customers and then later using it without permission are not correct. You would have to accept the new terms and resume an old session for it to be used.

Does not apply to API use, 3rd party services, or products like Claude Gov or Claude for Education.

Changing the link to the actual source instead of this perplexity.ai link would be far more helpful.
by potato3732842 | 2025-08-29 13:18:06+00:00
The zone's #1 job is to buy enough time for the airbags to inflate during a crash at speed. Occupants moving forward toward the space the airbags will occupy as the vehicle stops and then being hit by an airbag attempting to occupy that space would be bad.

The degree to which crumple zones attenuate forces felt in a crash is fairly minimal in low speed crashes because in order to have enough time for airbags to inflate in a 100+mph crash they are necessarily quite stiff.
by infecto | 2025-08-29 13:18:29+00:00
Fair, but let’s be honest: even in your accounting app example, the “value” is ultimately in helping a business capture margin more efficiently. That business, in turn, is usually extracting value as a middleman somewhere else in the chain. Same with ad tech, finance, or even a lot of enterprise software, you’re greasing the gears of profit capture, not curing cancer.

That’s not a moral indictment, just a reminder that most of our jobs (mine included) exist to make capital move faster or stickier. Calling one sector “real products” and another “not benefiting society” is a bit of a convenient fiction.
by felideon | 2025-08-29 13:18:58+00:00
> seems very transparent

Except not:

> The interface design has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, as the large black "Accept" button is prominently displayed while the opt-out toggle appears in smaller text beneath. The toggle defaults to "On," meaning users who quickly click "Accept" without reading the details will automatically consent to data training.

Definitely happened to me as it was late/lazy.
by jacko3d | 2025-08-29 13:19:08+00:00
I’ve been working with Django for years, and authentication is always a headache.

Setting up MFA, social login, brute-force protection, geo-IP lockouts, login alerts, etc. takes days each time. So I built Secure Django Auth — a drop-in authentication system that ships with:

- MFA (email, SMS, authenticator apps) - Social login (Google, more coming) - Account lockouts & rate limiting - IP banning & geo-based lockouts - reCAPTCHA v2/v3 - Login alerts + audit logging - REST API (JWT/token) for frontend/mobile

Live demo: https://app-secure-django-auth.proxieyard.com Docs: https://app-secure-django-auth.proxieyard.com/docs/

I priced it cheaply (€10 one-time) mainly to scratch my own itch and help other Django devs ship faster.

I’d love feedback: - What’s missing for you to use this in production? - Would you prefer open-source core + paid add-ons, or flat pricing? - Any blockers you see to adopting something like this?
by strogonoff | 2025-08-29 13:19:12+00:00
There is a difference between 1) doing something valuable that is then rewarded with money through market mechanics and 2) maximizing money as an end in itself. The former is a great feature of capitalism, the latter is its tragedy and Achilles heel.

In the first case, money is important (if you completely ignore it, you can’t deliver value sustainably), but in a perfect world it should be more like fuel and an indicator that you are doing something right.
by wyager | 2025-08-29 13:19:14+00:00
I can construct even more compelling arguments for the uselessness or active harmfulness of most tech jobs.

The only "actually useful" tech jobs if we're going to consistently apply a bar that excludes finance would be stuff like aerospace R&D or ERM systems. Which, to be clear, I would love if society incentivized more strongly. But finance is hardly the worst offender here.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-08-29 13:20:38+00:00
As long as you can opt-out it doesn't bother me much. Though it does make me wonder those third party clients that people subscribe to e.g. JetBrains AI, Zed, and others that use Claude and other Anthropic models, do they opt-in for you? Because that would be bad.

I would strongly argue that API clients should NEVER be opted in for these sorts of things, and it should be like this industry wide.
by Aurornis | 2025-08-29 13:20:42+00:00
From the actual source ( https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms ) they’re going to show a pop-up with the terms change. I triggered it now by going to the Privacy settings page and reviewing the new terms.

It’s quite clear. It’s easy to opt out. They’re making everyone go through it.

It doesn’t reach your threshold of having everyone sign a contract or something, but then again no other online service makes people sign contracts.

> should be considered a serious criminal offense.

On what grounds? They’re showing people the terms. It’s clear enough. People have to accept the terms. We’ve all been accepting terms for software and signing up for things online for decades.
by IAmBroom | 2025-08-29 13:21:08+00:00
If your watermelons look like [1], you are a bad gardener. Mine look supermarket-ready.

And I've never heard of a feral chicken. How do they survive? And where? They are a fully domesticated species, with almost no defences. Flying 8' up to a branch is a major effort for them. My neighbor loses about half of them each year to predators, and they are kept in a coop at night.
by wat10000 | 2025-08-29 13:22:10+00:00
One of Tesla’s things is that their software is built by software people rather than by car people. This has advantages and disadvantages.

Maybe this is not appropriate for a car, but that doesn’t excuse the ridiculous breathless tone in the quoted text. It’s the worst purple prose making a boring system sound exciting and nefarious. They could have made your point without trying to make the unlink() call sound suspicious.
by currymj | 2025-08-29 13:23:01+00:00
i found the ToS change to be surprisingly not a dark pattern.

in fact, i haven’t agreed to it yet, and was able to close the popup and continue using Claude. they also made it extremely clear how to opt out, providing the switch right in the popup and reminding me it’s also in settings.

when i eventually do have to agree to the ToS changes, i’ll probably just stay opted out.