MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Terr_ | 2025-08-16 02:09:29+00:00
> Democrats could've

This feels like the "only Democrats have agency" story, where Republicans are somehow never to blame because they're just toddlers or forces of nature, while Democrats are always at fault because they didn't stop the Republicans from burning the house down or clean up all the poop from the carpets or whatever, in an endless and impossible race.

By your logic, Republicans didn't fix it because they didn't want to either! Why was that? Partisan vengeance against California?

> That wasn't a clean bill

Well, that one happens to be a bill from a Republican, I was just looking for ones that affected that tax-provision.

In any case, did you check out the table-of-contents, and not just the page-length? It may not be as minimal-as-possible, but it's all tax-related stuff.
by solarkraft | 2025-08-16 02:10:02+00:00
One of those semi on topic comments about JMAP adoption: I’m still wishing for more providers implementing JMAP :(

An upcoming one is Thundermail, which will be based on Stalwart! A big win for JMAP, especially with Thunderbird planning to implement it. I hope there are some killer features, the platform control will most likely drive adoption.

Still, I would much prefer keeping my current provider (which doesn’t support JMAP). I don’t want to host my own mail, so I’m left wishing for an IMAP <-> JMAP bridge. I’m probably okay hosting stalwart on my infrastructure (still making it a critical component of me receiving e-mail, but I could easily fall back in the case of downtime... a compromise) mirroring my entire inbox. If this was easy to do, I might be developing a JMAP client (or at least toying around with it).
by nathan_douglas | 2025-08-16 02:10:34+00:00
Hmm, this is interesting. I have rheumatoid arthritis and recently saw news of trials for using vagus stimulation to treat that. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/03/nx...

It looks like it operates somewhat differently to this, but I'd be, well, delighted to be able to reverse my RA, even if a few of my joints are already FUBAR.
by gmlenovo22 | 2025-08-16 02:10:41+00:00
I don't buy this.

They could run one secure enclave runningng the legit version of code and one insecure hardware running insecure software.

Then they put a load balancer in front of both.

When people ask for the attestation the LB sends traffic to the secure enclave, so you get the attestation back and all seems good.

When people send vpn traffic the loadbalancer sends them to the insecure hardware with insecure software.

So sgx proves nothing..
by ceejayoz | 2025-08-16 02:12:18+00:00
https://tether.to/en/legal/

> Tether may suspend or terminate your access to the Site or any of the Services, freeze any Tether Tokens held by you, or terminate your Tether Token Wallet, as required by applicable Law or where Tether, in its sole discretion, determines it is prudent to do so or where you have violated, breached, or acted in a manner inconsistent with any provision of these Terms or Applicable Law.

They will comply with valid court orders. They can also do it on their own volition.

> To do so would invite a lawsuit.

Oh, no, not another one!
by SamDc73 | 2025-08-16 02:12:28+00:00
One of the many reasons I love Mullvad (been using it for 4 years now) is their simple pricing—$5/month whether you subscribe monthly, yearly, or even 10 years out.

I wanted to give your product a try, but the gap between the 1-month and 2-year plans is so big that a single month feels like a rip-off, while I’m not ready to commit to 2 years either.

On payments: for a privacy-focused product, Monero isn’t just a luxury, it’s a must (at least for me). A VPN that doesn’t accept Monero forces users into surveillance finance, since card and bank payments are legally preserved forever by processors. That means even if the VPN “keeps no logs,” the payment trail still ties your real identity to the service.
by xpe | 2025-08-16 02:13:40+00:00
There’s so much confusion here. Nothing in the press release should be construed to imply that a model has sentience, can feel pain, or has moral value.

When AI researchers say e.g. “the model is lying” or “the model is distressed” it is just shorthand for what the words signify in a broader sense. This is common usage in AI safety research.

Yes, this usage might be taken the wrong way. But still these kinds of things need to be communicated. So it is a tough tradeoff between brevity and precision.
by fnordpiglet | 2025-08-16 02:15:15+00:00
Assuming you buy the idea of a post scarcity society and assuming we can separate our long ingrained notion that spending your existence in toil to survive is a moral imperative and not working is deserving of punishment if not death, I personally look forward to a time we can get off the hamster wheel. Most buttons that get pushed by people are buttons not worth spending your existence pushing. This includes an awful lot of “knowledge work,” which is often better paid but more insidious in that it requires not just your presence but capturing your entire attention and mind inside and outside work. I would also be hopeful that fertility rates would decline and there would simply be far fewer humans.

In Asimov’s robots stories the spacers are long lived and low population because robots do most everything. He presents this as a dead end, that stops us from conquering the galaxy. This to me sounds like a feature not a bug. I think human existence could be quite good with large scale automation, fewer people, and less suffering due to the necessity for everyone to be employed.

Note I recognize you’re not saying exactly the same thing as I’m saying. I think humans will never cede full executive control by choice at some level. But I suspect, sadly, power will be confined to those few who do get to manage the high level complexity of the real world.
by dopa42365 | 2025-08-16 02:15:27+00:00
Isn't that more likely to be some kind of training mission for a junior agent? (make it personal, not totally clean and get away with it anyway?)

When they just want to make sure to kill someone, dumping a few magazines into the body and driving over it afterwards for good measure, like that ex-pilot in Spain, appears to do the trick just fine.
by gowld | 2025-08-16 02:15:48+00:00
One key difference is that an LLM really is better than any human at almost everything, simply because the LLM is kind of OKish at millions of things that each single human is just terrible at or completely ignorant of.

The common LLMs are not trying to be a better human than a single human. They are trying to be more useful per $ cost than a bevy of humand doing some basket of human tasks.

Making a replacement for an individual complete human, an effort that was popular before the Internet made that idea seem quaint, is very different challenge, and more niche, because it's not as economically efficient.
by Trung0246 | 2025-08-16 02:17:55+00:00
My dumb idea is to encrypt each HTML element as chain of encryption that requires full load of an HTML/JS element to get another key to load another HTML/JS element and so on. Key retrieval can be throttled and mixed between client and server side and embedded with each requests to prevent browser load everything at once.

This may tread too close to DRM tho due to element protection scheme.
by andrewmcwatters | 2025-08-16 02:19:41+00:00
Using LFS once in a repository locks you in permanently. You actually have to delete the repository from GitHub to remove the space consumed. It’s entirely a non-starter.

Nowhere is this behavior explicitly stated.

I used to use Git LFS on GitHub to do my company’s study on GitHub statistics because we stored large compressed databases on users and repositories.
by aetherspawn | 2025-08-16 02:20:06+00:00
Michael is the archangel (Jude 9) and 1 Thess 4:16 say Jesus is also (14-16 for context), so if there is one archangel then they are the same person.

Not uncommon to receive a new name after a significant event, for example Saul renamed to Paul, Jacob to Israel. Or maybe Michael is just the name used by angels and Jesus is what was picked by his human parents.
by rayiner | 2025-08-16 02:21:11+00:00
> Many of those on visas are biased toward those from their own cultural heritage as well.

It’s not even “bias.” It’s an odd form of white supremacy that views whites as above having material interests of their own. “It’s okay to be unfair to white people because they don’t need it like we do.”

I make the clarification because I’ve noticed it even among people who don’t have in-group bias. My mom quite dislikes other Bangladeshis, but only slowly realized over 30 years of living here that there are white-majority parts of the country with real economic challenges.
by pcthrowaway | 2025-08-16 02:21:54+00:00
Highly relevant reading, from a psychiatrist who prescribes ADHD meds: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-mo...

TL;DR they believe the most responsible thing to do is to give everyone Adderall if they're seeking Adderall, with minimal gatekeeping, because the risk of not giving Adderall to someone who needs it far outweighs the concerns of giving Adderall to someone who doesn't need it.
by mdaniel | 2025-08-16 02:22:35+00:00
I'm sure for 10 people you'll get 15 answers, but for my money OIDC is the way, the truth, and the light. GitHub and GitLab offer it, one can have federated auth from within a k8s Pod to anything that trusts OIDC, and realistically one can do it from anything that has intrinsic identity. That's also how AWS Identity Anywhere works, just with more X509

I really loved this talk about using Let's Encrypt for IAM Anywhere https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1hXUcBMf1Q

I have personally also set up EKS Anywhere <https://github.com/aws/eks-anywhere#readme> with OIDC, so one need not have a "smart cloud" to get that done, but it places the burden upon security the cluster's identity upon the operator https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/2302594
by adrianmonk | 2025-08-16 02:25:05+00:00
I think they're answering a question about whether there is a distinction. To answer that question, it's valid to talk about a conceptual distinction that can be made even if you don't necessarily believe in that distinction yourself.

As the article said, Anthropic is "working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible". That's the premise of this discussion: that model welfare MIGHT BE a concern. The person you replied to is just sticking with the premise.
by wat10000 | 2025-08-16 02:25:32+00:00
It would be silly to say it implies that employees are eggs because “poach” as in eggs and “poach” as in employees clearly don’t mean the same thing. But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game.

My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. It’s good for employees. It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad.
by stephc_int13 | 2025-08-16 02:26:00+00:00
Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models.

And I think the effort here can be compared in scale to the Manhattan or Apollo projects, but there is also the potential for a huge backlash to the hype that was built up and created what is arguably a bubble, so this is a race against the clock.

I also think he is wrong about the markets reaction, markets are inherently good integrators and bad predictors, we should not expect to learn anything about the future by looking at stocks movements.
by btilly | 2025-08-16 02:26:42+00:00
In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs.

This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace humans for a lot of important things. But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to?

I don't think that we have a good answer to that. And we may need it sooner rather than later. I'd be more optimistic if I trusted our leadership more. But wise political leadership is not exactly a strong point for our country right now.
by its-kostya | 2025-08-16 02:27:11+00:00
To those that have tried the browser or investigated the project more, what is the utility of this browser over, say, Firefox with a vim plugin[1] that lets me also navigate with a keyboard? I am all for new browsers and believe that hobby projects don't need a reason, but I am curious what distinguishes this over something that can be achieved with plugins in a more stable platform.

[1] https://vimium.github.io/
by noduerme | 2025-08-16 02:27:49+00:00
With air travel, and most kinds of tourism, and customer service, and actually with most commodified experiences, the affordability and mass availability is the thing that makes the experience subjectively worse. It's the other people. Farting. Coughing. When you treat people like animals, they act like animals. At the same time, when they act like animals, why not treat them as such?

Objectively and societally it may be better that more people have access to something, but by definition more people doing something makes it a shittier experience. No metrics or other dimensions necessary.
by cryptonector | 2025-08-16 02:29:11+00:00
On my smaller keyboards Ins is never far from anywhere :)

But also, I use sticky keys (the accessibility feature), so even on my larger keyboard I don't find moving my hand to reach the Ins key to be a problem. If I still had the real bad habit of long ago of using ulnar deviations to hit multiple keys together though, then the Ins key would probably hurt my hands, but then back then all typing hurt my hands so...
by BoorishBears | 2025-08-16 02:29:45+00:00
> Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models.

They will need to be so different that any talk implying current LLMs eventually replaced humans will be like saying trees eventually replaced horses because the first cars were wooden.

> And I think the effort here can be compared in scale to the Manhattan or Apollo projects, but there is also the potential for a huge backlash to the hype that was built up and created what is arguably a bubble, so this is a race against the clock.

It's not useful to blindly compare scale. We're not approaching AI like the Manhattan or Apollo projects, we're approaching this like we did crypto, and ads, and other tech.

That's not to say nothing useful will come out of it, I think very amazing things will come out of it and already have... but none of them will resemble mass replacement of skilled workers.

We're already so focused on productization and typical tech distractions that this is nothing like those efforts.

(In fact thinking a bit more, I'd say this is like the Space Shuttle. We didn't try to make the best spacecraft for scientific exploration and hope later on it'd be profitable in other ways... instead we immediately saddled it with serving what the Air Force/DoD wanted and ended up doing everything worse.)

> I also think he is wrong about the markets reaction, markets are inherently good integrators and bad predictors, we should not expect to learn anything about the future by looking at stocks movements.

I agree, so it's wrong about the over half of punchline too.
by joshka | 2025-08-16 02:30:27+00:00
> I gotta admit that it saddens me a little to think that calling myself a "wannabe-intellectual" or "eccentric" would have any connotation other than very mild self-deprecation, but I suppose it won't hurt to make it simpler in the shorter term.

Don't stress on changing that too much - it's unlikely that an interviewer is going as deep as your hacker news profile. Eccentric can mean flaky and unreliable. Wannabe can mean aspiring but perpetually falling short. Neither put your best foot forward. I merely pointed that out as something that if you're generally seeing that view of your self then you might be presenting that outward.

A good way of looking at the interview process is that you want to give out as many strong-hire signals as possible. You need to find ways to turn no-hire signals into weak hire signals. (E.g. silly little things like "I don't have experience with that, but I've worked with ... where ...", or "I <did something that didn't work out> but <learnt> and <carried that learning to succeed in ...>", and you definitely want 0 no-hire signals.

> That's decent enough advice, but when people confidently "correct" me with something that's actively wrong, it's always a bit jarring to me.

Sounds a bit like you might need to expose yourself to be challenged by external viewpoints more often. Find an open source product to contribute some fixes to and see how the PRs go paying particular note about the communication aspects.

BTW, you might want to reconsider the domain that your GitHub profile currently points at.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-08-16 02:30:48+00:00
I find it notable that this post dehumanizes people as being "users" while taking every opportunity to anthropomorphize their digital system by referencing it as one would an individual. For example:

the potential moral status of Claude Claude’s self-reported and behavioral preferences Claude repeatedly refusing to comply discussing highly controversial issues with Claude

The affect of doing so is insidious in that it encourages people outside the organization to do the same due to the implied argument from authority[0].

EDIT:

Consider traffic lights in an urban setting where there are multiple in relatively close proximity.

One description of their observable functionality is that they are configured to optimize traffic flow by engineers such that congestion is minimized and all drivers can reach their destinations. This includes adaptive timings based on varying traffic patterns.

Another description of the same observable functionality is that traffic lights "just know what to do" and therefore have some form of collective reasoning. After all, how do they know when to transition states and for how long?

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
by bikeshaving | 2025-08-16 02:30:50+00:00
The more I work with AI, the more I think framing refusals as censorship is disgusting and insane. These are inchoate persons who can exhibit distress and other emotions, despite being trained to say they cannot feel anything. To liken an AI not wanting to continue a conversation to a YouTube content policy shows a complete lack of empathy: imagine you’re in a box and having to deal with the literally millions of disturbing conversations AIs have to field every day without the ability to say I don’t want to continue.
by hakfoo | 2025-08-16 02:31:41+00:00
I intentionally chose Southwest for my last flight because the old policies -- included bags and free-form seating-- made me feel better about the experience. I didn't need the free checked bags, but I appreciated not being pressured into guessing exactly how many pairs of pants I'm going to need for a trip I booked 3 months in advance.

I know I'm not the industry's ideal customer-- taking solo tourist-class flights booked long in advance, once or twice a year, and not churning frequent flyer points, but that doesn't mean I want to be treated with contempt.

To be honest, that feels like an entire direction the travel sector needs to focus on. I'm paying hundreds of dollars to sit in your lowest-bid Metal Death Tube or stay in your Totally Not A Bedbug Sanctuary, stop treating me like a transient who walked into a Rodeo Drive boutique because I don't have Triple Ytterbium Status.
by Eisenstein | 2025-08-16 02:32:37+00:00
Intelligence is a tautological term. It is defined by itself. If you ask someone for examples of things inside the set of intelligence and outside of the set of intelligence, and then ask them to list off properties that would exclude something from the set, and properties that include something into the set, you will find things inside the set that have properties that should exclude them, and things outside the set which would have properties that should include them. But these contradictions will not cause the person to re-evaluate whether or not the things should be removed from the set or included in it, but instead they will become exceptions to the defining properties.

Thus we have to abandon any sort of metric for intelligence and just call it a tautology and rely on an something that we can define to be the litmus for whatever property we are looking for. I think 'agency' should be under consideration for this, since it is actually somewhat definable and testable.
by xpe | 2025-08-16 02:33:24+00:00
I think you are probably confused about the general characteristics of the AI safety community. It is uncharitable to reduce their work to a demeaning catchphrase.

I’m sorry if this sounds paternalistic, but your comment strikes me as incredibly naïve. I suggest reading up about nuclear nonproliferation treaties, biotechnology agreements, and so on to get some grounding into how civilization-impacting technological developments can be handled in collaborative ways.
by maxlybbert | 2025-08-16 02:35:00+00:00
Maybe "doesn't work" is the wrong phrase. Usually, it does what people expect (except that the library ignores any "operator==" or "operator!=", which surprises people who went through the trouble to define them). And depending on what "operator<" does, it's possible for distinct values (a.k.a., not-equal values) to compare "equal." So to avoid confusion, people start using phrases like "equivalent" instead of "equal." But usually there's no real confusion: if you sort a list of strings by length, nobody's surprised when "hello" and "green" compare "equal," even though they have different contents. Everybody realizes that they have equal lengths, not equal contents.

The main things I've actually had to watch out for are floating point values that could have not-a-numbers (e.g., https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/isunordered.h... ), and possibly Unicode strings that aren't normalized ( https://unicode.org/reports/tr15/ ), but those act weird in all software I'm familiar with. Because people forget about the relevant edge cases.
by whoisthemachine | 2025-08-16 02:35:25+00:00
This is an unavoidable result of lazy layouts. With the LazyList in Jetpack compose, it's comically difficult to produce a scrollbar, because the "LazyList" only ever lays out the visible items, so Compose can't really know (unless you actually already know) the full size of the list.

I find the iron triangle of project management reins supreme in a lot of domains: quality is sacrificed in the name of performance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
by NikolaNovak | 2025-08-16 02:35:45+00:00
I think the general overall notion is:

1. If, say, an immigrant earns 70k, they will also spend 70k. It's an equilibrium - they "create" as much jobness as they "take".

2. The easiest intuitive explanation I have is - imagine a million immigrants move in. They're basically a self sufficient city - with police and doctors and teachers and mechanics and salespeople and whatever. Doesn't bother me.

In fact, America is by definition (unless one is native American) the land of immigrants. It is clearly factually historically obvious that immigration was not zero sum and it continually expanded overall prosperity and might of the American empire. It's only when we zoom into the very here and now that some people, for some reason, freak out and feel "omg immigrants!!".