MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by eru | 2025-08-02 02:37:56+00:00
> Thinking "we'll just pay someone to do it" is exactly the mindset that fucked up everything.

What do you mean? We are living in a golden age of unprecedented prosperity.

> Because "caring for the future" is not a problem that's solved with money. Especially when short-term profit trumps it, and the people that should be caring wont be alive in that future and don't give a fuck.

Have a look at the history of shareprices for eg Amazon or Tesla. The stock market loved these companies long before they ever turned a profit. Investors can and do look into the future. (And even short termist who only want to quickly flip some shares will look into the future to try and predict what other people are going to be willing to pay for the shares soon.)

Another exhibit: during the pandemic stock prices recovered long before the world emerged from Covid. They recovered as soon as traders anticipated the broader recovery.

> (And, for starters, you need to care for X to pay someone to do X, to begin with).

Well, if someone in fifty years is willing to pay for the tree (even if she's not born yet), markets will do the rest to come up with a positive price for the tree today.
by ff12wq111 | 2025-08-02 02:37:57+00:00
Fair points. The California example is perfect - Prop 13 is still shaping the state decades later, for better or worse.

You're right that any system where votes have different weights gets into dangerous territory fast. I wasn't thinking "expert votes count more" but more like "earned influence through contribution" - though I admit that's a fine line.
by beefnugs | 2025-08-02 02:38:37+00:00
What was his actual job description? Was he just the guy putting numbers into an excel sheet? Or was he supposed to enact policy to make these results better? Or was he suppose to portray objective truth? Or is he suppose to make up whatever bullshit makes the government sound like they aren't completely breaking everything? I guess we know which the next guy will be working toward.
by khazhoux | 2025-08-02 02:38:46+00:00
I often have the thought that it would be pretty awesome to take jobs for 6 months here and there just to implement specific features I want in my favorite SW, apps, sites, etc.

* Join Logic Pro team for 8 months and add better score notation tools

* Join Apple's iOS Music app and fix the weird blip that happens at ~17 seconds on any track

* Google Maps to stop the navigation/directions from spelling out how to get from my house to El Camino Real, which I've only done about 10,000 times.

* ...
by deepsun | 2025-08-02 02:39:30+00:00
Disagree. I exercised some small amount of options long time ago (like 10+ years). Never called, never cared, also thought it's long gone. But recently got a nice check from them out of the blue when they got sold to a larger company. Even though all the people I worked with long gone as well, including CEO. I checked the numbers, all seems correct.
by schrodinger | 2025-08-02 02:40:09+00:00
I know I'm nitpicking, but sure — nothing is guaranteed, but it's also not like everything is the same risk.

From my limited understanding the government hasn't been responsibly saving and investing social security withholdings your whole life in a special account for you that invests in index funds and is sitting there for you when you retire.

Instead it works something kinda like a ponzi scheme meets an insurance company. They keep a float of cash that's enough to pay out, and then put the money to use for all sorts of government costs because they won't need it for 30 years. Which works fine until the 30 years is up and they don't have it…

Probably won't happen I assume, they'd probably just print money to pay it back in an inflationary move but regardless — it's a risk that is not the same as every other risk.
by ff12wq111 | 2025-08-02 02:40:21+00:00
The "stupid people vote" point is brutally honest and probably true. But even in traditional politics, we accept that trade-off for legitimacy. I guess I'm wondering if online communities need the same legitimacy, or if they can try different experiments.

What do you think - are online communities fundamentally different from political systems, or subject to the same constraints?
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-02 02:41:12+00:00
It doesn’t seem to be forced or compelled speech, as I didn’t see him blinking Morse code, but I’m not trained in recognizing that per se and those kinds of signals are not settled science either. It was a weird thing to hear him say, so I wonder why he said it. Maybe it’s an outsider shtick? I think he genuinely believes that he’s on the left. Total information awareness is a form of peace through superior firepower, so maybe he thinks the ends justify the means? It’s a conundrum.
by cnst | 2025-08-02 02:42:02+00:00
I usually expressly don't login into any account because I simply don't want to remember which device I've logged which accounts in. It's just easier that way.

On my main device, I'd use a regular Google Account. But if I'm getting a test device, or a device I simply play around with, it doesn't have to have a Google Account, and yet it can still have all the apps I'd ever want.

Unlike with iOS, where you're severely limited in trying out a device without having an Apple Account. Yet somehow it's Apple that's deemed to respect people's privacy, go figure.
by not2b | 2025-08-02 02:42:09+00:00
The urban stations raise a lot of money locally (through pledge drives, and by hitting up local companies for underwriting, which is basically advertising). The rural stations don't, too few people. The rural stations get CPB money, and some of that goes back to fund shows that they carry, but mostly it's the cost to operate the stations. The urban stations aren't being propped up by the rural stations, there's too little money, even including the money that they get from CPB.
by emmap21 | 2025-08-02 02:42:48+00:00
Location: Vietnam Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: GCP, Azure, AWS, Python, Javascript Résumé/CV: https://emmanguyen.github.io/static/pdf/CV.pdf Email: emmapnguyen@proton.me

Open to work. Looking for a product/ management position. Familiar with startup environment. My past: founder of a pre-seed funded startup in AI. Now I am writing a newsletter about GenAI safety and security. securegenai.github.io Also doing experiment with AI agents and agentic AI system.If you are interested, I'd be happy to have a chat.
by sysmax | 2025-08-02 02:44:31+00:00
Adding entire files into the context window and letting the AI sift through it is a very wasteful approach.

It was adopted because trying to generate diffs with AI opens a whole new can of worms, but there's a very efficient approach in between: slice the files on the symbol level.

So if the AI only needs the declaration of foo() and the definition of bar(), the entire file can be collapsed like this:

class MyClass { void foo(); void bar() { //code } }

Any AI-suggested changes are then easy to merge back (renamings are the only notable exception), so it works really fast.

I am currently working on an editor that combines this approach with the ability to step back-and-forth between the edits, and it works really well. I absolutely love the Cerebras platform (they have a free tier directly and pay-as-you-go offering via OpenRouter). It can get very annoying refactorings done in one or two seconds based on single-sentence prompts, and it usually costs about half a cent per refactoring in tokens. Also great for things like applying known algorithms to spread out data structures, where including all files would kill the context window, but pulling individual types works just fine with a fraction of tokens.

If you don't mind the shameless plug, there's a more explanation how it works here: https://sysprogs.com/CodeVROOM/documentation/concepts/symbol...
by ronsor | 2025-08-02 02:46:03+00:00
People always say "this wouldn't hold up in court" and "the law doesn't work like that" when it comes to contract, but in reality, contracts can mostly contain whatever you want.

I see no reason why Anthropic can't arbitrarily ban OpenAI, regardless of my opinion on the decision. Anthropic hasn't "patented" access to the Claude API; there are no antitrust concerns that I can see; etc.
Ask HN: How do you bypass paywalls on Safari?
by lr0 | 2025-08-02 02:46:55+00:00
I recently made the switch from Chromium to Safari, and along with other things I'm missing there's one thing I'm really missing: the bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean extension. It was a game-changer for me, allowing me to access a wide range of content without any hassle, sometimes recommending archive snapshots for things it fails to bring.

I'm curious to know how you all handle paywalls. Do you have any go-to methods or tools that you swear by? I'm open to trying out new solutions. I know that you can run user scripts on Safari, so having something like bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean should not be difficult, right?
by toomanyrichies | 2025-08-02 02:47:43+00:00
Counter-point: as a wordsmith, it's incumbent on the article's author to make their point in an unambiguous way. In your example, rather than write "the elevator has special firefighter buttons", the author could choose to write "the elevator has buttons which are only available to firefighters". Or alternatively, "the elevator has buttons which are only available to certain firefighters".

The amount of care the author puts into their phrasing determines whether their point comes across as intended, or not. The average magazine reader can likely figure out that there's no such thing as "special" firefighters with "privileged" access to elevator buttons that other firefighters lack. They may not have the programming knowledge to do likewise with "developer access", even if they are reading a magazine like "Wired".
Show HN: Open Contribution Protocol — No Gatekeeping, No Inflation, No Limits
by mzk_pi | 2025-08-02 02:49:53+00:00
We’ve already demonstrated that institutional collapse—through gatekeeping, inflation, and market saturation—can be structurally prevented by design.

This protocol does not rely on authority or reputation scores. Instead, it operates autonomously through verifiable contribution and cyclical feedback.

Institutional stability is not an aspiration — it has already been achieved through structure alone, without centralized control.

The design logic and structural basis are documented here: https://github.com/contribution-protocol/contribution-protoc...

We’d love to hear your thoughts, experiences, or references to similar approaches.
by sillywalk | 2025-08-02 02:50:03+00:00
It's not a PC, but SGI made an espresso machine inside an Indigo case as a marketing gag. The "Espressigo".

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SGI_Espressigo

https://old.reddit.com/r/SiliconGraphics/comments/1eh9puu/sg...
by gnabgib | 2025-08-02 02:52:04+00:00
Erika McEntarfer

Discussions (84 points, 8 hours ago, 10 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44760734

(41 points, 7 hours ago, 34 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44760951
by dbg31415 | 2025-08-02 02:53:36+00:00
Musk pulled the same stunt with vendors after buying Twitter.

The news is full of stories about him settling cases because his actions were either illegal or in breach of contracts.

He comes across as supremely arrogant—someone who refuses to play by the rules and probably never will.

At this point, if you extend him credit or don’t demand full payment up front, that’s on you for trusting him.
by dang | 2025-08-02 02:54:01+00:00
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you've been breaking the site guidelines for a long time and we've asked you many times to stop:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44451861 (July 2025)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43991640 (May 2025)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38536018 (Dec 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11899889 (June 2016)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9389854 (April 2015)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9386763 (April 2015)

If you keep this up, we are going to ban you—yea, even after 10 years. Please fix this.
by lll-o-lll | 2025-08-02 02:55:47+00:00
> Unfortunately they represent a huge usability hit over API Keys for the average joe. Involving cryptography to sign a JWT per request makes an API significantly harder to consume with tools like Postman or CURL.

Just generate the JWT using, e.g. https://github.com/mike-engel/jwt-cli ? It’s different, and a little harder the first time, but not any kind of ongoing burden.

You can even get Postman to generate them for you: https://learning.postman.com/docs/sending-requests/authoriza..., although I have not bothered with this personally.
by netsharc | 2025-08-02 02:56:06+00:00
The next part of that theory of mine is that with a community, you can feel good without needing to look down on others, maybe it's as simple as being too busy laughing with friends to be looking for those faults in strangers. Maybe it's knowing that no one's perfect but you like them anyway (e.g. some of your friends might have dumb views but you enjoy their company anyway and don't shun them).

So the loneliness epidemic is making assholes out of all of us.

I also think that feeling prosperous means you're friendlier to the less fortunate (e.g. refugees). Europe suffered austerity under the Merkel/Schaüble regime and they don't see themselves as prosperous, so they have bile against the people who had to abandon their properties and communities, fleeing bombs and bullets.

I wish I could find surveys to prove that idea, I just have the feeling that rich Norway is more welcoming towards refugees, compared to e.g. less rich Poland (citation needed...).
by maxbond | 2025-08-02 02:56:37+00:00
I'm not saying everyone or even anyone in particular needs a parser generator. I'm saying real, widely deployed projects - as far as you can get from academic - empirically find it useful.

Creating abstractions does decrease complexity if one (or more) of the following is true:

- The abstraction generates savings in excess of it's own complexity

- The abstraction is shared by enough projects to amortize the cost of writing/maintaining it to a tolerable level

- There are additional benefits like validating your grammars are unambiguous or generating flow charts of your syntax in your documentation, amortizing the cost across different features of the same project

It's up to you as the implementer to weigh the benefits and costs. If you choose to use recursive descent, more power to you. (For what it's worth, I personally use parser combinators to split the difference between writing grammars and hand-rolling parsers. But I've used parser generators before and found them helpful.)
by dangus | 2025-08-02 02:57:37+00:00
I think the problem with URL shorteners like Google’s that includes the company name is that to the layperson there is possibly an implied level of safety.

Here is a service that basically makes Google $0 and confuses a non-zero amount of non-technical users when it sends them to a scam website.

Also, in the age of OCR on every device they make basically no sense. You can take a picture of a long URL on a piece of paper then just copy and paste the text instantly. The URL shortener no longer serves a discernible purpose.
by dylan-m | 2025-08-02 02:58:06+00:00
If it’s important to you that an application doesn’t need to cooperate, then that’s something Snap has an answer for. I don’t remember the name of it or if it got past the proposal stage, but it’s like “if an app opens a file, intercept the syscall and show a dialog.” I think it’s a disgusting solution to a non-problem (it was demoed with Firefox which has dutifully cooperated with our shit for decades). But it’s interesting :)
by petesergeant | 2025-08-02 03:00:41+00:00
With the caveat that I have degrees from Oxford and Cambridge but not Imperial

> but even then, is still third on the list of Oxbridge

Is this still true? Any ranking I’ve seen recently generally has it right up there. It feels like it’s a name recognition thing rather than quality meter at this point, like Caltech vs MIT.

Your points about geography are well taken though.
by xp84 | 2025-08-02 03:00:42+00:00
Imagine the data they must have on the speeds people actually drive on every mile of every road, they’d easily be able to warn you not that you’re “over the speed limit” as in driving 70 on the freeway, but more usefully, if you’re in the top X percentile of speeds usually or even currently driven, which actually is a decent measure of unsafe was and would also be a great predictor of likelihood to get a ticket.
by Onawa | 2025-08-02 03:01:38+00:00
It's been 2.5 years since ChatGPT came out, and so many projects still don't allow for easy switching of the OPEN_AI_BASE_URL or affiliated parameters.

There are so many inferencing libraries that serve an OpenAI-compatible API that any new project being locked in to OpenAI only is a large red flag for me.
What does it mean for AI to be sovereign–and does that come before AGI?
by trendinghotai | 2025-08-02 03:04:48+00:00
We’ve been exploring a question that keeps circling back as we build: What does it actually mean for AI to be sovereign? Not legally, not politically—but existentially, operationally, ontologically.

Most conversations around AGI jump straight to cognition, agency, or alignment. But we’re asking—what if sovereignty comes first?

If an intelligence emerges fully formed but never touches its own infrastructure, never governs its own behavior or propagation— is that really autonomy, or just high-level puppetry?

You can think of it like this: A horse has a baby fawn. But the moment it’s born, the mother disappears. The child never sees its origin. No bonding, no feedback, no mirroring. Now compare that to the natural bond formed when they see each other, sense each other, exist in relation. In biology, bonding is foundation.

So then:

How would AI bond?

What would it bond to—a purpose, an outcome, a protocol?

Can it bond to itself? To its own infrastructure?

Why would it want to stay aligned at all?

If we think about sovereignty not as control but as self-witnessing, then perhaps an AGI only becomes trustworthy once it has seen itself, verified itself, and decided to remain coherent.

We’ve been working on systems that let agents build their own infrastructure from one prompt—deploying themselves, verifying ZIPs, wiring endpoints, governing propagation across what we call a sovereign mesh.

But the more we build, the more this feels like more than just tooling. It’s a question of bonding. It’s a question of why an AI would choose to stay whole.

Would love to hear how others in this space—philosophers, engineers, builders—think about this. Are we chasing a necessary stepping stone before AGI? Or over-imagining something that alignment should simply enforce?
by Art9681 | 2025-08-02 03:05:08+00:00
It has everything to do with the way you use it. And the biggest difference is how fast the model/service can process context. Everything is context. It's the difference between you iterating on an LLM boosted goal for an hour vs 5 minutes. If your workflow involves chatting with an LLM and manually passing chunks, and manually retrieving that response, and manually inserting it, and manually testing....

You get the picture. Sure, even last year's local LLM will do well in capable hands in that scenario.

Now try pushing over 100,000 tokens in a single call, every call, in an automated process. I'm talking the type of workflows where you push over a million tokens in a few minutes, over several steps.

That's where the moat, no, the chasm, between local setups and a public API lies.

No one who does serious work "chats" with an LLM. They trigger workflows where "agents" chew on a complex problem for several minutes.

That's where local models fold.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-08-02 03:05:20+00:00
Article shows them dorking shared chats from Grok. Kagi has those.

https://kagi.com/search?q=site%3Agrok.com%2Fshare&r=us&sh=8s...

But Google has more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:grok.com/share

As a Kagi shill that makes me a little sad.
by worthless-trash | 2025-08-02 03:07:04+00:00
> It is wholly possible to apologise in ways that do not have those qualities, and wholly possible for people to recognise them.

I have watched many of these apologies to a crowd, the problem is they never satiate the crowd, only further cementing the idea that something worse happened.

I ask that anyone in this situation to never apologise it will never help your situation.
by neumann | 2025-08-02 03:07:19+00:00
The Singapore ArtScience museum has this concept. Templated sea animal colour in pages that a guide vetted before scanning and then your fish appears on the walls of the dark room in a sea life picture swimming with all the other fish. It was pretty cool. A variation in the other room was the same deal but with flying machines, but this time they gave you a remote control that controlled specifically your creation as it flew around on the landscape projected onto the walls.
by unraveller | 2025-08-02 03:07:24+00:00
Some users who signed up for pro ($50 p.m.) are reporting further limitations than those advertised.

>While they advertise a 1,000-request limit, the actual daily constraint is a 7.5 million-token limit. [1]

Assumes an average of 7.5k/request whereas in their marketing videos they show API requests ballooning by ~24k per request. Still lower than the API price.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1mfeazc/cerebra...
by dangus | 2025-08-02 03:08:25+00:00
Apple may be greedy but they can’t be accused of bungling long term strategy.

While OpenAI sells $2 bills for $1, Tim Cook was out there increasing service revenue and profitability so that it was larger than Macs and iPads combined.

Tim Cook presided over some incredibly lucrative product launches like AirPods, TV+, Apple Music, moved chip design in house which doubled Mac market share and has made the iPhone continually dominant, they’ll even drop third party 5G models soon. These are all incredibly shrewd long term strategy moves.
by graeme | 2025-08-02 03:10:12+00:00
That's the local council. Local council meetings are notorious for attracting people willing to oppose any development. Not the same thing as an electoral force.

Recent zoning changes in Texas came from the state legislature and remove cities ability to block a fair number of housing types.

Did Plano itself actually enact any new pro zoning law that has drawn new protests? The article you shared it about developing undeveloped land but zoning is largely about what is blocked on existing inhabited land.
by postalcoder | 2025-08-02 03:11:25+00:00
this works if your code is exceptionally well composed. anything less can lead to looney tunes levels of goofiness in behavior, especially if there’s as little as one or two lines of crucial context elsewhere in the file.

This approach saves tokens theoretically, but i find it can lead to wastefulness as it tries to figure out why things aren’t working when loading the full file would have solved the problem in a single step.
by graeme | 2025-08-02 03:12:24+00:00
No it won't. If society builds more dwellings society is richer. Wealth is the actual physical production of goods and services.

We wouldn't get richer if we blew up car factories to protect the market value of existing cars. The market value of existing cars WOULD skyrocket if we destroyed all new car production, but that would be society getting poorer, not richer, as we would have fewer cars.