MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mapontosevenths | 2025-09-24 19:13:15+00:00
> it is one that impedes rather than promotes communication.

Maybe it does, but the simple truth is that the vast majority of people who use the phrase have never even heard of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. or his fabulous mustache and probably have no idea that it ever even went to the supreme court.

> A figure of speech meaning what?

People typically use it as a stand in for any language that might be dangerous enough to others to be curtailed. IE - Inciting a riot, or instigating a stampede that gets others killed. To use the legal phrasing from Brandenburg v. Ohio - they use it to describe language that would instigate "imminent lawless action" which WOULD still be curtailed under current law.

> Schenk is a notoriously bad decision impinging on core political speech in its specific application, and whose general rule is also no longer valid.

Schenk was mostly overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio and in that decision justice Douglas actually specifically talks about falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater as "probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech."

So Schenk, or no Schenk... It's still illegal.

See the bottom of page 456 (PDF Warning): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
by dustywusty | 2025-09-24 19:13:29+00:00
I couldn't imagine a better way to describe the current concept of grassroots marketing. Spam, and frankly heavy-handed and bad ways to resolve it (no links get traction, etc) have effectively closed the door here.

Anti-spam teams for a lot of social companies are under the umbrella of customer experience, and considered a cost center. The goal quickly becomes: be a hammer.

The impact to user experience, specifically around casual discovery has been profound.
by indymike | 2025-09-24 19:13:50+00:00
I'm going through this with pricing for our product and the battle is:

Customer: wants predictable spend Sales/Marketing: wants an amazing product that is easy to sell (read does the mostest for the leastest) Advisors: want to see the SaaS model in all it's glory (i.e. 85% margin primarily from oversubscription of infrastructure) Finance: wants to make money and is really worried about variable costs ruining SaaS profit margin

A couple of thoughts:

1. AI-based cost is mostly variable. Also, things like messaging, phone minutes and so on are variable. Cloud expenses are also variable... There's a theme and it's different.

2. The unit of value most ai software is delivering is work that is being done by people or should be being done and is not.

3. Seems like it's time to make friends with a way to make money other than subscription pricing.
by carabiner | 2025-09-24 19:14:06+00:00
> People have tried making original OKCupid style apps, and they fail

That's why you need the original founders to make it again. OkCupid was a site made by 140 IQ dudes in Boston for 100+ IQ types. It was not an easy problem. It succeeded because the match % was uncannily accurate. Loss of the site (acquisition and tinderification by Match) was like the sack of Rome.
by michaelstewart | 2025-09-24 19:14:35+00:00
Yes, unfortunately it's not going to pick up anything that's brand new immediately. Once it ranks for the term "vibe link" it should redirect there.

DDG is the primary fallback :)

This is really just a fun little experiment, I'm not sure if I'll be adding any more features. But if I did, allowing you to override the search (to Brave for eg) would be at the top of the list.
by prmph | 2025-09-24 19:14:42+00:00
Indeed, one thing I keep in mind is that almost all progress, social, technical, political, etc. are wrought by an exceedingly small proportion of people. These are usually the people derided as deviant, nonconforming, abnormal.

Left to the vast majority of "normal" people who want to half-ass everything, there'd be absolutely no progress whatsoever, and what is more, society might actually fall apart.
by etrautmann | 2025-09-24 19:14:44+00:00
What would "finding it" mean, whether inside the brain or out? It's quite easy to perturb consciousness by messing with the pieces of the brain, via pharmacology, injury, electrical stimulation, etc. I'm not sure why we need to assign responsibility to a single specific component like microtubules. That seems like saying the axle is responsible for a car moving. Sure, not wrong, but not right or explanatory either.
by founderu | 2025-09-24 19:14:54+00:00
Hi all,

I help run a pre-accelerator for founders in their first year of building a tech startup looking to raise venture funding. We cover content like deciding how to build the right features, startup accounting & finances, what to expect in a due diligence process, and pitching best practices. We also invest $25K-$125K into top participants in each cohort.

We just kicked off our 11th cohort but still have a few spots open. Just wanted to share this here in case it could be helpful for anyone!
by indymike | 2025-09-24 19:14:55+00:00
I get a kick out of it when a product manager comes suggesting we diable text selection. "oh, you want to disable the single most usable and powerful interoperability feature in our product?"

"Yeah. Do we really want people leaving our app with their data?"

By leaving, do you mean kicking it off the phone or switching to another app and getting something done?

"Oh, yeah, they are just getting something done. But not in our app. So they are leaving."

I think the problem here is not becoming the Hotel California.
by bogwog | 2025-09-24 19:14:57+00:00
I think the correct term for this type of thing is a "dark pattern", and they should definitely be illegal.

In a sane market, those dark patterns would be defeated by competition, but there is a distressing lack of sane markets today. Everything is consolidating, and there seems to be zero momentum in the opposite direction. So in the face of these market failures, legislation to combat the low hanging fruit like this is probably the only way to make life for consumers bearable without actually fixing the underlying issues.
by jfengel | 2025-09-24 19:15:06+00:00
They won't capitalize "scuba", since it's now just a regular word.

But for proper nouns, they distinguish "acronyms" (like Nasa) from "intialisms" (like FBI). An acronym is pronounced like a word, so they treat that word as a proper noun (capital first letter, others lower case).

That can be informative about pronunciation. The BBC writes the World Health Organization as WHO, not Who.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-09-24 19:15:25+00:00
Stereo vision might have helped too to assess the size of it, but from the pre-crash display at 0:07 it looks like the Tesla didn't see the object at all, which is a bit surprising since it was large enough, and very clearly looked like exactly what it was - a big chunk of metal.

The car reacted the opposite a human would. If you saw something unidentifed ("road kill?") in the distance then you'd be focusing on it and prepared to react according to what it was. With an empty lane beside you I think most drivers would be steering around it just based on size, even before they realized exactly what it was (when emergency braking might be called for).
by bobotowned | 2025-09-24 19:15:32+00:00
My laptop stand is a repurposed cardboard wine delivery box, plain brown corrugated. been using it for seven years. Each side is covered with notes: my contact data for different regions, feature ideas, architecture sketches, even little 'zen' reminders for dealing with daily inbound slop, like "if you can read this, you are getting paid for this."

It has three usable heights (standing, sitting, with/without external keyboard) and actually prevents neck and eye strain.

Today’s new note for the 'zen' side: 'This box is not the ultimate laptop stand. Do not blog about it.' 0% joking. Well except for the zen note.. that was the joke
by missedthecue | 2025-09-24 19:15:45+00:00
I've thought about this a lot, but I really don't think the profit incentive changes much. I don't think for example that a free and open-source community-supported dating app would result in a better experience, because a lot of the problems with dating apps are about human psychology and not with the business model.

A FOSS or nationalized dating app would still result in:

1. The feeling of FOMO (99% of swipers stop swiping before they find their REAL soulmate for real this time)

2. Impersonality. One cannot effectively communicate that they are generous, kind, and funny or any other set of attractive but abstract qualities in 4 photos and a short bio.

4. Similar to impersonality, is the loss of contextual bonding. Especially for women, being in proximity to a potential mate tends to work a lot better than seeing a few 2D photos. It's crazy to think about, but a huge percentage of happy long-lasting couples who met organically would have never swiped on each other, me being one example.

5. Asymmetrical supply and demand (women dying of thirst in the ocean while men die of thirst in the desert)

6. The 'stranger' dynamic makes everything low-stakes and therefore low effort. There is no social consequence for bad behaviour, whereas if you met someone at work, school, church, or were introduced by a mutual friend, there IS a social cost for ghosting, manipulation, superficiality, etc.

7. All of the above results in WAY too many interactions in a romantic or potentially romantic context, and I don't think people were meant to have dozens of situationships for a decade before finally getting success. The constant churn and burn cycle results in burnout. The burnout is exhausting and discouraging and worse, can lead to feelings of antipathy.

None of the above is actually solved by a different ownership or funding model. I'm sure that building an app in such a way that artificially gatekeeping a superior experience behind a subscription creates its own set of winners and losers, but I don't think that is actually in people's top complaints about the dating app experience!
by Poomba | 2025-09-24 19:16:17+00:00
I feel like OP has either never worked outside of tech startups/Silicon Valley or never worked pre-2012 (dont wanna assume tho and this is not meant in a disparaging manner)

A lot of these things exists in other industries for awhile. Like lack of trust (you have to be from 8 to 6 in a lot of Wall St firms) and fear of layoffs (everyone who worked during the financial crisis in 07-08 know this all too well). I would say they are the norm, and the things that OP missed was the exception
by biophysboy | 2025-09-24 19:17:07+00:00
This thread is a very clear demonstration of the libertarian bias of HN. The reflex, knee-jerk response to ANY proposal is "how do you enforce it??" regardless of the issue at hand.

You can ALWAYS claim that a policy proposal is futile, or will backfire, or will jeopardize some other freedom. The question is about the tradeoffs, which requires considering the evidence at hand. So many concerns being raised here are easily refuted by sentences in the article.
by BeetleB | 2025-09-24 19:17:23+00:00
There are two problems with physical flashcards:

1. The lack of a good spaced repetition algorithm.

2. You'll end up with an order of magnitude fewer flash cards. When it's easy to copy/paste, there's no way you can create all the flashcards you need by hand in a decent amount of time.

> The flexibility of being able to dynamically generate a ton of Anki cards using a script is trumped by just using ChatGPT ...

I would never advocate doing it with a script. All my flashcards were created by me - either by typing or selective copy/paste.
by dijit | 2025-09-24 19:17:25+00:00
Maybe you should learn that these things are not as easily removed from each other as you imply.

Outlook == Exchange == O365; in the same way Gmail == Web & Service.

Complaints about the ecosystem of products (that incentivise their use and in some cases aggressively lock other tools out!) are all valid when complaining about an ecosystem.

Only pedantry need delineate them from each other, they're inextricably linked.
by game_the0ry | 2025-09-24 19:18:17+00:00
The fact that they synced up the version numbers (macOS 26, iPadOS 26, iOS 26) is a signal that they intend to unify all OSes.

My experience with iOS 26 + liquid glass (ew) on my phone has been terrible. Feels like a step backward. I am dreading upgrading my macbook bc I love it the way it is. Regrettable.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-09-24 19:18:25+00:00
Articles in this case all say that the illegal worker only provided a photocopy of his alleged British passport.

I.e. the employer did not properly and seriously carry out the checks as he didn't ask for the original, hence the heavy fine.

"The business did not see the original copy of the man’s passport, which its owner, Mark Sullivan, said was a “clerical error”" [1]

As I commented previously it is hard to counterfeit a modern British passport in a way that looks genuine and obviously any checks require sight of the original passport...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/22/surrey-chipp...
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-09-24 19:19:23+00:00
"Sometimes departments want to float ideas that a spokesperson would not want to put his or her name behind."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources...

IIUC, the blog post is not claiming there is no such thing as speaking with the press on the condition of anonymity, it is claiming that requesting anonymity for disclosing the existence (cf. the details) of an investigation into routine criminal activity is reasonable cause for skepticism. The blog post then explains why the author believes the "SIM farm" is a routine criminal enterprise, not something more

One does not have to be an "expert in political propaganda", nor rely on one, to question out of common sense why anonymity is needed to disclose the discovery of a "SIM farm"
by kemayo | 2025-09-24 19:19:53+00:00
The criticism here is a bit overblown. What happened is: on recent iOS versions, when you tap a video in Safari to show the controls it slightly dims the video until the controls hide. In the latest macOS release, macOS Safari has adopted this behavior.

The argument apparently being that any change at all, if it was first made on iOS, must inherently be a sign that the two platforms are merging. Now, I don't really have an opinion about this behavior (I imagine it makes it easier for the controls to always be legible, regardless of what the video content looks like?), but I'd assume that any logic that holds for it being a good idea when applied on iOS would apply just as well on macOS. It doesn't have to be a sign that they're merging, just that similar reasons to make a change can exist in both places.

As such it seems like a particularly strange adjustment to hang a "macOS is turning into iOS" rant on. Particularly when there's things like "iPadOS just got macOS-style windowing and menu bars!" sitting right there.
by paxys | 2025-09-24 19:20:06+00:00
If your safety system is "we'll have to wait till this person rapes several women over the course of many months" then it is meaningless to begin with. And they can then create another profile in seconds on any of the dozens of other apps out there. So no one is safer.

The only reasonable line is - act on the first report (and every single other report), and work closely with the police. But if the victim doesn't want to involve the police then what can you even do?
by jama211 | 2025-09-24 19:20:08+00:00
Yup, I would’ve considered slack in the past but now I know I never will, considering the CEO’s apology provides no guarantees they’ll help any other client with this issue currently or in the future unless they also cause a media fallout, and no details or transparency on how this occurred.

This should be treated like a massive data breach. No transparency = no trust.
by kergonath | 2025-09-24 19:20:21+00:00
> want to be excited about Linux, but as a long time Mac user (started in the 90s) I don't feel like there's a desktop environment for me.

I can confirm that there is nothing that comes close. Gnome is an abomination even if it might be appealing on the surface. KDE is still very rough around the edges, despite making a lot of progress with each version. I used XFCE for a long time because it can be tweaked to a reasonably useable state and it is light on resources. KDE can be occasionally dog slow on a $12k workstation with a 64-core Threadripper pro and 256 GB of RAM for a reason I cannot imagine. Using my Mac Studio is a much better experience overall.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-09-24 19:20:22+00:00
As a kid that ocassionally ate dirt, you're usually fine after it, if you ignore the worms you'll poop afterwards. My point was that it's not sterile even if it's under the sun all day, as UV rays don't penetrate deep, and dirt is a good thermal insulator. Bacteria and parasites, specially their spores/eggs, can be very hardy. It's amazing what our digestive system is capable of handling.
by googlywoogly | 2025-09-24 19:20:32+00:00
Both parties are very openly very anti-democratic and very corrupt. They openly sabotage and attack their own candidates if they don't fall in line (Bernie Sanders is one of MANY examples). They are pretty openly corrupt (look at Biden and family, look at all of the insider trading, etc), and pretty openly serve special/corporate interests like the military industrial complex. They constantly lie and try to misinform voters - which so very anti-democratic.

If you think one side is not anti-democratic, all that means is that you drank too much side-favoured coolaid.
by cs702 | 2025-09-24 19:20:49+00:00
The cost of developing GPT-2 and GPT-3 was on the order of millions of dollars, well within the budget of most tech organizations. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 for the total compute invested in them. OpenAI had raised only a few tens of millions in donations at the time, as a non-profit organization.

The increase in performance of computation has been happening for so many decades now that it's been given names like "Moore's Law." People like Hans Moravec predicted way back in the 1980's that the cost of compute would continue to decline and become cheap enough for AGI by the 2020's or 2030's. That's half a century ago!
by mapontosevenths | 2025-09-24 19:20:54+00:00
This is inaccurate. Brandenburg v. Ohio explicitly states the opposite.

Justice Douglas specifically talks about the "fire in a crowded theater" issue being one of the few types of language that is specifically illegal beginning on the bottom of page 456 below. It's a PDF file of the original decision.

"The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 536- 537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed insep- arable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. "

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
by TehCorwiz | 2025-09-24 19:20:55+00:00
No, a corp is only accountable to their board and the LARGEST shareholder. A single person can control an otherwise publicly traded company. Zuckerberg, for example. And not everyone can afford to spend their earnings owning companies. So what you get with a democracy is that power is spread out by default rather than concentrated in a single element. Default enfranchisement rather than the polar opposite. One at least nods politely at the idea of upward social mobility in passing while the other eschews all pretense as to the status of its party invitation.
by watwut | 2025-09-24 19:21:02+00:00
> In public toe the company line, if you don't, you will be fired. In private, be honest about your opinions so your team knows you are on their side and understand their plight

This person is not on the side of the team. This person is simply supporting that policy. There is no "protecting the team from consequences" if what you do is enforcing new other, just in a sane way.

Well, ok, it is that persons job, but it is not true they are on the "side of the team".
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-09-24 19:21:21+00:00
For me it’s more than a little inconvenience. Switching to Linux represents turning my ability to be productive on a computer totally upside down, tossing out decades of flow building and muscle memory.

As for battery life, it being crappy makes me wonder why I’m even bothering with laptops at all. More than half of their selling point is being portable, which needing to be tethered frequently heavily impinges upon. The sacrifices that come with the portable form factor just aren’t worth it for 3-5h life with real world usage.
by avmich | 2025-09-24 19:21:41+00:00
I would compare "larger businesses" with "socialistic planning system" while "smaller businesses" with "free market economy". There are examples when centralized planning got good results - NASA's Apollo project is an example. There are also examples when market economy - eventually, in the long term, not short - prevailed: the Cold War is an example here.

It's also quite possible the analogy is flawed though.
by NoLinkToMe | 2025-09-24 19:21:52+00:00
> This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades.

The idea is that an airplane needs a certain revenue to run. Suppose it's 10k, and there are 100 passengers. Each passenger thereby pays $100.

However, some passengers (A) wish to sit in a big seat and are willing to pay for it, and others (B) don't care about seat size and are willing to give-up space for a cheaper ticket.

As such, 1 Passenger A may want to pay $250 instead to get a 30% bigger seat, while 3 passengers B give up 10% of their seat size and pay a $50 ticket. The airplane still collects $400 from 4 passengers as before, but the passengers are happier now. They have traded their individual desires, for something less valuable. A desired a bigger seat and thought $150 extra was less valuable than this bigger seat. B desired a $50 cheaper ticket and thought the smaller seat was less valuable. They traded and became happier.

You may say but nah, airlines will simply charge for bigger seats and keep the smaller seats the same price. But they don't, because they must compete with other airlines that don't. If they could do this they would've already.

For seat picking it's the same thing. A prefers to pay to sit close to a friend or partner. B doesn't care and prefers a cheaper ticket. Thus A pays a bit more, B pays a bit less.

I've always had to pay for seating as long as I can remember, I never cared enough (except long international flights), so I enjoy slightly cheaper prices than a world where there was no choice. It's not as evil as it may seem at first glance.