MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-09-29 15:08:31+00:00
I think you have a good deal of odd baggage that's clouding your judgement. You seem to believe that anyone who is critical of any kind of intellectually flaky stance toward "religion" must therefore be an apologist for intellectual flaky religious views. This is childish. I encourage you to develop more intellectually rigorous and less tendentious habits of mind. An intellectual horizon where Sagan and Dawkins are intellectual heroes is highly parochial.

In the case of Dawkins, that he was whiggish and philosophically weak is not some novel criticism. His criticisms of Aquinas, for example, were laughably uninformed. And unlike Aquinas, who charitably advised people to attack an interlocutor's views at his strongest points, Dawkins happily sought out the weakest and their weakest for cheap show. He didn't seek out highly regarded scholars who disagreed with him, but ones he could easily ridicule, and he found them. It is buffoonish to think Dawkins et al. have some kind of intellectual high ground here. Only someone ignorant of philosophical work of the last two millenia could find Dawkins impressive here.

For you and others here, I would recommend beginning with Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism" [0] to begin to grasp how crude, unsophisticated, and incoherent their intellectual positions are. The author wrote this book during the height of the New Atheist craze when the polemic of the "Four Horsemen" was particular aggressive, and so he rightly returns some of those polemical barbs, though unlike the New Atheists, his comes from a position of intellectual substance.

[0] https://archive.org/details/edward-feser-the-last-superstiti...
by GJim | 2025-09-29 15:08:44+00:00
> Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event.

I think you will find it is both good etiquette and very common to make polite requests ("rules") of guests you invite..... whether these be to 'bring a bottle', 'smoke outside', 'wear black tie', 'wear your birthday suit' or 'don't film us'.

If you can't accommodate such requests, don't go.
by stavros | 2025-09-29 15:09:09+00:00
I think the reasonable position here is that it's within Google's rights if they want to take data down, but at least give us warning and an archive of the data. If they'd said "we're going to take all this data down in two months but here's an archive of all of it if anyone wants to download it", I think very few people would have a problem with it.
by pixl97 | 2025-09-29 15:09:14+00:00
Because the US has other laws that make the kind of laws you're talking about very difficult. You have to look at the laws together as a part of a system and not a one off set of actions.

In addition laws in the US tend to protect the rich very well and get wholesale ignored for the poor. That is Jeffrey Bezos will punish you with the full extent of the law for taking a video of him beating a baby fur seal to death with a bat, while star-wars kid will be begging for venmo donations in order to get thousands of copies of video taken down while law enforcement ignores the situation.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-09-29 15:09:28+00:00
It is however common practice. Why would corporations and governments trust our own keys, signatures and attestations? There's no reason for them to do that. They're going to restrict the set of trusted keys to themselves, thereby maintaining attestation authority.

That's how we'll be robbed of our computing freedom. Technically we'll be able to install whatever software we want but they'll be able to detect our "tampering" and discriminate against us based on it. "Tampered" with your computer? Can't access bank accounts, can't access communications applications, can't even play video games or watch films. One day even networking protocols will require corporate or government attestation. Won't even be able to connect to the internet without a corporate owned computer. Can't even read an article on some website.

We're going to be marginalized. We're going to be second class citizens of society. The only way to gain access to services is to give up control of our computers to the corporations and governments.
by tripplyons | 2025-09-29 15:09:28+00:00
Agreed. For harder tasks, I like to go to GPT 5 thinking mode, but I'm considering other options.

Some times I've had faster success with some of the larger Qwen3 models (480B and 235B variants). I like them in combination with the Repomix CLI to copy an entire project into context and get a response very quickly with some of the accelerated providers like Cerebras.
by dunham | 2025-09-29 15:09:31+00:00
I've actually had this fix a bug before. An O(n^2) issue adding a character at time to a string inside a loop.

I had decompiled the class, fixed the issue, checked in the original decompiled source and then the change. Then a coworker pointed out that the original decompiled source also fixed the issue.

After a bit of digging, I learned that hotspot compiler had code to detect and fix the issue, but it was looking for the pattern generated by a modern compiler, and the library was compiled with an older compiler.

(It's been a while, but I think it was the JAI library, and the issue was triggered by long comments in a PNG.)
by rubicon33 | 2025-09-29 15:09:43+00:00
Oh my god you just perfectly described the frustration of working in enterprise SaaS. It’s been fun in some ways but the constant churn of almost-but-not-entirely-production-grade software is soul crushing. We celebrate and reward speed to market and lack of process in a way that feels unhealthy and unrewarding.

I’ve worked at consumer facing companies but also other enterprise SaaS and have to say I’ve never seen it done like this before. Just ruthless pursuit of features over polish, craft, etc.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-09-29 15:10:05+00:00
> To their credit

How much of the new Battlefield actually been coming from EA though? I feels like the relatively new "Battlefield Lab" (which EA seems to have a really hands-off approach with so far) seems to be the main credit for that.

Has there been any interviews or anything that clarifies how much EA been involved? Otherwise I'd continue give credit to the developers rather than the publisher.
by theptip | 2025-09-29 15:10:13+00:00
The human brain has many systems that adapt on multiple time-frames which could loosely be called “memory”.

But here I’m specifically interested in real-time updates to medium/long term memory, and the episodic/consciously accessible systems that are used in human reasoning/intelligence.

Eg if I’m working on a big task I can think through previous solutions I learned, remember the salient/surprising lessons, recall recent conversations that may indirectly affect requirements, etc. The brain is clearly doing an associative compression and indexing operation atop the raw memory traces. I feel the current LLM “memory” implementations are very weak compared to what the human brain does.

I suppose there is a sense in which you could say the weights “remember” the training data, but it’s read-only and I think this lack of real-time updating is a crucial gap.

To expand on my hunch about scaffolding - it may be that you can construct an MCP module that can let the LLM retrieve or ruminate on associative memories in such a way as to allow the LLM to not make the same mistake twice and be steerable on a longer timeframe.

I think the best argument against my hunch is that human brains have systems which update the synaptic weights themselves over a timeframe of days-to-months, and so if neural plasticity is the optimal solution here then we may not be able to efficiently solve the problem with “application layer” memory plugins.

But again, there is a lot of solution-space to explore; maybe some LoRA-like algorithm can allow an LLM instance to efficiently update its own weights at test-time, and persist those deltas for efficient inference, thus implementing the required neural plasticity algorithms?
by NickC25 | 2025-09-29 15:10:14+00:00
>While not perfect, Saudi has very clearly moved "Westernly" on many ideas, most notably social and economic ones.

My man, they can kill you for drawing a stick figure.

Let that sink in.

SA is still a single-export economy, and those who are smart enough to get out of SA, do so. From personally having very close relationships with a few folks who worked on the NEOM project, the Saudi locals are not prepared to do any work at all, just spend money and export the work to consultants. It's about posturing, not rolling up their sleeves.
by scarface_74 | 2025-09-29 15:10:21+00:00
My high end Dell that I used for my job at a startup that they let me keep after the startup collapsed in 2010 was a Dell Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz with 8GB of RAM, a 1920x1280 display (one the last with that beautiful ratio), a 500GB hard drive, Gig E internet, 892.11n and FireWire.

I put Windows 10 on it when it was released and used it for a Plex Server until around 2021. It wasn’t until last year that base MacBook Airs came with more than 8GB RAM and they still come with less storage than that. Not to mention that low end PC laptops still come at a lower resolution than my old Dell did.
by iamnothere | 2025-09-29 15:10:50+00:00
And yet authoritarian countries without such central ID have historically had to use other less targeted methods of oppression, which creates pushback and dissent within the population, leading to either the downfall of the government or intensive reforms. The threat of a “clean” system of oppression is that it will only catch actual dissidents, without sweeping in innocents. This could freeze out any chance of effective opposition.

The most effective 20th century totalitarian states, such as the East German DDR, issued ID numbers to its citizens, along with ID cards that citizens were required to carry at all times. This greatly helped the security services coordinate the oppression of suspected radicals, but without modern computer systems it relied too heavily on human efforts. It eventually faced its limits against rising dissent and it could not prevent the downfall of the government. A computerized Stasi would be much more terrifying.

One can look around the US today to see why this lack of ID may be a good thing. Immigration officials are facing serious roadblocks in rounding up and processing suspected undocumented immigrants, and mistakes in this process are creating widespread pushback. Protestors who take steps to mask their identity are not easily identified, apprehended, and prosecuted, which has led the administration to overreach in their reaction to dissent. And the lack of a unified system of oppression means that even targets of the state can often find ways to continue living in between the cracks, and they are not totally frozen out. In many ways it’s not a great system, certainly far from perfect, but the many flaws serve an important purpose in the face of systemic oppression. Inefficiency is an escape hatch.

If you live in a high trust society, you may not get it. The mutual animosity in the US is such that we have government officials talking about “national divorce” and otherwise average people joking about political murder. I know the UK is not quite as bad off, but I understand that it is quickly moving in that direction. That’s no time to introduce new potential mechanisms of oppression.
by phatfish | 2025-09-29 15:10:55+00:00
The hate speech laws are just badly written for the online age, which is a problem but they are not going to result in the fall of democracy.

They are catching what would normally be bigoted comments someone makes to their mates down the pub (or maybe in their WhatsApp group) and because it was posted to the world on Twitter it counts as inciting violence.

The police obviously can't investigate all potential infringements so now they have to pick and choose what they do enforce. And inevitably the ones with the most noise get their attention.

The people that do get caught up in this said something nasty they should have kept to themselves. Not something to be arrested for in most cases, but it's not an attack on free speech either. Just a badly constructed law.

Not really sure what "regularly unpersons disagreeable people" means. Shamima Begum is the only one I can think of recently. She got made an example of so a load of copy cats didn't go and join ISIS whose goal is to destroy the western nonbelievers (including the UK). Unfortunate to be made the example I suppose, but it is not a regular occurrence.
by potato3732842 | 2025-09-29 15:11:07+00:00
Because there isn't much point in being able to legally possess something you can't use.

Edit: The comment I am responding to initially had some sort of "who cares" type question (the exact wording escapes me) in it to which I responded. It has since been edited making me look like I am answering a different a question about votes and responded to as if that is the case. I have left my initial response above this unedited.
by fluidcruft | 2025-09-29 15:11:17+00:00
The new registration system is not the paid the full developer registration--that's only needed for Play Store distribution. The new thing everyone is complaining about is a different registration system that will be free (but likely requires identity verification). Google's announcement said that a solution was being developed but is not yet available to support individual and hobbyist use. They said it will be available before the system becomes mandatory (except for a few high-risk countries)

Frankly, I don't see why anonymous app distribution is necessary. The "I own my own device goddammit" thing is hobbyist category. Why should it be friction-less to install crap that has no provenance? That specifically seems like a really dumb hill to die on.
by iamunr | 2025-09-29 15:12:03+00:00
I tried the Ergodox (not the Moonlander) for ages, couldn't get into their thumb cluster.

I have been a die hard fan of Keyboardio and their Model 01/100 since their first kickstarter.

Similar benefits, better quality, and personally an improved layout. The fun-key being on my palm is incredible.

https://shop.keyboard.io/products/model-100
by jasonlotito | 2025-09-29 15:12:15+00:00
Is this true? I see a lot of people on the right complaining about loneliness epidemic, so it would seem odd that people who are attending church would have this issue and it still being a problem. You hear about lots of young, right-wing men talking about this as an issue, so church is clearly not solving it for them.

This is all hearsay and anecdotal, mind you, and I admit I have not done the research here. It's not a condition I have, nor do any of my friends. I believe it's happening, but the claim of "just attend church" doesn't seem to being paying off to me.
by ubertaco | 2025-09-29 15:12:39+00:00
A little pedantic, but: this will tell you if a poem is shaped like the common English conception of a haiku, but it won't tell you if this is a haiku, because a haiku is more than just counting syllables.

Aside from the fact that "syllables" is not exactly the unit being counted in haiku, there are also considerations of theme, tone, and a sort of "open-ended-ness" – among other considerations.

This article served as my introduction to the actual complexities of haiku: https://forgottenpoets.substack.com/p/haiku-thursdays-one-pl...
by throwaway894345 | 2025-09-29 15:13:03+00:00
These zoning board decisions were made largely to accommodate cars. For example, in many places, we can't have dense urban housing or commercial unless the developer pays to park all of the cars associated with the new development (so the cars don't consume public street parking). But this means we end up surrounding buildings with these giant parking lots which creates more space between each building, putting downward pressure on walking/transit and upward pressure on driving. This also means you need more lanes to accommodate the cars (the additional lanes also create more space between buildings and make pedestrian traffic considerably less desirable, putting more upward pressure on driving).

Tangentially, the additional length and width of roads as well as the traffic lights all constitute an increase in infrastructure costs while also reducing the amount of revenue generated per unit space (because so much more of the space is for streets and parking).
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-29 15:13:20+00:00
I’ve always said that we need to get out of our comfort zone, to grow. I’ve never thought it necessary to expound; it’s such a “no-brainer.”

Right now, LLMs are selling a vision of “friction-free” productivity, but we haven’t yet gotten to the part, where humans start mastering LLMs as tools. That’s still quite nascent.

Once that happens, a lot of people that have been firing all their employees, and getting fat on the profits, are going be finding themselves on fire.
by deanputney | 2025-09-29 15:13:32+00:00
I'd argue it doesn't show growth or shrinking. What capacity does remembering strings of numbers "grow"? There's no clear connection to remembering other things, or math skills, or anything but how many numbers you remember.

The author says they still remember these numbers. Maybe they remember fewer and this is shrinking? Seems like a poor example at any rate.
by richardguerre_ | 2025-09-29 15:13:34+00:00
I don't like vibe coding as much as actual coding, but the biggest improvement in my workflow was shifting left even more.

Now I dedicate at least one session to just writing a spec file, and have it ask me clarifying questions on my requirements and based on what it finds in the codebase and online. I ask it to also break down the implementation plan in phases with a checklist for each phase.

I then start at least one new session per phase and make sure to nail down that phase before continuing.

The nice thing is if it gets annoying to vibe code it, I or someone on my team can just use the spec to implement things.
by deaddodo | 2025-09-29 15:13:36+00:00
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding capital and capitalism.

A “stagnant” company isn’t a failed one. It’s profitable. But perhaps it has saturated its market, or otherwise has no other avenues of growth without handicapping what it excels in. This is fine, as long as it continues to increase with inflation (as it should, if it’s increasing its prices to match so) it will stay profitable and increase your capital at a sustainable and normalized rate.

Or, you can force them to continually increase that profit rate infinitely in a closed system, an impossible ask.

This is literally the concept of “late stage capitalism”. What do you do when there is no more growth to sustain because you’ve saturated the closed system that is earth? You can either go hyperaggressive and eat into other avenues, hoping you can beat their incumbents (but either way, one is going to lose their own profit) or continually increase your profits by lowering quality and production costs. Thus why things like coke “used to taste better” or why Ford’s “used to be built better”.

Private capital isn’t beholden to that requirement. It’s an advantage, not a disadvantage. They simply need to remain competitive and everyone wins: the labor gets a stable job, the owners get a stable income, the industry gets stable (if not increasing, from better technology) products, etc.
by elric | 2025-09-29 15:13:39+00:00
I would love it if everyone who proposed more surveillance would be subject to that self same surveillance for at least a year before being allowed to push it onto other people. Go through their bank accounts with a fine toothed comb. Watch them om CCTV everywhere they go. Track their online activity. Scan all their messages for sexual abuse material. Go through all their luggage at every checkpoint. Do a cavity search at every border. Take their temperature whenever they want to enter a crowded venue.

Tired of all these "rules for thee" while certain classes remain unaffected.
by bravetraveler | 2025-09-29 15:13:47+00:00
I don't know what to tell you/say, it's a completely supported - and utilized - method for distributing software. For both Debian and Ubuntu. "By default" is completely irrelevant, let me explain.

First, somewhat sarcastically, I can give you that support right here. "echo ... | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/...". Go forth and prosper.

Now, more seriously/importantly, this is for distributing user-supplied software. The point I was originally making is that anyone can leverage this, it's not representative of the Distribution. AUR, PPA, COPR (for your RHEL derivative of choice), OBS, whatever. The malware is the responsibility of the user who published it, not the Distribution maintainers.

Aside: I'm deliberately trying use 'distribution' as a proper noun/capitalize where appropriate... in terms of the composite of software we know as Debian or Ubuntu, not an individual release like the 'software-properties-common' package or malware: what started this thread.

Back on topic: this is firmly down the path of customization. The fact that you don't get 'add-apt-repository' for free is, again, irrelevant. PPAs will distribute (heh) Deb packages for either Distribution.

If we're working off anecdotes, I hear about far more Sources [repo] files being made on Debian than Flatpak installations. Now what do we do.
by eloisant | 2025-09-29 15:14:51+00:00
It is very much cultural. In the 2000's I moved from Japan where they're very strict about public filming/taking pictures (it's something you don't do, period) to the US where people were uploading photos to Flickr and tagging people there. Completely different worlds, and we're not even talking about Gen Z because none of them were old enough to be even teenagers.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-09-29 15:15:21+00:00
> Corporate machines are probably far juicier than a bunch of 18-35 yr olds computers.

"Jucier" in what context/for what? Say you wanna influence how people feel about social issues, what computer user is "jucier" then? Not saying that that's the plan or whatever, just that the context matters.
by grues-dinner | 2025-09-29 15:15:22+00:00
And if you explain in detail about how it works, a lot of people (not all, but quite of few of the more obstreperous types who raise these as CRITICAL BUGS with solutions apparently SO SIMPLE MY DOG COULD IMPLEMENT IT) will then say "I don't know why you have to make it all so complicated, things were simpler and better in v(n-12) in 1997".

If you add an option you're making it more complicated, harder to document and less discoverable, if you don't it's "useless", if you use a heuristic it's "too magical". Eventually someone has to be unhappy.
by umanwizard | 2025-09-29 15:15:27+00:00
It means you were born before her, but that analogy doesn't work, as there is no event in the known history of English or Welsh that corresponds in an obvious way to "being born". It's more like saying that humans are (as a species) older than bonobos -- it's not even clear what that means let alone whether or not it's true.

There is no identifiable specific date at which people were speaking something recognizably "Welsh" or recognizably "English" (as opposed to proto-Indo-European). Both those languages have been evolving continuously, changing slightly every generation, from the point at which they were the same language thousands of years ago until today. Just like there is no specific identifiable date at which a generation of organisms was born that was bonobos or humans rather than proto-Great Apes.