MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mancerayder | 2025-09-11 02:47:35+00:00
>I'm a big supporter of urbanism. I loathe the time I spend in my car, and I don't even have that far of a commute, but I have zero other options if I want to live where crime is low and the schools aren't dysfunctional. Until this is addressed, there is no argument about commuter density or efficiency of movement or anything else the proponents of public transit like to talk about that will make a lick of difference.

The post-Giuliani years were great until we started implementing an approach maybe described as "property crime enforcement leads to injustice because it's due to inequality, and moreover should be treated as a societal issue" justice system adjustment. There, spikes of menacing and assaults on public transit occurred, to the point where a disconnect became quite obvious to commuters.

The problem with this narrative is that wealthy people take black cars to drive them around, leave the city on the weekends, and ultimately don't have the day to day concerns around safety.

Add to that an interesting fact that the most progressive neighborhoods are generally the safest (with an anti-police and criminal justice reform bent) while the poorest have a pro police attitude. Here's an interactive map that lets you compare votes across neighborhoods of the different Democratic candidates in the 2021 election where we had Adams making his pro-police rhetoric center to his campaign. Look where his support trends highest: https://www.urbanresearchmaps.org/nycrcv2021/?office=mayor&c...
by jtbaker | 2025-09-11 02:47:57+00:00
The number of people I’ve seen basically condoning this act is sickening. This guy had views I 100% disagree with, and wish did not have a platform to espouse them.

But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.
by Cornbilly | 2025-09-11 02:48:10+00:00
It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.

It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.

And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.
by bb88 | 2025-09-11 02:48:58+00:00
The news networks and social networks have determined that controversy increases engagement which increases profit.

You could imagine a different algorithm that promoted peaceful, thoughtful interactions. But that would have led to the death of Facebook, twitter, news networks, etc.

We may in fact be here due to sheer greed. The media companies have profited by creating discontent in our society rather than content.
by paulpauper | 2025-09-11 02:49:02+00:00
Publishing math is one of the most time consuming things ever, between the submission, review/revising, and editing. I with there was a faster way of doing it outside of arXiv. Without having to review the paper closely, typically an experienced editor can tell at fist glace if it's correct or sound.

It is what we could call the “zone of occasional poor practice”. Included are actions like

I think this is more common in computer science papers. I see this all the time, where 5- 10 authors will collaborate on a short paper, then collaborate on each other's papers in such a way that the effort is minimized and publishing count and citation count is maximized. .
by Judy-witch | 2025-09-11 02:49:04+00:00
Thanks for the suggestions! LAN party 2.0 is such a fun name Right now I only have about 10 people for the very first session, so I feel a bit shy about approaching sponsors just yet. When you mentioned “set goals” — could you share a bit more detail on what kind of goals you’ve found useful? For example, is it more like giving everyone a clear topic for the session, or setting longer-term goals like building projects together?
by deepsquirrelnet | 2025-09-11 02:49:41+00:00
I don’t think parading out engineers in shackles for a photo op was a good idea.

From another article:

> Images of South Koreans being shackled at the wrists and ankles have caused outrage in South Korea, a key U.S. ally in Asia that has pledged hundreds of billions in U.S. investment as part of tariff negotiations.

It’s just not smart, not good politics and not good business.
by robbingtherob | 2025-09-11 02:49:44+00:00
"[...]all accounts without biometric data will be closed to prevent scams and fraud. After seven years of promoting non-cash payments, we are moving toward real efficiency."

There you have it.. "Scams" and "frauds", "Transparency" for thee but not for all. I wonder if authorities will just seize money at this point.

You cannot escape your own and foreign governments at this point of human development. You can also not escape tech bullshit complicating our lifes.
by mapontosevenths | 2025-09-11 02:51:11+00:00
The history explains the oddness a bit. It was originally loosely based on Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bill of Rights which said:

> "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

I think that's very clear. They were deeply concerned about the threat a standing army posed, and wanted the militias to act as a balance. Based loosely on that Madison's first draft then said:

> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Again, more comprehensible than what we have today. Still a bit oddly phrased, but it's clear that the right can't be infringed BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia.

Then, after much debate and quibbling over the exact phrasing and in regard to religious objectors the committee submitted this to the senate:

> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

As you can see, even this version was a more complete thought, and made it very clear what the purpose of those arms actually was.

However, the senate then did the final butchery, that resulted in the version we have today and because unscrupulous people have exploited it's vagueness, school children can't be safe:

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reference: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...

To me, the real bitch is that the original purpose (to serve as a balance against the standing army) is completely null. There is no militia, or even professionally trained army strong enough to stand against the permanent army the founding fathers didn't even want us to have. Thermonuclear warheads and fighter jets didn't exist back then.

Even though the NRA likes to claim the "militia" means every American, that is NOT what Madison and the others meant by it. It's made clear in the Federalist papers, and even if it were what the founding fathers meant not even the NRA seems to be taking the stance that since the "miltia" means "Everyone" then "Everyone" can own thermonuclear warheads.

The second amendment has been wrongfully interpreted, and it's killing people.
by __turbobrew__ | 2025-09-11 02:51:25+00:00
Has anyone disputed the validity of the visas of the workers which were deported? My understanding is that SK citizens cannot get E-4, so people came to the US and worked on a visa that didn’t allow working, and the US deported the people violating visa rules in a not nice way?

Im guessing this is the case or else the SK sources would be calling out that these workers were following visa rules?
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-09-11 02:52:17+00:00
It's funny.

For decades, the software engineering community writ large has worked to make computing more secure. This has involved both education and significant investments.

Have there been major breaches along the way? Absolutely!

Is there more work to be done to defend against malicious actors? Always!

Have we seen progress over time? I think so.

But in the last few days, both Anthropic[0] and now OpenApi have put offerings into the world which effectively state to the software industry:

Do you guys think you can stop us from making new and unstoppable attack vectors that people will gladly install, then blame you and not us when their data are held ransom along with their systems being riddled with malware? Hold my beer...

0 - https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-for-chrome
by sixplusone | 2025-09-11 02:54:12+00:00
"johnnysweekends" testing Automotive 12v sodium-ion car starter battery.

I've been searching for information all over, and it's surprisingly hard to find the details. I see that sodium is much better than lead but not as good as lithium, but cheaper and nontoxic, so I went looking for why Pb batteries aren't dead yet and replaced by Na everywhere.

Looks like the alternators will have to be replaced (or can they be reprogrammed?). Any mechanics or engineers here have additional insights?

Also should be applicable to UPS batteries. Anyone building those?
by ninjagoo | 2025-09-11 02:54:37+00:00
That source is so unreliable that you may want to check those "claims" yourself, by hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Controver...

Likely better source that disproves the "claims" in the article above, since perp demographics are in line with the male demographics of the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
by jitl | 2025-09-11 02:54:59+00:00
+1, I also don’t understand these tools. Especially these days, many apps are using ~/.config so i barely need a for loop to link everything. I like being able to slap my dotfiles on any box with my only dependencies being `bash` and either `git` or `curl | tar xzf`. At Berkeley I spent a lot of time sshing into various machines where I wasn’t root and I was only gonna use the system for a few hours. Like sshing in to each desktop in a computer lab looking for one nobody is running a build on.

It’s worked fine for me for 15 years, macOS, many Linux distros, FreeBSD.
by dahart | 2025-09-11 02:55:18+00:00
I’m a huge advocate for using debuggers, but saying never print is too dogmatic, and sometimes incorrect. There are plenty of environments where a debugger is not available or very difficult to setup - GPU shaders historically, embedded environments on small/custom hardware, experimental languages, etc.. Printing is both very easy, and often good enough. You should probably reach for a debugger if you keep adding prints and recompiling or if you don’t fix your bug in a couple of minutes. But aside from that, print debugging is useful and has its place, even on occasions when a good debugger is available. Never say never.
by fincycaden | 2025-09-11 02:56:08+00:00
I'd just like to say that I feel you and understand you. I'm a university student as well, feeling a similar way. I'm in Electrical Engineering, and I feel disillusioned with the way society is degenerating. Best of luck, friend. There still are good people out there. We may not be able to cure or fix society or even stop it from degenerating, but you can always build a life with loved ones and create your own world <3
by goku12 | 2025-09-11 02:56:38+00:00
> I don’t care that much for weekend projects.

We aren't talking about your preferences alone here, are we? The case that the parent commenter mentioned is exactly what I was talking about too. What if I want a solution? What if I'm looking for algorithms or examples? What if I want to find a group of projects that's tackling a certain problem? How are my needs invalid? Are the projects that don't have such elaborate setups, polish or completion unworthy of discovery and help? You're essentially dismissing requirements that drive others to large platforms.
by shelled | 2025-09-11 02:56:47+00:00
I actually do that. I have two folders one synced up to Dropbox and another to iCloud and they are encrypted with Cryptomator. But I back up the mounted folders i.e data to tarnsap. Besides those encrypted files (fragments?) of Cryptonator were messed up by both iCloud and Dropbox over the last few years. Gratned it could be Restic and Borg (I use these two as well for larger data sets), but for very small data tarsnap has woked well for me and prices are tiny. For a larger data set, I won't pick tarsnap.

If there's an simple but "solid" GUI backup tool with (true) PAYG I'd migrate away from Tarsnap, but there isn't one.
by rdtsc | 2025-09-11 02:58:55+00:00
> MN Democrats were not random “niche” “Democrats” but US CONGRESSMEN reply

> Minnesota is part of Canada now? Must have missed that… :)

When you've dug yourself into a hole it's good idea to stop digging and get out instead of keep digging. As the GP pointed out, a US member of Congress refers to representative in the US Congress (that one from Washington, DC).

In addition to the US Congress, states have their legislative bodies. Melissa Hortman was a member of such a state legislative body -- the Minnesota House of Representatives.

So on one hand you sound like you know a lot about her and want her to be more well known, on the other hand you don't even know what legislative body she was a representative in. So that's pretty confusing.
by UncleMeat | 2025-09-11 02:59:13+00:00
Kirk deliberately deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Is that healthy debate and disagreement? Kirk said of transwomen using the bathroom that "someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s." You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike?
by anotherlab | 2025-09-11 03:00:22+00:00
I grew up in the 70s and I loved cassettes. I would take my records and copy them to cassettes so I could play them on horrible and not-so-horrible boom boxes at parties. And of course making mix tapes.

But I don't miss wow and flutter, or tape hiss. Or the fragility of the tapes. For years, I had a recording of Joe Jackson in the late '70s, when he played at a local club. A local radio station simulcast the concert, and I was able to record most of it on a C-90 tape. That tape wore out long before I could digitize it into something more permanent.
by paulryanrogers | 2025-09-11 03:01:13+00:00
> I won't be satisfied until we change the definition. Including gang violence from people with multiple felonies is not useful to the conversation.

Why should we not count gangs and felons killing 4+ people at once as "mass killing"?!

Because their victims may know them somehow? It's still a serious incident which would be much less likely if guns were illegal. And all we'd lose is some sport shooting and ego points.
by svieira | 2025-09-11 03:01:18+00:00
The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...
by pclmulqdq | 2025-09-11 03:01:24+00:00
The reason for the non-sequitur is because if there were anything behind this plot, it would have gotten a lot more news coverage than it did as an FBI-seeded conspiracy. As it stands, there were better examples of crazy right wingers (many of whom were actually crazy right wingers), so they moved on to those. In some other parts of the country, the demand for crazy right wingers exceeded the supply, so hoaxes filled that.

Thirteen out of eighteen were arrested. Five were directly agents, and FBI agents tend not to get arrested when they are the ones doing the arresting.
by a_bonobo | 2025-09-11 03:01:25+00:00
>Leaked Ice document shows worker detained in Hyundai raid had valid visa

>At least one of the Korean workers swept up in a huge immigration raid on a Hyundai Motor factory site in Georgia last week was living and working legally in the US, according to an internal federal government document obtained by the Guardian.

>Officials then “mandated” that he agree to be removed from the US despite not having violated his visa.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/hyundai-fact...
by fredophile | 2025-09-11 03:01:48+00:00
> I primarily blame Democrats for the current situation for they have been doing just an awful job of getting anything done or standing up to opposition, they are ineffective cowards and invited the current situation with their incompetence.

I agree with you that Democrats have been ineffective in opposing Republican policies but I think you've come to the wrong conclusion. When someone gets robbed I don't primarily blame them for being ineffective at securing their home, I blame the person who robbed them. Why wouldn't you primarily blame Republicans for pushing bad policies instead of Democrats for being bad at blocking them?
by sterlind | 2025-09-11 03:02:09+00:00
pragmatically, you can't kill an idea with bullets. terrorism does one thing only: it triggers retaliation. nihilistic accelerationists who want a war can use terror to provoke one.

some of Charlie Kirk's last words:

> ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?

> KIRK: Too many. [Applause]

I don't think the shooter was trans. but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community. the DoJ was already talking about classifying us as "mentally defective" to take our guns. now there's a martyr. the hornet's nest is kicked.

murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
by rdtsc | 2025-09-11 03:03:20+00:00
And how many people outside of Minnesota you think would know her. I bet the majority of people in MN wouldn't didn't know who she is.

For instance do you know Brandon Ler, the Montana House of Representatives speaker? Or, say, Nathaniel Ledbetter, the Alabama House of Representatives?

Are they "niche" politicians? In their states, no. But, absolutely yes when it comes to people from other states and more so from across the world.
by defrost | 2025-09-11 03:03:28+00:00
> where gun confiscation worked

Australia now has more guns per capita than it did prior to the national unification of gun laws.

Unwanted guns, guns no one was willing to license, and guns not acceptable for licensing were bought back for cash, filling skip bins full of guns - much publicized as confiscation in the US.

Australian gun control was about regulation - every legal gun registered and tracked, every gun sale logged, twelve year olds joining gun clubs only with qualified supervision and unable to purchase and own a gun until adulthood.

Gun regulation following the Port Arthur massacre, the largest mass shooting in the world at that time, changed relatively little in West Australia at that time - what did happen was that regulation in Queensland, in Tasmania, and the Northern Territory and the ACT were all bought in line with with the major states of Australia for a uniform nation wide code.

I'm in rural Australia, I have firearms, my close neighbour target shoots at 5,000 yards (not a typo - 24 inch steel targets at five thousand yards - longer than any confirmed sniper shot as he and his partner are ULR (ultra long range) fanatics .. and good at it).

What regulation in Australia has achieved is a near elimination of mass shooting events, since Port Arthur there have been fewer than fingers on hand such events in 25+ years total - ie fewer mass shooting than occur in five days in the USofA.

It's also made guns extremely difficult to access for village idiots, the stupidly violent, petty criminals, etc.

Unregistered guns are on the rise in Australia being smuggled in and used by criminal enterprises with not stupid ex military enforcers, ghost guns are about, etc.

Having strong regulation makes for more open ground and an easier time of it cracking down on criminal use of guns.

It hasn't eliminated assassination by gunshot, but such events are relatively rare in Australia.
by kerkeslager | 2025-09-11 03:04:01+00:00
> And if you believe nothing ChatGPT says then you simply suffer from the opposite bias.

No, you're making a logical error. It's not that I believe the opposite of what ChatGPT says, it's that I don't believe what ChatGPT says based on ChatGPT saying it alone. If ChatGPT says your algorithm is right, it's not that I automatically believe your algorithm is wrong, it's that I believe I still don't know it's right because ChatGPT is shit at being right.

> The dilemma is that it is mostly right, most of the time, isn't it? Almost like... people?

I mean, yeah. Which is why I don't believe things just because some random person says them, either.

I tend to assign confidence intervals to beliefs in my head, and even and expert saying something doesn't make me super confident in it. I tend to believe things strongly if I can understand the hard evidence for them, not because any person, even an expert, says it.

With security, we have tens of thousands of examples of unproven security assertions being proven wrong later with disastrous effect, so the standard of proof is very high, and ChatGPT saying it is absolutely nowhere near close enough to proof. The only acceptable proof with a security algorithm is mathematical proof.

> If ChatGPT says things that are empirically provable, then it's not wrong, is it?

ChatGPT also says things that are empirically disprovable, so basically you always have to go to empirical proof to tell whether what ChatGPT has said is true, making ChatGPT next-to-useless if accuracy is at all a concern. Just go to empirical proof and skip the pointless ChatGPT step.

And accuracy really, really is a very big concern in secure random shuffling algorithms, so you really really need to empirically prove that they work which you really really have not done because you stopped thinking when you trusted ChatGPT. Your shuffling algorithm is not proven, and very likely is not secure.
by torstenvl | 2025-09-11 03:04:03+00:00
It isn't against the guidelines at all.

It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly"

People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt)