MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Facebook Messenger inserting web links into regular text?
by reassess_blind | 2025-09-18 01:37:08+00:00
Something interesting I noticed today with Facebook Messenger.

A friend messaged me:

“How we gonna celebrate Christmas this year with no tree”

And messenger somehow parsed the URL “christ.as” out of this, despite there being no URL in the text, making the whole message clickable.

Sender was Android, receiver (me) was iOS.

Can’t seem to replicate this when sending from iOS.

http://christ.as appears to be an empty holding domain, but I wonder if they’re seeing a spike in traffic from anyone mentioning Christmas.

Also wonder if this happens with any other words or phrases, and if there’s any potential “attack” vector by someone registering these domains.
by ajross | 2025-09-18 01:37:53+00:00
The pedantic correction is important in this case: "cancellation" is a private action between citizens, this is "censorship", which is done at the behest of the government. The former can be arguably but reasonably understood as a market finding a balance between two opposing arguments, both of which have a first amendment right (i.e. I don't have to repeat others' words if I don't want to, even if I'm doing it out of self interest).

The government has no such right. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
by DangitBobby | 2025-09-18 01:38:02+00:00
I don't really understand the problem since you can read the comment and see it's not a quote, but I agree that you've proven it's a policy. Written English might benefit from a special syntax to denote something not intended to be a literal quote, but I guess writing "(paraphrased)" (not quoting you here) would suffice.

Edit: Funnily enough, I can't actually find this policy in the guideline. I see now that dang said it's actually not a guideline but telling people not to do it anyway is apparently a thing, which I find really fucking weird. Also funny that the same 'quote as framing' device (which I'm now avoiding) is used to paraphrase a position in the guidelines!

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by mullingitover | 2025-09-18 01:38:05+00:00
> there's no more addictive algorithm than the TikTok one.

I really have to disagree at this point. Meta has all the money in the world to throw at this, and inference isn't rocket surgery. I think Meta's algorithm caught up a couple years ago, if anything it's even more addictive. Tiktok is simply riding on first mover status, plus it's a Coke/Pepsi thing, a large segment finds Meta properties distasteful for all the obvious reasons.
by dotancohen | 2025-09-18 01:38:32+00:00
It means that Hamas stores and fires rockets, sniper fire, anti-tank fire, and other weapons from hospitals, schools, residential areas, and other civilian infrastructure.

It means that Hamas has children stand guard around rocket launchers. As far back as a decade ago, when this started becoming more and more common, I saved a video of a Hamas rocket fuse failing, killing the children guarding it. That was quite when I started taking more of an interest in what is going on over there.

The human shields are Gazan citizens - many of which are themselves happy to die "for the resistance" thanks to UNRWA education. This I have been told at least twice by Gazans face to face, and dozens of times online. Yes, I know Gazans and I speak with them online in Arabic. I suffer a lot of abuse, I have a thick skin (I laugh that I'm divorced, you can't insult me more than my ex).

There is no euphemism. These are real people risking their lives - and sometimes loosing - to protect military equipment designed to exterminate Jews. That is not a euphemism either - even the Gazans who work in Israel clearly state that all Gazans would happily kill any Jew. Just a few weeks before the October attacks I was having a conversation, pleasant and civil, and the guy tells me "without your weapons the Arabs would trample you" - I was unsure if he was threatening me. Just a few weeks after that they overran the Kibbutz where I until recently worked, and killed over 10% of the population. That is literal, biblical, decimation.
by thelastgallon | 2025-09-18 01:39:33+00:00
"As long as you have women under conditions where they don't feel any sense of value, no self-worth, except as mothers, except as baby factories, they'll have a lot of children because that's the only way they can prove they're worth something." Isaac Asimov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zMxNdcwafA
by jszymborski | 2025-09-18 01:39:46+00:00
While the reasons you list reduce the cost to ABC for cancelling Kimmel, it is no less outrageous and alarming that the current administration forced Kimmel out because of his criticism of the government.

Maher, like the Dixie Chicks and Garofalo, criticized a deeply popular war (regardless of what you think of it) and were ostensibly cancelled pre-cancellation era. The government didn't issue a statement through a right-wing podcast stating that the network better toe the line or get it's affiliate license revoked.

You are right, this has happened before. This is far more like the purges of the red scare. People were just (perhaps naively) hoping society had progressed from where we were ~70 years ago.
by roxolotl | 2025-09-18 01:39:47+00:00
This comment reminds me of this paper which makes a similar argument. It claims that chips are more than just a depreciating asset you actually have to keep buying more for the economics to enable the scaling. And inherently there's going to be ups and downs. The AI labs seem to not be preparing for the depreciation nor the scaling requirements and that puts their economics into question.

https://gauthierroussilhe.com/en/articles/how-to-use-computi...
by hypeatei | 2025-09-18 01:39:59+00:00
> cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel today

Just to clarify for anyone skimming: ABC faced pressure from FCC chair Brendan Carr after he said their broadcasting license was at risk from Kimmel's statements on Tyler Robinson, the alleged Kirk assassin.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-ab...
by kelnos | 2025-09-18 01:40:01+00:00
I expect my (Premium) views are no longer counted, because my ad blocker is blocking the API endpoint that counts my views.

The fact that I have Premium is irrelevant; if YouTube isn't getting the metrics that says I watched a video, then it won't be counted.

Certainly YouTube could change the method they use to count views so it would work in my case, but they probably don't have an incentive to do so.
by a_bonobo | 2025-09-18 01:40:30+00:00
>If an LLM can solve a complex problem 50% of the time, then that is still very valuable

I'd adjust that statement - If an LLM can solve a complex problem 50% of the time and I can evaluate correctness of the output, then that is still very valuable. I've seen too many people blindly pass on LLM output - for a short while it was a trend in the scientific literature to have LLMs evaluate output of other LLMs? Who knows how correct that was. Luckily that has ended.
by lovich | 2025-09-18 01:40:48+00:00
> Actually it was a couple of big ABC affiliate owners that started the avalanche, and ABC followed…not any government pressure.

Brah.

Brendan Carr, the current head of the FCC publicly threatened to go after ABC for his speech, then ABC pulled the show.[1] Walks, talks, and acts likes government pressure being used for censorship against views they don’t agree with

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chair-threatens-jimm...
by jayrhynas | 2025-09-18 01:40:59+00:00
CTRL-Labs themselves acquired the wristband tech from North/Thalmic, who pivoted into smart glasses for a few years before being acquired by Google.

> In an interesting twist, CTRL-Labs purchased a series of patents earlier this year around the Myo armband, a gesture and motion control device developed by North, formerly known as Thalmic Labs. The Myo armband measured electromyography, or EEG, to translate muscle activity into gesture-related software inputs, but North moved on from the product and now makes a stylish pair of AR glasses known as Focals. It now appears the technology North developed may in some way make its way into a Focals competitor by way of CTRL-Labs.
by kentonv | 2025-09-18 01:41:03+00:00
Good old Douglas Crockford. He also put the "must be used for good, not evil" restriction on JSON, which he invented. Obviously JSON is used for all kinds of evil, though.

A much younger, more naive me (~20 years ago) actually emailed him to complain about the ambiguous terms and he replied saying something to the effect of "It's obviously unenforceable, get over it."
by lock1 | 2025-09-18 01:42:01+00:00
And OOP is just subtyping and visibility modifiers too! /j

The main problem with ADT is language support for them. Primarily sum types, as they're missing in a lot of major PLs, while product types are "just" structs or classes.

Without language support, you can simulate them via brittle workarounds like `if (d.isTypeA()) return d.methodA()`.

Actually, I agree, it is mundane. That's exactly why it's kind of becoming an itch for anyone used to ADT, you'll feel like you're missing a basic building block.

Just imagine if all languages removed `struct`-like and `class`-like construct. Something like Brainfuck esolang or any plain asm. It certainly possible to create arbitrary complex program in those languages. But would you pick `struct`-less language over language that supports it natively?
by blackqueeriroh | 2025-09-18 01:42:07+00:00
We all love to say this, but everyone forgets: Apple has never beaten competitors by being the first – they’ve beaten them by being the best.

Personal computers? Apple wasn’t first. Smartphones with screens? Apple wasn’t first. Tablets? Not first by a mile. True Wireless Earbuds? Nope, not at all first. Smartwatches? Hell no, not first.

And yet, Apple’s a category leader in every single one of these areas.

I don’t think it matters if Meta releases something first; Apple wins by doing it way better. Arguably, Vision Pro was way too early, even though it’s an incredible experience.
by geuis | 2025-09-18 01:42:14+00:00
Interesting tech, but the item is completely without any attractive style. Look up "army birth control glasses"

(Sorry about the google search link. Apple and Google go out of their way to hide the url when doing searches on Google from mobile Safari.)

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=046dc2c9c0fa6748&udm=2...

This is what no one else can seem to understand. The iPad was created in Apple's labs before the iPhone. But Jobs and other staff made the decision to wait several years to launch the phone until the tech caught up to the ambition. They had a certain ascetic they wanted in addition to the hardware and it required time.

In this case, it looks like opposite. The tech is finally getting there, but the design team has no sense of making a daily wear product that people should reasonably want to wear. If I imagine a large population of people wearing these daily, it's going to look like middle and high school students from the 70s and 80s in yearbook photos.

What's awful is that I'm one of the most fashion ignorant people I know. I wear the same type of shirts and shoes because they're comfortable not stylish. And my glasses are as minimal frame as possible because I don't want a large mass of matter sitting on my face. Even that being said, this product just reminds me of my buddy's army photo of him wearing the Army issued glasses. Not good.
by Theodores | 2025-09-18 01:43:33+00:00
I think they got us good with the imbalance of brain chemistry back in the 90s when Prozac was all the rage. Prozac was the Ozempic of the era with the financial incentives to make it so. The patents have subsequently expired so it isn't the cash cow it was. Odd how the science that went with it has now been discredited.
by thot_experiment | 2025-09-18 01:44:17+00:00
Just in case someone is working on this type of thing. I will easily pay $1000 for an open source glasses thingy that has a monochrome laser display projecting directly onto my retina. IIRC Bosch and Intel have tried this before and the prototypes never went anywhere so there's probably a really good hardware reason why it's not happening but I want that more than any other hardware, it doesn't even have to be both eyes.

(admittedly with the recent Android news perhaps non-exploitative mobile computing is about to be dead and buried but shit, I'd lug around a backpack module everywhere running linux if it came to that)
by lmm | 2025-09-18 01:44:18+00:00
> 30% had at least one message degraded. One message is basically nothing.

They don't give an upper bound though. 30% had at least one message degraded. Some proportion of that 30% (maybe most of them?) had some larger proportion of their messages (maybe most of them?) degraded. That matters, and presumably the reason we're not given those numbers is that they're bad.
by ajross | 2025-09-18 01:44:37+00:00
FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.
by kelnos | 2025-09-18 01:44:46+00:00
> If ads could be relevant, vetted, non-intrusive, and ancillary to the experience, all actions that are required to be performed by the ad platform Youtube/Google, then you wouldn't have much moral leg to stand on.

Even if ads were all of those things, ads are psychological manipulation, and I there is no moral imperative that says I have to subject myself to that.

Sure, you could say, "well then instead just don't use YouTube", and I would say... "yeah, maybe, but... I'm a selfish human and want to, and unless YouTube is going to give me a way to exchange something else for a better experience, tough shit on them."

But anyway, they do give me that option, and I pay for Premium, so it's not a problem.
by dotancohen | 2025-09-18 01:45:18+00:00
> You think Navi Pillay, who was the President on the Rwanda Tribunal (for genocide), is less competent than you & would sign off on mere "circular references"?

No, I do not think that Navi Pillay is less competent than me. I do however see that she signed off on circular references. Her competence has little to do with her motivations.

> Does it at least know who it is raping?

Yes. The single incident of rape - a group of soldiers ramming a broomstick up the ass of a captured terrorist who had murdered people - was done by known soldiers and they are being prosecuted. And we know the identity of the man who was raped.
by dylan604 | 2025-09-18 01:46:18+00:00
at a company I used to work at, yes, very much so. our personal devices were checked into a locker with security before entering the secured part of the building. you were free to come back out to use it when you needed during the day. the USB ports to our workstations were covered with epoxy. the desktops didn't actually connect to the internet, so email/etc used a remote citrix connection to isolate networks. any network transfer over a set size would send notices. to be honest, it was glorious to be without the device. the shit part was everyday when leaving the office you had to have your bags searched.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-09-18 01:46:30+00:00
Being greedy is fine here, though. It's the exact same match but somehow cut one byte short.

Also I just tested something. If you stick a random extra letter onto the start of the string, the mistake goes away and the output shrinks by a byte. Is it possibly an issue with finding matches that start at byte 0...?

More testing: Removing the Ts that fail to match to get TOBEORNOTOBEOROBEORNOT shrinks the output by 2 bytes. Changing the first character to ZOBEORNOTOBEOROBEORNOT stays at the same shrunken size. Then removing that Z to get OBEORNOTOBEOROBEORNOT makes it balloon back up as now it fails to match the O twice.

If I take the original string and start prepending unique letters, the first one shrinks and fixes the matching, and then each subsequent letter adds one byte. So it's not that matching needs some particular alignment, it's only failing to match the very first byte.

A new test: XPPPPPPPP appears to encode as X, P, then a copy command. And PPPPPPPPP encodes as P, P, then a copy. Super wrong.
by fknorangesite | 2025-09-18 01:47:07+00:00
It's funny you mention Veritasium in particular, since he hates the clickbait as much as anyone, and made a video specifically about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

tldw You're basically forced to structure your thumbnails and titles that way if you want your videos to actually be seen. Blame YouTube's recommendation algorithm, not the creators.
by jancsika | 2025-09-18 01:47:09+00:00
Your summary claims more than the original you quoted, no?

Example:

Case 1: Subject tries piano sight-reading exercises, if they get less than 80% accuracy a loud annoying horn will blare. Then subject goes again and try to improve the score.

Care 2. Subject tries piano sight-reading exercises, and if they get less than 80% accuracy they get notified that they didn't succeed at the test. Then they go again and try to improve their score.

The article strongly implies depression will make improvement more difficult in case 1 by the amount found in the study. But it doesn't necessarily imply that (or anything strongly) for case 2.

Your summary strongly implies that depression impedes progress in both cases at the same rate as the outcome of the study.

I'm not a domain expert but I'm going to guess "having bad outcomes" is as poor a paraphrase of "overriding prepotent responses" here as "having functions" would be to characterize functional programming languages.
by cloverich | 2025-09-18 01:47:09+00:00
My bias in these cases is that the simplest answer, same as any mass shooting, is that the killers motivations are a manifestation of mental illness and nothing more. Not always true but typically so; wasnt the trump would be assassin not left for instance? When i was told that i wasnt surprised, not because i think it was more likely of someone on the right, but because i think its mostly random. Eg we have a gun culture, a toxic culture, and a lack of mental health institutions culture. That will only ever produce (among other things) a consistent stream of random acts of violence.

In this particular case i am a little more curious than usual to find out if that holds up here if only because the narrative was so immediately anti left attacks.
by dddgghhbbfblk | 2025-09-18 01:47:15+00:00
I think that's because the framing around this (and similar stories about eg IMO performances) is imo slightly wrong. It's not interesting that they can get a gold medal in the sense of trying to rank them against human competitors. As you say, the direct comparisons are, while not entirely meaningless, at least very hard to interpret in the best of cases. It's very much an apples to oranges situation.

Rather, the impressive thing is simply that an AI is capable of solving these problems at all. These are novel (ie not in training set) problems that are really hard and beyond the ability of most professional programmers. The "gold medal" part is informative more in the sense that it gives an indication of how many problems the AI was able to solve & how well it was able to do them.

When talking with some friends about chatgpt just a couple years ago I remember being very confident that there was no way this technology would be able to solve this kind of novel, very challenging reasoning problem, and that there was no way it would be able to solve IMO problems. It's remarkable how quickly I've been proven wrong.
by inopinatus | 2025-09-18 01:47:34+00:00
Industry baseline is slightly worse again e.g. attempt to report a bug in a Microsoft product that a major government customer is experiencing when they use it with our stuff, but Microsoft won't accept the bug report because we don't ourselves have an enterprise support contract with them, and the customer's own relationship with MS is nigh-impossible to navigate because of public sector nonsense.
by rmunn | 2025-09-18 01:47:48+00:00
Rephrase it as "Youtube doesn't care about you, just about putting ads in front of your face" and it's not a contradiction. As long as you don't get irritated enough to go away and stop using Youtube entirely, they don't care about improving your viewing experience.

Another way to phrase it is the classic line "If you're not paying for it, you aren't the customer, you're the product."
by Nevermark | 2025-09-18 01:48:10+00:00
> You can certainly speculate that the these affiliates had an ulterior motive in their actions to curry favor with the Trump administration, ...

I don't know what "ulterior motive" would mean. Businesses have no choice but to deal with real threats, that isn't a hidden agenda. And I wouldn't refer to bending to demands, as a means of damage control under duress, as "currying favor".

I would consider "favor curriers" to be those that align themselves with administration excesses, in hope of favors, without duress being a factor.

This is now a business reality: a US administration that loudly broadcasts its successful use of corrupted leverage against law firms, media companies, universities, tech companies, and others it wishes to bow the knee.

Even if we conjecture the same decisions might have been made in healthier times, for whatever reasons, the unlawful pressure still shades the decisions made in this reality.
by sothatsit | 2025-09-18 01:48:21+00:00
True! This is what has me more excited about LLMs producing Lean proofs than written maths proofs. The Lean proofs can be proved to be correct, whereas the maths proofs require experts to verify them and look for mistakes.

That said, I do think there are lots of problems where verification is easier than doing the task itself, especially in computer science. I think it is easier to list tasks that aren't easier to verify than to do from scratch actually. Security is one major one.
by zmmmmm | 2025-09-18 01:48:26+00:00
If you watch it carefully, he preempts the AI with "What do I do first" before it even answered the first time. This strongly suggests it did this in rehearsal to me and hence was far more than just "bad luck" or bad connectivity. Perhaps the bad connectivity stopped the override from working and it just kept repeating the previous response. Either way it suggests some troubling early implications about how well Meta's AI work is going to me, that they got this stuck on the main live demo for their flagship product on such a simple thing.
by taeric | 2025-09-18 01:48:37+00:00
Right. Apologies, but I know the basics.

My argument is that "algebraic types" would be less confusing if you actually did algebra using the types. That is it. That is my full argument.

As it is, you have to go through hoops to show what the algebra of the types is. And how that maps to whatever subtyping rules that the popular language you are using is.

Now, my argument is not that there is not some usefulness to understanding the algebra you can do with types. Quite the contrary. I think that is very useful and people should try to understand it.

But my argument remains that without using the common operations that define algebras, namely + and *, that calling them algebraic types does not provide any help in understanding the types for people. It remains an unfortunate naming based on how people are commonly introduced to the term "algebra."