MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bo0tzz | 2025-10-24 09:46:50+00:00
1. It only works at all for internal PRs, not for forks. That is a limitation we'd like to lift if we could figure out a way to do it safely though.

2. It's running on a pretty big machine, so I haven't seen it approach any limits yet. We also only create an instance when requested (with a PR label).

3. I've of course been inspired by other examples, but I think the current pattern is mostly my own, if largely just one of the core uses of the flux-operator ResourceSet APIs [1]. It's absolutely generalizable - the main 'loop' [2] just templates whatever Kubernetes resources based on the existence of a PR, you could put absolutely anything in there.

[1]: https://fluxcd.control-plane.io/operator/resourcesets/github...

[2]: https://github.com/immich-app/devtools/blob/main/kubernetes/...
by msl | 2025-10-24 09:47:08+00:00
I worry we're veering very much off topic, so let me state, for the benefit of anyone thinking that this is still about the original comment, that I consider the quote provided by abnercoimbre to be both correct and relevant to the submitted topic. The rest of this comment is not about that.

No, I do not consider a document to be a part of another document, unless it's embedded in the other document. I don't, for example, consider the RFC 2822 [1] to be a part of the RFC 5322 [2] event though they are obviously related and the latter refers (and, indeed, links) to the former. If, in a conversation about the 5322, someone quoted the 2822 without providing a reference to it, I would find it confusing.

As for "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, I'll have to admit that I don't have much experience with them, but from what I believe I know about them, I'd say that I would not consider the whole book to be a single document when it comes to referencing. Would it make sense to say something like "The adventure in the book ends with you caught by the security guard" if that is just one of the many alternative endings, one that many might not encounter when playing?

And expanding on that, would you consider it appropriate referencing to say "That is a crime according to the French criminal law" without specifying where it says that? (I'm assuming here that the French criminal law is a single document.)

The other example is interesting. I would consider a wrong (or broken) link to be an error in the document, but I would not consider erroneous statements in the linked document to be inaccuracies or errors in the linking document. Imagine that instead of an outdated policy, the linked document was one promoting homeopathy. Would you say that the original document contains misleading statements about healthcare? I would not.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2822

[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322
by wtcactus | 2025-10-24 09:47:27+00:00
I'm really sensitive to this (I used to be even more, but, I'm guessing, after years of going to disco's and rock concerts, my earning lost some of its sharpness - on a side note, I used to be able to recognize basically anyone's voice - even distant acquaintances - and lost some of that with time, probably because of this reduction in hearing.).

It's really ,really distracting and enervating. Specially, because most people around you can't ear it and think you are just being picky. Imagine a TV, and that noise is there all the time and you can't watch anything in peace because you keep earning that high pitched noise in the background.
by barrell | 2025-10-24 09:48:13+00:00
Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing.

YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.
by walthamstow | 2025-10-24 09:48:35+00:00
During the last UK election, Channel 4 went undercover with the Reform team in Clacton and captured some interesting video including Farage's aide saying "when Reform are in government, our police officers will be paramilitaries"

The aide still works for Reform.

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-undercover-inside-re...
by bborud | 2025-10-24 09:49:47+00:00
Well, in many parts of the world it is a legal right. You can take pictures of people in public. There are some restrictions, and there’s of course the question of how you go about it, but it is a right.

I can understand people don’t like this. Which is why actually doing it requires a good deal of sensitivity and common sense. But that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to outlaw it.

However taking a picture is not the same as publishing it. This is the critical point.

The rules for what you can publish tend to be stricter. For instance where I live you can’t generally publish a picture of a person without consent. (It is a bit more complicated than that in practice, with lots of complicated exceptions that are not always spelled out in law. For instance if someone is making a public speech they have no expectation of privacy).

As for making it illegal: that comes with far greater problems than you might think. From losing the right to document abuses of power to robbing people of the freedom to take pictures in public.

In fact, years ago a law was passed here making it illegal to photograph arrests. A well intentioned law meant to protect suspects who have not been convicted of anything. However it has never been enacted because it was deemed dangerous. It would have made it illegal to document police misconduct, for instance. And since the press here is generally very disciplined about not publishing photos of the majority of suspects, it didn’t actually solve a problem. (In Norway identities are usually withheld in the press until someone is convicted. But sometimes identities are already known to the public. For instance in high profile cases. This, of course, varies by country)
by jofzar | 2025-10-24 09:50:02+00:00
I'm an Australian also, this is the video that blew my mind.

https://youtu.be/lShDhGn5e5s

It's a long video but the tldr is that Americans don't have foot paths. You would think they would but nope, it's not like Australia where everywhere you walk has a path and down paths to the road.

Even directly around schools no footpaths, and it's all because it's no one's responsibility other then the home owner.
by globular-toast | 2025-10-24 09:50:50+00:00
And that needs skyscrapers and entire financial districts to achieve? This is a tiny fraction of the "work" done by the financial sector. Most of what they do is pointless trading between themselves and sapping the output of the real economy.

The banks' real "product" is trust. You will work an entire month for a "bank transfer" (something you can't even hold, let alone eat or burn) because you believe your landlord will similarly accept a "bank transfer" in exchange for you rent (or, if you have a mortgage, you work an entire month because you believe this means you will be able to continue living in your house unchallenged). This has absolutely nothing to do with what programming languages or paradigms they have in place.
by condiment | 2025-10-24 09:51:14+00:00
I don’t disagree with including user attestation in addition to hardware attestation.

The notion of their being a “analog hole” for devices that attest that their content is real is correct on the face, but is a very flawed criticism. Right now, anybody on earth can open up an LLM and generate an image. Anybody on earth can open up Photoshop and manipulate an image. And there’s no accountability for where that content came from. But not everybody on earth is capable of projecting an image and photographing it in a way that is in distinguishable from taking a photo of reality. Especially when you’ve taken into consideration that these cameras are capturing depths of field information, location information, and other metadata.

I think it’s a mistake to demand perfection. This is about trust in media and creating foundational technologies that allow for that trust to be restored. Imagine if every camera and every piece of editing software had the ability to sign its output with a description of any mutations. That is a chain of metadata where each link in the chain can be assigned to trust score. If, an addition to technology signatures, human signatures are included, that just builds additional trust. At some point, it would be inappropriate for news or social media not to use this information when presenting content.

As others have mentioned, C2PA is a reasonable step in this direction.
by Leynos | 2025-10-24 09:51:48+00:00
I think that you have to be OpenAI (or X, Google or Anthropic) to be able to fine tune models of this scale through reinforcement learning at present.

Look at Tinker for an example of where things might be heading though (https://tinker-docs.thinkingmachines.ai/)

At present though, I get the sense that reinforcement learning at scale is the current battleground (and has been for most of 2025). But we also see over time, the general models adopt the skills taught to the specialized models. Look at how the learning that made codex-1 went into GPT5.
by fweimer | 2025-10-24 09:51:55+00:00
The problem about DRM in this context is not that it's going to get broken (which is probably true if the product becomes sufficiently mainstream). It will be used to target photographers and take away their rights. With today's cameras, you have (at least in theory) some choice how much of your rights you give away when you give the pictures your took to someone else. With DRM in the camera, you'll likely end up with some subscription service, ceding a lot of control to the camera makers and their business partners.
by cladopa | 2025-10-24 09:53:29+00:00
This is a great way to spy on all your company data and give it freely to three letter agencies.

Marxist politicians in companies like France or Spain will demand access to it just like with private messengers for fighting tax fraud, child abuse or whatever pretext they can manufacture to get access to this succulent information they can privately manipulate for making themselves rich, destroying the opposition...

Power concentration is very dangerous. Absolute power corrupts.
by vidarh | 2025-10-24 09:53:29+00:00
I dream in images but have only once in my life seen anything but darkness or vague abstract patterns with no connection to imagery with my eyes closed in a waking state.

I don't remember my dreams longer than a few seconds after waking up. Just reaching for a pen would be too slow.

But I have a persistent inner monologue that only ever stops with effort when I sit down to meditate.
by alyxya | 2025-10-24 09:53:35+00:00
It’s a cool idea, but I don’t know how much people care about a photo provably being real. I take pictures with my phone because it’s simple and convenient. I get the vibe that it’s kinda like NFTs, where maybe some people would care if certain NFTs are unique and permanently on some blockchain, but most people don’t. Most people won’t understand the technical details behind the proof so at most they can only trust the claim that a picture is provably real.
by monegator | 2025-10-24 09:54:09+00:00
A few years ago, i think 2018, i was in munich and as usual i went to see the mueum of technology. They had this exibition about the future of surveillance as seen by cyberpunk artists and there was this part about hair style and makeup that would confuse face detection algorythms. It was brillant, but i never managed to find it again. I hope the hivemind here remembers or can point me in the right direction
by netdevphoenix | 2025-10-24 09:54:28+00:00
Thinking without words has 2 main problems imo:

- You are unable to verify that your ideas are logical and not just feelings (i.e. the feeling of something being logical, the feeling of x and y being related, etc). The confusion between fact, logic and feelings is all so common in ASC

- You are unable to get a third party view on those ideas (language is the only form of telepathy we are capable of)
by dist-epoch | 2025-10-24 09:54:35+00:00
> Wow. ChatGPT's 1-month product retention curve (US only data surveyed across 28mn people). From <60% 2yrs ago to 90%. The most irresistible product ever created in the history of tech.

https://x.com/rohanpaul_ai/status/1981091579340419524
by aspenmayer | 2025-10-24 09:54:56+00:00
> I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed.

I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live.

The times may have changed, and we didn’t start the fire. We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just don’t want to change as much as the times, and that’s okay. The future is not yet written, and justice is a living thing. We can always go a different way if the future we arrive upon necessitates it.

I don’t mind if we have to change, but I do admire the view. The camera can only capture what’s inside the frame, and it would be a shame to stop living, and the greater loss would be to give up on life in pursuit of capturing a fleeting moment. I think for many, like me, who admire the hobby and have a love of photography as an art form, it’s akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. If it were outlawed or constrained, a true loss to society would occur, as that would be a material change in living conditions. Others are free to disagree, and I wouldn’t find fault with them for simply doing so.

When it comes to curtailing my rights to preserve history and my place in it, I don’t think I’m the one who is entitled, but those who would prevent me from freely expressing myself through my chosen medium. If you see something, you ought be free to say something or remain silent. Forestalling my speech is not for you to say. Freedom to photograph is a free speech issue, to my view.
by skissane | 2025-10-24 09:55:37+00:00
> How does that work? I can apparently make changes to the files, and even save them, but then my changes are gone when I reload it. Where were the changes saved? This is exactly what I'm wary of when using Jupyter...

The GP linked to JupyterLite, which is browser-based Jupyter based on WebAssembly...

Then there is JupyterLab which runs on your own machine, or on a server somewhere (e.g. a K8S pod)...

And then there are options like JupyterHub and Kubeflow which start K8S pods for you dynamically to run JupyterLab in...

So "where is my data stored" all depends on how Jupyter is deployed... at the moment, when I use Jupyter, I'm mainly using it running inside a Docker container which in turn runs inside a K8S pod (weird way of deploying it, but I have my reasons)... and then the notebooks are stored in a volume (PVC) attached to the K8S pod (statefulset actually), but that's just temporary storage while I work on them, anything I want to keep permanently is put in Git and pushed to our corporate Git host... and then our actual datasets are mostly on S3 (or something else which speaks the S3 protocol)
by masklinn | 2025-10-24 09:57:13+00:00
> The whole point of mounting solar panels should be to maximize area that is facing the sun.

There are a lot more considerations to get into e.g. in areas with lots of snow verticals are significantly less affected and benefit more from reflection, in summer vertical E/W bifacials have a “double hump” which provides more generation in the morning and evening, verticals take less floor space so you might be able to get extra panels or get panels at all, N/S bifacials have better winter production unless your slanted panels are “detuned” from perfect summer angle (or even better have a tilt mount you can update every few months, but that is not cheap).
by aspenmayer | 2025-10-24 09:57:28+00:00
I didn’t make fun of you, though. I’m saying it’s not your right to complain about things you don’t know about if you don’t suffer harm, even and especially if you come to know about them. People make fun of other people for reasons or in the absence of them. For you to make a logical leap to imply I’m saying it’s okay to make fun of people, or saying that having a disability is a slight, or blameworthy, or deserving scorn or mockery, is to put words in my mouth.

I’ve known deaf people who love going to concerts. They perceive the thrumming of the bass and the stomp of the crowd. They see the smiles and throw up their hands, and deaf folks are able to carry on a conversation by signing better than most folks who are hearing, especially when the music is turned up to 11.

I’m more concerned with what might happen to assistive technologies meant to be used in public by low-vision and (legally or fully) blind users if public photography bans are passed than I am about any other passing concerns about being photographed in public, to be honest.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-10-24 09:58:20+00:00
Well you did claim that, but thank you for correcting. So that warning is bad for a developer because of confused and annoyed users, but in terms of actual user restriction it's not super bad. If defender is set to be too aggressive, that's a one time change, so about on par with Android. And for the normal (I think? Did the default change?) setting you just use run anyway. That's far away from how iOS makes it impossible.

Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.
by afandian | 2025-10-24 09:59:15+00:00
I wonder how that works when they are asking to grant permission for an integration with a resource gated by OS or browser, e.g. in this case location data for the Reminders app, or showing browser notifications.

Is the deprecated path that they just don't work without enabling those settings?

And I'm sure every UX person is different. The ones who know it's a dark pattern must have some pretty strong cognitive dissonance with a company that historically sold itself as 'the good guys'.

But there's a whole generation that probably grew up with software that fundamentally doesn't respect you, and this is just normal.
by barrell | 2025-10-24 09:59:22+00:00
Not really. I think people rightfully feel that there are algorithms online trying to identify every person and every relation and store every bit of information about everyone. They feel that everything now is so permanent and public, that if you’re not at your best you’re at your worst, that that moment will be immortalized, and that you have no control after the picture is taken so it’s better to avoid it from the get go.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-10-24 09:59:42+00:00
It's more like a chorus of skeptics, nay-sayers, Luddites, conspiracy nuts, doomsday predictors, arm-chair philosophers, self-proclaimed experts, etc. mixed with all of AI fan boys. The signal to noise ratio in these threads is pretty terrible these days. It's just a lot of people shouting their opinion blindly to fuel their own vanity and egos. And then you get meta discussions like this as well.

Objectively, this OpenAI press release is announcing something that I might actually spend company money on. Finding out about such things is why I read HN. A lot of my AI chats are about copy pasting bits of information into a chat just to create enough of a context so that I can get some meaningful answer. The whole groundhog day of "who are you and what are you trying to do" is very frustrating. Anything addressing that is probably useful to me. And this sounds exactly like it would help me.

OpenAI is big enough and this announcement interesting enough that it probably warrants being on the front page more than whatever opinionated brainfart of some self proclaimed AI expert (positive / negative) competing for the same space there. There's a lot of drivel getting upvoted lately that probably could be labeled as "opinionated drivel" and unceremoniously and aggressively filtered by our dearly beloved HN moderators and editors. But this isn't one of those things IMHO. And in fairness, there just is a lot of substantial day to day news as well.
by HPsquared | 2025-10-24 09:59:49+00:00
GSM electromagnetic interference is similar.

GSM phones would transmit TDMA frames at a frequency of 217 Hz which couples with audio circuitry to cause speakers to emit a characteristic buzzing sound.

Even though it's a radio frequency signal which is outside the range of human hearing (like 800-900 MHz or higher), the signal interacts with any non-linearity in the audio circuitry (think of the diode in a crystal radio), which basically performs unintended amplitude modulation of the pulsed RF electrical signal into something like a 217 Hz square wave, which is in the audible range.

This has gone away as phones stopped using GSM. Newer standards emit more of a continuous waveform which doesn't cause these audible frequencies to be generated.

https://www.ti.com/lit/an/snaa033d/snaa033d.pdf
by close04 | 2025-10-24 09:59:55+00:00
Sorry but your post is all over the place. It's not nice to introduce random things in a conversation and force anyone who wants to respond to you to address all that randomness.

> I don't know why the attitude persists that the government can't regulate things and enforce laws. They certainly can.

Who said anything about government regulation? The latest part of the thread was about "the market" handling it, you yourself even said "with liability lawsuits", now you talk government regulation which is the opposite of that.

> Amazon and Temu aren't allowed to sell cars

Who said anything about cars? We're talking bicycles and other things people want to stay unregulated. They sell bad products and "the market" didn't handle it, not with lawsuits or regulation or enforcement. So many ebikes were catching fire in my complex while charging that the administration banned even storing ebikes in the underground parking or the individual storage units. The importer of the bikes (Amazon store?) was of course dissolved by that time.

> because we still regulate our cars somewhat

Who said anything about car regulations? That's exactly what people don't want with bicycles. Look at this discussion, people want to pretend even mopeds should still be called "just bikes" so they stay unregulated. The whole point of a bicycle is to be a simple unregulated vehicle with minimal capabilities. Not multi kilowatt motor vehicle that can carry heavy loads up a hill at speeds that most people barely cycle on the flat.

> You can't (for example) operate a motorcycle in California without a helmet.

Who said anything about motorcycles? You can operate a bicycle without a helmet because people weren't fine with mandatory helmet laws. Just like it will happen with "mandatory liability insurance and telemetry" for bikes. It might happen when we all live in a dystopia where everything you do is tracked, or for some bicycles that aren't really bicycles (mopeds and higher categories).

Whoever wants powerful motors or high carrying capacity should stop calling it "a bicycle" and call it a "moped" or "S-Pedelec". These already require insurance and a license plate. There are enough categories here [0] to cover all needs. Pretending everything on 2 wheels is a bicycle does cyclists a disservice and is like calling my car "an umbrella" so I'm allowed to take it everywhere with me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_category#EU_classifica...
by DoingIsLearning | 2025-10-24 10:00:28+00:00
> If that's all they offer, it's on the companies to implement a fallback for edge cases like these.

These news articles and the adjacent online discussion are textbook warfare psyops 'nudging'.

Doesn't matter if you are real/bot, being payed or not. The discourse is now changing the goalposts to focus on the details of OSA implementation, not OSA itself. Mission acomplished.

It's on governments to stop pushing legislation that slow boil us into autocracy. It's on us to not be ok with that.

Everything else is noise.