MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bruce511 | 2025-10-15 05:52:58+00:00
Yes we all die. Yes a lot of those deaths could be delayed.

However I'd argue that it's not as simple as "blaming the news". Health education starts as children, and continues throughout life.

Secondly, focusing on just the 2 primary causes for a moment (heart disease and cancer), its not like there's a shortage of education.

People (for the most part) completely understand the issues around these. Smoking is bad. Drinking is bad. Exercise is good. Eat less sugar. Eating home prepared (real) food is better than industrial food.

In other words the outcomes of bad choices are well understood and very well passed on via education. And information today has never been more accessible.

I don't think the news adding a running count of cancer deaths would make the slightest difference.

As evidence I introduce Covid, where we did literally have a death count every day. And not some "20 years from now" result, but the "got sick on Monday, dead today" count.

Population responses in different countries was diverse. In the US the partisan resistance was notable. The death count there also notable.

Culturally (some) US citizens are distrustful of education. Most are in the "my personal freedom" camp. Telling someone that smoking kills triggers the "I'm free to do what I want" response.

I agree people could improve their own lives easily. They already known how. They (mostly) choose not to do so.
by famahar | 2025-10-15 05:54:45+00:00
I have an Xperia X Compact phone that I bought in a used shop in Japan for $50. I think you can buy it online too. It's pretty small, runs kinda slow so I don't use any demanding apps. Mostly just use it for directions, studying flashcards, and messaging people. It's sad they don't make phones this small anymore.
by eru | 2025-10-15 05:54:52+00:00
Fatalities per Joule of generated electricity is extremely low for nuclear power, even if you add not just Fukushima but also Chernobyl.

So if you'd scale up, and keep that level of safety, it would be fine. Even less safety would be fine. After all, we accept much less safety in eg natural gas or even solar power. (Solar power is extremely safe once running, but if you look at casualties over the lifecycle, you get a few people falling off roofs when installing residential solar power. It's a very small number, but nuclear is so safe, that the roof-fall incidents of solar are a big number by comparison.)
by overgard | 2025-10-15 05:55:28+00:00
I remember in the early 2000's when compositing window managers first came about people went wild with the effects in the most tacky way possible (me too -- it was fun at the time!) Everything transparent, rotating cubes for different desktops, weird animations on everything. Once it became common place though, actual designers started to show some restraint...

Anyway, whatever Apple is doing right now reminds me a lot of that.
by strogonoff | 2025-10-15 05:56:05+00:00
> talking of a claim like this is pointless.

Not at all. The confusion you expressed in your original comment stems from that claim. If you want to overcome that confusion, we have to talk about that claim.

Your statement was that it’s unclear how a bunch of valves doesn’t understand, but chemical processes do, and maybe you have a wrong intuition. Well, it appears that your intuition is to make this claim of causality, that some sort of object (e.g., valves or neurons), which you believe is part of objective reality, is what would have to cause understanding to exist.

So, I pointed out that assumption of such causality is not a provable claim, it is part of monistic materialism, which is a philosophical view, not scientific fact.

Further hinting at your tendency to assume monistic materialism is calling the systems “functionally identical”. It’s fairly evident that they are not functionally identical if one of them understands and the other doesn’t; it’s easy to make this mistake if you subconsciously already decide that understanding isn’t really a thing that exists (as many monistic materialists do).

> Like understanding, I haven't seen a particularly useful definition of consciousness that works around the edges.

Inability to define consciousness is fine, because logically circular definitions are difficult. However, lack of definition for the phenomenon is not the same thing as denying its objective existence.

You can escape the necessity to admit its existence by waving it away as an illusion or “not really” existing. Which is absolutely fine, as long as you recognize that it’s simply a workaround to not have to define things (if it’s an illusion, whom does it act on?), that conscious illusionism is just as unfalsifiable and unprovable as any other philosophical view about the nature of reality or consciousness, and that logically it’s quite ridiculous to dismiss as illusion literally the only thing that we empirically have direct unmediated access to.

> It's not mostly mimicking, it's exactly identical.

> Both cases with a person inside answering questions act identically and you can never design a test to tell which room has the tin of beans in.

If you constructed a system A that produces some output, and there is a system B, which you did not construct and which you don't have an full understanding of how it works, which produces identical output but is also believed to produce other output that cannot be measured with current technology (a.k.a. feelings and understanding), you have two options: 1) say that if we cannot measure something today then it certainly doesn’t matter, doesn’t exist, etc., or 2) admit that system A could be a p-zombie.
by simonw | 2025-10-15 05:56:25+00:00
Looks like Claude reported it based on this:

● Bash(free -h) ⎿ total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 119Gi 7.5Gi 100Gi 17Mi 12Gi 112Gi Swap: 0B 0B 0B

That 119Gi is indeed gibibytes, and 119Gi in GB is 128GB.
by danpalmer | 2025-10-15 05:56:26+00:00
If you write policy about AI you're doing it wrong. AI is an implementation, but policies must be written for outcomes.

Discrimination by law enforcement, exclusion from loan approval, bad moderation on social networking, cheating on exams, creating fake news or media about people, swallowing up user data... all the negative social impact of AI can be achieved without it, and much of it is already illegal anyway.

Legislation that is predicated on AI will fail in the long run. Legislation that focuses on the actual negative outcomes will stand the test of time much more.
by scuff3d | 2025-10-15 05:56:53+00:00
> Other programming languages sometimes claim to be "as fast as C". But no other language claims to be faster than C for general-purpose programming, because none are.

Not OP, And I'm not really arguing with the post, but this struck me as a really odd thing to include in the article. Of course nothing is going to be faster then C, because it compiles straight to machine code with no garbage collection. Literally any language that does the same will be the same speed but not faster, because there's no way to be faster. It's physically impossible.

A much better statement, and one inline with the rest of the article, would be that at the time C and C++ were really the only viable languages that gave them the performance they wanted, and C++ wouldn't have given them the interoperability they wanted. So their only choice was C.
by WorldPeas | 2025-10-15 05:56:57+00:00
That and private chat rooms have become more popular as people don't really seem to like talking with strangers anymore now that most aren't more clever than cleverbot(remember that one?). I can't comment as I'm not really part of anything like that, but at least from some of the products I've seen here, that's the platitude I tell myself to explain why so many forums I used to frequent for answers and show-and-tell are basically dead.
by toredash | 2025-10-15 05:57:00+00:00
I would LOVE to pitch something else I'm working on that is solving this problem in EKS, cross zone data transfer.

It's a plugin that enables traffic re-direction for any service that is using an IP in any given VPC. If you have say multiple RDS Reader instances, it will first attempt to use local AZ instances first, but the other instances are available if local instances are non-functional. So you do not loose HA or failover features.

The plugin does not require any reconfiguration on your apps. It works similar to Topology Aware Routing (https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/topo...) in Kubernetes, but it works for services outside of Kubernetes. The plugin even works for non-Kubernetes setup as well.

This AZP solution is fine for services that is have one IP or primary instance, like RDS Writer instance. It does not work for anything that is "stateless" and multi-AZ, like RDS Read-only instances or ALBs.
by eimrine | 2025-10-15 05:57:18+00:00
Legislation (in your cases) is when some nanny state doing two agressive things simultaneusly:

1. Punish the aggressive actor by another aggression

2. Make a monopoly of punishing and choosing what to punish.

[1] is the action which will be done anyway, if nobody punish my neighbour murderer/scammer I will do it anyway because he is my neighbour.

[2] is a sign of tyranny, lets remember what we are talking about - bets. Bets are not a scam, bets are not a steal. If you and me and the others permit some state to punish for bets, the governmont will see the ability to disallow something else by demagogic justification.

I do not see anything non-agressive in disallowing bets. I understand that proprietary software does a big work towards making people to bet, I understand that the proprietary bet software might be in a hands of some kid who can easily lost all the family's earnings.

But hear me please - agressive legislation of non-agressive behaviour is not just agression, it is an opener for even more agression. Killing some murderer is agression which closes the door for futurer murders. The responses in this comment tree compares betting with murdering - why they are spreading such a demagogy? Does anybody really want a nanny state?
by resonious | 2025-10-15 05:57:44+00:00
I once had a boss who saw me use Vim and was really impressed with how quickly I could jump around files and make precision edits. He tried getting the other devs (not many, < 5) to use Vim too but it didn't quite pan out.

I would guess that interest, passion, and motivation all play a role here. It's kind of like programming itself. If you sit people down and make them program for awhile, some will get good at it and some won't.
by fragmede | 2025-10-15 05:57:52+00:00
Of actual uses of the Sherman antitrust act, starting in 2002, DRAM manufactures were investigated and then pleaded guilty to price fixing to the US. Eventually Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida all pled guilty.

Following that, a regional sales manager for Micron pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 2003, and then in 2004, Infineon also pled guilty. Hynix Semiconductor took their turn in 2005 and plead guilty and paid a fine. 2005 Samsung pled guilty in connection with the cartel and paid a fine.

Next up in 2006, Sun Woo Lee, the Senior Manager of DRAM at Samsung Electronics, entered into a plea bargain for price fixing. This barely seems to have slowed down his career, however, as after 8 months in prison he was promoted to President of Samsung Germany in 2009, and then President of Samsung Europe in 2014.

Unfortunately for the DRAM cartel, in 2010 the EU joined the party and fined everyone for what they did in 2002. Micron snitched and did not get fined though.

In 2018, Samsung, Hynix, and Micron got new charges of price fixing levied at them. In Jan 2018, prices of DRAM were triple their 2016 low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal

Yeah I have no idea why they could be high.
by danielbarla | 2025-10-15 05:58:41+00:00
> Nobody had to teach me that delicious things include Oreos and not cardboard.

Well, no, that came from billions of years of pre-training that just got mostly hardcoded into us, due to survival / evolutionary pressure. If anything, the fact that AI is as far as it is, after less than 100 years of development, is shocking. I recall my uncle trounce our C64 in chess, and go on to explain how machines don't have intuition, and the search space explodes combinatorically, which is why they will never beat a competent human. This was ~10 years before Deep Blue. Oh, sure, that's just a party trick. 10 years ago, we didn't have GPT-style language understanding, or image generation (at least, not widely available nor of middling quality). I wonder what we will have in 10, 20, 100 years - whatever it is, I am fairly confident that architectural improvements will lead to large capability improvements eventually, and that current behavior and limitations are just that, current. So, the argument is that somehow, intuitively they can't ever be truly intelligent or conscious because it's somehow intuitively obvious? I disagree with this argument; I don't think we have any real, scientific idea of what consciousness really is, nor do we have any way to differentiate "real" from "fake".

On the other end of the spectrum, I have seen humans with dementia not able to make sense of the world any more. Are they conscious? What about a dog, rabbit, cricket, bacterium? I am pretty sure at their own level, they certainly feel like they are alive and conscious. I don't have any real answers, but it certainly seems to be a spectrum, and holding on to some magical or esoteric differentiator, like emotions or feelings, seems like wishful thinking to me.
by petesergeant | 2025-10-15 05:58:50+00:00
> If they’re really so confident on the LLM’s effectiveness, why not just keep it voluntary, why force it on people?

For people who are so confident (which, I'm not), it's an obvious step; developers who don't want to use it must either be luddites or afraid it'll take their jobs. Moving sales people to digital CRMs from paper files, moving accountants to accounting software from paper ledgers and journals, moving weavers to power looms, etc etc -- there would have been enthusiasts and holdouts at every step.

The PE-bro who's currently boasting to his friends that all code at a portfolio has to be written first with Claude Code and developers are just there to catch the very rare error would have been boasting to his friends about replacing his whole development team with a team that cost 1/10 the price in Noida.

Coding agents can't replace developers _right now_, and it's unclear whether scaling the current approach will allow them to at any point, but at some point (and maybe that's not until we get true AGI) they will be able to replace a substantial chunk of the developer workforce, but a significant chunk of developers will be highly resistant to it. The people you're complaining about are simply too early.
by hilbert42 | 2025-10-15 05:59:00+00:00
"Something here doesn't add up. Tastes like bullshit to me."

Perhaps so, but it's easily confirmed by another owner of said device going through the same or similar procedure.

If there's any truth to this then everyone should know about it. (Frankly, from what I've seen lately I'd not be a bit surprised that manufacturers would stoop so low).
by almostgotcaught | 2025-10-15 05:59:02+00:00
whenever people complain about someone being "merely happy with getting something to work and get it out the door before clocking out" i wonder to myself if i'm dealing with someone that has The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism on their nightstand, or has never read Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, or simply does not understand the significance of these two essays.

like ... you expect people to actually be committed to "the value of a hard day's work" for its own sake? when owners aren't committed to value of a hard day's worker? and you think that your position is the respectable/wise one? lol
by drpixie | 2025-10-15 06:00:20+00:00
>> a solution that seems correct under their heuristic reasoning, but they arrived at that result in a non-logical way

Not quite ... LLMs are not HAL (unfortunately). They produce something that is associated with the same input, something that should look like an acceptable answer. A correct answer will be acceptable, and so will any answer that has been associated with similar input. And so will anything that fools some of the people, some of the time ;)

The unpredictability is a huge problem. Take the geoguess example - it has come up with a collection of "facts" about Paramaribo. These may or may-not be correct. But some are not shown in the image. Very likely the "answer" is derived from completely different factors, and the "explanation" in spurious (perhaps an explanation of how other people made a similar guess!)

The questioner has no way of telling if the "explanation" was actually the logic used. (It wasn't!) And when genuine experts follow the trail of token activation, the answer and the explanation are quite independent.
by Cheer2171 | 2025-10-15 06:00:21+00:00
Oh, so we can't address any specific problems with any technology, because we should actually be fixing all of society at the root of all those problems. So while you wait for our broken political system to solve those root causes, enjoy feeling smug about not having implemented any imperfect, temporary bandaids to stop some bleeding.

Are you working on fixing those root problems? Or after dismissing short term policy bandaids, are you going to go back to working in an industry where you will probably make more money in the short run if governments don't do any tech regulation in the short run?

Your commitment to the long run will lead to paralysis and do nothing in the long run.
by el_dockerr | 2025-10-15 06:01:24+00:00
I'm late for the party, but I create a tiny but useful C / C++ build system called Bodge that is equipped to build small C++ projects. Can be found here: https://github.com/el-dockerr/bodge. You simply define the buildflags and you can add subresources from git, which can also run Bodge to be build if needed. You can define further action, like copying or move of files after build. You can create sequences to build linked libraries and executable in one single run. Maybe it's something. In the company I work for it is beloved because it get rid of the issues that you have distinct between IDEs and environments what is especial a pain for Windows User. It's under GNU and very small. I will enhance it step by step.
by dreadnip | 2025-10-15 06:02:16+00:00
This part confused me:

“ Suddenly one day about a week in I got a random anonymous message on Signal containing a single file of 1,704 bytes. I cautiously examine this rogue file in a hex editor and find that it looks like a real private key.”

I’m very unfamiliar with Android development so I’m not sure what the author is implying here. Is this some random Humane owner sending his key to him, or maybe a former Humane employee?
by musebox35 | 2025-10-15 06:02:47+00:00
AFAIK, certain abilities such as understanding arithmetic manifest at discrete scale points even though there is a continuous build up of potential. There is also the more remote possibility of a discrete scale that AI takes over its own training or at least starts to contribute substantially. A lot of real world leverage and arbitrage depends on such discrete surprises that may not be visible during the continuous incremental evolution. I think this principle holds computationally as much as it does biologically.
by annexrichmond | 2025-10-15 06:03:06+00:00
I didn't say it directly ended, I said it was aided by.

> "I think it really started when we took out the nuclear capability of Iran," Trump said, referring to the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. "When you look at what they had, you couldn't have made this deal with someone sitting over there with a nuclear weapon over your head." [1]

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-credits-iran-nuclear-...
by sh34r | 2025-10-15 06:03:21+00:00
It is a purely subjective design decision, but I personally prefer the stricter rules that don’t do backwards type inferences like this… type hints shouldn’t follow duck typing semantics. Otherwise you’re not providing nearly as much value IMO. Typescript is really the model organism here. They took the most cursed mainstream programming language, and made it downright good.

Today, the “: list[str]” is 11 wasted characters and it’s not as aesthetically pleasing. Tomorrow, you do some refactor and your inferred list[str] becomes a list[int] without you realizing it… I’m sure that sounds silly in this toy example, but just imagine it’s a much more complex piece of code. The fact of the matter is, you declared foo as a list[any] and you’re passing it to a function that takes an iterable[str] — it ought to complain at you! Type hints are optional in Python, and you can tell linters to suppress warnings in a scope with a comment too.

That being said, perhaps these more permissive rules might be useful in a legacy codebase where no type annotations exist yet.

Really, it’d be extra nice if they made this behavior configurable, but I’m probably asking for too much there. What’s next, a transpiler? Dogs and cats living together?!
by charcircuit | 2025-10-15 06:03:43+00:00
>why not just keep it voluntary, why force it on people?

People hate learning new tools, even if they are more efficient. People would rather avoid doing things than learning a tool to do it efficiently.

Even in this thread you can see simeone who is / was a Vim holdout. But the improvement from Vim to IDE will be a fraction of the difference compared to AI integrated IDEs.
by gorgoiler | 2025-10-15 06:03:51+00:00
It is very inspiring to see a project announced like this with the developer’s name attached to it. As someone who has always struggled with the confidence to be open about my work, let alone work openly in public, it feels extremely inspiring to see Rob Savoye (and Zoe and John behind him) nail their plans to the door like this.

My thrill is matched in strength by the loathing I have for this Apple device on which I type, whose entire boot process is miserably locked down from the very start. It is like a bicycle made from Mickey Mouse logo bolts where the spanners are proprietary and not for sale. The situation is just as ludicrous.

The two major phone OS companies both stand on the shoulders of IBM PC, openly bootable hardware, and the fantastic software systems nurtured and built on top of these platforms — the BSDs, GNU, Linux, and the long tail of all that run on them. It is very troubling that their own platforms are the antithesis of being openly hackable.

Librephone could be successful in a few ways. Outright, as a device, but also as a carrot to bring open handheld hardware to enough people to drive political change (with a small-p, the politics of society, as well as politics of the big-p kind) such that iOS and Android would have to follow suit. With actual public policy Librephone could also end up being a stick: bringing about legislation that requires computers of any kind to be able to boot software of our choosing. Right-to-repair plus plus, if you will.

With enough Librephone devices in the right hands, either the market or the law will demand that we have the same openness and freedom to use our devices the same way we do commodity x86 hardware today. The same freedom imprisoned and exploited in the core of mine and your phone, right now.
by eimrine | 2025-10-15 06:03:52+00:00
> There is a correlation between sports events and incidences of domestic violence

What about a correlation between one demagogic law and a hundred ones more? The train principle: allow one unfair action and you will see some more. Crash one window on the street and you will see more. Allow the murderer to murder once with impunity and you will see more.

And if you are a state actor - please - get off my family! Domestic violence is not your responsibility.