MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pessimizer | 2025-10-19 15:42:48+00:00
I really like this idea, and he seems to have gotten a good way into trying to formalize it.

I think there should be a lot more gambling carefully designed and introduced into processes and institutions, and that the reason we don't do it is because of an almost religious reverence for markets, and the idea that they are natural. There is nothing natural about a market; what they are is useful. They are artificial, intentional situations that converge to a particular desirable outcome, and an effort is made to remove all fluff and friction that doesn't encourage that outcome. A price auction is a game, and it's designed by the people who certify and enforce the sale.

Having different departments estimate potential gains and quantify what they're willing to risk for those gains, and having developers decide whether they can get something like that done for that amount, and using the success of those wagers for accounting purposes seems like it has a lot of potential. Your product manager might just be a full time bookie, looking at every step in the process and trying to figure out whether bets that have been made by different departments will pay off, and trying to match bets against each other to come out even. His job would be to give everyone credit to bet with (and to "cut off" bad bettors.)
by diogenes_atx | 2025-10-19 15:43:00+00:00
I ran the checksum for the current ISO file of the full Xubuntu desktop version on the Xubuntu website, and the checksum appears to be valid.

https://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/ubuntu-cdimage/xubuntu/releas...

[user@host]$ ls

SHA256SUMS SHA256SUMS.gpg xubuntu-24.04.3-desktop-amd64.iso

[user@host]$ cat SHA256SUMS

b61e083d8a5ab003bad6ef7ea31ec21d7bfdf19b99d75987ab3fa3bbe85ec1bf *xubuntu-24.04.3-desktop-amd64.iso

[user@host]$ sha256sum xubuntu-24.04.3-desktop-amd64.iso

b61e083d8a5ab003bad6ef7ea31ec21d7bfdf19b99d75987ab3fa3bbe85ec1bf xubuntu-24.04.3-desktop-amd64.iso

[user@host]$ echo $?

0
by risyachka | 2025-10-19 15:43:26+00:00
You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things

if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero.

government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day
by raoufbelakhdar | 2025-10-19 15:43:30+00:00
I’ve been experimenting with the Person–Action–Object (PAO) system — a memory technique that helps you memorize large sets of numbers by turning them into vivid mental images and short stories. To make my own training smoother, I built a small app that helps me:

Assign a person, action, and object to each number

Generate random PAO combinations to visualize as stories

Practice recall with flashcards, quizzes, and timed drills

It’s helped me get faster and more consistent when memorizing number sequences — and made training a lot more fun.

Here’s a short demo of how I’m using it: https://youtube.com/shorts/S_nBfn87uRo

I’d love feedback or ideas from anyone interested in memory systems, learning tools, or visualization training — especially on how to make the practice even more effective or gamified.
by Amorymeltzer | 2025-10-19 15:43:38+00:00
The excellent Avery Trufelman (formerly of 99% Invisible) has been running Articles of Interest (<https://www.articlesofinterest.co> and <https://articlesofinterest.substack.com>), a surprisingly interesting podcast about clothing and and culture and so much more. The Ivy League episodes are a great example of what they're about.

Over the summer, they had an episode about the zipper—<https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/new-episode-zipper...> and <https://www.articlesofinterest.co/podcast/episode/2b1f2292/z...>—which is well worth a listen.
by mmooss | 2025-10-19 15:43:45+00:00
What sources are there?

> China was already developing economically and technologically

That's an odd version of history. China just went through WWII, including the awful Japanese invasion, which interrupted a massive civil war that restarted afterward, and which followed decades without a real national government.

> there was a large migration of Chinese to the area after it came under Japanese control

Japanese control didn't work out well for Chinese people, to say the least.

> keeping all the elites in charge

The elites had led China to disaster for a century, 'the century of humiliation' it's called (though blaming outside forces, which do deserve some blame).

> replacing them with new ones

Here we agree.

> would have been better

Certainly there is no source that can more than guess at that.

The better option would have been true democratic reform. It has worked superbly well in parts of China - Taiwan and Hong Kong. It was starting to work in 1989, and leaning in that direction before Xi.
by lateforwork | 2025-10-19 15:44:13+00:00
> someone with more wealth

Well in trekonomics [1], citizens are equal in terms of material wealth because scarcity has been eliminated. Wealth, in the conventional sense, does not exist; instead, the "wealth" that matters is human capital—skills, abilities, reputation, and status. The reward in this society comes not from accumulation of material goods but from intangible rewards such as honor, glory, intellectual achievement, and social esteem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
by iamlintaoz | 2025-10-19 15:44:27+00:00
Yes, this is exactly the typical use case where EloqDoc shines.

Our auto-tiering feature allows you to manage a massive database (e.g., 5TB+) primarily on cheap, durable object storage (like S3), which is already built for cross-AZ replication and is up to 3x cheaper than traditional cloud block storage (EBS).

We use local NVMe SSDs (200K+ IOPS) purely as a high-performance cache layer to accelerate read access. Hot and cold data are automatically swapped across memory, SSD, and object storage tiers based on access frequency, ensuring high performance (up to 100x faster than archive solutions)
by happy_dog1 | 2025-10-19 15:44:35+00:00
I wonder whether for a lot of the search & literature review-type use-cases where people are trying to use GPT-5 and similar we'd honestly be much better off with a really powerful semantic search engine? Any time you ask a chatbot to summarize the literature for you or answer your question, there's a risk it will hallucinate and give you an unreliable answer. Using LLM-generated embeddings for documents to retrieve the nearest match, by contrast, doesn't run any risk of hallucination and might be a powerful way to retrieve things that Google / Bing etc. wouldn't be able to find using their current algorithms.

I don't know if something like this already exists and I'm just not aware of it to be fair.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-19 15:45:36+00:00
> None of this has any logical consistency, sorry.

Can you please counter any concrete logical step, instead of just dismissing it because you don't like it?

> You weren't able to provide a rational argument for why using drugs is bad - only a circular one

I stated that I consider misuse and badness to be that same thing, so no that was obviously not my argument. I told you what I consider to be the questions I would decide misuse on. Feel free to provide another definition.

> I've heard this "nature of" and "natural law" line of argument before and it's very similar

I don't expect you to agree with the philosophy of the scholastics, I only wanted to clarify my view.

> strict heterosexuality is the nature of things because you said

I think you again mistook "nature of a thing" to have a the meaning of everything the thing does do in nature. As such that would be an everything statement.

> "Natural law" / "nature of" is a meaningless word game.

No it's not. I don't accept you as the arbiter of philosophy, that just declares philosophy concepts to don't exist.

> There's no science experiment you can do to prove that, and many you can do to prove it wrong

The experiment is, do solely policy X in isolation with an isolated population. Do you like the outcome or not?

> [my definition] is indecipherable, and therefore devoid of semantic content.

Thanks. Can you please tell, what you don't understand, instead of declaring it to not have a semantic meaning?

> has created a problem of nobody knowing the slightest thing about drugs.

Could you please educate us on your mysterious knowledge about the nature of drugs? In case you somehow took that to be the case, I did not claim, that I consider any use of a drug to be misuse. I think I gave some examples in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45598978 .
by beeflet | 2025-10-19 15:46:01+00:00
Firstly, they are not coming for my job, they're coming for all jobs.

Secondly, you assume in the first place that we can somehow build a stable post-scarcity society in which people with no leverage can control the super-intelligent agents with all of the power. The idea that "government will just fix it" is totally ignorant of what the government is or how it emerges. In the long run, you cannot have a ruling class that is removed from the keys to power.

Lastly, Who says we should all support this future? What if I disagree with the AI revolution and it's consequences?

It is kind of amazing how your path of reasoning is so dangerously misoriented and wrong. This is what happens when people grow up watching star trek, they just assume that once we live in a post scarcity future everything will be perfect, and that this is the natural endpoint for humanity.
Ask HN: Genesis DB: Thoughts on fine-grained access control
by patriceckhart | 2025-10-19 15:46:13+00:00
I'm currently exploring a lightweight approach to access control in an event sourcing database (Genesis DB): https://www.genesisdb.io. Authentication is handled via Bearer tokens atm. In the future, authentication and authorization could be entirely declarative, through a policy.json that defines privilege targets, roles, and grants/denies.

Here's a simplified example: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/patriceckhart/ec6f90e80e4dba3c500564fe96101621/raw/ac495628a37a8ab9c60edff7af1015cb1a9f96ae/gistfile1.txt

The idea is that this policy.json can be injected via an environment variable or mounted into the container meaning policies stay versioned, declarative, and inspectable. Every request goes through the same decision layer, with default-deny semantics and clear role separation.

It's not meant to replace external IAM systems, but to give small self-contained deployments a simple, auditable policy mechanism.

I'm curious how others view this approach:

• Is injecting a policy file like this too static for real-world setups?

• Would you prefer a dynamic store or API for policies instead?

• Any pitfalls you’ve seen with file-based or declarative access-control systems?

Thanks! I'd really appreciate feedback from anyone who's built fine-grained access control before.
by tigroferoce | 2025-10-19 15:46:38+00:00
I believe that we will soon live in a future where the content will be fake by default and we will validate the authenticity by looking at the reputation of the source. Each time we will read, listen, or see a new content we will think "is this coming from a trustworthy source? otherwise I will not believe any single word of this".

In this context, the more fake news/content we see, the better it is, because it will only make the process of getting there fast.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-10-19 15:46:40+00:00
The author kind of lost me in the first few paragraphs because she bases her entire thesis on this idea that we frame freedom in terms of having many choices. But I've never heard anyone do that! As you said, people generally recognize that having choices available is a prerequisite to freedom, but they do not require it to be a large number of choices, nor associate more choices with more freedom. So the author's entire argument seemed to me to be based on a strawman.
by lukev | 2025-10-19 15:47:05+00:00
Knowing what I know about LLMs, from their internal architecture and from extensive experience working with them daily, I would find this kind of result highly surprising and in a clear violation of my mental model of how these things work. And I'm very far from an expert.

If a purported expert in the field can is willing to credulously publish this kind of result, it's not unreasonable to assume that either they're acting in bad faith, or (at best) are high on their own supply regarding what these things can actually do.
by Tananon | 2025-10-19 15:47:07+00:00
True, I think that's also a great usecase! Though these algorithms likely won't scale to very large datasets (e.g. millions of samples), but for smaller datasets, like fine-tuning sets, I think this would work very well. I've worked on something similar in the past that works for larger datasets (semantic deduplication: https://github.com/MinishLab/semhash).
by Ray20 | 2025-10-19 15:47:41+00:00
> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large.

The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice.

But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives from software all the benefits that it received from workers, but all other fields are also starting to develop because these educated workers are taking on other jobs, jobs that have never been filled by educated workers before. Jobs that are understaffed because they are too dirty or too dangerous.

This will be a huge boost even for areas not directly affected by AI.
by Kiro | 2025-10-19 15:47:48+00:00
I think we should be careful attributing too much idealism to it. The Luddites were not a unified movement and people had much more urgent concerns than thinking about technological progress from a sociocentric perspective. Considering the time period with the Napoleonic Wars as backdrop I don't think anyone can blame them for simply being angry and wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.
by dragonwriter | 2025-10-19 15:48:03+00:00
> Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

Well, it would start by not tax-favoring the (capital) income that remains and would have to have grown massively relatively to the overall economy for that to have occurred.

(In fact, it could start by doing that now, and the resulting tax burden shift would reduce the artificial tax incentive to shift from labor intensive to capital intensive production methods, which would, among other things, buy more time to deal with the broader transition if it is actually going to happen.)
by pojzon | 2025-10-19 15:48:06+00:00
Rich ppl doing something to undermine their status as „the better ones”?

This is not going to happen.

We all know a post-apocalyptic world is what awaits us.

More or less Elysium is the future if ppl will still behave the same way they do now.

And I doubt ppl will change in a span of 100 years.
by pessimizer | 2025-10-19 15:48:29+00:00
> If a general only stays in a bunker, deciding things based on map and single line reports, then it's a poor general.

This is a bit of an exaggeration: if he can pull the signal out of the maps and single-line reports and deliver results, then he is a good general. The point is he can't blame his failure on the fact that he didn't know what was happening, because his job is to understand enough to make money. If he failed because didn't understand, then he should have been prioritizing his information pipeline (whether that's personal knowledge or it's finding the right people to deliver the correct information to him intelligibly.)

Otherwise, it's like saying you weren't responsible for the car accident because you were drunk.
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-10-19 15:48:32+00:00
When people mention the Luddites, they almost always do so incorrectly as you have here. Luddites weren't afraid of technology because it was better than them. In fact, it was worse. There was no projection. The phenomenon you're describing here was not a Luddite phenomenon. They were concerned about how machines would disrupt employment, wages, product quality, work autonomy, power imbalances, and working conditions. We should be, too.

It's also more nuanced than you seem to think. Having the work we do be replaced by machines has significant implications about human purpose, identity, and how we fit into our societies. It isn't so much a fear of being replaced or made redundant by machines specifically; it's about who we are, what we do, and what that means for other human beings. How do I belong? How do I make my community a better place? How do I build wealth for the people I love?

Who cares how good the machine is. Humans want to be good at things because it's rewarding and—up until very recently—was a uniquely human capability that allowed us to build civilization itself. When machines take that away, what's left? What should we be good at when a skill may be irrelevant today or in a decade or who knows when?

Someone with a software brain might immediately think "This is simply another abstraction; use the abstraction to build wealth just as you used other skills and abilities to do so before", and sure... That's what people will try to do, just as we have over the last several hundred years as new technologies have emerged. But these most recent technologies, and the ones on the horizon, seem to threaten a loss of autonomy and a kind of wealth disparity we've never seen before. The race to amass compute and manufacturing capacity among billionaires is a uniquely concerning threat to virtually everyone, in my opinion.

We should remember the Luddites differently, read some history, and reconsider our next steps and how we engage with and regulate autonomous systems.
by vidarh | 2025-10-19 15:49:35+00:00
A working healthcare system is dramatically overstating it, and his system - like the current German one - had relatively speaking low state involvement. The German system remains one of the least state controlled universal healthcare systems to this day.

I do agree with you that a lot of his motivation was to counter the socialists and unions though.

Though I'll note that already before Bismarck, the socialists largely didn't oppose state involvement - Marx famously lambasted the Gotha program of what became the SPD in part for their willingness to trust the state.
by prisenco | 2025-10-19 15:49:40+00:00
No I understood that.

Payment processors underpin ad systems and they have strong leverage to pressure ad buyers and can pull your ability to make those sales. That's on top of the advertisers themselves having strong positions on what kind of content they want to advertise beside.

Everyone has to pay for servers somehow. Especially at scale. And doing that without payment processors is difficult. Crypto has not proven itself to be something consumers will use.

In all reality, the solution to as much free speech as possible on a social platform is to limit reach. If people want to broadcast to millions or even billions, then of course that will come with limitations and restrictions. Everyone has to balance the varied interests required to achieve scale. Limiting individual reach means more potential freedom for users.
by TuringTest | 2025-10-19 15:50:05+00:00
The article says 'abundance'. The point you make that having choices is a requisite for freedom, but truth is that freedom comes from meaningful choices, not an abundance of them.

You have a myriad of artificially created choices that amount to more or less the same outcome; think of a supermarket, where all products are the same high-processed food and imported vegetables. Freedom would be having a competing family-owned local shop with proximity products.

To have meaningful choice, you cannot depend of having a single homogeneous environment providing all the choices you can make; this can come from having healthy competition, or sometimes by you creating your own choices when there were none.
by eterm | 2025-10-19 15:50:23+00:00
In this case the featre isn't unnecessary and would serve a useful purpose if it were just a query. I wouldn't object to AI writing that feature to get it out quickly. I'm not anti-AI entirely.

However, someone has taken a useful feature and has made it worse to shoe-horn in copilot interaction.

Clicking this button also had a side-effect of an email from Github telling me about all the things I could ask copilot about.

The silver lining is that email linked to copilot settings, where I could turn it off entirely.

https://github.com/settings/copilot/features

AI is incredibly powerful, especially for code-generation. But It's terrible ( at current speeds ) for being the main interface into an application.

Human-Computer interaction benefits hugely from two things:

- Speed - Predictability

This is why some people prefer a commandline, and why some people can produce what looks like magic with excel. These applications are predictable and fast.

A chat-bot delivers neither. There's no opportunity to build up muscle-memory with a lack of predictability, and the slowness of copilot makes interaction just feel bad.
by exe34 | 2025-10-19 15:50:37+00:00
> This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.

The AI will belong to the parasite class who will capture all the profits - but you can't tax them on this, because they can afford to buy the government. So there isn't really a way to fund food and shelter for the population without taking something from the billionaires. Their plans for the future does not include us [0].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
by addaon | 2025-10-19 15:50:44+00:00
So, uh, how is it attached to the garment? They talk about specialized sewing equipment, so it’s not bonded (although for polymer-based outerwear solvent bonding seems like the ultimate end-point)… but there’s no thru-holes or other obvious attachment points. Something boring but hidden (hole from the side to the bottom), or something more interesting?
by toast0 | 2025-10-19 15:50:54+00:00
> Probably need some form of tax amnesty system where counties can seize these properties, sell them off for any amount and wipe tax bill clean. However, that's process would be ripe for corruption which thinking about TX, I'm surprised they haven't allowed that.

In Washington state, tax foreclosure has a minimum bid of the taxes due and if there is no bid, the county takes title. Then there are procedures to sell those 'tax title' properties, my county says typically the minimum price is 80% of assessed value ... which would typically be more than the tax debt, so maybe better to participate in the tax foreclosure auction.

I don't know that the county has a duty to maintain tax title lands. Vacant land is probably going to get emergency maintenance by a government agency of last resort anyway.
by portaouflop | 2025-10-19 15:50:58+00:00
Specialization is for insects.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.