MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tekla | 2025-10-28 19:15:36+00:00
Study after study has shown that when people claim to be on very strict diets, but can't lose weight, they are outright lying about what they are eating or at least lying to themselves (a potato chip here, a candy bar as a treat for myself, this salad that has more cheese than lettuce is so healthy)

There are no studies that have shown that calories in < calories out does not work.

I was one of those people, until I got serious and weighed my food, didn't eat unless at a meal, and weight SLOUGHED off and my parents thought I had gotten cancer or a disease since how fast I lost weight.
by tracker1 | 2025-10-28 19:15:38+00:00
It's largely a side effect of a couple things... first the ACA (ObamaCare) limited the percentage of profit that insurance and medical providers can make... so they instead just grow the pie larger by inflating everything. Second is that they are allowed to have effectively vertical monopoly investments controlling multiple layers of healthcare as a whole from insurance, providers, pharma and pharmacies.

Trust busting and multiple supply lines really need to be established in order to have a chance at restoring normalcy. Which is all but impossible as Pharma alone is the single biggest spender of advertising alone, let alone policy influence over politicians.
by saaaaaam | 2025-10-28 19:15:54+00:00
For comparison Blackstone is worth ~$180bn with ~$1 trillion AUM.

So somehow this crypto firm and its investor think it can get a better return than Blackstone with a fraction of the assets. Now, sure, developing market and all that. But really? If it scaled to Blackstone assets level of $1 trillion then you’d expect the platform valuation to scale, perhaps not in lockstep but at least somewhat. So with $1 trillion in collateralised crypto does that make Tether worth $1.5 trillion? I’d love someone to explain that.
by kbolino | 2025-10-28 19:15:56+00:00
I think webauthn/passkeys will be more successful (frankly I think they already have been) because they're not part of TLS. The problem with client certs, and other TLS client auth like TLS-SRP, is that it inherently operates at a different layer than the site itself. This cross-cutting through layers greatly complicates getting the UX right, not just on the browser side (1) but also on the server side (2). Whereas, webauthn is entirely in the application layer, though of course there's also some supporting browser machinery.

(1) = Most browsers defer to the operating system for TLS support, meaning there's not just a layer boundary but a (major) organizational one. A lot of the relevant standards are also stuck in the 1990s and/or focused on narrow uses like the aforementioned U.S. military and so they ossified.

(2) = The granularity of TLS configuration in web servers varies widely among server software and TLS libraries. Requesting client credentials only when needed meant tight, brittle coupling between backend applications and their load balancer configuration, which was also tricky to secure properly.
by AlexandrB | 2025-10-28 19:16:20+00:00
> * Improving OS flows. Every passkey implementer that's also an OS gets really excited about enrolling you into their proprietary clouds, and using alternate flows to respect the users wish to use their own manager is usually hidden in confusing UI forms that don't feel consistent if you don't already know what you're doing.

You're kidding yourself if you think that this is something Microsoft, Apple, or Google are incentivized to solve. Microsoft is especially bad here - pushing their crappy products in Windows every chance they get. Once some marketing director gets the idea that this can improve retention in Outlook or something the UI will get more confusing and the dark patterns will get darker.
by danaris | 2025-10-28 19:16:25+00:00
> You don't need to go the reductio ad Hitlerum route.

And yet, when the people at the top, the ones implementing these strategies and policies, are explicitly lionizing Hitler in a variety of ways, on top of mimicking his policies, strategies, values, and ideals, suddenly treating the comparison as if it's absurd or illogical starts to seem like it's trying to distract us from something...
by CGMthrowaway | 2025-10-28 19:16:53+00:00
>if you ask LLM to sample a random number from 1 to 10, it will likely give you 3 or 7, as those are overrepresented in the training data.

I just tried this on GPT-4 ("give me 100 random numbers from 1 to 10") and it gave me exactly 10 of each number 1-10, but in no particular order. Heh
by bfeist | 2025-10-28 19:16:55+00:00
Yes and no. I have 7+ years and counting of telemetry recordings but I don't know of a resource that would let me get all of it historically. If you know of one, please let me know. The recordings that I do have will be integrated into the website at some point. I was going to do it as part of the initial launch but I ran out of time.
by president_zippy | 2025-10-28 19:17:02+00:00
I used to be a competitive marksman through JROTC, and the FUD around firearms is so overblown compared to the fear most people should have while driving their car or doing certain jobs.

A chem lab staffed only by trained professionals is still a lot more dangerous than an indoor range in a red state. A firearm in Cletus' hands is a lot safer than a beaker of sulfuric acid in anybody's hands, let alone piranha solution.

And all of that is nothing compared to the danger of being on a road with other cars, many of which are operated by people who simply do not give a f***.
by kevstev | 2025-10-28 19:17:04+00:00
There are dozens of us I guess that care about this kind of thing. I have never really understood the obsession with https for static content that I don't care if anyone can see I am reading like a blog post. HTTPS should be for things that matter, everything else can, and think should use HTTP when it is not necessary.

Depending on yet another third party to provide what is IMHO a luxury should not be required, and I have been continually confused as to why it is being forced down everyone's throat.
by tuetuopay | 2025-10-28 19:17:09+00:00
I've recently had a laugh on a UDM trying to setup IPv6 routing. Somehow, it did not install the default route in the FIB, but the OS was aware of it, so the router was reachable from the outside but did not route packets. I tried adding a route to `::0/0` and it spat at me that a multicast destination was not valid as a route destination. I gave it a route to `::0/1` and it's happily chugging along now. /shrug
by bboozzoo | 2025-10-28 19:17:13+00:00
Isn't it universally true that if you're rich your life can be much easier? With enough wealth the actual health care system does not matter much. Neither does the country in which health care services are rendered. You just pay and get things done, and maybe even take some vacation while at it. However, given that not every one of us is rich, the point is to optimize the whole thing such that the little folk can still survive and get their health issues addressed.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-10-28 19:17:25+00:00
Nicely timed on the one year anniversary of FIDI Alliance's Credential Exchange Protocol and Credential Exchange Format. https://fidoalliance.org/fido-alliance-publishes-new-specifi... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41847787

But afaik you still can't move Passkeys from Chrome or Safari to any other credential manager.

I was vaguely under the impression that there was a ton of push-back again import/export flows in general, that the CEP was going to be the only supported path. And it requires that your Credentials Manager have a public endpoint to send your credentials to. Which doesn't force but radically ups the challenge for individuals to self host or manage things themselves, will drive Passkeys to remain service provided only.

With governments upping their right to snoop, immoral intercept, it's hard to have too much hope that Passkeys can remain trustable & respectable. If the UK passes a law saying they can access all your keys, the odds are not in your favor that Google is going to make a Signal like stand & tell the UK to buzz off. It's unfortunate that these giant massive enterprises are so big are so many products all in one, because if there was a healthy Chrome business not tied to thousands of other profit lines, maybe Chrome would dare have some backbone & tell their majesty to go stick it where the sun don't shine. But these companies are so big that even the most immoral outrageous ridiculous laws end up being accepted. Passkeys seems like a huge painted target; maybe the next 15-20 years go by with no one trying to get in the cookie jar, but it seems inevitable that the moral rot and illegitimacy of governments will stoop down to making this good idea untenable & a joke, in a long enough time scale. Especially with the service-provider-only ecosystem that's being engineered and imposed here.
by baobun | 2025-10-28 19:17:46+00:00
> Are people not allowed to talk to their friends in the pub about suicide because the friends aren’t therapists?

I don't see anyone in thread arguing that.

The arguments I see are about regulating and restricting the business side, not its users.

If your buddy started systematically charging people for recorded chat sessions at the pub, used those recordings for business development, and many of their customers were returning with therapy-like topics - yeah I think that should be scrutinized and put a lid on when recordings show the kind of pattern we see in OP after their patrons suicide.
by IgorPartola | 2025-10-28 19:17:52+00:00
I distinctly remember trying to sign up for Pandora’s premium plan back in 2012 and their credit card form being served and processed over HTTP. I emailed them telling them that I wanted to give them my money if they would just fix the form. They never got back to me or fix it for several more years while I gave my money to Spotify. Back then HTTPS was NOT the norm and it was a battle to switch people to it. Yes it is annoying for internal networks and a few other things but it is necessary.
by ant_li0n | 2025-10-28 19:17:52+00:00
It's only a feeling that I have, but I think that some folks live in a scarcity mindset, where they are only barely holding on to what they have. Note that this does not actually have to be their lived reality - you can be rich and think this way. Trying to adjust the system to "give more" to other people means less available to them. Sort of a zero-sum perspective on the world. If someone else gains, that means I lose.

This logic is fundamentally flawed. Pointing this out to people (often in strong language) makes them defensive. This creates the perfect combination to get people to vote against their best interests.

It's not about "being progressive" or "elite". It's about playing to the fears of people who are already fearful.
by nucleardog | 2025-10-28 19:17:53+00:00
> you mean, docker? Everything you can do in docker, you can do with jails.

Jails provide the same sort of primitive as cgroups et al wrapped up into the concept of an OCI container, yes. But lack the entire ecosystem of tooling and services that go around those.

Saying jails are a meaningful alternative to containers completely misses most of the ways in which people actually _use_ containers. The experience as-is is closer to a lightweight VM or LXC than what people associate with containers.

I say this as the kind of stubborn person that invested the time to spin up a cluster of FreeBSD machines running Hashicorp's nomad as a task orchestrator to manage running jails published to my "repository" across the cluster and recreate the general "container" experience. So my experience may be out-of-date, but this isn't from a place of ignorance or lack of love for FreeBSD, but from a place of "I've managed a colossal pile of bash scripts to recreate the container experience with jails and, no, for the average person it's not fair to call it the same thing.".
by system7rocks | 2025-10-28 19:18:09+00:00
Just in time for Halloween nightmares!!!!!!!!

Imagine being a kid and waking up to this sitting in your room, silently watching you sleep.

Imagine how terrified your dog is going to be of this thing, shuffling around or getting stuck with its foot on the edge of a rug.

Imagine finding it going through your underwear drawer when you come home from work early.
by codegeek | 2025-10-28 19:18:24+00:00
Great question. No one "wants" insurance. Everyone wants to be able to get covered for care. The problem is that Govt decided decades ago that Health Insurance is the only way to get care even for mundane things like a regular doctor visit. To make it worse, they tied it to Employers needing to provide insurance. Insurance companies love this bureaucracy and became too powerful over the last few decades.

It is a sad state and I have almost given up on the hope that someday it will change. I m lucky enough to afford healthcare and feel for those who can't.
by dynm | 2025-10-28 19:18:47+00:00
This paper states:

> The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India

As far as I can tell, that registry is here: https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pubview.php

Doing a keyword search for the first author's last name reveals zero hits. (It's possible I'm missing—that search does not inspire confidence.)
by kwanbix | 2025-10-28 19:18:48+00:00
As a non-american (from South America) who lived in both USA an Europe:

Yes, in USA you get much more money, like you said 2x~5x, but then:

University is expensive as fck. Health care is expensive as fck. You have 5 days of paid sick leave per year in most companies. You have 10 days of paid holidays per year in most companies.

In contrast, in Europe: University was cheap or free. Healthcare is cheap and universal. If you are sick you are sick, either the company or the health insurance pay. You have between 20 and 30 days of paid holidays.

This is why quality of life in Europe, is so superior. And again, I am saying this as a non-European.
by tamimio | 2025-10-28 19:18:56+00:00
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250107-invisible-man...

Companies found out that hiring indians and teleoperate the “robot” is far cheaper than having an autonomy or AI algorithms with sensors on-board. Speaking of, all these food delivery “robots” were/are teleoperated as well over the internet as well.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-28 19:18:58+00:00
>Imagine if the U.S. government gave out free smartphones to some segment of the population.

Obama phones were literally a thing and

>Over the years, they’d get used to replacing their phones for the smallest reason — a scratch, a tiny crack, dropped it a little hard — because it costs them nothing.

Did not happen because this is absurd and not how any entitlement program anywhere has ever worked, and more importantly, in healthcare you WANT THIS TO HAPPEN

It's cheaper for someone to go see their doctor when they "think I might have something wrong" then once they actually know something is wrong, and so substantially cheaper that even US insurance companies try to entice it by making yearly physicals free or other preventative care, but it doesn't work as well for the US because even with insurance incentivizing it, you still end up with all the billing BS that can leave you harmed by going to the doctor

> I think this misses the forest for the trees when it comes to cost control.

Sorry, the actual empirical evidence is that the government setting prices has done better all over the world than whatever the US does. This magic belief that allowing the government to control access magically produces bad systems is just wrong. Government is capable when you vote for people who want to make good government
by LeoPanthera | 2025-10-28 19:19:21+00:00
As an ex Tesla owner, I am amused by the idea that anyone thinks that Musk was "good" at running Tesla. Those cars are cheaply and shoddily made, and have probably the worst service experience in the industry.

It's my understanding that Musk has only minimal influence on SpaceX.

Edit: I would like to repeat the point that I owned one, for four years, during which it had to go in for service 12 times, four of which were "car is completely dead". And almost every time I had to fight for service. Every Tesla owner I ever spoke in person to described a similar experience. It's funny how online, the message is very different.
by ajnin | 2025-10-28 19:19:28+00:00
> websites which [...] also want to know how the passkey is being handled by the user’s device to keep their accounts safe

This is exactly where passkeys go too far. "to keep their accounts safe" is always the excuse used to reduce the freedoms of users. Web sites have no business deciding how things are handled on user devices but it's precisely what passkeys enable. The boundary of control of a website used to stop at the interface between the site and the user. Now that boundary will extend to the devices. The idea of property and ownership is attacked again. The device is not something the user owns and has full control over but something that is a gateway to access content controlled by the big Internet companies.

Knowing this, how long until Netflix, Disney other content providers (sorry I don't know which ones are popular right now) demand use of a passkey originating form a device with a Trusted Platform (aka Untrusted User) Module ? This is part of a long plan initiated years ago with Windows TPM requirements, Microsoft account requirements. The gap between closed and open platforms will widen and the path is clearly to apply the Smartphone model where everything is closed, controlled, DRM'd, to other computers. We're lucky the IBM PC architecture was an open one but the war on that is on.
by IgorPartola | 2025-10-28 19:20:17+00:00
It’s static while you control it. Soon as I MIIT your content it will look to your users like you updated your site with a crypto miner and a credit card form. You can publish your site with a self-signed key if you’d like and only depend on your ISP/web host provider, DNS provider, domain registrar, and the makers of your host OS and web server and a few dozen other things.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-28 19:20:21+00:00
>The idea is that any software published under this license would be forbidden to be used by AI. The scope of the AI ban is maximal. It is forbidden for AI to analyze the source code, but also to use the software. Even indirect use of the software is forbidden. If, for example, a backend system were to include such software, it would be forbidden for AI to make requests to such a system.

This is both interesting but at the same time IANAL but I have a question regarding the backends system

Suppose I have an AGPL software, think a photo editing web app and any customer then takes the photo and reshapes it or whatever and get a new photo, now saying that the new photo somehow becomes a part of AGPL is weird

but the same thing is happening here, if a backed service uses it, my question is, what if someone creates a local proxy to that backend service and then the AI scrapes that local proxy or think that someone copies the output and pastes it to an AI , I don't understand it since I feel like there isn't even a proper definition of AI so could it theoretically consider everything automated? What if it isn't AI which directly accesses it

Another thing is that it seems that the backend service could have a user input, think a backend service like codeberg / forejo / gitea etc.

if I host a git server using a software which uses hopl, wouldn't that also inherently somehow enforce a terms and condition on the code hosted in it

This seems a genuinely nice idea and I have a few interesting takes on it

Firstly, what if I take freebsd which is under permissive BSD iirc, try to add a hopl license to it (or its equivalent in future?) and then build an operating system

Now, technically wouldn't everything be a part of this new human only bsd (Hob) lol, and I am not sure but this idea sounds damn fascinating, imagine a cloud where I can just change the operating system and just mention it like proudly on HOB and it would try to enforce limits on AI

What I am more interesting about is text, can I theoretically write this comment under human only public license?

What if I create a service like mataroa but where the user who wants to write the blog specifies that the text itself would become hopl, as this can limit the sense of frustration on their part regarding AI knowing that they are trying to combat it

Also I am not sure if legally speaking this thing could be done, it just seems like a way so that people can legally enforce robots.txt if this thing works but I have its questions as I had shared, and even more

It would be funny if I wrote things with AI and then created a HOPL license

something like HOPL + https://brainmade.org/ could go absolutely bunkers for making a human interacts with human sort of thing or atleast trying to achieve that. It would be a fun social experiment if we could create a social media trying to create this but as I said, I doubt that it would work other than just trying to send a message right now but I may be wrong, I usually am
by CuriouslyC | 2025-10-28 19:20:26+00:00
Gemini is a very powerful model, but it's tuned to be "oracular" rather than "agentic." The CLI isn't great but it's not the primary source of woe there. If you use Gemini with Aider in a more oracular fashion, it's still competitive with Claude using CC.

Claude is a very good model for "vibe coding" and content creation. It's got a highly collapsed distribution that causes it to produce good output with poor prompts. The problem is that collapsed distribution means it also tends to disobey more detailed prompts, and it also has a hard time with stuff that's slightly off manifold. Think of it like the car that test drives great but has no end of problems under atypical circumstances. It's also a naturally very agentic, autonomous model, so it does well in low information scenarios where it has to discover task details.
by djoldman | 2025-10-28 19:21:02+00:00
> Users are largely unsure about the implications for their passkeys if they lose or break their device, as it seems their device holds the entire capability to authenticate. To trust passkeys as a replacement for the password, users need to be prepared and know what to do in the event of losing one – or all – of their devices.

> Backing up and synchronising passkeys with a Credential Manager makes it easier to recover access to them compared to other existing second factor options. However, this relies on the user having prepared their Credential Manager account for recovery. Users need help in understanding and implementing the right steps so they can feel ready to go passwordless and use passkeys without extra worry and hassle.

The benefit to the user of a passkey is that they don't have to remember passwords ("what you have" and not "what you know"). But if you lose what you have, you're screwed. There's no straightforward way to mitigate this.

Proposed solutions I've seen just add an extra layer of "what you know," but this just changes the security back to "what you know" if it supersedes the passkey.
by travelalberta | 2025-10-28 19:21:10+00:00
> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel.

I always like the phrase, "follow the money", in situations like this. Are OpenAI or Microsoft close to AGI? Who knows... Is there a monetary incentive to making you believe they are close to AGI? Absolutely. Take in this was the first bullet point in Microsoft's blog post.