MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cush | 2025-10-24 17:01:12+00:00
> A real solution to the problem of attribution in the age of AI must be based on reputation

This is actually one of the theoretical predictions from Eliezer Yudkowsky, who says that as information becomes less and less verifiable, we're going to need to re-enter a pre-information-era - where people will have to know and trust the sources of important information they encounter, in some cases needing to hear it first hand or in person.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-10-24 17:01:17+00:00
>This suggests a misunderstanding of the Standard Ebooks process, which allows continual incremental corrections to the authoritative source of individual books (in XHTML, on GitHub). So, a truly unique identifier would only be valid to the production output(s) from a particular state of the Git-repo sources.

Well, one of us has a misunderstanding. Just because the printer strikes off the printing number from the colophon for each subsequent printing, they don't actually issue a new ISBN. That stays the same. If they wanted to also include a version number too, I wouldn't mind that as well, but it's not nearly as necessary as this. I use the year as a rough version number in the file names as well.

>Recall also that final user content is made available in multiple formats, currently at least six. Example:

I don't need them to issue a number per file format, but if they want to... that doesn't bother me. That's sort of self-evident which of the formats it is, after all.

>I'd suggest the git-commit date, along with short substrings of author name and title, would suffice.

It doesn't. A number of authors have at one time or another have released books with similar or identical titles that are not the same book. This is the trouble... someone who uses or would use the books is asking for something that is missing but easy to supply, and instead of a "well gee, we never considered that, let us think about it" I have a dozen assholes crawling out of the woodwork to say "no, you're doing it wrong".

I need unique identifiers that are human readable. I just do. The world discovered this need for books before you were born. They invented a global standard, even. There is an entire field of science out there about this, that you seem to be ignorant of even existing. I've been doing this for years, and I keep bumping up against it. But you think it can be solved because you used git and know about hashes or whatever, and it's just like what you deal with in your software development job!
by breakpointalpha | 2025-10-24 17:01:31+00:00
The profit from a scheme like this would likely be in the high tens of millions of dollars.

The poker game itself in high-roller situations could be a million plus per night depending on the stakes.

Then there's the whole "you owe the Mafia" angle with NBA players and coaches. It's a pretty clear line to the Mafia making tens of millions of dollars on rigged NBA games.
by lobsterthief | 2025-10-24 17:01:39+00:00
And even if they were smuggling drugs, what if there were children on board? Do they deserve to die because of the crimes of their parents? What if they kidnapped someone and forced them to pilot the boat? Does that person deserve to die?

Imagine the US instead pulling the ship over and shooting every person, regardless of age or guilt, in the head—and then leaving. This is no different.
by tekla | 2025-10-24 17:01:49+00:00
The most "bring yourself to work" places I've worked at always the most "don't be like that". I've been disciplined at a place that literally had a entire HR ceremony of "bring yourself to work" because I cursed many times when many systems were failing and I was a on-call line for hours,

Not even the most conservative white collar place (super super well known big classic old school engineering company) has ever mentioned jack shit when shit was burning to the ground and we were trying to keep things working
by davydm | 2025-10-24 17:01:51+00:00
yeah, i came here to say that it sounds like wails against ai simply because it's ai, not because the content is, honestly, mediocre at best (by design - it can't exceed it's training because it interpolates, instead of extrapolating)

I agree the ai slop is... slop. I don't think it will ever replace real human writers all the way. Sure, greedy corporates will try, and gullible masses will accept most of the crap. But sometime, somewhere, someone will want to read an original thought, and that will (so far) have to come from an human.
by jamwil | 2025-10-24 17:02:27+00:00
Tried it and it worked quite well! Out of 100 headshots I got maybe 3 to 5 that I would use. A low hit rate but I think anything like this is necessarily going to employ a shotgun approach.

The edit feature needs work. Anything I tried to edit was unusable. I ended up taking the best photo and adjusting the background in Nano Banana.
by redhale | 2025-10-24 17:02:49+00:00
Ok, fair enough. My fault for assuming.

I'm not sure who you've met who fits the criteria of being by rule not creative or productive if they choose not to dedicate time outside of work to coding (not that they have done _literally nothing_, just that the things they have done are not closely correlated with their work, and would therefore be irrelevant in this technical interview context), but I would suggest that on the whole you are drawing too coarse a stereotype and are therefore missing out on a large pool of talent. But to each their own!
by snozolli | 2025-10-24 17:02:52+00:00
In 1867, Lord Kelvin imagined atoms as knots in the aether.

I had never heard of this before, and I find the idea absolutely delightful. As I understand it, the "knots" are stable vortices in the aether. It was popular from 1870 - 1890, and it blows my mind that only a few years later the electron was discovered (1897), and less than 50 years later (1938), the scanning electron microscope was invented! 1955 was when the atom was first imaged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom
by mindslight | 2025-10-24 17:03:05+00:00
> how do you collect $30M in damages from a single individual

It's not about getting made whole from damages, it's about the incentives for the business owner. A sole proprietor has their own skin fully in the game, whereas an LLC owner does not (only modulo things customarily shielded from bankruptcy like retirement savings and primary dwelling, and asset protection strategies for the extremely rich, like charitable foundations)

> I don't get why so many people are so intent on trying to attribute the motivations to maximize one's own take, deflect blame for harm away from themselves, and cover up their questionable activities to some specific organizational model

Because this specific legal structure (not organizational model, that is orthogonal) is a powerful tool for deflecting blame.

> You're conflating entirely unrelated concepts of liability here... It has nothing to do with legal liability for one's own purposeful conduct, whether tortious or criminal

The point is that these concepts are quite intertwined for small businesses, and only become distinct when there are enough people involved to make a nobody's-fault "group project". Let's say I want to own a piece of rental property and think putting it in an LLC will protect my personal life from all the random things that might happen playing host to other people's lives. Managing one property doesn't take terribly much time so I do it myself. Now it snows, the tenant does a crappy job of shoveling, and someone slips on the sidewalk up front, gets hurt, and sues. Since I'm personally involved in supervising the condition of the property, there is now a theory of personal liability for me that I should have been aware of the poor conditions of the sidewalk. (This same liability applies to the tenant, or anyone that was hired to shovel, but they're usually judgement proof, sympathetic, etc).

Same thing with making repairs to the property, etc - any direct involvement (supplying anything but investment capital) opens up avenues for personal liability, negating the LLC protections.

> The same law of agency and doctrine of vicarious liability applies

The point is that LLC/corporate structures allow for much higher levels of scaling, allowing them to apply higher levels of coercion to their employees. Since these limited liability structures are purely creations of government (rather than something existing outside of government), it's straightforwardly justifiable to regulate what activities they may engage in to mitigate this coercion.
by almosthere | 2025-10-24 17:03:38+00:00
I bought a m4 mac mini but even if 95% of my usage would have only been at my desk, that 5% actually makes me regret not going at least paying about $400 more for a macbook air so I can take it to the bedroom or to a coffee shop.

Thankfully my worklaptop is an m4 mb pro, so I have flexibility with that.

And indeed with virtual backgrounds in I do probably 3 meetings a week in my car so I can do quick errands without skipping a meeting here or there.
by commandersaki | 2025-10-24 17:03:38+00:00
I have made direct donations and I now just support financially by paying for a subscription to the web app.

I find myself switching between cli and web app a little more; the web app seems nice to experiment, share experiments especially when you need to demonstrate an issue when getting support, and has good enough git(hub) integration.

I would like Typst to support bounties, because I would throw a bit more towards HTML support.
by helicone | 2025-10-24 17:03:44+00:00
No worries!

I've seen the same trend with the new AI products in this space, having researched it briefly for this problem. They seem bolted-on and built as afterthoughts. I've been watching a lot of user sessions recently and I've noticed that it's basically impossible to get AI to accurately and consistently classify a problem in a user session by itself. Honestly it seems like AI hurts more than it helps here.

Even so, I'm curious if you would personally find value in something that helps with this bottleneck?
by FallCheeta7373 | 2025-10-24 17:03:44+00:00
Not happening—at least not under the current leadership— apple is not in it from the tech side, they're a design company, they make appliances not computers. Your macbook is like a fridge with certain restricted interfaces. The mindset and tradition is different from purely unix hacking, despite the userbase having an overlap. If you can convince your fridge manufacturer to be more open with their code in a competitive market, then maybe you can convince apple with similar sort of reasoning, probably involving some benefit in terms of profit.
by dopamean | 2025-10-24 17:03:51+00:00
I can tell you right now that the kinds of dudes who play high level college ball and then go on to play professional ball were not hustling as kids. Many did grow up in unfortunate circumstances (this is less true as the years go on) however their talents generally were identified early and the track they were on was pretty clear.

I think the simpler answer is that some people are especially poor at risk vs reward analysis. Others enjoy the thrill of getting away with something. It's been 30+ years since Chauncey Billups has had to worry about money. I think your point about friends around them is very fair though. Lots of these guys have hangers on with their hands out and despite making lots of money in their careers they cant just give cash to everyone. So I can imagine them thinking "hey place a bet on my under for the next game because I'm going to go out early" seems like a low risk, not so evil way to put a few dollars in a friend's pocket.
by coliveira | 2025-10-24 17:04:00+00:00
Ok, so the ones that showed up in red states basically don't count. That's the very definition of a red state. The ones that showed up on blue states as well. The ones in swing states may make some difference, the problem is that they almost certainly already voted blue in the last election. That's why i'm pretty confident that, unfortunately, these numbers won't make much difference.
by 1313ed01 | 2025-10-24 17:04:11+00:00
I agree they are not competing at all, and I will definitely consider Typst as an alternative to LaTeX, which to me is one of the output formats I use in PanDoc, and I might end up using Typst instead of LaTeX as an intermediate format when generating PDFs. I have not had to fall back to write LaTeX in several years and tend to get away with at most a few lines of inlined LaTeX in my Markdown files, and I expect it will be possible to inline some Typst code if necessary as well. Happy with PanDoc's Lua filters when I need to script something.
by antasvara | 2025-10-24 17:04:18+00:00
I work in insurance, but not specifically in-depth on regulated insurance rates like personal auto.

That being said, I can add some insight. Most state insurance regulators require a company to justify the rate they're charging based on actual claims data (i.e. you wouldn't be allowed to use a competitor's pricing as a justification). Insurance companies would basically never share their claims data with their competitors, so there's functionally a ban on using competitor's data.

Any rate changes have to be justified (based on claims frequency and experience) to the state regulator. I don't think it's a perfect system by any means; insurance commissions aren't completely unbiased, and there's some flexibility in what data the insurer uses. But in my experience it's pretty effective at regulating the data you can and can't use.

The ultimate outcome is that most insurers in these markets run combined loss ratios of greater than 90% (so on an underwriting basis, more than 90% of the premium they earn goes to paying claims and overhead associated with managing those claims).

I think the model of "here's a regulatory body, justify what you're charging based on this set of allowed data" is a decent framework, even if it doesn't work in every market.

If you're curious, the SERFF website [0] has rate filings for a lot of states. So you can see when a rating factor changes and what it changed to. Most of the detailed claims data isn't available for data privacy reasons, but depending on the state you choose, there will be summary figures available.

[0]: https://www.serff.com/serff_filing_access.htm
by skeaker | 2025-10-24 17:04:25+00:00
The part that really gets me is that the price per GB to go from a 256 to a 512 GB iPhone is $2.54 (since the next storage option up costs $200 total). Two and a half dollars!!! A 512 GB micro SD would run you $0.10/GB. They have been charging 25x the market rate for storage on a device with no expandable storage at all for years. Baffling that they aren't called on it more. It should be criminal.
by scottlamb | 2025-10-24 17:04:27+00:00
> I think of verifiable images as something for legal purposes.

That makes sense to me, but who is this particular $399 camera made for? Can you imagine someone choosing it for a photo they intend to be used in legal proceedings? The specs and appearance do not scream high-quality professional tool to me. The price is lower than a professional would be willing to spend (on something high-quality), higher than someone would drop on a whim.

It looks kinda like a designer's school assignment that they're trying to sell.
by epistasis | 2025-10-24 17:04:31+00:00
Your plots, which go all the way from 1800 to 2024, do show a massive massive leveling out of fossil fuels in the last decade, however. When going through a surge in energy demand, old resources usually don't get retired very quickly. For example, with gas in the US, there was something like 5GW of new gas expected to be added in the US, and 1.6GW of old plants retired. But that's all dwarfed by the amount of storage and solar going in.
by walkabout | 2025-10-24 17:04:34+00:00
> Although, if you believe in that theory, you should reject democracy and aim for some form of aristocracy or monarchy.

Not necessarily! It means that the model of the typical voter's behavior (and of the reasons why elections go the ways they do) isn't what many conceive it to be (or hope it may be), and that democracy's weaknesses, vulnerabilities, strengths, and capabilities may in-fact be at least somewhat different from what one operating from that idealized (and apparently very wrong) model of voter behavior would expect. It could still be the best of a bad lot.

> They did not get "fooled" and bait-and-switched even if they later feel the performance was not great.

They are extremely often operating from incorrect information, either regarding facts about the state of the world, or about probable outcomes of various policies. This can include things that directly affect them (or don't) in ways that one would expect them to notice—one fun form of study that's been run a few times is to ask a population whether a tax increase or decrease that in-fact affected only a tiny sliver of the population but was the subject of substantial propagandizing and/or publicity affected them personally (this is about as direct as it gets!) and the typical result is pretty much exactly what your most-pessimistic guess would be.

Supposing that people very-often hold a bunch of incorrect beliefs about how policies affect them but are also good at voting for their own interests when it comes time to mark the ballot is probably somewhere in the category of wishful thinking—and that's assuming motivations and intentions focused on policies and their outcomes in the first place. There's less-strong but still-quite-strong evidence that, as the kids say, "vibes" are a huge factor in the outcomes of elections, even when those "vibes" come from things that even the extremely politically-ignorant ought to know have nothing much to do with, say, who the President is, like a rash of shark attacks for example. This, of course, doesn't mean that this "vibes-from-irrelevant-stuff" voting makes the difference for anywhere near as many people as incorrect information does (it almost certainly doesn't) but that it has an outsize effect on the true-swing (not self-reported swing, that's mostly bullshit) vote, which tends to consist almost entirely of so-called "low-information voters", with the result that it may not have any effect at all on most voters but elections still turn on it (one of a billion reasons FPTP voting sucks is that it amplifies the power of this effect).

I do think, separately, there are cases of rational trade-offs, of picking (say) an anti-abortion candidate who holds many other positions one dislikes because one's stake in one's position on abortion is that important. That's not the kind of thing I mean, and I don't think it's the kind of thing most people mean when they say people are making mistakes by "voting against their own interests", though the effect of such a choice may well be that one is also in these cases (consciously!) voting against one's own interests on various issues.
by cwizou | 2025-10-24 17:04:41+00:00
So fyi, the way you hook it there is what makes the preview flicker in System Settings.

You check if the screen is locked, and if not, kill the host. But screen is not locked in System Settings. So basically, you're killing the host process every 2 seconds (and macOS, at least in Tahoe, restarts it, it doesn't in previous macOS versions).

That's also what causes your issues with "Options" not working (because you killed the instance that was linked to that button). The way we workaround it usually is to hook a system event.

You can check https://github.com/AerialScreensaver/ScreenSaverMinimal

Look for handleWillStopNotification and com.apple.screensaver.willstop
by conductr | 2025-10-24 17:04:52+00:00
With mounting costing more than replacement, I like those odds. They’ve been up several years and have survived many 70+ MPH storms. At this point I’m actually curious what kind of conditions would cause them to move/lift.

It’s obviously not appropriate for all cases. But the original article, the guy could have gotten by with some zip ties. I’m of opinion that a lot of mounting is over engineered.
by sxzygz | 2025-10-24 17:05:13+00:00
Since you’re being abstruse, consider information by definition is in possession by an entity (or rephrased a property of a system). For that information to move the system needs to be brought into contact with another system, and it is the nature of this contact that is being policed. If information doesn’t have an ambient system that is discernible then there is no distinction to be made if its sensitivity—it may as well be noise.
by vorpalhex | 2025-10-24 17:05:16+00:00
Living in a society with other people who you interact with is about compromise and that means behaving in a way that aligns with social and cultural norms - which change from place to place.

I interviewed for a major company and was rejected for being "too combative" after I corrected an interviewer on what unit tests are supposed to cover. I got hired somewhere else and my boss mentioned he had also been rejected by the same company, so I mentioned that they rejected me over being combative. My boss laughed, like rolling on the floor laughing about it - because our company culture was so different that he considered me a peace seeking negotiator between teams.

Culture fit is real.
by jjaksic | 2025-10-24 17:05:31+00:00
You know you can sell and replace your phone if you don't like it. Recent Pixels have 7 years of support and they don't die. That's what I'd recommend you get instead. You can even trade in your iPhone for up to $700 when you buy a Pixel. You really don't need to force yourself to use a phone you don't like, leave alone for that long.
by lbourdages | 2025-10-24 17:05:34+00:00
I was at a security conference recently and one of the presentations had some TLP:RED slides in it.

I couldn't help but find that pointless. The conference is open to the public, the only barrier to entry being a small amount of money to purchase a ticket. How would that prevent bad actors from signing up to access the sensitive information?

It absolutely makes sense when used within an organization where access/membership is properly vetted, but there, I feel like there was no point.
by DyslexicAtheist | 2025-10-24 17:06:08+00:00
I'd go back to the office in a heartbeat provided it was an actual office. And not an "open-office" layout, that people are forced to try to concentrate with all the noise and people passing behind them constantly.

The agile treadmill (with PM's breathing down our necks) and features getting planned and delivered in 2 week-sprints, has also reduced our ability to just do something we feel needs getting done. Today you go to work to feed several layers of incompetent managers - there is no room for play, or for creativity. At least in most orgs I know.

I think innovation (or even joy of being at work) needs more than just the office, or people, or a canteen, but an environment that supports it.
by tuckerman | 2025-10-24 17:06:29+00:00
Doing it inside a single binary gets rid of some of the nice observability features you get "for free" by breaking it up and could complicate things quite a bit (more code paths, flags for running it in "don't make a plan use the last plan mode", flags for "use this human generated plan mode"). Very few things are a free lunch but I've used this pattern numerous times and quite like it. I ran a system that used a MIP model to do capacity planning and separating planning from executing a plan was very useful for us.

I think the communications piece depends on what other systems you have around you to build on, its unlikely this planner/executor is completely freestanding. Some companies have large distributed filesystems with well known/tested semantics, schedulers that launch jobs when files appear, they might have ~free access to a database with strict serializability where they can store a serialized version of the plan, etc.