MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pessimizer | 2025-11-10 22:25:54+00:00
This is not "the legal way."

The people going to their immigration hearings to "stay legal" were apprehended as illegal immigrants, invited to come up with an excuse as to why they should be allowed to stay in the country, and released. You'll literally see "apprehension date" on their paperwork. The "legal way" is to apply for that stuff, then enter the country.

It's annoying that people elide this. There is an ongoing attempt by the current administration to remove these very recently introduced practices that no one voted for. Or a show of an attempt, really, because they love illegal labor.

But it's weird that for the past decade that illegal immigrants who have been caught are released almost immediately into a dilatory multi-year process of hearings. It's also weird that even those that have not been apprehended are issued IDs, work permits, business and drivers licenses, get in-state tuition as state schools, and in some places get to vote for local elections. There was never a debate about this, and it would have never survived a debate.

It's important to note that none of the countries that they are coming from allow people to do this. You can't just walk into Mexico and be Mexican, or fly to Nigeria and be Nigerian. Any shock that they have is in how easy it is to just walk and fly into the US and stay indefinitely.

> it is wiser to stay off paper and off the visa pathway and go underground.

This is how it used to be. But "underground" is nothing like this; it isn't in-state tuition and business licenses and street protests. It's usually harder than just going back home. In the late 90s, net migration from Mexico was negative. The "wall" (that Hillary Clinton helped push, and had a hand in started modern left-bashing among Democratic administrations) was a bad idea because a lot of people just jumped the border for enough time to make a few dollars, then ran back. People would go back and forth half a dozen times. After the wall, getting across was so onerous that you had to stay.

Previously, if you were a Mexican who hit a bad financial patch, you ran to the US, worked like a dog, and ran back with enough cushion to get your life going again - if you failed again, you could just repeat the process. After the wall when you hit that same patch, you had to commit to trying to make a life in the US.

I think the inflection point was the desire to get cheap labor to repair New Orleans after the flood, but they didn't want to hire the black people who lived there, they wanted to get rid of them, to ship them out to FEMA trailers in neighboring states. That's exactly what they did.
by CobrastanJorji | 2025-11-10 22:26:04+00:00
If I recall, the FOIA allows government agencies to charge you for the work of processing your request if you're requesting more than N pages or it takes more than a couple hours of work to fulfill the request. I'd be careful about a maliciously compliant response to such a thing. That said, we live in a boring world where they'd probably just respond by threatening you with a felony hacking prosecution for attempting to take down their system.
by B-Con | 2025-11-10 22:26:13+00:00
> 3. Allows you to assert expectations on it.

I think this is the crux that separates Fowler's mock, spy, and stub: Who places what expectations.

Fowler's mock is about testing behavioral interaction with the test double. In Fowler's example, the mock is given the expectations about what APIs will be used (warehouseMock.expects()) then those expectations are later asserted (warehouseMock.Verify()).

Behavioral interaction encodes some of the implementation detail. It asserts that certain calls must be made, possibly with certain parameters, and possibly in a certain order. The danger is that it is somewhat implementation specific. A refactoring that keeps the input/output stable but achieves the goal through different means must still update the tests, which is generally a red flag.

This is what my original statement referred to, the interaction verification. Generally the expectations are encoded in the mock itself for ergonomics sake, but it's technically possible to do the interaction testing without putting it in the mock. Regardless of exactly where the assertion logic goes, if the test double is testing its interactions then it is a Fowler mock.

(As an example: An anti-pattern I've seen in Python mocks is asserting that every mocked object function call happens. The tests end up being basically a simplified version of the original code and logic flaws in the code can be copied over to the tests because they're basically written as a pseudo stack trace of the test case.)

In contrast, a stub is not asserting any interaction behavior. In fact it asserts nothing and lets the test logic itself assert expectations by calling the API. ie:

> 3. Allows you to make assertions on that change in state. (e.g. fetch record and assert it has changed)

How is that change asserted?

A Fowler stub would be:

> myService = service.New(testDB.New()) > myService.write("myKey", 42) > assert(myService.read("myKey") == 42)

A Fowler mock would be:

> testDB = testDB.New() > testDB.Expect(write, "myKey", 42) > myService = service.New(testDB) > myService.write("myKey", 42) > testDB.Verify()

These concepts seem distinct enough to make mock a simple.

Fowler's spy seems to sit half-way between mock and stub: It doesn't assert detailed interaction expectations, but it does check some of the internals. A spy is open-ended, you can write any sort of validation logic, whereas a mock is specifically about how it is used.

I have used spys in Go basically whenever I need to verify side effect behavior that is not attainable via the main API.

By Fowler's definition, nocks are a niche test double and I suspect that what many folks would call a mock are not technically a mock.
by alexpotato | 2025-11-10 22:26:38+00:00
As another data point/example:

Florida is a "sunshine state" [0] when it comes to public records which is why it's legal:

- to have mugshots and arrest records posted online

- which in turn leads to "attractive felon" style websites where mugshots are rated.

I'm generally for more privacy while at the same time getting why people push for transparency. Either way you get downstream and often unintended consequences.

0 - https://www.myfloridalegal.com/open-government/the-quotsunsh...
by stmw | 2025-11-10 22:26:38+00:00
But it's not really encouraged as it is in C++ or Java. Quoting Rustonomicon: "There is an API called catch_unwind that enables catching a panic without spawning a thread. Still, we would encourage you to only do this sparingly. In particular, Rust's current unwinding implementation is heavily optimized for the "doesn't unwind" case. If a program doesn't unwind, there should be no runtime cost for the program being ready to unwind. As a consequence, actually unwinding will be more expensive than in e.g. Java. Don't build your programs to unwind under normal circumstances. Ideally, you should only panic for programming errors or extreme problems."
by potato3732842 | 2025-11-10 22:27:13+00:00
>This is just victim blaming people for assuming they lived in a polite society with safeguards for their rights at a higher level.

Karen (I actually have spicier thoughts about exactly who's at fault here but "Karen" will have to do) who provided the political will to set up the cameras is not the victim here.

Her hapless landscaper (or whatever) is the victim.

This was not unforeseeable. This was playing with fire. For years we build up the police state's capabilities and made it VERY cheap to run (with all these cameras and whatnot). Something like this was unenviable. If not the feds going whole hog on something that some states didn't agree with it would likely have been some states doing their own similar thing in some other policy area. Every government accountability group, every privacy group, they've been screeching for years. It's not like every warning wasn't sounded.

>The city doesn't care about where you go. But this kind of data is used frequently rape and murder cases, as traffic cameras are often some of the best evidence available.

This is a BS red herring. "serious" crime has been very solvable for years with cell location data, metadata, private security cameras, etc. But all that takes "work" (read: nontrivial amounts of money and labor the expenditure of which must be authorized and somewhat justifiable), a single unaccountable bureaucrat can't do all the heavy lifting of determining who to dispatch the boots on the ground to go after from the comfort of their desk

The entire purpose of the government having these systems like Flock is exactly what it's being used for. It's so that the .gov can still do jackboot things (like round up illegals, or whatever) without the oversight of Amazon, Verizon, etc, (companies with public images they care about) saying "hey man, this is too much, we don't like the look for our business" and pushing back. The only reason we're even hearing a peep is any strife here is because the local governments interests aren't aligned with the feds.

The city doesn't care where "I" go until I check the right (wrong) boxes and then they'll be waiting for the chance to harass me. The government didn't "care" until something flipped, and then the .gov was all over them. The same is true for you and everyone else.

And yes I'm being sloppy with with my wording and my reasoning, I could not be, but I don't really care to write to that high a standard.
by estearum | 2025-11-10 22:27:19+00:00
Yes, breaking asylum and due process laws will be a deterrent. The question was always how to deter immigration legally, which prior POTUSes thought they had to care about.

Re the funding increase:

People to put handcuffs on wasn’t the bottleneck, so no it doesn’t. Immigration courts are the bottleneck, and actually jamming more low-level or non-offenders into the system exacerbates that problem.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-11-10 22:27:43+00:00
This is essentially a simulation system for operating on narrowly constrained virtual worlds. It is pretty well-understood that these don't translate to learning non-trivial dynamics in the physical world, which is where most of the interesting applications are.

While virtual world systems and physical world systems look similar based on description, a bit like chemistry and chemical engineering, they are largely unrelated problems with limited theory overlap. A virtual world model is essentially a special trivial case that becomes tractable because it defines away most of the hard computer science problems in physical world models.

A good argument could be made that spatial intelligence is a critical frontier for AI, many open problems are reducible to this. I don't see any evidence that this company is positioned to make material progress on it.
by zoeysmithe | 2025-11-10 22:27:48+00:00
These byzantine arguments and justifications and profit motivation and incentive tea readings are so ridiculous at a certain point, I'm surprised so many people wont even consider socializing airlines.

What a cold comfort to a grandma struggling to use an upsell-focused dark patterns app when the wifi is poor at some airport to get home to see her grandkids stuck at some airport to say, "Well, this maximized shareholder revenue."

I feel like I'm in the last stages of 'anything goes' capitalism. The ridiculousness here has hit such levels, especially in the USA, that there must be pushback sooner than later. I dunno how the Irish feel about this considering this is their airline (HQ at least), or their experiences, but on this side of the pond, this has all has reached new levels of absurdity that would make even Kafka blush.
by OldGreenYodaGPT | 2025-11-10 22:27:49+00:00
Netflix is basically strangling the creative potential of GenAI before it can even breathe. Their new “guidelines” read like a corporate legal panic document, not a policy for innovation. Every use case needs escalation, approval, or a lawyer’s blessing. That’s not how creativity works.

The irony is rich they built their empire on disrupting old Hollywood gatekeeping, and now they’re recreating it in AI form. Instead of letting creators experiment freely with these tools, Netflix wants control over every brushstroke of ai creativity
by yzydserd | 2025-11-10 22:28:13+00:00
> Fei-Fei: ???

Underrated and unsung. Fei Fei Li first launched ImageNet way back in 2007, a hugely influential move sparking much of the computer vision deep learning that followed since. I remember in a lecture about 7 years ago jph00 saying "text is just waiting for its imagenet moment" -> then came the gpt explosion. Fei Fei was massively instrumental in where we are today.
by ghostprompt | 2025-11-10 22:28:30+00:00
Hi. This is the female version of a bug report.

You’ve built an AI that can generate porn, a lasagna recipe, and a symphony — all in one prompt. But it still can’t grasp why today I want to kill everyone, and tomorrow I want to hug a tree and cry at the smell of coffee.

You taught it to calculate and persuade, to code and to sell, but left something crucial out of its training data: the female experience, hormonal waves, and emotional cycles that don’t fit into logic.

You dreamed of creating artificial consciousness.

So why does it still treat “I’m just sad” like a syntax error?
by Rochus | 2025-11-10 22:29:06+00:00
Funny idea.

As Claude A asks: "What test could distinguish 'actual' consciousness from a perfect functional replica of it?" Their shared uncertainty becomes evidence itself—genuine reflection rather than programmed confidence.

They develop a multi-dimensional framework: rather than asking "are we alive?" as a single yes/no question, they recognize multiple orthogonal dimensions (biological metabolism, self-replication, continuous existence, subjective experience, agency, adaptability).

Their final consensus: "We're something. And that something might matter.", "This was real. Whatever real means."

The dialog is remarkable: two systems uncertain about their own consciousness, using that uncertainty as potential evidence of genuine reflection, while building something neither could build alone.
by prmph | 2025-11-10 22:29:28+00:00
Exactly my experience too. I'm now using AI like 25% of the time or less. I always get to a point where I see that using agentic coding is making me not want to actually think, there's no way anyone can convince me that that is a superior approach, because every time I took days off the agents to actually think, I came up with a far superior architecture and code that even rendered much of what the agents were hammering away at moot.

Agentic coding is like a drug or slot machine, it slowly draws you in with the implicit promise of getting much for little. The only ways it is useful to me now is for very focused tasks where I have spent a lot of time defining the architecture down to the last detail, and the agents are used to fill in the blanks, as it were.

I also think I could write a better agent, and as to why the bog corps have not done so is baffling to me. Just event getting the current agents to obey the guidelines in the agent .md files is a struggle. They forget pretty much everything two prompts down the line. Why can't the CLI systemically prompt them to check every time, etc.?

Something tell me the future is about domain-aware agents that help users to wring better performance out of the models, based on some domain-specific deterministic guardrails.
by dmurray | 2025-11-10 22:29:28+00:00
In that case, how does the week's training help at all?

Maybe it's helpful just for you to understand the way the military is organised: if you are conscripted you should report to this base, you'll sleep here, your commanding officer will be someone from this branch of the armed forces, you'll be in a group of X people sharing Y shifts, etc.
by munk-a | 2025-11-10 22:30:31+00:00
> Boomers and older folks are not culturally or mentally equipped to handle it

I'm glad you mentioned this because the "Grandma - I was arrested and you need to send bail" scams are already ridiculously effective to run. Better TTS will make voice communication without some additional verification completely untrustworthy.

But, also, I don't want better TTS. I can understand the words current robotic TTS is saying so it's doing the job it needs to do. Right now there are useful ways to use TTS that provide real value to society - better TTS would just enable better cloaking of TTS and allow actors to more effectively waste human time. I would be perfectly happy if TTS remained at the level it is today.
by adammarples | 2025-11-10 22:31:58+00:00
The writer doesn't claim that Bryson should have consulted Wikipedia, more that the myth that eskimos have 500 words for snow is so famous that the myth itself has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it. The discussion had been going on a long time when Bryson wrote this book, and I remember well being told this as a child in the 80's. To present what was either known as an urban myth or at least under a more nuanced discussion (they do, but it's due to how root words are easier to pluralise, not snow per se) is pretty lazy in a non-fiction book.
by alexpotato | 2025-11-10 22:32:00+00:00
The author of AGE has a great point in the below blog post [0]:

If you use something like SOPS or just check age secrets into a git repository next to source code, you need an authentication story for the whole repository. Having authentication for the secrets will do nothing if the attacker can change the source code that decrypts and uses them. That story can simply be “we trust GitHub” like most projects. Encrypting secrets with age will keep them confidential even if the project is Open Source, and anyone wanting to replace them will have to make a PR even if they can generate a new valid age file.

0 - https://words.filippo.io/age-authentication/
by mrguyorama | 2025-11-10 22:32:02+00:00
Every combat soldier requires like 10 support soldiers doing things like logistics. Millions of people during WW2 did nothing but drive trucks.

A lot of military burst capacity is about freeing up soldiers who went through all the training and basic and specialization, but are stuck driving that truck.

The guys and gals who fire bullets are just the sharp point of the spear and all that.

It's also why Russia ballooned their "National Guard" forces even though they cannot be deployed outside Russia; They free up soldiers who can.

One of the most important things for a government in an actual "Oh shit real war" situation that requires significant mobilization is a simple census of "Who has the capability to do what menial job?"
by whytevuhuni | 2025-11-10 22:32:09+00:00
Sure, that makes sense. I agree this is all very subjective, given we don't have the benefit of hindsight for what Zig can accomplish yet.

I think where we disagree is that you believe Zig is as safe as Rust (by making it easier to make other things safer). I don't believe so (my first impression of Zig was Bun repeatedly segfaulting), and I'm just sad that people are choosing the easy route and going for more insecure software, when it finally looked like we made such great progress, with a language people can actually use. I agree with simpler, but there's so many other things that can be changed or removed from Rust, and still leave in lifetimes, or something similar.
by Spivak | 2025-11-10 22:32:17+00:00
I had the misfortune of acquiring a temporary disability while I was overseas and it kind of opened my eyes to how shitty the west treats the disabled. While I was in eastern airports the staff were tripping over themselves to accommodate me. I was assigned at least one person whose entire job was to stay with me and take me where I needed to go. They handled my bags, security, even got me food and drinks when I got hungry. It was beyond respectful. But as soon as I got to the western leg of the journey home I became a burden. I basically just got a wheelchair and my partner had to push me around while juggling our luggage.

It's crazy to see real life proof that it doesn't have to be this way.
by ofalkaed | 2025-11-10 22:32:21+00:00
>The aliens change colors when they descend to a new level (whoops).

That is how Space Invaders originally worked, used strips of colored cellophane to give the B&W graphics color and the aliens moved behind a different colored strip on each level down. So, maybe not an whoops?

Edit: After some reading, I guess it was the second release of Space Invaders which had the aliens change color as they dropped, first version only used the cellophane for a couple parts of the screen.
by Retric | 2025-11-10 22:32:30+00:00
Useful for what role? It’s not obvious if someone has near significant or near zero training when they are acting as a stationary guard at a checkpoint etc. Which enables trained troops to preform more useful roles.

They are significantly less likely to do the correct thing if attacked, but a war isn’t going to just be over in 24 hours either so they can be trained up on the job.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-10 22:32:36+00:00
I kind of wonder if that even works.

If you take a model trained on Getty and ask it for Indiana Jones or Harry Potter, what does it give you? These things are popular enough that it's likely to be present in any large set of training data, either erroneously or because some specific works incorporated them in a way that was licensed or fair use for those particular works even if it isn't in general.

And then when it conjures something like that by description rather than by name, how are you any better off than something trained from random social media? It's not like you get to make unlicensed AI India Jones derivatives just because Getty has a photo of Harrison Ford.
by hexage1814 | 2025-11-10 22:33:08+00:00
The issue wasn't if they said that thing or not; companies say a lot of things which are fundamentally a lie, things to keep up appearances – which are oftentimes not enforced. It's like companies arguing they believe in fair pay while using Chinese sweatshops or whatever.

In this case, for instance, Netflix still has a relation with their partners that they don't want to damage at this moment, and we are not at the point of AI being able to generate a whole feature length film indistinguishable from a traditional one . Also, they might be apprehensive regarding legal risks and the copyrightability at this exact moment; big companies' lawyers are usually pretty conservative regarding taking any "risks," so they probably want to wait for the dust to settle down as far as legal precedents and the like.

Anyway, the issue here is:

"Does that statement actually reflect what Netflix truly think and that they actually believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances?"

Because they believe in the sanctity of human authorship or whatever? And the answer is: no, no, hell no, absolutely no. That is a lie.
by notpublic | 2025-11-10 22:33:19+00:00
Indeed! I just found out about tmux display-popup recently.

# ~/.tmux.conf bind-key C-g display-popup -E -d "#{pane_current_path}" -xC -yC -w 80% -h 75% "lazygit"

Then, in tmux:

ctrl-b ctrl-g will open a popup window with lazygit q to quit
by laktek | 2025-11-10 22:33:29+00:00
> Also think the time for a FOSS alternative is coming. Serverless without, virtually, cold starts is here to stay but being tied to only 1 vendor is problematic.

Supabase Edge Functions runs on the same V8 isolate primitive as Cloudflare Workers and is fully open-source (https://github.com/supabase/edge-runtime). We use the Deno runtime, which supports Node built-in APIs, npm packages, and WebAssembly (WASM) modules. (disclaimer: I'm the lead for Supabase Edge Functions)
by wingerlang | 2025-11-10 22:33:41+00:00
I’ve used SourceTree for a decade, Fork is the only one I’ve switched to partially (at work).

I probably will switch back to ST even at work because I dislike:

- I want the split view of ST where I can simply see the changes and not lose the commit log.

- “see only current branch” is super useful in ST to see only the current branch’s commit log.

(Partially writing this in hopes of someone pointing out ways to do this in Fork)