MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cogman10 | 2025-11-20 21:30:56+00:00
The how matters.

Since Clinton Democrats have been neoliberal (conservative). The mechanism they've chosen for all of their programs has been public private partnerships. Infrastructure funding, for example, has been "they created a slush fund for private companies to bid on". Healthcare was "They created a slush fund to pay for private insurance".

And I'll point out, that they also made healthcare more expensive with this slush fund approach. Medicare Part C was created by the Clinton administration which, you guessed it, created a giant slush fund for private insurance that ends up being more expensive than Medicare Part A/B.

I agree, democrats did expand access to healthcare, but they did it in the most expensive and easily corruptible way possible. The approach was literally a carbon copy of the Heritage foundation plan that Romney implemented in Mass.
by Analemma_ | 2025-11-20 21:31:08+00:00
I don't love FIPS either, but cryptosystems don't work the same way as buildings and electrical codes. It's very easy to have "secure cryptosystem A" and "secure cryptosystem B", and then have massive security holes in "cryptosystem A + B". This happens all the time, and is one of the main reasons for the classic "don't roll your own crypto" admonition. The FIPS "whole system" mandate is meant to forestall this failure mode.
by jaggs | 2025-11-20 21:31:14+00:00
The new Cool Banana 2.0 is a free image generation and editing tool for Windows, which makes it trivially easy to generate and edit images in an instant. The app is not limited to one image model, but can be changed by the user to take advantage of new models as they arrive on the market. The current default model is the brand new Gemini 3 Pro image, which is the world's best.
by stevenjgarner | 2025-11-20 21:31:23+00:00
I hope mightily that you are correct and it is restricted to the flyover states. I fear that the reality is probably that in populated states the police are so preoccupied dealing with real crime they have little opportunity to take "preventative action". Being as empathic as I can, I would say that the cops in flyover states deal with a LOT of transport-related drug crimes (that's why they are called "flyover"), so I get their focus. I have just learned to exist below the radar as much as possible. I no longer drive dealer plated cars and have no vehicles registered in my name (so I never come up in ALPR systems). I try to be compliant in every way possible. But then again that's what real criminals do too.
by thewebguyd | 2025-11-20 21:31:27+00:00
> revolves around being able to do illegal things.

The problem is, what is legal today might not be tomorrow. Especially depending on the regime in power at the time.

Mass surveillance can implicate someone in a crime if later on some regime decides that what they did or where they went is now a crime when it wasn't before.

Remember the push back against Apple's proposed client side scanning of photos to look for CSAM? What happens when the hash database starts including things like political memes, or other types of photos. What used to be legal is now not, and you get screwed because of the surveillance state.

Absolutely no data should be available without a warrant and subpoena, full stop. Warrants issued by a court, not a secret national security letter with a gag order either. Warrants only issued with true probable cause, not "acting suspicious."
by trueno | 2025-11-20 21:31:29+00:00
Hi ! So zulip is actually probably top of this list as the best self managed solution and I’m sorry if I conveyed that it was even near the same ballpark of some of the others. I actually think it’s pretty neat. Interestingly the thing that made us spin down our zulip instance after ten minutes was the “async conversations”. I understand this is a core differentiator for zulip but it immediately felt like the teams channel threading which none of us can stand. The intentions are noble, and the implementation is way better than teams, but it’s interesting to me that solutioning for preventing things from getting buried became the core UX philosophy at play. Really there is something that just works with an absolutely straight forward chronological list of chat messages used in conjunction with a capable search indexer. It’s not that we aren’t willing to try new paradigms, we have tried this paradigm. For a while now. Our topic’d channels are a ghost town these days, our entire org has just moved to making group chats in teams that serve as channels and pinning them because it’s just way easier to work together with regular chat. Ironically we fail to respond to things and struggle more to find things in a topic/threaded paradigm as it seems to go a little too far in isolating “noise”. A lot of serendipitous participation and aha moments and memes come from just glancing a chat discussion that might not immediately involve your attention, and we just operate way better in the open chat space needing only channels/members for the right amount of organization.
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-11-20 21:33:05+00:00
We didn't have C&H in France when I was a kid in the 80s. I discovered it at the university through a German girlfriend who said that she's kniwn it for some time already.

It is interesting how some random things from far away just used to catch in a country, but not in the neighbour one.

Our nr 1 hero at that time was Goldorak - everyone who is in their 50s today can sing the intro song (at least the first line) and knows a few of the attacks. Girls had Candy but we were absolutely watching it as well (I actually don't know if girls were watching Goldorak, I need to ask)
by OvrUndrInformed | 2025-11-20 21:33:16+00:00
Markov Processes are a pretty general concept that can be used to model just about anything if you let the “state” also incorporate some elements of the “history”. I assume that the way transformers are used to model language (next token prediction) can be considered a Markov process where the transition function is modeled by the LLM. Transitions between a state (given by [n] previous tokens, which are the context + text generated so far) and the next state (given by state[n+1] tokens, which are the context + text generated so far + the newest generated token) are given by the probability distribution output by the LLM. Basically I think you can consider auto-regressive LLMs as parameterized Markov processes. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
by crazygringo | 2025-11-20 21:33:39+00:00
I'm curious what you think the solution is?

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not.

Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public.

Obviously it's now scary that you're being tracked. But what is the solution? We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public. Is it the mass aggregation of already-public data that should be made illegal? What adverse consequences might that have, e.g. journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?
by kev009 | 2025-11-20 21:33:42+00:00
I'm unable to discern what the OP means there, but any slab on grade (including driveways and pathways) is only as good as the base underneath so that absolutely should be well compressed aggregate and you may have to pull out a lot of soil to fit it if conditions dictate. If anything is below grade, there should be a permeable drain pipe below the bottom grade at the footing, and drain aggregate running the vertical to prevent buoyancy as much as infiltration. If they tried to manage sub-grade moisture with the top soil, that is a disaster. The rest of the final grade may be specific to the drainage plan and geography, it is possible the soil needed amendment.
by bluGill | 2025-11-20 21:34:13+00:00
The copyright on the whole collection is 2025 - which is likely just the README or some such thing. Some of the parts are copyright 1977. For works created after 1978 copyright would last from year of first publication + 90 years, but since most of this is written in/before 1977 different laws apply. (I suspect that Activation was careful to ensure they keep their registration up to date, but there is a slight possibility this is all public domain anyway if you want to hire a lawyer to check)
by sipofwater | 2025-11-20 21:34:31+00:00
"Motorola moto g play 2024 Smartphone, Android 14 Operating System, Termux, And cryptsetup: Linux Unified Key Setup (LUKS) Encryption/Decryption And The ext4 Filesystem Without Using root Access, Without Using proot-distro, And Without Using QEMU": https://old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_mot... (old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_moto_g_play_2024_smartphone_android_14/)
by nobodyandproud | 2025-11-20 21:34:50+00:00
From one rambler to another: I’m not sure who or what this aimed at, as it goes all over the place.

Cloud: Separating resources from what gets deployed is a classic separation of concerns.

I don’t miss the days where I had to negotiate with the IT team on hardware, what gets run, and so on.

Personally, I believe the next evolution is a rebalkanization into private clouds. Mid-to-large companies have zero reason to tie their entire computing and expose information to hosting third parties.

OpenAPI: The industry went through a number of false starts on formal remoting calls (corba, dcom, soap). Those days sucked.

The RESTful APIs caught on, and of course at some point, the need for a formal contract was recognized.

But note how decoupled it is from the underlying stack: It forces the engineers to think about the contract as a separate concern.

The problem here is how fragile the web protocol and security actually is, but the past alternatives offer no solution here.
by ActorNightly | 2025-11-20 21:34:55+00:00
>People here are allowed to question

I don't get why you have to obfuscate like this. You aren't against limitations for questioning. You wont find any sensible person that is against immigration enforcement completely.

What you want is the ability for your side to carry out its will unobstructed by any legal process, because you fundamentally believe what they are doing is right, and the other side is evil.

Just say that instead of pretending that its about the law.
by jajuuka | 2025-11-20 21:34:58+00:00
Part of it I imagine is because Westwood made the game and then got bought up and shutdown under EA. Asset tracking would be a mess.

Other part of it is most studios didn't imagine a use for old games in the future. So they weren't archived properly. World of Warcraft original source code was mostly lost and that game sold incredibly well and the company stayed in business. More modern studios are thinking more about remasters, remakes and archiving their work now so it's mostly a problem with older titles.
by BobaFloutist | 2025-11-20 21:35:43+00:00
That would frankly be a narrow, reasonable application.

The problem is the database building. Law enforcement queries should all be forced to be 1. Require a warrant or an active emergency and 2. Be strictly real-time, for a set duration, and store no information about cars that are not subject to the warrant.

If either of those is not hardcoses into the technology, I don't want my local police department to be allowed to use license plate scanners whatsoever.
by hamdingers | 2025-11-20 21:35:45+00:00
Do you know any progressives? Do you follow any politics outside the US? I'm going to guess not, because your frame of reference for what a genuinely progressive win would look like is woefully miscalibrated. I suggest you rectify that before accusing anyone else of ignorance.

Yes, they have had some incremental policy wins and done tremendous good for millions of people (while also making, e.g. healthcare more expensive/profitable). No, the occasional incremental policy win does not a progressive party make.
by kbolino | 2025-11-20 21:35:54+00:00
Right now, type casts (called conversions in the spec) always produce a single value. The idiomatic way to have checked casts would IMO be a two-value form, as this would be consistent with type assertions, channel receives, and map indexing, off the top of my head. End result would be something like:

var x []byte y, ok := [32]byte(x) // ...

However, it feels like a relatively significant change to the language just for a niche use. Even the ability to cast from []T to [N]T or *[N]T is actually fairly new (Go 1.20 and 1.17, respectively). I don't think it's that hard to check the length before casting, though a checked cast would be convenient since you wouldn't have to repeat the length between the check and the cast.
by potatopan | 2025-11-20 21:36:01+00:00
Well.. I don't understand how you can read a confused and muddled article by someone who doesn't want to know the difference between JavaTM and one of its notable choices in the many dimensions of language choices and not wish to be a little more enlightened as to the difference between hiring an OOP monkey or a VMware jockey to smash some bits about.. The article is like a poster child for taking an hour to learn what your profession is about.
by Teever | 2025-11-20 21:36:12+00:00
The solution is to wake up and start treating this like it is which is mass stalking. Sousveillance against the people who profit from these disgusting antisocial behaviours should be common place.

If an individual was to do this to a single person they'd considered a creep and the cops would rustle them out of a the bushes and seize all their cameras as evidence of their stalking behaviour.

The act of incorporating and doing the same thing en masse doesn't make it legal.
by prewett | 2025-11-20 21:36:17+00:00
It's unclear to me what the author thinks OOP is, and what he thinks we are replacing it with. The main point of OOP to me is hiding internal state. So OOP is great for user-interface, because there's all kinds of state there (not just the model, but the internal state of the UI element, like the scroll position of a list or the selection range of a text edit). Microservices, in fact, could be considered "network objects" and a microservice framework as network OOP. The problem there is that normal making a function call is straight-forward. The call produce a failure result, but the call actually happens. On the network, the call might not happen, and you might not be aware that the call cannot and will not happen for some seconds. This is not likely to simplify your code...

OOP can be just about structuring code, like the Java OOP fundamentalism, where even a function must be a Runnable object (unless it's changed since Oracle took over). If there's anything that is not an object, it's a function!

Some things are not well-suited to OOP, like linear processing of information in a server. I suspect this is where the FP excitement came from. In transforming information and passing it around, no state is needed or wanted, and immutability is helpful. FP in a UI or a game is not so fun (witness all the hooks in React, which in anything complicated is difficult to follow), since both of those require considerable internal state.

Algorithms are a sort of middle ground. Some algorithms require keeping track of a bunch of things, others more or less just transform the inputs. OOP (internal to the algorithm) can make the former much clearer, while it is unhelpful for that latter.
by drob518 | 2025-11-20 21:36:36+00:00
Nice. Yep, we wrote our own adventure games in BASIC as well. There were a couple problems with that, however. First we weren’t able to come up with a sophisticated parser like Infocom had. We ended up with basic “verb object” parsers, ala Scott Adams adventures. Second, we didn’t have many rooms as it was difficult to fit it all into memory and we didn’t have the sophisticated incremental loading that Infocom did with the Z-machine. Still, it worked.
by programjames | 2025-11-20 21:36:46+00:00
Huh? You asked, "why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?" That's what I answered. Did you mean to ask a different question, "why is there broad consensus among people who research intelligence that it is ill-defined?" Which kinds of people are you talking about? The information theorists? The machine learning researchers? The linguists? The psychologists?

The information theorists generally agree it has a precise definition, though they may choose different ones. The machine learning researchers typically only know how to run empirical experiments, but a small group of them do theory, and they generally agree intelligence is low Kolmogorov complexity. The linguists generally agree it cannot be defined, in the nihilistic sense, but if you posit a bunch of brains, then words have meaning by being signals between brains and intelligence is moving the words closer to the information bottleneck. I don't know what the psychologists say on the matter, though I wonder if they have the mathematical tools to even say things precisely.
by nomel | 2025-11-20 21:37:01+00:00
I'll admit I may have fallen for "private" browser marketing. Is this representative to current methods?

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org

I assume a subset of these bits could be used, meaning the "unique" or not claim of this test probably doesn't reflect if you can be tracked. I also assume that a VPN would help tremendously.

For that test, as is, I get "unique" every refresh when using Brave Browser. With Safari and Chrome, I get a fail an subsequent sessions.
by gwbas1c | 2025-11-20 21:37:24+00:00
> Every call across components acrues failure modes, requires a slow march through (de)serialisation libraries, a long trek through the kernel’s scheduler. A TLB cache invalidation here, a socket poll there. Perhaps a sneaky HTTP request to localhost for desert.

And this has tangible costs, too. I saved more than $10k a month in hosting costs for a small startup by combining a few microservices (hosted on separate VMs) into a single service. The savings in development time by eliminating all of the serialization layers is also appreciable, too.
by unoti | 2025-11-20 21:37:36+00:00
If you're not sure about what a Markov Chain is, or if you've never written something from scratch that learns, take a look at this repo I made to try to bridge that gap and make it simple and understandable. You can read it in a few minutes. It starts with nothing but Python, and ends with generating text based on the D&D Dungeon Master Manual. https://github.com/unoti/markov-basics/blob/main/markov-basi...
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-20 21:37:47+00:00
> "Deportations" is an ambiguous term

It is. Which means the numbers are generally able to be fluffed. The fact that ICE isn't even bothering to do that communicates that they're not focussing on nor being held to it.

> which may or may not include people turned away at the border

You don't need to blow the military budget of most of the world's militaries [1] to do this, nor build "a surveillance system stretching into the country’s interior."

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-ice-bill-trump-2093456
by hulitu | 2025-11-20 21:37:58+00:00
> You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe".

The African map is strange. I scrolled until 1722 and it shows some isolated countries and the rest is white. They could do better. (I'm european - pale face)
by Lammy | 2025-11-20 21:38:20+00:00
There's no need to partisanize this. Why would you immediately turn off half of your possible audience when speaking about an issue that affects everyone equally? San Francisco is covered in Flock cameras just like the ones pictured top-right in the article, and you won't find a more-Democrat-leaning place. One cannot analyze and act on data that does not exist: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/sf-takes-historic-step-to-s...
by aerostable_slug | 2025-11-20 21:38:33+00:00
Let's talk about those unfortunate migrants who are having their lives ruined. In West Oakland, much ado was just made about ICE attempting to pick someone up near an elementary school [0]. Some locals swarmed the cops to try to protect the poor man from being "kidnapped."

Turns out ICE conducted a targeted immigration enforcement operation to arrest Gonzalo Ramirez Martez, whose rap sheet includes multiple arrests for DUI, domestic violence, driving on a suspended license, etc. I don't know of a developed nation that wouldn't deport a habitual drunk driver who beats women.

In my county, every local ICE apprehension has been the result of targeted operations against criminals with substantial records, to include domestic violence, rape, aggravated assault, and meth trafficking for the cartels among others. No exceptions have been found by the local press, and it's not for lack of trying.

Is my life better because these criminals are being deported? Yes. So long as one "side" pretends it's all innocents being kidnapped, the rest of us will ignore you, because it's obviously and demonstrably not the case. I don't want woman-beating violent felons in my immediate location, and if an American were doing the same thing in another country they would absolutely deserve to be sent home in handcuffs.

Do I have trepidation about the methods being used? Sure, it's why I'm in this thread. But let's not pretend there's no benefit to what's going on, because it seems pretty clear to this observer that removing repeat offenders is a good thing.

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/ice-hoover-eleme...
by crazygringo | 2025-11-20 21:38:42+00:00
Buying your kid an Android phone shouldn't make them suffer socially, in a just world.

But in the real world, if it does, then buy them the damn phone. Used, if that's the only way to afford it and that's what they want.

Don't make your kid suffer because of your stance on a corporation. That's just being mean to your kid. Go ahead and use Android yourself if you want, but don't do that to your kid if they're having trouble making friends and Android is a reason. That's just cruel.
by bitpush | 2025-11-20 21:38:50+00:00
> Under pressure from the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple is being forced to ditch its proprietary peer-to-peer Wi-Fi protocol – Apple Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) – in favor of the industry-standard Wi-Fi Aware, also known as Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN). A quietly published EU interoperability roadmap mandates Apple support Wi-Fi Aware 4.0 in iOS 19 and v5.0,1 thereafter, essentially forcing AWDL into retirement. This post investigates how we got here (from Wi-Fi Direct to AWDL to Wi-Fi Aware), what makes Wi-Fi Aware technically superior, and why this shift unlocks true cross-platform peer-to-peer connectivity for developers.

Apple cant do anything without angering EU.