MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by noirscape | 2025-11-04 12:34:41+00:00
Pretty much. Most animals are both smarter than you expect, but also tend to be more limited in what they can reason about.

It's why anyone who's ever taken care of a needy pet will inevitably reach the comparison that taking care of a pet is similar to taking care of a very young child; it's needy, it experiences emotions but it can't quite figure out on its own how to adapt to an environment besides what it grew up around/it's own instincts. They experience some sort of qualia (a lot of animals are pretty family-minded), but good luck teaching a monkey to read. The closest we've gotten is teaching them that if they press the right button, they get food, but they take basically their entire lifespan to understand a couple hundred words, while humans easily surpass that.

IIRC some of the smartest animals in the world are actually rats. They experience a qualia very close to humans to the point that psychology experiments are often easily observable in rats.
by mystifyingpoi | 2025-11-04 12:34:53+00:00
I've never recorded with BandLab, but used it a lot for playback, and for a beginner, it's really good and very easy to use.

With regards to recording - I'm curious how this would work on a scale like 16 ins at a time. Dumping bits from the interface to disk as uncompressed .wav is trivial, on the browser I'm not sure how storage works. Would it have to upload to the cloud immediately?
by aurareturn | 2025-11-04 12:35:30+00:00
Far above the planet, in the emptiness of space, data centers wouldn’t take up precious land or require as much energy and water for cooling. They wouldn’t release warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere either.

How does the CO2 required to launch a data center into space compare to the CO2 emitted by the data center over its life time?

I'd also assume you'd have to have extremely resilient and reliable hardware? You can't just go up and replace a switch if it malfunctions. The cost would be astronomical for such extremely redunancy/resiliency?
by andrepd | 2025-11-04 12:35:39+00:00
What is a progressive tax?

Ridiculous straw man, because this is like saying income tax should be abolished because minimum wage people can't afford it. Yeah no shit that's why it's progressive. In the case of inheritance, even a 0% bracket until ~1M$ will mean the tax leaves the middle class entirely unaffected while ensuring massive feudal-levels of generational wealth are at least curbed, and turned over to the commons.
by zaruvi | 2025-11-04 12:35:57+00:00
>We’ve continued to make solid progress on WPT this month. There has been a significant increase in passing subtests, with 111,431 new passing subtests bringing our total to 1,964,649. The majority of this increase comes from a large update to the test suite itself, with 100,751 subtests being added - mainly due to the Wasm core tests being updated to Wasm 3.0.

They fixed ~10k tests, but indeed this month is a bit of an exception as there were lots of new tests added.
by contrarian1234 | 2025-11-04 12:35:58+00:00
its such a feudal mentality that I really have trouble identifying with it. My parents are significantly wealthier than me, but i just have zero sense of being entitled to the fruits of their labor (though of course i have benefited from it) and even moreso their house... (i wish they had a cottage lol)

we all make our own way in the modern world and i feel as a society we try to not just leave it to fate and how gilded the vagina you crawled out of was
by myrmidon | 2025-11-04 12:36:13+00:00
I honestly don't see what the whole framework gets you. Red (or all qualia) is just the reaction of your nervous system to a stimulus. Since that reaction is shaped by common context/associations, the "subjective experience" is quite comparable between similarly raised humans.

I think the whole philosophy of mind/subjective experience field is one of the few remaining anti-reductionist hold-outs, but I simply don't see a good enough motivation to stick with that view, especially given the abysmal historical track record for anti-reductionism (just consider early chemistry/alchemy, early biology, astronomy, ...).
by dtagames | 2025-11-04 12:36:39+00:00
This is a biased article which argues in favor of DRM (as paywalls) because it is published in a paywalled magazine.

Further in, the article admits that such content is already free and sits inside the page source but is obfuscated by running code.

US law has the precedent (and a recent case that's about AI training) that training, reading, and transforming are not illegal if the materials themselves are legally obtained. Wholesale duplication of copyright material is illegal, but AI companies have already shown in court that they don't duplicate material but rather transform it at great effort and expense.
by omnicognate | 2025-11-04 12:36:50+00:00
Yeah, I had a slightly odd introduction to these things as I studied joint honours maths and physics. That meant both that I had a bit more mathematical maturity than most of the physics students and that I was being taught the more rigorous underpinnings of the maths while it was being (ab)used in all sorts of cavalier ways in physics. I liked the subject matter of physics more, but I greatly preferred the intellectual rigour of the maths.

Eric Gourgoulhon is a product of the French education system, and I often think I would have done better studying there than in the UK.
by spragl | 2025-11-04 12:37:17+00:00
This is how I see LLMs as well.

The main problem with the article is that it is meandering around in ill-conceived concepts, like thinking, smart, intelligence, understanding... Even AI. What they mean to the author is not what they mean to me, and still different to they mean to the other readers. There are all these comments from different people throughout the article, all having their own thoughts on those concepts. No wonder it all seem so confusing.

It will be interesting when the dust settles, and a clear picture of LLMs can emerge that all can agree upon. Maybe it can even help us define some of those ill-defined concepts.
by boxed | 2025-11-04 12:37:18+00:00
I've heard this take a lot and it doesn't make much sense to me. How exactly are ultra rich "hoarding wealth instead of spending it"? Afaik most of the net worth of the ultra rich is in ownership of companies (stocks) or loans (eg bonds). That money is all out there in the world working.

Isn't the fact that the ultra rich are using their wealth productively the reason we have growing wealth inequality? Because active money grows faster than inflation, which is why they get richer compared to the rest of us over time.
by u_sama | 2025-11-04 12:37:23+00:00
This is basically a prisoner dilemma on a global scale where the incentives are for single marginalised nations to leverage the fact of being tax havens to survive globalisation. The dream of a single global tax is as possible as making China/US respect any of the agreements they have signed regarding trade and environment.

The same proposal is also criticized by many economists too, who argue that inequality has not risen as sharply as Piketty's crew claims, or that the bulk of that inequality is linked to the real estate, for which the only solution is build more houses and destroy the capital accumulation of older generation to the profit on newer ones.

1: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-...
by wazoox | 2025-11-04 12:37:37+00:00
There are some gross approximations in the comparison. Oversized fibre optics networks laid out in the late 90s were used for years and may even be in part still used today; today's servers and GPUs will be obsolete in 3 to 5 years, and not worth their weight in scrap metal in 10.

The part about Jevons' paradox is interesting though.
by cynicalsecurity | 2025-11-04 12:37:41+00:00
Because it would be stolen by the government. Ask people in post-Soviet countries about how Soviet governments were stealing money from their bank accounts, from all citizens collectively. No one believed in money under socialism in the USSR. The government could always pull a funny trick called "and now... it's gone". Be happy, comrade, that only your money is gone, you could also be in prison.
by JAlexoid | 2025-11-04 12:37:51+00:00
There's a reason why countries, like Sweden, have scrapped the inheritance tax - it doesn't work like that anymore.

The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied.

Your first home down payment, your education, your wealth generation while being on support by your parents, etc. - will push you off the ground faster, than any inheritance in a world where people easily live to 80-90. Most people hit retirement age, by the time their parents pass away.
by Marshferm | 2025-11-04 12:38:07+00:00
Words are the arbitrary vortex. We never solved the icon, index, signifier threshold, so all words remain a kind of lossy condition hovering at metaphor. And that means AIs role is really to destroy words, perpetually loosen and tear them away from contexts. The key paradox is the conduit metaphor. In person, the paradox disappears. On the page of a great writer, we forget about it since they create the uncanny thread that dissipates our awareness of it. But with AI, the paradox becomes the Achilles heel.
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-04 12:38:10+00:00
> 3. Diode ring, which provides variable gain, used in analog compressors like the Neve 33609 (I have a clone of the 33609, and I’m very fond of it)

I just had a quick look at the service manual, but isn't that more of a diode bridge than diode ring? A Ring Modulator has the diodes connected nose-to-tail in a ring, but the gain cell in the 33609 looks more like a rectifier :-)

You can see the same circuit in the VCF and (incorrectly drawn) in the VCA of the Korg MS50 synthesizer. In the former it acts as the "variable resistor" in a fairly straightforward Sallen-Key lowpass filter (there are two feedback capacitors, one to either side of the bridge, to attempt to prevent the input voltage also tuning the filter). On the VCA the diodes are drawn wrong but the pin numbers are correct.
by 0x000xca0xfe | 2025-11-04 12:38:13+00:00
If they resubmit you at least have proof that the conversation is completely braindead and the other side is happy to engage in uprofessional behavior and generally wasting time and resources.

This should be convincing enough even for a non-technical team lead while for the initial PR it might be hard to explain objectively why it's bad.
by rcMgD2BwE72F | 2025-11-04 12:39:05+00:00
So you ask not to cite someone only because they believe in what they discovered and suggest to take action based on that?

Who has not been criticize in their methodology? Who do you expect to avoid any amount of "controversies" for such a political subject?

Your comment seems to be pure ad hominem. Also, discarding authors because they're French is kinda stupid: historically, quick advances in a field most often start at one time and place.
by wongarsu | 2025-11-04 12:39:42+00:00
"You only need three colors" is a bit of a cheat, because it doesn't really work out in reality. You can use three colors to get a good color gamut (as your screen is doing right now), but to represent close to every color we can see you would need to choose a red and blue close to the edge of what we can perceive, which would make it very dim. And because human vision is weird you would need some negative red as well, which doesn't really exist.

Printing instead uses colors that are in the range we can perceive well, and whenever you want a color that is beyond what a combination of the chosen CMYK tones can represent you just add more colors to widen your gamut. Also printed media arguably prints more information than just color (e.g. "metal" colors with different reflectivity, or "neon" colors that convert UV to visible light to appear unnaturally bright)
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-11-04 12:40:25+00:00
I heard something on here about an investment bubble?

There is some kind of bizarre world that we live in that the article has a quote from Ramaphosa, the totality of his extraordinary wealth was generated by corruption, on the terrors of inequality.

Hoarding is, generally, not a real problem because it requires believing that wealthy people are not greedy. The problem is that most societies heavily incentivize irrational behaviour through disincentivizing investment. Strangely, these same places also have political cultures that focus heavily on inequality (again, there is no better example than South Africa) because genuine openness tends to be very disruptive politically.

There is no way to square the circle. The solutions are known, the problem is that human nature and political culture tends to prevent those solutions being realised (as it is more politically beneficial to continue to sell people lies: it is this group of people, they are the problem, if we can take their money and give it you then you will be rich).
by user_7832 | 2025-11-04 12:41:09+00:00
> a great many time consuming pleasantries

> Oh the horror!

Indeed, that is precisely the case for some folks - with social anxiety. Or autism. Or a number of other mental states.

Maybe they're tired to their bones and barely have energy to even have one meal a day? Maybe they lost a loved one and never quite recovered since then?

It costs nothing to be polite and assume best intentions from the other side.
by bithaze | 2025-11-04 12:41:10+00:00
> Why even have a status page if it is not going to be accurate in real time?

The funny thing is reddit's status page used to have real-time graphs of things like error rate, comment backlog, visits, etc. Not with any numbers on the Y-axis, so you could only see relative changes, really, but they were still helpful to see changes before humans got around to updating the status page.
The Anti-Bot Technique: Cooperative Rendering with Blazeio
by anonyxbiz | 2025-11-04 12:41:26+00:00
The Discovery

While working with Blazeio (a Python async web framework with true zero-buffering streaming), I stumbled upon this technique - and it's so stupidly effective it feels like cheating.

The magic code: ``` import Blazeio as io import Blazeio.Other.proxy as proxy import Blazeio.Modules.onrender as onrender

io.INBOUND_CHUNK_SIZE, io.OUTBOUND_CHUNK_SIZE = 1024100, 1024100

io.Scope.add_imports(globals())

io.Scope.web = io.App("0.0.0.0", 9001, with_keepalive = 1)

class Element: __slots__ = ("r", "element", "className") def __init__(app, r: io.BlazeioProtocol, element: str, className: str = None): app.r, app.element, app.className = r, element.encode(), b'class="%b"' % className.encode() if className else b''

async def __aenter__(app): await app.r.write(b'<%b %b>' % (app.element, app.className)) return app async def __aexit__(app, *args): await app.r.write(b'</%b>' % app.element) return False async def text(app, text: str): return await app.r.write(text.encode())

class Dom: __slots__ = ("r", "event", "id") def __init__(app, r: io.BlazeioProtocol): app.r = r app.event = io.SharpEvent() app.id = io.token_urlsafe(11)

async def __aenter__(app): await app.r.write(b'<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html lang="en">\n<head>\n<meta charset="UTF-8">\n<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">\n<title>Dynamic Rendering</title>\n<link rel="stylesheet" href="/get/favicon?id=%b" fetchpriority="high">\n</head>\n<body>\n' % app.id.encode()) return app async def __aexit__(app, *args): await app.r.write(b'\n</body>\n</html>') return False def __await__(app): yield from app.event.wait_clear().__await__() return app def element(app, *args, **kwargs): return Element(app.r, *args, **kwargs)

@io.Scope.web.attach class Main: __slots__ = () events = io.ddict() def __init__(app): ...

async def _get_favicon(app, r: io.BlazeioProtocol): if not (dom := app.events.pop(r.params().get("id"), None)): raise io.Abort("Not found", 404) dom.event.set() await io.Deliver.text("True") async def _(app, r: io.BlazeioProtocol): await r.prepare({"Content-type": "text/html", "Transfer-encoding": "chunked"}, 200) async with Dom(r) as dom: app.events[dom.id] = dom await dom async with dom.element("main") as element: await element.text("Hello world")

if __name__ == "__main__": with io.Scope.web: io.Scope.web.runner() ```

How It Works

For Real Browsers:

1. Browser requests / 2. Server streams: <!DOCTYPE...<link rel="stylesheet" href="/get/favicon?id=UNIQUE_ID"> 3. Browser naturally fetches the "stylesheet" (actually our trigger endpoint) 4. Server receives the trigger request and continues rendering: <main>Hello world</main> 5. User sees complete page

For Bots:

1. Bot requests / 2. Server streams: <!DOCTYPE...<link rel="stylesheet" href="/get/favicon?id=UNIQUE_ID"> 3. Bot doesn't fetch the "stylesheet" (or fetches it too late) 4. Server stops rendering at <body> 5. Bot sees incomplete page and gives up
by anechouapechou | 2025-11-04 12:41:30+00:00
That's so cool. I watched all of his work, and was in the animation scene, and I didn't even realize at the time, the creator is Chinese! I learned how to use Flash, dabbled into scripts, learned to do very basic stuff on 3DSMax, as a ~10 year old little shit, and all of that most likely wouldn't have happened, if it wasn't for his work -- it's safe to say that my life was dramatically impacted by him. Thanks for sharing this, OP!
by boxed | 2025-11-04 12:42:05+00:00
You are confusing "if only I get a high inheritance tax" with "if everyone gets a very high inheritance tax".

The inheritance tax has to go somewhere. It could go into science and infrastructure and then everyone gets richer. Or it could be paid out as a dividend, then everyone below the average gets richer. There are many options here. Just saying "inheritance tax bad" without talking about the output side of such a tax is by definition going to be... well.. weird.
by Amorymeltzer | 2025-11-04 12:42:31+00:00
The Slate Money podcast had a recent episode of their "Money Talks" series that interviewed Ray Madoff, author of the new book The Second Estate. It was an interesting listen—could've been longer, IMO—and I appreciated the discussion about the history of the inheritance tax in the US and how it has become useless, largely through political inaction refusing to close tricks/loopholes. I'll be checking out from my library (once it's in the system!).
by susam | 2025-11-04 12:42:35+00:00
I just noticed the m = 10007 value in my comment above and I thought I should clarify it. The number of bits per bloom filter does not need to be a prime number if the hash functions have uniform distribution. Murmur2 hash functions do have uniform distribution, so m was not chosen to be prime in order to reduce collisions in the Bloom filter's bit positions. The reason for using a prime value was more mundane.

This was a fairly large project, with roughly 3 million lines of C and C++ code which had numerous constants with special values defined throughout the code. So instead of using a less interesting number like 10000, I chose 10007 so that if we ever came across the value 10007 (decimal) or 0x2717 (hexadecimal) while inspecting a core dump in a debugger, we would immediately recognise it as the constant defining the number of bits per Bloom filter.
by phplovesong | 2025-11-04 12:42:39+00:00
you sell and after that its gone. If there is a house you can a) live in it (by doing so you cut your own families costs by a massive amount) or b) rent it and get a little extra each month.

Once you sell it you pay more taxes. Do you think any of the money you got will go to your kids, or even grandkids? Id say in 80% of all cases it will be long gone before that time comes.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-11-04 12:42:40+00:00
> A new language feature is released, you cannot apply it to old code, since that would make a big PR.

Good. Don't change code for the sake of shiny new things syndrome.

> A better static type checker, that finds some bugs for you, you cannot fix them as your PR would be too big,

Good. Report each bug separately, with a suggested fix, categorised by region of the code. Just because you ran the program, that doesn't mean you understand the code well enough to actually fix stuff: those bugs may be symptomatic of a deeper issue with the module they're part of. The last thing you need is to turn accidentally-correct code into subtly-wrong code.

If you do understand the code well enough, what's the harm in submitting each bugfix as a separate (independent) commit? It makes it easier for the reviewers to go "yup, yup, yup", rather than having to think "does this part affect that part?".
by ljm | 2025-11-04 12:42:46+00:00
If it’s the first one I’d be going a step further back to see how the work was defined. More often than not I’d expect the PR comes from a ticket that is too broad in scope and could have been broken down with a bit of architectural thinking.

The problem being that once someone has put together a PR, it’s often too late to go back to the serious thinking step and you end up having to massage the solution into something workable.
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-11-04 12:42:58+00:00
That is a problem with housing and supply-side in European countries.

The reason there is an issue with housing is the same reason why these articles appear declaiming the political risks (notice, Stigliz only says the risk is political...his friends losing office) of inequality.

This will continue forever, it is ingrained in human nature, it is why it took tens of thousands of years for economic growth to happen from the birth of modern human society.
by jongjong | 2025-11-04 12:43:00+00:00
What terrifies me most about this is that those in power will keep getting younger, dumber and more complacent.

I feel like communism is inevitable at this point. People know communism isn't the solution, but they will still vote for it because at least it pretends to stand for equality.

We're going to reach a point of such extreme inequality that even the pretense of equality provided by communism would be welcomed by the majority.

In a way, the pretense of equality sets a floor on inequality; because, in a communist system which calls all humans equal, any actual inequality has to be either hidden or justified... This requires effort. A system which pretends to stand for equality can only become so unequal before it loses its ability to justify itself; then it collapses.

By contrast, our current system makes no claims about human equality, quite the opposite; it exaggerates and propagandizes the inequality of humans and human ability as a means to justify its failures in terms of human resource allocation.

For example, our current system sees homelessness not as a failure of its resource-allocation capabilities but as a kind of efficiency. It does so by dehumanizing the homeless; painting them as lazy and incapable of value-creation; deceptively conflating 'value creation' with 'value extraction' in the process. Our system keeps trying to portray the 'value extraction' endeavors of the entrepreneur class as being on the same level as the 'value creation' of the working class... They will not acknowledge the reality that 'value extraction' is the main cause of wasted human potential.

It is our current system itself which fails to efficiently allocate the most valuable resource in society; people's time and energy. Our current system implies that human life is of such low intrinsic value, that some people aren't even worthy of having a roof over their heads, all while it deprives them of their right to build their own roofs (with regulations).

Our system loves to blame individuals for its oppression and it loves it even more when they blame themselves for it; it seizes any opportunity it can to demonize beaten-down intelligent people who understand the mechanics of its oppression and it idolizes egotistical idiots who have never experienced struggle and who therefore don't have much difficulty in taking full credit for everything (good) which happens to them...

It's not difficult to take full responsibility for your situation when only good things happen to you... But watch how these people behave when things go belly-up. They're off to the Caymans, never to be heard from again... The system is remarkably lenient on them.