MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by skeaker | 2025-11-07 18:56:56+00:00
[1] does not mean no more police. The NYPD has $11 billion in funding and has offices all over the world for some reason when they should really just be city-sized for NY. They are overfunded, and he believes they should not be.

[2-6] indicate that our current prison system is punitive and does nothing in the way of rehabilitation or reform. No, he will not close every prison. Yes, in an ideal world we would not need hundreds of prisons full to the brim because we would actually rehabilitate and release people. This is hardly a fringe opinion and it is in fact a very common criticism of our prison system. Interpreting these statements as "he is just going to stop prisons and let all the violent criminals out in one go!!!" with no further though IS reinterpreting his words uncharitably because obviously that would be stupid.
by techdmn | 2025-11-07 18:57:02+00:00
I'm curious about a system where capital gains are 100% for the first... I don't know, let's say a month. Then you ramp down over the course of the next year until it matches the regular income tax rate. I'm less concerned about the specific time periods than I am about the idea that it would be beneficial to society to have our financial systems encourage long-term thinking.
by uyzstvqs | 2025-11-07 18:57:10+00:00
It's very simple. I host my stuff on a network with an open peering policy. If you as an ISP somehow have peering issues with that, then that's a you problem. I will not pay a ransom to some shady middleman that you decide to use because your network admins are too lazy. I will (rightfully) blame you and tell your customers to switch ISPs if they have issues.

Play stupid games, win stupid prices. Just wait until Vodafone Germany customers get slow speeds and an automated warning banner on every other website they visit. "Too big to fail" until it isn't.
by mrkiouak | 2025-11-07 18:57:13+00:00
The key thing I'm confident in is that 2-3 years from now there's going to be a model(s) and workflow that has comparable accuracy, perhaps noticeable (but tolerable) higher latency that can be run locally. There's just no reason to believe this isn't achievable.

Hard to understand how this won't make all of the solutions for existing use cases commodity. I'm sure 2-3 years from now there'll be stuff that seems like magic to us now -- but it will be more-meta, more "here's a hypothesis of a strategically valuable outcome and heres a solution (with market research and user testing done".

I think current performance and leading models will turn out to have been terrible indicators for future market leader (and my money will remain on the incumbents with the largest cash reserves (namely Google) that have invested in fundamental research and scaling).
by andrewl-hn | 2025-11-07 18:57:19+00:00
I run my email via imap and haven't seen GMail web UI for at least 15 years. Apple does some minor changes to Mail app but generally they follow "if it ain't broke don't fix it" motto, and I really appreciate that. Besides, I have email from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and FastMail in the same app, and I really appreciate that all email for me looks the same.
by lwn | 2025-11-07 18:57:51+00:00
I recently moved to a Dutch municipality that runs its own non-profit ISP. They installed a symmetric 1 Gbps fiber connection with a static IP at my house for 40 euros per month.

The service is solid, there’s no upselling or throttling, and hosting things from home just works. I bring this up because when we talk about “open”, “fair” and “monopolies” the model of a local, non-profit ISP backed by the municipality could offer a real alternative. It doesn’t directly solve the peering issues, but it shifts the balance of power (and cost) somewhat.
by rauljordan2020 | 2025-11-07 18:58:56+00:00
My point is they see themselves as having more freedoms than the west does in places that matter to their daily life: freedom from poverty, violent crime, the devastating effects of drugs on families, social chaos, and corruption. To Singaporeans, these are real freedoms. They’d much rather have that quality of life than live in homeless-infested cities with drugs where they can at least criticize the government.
by mrweasel | 2025-11-07 18:59:19+00:00
People continue to believe that the "Grundlov" works like the US constitution, and it's really nothing like that. If anything it's more of a transfer of legislation from the king to parliament. Most laws just leaves the details to be determined by parliament.

Censorship really is one of the few laws that are pretty unambiguous, that's really just "No, never again". Not that this stops politicians, but that's a separate debate.
by JuniperMesos | 2025-11-07 18:59:35+00:00
This has a lot of hallmarks of contemporary-LLM-generated prose. I don't think it's bad in and of itself to use LLMs to generate writing, but the prose does come across as kind of repetitive and boring to read.

Anyway I don't see this as a rousing Zig endorsement. The Rust tooling and borrow checker and type system are complex to learn (and contribute to slow compile times which is a genuine downside of Rust), but give you huge benefits in terms of correctness guarantees. And I think people highly underrate the value of writing software that you can guarantee won't fail in certain ways.

I am personally more familiar with Rust than Zig, although I've looked into Zig some. I think that trying approaches to systems languages that are different from the design decisions Rust made is in general a very worthy project. Zig does trade off the amount of memory safety guarantees Rust has in order to have a simpler model of pointers, which is perhaps a reasonable tradeoff in a systems language although I still think the value of the Rust borrow checker is huge. I'm actually more annoyed in Zig by the lower amount of type expressivity compared to Rust - `Result<T, E>` is actually a pretty cool abstraction, and it sucks that you can't easily build this in Zig because of the lack of type level generics support (I'm aware you can do things with comptime to get something similar).

Again, my personal familiarity with Zig is limited and I'm aware the language is still in active development. I think I still prefer the design tradeoffs Rust makes; still, I support the Zig designers (and designers of Nim, Odin, and other novel systems languages) trying out different ideas, and users testing out these languages to build real software.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-11-07 18:59:51+00:00
Huge sections of America/American's are incredibly poor.

Add that the highest income people were the first to switch to Amazon, and are more online first than community first. It didn't take losing too many of those customers for the economics to fall apart.

I live in a tourist town that has had a huge influx of new, higher wealth people post COVID. Surprising to me our businesses/restaurants are doing worse with this new population with more money, not better. They live here for the amenities, but other than on the mountain biking trails/ski mountain/lake (on their boats or remote beaches, detached from most people) you never see them. They work from home, but our walking trails are the sparsest I've ever seen them. None of them seem to go out to eat, especially not lunch. It's awful. And now that they are here, property prices have gone up, so more locals (and the children of locals definitely) will be priced out and replaced by work from home types who... just disappear into their houses. They buy all their gear online instead of supporting the local shops, the local knowledge, the places help organize/arrange for trail maintenance, more land into conservancy. From my one town observation modern upper middle class American's appear to be a net-loss for the local community. They are the types so into their sport they do all the own maintenance, then expect the local shop to do the 1 or 2 things they can't/don't want to do. The local shop can't survive on that little bit of work on your 'all internet bought, self maintained' stuff. They just don't get it.
by nathan_douglas | 2025-11-07 19:00:22+00:00
Agile Six | Remote (US) | https://agile6.com/ | Full-time

A6 is hiring an Enterprise Engineering Strategist! Pay's $207,132.

https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/agilesix/jobs/7518746003

Agile Six is a people-first, remote-work company that serves shoulder-to-shoulder with federal agencies to find innovative, human-centered solutions. We build better by putting people first. We are animated by our core values of Purpose, Wholeness, Trust, Self-Management and Inclusion. We deliver our solutions in autonomous teams of self-managed professionals (no managers here!) who genuinely care about each other and the work. We know that’s our company’s purpose – and that we can only achieve it by supporting a culture where people feel valued, self-managed, and love to come to work. *TL;DR*: We're a federal contractor.

As an Enterprise Engineering Strategist at Agile Six, you will leverage your deep expertise in software engineering, emerging technologies, and applied AI to strengthen and evolve engineering practices across the organization. This role combines hands-on project work with enterprise-level coaching, focusing on how AI-informed tools, patterns, and approaches are redefining what it means to design, build, and deliver software. You will help Agile Six navigate this transformation – guiding teams as engineering roles, workflows, and required skills evolve – and play a pivotal role in shaping the future of engineering and applied AI practice at Agile Six.

Feel free to drop me a line at strong.dot4349@tenesm.us if you'd like more information about what it's like working at A6 (it's pretty great). I can't exactly refer you if I don't know you and haven't worked with you, but I can make sure your résumé gets seen by fresh eyes.
by saaaaaam | 2025-11-07 19:00:34+00:00
Sorry, I don’t understand the point you’re making. I know that these are publicly available - the point I was making, drawing off the parent comment, is that where it has been deemed fair use in copyright to use books to train LLMs when the content has been legitimately obtained then a similar assessment might apply for this sort of ingestion.

If content is publicly available that does not necessarily mean it’s free of copyright control: the justification for using the reviews to train an LLM would be based on the fact that fair use means it is not an infringement of copyright. But if the publisher has terms that forbid scraping then that may mean the fair use argument is undermined if it is precedent in the content being legitimately obtained. I’m not a lawyer but it’s quite easy to see how “books can be used for LLM training under fair use but not if you pirate them” extends to “content on the web can be used for LLM training under fair use but not if you’ve breached the terms set out by the publisher”.
by wahnfrieden | 2025-11-07 19:00:52+00:00
Meta wants to have big scammers. It's hugely profitable. That's why they codified internal policy that if the scam generates at least 0.15% of Meta's revenue, they must be protected and never moderated.

There was a big "bombshell" report on this yesterday (it didn't hit HN frontpage though).

Meta knowingly gets a lot of its funding from scams. They love it! They don't care about technical solutions for it: they've banned any solutions from being implemented because it would impact revenue.
by binome | 2025-11-07 19:01:06+00:00
Interesting take, but generally large, incumbent eyeball networks have refrained from open peering at IX's for decades at this point. They maintained presences, but usually just to grab a few specific peers they wanted, not to peer broadly with everyone across the exchange, and the bulk of traffic from large providers into eyeball networks comes across PNIs or on-net CDN nodes, not IX.

If anything, this move to centralized PNIaaS platforms makes interconnecting with the eyeball networks even easier for smaller providers. The portals allow for straightforward visibility on what they want to charge for paid peering, and instant automated EVCs and turnup, shortcutting the long and windy process of negotiating terms and establishing individual XCs in DCs that you agree to peer in.
by keeda | 2025-11-07 19:02:14+00:00
This is why, despite being a huge fan of their engineering, I'm leery of Facebook and Google and any advertising-based tech company in the long run. The incentives to block fraudulent, malicious and even simply ineffective ads are just not there.

Anybody remember this? https://consumerwatchdog.org/uncategorized/google-shells-out...

Google stopped that practice then... or it might not have! We'll never know since, apparently unlike silly little Meta, it has been much more careful about not having any kind of incriminating internal documents or correspondence being preserved for discovery.

And in any case, it could fall back to the much more lucrative business of anti-competitive manipulation of the ads market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

I've had a hint that the ad industry was rotten for a decade+ when in a prior life I saw our regional head of marketing casually throw stats on the whiteboard showing something insane like 30 - 50% of ad clicks on all major platforms being fraudulent. She was cynical but also jaded to the fact that, despite being widely known and accepted in the industry, it wasn't clear if things would ever improve. Shocked, I followed the ad industry and such reports for a while, anticipating a crash. Glad I didn't bet on it, because the crash never came.

Unfortunately, there is so much money in this that it seems nothing will happen.
by bigyabai | 2025-11-07 19:02:27+00:00
1) Speed dating doesn't rely on invented game mechanics that might ostracize, anger or disappoint participants. The arbitrary competitiveness automatically makes it less-attractive than traditional dating options.

2) It sounds like your only "dating" element here is just the questionnaire at the end. You could offer the same thing at the end of a train ride, after checking out at the grocery store or after a local parent/teacher conference. The reason people don't do this is because it's creepy and weird. Socially healthy individuals don't need to corner people in awkward situations to get closer to them.
by ryandrake | 2025-11-07 19:03:12+00:00
My pet theory is that a lot of AI's default "personality" stems from the rich executives who dream these products up. AI behaves exactly like the various sycophant advisors, admin assistants, servants, employees, and others who exist in these rich, powerful people's orbits.

Every human interaction they have in their day to day lives are with people who praise them and tell them they're absolutely right, and that what they just said was a great insight. So it's no surprise that the AI personalities they create behave exactly the same way.
by andai | 2025-11-07 19:03:14+00:00
Thanks. Could you share more? I'm about to reinvent this wheel right now. (Add a bunch of manual find-replace strings to my setup...)

Here's my current setup:

vt.py (mine) - voice type - uses pyqt to make a status icon and use global hotkeys for start/stop/cancel recording. Formerly used 3rd party APIs, now uses parakeet_py (patent pending).

parakeet_py (mine): A Python binding for transcribe-rs, which is what Handy (see below) uses internally (just a wrapper for Parakeet V3). Claude Code made this one.

(Previously I was using voxtral-small-latest (Mistral API), which is very good except that sometimes it will output its own answer to my question instead of transcribing it.)

In other words, I'm running Parakeet V3 on my CPU, on a ten year old laptop, and it works great. I just have it set up in a slightly convoluted way...

I didn't expect the "generate me some rust bindings" thing to work, or I would have probably gone with a simpler option! (Unexpected downside of Claude is really smart: you end up with a Rube Goldberg machine to maintain!)

For the record, Handy - https://github.com/cjpais/Handy/issues - does 80% of what I want. Gives a nice UI for Parakeet. But I didn't like the hotkey design, didn't like the lack of flexibility for autocorrect etc... already had the muscle memory from my vt.py ;)
by mmooss | 2025-11-07 19:03:27+00:00
Taking into account issues like that reading critically, which is great and essential. Dismissing ideas on that basis - often done on HN generally, even for large medical studies - is intellectually lazy, imho:

Life is full of flaws and uncertainty; that is the medium in which we swim and breath and work. The solution is not to lie at the bottom until the ocean becomes pure H2O; the trick is to find value.
by mothballed | 2025-11-07 19:03:40+00:00
The same people demanding the anti-smart phone laws will rat your ass out the second your kid is spotted walking alone, playing independently, etc. They want to put you in a catch-22 situation.

The real problem here is way less people are parents or people that have no idea what parenting is like, so they don't understand the practicalities of raising children so they come up with the dumbest laws possible and then lord it over you with the full weigh of the state so they can pretend to be parents but with none of the responsibility and all of the smug moral superiority.
by SubGenius | 2025-11-07 19:04:23+00:00
Is this some kind of language wars engagement farming?

The OP submitted a post earlier titled "Zig Looked Like the Future – Until We Tried Multithreading" from the same blog.

What's going on?

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=RustSupremacist

1 - https://freedium-mirror.cfd/zig-looked-like-the-future-until...
by deathanatos | 2025-11-07 19:04:27+00:00
Well, give us the argument, then, instead of the mere allegation that history is frowning at us. Why is it not possible to change the law to permit platforms to not be liable for speech of their users, particularly when users are engaging in a platform in the capacity of communicating and exchanging information, (i.e., 230 as it is today) but not permit advertisers from displaying ads which contain blatant fraud, for which the advertising platform is profiting off that fraud?
by mandevil | 2025-11-07 19:04:38+00:00
One thing I meant to add: this extensive testing- and the enormous amount of documentation/training materials necessary to take an 18 year old with average ASVAB scores and produce someone who can cook meals for 200 other soldiers on four hours of sleep a night- is both why military things cost so much, relative to commercial grade stuff, and why they don't get updated particularly often. Frequent software updates that change menus around play havoc with the detailed training powerpoints that the military relies on to produce those 18 year old tool operators.

Secret Squirrel projects (which I was near but never read into) can get away with lower reliability because they can count on the users to be much better trained and prepared, though again, from my brief encounters with these sorts, they will ignore anything they don't trust to be completely reliable. Reliability matters far more than cutting edge for like 99.9% of military gear.
by beloch | 2025-11-07 19:04:40+00:00
First, if some parents let their kids use social media and some don't, all kids will eventually use it. You can't cut kids off from social spaces their peers are using and expect them to obey.

Second, this move by Denmark reflects a failure to regulate what social media companies have been doing to all their users.

e.g. What has Meta done to address their failures in Myanmar?[1] As little as was legally possible, and that was as close to nothing as makes no difference. More recently, Meta's own projections indicate 10% of their ad revenue comes from fraud[2]. The real proportion is almost certainly higher, but Meta refuses to take action.

Any attempts to tax or regulate American social media companies has invited swift and merciless response from the U.S. government. To make matters worse, U.S. law makes it impossible for American companies to respect the privacy of consumers in non-U.S. markets[3].

Put it all together, and American social media is something that children need to be protected from, but the only way to protect them is to cut them off from it entirely. This is the direct result of companies like Meta refusing to respond to concerns in any way other than lobbying the U.S. government to bully other nations into accepting their products as is.

Good on Denmark. I hope my own country follows suit.

------------

[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

[2]https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

[3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2025/07/22/micro...
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-11-07 19:04:43+00:00
As used here, the term "preventative" means an approach or strategy that seeks to prevent email addresses from becoming public and term "remedial" means an approach or strategy that seeks to limit damage if email addresses become public

To reduce risk from data breaches one option is to send less personal data to websites rather than more (preventative)

One old strategy is to not "sign up" for websites unless absolutely necessary (preventative), e.g., to complete a commercial transaction. On the early www, sites publishing public information generally did not ask for email addresses

Another old strategy is to use account-specific addresses and account-specific passwords that identify the account, the date and the computer used, i.e., some user-contructed identifier only known to the computer user (remedial)

Alas today's website operators, including ones offering nothing more than public information, attempt to convince visitors to "sign up" and submit email addresses, even when it is not necessary to access the public information

The website operators benefit from this data collection

As such, data collectors may not recommend that users stop signing up for websites and sending email addresses (preventative). It would reduce their benefit. Instead, they encourage it

HIBP is one such data collector. It requests email addresses in order to search public information

HIBP focuses on behavioural trends with respect to passwords (remedial) instead of behavioural trends in sharing personal data with website operators (preventative)

The operator even admits having an interest in password managers

"My interest in 1Password aside"

Data breaches share private information with the public, making it, detrimentally,^1 public information. This is how it becomes accessible to HIBP

An obvious mitigation strategy is to limit the amount of private information collected (preventative), thereby limiting the amount that could ever be shared with the public in a data breach. This is "preventative"

HIBP is "remedial", i.e., it assumes private information has become public. Without data breaches to collect and search, HIBP would not exist

The two approaches, preventative and remedial, are not mutually exclusive

Both can be used at the same time (preventative plus remedial)

HIBP appears to ignore the preventative approach of modifying behaviour to not submit email addresses to websites. Perhaps because HIBP itself engages in data collection. It solicits email addresses

Unfortunately, one cannot use an account-specific address with HIBP. It solicits addresses that have potentially been used for other accounts

1. Arguably breaches are not detrimental for HIBP since it profits from their existence. If there were a reduction in data breaches, could HIBP continue to successfully solicit more email addresses. If there were behavioural changes the resulted in www users creating fewer accounts and sharing fewer email addresses, would demand for password managers suuch as 1Password be reduced