MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jltsiren | 2025-12-17 00:57:18+00:00
Is joy related to happiness, or are they two separate concepts? That depends on your cultural background and the languages you speak.

The World Happiness Report can be traced back to the UN General Assembly Resolution 65/309, which was proposed by Bhutan. Therefore the intended definition of happiness in this context is similar to the one in Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index.
by mikepurvis | 2025-12-17 00:57:43+00:00
At least some of it is differing policies on what types can be inferred/traced through the callers vs what has to be given explicitly.

I think everyone basically agrees that at the package boundary, you want explicit types, but inside application code things are much more murky.

(plus of course, performance, particularly around incremental processing, which Astral is specifically calling out as a design goal here)
by D-Machine | 2025-12-17 00:58:00+00:00
Yeah, when you start getting into this stuff and see your first dataset with over a hundred MRIs, and actually start manually inspecting things like skull-stripping and stuff, it is shocking how dramatically and obviously different people's brains are from each other. The nice clean little textbook drawings and other things you see in a lot of education materials really hide just how crazy the variation is.

And yeah, part of why we need more within-subject and longitudinal designs is to get at precisely the things you mention. There is no way to know if the low ICCs we see now are in fact adaptation to the task or task generalities, if they reflect learning that isn't necessarily task-relevant adaptation (e.g. the subject is in a different mood on a later test, and this just leads to a different strategy), if the brain just changes far more than we might expect, or all sorts of other possibilities. I suspect if we ever want fMRI to yield practical or even just really useful theoretical insights, we definitely need to suss out within-subject effects that have high test-retest reliability, regardless of all these possible confounds. Likely finding such effects will involve more than just changes to analysis, but also far more rigorous experimental designs (both in terms of multi-modal data and tighter protocols, etc).

FWIW, we've also noticed a lot of magic can happen too when you suddenly have proper longitudinal data that lets you control things at the individual level.
by jackzhuo | 2025-12-17 00:58:12+00:00
This is a profound question, and looking at your specific moving lines (Lines 2 and 4), the answer is almost startlingly precise.

It’s rare, but both of your moving lines start with the exact same verdict: 'One cannot engage in conflict' (不克讼).

Line 2 says: Retreat and return home. (Don't fight the reality.)

Line 4 says: Turn back and submit to fate. (Acceptance brings peace.)

The Oracle seems to be validating your feeling of loss, but advising that this isn't a battle to be won against time (Conflict). It’s a transition to be understood.

You are moving from Hexagram 6 (Fighting) to Hexagram 20 (Contemplation/Viewing). The 'supernatural power' of youth is active energy; the power of age is perspective. You aren't losing the code, you're just moving from 'Writing' to 'Architecting'. :)
by lifthrasiir | 2025-12-17 00:59:24+00:00
More specifically, since Korean syllables are of the form CV(C) where C is a consonant and V is a vowel, almost all Hangul keyboard layouts divide the entire keyboard into two or three sections (consonant-vowel or initial-medial-final). The standard KS X 5002 layout is the former, a "bipartite" method (두벌식), while I'm using one of the latter, "tripartite" methods (세벌식).
by ggm | 2025-12-17 00:59:31+00:00
How do the courts view changes to contract after suit filed? If the primary focus is remediation or correction, they've probably met the goal. if the primary purpose of the suit is the stated outcome (taking ownership of the trademark, or nullifying its exclusivity), then this reaction won't alter the basis of argument before the change, since it's only a reaction to change, not an actual evident use of the IPR and it's value.

If you drop something valuable in a legal domain where after 3 months it's finders keepers it doesn't magically become yours again because you said "not like that" basically.

OTOH if there is no legal domain with an N month rule, you can say "thats mine" forever.

"we didn't mean to let thermos become a generic" wasn't really a workable argument.

(NAL. probably using words in ways which make Lawyers wince)
by jerriep | 2025-12-17 00:59:39+00:00
Yeah, my full names are Jeremia Josiah, and on my work permit they wrote the Thai version as เจอเรเมีย โยชิอา. I cannot figure out why they chose to use จ for the J in Jeremia but ย for the J in Josiah. Both are pronounced the same and I would consider จ the correct choice. I would consider ย more correct for representing a word with Y.
by rendx | 2025-12-17 00:59:57+00:00
ICC claims jurisdiction in Palestine. Whether Israel or the US accept that is their business. Nobody is interfering with their national autonomy. I see no "imposition" of jurisdiction here by the ICC. The only country that is imposing their jurisdiction here, and enforcing it outside of their own jurisdiction, are the US. The ICC merely issues documents; everybody is free to agree or disagree with their documents. They have no power of enforcement. The ICC is only doing what they received as a task by the signatory countries of the Rome statute, which ultimately decide what actions to take or not. As such, you could say the ICC merely writes "policy recommendations". The US is the one taking action.

Can you point me at any action that the ICC has taken in the United States or Israel? No, because it is a court. It publishes documents. Legal opinions. You're totally free to decide whether you accept it as a "court" or not.

Can't you see that it is exactly this kind of US exceptionalism and international interfering that stirs hatred, and does not bring peace but breeds terrorism and war?
Show HN: GPT Image 1.5 – An AI image editor with conversational editing
by jackson_mile | 2025-12-17 01:00:05+00:00
Hey HN,

I built a web tool that wraps the latest AI image generation models with a conversational interface.

The main idea is you can iterate on images through natural dialogue instead of rewriting prompts from scratch each time.

Key features I focused on: - Multi-turn editing (the AI remembers previous context) - Character/style consistency across multiple images - Multi-image fusion

Not affiliated with OpenAI – the name is just a playful nod. Would love feedback from this community, especially on the UX and what features would be useful for technical users.

Try it: https://gptimage15.app
by simonw | 2025-12-17 01:00:38+00:00
That's about where I'm settled on this right now. I feel like authors who select the GPL have made a robust statement about their intent. It may be legal for me to copyright-launder their library (maybe using the trick where one LLM turns their code into a spec and another turns that spec into fresh code) but I wouldn't do that because it would subvert the spirit of the license.
by vunderba | 2025-12-17 01:00:49+00:00
All images are generated using independent, separate API calls. See the FAQ at the bottom under “Why is the number of attempts seemingly arbitrary?” and “How are the prompts written?” for more detail, but to quickly summarize:

In addition to giving models multiple attempts to generate an image, we also write several variations of each prompt. This helps prevent models from getting stuck on particular keywords or phrases, which can happen depending on their training data. For example, while “hippity hop” is a relatively common name for the ball-riding toy, it’s also known as a “space hopper.” In some cases, we may even elaborate and provide the model with a dictionary-style definition of more esoteric terms.

This is why providing an “X Attempts” metric is so important. It serves as a rough measure of how “steerable” a given model is - or put another way how much we had to fight with the model in order for it to consistently follow the prompt’s directives.
by 15155 | 2025-12-17 01:00:54+00:00
No law can prevent me from operating a corporation that collects and publishes license plate data for lawful purposes (basic freedom of the press.) If I can see something in public (where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists), I can report on it. Very few exceptions exist to this - think national security or military installations.

> Doesn't mass surveillance plausibly violate the First Amendment, by having a chilling effect on speech and freedom of association?

Plausibly, but no relevant case law I am aware of makes this interpretation.

We can prohibit the government from utilizing and collecting the data: absolutely, but you cannot prevent the people from doing the same.
by apawloski | 2025-12-17 01:01:16+00:00
Were my ancient legal texts incorporated? Were yours? If you are born here, what does it matter?

But more importantly, I said Americans. Are some Americans more American to you?

America is not a startup. It is not even a company. It’s a country who was built inherently by immigration. And it was wrong to single out the Irish and Italians, and it’s wrong to single out the ___ now.
by sfink | 2025-12-17 01:01:44+00:00
Ah, but your words say Mozilla should be doing more than nothing, they should in fact be winning:

> With that income there's no reason they shouldn't be the leading browser.

despite having less resources than their primary competitor.

Well, our primary competitor. I work for Mozilla. Which apparently means I'm making $730K. Maybe that's why I pay my house cleaner with a suitcase full of cash every week. Who isn't as happy about it as she could be, on account of not existing. Some people are picky about that.

I'd love to be growing our market share dramatically, since I put in a lot of work when I'm not on HN. Sadly I've been told that work is achieving practically nothing. I will point out that practically nothing does at least include still having enough sway in standards committees to hold the line against an ad-tech company whose incentives all push in the dystopic direction that everything is currently headed in. (Ok, maybe not fully holding the line...) If that stops being the case and Mozilla stops making a difference, then I believe I could still get a job elsewhere for a fair bit more than I'm currently making.

Oh wait, I forgot I'm already making $730K. Maybe not, then.
by socketcluster | 2025-12-17 01:02:07+00:00
Yeah, IMO, the spec almost always needs refinement. I've worked for some companies where they tried to write specs with precision down to every word; but what happened is; if the spec was too detailed, it usually had to be adjusted later once it started to conflict with reality (efficiency, costs, security/access restrictions, resource limits, AI limitations)... If it wasn't detailed enough, then we had to read between the lines and fill in a lot of gaps... And usually had to iterate with the stakeholder to get it right.

At most other companies, it's like the stakeholder doesn't even know what they want until they start seeing things on a screen... Trying to write a formal spec when literally nobody in the universe even knows what is required; that's physically impossible.

In my view, 'Correct code' means code that does what the client needs it to do. This is downstream from it doing what the client thinks they want; which is itself downstream from it doing what the client asked for. Reminds me of this meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/105v2h/what_the_cust...

Software engineers don't get nearly enough credit for how difficult their job is.
by bbdrummer | 2025-12-17 01:02:21+00:00
let us open a petition to urge M$ to also charge us for git commands: - git clone: 0.10$ - git commit: 0.001$ * number of files - git pull: 0.01$ - git push: 0.0175$ * numbers of commits * number of files - git merge: 1.25$ - git merge --squash: 2.00$

a nice feature would be if they limit the number of branches, too: - <=2 branches: free - <=5 branches: 3.00$ per user per month - >5 branches: contact enterprise sales
by Macha | 2025-12-17 01:02:26+00:00
終末何してますか？忙しいですか？救ってもらっていいですか？ has an "English" title on it's Japanese cover beside the Japanese one "Do you have what THE END? Are you busy? Shall you save XXX?". I'm guessing the author did it themselves. The capitalisation on THE END is presumably supposed to reflect on 終末 (shuumatsu - the end [often used for apocalypses etc]) punning on 週末 (shuumatsu - weekend) and the XXX is because the Japanese title gets to omit the subject and English can't.

Needless to say, the official English translations didn't keep that title, going with "What are you doing at the end of the world? Are you busy? Will you save us?"
by bpt3 | 2025-12-17 01:02:45+00:00
> So? I know what I mean.

No one else who has responded to you does, so you'd think you'd care, but I guess that makes the chances of a meaningful dialogue very clear.

> Aside from all the patents, trademarks, copyright, etc. that would make it impossible to reproduce. You could create something that kind of like sort of the same to a squinting onlooker, but the users are going to know that they are nothing alike.

Again, what specifically are you talking about? Not only does all of that regulation exist in the EU (plus many others, which is what makes your claim about heavy regulation in the US so bizarre), but there are numerous alternatives to each product I mentioned in the US (I specifically picked ones that did not create a new product category for this reason).

What is it about the regulatory policies in the US that allows US competitors to exist, but not EU ones?
by array_key_first | 2025-12-17 01:02:49+00:00
He's alluding to here that people who believe everything is political are more extremist in their views. Meaning, those who are moderate or more middle ground typically do not believe everything is political. It's implying that doing nothing or maintaining the status quo is inherently not a political action.

But of course, it is, and we have practically infinite historical examples to show that. The status quo does not exist on its own, it's a product of the dominant ideology, which is an ideology.
by password-app | 2025-12-17 01:02:54+00:00
Formal verification for AI is fascinating, but the real challenge is runtime verification of AI agents.

Example: AI browser agents can be exploited via prompt injection (even Google's new "User Alignment Critic" only catches 90% of attacks).

For password management, we solved this with zero-knowledge architecture - the AI navigates websites but never sees credentials. Credentials stay in local Keychain, AI just clicks buttons.

Formal verification would be amazing for proving these isolation guarantees. Has anyone worked on verifying AI agent sandboxes?
by swyx | 2025-12-17 01:03:13+00:00
> How much better would this library be if an expert team hand crafted it over the course of several months?

i think the fun conclusion would be: ideally no better, and no worse. that is the state you arrive it IFF you have complete tests and specs (including probably for performance). now a human team handcrafting would undoubtedly make important choices not clarified in specs, thereby extending the spec. i would argue that human chain of thought from deep involvement in building and using the thing is basically 100% of the value of human handcrafting, because otherwise yeah go nuts giving it to an agent.
by 15155 | 2025-12-17 01:03:50+00:00
> It says nothing directly about privacy, for or against

Freedom of the press is directly related to privacy: if I can see something in public as a private citizen, I can report on it, and you may not create any laws abridging this.

I'm not commenting on surveillance dragnets or how the government uses the data or if the government is prohibited from using it by statute or case law - the First Amendment doesn't apply there (Fourth and Fifth do.)
by someothherguyy | 2025-12-17 01:03:58+00:00
This feature can be easily disabled with policies:

https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/#generativeai

https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/#preferences

https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/browser/app/profil...

https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/modules/libpref/in...
by BoiledCabbage | 2025-12-17 01:04:06+00:00
Yes, but as soon as scammers find their current methods ineffective they will swap to VPN and find a way to get "in country" phone numbers.

There is a fundamental problem with large scale anonymous (non-verified) online interaction. Particularly in a system where engagement is valued. Even verified isn't much better if it's large scale and you push for engagement.

There are always outliers in the world. In their community they are well know as outliers and most communities don't have anyone that extreme.

Online every outlier is now your neighbor. And to others that "normalizes" outlier behaviors. It pushes everyone to the poles. Either encouraged by more extreme versions of people like them, or repelled by more extreme versions of people they oppose.

And that's before you get to the intentional propaganda.
by haroldp | 2025-12-17 01:04:21+00:00
> If AI evolves at the same pace, and replacing labor (robots) and services (AI), I am not sure that human would turn around? How do you think we can turn things around ?

I see no indication that we are close to building a GAI, or that we are close to solving the hallucination problems that severely limit the utility LLMs without human managers. We don't understand how our own intelligence works, or even an ant's. The notion the we are close to replicating or exceeding it seems far fetched to me.

> What activity would require human involvement ?

Nurses, bar tenders, barbers... Hasn't anyone read Player Piano? :)

> How do you think we can turn things around ?

I dunno. Did anyone know how dangerous fire or deadly spear points world work out?
by overgard | 2025-12-17 01:04:49+00:00
I'm kind of curious about something.. most of my graphics experience has been OpenGL or WebGL (tiny bit of Vulkan) or big engines like Unreal or Unity. I've noticed over the years the uptake of DX12 always seemed marginal though (a lot of things stayed on D3D11 for a really long time). Is Direct3D 12 super awful to work with or something? I know it requires more resource management than 11, but so does Vulkan which doesn't seem to have the same issue..
by doodlebugging | 2025-12-17 01:04:55+00:00
In reality Microsoft woke up and realized that they were rapidly sliding down the slippery slope towards the sloppy ground of a minimum user install situation and so they are trying to dig in their fingernails to arrest the slide. I predict that they will change their stance after stabilizing their position and advancing a little further back up the user install curve so that they silently move users towards a full data sharing arrangement again hoping to abscond with as much marketable user data as possible before the new terms leak and they find themselves again slip-sliding down towards an install minimum that they should've floundered in years ago.
by ted_dunning | 2025-12-17 01:05:11+00:00
Dafny is quite different from Scala in that it is a formal language that can be compiled to a number of different targets such as Go or Python or C#. This allows an algorithm to be formally verified while still producing executable code.

You could add Scala as a compilation target or you could just use the Java output and call formally verified Java functions from Scala. Even if you do get an implementation that produces Scala, don't expect the full power of idiomatic Scala to be available in the code you formally verify. To verify code, you have to write the code in Dafny with associated assertions to be proven. Since there are multiple compilation targets multiple formal constraints on what can usefully be verified, the data types available will not match the data types that you would use natively from Scala.
by everyflavourvms | 2025-12-17 01:05:14+00:00
I haven't used Actions in a professional context so am just wondering (and this might help coming up with arguments should $c-suite start requiring a move): is a "runner" equivalent to an executor slot in Jenkins? As an example, we currently have some builders with 20 executor slots and they might all be orchestrating test runs in parallel (these do not consume much CPU as all they are doing is instructing _other_ VMs, created on the fly, to do the actual work). Would that count as 20 runners in Github Actions, hence costing $0.002/minute times 20?
by lifthrasiir | 2025-12-17 01:05:48+00:00
Fun fact: intentional input method mismatch is commonly used for censoring profanities among internet streamers. For example, 시발 sibal (approximately corresponds to fuck in its ubiquity) transliterates to "tlqkf", so many Koreans can understand that without a written Korean text. Not that Koreans can generally read transliterated Hangul texts though.
by TheDong | 2025-12-17 01:07:19+00:00
> You can't just use China's writing system and try to make it fit to your language

And yet we took the roman alphabet and adopted it to english just fine, why was that okay but adopting the chinese writing system into Japanese wasn't?

> you can argue that they're not really literate, they just limit themselves to using a small portion of their 'kanji' and write little hiragana hints that tell you how to pronounce the written symbols for all the rest.

You can argue english speakers aren't really literate, they just limit themselves to a subset of english vocabulary, and memorize word pronunciations to understand when "ea" is pronounced like "e" as in "sear", or "air" like in "wear".

Like, I do not get at all what you're arguing here. In every language people only know a subset of the total vocabulary, and people general limit themselves to the subset that's actually used. In phonetic languages, sure you can pronounce an unknown word, but that doesn't mean you have any clue what it means. In non-phonetic languages, like English and Japanese, you may not even be able to pronounce an unknown word. In hieroglyphic languages, like Japanese and Chinese, you may be able to derive the meaning and pronunciation of a new word just from looking at the component characters and knowing their individual reading and meanings, often with better success than trying to guess an unfamiliar english word from its roots.
by dragonwriter | 2025-12-17 01:07:41+00:00
> It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.

The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur, or (2) any country exercising its sovereign power to delegate its exercise of jurisdiction over them anywhere to an international tribunal, like the ICC, either generally, under specified terms (such as those in the Rome Statute), or ad hoc.

And they certainly have the least basis for doing so when the country on whose territory they are alleged to have occurred, and who would thus have jurisdiction whether or not they were matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, does so. (Which is, other than a UNSC resolution, the only way the ICC, under the Rome Statute, gets jurisdiction when the accused are not nationals of a State Party to the Statute.)

The actual objection is not the broad principle you are trying to articulate, but it is to the idea of Israel being accountable under international law for crimes for which it has the full support of the US government, irrespective of any theory of law. Trying to frame it as having a good-faith legalistic rationale is either being woefully ignorant or being as flagrantly dishonest as the US government itself is being.