MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by paulcole | 2026-01-09 19:17:09+00:00
Isn't it kind of logical that if you knew that if you got on the radar of the authorities that you'd be deported, that you'd do your best to avoid committing any crime (even a minor one)?

And even if that's totally illogical, doesn't it make sense that most people aren't convicted criminals, even those who immigrated here illegally?

This seems roughly in line with the US population in general? https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/criminal-rec...
by btilly | 2026-01-09 19:17:11+00:00
Either we have to say that the position does not dictate the possible moves, or that this does not fully capture the position. The problem here is that drawing can become an option or a requirement based on information that this representation doesn't capture.

First the simpler version of this problem. After 50 full moves without a capture or pawn move, a draw MAY be claimed. After 75 moves, a draw MUST be claimed. This requires a count to be kept that may require up to 7 more bits.

The bigger problem is draw by repetition. If a position repeats exactly (same castling and en passant options) for a third time, then a draw MAY be claimed. If it repeats exactly for a fifth time, then a draw MUST be claimed. (Usually it is claimed on the third time, but you don't have to.) Applying this rule correctly requires not just knowing the current position, but what positions have occurred previously, and how often. Back to the last pawn move, capture, or change in potential castling status. This may require (per the first rule) knowing what up to 75 different past positions were.

The best way to store this history is almost certainly not as a list of positions, but as a history of moves. But, even if done efficiently, we will need more bytes for that history than we needed for the position.
by jmward01 | 2026-01-09 19:17:39+00:00
When constraining an entire game being that close as an initial dart throw is pretty good I think. It is also good to use as a check on the plausibility of the author's algorithm. If they had found an encoding that was well below the current estimates for total board states then it likely would have indicated a major flaw (or a major breakthrough worthy of several papers and broader recognition!) At least that is what I meant by 'in the right ballpark'.
by mothballed | 2026-01-09 19:17:56+00:00
You get the money, at least allegedly, returned if it's legal.

----- re: below due to throttling ------

Yes I agree. I only noted what I felt about its effects on illegal immigration.

As for legal immigrants, note my other comment, I think an in-cahoots bond agency that will pop up, collect an annoying but much smaller fee, then let you put up your car or something as collateral.
by amiga386 | 2026-01-09 19:18:48+00:00
It's very cool, but it's also a shame that measuring in characters leads to the metagame of using 97 multi-byte Unicode characters that decode to 194 ASCII characters when reinterpreted. Almost everything is in the format:

eval(unescape(escape`<<97 wide characters>>`.replace(/u../g,'')))

Can't they just have the same agreement that Ford Prefect had with Mr Prosser? "So, assuming I'm going to use this lossless compression technique to fit 194 characters into a 140 character tweet... how about you just show the 194 characters and say that I fitted into 140 characters?"

I suppose you could make the same argument about size-based competitions at demo parties; the limit is strictly 4096 bytes but everyone + their dog is using Crinkler to compress a 12-20KB executable down to that size. In fact, part of the effort is in aligning data and tweaking constants with Crinkler's algorithm in mind, to make the raw data more amenable to compression! But at least then, it's not a constant compression (turning any 194 ASCII characters into 97 Unicode characters which with embedded decoder makes exactly 140 characters)
by mike_hearn | 2026-01-09 19:19:01+00:00
There are shades of the old GPL vs BSD debates here.

Portability and openness are opposing goals. A truly open system allows or even encourages anyone to extend it, including vendors, and including with vendor specific extensions. Maximizing the number of devices that can run something necessarily requires a strong central authority to choose and then impose a lowest common denominator: to prevent people adding their own extensions.

That's why the modern web is the most closed it's ever been. There are no plugin APIs. Browser extension APIs are the lowest power they've ever been in the web's history. The only way to meaningfully extend browsers is to build your own and then convince everyone to use it. And Google uses various techniques to ensure that whilst you can technically fork Chromium, in practice hardly anyone does. It's open source but not designed to actually be forked. Ask anyone who has tried.

So: the modern web is portable for some undocumented definition of portable because Google acts as that central authority (albeit is willing to compromise to keep Mozilla happy). The result is that all innovation happens elsewhere on more open platforms like Android or Linux. That's why exotic devices like VR headsets or AI servers run Android or Linux, not ChromeOS or WebOS.
by 0x20cowboy | 2026-01-09 19:19:07+00:00
I think this article misses the mark from the people in my circle.

We don’t care about “clean code” (thats mostly just juniors yak shaving into a slow system anyway). We care about correct code -code that is solving the actual problem (as close to correct as possible anyway).

Using an LLM and expecting it to be more than 60-70% is a bad idea. And using it “as a tool” - we have a hard time believing a dev reviewed, understood, and verified 130,000 line PRs every day.

Additionally, it is still unclear if the generated code violates licenses / actually “becomes” your IP.
by primitivesuave | 2026-01-09 19:19:14+00:00
My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin
by burkaman | 2026-01-09 19:19:43+00:00
This is the Stephen Miller caveman view of the world, but it obviously doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than five seconds. It's a very straightforward consequence of refusing to ever admit you are wrong. "If I did it, then I must have had the right to do it."

It's just a refusal to accept the philosophical concept of rights. The right to vote doesn't exist because you didn't have to defeat the entire army to vote against their leader, it's just that the leader benevolently decided to let you vote against them. You don't have the right to life, it's just that everyone on the planet with a weapon has coincidentally decided not to murder you, for now. Laws don't actually exist. Any right that appeared to be established against the wishes of the men with guns (i.e. all of them) was actually fake or an inexplicable accident. You can imagine a world that works like this, but it certainly isn't our world. No historical period or even any fictional story I can think of operates like this.
by datsci_est_2015 | 2026-01-09 19:19:46+00:00
The whole “was it justified or not” is a huge distraction from the principles of the matter, which ironically is a huge benefit to those with fascist ambitions. Classic America getting caught up in reviewing the tapes like it’s Monday morning after a controversial NFL Sunday.

The principle of the matter is that the fascist apparatus of the US government has made it clear that should you have a grievance against them, you have no recourse, even if your grievance is legitimate. Their immediate response to deny wrongdoing and establish immunity is de facto fascism, which should be no surprise to those who have read Carl Schmitt and Decisionism, and paid attention when Miller slipped up about “plenary authority”.

Spade is a spade at this point.
by eightys3v3n | 2026-01-09 19:20:06+00:00
It seems some commenters feel the author was taking advantage of all those people who helped them. I disagree.

I think they are missing a large part of the situation through lack of experience, a selfish focus, or some other different perspective I don't understand. I very much doubt that any of the people who helped him along his travels thought he was in dire straights and needed the resources more than they did (which might be fraud if he had lots of resources and refused to use them in favour of lying to others to take their resources). I don't think someone who picks up a hitch hiker does so because they think the other person will die if they don't so it's worth the driver being taken advantage of.

I would be willing to share resources if someone knocked on my door and asked to camp in my backyar; for pretty much nothing but the expectation of mutual respect between myself, them, and the rest of society. Though I would also offer a meal for the chance to hear about what they were doing and why. No part of that situation involves me thinking they Need my backyard or Need to be fed to live. In fact, I would do it thinking they left a job and a normal life and chose the journey they're on; my assumption would be that when they were finished they would move back to a more regular life. Where I would have a problem is if the person seemed clearly intent on living like that their whole life; taking without giving. So in a way, my expectation is that the person is giving back in the experiences and stories they share with others, in the knowledge and experience they take back into a regular life; I will happily contribute to that. I don't think this changes regardless of how much someone has so I don't think it matters if someone from Canada travels Africa for example. I don't see any reason to believe he was lying to people to make them feel sorry for him.

Another aspect is that often he was indirectly selecting for people who were willing to share resources. By hitch hiking one is excluding anyone who feels they and society get no value from this person. One is excluding anyone who feels they would be taken advantage of by helping a hitch hiker. Those kinds of people just don't stop the car. Therefore anyone who helped him was obviously willing to do so and felt they would benefit more than what they expended to help.
by Pxtl | 2026-01-09 19:20:07+00:00
Government banning insecure open standards and then not providing a secure open standard is atrocious. If I must have an official authorizing thing to prove I'm who I say I am, make it as small as possible.

If you mandated that they have to support Yubikey or whatever on open platforms I'd take that as a decent alternative. But just "no you must use a device controlled by somebody else" is not acceptable.
by oytis | 2026-01-09 19:20:07+00:00
I am very pro-piracy, but calling to Trumpist elite reads like he thinks that European instututions have no right to censor Internet, because they are European, while controlling the Internet is an exlusive American right.

I really think Europe should adopt a Chinese approach to copyright, but I don't expect US to like it at all - they started it all after all with DMCA etc.
by subsistence234 | 2026-01-09 19:20:26+00:00
Really?

A group of people who were elected by nobody, should, without any accountability or due process, be able to ban any website they don't like from the internet? And not just for Italians but globally?

Even if you think this is a great thing for Italians (I have no idea why anyone would think that), you expect the whole world to surrender to this absurd demand? Categorical imperative???
by jacquesm | 2026-01-09 19:20:43+00:00
The bulk of these people are going to not illegally immigrate. They don't need to be smuggled in but they are going to have to pony up a significant amount of money (more than most of them have). All this will do is put a serious dent into the legal immigration, the illegal ones will come anyway because they have a different risk/reward calculation.

And borrowing Donald Trump some money for a few weeks and expecting it back is something that I would not do.

Effectively what this will do is to stop people from those countries from traveling to the US entirely. Which is probably the real goal.

As to your edit:

People flying in from abroad won't have cars available as collateral, and most likely won't be allowed to fly before they put up the bond.
by venusenvy47 | 2026-01-09 19:21:02+00:00
I always thought Vanguard was behind the curve on these types of things. They don't even have support for TOTP from an authenticator, do they?

Separately, I couldn't even log onto their system this week from my desktop browser because of some bug. (Accessing from the US). It didn't recognize my username or password, let me change my password, then said it didn't recognize the new password.
by Terretta | 2026-01-09 19:21:03+00:00
> iPhone still does bluetooth transmissions/pings even in airplane mode ... the only way to disable any transmissions is to turn off the device

I used to be under the impression that:

- Airplane Mode via Control Center icon, true.

- Cellular, WiFi, and Bluetooth off, via Settings, not true.

Meaning, if you turn those off specifically, you are not talking to towers or access points or broadcasting a persistent bluetooth ID.

Having Kagi'd a bit just now, maybe the thing that can't be turned off is NFC?

https://www.simplymac.com/ios/can-you-turn-off-nfc-iphone

If that's the case, then I'd hold this as a different threat model than not being able to turn off WiFi and Cellular.

Very curious if an iPhone or iPad with all accessible settings off, including for NFC turning off Apple Pay, NFC tag reading, etc., leaving only this background NFC on, if there are still persistent identifiers being broadcast.
by cgriswald | 2026-01-09 19:21:08+00:00
This teaches intervals like Duolingo teaches language rules. You sort of pick them up because you need them to figure out the small melody it plays. But you don't get the concept of a 'fourth' or a 'fifth' and there's never a moment where the actual rules are explained.

That said, I think it's very useful for what it is and highlights that whatever your view on AI, there is a niche here that AI can fill that people otherwise would just not build either because they don't think it is interesting, or because no one would pay enough for it.
by morshu9001 | 2026-01-09 19:21:08+00:00
When I was running a home server as a kid, I IP-blocked the entire continent of Asia because I was constantly getting pings, portscans, HTTP path guesses, SSH auth attempts, etc randomly from there. Of course I secured my stuff to the best of my knowledge, but I still didn't want that harassment cause 1. who knows 2. could be ddos'd.

When finding help on how to do this, people were saying it's useless cause they can proxy/VPN anyway, but obviously that has some cost to them because they weren't doing that. So seeing how I had no legitimate traffic from there, it was an easy choice and cut out like 99% of abuse.
by eastbayjake | 2026-01-09 19:21:41+00:00
It's such a broad question... are you a consumer or a merchant? Are you doing a card-present payment (eg swiping at a store POS) or a card-not-present payment (eg entering your credit card number on an ecommerce site)? Are you buying/selling a high-risk item? How much do you care about privacy? How much do you care about rewards (if you're a consumer) or processing fees (if you're a merchant)?
by carefulfungi | 2026-01-09 19:21:48+00:00
Don't even need to rely to anti-piracy to find book banners. US public schools continue to accelerate their book banning tendencies.

* https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/
* https://www.ala.org/news/2025/04/american-library-associatio...
* https://cdhe.colorado.gov/banned-book-list

Book bans at department of defense high schools are resulting directly from this administration's executive orders.

* https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/dodea-book-bans

We need to keep fighting for the right to read freely.

Meanwhile, waiting for Cloudflare to walk away from their US government contracts to protest these blatant free speech attacks.
by eightysixfour | 2026-01-09 19:21:57+00:00
They specifically call out why the semantics matter in the actual article, in the first paragraph.

> President Donald Trump premised his mass deportation agenda on the idea that he will be “returning millions and millions of criminal aliens.” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has repeatedly claimed that they are arresting the “worst of the worst.”

When speaking to Trump supporting friends who employ illegal immigrants they specifically defend that it is only the "bad ones."
by rangestransform | 2026-01-09 19:22:15+00:00
The NYC hotel situation isn't the normal inflation, but the hotel lobby bribing the government for reduced hotel permits and banning airbnb. The amount of regulatory bullshit in NYC to run a hotel is insane, including special permit carveouts for small independent hotels (i.e. the shitholes next to the Queensbridge Houses)

The other thing is due to the K-shaped economic recovery, where companies realized the bottom 90% have no money and don't bother to try for their business at all. Concert tickets have similarly increased in price and decreased in supply.
by jsheard | 2026-01-09 19:22:41+00:00
The compression tricks used in larger Javascript demos are significantly more cursed. The current meta is to concatenate a raw DEFLATE compressed payload with a stub of HTML/JS which unpacks itself using DecompressionStream then decodes and evals() the result, and before that API was widely available they would pack the payload into a PNG, then concatenate it to a stub that would draw itself to a canvas, read the pixel data back, and decode/eval() that.

Try saving this Very Normal HTML File and open it in a text/hex editor: https://0b5vr.com/domain/domain.html
by JimmaDaRustla | 2026-01-09 19:22:48+00:00
Lots of arguing about semantics of what the subscription is actually intended for.

Claude Code, as a coding assistant, isn't even mediocre, it's kind of crap. The reason it's at all good is because of the model underneath - there's tons of free and open agent tools that are far better than Claude Code. Regardless of what they say you're paying the subscription for, the truth is the only thing of value to developers is the underlying AI and API.

I can only think of few reasons why they'd do this:
1. Their Claude Code tool is not simply an agent assistant - perhaps it's feeding data for model training purposes, or something of the sorts where they gain value from it.
2. They don't want developers to use competitor models in any capacity.
3. They're offloading processing or doing local context work to drive down the API usage locally, making the usage minimal. This is very unlikely.

I currently use Opus 4.5 for architecting, which then feeds into Gemini 3 Flash with medium reasoning for coding. It's only a matter of time before Google competes with Opus 4.5, and when they do, I won't have any loyalty to Anthropic.
by lenerdenator | 2026-01-09 19:22:50+00:00
> Used to have a hard time spending 150$ per day in Manhattan, it's twice the amount just for a budget hotel. Went to see the Knicks vs Bucks for 40$, it's like 10 times the amount for the same seat.
Attractions like Disneyworld and such as well have skyrocketed to the point it's really off putting.

There's actually quite a bit of the US outside of NYC and Orlando, and a lot of it is cheaper.
by mindslight | 2026-01-09 19:22:56+00:00
Focusing on the minutiae of how the victim reacted when she was already well into fight-or-flight mode is a red herring.

Real police officers [0] are trained to deescalate situations. Because needlessly turning up the heat results in very bad outcomes for everyone involved.

Meanwhile, these ICE "officers" aggressively created and violently escalated a situation arising from a traffic infraction at best [1]. They didn't even follow their own procedures, crafted not out of any type of restraint with concern for the public, but merely pragmatism whereby shooting someone does not stop a moving vehicle.

Thus, responsibility for how the victim reacted in her moments of panicked terror rests completely on them - and it's perfectly understandable that when a bunch of masked armed thugs are trying to carjack you, the natural response is trying to get out of there as quick as possible regardless of if that means hitting any of the attackers.

[0] as much as they themselves are statistically quite trigger-happy and are often criticized by actual soldiers who are used to stricter rules of engagement,

[1] ignoring the equity of a citizen exercising her natural right to observe and document the activities of her government, and the fact that ICE has no mandate to police traffic infractions
by SoftTalker | 2026-01-09 19:23:00+00:00
> should be considered innocent until proven guilty

Agree if they are charged with a crime. But is being present in the country without a valid visa (or overstaying a visa, or similar) a criminal charge or an administrative violation? If I park my car where I'm not supposed to, it gets towed. There's no trial or presumption of innocence. The car is where it is.
by till-tum | 2026-01-09 19:23:02+00:00
I don't think this can be definitively answered without working for one of the hyperscalers. But here are some speculations:
1. Device speeds are intentionally capped to increase device lifetime (but this would only make sense for writes)
2. Networked storage services like EBS are more profitable, and AWS would like to phase out instance-attached storage.
3. Technical limitations/virtualization overhead (See comment above). I don’t have enough insight of how AWS SSDs work under the hood, but high network throughput (600 Gbit/s) is possible even in virtualized instances. Then again, we have certainly seen some weird noisy neighbor effects on cloud SSDs. However, it's worth mentioning that the same throughput limitations also apply to bare metal instances, where users don't benefit from virtualization (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ec2/latest/instancetypes/so.html...).
4. There’s too little customer demand for fast SSDs, and optimization is not worth the effort.
by lapcat | 2026-01-09 19:23:19+00:00
This is a gross mischaracterization of the thread. I replied to spondyl, not to you. Then you replied to me, so if anyone was "trying to pick a fight" involving me, it was you.

The crucial point is this: there are no builds that expire on macOS. Developer ID signed builds do not expire. Ad hoc signed builds do not expire. When the Developer ID code signing certificate expires, it cannot be used to sign new builds, but the old builds last forever. Build expiration is not a thing in any case.

So when spondryl asked, "Just to be clear, you're saying that .app bundles (and CLI tools) distributed outside of the App Store (and CLI tools) will continue to operate once the expiration date of the signing certificate has passed?" and you responded "No, sorry. That's not what I'm saying." that was actually confusing, not what I said.

The only reason the Logitech software died is that Logitech itself was doing some custom and badly designed validation above and beyond anything that macOS itself does. Your mention of App Store apps and CLI tools was itself a tangent and completely irrelevant to the issue.
by throwawayqqq11 | 2026-01-09 19:23:55+00:00
And my point is, apply regular human behavior to the scene. Drivers know the ground they are on and the acceleration curves of their cars. Arguing over split seconds to derive a malicious intention of the driver is cherry picking. We all know those near collisions we dodged closely from own experiences, thats why its so easy for us to imagine such an outcome in that video, which was prob her expectation too.