MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-22 09:44:52+00:00
>In a post-Fairness Doctrine world

I don't think we're in a post fairness doctrine world, for one. So no, I haven't given up on the idea of he 4th estate. Your solution to bias is, as always, to not take any one source for granted. Take time to actually read articles from multiple angles that fall in line with the Fariness Doctrine. Then from there, use your own lived experiences to form your own viewpoint.

Outsourcing that to soundbites from randos on twitter with middle school lieracy is insanity. But let me use a charitable lens here.

Any notion of X being a good faith attempt at being a community-lead fact checker got broken with the introduction of Grok. Then those hopes were shattered to pieces when Grok was shown to be massively compromised by yet another central figure. One who, yes, has the literacy of a middle schooler. We somehow ended up with the worst of both worlds having centralization of a bad knowledge hub and stupidity.

>what else would satisfy you?

if using our brains is out of the equation and lack of censorship is truly the most important metric of "free discussion": let's just bring back 4chan. no names or personalities, 99% free-for-all, it technically has threading support to engage in conversations. There is centralization, but compared to the rest of the internet the moderators and admins stay very quiet.

There's a lot I hate about modern social media, but surprisingly 4chan only has like 2 things I strongly dislike. Big step up from the 20+ reasons I can throw at nearly every other site.
by apyrgiotis | 2026-01-22 09:46:30+00:00
(disclaimer: one of the Dangerzone devs)

That's something I do from time to time as well. AFAIK Google Drive renders all documents on the server-side (which implicitly means that they don't trust the browser sandbox), so that's a reasonable price to pay for less privacy.

Dealing with sensitive documents though is another story, you just can't upload them to a third-party service. That's where projects like Dangerzone come into play.
by zelphirkalt | 2026-01-22 09:47:15+00:00
I think a big part of not knowing regularly taken routes is just over-reliance on GPS and subsequent self-doubt. When I am in a foreign city, I check the map on how to walk somewhere. I can easily remember some sequence of left and right turns. But in reality I still look again at the map and my position, to "make sure" I am still on the right track. Sometimes I check so often, that I become annoyed by this phone looking myself and then I intentionally try to not look for a while. It is stressful to follow the OCD or whatever to check at every turn. If I don't have to check at every turn or maybe call it sync my understanding of where I am with the position on the map, then I have more awareness of the surroundings and might even be able to enjoy the surroundings more and might even feel free to choose another, more interesting looking path.

For this experience I am not sure, whether people really don't know regularly taken routes, or they just completely lack the confidence in their familiarity with it.
by zhouzhao | 2026-01-22 09:48:02+00:00
Same in some European countries.
"Free market is great, MERCOSUR, yay"

Then China comes with affordable EV's and all of a sudden the free market ain't so great anymore, and Chinese EV's have a punishment tax.

Why? Because China's government allegedly subsidized the EV manufactures too much?

Take a look at Germany, how many times have they save the big car manufactures with tax payer money? no difference, and until some years ago, the German cars we desirable in China. Well, not anymore.
by Ekaros | 2026-01-22 09:48:09+00:00
I think it is good to understand tech company and then startup or VC company.

Tech company is company with marginal unit costs. Bending Spoons aims these and then optimize them further.

Startup or VC, search "growth" and user acquisition. Usually in something with marginal unit costs.

Just because someone stops spending money on chasing growth does not mean they still don't have unit economics of tech companies.
by tacone | 2026-01-22 09:48:50+00:00
I didn't read the whole article and constitution yet, so my point of view might be superficial.

I really think that helpfulness is a double-edged sword. Most of the mistakes I've seen Claude make are due to it trying to be helpful (making up facts, ignoring instructions, taking shortcuts, context anxiety).

It should maybe try to be open, more than helpful.
by skissane | 2026-01-22 09:48:56+00:00
But those aren't actually counterexamples to my principle.

The Nazis murdered numerous babies in the Holocaust. But they weren't doing it "for sport". They claimed it was necessary to protect the Aryan race, or something like that; which is monstrously idiotic and evil – but not a counterexample to “Do not torture babies for sport”. They believed there were acceptable reasons to kill innocents–but mere sport was not among them.

In fact, the Nazis did not look kindly on Nazis who killed prisoners for personal reasons as opposed to the system's reasons. They executed SS-Standartenführer Karl-Otto Koch, the commandant of Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen, for the crime (among others) of murdering prisoners. Of course, he'd overseen the murder of untold thousands of innocent prisoners, no doubt including babies – and his Nazi superiors were perfectly fine with that. But when he turned to murdering prisoners for his own personal reasons – to cover up the fact that he'd somehow contracted syphilis, very likely through raping female camp inmates – that was a capital crime, for which the SS executed him by firing squad at Buchenwald, a week before American soldiers liberated the camp.
by logicallee | 2026-01-22 09:48:58+00:00
Congratulations on training a relatively small model that can beat larger models for this important task.

>We ran a genetic algorithm over 30+ diff formats

Can you you give more information about your genetic algorithm? Did you do crossover over the trained models (for example, ranking by fitness, take 20% most elite and create children by mixing their weights randomly)? Did you have a 'population size' (number of instances) for the genetic algorithms, and if so what was it?
by glimshe | 2026-01-22 09:49:00+00:00
There are many companies that deal with this complexity for you. Online payment processors and e-store services for instance. Source: I have an US company, sell products to all states and don't deal with this.

I think you're the first person I've ever seen in my life saying "I moved my company from the US to the EU and now my business owner life is so much easier"...
by habinero | 2026-01-22 09:49:07+00:00
This is 100%, completely absolutely untrue. Stop repeating this propaganda. The system is actually really well designed and safe, I was a poll observer.

You cannot "fabricate" votes, because all mail-in ballots are associated with a voter. Or rather, you put your ballot in an envelope and the envelope is associated with you. When your ballot is received, you are marked as voted and other ballots are invalid. The envelope is stored as proof of who voted and the ballot is kept separately to be tallied.

Ballot counting is done in public (you can go watch!) and there are a lot of safeguards and crosschecks. It's intended to make any fraud very obvious and incredibly difficult to scale.
by arjunchint | 2026-01-22 09:49:35+00:00
We actually got around this by just Google Sheets as a memory layer, this solves the underlying problem and has other benefits:
- its free
- its remote, so no local resource use and persists
- user can check results after as well as share

Quick demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sas8iWMCBA4
by Gualdrapo | 2026-01-22 09:49:56+00:00
> thicc — a fork of micro that's heavy on opinions, not bloat.

> What is thicc? File browser. Editor. Terminal. AI tools. One vibe.

I don't follow. That seems to be heavy on bloat. Or maybe I'm just happy with vis (https://github.com/martanne/vis). I don't know.
by ameshkov | 2026-01-22 09:51:00+00:00
Hi, thank you very much for supporting AG!

We are very cautious with Apple as we suffered from them before [1]. So we're trying to stick to the APIs they provide. I hope the new URL filtering API [2] will improve the situation with the system-wide filtering, but our request for API access is still being reviewed by Apple.

Regarding jailbroken iOS devices, unlike Android the numbers are really marginal so it won't be feasible to support them.

[1]: https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-pro-discontinued.html

[2]: https://adguard.com/en/blog/apple-url-filter-system-wide-fil...
by ben_w | 2026-01-22 09:52:09+00:00
You can try, but the unemployment levels in the USA have not generally been low enough to find enough workers in total in recent decades. Worse, even the last few % of unemployment is a deliberate policy choice to prevent a rapid cycle of wage inflation as everyone competes for a limited supply of workers:

The farmers would have to pay enough for "seasonal work spending all day doing manual labour in the sun without any AC" to compete with "year round work spending all day stacking shelves in supermarket where the temperature is at consistently in the range that doesn't put off the customers". And if the farmers got the former shelf stackers, then the supermarkets need to find more people to do the stacking. Food prices go up, both wholesale (because the farmers have to pay workers more) and retail beyond that (because so do the supermarkets).

I keep seeing stories about poorer Americans struggling with food prices even without this kind of cycle; but it doesn't end with just those two examples, it's all the low-pay jobs that are inherently more comfortable than farm labour, and if they find themselves short of labour and raise wages they too have to raise prices to balance their books, and whichever professions they in turn get labour from have the same choices, it ripples across the entire economy. Which may be good or bad for other reasons, but it's a massive impact across the entire economy, not something which is an easy one-liner.

Also, despite all those issues, look at this from the point of view of those workers: They've got seasonal work that pays them somewhat more than they'd earn in their home countries, and until very recently that work would not have come with a risk of being deported to a completely different country than they'd come from.
by jongjong | 2026-01-22 09:52:24+00:00
It's so obvious why.
Money is created by governments and banks and it goes right back to them. Money doesn't stay in the system for too long because it's taxed each time it hops between people/companies. If you assume a 30% tax each time a dollar moves from one person to another, after just 6 hops, almost 90% of that dollar is gone... So people who are just 6 steps removed from the money printers live in a monetary environment where a dollar is 10 times rarer! That's not even factoring in inflationary Cantillon effects... It's Cantillon effects on crack...

Most independent farmers live in remote areas, far from money printers; they exist in a scarce monetary environment. It's hard to compete when your big corporate competitors exist in an environment where money is more abundant.
by creata | 2026-01-22 09:52:29+00:00
Don't these two situations (watching vote counts; understanding a complicated statistical argument that the vote is tamper-free) require the same kind of trust?

1. In both cases, everyone is theoretically capable of checking it themselves; they're theoretically zero-trust. In the former scenario, I'm theoretically capable of attending the vote count, and in the latter scenario, I'm theoretically capable of learning the statistics needed to verify the argument.

2. In both cases, most people cannot (or will not) practically check it themselves, and is trusting that someone they trust is doing the checking for them.

I'm not saying they're the exact same situation, but they both ask for a large amount of trust from most of the voters.
by vintermann | 2026-01-22 09:52:35+00:00
Those aren't interjections in other Germanic languages, they're called modal particles. Norwegian:

"Det er sant." That is true.
"Det er vel sant." That's true, I suppose (resigned).
"Det er nok sant." That's true, I suppose (serious).
"Det er da sant." That's true, come on.

German also has them, though I'm not confident enough to explain the fine difference between "Das ist wahr" and "Das ist noch war".

English maybe has some remnants of them, but they're rare and probably a bit more archaic. You can say "That is yet true", and the "yet" there doesn't necessarily imply that you think it might not be true in the future. You probably understand what I mean if I say "That is but true" but it sounds very archaic. Usually you have to invoke a full adverb to signify mode in English ("That's actually true")
by jacquesm | 2026-01-22 09:54:46+00:00
Indeed, this is both complex and risky, but it is fairly clear by now that we need to do something concrete rather than just yak about it. Hungary is indeed a problem (and has been for a long time) but I'm actually impressed with the restraint shown by the bloc to let Hungarians deal with this on their own terms as long as it does not stop the EU from handling foreign policy.

The trade imbalance angle is exactly the one that I think they will pursue because that is the one that can be made to work numerically, but great care should be taken to ensure that Germany does not end up with a disproportional amount of power. In a way the EU being fragmented but forced to work together is the best recipe for a fair outcome though the larger entities will probably always have some minor advantage in such constructs.
by formerly_proven | 2026-01-22 09:55:18+00:00
> Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly.

You are assuming this is an unintended effect, but it is very much the intended effect of bureaucratic rules and the reason large companies and conglomerates constantly lobby for them: they can afford the overhead costs (until the inevitable external disruptor comes around and totally eats their lunch, see europe) and smaller players cannot. These rules are moats built by big companies.

Doubly so for subsidies tied to complex filing and reporting requirements: large companies easily do this (they have department(s) just for handling these larger than whatever department in the government is handling the paperwork), small players can't and miss out.
by habinero | 2026-01-22 09:55:48+00:00
And that's completely fine, because each mail-in ballot is associated with one voter, and the system is designed to make fraud very obvious and difficult to scale.

If thousands of people were told "you already voted" when they showed up, then that would be very very obvious.

They also really do look at signatures and contact voters to cure ballots if they're unsure.
by keepamovin | 2026-01-22 09:56:29+00:00
This is so cool. What is the second order effect of model training becoming democratized? And local models becoming the norm? Tasks like agentic work are well handled by current AI as long as you know what you're doing and can stress the agent against tests/spec, etc.

I am thinking that one effect is:

- it will become normal for meta-models to train a model specific to a particular task/product.

Also, differently, I'm quite sure that AGI is not available on this current path (useful tho it is), but that some algo improvements might crack ubiquitous trainable AGI. Probably including some kind of embodiment to provide world-models and emotions (which are essential to embodied survival and success).
by skissane | 2026-01-22 09:57:25+00:00
> What do you consider torture? and what do you consider sport?

By "torturing babies for sport" I mean inflicting pain or injury on babies for fun, for pleasure, for enjoyment.

Doing it for other reasons (be they good reasons or terrible reasons) isn't "torturing babies for sport". Harming or killing babies in war or genocide isn't "torturing babies for sport", because you aren't doing it for sport, you are doing it for other reasons.

> BTW: it’s a pretty American (or western) value that children are somehow more sacred than adults.

As a non-American, I find bizarre the suggestion that crimes against children are especially grave is somehow a uniquely American value.

It isn't even a uniquely Western value. The idea that crimes against babies and young children – by "crimes" I mean acts which the culture itself considers criminal, not accepted cultural practices which might be considered a crime in some other culture – are especially heinous, is extremely widespread in human history, maybe even universal. If you went to Mecca 500 years ago and asked any ulama "is it a bigger sin to murder a 5 year old than a 25 year old", do you honestly think he'd say "no"? And do you think any Hindu or Buddhist or Confucian scholars of that era would have disagreed? (Assuming, of course, that you translated the term "sin" into their nearest conceptual equivalent, such as "negative karma" or whatever.)
by pm215 | 2026-01-22 09:57:33+00:00
I think rather than "laziness" I would say it's an instance of the widespread phenomenon of "shipping the orgchart". Because for Linux the kernel developers and the libc developers are separate communities, the boundary between those components becomes more meaningful, more visible to the end-user, and more likely to have lag where one side supports something and the other doesn't yet. (That goes both ways, incidentally -- the handling of POSIX threads was driven more from the libc side of the fence and it took a while before the kernel provided enough facilities to make it cleanly doable, and there are still corners like setuid() where there is a mismatch between what the standard wants and the primitives the kernel provides). Where an OS has a more tightly integrated development team the kernel/libc boundary is more likely to stay an internal one.
by jychang | 2026-01-22 09:58:56+00:00
Strong disagree.

Your argument basically is a professional motte and bailey fallacy.

And you cannot conclude objectivity by consensus. Physicists by consensus concluded that Newton was right, and absolute... until Einstein introduced relativity. You cannot do "proofs by feel". I argue that you DO need to answer the deep problems in mathematics to prove that 1+1=2, even if it feels objective- that's precisely why Principa Mathematica spent over 100 pages proving that.

In fact, I don't need to be a professional philosopher to counterargue a scenario where killing a baby for sport is morally good. Consider a scenario: an evil dictator, let's say Genghis Khan, captures your village and orders you to kill a baby for sport a la "The Most Dangerous Game". If you refuse, he kills your village. Is it ethical for you to hunt the baby for sport? Not so black and white now, is it? And it took me like 30 seconds to come up with that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
by Antibabelic | 2026-01-22 10:00:29+00:00
> “Any reason you come up with for hand-washing works without a germ theory framing”.

This is factually correct though. However, we have other reasons for positing germ theory. Aside from the fact that it provides a mechanism of action for hand-washing, we have significant evidence that germs do exist and that they do cause disease. However, this doesn’t apply to any moral theory. While germ theory provides us with additional information about why washing hands is good, moral theory fails to provide any kind of e.g. mechanism of action or other knowledge that we’d know about the statement “hunting babies for sport is bad” without it.

> The fact that you will be punished for murdering babies is BECAUSE it is morally bad, not the other way around! We didn't write down the laws for fun, we wrote the laws to match our moral systems! Or do you believe that we design our moral systems based on our laws of punishment? That is... quite a claim.

You will be punished for murdering babies because it is illegal. That’s just an objective fact about the society that we live in. However, if we are out of reach of the law for whatever reason, people might try to punish us for hunting babies because they were culturally brought up to experience a strong disgust reaction to this activity, as well as because murdering babies marks us as a potentially dangerous individual (in several ways: murdering babies is bad enough, but we are also presumably going against social norms and expectations).

Notably, there were many times in history when baby murder was completely socially acceptable. Child sacrifice is the single most widespread form of human sacrifice in history, and archaeological evidence for it can be found all over the globe. Some scholars interpret some of these instances as simple burials, but there are many cases where sacrifice is the most plausible interpretation. If these people had access to this universal moral axion that killing babies is bad, why didn’t they derive laws or customs from it that would stop them from sacrificing babies?
by wongarsu | 2026-01-22 10:02:03+00:00
There are tentative signs that this is happening right now. As in: each collision causes debris that on average causes more than one additional collision, causing collision rates to go up exponentially.

But so far it's not anything like in Hollywood movies, it's just a graph slowly going up. There are about 12000 satellites orbiting earth. That looks like a lot on a map, but 12000 objects spread over an area larger than the surface of the earth isn't all that much

Like all exponential processes it will become a major issue if we don't address it, but this is one that starts pretty slow and is well monitored
Drowning in information but still missing everything?
by akhil08agrawal | 2026-01-22 10:02:04+00:00
I need to vent.
I'm a Senior PM and genuinely don't know how anyone stays on top of everything anymore.
My morning routine has become a 2-hour anxiety spiral:

- Check Slack for overnight fires
- Skim 200+ unread messages
- Open Twitter to see what's happening in my space
- Check if competitors launched anything
- Glance at 3 newsletters I subscribed to and never actually read
- Scroll LinkedIn because apparently that's where industry news lives now
- Check Product Hunt because what if something relevant launched
- Peek at HackerNews for tech trends

And after all that? I still missed that our competitor launched a major feature. Found out from a SALES CALL. Two weeks late.
The worst part is the anxiety. I subscribe to 12 newsletters. I skim maybe 2. I read 0 thoroughly. But I can't unsubscribe because what if I miss something important?
I've tried everything:

- RSS readers (dead)
- Saved folders (never check them)
- ChatGPT for research (doesn't know my context, gives generic answers)
- Zapier automations (broke after 2 weeks)
- Just "accepting I'll miss things" (the anxiety won)

My evening doomscroll is half "staying current" and half anxiety management. My partner thinks I'm addicted to my phone. Maybe I am. But it's not entertainment—it's fear of being the PM who missed the signal everyone else saw.
I spend more time GATHERING information than actually THINKING about what to build.
Anyone else feel this way? Or have I just lost the plot?
by senko | 2026-01-22 10:02:06+00:00
Yes. But they don't crawl everything (probably due to lack of funding), and, as the article and other commenters here note, people are incentivised to allow Google and only Google to crawl. In practice, the CommonCrawl dataset is too small for a realistic search engine competitor.

I'd love to see Google, Bing and others being incentivized (wink, wink) to contribute (technically, financially, etc) to CommonCrawl or Internet Archive since they already do this.