MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by shevy-java | 2026-01-02 05:47:47+00:00
Well, many of those things depend on assumptions. I don't mean you or your opionion here as such - I mean the words such as rude or entitled. These are often assumptions and may not be correct.

For instance, to give a specific example: Andy Maleh maintains a project called glimmer. I thought glimmer was a fine idea ("one GUI to rule them all"), but ... interacting with Andy is like interacting with some strange AI really. He makes assumption about people who use the bugtracker ("you are not a good open source person!"), for instance, and then goes on to speculate about them being "bad actors" as a consequence of his own "analysis", which is typically flawed and incomplete. That totally surprised me. Then I had a look on reddit and he amassed a grand total of about 42 karma after 3 years. Now - reddit has tons of issues, crazy moderators and so forth, but when you reach 42 karma after 3 years only, yet have about 500 comments and 300 new threads created (all basically him trying to advertise glimmer, so self-promo), yet only 42 karma, then something is strange. Before I deleted my account at reddit recently, after 2 years I had 65.000 karma - again, the whole karma system is totally pointless on reddit, but if you only amass 42 karma, then something may be wrong. I then realised that he managed to antagonize more people by his attitude and opinions; you can see this on his "blog" posts like this:

https://businessdiscriminationreport.blogspot.com/

This is just one example of many more. In the rails/ruby ecosystem you have some strange people; DHH too with his "Europe will perish" articles, guess he is now a US TechBro (see https://world.hey.com/dhh/europe-is-weak-and-delusional-but-... and other low quality articles).

The thing here, as TLDR, is that people have a different opinion, and summarizing this as "rude, entitled, and aggressive" really won't qualify. Andy classifed me as entitled; I don't think I am. I just have a completely different opinion to his - and often others - assessment of the situation, in particular when it is written text. A lot of intent is simply lost in text, that is why sometimes people write e. g. "/s" to denote sarcasm in text. I always found this very strange and I don't think I ever used /s at all as annotation in any of my texts. I do use smileys sometimes though.
by TheDong | 2026-01-02 05:49:31+00:00
As a society, modern humanity has decided that capitalism is more important than free electricity, even if it saves lives.

We have enough electricity that everyone in the USA could have a generous free allowance.

We've decided it's better to charge for electricity, and if an AI company can pay for it to train models, but someone freezing to death in their home cannot pay for it, that capital is a signal that the data-center should get the electricity, not the dying individual.

This isn't a matter of copyright, this is a matter of how we structure society.
by izzysyn | 2026-01-02 05:50:20+00:00
Founder here.

We’re introducing Human State Infrastructure — a privacy-preserving way to represent physiological, cognitive, and behavioral state in software systems.

The core idea is a Human State Interface (HSI): a canonical, device- and vendor-agnostic contract for outputs like stress, focus, calm, and behavioral dynamics — computed on-device, in real time, without sending raw biosignals or content to the cloud.

Think of it like GPS, but for human state: instead of latitude/longitude, systems receive structured, validated human-state signals they can reason about safely.

This release is developer- and research-first:
• Vendor-agnostic (Apple Watch, Pixel, etc.)
• Platform-agnostic (iOS / Android)
• No raw biosignal storage or cloud inference
• Focused on interoperability, not models

We’re early and would love feedback — especially from folks working in HCI, affective computing, health, or adaptive systems.

Happy to answer questions.
by shevy-java | 2026-01-02 05:51:05+00:00
Everything should be in the public domain.

I am aware that this is not realistic, for many reasons, but just like Richard Stallman, or the right to repair movement (e. g. Louis Rossmann) being vocal about it, or scientists who will prefer to publish with open access rather than be subject to the greedy Elsevier paywall, after the public already paid for the research - we need to strive for ideals here. So, all must be in the public domain. I actually think it should be without delay; seems usually the waiting time before it gets into the public domain is ... 75 years? Or any number where I am definitely no longer alive. So that is bad.

Thus - public domain the everything. \o/
by tooltalk | 2026-01-02 05:51:10+00:00
>> I mean, so does Germany.

How does German gov't subsidize their automakers' overcapacity? Their EV subsidies aren't exclusive to domestic EVs or EVs using certain domestic part. No issue with subsidies that are equally available to all eligible producers, domestic or foreign.

This is unlike in China where market access and EV subsidies were conditioned on forced tech transfer since 2011 -- for which China was litigated before the WTO (see WT/DS549). Or worse, conditioned on using local batteries made by local battery "champions," CATL/BYD/etc only to funnel all NEV subsidies back to the local battery industry and undermine foreign competitors. In other word, no NEV subsidies amounting to as much as $20K to any EV with foreign batteries to protect local "champions." See Article 3(b) "Prohibition" of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.

>> Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the ...

Biden's IRA subsidy ended in September. And let's realistic, the IRA was a counter measure against China's illegal practice. It was too weak and lasted only 3 years, compared to China's rampant illegal subsidy practices much of the past 15 years.
by Fracttalix | 2026-01-02 05:52:39+00:00
Released Fracttalix v2.5 — a lightweight open-source Python tool for exploratory fractal/rhythmic metrics in time series.

Implements 5 standard diagnostics + synthetic validation suite.

Public domain (CC0)

2/ Comes with 11 conceptual axioms as optional scaffold for interpreting persistence and resilience patterns.

Heuristic/exploratory — feedback & extensions welcome.

3/ Tested on economic, financial, climate, IoT data. Stress-test suite checks behavior on white noise, periodic, chaotic, 1/f series.

Curious? Try it. Fork it. Break it.
by hussachai | 2026-01-02 05:53:14+00:00
> I’m posting this from a library Wi-Fi on a burner laptop because I am technically under a massive NDA. I don’t care anymore. I put in my two weeks yesterday and honestly, I hope they sue me.

Why bother using library Wi-Fi on a burner laptop if he doesn't care anymore? Why give out the biggest clue, which is the time of his resignation letter?
If the story is real, this company is a straight-up scammer waiting for the biggest headline and lawsuit of the year.
by shevy-java | 2026-01-02 05:56:00+00:00
Hmmm. Aaron is cool, but also works at Shopify. Neither DHH nor Aaron mentioned anyone at the gem.coop project. I can't help but have mixed feelings here.

I think the underlying issue is much bigger than merely contained on speed. It also has to do with control - both for developers as well as users.

This is also why I think the label "prematurely" is weird, because it attempts to singularize everything down to the speed label. I think the issue is much wider than what is faster. In fact, speed doesn't interest me that much; whether it takes 0.35 seconds or 0.45 seconds or even 1.5 seconds to install a gem, is just so irrelevant to me. But, for instance, high quality documentation - now that is an area where ruby failed in epic ways. Not all projects but many. And then ruby wonders why it is dying? And nobody wants to focus on these issues really. So the issue should really be viewed much larger in scope than "merely" "speed is the issue". I mean ... matz focused on speed in the last 10 years. Ok. Ruby declined. Well, perhaps it is time to focus on other things more - not that people mind a faster ruby, but if a language is dying, then you need to think really hard, come up with a plan, multiple ideas, and push these hard. Rather than, say, purge away old developers and claim nothing happened here and all is well ...
by charcircuit | 2026-01-02 05:56:21+00:00
>you're talking about Intel ME/AMD PSP?

I'm talking about the entire chip. You are unable to implement a new instruction for the CPU for example. Only Intel or AMD can do so. You already don't have full control over the CPU. You only have as much control as the documentation for the computer gives you. The idea of full control is not a real thing and it is not necessary for a computer to be useful or accomplish what you want.

>and your arbitrary guest will soon be pretty useless

If software doesn't want to support insecure guests, the option is between being unable to use it, or being able to use it in a secure guest. Your entire computer will become useless without the secure guest.

>Yeah you can boot your rooted AOSP, but good luck interacting with banks, government services (often required by law!!), etc.

This could be handled by also running another guest that was supported by those app developers that provide the required security requirements compared to your arbitrary one.

>That "abuse" is just rational behavior from misaligned incentives

Often these can't be fixed or would result in a poor user experience for everyone due to a few bad actors. If your answer is to just not build the app in the first place, that is not a satisfying answer. It's a net positive to be able to do things like watch movies for free on YouTube. It's beneficial for all parties. I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to not do such a thing because there isn't a proper market incentive in place stop people from ripping the movie.

>If there is a will, there is a way.

The goal of anticheat is to minimize customer frustration caused due to cheaters. It can still be successful even if it technically does not stop every possible cheat.

>general purpose computing

General purpose computing will always be possible. It just will no longer be the wild west anymore where there was no security and every program could mess with every other program. Within a program's own context it is able still do whatever it wants, you can implement a Turing machine (bar the infinite memory).
by mitchellh | 2026-01-02 05:56:40+00:00
Note that this is an active discussion where we're trying to get to a point of clarity where we can promote to an issue (when it is actionable). The discussion is open and this is the system working as intended!

I want to clarify though that there isn't a known widespread "memory leak issue." You didn't say "widespread", but just in case that is taken by anyone else. :) To clarify, there are a few challenges here:

1. The report at hand seems to affect a very limited number of users (given the lack of reports and information about them). There are lots of X meme posts about Ghostty in the macOS "Force Close" window using a massive amount of RAM but that isn't directly useful because that window also reports all the RAM _child processes_ are using (e.g. if you run a command in your shell that consumes 100 GB of RAM, macOS reports it as Ghostty using 100 GB of RAM). And the window by itself also doesn't tell us what you were doing in Ghostty. It farms good engagement, though.

2. We've run Ghostty on Linux under Valgrind in a variety of configurations (the full GUI), we run all of Ghostty's unit tests under Valgrind in CI for every commit, and we've run Ghostty on macOS with the Xcode Instruments leak checker in a variety of configurations and we haven't yet been able to find any leaks. Both of these run fully clean. So, the "easy" tools can't find it.

3. Following point 1 and 2, no maintainer familiar with the codebase has ever seen leaky behavior. Some of us run a build of Ghostty, working full time in a terminal, for weeks, and memory is stable.

4. Our Discord has ~30K users, and within it, we only have one active user who periodically gets a large memory issue. They haven't been able to narrow this down to any specific reproduction and they aren't familiar enough with the codebase to debug it themselves, unfortunately. They're trying!

To be clear, I 100% believe that there is some kind of leak affecting some specific configuration of users. That's why the discussion is open and we're soliciting input. I even spent about an hour today on the latest feedback (posted earlier today) trying to use that information to narrow it down. No dice, yet.

If anyone has more info, we'd love to find this. :)
by WCSTombs | 2026-01-02 05:57:14+00:00
I think it's just saying that AIs are treated like inanimate objects and thus not something that liability can apply to. Here's an analogy that I think illustrates the effect of the law, if I've understood it: let's say I drive my car into a house and damage the house, and the owner of the house sues me. Now, it's not a given that I'm personally liable for the damages, since it's possible for a car to malfunction and go out of control through no fault of the driver. However, if I walk into the court and say that the car itself should be held liable and responsible for the damages, I'm probably going to have a bad day. Similarly, I shouldn't be able to claim that an AI is responsible for some damages, since you can't frickin' sue an AI, can you?

The article goes on to ponder who's liable then, the developer of the AI, the user, or someone in between? It's a reasonable question to ask, but really not apropos to the law in question at all. That question isn't even about AI, since you can replace the AI with any software developed by a third party. In fact, the question isn't about software either, since you can replace "software" by any third-party component, even something physical. So I would expect that whatever legal methods exist to place liability in those situations, would also apply generally to AI models being incorporated into other systems.

Since people are asking whether this law is needed or useful at all: I would say either the law is completely redundant, or very much needed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know which of those two cases it is, but I suspect it's the second one. I would be surprised if by a few years from now we haven't seen someone try to escape legal liability by pointing their finger at an AI system they claim is autonomously making the decisions that caused some harm.
by zzrrt | 2026-01-02 05:57:22+00:00
Of course. My sense is there are a lot fewer in of out-of-bounds accesses and use after frees. Maybe a world-class programmer can go several decades without writing a memory error in C/C++, but they will probably eventually falter, meanwhile the other 99.9% of programmers fail more often. Why would you decline a compiler’s help eliminating certain types of bugs almost entirely?
by shevy-java | 2026-01-02 05:57:47+00:00
I manage all my programs via ruby in a manner similar to GoboLinux, e. g. versioned AppDirs. So I don't need uv or anything else for this - not that I have anything against uv, it is just not something I need myself. But I agree with you in that there are multiple objectives or goals to be had here; you mention one, Aaron mentioned speed. I think there are many more (I mentioned documentation before too; people in ruby seem to think documentation is not important, or at the least really many think in that way - look at the documentation of rack, it is virtually not existing. I am not going to sift through low quality ruby code for hours to try to figure out what madness drove this or that author to write some horrible-to-read junk of code. A project without good documentation is worthless. Why do ruby developers not learn this lesson?).

I think all of ruby, including the ecosystem as well as how ruby is governed, needs to be considered. In particular with ruby constantly declining and losing user share. That is not good. That should change.
by Quinzel | 2026-01-02 05:58:50+00:00
I read:

- The Courage to be Disliked.
- Moral Tribes
- Crazy like us
- Careless People
- Madness Made Me
- The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion.

And a few that were on my 2025 list that I didn’t make it through, and are on my list for 2026 include:
- Team of Rivals
- Behave
- Why Greatness cannot be planned.

Hopefully I’ll get through those three books before the end of Feb when I go back to Uni, and won’t have time to read for leisure for about 7 months.
by xvilka | 2026-01-02 05:59:17+00:00
Common Lisp standard (and its implementations) really needs an uplift to shine. There are so many shortcomings and missing features in it that listing them here would take a lot of space. Instead, I will point to some proposals like Common Lisp 3[1] and Compact Lisp[2].

[1] https://github.com/blakemcbride/common-lisp-3

[2] https://github.com/lassik/compact-lisp
by tracker1 | 2026-01-02 05:59:22+00:00
Also Gen X... though don't own any vinyl or a record player... mostly ripped CDs through the later 90's up through 2010 or so. Since then, mostly just use online streaming.

That said, I did once consider getting a record player only to rip/archive my grandmother's collection of vintage vinyl that wound up going to my niece on her passing.

I just prefer convenience/portability. Of course, as far as purchasing goes... I bought far more music when original Napster was around... it lead me to discover a lot of music that lead my to outright buy/rip full albums myself. It's the one thing that is significantly worse today without actual DJs in control of music at radio stations in favor of automated industry garbage controls.

I have no good way to discover new music any more. At least nothing I actually find myself using.
by rapidfl | 2026-01-02 06:00:38+00:00
The negative externality of EV car manufacturing seems net worse (today) per car. Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.

Tesla might be responsible but almost all other EVs are likely externalizing a lot in their supply chain.

Anyway according to Gemini:
```
In the U.S., a typical EV becomes "cleaner" than a gas car after about 15,000 to 20,000 miles (roughly 1.5 to 2 years of driving).

If your primary concern is climate change, the EV is the clear winner after about 1.5 years. If your concern is local land/human rights impact, the EV has a heavier "upfront" cost that requires better regulation to solve.
```

EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars? Apparently yes, with the new battery tech in the pipeline.
by sublinear | 2026-01-02 06:00:40+00:00
It's not even about trying to hide anything! It's not easy to coordinate any business unless there's a single source of truth external to any particular team.

It necessarily has to be need-to-know and decisions have to be based on dry explanations where the intent isn't clear at all unless you're sitting in on many meetings across many teams. This is just how things scale. I question where some people have worked that are commenting.
by flomo | 2026-01-02 06:00:51+00:00
Thinking about it, there's just no business model in rescoring "It's a Wonderful Life". You want to get into a pricewar with a studio?

Anyway, hollywood hated this situation and was glad to see it under control. The issue is now viewing is pretty limited. NBC made it a prime time event.

(Mentioning some commodoretard's 'theory' on copyright detracts from your post, imo. They just didn't bother going after him)
by random3 | 2026-01-02 06:01:16+00:00
Possibly. I don't think either extreme opinion is correct— i.e., both can be partially correct, hence we may agree on that. Merit is often arbitrarily attributed (and sometimes, perhaps often enough, wrongly). I don't think that's enough to say that that's "always" or "most often" the case. That was my main point. You argued that no one does something strictly alone or from scratch. I think the "from scratch" part is irrelevant and think that a single person, a very small group, or a few independently (even if at different points in time) still warrants the same individual recognition.

Neither really fits what Jürgen Schmidhuber argues for. He clearly argues against intentional non-attribution and/or ignorance. Both are evidently the case deeply in current AI research (probably also outside, but this is what OP is about). At the same time, claiming that his points are worthless because he's just pointing to other individuals that suffer from the same misattribution problem is generally a wrong take. Work concentration and results are simply non-linear and generally clustered around individuals and groups. Failing to attribute, either from ignorance or malice, is equally wrong.
by somenameforme | 2026-01-02 06:02:07+00:00
The logic of 'No of course you can't join us - we're organizing to fight you!' is a good way to create a self fulfilling prophecy. Beyond that, one of the big practical reasons NATO exists is to stop its members from fighting against each other. Europe had centuries of never-ending and ever deadlier warfare eventually culminating in WW2. NATO largely stopped that by putting them under a common umbrella. Of course a practical reality is that history has shown alliances need an external enemy, or they start to turn on themselves. If the US had foreseen had powerful China would be today, I expect Russia would have been 'enlisted' into NATO.

And I don't think Russia is broadly hostile to the world. They cofounded BRICS which comprises near to a majority of the world's population, and also a greater share of the world's economy than e.g. the G7. Rather the "problem", and one that applies to China too, is that they will never behave in a submissive fashion to the US. They want a multipolar world, whereas the political establishment in the US still dreams of a hegemonic world order, akin to what we had after the USSR collapsed. This inevitably sets the stage for geopolitical conflict, and as the saying goes - when two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers.
by somenameforme | 2026-01-02 06:02:26+00:00
What is your logic or rationale for this view? I think the contrary view is easy to argue - Russia is one of the head states in BRICS which is the largest international union in the world both by population, and which has also economically surpassed the G7 as well. And militarily they're fighting a war against an endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies being armed and funded by the entirety of NATO, Europe, and a few odd balls -- and they're winning, at a cost of < 10% GDP. What other countries could match that?
by rustystump | 2026-01-02 06:03:27+00:00
Sadly, attention is all you need these days. If you get attention, you will be “set” in part because ads=money but mainly because human attention really is that valuable outside of advertising. Survival is still what matters and so most people judge “creatives” by big number because that means status.

I think people see the very western culture of haves and have nots where all that matters is big number dominating the digital landscape the way it does in the physical world. It is gross but not remotely new. You put the audience or perish pressure on yourself when you value big number go up opinions. Dont be friends with those opinions. They change nothing and have no real power if you dont depend on them for survival.