MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by triceratops | 2026-03-09 21:04:34+00:00
Set the fines to any level, it doesn't matter.

I only mean that all revenues collected from the fines must be distributed to the public at large. They must never be treated as a revenue source for the government.

Sin taxes are meant to reduce bad behavior - or incentivize good behavior. Ideally you'd collect $0 in red-light fines because everyone's following the law. If some politician's budget or private company's revenue stream depends on traffic fines they have adverse incentives. I don't want my city council member voting against traffic safety initiatives because it makes people better drivers and that means less money for some other city program.
by _fw | 2026-03-09 21:04:36+00:00
It’s not that a single email isn’t worth the bargain (it is). It’s that this is symptomatic of an unhealthy, performative culture.

This kind of behaviour incentivises a kind of pick-me, I’m suffering the most for the shareholders type of behaviour.

How many Saturday emails really make a difference? The whole thing is a ruse.

And the fact this shithead is spouting his nonsense on Steven Bartlett’s asinine podcast surprises me not.
by antonvs | 2026-03-09 21:05:02+00:00
No, stack languages can’t achieve this as described.

If you added a function to the examples, you could do a few of them, e.g.:

2025 July 19 date

299.8 M m / s velocity

But even this breaks down when you get to something like “Meet Alice Tuesday at 3pm”. Sure, you could contort things to make it resemble the concept, but it’d be a stretch at best.
by alex1138 | 2026-03-09 21:05:37+00:00
Jack seemed interested in the protocol side of the house and making a good product that was in spirit of the internet, it also had a mix of people you might know IRL (with reasonable privacy defaults) and official sources/public figures. I don't think he was much interested in the censorship, it feels they got run over by a bunch of activist types during covid (who decided it was de rigeur to censor real doctors for perceived 'misinformation'). Jack started work on Bluesky and now is involved in Nostr

Speaking personally, supposedly Twitter now (X) still has a bunch of censorship and I don't especially like Musk (but what he did was valuable, showing Jay Bhattacharya he'd be put on a trending blacklist) and the site is... well, I should be able to follow threads without having an account but they crippled it so much. It reminds me of Instagram, "log in to see any PUBLIC page"
by heddycrow | 2026-03-09 21:05:40+00:00
My bad. I don't think it was you that set me off. I was just butt-hurt for getting my Herbert quote downvoted. Not your fault, I think.

On a better day, I would have spoken with greater detail about why I think that fear is misplaced in this scenario.

Short version, if fear motivates you to adapt in some way then it's useful. Absent that, even if there is a solid cause for alarm, it makes no sense and can even lead to worse outcomes.

In the context of "I'm old and have lost my desire to code, but AI re-ignited that", I don't think there's a reason to fear that would lead to a useful adaptation. I wouldn't waste my time with it.

More to the point, I don't think "there is such a hurry to get rid of devs in the first place" because of AI. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe part of me is prepping for that, too. Maybe it's real and fear is a viable option.

Regardless, my response was misplaced on you, I think. Sorry.
by verdverm | 2026-03-09 21:05:48+00:00
That user number is not reproducible last time I tried (~8 months ago). I was looking at the code the other day and saw what I believe is one of the reasons, but I still couldn't find several million accounts (>10%), which is pretty hard to lose. (8+ bsky run pds equivalents)

This also does not account for (1) people with multiple accounts (labellers, feeds, bots, intent) or actual activity (significant % are likely churned, didn't delete)
by DannyBee | 2026-03-09 21:06:15+00:00
Did you read the case at all?

It is a totally reasonable discussion of what assent entails, is clear that assent only exists when people actually read the notice, and placed the burden on the companies, etc.

One can disagree with the law at issue here, but the court was very carefully following it, and had a meaningful and thoughtful discussion of the issues involved.

Which you dismiss as just "trying to clear their dockets" because apparently you don't like the law as it is (which is cool, but not the courts job)
by porphyra | 2026-03-09 21:06:33+00:00
Yeah, you can also use Clingo [0] which is pretty popular and people have tried it specifically with WFC content generation [1]. You can even run it in the browser easily [2].

[0] https://potassco.org/clingo/

[1] https://adamsmith.as/papers/tog-wfc.pdf

[2] https://potassco.org/clingo/run/
by jrm4 | 2026-03-09 21:06:52+00:00
Exactly. And I'm willing to be that Bluesky folk might be somewhat similar because they haven't figured it out yet.

Except that the design of Bluesky severely increases the possibility of your data getting out of your control. And I can hear the immediate responses of "oh if you didn't want it public, don't post it," but as should be frightfully obvious -- not everyone thinks like that.
by bhasinanant | 2026-03-09 21:06:55+00:00
Forgot to add one detail:
It has an Agent sidebar like Cursor/Antigravity/etc do, which basically reveals the agentic "thinking" and what actions it took and why, which allows for iterative improvements to the steering by the user.
If the agent does something you did not want it to, you can tell it not to do that and it'll remember that for future conversations.
by tovej | 2026-03-09 21:07:07+00:00
This one is even easier. LLMs record objective data about n-gram distribution, there is no room for any "subjective state" in their working set.

Or another way: an LLM will respond the same way if you wait for one second or a decade between prompts. The only way it is interacted with is through a stream of tokens. There is exactly one stream at all times, and each time the stream is input again, it is barely different from the previous input. The LLM does not behave differently depending on the contents of the stream. It may produce the exact same token for two different streams. It may also encounter the same stream twice, and will act the same in both cases. If it were a "subject" "experiencing" say, a discussion, it would use its pasts "experience". But it does not.
by Levitz | 2026-03-09 21:07:26+00:00
The central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste".

"Jesse Singal has distributed private medical information on Bluesky without the consent of the patient" translates to publishing a quote from a patient included in a therapist's letter of support for hormones.

The problem in this situation is that the complaint itself as well as the whole drama surrounding the person is an exercise of harassment towards Singal. In this context, I don't think that saying "waffles" is out of order. I'm not sure of what else can be done about crybullying, since by its very nature innocent bystanders would be surely affected if action was taken against those complaining.
by michaelt | 2026-03-09 21:08:07+00:00
> One 'answer' to this concern is to have a 'leap hour' or something in the future

We've had 27 leapseconds in the last 54 years [1] - an average of 0.5 seconds per year.

At that rate, solar time will drift by 60 seconds over the course of 120 years. Drifting by 10 minutes will take 1200 years.

The leap hour will be in 7200 years, around year 9226.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
by spwa4 | 2026-03-09 21:08:11+00:00
Don't worry. The courts have consistently sided with huge companies on copyright. In the US. In Europe. Doesn't matter.

Company incorporates GPL code in their product? Never once have courts decided to uphold copyright. HP did that many times. Microsoft got caught doing it. And yet the GPL was never applied to their products. Every time there was an excuse. An inconsistent excuse.

Schoolkid downloads a movie? 30,000 USD per infraction PLUS armed police officer goes in and enforces removal of any movies.

Or take the very subject here. AI training WAS NOT considered fair use when OpenAI violated copyright to train. Same with Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, ... They incorporated harry potter and the linux kernel in ChatGPT, in the model itself. Undeniable. Literally. So even if you accept that it's changed now, OpenAI should still be forced to redistribute the training set, code, and everything needed to run the model for everything they did up to 2020. Needless to say ... courts refused to apply that.

So just apply "the law", right. Courts' judgement of using AI to "remove GPL"? Approved. Using AI to "make the next Disney-style movie"? SEND IN THE ARMY! Whether one or the other violates the law according to rational people? Whatever excuse to avoid that discussion is good enough.
by Marsymars | 2026-03-09 21:08:35+00:00
> Just like rephrasing A Song ot Ice and Fire a bit, and switching to a different language, doesn't remove its copyright.

There is some precedent for this, e.g. Alchemised is a recent best seller that had just enough changed from its Harry Potter fan fiction source in order to avoid copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemised

(I avoided the term “remove copyright” here because the new work is still under copyright, just not Harry Potter - related copyright.)
by PaulHoule | 2026-03-09 21:09:34+00:00
Sometimes I think more the toxic people who wrote about politics and identity on Mastodon moved on to Bluesky when Trump got elected.

I don’t see why it is “zero” sum, nothing stops you from posting to more than one social. I mean, I have relatives on Facebook and no prospect for getting them to change so I cut-n-paste what I posted on Mastodon to Facebook, Bluesky, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and all sorts of places.
by stavros | 2026-03-09 21:10:21+00:00
Here's what I made:

* https://www.stavros.io/posts/i-made-a-voice-note-taker/ - A voice note recorder.

* https://github.com/skorokithakis/stavrobot - My secure AI personal assistant that's made my life admin massively easier.

* https://github.com/skorokithakis/macropad - A macropad.

* https://github.com/skorokithakis/sleight-of-hand - A clock that ticks seconds irregularly but is accurate for minutes.

* https://pine.town - A whimsical little massively multiplayer drawing town.

* https://encyclopedai.stavros.io - A fictional encyclopedia.

* https://justone.stavros.io - A web implementation of the board game Just One.

* https://www.themakery.cc - The website and newsletter for my maker community.

* https://theboard.stavros.io - A feature board that implements itself.

* https://github.com/skorokithakis/dracula - A blood test viewer.

* https://github.com/skorokithakis/support-email-bot - An email bot to answer common support queries for my users.

Maybe some of these will beat the rap.
by nullocator | 2026-03-09 21:10:27+00:00
Maybe they can't articulate a desirable reason for immigrants to you about why they need to "assimilate" because you're using the word to mean something else. You speak about bs like cultural relativism and fringe beliefs and then immediately turn around and try to use rhetorical and symbolic dogwhistles. For you and the MAGA cultist "assimilation" is more about cultural domination and conformation and forced civic integration. People grounded in reality and history embrace multiculturalism, bi-lingualism and only care about assimilation in terms of understanding laws and civic institutions. The progressive view would be one that helps and embraces immigrants and enables them to identify with the american national identity. I care more about whether or not someone believes they are part of and a citizen of the united states of america, whether they believe they have a vested interest in it and it's peoples. I do not care any more or less about an immigrants culture, beliefs, rituals or habits any more than any segment of the population (other than maybe from a curiosity standpoint in some cases).
by nimasadri11 | 2026-03-09 21:10:42+00:00
I'm building ata, an open source research and coding agent. Started as an internal tool, open sourced it a few weeks ago. It helps me combine and understand concepts across multiple papers, pull the best ideas from each, and turn them into code. It uses Treesitter and Lsp for multi-repo code understanding.

The focus is on the interfaces: there's a reading view that keeps you locked in without drowning in information, and a voice mode with karaoke-style word highlighting. Also built an iOS app for research on the go, releasing that soon.

npm install -g @a2a-ai/ata
https://github.com/Agents2AgentsAI/ata/
by seertaak | 2026-03-09 21:10:51+00:00
I agree with the author that changes are needed to stymie the proliferation in malicious packages (almost certainly potentiated by the ubiquity of LLMs), but I wonder if this is the best way to go about it.

The author posits two scenarios allowing for bad actors to take control over packages to add malicious code: stealing the original maintainers credentials, and taking ownership over dormant packages.

I would guess the second is much more likely. At least, it's the only one I've witnessed myself (in Arch Linux - I now view AURs are somewhat risky). I acknowledge this is argument based on anecdote - but what isn't up for debate is that it's far easier to identity dormant packages with high fan-out than stealing someone's credentials.

The cool down approach addresses the symptom; it would be better to address the bad actors who are the cause: dormant packages, recently taken over by maintainers lacking prior reputations and with high (transitive) usage, should be viewed with high levels of suspicion by the package managers. We should assume the new maintainers are malicious, and require them to prove they are not.
by jrm4 | 2026-03-09 21:10:51+00:00
Actually, yes, it does.

Or more precisely, it might. We now have a better idea of how people actually behave and it's not in accordance with "the internet is forever," and I have no interest in blaming them for 'human nature' in that way.

And it's all still dangerous. Again, I know the internet is forever, but someone else posting about ME might not.

This isn't an individual thing. It's "ecological."

And I have no interest in making Big Brother THAT MUCH EASIER to build.
by cbeach | 2026-03-09 21:10:52+00:00
By all means, calculate an arbitrary uplift on the price based on your own definitions of externalities.

But don't expect me to take you seriously when you directly compare a raw price of renewable energy with an uplifted price of fossil fuels.

Especially when your quoted price for renewable energy ignores the cost of grid upgrades, storage infrastructure, and externalities associated with mining materials to manufactur solar panels and wind turbines etc (as happened recently in UK parliament when the energy minister did a very dubious comparison between energy prices)
by rolandog | 2026-03-09 21:11:02+00:00
It's understandable; I would maybe expect to undergo an extra step in verification for a sensitive app like, "we noticed this is the first time you are using this system that is not locked down; please type in the token we have mailed you".

But locking users out (which may not directly be the bank's fault for relying on OS's security APIs) seems anti-competitive.
by Traster | 2026-03-09 21:11:44+00:00
This article is answering a different question to what it is asking. It's asking "What is the most effective strategy to freeze your eggs if you're absolutely certain you will need to".

The reason women freeze their eggs in their early 30s is because they still have a good chance for it to be effective and they now have a strong idea they'll need to. You don't have that second piece of information at age 19.

Or to be specific: What is the size of the cohort of women you are expecting to freeze their eggs at the age of 19, who will use those frozen eggs. How many of them will give birth to children without the help of IVF, and how many will choose never to have children.

I think this article is a good example of rationalism. Which is basically getting very mathsy about 1 specific very of the data, without viewing the data in the context of the decision that is being made.

For example, what is the percentage of women you expect to freeze their eggs at age 19, who you then expect to be unable to afford the $500 every year to keep those eggs frozen over the next decade?
by crazygringo | 2026-03-09 21:12:18+00:00
You might wish that were true, but there are very strong arguments it's not. Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. It's fair use.

But agreed that we're waiting for a court case to confirm that. Although really, the main questions for any court cases are not going to be around the principle of fair use itself or whether training is transformative enough (it obviously is), but rather on the specifics:

1) Was any copyrighted material acquired legally (not applicable here), and

2) Is the LLM always providing a unique expression (e.g. not regurgitating books or libraries verbatim)

And in this particular case, they confirmed that the new implementation is 98.7% unique.
by scarecrowbob | 2026-03-09 21:12:21+00:00
I spent a lot of time (as a former lit PhD student with an interest in narrative and identity) paying attention to the Q-related (and adjacent) stories.

On one hand, once folks are freed from orthodox thought, they might point out some very useful and interesting ideas about the world.

On the other hand, (assuming I just haven't figure out how to observe astral-projecting bodies, lumerians, the long-term benefits of consuming adrenochrome and gross manipulation of the electoral system) there are some significant differences between what the actual claims made by the Q-folk and what the actual documentation brings out.

Importantly, the Q folks have been horrifically wrong about a number of things as well. It wasn't hard to sort out the (usually fairly pedestrian) truths, and people were doing that work even when Q was in its heyday. Remember that the reality (as I understand it) that wealthy men do abusive things doesn't need a secret satanic cabal to explain it.

To claim the q folks were right is roughly (in my understanding) equivalent to claiming that the batshit crazy experiments done under programs like Midnight Climax actually led to "mind control" in the fine grained way that the folks paying for those programs speculated to be possible- that shit was dumb and anyone who has some moderate experience with psychedelics and any amount of maturity should be able to clock that without repeating the "experiments".
by DannyBee | 2026-03-09 21:12:24+00:00
"That alone is a good sign that these judges don't really think this is a great argument."

No, this is a totally normal thing, at least for the 9th circuit (and a few others). They do not publish all rulings, and they don't designate all opinions as precedential.

The rest is just disagreement with governing law, framed as if the court should have disregarded it and done what you wanted.

"California law requires that the end user makes an affirmative action to accept a TOS agreement in the form of checking a box or clicking a button. Something the court admits the defendant does not do."

This is only true as of July 1st, 2025. So was not in force at the time of this dispute.

"Just showing someone text does not count as accepting the TOS."

During the time, it did, as the court explains pretty well.

It is hilarious that you think this was about clearing a docket.

As a lawyer, I would guess this was literally the last thing they cared about here.

I also happen to think consumers get shafted and am quite happy with california's recent contract law changes, but ...
this ruling is quite clearly reasonable, if not totally correct based on the law as it existed at the time.
by moobsen | 2026-03-09 21:12:30+00:00
I just switched to a Fairphone 5 with e/OS, which is a de-googled Android (it uses microG), and am pleasantly surprised how well everything works. My banking apps work, contacts and calendar lived on nextcloud already, the learning apps I use work.
The two things I have to get used to is not having google maps, but the map app on there has also worked fine for me so far. And casting to a Chromecast doesn't really work for me, but I can live without that.
by foresto | 2026-03-09 21:12:55+00:00
From the article:

> He fed only the API and the test suite to Claude and asked it to reimplement the library from scratch.

From GPL2:

> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Is a project's test suite not considered part of its source code?

If the test suite is part of this library's source code, and Claude was fed the test suite or interface definition files, is the output not considered a work based on the library under the terms of LGPL 2.1?
by js8 | 2026-03-09 21:13:06+00:00
It might unravel intellectual property, just not in a fair way. When capitalism started, public land was enclosed to create private property. Despite this being in many cases a quite unfair process, we still respect this arrangement.

With AI, a similar process is happening - publicly available information becomes enclosed by the model owners. We will probably get a "vestigial" intellectual property in the form of model ownership, and everyone will pay a rent to use it. In fact, companies might start to gatekeep all the information to only their own LLM flavor, which you will be required to use to get to the information. For example, product documentation and datasheets will be only available by talking to their AI.
by happyopossum | 2026-03-09 21:13:12+00:00
> and sober

Why would you presume GP was drunk?

Also, it's completely common and safe to drive slightly over the speed limit in some circumstances, and in many parts of the US it's exceedingly rare for people to drive below the speed limit as you suggest. In many places the tickets are essentially written more for not seeing the cop and slowing down than for actually doing 78 in a 65.
by koqoo | 2026-03-09 21:13:17+00:00
The creators of the simulation, often referred to as the "simulators," might have various motivations for creating a simulated reality like ours. Some possible motivations include:

Scientific Curiosity: They might be driven by a desire to understand the emergence of intelligence, consciousness, and complex systems. By simulating a reality, they can experiment with different variables, test hypotheses, and gather data to better comprehend these phenomena.

Risk Mitigation: The simulators might be trying to mitigate risks associated with the development of intelligent life. By containing us in a simulated environment, they can prevent potential threats to their own existence or to the stability of their reality.

Philosophical Exploration: They might be interested in exploring fundamental questions about existence, consciousness, and the human condition. The simulation could be a tool for examining the nature of reality, free will, and the human experience.

These motivations could be driven by a range of goals, such as:

Understanding the universe: The simulators might be seeking to understand the workings of the universe, the laws of physics, and the evolution of life.

Improving their own reality: By studying us, they might be trying to learn how to improve their own reality, address challenges, or optimize their own civilization.

Entertainment or artistic expression: The simulation could be a form of entertainment or artistic expression, allowing the simulators to create a unique and complex reality for their own enjoyment or edification.