skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's the highest concentration of far-right-wing crap I've read in a long time, but what did I really expect from a site called IM-1776. A name like that could only attract right-wing loyalists, or Red Coats as I like to call them for the irony.

I find their incessant focus on Marcuse to be a symptom of the right-wing obsession with "great men", and totally ignorant of most of leftist and anarchist history.

I especially feel the need to call out the last sentence in the first paragraph: "And the fruit of the Left’s latest conquest has been the same as always — the extreme degradation of a decent, productive society". We all know right-wingers are the ones who degrade decency, and let's not pretend productivity isn't just a buzzword used by capitalist parasites who benefit from all our extra labor.

Another completely and blatantly false statement is "the Left today dominates all areas of American life, not only all levels of government, directly or indirectly, but also private enterprise, education, media, culture, the military, and religious institutions". No they f*** don't, this country is right-wing to the core! The only people who think it's left-wing are people who mistakenly use liberal as a synonym for leftist, even though liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Get FOX "News" lies out of your head and look around you.

The author claims "[leftists] wanted to destroy the deep structures of the West, achieve total emancipation from all unchosen bonds, combined with forced total equality of individuals, in order to usher in utopia". I see the problem now! Since the author is a right-winger, they do that right-wing thing where they think liberal, leftist, socialist, marxist, and communist are all the same same thing. In this case, they're talking about Marxism and other authoritarian socialist ideologies, NOT the left as they claim. This is one of the most effective methods of right-wing brainwashing, and that's why it's difficult to have a decent political discussion with American right-wingers; they simply don't know what the words mean.

Another ridiculous statement: "goal behind the Left is the belief that the perfection of mankind is not only achievable, but just ahead". Everyone knows that's a right-wing take. That's literally right out of the Nazi playbook. That's why they did eugenics and genocide.

Another ridiculous statement: "... that emotional arguments are far more effective at changing public opinion in a feminized society ...". Yeah, we all know right-wingers are sexists who can't stand the decline in mindless machismo, and who think women are emotional ignoramuses who can't make decisions for themselves.

The author just keeps mentioning right-wing things and blaming them on leftists. I especially found irony in their statement that "For the Left’s project, facts are always irrelevant. Most important is emotional manipulation".

For crying out loud, they claim Marcuse's One Dimensional Man was "an update to Marxist theory". I mean how dense can you get? No leftist I've ever spoken to had anything nice to say about that book or Marcuse.

This author plain old doesn't know what they're talking about.
Write good code. Professional code. Simpler and easier to understand code. That’s it…

Some Leetcode jock will come in one day and rewrite it anyway, or a new CTO will crash the joint holding a bathroom sink and make your code an orphan. Or the company will just disappear.

The code that i write like my own is, well, my own. Because that’s the code I come back to years later and I maintain, and always will. Everything else is ephemeral.
Eh, this couples back into 'what is reality' and at which scale are we talking about.

I believe there is an objective causality based reality at the lowest levels of existence. The arrow of time moves forward. And over the entire system entropy increases.

But as you put systems on top of systems, especially in life, subjective thinking can modify local reality at a macro level. That is the subjective experience of a human can lead them to an idea, that they then manufacture into an object becoming objective reality that object then modifies the experienced reality of those around them both subjectively and objectively. The fundamental structure of the universe does not change in this scenario, but human knowledge is expanded and we have a better view all possible states the universe can be objectively manipulated into.
I'm glad communists are in the good books now
this is an odd consensus because you just described how all bitcoin exchanges in the US operate.

they are centralized in which funds can be seized, censored, and they all have money services licenses just like their corresponding banks do.

right, not like bitcoin, like bitcoin exchanges, just like the person said and you somehow ignored.

far more similarities than differences for this comment and the other comments at your level to be focusing on the differences and confused about the existence of similarities.
I don't disagree, but that's actually what I'm talking about. It apparently wasn't clear that I was making a distinction related to using Google to find information as opposed to using Google as a portal to sites that hold the information you're after. Your response shows that it's taken for granted that of course people wouldn't use Google to find a link to someone's website (which is the topic of the post).

Use Google to find a Wikipedia result.

Use Google to find a Reddit result.

Use Google to find YouTube videos.

Use Google to find TikTok videos.

20 years ago it was "Search Google and click on the links it provides".
Because that is complex, unnecessary, and dangerous?
LLM's aren't statistical in the sense of memorizing percentages of words that come after other words. They are modeling a very high dimensional function using a neural net. I suppose they're statistical in the sense of learning how to mimic what they've seen, but this includes some very surprising emergent abilities as well.
I could see that. "Anybody from any country" could have included the US or meant "any other country."

But if it did include the US, it would have the assumption that Americans are unaware how terrible our payment systems are (generally untrue I think) or unaware that other countries have better systems (may or may not be generally true).
Well done America. This has been available for literally decades in Australia. I was doing bank transfers over the phone from a landline in the 90s before mobile phones were common and the internet was all dialup. I don't think I've been paid by cheque (check) since the 80's.

When I started dating my wife, she called me an old man for even owning a cheque book. That was in 2006.
I have aphantasia and didn’t realize it until adulthood. Both my brother and I have it (or lack it), though neither of our parents have aphantasia.

When people spoke of “daydreaming” I always assumed it was just a metaphor for being deep in thought, as it would be clearly impossible for people to visualize things without dreaming or hallucinating… boy was I wrong!

Apparently some folk can even look at a wall and imagine a scene playing out like a movie. Blows my mind every time I think about it!
This is the inexorable mean to which heavy government regulation inexorably regresses: The fantasy that large evildoers will lose some of their ill-gotten gains (for the IRS, billionaires privatizing gains and socializing losses... for the FTC, Pepsi being forced to disclose product placement) faces the brick wall of lawyers and lobbyists. So they aim at "softer targets": hassling middle class tax payers and businesses who don't have those lawyers and lobbyists.
I’ve used guidance, why is it defunct? I found it was powerful at templating, really decent for generating synthetic datasets.
I went to Portugal and thought the food was just awful. It seems they exported all the good stuff lol
I believe the service providers are offering services to banks.
What do you mean? Why would leaking the plan to the Soviets mean anything?

Why would the Soviets want a longer war?
The relevant Tom Scott video: https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
> Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right?

It certainly applies to movies and TV shows. Near the end of the credits (for US productions), there is almost always language like "Promotional consideration" and then a list of brands
> Unfortunately your take is wrong, rather than controversial.

Right/wrong and controversial/uncontroversial are not mutually exclusive. Look at the amount of people in favor of the notion that tax lobbiests are to blame for tax complexity. It's always the dominant narrative

> A simply example is if you have any sort of stocks/bonds or other tradeable asset holdings. Reporting this is a massive pain in the ass

Actually you just proved me correct. You could simply declare this income as regular income and forego the tax-advantage of the capital gains rate. But you dont want to pay extra in taxes. There is no penalty. The government might actually send you a higher return than your tax return indicates. And besides all that, that aspect is more tedious than complicated. You just write down whats in the box.

>> You can dumbly supply a small amount of information and be in complete compliance with the law.

> This is not only factually untrue, anyone who follows this advice is putting themselves in significant legal jeopardy.

What is factually untrue about that? I feel like I actually wasn't specific enough to be falsifiable (what exactly does "small" constitute?) so calling it factual untrue is funny.
So maybe I think about things a little differently, but is there a theoretical reason why we should expect a large language model to be good at sudokus? I remember not long ago they often struggled with adding two numbers
It might have had to be rediscovered in the West. I remember learning that DaVinci’s autopsies were controversial because they were considered desecrations of someone’s body and therefore disgusting and unholy.
Verify me!
You can, but it is definitely not a download and go situation. I use Syncthing for Obsidian and it generally works well. However, I was recently in need to use a VPN on both sides of the "sync" and it choked hard.

Made me miss onenote...
...what i enjoy in a narrative is not directly its content or even its structure, but rather the abrasions i impose upon the fine surface: i read on, i skip, i look up, i dip in again (barthes, the pleasures of the text)
Totally, Ghostbusters too
Been there, got the tshirt. The one liners can be the worst. Any time the comment has a ticket url for another product it tends to get juicy.
Crockford on JSON license (2011)
Right on Feds! This I assume takes away one use-case from crypto-currencies. No?
Love it!

I'm the author of https://github.com/nojvek/matrix-rain

I should cook up a piped command mode. This is v neat.
Not if it goes against the user, f.x. if the user wanted to start helping a nature conservancy but don't, then make a payment to a motorsports driver or logging company
A counterpoint — every day tons of financial disputes are handled by banks and insurance companies. Unlike with government, no violence is involved, and things go well. Why involve governments and violence when we can avoid the bad things without violence?
Why are you talking about Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla, when Chrome has a larger market share than all of them?

> "you are too powerful, stop dominating us."

That's twisting things. The problem was that the argument of the Chrome team against JPEG XL was self-refuting. They were themselves the main cause of what they complained about.
> If you say "just" then you're trying to justify it without effort

This is an interestingly narrow take on what is a pretty common broadly used phrase with multiple meanings. If you're familiar with people with ADHD, you should realize that ADHD isn't something you can "just" choose to ignore or decide not to be affected by. Executive dysfunction isn't something you get to opt out of.

That knowledge should clue you in that when I use the word "just" in this context that I'm not dismissing anything or treating ADHD like a joke or using it as an excuse to be lazy. Particularly given that I immediately follow up that usage by talking about practical strategies and techniques I've developed to try and mitigate the outcome.

My point with the word "just" is that there isn't some complicated reasoning going on in my head for why it's good for me to have 1000 tabs open, in the same way that it's not some kind of life strategy that I forget to eat when I'm hyperfixated. It's not a workflow or a decision that I've made about my life, it's just a consequence of ADHD.

> you're trying to justify it

Having a lot of tabs open doesn't need to be justified. It's not a moral failing. I don't need an excuse for having a lot of tabs open because it's not behavior that needs to be excused.

The only reason to mitigate it is because mitigating it makes my individual life better. It's not really relevant whether you or anyone else approves beyond that. I'm not trying to justify anything because there is nothing about the number of browser tabs a person has open that needs to be justified or condemned. Opening a browser tab is a morally neutral act.

I replied to a comment that was curious about why someone might have that many tabs open: was it easier to work that way? Is there some browser config that makes 1000s of tabs more efficient than bookmarks? No, the cause is just ADHD.

> You choose to open tabs. Don't open tabs if you know you cannot handle that.

??? I genuinely have no idea what you're suggesting or getting at here. People who open too many (?) tabs shouldn't be using browsers? What does this mean?

Given that you are saying you're familiar with ADHD, I know you're definitely not suggesting that the solution is to just choose not to open a lot of tabs in the first place. Because you know what executive dysfunction and impulsivity is and you're familiar with how people with ADHD operate, and so I know that you wouldn't make such a pointless or useless suggestion. But I'm at a loss for what you're actually trying to convey then.
How could something survive with other entities without things like fear and empathy though? It would just be constant chaos and nothing could get done. With no fear, you could just wipe yourself out and not thing twice about it. Without empathy, same, you'd just be killing things permanently.

I do wonder if the quest to build AI will teach us a lot about why the thing we take for granted exist. Why have fear, limits, empathy, anger etc.

I suppose bacteria is a bit like this but it’s limited in its capabilities to evolve too quickly and wipe everything out?
What an unfortunate article. Not because the content reveals anything wrong or abnormal about the writer; rather because it is so commonplace and so very normal.

But embedded inside of its message is a deep, I think, and fundamental misunderstanding of beauty, as immutable, objective, so easy, obvious and self-evident to rank into an unambiguous ordering of things. But this kind of lowest common denominator simplification makes it possible for a society to create rules and structure, so it becomes a cultural default.

But I think that aesthetic beauty is multi-dimensional and temporal. A fine wine or a brandy; a sublime cheese and not a fresh glass of milk. There is a very specific kind of electric, youthful beauty which is ephemeral and fleeting. But there are other kinds of beauty which can be subdued and hard to miss, which can appreciate over time. I don't even mean that in a subjective "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but rather, that beauty objectively can come in more than one form.

Is a bombastic Wagner opera more or less beautiful than a simple, haunting, short song by The Cranberries? The question doesn't even make sense, they're apples and oranges. But if you ask me, I prefer the song by The Cranberries and for the kind of beauty it holds deep inside of itself, the Wagnerian opera would never come close.

I wish society would accept and circulate this truth rather than the other simpler, convenient, and yet so very wrong lie reflected by this article. I may not be a woman, but I've felt so many similar kinds of body dysmorphia of this sort living in NYC surrounded by conventionally attractive male models for so long until I stopped trying to be a conventional kind of attractive that would never sit right on my skin and instead embraced the one that felt like home to me.

I sometimes regret that I didn't realize this sooner. But on the other hand, I'm glad that the experience taught me a lesson and imbued me with a confidence that now cannot be taken away from me by anyone or anything.
Ask HN: Where can I learn about card processing fees?
Is there a comprehensive guide or course to understand the costs/mechanisms involved in card processing?

My specific focus is on finding out about Foreign Transaction Processing fees - fees levied by bank when I use my card on a website which processed my card outside of my country (AU) but still takes AUD only as payment.

---

Context: I bought airline tickets recently and used Paypal as the card processor. My bank charged me hefty foreign transaction fees for it because as per the bank Paypal processed the card outside of AU. They are not interested in taking a complaint and keep hanging up me claiming I agreed to the Cards T&C's which puts a 3% fee on such transactions, and bank cant help because it costs fees and so they must pass it on to me.

The airlines denies they have anything to do with this as they only quotes and priced in AUD, had no one else complained about it, and directed me to PayPal. PayPal claims they processed it as they did before with my account. They are right as I never had such fees levied before when using PayPal + the same card.

I am planning to reaching out to ACCC [1] and AFCA [2] about this and want to make sure I read and understand this space as much as I can before that to ensure I am well advised and not waste anyone's time.

I could not find any material about it and if any are just marketing fluff by remittance services selling their products to avoid such fees.

If you working in the Payment space or have any experience, can you please help.

[1] https://www.accc.gov.au/
[2] https://www.afca.org.au/
Microsoft also weirdly go out of their way to strip AVIF support from Edge
> I think he wanted to give a fanciful idea of what he imagined if the internet was decentralized what it would be like.
Oppenheimer has an Epic Rap Battle of History, Fermi doesn't.

Case closed.
I feel like it's kind of a weird question because if you change the random seed enough times maybe one of them could be good at chess puzzles but suck at being a chat bot, or be good at sudokus but be a horrible pair programmer. I don't know what value a lot of these questions bring once a model hits a trillion parameters of which none or very very few are understood.
Cootys Rat Semen?
That is a great point to bring up! I do not necessarily disagree, but there are gradations, and some contemporary geniuses disagree with your assertion:

Wigner may have said it best: "Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement."
>Nobody outside physics geeks has heard of Fermi.

Plenty of folks who aren't physics geeks have heard of the Fermi Paradox.

Source: Am not a physics geek.
You can't rewrite history just because you don't know what a word means. A tutor is a teacher at a university.
My man reinvented consulting.
You're a human being. Your life has a greater purpose than doing a robot's job badly. Find it.
The idea that people’s minds can be so different is something I didn’t realize until a couple of years ago and has been a lightening bolt moment for me in better understanding myself and others!

I believe I have aphantasia, and the idea of being able to visualize things on demand seem so strange to me that it’s hard for me to even imagine (isn’t it distracting?).

When I heard things like “count sheep to fall asleep” or “imagine yourself on a beach” to relax, I had assumed this was a figure of speech, but apparently people are doing this literally!

I’ve spent some time trying to practice visualizing things mentally and sometimes if I relax and try not to think about it I’ll get a glimpse of something (last time I tried I got something like looking at a forest from the sky) but the moment I try and focus it disappears in a snap, so I feel like it’s closer to dreaming than visualizing something mentally.

Related to this, I have plenty of audible conversations in my mind (either with myself or other people) and I’ll often have a song playing in the background of my mind (although music seems to be limited to just remembering things I’ve already heard) apparently some people can’t imagine sounds or voices which also seems equally bizarre to me.
It’s not a scam — well, not all prosperity gospel preachers are scammers, but a few likely are. (Source: back in 2007/08 I was a true believer of a more mainstream Christianity and looked into this stuff in detail)
The most charitable interpretation: some Christian traditions really hate wealth, and some see it as a blessing. You can find support for both in the Bible: Jesus is pretty anti-wealth, but then in Revelation 21 you have the New Jerusalem descending down from heaven, and God took the bling and turned it up to 11, and it’s the best thing ever.

Prosperity gospel churches are usually Pentecostal, which means they have a few special ways they like to interpret the Bible:

- They tend to take single Bible verses, often out of context, and use them as a foundation for entire novel lines of teaching. (This is opposed to reading and digesting whole stories)

- Those favorite Bible verses are emphasized, and passages that contradict them are downplayed. Once you decide that the Bible is pro-wealth, it can’t tell you it isn’t. (All Bible-believing Christians do this, whether they realize it or not. It’s called choosing a hermeneutic)

- There’s a culture that it’s common for the individual, especially the preacher, to hear directly from God. It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who claims the Holy Spirit told them something was true. (I always saw this as obviously problematic for a bunch of reasons)

When you put these together, you tend to get weird novel theologies. Other examples in the Pentecostal church include the personal prayer language (aka speaking in tongues) and faith healing.
A simple virtual machine might be nice, but imagine the pains of trying to guide students to install something across different environments.

Godbolt is a compiler explorer, it shows disassembly of a code but there's nothing to visualize each step in the process.
No, they endorse the products by doing that. And include the required disclosure in the credits.
Creator of Shoelace [0] here. As someone who’s built multiple design systems and component libraries, I assure you that unstyled (or “headless”) components are often much more time consuming and painful to adopt than those with good default styles.

That said, I commonly find that most folks don’t want unstyled components because it’s quite a bit of work to style every single state of every single component. Most people just won’t do it or, if they try, they don’t do it right and they don’t do it completely.

What many folks do want are components that have simple, generic styles you can quickly tweak to match your site/app using a skill you already know: CSS. (This is something you can do with Shoelace’s 50+ web components already, but we’re working to make it even easier with additional CSS custom properties.)

[0] https://shoelace.style/
What are my options for running llama 2 on a single 3080?
"Sir," the woman cried, "If he deserved it, it wouldn't be mercy. And so I ask for mercy."

https://chrismowery.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-life-lesson-from-...
But that’s kind of the point with Einstein. Work was going towards the aether and in the wrong direction. It was a leap rather than an incremental or logical next step to come up with relativity.