skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
(US here) I've been making and giving out care packages to the homeless in my area for years. I've learned a ton of things along the lines of what the article talks about.

When I'm looking for a person to give a package to, I try to spot the ones that look like they're in the roughest shape. If they want to, I'll spend time just shooting the breeze with them.

While they're certainly appreciative of the gift, I have very frequently heard two things from them: the main thing is that they really appreciate someone treating them like a human being rather than ignoring them or treating them like garbage. And they also really appreciate someone just having a chat with them.

I think lots of people tend to objectify the homeless, to think of them as somehow less than, or fundamentally different from, "decent society". The truth is that they're not. Any of us is just a disaster or two away from joining their ranks.

EDIT: I just wanted to add one anecdote (of several) to highlight my point. One day when I was making my rounds, I spotted a man who didn't look particularly homeless in appearance. He had clean clothes in good repair, reasonably well-groomed, etc. But over the years I seem to have developed a kind of "sixth sense" and asked him if he was homeless.

He told me that he'd been on the street for about a week. A few months earlier, he had an excellent professional job, plenty of money in the bank, owned a house, and generally had everything that people strive for. Then he suffered through a bitter divorce that ended up with him stripped of everything, leaving him broke and homeless. There was nothing obviously wrong with him -- he didn't seem to have a serious drug problem or crippling mental/emotional issues. He could have been any of us.

(I gave him a care package and some advice: to make it his priority to get off the street as quickly as possible. If he stays homeless for more than a couple of weeks, he's likely to remain there for years, maybe forever. My care packages include a list of where to get help and resources of various sorts, so I pointed out one that is particularly suited to his situation and strongly encouraged him to go to them. I hope that he did. I never saw him again, so I think he may have.)
No it isn't.

What Chevron said was that when the legislative branch gives an agency power to do X and there is some disagreement between the agency and someone else over precisely what X means and the agency's interpretation is reasonable the courts should use the agency's interpretation.
> They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history.

Than any court period. No supreme Court has been this bold in overturning precedent. Before this court, the last time that happened was brown v board of education.
They can see themselves however they want, that doesn’t make it any less at odds with precedent.
Wait, but... it is.

Am I missing something, or inferring sarcasm where there is none?
I think POSIX mv is terrifying enough. I've found it to be much more dangerous than dd or rm.
I don’t understand this viewpoint. Remember, Chevron is only about who gets to make a final determination of what a Congressional statute means. How could it possibly be anybody else’s job other than the courts’ to make that decision?

A far more accurate framing is that Chevron abdicated the courts’ duty to be the interpreter of statutes, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of being a court.

This does not limit Congress’s ability to delegate discretion to agencies. It just has to do so explicitly.
They've been very consistent. They ram through whatever the Heritage Foundation (boy, if there was ever a truly evil org with a misleading name) tells them to. That's how they got selected. Heritage literally gave Trump a list of acceptable names, all members.
I mean, maybe we go with OKC instead:

https://therealdeal.com/national/2024/01/28/who-is-real-esta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Tower

Or let's give Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria to Virginia), move the federal district to Lincoln, and build a new Capitol to accommodate a House with representation more like 70k:1 than the current (abhorrent) 700k:1.
wrong credentials toast error message for demo account.
No but this is not a bad idea. Why should congress have to be experts and pass hyper specific laws for every aspect of a government agency rather than just deferring to experts?
The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.
>Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years.

Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.
I don't see any of them as having questionable character, because if you focus on one you must consider them all, regardless of politics. You may have noted in Roberts opinion that this does not overturn decisions in the past, only the courts process for deciding them.
How Album Reviews on Pitchfork Have Changed
If they were smart they’d realize that the same amount of effort can be put into legal activities and you get to keep the proceeds at the end.
For the most part smart people have already self-selected out of a life of crime.
This quote can be helpful for analyzing many situations. But applied generally it throws the baby out with the bathwater - people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda.

(as an aside I think if you're in the libertarian camp but yet still supporting 2024's radical republican party you're either hoping for outright societal collapse or you're gravely mistaken about what it now stands for)
What I'm hearing is that qualitative is clearly more important than quantitative.
Will be really interesting to see if we ever get a focused effort to actually build more housing, or will homeless just keep going up.

If you have tons of homeless camps that tend to expand every year, something is broken.
Email harvester page
From a cynical atheist point of view he's not wrong:

- god is an imaginary construct used to rationalize data points

- god is often used by humans to make decisions, whether backed or not by data

- god is overhyped

substitute "god" with "AI"
Same would be true for:

- Preact (like react, but tiny)

- Solid (like react, but tiny and without the stupid re-rendering, or the stupid rules of hooks)

- Lit (like react; but tiny, based on the browser-native web components, and with a class-based api)

Considering that React has a virtual dom, a separate templating language (jsx), and now also a compiler, I would not call it simple.
Conservatives don't believe in slow change, they believe that the way things were is generally speaking the way that things should stay. Rapidly undoing changes that were accreted since the "set point" is the entirely rational response to those accreted changes if you have picked a set point where things were supposedly ideal.
> It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch.

On any given matter there are, at first, no laws on a given subject. Before airplanes were invented there were no rules or regulations for airplanes (FAA); similarly, pre-radio, nothing about how to use EM fields (FCC).

Now, The (US) People gave The Congress authority to make laws on any subject (limited only by the Constitution).

Congress said we will make laws limited actions on Topic X, and when non-prohibited actions are done they must be done in certain ways as prescribed by regulations. Congress further said that they cannot, ahead of time, know every situation that might arise on Topic X, but further rules may be needed.

So Congress delegated further rule making, beyond the 'base' An Act to Regulate Topic X, to an agency that Congress itself created and funded via the above Act.

An agency only exists because it was created by Congress; it only runs because it is funded by Congress. Congress says, in particular Acts, that some agency should look after the details of Topic X so Congress does not have it.

Regulatory agencies have (limited) authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives).
I would agree. AI is the machine god realized. Not by virtue of its capabilities, but by the agency people hand off to it. Whether it be creative tasks or just planning their activities, I see more people rely on AI for more decisions. They don’t want to think about something, so they have an AI choose for them. One could argue Top 10 lists and Guides already did this, but for those it was limited to certain aspects and tailored by a human. People are so afraid of making the wrong choice, they would rather not make one at all. LLMs in particular are ready and eager to make a choice for you about almost anything.
Everyone deferred to the agencies. The 1984 ruling was one of the first where Chevron challenged an agency's authority.
Treefmt: One CLI to format your repo
> If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment.

To give an extreme though-experiment example: Lets say Congress 1) packed the Supreme Court with yes-men, 2) passed law giving themselves a huge pay raise and delegating all legislative powers to the President, while they go party. Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Courts have made common law since before the Magna Carta. To say they’ve granted themselves that responsibility out of thin air grasps at the root of western civilization as we’ve known it.
The ability for SCOTUS to rule on Chevron isn't even in the Constitution! Marbury v. Madison was SCOTUS saying "we can overturn your executive and legislative choices" and no one bothered to stop them.
There should be a very high threshold for "we're pressing the reset button on a regulatory infrastructure built on decades worth of precedent, #yolo!", yes.
That is not a question of good guys and bad guys. It’s just that a system where the legislative branch micro-manages things like electrical safety in new homes to what you’re allowed to put in baby formula is completely unworkable. If “the bad guys” get into power, then the agency is still checked by the courts that are perfectly able to stop blatant overreach.

OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the state of the art in all of medicine to have an informed opinion on whether to ban or control a specific compound that turned out to be carcinogenic, to give but one example.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but what annoys me about this on Fedora is that I use full disk encryption in my notebook, so I need to type the password after the reboot for the updates and then one more time to get it running again. I wish it could deactivate all services and somewhat return to a state similar to early boot in order to apply the updates, rebooting only once afterward. This would be especially useful for shutdown updates, in which case no password would be necessary.
Congress doesn't amend the constitution unilaterally. The best they can do is propose an amendment. Amending the constitution today is effectively impossible.
What do you call Griswold, which found new constitutional rights in “emanations from penumbras” in the constitutional text, if not “shameless?”

By contrast, you’re calling it “shameless” for the Court to decide that the judicial branch should be the final interpreter of statutes, not the executive branch. You’re literally engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.
If you're going to rework it, perhaps consider making it a web app? Wrap it in Electron for desktop use, I bet there's something similar for iOS / Android.

That'd make it available as both a dedicated app for power users, and an (ad-supported) variant for occasional use.
Federal funding for major science agencies is at a 25-year low
Which „non-toxic radioisotopes“ and how much is a small hole?
But who is making those regulations if congress doesnt write those specific regulations into law? Isn't that the whole point of this being overturned.. the FDA no longer can make regulations that arent explicitly outlined in a bill.
Airline pilot/author Patrick Smith has a pretty informative article about turbulence on his website:

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/
Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.
I think you’re not reading the room on this. There’s a rhyme and reason - this court has decided push an agenda in favor of a particular type of executive power and a dramatic increase in the power of the judiciary.

Judicial review has been the hallmark of judicial power since John Jay. Now, in the name of strict construction, the court has decreed that Federal courts shall be in the middle of routine executive operations. It’s absurd and gross.

Unfortunately, the dire predictions made after citizens united were spot on. A court of craven ideologues, with at least one openly in the pocket of a friendly billionaire, is shifting power to an unaccountable judiciary.

It sucks, we’re witnessing the slow death of the republic.
They did Chevron. Chevron was brought as a challenge to what was happening. The Chevron court basically said, "keep doing what you are doing. We are OK with it." Post-Chevron there was just a name and a more codified description of the past approach.
I wonder why k3s doesn't require all the tedious configurations such as disabling swap, ip forwarding, installing a CRI, etc. I was blown away by how it worked perfectly well right out of the box
Hooks are special functions that allow functional components to access state, handle lifecycle events, and utilize other React features. They enable functional components to have "superpowers" that were traditionally only available in class components. With hooks, you can use state, manage side effects, and customize how components behave.
Once precedent has already been set over and over again, changing said precedent is, in itself, activism. Same as with Bruen: One can dress it in restraint all they want, but it's a massive divergence in the interpretation of the law, in ways that don't even necessarily have serious textualist support.
I think it's fair to say that the conservative justices have not been consistent with their professed ideologies.

For a recent example, in SNYDER v. UNITED STATES the dissent appears to say, to me, that the majority opinion was neither originalist nor textualist in deciding that 18 U. S. C. §666 applies only to bribes and not gratuities. [1]

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
I am not sure why people keep pretending like this is possible or keep asking it to happen.

You know that distributing all the data would be illegal copyright infringement, right? Also, its not like they could distribute the (petabytes?) worth of data to every rando who asks.

Do you just not want open weight models to exist, and you are using a fake call for it to be more open, so as to get this stuff all shut down, or what?

Because anyone who actually supports open "anything" would understand this, instead of pedantically arguing about the definition of open source and by suggesting things that both aren't possible and would make the release of these models much less likely.
I don't normally read Jalopnik; there's a Gothamist article on the payment as well, but it was paywalled.

(I happen to agree it's a fairly minor scandal. It's intended to be demonstrative of the MTA's inability to protect its budget.)
Because they are claiming that it is open source, when it isn't.

It's great that they are making the source available, but the non-commercial restriction means it isn't open source, so don't claim that it is.
I think Musk just wanted to make the point that there are many ways to achieve rapid and reliable reusability but they have chosen this one, they are laser focused on making it work, and they know they can make it work. So other ways of doing things are actually not important to him right now.
Ask HN: Does OTEC work with datacenter heat, or thermoelectrics?
Thank you, I missed that part. I get some of that but "possession of data with the intent to commit a serious offence" seems awfully weak and broad.
The mics look like Shure MX415DUAL
Ryanair Boeing 737 MAX plunges 2,000ft in 17 seconds
Show HN: My new logic game "Make To Ten"
Hey folks, wanted to share my new logic game I created. I hope you'll enjoy it. It looks easy, but it's only illusion. The goal is to make 210 points on all levels: easy - doable, medium - not sure, hard - I'm happy when I make over 80...
Let’s be honest.

The dev board is not some obscure or custom part. It’s sold alongside the flipper zero. I think mine came as an official bundle and you need it to do pretty much any coding for it. Every review promotes it for WiFi pen testing.

This has no comparison to junk car mods.
OTEC > Thermodynamic efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversio... :

> A heat engine gives greater efficiency when run with a large temperature difference. In the oceans the temperature difference between surface and deep water is greatest in the tropics, although still a modest 20 to 25 °C. It is therefore in the tropics that OTEC offers the greatest possibilities.[4] OTEC has the potential to offer global amounts of energy that are 10 to 100 times greater than other ocean energy options such as wave power. [44][45]

> OTEC plants can operate continuously providing a base load supply for an electrical power generation system. [4]

> The main technical challenge of OTEC is to generate significant amounts of power efficiently from small temperature differences. It is still considered an emerging technology. Early OTEC systems were 1 to 3 percent thermally efficient, well below the theoretical maximum 6 and 7 percent for this temperature difference.[46] Modern designs allow performance approaching the theoretical maximum Carnot efficiency.

Thermoelectric power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_power
MVP bugs me sometimes - because oftentimes it is all you end up with. Yeah, it's minimally viable, but wouldn't it be nice to build something with bells and whistles and actually delights users?
Except that if you go beyond the title and read the actual quote, it's not what he said.
Until today, most national policy was set by "experts," i.e., people whose careers, professional reputation, and emotional bonds are bound up in the industry. That is to say, the rich and connected in any given area of life. The SEC is staffed with "experts" in exchanging securities, i.e., successful traders, who are then expected to govern traders.

The inexorable result of this status quo is corruption and oligarchy.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congr...
Eh, seems like legit marketing to me. Yes, they are trying to sell you something, but they are doing that by releasing non-trivial research and open source code.
I can’t help but to read this as “we need a life-long dictator so we will not have to deal with the results of the elections”
Optimizing RAG to Search PubMed Articles in Milliseconds Instead of Minutes
They can barely agree to increase the debt ceiling.
Noise-cancelling ear devices. Bose QC 25 that take the (user-serviceable) AA batteries and AirPods Pro.
GDPR allows retaining any information necessary for complying with legal requirements (e.g. taxes). But that exception is to be interpreted as narrowly as possible.
There's https://zed.dev/ now
In any of those laws Congress passed in the past 40 years they could have taken the opportunity to codify the original Chevron decision into law. So the fault for any disruptions or bad outcomes lies entirely with them. Voters who are unhappy with the situation should complain to their members of Congress.
If you build more housing, especially more affordable, then housing prices start to go down and that makes banks and landowners unhappy.
The only thing the AI bubble is creating are fantastic returns for the nVidia stockholders. The rest is hot air.
well this is a critic of this one command, but how is it a critic of data oriented shells?
Multiple monitors. Every time I'm away from my 3-monitor set up, I feel vastly less productive for most (but not all) tasks.
It's ok if they just help you live better.
and lose profit. If they spend the money to run a safe production line and pass the cost on the the consumer they will loose market share to the company that runs an unsafe production line & keeps the price the same. It's also especially expensive if the do it quickly. It's been a few years, so fortunately some of them have actually gotten around to updating their production lines by now. T
hey just did it slowly in the cheapest, least disruptive way possible.
It would depend on the scope and extent that operations within an agency rely on their interpretation of the law. It will certainly be interesting to see the impact once the transitional period ends.
> Marbury v. Madison was SCOTUS saying "we can overturn your executive and legislative choices" and no bothered to stop them.

Are you implying the establishment of judicial review was a mistake?
That's the same kind of argument I'm talking about, though. If you just frame it as "to advance their conservative political goals" then you fail to fully understand this court and will continue to be surprised by what they decide.

This court has more than once ruled in a direction that conservatives would not like because the letter of the law required them to do so. Those instances just fail to make headlines and draw ire on social media.
Do these devices have a gps chip? Would be super handy as a backup nav device.
Show HN: Yet another dark theme for HN
I actually wanted to test how far I could push building a tampermonkey theme using only chatGPT. This was made with ChatGPT 4o with only some tweaks (making /threads active).
it's funny how progressive turn into conservatives, as though we need to cement whatever happened in the 70s

things clearly took a turn for the worse since then in many fundamental ways specific to the progressive "revolutions"
The FDA can absolutely make regulations so long as they are done with the authority granted to them in the law. The problem has been agencies, such as the FDA whom I have worked with for going on a decade, have grossly overstepped their congressional authority. When challenged, the government's case is that the administrative regulators know best, and because of Chevron, the courts should defer to them, even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority.

This is not about specific regulations, it's about the authority to write those regulations and where the boundaries are.
I don't think that slavery and fiddly details of how regulations are interpreted are really comparable. Morally or practically.
The era of a bipartisan civil service is past. The civil service, at least those offices which are in and around DC, is heavily liberal and is trending more so over time. In 2020, DC went 92% for Biden, and Biden also handily won every county with significant government employment in Maryland and Virginia.

Though I couldn't easily find any hard statistics, which may not exist for Hatch Act reasons or otherwise, I'd rate the current composition of the DC-centered civil service at around 70-80% Democrats; defense and intelligence a little lower, health and social services a little higher. If current trends continue, this will reach 90% in many agencies within a decade.

Whether this is a problem or not is a different matter. It is obviously not representative of the country as a whole, though that is only based on a rather shallow and one-dimensional analysis. However, it explains at least part of why this is happening.