skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Uhm I don't want to say too much and shoot my own foot here, haha I just said that defensively as a precaution for the link to not get instantly dismissed.

But basically, the same type of crowd as the new age hippie DMT psychonauts meeting machine elves and tripping through multiple layers of perception on LSD are completely obsessed with the pineal gland. They're also angry at water infrastructure, the whole flouride thing, thinks it's government sheepherding. I guess there's a market for podcasting mumbo jumbo related to all this spiritual stuff, like is the pineal gland the gateway to enlightenment and so on.

Personally, I don't care, didn't see anything, not gonna touch it, well I just did, oversimplifying groups of people can get disrespectful but I mean it in a funny way. Haha ;) It's a very interesting topic but I really actually just saw a film on netflix the other day that used the pineal gland as a plot device, Synchronic, so I just found it curious and this and another article I chose between is the only reading I've done about it
Why would you want an app for bluetooth headphones.

To change settings and to update the firmware. There are no standards for these operations, so you'd have to resort to an an OEM specific app (stand-alone, or integrated into a the OS, like Mac OS) to manage these.
A lifetime appointment does not mean they are not accountable. The federal government was designed with so-called "checks and balances", and impeaching a federal judge is one of those checks and balances. Congress can impeach and remove any federal judge.
There is also "hold for me", where the phone listens to hold music for you, then rings when the operator arrives.

And there is a feature now to show you how busy a customer service line is at a particular time, and to give you a text transcript with clickable buttons for the phone tree.
That doesn’t stop businesses from falling for the sales pitch.
Yes, the CLA says that you give them a license for them to in turn sublicense your code to others in any way they want.
(Hello,

git rebase ‘d

into this account are [the personality behind] vinnyvichy and once&future spectral_vinnys, who have been vitiated)

Seems like Braverman in the wikipage, as well as Arnold Kling, are in the Guardian* cluster? I think that could be a rather better dichotomy for our present context than left/right. NYT in your earlier example, is fully in the Guardian camp., e.g… Dan Williams is (considerably?) harder to classify.

[& pls do compare The Grey Lady with The Grauniad/les grognards]

https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/the-new-systems-of-survival

082349872349872’s local tactics, are defo Commerce?

I profess a liking for Venkatesh’s Professional Weirdos, btw, let me hear your thoughts?

Update: ”Saints have a Jungian shadow of Trader going” in the ribbonfarmed

[with the Trader, by reciprocity, having a Jungian shadow of Saint]

Updated update: Wojak as reigning local guardian spirit.

Further Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck_(1979_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)
yes please! The data is conveniently available as JSON blobs here https://github.com/outerbounds/hacker-news-sentiment/tree/ma...
The important difference is that judges are experts at impartiality, ethics, and decision making. They also can draw upon the expertise of multiple independent people. A huge part of law school is about teaching ethics, biases, and critical thinking. Which doesn't mean every judge is good at these things but even the average judge is much better than the average person.

Politically appointed bureaucrats typically have none of these skills, are always beholden to people in power, and often are given an agenda to peruse.

Congress outsourcing law making to bureaucrats is unconstitutional and SCOTUS made the right call legally. If it causes problems, Congress is empowered to fix it.
> This is some really low-level election-year propaganda you have decided to believe.

There is no propaganda. Actions taken by a court that I view to be wholly corrupt is exactly why I left Texas, because the abortion bounty hunter laws followed by the banning of abortion had quick and decisive impact on my decision to stay in Texas.

> In short, any argument in favor of the previous status-quo, supporting the Chevron Deference, is an argument in favor of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding the laws of the land with no oversight and no recourse. They may change the "laws" daily, weekly, never, nobody knows! That is an insane way to run a country...

This is literally what the Supreme Court has been doing in the past five years alone, radically changing the status quo and upending precedent in a way that materially affects my life. People keep saying unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats but the supreme court and by extension, appointed federal judges are the epitome of that example. There is nothing I can do if I disagree with the decision of a for-life appointee, but the bureaucrats at least rotate out.
Consider Rawls’s most famous concept: the original position. Perhaps the most influential thought experiment of contemporary philosophy, it goes like this: imagine you are with a group of people who are tasked to select principles of justice to regulate the fundamental institutions of society. The plot twist, however, is you don’t know anything about yourself. You agree to step behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ and pretend that you don’t know your sex, gender, class, race, religion, able-bodiedness or anything that might distinguish you from others.

Someone else put it a little more concisely: Work to create the world you would want to be born into if you didn't know in advance who you were going to be.
The case at hand for the SCOTUS decision itself?

If I'm remembering correctly, the issue was that fishing regulations morphed into requiring boats that someone be onboard to monitor, and the entire cost of that was borne by the fishermen.

None of that was actually a part of the law, it was just a fever dream by a bureaucrat. What started out as “a law to regulate fishing” morphed into a new tax on fishing, and most importantly one that can’t be challenged for reasonableness in the courts.

Seems pretty reasonable to require Congress to pass a law that at least lays out the rough boundaries of the proposed regulations?
Nice theory, how do you do in the real world where you have a 'data' whose value depends on the OS used?
I've had it on my shelves for a while. Maybe next year.
> I would consider officials appointed by the regularly elected position of President as more democratically controlled than federal judges.

Don't they all get voted on by the Senate?
Part of the reason we even need a government is because people can't agree on what things like "to the detriment of society" even are.
And yet, it's so much easier to deploy an LLM, either through a service or on prem.
Adnausium isn't making the market more efficient. It's wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.
I think yes and no for Apple. It's certainly making a ton of money off of each of its devices (Watch, iPad, Mac, etc.), but none of those devices (with the exception of the Mac, probably) would sell as well without the iPhone's ecosystem.

In some hypothetical universe where the Watch and iPad were from distinct companies, they might have to force interoperability with other products like the Pixel or Galaxy Watch to make the iPhone a compelling product.
What are the odds this "study" was produced by an AI? ;)
It totally makes sense from a Go perspective: You created a struct, tried (but failed) to populate it with some json data, and ended up with a value initialised to its zero-value. This is fine :)

One of the techniques for dealing with JSON in Go is to not try to parse the entire JSON in one go, but to parse it using smaller structs that only partially match the JSON. e.g. if you endpoint returns either an int or a string, depending on the result, a single struct won't match. But two structs, one with an int and one with a string - that will parse the value and then you can work out which one it was.
I think AGPL requires the whole cloud stack that's used by a deployment of this SW to be AGPLed as well.
> Get those linguists out of here, more data will replace whatever insights they have! It’s a fun and increasingly popular stance to take. And, to a degree, I agree with it. More data will replace domain experts, the bitter lesson is as true in biology as it is in every other field.

I think it’s fundamentally shifting how people approach R&D in all physical fields. The power of “the ML way” is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you see ML upend the standard approach in one area, the question is not if but when it will upend your area, and the natural next step is to ask, “how can I massively increase data collection rates so I can feed ML”? It just completely flips all branches of science on their head, from carefully investigating and building first-principles theory, to saying “screw it, I really just wanted to map this design space so I can accurately predict outcomes, why don’t I just build a machine to do that?”

It then becomes a question of how easy it actually is to build an ML-feeding machine (not easy, very problem-specific), ergo the pendulum now swings to physical lab automation.
If your creators are also on Nebula ( https://nebula.tv , no affiliation other than being a former user) it may be worth considering.

The various creators I used to follow on Nebula have no ads at all in the videos published in Nebula, compared to those they post on Youtube. Not sure if its applicable for all creators on Nebula though.
I don't understand why anyone would get a Pixel watch or a Samsung watch when Garmin watches have battery life of 1-4 weeks versus 1-3 days.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/general/how-long-will-my-g...
Did they never mention the concept of wounding the animal with a trap or missile weapon first?

Of course it's unethical to test that theory but it's surely the first thing you'd think of doing if you actually wanted to catch an animal. Of course it would be devilishly difficult to hit an individual antelope with a missile weapon, but slinging 100 rocks at a herd over time is much less energy than chasing on foot.
Thanks, I tried Supermaven. I'd still rank it at second after Cursor. Supermaven seems to be a good fit for those who are into the flow.

But I can't get any flow thanks to clean architecture, so Cursor works - it modifies the whole pipeline based on your feature.
Ah! I'm not sure why. this is strange. I see six upvotes.
Portals in Emacs
Sadly the All of Us program (of which I am a research subject [and researcher]) hasn't done any sort of imaging or ECG. They did draw blood, so that allowed for genome sequencing. That may also, in principle, allow for assaying new biomarkers (I don't believe anything like that has been funded though).
what's up with the title flips from

> 350M Tokens Don't Lie: Love And Hate In Hacker News, to

> LLM-based sentiment analysis of Hacker News posts, to

> LLM-based sentiment analysis of Hacker News posts between Jan 2020 and June 2023
Big Tech Fails to Convince Wall Street That AI Is Paying Off
Chevron never tied Congress' hands. They always had the ability to amend the law if the Executive branch did something Congress didn't want.

Let's be clear: a lot of these rules are policy decisions. Congress and the Executive are supposed to hash out policy, seeing as they're the only branches controlled by elections. The Judiciary shouldn't have a say. But, without Chevron Deference, policy can be decided by a private party and a judge. That's a terrible way to guide a country.
> The coverage is not hyperbolic, it hits on real concerns that the courts will now be involved in every controversial decision.

I don't get why that would be a "concern", that is their job. The job of the courts is to settle controversial decisions. They're one of 2 institutions we have in the anglosphere democracies that are competent to do that, the other being the parliaments.

There is a lot of good theory - and practice - that the executive branch should be limited by consensus. The overall results are much better for everyone.

> In terms of realpolitik though, Congress is so deadlocked that new proposed legislation is unlikely to ever come

Happy to report that is just pessimism - I'd expect a democracy to very quickly enact laws that everyone agrees with and then sit deadlocked forever on everything else. The situation we face in the world doesn't change very often - it is mostly repeats of things that we've seen in the past.
When you contribute code to an AGPLv3 project without a CLA, you are also giving them a license to use your code. The name of that very license is... 'APGLv3'!

The CLA means you're giving them an additional license: one that lets them do things that the AGPLv3 wouldn't, like use your code in proprietary software.

This is common for FOSS-maintaining organizations that want to use dual-licensing as part of their revenue strategy. Users (including organizationswho are comfortable publishing any downstream changes they might make under the terms of the copyleft license use the free version. Users who are not can instead choose to purchase a proprietary license, like they would with closed-source software.

Often there's some hope that as users of F/OSS, the developers and users are overlapping groups, and there's enough alignment of interests there to provide some level of assurance that the developers (or publisher, in the case of a corporation or collective entity) won't suddenly make drastic changes without user input. (Often, too, that isn't actually the case.) A CLA can give the developer the ability to make such drastic changes as taking a copyleft project and creating a closed-source fork. In cases where the development work is supplied predominantly by a single commercial entity, that means that they can essentially orphan the project out from under you, leaving the open-source version of their software an unmaintained vestige of a proprietary commercial offering, at any time.

So CLAs involve a lot of trust or a lot of risk. Some companies have set up non-profit foundations to be the official stewards of their dually-licensed software so that the chief/commercial maintainers of the software can leverage the dual-licensing revenue strategy while fostering strong community trust. See, for example, the Free Qt Foundation. When Google wanted a CLA as insurance against patent litigation for Kubernetes, they did a similar thing and set up the Cloud-Native Compute Foundation so that Kubernetes could have a 'trustworthy CLA', so-to-speak.

I hope that clears up both why upstream developers might sometimes want a CLA of this kind and why downstream developers can sometimes be leery of them.
How did you all discover Captain Disillusion?

For me, someone on Mastodon linked it maybe a year ago. I've watched at least half the videos back and became a Patreon for a while. I can't believe I never heard anyone talk about the channel before or since -- until this HN post. I've shared it with some friends but nobody knew it. People here seem to be familiar, though, so I am curious how you discovered this gem of a creator
NYRB had the wonderful idea of taking the first and last few chapters of Henry Adams's history of the US 1801-1817, and printing them in a form you can slide into a windbreaker's pocket. Look for The Jeffersonian Transformation. For that matter NYRB's War and the Iliad is excellent brief reading, though I say less for Simone Weil's famous essay that for Rachel Bespaloff's "On the Iliad" and Herman Broch's "The Style of the Mythical Age".
Chevron deference has been cited in more than 18,000 Federal lawsuits.

It was NOT a zombie doctrine. It had actively been used, all the way to the recent decision.
What was the moment the web clicked for you?
Right, I said run it if you want to help creators scam advertisers. That's more or less what you're going for if you're not interested in something, but you believe your "I watched the ad" signal helps the creator negotiate with advertisers.
Really? How much data were you using? I just started using supabase and it seems great
> How many of them are nontrivial?

I wouldn't consider a budget bill to be "non-trivial"?
It's easier to do a lot of things. That doesn't make it better.
Heh - My first online experience was 1995 (obviously, pre-98 telecom deregulation). Not only did the price include the insane per-hour pricing of Compuserve, but the long distance fees pushed my bill up to 300 dollars the first month. I worked at Taco Bell at the time and made like 4 bucks an hour. Thankfully I lived at home rent free at that point.
The Pixel 7 fixed those two problems, but it's still pretty weak compared to phones in its price range.
As a dev, websites not working is definitely what keeps me awake.
The real question is whether Harris or Trump will stop the DOJ from breaking up Google.

Is the game to pretend that you're going to get rid of Khan to keep the cash flowing, then to boost her at the last minute for the anti-corruption vote? If it's not, I can't understand why they're not falling over themselves to praise her. Better said, I can't understand why they aren't publicly praising her unless they hate what she's doing and can't wait to get rid of her when nobody is looking - Harris with her media shield, or Trump with the carte blanche he'll have to fire everyone in this administration.

Biden used to pretend like he didn't know Khan, or what she was doing. Maybe he wasn't pretending.
Is that rare? J.F. Powers's Morte d'Urban nearly meets that description.
True, but with the BBT-affirming discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 they've been hand-in-hand ever since.
And by confusing, you mean they used the term nitrous oxide instead of nitrogen oxide. So they revised the ruling to correct the word the phrase.

Did the word choice have any bearing on the ruling? No, it didn't?

So we are clutching at pearls.
I do not know, if SNS is actually based on Kafka, but Kafka has LogRetention, which is imho enabled by default. So your events disappear after some time. So no, holding events like a database, i would not agree. Database'ish :) Especially with all the layers on top, like SQL.

Now I wonder if Athena can actually run on SNS topics, hmmm.
Unfortunately the market has consistently spoken - small phones simply don't sell. Nobody could sustain it. Whether or not it's because the generalization is accurate or not is moot.
Correct.

I think the OnePlus 12 is the best Android phone for the money.

The Red Magic 9S is very close to perfect, but lacks Esim.
How could the advertising service be uncoupled from search? How would search make money?
> Exponentials eventually grow much faster than polynomials, no matter what the exponent is.

Since we're being pedantic, that last clause should be: "as long as the exponent is greater than 1."
Oooo, that'd be great. Drives like a regular car, but lets me out in front of the mall and just goes off to find a parking spot somewhere, or even goes off to find a spot in a big public parking area somewhere else in the city. I want that even more than I want a car that can drive itself to a destination. There are so many lovely places downtown that would be so much more pleasant to drive to and from if I didn't need to park the car.

But I guess they'd rather own the cars, pick me up, and drop me off at the mall, and honestly that's probably more efficient for society in a city; no sense leaving the cars unused most of the time.
I didn’t see the word moonshot used anywhere.

However, I think the “moonshot” concept is improving, and attempting, many different ideas and techniques over the next 25 years.

I looked up the original moonshot announcement:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
The XMPP Standards Foundation Signs Open Letter to the European Commission
Thanks for the valuable history lesson!

> even if you do post about the positive fine print, nobody sends such exciting documents to the front page of Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41241226
But in reality, laws are never perfect and all-encompassing. There is nothing wrong with Congress passing a law that says "water must be clean enough to drink", and then leaving it to a pool of experts to define "clean enough to drink" as "free from chemical X, Y, Z..." and to intervene when new chemicals show up.

Expecting the already-clogged lawmaking process to be ready to amend a law every time a new compound ends up in water, is extremely unrealistic.
Sure, the SCOTUS respects congress's views, except for things like voting rights, where the congress renewed it 390–33 and unanimously and was signed by a GW Bush. So they'll respect the congress when they agree with it and overturn it when they disagree.

And they'll disagree with findings of fact and overturn those when they disagree, they'll find standing where there is none.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
> Congress is so deadlocked that new proposed legislation is unlikely to ever come and if it does, lobbyists and special interests will have plenty of time to render it toothless.

So.. let's actually fix that rather than using an undemocratic "hack" to work around it. Otherwise anyone who wants to take advantage of this merely needs to use their influence to foster this deadlock, which is probably less expensive and more repudiable, so is much more likely to be the mode.

The question you really have to ask is why would judges be less deferential to businesses and large entities than congress? Aside from lacking the skill they have no power to investigate the issue, which congress does, and can only operate on the arguments put forth in front of them.

This is _explicitly_ a game which is won by money or size, and we seem to know this in any other sphere, but suddenly it's acceptable because occasionally the government _is_ the 800lb gorilla, and occasionally it _is_ incidentally doing what the people would want, when the entity it's challenging is significantly smaller than it. Otherwise the best it seems to be able to do is fine super large entities for an amount equal to less than a day of revenue or month of profits.
The ruling itself ironically provides an example of why it is a bad ruling: Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, repeatedly referred to "nitrous oxide" rather than nitrogen oxides. If the SCOTUS justices can't get this right, in the opinion itself, how can we expect them to make informed decisions on other scientific matters that are more complex?

It also seems legally dubious to me, because there will always logically be some level at which interpretive discretion is allowed in executing some statute. Laws cannot fundamentally anticipate every single scenario to which they might be applied. It's disingenuous or naive to believe that regulation is any different at some fundamental level from any other form of statute.

You can also turn your own argument on its head: if someone has a problem with a regulatory interpretation, they can always appeal it. SCOTUS could have ruled something more reasonable along these lines, to clarify how to establish abuse of regulation.

I tend to be deregulatory in my political sympathies in a lot of domains, but this is not how to go about the issue, in my opinion.
lool monorepo regulators are already checkmated 100 moves ahead.

open sourcing it is the only way they'll break that monster up.

doj clowns should go home they're out of their depth.
> The important difference is that judges are experts at impartiality, ethics, and decision making.

please spare us, as Clarence Thomas continues to accept tens of millions of dollars in gifts and free airfare from billionaires with business before the court, unabated
> safer than laser surgery

Is this statement backed by peer reviewed science? I could not find anything. When I Google for "safer than laser surgery", 100% of the results say that ICL (implantable contact lens) are riskier than laser (LASIK).