skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Again, I don’t agree or even follow what he does but it actually doesn’t matter, if you do good, or bad, or do much of anything notable, you will attract hate.

Of course, and you need to accept that you will get hate, but it shouldn't become a source of validation. Getting hate from bad people doesn't mean you're doing good - e.g. Stalin was hated by Nazis, that doesn't make him a good guy.

> where he says “Be hated” and describes how in being successful you should seek to be hated by those with poor values

I think that even if you're in fact the good guy doing good things, seeking hate / outrage from the bad people is wrong or at least tactically a bad decision in the sense they will get even more deep-seated in their bad values.
Ikigai is a great branding for Japan. They’ve taken a word, declared it untranslatable and a unique component of Japanese culture.

Denmark has done the same with the word “Hygge” and you’ll find books named “hygge”, next to books named “ikigai” in self-help section of any airport bookstore.

I don’t think discussing ikigai is uninteresting, but there is a feedback loop. Japanese soft power benefits from ikigai being special, and books and articles about ikigai also benefits from it being unique and special. The more books you can sell on ikigai, the stronger Japans cultural influence becomes and as a result, the potential readership of ikigai book grows.
Unfortunately, India's poorest still don't get govt benefits due for them: A few gobble up all the caste-based reservation from the govt. I have seen many people who have made a career out of talking about caste all the time.

I know more than 3 people in the US, who talk about caste all the time (as in that's their job now) but grew up in very privileged families.
Who that?
> It's nice when you hear about our government doing something good for once.

Critically, what the government is doing here is reducing its own authority with regard to information, the internet, and ultimately at some level, thought. Sharing methods for basic home and business improvements, including repairs of machinery, is one of the most fundamental functions of society.

It's rare (but of course not unheard of by any stretch) that the governments of the largest nation states do anything _proactive_ that is helpful to society, but in many cases when they choose to reduce their own capabilities (even for the wrong reasons), it seems more forward-looking.
To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat
When did Trump threaten to nationalize any business ? His argument has always been for the opposite.
Show HN: Comment Issues – Link repo issues in your code comments
Hi HN,

I wasn't really sure on whether this extension or functionality exists anywhere and I thought it would be really good to have since you can just command/control + click to jump to the issue referenced in code comments so I made this.

Features:
- Automatically links (#123) in code comments to the repository issue if available.
- Support for Github, Gitlab and Bitbucket is present, others are untested.
- Javascript/Typescript is a confirmed working language, others are untested.

You can view the vscode marketplace listing here:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ryawaa.c...

Please feel free to report bugs and the like!
Fair point in the sense that most professions involve some level of trading your well being for labor, as anyone who works in a job that even remotely involves manual labor can tell you. The difference here, for me at least, is that my attention would directly subsidize a system that clearly costs young, often under-resourced minorities decades of their lives. That really should be tough for people to sit with.
> don’t understand why the “practical” reality requires using the phrase “open source” then. It’s not open source. That label is false and fraudulent

Natural languages are parsimonious; they reuse related words. In this case, the closest practical analogy to open-source software has the lower barrier to entry. Hence, it will win.

There is no place for defining open source as data available. In software, too, this problem is solved by using “free software” for the extreme definition. The practical competition is between the Facebook model available with restrictions definition and this.
junior-high math
A market with billions of users is a bit different than Liechtenstein
If the tomatoes are a dystopian enabling technology there, then so is the cold LED headlamp.
Many Indians who talk about caste all the time, do it in ways that aren't immediately obvious. "What part of India are you from?" and "What's your surname?" are not just innocent questions.
Nobody can write "safe C" because C is inherently not safe. See my other comment about it. Safe means something like "if the program breaks some semantic rule, it will be caught and diagnosed". It's not a statement about the program being correct or not, but the consequences of if it were to be incorrect. Even tiny, trivial programs have the potential to be incorrect without diagnosis.

> C has been proven time and time again to be almost impossible to write correctly.

Silly hyperbole.
And the cycle repeats, over and over... nah, I'm done.
Sure. Again, there is a pedantic argument with zero broad merit. And there is a practical one. No group owns words; even trademarks fight an uphill battle. If you want to convince people to use your definition, you have to compromise and make it useful. Precisely-defined useless terminology is, by definition, useless; it’s efficient to replace that word, especially if in common use, with something practical.
Google Collab are all individual VMs. It seems Anthropic doesn’t want to be in the “host a VM for every single user” business.
Shouldn't this be the link - not some 5-sentence summary?
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/...

It would make many comments here pointless if commenters started from reading this:

The final rule prohibits:

Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, and Celebrity Testimonials:

The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews, or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the experience of the person giving it. It prohibits businesses from creating or selling such reviews or testimonials. It also prohibits them from buying such reviews, procuring them from company insiders, or disseminating such testimonials, when the business knew or should have known that the reviews or testimonials were fake or false.

Buying Positive or Negative Reviews:

The final rule prohibits businesses from providing compensation or other incentives conditioned on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative. It clarifies that the conditional nature of the offer of compensation or incentive may be expressly or implicitly conveyed.

Insider Reviews and Consumer Testimonials:

The final rule prohibits certain reviews and testimonials written by company insiders that fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose the giver’s material connection to the business. It prohibits such reviews and testimonials given by officers or managers. It also prohibits a business from disseminating such a testimonial that the business should have known was by an officer, manager, employee, or agent. Finally, it imposes requirements when officers or managers solicit consumer reviews from their own immediate relatives or from employees or agents – or when they tell employees or agents to solicit reviews from relatives and such solicitations result in reviews by immediate relatives of the employees or agents.

Company-Controlled Review Websites:

The final rule prohibits a business from misrepresenting that a website or entity it controls provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of products or services that includes its own products or services.

Review Suppression:

The final rule prohibits a business from using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.

Misuse of Fake Social Media Indicators:

The final rule prohibits anyone from selling or buying fake indicators of social media influence, such as followers or views generated by a bot or hijacked account. This prohibition is limited to situations in which the buyer knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and misrepresent the buyer’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.
Most agricultural land is not double-cropped, in the US less than 3% of farmland was double-cropped in 2015 [1]. You actually have it backwards: when possible, cover crops or double cash crops are a key regenerative practice because they prevent erosion and keep living roots in the ground which can enhance soil health in other ways [2].

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014/june/double-croppi...
[2] https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/conservation-b...
We pull massive amounts of oxides out of the ground and dump the oxygen too. Iron ore is mostly oxides, for instance.
Interesting take!

In my experience, Dynamo and other NoSQL systems are really expressive and powerful when you take the plunge and make your own ORM. That’s because the model of nosql can often play much nicer with somewhat unique structures like

- single table patterns
- fully denormalized or graph style structures
- compound sort keys (e.g. category prefixed)

Because of that, I would personally recommend developing your own ORM layer, despite the initial cost
that's my stance as well

WaPo needed someone to make a difficult decision, conflict of interest or not, to just rip the bandaid off of their imprisonment of endorsing candidates

that's over now. the end. the market is going to forget this was ever a thing.
If you are in a situation where you have to anyway, you can use multiple TCP sockets and round robin them (with Nagle off) such that you are always sending just one packet over each. You'll get overhead and some unneeded acks, but no front of line blocking of the second layer of TCP mechanics going on.
and the profession is also populated by people that went to specific universities, in specific cities and have a specific voting record

that's the standard people are using and can be corroborated
Because you only need the specific features in a tiny amount of cases, while 99% is some flavour of SELECT * ... LEFT JOIN ... (If it's not, then sure, ORM would be annoying)

Making that 99% smaller, simpler and automatically mapping to common types makes development a lot easier/faster. This applies to pretty much any higher level language. It's why you can write in C, but embed an ASM fragment for that one very specific thing instead of going 100% with either one.
It’s the compromise between a gantry vs arm design
It hardly moves the needle - apart from often needing huge amounts of awareness education that busy people hardly have time to think about, there usually aren’t enough affordable alternative options for ‘personal responsibility’ to work, but when you regulate to reduce the sale of the bad stuff it just forces it to happen.

Often regulation forces better alternatives to reach the scale where economy of scale can make it affordable, whereas with the ‘personal responsibility’ model the alternatives will often just stay the far more expensive, premium option.
If only they kept their "Debian Free Software" name instead of hijacking another word ...
No you’re totally right, and Derek from Veritasium does point out that being hated shouldn’t be a moral compass. I think the point is more that you should know that even when you’re doing something right some people, maybe many people, will hate you for it. Incidentally if you’re doing something wrong you might be quite popular as well. Popularity isn’t a good judge of character.
Interesting take. You appear to be defining reproducibility to be something like “could I write this source code again myself”. But no one I know uses the term reproducible in the way you’re saying. Everyone I know, including myself, takes reproducibility in this context to mean “if given source code, I can produce a binary /executable that is identical to the one that is produced by some other party when built the same way”

Now I get that “Identical” is a bit more nebulous when it comes to LLMs due to their inherent nondeterminism, but let’s take it to mean the executable itself, not the results produced by the executable.
Some illustrative examples:

- Judge Mahesh Sharma told TV channels that "the peahen gets pregnant" only by "swallowing the tears of the peacock".

- The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a rape accused government accused after the survivor’s mother expressed that she has no objection to the same.

- In a bizarre order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping and impregnating a 17-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on a condition that he marries he after she attains the majority age of 18.(Tamil Nadu)

- Granting pre arrest bail to a rape accused, Karnataka High Court took sexual violence jurisprudence back by decades.The court speculated why the complainant did not approach the court earlier when the accused was allegedly asking her for sexual favours. The court also questioned why the complainant went to her office late night and did not object to consumption of alcohol. The court said that the complainant’s explanation that she fell asleep after the alleged crime is “unbecoming of a woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished”.

Just memorizing law to a great extent doesn't elevate judges above societal prejudices and backwardness.

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40116001

[1]: https://sabrangindia.in/article/delhi-hc-grants-pre-arrest-b....

[2]: https://sabrangindia.in/madras-hc-grants-pocso-accused-bail-....

[3]: https://sabrangindia.in/article/falling-asleep-after-being-r...
The valuation is completely nuts. It assumes that Nvidia's revenues will continue to grow at the same pace for many many years, without any competition. That's a very silly assumption IMO.
These two (distinct from each other) articles are found down the rabbit hole of links from the one posted:

https://archive.ph/D0xQr

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-labor-pract...

They discuss the culture clash between Taiwanese managers brought in to oversee rampup of the US fab vs. local hires - with different expectations in working hours / availability, role flexibility and tolerance of mistakes - to the point where some of the latter are quitting with allegations of workplace abuse.

I'm curious if either of those have already been discussed on HN, and whether anyone here worked there and have shared their views.

I'm really curious whether cultures seen as having a more "hardcore" work ethic (be it other countries, or startups and certain corporations like SpaceX within our own) correlate with more successful results, and whether the 4% result in this article counters that idea.
Maybe for you but when closing a Wendys down for the night you need to begin the teardown process quite a bit before official closing time. You need to wait for the machine to allow the remaining frosty mix to melt, dump the remainder into a metal bucket (to use for tomorrow). Then you have to flush water through the machine to be able to disassemble it, then the machine needs to be loaded with a sanitizing solution (along with all the parts which are placed in the hopper).

Finally you gotta re-do all of this the following morning! Sure its not like taking apart an iPhone but its not a 5 second job either.

The worst part? This damn machine can only produce one flavor of frosty at a time! The mcdonalds machine avoids all of this, produces 3-4 flavors of milkshakes from one unit and handles soft serve ice cream!
The fact that editorial endorsements are extremely common is relevant because it means that no typical reader would mistake them for being the position of the paper's parent corporation, like GGP suggested. Whether endorsements are right or wrong in the abstract isn't relevant, and I didn't say anything about it.
I'm perfectly willing to draw a line in the sand instead of letting people define their models however it's most convenient for them. Analogies aside, here is what a set of weights is made of: A lot of data, mostly produced by humans who are not credited and have no say in how the output weights are licensed, some code written by people who might have some say, and then lots of work by computers running that code and consuming that data.

I'm not comfortable with calling the resulting weights "open source", since people can't look at a set of weights and understand all of the components in the same way as actual source code. It's more like "freeware". You might be able to disassemble it with some work, but otherwise it's an incomprehensible thing you can run and have for free. I think it would be more appropriate to co-opt the term "open source" for weights generated from freely available material, because then there is no confusion whether the "source" is open.
Indian state can do what it feels correct. If Indian citizens disagree, then they can use the judicial system to compel the court to revert the decision in greater national interest (maybe ban that specific page being accessed from India). All, people, govt, ANI, Wikipedia, the editors of the page should feel that injustice is not being done to them.
Just wrote a blog post about this, it's time to short!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41897679
>The second that you would benefit from using a DBMS specific feature, the ORM begins getting in the way.

You can extend diesel (and probably many other orms, Diesel is just particularly easy here) to support any db feature you want.

> It is highly unlikely that an ORM provides support, much less a good abstraction, over features that only 1/N supported DBMS have.

That depends on orm flexibility and popularity. It may not provide support OOTB, but can make it easy to add it.

> Your code ends up using the driver raw in these cases, so why not just use the driver for everything? Your codebase would be consistent at that point

Main point of using orm for me is that I have type verification, raw (as in text) breaks too easily.
Management, not password manager.

I'm not talking about technical merits, we all know passkeys are so complex they might work decently as obfuscation alone ;)

No, all that crap is meaningless when you give all your keys to an entity that simultaneously locks you in and couldn't give a fuck about you.
comes to demonstrate that splitting a country can be done without violence
But it would also cost his peers proportionally.
It’s a statement of the values of the newspaper. This is what we stand for, and we are endorsing this person because of those values. It tells people about the paper and about the candidate being endorsed.

The issue here is that Trump is a threat to our democratic system of government. It’s not the time to be changing policies and refusing to endorse. It’s a time for taking a stand.
Fast rolling aggregates are swell. I meet a lot of people who are building trading systems and want this sort of thing, but it usually isn't a great choice because the perfectly rectangular kernel probably isn't the best possible version of the feature and because arbitrary kernels can be well approximated using a state of constant size rather than a large buffer storing a sliding window.
I like to do that, too. It's nice to have more pairs of eyes on it just in case I've made some blunder somewhere.
If India blocks Wikipedia, then it will mainly badly affect Indian citizens.
I'm not convinced about the article's elision from "water treatment chemical used for the chiller system" into "coolant".
The trained model is object code. Think of it as Java byte code.

You have some sort of engine that runs the model. That's like the JVM, and the JIT.

And you have the program that takes the training data and trains the model. That's your compiler, your javac, your Makefile and your make.

And you have the training data itself, that's your source code.

Each of the above pieces has its own source code. And the training set is also source code.

All those pieces have to be open to have a fully open system.

If only the training data is open, that's like having the source, but the compiler is proprietary.

If everything but the training set is open, well, that's like giving me gcc and calling it Microsoft Word.
The Future of Compute: Nvidia's Crown Is Slipping
> It still leverages social and internet points which for some is attention-hijacking enough.

The difference is it’s not deliberate, it’s just how they get us to rank training data for ChatGPT 5.
That's only really an issue for specific games.
This has a video showing the AP https://blog.matthewrogers.org/b/8BCF175A-6CC6-4E61-8310-A91...

I've made a few of these now, and they work on cell phones/laptops and cameras.
Hm... technically they're saying that their algorithm performs as well as possible "for every single graph topology". Your special cased algorithm would only work for one particular graph in a family of isomorphic graphs (unless you have a linear time algorithm for the graph isomorphism problem, in which case please share), but would fail for the rest of the graphs in the family. So I think you could still say that their algorithm performs as well as possible for that topology.
Well, at the very least it could spur some maintenance in the Linux kernel (such as making things easier for C++ and case-insensitive filesystems).
Also in 1970, 33% of the global population was malnourished. That number is less than 8% now.
If adblockers have a huge amount of access, then consider how much access ads themselves have.

uBlock Origin is open source.
> You appear to be defining reproducibility to be something like “could I write this source code again myself”.

No, I'm using the strict definition "capable of being reproduced", where reproduce means "to cause to exist again or anew". In and of itself the word doesn't comment on whether you're starting from source code or anything else, it just says that something must be able to be created again.

Yes, in the context of compilation this tends to refer to reproducible builds (which is a whole rabbit hole of its own), but here we're not dealing with two instances of compilation, so it's not appropriate to use the specialized meaning. We're dealing with two artifacts (a set of C files and a set of weights) that were each produced in different ways, and we're asking whether each one can be reproduced exclusively from data that was released alongside the artifact. The answer is that no, neither the source files or the weights can be reproduced given data that was released alongside them.

So my question remains: on what basis can we say that the weights are not open source but the C files are? Neither can be reproduced from data released alongside them, and both are the preferred form which the original authors would choose to make modifications to. What distinguishes them?
Just tested texting/browsing web etc. it needs a solid signal for a second or so.