skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there’s a lot of good reasons to ban TT…

It’s in American security interests to limit CCP’s access to American location data and ability to pipe propaganda into our eyeballs.

But setting the ban to go into effect one day before the next President takes office is brazenly political and undermines the actually-important problem that TikTok represents.

When Twitter got weird, Bluesky was ready to come in as a total clone and succeed. I’m sure there are a dozen companies ready to make their case that they should replace TT…it’ll be fine.
Musk first posted an antisemitic tweet, which caused a minor scandal. Then, to atone for that, he traveled to Israel, met with Netanyahu, and had Twitter begin boosting pro-Israeli content.

Musk went from antisemite to Israel fan in the course of just a few days. This actually isn't so surprising, though. There are many people who are both antisemitic and pro-Israel (see basically every far-right party in Europe, for example).
Respectfully, why are you asking for sources on an already high effort subjective post instead of verifying the info yourself? Wikipedia is a great place to start with car spec stuff.
Apolitical is an interesting choice of description. My understanding is that the real motivation of banning TikTok is precisely the political influence it wields on the youth’s malleable minds.
I think replacing cigarettes with vapes is more topical, at least in America.
I think the reason is that the right hand side can be a long and complex set of premises. It is supposed to be read as: The lhs is true iff everything on the rhs is true.

You can also think the same way about functions in typical languages: we don't write the body of the function first and then assign it to an identifier.
Yeah. One of the most pervasive problems I’d argue of the “web” era is the conflicting needs for canonicalism (e.g. I want to know when I see a “Jack Nicholson” account that it’s that Jack Nicholson) with the fact that very few people have unique names or other obvious identifiers. And half of companies don’t either (e.g. the Beatles’ record label Apple Corps vs Apple, Inc. — which owns Apple.co.uk? Whoever grabbed it first, of course!)

Every service with handles is just another microcosm of the DNS system’s same problem, just usually with even fewer affordances for disambiguating (the DNS’s country codes and things like .org vs .com offer a single crude sorting system, but we’ve seen it solve very little since the move is to “buy ‘em all” if you’re big, witness how WWF the charity couldn’t peaceably coexist with WWF, now WWE just by using .org and .com)
They do not

But also I care a lot less about the CCP because they have very little impact on my day to day
How about we consider a solution that doesn’t involve the seizure and destruction of someone’s personal property no matter the reason.

I am just spitballing here but maybe something like— ”We can’t allow you to drive that vehicle on the public roads, but instead of taking it from you and crushing it, feel free to just not drive it on the public roads or sell it to someone who lives in a place where they are allowed to be driven.”

Yeah, that seems like a better solution.
Here's an explanation of how this works:

All creatures are very complicated. Thus reproduction doesn't produce perfect clones, "mutations" take place. This is largely because there are so many different ways to derive one individual out of two individuals' complex genitic material. This is all a feature. This is why individuals have unique characteristics. Think about how different humans are from each other, even though we're all humans. This same thing applies to all creatures. Every individual is different. Those who have "disabilities" (disadvantages in their context) are less likely to survive. So those with advantageous traits survive and pass their traits on through reproduction, making those specific traits more prevalent.

The answer to "why didn't x evolve to do y?" is usually just that that specific mutation might have never occurred or caught on randomly. This is also why different species do different things differently. It's all random mutations. Some were beneficial in their context and environment so those who had them were more likely to survive and pass those traits along.

It's not that "the objective of life is to survive" in a spiritual sense, it's that life randomly happens and some of it survives and it makes more life like itself. In some ways, I suppose the purpose of life is to create more life. Systems that replicate themselves successfully survive. We call these "life". It's really a linguistics thing.

Hope some of this makes sense. I enjoyed thinking about this.
Clearly, this is connected to the political swings, even if the liberalism in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not identical to what the right (or left) are currently doing. The right, and I focus on the right because it is where the powerful pendulum is now, seems more like a populist right than a liberal right. It is clear that politics exist on a spectrum, except at the widening extremes.

If Atlas Shrugged is about the role of entrepreneurs (to tie this to the HN main topic) as individuals and their creative power in society, I would say that this idea does not seem to scale in reality. The extent to which individuals embrace some kind of power is more closely correlated with where they were born specifically, the country and family they come from. Exceptions clearly exist, and the U.S. does not compare to any other country in terms of business opportunities. However, this is not the same as saying everyone has the same (or even comparable) opportunities based solely on their individual and creative traits. This is not a comment against the book but a 5 cents warning to not confuse a strong idea (the complexity and freedom of the individual) to the reality posed in real politics.
On a logarithmic scale, it’s closer to the flight.

Flying 1000 miles commercially only represents about 10 gallons of fuel.
Even if grid the was 100% renewable, this does not mean that there's no environmental cost to producing electricity. As a society, we need to decide what is important and try to minize energy consumption for things that are not important.

And shoving LLMs into every nook and cranny of every application, so just tech giants who run the data centers can make more money and some middle managers get automatic summaries of their unnecessary video calls and emails is, I would argue, not important.

But once again, the fundamental issue is late-stage capitalism.
It is great that Interlisp-D is being kept running, and kudos to everyone making it happen.

Almost everyone knows about Smalltalk, yet there are lots of interesting stuff coming out of Interlisp-D, Mesa (XDE) and Mesa/Cedar, which also deserve more widespread knowledge.
Well, I wasn't the original developer who set up every site I work on. Some of the sites I work on don't have this implemented because I wasn't the one who set them up initially.
I don't mean to sound super callous - but what? I have so many questions, as someone who uses screen readers a lot. How are you browsing HN - it's not like websites maintain a separate .txt file for the blind. When you click "Read aloud" in a browser (or whatever the inbuilt screenreader calls it), thanks to the structure of the html DOM it can find the main txt. Since your email client can't open most emails, you still have no idea what people said to you? Coworkers ignored, bills unpaid. Instead, you've just been scolding the senders for years, and admit you've not had one single success from it? Even if everyone changed, and you got dual format back for every email, would the senders be manually creating both, or would they just let software convert one to the other? If software, then as a general computer science infra question, for scaling, should that computation be run on the 99% of cases that never use it, or should it just be run at the 1% of endpoints that use it? Are you on an ARPANET PDP-10? You're shifting the burden onto hundreds of non-technical email writers, shaming them for not catering to your niche desire for dual format emails (gmail doesn't even do this), when your email reader could just enter the 90s era. Hackers make computers do things despite it all. If you created that email client, there are many open source tools for you to do html2txt in one line. pandoc for one.
Mutually assured destruction
An effect system proposal for C2y
Scientists Have Proven It's Possible to Bring a Dead Brain 'Back to Life'
Modern space ships are full of sensors measuring everything interesting.

That data is streamed to Earth, so you usually have pretty good indication of what happened, even if your ship is now a puff of stratospheric smoke .
From the looks of it, YOU ARE the product. That is, manufacturing optics of a "partner" and "distributer" ecosystem for AMD. And on borrowed time, too.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42745018.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42745018.
Although it sucks, I think the reason why it won't kill the Fediverse is because there is a large part of the Fediverse that is not really an alternative to what Twitter was or is, and is not really being competed on by Bluesky. These are smaller websites and smaller communities, at least in scope if not also members. They may be more or less strict, but either way they will have more thorough (and specific) moderation in general.

That said, I also expect that some people will remain on Mastodon.social using it basically as a Twitter alternative, too, for the same reason that some people will basically never leave Twitter either, until it goes offline.
Unacceptable, sorry this is happening. Do you know about fail2ban? You can have it automatically filter IPs that violate certain rules. One rule could be matching on the bot trying certain URLs. You might be able to get some kind of honeypot going with that idea. Good luck
As an easily distracted high schooler just trying to enjoy one of his favorite classes, I discovered I could swat a flying bee dead with my folder. They were getting in through some gap in a window facing an alcove an I think we had four or five one year before Facilities fixed the problem.

It worked out, but you don’t really want to go squishing bees in an open area since they release chemicals that put their siblings on alert. If they stay put a glass and a piece of stiff paper are a better solution. But these were buzzing around my fellow students making everyone freak out.
In case you don't know, you can use the `-n` argument to `systemctl status` to tweak the log output, e.g. `-n0` to disable the log output and `-n40` to get more than the default 10 lines.
Yup I decided to go with the worst estimates given by environmentalist critics of ChatGPT to try to show that even there it doesn't seem like a problem.
I found The Fountainhead to be a better book. Atlas Shrugged became tedious to the point of skipping pages at the end.
The author seems to gloss over the fact that the impetus for Europe's "rapid rise" was that they colonized a large fraction of the planet and extracted vast resources. The rise of European living standards, especially initially, was built on a brutal drop in living standards (and just living) for millions of people. Only after that settled down with the help of TWO WORLD WARS did we start to enter the modern "Europe is actually pretty nice" era.

And... it's not really an era now is it? It's just recent history, and as the rise of the AfD and other far right entities show, it's not a given that this the future of Europe. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the reaction to immigration from the MENA region... these relatively modest shocks have gone through the European sociopolitical systems like wildfire.

So I appreciate his optimism, and it is optimism, but it isn't particularly grounded in reality.
Well, at least they didn't do knots, that's progress I guess :)
> Why do species survive? Because they did, and because the objective of life is to survive. But why?

In evolutionary biology, that definitionally is the ultimate answer. One species survived, another didn’t. Sometimes that’s because the adaptation helped them outcompete, sometimes it’s because they were already competitive and this preexisting disadvantage from an earlier round didn’t hurt enough to matter. We can try to find intuitive explanations past that which feel satisfying but it’s always going to be a rough approximation.

Let’s use chess as an analogy. Allow an engine to analyze a position and tell us the best path forward. But why did it choose that line? We can (and do) come up with explanations that help us fit a move into our understanding of the game: moving this pawn allows that knight to occupy a better spot where it can exert its influence on the rest of the board, or whatever. But that’s merely a convenient simplification for our gut understanding. It’s not really the actual answer. The ultimate “why” is “because it produces the best possible eventual outcome no matter the response”.
Law is all about nitpicking.

The point you and others try to make is that corporations are people as a result of CU and so other human rights apply to them. This is backwards. SCOTUS and lower courts basically established that free speech applies to corporations same as individuals. But it did not establish their personhood. This is exactly equivalent to saying that a corporation has to pay taxes like a person. It does not make it a person.

So what people get wrong is they say “if a corporation is a person then it gets to do X”. Thats incorrect, nobody except talking heads on TV called it a person. Similarly “if a corporation has the right to free speech it has the right to do X” is incorrect. Having one right does not confer all rights. Again think of it as the idea of corporations get to pay taxes. People get to pay taxes. This did not make corporations people and did not confer any other rights onto corporations.
No, a "achievement" implies you actually did something difficult.

I mean, if you want to argue that this is "personal" and you're just proud of it without needing anyone else's respect, then why are you here defending it on Hacker News?
What would Ayn Rand think about the podcast economy? All these little boys wanting to grow up to be podcasters. Go create something.
Has anyone tried using Cloudflare Bot Management and how effective is it for such bots ?
Official Trump coin: How did we get here?
> There's even a feed attribute `h-feed` available today, which effectively turns list pages into feeds.

Are you referring to the microformats tags? They were never standard, and they were never meant to "turn pages into things".

Microformats, while nice and useful, were never meant to be more as compilation of certain adopted practices by the indieweb crowd.
Thanks for the link; it's very informative.
The gate keeping of all that calculus for a CS degree is silly. Wasn’t the strongest at math, so grinned and bared but don’t really have a grasp of it anymore, and it would have been a shame to not have graduated with a CS degree because of it.
Ethics around reanimating to the level of perception and consciousness is very interesting
I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Any reason for this being an American thing?

I'd still assume fine penmanship was a mark of the upper class though
I liked it, other than the interminable speeches and preaching. I presume Rand's own internal struggle was to protect her artistic integrity from the oppressive editors who wanted her to strip out the 60 page sermon at the end.

But I also liked "Sharknado". "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" were entertaining reading, but their themes, although initially attractive, just don't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who's ever held a job in the real world. The misunderstood genius who explains nothing to anyone and has only contempt for those who don't immediately understand their grand plans may be the potential savior of humanity, but more often than not they're just a pain in the ass with poor communication skills proportional to their unjustified egos.
Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are already trying to replace TT and failing. They really are nowhere near as good.
I'm very tickled by the lack of attention to detail here. The article does present that quote, yes, but it's preceded by the sentence:

"None of the fake soundbites is more insidious than the first:"

i.e. it's a fake quote
If anything, I'd expect addicts to fight the hardest when someone takes their "drug" away
Where do patent-trolls fit in this analogy?
Vertical specific RAG is a huge market
I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation).

For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.
I dropped CS for calc 2
You're an individual with individual sensibilities, they're representatives of vast interests and so they simply shift with the wind. They "lurched to the right" because that's where the country went, and because they think they can get more benefits that way. If that turns out to be a bust, they'll "lurch to the left" or any other way the wind blows.
> I magically get teleported to my office

You work on a train station platform? My condolences.

And indeed, self-driving will solve this. You'll be able to just step into a car, and get teleported to the door of your office. After stopping at your favorite coffee shop midway.
Did you mean to post this under my comment? I don’t see the connection.
Pre 1800, the average life expectancy was aged between 20-40 [1].
I think the menopause is something that was experienced by extremely few people until after then.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
I grudge-read through that ending slog just to see if there was some grand payoff for perseverance. There isn't. You were wish to skip it.
You can easily still get the GP’s meaning if you substitute the phrase “sneakily cheating the artist out of any compensation” for “theft” though, right?
The technique of pitting one model against another is usually pretty effective in my experience. If Gemini 2.0 Advanced and o1-pro agree on something, you can usually take it to the bank. If they don't, that's when human intervention is necessary, given the lack of additional first-rank models to query. (Edit: 1682 versus 1692 being a great example of something that a tiebreaker model could handle.)

It seems likely that a mixture-of-models approach like this will be a good thing to formalize at some level. Using appropriately-trained models to begin with seems even more important, though, and I can't agree that this type of content is relevant when discussing straightforward OCR tasks on modern languages.
If you didn't lower your bandwidth costs way more than 50% we should chat.
I think this is a perfect example of what your parent comment is talking about, being:

> unprovable, unfalsifiable, and have the same circular logic as bad religion.

You said:

> There is no contradiction here. They evolved as the fittest in their own constraint set. If bees weren’t fit enough, they would have gone extinct and replaced by bees with non-barbed stingers. There is no magic that makes them survive.

Sure, there's no contradiction, but this is totally circular reasoning that could be used to prove anything.

The connection graph between "They survive because they're the fittest" and "They must be the fittest because they survive" is just a circle disconnected from all other knowledge.

Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality.[0]

But with this circular understanding of natural selection, you could be given a description of absolutely any conceivable configuration of organism and your response would be the same: "they must be the fittest, because they survive, because only the fittest survive" and you haven't gained any understanding at all.

There will never be a contradiction, because the argument is disconnected from any larger system of reasoning that could plausibly contradict it.

"Hey, there is a random monkey in the Amazon that has 3 hoops on its head and a big hole through its abdomen, isn't that weird? Why are they like that?"

"Ah, the hoops and the holes are required for Fitness. Only the Fittest survive, you know. So if they have 3 hoops on their heads and big holes in their abdomens, that is what makes them Fittest. Amen."

"Why aren't other monkeys like that then?"

"Other monkeys don't need hoops and holes for Fitness. Otherwise they too would have hoops and holes. :)"

A better understanding of natural selection would be confused about the hoops and the holes, and that confusion would correlate with either the random monkey species actually not existing, or the model being wrong.

As regards the bees: there probably is a reason that dying when stinging confers Fitness. But we should find out what that reason is, rather than state "Fitness because Survival" and feel like we've answered the question.

[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5JDkW4MYXit2CquLs/your-stren...
> About 10% of the requests do not have the amazonbot user agent.

Is there any bot string in the user agent? I'd wonder if it's GPTBot as I believe they don't respect a robots.txt deny wildcard.
But just because people migrate somewhere else doesn't mean they don't miss those old platforms. Many of these old platforms had unique aspects that were never quite replicated in later platforms
You complain about "whataboutism," but your comment is just a long list of, "But what about this bad thing China did?"

Yet when other people point out much more horrible things the US has done in the same timeframe (like backing Israel to the hilt as it kills tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and destroys the entire Gaza strip), you respond with, "That's Whataboutism."
Why did people use to write like this?
This video cleared up my confusion and corrected my misconceptions, giving me enough knowledge to hold a one-hour discussion with an actual Toyota mechanic.

Highly recommended!
Same. And now I’m 15 years into my software engineering career and the only regret I have is that I didn’t spend more time with linear algebra.