skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not automatic.

The purpose of a trademark is increasing trust and reducing fraud. E.g., when I buy lithium batteries I intend to store inside my home there's only so much I can do to audit the internals, so I rely on brand recognition to help purchase safer options. Other people and brands are welcome to sell lithium batteries, but masquerading as the brand I'm attempting to purchase from is damaging to that brand and to myself.

When other people use your trademark (even legitimately, as the courts have deemed for TFA), it's possible for that brand you've built to slowly morph into something other than just a name for your business or product. Band-aids and kleenexes are some classic examples, and the phrase "super mario" referring to more and more non-Nintendo things over time could do the trick too.

As something of a side tangent, this is philosophically related to the "heap" problem -- if you place one grain of sand at a time in a location, when does it transition from being an assortment of grains of sand into being a heap of sand? Which grain makes that transition? In much the same way, which trademark infringement dilutes the brand enough that when a court tries to go back to first principles they'll finally side with the infringer because the public doesn't actually recognize your brand name as referring to you in particular sufficiently often?

The playbook they're exercising is keeping that philosophical collection of sand very small. There isn't any legal recourse for suing a thousand infringers once public perception has shifted. Growing your brand and reducing the flow of sand to a trickle are both allowed though, and the legal half of that is the latter.

Note that the playbook says nothing about whether those are legitimate uses of your trademark. The thing you're fighting against is changing public perception, and you're trying to slow the change down as much as possible, using the courts as a cudgel.
> Designs that spread complexity rather than encapsulate it are rarely a good idea.

Exactly, globals spread complexity.

You need to look at the implementation of each function to know if you can call it. That’s the landmine.
It contradicts the ideals of an evidence based system of values. Most of what we believe we believe because we think it is right, and there's always , more or less, viable arguments for most of any remotely reasonable view. And this applies to all people. For instance it was none other than Max Planck that observed, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

I also think this is for the best. If one looks at the evidence of the skies it's indisputable that humanity lies at the center of the cosmos, with everything revolving around us - which, in turn, naturally leads into religious narratives around Earth. It's only thanks to these weirdos that adopted quite absurd sounding (for the time) systems of views and values, completely without meaningful evidence at first, that we were able to gradually expand, and correct, our understanding of the universe.

And this doesn't just apply to the ancient past. Einstein's observation that the speed of light stays fixed while the rate of passage of time itself is variable, to enable the former, sounds so utterly and absolutely absurd. In many ways the real challenge in breaking through to relativity wasn't the math or anything like that (which, in fact, Einstein himself lacked when first developing the concept) but accepting that a concept that sounds so wrong might actually be right.
100% luck. In a rational market, Nvidia should have gone up.

But perhaps the market is smarter than we think and thought a full Nvidia ban in China was in order after this.
No.

There are legal resolutions besides formal court that allow you to defend your trademark.

A simple letter explaining that Nintendo acknowledges that they have the same trademark, and that is fine as long as the convenience store stays in the convenience store business and doesn’t use Nintendos other branding would be fine.
Personally I think the US going from extremely hyper-individualistic to the point of self-destruction to slightly less hyper-individualistic is not a sign of a shift, but rather a return to normalcy.

We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
Letting Mac users,of my app, share compute power. Feasible or problematic?
I'm exploring the idea of letting users of my Mac app contribute their compute power to help process data for other users. This could be useful for Al workloads, decentralized processing, reducing cloud costs. Users could opt-in, control resource usage, and possibly get incentives for contributing.
However, l'm aware of challenges like privacy concerns, security risks, and potential performance issues. How would you approach these problems?
Would you trust an app to do this? Any thoughts on how to make it viable?
It looks like there are people flagging literally every story related to DOGE.
Organized flagging by competing groups on HN will continue until someone publishes a data analysis not only proving the organization, but reverse engineering and naming the cliques via graph analysis.

There is signal within HN-flagged articles, for an enterprising LLM.
Realcalc?
Thanks for the laugh. I don't remember when this happened. The horror... :)
Instance variables are to instance methods what global variables are to free functions and have exactly the same problems.
They 99.99999% of the time don't. I think only dang has that ability and he won't really step in unless there are some truly rouge actors.
His base is basically the left hand side of the IQ curve and a smattering of ultra rich who don't care about costs of living. His base will be easily persuaded that whatever calamity bestows them it's the fault of Canada/China/Liberals/LGBT or whatever the fuck is the scapegoat du jour.
I'm not. Pretty sure at this point that anything about Musk that doesn't involve Tesla or SpaceX is just being impulsed flagged.
Polish city is using mussels to monitor water quality (2020)
> LLMs current architecture seems to mainly work by understanding patterns in the existing body of knowledge ...

>But it is clear humans are capable of creativity and reasoning that are not reducible to mere pattern matching and this is the sense of reasoning that LLMs are not currently capable of

This is not clear at all. As it seems to me, it's impossible to imagine or think of things that are not in someway tied to something you've already come to sense or know. And if you think I am wrong, I implore you to provide a notion that doesn’t agree. I can only imagine something utterly unintelligible, and in order to make it intelligible, would require "pattern matching" (ie tying) it to something that is already intelligible. I mean how else do we come to understand a newly-found dead/unknown language, or teach our children? What human thought operates completely outside existing knowledge, if not given empirically?
Elon Musk does not have security clearance. He was explicitly advised not to even seek it while operating SpaceX because of his well-known drug use and his connections to foreign powers.
We use Infisical for this. Are you doing anything different?
And yet, when we look around the world around us…it seems…prescient.

Excellent book that still delivers 3 decades after it came out.
People using national flags to (imprecisely/incorrectly) represent languages is really not the fault of national flags, though.
It's possible that you care, but the person next to you doesn't, and external pressures force you to keep up with the person who's willing to shovel AI slop. Most of us don't have a complete luxury of the moral high ground at our jobs.
> I guarantee you there is no shadow council trying to figure out how to hire "busywork" worker bees.

I didn't say that. I said that this style of interview was designed to hire pluggable cogs. As others have noted, that was the correct move for Big Tech and was cargo culted into a bunch of other companies that didn't know why their interviews were shaped the way they were.

> there would be "out of the box thinkers" who would go against your ideas and cause dissent. At that point, guess what? You're going to figure out how to hire compliant people who will execute on your strategy.

In answer to your original question: yes, I'm actively involved in hiring at a 100+ person engineering org that hires this way. And no, we're not looking to figure out how to hire compliant people, we're hiring engineers who will push back and do what works well, not just act because an executive says so.

> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.

Only if you suck at making people comfortable and at understanding different (potentially awkward) communication styles. You don't have to discriminate against people for being awkward, that's a choice you can make. You can instead give them enough space to find their train of thought and pursue it, and it does work—I recently sat in on an interview like that with someone who fits your description exactly, and we strongly recommended him.
The severance procedure is about slavery.

Undergoing the severance procedure and having your "innie" work at Lumon is exactly akin to having your own personal slave. The innie does all the work, the outie collects the paycheck. The outie controls whether the innie lives or dies, since the innie literally does not exist outside of work.

I guess another part of the tradeoff is that you're giving up a significant part of your life time-wise. The number of waking hours experienced by the outie would be substantially reduced (presumably around 40 fewer hours per week). Overtime would really suck, especially if unpaid. From the perspective of the outie, working overtime would be exactly equivalent to the company taking away additional hours of their life.
Somewhat related, there is also the famous quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

>...“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
We now consider the employees that we hired prior to the arrival of AI to be the equivalent of “low background steel”. They have much stronger job security.

Everyone hired after that is more suspect, and if they screw up too much or don’t perform well we just fire them quickly during the probation period, whereas previously it was rare for people to get fired during the probation period.
how does this work with sub-assets. let's say i made a game and several resources were purchased each with their own license?
Ask HN: What do you expect will be the real impact of AI on society in 10 years
I started to get more curious on this, especially beyond the obligatory “genAI will do everything.”
What are your thoughts on societal impact.
As I see it currently: knowledge work is (surprisingly?) the first group of people seeing massive job losses and replacements from work. In the past “knowledge” was a scarce resource, now the AI delivering knowledge will become the sparse resource. So people owning / hosting it can sell it and make lots of money-> in the current setup this means the few rich in AI will get richer.
In addition letting money work for yourself will also stay (investment) so again rich people will become richer.

Interesting is the question about physical labor. The economics of pushing atoms in the physical world is nowhere near the economics of pushing electrons (bytes), so if you are not part of group 1 (entrepreneurs) or group 2 (investors), doing physical work is something that will earn you some money (I also expect care work to stay, since people will probably prefer for a long time to have humans care for them).
But this means that still group 1 and 2 will be the big winners, paying some money to group 3.

Where do you disagree? Where do you see a different outcome? I’m curious to learn about your thoughts
We have 3500 installs; you think having a human manage all those secrets manually is best practice?
While it's unlikely this really moves the needle in terms of other life in the solar system (which seems like a pretty hard "no" to me as a lay person), it perhaps does have an impact on "rest if the galaxy".

Of course the ingredients are "necessary but not sufficient ". However being "abundant" increases the chance of them being present when the other necessary conditions are met.
Except an employer wouldn’t say that. They would break up the project into separate pieces and engineers would work not really knowing what they’re putting together.
A 1.4MB binary size cost is massive. I'm a chrome developer and our threshold for what you need to explain the cost/benefit of is 16KB.

To me this just isn't worth the cost.
> Yeah, we know, tech is bleeding over into politics, but... how many Musk stories do we need in one day?

You should Ask Musk to cool down then. We didn't vote him in. We didn't ask him to break the law and compromise american security. We didn't grant him access to the US treasury. "We" voted this in. Those who didn't want this are 3 months too late.

And I see this excuse on every platform. I see a story I don't want to engage with... I just move on. Maybe you browse new, but I've never seen politics be "the dominant topic on HN".
The best debugger in the world would make me about 5% more efficient. That's about the percentage of my development time I spend going "WTF? Why is that happening?" That's the best possible improvement from the best possible debugger: about 5%.

The reason is that I almost always have a complete understanding of everything that is happening in all code that I write. Not because I have a mega-brain; only because "understanding everything that is happening all the time" becomes rather easy if all of your code is as simple as you can possibly make it, using clear interfaces, heavily leveraging the type system, keeping things immutable, dependency inversion, and aggressively attacking any unclear parts until you're satisfied with them. So debuggers are generally not involved. It's probably a couple times per week that I enter debug mode at all.

It sounds a little like saying "imagine the driving superpowers you could have if your car could perfectly avoid obstacles for you!" Okay, sure, that'd be life-saving sometimes, but the vast majority of the time, I'm not just randomly dodging obstacles. Planning ahead and paying attention kinda makes that moot.
Back about 10 years ago I wrote a PDF splitter / joiner / re-arranger. The document I needed to mangle was like 300 pages and no online tool would support that size without money. As I only needed the one file, and I thought it would be an interesting learning experience ...

I have a workout manager. It has 2 parts, one is to plan out what weights to put on each of 4 pair of dumbbell bars. It would take into consideration what I last did, and if the time was over a week ago offer to reduce the load.

The second application displays the exercise, with explanation and weights. It will toggle between a pair of exercises for 3 sets. I used chatgpt to configure the DB such that 2 exercises did not use overlapping muscles. It also displays a timer (big letters) so I can hold or move the weight in an appropriate amount of time.

I made the application because I was frustrated doing it with spreadsheets. I also hated changing weights mid work out. Now I set the weights and do the routine.
John Stewart had something to say about this: https://youtu.be/Byg8VZdKK88?si=pX1WbtRwZCBGpwHS&t=141
You’re better off converting to markdown with docling or markupsafe. But, if you’re careful, Qpdf offers an intermediate document format, like pandoc, but pandoc doesn’t read PDF.
People just like to hate popular things. I also read Dan Brown's novels in high school/late middle school and remember thinking they were exciting page turners. They were never as good as most of Michael Crichton's novels, but on par or better than most of Cussler's IMO.

Maybe the prose really was repetitive and the plot banal, but it took genuine skill to write something that you physically struggle to put down.
Later uClinux was available on m68k platforms without memory managers. The approach taken doesn't seem close to the one in the article.

I managed to put in shared execute in place library support, the limitation being the number of shared libraries rather than what they supported.
Oh god, I had to read it three times to truly see it. (FWIW I started skimming pretty early in OP)
Most programming languages written after 1990 let you initialize global variables lazily. The main problem is that the initialization order might be unexpected or you may run into conflicts. Singletons make the order slightly more predictable (based on first variable access), although it is till implicit (lazy).

But singletons are still a terrible idea. The issue with global variables is not just initialization. I would argue it's one of the more minor issues.

The major issues with global variables are:

1. Action at distance (if the variable is mutable)

2. Tight coupling (global dependencies are hard-coded, you cannot use dependency injection)

3. Hidden dependency. The dependency is not only tightly-coupled, it is also hidden from the interface. Client code that calls your function doesn't know that you rely on a global variable and that you can run into conflict with other code using that variable or that you may suddenly start accessing some database it didn't even know about.

Singleton does not solve any of the above. The only thing it ensures is lazy initialization on access.
"The limit for eligible items has been raised many times over the years, most recently going up to $800 from $200 in 2016."

4x increase. What is the explanation
> I do worry that these 19-24 year olds, some of whom are known to HN for other achievements, are putting themselves in real legal jeopardy.

They 100% are. This is a full blackhat attack on a nation. Did they take no ethics class? (software or otherwise)?
It looks like the moral high just came more in demand.
Who are these people?

Some sort or EA on steroids?

Eugenics?

Genuinely curious: what are their typical beliefs?
Neither does any sane valuation of the company.
https://archive.today/WrNy5
Thank you for providing a tangible claim we may examine together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...

>The institute was financed by the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Foundation, a charity which itself was funded by private donations.

Again, the National Socialists increased the purview of the state by interfering with a privately run and privately funded non-profit. They used public funds to attack and regulate private, voluntary behavior.
I agree more science is certainly better than less. But patentable therapies will always get a disproportionate amount of funding for big science (versus a basically-free dietary change).

For ketones and cognition, also look for studies on MCT oil. Such as https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10357178/
The positions and velocities of every human ship in space are well known and easy to track. And any journey from space to Earth takes a long time. And anything that a single rocket that went out for mining (or even a dozen or a hundred rockets) could move back towards earth as a weapon can easily be moved slightly to hit a different destination using other weapons.

So if anyone tried to send rockets to fling back pieces of asteroid or of the Moon as weapons to Earth will be easily observed, tracked, and countered. And anyway, we're very far off being able to send a chunk of rock towards Earth that wouldnt entirely burn up in the atmosphere, nevermind one that could level a city.
Haha, for better or worse, linguistic skill pretty often doesn't correlate that strongly with other forms of intelligence.
I would like to think that there is more to quality than status... I feel like this attitude backfires by discouraging people from talking about things they thought were good in certain ways for fear of being dismissed as a snob.
2023 review of Robert Lighthizer book, https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/16/trump-trade-war-robert-...

> he proposes truly radical policy recommendations to delink the United States and China. He would hike tariffs to towering levels, end the benefits China has received from the United States for joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), cut off investment between the nations, block Chinese social media companies, halt cooperation on technology—and keep the measures in place until China’s trade surplus, now nearly $400 billion, disappears. In other words, for decades if not forever.
Yes, and code that mutates them in an unmanaged way should be banned.
>> now when problems are trivially solvable by GPT.

Only the trivial problems. We don't use AI during interviews but many try and it's always obvious. Delay after any question problem; textbook perfect initial answer; absolutely nothing when asked to go deeper on a specific dimension.

It's nice because interviews that are scheduled for an hour are only lasting ~20 minutes in these situations, and we can cut them short.
Thanksgiving?
Also the fact most of the UK’s newspapers are owned by non-UK, non-European citizens. The US doesn’t allow foreigners (non US persons, green card holders are US persons) to hold a controlling stake in the media, or to contribute money to the political process.
> AI-proof interviewing is easy if you know what you're talking about. Look at the candidates resume and ask them to describe some of their past projects. If they can have a meaningful conversation without delays, you can probably trust their resume. It's easy to spot BS whether AI is behind it or not.

Generally, this is how to figure out if a candidate is full of crap or not. When they say they did a thing, ask them questions about that thing.

If they can describe their process, the challenges, how they solved the challenges, and all of it passes the sniff test: If they are bullshitting, they did crazy research and that's worth something too.
> our community

It's as much mine as it is yours.
> Let HN be what it is.

I will not let it be dishonest.
> you just got here.

Yes, you do need my perspective.
But really does that preclude the Illuminati existing and ruling the world.
Denying their existence and reach is a bias don’t you think
>> If the LLM spits out junk you should be able to tell.

Reading existing code and ensuring correctness is way harder than writing it yourself. How would someone who can't do it in the first place tell if it was incorrect?
"Someday, the sky will fall"

Ok.
There's no phone on earth which runs AOSP so it's the same on a real phone, you put a blind trust on the phone manufacturer.
With Lost, I knew they had no direction in mind, and that bothered me. But I also knew that whatever they were doing, they were doing a damned entertaining job of it.
Andy Kelley's comment corrected unintentional flamebait. I don't see how his comment was confusing.