skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I vouched this dead submission and voted yes as a support of the status quo, because you can trivially put "Elon" into search bar and find that they aren't a shortage of Elon political submissions.

Look, my highest rated comment on this site is asking Dang to unflag a certain thread on Jan 6, 2021. You need to understand there are plenty of people on this site who will flag anything political regardless of the content, because frankly that's not what this site is for. I understand that perspective, I don't get my news from here I actually go to news sites and read there. Hacker news is an entirely different compartment of my life and I assume I'm not the only one.

On the other hand, people flagging Elon isn't some new phenmoenon. People have spammed every single time he's been in the news for years. Like Taylor Swift, the guy is a bonafide superstar. Millions of people who both love him and hate him for years have hung on his every word and action.

Speaking for myself, I decided Elon was a piece of garbage when he called the submarine guy a Pedo, but I was still happy to get some Tesla stock when I thought it was a good deal. My real life friends of 10+ years, apropos of nothing, were taunting me in a more mean spirited than joking way in December 2022 that the value of the stock had fallen, boy aren't you sad you lost those thousands of dollars. Then at least a couple times a month since they want my opinion on the Elon outrage of the week, most of which aren't real outrages but shitty celebrity gossip they found out about because they spent all their curiousity about the world on r/all, where thousands of Elon haters were doing the same thing. This has been the temperature from a certain segment of the population for years.

I'm legitimately concerned about some of the stuff going on, but I do honestly think there quite a large component of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", even if there is also a component of "Don't Look Up". The fact of the matter is if you honestly believe there is an in-progress fascist takeover of the US Government, there are 50,000 better things you could be doing about it than debating the Hacker News current events flagging policy.
ScholarlyArticle: "Emergence of a Second Law of Thermodynamics in Isolated Quantum Systems" (2025) https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuan...

NewsArticle: "Even Quantum Physics Obeys the Law of Entropy" https://www.tuwien.at/en/tu-wien/news/news-articles/news/auc...

NewsArticle: "Sacred laws of entropy also work in the quantum world, suggests study" ... "90-year-old assumption about quantum entropy challenged in new study"
https://interestingengineering.com/science/entropy-also-work...
You can. But it's much easier to be a YouTuber – and it's not only the top creators who get paid.

Which is easier of these choices:

Talking or writing?

Uploading to YouTube or publishing to a blog?

Building an audience of millions or already having them on the platform?

Considering that online creativity should be for everybody and not just hacker and academic types.

> The platforms are just middlemen rent seekers profitting on mindless zombies who are cunsuming content and just watch the next video in the recommendation flow.

Oh never mind, you are stuck in illusions. YouTube as of 2025 has the highest quality and biggest quantity visual media library in history. If you actually press the like and subscribe button on good videos a bunch of times, YouTube will start recommending videos of the highest quality possible. Going in-depth into any subject imaginable. Made by some of the world's most professional film crews. You're really missing out if you're deciding to be an angry hacker about this.
Yeah, but there is definitely no better option.

If I come across a site that is not in English, but I see a little flag somewhere, that is a very good indicator that that's the place I can go and change the language to English.

(Happens a lot more when you're travelling in a non-English-speaking country.)
I listened in to someone interviewing people since many people used AI. It's the same with googling the answer it is very obvious that someone is taking too long to get to the answer and or you can't see a separate screen. Mitigation is literally looking at the text window and seeing if they are not typing / taking too long to even make a bad implementation. There is now a problem if you allow for google since google will autogen a gemini query to solve it.
Unicode doesn’t have codepoints for any of these. Unicode has defined a singular generic way to transform iso country codes (not even — just two of any characters), and says it’s how you do flags.
Discussion (37 points, 1 day ago, 42 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899679
They describe the entire program in detail here: https://www.apple.com/apple-music/apple-digital-masters/docs...

Even if receiving the same sources, the encoding process is their own and aims to have zero clipping.
From one point of view, yes.

Another point of view is that it's a new kind of de-encapsulation.

Apparently this is a 'global' variable:

int variable = 0;
void foo() {
variable++;
}
void bar() {
variable++;
}

but this is an 'encapsulated' variable:

class MyClass {

int variable = 0;
void foo() {
variable++;
}
void bar() {
variable++;
}

}

You can block the top one in a code-review because "global variable", and tell the developer to fix it by passing the variable in and out of functions when needed, but I have a feeling the bottom one's getting merged even if you object on the same grounds.
Interesting! Thanks for the insights. Do you happen to have the link to hand so I can delve into it, rather than refer to it anecdotally?
Ok, but „we’re estimating about 1.5 billion but it’s likely more“ is far from „it’s absolutely more that 14 billion and that’s easy to find“. I’m not even saying I don’t believe that it’s more, it could be, but I don’t think there’s any proof of that.
The "youtube meta" has changed overtime and not all creators have stayed current with it, so you can find old videos which were once optimized for youtube but no longer are, or new videos being created in an outdated style. With some channels though, I think they've decided to make suboptimal videos from the youtube algorithm perspective because they're getting most of their revenue from a loyal fanbase donating to them on patron/etc, so they cater to the preferences of that specific crowd.
Not sure of your location, but it seems many rural areas have turned completely to vice. It seems every other new business is a smoke shop, dispensary, bar, tattoo parlor, etc. Many other businesses are shutting down, like bowling alleys, hobby related stores, etc. And gambling has been added to some that stick around, including stuff like "skills based" games.

But the most obviously bad change I've seen is the drugs. I think they're also partially responsible for the popularity of gambling due to hopelessness and how bad things have gotten in some areas.

Edit: I should add that the other 50% of business seem to be fast food and dollar stores.
If you're US based, there's tons of data broker sites, and you can glue together the information for free as various brokers leak various bits (E.g. Some leak the address, others leak emails, others leak phone numbers). And that's by design for SEO reasons, they want you to be able to google someone with the information you have, so they can sell you the information you don't have.

Some straight up list it all, and instead of selling people's information to other people, they sell removals to the informations owner. Presumably this is a loop hole to whatever legislation made most sites have a "Do Not Sell My Info" opt out.

What you do is look up a data broker opt out guide, and that gives you a handy list of data brokers to search. E.g.

https://inteltechniques.com/workbook.html
great! how does this compare to orbstack?

brew install orbstack
orb
# you're now running in an ubuntu VM
From the article:

> Under the bloc’s approach, there are four broad risk levels: (1) Minimal risk (e.g., email spam filters) will face no regulatory oversight; (2) limited risk, which includes customer service chatbots, will have a light-touch regulatory oversight; (3) high risk — AI for healthcare recommendations is one example — will face heavy regulatory oversight; and (4) unacceptable risk applications — the focus of this month’s compliance requirements — will be prohibited entirely.

> Some of the unacceptable activities include:

> AI used for social scoring (e.g., building risk profiles based on a person’s behavior).

> AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively.

> AI that exploits vulnerabilities like age, disability, or socioeconomic status.

> AI that attempts to predict people committing crimes based on their appearance.

> AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics, like their sexual orientation.

> AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement.

> AI that tries to infer people’s emotions at work or school.

> AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras.

I’m glad they marked things like email spam filters as low risk. But the list of unacceptable risks is still very large. For example even product recommendations on an online store could be considered “manipulating a person’s decisions on subliminally” - even a non-AI ad is doing just that.

I also don’t think it is reasonable to prevent people from inferring or predicting things based on learned factors. It’s one thing if an AI is directed to be discriminatory. But if it learns that one particular trait or the other is predictive of something else, should we really be banning that? I can see that having bad consequences. For example, younger males are more likely to drive recklessly - if they are scored for risk higher, is that really a bad thing?

Stepping back, I think this is part of a long trend of EU over-regulating themselves into stagnation. I think this political culture is going to severely hurt them in the long term. Anyone who wants to build a great business will just go do it elsewhere.
But as long as languages don't have any symbol, and symbols help with recognition, is it maybe just a lesser of evils?

It's clear that English originates from the UK and Portuguese originates from Portugal. Not to mention that sites often do have country variants -- the Brazilian Portuguese gets the Brazilian flag. And if a site is only for US and Mexican customers, a US flag makes sense rather than UK because it'll also use US currency.

And a flag icon also helps your eye quickly find the localization drop-down mixed in with a bunch of other stuff in the footer.
I'd rather use something that works with block device directly, rather than something that depends on the filesystem code and may lead to filesystem corruption and potential for kernel instability. Also it seems like a weird design decision to fill flash with files, when in Linux there's trivial access to block device directly.

It's also possible to write 64bit address of each 8 byte block to every such block, and avoid pseudorandom generator, and potentially have more insight to what happened when the block ends up mapped to unexpected location.
and any output is intentionally conservative.

Samsung still screwed up with the planar TLC flash used in the infamous 840 EVO SSD, which had a real-world retention measured in months. Their "fix" was to issue a firmware update that continuously rewrites data in the background, but of course this has no effect if the drive isn't always powered.

https://forum.acelab.eu.com/viewtopic.php?t=8735

https://goughlui.com/2024/07/20/salvage-tested-an-elderly-fo...
2024 recap and my plan for 2025 (gamedev log)
Hi, Jesus from FuriLabs here! We're just winding down from FOSDEM but happy to answer any questions & feedback :)
The SponsorBlock extension has a useful feature where users can contribute a highlight point, which then adds a "skip to highlight" button. Many long form videos will pad the beginning with excessive background information to pad the length, skipping to highlight has saved me many hours. Because the data is crowdsourced the highlight qualities vary, but I've found them to be generally useful.
I agree with your overall projection.

I'm skeptical that a revolution (either social, political or economic) where the proletariat manages to end up in a drastically better position than they are in today can happen in a (for now still hypothetical, thankfully) world where there is no longer a clear economic need for those individuals to be around.

That said, in response to

>Where are the horses that used to pull carriages? We didn't let them run free, we got rid of them.

I can't help but point to the pigeons as a counterexample
Not suicide and depression but the tobacco industry is probably similar. I wouldn’t go as far as claiming 10% but sugar is probably not very healthy for society either.

And I’m not even saying that gambling is fine or should be supported, I was just sceptical of the claim that the damages exceed the income.
The thing is...contact details aren't really private information, basically by definition.

The distinction is contact details privacy is based on the desire not be interrupted by people you didn't agree to be interrupted by - i.e. it's a spam problem - and realistically to solve this requires a total revamp of our communications systems (long overdue).

The basic level of this would be forcing businesses to positively identify themselves to contact people - i.e. we need TLS certificates on voice calls, tied to government issued business identifiers. That would have the highest immediate impact, because we could retrain people not to talk to anyone claiming to be a business if there phone doesn't show a certificate - we already teach this for email, so the skill is becoming more widespread.

A more advanced version of this might be to get rid of the notion of fixed phone numbers entirely: i.e. sharing contacts is now just a cryptographic key exchange where I sign their public certificate which the cellphone infrastructure validates to agree to route a call to my device from their device (with some provisioning for chain of trust so a corporate entity can sign legally recognized bodies, but not say, transfer details around).

This would solve a pile of problems, including just business decommissioning - i.e. once a company shuts down, even if you scraped their database you wouldn't be able to use any of the contact information unless you had the hardware call origination gear + the telecom company still recognized the key.

Add an escrow system on top of this so "phone numbers" can still work - i.e. you can get a random number to give to people that will do a "trust on first use" thing, or "trust till revoked" thing (i.e. no one needs to give a fake number anymore, convention would be they're all fake numbers, but blocking the number would also not actually block anyone you still want to talk to).

EDIT: I've sort of inverted the technical vs practical details here I realize - i.e. if I were implementing this, the public marketing campaign would be "you can have as many phone numbers as you want" but your friends don't have to update if you change it. The UI ideally would be "block this contact and revoke this number?" on a phone which would be nice and unambiguous - possibly with a "send a new number to your friends?" option (in fact this could be 150 new numbers, one per friend since under the hood it would all be public key cryptography). I think people would understand this.
I'm glad it's not just me that's noticed this. I thought it was targeted advertising because I also see lots of 'old people adverts' :)

It's horrific really. I change channels as soon as one of those adverts come on. Premier League football teams are sponsored by them, and I suppose F1 cars probably are as well. But not cigarettes. Then again, I've never seen cigarettes ruin an entire family and for them to end up in financial ruin and without a house.

Someone else called them parasites, and they're not wrong.
Doesn't really make a great case. I obviously recognise both the union jack and American flag as "English", and nobody would expect it to mean Welsh. Also there are approximately no people that speak Welsh and not English.

It's one of those "yes technically you're right, but actually it still works really well in practice so sod off" things. It's like saying tomatoes should be in the fruit aisle. No thanks. Sometimes utility is more important than anal correctness.
If you only use ChatGPT to code, you are only able to copy paste the llm emitted code, then you ask for changes to the code (to reflect for example the evolution of the product)
Wait, I thought this is just a proposal. What stage is this at?
> Take some pattern - of words, of data, of thought. Perturb it randomly. Done. That's creativity.

This seems a miopic view of creativity. I think leaving out the pursuit of the implications of that perturbation is leaving out the majority of creativity. A random number generator is not creative without some way to explore the impact of the random number. This is something that LLM inference models just don't do. Feeding previous output into the context of a next "reasoning" step still depends on a static model at the core.
For every 20 Americans with a credit card, 17 have all their purchases sent to Google.
Reminds me of timestamp protocol and timestamp authorities.

Not quite the same problem, but similar enough to have a similar solution. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3161.txt
Your point is dogmatic so I can see how you'd read an article that boils down to "they gave us the most important pieces and explained every missing part is such detail that we feel confident we can reproduce it" and still protest "but they didn't give us everything!".

But the reality is by giving us the model weights alone they'd already be providing an immense boon given how important being able to cheaply produce reasoning traces is for distillation. And they went even further and documented the exact path they took which in immense detail that's already being digested and extended on by the community. Releasing R1-Zero and explaining where it fits in the puzzle wasn't necessary and yet it helped leapfrog open attempts at reasoning models and will likely even influence future closed models from other providers.

They've given us a lot more than any closed source provider has when the leading closed source provider won't even provide thinking traces because of fear of competitive distillation.

-

Also "these people" are people who just write prompts and call a REST API so it doesn't matter if the weights are available or not. At most they might replay some requests to a different REST API that returns a finetuned model for them. Sounds like what you do?

I rely on models I've posttrained with custom vocublaries, run through AWQ specific to my downstream task, and that are being inferenced on with custom samplers specific to my downstream task. All things actually closed source models can't do.

In other words, I derive enough value from "open source" models to not quibble over definitions. I find the people who do bother quibbling aren't doing anything with all the capabilities unlocked so they're willing to argue about just how open things are, but ironically wouldn't do anything even if the models were open by their absolutist definitions.
I think as models get commoditized, that doesn't really matter. In fact, the UI is what becomes important. We can already see this with Deepseek and other Open-Source models.
Well... that kind of makes sense no? What do you think it should say?
Thinking out loud, here’s one idea for an LLM-assisted interview:

- Spin up a Digital Ocean droplet

- Add the candidate’s SSH key

- Have them implement a basic API. It must be publicly accessible.

- Connect the API to a database. Add more features.

- Set up a basic deployment pipeline. Could be as simple as script that copies the code from your local machine to the server.

Anything would be fair game. The goal would be to see how the candidate converses with the LLM, how they handle unexpected changes, and how they make decisions.

Just a thought.
That was the government that was supposed to stand up 'for the poor', but allowing a predatory industry to thrive, whose main demographic are 'the poor'.
The nature of parcel shipping and ecommerce has changed. Years ago it wasn’t economically practical to order things directly from China and ship them to the U.S. Instead you’d fill up a container and send it to a U.S. distributor, and pay the tariff. The de mininimis exemption was to avoid hassle and overhead for small value transactions.

Currently though temu and schein have a big advantage over Amazon and U.S. retailers because they completely avoid tariffs by shipping direct from China.
The themes of alienation, the parallels to classes and the methods in which people use to divide people so that they won't unite and revolt, as well as challenging pre-established hierarchies and the methods that are used to justify them and indoctrinate is so poignant. Mix that classical analysis with the modern corporate environment that is so sanitized and faux empathetic for self-interest, and you have a masterpiece.
While I generally agree and I much prefer my langs with minimal undefined behavior, this gets solidly into Hyrum's Law territory, and it means practically every significant optimization could break something therefore it cannot be done. C just doesn't have rich enough semantics to allow much else.

You can find some languages that try to adhere to that, but C is extremely clearly not part of that group. It never has been, and it never will be.
We had a good budget for localization at my previous place and had like 10 Englishes and some countries had both their local language and English as options.
I hate them, but I'd probably work for them. There's a lot to hate about places like big tech, finance, energy, and basically every other sector. It would probably soul crushing, but so is my current job.
Same, disabling it and looking for subtitles was the first thing I tried to do.
To protect consumer rights, and to slow down big tech giants.
(sorry it's probably it an unpopular opinion) the error handling is hard to read, they purposely didn't incorporate any syntax sugars and innovations of previous years. They were one of the first popular languages with go routines although Project Loom in Java will soon have preemptive multi threading as well.
Thanks! That’s a great point we’ve been discussing how to deal with sensitive data after the launch. I think a corporate/enterprise version makes sense.
For what it's worth, as the person at the top of this thread, I actually do take AI risk pretty seriously. Not in a singulatarian sense, but in the sense that I would be quite surprised if AI weren't capable of this stuff in ten years.

Even the oracle version is already really dangerous in the wrong hands. A totalitarian government doesn't need to have someone listening to a few specific dissidents if they can have an AI transcriber write down every word of every phone conversation in the country, for example. And while it's certainly not error-proof, asking an LLM to do something like "go through this list of conversations and flag anything that sounds like anti-government sentiment" is going to get plenty of hits, too.
I just uploaded my goodreads csv. No filters applied.
Yeah I don't mind sharing the csv. Here it is: https://pastebin.com/nUJH4urN
This makes me wonder - is there not a ‘Little Snitch’ equivalent for iOS?
Nah man you don't get to defend a known rapist and con artist and then claim neutrality. Get a grip.