skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One thing that these efforts seem to miss: payments.

The ads are there not just for fun, but they provide an income stream to content creators and for the networks themselves. In essence, ads work as a micro-payment infrastructure. But then you need to drive up visits to increase the number of ad impressions. And this leads to the spiral of ever-radicalizing media.

What can be done? I don't know. Something like "basic attention token" but without shady crypto, perhaps?
> Free Software is "for hackers" because, quite frankly, most other people just don't care about the goals of the movement.

Until their car dashboard starts showing them ads. Or they can't even screenshot streamed movies to comment on for their friends. Or the app they were using to organize protests gets removed from 'their' phones [1]. Or they can't fix their tractor [2]. Or their printer refuses to print with 3rd party ink, or includes tracking dots to betray its user. Or their videoconferencing program gags them at government request [3].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon...

[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/john-deere-hit-with-class-ac...

[3] https://apnews.com/article/2ba80f30ecaf5aa37852164c3d149514
That is not correct; in another comment you can see where the code takes advantage of the rust-specific &mut notation to use a fast memcpy for non-overlapping pointers.
I tried 4.5 which i thought was the best model, seems like the reasoning models do get it.
The article is titled:

> ICANN Update: Launching RDAP; Sunsetting WHOIS

Bit deceptive to editorialize it into something that sounds like something else much more interesting (removing contact info from domains) but isn't the case at all (they're just changing the method to access the same info).
There are plenty of projects pushing the state of the art forward.

A very specific example: basically all interactive theorem proving tooling is built in public research halls. This has allowed Compcert, a C compiler with “no bugs”[0] to exist.

The Compcert case is interesting because private funding is also involved. Public state research can still pull in private funds! We are not entirely throwing in the towel!

[0] “no bugs” here means “we have defined a spec for C, and this compiler is guaranteed to compile your C code along the spec we defined, so long as your program terminates”. There’s some hand waving around a theorem prover’s own validity but all Compcert bugs have been “we misewrote a chunk of spec” varietals
They add mercaptan which is like 1000x the rotten egg smell of H2S.
It's just accelerated. AI is bound by physics just like everything else.

The S-curve is really about fundamental limits. Lets say ASI helps us make multiple big leaps ahead, I mean mind blowing stuff. That still doesn't change that there must be a limit somewhere. The idea that science and tech is infinite is pure science fiction.
They don't seem like they're doing anything medical related except charging a premium. It's just a generic secretarial bot making and taking administrative phone calls. The horrible chat bots on the website have infected the phones! But I have to wonder why this is even an AI thing, you could do waaaaay better than $9/hr/"seat" spread over lots of customers with normal call-centers that are already used in hospitals and doctor's offices.

The "here's the hourly rate for a nurse vs. what we charge" sounds like a genuinely naive read in the same genre as "if we capture two percent of this market…" slide deck. Hospitals who don't already have the call center are already using much cheaper admin staff compared to nurse rates.

I also can't imagine what patient is going to actually accept a call with an AI nurse. They're all the same models underneath, you might as well just ask ChatGPT your medical question directly for 1¢. The risk to hospitals handing out bad advice via AI means the model you talk to will be so shackled as to be useless.
SNES consoles have been quietly overclocking themselves for 35 years
Five days ago US Republicans "stopped time" with respect to a clock running that required a response to an appeal against Trump's tariffs.

~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343

Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.

~ https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolutio...

"Each day [..] shall not constitute a calendar day"

An executive with a cowered majority can get away with almost anything when they can issue emergency orders and set aside an appeal and review process intended to temper such orders.

It's a triumph of creative lawyering over overt disobeying of judicial orders.
Exponential increases in intelligence doesn’t imply that the universe is more complex to compensate.
His thoughts and opinions are not related to FT's and so while the combo of his article title + a paywall might appear ironic, in reality it's just happenstance, with no deeper meaning or hypocrisy.

The "walled gardens" that he and others speak about in this context do not refer to sites/apps that cost money, they have a massively different meaning. But perhaps it wouldn't be fair to expect you to know this if the paywall prevented you from reading the article. Fear not, now you can: https://archive.ph/4Vvms
Evaluate which security compliance apply and, implement effective controls
> we now have 3 countries with the ability to erase entire cities or make the world functionally uninhabitable by humans

Nuclear war is horrible enough without requiring hyperbole. Each of the U.S., Russia and China have the ability to functionally end industrial civlisation as we know it. None has the power to make the Earth uninhabitable by humans (outside hypothetical asteroid redirect capabilities).
I have always preferred BSD-style ports trees, which emphasize building the packages from source code. Easier to patch the source when needed, when adapting (porting) the package to a new environment.

This made it easier to adapt large collections of packages to new versions of macOS. Or to adopt the latest version of a package. Easier for integration testing for my application.

It doesn't surprise me at all that MacPorts has a larger collection of packages than HomeBrew.

My other ride is Gentoo Linux. :-)
Am I missing something? He wants to make an app where you put all of your data and then an AI to act on it? Can someone smarter than me explain why this is a good idea?
From the top of the readme:

> without the formatting complexity of markdown

Really, markdown is complicated of all things?
I think the "you signed up for it" rubs me the wrong way. Particularly when it doesn't have to be that way, wasn't always that way, and there are specific policy choices causing a change.

Sure, most places never had a level 1 trauma center, but they did have hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies. Many of these medical institutions are leaving despite increasing population due to changing healthcare economics and policy choices.
This one felt obvious, but it feels a bit hard to reason on.

How many sales people does this project need? It’s not zero because grants etc but let’s not kid ourselves.

I think this project will never spend as much money as notion on devs. Like ever.

I will grant that there’s a good idea around “well notion was doing operations for everyone at once so people don’t need as many tech/ops people ”. I’m hopeful that hosted variants pop up to help with this. I’m also hopeful that we can figure out how to make stuff easier to host when high availability is not a requirement.

So maybe we end up net more operators, and less sales people and devs. That’s kind of interesting!
"Immigration officials did not receive this order before Alawieh was sent on a plane to Paris, according to the Boston Globe."

The Boston globe link was behind a paywall, unfortunately.

I don't mean to quibble inordinately, but there's probably enough bad here to stick to the lede (skilled worker deported without cause) and not distractions

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/03/brown-profe...
The most ironic thing about this story is that 1) it is a story about the problems with walled gardens, and 2) it is hosted on a site that actually is a walled garden and will not let anyone read the article until you pay them
> GDPR

And yet all German sites must have such thing: https://0pointer.net/imprint
I don't think this is strictly true. Rather it seems that the problem is that we, at some point, invariably assume the truth of something that is false, which then makes it really difficult to move beyond that because we're working off false premises, and relatively few people are going out of there way to go back in time and challenge/rework every single assumption, especially when those assumptions are supported by decades (if not centuries) of 'progress.'

An obvious example of this is the assumption of the geocentric universe. That rapidly leads to ever more mind-boggling complex phenomena like multitudes of epicycles, planets suddenly turning around mid-orbit, and much more. It turns out the actual physics are far more simple, but you have to get passed that flawed assumption.

In more modern times relativity was similar. Once it became clear that the luminiferous aether was wrong, and that the universe was really friggin weird, all sorts of new doors opened for easy access. The rapid decline in progress in modern times would seem most likely to suggest that something we are taking as a fundamental assumption is probably wrong, rather than that the next door is just unimaginably difficult to open. This is probably even more true given the vast numbers of open questions for which we have defacto answers, but yet they seem to defy every single test of their correctness.

---

All that said, I don't disagree that technology may be on an s curve, but simply because I think the constraints on 'things' will be far greater than the constraints on knowledge. The most sophisticated naval vessel of modern times would look impressive but otherwise familiar to a seaman of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years ago. Even things like the engines wouldn't be particularly hard to explain because they would have known full well that a boiling pot of water can push off its top, which is basically 90% of the way to understanding how an engine works.
> Computer users want source code like grocery store shoppers want a tractor and a plot of land.

You entirely ignore ecosystem effects. Users don't want source code, but they do want programs that won't betray them. Open access to source code is how such programs come about. See my other post on what happens when that access is taken away: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385000
there are no loads in the above unsafe block, in practice loadu is just as fast as load, and even if you manually use the aligned load or store, you get a crash. it's silly to say that crashes are unsafe.
Mark posted a video on X showing him getting up to speed, engaging autopilot 4 seconds before the wall, and autopilot disengaging 1 second before hitting the wall.

https://x.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898

>Here is the raw footage of my Tesla going through the wall. Not sure why it disengages 17 frames before hitting the wall but my feet weren’t touching the brake or gas.

The playing field level here was significantly slanted comparing a production Tesla, driven by Mark, engaging 10 year old autopilot technology, against a non-production test vehicle, not driven by Mark, using I would assume the latest in LiDAR technology from Luminar.

Volvo sells the EX90 with a Luminar LiDAR sensor (not active it looks like). Why wasn't it used with Mark driving?
I chatted with Christopher hitchens about a month before he was diagnosed with the cancer that took him out, and he was adamant that cigarettes and whisky were vital to his writing process. He said he could consider cutting out liquor, but the cigarettes had to stay if he was going to be productive at all.
I'm more interested why some of us have qwertZ instead of Y there :D

(Z an Y are swapped... mostly a non issues, except with some games, where Z and X are some gameplay controls, and we have a Y down there)
>The fact that the model is a continuous real function is an artifact of the model, a weakness not a strength.

The wave function is the square root of a probability distribution. The wavefunction is a continuous real function of position because position is modeled as a continuous real variable. The idea of the wavefunction as a function of position is generally supported by the fact that it can be used to predict the measurement results of diffraction experiments like the double-slit experiment, but also practically the whole field of X-ray diffraction.

There is not just one experimental result that is explained by wavefunctions. There are widely used measurement techniques whose outcomes are calculated according to the quantum properties of matter — like X-ray diffraction and Raman scattering — which are widely considered to be extremely reliable. There is a good reason to explain the model of reality expressed by the equations as clearly as possible, because we want people to be able to use the equations.

Plenty of people (though certainly not all) expect quantum mechanics to be eventually modified to have a consistent theory of gravity. But physicists have experience with this. Special relativity and classical quantum mechanics were both more complex than Newtonian (classical) mechanics, and quantum field theory is more complicated than either. General relativity is substantially more involved than special relativity. It is likely that further extensions will continue to get worse.

The model of reality taught by Newtonian (classical) mechanics is also still widely discussed and used in introductory physics courses and many areas of physics (such as fluid dynamics) and engineering. This model also discusses position on the real line. Even though classical mechanics had to be modified, the use of Cartesian coordinates and real numbers turned out to be durable.

Usually the finitists will formally "rescue" countability by suggesting that the world could exist on the computable numbers, which are countable and invariant under computable rotations. But the computable numbers are a very unsatisfying model of reality, and have a lot of the same "weirdness" as the real numbers. Therefore they suggest that some other model must exist without giving a lot of specifics. Why this should be somehow helpful and not injurious to the pedagogy of physics is not clear.
It's already likely that some people were shipped to Guantanamo who were not criminals[1][2]. They were kept in horrible conditions without media access and left without legal recourse or any means of communication with the outside world. Is that OK with you? What happens when Trump decides that "Democrats" or "leftists" are the enemy now, as he's been continuously suggesting[2]?

[1]: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/13/immigration-flights-...

[2]: https://archive.is/KV3hr

[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
> I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!

This is dangerous thinking: 'my proclamations are truth, everyone who disagrees is a traitor'. With that mindset, how do you expect to change your mind when you're wrong?
Previously (42 points, 1 day ago, 9 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43373414
According to a company representative, CF requires a UA header, checks the contents of the UA header and blocks access to websites based on strings contained in the UA header that match "known bad ones" as part of its commercial "bot protection" services.

None of this implies that using a string that is a "known good one" is enough to satisfy the CF challenge. But CF still requires people to send CF a UA string. Right.

It seems that CF wants to mandate exclusive use of certain clients to access the web, "as a service", presumably ones that are preferred by so-called "tech" companies that sell advertising services.

Imagine if this type of restriction was imposed on CF itself and some third party blocked CF's access to the www unless CF used the software chosen by the third party or the third party's clients.

The www is supposed to be a means of accessing public information. From what I've seen many if not most of these websites blocked by CF "bot protection" are in fact comprised of public information.
I wrote a coffee table photobook that includes scientific illustrations of a mammals, starting from the emergence of the mammaliaform (~193 million years ago) to ancestral apes (~10 million years ago). The similarities between Mixodectes at 62 Ma, the shrew-like mammal at 66 Ma, and that early mammalian predecessor at 193 Ma are a fine example of how slow evolution can be when ecological niches are otherwise occupied.

https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf

After the Chicxulub asteroid landed, it left us with an enigma: Why didn't reptiles rise again to fill those niches? PBS Eons has a video exploring the theory and the impacts of fungi on natural selection in the asteroid's wake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPXbSx17030
I was a little bit imprecise. Because the article was talking about a stationary obstacle, literally a wall, I was still talking about stationary objects when I said that airplanes don't avoid obstacles. The autopilot of an airplane will not avoid any kind of stationary obstacle, not even a mountain. It can certainly be done; several militaries use terrain–following guidance in both airplanes and missiles. But there’s nothing about the word “autopilot” that should cause people to think that the car will avoid stationary obstacles. An autopilot follows a route and that’s it.

Some aircraft can avoid other aircraft under some circumstances but those aren’t stationary obstacles and unlike random walls that people build, or mountains, they are all tagged with transponders.
Try getting a kidney stone and then find out if adequate hydration is what you want to squeak by with.
I would agree with something like that, that e.g. it's only useful when you have a set text ready that you want typed in.

Personally I clock in around 110 wpm at my fastest (in English), and I'll only reach that in practice when I have intense disagreements with people over the internet (colleagues, friends or randoms). Outside of that, it's barely useful.
"Changing the algorithm to make it benevolent rather than polarising is easy for those who control the platforms."

What bubble does the author live in that tells hen that "benevolence" is easy?

The values of the cultures most of us have regular contact with are very different.
> Is the Rust compiler a better optimizing compiler than C compilers?

First, I assume that the main Rust compiler uses LLVM. I also assume (big leap here!) that the LLVM optimization process is language agnostic (ChatGPT agrees, whatever that is worth). As long as the language frontend can compiler to LLVM language-independent intermediate representation (IR), then all languages can equally benefit from the optimizer.
That sounds a lot like the atmosphere around AI right now
>> The reality that you can use many free software projects without much contribution at all is a happy and good accident of the system; but a dangerous one that can and has been often-accidentally weaponized to burn out the actual contributors.

I'm not downvoting you, but I expect people are disagreeing with this last paragraph. (There's a metaphor between people voting up and down based on what they agree or disagree with - something this site doesn't advocate for, and the way some interpret Free licenses, and their goals.)

I agree you can use any Free Software without any contribution at all. And that only the tiniest fraction contribute any code. In most projects the contributers past the owner are zero.

This is not "by accident" though. It's very much by design. We can assume RMS thought a bit about his license and he most certainly expected most of his users not to need to read the code, much less add to the program.

The Freedoms are thus Freedoms, not Requirements.

Burnout is an issue completely unrelated to the license. It happens when an employee doesn't find a balance in their life and work. It happens with free, and non-free software alike.

Yes, lots of programmers burn out because they cave to the demands of unreasonable bosses, or users. But that's unrelated to license and I'd certainly not a "weapon".
Does this performance have anything to do with Rust itself, or is it just more optimized than the other C-language versions (more SIMD instructions / raw assembly code)? I ask because there is a canonical use case where C++ can consistently outperform C -- sorting, because the comparison operator in C++ allows for more compiler optimization compared to the C version: qsort(). I am wondering if there is something similar here for Rust vs C.
“Teslas earnings are much more grounded and natural.”

How do you rationalize Tesla being valued higher than the combined valuation of the next ten car companies? They will be the only one left standing?
Baidu Releases Ernie 4.5 and X1 Models Outperforming GPT-4.5 for 1% the Cost
I think end users can certainly benefit from the downstream effects that FOSS has on developers, integrators, and other technology professionals. But most FOSS advocacy ignores this in their messaging, their strategy, and in the spaces where they operate.

I've only ever seen FOSS outreach to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups.

They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. But they don't. It's a missed opportunity, and they're going to lose relevance and influence if they don't appeal to those who drive market demand for software products.
I can't go to sleep now, knowing I killed 0.000001 people with my stupid email signature. I'm a terrible person.
What Rust provides is a way to build safe abstractions over unsafe code.

Rust's type system (including ownership and borrowing, Sync/Send, etc), along with it's privacy features (allowing types to have private fields that can only be accessed by code in the module that defined them) allows you to create fully safe interfaces around code that uses unsafe; there is provably no combination of uses of the interface which lead to undefined behavior.

Now, yeah, it's possible to also use unsafe in Rust just for applying a local optimisation. And that has fewer benefits than a fully encapsulated safe interface, though is still easier to audit for potential UB than C.

So you're right that it's on a continuum, but the distinction between safe and unsafe code means you can more easily find the specific places where UB could occur, and the encapsulation and type system makes it possible to create safe abstractions over unsafe code.
How about wine bottle sizes since we're "bottling" a "distillation" of information...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_bottle#Sizes
It could be useful just as a landing page to direct users to a .bit domain.
Nice to see the article mention the 10,000 threshold that has never been adjusted for inflation.

>Instead, the CTR minimum has remained the same since it was first enacted, even as the power of the dollar has declined: $10,000 today is equivalent to $1,372 in 1972—a fraction of what the regulation required.
Volvo EX90 has the sensor, but it is not active.
Managed Security Experience