skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> There have been incompetent US presidents before.

Depends on what you call "incompetent" I guess. I strongly suspect Biden wasn't as competent as his younger peers in most areas. But that's nothing unusual - most leaders are older men. What is clear is Biden was happy to take other peoples advice on most things.

In fact I'd say a core competence of a president is to be able to seek advice, weigh it and chose the best path forward among the alternatives offered. It has to be that way, because the reality is on just about any topic you care to name, the president will be about as knowledgeable as your average Joe six pack compared to the experts that can be found in a country of 300 million.

But if you are like Trump and are recommending ingesting chlorine on public television to cure COVID, seeking advice before opening your mouth clearly isn't your strong point.
> bad enough to not graduate from high school on time.

This is a good example of how wide the ADHD spectrum can be. From my perspective, I’d actually call this mild, not because it is, but because I never finished high school at all. My parents bought into stigma and refused meds against medical advice, and the fallout ruined both my childhood and much of my adult life.

I get you're aiming for a cautious take, but I’d urge anyone reading this to think hard before following it. If you do have more than mild ADHD, this kind of “avoid meds” advice can be genuinely harmful, it’s the kind of thinking that keeps people suffering for years when they don’t have to.

As an adult, I refused meds while my life continued to fall apart. Convinced by stigma and those that constantly shouted "MEDICATION BAD." So as my life spiraled ever downwards, I increased the rate at which I beat my self up telling myself constantly I just needed more willpower, better systems, or the right therapist and it would all change. Spoiler alert: none of it worked without the baseline support stimulants gave me and refusing to medicate was one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made. It did such a degree of damage to my life it's not even possible to begin to describe it.

Stimulants aren’t inherently dangerous when used properly. What is dangerous is untreated or mistreated ADHD and the damage it causes, to you the individual and those around you. The therapeutic ladder should start with what works, framing meds as a “last resort” is unhelpful and rooted in stigma, not reality.

If you think you have ADHD, get off the internet and see a real doctor. Work with them to figure out what actually helps you without assumption or expectation and don’t let other people’s experiences or stigma decide your treatment for you.
Tens of thousands out in the streets in Turkey right now. Still possible there. Still possible here.
Isn’t this basically what headaches are? We have no pain receptors in the brain of course, and I was under the impression headaches are largely refereed pain.

If not all of them, it’s certainly a subset, which is just another interesting dimension of your experience.
The text preview underneath the search result is one thing I remember being contentious (some news websites in France took Google to court and won if I recall correctly)

For mostly the same reasons people are against AI. If you read that text, sometimes there’s no reason to visit the website, which ‘deprives’ website owners and the content creators of ad revenue they would have gotten if Google hadn’t copied the text from their website.

After all, the news is the same regardless of if it’s written on the Google result preview or on the news website itself.
Considering they got a government bailout once already I don’t think the US would ever let that happen.
Every nation tries to influence her neighbors to be more accommodating of her wants and needs. We just happen to be bigger and better at doing it. Speaking historically, and relative to other past and present world powers, y'all are far better off living near America.

It is completely reasonable that we wouldn't put up with leaders objectively hostile to our interests popping up in our backyard, not after the last one who did got within a hair's breadth of planting nuclear missiles a hundred miles off our coast.

I actually wouldn't care nearly as much about China were Deng in power. I'd worry a bit given that we don't want to be economically eclipsed, sure, but my present concerns are directly tied to the current leadership and posture of china.

Are you suggesting we were wrong to transfer technology out of Germany post-WWII? To me it seems like a hell of a lot better as some form of repayment than the onerous reparations regime we tried post-WWI. Vae victis; if all millions of American dead cost Germany were some scientists and patents, they should count themselves lucky.

Saying America "stole" JPL from Avro is also a crazy interpretation. The Arrow was an incredibly expensive project: canada had about 20 million people at the time and was in terrible economic shape. Diefenbaker's decision remains controversial, and most people agree that destroying the project so thoroughly was just stupid, but you can't support the idea that we "stole" something from Canada or somehow compelled her to kill the project.
The problem is that readers are likely to interpret it the way I did and then wonder why it wasn't flagged.
I think this is for the, now depressingly remote, situation where you want to verify that something at the end of a adversaries missile is really not a nuclear weapon because a treaty says that would be one too many.

In that context a way to measure radioactivity by non-invasive means is great!

Shame that a nuclear weapons treaty with limits and an inspections regime is more sci-fi than the technology needed to remotely verify the presence of a warhead.
something tells me that this pathetic messaging approach is not going to be the one that squares the circle between "piracy is illegal" and "information wants to be free"
That's cool, but where does it say it's decidable?
Ohh.. "the +/- 1 square" means a square of size 2 centred around the origin? That was way too terse for me.
So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators (never). If we hold our principles to OpenAI (pay who you took from), they will go bankrupt. So of course they are speaking in end-game language. To suggest the race is lost even before it starts is an incredible thing.

How is it that we can theorize that the model would get better with more data, but we can't theorize that the business model would need to get bigger (pay the content creators) to train the model? Shoot first and ask questions later (or rather, BEG later).
It would be wild if everyone experienced pain differently despite having pretty much identical tools for experiencing it. That would probably open so many cans of worms…
Not just Teslas, most EVs
Previous experience isn't manual edge cases, it's training data. Humans have incredible scale (100 trillion synapses): we're incredibly good at generalizing, e.g., how to pick up objects we've never seen before or understanding new social situations.

If you want to learn how to play chess, understanding the basic principles of the game is far more effective than trying to memorize every time you make an opening mistake. You surely need some amount of rote knowledge, but learning how to appraise new chess positions scales much, much better than trying to learn an astronomically small fraction of chess positions by heart.
When you log in you can create your own lists, bookmark ones you might like, and only see the ones you want.
What I don't understand is why this is always presented as a "race" that "we" have to win or else. It's just such a strange framing to me and every time I see it, it's presented as some sort of self-evident truth, but I don't think it's self-evident at all.
47 subscribers, 117 views, published 1h ago
DeepSeek-V3 now runs at 20 tokens per second on Mac Studio
Exact same way OpenAI does: by scraping data, ingesting it, processing it, incorporating it into its proprietary system, and using it to serve responses to queries.

This is not to say that I thing that any of this is wrong. I think that if what Google or OpenAI do is illegal, then the law is wrong, not Google or OpenAI.
In a world were everyone is lean and ripped, i wonder if it being overweight will become the new sexy again
Quoth the article: "Obviously, you could precompute the entire image, but that's against the spirit of the challenge"
For anyone curious, this is one of the best places to learn about some early Indo-European languages:

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol
Won't be the first time. They were bankrupt in 2009 and reorganized under a different company after getting billions in bailout money. I'd like to think they won't get bailed out again, but that seems unlikely
It doesn’t. But officials keen on breaking the law may.
I tend to agree with you. There's a valid point that we shouldn't be consigning young Americans to die in foreign wars, but I do believe we should still maintain foreign bases and a global military. I think the past several administrations have made critical mistakes w.r.t. our diplomatic and military posture.

I'm making more of a positive statement than a normative one. I'm aware the political winds are rather against me in this and wouldn't expect to be able to sell this particular set of ideas to either party, but I still believe them to be our best option.
Yes, well, in a way they're right and I suspect everyone here knows it no matter how and mighty they might want act when commenting. When foreign (here 'Chinese') competition just ignores copyright laws while 'western' companies have to abide by them for every piece of data they use to train their models the former will have a clear advantage over the latter. This also happens to be how the USA acted in the 1800s [1]:

the United States declined an invitation to a pivotal conference in Berne in 1883, and did not sign the 1886 agreement of the Berne Convention which accorded national treatment to copyright holders. Moreover, until 1891 American statutes explicitly denied copyrights to citizens of other countries and the United States was notorious in the international sphere as a significant contributor to the "piracy" of foreign literary products. It has been claimed that American companies for the most part "indiscriminately reprinted books by foreign authors without even the pretence of acknowledgement" (Feather, 1994, 154). The tendency to freely reprint foreign works was encouraged by the existence of tariffs on imported books that ranged as high as 25 percent (see Dozer, 1949).

[1] http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_artte...
> (Spoilers: it also allocates 60+ GB of RAM for intermediate results, so consider reducing the image size before running it on your own machine)

The input algorithm is essentially written in SSA form, and it's easy to analyze when each "register" stops being used; then you can drop the arrays after their last use. Turns out the number of live registers never exceeds 160 at any point in time, and with this one addition the max memory usage drops to barely above 1GB.
Sorry but it is actually a huge problem for the US if the DeepSeek models are able to train on sorta-illegal dumps of scientific papers and US models aren't. The ones that are paywalled by scientific journals.

Everyone WILL start using hosted frontier Chinese models if they are demonstrably better at answering scientific questions than ChatGPT, sending essentially all US research questions into a Chinese data dump. This is even worse than the national security catastrophe that is TikTok (even aside from the EVEN BIGGER issue that China will have models that are staggeringly better than those in the US, because they are up to date on the science).

I understand the reflexivity against AI companies "stealing content" but we need to stay competitive and figure out the financial compensation later. This is not a case where our unbelievably generous copyright laws should take precedence over US competitiveness.
It's not that technical work is guaranteed to be in your codebase 10 years from now, it's that customers don't want to use a product that might be good six months from now. The actors in the best position to use new AI advances are the ones with good brands, customer bases, engineering know-how that does transfer, etc.
That's not quite correct. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43465698

B was bootstrapped in BCPL, then rewritten in B to be self-hosting. But the transition from B to NB (New B) to C was continuous evolution. Thompson or Richie would add a feature to the compiler, compile a new compiler, then change the compiler source to use the new feature. If you did not have a sufficiently new enough B/NB/C compiler you could not compile the compiler and there was no path maintained to deal with that. You went down the hall and asked someone else to give you the newer compiler.

There also wasn't a definitive point where NB became C... they just decided it had changed enough and called it C.
You have to remember a company is not a social being with balanced obligations. Its obligation is to its owners and not to society.

If OpenAI’s leadership weren’t saying precisely this, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.
Ok, but please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. They're invariably less interesting (because more repetitive, and more indignant) than the specific point they tangent off from.

This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Is it the exact same though?
Electra eSTOL aircraft needs just 100 feet to take off, has $9B in orders
Hydropower is also a significant contributor to their low carbon energy generation profile.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CR/72h/hourly
> the mid-1900s were a different time for medical ethics.

But sadly, only nazis and japanese are bad, others (CIA) are good.
And if Bob doesn't get to do that he will leave. If Bob has to put up with low quality code because Alice can't get the basics right but he also isn't allowed to point out basic mistakes in code review, he will leave.

There is no such thing as being "overly nitpicky in reviews". This sentiment reminds me of an old coworker of mine that would basically throw a tantrum when I asked him not to add new lines to a file, which was indented consistently with tabs, with spaces. He needed to be reminded of this every commit. This is the sort of crap that distracts from the substantive code review, yes. But the solution is not to do what Alice wants and ignore minor details. It is for Alice to get the basics right the first time so that Bob can focus on more substantive things.

This isn't just true in software development either. In law, the first thing a new graduate joining the profession is told is that whatever you do, the work you produce should be spelt correctly and your grammar should be right. The formatting should be consistent too. Why? Because inconsistency and error in those aspects is distracting to someone reviewing the substance of the work, and the basics are so easy to get right.

To put it concisely: if you got the basics right the first time, which you should, then you wouldn't get nitpicky comments.

There are obviously many ways that people might be less productive in combination than the sum of their individual productivities, but in my experience some unfortunate people make no effort to adjust the way they work so that they combine well with others, and some people blend in very naturally with others' working styles. Some people are worth having even if they're difficult. Some people are only worth having if they play nicely. Either be a star or play nicely. Mediocre performers that are also difficult to work with don't ever last very long.
I forgot that there's an "11.0.0" as well. Perhaps others have been added since.
I think this is the biggest thing - anything will be much more enjoyable when you can choose how much to engage in, and you do not depend on its completion for income or survival.

Of course farming and carpentry will be more fun to a software engineer who is doing it as a hobby or in retirement, than the work they did in their job. Even if you “switch” to it as a source of income, it is far different to have another career and set of skills to fall back on, than to be doing it out of necessity.
>tech-related opsec failure

Not sure that 'fat fingering' on a mobile device rises to the level of tech-related opsec. The choice to use a non-government approved device certainly is news, but not necessarily Hacker News. Plenty of better places to debate it.
I would agree with him if I think about it. Pain is a side effect. You are never trying to treat pain, you’re trying to treat whatever is causing pain.

This doesn’t even get into the fact that people might experience diminished or increased pain for a myriad of reasons which could completely throw off the severity assessment.

There are probably better methods to determine the seriousness of a scenario? I’m not a doctor.
> makes it easier for integrators to build a robust integration with you

No, don't say 'easier'. It makes it possible to build a robust integration. We need to stop with this notion that omiting idempotency from an API just makes things "more difficult" to develop. Without idempotency, you garuantee that the resulting system is "difficult" to use and full of nasty issues that are waiting for the right conditions to collapse the entire house of cards you've built.

So many SaaS providers have never even heard of idempotency, let alone design it into their APIs. Many people believe you can just sprinkle it on as a library without having to think about it.

All APIs with multiple distributed servers must support idempotency. Refuse to do business with any organisations who do not design this into their APIs!
It appears they think their shitty info/nav/tainment is a key distinguisher and that CP/AP threatens what's maybe the only way for them to stand out among a field of boring, undistinguished boxes.

In reality the only car makers with balls to be significantly different were not well rewarded in the last few decades. Then Tesla showed up with a new dealer model and tons of new features and sold ~4 million units with no marketing.

And now BYD is on the horizon leapfrogging everyone's feature set and price points, and US makers will need to be defended since they won't or can't compete.
> the critical difference between secular ideology and religious ideology is that (in a properly functioning society) you can challenge/question/probe secular ideology.

This feels like an odd statement, given how many of the most repressive regimes in human history were or are secular. Maybe the "properly functioning" part is doing the heavy lifting, but if so, it makes the statement almost meaningless.
ChatGPT is a substitute to the original work, Google redirects to the original work.

(and yes,the synthesis on the top of the page is a problem, I agree)
More like, it's interesting that big tech companies can create extremely elaborate copyright assignment, metering and payout mechanisms when it's in their interest - right down to figuring out who owns 30 seconds of incidental radio music that plays in the background during someone's speedrun video.

But for other classes of user generated content, the problem is suddenly "impossible".
I wonder if there's a commercial incentive for a news outlet to choose to do this - "we don't hide, never delete articles, preserve history etc..."

Or perhaps just some middle ground between 'we delete, change and hide articles' and 'this link is forever and here's the full diff history'.
Sorry, do you have actual point, or are just trying to be pedantic? Strictly speaking, it’s not exact same, because no two different things are exact same, by definition. However, my point is that the same principle should apply to both.
It's always interesting to see how the title of a HN post radically changes the people who comment and vote. The AI friendly people are being carpet bombed by haters, but in a model release thread the haters would be flagged to oblivion.
You know, there's a creative third way which the US could approach if it had the cajones.

Allow OpenAI and other AI companies to use all data for training, but require that they pay it forward by charging royalties on profits beyond X amount of profit, where X is a number high enough to imply true AGI was reached.

The royalties could go into a fund that would be paid out like social security payments for every American starting when they were 18 years old. Companies could likewise request a one time deferred payment or something like that.

It's having your cake and eating it. Also helping ease some tensions around job loss.

Sadly, what we'll likely get is a bunch of tech leaders stumbling into wild riches, hoarding it, and then having it taken from them by force after they become complacent and drunk on power without the necessary understanding of human nature or history to see why they've brought it on themselves.
We all gotta start somewhere buddy, much love.
> The reason I'm skeptical of that framing is it implies coal production is being replaced by clean energy, rather than total energy production being increased.

I wasn't intending to imply that. It's entirely possible China might get to 90% renewable energy production without shutting down a single coal plant.

> Lots of countries announce decarbonization goals, but I will remain skeptical until the data show progress.

Sure, but that doesn't conflict with having more and more of your energy production being renewable.
Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake?

2h is a lot but also not that much time, everything is prepared already it’s more a countdown I would say. What would be a usual timeframe to inform the people you want to inform about an immediate event which is going to happen?
Your driving data is incredibly incredibly valuable.
"Redheads get less pain relief" - are there any references you have so I can explore this more?
To be fair to GM (and this is tough because I really dislike their products) the multiple screens in a modern vehicle often control everything, including the HVAC, and having some Chinese company try to reverse engineer something that fits in the dashboard and also plays nice with the CAN bus based system running the car is not easy.

If they were tired of paying royalties to Apple, there is at least 1 aftermarket "Carplay compatible" system available that's often on the cheap Android head units you can buy from AliExpress, so I don't think it's money. I think it's more to do with being able to honour the warranties on the vehicle.

Dealer fitted accessories have occasionally stepped over the line, the customer doesn't care because "it came with the car" and the dealerships will try to make extra money any way they can, which are both things that GM see as an extra cost.
You cannot question modern gender ideology in any public school around me.

All children are indoctrinated with something. There is a competition for who gets to do it.
Same for me.

By accepting no phone mirroring functionality, you’re forfeiting your escape hatch… if the built-in infotainment suddenly becomes awful after a software update or the manufacturer chooses to stop supporting it and it becomes useless due to lack of updates, you’re just stuck.

All the while, the guy still driving his beat up 2016 Mazda CX-5 still gets a screen with maps in his dash because his infotainment system can still mirror his phone, even if the rest of the system has become obsolete.
I'm not OK with that, though... and here we have the nut of the problem. There is no agreement as to what's acceptable and what's not.

I personally think that the odds of me me being able to both publicly publish my words and code and be able to keep them out of training data is pretty close to zero. Since that's unacceptable to me, my only option is not to publish that stuff at all.