skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your comment makes me wonder if a large part of what's driving this is the proliferation of so many disparate (sub)cultures, and specifically the brain drain away from the subcultures that had been the traditional societal defaults.

When you were at school, you were both part of the same social hierarchy. On the topic of math proficiency (general smartness, really), it was easy for him to perform a mental check and see that you were above him in that aspect (even if he was above you in other aspects), and so he should listen to you.

But then you probably went your own way, essentially getting out of his way with him continuing to advance in that traditional subculture. So now he feels he's earned being considered closer to the top of the hierarchy, even though it's no longer a pan-society hierarchy!

And then he also cannot understand where to slot you into his mental model. So you just get written off as an outside attacking force to be opposed.

This also explains why they continue calling themselves "conservatives" despite gleefully working to destroy our institutions and standing in the world - what they want "conserved" is their perceived prominence of the subcultures they bought into.
The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected.

Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable?

So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?
From the article:

> Even though Make in India is not a classic import substitution case, it aimed to reach that end.

So it's not really import substitution. But let's ignore that article, it's not a serious piece anyway.

A key idea of Make in India is to make and export - which means that unlike socialist-era import substitution (via tariffs and permissions), the ones which aren't good enough will fail fast and cheap. It won't lead to people driving HM Ambassador cars for 40 years.

Whether Make in India will succeed or fail is a very different matter, of course.
It doesn't make sense to me that the piece should start with a 17 month rest. Surely it doesn't really start until the first note is played?
> What about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well?

What about all of the domestic producers of finished goods who can now can not afford their materials and supplies? What about the domestic supplier of that finished goods producer who has their orders cut because the finished goods producer needs to cut production? What about the domestic consumer who'd like to buy those finished goods, but they can't afford it because prices over all have increased? What about the barber shop by the finished goods plant that has to shut down because the finished goods plant cut their workforce by 50%?

100+ years of studying tariffs have shown that they are effective when very narrowly targeted. Otherwise they almost never achieve their stated goal of actually increasing domestic production.

Should we tax goods from Mississippi to NY to save jobs in NYC? After all, wages in NYC are way higher than in MS. Trade with MS pulls down wages with NYC.
My father paid for college working at a grocery _part time_ and is full of stories about how a good grocer could tell a little better the ripeness of a fruit to gift that perfectly ripe one to the right customer that day who was going to eat it that night or that weekend, how there used to be an art to bagging, how they used to have real breaks and social lives, how he could get some of his homework done during work hours or do something incredible for a customer with that same kind of time.

You get the skills you pay for. When a part-time job can pay for college, imagine what the full-time regulars can do. When people have the sorts of breaks and downtime to improve themselves, think of what they can do with that time to also improve their customer's experience in little and unique ways. It is easy to wonder what all we've lost in letting companies penny pinch labor so hard, focusing on productivity numbers over anything else, minimizing the number of employees and their wages to the barest minimums.

But also, as it easy as it seems to wonder about those sorts of things, it is still fascinating how many that lived through those changes don't see the squeeze that well. My father tells those stories just as often to complain about the experience in a modern day grocery store and how quality has slipped. It does take explicit reminders like "they paid you well enough you paid for college, you know what minimum wage is like today, yeah?" The long boiled frog sometimes doesn't remember the soup wasn't always so hot.
Netty 4.2.0.Final with io_uring Support
AI use cases interacting with the physical world
Have you ever wanted your bot to do something in the real world (like verifying someone’s identity offline, picking up or dropping off items, collecting real-world data)? How did you handle it?

I'm trying to understand use cases that use AI for decision making but need to execute some actions in the physical world. If you've looked into one or are considering one, I'd love to pick your brain on what you've done so far!
> It is beyond disingenuous to pretend that different kinds of people don't feel the impact of culture and regulation differently

But that is why you shouldn't talk about it at parties, because people experience it so differently it is likely to lead to conflict and bad times.

Saying you need to talk about it since it is important is like teaching math at parties because it is important, it will just irritate people since they are there to enjoy themselves not get lectured.
I have both a brand new M4 Macbook and a ThinkPad P16s. I run Arch with Hyprland on my P16s.

They are both fantastic laptops but have clearly different use cases.

My Macook is my browsing/YouTube/music/research/photo editing machine. It's fantastic at those things. It also integrates into FaceTime and iMessage which means I don't have to pull out my phone all the time.

My P16s is my work laptop. I can disappear into it for 5 hours straight writing code. I'm either in Cursor or the terminal most of that time with a little browser use. And hyprland is freaking gorgeous, fast, and incredibly stable. I don't get nearly as good a development experience on my Macbook, mostly because so much of its navigation is based upon the trackpad vs. the keyboard in Hyprland.

So, I enjoy both and each has their place. I think my only complaint about the P16s is while it has an extremely high res OLED display, it's not as bright as I'd prefer.
One thing I am not sure about is how much reluctance foreign holders of US treasuries will have to buy more treasuries. My guess is both foreign government and commercial holdings will edge down quite a bit, even without any reciprocal activity. Just because they will have reduced US reserves, and in effect need for treasuries.

God knows what happens if reciprocal activity starts towards using another currency also for global trade.
Broken systems should be fixed or replaced, is that the type of thinking you abhor?

If you prefer living in a broken system I guess you have a lot of options available. What we have been doing in America has utterly failed humanity, sounds like your making a lot of money off a failed state and don't want your income to be threatened. I wish your type of thinking didn't exist, the world would be a much better place.
Yet I wasn't talking about my friends. I live in a large city and get to see many people I don't know every single day.

Incidentally, my friends are much more likely to not need to drive at all (tech or otherwise who WFH) than the average person around me.
It's not the idea, it's how it was rolled out, how poorly it was communicated, how little sense the numbers mean.
> [...] essentially conspire to destroy OpenAI itself

Where in the article did you see any suggestion that any member of the board wished to destroy OpenAI itself?
> It just hasn't happened because the vibes are wrong and it appears that they'll stay wrong for a while.

No. A civil society needs to be able to issue judgments that override transactions / seize assets. And therefore they cannot have automatons determining where the assets belong.

When criminals are caught with their hand in the cookie jar, we can't just shrug and say "gee I wish we had a way to get that money back."

I'm a big fan of bitcoin and to some extent cryptocurrency. I think it has real value. But I'm not deluded enough to think it can somehow replace all ledgers everywhere.
I'm not even sure what politics is anymore. I'm largely not on social media, so I am generally late to what's taboo or a hot button topic, like Tesla automobiles and SpaceX, or anything else connected to a billionaire.

In 2025, but before the Tesla burnings made the news, I was having some chitchat about possibly purchasing a Tesla as my next car, at which point, I got a tirade of anger mentioning words like "Nazi", "fascism" and so on. I was completely taken aback.

I realize we Americans are probably undergoing the results of some adversarial nation-state psychological operations[1], but we really need to chill out.

1. Coincidentally, most of my social media "usage" is identifying sock puppet accounts and their adversarial psyops campaigns.
Show HN: Haystack Code Reviewer – Guided Tours for Pull Requests
Hi HN!

We’re excited to share Haystack Code Reviewer, a tool that analyzes, chunks, and organizes the changes made in a pull request and guides you through them in a logical sequence on an interactive canvas. We hope that Haystack really cuts down on the time that you spend piecing together what's happening in the pull request, so that you can spend time on the parts that matter, like providing feedback or internalizing the changes.

As software engineers who’ve dreaded code reviews and always put them off as much as possible, we noticed how much time we spent poring over diffs to understand the broader picture or narrative of a pull request before even evaluating the code itself. Haystack Code Reviewer is designed to assemble that jigsaw puzzle for you, making code reviews less of a chore and more of a learning opportunity for both the reviewer and author!

To play with demo code reviews, go to https://haystackeditor.com/playground and select a pull request of your choice. If you’re interested in learning more, feel free to check out our short demo video at https://youtu.be/K_qLwXFwr8I.
Or if you’re ready to try it out, head over to https://haystackeditor.dev and:

1. Optionally sign in (necessary if you want to review a pull request for a private repository). For public repositories, no sign-in is needed

2. Load any PR via URL or from the dropdown (for example, try https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/pull/238427)

3. When prompted for AI analysis, click “Yes” to enable automatic organization and sectioning (we send only the diffs in the pull request to OpenAI).

We hope you find Haystack Code Reviewer useful. Let us know what you think!

You might have seen our previous Show HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42935218. We have now completely redesigned it to work with a guided AI tour of exactly how you should review the pull request so that you don't have to even think about how to approach a code review!
>You mean that when they send people back to their home countries because they're no longer welcome here?

> I don't like bullies, but when they do the "made you flinch" thing, part of me wants to smirk.

You like bullies, actually - you just don't like thinking you like bullies.
I think he's on to something, but then I come back to Hanlon's Razor: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity will do.

Sure, they might be trying to do this. But I'd give that a ~3% chance.

There is no 'there' there.

They are 'burning down your house to cook a steak.'

The emperor has no clothes.

There are many more ways to say it, but as truly unbelievable as my mind keeps insisting it is, these people are just plain-jane morons.
I'm curious, are you personally volunteering to work in the factories? Or is it a situation where we need industrialization to come back but you personally are not willing to see it through?
I agree that a deficit could be healthy and fine and doesn't mean that the other country is cheating. The problem is how some countries have ruined it for everyone else by exploiting the current system. For example, after the first round of Trump tariffs, Chinese companies began moving factories to Mexico in order to take advantage of USMCA.
Please no, all due props to Valve but they really can't count to 3.
The way I see it, it is more like a very-high initial negotiation position. From here on, each country will be dealt with individually. You accept our terms and get 5% discount on tariff ! Every country has a set of red lines. Fewer the red lines better they will be placed in one-to-one "trade agreements".

EDIT: Someone from white-house explicitly declined tariff to be a negotiation. Next few days will be interesting.
The working class have property and stocks too and don't want them taxed stupidly.
In that case it is a large security risk as well as it does not work as per the article
This is why we have system prompts (or prompt libraries if you cannot easily modify the system prompt). They can be used to store common assumptions related to your workflow.

In this example, setting the system prompt to something like "You are an experienced Android app developer specialising in apps for phone form factor devices" (replacing Android with iOS if needed) would get you a long way.
I disagree with the idea that data must be accompanied by a guarantee of accuracy to be used or published. That standard would rule out almost all datasets for which the underlying data is not programmatically generated.

My guess is that this dataset is probably more accurate on the whole than many datasets used by the kinds of calorie-tracking apps that outsource their collection of nutrition information to users. But an analysis would be required.

Regardless, the only workable approach is to describe the provenance of your data and explain what steps have been taken to ensure accuracy. Then anyone who wants to use the data can account for that information.
If you run an X220 or X230 and do embedded development, build in an ARM debugger (a thing I made some years ago)! [1]

[1] https://hackaday.io/project/27272-tp-bmp
I think it's just human nature that if things are horrible for you and your family you'll want things to change and if things are good you want them to keep going. The guy above obviously is having a great time so any change to the corrupt system terrifies him.
It's not an error. His incentives align with being an asset for a foreign adversary, and weakening the USA and perhaps all of its allies plays into their interests.

Drive inflation at home and inflation and weaponry abroad, we'll get war sooner rather than later and then adversaries can make their moves.
No one else can project conventional military force anywhere on the global like the US. China is getting there but not quite yet. India and Russia are still regional.

The Europeans couldn't deal with a few land pirates practically in their backyard.
What do you think holds the lumber together?

US homes tend not to be built with Japanese techniques.
> it's going to get a lot more expensive now

why? local producers don't pay the tariffs.
> This is built in to the normal context of the topic.

If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.

> Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath.

An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.

While many people do believe in an oath, giving it utility, not all people do. If they did, you could deal with all social problems with oaths. But the world is not so simple, I'm afraid.

> There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled.

Again, that only applies if all parties share the same norms, etiquette, and social expectations. Without that, there is no obligation. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.

> These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well

There are legal directives on paper, which may be what is confusing you, but paper is inanimate. Obligations can only be to people. There is no sign of people offering the motivation necessary for those laws to become obligations. You don't become obligated just because someone (or something) says so.

> So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion.

I am using it as defined by the dictionary, but perhaps you have your own pet definition? It seems you believe that all I have to say is: "You must make me lunch from now on!" and an obligation has been made. -- I fail to find any utility in that definition.

> You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism"

No. Not at all. The previous president was obligated without enforcement. He was compelled by his inner desire to do the right thing. The current president does not have that. It is true that enforcement is probably the only thing that would compel an obligation in this specific case, but that is not a precondition on the word, just the reality of the situation we are discussing.
We need realistic expectations for the limitations of LLMs as they work today. Philosophically, natural language is imperfect at communicating ideas between people, which is its primary purpose! How often do you rewrite sentences, or say "actually what I meant was...", or rephrase your emails before pressing Send? We are humans and we rarely get things perfect on the first try.

And now we're converting this imperfect form of communication (natural language) into a language for machines (code), which notoriously do exactly what you say, not what you intend.

NLP is massively, and I mean massively, beneficial to get you started on the right path to writing an app/script/etc. But at the end of the day it may be necessary to refactor things here and there. The nice thing is you don't have to be a code ninja to get value out of LLMs, but it's still helpful and sometimes necessary.
All great reasons and so true.

I kinda stopped monitoring web-stats because sometimes we pour effort
into an article or episode that gets depressingly low views, while
others - of dubious quality - soar in the ratings. It's that random
"injustice" which feels wrong :)

Yet as TFA says, once you factor out any goals of influence, writing
is an amazing process for research and idea formation in itself.
Cybershow has become a yardstick of how prescient our coverage is and
a growing catalogue of pieces that trace the trajectory of tech in the
past few years.

I think it takes a couple of years and more than a hundred or so
pieces for that value to come into view. So if you just started
blogging/podcasting, give it time.
At first, Ukraine stayed firmly rooted in Russia's economical orbit. It's the slow inevitable lean towards Western Europe that enraged Russia.

NATO had nothing to do with it. It's economical.
Poor people migrate. Rich people... just travel a lot.
Pages interfering with how scrolling works infuriates me so much that I've often considered writing an extension that tries to disable that behavior, or even compile my own Firefox if I had to.
The strange thing here is that you've chosen to defend the indefensible on the grounds of trying to "both sides" something that really is only from one side.
That's not how economics works. The pie is not fixed, it tends to grow over time as there's more trade between countries and their economies get bigger. The global economic pie has increased a massive amount over the past century.
(US Centric opinion comment) in the wake of moving away from religions to more secular societies, it's shocking how much folks have simply switched from religions like Christianity et. al. to Republican or Democrat or Left or Right etc.

What I'd consider healthy exploratory debate is now treated like heresy punishable by metaphorical death.(eg cancellation)

That's why I often stay my tongue and let people believe I'm on their side. Frankly it's not worth the consequences and I'll let them live in their delusions because giving feedback is too dangerous nowadays.
While I know that Steam has DRM, it's never been as onerous as other types of DRM.

I also know that Steam DRM isn't that hard to bypass. Generally just some patched DLLs. But I've never had a real need to bypass it. Steam lets you play offline with no connection. My games are, to a first approximation, mine and Valve doesn't need to be informed every minute I'm playing if I so choose.

Gabe's premise is right on. We pirate from Netflix and Epic because it's orders of magnitude easier than playing by the rules. I buy from Steam because it's easier than piracy.

As a rule, I don't pirate steam games. If it's something I'm interested in, it's probably worth my money. I do pirate from EA and others because the Sims 4 is not worth $500 in any universe. I pirate shows and movies because it's too much time and money to even figure out who has what I want this week.

You beat pirates by making your service more attractive than piracy. Steam is a better experience than free, and a better experience than all the other paid options. This is how you win.
> is that it implies that there must be "They" and "Us". You can't just get prosperous as a humanity

This idea of humanity transcending our genetic (due to geographic proximity) tribal groups is a uniquely European one. Pretending we can abandon all tribalism and integrate the entire world into a European model is either immensely incompetent or intentionally malicious (I tend to think the latter). The current billionaire class profits immensely from all the diversity (both generic and ideological) in the west. It’s much easier to parasitically rule a divided people than a unified one. Nationalism is a defense against these parasites.

> needs to be a subgroup like "Americans" or "Germans" that do amazing things and they are very unsatisfied that Chinese and Indians got advanced

The issue isn’t other countries improving. The issue is the average America should not have a degraded quality of life (barring major natural disasters etc) so that our billionaires can be richer. A nationalist elite class would correctly say “no, we keep those jobs here because it benefits my countryman even if I’m going to make less money”. We do not have this and the wealth gap continues to increase.

> If you're subscribe the idea that people should team around these things and if you think that you won't be suffering that much and you don't care that some people might suffer a lot

Do you think parents should prioritize their children? Not saying this snidely - there’s no black and white lines here, but I think universalism can only be accomplished by taking care of our own and growing our tent, as opposed to diminishing our own to lift up others (who in many cases do not share our universalist sentiments).