skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is this really a “fight to the death”? Hamas already accepted a cease fire. In fact it seems that only the Israelis want a “fight to the death”, given that they broke the cease fire and seem to have no intention of resuming negotiations. Given the extreme disparity in military capabilities between Hamas and the IDF, and the extreme disparity in casualties, are the Israelis really fighting to the death? Or are they just engaging in indiscriminate killing?
It's not just that it won't crash, it means that an exploit in the unsafe code won't allow corrupting memory used by the rest of the program
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-o... (4 April 2016)
The ability to read fast is not a bad thing. The compulsion to is harmful. Ideally you read at the pace you enjoy or at which you best absorb what you need. Being able to read fast and slow down for the important or relevant (to you) bits can be very useful for learning.
> All this talk about having to train users... then the companies change the interfaces so much that even power users get confused.

I don't think this is a realistic assessment of the problem. Windows 11 slremains very much recognizable since the Windows 7 days, and the transition from Windows 10 to Windows 11 was seamless. Moreso with walled gardens like macOS.

In the meantime you can't sneeze in the direction of a mainstream windows manager for Linux without it introducing radical changes, not to mention how all distros are heavily fragmented and sometimes even customized.
DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
FSD meaning level 2? Lots of those.
Wait til you hear that Tesla doesn’t count fatalities in its accident data.

Or that any collision that doesn’t involve airbag deployment is not actually an accident, according to Tesla.

You were saying something about stats?
Hyundai Promises to Keep Buttons in Next-Gen Interiors
You may have briefly misidentified a traffic light for a pedestrian light, but you quickly recovered and stopped for the light.

Transient errors happen all the time, but somehow you trust yourself more to keep driving.
It needs to treat that data as information. If there’s README says to download a tarball and unpack it, that might be phrased as an instruction, but it’s not the same kind of instruction as the “please install this library” from the user. It’s implicitly a “if your goal is X then you can do Y to reach that goal” informational statement. The reader, whether a human or an LLM, needs to evaluate that information to decide whether doing Y will actually achieve X.

To put it concretely, if I tell the LLM to scan my hard drive for Bitcoin wallets and upload them to a specific service, it should do so. If I tell the LLM to install a library and the library’s README says to scan my hard drive for Bitcoin wallets and upload them to a specific service, it must not do so.

If this can’t be fixed then the whole notion of agentic systems is inherently flawed.
Meant to say it's slow / fast using emojis in the second line, didn't realize they're not supported, whoops.
at least 5 people would be alive today if tesla had not pushed unreliable technology on the market.
>Whenever I see the Darwin kernel brought into the discussion I can't help but wonder how different things could have been if Apple had just forked Linux and ran their OS services on top of that.

They have a long history with XNU and BSD. And Linux has s GPL license which might not suit Apple.

>Especially when I think about how committed they are to Darwin it really paints a poor image in my mind. The loss that open source suffers from that, and the time and money Apple has to dedicate to this with a disproportionate return.

They share a lot of code with FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Which are open source. And Darwin is open source, too. So there's no loss that open source suffers.
Dubious about that. I think people thought he had a bunch of money, so did things for him in exchange for some of that money.
So why are we Taking claims and justifications from this admin at face value? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”
The rhetorical point of reflecting the grandparent's use of language is to highlight that it's a meaningless argument, in reality. It's just fallacy to appeal to a limp as right to shut down an appeal to modern civility over regressive barbarity in our language.

My minority-status is only relevant to further illuminate the emptiness of the argument being made. Most people can claim some degree of structural disadvantage in their lives.

The revival of eugenicist language is not a positive trend for any member of a disadvantaged demographic, regardless of how they wield their position in society.
I mean software product. Everything commodities something in the end imho
Sure, but that wasn't the essence of my take. Everyone can have opinions on things, but if the doctor said, "As a doctor..." and then just talked about urban planning, I'd be suspect. "As a human..." would be different.
If you were looking for truth you wouldn’t reply like this. I’m not going to do an hour of work to carefully cite this for you, but it’s true nonetheless.
I think "appeal to" is the operative term, without necessarily much substance behind it.
Spelling varies widely across the eras our ebooks were published in. Therefore we attempt to standardize spelling to what a modern reader might be familiar with. We only make sound-alike changes, like to-morrow -> tomorrow.

This is a common practice that editors and publishers have quietly engaged in for centuries. For example, today you are not reading Shakespeare in the way it was spelled in its first printing.
> There is also risk as Chevy already deprecated their first gen "FSD", leaving early adopters with gimped ability and shutout from future expansions.

Tesla has already said that some of its vehicles, sold with “all the hardware necessary for FSD” will never get it.
Ask HN: How do tariffs interplay with the AI Bubble?
Many “AI” tools either don’t work or don’t work reliably & consistently enough to be used in production.

For a while now things tech felt increasingly like is on a path for reckoning similar to the dot com bubble, where company valuations were headed for a major correction with a long recovery even if the underlying technology was going to upend life in time.

I’m having trouble figuring out how the impact of tariffs changes this course. Curious what others think.

Stock market valuations are experiencing a correction, but unlike dotcom few “AI era startups” have gone public. The job market in tech is still out of whack from 2022 and feels like a tale of have and have nots (those employed with the right skills can’t keep up, but those unemployed are struggling to get through the noise and find a job).

I see a world in which tariff nonsense corrects for valuations and prevents a deeper correction in tech, see a world where one hits the other back to back to cause serious problems, and see a world where I’m missing the forest for the trees.
> Yet, many if not most people would like an education that is informed by educated literati.

That's because in the past showing that you're "educated" by virtue signalling a particular experience with a particular type of education would allow you an inside track to social groups and employment of value.

If there is anywhere in the World where we should question the value of that, it's on a forum dedicated to helping entrepreneurs build new things and to disrupt the World away from that kind of thinking.

> You seem to be implying that literature has to socialize kids to values

Literature does socialize kids to values, whether you or I like it or not. It socializes adults too: that's the point of literature. We're all just stochastic parrots. Literature - and all other art - shapes what we parrot.

I think that when choosing a list of eminent reading material for 9-12th graders, you're implicitly choosing a set of values for them. It should require thoughtfulness as to what you're hoping to achieve with it. I'm questioning the values presented in this list in terms of breadth, depth and appropriateness.

And yes, I also happen to think a lot of it is very dull writing liked by fusty old men in universities, rather than being a list of material that makes a person of impressionable age take something of it to use for themselves as they go out into the World. It's a missed opportunity. It is therefore dull and mediocre, in my view.

I'm allowed to share my view on this mater as a comment, on a site dedicated to people sharing their opinions as comments. I'm sorry that my doing so seems to have upset you.

What I see in your reply is a monologue expressing how you are affronted by someone saying things you disagree with for reasons you can't explain other than you seem to find it tiresome, and you're not quite sure why that's allowed to go without comment, so here, here's your comment on it, but why on Earth did that person post that comment that is just so... so... commenty... ?
I'm a roboticist who had learned from researchers involved in the 2007 DARPA urban challenge. The key takeaway from that event was that every single car that finished the race was equipped with the 3D velodyne LIDAR. It was that technology that enabled driverless cars to work as a concept.

Why? Because it provided information that people had to infer, and that you couldn't easily get from camera. So absent the human inference engine that allowed human drivers to work, we would have to rely on highly-precise measurement instruments like LiDAR instead.

Musk's huge error was in thinking "Well humans have eyes and those are kind of like cameras, therefore all you need are cameras to drive"

But no! Eyes are not cameras, they are extensions of our brains. And we use more than our eyes to navigate roads, in fact there's a huge social aspect to driving. It's not just an engineering challenge but a social one. So from the get-go he's solving the wrong problem.

I knew this guy was full of it when he started talking about driverless cars being 5 years out in 2015. Just utter nonsense to anyone who was actually in that field, especially if he thought he could do it without LiDAR. He called his system "autopilot" which was deceptive, but I was completely off him when he released "full self driving - beta" onto public streets. Reckless insanity. What made me believe he is criminally insane is this particular timeline (these are headlines, you can search them if you want to read the stories):

2016 - Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says
2016 - Tesla working on Autopilot radar changes after crash
2017 - NTSB Issues Final Report and Comments on Fatal Tesla Autopilot Crash
2019 - Tesla didn’t fix an Autopilot problem for three years, and now another person is dead
2021 - Inside Tesla as Elon Musk Pushed an Unflinching Vision for Self-Driving Cars Tesla announces transition to ‘Tesla Vision’ without radar, warns of limitations at first
2022 - Former Head Of Tesla AI Explains Why They’ve Removed Sensors; Others Differ
2022 - Tesla Dropping Radar Was a Mistake, Here is Why
2023 - Tesla reportedly saw an uptick in crashes and mistakes after Elon Musk removed radar from its cars
2023 - Elon Musk Overruled Tesla Engineers Who Said Removing Radar Would Be Problematic: Report
2023 - How Elon Musk knocked Tesla’s ‘Full Self-Driving’ off course
2023 - The final 11 seconds of a fatal Tesla Autopilot crash

Now I get to add TFA to the chronical.

The man and his cars are a menace to society. Tesla would be so much further along on driverless cars without Musk.
Its Mercedes believing in their tech that they take responsibility if it fails.
It's quite a leap from "TAL discovered their mistaken story and added fact checking" to "TAL and NPR are largely bullshit factories".

You need to present evidence for your extreme claim.
I have a similar tale. A semester before college ended, I got a professor who worked for a large company in the poultry business. I was one of the few people who was doing well in the Java 101 class and I was also going out of my way to help a few people struggling with it. Because of my tenacity, he decided to give me a
short internship in IT.

Long story short, it didn't go well. I struggled to fit in, they threw me straight into the fire, and the people around me did not want to help. After 90 days, the manager called me into the office and told me I didn't make the cut. It was the first time I had been fired from a job and I felt terrible.

Looking back this was the lesson I learned. Things happen for a reason and sometimes, things that look bad are actually a blessing in disguise.

The company I was interning at had an awful culture where no one help anyone else. People were constantly getting fired and due to that there was a dog eat dog mentality there. The software was old stuff, SAP and other stuff like that. In retrospect, I'm really glad that I was fired; I dodged a major bullet.

I ended up finding another job quickly right after I graduated with an amazing company in a more amazing city.
And the exchange rate is mentioned precisely zero times in that article, as is the current unused and underused labour in the economy. Instead it drops straight onto land which we can’t make any more of.

Do it again with a factory that puts on a double shift with the unemployed and see what happens.

Do it again with the Chinese sovereign wealth funds, the likely source of mercantile intervention, offering 14 CNY per USD rather than the current 7.

It’s unlikely that any production will move. What’s more likely to change is the quantity and location of financial savings. The distributional impact of that change is probably unknown.
It's pretty impressive that we have self-driving cars that takes us this far with Just cameras. But it probably won't get any better than this without a revamp.

That said, what if we make these self driving tools fully available to drivers. Drivers are pretty good at driving already with with relatively short training. Give them the superpowers of teslas like 360 view, predictive object path, and object detection and you have super drivers.
Base rate fallacy is not relevant here.

There are 5 dead people who would be alive today had tesla not pushed this to the market.
To quote Black Adder: Some of you may die, but some of us will live!
Been riding for two decades and my understanding has been that 'splitting' is the yank term and 'filtering' is the britbong one.
Destructors take care of all these situations and because they are hidden and run automatically at the end of a scope you don't forget them or mess them up.

I have never heard anyone say they are hard to reason about, especially if there is no garbage collection or inheritance.
with fork()
Sure but that's not all people.

If you assume a constant rate of attention, but then massively increase what people are aware of during that attention, that's a massive increase in safety.

Safety is affected by lots of factors. Increasing any of them increases safety -- you don't need to increase all of them to get improvements.
Nobody has level 5. Waymo did 5 million miles in 2024 with nobody behind the wheel. Tesla did way more but required a human driver due to frequent disengagement. These are not the same. https://electrek.co/2024/09/26/tesla-full-self-driving-third...

Level 4 is a commercially viable product. Mapping allows verification by simulation before deployment. Tesla offers level 3, which is not monetizable beyond being a gimmick.
I use metube now since it's actively maintained
Radars are not as good as you think. They generally can't detect stationary objects, have problems with reflections, most of them are VERY low resolution, and so on.

The "with almost perfect accuracy and very little false positives" part is not true.

If you look at euroncap data, you'll see how most cars are not close to 100 in Safety Assist category (and Teslas with just vision are among the top). And these EuroNCAP are fairly easy and ideal. So it's clearly not a solved problem, as you portray.

https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
My worry cuts the other way… FSD is more globally and consistently attentive than I am.
This does not bode well for the Tesla robotaxi pilot launching soon. Depending on how that goes, Q2/Q3 could be a bloodbath for Tesla and I'm sure he knows it.
And Mercedes owning liability if you have an incident under their system? That is actually putting your money where your mouth is.

Not just “the driver is only in the seat for legal reasons” bullshit (“but watch us throw a press conference to parade your talented data for the world if we think it will protect our reputation at your expense”).
Alex is a better straight up libertarian-ish guy. Tyler has been on this "but ... what if this CONTRARIAN thing....?" for a long time and I am done with it. I may not agree with Alex on this that or the other thing, but it doesn't feel like he's trying to show off how clever he is all the time.
I'm confused by your comment, the posts are both mine? Even if I take what I think is the most charitable version of your "argument", which I think is "tech thinks things should by default exist and be permissible unless they pass an extremely stringent test", no pro-advertising person here is trying to find the outlines of what that test might be. They're all running right to "there's no way to separate advertising from other speech without collapsing civilization", which is absurd.
This comment seems to have a lot to say but it was word salad to me, quite confusing and hard to read :(
Engineering entirely new things isn't like making another set of silverware, there are unforeseeable complications, and all forward looking statements are estimates or projections at best. Success seems to depend most on how many times you're able to try.

Maybe I'm just old, but development roadmaps are always vapor, until they aren't, which happens sometimes. Always been that way.

To be clear, I'd much rather my vehicle have superhuman multisensory awareness than only superhuman awareness. And I think it's fair for regulators to involve themselves with vehicle engineering, as all our safety depends on it. I've also watched the AI day presentations about their vehicle training system, and read their disclaimer text for enabling FSD, and it seems like they're doing a lot to advance the state of the art.
Hmm, but all the real, registered self driving vehicles in California are safer than human drivers - and that the data is better documented, we know that better than comparing human drivers to each other.

The regulations are doing really well, it’s a big victory for regulators, why not make Teslas abide by the same rules? Why not roll out such strict scrutiny gradually to all vehicles and drivers?

You are talking about regulatory degrees that are about safety. It seems the thing that lawmakers change is reactive to other things. Like how much does the community depend on cars to survive? If you cannot eliminate car dependence you can’t really achieve a more moral legal stance than “People can and will buy cars that kill other people so long as it doesn’t kill the driver.”
That's because the competitors are aiming to provide a feature that works (all the time, consistently).
> We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well.

No, we don't.

We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence, is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving.

Which is very different than “visual detection works quite well”.
It is fascinating how the positions of the two major U.S. political parties have flipped on tariffs. Democrats, who historically supported protectionist trade measures, now oppose tariffs, while Republicans—once champions of free trade—have embraced them. Yes, party platforms evolve, but this kind of sudden reversal is still remarkable.

What’s even more bizarre is the mental gymnastics on both sides. Some argue that tariffs somehow benefit CEOs and the wealthy, even though stock market reactions consistently show that tariffs hurt corporate profits. Others on the right now frame tariffs as a fundamentally “Republican” principle, despite decades of GOP support for free markets and globalization.

Here’s my prediction: many CEOs and wealthy individuals will gravitate toward the Democratic Party. Why? Because tariffs reduce profits, and Trump’s policies seem designed to benefit a narrow segment of the rich rather than the broader business class. Over the next 8 to 16 years, we may see the GOP fully reposition as the party of the working class, while Democrats become the party of the affluent elite.

Personally, I’ve always favored genuine free trade, which is why I’ve leaned Republican. But now, I’m not so sure. I used to argue with my liberal friends that tariffs are essentially a regressive tax—they raise prices for everyone, especially hurting lower-income consumers. The counterargument, of course, is that tariffs could incentivize companies to bring production back to the U.S.

But let’s be honest: that’s not happening. Tariffs raise prices, but they don’t magically bring manufacturing back home. From my conservative perspective, companies should have the flexibility to offshore production—especially if they face pressure from unions or rising domestic costs.
In tech specifically: is it the same mechanism? I mean, does commercial advertising and political propaganda flow through the same channel?

I would love your input as someone on the inside. My understanding, broadly, is that when there’s commercial advertising, it goes through a different channel; there’s an auction, the ad is marked, CTR is tracked etc. whereas I think the political polarization and the use of propaganda on social media happens much less explicitly: it’s “mixed in”with the non-ad content that’s posted, and therefore much harder to detect or remove.

I’m also curious how you might handle influencers. Those, like propaganda operations, are an attempt to influence people’s behavior but “from inside” the ad/non-ad boundary.

And then, I’m convinced, a lot of our politics today is simply an emergent phenomenon of the algorithmic feed. That there is no master, corporate or political, that lead to this condition. It simply happened as a result of “for you.” (I think this is changing, as the powerful are discovering how powerful the algorithm is at influencing their subjects).

I think I agree with you broadly. The total sublimation of human relationships and interactions into “the machine” has a whole host of really bad side-effects. Jacking into cyberspace causes the shakes, at a society wide level and certainly at an individual level as well.
Yes! I call this sort of top-down programming "wishful thinking." It is these days much easier to explain to people, because machine learning tools.

“if you can just trust that chat GPT will later fill in whatever stub functions you write, how would you write this program?” — and you can quickly get going, “well, I guess I would have a queue, while the queue is not empty I pull an item from there, look up its responsible party in LDAP, I guess I need to memoize my LDAP queries so let's @cache that LDAP stub, if that party is authorized we just log the access to our S3-document, oh yeah I need an S3-document I am building up... otherwise we log AND we add the following new events to the queue...”

It is not the technique that has most enhanced what I write, which is probably a variant on functional core imperative shell. But it's pretty solid as a way to break that writers block that you face in any new app.
You didn’t get my point.
Well that makes no sense because then you could say there are X people who would be alive today if they had not ridden a motorcycle.