skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Been that way for a while. It can't be organic, but not triggering enough for whichever right set of people to take on it.
If you actually rejected all forms of IP protection you’d insist AI companies freely share their source code, patroon can’t hide works behind a paywall, etc.

Is that your stance? Or do you have some more limited rejection of IP in mind.
Shockingly, in a world where both eating too much food and too little will kill you, as will too much or too little water, heat or oxygen, the solutions are rarely found at the extremes of any continuum.
> Among other things, this would only work if your client is written in a language that supports C structures.

Such languages are used at both ends. Otherwise, this would not have been working in production for ~13 years.

> Says the one who didn't know how to use non-blocking sockets.

Neither did you until you learned it. If you successfully begin a career in software engineering and years later, have the humility to admit the mistakes you made when starting out for the benefit of others, you will deserve to have an incompetent know it all deride you for having been so kind to admit them, just like you are doing to me here.

Anyone with a modicum of programming knowledge can write code snippets free from mistakes immediately after being told about the mistakes that would be made when given a simplified explanation of one thing that is done in production software. The problem with software engineering is that nobody tells you everything you can do wrong before you do it, and you are not writing code snippets, but production software.
You gotta get a downconverter and a bias-tee to power it (or use the bias-tee built in the RTL-SDR if the downconverter is 4.5 volt - most aren't though). Then you can access high-freq. 10+ GHz must be a satellite right? There's no way for terrestrial to work at that freq.

And yes this is all easy this day. Hard stuff comes when you transmit, and harder yet when you do both. Then you can do crazy things, but that isn't at all easy... Like https://hforsten.com/ is doing. Still accessible from components pricing and regulations perspective, to almost everyone.
Yes, I too have "less favorite" foods. Carrots being one of them, celery - another. But I try eating them regularly and this definitely helps. And no, I don't mask them to the point of them being completely undetectable. On the contrary, I do increase their concentration with time and there are foods where I enjoy them even when they dominate the flavor. For example, pickled celery is delicious.
Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done.

But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before.

Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
> The old way was to return HTML fragments and add them to the DOM. There was still a separation of concern as the presentation layer on the server didn't care about the interface presented on the client.

I doubt there were many systems where the server-generated HTML fragments were generic enough that the server and client HTML documents didn't need to know anything about each other's HTML. It's conceivable to build such a system, particularly if it's intended for a screen-reader or an extremely thinly-styled web page, but in either of those cases HTML injection over AJAX would have been an unlikely architectural choice.

In practice, all these systems that did HTML injection over AJAX were tightly coupled. The server made strong assumptions about the HTML documents that would be requesting HTML fragments, and the HTML documents made strong assumptions about the shape of the HTML fragments the server would give it.
I think it’s rare to actually have minds change in an argument, and that’s fine.

What you should be doing is understanding each position and reducing the disagreement down to one (or a few) points that are either knowable (you could find the data, run an experiment, etc) or are a judgement call.
I'm so out of the vice loop. What nicotine products do you buy in a bottle?
People will shut off the moment they get the full file. The randomness means that the last packet is as likely to exist as the first.

Would you want to watch the beginning of something that didn’t have an ending? How frustrating would that be?
> I was mainly talking about wasting memory for temporary arrays

Right, but the runtime is perfectly capable of optimizing those temporary arrays out, which it appears to do.

> I'm curious, how large arrays did you test with? For example, will there be a memory difference for 10M size arrays

10M size arrays are exactly what I tested with
Even then, no import support -> must preprocess the .proto anyway.

Might as well do code generation at that point, it'd even be debuggable.
I can personally confirm that story.
This has to be bait.

How can you possibly justify this? Do you propose professional artists/authors/musicians just shouldn't exist?
The short answer is that they are applying the same defense to audio as to images, and so we should expect that the same attacks will work as well.

More specifically, there are a few moving parts here - the GenAI model they're trying to defeat, the defense applied to data items, and the data cleaning process that a GenAI company may use to remove the defense. So we can look at each and see if there's any reason to expect things to turn out differently than they did in the image domain. The GenAI models follow the same type of training, and while they of course have slightly different architectures to ingest audio instead of images, they still use the same basic operations. The defenses are exactly the same - find small perturbations that are undetectable to humans but produce a large change in model behavior. The cleaning processes are not particularly image-specific, and translate very naturally to audio. It's stuff like "add some noise and then run denoising".

Given all of this, it would be very surprising if the dynamics turned out to be fundamentally different just because we moved from images to audio, and the onus should be on the defense developers to justify why we should expect that to be the case.
Amidst all the inhumane political calamity TFA hits on the most
interesting sounding discussion on the limits of rational perception,
relation of computabilty and knowability. That's a talk I'd like to
see.
So... do you want someone to present you with evidence that paying people for their work is a good thing? We're getting to the point of arguing the color of the sky here.
I don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached.
Do you really believe that most of the people being deported or imprisoned by ICE this year are truly supporters of terrorism? Since no due process is being followed what gives you any confidence that the accusations against these people are true?
>o it seems a logical leap to say they know it doesn't and are doing this as a scheme?

In some of the earlier image protection articles the people involved seemed rather shady about the capabilities. Would have to do some HN searching for those articles.

But everything at the end of the day will be a scheme if the end result is for humans to listen to it. You cannot make a subset of music that can be heard by humans (and actually sounds good) that cannot be prefiltered to be learned by AI. I've said the same thing about images, the same thing will be true about audio, movies, actions in real leave, et al.

These schemes will likely work for a few of the existing models, then fall apart quickly the moment a new model arrives. What is worse for defense is audio quality for humans is remaining the same while GPU speeds and algorithms increase in speeds over time meaning the time until a model beats the new defense will trend to unity.
Useless article that further demonstrates the leftist movement of what was once a great and fairly neutral site called Hacker News.
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions

Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either:

“Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.”

Or:

“Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.”

Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight.

> (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere)

I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being.

> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.

That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point.

¹ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy
"Pre Dot Com Bust" is a pretty good definition for "Old Internet".
That’s a lot more true in USA than Canada. Probably the case in other places too.
Oh I've debugged this before. Native memory allocator had a scavenge function which suspended all other threads. Managed language runtime had a stop the world phase which suspended all mutator threads. They ran at about the same time and ended up suspending each other. To fix this you need to enforce some sort of hierarchy or mutual exclusion for suspension requests.

> Why you should never suspend a thread in your own process.

This sounds like a good general princple but suspending threads in your own process is kind of necessary for e.g. many GC algorithms. Now imagine multiple of those runtimes running in the same process.
Sorry to hear that. I feel that tech hiring has become full of weird gatekeepers that probably wouldn't even be able to pass their own weird challenges.
Whisk itself (https://labs.google/fx/tools/whisk) was released a few months ago under the radar as a demo for Imagen 3 and it's actually fun to play with and surprisingly robust given its particular implementation.

It uses a prompt transmutation trick (convert the uploaded images into a textual description; can verify by viewing the description of the uploaded image) and the strength of Imagen 3's actually modern text encoder to be able to adhere to those long transmuted descriptions for Subject/Scene/Style.
sidebar - will your lecture be streamed to the general public?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrosowsky/2020/06/01/why-no...
...but if you haven't been doing this with your child up to now, and you suddenly start, it probably won't work right away.

A foundation of trust has to be built up, and that can take years, in some cases, especially if your child feels that you have a long pattern of not taking them seriously or caring about what they think or feel.
Was it hallucinating here, or are the commenters hallucinating? What OP is saying is just not true. A CT scan and normal daily commute in Grand Central station are NOT comparable in terms of radiation received. Somehow this is controversial because an AI said it?
Both are founders of a so-called non-profit and are suing each other. Their legal arguments are public at this point. By reading them, one may understand that it's hard to choose between 'yes' and 'no' as an answer. Maybe, we could request and take into account the opinion of what they 'created' that might outlast them and their conflict, namely AI.
Private colleges shouldn't be taking public money to begin with. Hopefully this ends with colleges having their (private college) tax exempt status revoked. Anyone who's been to Massachusetts knows how much real estate Harvard (and MIT, and BU, and Boston College, etc, etc.) owns. Why should they be tax exempt?

End it now.

Also, Trump's demands are silly and not even internally consistent.
I think the missing piece here is why we’d want P2P live streaming in the first place.

If the goal is to cut costs — like vendors trying to avoid AWS/CDN bills — that’s a very different problem than building for censorship resistance or resilience.

Without a clear “why,” the tradeoffs (latency, peer churn, unpredictable bandwidth) are hard to justify. Centralized infra is boring but reliable — and maybe that's good enough for 99% of use cases.

The interesting question is: what’s the niche where the pain is big enough to make P2P worth it?
That's very reasonable.

Viewpoints are essentially grounded in actions, and actions are grounded in values or ways of being.

Values are acted out by individuals and groups through a relative hierarchy, and generally guide which actions are taken.

People generally consider what's true to be what works, and what works is relative to what action is being taken, and what action is being taken depends on the persons underlying values.

Because almost all of the universities' leadership has shifted far to the left side of the US political spectrum over the last 50 years, there is now a hostile environment to many right leaning values. You can argue that this was natural and that right leaning values are worse, but that would be unwise. There is good and bad in everything, and it's not helpful to over generalize. The reality is that there are both "good" and "bad" values on both sides of the political bias, but even that is probably too generalized. What makes a value good or bad is contextual. Some values are more helpful in certain situations or environments than others.

Even more important is that values don't naturally exist on one spectrum... The idea of "right" and "left" values is artificial.

So while I agree that the constriction of values being supported within universities is unhealthy like a stool that's had three legs chopped off, the idea that top down authoritarian enforcement on these organizations is the solution is somewhat terrifying.

Scary times.
It feels like you haven't read the article and commented on the title.

>The old way was to return HTML fragments and add them to the DOM.

Yes, and the problem with that is described at the end of this part: https://overreacted.io/jsx-over-the-wire/#async-xhp

>JSON is fine [..] With JSX on the server side, it's abstraction when there's no need to be. And in the wrong place to boot.

I really don't know what you mean; the transport literally is JSON. We're not literally sending JSX anywhere. That's also in the article. The JSON output is shown about a dozen times throughout, especially in the third part. You can search for "JSON" on the page. It appears 97 times.
Agree with your conclusion but the SCOTUS order was much softer than that, slapping the lower court's terminology while passing the enforcement burden back down (and all but ensuring another trip upwards).
People already paid their taxes on all of the principal before they donated it to fund education. You and I are not chartered as an educational endowment; things like Roth IRAs exist for us.
Pentagon's 'SWAT team of nerds' resigns en masse
Brave to make ads with the Ghibli style. Would have thought that's burned by now.
In first, Japan issues cease-and-desist order against Google
If there's one thing on my 4 year olds plate that he "doesn't like", I have him close his eyes and try to guess which food item I just put in his mouth. After the game is over he'll usually just continue eating everything without complaint.
You got off easy compared to this dude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shanks
True, bad wording on my part. But I stand by my point that the magic came from rapid iteration rather than an ossified and bureaucratic management team that was risk-averse.
Historically most artistic works, books, etc. were privately commissioned and one-of-a-kind. Publishing as we understand the idea came with the printing press and widespread literacy.
This is why they needed to be the one to fight, if they folded no one else had a chance to stop this government overreach.
Or back to its PHP roots.
What crisis the Universities endowment bigger than ever. What's losing a few federal dollars gonna do.

Oh wait the admin staff is in danger that decided to quadruple their positions and give themselves raises as they torpedoed The quality of education and services on campus. They deserves everything it's getting and more. I say this as somebody that Was a student there and worked for the university.
They are both colleges (educational institutions) and research institutions. For decades or more, research in the USA has been a central function of government (although it also happens in a few entirely privately funded organizations). That's what (most) of the public money is for, and there is no sane reason to stop that.
> By taking this scorched-earth route, the government has effectively telegraphed to all the other universities, as clearly as possible: “actually, we don’t care what you do or don’t do on antisemitism. We just want to destroy you, and antisemitism was our best available pretext".

Yep. Glad everyone is starting to realize this. What we're seeing has nothing to do with antisemitism, it is a blatant attempt to seize ideological control of every single cultural institution of American Power. Nothing that happened at a campus protest can justify the all-out assault on 1A that is happening now.

I applaud Harvard for standing up, but to be honest, anything less (e.g. Columbia's complete capitulation) is simply spineless and unseemly for any mega-endowed university.
>Another overengineered abstraction recreating things that already exist.

This section is for you: https://overreacted.io/jsx-over-the-wire/#html-ssi-and-cgi

>Everyone ignores the "hypermedia constraint" part of REST and then has to work crazy magic to make up for it.

Right, that's why I've linked to https://htmx.org/essays/how-did-rest-come-to-mean-the-opposi... the moment we started talking about this. The post also clarifies multiple times that I'm talking about how REST is used in practice, not its "textbook" interpretation that nobody refers to except in these arguments.
Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know."

The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.

And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.
Here's how I currently am doing it: I use the repository pattern. I use a trait:

pub trait LibraryRepository: Send + Sync + 'static {
async fn create_supplier(
&self,
request: supplier::CreateRequest,
) -> Result<Supplier, supplier::CreateError>;

I am splitting things "vertically" (aka by feature) rather than "horizontally" (aka by layer). So "library" is a feature of my app, and "suppliers" are a concept within that feature. This call ultimately takes the information in a CreateRequest and inserts it into a database.

My implementation looks something like this:

impl LibraryRepository for Arc<Sqlite> {
async fn create_supplier(
&self,
request: supplier::CreateRequest,
) -> Result<Supplier, supplier::CreateError> {
let mut tx = self
.pool
.begin()
.await
.map_err(|e| anyhow!(e).context("failed to start SQLite transaction"))?;

let name = request.name().clone();

let supplier = self.create_supplier(&mut tx, request).await.map_err(|e| {
anyhow!(e).context(format!("failed to save supplier with name {name:?}"))
})?;

tx.commit()
.await
.map_err(|e| anyhow!(e).context("failed to commit SQLite transaction"))?;

Ok(supplier)
}

where Sqlite is

#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Sqlite {
pool: sqlx::SqlitePool,
}

You'll notice this basically:

1. starts a transaction
2. delegates to an inherent method with the same name
3. finishes the transaction

The inherent method has this signature:

impl Sqlite {
async fn create_supplier(
self: &Arc<Self>,
tx: &mut Transaction<'_, sqlx::Sqlite>,
request: supplier::CreateRequest,
) -> Result<Supplier, sqlx::Error> {

So, I can choose how I want to test: with a real database, or without.

If I want to write a test using a real database, I can do so, by testing the inherent method and passing it a transaction my test harness has prepared. sqlx makes this really nice.

If I'm testing some other function, and I want to mock the database, I create a mock implementation of LibraryService, and inject it there. Won't ever interact with the database at all.

In practice, my application is 95% end-to-end tests right now because a lot of it is CRUD with little logic, but the structure means that when I've wanted to do some more fine-grained tests, it's been trivial. The tradeoff is that there's a lot of boilerplate at the moment. I'm considering trying to reduce it, but I'm okay with it right now, as it's the kind that's pretty boring: the worst thing that's happened is me copy/pasting one of these implementations of a method and forgetting to change the message in that format!. I am also not 100% sure if I like using anyhow! here, as I think I'm erasing too much of the error context. But it's working well enough for now.

I got this idea from https://www.howtocodeit.com/articles/master-hexagonal-archit..., which I am very interested to see the final part of. (and also, I find the tone pretty annoying, but the ideas are good, and it's thorough.) I'm not 100% sure that I like every aspect of this specific implementation, but it's served me pretty well so far.
There was no threatenting note on his door. Just lies. i guess if i was losing the argument and easy cake government job, maybe Id get desperate too.

Also good try on the "everyone who disagrees with me is a bot."
End what? The government paying for research? I think that's a foolish idea.
Yes - there is another HN discussion active today on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692360