MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bruckie | 2025-04-17 23:02:48+00:00
A lot of newer dishwashers have longer cycles to reduce water usage (and I presume get government environmental certifications like EPA Energy Star?). More soak time means less water needed.

My dishwasher's "normal" cycle is 3 hours, but it has a quick cycle that runs in an hour and does about as good of a job with marginally higher water and energy use. We mostly use the quick cycle.
by jfil | 2025-04-17 23:02:55+00:00
The examples in the post are made as an intentional artistic endeavour / test of skill. But there were also practical reasons why a printer would make art out of bent brass rules and typographical elements: engraving, lithography and woodcut production were specialized professions separate from printing.

Imagine you are a "Job Printer" who needs to create 1,000 restaurant menus for a flat fee. You could pay an engraver to create basic art. Or you could cut costs by making your own art with typographical elements already at your shop. The outcome could be good: https://jacobfilipp.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/vol11-p55...
by ThatPlayer | 2025-04-17 23:03:08+00:00
The courts don't use "monopoly", they use the term "monopoly power": https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... Like this says, it doesn't strictly require a monopoly.

It's just a term that gets simplified by journalist and articles, because no one is familiar with monopoly power.

From the court filing:

> Plaintiffs have proven that Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-04-17 23:03:11+00:00
You're welcome to present the benefits. I can only speak for myself though: they don't amount to a thing worth otherwise poisoning society for.

Other than people that already agree with you, I'm not sure who you are appealing to by suggesting others are caught up in "think of the children".

I bring children up because studies seem to focus on the negatives of social media on children in particular. Also I raised three children and watched social media play out in their lives.
by tessellated | 2025-04-17 23:03:43+00:00
or:

John Michael Godier's Event Horizon: JWST May Have Just Detected Alien Life at Exoplanet K2-18b

Episode webpage: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/john-michael-godier/...

Media file: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/APO8659624232.mp3
by metalman | 2025-04-17 23:03:48+00:00
It is quite evident that a great deal of artificialy generated content is of no value , and is getting put up with no human review or editing, as it lacks any internal or external coherance, just automated verbal aphasia as a wrapper for the adds. Unfortunately, there has been no outright calls for it to stop, and certain people are?? possibly enjoying it??, mayyybeee, and it will get cheaper and cheaper, so, it's here to stay The only plus side is that it makes crazy people look good in comparison. And now that everyone on the street is talking to there phones, with the other side of the conversation in there buds, schitsophrenics are also doing better, or have at least become invisible, as no one notices someone in teddy bear pajamas, walking down the street, talking to themselves. So it's all some kind of wierdness leveling happening right now.
by Hobadee | 2025-04-17 23:04:07+00:00
Kleenex and Xerox were both (somewhat) recently in danger of loosing theirs. They both pulled pretty big campaigns to un-verb their trademarks. Google still has a bunch of other products that people are familiar with, so they are in less danger of loosing theirs right now, but give it some time (like 50 years, not 10) and it may happen, especially if they get broken up for being a monopoly. (Which has been mentioned)
by preommr | 2025-04-17 23:04:33+00:00
> why is it so hard to get a cryptographically secure random number? Because computers are pure unadulterated determinism

Then you've missed the part of software.

Software isn't computer science, it's not always about code. It's about solving problems in a way we can control and manufacture.

If we needed random numbers, we could easily use a hardware that uses some physics property, or we could pull in an observation from an api like the weather. We don't do these things because pseudo-random is good enough, and other solutions have drawbacks (like requiring an internet for api calls). But that doesn't mean software can't solve these problems.
by amccollum | 2025-04-17 23:04:42+00:00
The story of the bank built from bricks sent through the mail reminds me of the time I completed a move from Austin to Boston by packing all my possessions into rubber tubs and sending them by parcel post.

The delivery date was a range, and I wasn't there on the day of the first attempted delivery. When I called the post office about it, their response (in a thick Boston accent) was, "oh, so you're the tub guy, huh?"

All in all, it was a really convenient way to execute a cross-country move, assuming you don't have a lot of stuff!
by michaelt | 2025-04-17 23:04:47+00:00
I've seen tools for Generative AI art which do something a lot like that [1]

Generate an image of subject A, apply a depth estimation ML model to figure out which pixels belong to the foreground and cut them out.

Then generate an image of background B with a different prompt, and paste the subject from the first step on top. A sort of automatic collage making process.

[1] https://github.com/Extraltodeus/multi-subject-render
by m3kw9 | 2025-04-17 23:04:56+00:00
Using Claude code and Codex CLI and then Aider with Gemini 2.5 pro, Aider is much faster because you feed in the files instead of using tools to start doing all kinds of whole know what spending 10x the tokens. I tried a relatively simple refactor which needed around 7 files changed, only Aider with 2.5 got it and in the first shot. Where as both Codex and Claude code completely fumbled it
by msp26 | 2025-04-17 23:05:02+00:00
The API won't give you the "thinking" tokens, those are only visible on AI studio. Probably to try to stop distillation, very disappointing. I find reading the cot to be incredibly informative to identify failure modes.

> Hey Everyone,

> Moving forward, our team has made a decision to only show thoughts in Google AI Studio. Meaning, we no longer return thoughts via the Gemini API. Here is the updated doc to reflect that.

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/thoughts-are-missing-cot-not...

---

After I wrote all of that I see that the API docs page looks different today and now says:

>Note that a summarized version of the thinking process is available through both the API and Google AI Studio.

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking

Maybe they just updated it? Or people aren't on the same page at Google idk

Previously it said

> Models with thinking capabilities are available in Google AI Studio and through the Gemini API. Note that the thinking process is visible within Google AI Studio but is not provided as part of the API output.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250409174840/https://ai.google...
by bombela | 2025-04-17 23:05:24+00:00
I also don't have this internal monologue. But I can talk in my head just fine if I want. But doing so is the same effort as talking out loud.

I suspect that it does make articulating my thoughts verbally to other people more difficult since I must go brain thinking to text before speech.

That's probably why I prefer textual communication so much more. I can take the time to read, think, and textualize the answer.

I also find it incredibly useful to pretend I am teaching in my head; thus producing the text; before going into a meeting on a given topic. Of course anything I haven't thought to reharse, I am now naked.

As for your specific example, instead of a concrete set of words about waking up or a specific insult. I simply think a similar concept.
by MattPalmer1086 | 2025-04-17 23:05:26+00:00
No problem, hope it was useful.

I've found a lot of real world performance comes from doing as little as possible inside the main search loop.

UPDATE: It's often the case that a simpler algorithm outperforms a theoretically better one. For example, you are using Boyer Moore Horspool, which is the simpler cousin of the original Boyer Moore. BM can get better shifts than Horspool, but it's often slower in practice.
by icedchai | 2025-04-17 23:05:33+00:00
The problem with cable internet is that the shared medium (coax segment) has relatively little upstream bandwidth, shared by 100's of users. FTTH has much more bandwidth and a smaller amount of homes sharing it. Typically there is a passive splitter / fiber distribution for 8 to 32 homes, at least an order of magnitude better than cable.

I switched to fiber a few years back. But at one point during covid, my cable modem upstream was getting less than a megabit (I was paying for 500/30.)
by LouisSayers | 2025-04-17 23:05:34+00:00
What you're mentioning is like the difference between digital vs analog music.

For generic stuff you probably can't tell the difference, but once you move to the edges you start to hear the steps in digital vs the smooth transition of analog.

In the same way, AI runs on bits and bytes, and there's only so much detail you can fit into that.

You can approximate reality, but it'll never quite be reality.

I'd be much more concerned with growing organic brains in a lab. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people are covertly working on that.
by wkat4242 | 2025-04-17 23:06:36+00:00
Maybe they deserve it but it would be really bad for the world. Because they will enshittify the hell out of it once they're established. That's their MO.

I don't want Google to have a stranglehold over yet another type of online service. So I avoid them.

And things are going so fast now, whatever Google has today that might be better than the rest, in two months the rest will have it too. Of course Google will have something new again. But being 2 months behind isn't a huge deal. I don't have to have the 'winning' product. In fact most of my AI tasks go to an 8b llama 3.1 model. It's about on par with gpt 3.5 but that's fine.
Show HN: AIDO.ModelGenerator and Expanded Foundation Model Suite
by robiriondo | 2025-04-17 23:06:47+00:00
GenBio AI just released an update to AIDO.ModelGenerator, a software package for adapting, benchmarking, and applying biological foundation models across multiple tasks and data types.

What it is

AIDO.ModelGenerator supports both GenBio AI models and popular open-source models like Enformer, ESM2, and scFoundation. It enables workflows for structure prediction, protein modeling, single-cell analysis, and spatial transcriptomics.

What’s new

New models:

• AIDO.StructurePrediction – biomolecular structure prediction across proteins, RNA, DNA, and ligands • AIDO.Protein-RAG – protein modeling with MSA and structure input • AIDO.Tissue – spatially aware cell modeling

New benchmark datasets:

• Cell age prediction • Cell-type classification • Cellular perturbation (Tahoe-100M)

Utilities for distributed training and hyperparameter tuning

Use cases Includes tutorials for:

• mRNA vaccine design • Predicting protein complexes • Simulated gene knockouts for target discovery
by fc417fc802 | 2025-04-17 23:06:58+00:00
My entire point there was that this is not exceptional in the least. People having emotional issues is quite common!

Incidentally, the response you're exhibiting here - a reflexive emotional rejection as opposed to critical thought - is closely related to the phenomenon being discussed here. That exact response is often (but not always) what leads to people becoming distraught in the first place. It's an emotional feedback loop.

Examining the context we see something of a dichotomy. That mental health being harmed by political discourse is likely to indicate a problem with personal views versus that being normal and expected depending on context. I'm presenting a third viewpoint tied to the example you provided. The idea that it is related to an emotional issue which is largely independent of personal views, that this is a relatively common thing to encounter, and that people should not be criticized for taking steps to mitigate personal issues.

In other words, I am largely agreeing with you but going on to point out that it's a personal issue deserving of long term work.
by MassPikeMike | 2025-04-17 23:07:35+00:00
Jane Jacobs's grandmother, Hannah Breece, was also a remarkable, dynamic woman: the first American schoolteacher in Alaska after its purchase from Russia. Jacobs did valuable work editing her grandmother's incomplete memoirs and publishing them with commentary [1]. If you are interested in Jacobs, give it a read; both women's personalities come through quite distinctly.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1471846.A_Schoolteacher_...
by quonn | 2025-04-17 23:07:39+00:00
Excel and Powerpoint are not conscious and so there is not reason to expect any other computation inside a digital computer to be different.

You may say something similar for matter and human minds, but we have a very limited and incomplete understanding of the brain and possibly even of the universe. Furthermore we do have a subjective experience of consciousness.

On the other hand we have a complete understanding of how LLM inference ultimately maps to matrix multiplications which map to discrete instructions and how those execute on hardware.
by FrankWilhoit | 2025-04-17 23:07:45+00:00
Reich's subtitle: "The administration dared China, Harvard and the supreme court to blink. They haven’t."

Of the three, it only matters whether China blinks. The other two don't matter, and China damned well better have options in depth other than blinking or not blinking. Mao Zedong was notoriously complacent about China's ability to survive (in whatever sense of the word) all-out war. Is Xi Jinping any smarter? Everything we know of him leaves open the possibility that he may not be.
by arp242 | 2025-04-17 23:07:47+00:00
If you look back at predictions of the future in the past in general, then so many of them have just been wrong. Especially during a "hype phase". Perhaps the best example is what people were predicting in 1969 after we landed on the moon: this is just the first step in the colonisation of the moon, Mars, and beyond. etc. etc. We just have to have our tech a bit better.

It's all very easy to see how that can happen in principle. But turns out actually doing it is a lot harder, and we hit some real hard physical limits. So here we are, still stuck on good ol' earth. Maybe that will change at some point once someone invents an Epstein drive or Warp drive or whatever, but you can't really predict when inventions happen, if ever, so ... who knows.

Similarly, it's not my impression that AGI is simply a matter of "the current tech, but a bit better". But who knows what will happen or what new thing someone may or may not invent.
by rqtwteye | 2025-04-17 23:08:18+00:00
" find my mind just doesn't want to go beyond about 5-10 minutes of breathing, vs the 30 minutes I did in breathwork sessions."

Same for me. I did a workshop with Wim Hof and the breathing exercises were great with really profound effects. But I couldn't make myself practicing at home with the same intensity regularly. I also developed a pretty bad cough after a few weeks. Probably from the dry air where I live.
by mhink | 2025-04-17 23:08:26+00:00
> Second, the article suggests that the problem should be introduced to children by casting in in terms of several rules of exchange ("For Alice, the transition vector (−1, −1, 1, 0) would represent the exchange of an apple and a banana for a cantaloupe."). But that would make the problem trivial: you start at the origin; without a rule of "exchange" in which the other party gives you as much as you want of something for free, you're never going to leave it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? That specific transition vector would be one such vector among several in a given ruleset. You're correct that for any ruleset, if I don't have at least one vector that can get me away from the origin, I'm stuck there, but then I also have to consider that I still might not be able to get to where I want to go. If I have the ruleset [(2, 0), (-4, 2)] I still can't get to (3, 5).
by chrisweekly | 2025-04-17 23:08:53+00:00
> "Our findings identify physiological boundary conditions for ASCs to arise in a non-pharmacological context, shedding light on the functional mechanisms of breathwork as well as its potential as a psychotherapeutic tool."

Such a great topic for study; these findings are unsurprising to me, but I'm delighted to see them published by Nature.com
by nailer | 2025-04-17 23:09:54+00:00
My father recently passed, and on the way there had 3 strokes (he's been smoking since he was 8).

The unnerving thing about his first stroke recovery is that as the brain healed, his personality seemed to change.

My dad is friends with everyone, my mental picture is of him telling a fascinating story while everyone listens. For a few months, the confident man I'd known for 40 years became like a teenager, quiet and timid. I think the timidity came from him not being able to find the words as easily, but it felt like there was a different person inside him for a moment.
by kibwen | 2025-04-17 23:10:18+00:00
The genre of sci-fi was a mistake. It appears to have had no other lasting effect than to stunt the imaginations of a generation into believing that the only possible futures for humanity are that which were written about by some dead guys in the 50s (if we discount the other lasting effect of giving totalitarians an inspirational manual for inescapable technoslavery).
by keernan | 2025-04-17 23:11:10+00:00
>>An appellate court has nothing to do with the administration in charge at the time

I know nothing about the Microsoft decision nor the politics involved. I am simply commenting upon the quote above. An Appellate Court rules, in large part, based upon the record before the trial court and the arguments presented to the App Ct. It is therefore certainly possible for a change in administration to impact an App Ct's decision if the change in administration changed the nature of the briefs and oral argument presented by the DOT to the App Ct.

Again, I have absolutely no knowledge of the details in this case. I'm just pointing out that a change in administration can certainly have an impact upon an Appellate Court's ultimate decision by altering the nature of the presentation to the Court.
by tominous | 2025-04-17 23:12:47+00:00
In my case I had hundreds of invoices in a not-very-consistent PDF format which I had contemporaneously tracked in spreadsheets. After data extraction (pdftotext + OpenAI API), I cross-checked against the spreadsheets, and for any discrepancies I reviewed the original PDFs and old bank statements.

The main issue I had was it was surprisingly hard to get the model to consistently strip commas from dollar values, which broke the csv output I asked for. I gave up on prompt engineering it to perfection, and just looped around it with a regex check.

Otherwise, accuracy was extremely good and it surfaced a few errors in my spreadsheets over the years.
by mamp | 2025-04-17 23:13:16+00:00
I've been using Gemini 2.5 and Claude 3.7 for Rust development and I have been very impressed with Claude, which wasn't the case for some architectural discussions where Gemini impressed with it's structure and scope. OpenAI 4.5 and o1 have been disappointing in both contexts.

Gemini doesn't seem to be as keen to agree with me so I find it makes small improvements where Claude and OpenAI will go along with initial suggestions until specifically asked to make improvements.
by ryan29 | 2025-04-17 23:13:32+00:00
The exact pricing isn’t disclosed. All they do is tell you the price will be “higher”. Anyone registering a premium domain is getting higher than uniform renewal pricing, so whatever they’re doing right now is considered adequate and that’s just generic ToS in the registration agreement AFAIK.

It sounds like you think I’m being deceptive. Do you know about any registry premium domains where someone has a contractually guaranteed price?

Also, based on my own anecdotal experience, ICANN doesn’t interpret 2.10c broadly and they allow the registries to push the boundaries as much as they want.
by dmwilcox | 2025-04-17 23:13:40+00:00
I tried to keep my long post short so I cut things. I gestured at it -- there is nothing in a computer we didn't put there.

Take the same model weights give it the same inputs, get the same outputs. Same with the pseudo-random number generator. And the "same inputs" is especially limited versus what humans are used to.

What's the machine code of an AGI gonna look like? It makes one illegal instruction and crashes? If if changes tboughts will it flush the TLB and CPU pipeline? ;) I jest but really think about the metal. The inside of modern computers is tightly controlled with no room for anything unpredictable. I really don't think a von Neumann (or Harvard ;) machine is going to cut it. Honestly I don't know what will, controlled but not controlled, artificially designed but not deterministic.

In fact, that we've made a computer as unreliable as a human at reproducing data (ala hallucinating/making s** up) is an achievement itself, as much of an anti-goal as it may be. If you want accuracy, you don't use a probabilistic system on such a wide problem space (identify a bad solder joint from an image, sure. Write my thesis, not so much)
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-04-17 23:13:42+00:00
I see what GP's point is, high-school-level calculus generally restricts itself to real numbers, where the logarithm is simply left undefined for nonpositive arguments. After all, complex analysis has much baggage of its own, and you want to have a solid understanding of real limits, derivatives, integrals, etc. before you start looking into limits along paths and other such concepts.

Even then, general logarithms become messy. It's easy to say "just take local segments of the whole surface" in the abstract, but any calculator will have to make some choice of branch cuts. E.g., clearly (−1)^(1/3) = −1 for any sane version of exponentiation on the reals, but many calculators will spit out the equivalent of (−1)^(1/3) = −e^(4πi/3) instead.

(Just in general, analytic continuation only makes sense in the abstract realm. If you try doing it numerically to extend a series definition, you'll quickly find out how mind-bogglingly unstable it is. I think there was one paper that showed you need an exponential number of terms and exponentially many bits of accuracy w.r.t. the number of steps. Not even "it's 2025, we can crank it out to a billion bits" can save you from that.)
by groos | 2025-04-17 23:15:15+00:00
I hate getting startled, even when I realize right away that there is nothing to worry about. But the physiological effects, once set in motion, carry on. My heart seems to skip a beat and then rev up to a high rate and it's uncomfortable, taking some time to come back down to normal.

Some years ago, I discovered a technique to suppress the effect of being startled. I just breathe in sharply, using mostly my diagphragm, before my heartrate goes up and it keeps things normal as usual. I wonder if this is also using the vagus nerve to suppress being startled?
by fc417fc802 | 2025-04-17 23:15:17+00:00
Actually I think it might? If I describe an arbitrary hypothetical object to you is it more likely that it exists or doesn't exist? How does that compare to the case where I present you with a single example of an object and ask you to guess if others that are substantially similar to it exist?

You have so little information that any estimate is effectively arbitrary. Nonetheless I think there's a clear statistical bias between the two choices in both cases.