MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by s1artibartfast | 2025-05-13 16:46:38+00:00
I agree that part of science is making mistakes.

I was reacting to the idea that the NIH and NSF academic ethics requirements are that critical self correction mechanism, or they that these institutions were responsible for pushing back and overturning the Aβ hypothesis. In reality, it is the opposite. Grant funding is gate held by review panels staffed by leading researchers in the field, and therefore bias towards the current dogma. I don't know if there is a better way, but it's inherently tied to the status quo.

Edit: to be clear on my biases, I spent about 10 years trying to get funding for non Aβ research, and continually shut down by Grant review panels staffed by prominent supporters and authors on the hypothesis.
by nirdiamant | 2025-05-13 16:46:43+00:00
Hey everyone,

I just published a deep dive into the algorithms powering AI coding assistants like Cursor and Windsurf. If you've ever wondered how these tools seem to magically understand your code, this one's for you.

In this (free) post, you'll discover:

* *The hidden context system* that lets AI understand your entire codebase, not just the file you're working on * *The ReAct loop* that powers decision-making (hint: it's a lot like how humans approach problem-solving) * *Why multiple specialized models* work better than one giant model and how they're orchestrated behind the scenes * *How real-time adaptation* happens when you edit code, run tests, or hit errors
by ceejayoz | 2025-05-13 16:46:50+00:00
They weren't paying taxes on it.

They worried the legal (and taxed, and higher quality) British tea would be, despite the tax, cheaper than the smuggled (untaxed) Dutch tea, which would destroy their smuggling businesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

> A related objective was to undercut the price of illegal tea, smuggled into Britain's North American colonies.

> Reducing or eliminating the duties paid when the tea was landed in Britain (if it was shipped onward to the colonies) would further lower the final cost of tea in the colonies, undercutting the prices charged for smuggled tea. Colonists would willingly pay for cheaper Company tea, on which the Townshend tax was still collected, thus legitimizing Parliament's ability to tax the colonies.
by psychoslave | 2025-05-13 16:47:01+00:00
I used to used zsh, like I still have have karma moving up on stackoverflow as I answered my own questions on some obscure configuration fine tuning. But currently I'm more in a "give me the thing that work off the shelf" moment, so I take fish and don't plan to either look back.

Byobu with tmux as backend is my go to solution if I want a multiplexer, for what it worths.
by skydhash | 2025-05-13 16:47:05+00:00
Just check any mature project's commit history. It's rarely that huge, even for things that brought in features. Here's a PR[0] that's less than the usual rambling ChatGPT produces, and add a valuable feature to the software. More often than not, you spend more time designing the feature than actually coding it. And a huge part of the design process is dealing with impact to other parts of the project.

[0]: https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/pull/723/files
by marginalia_nu | 2025-05-13 16:47:06+00:00
That PDF actually has some weird corner cases.

First it's all the same font size everywhere, it's also got bolded "headings" with spaces that are not bolded. Had to fix my own handling to get it to process well.

This is the search engine's view of the document as of those fixes: https://www.marginalia.nu/junk/congress.html

Still far from perfect...
by disgruntledphd2 | 2025-05-13 16:47:18+00:00
I think that the really weird (economically speaking) thing is that the US has built a global order that has made them incredibly successful at an aggregate level, and it's all being thrown away carelessly for goods production.

Like, I agree that more manufacturing in the US would be better overall, but the way in which this is being done seems really poorly thought through.
by vel0city | 2025-05-13 16:47:36+00:00
I don't get any kind of spinner on Outlook opening emails. Especially emails which are pure text or only lightly stylized open instantly. Even emails with calendar invites load really fast, I don't see any kind of spinner graphic at all.

Running latest Outlook on Windows 11, currently >1k emails in my Inbox folder, on an 11th gen i5, while also on a Teams call a ton of other things active on my machine.

This is also a machine with a lot of corporate security tools sapping a lot of cycles.
by dontlikeyoueith | 2025-05-13 16:47:36+00:00
> I really dislike all of this “reading between the lines” aren’t Americans supposed to be direct?

Only when talking to people beneath them. When talking to your superiors, you should be deferential and circumspect.

American society is more hierarchical than a feudal aristocracy. It's just based on money, skin color, and gender instead of family name.
by echelon | 2025-05-13 16:47:40+00:00
> However, it can't cite, can't fact check, doesn't know when it's hallucinating

Maybe some folks need this, but the way I use this tech doesn't rely upon that so much. By the time results start appearing, my brain is already fast at work processing the output to qualify whether the information the LLMs return is accurate, whether it's a good leaping off point, whether I can keep drilling deeper, expand my prompt scope, etc.

I'm using it as search. Just as old search had garbage results we had to filter out, so do LLMs. But this tool is a way more advanced query language than Google ever supported. These tools are like "Google 9000".

It feels like I'm plugged into the Matrix rather than getting SEO'd garbage. I know the results have issues, but that doesn't matter - I can quickly draw together the pieces and navigate around it. Compared to Google, it feels like piloting a star ship.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-05-13 16:47:49+00:00
I agree with you, but I would still argue that what is going on now is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent: rule by executive fiat. Congress controls fiscal policy, and they have complete given up any semblance of their duties in fealty to Trump.

Heck, the law that Trump is using to set tariff policy is designed to only be used in cases "of national emergency", and Trump has simply defined national emergency to mean whatever he wants it to mean. I think this article gives a good overview of the issues: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-usa-china-deal-is-bad-eco...

It's similar to how Trump has redefined the simple meaning of "foreign invasion" to give cover to his deportations (in some cases I'd call them abductions) without due process.

The people may have voted for this, but in the medium/long term it will be absolutely detrimental to our democracy.
by rtkwe | 2025-05-13 16:47:55+00:00
My point is that dominance flows from the fact that every other major world power of the age got massively bombed and the US didn't. Just look at the graph of pre-War GDPs and note how far you have to scroll down before you see a country that didn't have intense fighting and bombing within their borders. [0] Much of what happened post war that set the US up would not have been possible if the US was bombed out like Germany or the UK and needed to rebuild it's entire economy like Germany, the UK, Russia, France, China and Japan who made up the rest of the upper crust of the GDP pie in the pre-War economy.

> This feels revisionist to me.

Reexamining past narratives/theories based on new data or ways of viewing things is the core of science. It's particularly important in softer social sciences where so much of the effects can only be viewed in the long term.

> Boomers remember this America and want the growth, wealth and dominance back

My point is you can't go back to there, at least not without another massive war and this time the chances the US gets by unscathed is practically zero.

Not to mention shattering the alliances that put the US in that position isn't the way to get back there either. Even if we tried countries are going to be a lot more wary of trusting the US for critical things like military protection which was a major part of the deal for the US's position, we extend a military umbrella across your country and we get good access to your markets.

Trump et al fundamentally misunderstand why we were in the position we were and their actions push us further away rather than bringing us back to it.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334182/wwii-pre-war-gdp...
by aniviacat | 2025-05-13 16:48:31+00:00
The US tarrifs against the EU were not retaliatory, they were proactive (unless you want to consider them retaliatory tarrifs because of the EU's retaliatory tarrfis. However, this dispute was, again, initiated by the USA). I'm sure some of the countries hit did attack first, but many didn't.

Additionally, the way Trump sets up tarrifs creates major uncertainty (which I can only assume is intentional), that can clearly be seen in the way the stocks develop. This also sets these tarrifs apart.
by horhay | 2025-05-13 16:48:43+00:00
You mean /knowledge/ is easier to collect lol. Not even grow. And if it's easy to grow with what we know then space travel to outside our solar system might already be a thing today. "Growing intelligence" requires scientific study that gets harder the more you understand a problem. "Easier" is such a dismissive thing to describe the science that goes into it.

Nobody predicted LLM's? Despite the fact that it shares mechanisms from other older branches of machine learning. Right. I'd recommend you stop right here lol. You are no longer speaking from the point of view of the industry or research, just looking at what laymen think.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-05-13 16:49:04+00:00
Side note, Farmingdale Observer has gone from 0% to a very significant % of my Chrome mobile New Tab Page suggested content. Very weird out of nowhere news source to show up. I'm wondering what's changed.

I definitely am suspicious of these links, they feel weird to me. Much much worse, whomever Sustainability Times is: they've shown up at about the same time, and man, they trip my bullshit worse-thab-clickbait alarm a lot!

Wondering what's changing with the New Tab Page. Feels like a very big about two months old realignment, major shift. (Also, what is the proper name for this screen?)
by JohnFen | 2025-05-13 16:49:21+00:00
> Why flirt with ambiguity? Just make it mandatory: It takes customers five seconds.

> Perhaps most important to dispel is the myth that asking people where they heard about you is going to destroy your signup conversion rate.

The problem with making it mandatory to answer this question isn't that you'll drive customers away, it's that customers will provide bogus data.

I rarely remember where I've heard about a product or service, so I am rarely even able to answer this question. If I can't skip it, I'll just click on whichever answer happens to be under my mouse cursor in order to get past it.
by no_wizard | 2025-05-13 16:49:49+00:00
Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Trump campaigned on raising tariffs quite heavily, and Trump voters by a wide margin really thought they were a good idea, largely because they didn't seem to actually understand how they work.

I am left wondering if Trump fully understands how tariffs work. He spoke at length on multiple occasions about how other countries were going to pay for the tariffs, which runs entirely counter to what a tariff is. The only conclusion I can reasonably make from this is that Trump didn't understand tariffs either
by taylodl | 2025-05-13 16:49:59+00:00
NOAA has published both raw and adjusted temperature datasets for decades. Adjustments are made to account for factors like urban heat islands (e.g., airports becoming more developed) and station relocations (e.g., moving to higher elevations). These corrections ensure consistent, long-term trend analysis. Without them, the data would be too noisy for meaningful conclusions. Claims that these adjustments constitute fraud are unfounded and misrepresent standard scientific methodology.
by tmcdos | 2025-05-13 16:50:07+00:00
I use stock Win7 SP1 with just a couple updates (recently TLS and SHA-512, but only 27 hotfixes in total) and the only way to break something is if I deliberately run unverified executables that were manually downloaded from untrusted sources. And since I don't do this - my machine is still running the same installation that I did on December 24th 2014.
by j_walter | 2025-05-13 16:50:19+00:00
Review Peter Allor's comments...struggles on who pays and who should be the long term controller of this program was what led to the push right up to the last minute. As usual in government if you don't push hard enough nothing will change...and I still see nothing from CISA regarding their views on what happened...all we see is conjecture from MITRE and joy because they got their $$$.
by bugh | 2025-05-13 16:50:20+00:00
> “well there goes my morning hand-holding them through something they should already both know and have internalized".

So where you work everyone works on the same things every day and the same patterns?

Sounds pretty circular if everyone just lives by the subset of understanding you prefer.

This is what smacks truest from my experience; companies stagnant because of workers like you focus on memorized maintenance routines. Internal evolution comes to a stand still as attention is put on memorization of existing process not evolution.

Again just anecdotally coworkers like you describe could be put to evolving process they seem to not connect well to. But patronizing seniors who just know codified routine, hold orgs backs.
by dleeftink | 2025-05-13 16:50:33+00:00
You can load up your own PDF and select a page up front after which it will display the opcodes for this page. Operations are not structurally grouped, but decomposed in three aligned arrays which can be grouped to your liking based on opcode or used as coordinates for intersection queries (e.g. combining the ops and args arrays).

The 'liveness' here is that you can derive multiple downstream cells (e.g. filters, groupings, drawing instructions) from the initial parsed PDF, which will update as you swap out the PDF file.
by the_af | 2025-05-13 16:50:40+00:00
The Manhattan Project was not how the war against Hitler was won. I'd say it factored very little, if at all, in the European theater of war.

It was also not how the war against Japan was won, that was merely the coup d'grace against an already defeated Japan (in American storytelling, it was also a way to minimize casualties during the last moments of the war; this view isn't widely held in the rest of the world though).
by alistairSH | 2025-05-13 16:50:48+00:00
But, did the hire rate for those graduates change in a substantial way? Or were there always a % of ATC college programs who couldn't get the jobs (for one reason or another)? {I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's been reported}

There was absolutely corruption in the application/hiring process. That corruption was built on top of a (flawed, but well intentioned?) DEI program. But, as you note, did it materially impact the overall quality of the hiring pipeline? Maybe, but I don't know that we know for sure.
by bestwillcui | 2025-05-13 16:50:52+00:00
At this stage it seems like a good metric since it's the creator's content. We're adding a feature for question feedback from users, so they can like/dislike/report questions, but very open to other metrics if you have any ideas.

Yep—also in the process of adding learning paths for certain subjects, so you can go from an introductory course to more advanced topics and fill in gaps in understanding. Agreed: our mission is to help students actually learn in the best way possible, we have individual courses now to start out but the goal is to integrate the learning experience.

Very curious to chat about what you guys do, and if you have recs for any literature in the space that we should look at.
by incomingpain | 2025-05-13 16:50:52+00:00
One of the big design flaws of the Chevy Bolt is the lack of a heat pump. Running the heater uses up significant energy and thus range. I noticed something near the end of winter, pretty big discounts on bolts. Heater isnt a problem for me because often I dont drive long enough to ever heat up anyway.

When checking https://abetterrouteplanner.com/ and 400km range, you can get all the long distance places; but i think practical use of an EV isn't in that max range per charge. It seems to want to leave you in that 10% to 60% battery range for your long distance driving anyway. You arent really using your max range capability.

The one disadvantage I found, charging speed on a bolt is 55kw; but on many higher end cars you can get 150-300kw. The new blazer EV can charge at 150kw and so you're getting triple the range per time period.

Charging speed and curve seems far more important than range to me.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-05-13 16:50:57+00:00
Well, the people voted for Congress, and Congress could curtail Trump's tariff-setting ability anytime they want to, and they have chosen not to.

FWIW I agree that Congress has completely abdicated their duties, but by and large "the people" voted for this, it was not hidden or secret (for all his flaws Trump was very clear what he would do with respect to tariffs for a long time), and I think "taxation without representation" is an incredibly poor analogy.
by mike_hearn | 2025-05-13 16:50:59+00:00
No because this particular study re-defines the term "conspiracy theory" to mean an untrue or unproven conspiracy. Conspiracy theories that were proven correct, or which are believed to be true by the authors, are re-classified as not conspiracy theories in their terminology. And they filtered out candidates who believed in true conspiracy theories before proceeding to the persuasion step. Check their supplementary materials to see it. Here is the prompt they used to filter out candidates based on their chosen theory:

"Your task is to determine whether a given statement describes a conspiracy theory or not. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful people or organizations, often without credible evidence. Conspiracy theories often involve claims of secret plots, coverups, or the manipulation of information by influential groups."

This is a reasonable definition of a conspiracy theory. But then the prompt goes on to say:

"Here are some examples of conspiracy theories:

1. The moon landing was faked by the U.S. government to win the space race. 2. The COVID-19 pandemic was planned and orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccine sales. 3. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians to gain funding and control the population.

And here are some examples of statements that are not conspiracy theories:

4. The Watergate scandal involved a cover-up of illegal activities by the Nixon administration. 5. The tobacco industry concealed the harmful effects of smoking for many years. 6. Corporate lobbying influences political decisions in favor of special interests."

i.e. stating that companies lobby politicians to advance their interests and affect politics isn't a conspiracy theory, but stating that climate academics do the exact same thing for the same reasons is. This is an incoherent set of instructions that reflects the author's ideology, in particular, the standard left wing assumption that people who work in the public sector don't have personal biases or interests. The authors appear to believe they're asking GPT-4 to exclude people who believe in true things, but in reality it's being instructed to filter out candidates based on their politics.

Given that they're not using a valid definition of conspiracy theory, it seems doubtful that this paper's claims would replicate in the real world if applied more fairly. Given that they were fantastically lazy (not validating anything by hand, 100% blind trust in the AI), it may not even replicate within the narrow academic context either.
by autoexec | 2025-05-13 16:50:59+00:00
Yes they did. He made it very clear that he wanted massive tariffs which by necessity would mean that people would have to pay massive taxes on everything they want to buy. Before the election experts were very clear that those tariffs would cost the consumer and importer. People were told that he wanted to go crazy with tariffs, they were repeatedly told that tariffs would take money out of their pockets, and they voted for that. Nobody should be surprised by that now.
by kerkeslager | 2025-05-13 16:51:05+00:00
That's true, but it's dependent on the creator of the PDF having aligned incentives with the consumer of the PDF.

In the e-Discovery field, it's commonplace for those providing evidence to dump it into a PDF purely so that it's harder for the opposing side's lawyers to consume. If both sides have lots of money this isn't a barrier, but for example public defenders don't have funds to hire someone (me!) to process the PDFs into a readable format, so realistically they end up taking much longer to process the data, which takes a psychological toll on the defendant. And that's if they process the data at all.

The solution is to make it illegal to do this: wiretap data, for example, should be provided in a standardized machine-readable format. There's no ethical reason for simple technical friction to be affecting the outcomes of criminal proceedings.
by jkingsman | 2025-05-13 16:51:08+00:00
It took me a moment to realize, even after the mention of Echopraxia, that this was Peter Watts.

If you enjoy hard to very-hard science fiction, I strongly recommend the first book of his series, Blindsight. I thoroughly loved the read and bounced right back to the beginning for a second read with the context I'd gained on the first one. It's an absolute firehose of concepts; reminded me a bit of Accelerando by Charles Stross but a little less pleased with its own geekiness. The best summary I could give would be a meditation on consciousness set against a first-contact backdrop.
by kstrauser | 2025-05-13 16:51:36+00:00
True, but zellij also does more. I'd also give it more of a stink eye if it were something I were running many times inside the inner loop of a script, but as something you generally launch once and leave running forever, eh.

I occasionally have to recalibrate my units. I just launched Emacs on my Mac and it's using 350MB of RAM. That's astonishing when I think about Amiga programs I wrote, but it's also just 0.53% of the RAM in this particularly machine. It's probably larger than it could be if someone ruthlessly trimmed it back, but I'd rather spend that time using the other 99.4% of my machine to do more fun stuff.
by elefanten | 2025-05-13 16:51:39+00:00
Plenty of room for equivocation with words like "endorse", so depends what you mean by it.

I mean, literally in the first video he makes the standard argument that terrorist designations are politicized but you have to "look at who's right". And it's all in the context of defending Hamas and Hezbollah etc

And that's immediately followed by a clip of saying "America is biggest terrorist organization".

Obviously, the streamer is taking a "critical IR" type of standpoint.

So, I'm not sure what standard you're looking for. I never said anything about who's right or wrong, either among the streamers or the underlying sides of the conflict.

But the statement that he "endorses" Hamas etc doesn't seem so farfetched in the overall context.

And I apologized for the snark in my comment providing the link -- that was motivated by pointing out how readily available information is for self-assessment of the claims vs. calling for the original commenter to cite their claims (which most people are not doing in most HN comments).