MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by asix66 | 2025-05-13 02:22:12+00:00
In Copenhagen, Denmark, these are used all over the city to, well, deliver cargo.

Then, annually they have a fun cargo-bike race called "Svajerløb" [0]

The event is based on traditional races that took place between the 1930s and 1960s. In the race, riders typically complete four laps - the first lap ridden with an empty cargo bike, then stopping to load up their bikes with cargo before completing three more laps with the full load. [1]

It's super fun.

[0] https://www.facebook.com/Svajerloeb/

[1] https://copenhagenize.com/2017/10/arrange-svajerlb-cargo-bik...
by somenameforme | 2025-05-13 02:22:33+00:00
It's just a passive aggressive means of disagreeing with the value of something without providing any argument for such. The exact same rhetorical fallacies are widespread when it comes to debates around the values of e.g. pursuing efforts to become a multiplanetary species.

I think it's safe to call it a rhetorical fallacy because its underlying premise implies humanity can somehow only focus on a very finite number of things at once and that funds directed to 'your thing' would somehow otherwise be directed to 'their thing' which is even more absurd.
by FireBeyond | 2025-05-13 02:23:05+00:00
> If the average Joe copied that setup there's 0% chance he'd get sued

Citation needed. RIAA used to just watch torrents and sent cease and desists to everyone who connected, whether for a minute or for months. It was very much a dragnet, and I highly doubt there was any nuance of "but Your Honor, I only seeded 1MB back so it's all good".
by Spooky23 | 2025-05-13 02:23:49+00:00
It’s mostly an easy button for procurement officers. You’re required to meet the control standards that FedRAMP requires anyway, and it saves months of the customer’s time to do it once.

Startups are always problematic for government procurement, and unless you play in a space that is setup to handle small vendors, your business is going through partners anyway.
by thedufer | 2025-05-13 02:24:15+00:00
Why would that be more correct? A trailing dot indicates that a domain is fully-qualified, but that's not the issue here. The browser is trying to decide whether your query is a search string or a URL.

Also, a trailing dot would indicate the opposite of what we want - we're using single-label domains that only work if we can rely on search suffixes to qualify them.
by muzani | 2025-05-13 02:24:23+00:00
Generally, the more you get paid, the less stable it is. Big tech is probably still the most stable way to make that kind of income. What else can you do? Start a business? Rob a bank? Trade stocks? Freelance? Startups are always higher risk, higher returns.

But big tech has become extremely competitive, and high competition makes it more unstable.
by dangus | 2025-05-13 02:24:55+00:00
Honestly if those numbers you’re providing are accurate, that’s not a lot of money.

The research I’ve done pegs the cost at $500,000 to $1.5 million.

That actually is “small SaaS company” territory.

And don’t forget that VCs throw more money than that around for much riskier propositions. The whole VC business is that you’ll have 1 success and 10 failures, throwing $2 million in hopes of landing a government contract (stable revenue above market rates) is probably a great investment for a lot of small/medium sized companies.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-05-13 02:25:10+00:00
Whereas, my report showed they were breaking copyright before the training process. Meta was sued for what I said they'd be sued for, too.

Like Napster et al, their data sets make copies of hundreds of GB of copyrighted works without authors' permission. Ex: The Pile, Commons Crawl, Refined Web, Github Pages. Many copyrighted works on the Internet also have strict terms of use. Some have copyright licenses that say personal use only or non-commercial use.

So, like many prior cases, just posting what isn't yours on HughingFace is already infringement. Copying it from HF to your training cluster is also infringement. It's already illegal until we get laws like Singapore's that allow copyrighted works. Even they have a weakness in the access requirement which might require following terms of use or licenses in the sources.

Only safe routes are public domain, permissive code, and explicit licenses from copyright holders (or those with sub-license permissions).

So, what do you think about the argument that making copies of copyrighted works violates copyright law? That these data sets are themselves copyright violations?
by phire | 2025-05-13 02:25:23+00:00
I looked around and couldn't find anything about Ryzen decoding power conniption. I'm only aware of one report for x86 decode power consumption, [1] and there are quite a few problems with trying to use it to justify that conclusion.

First, it's covers Intel Haswell, which is "not ryzen", it's not even AMD. Plus, Haswell is 12 years old at this point, how much relevance does it even have to modern Intel CPUs?

Second, the "instruction decoders" power zone was only 10%, not 20%. And still reported 3% on workloads that used very few instructions and always hit the uop cache. So really we are talking about 7% overhead for decoding instructions. They do speculate that other workloads use more power (they only tested two workloads), as the theoretical instruction throughput might be double. (which is where I suspect you got the 20% from), but they provide no evidence for that, and double the throughput doesn't mean double the power consumption. And double 7% + 3% base would be 17% at most.

Third. Intel doesn't publish any details about what this "instruction decoder" zone actually covers. It's almost certainly more just the "decoding x86" part. Given there are only four zones, I'm almost certain this zone covers the entire frontend, which includes branch prediction, instruction fetch, the stack engine. It might include register renaming too. Maybe instruction TLB lookups? I am reasonably sure it includes the (dynamic) power cost of accessing the L1i cache too.

So this 7% power usage is way more than just the decoding of decoding 86%. It's the entire frontend.

Finally. I haven't seen any power numbers for the front end of an equivalent ARM processor (like Apple's M1). For all we know, they are also using 7% of their power budget to fetch ARM instructions from the L1 cache, decode them, do branch prediction, do all the fancy front-end stuff. The 7% number isn't x86 overhead as many people imply, it's just the cost of running Haswell's frontend.

Without anything else to compare to, this 7% number is worthless. It's certainly an interesting paper, I don't have any major criticisms, but it simply cannot be used to support (or disprove) any arguments about the overhead of x86 decoding.

[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/cooldc16/cool...
by phillipseamore | 2025-05-13 02:25:57+00:00
It seems this is really about keeping drug prices about the same but increasing them for other countries.

Trump isn't one for details but I watched his announcement and the examples he rattled off seemed to have one thing in common, countries with single-buyer national insurance and subsidized prices to patients. A patient might pay $20 but the national insurance purchases the drugs at a higher price.
Show HN: Game for kids to learn A to Z in QWERTY layout
by wenjian | 2025-05-13 02:27:00+00:00
I built this game for my 3yo son to learn the letters in A to Z order, and to learn the QWERTY layout.

Hope it helps you.

I also have another games for kids:

Stay focus and Learn numbers in Schulte grid way: https://schulte-grid.1link.fun

Stay focus and learn A to Z in Schulte grid way: https://child-letter-game.1link.fun
by tmpz22 | 2025-05-13 02:28:52+00:00
The problem is the healthcare industry will leverage this to place more responsibilities in the hands of increasingly less qualified individuals - as they're already doing with nurses. Costs will never go down, but the salary of healthcare professionals and quality of care will.

AI is a tool to transfer wealth from the middle class to the ultra wealthy. If there is a brief intermediary period where quality of life improves for the poor, it's a temporary coincidence that hasn't been optimized away yet.

Your. Costs. Will. Never. Go. Down. While. Maintaining. Equal. Service. In. The. Long. Term. That's. Not. What. Capitalists. Want.
by generalizations | 2025-05-13 02:29:47+00:00
They can run locally on-device: a win for cost, latency and privacy (privacy is pragmatic: it means you can use all the user's data as context without qualms). There's a reason Microsoft tried so hard to push for the neural processors a year or two ago. Avoiding the cost of the datacenter while offering good-enough inference (emphasis on good) is a massive win.
by xvector | 2025-05-13 02:30:01+00:00
Anything involving auditors or policy people in tech turns into a clown show. Dunno what it is like for other industries (but my friends in pharmaceutical research feel similarly).

These are deeply nontechnical people attempting to enforce regulations drafted by deeply nontechnical people (typically academics that graduated from an Ivy but have zero industry experience, like the folks at modern-day RAND) and it's just a clown show all the way down.
by neerajsi | 2025-05-13 02:30:03+00:00
She can't make a prediction if the parents don't know.

The point is not that she predicted the gender of the child. She predicts what gender the parents expect the child to be without being explicitly told.

She didn't tell me anything about the success rate. Instead she told what factors she used to make her guess. She can tell if she was right or wrong right away because the parents can say what they are expecting.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-05-13 02:30:13+00:00
As the father of a young child whose optic nerves are highly deteriorated (compression) and is expected to lose his sight (when exactly is unknown; based on original projections he should be blind by now, but an experimental treatment run in a trial at the NIH (KEEP FUNDING SCIENCE) has stabilized his sight), I'm overjoyed with the advances being made in VLMs. I can now envision a future where even if he loses his sight he'll be able to interact with the world around him, go to college, have a fulfilling career (he loves science and engineering, and is talented for his young age), etc.
by pizlonator | 2025-05-13 02:30:19+00:00
The worst part about this:

> Running experiments until you get a hit

Is that it's literally what us software optimization engineers do. We keep writing optimizations until we find one that is a statistically significant speed-up.

Hence we are running experiments until we get a hit.

The only defense I know against this is to have a good perf CI. If your patch seemed like a speed-up before committing, but perf CI doesn't see the speed-up, then you just p-hacked yourself. But that's not even fool proof.

You just have to accept that statistics lie and that you will fool yourself. Prepare accordingly.
by thrance | 2025-05-13 02:31:41+00:00
Advice noted and rejected. Appealing to "centrists" leads nowhere. The political landscape shifted so far right, it's a wonder anyone can still call themselves "centrist" seriously. We now have "centrist" thought-leaders being openly bigoted towards LGBT people, questioning vaccine efficacy and the existence of climate change.

"Thrashing the other side" is exactly how the right got elected, so I wouldn't call it unproductive. If the left is to win anything ever again, it's by having its own tea party and throwing out all the ineffective old guys of the establishment, not by appealing to that fabled "moderate" who has "reasonable demands" the left is supposedly not addressing.

Socialized healthcare, redistributibe taxation, aggressive anti-monopoly actions... All things that poll incredibly well and that could be exploited to win, but that current democrats are too afraid to campaign on for fear of alienating their wealthy donors.
by K0balt | 2025-05-13 02:31:53+00:00
Oh, you can spend 50k on tools, of course. You can spend as much as you want.

But you don’t need every tool to work on every car.

Plenty of mechanics work with a single toolbox that you can carry by hand.

It will handle 90 percent of the jobs. The one semi-specialty tool you need for the job is a phone call to Napa away.

Before long you have 99 percent of what you will actually do covered. If you look at a mechanics toolset you will find that 20 percent of the tools get 99.9% of the use. A lot, maybe more than half, basically never get used at all.

In many things, a full set consists of perhaps 16-20 sizes, but for many types of tools, there are 3 sizes that get used all the time, and two that get used once or twice a year. The rest not at all.

Also, you can buy a “$10,000” set of tools for around $2000 if you are patient, less if you identify where you need really good tools and where middle of the road will work fine, and don’t let it become a vanity hobby.

Over time, you will likely have a lot invested in tools.. but you don’t need that much to start, unless you are talking about opening a full service shop from scratch, not just being a mechanic.
by jchw | 2025-05-13 02:33:11+00:00
> The entire point of purity within Nix is to have reproducibility by its nature: `In this model a binary component is uniquely defined by the declared inputs used to build the component` (section 1.5). It is not clear to me how this is an entirely different problem than that of reproducible builds. Yes, there are more problems to solve regarding achieving bit-for-bit reproducible builds that Nix does not fully solve alone, but reproducible software builds and deployments clearly are goals of Nix as a technology.

Sorry, but you pretty much quoted what I would've quoted to refute your claim: it's exactly right that binary components are uniquely defined by their declared inputs, but note the subtle consequence that has: they are not defined at all by their outputs, only their declared inputs. (Making them be defined by their outputs is entirely possible FWIW, this is pretty much what content-addressed Nix paths are for.) This also applies recursively: the bit-exactness of external inputs are guaranteed by cryptographic hashes, but if you have any inputs that are, themselves, derivations, you can extremely trivially add impurities, because the system is just simply not designed to stop you from doing this. An example:

stdenv.mkDerivation { name = "trivialimpurity"; unpackPhase = "date>$out"; }

It would be quite possible to make a system that is specifically designed to be resistant to this; consider that Nix goes great lengths to accomplish what it does, literally ripping apart ELF binaries to force dynamic symbols to be resolved in a static manner. There's no reason why you couldn't go further to force deeper reproducibility in a similar vein, it's just that Nix simply doesn't.

I think it's actually OK that Nix doesn't attempt to resolve this problem, because it is a pretty hairy one. Obviously you can't practically make the build environment 100% completely reproducible as it would be painfully slow and weird, so the best you could really probably do is intercept syscalls and try to make threading behavior deterministic (which would also make builds slow as balls, but less slow than running every build in unaccelerated qemu or something like that.) What Nix does do is solve the living shit out of the problem it was designed to solve, something you can feel very viscerally when you compare the state of Nixpkgs to the state of the AUR (a package repo I consider to be very good, but definitely can give some perspective about the problems Nix is designed to solve IMO, based on some of the problems I've run into with it.)
by TMWNN | 2025-05-13 02:35:30+00:00
>It's a Z80 in a cartridge and was capable of booting CP/M 2.2. But don't get too excited: the 1541 was still the 1541, so it could only run software that had been copied to a GCR disk (no directly reading MFM floppies).

This by itself is no great obstacle; even aside from the nonstandardization of CP/M 5.25" disk formats, CP/M on Apple II has the same GCR/MFM issue but the SoftCard and its many clones were among the most popular accessories, and consequently no shortage of software available on the Apple II disk format.

No, the issue with the C64 CP/M cartridge is that it sucked, like almost everything else Commodore designed. Even assuming that someone in 1985 or 1986 wanted to run Turbo Pascal or WordStar on the 128 as opposed to buying an inexpensive PC clone or a used Kaypro or Osborne, the 128 implementation is so slow that it is more or less unusable for regular use.
by smallmancontrov | 2025-05-13 02:36:41+00:00
"I ran a t-test on the untreated / treated samples and the difference is significant! The treatment worked!"

...but the data table shows a clear trend over time across both groups because the samples were being irradiated by intense sunlight from a nearby window. The model didn't account for this possibility, so it was rejected, just not because the treatment worked.

That's a relatively trivial example and you can already imagine ways in which it could have occurred innocently and not-so-innocently. Most of the time it isn't so straightforward. The #1 culprit I see is failure to account for some kind of obvious correlation, but the ways in which a null hypothesis can be dogshit are as numerous and subtle as the number of possible statistical modeling mistakes in the universe because they are the same thing.
by ssd646 | 2025-05-13 02:36:59+00:00
I never said it sends your plaintext password.

It says it 'encrypts' your password, because it needs to access your Keychain. The dialog says this, but there is no way to opt out.

You are 100% wrong.

EDIT: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/467137/are-keychai...
by wk_end | 2025-05-13 02:37:59+00:00
Does Erlang/Elixer have any edge over Ocaml or Haskell in that niche? They also have pattern matching, of course, and strong static types tend to work nicely for compilers too.

Of course, the big superpower they have is the BEAM and the robust multiprocessing support there, but that’s not especially helpful for compilers…or is it?
Open-Source RL Model for Predicting Sales Conversion from Conversations
by nandakishor_ml | 2025-05-13 02:39:16+00:00
For the past couple of months, I have been working on building a chess game kinda system for predicting sales conversion probabilities from sales conversations. Sales are notoriously difficult to analyse with current LLMs or SLMs, even ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini failed to fully analyse sales conversations. How about we can guide the conversations based on predicting the conversion probabilities, that is, kinda trained on a 100000+ sales conversation with RL to predict the final probability from the embeddings. So I just used Azure OpenAI embedding(especially the text-embedding-3-large model to create a wide variety of conversations. The main goal of RL is conversion(reward=1), it will create different conversations, different pathways, most of which lead to nonconversion (0), and some lead to conversion(1), along with 3072 embedding vectors to get the nuances and semantics of the dialogues. Other fields include

* Company/product identifiers * Conversation messages (JSON) * Customer engagement & sales effectiveness scores (0-1) * Probability trajectory at each turn * Conversation style, flow pattern, and channel

Then I just trained an RL with PPO, by reducing the dimension using a linear layer and using that to do the final prediction with PPO.

Dataset, model, and training script are all open-sourced. Also written an Arxiv paper on it.

Dataset: [https://huggingface.co/datasets/DeepMostInnovations/saas-sales-conversations](https://huggingface.co/datasets/DeepMostInnovations/saas-sales-conversations)

Model, dataset creation, training, and inference: [https://huggingface.co/DeepMostInnovations/sales-conversion-model-reinf-learning](https://huggingface.co/DeepMostInnovations/sales-conversion-model-reinf-learning)

Paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23303 ](https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23303)

Btw, use Python version 10 for inference. Also, I am thinking of using open-source embedding models to create the embedding vectors, but it will take more time. Also I just made a platform on top of this to build agents. It's completely free, https://lexeek.deepmostai.com . You can chat with the agent at https://www.deepmostai.com/ from this website
by esdott | 2025-05-13 02:40:56+00:00
As a long time diabetic (t1d) with direct relatives also afflicted with this horrible disease, it’s frustrating that we often miss the key factors in insulin resistance and fail to see how they fit in.

The level of serotonin and its interplay with our current level of immune response/inflammation in our body is the single best predictor of insulin resistance. That’s simply because every good thing you can do to lower resistance increases serotonin. Serotonin then decreases inflammation. When you exercise for a long period of time you are not only increasing your immediate availability of serotonin, you are also increasing your daily availability for serotonin.

Obviously it’s a little more complicated but from a big picture standpoint, either something is increasing inflammation in you today and increasing your insulin resistance or (hopefully) the opposite is happening and serotonin is moving your insulin through your blood stream like a mag lev train.

On a side note, I do love cgms.
by bcraven | 2025-05-13 02:41:03+00:00
On January 10th 2016, Clarkson came clean in his article in the Mail on Sunday and admitted that the whole thing was rigged. Clarkson wrote,

“You may remember: I drove it (the Reliant Robin) around Sheffield and it kept falling over. Well now’s the time to come clean. A normal Reliant Robin will not roll unless a drunken rugby team is on hand. Or its windy. But in a headlong drive to amuse and entertain, I’d asked the backroom boys to play around with the differential so that the poor thing rolled over every time I turned the steering wheel”

https://www.reliant.website/topgear.shtml
by leumassuehtam | 2025-05-13 02:41:48+00:00
One way of doing that is by each time step delta perform two integrations, one which give you x_1, and another x_2, with different accuracies. The error is estimated by the difference |x_1 - x_2| and you make the error match your tolerance by adjusting the time step.

Naturally, this difference becomes big when two objects are close together, since the acceleration will induce a large change of velocity, and a lower time step is needed to keep the error under control.
by lmm | 2025-05-13 02:44:09+00:00
> Do you mean because of how its designed to cascade, and all the details of priority that requires? Or something else?

Mainly that. But there are other parts that feel clunkier than they need to be too, e.g. media queries force you to repeat yourself a lot when most of the time you just want to write an expression, before/after gives you a whole new way to write elements that's only used for this one niche thing. The language has these weirdly powerful individual features but weak general features and no overall cohesion.

> issues where a style somewhere else bleeds in and I have to hope browser dev tools can point me in the right direction.

The converse part is even worse IMO. There's no way to do any kind of "find usages", so you can never tell whether a given style is used or not. With the result that people never refactor or delete anything, and the codebase gets worse and worse.