MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kibet | 2025-05-13 01:29:33+00:00
My goals are really to make it easy for managers of these properties to edit their existing photos to look more professional without spending lots of time and money. Target is for them to just get the photos looking "good enough" bc I know AI won't be perfect as well.

Given, some people will use this to deceive their customers by blowing things out of current proportions but we can't help much in that case. Should I find any way to help though, I shall!
by owenversteeg | 2025-05-13 01:29:45+00:00
Sorry, your comment is incorrect again. The most recent version of CEN 15722 requires the two most recent locations before the incident location.

The modem does not have to passively track the mobile networks; it can do what it wants. The common OEM implementation these days is that the physical device that does eCall does several things, including eCall, over the same cellular radio. There's nothing stopping the OEM from connecting to a random website and eval()ing the result.

You seem confident in the security of this unhackable system so I will point out some of its other security weaknesses. Several eCall device implementations include Bluetooth modules (both "unused" as part of hardware and implementations that use Bluetooth.) Bluetooth is as secure as a wet cardboard box, so you could take BlueBorne or one of the six million other Bluetooth exploits that work on a non-discoverable device just sitting on the shelf, get in that way and boom, you can transmit whatever you want over the cellular radios. Vehicle infotainment systems are pretty insecure on average and are frequently hacked, so you could take over the infotainment system, get into the CAN bus that way and then send bad data to the eCall system, which is in the business of processing and responding to CAN data.

But those are just a few of the million ways; you could write up attacks all day long and you wouldn't scratch the surface. The facts are: this is a system with cellular radio(s), a CAN bus connection, sensors that constantly listen and interpret data; this is a large attack surface, built by OEMs that write notoriously insecure software. It is, by any reasonable judgment of those facts, a pretty hackable system. And yet, the European Commission goes around telling people that it "cannot" be hacked.

Anyway, this will be my third comment in a row here telling people that their comment is plain incorrect, so I'm going to have to leave the discussion here. I hope that my words provide some food for thought - for the next time that a system that could track you becomes legally mandatory.
by gcanyon | 2025-05-13 01:30:57+00:00
Venus outweighs its atmosphere by about 10,000 times. This is actually less than I thought -- for comparison Earth outweighs its atmosphere by over 1,000,000 times, which is still far less than I would have guessed.

Venus's escape velocity is less than 1/3rd of its orbital velocity. According to google, Venus's orbit, despite being very circular, causes its velocity to vary by a KM/s from aphelion to perihelion.

So I believe you could send all of Venus's atmosphere off permanently into space at the cost of about 1/30,000th of Venus's orbital velocity, meaning you could very slightly circularize its orbit further.
by alephnerd | 2025-05-13 01:31:15+00:00
Better procurement rates.

I've been a Engineer, PM, and VC in the cybersecurity for more than a decade now, and most of us would need to spend $15-20M and 1.5-2 years just to get FedRAMP compliance.

In return, most vendors charge significantly higher than private sector rates despite selling the exact same product. And usually, an oligopoly forms per security feature.

Making it easier to have multiple vendors makes it easier for federal agencies to negotiate a competitive price.
by lauriewired | 2025-05-13 01:31:20+00:00
> If you can't make CPUs and you can't keep the internet up, where are you going to get the equipment for enough "private peering or Sat links" for the privileged?

Storage. You only need a few hundred working systems to keep a backbone alive. Electron migration doesn’t kill transistors if they are off and in a closet.

> You need CPUs to build optical media drives! If you can't build CPUs you're not using optical media in 30 years.

You don’t need to make new drives; there are already millions of DVD/Bluray devices available. The small microcontrollers on optical drives are on wide node sizes, which also make them more resilient to degradation.

> they're definitely f-ing going to have been able to repeat all the R&D to build a 68k CPU in 30 years (and that's assuming you've destroy all the literature and mind-wiped everyone with any knowledge of semiconductor manufacturing).

If you read the post, the scenario clearly states “no further silicon designs ever get manufactured”. It’s a thought experiment, nothing more.
by ryukafalz | 2025-05-13 01:35:21+00:00
Capabilities themselves can certainly be implemented at a very low level; you might implement them as an array of capabilities associated with each process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-list_%28computer_security%29

As that page points out, POSIX file descriptors are effectively c-lists. A capability operating system would use similar mechanisms to control access to resources other than just open files.

The other things GP mentioned (logging, interdiction, UIs for visibility/control, etc) are layers that you would implement on top of the lowest-level capability system.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-05-13 01:36:19+00:00
Decades ago ... I think it was Computer Recreations column in "Scientific American" ... the strategy, since computers were less-abled then, was to advance all the bodies by some amount of time — call it a "tick" — when bodies got close, the "tick" got smaller: therefore the calculations more nuanced, precise. Further apart and you could run the solar system on generalities.
by irjustin | 2025-05-13 01:36:52+00:00
That's only during runtime. Simply reading code can be annoyingly difficult without hard references. Especially when the code is coming from a gem.

Many times LSP's can't figure out where the code is coming from if it's a few layers deep. Then you're stuck with the time consuming method of running the code and doing something like what you're describing above just to read it.
by kibet | 2025-05-13 01:39:40+00:00
4ditor founder here :). Our prices are actually on the lower end compared to what others in this space are charging. The market we are targeting is that which spends a ton on photography and editing, or that which knows they have to spend that much but do not have the budget, so yes you're right, that falls in the category of realtors, property managers and photographers.

A good number of photographers are already paying a big deal of money for different services to help them get professional photos, and a good number outsource editing - and it's quite pricey. So we're targeting this demographic so we can do some of that work for them. Granted, we will not do everything they have been getting professional editors do, but we should get them somewhere that is good enough for most people. Same thing for realtors.
by ted_dunning | 2025-05-13 01:39:52+00:00
Regarding item (2), Salton did talk about this and many systems from the early TREC times implemented them.

In my own work, I found that relevance feedback worked very well with only a few dozen judgements. See Chapter 7 starting on page 83 in my dissertation: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1847

Note also that the evaluation of Luduan in that chapter compared against state-of-the-art (for the time) back-of-words systems but also an early word embedding retrieval system (Convectis from HNC).
by bebeto35 | 2025-05-13 01:41:23+00:00
I’ve been tracking the timing of major crypto price moves and noticed something weird — a lot of pumps seem to coincide with full moons. Out of curiosity, I built a small tool to overlay moon phases on crypto charts to visualize any patterns. Current BTC price spikes lined up almost exactly with a full moon.

Not making any hard claims, but would love to hear thoughts from others who’ve explored astro-based market theories... or just want to debunk it.
by codr7 | 2025-05-13 01:41:38+00:00
Computers and hallucinogenics are a lousy combo in every possible way. Even if you manage to interface, they're still digital, which just limits your experience.

My advice is to write/draw your ideas while tripping and save the digital stuff for later.

Trees and flowers is a much better focus, animals; as analog, natural and physical as possible. Playing instruments is nice if that's your thing.

Take or leave.
by gcanyon | 2025-05-13 01:41:42+00:00
Using Hohmann transfer, I believe the energy cost is the same both ways. Of course as you point out we have the Moon, "they" have none. So we'd have plenty of rocks to throw.

That said, we'd have to throw much bigger rocks to penetrate their atmosphere. And the likely (to me) actual plans would be:

Us: launch to the Moon, set up there, launch rocks from the Moon to Venus.

Venusians: launch and travel to the asteroid belt, launch an asteroid toward Earth.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that our plan would be the same as theirs: we'd both be heading for the asteroid belt, because nothing we could reasonably launch from the Moon would put a dent in Venus with that atmosphere.

And if we assume they actually can launch through that atmosphere, we're screwed: if they can do that, they're way ahead of us.
by smallmancontrov | 2025-05-13 01:42:10+00:00
It might be below the fold, but it looks like they're missing the most important p-hacking strategy of all: the dogshit null hypothesis. It's very reliable and it's the most common type of p-hacking that I see.

It's easy to create a dogshit null hypotheses by negligence or by "negligence" and it's easy to reject a dogshit null hypothesis by simply collecting enough data as it automatically crumbles on contact with the real world -- that's what makes it dogshit. One might hope that this would be caught by peer review (insist on controls!) but I see enough dogshit null hypotheses roaming around the literature that these hopes are about as realistic as fairy dust. In practice, the dogshit null hypothesis reins supreme, or more precisely it quietly scoots out of the way so that its partner in crime, the dogshit alternative hypothesis, can have an unwarranted moment in the spotlight.
by thomassmith65 | 2025-05-13 01:42:54+00:00
Upon reading this the next day, I realize it could use a concrete example:

"We should pass a law to strip all legal rights from, and enslave, everyone who is of [pick some minority group]. Neither I, nor most people, belong to that minority, so most of us will benefit from this slave labor."

That's a logical argument. Thankfully, most people today would find it morally repugnant and unacceptable.
by bryan0 | 2025-05-13 01:43:09+00:00
I remember that episode being excellent! Scientists could tell that Venus’s crust was somehow reforming because of the crater pattern but the didn’t know whether it was gradual change or something catastrophic, and the thickness of the crust would point to one way or the other but they didn’t have that data.

> The paper used modeling to determine that its crust is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) thick on average and at most 40 miles (65 kilometers) thick.

So would that be considered “thick” or “thin”?
by kibet | 2025-05-13 01:44:31+00:00
I get your point, totally. My Goal with this is to ease the burden of editing. Now, people already editing their photos at the moment, and they spend a ton of time and money doing that. My goal with this is to make the process a tad easier, cheaper and faster for most.

Now unfortunately some people will take this too far and cover up every hole and crack, completely obfuscating reality. That will be the unfortunate outcome from some
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-05-13 01:46:21+00:00
> Computers and the Internet started with academics.

Only if one categorizes academics as a research arm of military funded research goals. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but let's be intellectually honest.

> UNIX is a product of a quasi-academic research lab.

A wholly owned subsidiary of the commercial entity AT&T as far as the UNIX trademark is concerned. The BSD family would have something to say about Unix (note case difference) however.

> The Center of Gravity shifted in the late 90s/early 2000s, I reckon. Real world needed distributed systems ...

Distributed systems and the networking protocols now assumed (TCP and UDP) was a battle fought before the late 90's. See Novell[0] for an alternative many espoused at the time and Sun's "The Network is the Computer" mantra from the mid 80's.

> Not saying USENIX didn’t have factions. I just question the word “capture” about academics, who invented all this stuff before there was money in it.

There was always "money in it." Academic funding is, by definition, justifying the allocation of money for the advancement of knowledge often pitched as relevant to the benefactor. Again, not that there is anything wrong with this.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell
by shoo | 2025-05-13 01:47:49+00:00
see also: Andrew Gelman's blog

> The problem with p-hacking is not the "hacking," it’s the "p." Or, more precisely, the problem is null hypothesis significance testing, the practice of finding data which reject straw-man hypothesis B, and taking this as evidence in support of preferred model A.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/09/30/the-proble...

See also this post from 2014 with a discussion of Confirmationist and falsificationist approaches to reasoning in science: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/09/05/confirmati...

> I understand falisificationism to be that you take the hypothesis you love, try to understand its implications as deeply as possible, and use these implications to test your model, to make falsifiable predictions. The key is that you’re setting up your own favorite model to be falsified.

> In contrast, the standard research paradigm in social psychology (and elsewhere) seems to be that the researcher has a favorite hypothesis A. But, rather than trying to set up hypothesis A for falsification, the researcher picks a null hypothesis B to falsify and thus represent as evidence in favor of A.

> As I said above, this has little to do with p-values or Bayes; rather, it’s about the attitude of trying to falsify the null hypothesis B rather than trying to trying to falsify the researcher’s hypothesis A.

> Take Daryl Bem, for example. His hypothesis A is that ESP exists. But does he try to make falsifiable predictions, predictions for which, if they happen, his hypothesis A is falsified? No, he gathers data in order to falsify hypothesis B, which is someone else’s hypothesis. To me, a research program is confirmationalist, not falsificationist, if the researchers are never trying to set up their own hypotheses for falsification.

> That might be ok—maybe a confirmationalist approach is fine, I’m sure that lots of important things have been learned in this way. But I think we should label it for what it is.

See also: Andrew Gelman and Eric Loken's 2014 "garden of forking paths" paper: https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/unpublished/...
by WASDAai | 2025-05-13 01:48:22+00:00
### Details & reproducibility notes

*What it does* * Replaces the linear compression term with \(u(I)=I^2\) → objective becomes strictly convex, so each β has a unique optimum. * Adds a small entropy penalty (ε≈0.05) to keep p(z\|x) stochastic until β is large. * Uses an implicit ODE (`dq/dβ = -H⁻¹ ∇_q L`) as a predictor, then a Newton-style corrector → follows the optimum path smoothly.

*How to run* ```bash git clone https://github.com/farukalpay/information-bottleneck-beta-op... cd information-bottleneck-beta-optimization/code_v3_Stable_Continuation pip install -r requirements.txt # numpy, scipy, jax optional python stable_continuation_ib.py

• Figures land in ib_plots/ (info-plane, Hessian eigenvalues, encoder heatmaps).

• Total runtime ≈ 3 s w/ NumPy, <1 s on JAX-GPU.

Why 2 × 2 and 8 × 8? Wanted minimal cases where standard IB shows hard jumps; convex version keeps the same asymptotic optimum but removes the discontinuity.

Looking for feedback on 1. Extending the continuation trick to Variational IB / deep encoders.

2. Any theoretical caveats of the convex surrogate at very high β.

3. Real datasets where phase-jump-free IB would be handy.

Code is MIT, paper is CC-BY-4.0. Feel free to fork / reuse—stars and PRs welcome!
by kibet | 2025-05-13 01:49:02+00:00
Virtual staging is sometimes a hit and miss for us, especially for small, constricted spaces - the AI would just blatantly changes the structural integrity of the room and show something else.

Outside scenery is even worse with different seasons, it's ridiculous some times. But we've found for the most part, it tends to get it right. The other good thing is it's not a one shot thing, you get to keep revising it until it looks exactly as you'd want it. You can even target specific areas of the image you'd like to see and edit that part.
by johngai | 2025-05-13 01:50:24+00:00
We’ve been using Netcapz for the past few months to handle SMS and WhatsApp campaigns, and it’s honestly one of the smartest decisions we’ve made.

As a small business, we needed a reliable platform that could scale, automate, and personalize our outreach. Netcapz checked all the boxes — it lets us send bulk messages, segment customers, use AI to generate content, and track results, all from one dashboard.

Also love that it supports WhatsApp + Viber and has a clean, intuitive UI. If you're running marketing for a growing brand, this is a tool worth trying.

https://netcapz.cloud
by JadeNB | 2025-05-13 01:50:56+00:00
> I kinda like this angle. While Slack makes an effort to work basically everywhere with low effort, I wonder what would follow if it wasn't the case.

This idea of respecting user preference is not the way, though. For example, back when Skype existed, you couldn't remove its icon from the macOS menu bar, because (1) Microsoft didn't believe you had the right to choose to remove that item, and (2) macOS believes an app developer should have more control over what goes in my menu bar than I do.
by spacedcowboy | 2025-05-13 01:51:21+00:00
If I had one thing I could send to my past self, it would be to prevent, come hell or high water, my wife walking into the ER on that day, roughly 2 years ago.

The day they did an (unrelated to what she was there for) blood test, and found a low-sodium problem. The day they decided to admit her for that, and then because dripping saline into someone isn't a great use of an ER bed from a cost perspective, they decided to do it quickly. Too quickly.

The day that she went into a coma, and although surfacing a couple of days later, the day that she was forever changed. Real life is not like the movies, you don't necessarily just "wake up".

The day that begat the horror of the last two years, screaming agony for hours on end which no OTC (or prescribed) painkiller could affect, the spasms as her body launched itself across the bed without conscious choice, and finally the day that she started to lose her mind.

The day that, as time wore on, she started to believe crazy things - that myself and her son had been replaced and were not "the real ones", that the medicine is poison, the crushing fear of, well, everything. The death of the woman I love in all but body.

She had a JD/MBA, was admitted to the bar, she had more letters after her name than I did, and I've got a dozen or so. She no longer exists as the person she was. She's been in and out of mental institutions over the last two years. The last time 911 responded, I heard one of the guys saying "Oh, yeah, I remember this place, with the avocado tree".

The extended-time stress of all this awoke LADA diabetes within me, so now I'm tethered to a pump, watching carbs like a hawk, desperately trying to give my kid a normal life. Or as normal as it can get. It became too much, and I had to quit the job, which means selling the house and moving out of Silicon Valley - it's too expensive to retire this early and live properly. So we're off back to the UK, shattered, torn, bewildered, broken, on 4th July.

All because a "hospital" wanted to make even more money. I feel I ought to leave a note, Stargate style, "Do not go to O'Connor Hospital, in San Jose".

Life is cheap, in the USA. Happiness is fleeting. Make the most of it while you have it.
by khuey | 2025-05-13 01:52:30+00:00
> successful industrial open-source (?) projects loved by academics (Rust)

Is Rust loved by academics? And much more importantly in my mind, was it even recognized by academics before it became an industrial success?

The very first published Rust paper that I'm aware of appeared in the "ACM SIGAda Ada Letters" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2692956.2663188). Today that paper is the most cited paper to ever appear in that journal (which has a 4 decade history) and it's not even close. It also has more citations that all but three papers that appeared at PLDI that same year, for comparison. That certainly doesn't suggest to me that it was recognized at the time. This was also published only 6 months before Rust shipped 1.0. It wasn't that early.

My (third-hand and now-decade-old, so take it for the very little it's worth) recollection is that academic forums weren't interested in Rust because nothing in it is particularly novel in a PL theory sense (a point Graydon himself made from the very beginning, see slides 6 and 7 at http://venge.net/graydon/talks/intro-talk-2.pdf). But it did package those ideas into something that was practically usable for industry and at this point the results speak for themselves.

IMO this is a good example of why a lot of "practitioners" in industry wouldn't bother trying to publish anything in a forum dominated by academics.
by EMIRELADERO | 2025-05-13 01:52:34+00:00
The Copyright Office is not an authority in this context, it's just an opinion. They did not make any "finding". To a judge they may as well be any other amicus curiae.

My opinion on the matter at hand is this: Artists who complain about GenAI use the hypothetical that you mentioned, where if you can accurately recreate a copyrighted work through specific model usage, then any distribution of the model is a copyright violation. That's why, according to the argument, fair use does not apply.

The real problem with that is that there's a mismatch between the fair use analysis and the actual use at issue. The complaining artists want the fair use inquiry to focus on the damage to the potential market to works in their particular style. That's where the harm is according to them. However, what they use to even get into that stage is the copyright infringement allegation that I described earlier: that the models contain their works on a fixed manner which can be derived without permission.

Not to mention the fact that this position means putting the malicious usage of the models for outright copyright infringement at the output level above the entire class of new works that can be created by its usage. It's effectively saying "because these models can technically be used in an infringing way, it infringes our copyright and any creative potential that these models could help with are insignificant in comparison to that simple fact. Of course, that's not the actual real problem, which is that they output completely new works that compete with our originals, even when they aren't derivatives of, nor substantially similar to, any individual copyrighted work".

Here's a very good article outlining my position in a more articulate way: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art