MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Forezia – Free AI Forecasting for Small Shopify Stores
by luistatera | 2025-06-16 07:19:54+00:00
I built Forezia to help small Shopify merchants stop guessing what to reorder. https://www.forezia.com

It’s a free tool — no login, no app install. Just upload your Shopify CSV, confirm your email, and get a clean forecast PDF showing:

- Top-selling SKUs - Units expected to sell in the next 30–90 days - Suggested reorder quantities & dates

Built for stores under $500K/year — especially solo founders and indie merchants juggling everything.

I’d love your feedback! What’s confusing? What’s missing? And if you're a maker with a store, happy to prioritize your needs during the beta. https://www.producthunt.com/products/forezia/reviews/new
by namaria | 2025-06-16 07:20:49+00:00
From the article [0] you linked:

"However, the most unequivocal early archaeological evidence of equines put to working use was of horses being driven. Chariot burials about 2500 BC present the most direct hard evidence of horses used as working animals. In ancient times chariot warfare was followed by the use of war horses as light and heavy cavalry."

Long discussion in History Exchange about dating the cave paintings mentioned in the wikipedia article above:

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/68935/when-did-h...
by trod1234 | 2025-06-16 07:21:48+00:00
Cloud was a nice promise that was broken all too quickly. This is why cloud repatriation is a growing trend, that and a growingly brittle cloud with outages that are outside anyone's control, and the costs unmanageable.

There are also business sectors where they never could fully go cloud-only because of regulatory. Bio-pharma for example.

> the role of System Administrator was practically eliminated.

You don't have an SA just exclusively work on infrastructure, you do have them as generalists that know your environment and systems, and can have them quickly troubleshoot, modify, and resolve UB issues and outages when something breaks on Sunday night on Christmas Eve, or have the DR required equipment on-site to ensure generators are up right after Hurricane Sandy passes, and pre-emptively handle issues before they become outright disasters. Anyone thinking you can have helpdesk do this isn't right in the head.

> I think LLMs have absolutely nothing to do with this.

There are a growing number of places that get lock-in contracts where the SA related services they offer are being done by helpdesk staff manning LLM based chatbots without disclosure, blindly.

This obviously works right up until it doesn't, and by the time people notice the fundamental issue, the competent people the company needs won't be around anymore with a vicious race to the bottom. These helpdesk people may be manning 3 or more chatbots simultaneously in a foreign country while pulling in the same as retail fast food in California. No SA can compete with nominally free slave labor, and these people don't care about Information Governance and unauthorized data disclosures.

Any seasoned SA worth their salt will be capable of automation in python and powershell at a fairly advanced level if they're MS centric, and python/bash for Linux.

DevOps Engineer, Architect, SRE all have quite a lot of overlap with a competent SAs, but SAs aren't getting these jobs. There's no path to getting those jobs, and the actual stats and hiring being done seems to indicate there aren't many people getting these positions, and they are almost universally grey beards.

No one going in, no one coming out, what happens when they die/age out/flame out... The related IT systems fail in growingly chaotic trends, and related production grinds to a halt. It becomes just like the ending of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but without the new beginning.

LLMs aren't a substitute for people, but companies are using them as such, and there is an increasing body of literature showing that LLM use increases cognitive debt. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872)
by gblargg | 2025-06-16 07:21:51+00:00
I did this once on an Acer monitor. I was modifying it to strobe the LED backlight to give blur-free video like a CRT. I had found that the DDC bus exposed other registers to control the backlight, etc. and had an external circuit connected to do the strobing. I noticed it had registers to read and write the flash ROM, so I dumped it, wrote an 8051 disassembler and did some crude reverse-engineering, then eventually modified the ROM to include a strobed mode (occupying the lower end of the brightness control, so it could enabled and adjusted via the OSD or normal DDC brightness controls). I did have to go inside and connect the write line when flashing it. There was conveniently an interrupt on vblank, and the timer that controlled the LED backlight had a mode that could turn it on a little before the next interrupt and then off an adjustable amount of time after, just the right time needed to flash it on after the LCD had settled updating. Originally I just wanted to remove the several-second boot logo (which I achieved).
by berkes | 2025-06-16 07:22:59+00:00
FWIW: I was referring to this:

> Note that decorators and the original class object share a common set of features. In the previous diagram, the operation() method was available in both the decorated and undecorated versions.

and

>

GoF Book, "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software", p.166:

> "A decorator object conforms to the interface of the component it decorates so that its presence is transparent to clients."
by flomo | 2025-06-16 07:23:12+00:00
Probably because there was some reward that you felt at the time was important (most likely playing a DOS game).

I did this for a living at a large corp where I was the 'thinkpad guy', and I barely remember any of the tricks (and only some of the IBM stuff). Then Windows NT and 95 came out and like whoo cares... This was always dogshit. Because I was always an Apple/Unix guy and that was just a job.
by riffraff | 2025-06-16 07:23:44+00:00
Are you sure?

I'm Italian and we had Star Trek (all the films, all the shows, many of the books), and apparently the Star Trek Italian Club[0] was funded in 1982. I think Spock and Kirk were quite familiar to most people, and for sure as a nerd in the '00s everybody understood the joke of showing Bill Gates as a Borg on Slashdot.

[0] https://stic.it/
by berkes | 2025-06-16 07:25:08+00:00
but also the next sentence:

> ...The important aspect of this pattern is that it lets decorators appear anywhere a VisualComponent can. That way clients generally can't tell the difference between a decorated component and an undecorated one, and so they don't depend at all on the decoration.

and further on:

> The decorator conforms to the interface of the component it decorates so that its presence is transparent to the component's clients.
by ritz_labringue | 2025-06-16 07:25:12+00:00
Harry Potter action figures trade almost entirely on J. K. Rowling’s expressive choices. Every unlicensed toy competes head‑to‑head with the licensed one and slices off a share of a finite pot of fandom spending. Copyright law treats that as classic market substitution and rightfully lets the author police it.

Dropping the novels into a machine‑learning corpus is a fundamentally different act. The text is not being resold, and the resulting model is not advertised as “official Harry Potter.” The books are just statistical nutrition. One ingredient among millions. Much like a human writer who reads widely before producing new work. No consumer is choosing between “Rowling’s novel” and “the tokens her novel contributed to an LLM,” so there’s no comparable displacement of demand.

In economic terms, the merch market is rivalrous and zero‑sum; the training market is non‑rivalrous and produces no direct substitute good. That asymmetry is why copyright doctrine (and fair‑use case law) treats toy knock‑offs and corpus building very differently.
by somenameforme | 2025-06-16 07:26:01+00:00
You vaccinate yourself to protect yourself. People who are vaccinated for a disease can and do spread said disease. It's this way for literally everything. The claims that you cannot spread COVID if you're vaccinated were simply false. Vaccination can have a mitigating effect of course, but we were never going to be able to eliminate COVID with something like herd immunity.

The only virus completely eliminated by vaccines is small pox, and that was largely because of a number of ideal factors. The top two are probably that that no animals carried smallpox, only humans. And the second is that infection or vaccination provided lifetime immunity of effectively 100%. This dramatically reduced its potential for mutation and meant that getting rid of it in humans would get rid of it - period.

Coronaviruses, by contrast, are transmissible between humans and animals. This means even if you fully eliminated it in humans, it could, and probably would, come back. This is why flus are basically impossible to get rid of. If you believe CDC numbers then US flu deaths in 2020 were essentially 0, yet now it's back like nothing ever happened. Even the Spanish Flu is still with us as a variant of the common flu. But fortunately most viruses trend towards less lethal mutations over time. Probably natural selection in play - killing your host is not a great path to survival and reproduction.

As for long COVID. I'd rather defer that conversation for a few years. Research on exactly what it is and exactly what causes it is ongoing, and so debating it at this point is just going to be speculation.
by sergiolema | 2025-06-16 07:26:45+00:00
Starting a new product is exciting, new ideas, new challenges, and often, the chance to build something from scratch. But before the first line of code gets written, there’s a deceptively simple question that demands an answer: Which tech stack should we use?

This isn’t just a technical decision. It’s strategic. The wrong choice can cost you months, drain your team, and force painful rewrites. The right one? It can accelerate everything.

Here’s how I think about it, especially if you’re in a leadership role trying to balance vision with execution.
by lynx97 | 2025-06-16 07:27:46+00:00
> Hint: it was never big outside of the USA.

Really? I must have grown up in an alternative universe. Star Trek TOS and TNG were aired on our local TV station in the 80s and 90s, IIRC even in the afternoon. I would be extremely surprised if I'd meet a 30+ person who grew up here (European country) and didn't know Star Trek.
by dist-epoch | 2025-06-16 07:28:40+00:00
We all know that life on Earth gets it's energy from the Sun.

But we also know that's an approximation we tell kids, really life gets low entropy photons from the Sun, does it's thing, and then emits high entropy infrared waste heat. Energy is conserved, while entropy increases.

But where did the Sun got it's low entropy photons to start with? From gravity, empty uniform space has low entropy, which got "scooped up" as the Sun formed.

EDIT: not sure why this is downvoted, is the explanation Nobel Physics laureate Roger Penrose gives: https://g.co/gemini/share/bd9a55da02b6
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-16 07:32:14+00:00
Well, so can a nontrivial number of people. It's Harry Potter we're talking about - it's up there with The Bible in popularity ranking.

I'm gonna bet that Llama 3.1 can recall a significant portion of Pride and Prejudice too.

With examples of this magnitude, it's normal and entirely expected this can happen - as it does with people[0] - the only thing this is really telling us is that the model doesn't understand its position in the society well enough to know to shut up; that obliging the request is going to land it, or its owners, into trouble.

In some way, it's actually perverted.

EDIT: it's even worse than that. What the research seems to be measuring is that the models recognize sentence-sized pieces of the book as likely continuations of an earlier sentence-sized piece. Not whether it'll reproduce that text when used straightforwardly - just whether there's an indication it recognizes the token patterns as likely.

By that standard, I bet there's over a billion people right now who could do that to 42% of first Harry Potter book. By that standard, I too memorized the Bible end-to-end, as had most people alive today, whether or not they're Christian; works this popular bleed through into common language usage patterns.

--

[0] - Even more so when you relax your criteria to accept occasional misspell or paraphrase - then each of us likely know someone who could piece together a chunk of HP book from memory.
by eksu | 2025-06-16 07:32:32+00:00
Jungle Book - Walt Disney was involved with this, they started animating in 1965.

Rest of the films you mentioned - The Disney Renaissance the parent parent’s comment mentioned - starting with The Little Mermaid in 1989, and it seems generally accepted this lasted for 10 years?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book_(1967_film)#...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Renaissance
by McDyver | 2025-06-16 07:33:31+00:00
I don't agree. They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value, but they got rich by keeping that value to themselves.

I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do. Just like that joke: a worker is admiring the boss's Ferrari, and the boss tells him "if you continue working hard, next year I'll have 2"
by Bluecobra | 2025-06-16 07:35:18+00:00
It’s probably a good thing I didn’t have the knowledge/skills I have now, it might have saved me from trouble. Back in those days I was more interested in getting Back Orfice to remotely open a CD-ROM tray on a friend’s computer. I remember when broadband was first being rolled out it seemed like everyone was hooking up their cable/DSL modems directly to their PC and having a public IP with no firewall. Good times.
by leakycap | 2025-06-16 07:37:29+00:00
> an improvement of only 4 months ( 15 vs 19). Sure you can live extra 4 months

4 months isn't a breakthrough to you because you're not facing this reality. Wake up. You'd do anything for 4 months unless your life is hell already. Anyone who is happy would be joyous to be able to have 4 more months, it's so painful how disconnected you seem.
by namaria | 2025-06-16 07:37:32+00:00
The 3500 BCE date for horse ridding is speculative and poorly supported by evidence. I thought the language in the bit I pasted made that clear. "Horse being driven" means attached to chariots, not ridden.

Unless you want to date the industrial revolution to 30 BCE when Vitruvius described the aeolipile, we can talk about the evidence of these technologies impact in society. For chariots that would be 1700 BCE and horseback riding well into iron age ~1000 BCE.
by em-bee | 2025-06-16 07:37:37+00:00
this is the first sensible argument in defense of AI models i read in this debate. thank you. this does make sense.

AI can reproduce individual sentences 42% of the time but it can't reproduce a summary.

the question however us, is that in the design if AI tools or us that a limitation of current models? what if future models get better at this and are able to produce summaries?
by bmacho | 2025-06-16 07:37:51+00:00
Off: mathematics is kind of moving away from the asymmetric element symbol "∈" to the symmetric type of symbol ":", which, I think is a loss. I'm sad about it.

For example with the element symbol you can do

let x \in R a real number

and you also can do

let U \subset R, U \ni 0 a neighborhood around 0

Which you can't do with the type of symbol. I'm probably more picky about the notations following the sound in my head than the rest, but I still think that an asymmetric typeof symbol would be a net win.
by senko | 2025-06-16 07:38:19+00:00
I, too, had infite time once, and loved spending most of it on coding.

I built a toy OS[0], compiler[1], crypto library[2], a bunch of other stuff, and had a blast.

Now, I have more obligations and more non-coding fun stuff I want to do.

For the programming that I do want to do, I don't particularly enjoy tracking latest breakages from upgrading a random React Native library or drinking from a Kool-Aid firehose of a VC backed open source solution that's going to get acquihired or pivot in 6 months.

I enjoy working with LLMs in turning silly little ideas I have into toy products without grinding through incidental software complexity swamp that is modern software engineering.

[0] https://github.com/senko/Hasenpfeffer

[1] https://github.com/senko/calcc

[2] https://github.com/senko/CyFER
by selfhoster11 | 2025-06-16 07:38:44+00:00
Yeah, nothing ever happens. Except in the current day and age, decades happen in weeks, so the same happening with AI is not a stretch. I mean, just consider the capabilities of LLMs - if you look at it from a pre-COVID perspective, even knowing all limitations and strange failure modes up front, it's insanely impressive. To say that AI can contribute to a quickly arriving dystopia (not sure about utopia) is far from unreasonable.
Show HN: Hide Secrets Automatically in the Browser
by vedantsinghal | 2025-06-16 07:39:35+00:00
Hide secrets is a browser extension that automatically detects and masks secrets and personally identifiable information in webpages— Tokens, API keys, emails, phone numbers, credit cards and any other high-entropy strings— by blurring or replacing the text. It's completely open sourced https://github.com/Ved235/hide-secrets. Any feedback and contributions are appreciated!
by kriro | 2025-06-16 07:40:14+00:00
Very big in Germany imo. I came back from school and always watched back to back TNG and MacGyver. TNG and DS9 were big and aired nationally. My father grew up with Kirk & Spock and most people who were children in that generation and had access to a TV know the show, because there was not much else on TV. He's not a nerd at all :)
by helloplanets | 2025-06-16 07:40:20+00:00
That's rough. And somehow reeks like it's inspired by that old clip of Miyazaki trashing the procedurally generated 'monster' animation. You're intentionally misinterpreting what the OP wrote. "I guess if they die I can use shitty image gen programs" versus "I know that AI will make it possible for others to do so" are very different takes.

I do agree with you that we should be able to not try to create a sequel of a sequel of a remake, and let things pass. But isn't a lot of what Disney et al are doing specifically because their movies take a lot of resources to pull together, so end up playing it safe in the worst possible way?

What's your opinion on sampling, when it comes to music?
by Retric | 2025-06-16 07:40:23+00:00
I’m looking for a link that does something like this but ends up supporting commercial LLM’s

https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (commercial least wiggle room) The nature of the copyrighted work; (fictional work least wiggle room) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (42% is considered a huge fraction of a book) and The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Best argument as it’s minimal as a piece of entertainment. Not so as a cultural icon. Someone writing a book report or fan fiction may be less likely to buy a copy. )

Those aren’t the only factors, but I’m more interested in the counter argument here than trying to say they are copyright infringing.
by adrian_b | 2025-06-16 07:41:28+00:00
While hafnium carbide together with a few related carbides remain solid until higher temperatures than any other substances, this is true only in an inert atmosphere.

In air, they would burn, like a furnace made of graphite also does.

So for reaching such high temperatures, you need not only a refractory material like hafnium carbide for the furnace, but you need also to keep all hot parts in a protective inert gas, e.g. argon, and there is also the condition that whatever you want to melt in the furnace must not react chemically with carbides at such high temperatures.

For example, for melting many kinds of oxides the best that you can do is to use an iridium furnace, whose melting temperature is far lower than that of hafnium carbide or graphite, but it does not react chemically with the oxide of any metal more reactive than iridium (which covers most metals). For some oxides a molybdenum furnace is good enough.

The suitable material for a furnace depends on what you want to melt. Furnaces made of carbides or of graphite are normally not suitable for iron and related metals, which have high affinity for carbon, so they could dissolve the furnace at very high temperatures. A furnace made of magnesia (magnesium oxide) is likely to be the furnace that can reach the highest temperatures when in contact with such metals.
by roenxi | 2025-06-16 07:42:31+00:00
It seems like a pretty reasonable argument and easy enough to make. A human with a great memory could probably recreate some absurd % of Harry Potter after reading it, there are some very unusual minds out there. It is clear that if they read Harry Potter and <edit> being capable </edit> of reproducing it on demand as a party trick that would be fair use. So the LLM should also be fair use since it is using a mechanism similar enough to what humans do and what humans do is fine.

The LLMs I've used don't randomly start spouting Harry Potter quotes at me, they only bring it up if I ask. They aren't aiming to undermine copyright. And they aren't a very effective tool for it compared to the very well developed networks for pirating content. It seems to be a non-issue that will eventually be settled by the raw economic force that LLMs are bringing to bear on society in the same way that the movie industry ultimately lost the battle against torrents and had to compete with them.
by tomhow | 2025-06-16 07:42:49+00:00
Please don't do this here. If you're going to use the word, use the word, but also, please don't use words like that about people here, no matter what you think of them. A comment like this breaks multiple guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287156 and marked it off topic.
by pu_pe | 2025-06-16 07:43:29+00:00
Nice benchmark but the human comparison is a little lacking. They claim to have surveyed 19 experts, though the vast majority of them have only a master's degree. This would be akin to comparing LLM programming expertise to a sample of programmers with less than 5 years of experience.

I'm also not sure it's a fair comparison to average human results like that. If you quiz physicians on a broad variety of topics, you shouldn't expect cardiologists to know that much about neurology and vice-versa. This is what they did here, it seems.
by eviks | 2025-06-16 07:43:54+00:00
> I already quantified it relative to the metabolic cost on an organism the size of a human

You haven't, there isn't a single number in that reference. Even now you can't, you completely avoided quantifying the benefit and created a strawman for the costs.

> There’s a big difference to us between 10 calories and 10,000

What about the small difference between 10 and 200? That would move you from 50 mil to 1 bil. What does your "cost/benefit" formula say?

> It would help if you read my posts here.

The opposite - because I did and saw you unable to justify the results even after you tried to expand the original point several times. What would help instead if you tried to focus on a coherent argument instead of making up false claims about the other person.

> Mobility is a complex test of a wide range of cellular machinery. Which means that cellular machinery works well.

So again you have nothing specific to say, what you actually need to prove is that probability of live birth is part of that causal "wide range" of complexity. It could very well be that high mobility comes at the expense of that probability.

Analogy: you can make a car more mobile at the expense of driver safety/comfort while the same generic "mobility complex test wide range engineering machinery" would be true.