MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 0cf8612b2e1e | 2025-06-14 20:42:40+00:00
The researchers found that male athletes with an exercise volume of >3,000 MET-minutes/week showed higher mean coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores than nonathlete males (mean difference = 31.62). No difference in CAC was found for male athletes with 1,500 to 3,000 MET-minutes/week or female athletes with an exercise volume of 1,500 MET-minutes/week or greater.

Not sure what a MET minute is, but 3000 minutes per week is 7 hours per day, seven days a week. So, this sounds like a problem for approximately zero percent of the population.
by kelnos | 2025-06-14 20:44:23+00:00
Well it depends on their competition and what the market will bear. If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete.

And regardless, there's always a ceiling when it comes to what people will pay. In the case of a robotaxi there's of course significant marginal cost to expand the fleet of vehicles, but if they can make more money with more cars at a lower price point (than fewer cars at a higher price point), then they'll do so.
by ttoinou | 2025-06-14 20:45:23+00:00
As long as the right content was displayed I instantly saw the upgrade to HDR screens (first time I saw one was a smartphone less than 10 years ago I believe), I knew something was new.

The same way I could instantly tell when I saw a screen showing a footage with more than 40 fps. And I see constantly on youtube wrongly converted footage from 24 fps to 25 fps, one frame every second jumps / is duplicated
by gjm11 | 2025-06-14 20:45:57+00:00
My apologies to ikrima for being critical, but I think anyone who thinks "aleph/beth/Betti numbers" is a coherent set of things to put together is just very confused.

Aleph and beth numbers are related things, in the field of set theory. (Two sequences[1] of infinite cardinal numbers. The alephs are all the infinite cardinals, if the axiom of choice holds. The beth numbers are the specific ones you get by repeatedly taking powersets. They're only all the cardinals if the "generalized continuum hypothesis" holds, a much stronger condition.)

[1] It's not clear that this is quite the right word, but no matter.

Betti numbers are something totally different. (If you have a topological space, you can compute a sequence[2] of numbers called Betti numbers that describe some of its features. (They are the ranks of its homology groups. The usual handwavy thing to say is that they describe how many d-dimensional "holes" the space has, for each d.)

[2] This time in exactly the usual sense.

It's not quite true that there is no connection between these things, because there are connections between any two things in pure mathematics and that's one of its delights. But so far as I can see the only connections are very indirect. (Aleph and beth numbers have to do with set theory. Betti numbers have to do with topology. There is a thing called topos theory that connects set theory and topology in interesting ways. But so far as I know this relationship doesn't produce any particular connection between infinite cardinals and the homology groups of topological spaces.)

I think ikrima's sentence is mathematically-flavoured word salad. (I think "Betti" comes after "beth" mostly because they sound similar.) You could probably take ten years to get familiar with all the individual ideas it alludes to, but having done so you wouldn't understand that sentence because there isn't anything there to understand.

BUT I am not myself a topos theorist, nor an expert in "our human brain's sensory instruments". Maybe there's more "there" there than it looks like to me and I'm just too stupid to understand. My guess would be not, but you doubtless already worked that out.

[EDITED to add:] On reflection, "word salad" is a bit much. E.g., it's reasonable to suggest that our senses are doing something like discrete sampling of a continuous world. (Or something like bandwidth-limited sampling, which is kinda only a Fourier transform away from being discrete.) But I continue to think the details look more like buzzword-slinging than like actual insight, and that "aleph/beth/Betti" thing really rings alarm bells.
by hollerith | 2025-06-14 20:46:23+00:00
Can you provide a transcript or a quote to support your claim that Dr K "only says psychedelics can be dangerous if you already have PTSD"?

Here is the passage that I think is relevant to whether people should do hallucinogens. (I was mistaken earlier when I claimed the passage was about LSD specifically.)

>substances like psilocybin fracture our sense of self -- and that can be traumatic and dangerous by the way and leave people with PTSD, which is why I don't recommend you do it

It is an aside in the middle of another sentence. Here the same passage with more context (specifically, everything said from 7:10 to the end of the video):

>the focus of your mind is on "I". You are the object of your attention. [Dr K looks at the chat stream] OK? Like anxiety, yes. [Dr K stops looking at the chat stream] Then what happens -- so, when this person says, this person on the reddits says, you know, "I actually think that self-awareness is the problem," they are absolutely right because their self-awareness is their default-mode network being highly active. Then we can look at neuroscience papers, and what we discover is that substances like psilocybin fracture our sense of self -- and that can be traumatic and dangerous by the way and leave people with PTSD, which is why I don't recommend you do it -- fractures the sense of self, but when you stu -- when that sense of self gets fractured, you are no longer stuck thinking about yourself, and when you are no longer stuck thinking about yourself, this problem of over-self-awareness goes away, and people get better in terms of depression. Does that make sense?
by robinsonb5 | 2025-06-14 20:46:40+00:00
Yes, this. When I first heard about OS X all those years ago, I dismissed the ideas as eye-candy until I actually played with it. I quickly noticed how much thought had been put into what was conveyed by all the little animations and finesse touches.

The same thing applies here, I think - I watched the video expecting to see the exact opposite of what I want in a UI, but came away impressed by how much thought and consideration has been put into it.
by gjm11 | 2025-06-14 20:47:27+00:00
It seems to be entirely written by an LLM.

[EDITED to add:] This is worth noting because today's LLMs really don't seem to understand mathematics very well. (This may be becoming less so with e.g. o3-pro and o4, but I'm pretty sure that document was not written by either of those.) They're not bad at pushing mathematical words around in plausible-looking ways; they can often solve fairly routine mathematical problems, even ones that aren't easy for humans who unlike the LLMs haven't read every bit of mathematical writing produced to date by the human race; but they don't really understand what they're doing, and the nature of the mistakes they make shows that.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not making the tired argument that of course LLMs don't understand anything, they're just pattern-matching, something something stochastic parrots something. So far as I can tell it's perfectly possible that better LLMs, or other near-future AI systems that have a lot in common with LLMs or are mostly built out of LLMs, will be as good at mathematics as the best humans are. I'm just pretty sure that they're still some way off.)

(In particular, if you want to say "humans also don't really understand mathematics, they just push words and symbols around, and some have got very good at it", I don't think that's 100% wrong. Cf. the quotation attributed to John von Neumann: "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them." I don't think it's 100% right either, and some of the ways in which some humans are good at mathematics -- e.g., geometric intuition, visualization -- match up with things LLMs aren't currently good at. Anyway, I know of no reason why AI systems couldn't be much better at mathematics than the likes of Terry Tao, never mind e.g. me, but they aren't close enough to that yet for "hey, ChatGPT, please evaluate my speculation that we should be unifying continuous and discrete mathematics via topoi in a way that links aleph, beth and Betti numbers and shows how our brains nucleate discrete samples of continuum reality" to produce output that has value for anything other than inspiration.)
by ColinWright | 2025-06-14 20:48:58+00:00
Graph vertex 3-colouring (G3C) is NP and NP-Hard, therefore NP-Complete (NPC).

There is a result that say that if you can solve general ILP problems then you can solve general G3C.

Satisfiability is NP and NP-Hard, therefore NP-Complete (NPC). It is therefore equivalent (under some definition of "equivalent") to G3C.

There is a result that say that if you can solve general ILP problems then you can solve general G3C.

There is a known result that if you can solve arbitrary G3C problems then you can factor integers. While the problem of factoring integers (FAC) is not NPC, clearly factoring integers is very important in today's computing environment.

So if you can solve arbitrary ILP problems you can break several current encryption algorithms that are thought to be secure.

So we can deduce that ILP is a fairly tricky problem to solve.

The thing that fools a lot of people is that random instances of NPC problems tend to be easy. The core of difficult instances gets smaller (in relative terms) as the problems get bigger, so if, say, you pick a random graph, it's probably trivial to find a vertex 3-colouring, or show that none such exists.
by djoldman | 2025-06-14 20:49:19+00:00
"Unbiased," and "fair" models are generally somewhat ironic.

It's generally straightforward to develop one if we don't care much about the performance metric:

If we want the output to match a population distribution, we just force it by taking the top predicted for each class and then filling up the class buckets.

For example, if we have 75% squares and 25% circles, but circles are predicted at a 10-1 rate, who cares, just take the top 3 squares predicted and the top 1 circle predicted until we fill the quota.
by username223 | 2025-06-14 20:49:47+00:00
Yes and no. If you think Lima is a "rural village," you need to get out more, or at least check Wikipedia. It's a city of 10+ million people that doesn't follow American traffic laws, and there are plenty more like Huaraz (100,000+) where I can catch a human-driven taxi right now.

I'm saying a Jaguar I-Pace with lidar that knows how to follow lines and a high-res map isn't suitable for a lot of the world's roads. And how it will "scale" to what a taxi can handle right now isn't at all obvious.
by kelnos | 2025-06-14 20:50:14+00:00
So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level.

Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization.

Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
by jaggirs | 2025-06-14 20:50:19+00:00
"Superhuman" refers to abilities, qualities, or powers that exceed those naturally found in humans. It implies being greater than normal human capabilities.

The term is often used in fiction, particularly in superhero comics and fantasy, but it can also be used metaphorically to describe extraordinary effort or achievement in real life (e.g., "It took a superhuman effort to finish the marathon").

(Definition from Gemini)

It seems reasonable to use the term to me simply to say the abilities on a benchmark of the model were greater than the human annotated data. Computers have always been superhuman at many tasks, even before llms.
by gyrovagueGeist | 2025-06-14 20:50:26+00:00
Yep! Optimize (solve in infinite dimensions) and then discretize onto a finite basis has typically led to much better and stable methods than a discretize and then optimize approach.

Time-scale calculus is a pretty niche theoretical field that looks at blending the analysis of difference and differential equations, but I'm not aware of any algorithmic advances based on it.
by mmarian | 2025-06-14 20:50:33+00:00
Founders think that marketing will solve everything. But that's just part of the go-to-market strategy. You need to have product-market fit as well; if the MVP doesn't solve a major pain point you won't get anywhere no matter how much high-quality marketing you do.

Founders will rarely admit this, because admitting that the idea sucks would hurt their egos. It's easier to just say that the startup would've succeeded if they only had someone good at marketing.

I say this as a technical founder myself, who made this mistake.

Also, from a brief look, your product just seems fake. The AI voice and video, the promises of offering incredible benefits, lack of focus on a particular use case.

I recommend listening to this podcast https://www.gettacklebox.com/podcast
by mardifoufs | 2025-06-14 20:51:01+00:00
Pytorch is a pretty basic building block when you get to some degree of model complexity. It wouldn't really be interesting to implement autograd or some other things pytorch provides imo when the goal is to show a reimplantation of something as "higher" level as SD. It's similar to how I don't mind it when someone doesn't reimplement an OS, or a JavaScript engine when writing a web app from scratch.

And there's been a recent surge in abstractions over pytorch, and even standalone packages for models that you are just expected to import and use as an API (which are very useful, don't get me wrong!). So it's nice to see an implementation that doesn't have 10 different dependencies that each abstract over something pytorch does.
by orbital-decay | 2025-06-14 20:51:29+00:00
Terrorbots look like a ton of other cyberpunk predictions which never really materialized. I think the most recent one was that crypto + anonymity would enable easy assassination bounties and cause a wave of contract killings. Yes, I know the article argues that drones could eliminate the human factor, but it's not convincing and still puts the cart before the horse, just like a lot of the commenters in this thread.

One rule about "infinite scaling" predictions is that the real world always messes them up. Warfare has changed, that's true. The rest of the life is not so easy to change, and (useful) drones are harder to build than it looks.
by somat | 2025-06-14 20:52:57+00:00
Is the serial number even in base 10? the other parts of the number allow letters, the article does not say, but it could easily be base 36. which is close to 3 trillion serials.

Plus a bonus rant: this is one of those things that looks like a number and as such you are tempted to use a number to store it, but its not, it's a string, you will never do math on it so it is not a number. see also: phone numbers, social security numbers, serial numbers.

and sheepish bonus update: there is a checksum, so math is done on it. wonder if the checksum makes more or less sense in base 36? probably less, the checksum almost looks base12-ish, the mod(11), but there are special cases for two digit values so it is probably base 10.
by snickerbockers | 2025-06-14 20:53:51+00:00
I guess I'll have to check that one out. I read Snow Crash a decade ago and it's one of my favorite books ever written but I never read anything else he wrote because (from what i understand looking at reviews and plot synopses) it's not all bizarre cyberpunk "not-quite-parody but also not-entirely-serious" like Snow Crash.
by mindcrime | 2025-06-14 20:54:40+00:00
I'd say "yes, totally". And that's not a bad thing. Some topics are, by their nature, inflammatory, and prone to spark low-quality, low-value discussions. And there's no particular reason why we need to have those discussions here. Nobody ever said HN was meant to be the "every thing to every one" forum of the Internet. Some things just belong on Reddit, or Slashdot,or 4Chan, or whatever.
by edanm | 2025-06-14 20:54:50+00:00
This is fascinating! I haven't read much past the intro yet, but I find the whole premise that you can prove all specific instances of Goodstein sequences terminate at 0 within PA, but not that all sequences terminate (it's a trivial result but still interesting).

I also find it super weird that Peano axioms are enough to encode computation. Again, this might be trivial if you think about it, but that's one self-referential layer more than I've thought about before.

One question for you btilly - oddly enough, I just recently decided to learn more Set Theory, and actually worked on an Intro to Set Theory textbook up to Goodstein sequences just last week. I'm a bit past that.

Do you have a good recommendation for a second, advanced Set Theory textbook? Also, any recommendation for a textbook that digs into Peano arithmetic? (My mini goal since learning the proof for Goodstein sequences is to work up to understanding the proof that Peano isn't strong enough to prove Goodstein's theorem, though I'll happily take other paths instead if they're strongly recommended.)
by kelnos | 2025-06-14 20:55:00+00:00
> I'm an "always 5 star" type of reviewer

Same. Only time I will rate lower is for safety issues. Offensive conversation and bad smells are not great, but I don't want to screw up what might be someone's only job because they're having a bad day or because they can't afford to get their car cleaned as often as they should.

But I also don't judge people who would rate lower for stuff like that; everyone's threshold for what's acceptable is different.
by dimal | 2025-06-14 20:55:21+00:00
Subtext: If you’re not under 30, with great eyesight, fuck you. If you’re neurodivergent, fuck you. If you just want to use your technology to do useful things and don’t need to be “delighted” by every button press and interaction, fuck you.

I don’t see how this won’t disable a lot of people. It’s cruel.

The section where they talk about how it adapts to different situations so that it still shows the top layer information did not inspire hope. I’m autistic and I have a hard time picking out signal from a noisy background easily. In the demo, it’s as if the icons are constantly dancing (delightfully, no doubt) but the information is lost.

For those that say that Apple always has accessibility settings where you can lessen effects like this, that’s not enough. We’re techies. We know about fiddling with settings. A lot of people won’t know. A lot of people that will be affected by this won’t consider themselves disabled, so they don’t even know the word “accessibility”. It’ll just subtly make every interaction with their technology more difficult and more stressful.
by npinsker | 2025-06-14 20:57:24+00:00
Sorry if this isn't helpful -- I wish you the best and I think it could work! -- but personally speaking, your website itself would cause me to bounce. To my eye it lacks design sense and feels AI-generated, and looks worse than what a human designer would deliver. If I can't trust your judgment in visual branding, I don't know if I can trust your judgment in product design. I'm sorry if that feels petty, but that's my honest reasoning.
by kelnos | 2025-06-14 20:57:26+00:00
My experience is very different. About a year ago I'd agree that Waymo was mostly cheaper or comparable in cost to an Uber/Lyft ride, but in the past 3-6 months I usually see Waymo at 75%-150% more than Uber/Lyft, and yes, I do account for the Uber/Lyft tip when I compare.
by gruez | 2025-06-14 20:58:33+00:00
"Living wage" in that report isn't "starvation wage", though. For the housing component for instance, they use 40 percentile rents. The methodology page isn't too clear about how they determine the next highest cost component (transportation), but it looks like they also use the median cost for used cars. The "living wage" might not correspond to a luxurious experience, but it's nowhere near destitute, either.
by jsrcout | 2025-06-14 20:59:48+00:00
> 3. The FDAI's signals are more complicated than I described above. Among > other things, the IMU's gimbal angles use a different coordinate system from > the FDAI, so an electromechanical unit called GASTA (Gimbal Angle Sequence > Transformation Assembly) used resolvers and motors to convert the > coordinates.

I'm so glad I work in software.
Show HN: TorServ – Zero-config static web server over Tor hidden services
by wonder-boy | 2025-06-14 21:00:16+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve been working on a side project called torserv and figured I’d share it now that it’s live on GitHub.

TorServ is a zero-config static web server that automatically launches as a Tor hidden service. It’s written in Go, bundled with Tor, and designed to be unzip-and-run — no setup, no clearnet exposure, no surprises.

I was surprised there wasn’t already a privacy-hardened static web server for hidden services. Most people have to wrangle Apache or Nginx with heavy config, which is risky and complex for non-experts.

TorServ is meant for censorship-resistant publishing, quick anonymous drops, or low-footprint Pi/sneakernet scenarios. It only binds to localhost and has hardened defaults out of the box.

Highlights: - No clearnet, no external connections - Runs on 127.0.0.1 only - No logs, no analytics - EXIF/PDF metadata scrubbing - Multilingual default index with usage tips - Optional --new-key flag to rotate onion address - Cross-platform: Linux, Windows, Raspberry Pi

Project: https://github.com/torserv/torserv

Still early days — would love feedback, audits, ideas. Thanks for checking it out, and big respect to the Tor devs who make projects like this possible.
by onlyrealcuzzo | 2025-06-14 21:00:55+00:00
Why is anyone surprised that a smaller segment of the market will pay more for a safer ride in a luxury vehicle compared to a base model Lyft (which can be a barely drivable car with rank cloth interior where you can't even fit two people in the back seat)?

Next up, some one will post, "First class tickets cost more than coach."

Waymo will eventually have Waymo Comfort and Waymo Black.
by abilafredkb | 2025-06-14 21:01:04+00:00
Doesn't sound petty at all. I've never had a good eye for good designs but I don't think that should invalidate my ideas. I understand your perspective also. In your case what should this look like. Not sure if i'm putting this right but if you could point me in the right direction a bit as a potential consumer i could work on it
by kelnos | 2025-06-14 21:01:23+00:00
If I could be 100% certain that every Uber/Lyft driver I encounter would give me a perfect "social" experience (where "perfect" varies for me depending on the day), I'd choose it over Waymo at the same price. But of course that's unreasonable and impossible to expect. So for a comparable price and wait/drive time I'll pretty much always pick Waymo.

It does make me sad to some extent; I do enjoy interacting with people working service jobs in my neighborhood, people I see on a regular basis and who recognize me. But I don't think that's ever going to be the case for me for something like a taxi/rideshare driver.
by joe_the_user | 2025-06-14 21:01:41+00:00
I would claim that any reasonable "bright line" critique of AI is going to be a "remainder" theory. If one models and "tightly" articulates a thing that AI can't do, well, one has basically created a benchmark that systems are going to gradually (or quickly) move to surpassing. But the ability to surpass benchmarks isn't necessarily an ability to do anything and one can still sketch which remainders tend to remain.

The thing is, high social science theorists like the person interviewed, want to claim a positive theory rather than a remainder theory because such a theory seems more substantial. But for the above reason, I think such substance is basically an illusion.