MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jvojak | 2025-06-16 10:46:39+00:00
If you do not know who you're working with, it is a good practice to understand each others demands and views. Having something written doesn't do much, but at least you should've verbally understood each others needs.

My understanding is that you were in love with the technology or the project, but did not pay attention to who you're working with.

Even though 4% can be too little or too much (you are the one to decide that for you), having a more clear picture earlier would have resolved it prior to you putting all those hours and commitment.

"What would you have done differently to protect yourself if someone had an idea you believed in, but they couldn’t afford to pay for any legal fees?"

It is a tough one. Unfortunately, it is hard to partner with people who you do not know well. My best advice would be to constantly report to each other how one would work to develop, implement or expand the potential business, because waiting for you to work on for months without doing much work on their own is a red flag for me. There is a ton of improvements and steps (even preparation ones) that could be done in the process.

"Is it possible to partner early without formal agreements that feel adversarial?"

It is more possible the better you know the person, but it is not advisable, as with every business and money, people change sides quickly, whenever they smell blood.
by olvy0 | 2025-06-16 10:46:58+00:00
Adding to the comments: Not an American, but like others here watched TNG every day after school, and TOS before that. Many other people my age did, for example my wife.

BTW, we have watched with our sons all of TNG and DS9 for the last 3 years, and our eldest is now deeply familiar with Star Trek as a result. Very few of his peers are familiar with it, though.
by fennecfoxy | 2025-06-16 10:47:05+00:00
You're right, and the person who already commented is being facetious. A better title would be "Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall the next sentence in the First Harry Potter book with 42% accuracy". The title intentionally makes it seem as though the model can predict the first 42% of the entire text of the first Harry Potter book when queried with something like "Read me Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone".
by wao0uuno | 2025-06-16 10:47:16+00:00
I tested meshtastic in a major european city with pretty much 100% mesh coverage and its real life performance was quite underwhelming. Often I would receive messages that I could not reply to because of differences in antenna gain and crappy mesh performance. Public chat was either completely dead or flooded with test messages. Everything was super slow because the mesh can’t actually scale that well and craps out with more than a 100 nodes. Even medium fast channel would clog up fast. I would never depend on meshtastic during an emergency because it barely works even when nobody is using it. I think a public wifi mesh would be more worthwhile. Older used wifi routers are pretty much free and in unlimited supply. They use very little power. Everyone already has a compatible client device on their pocket. Sure the mesh would fail during a total blackout but at least it would be useful for something when the power is up.
by misteriji2 | 2025-06-16 10:48:51+00:00
Your neighbor has access to a car, but still hasn't got around to get his drivers licence. In a proper crisis, he'll google "how to drive a car?" and "what does the third pedal do in a car?", and won't worry about being prosecuted by the driving authority.

You will in turn have to share the road with him in the same way as other radio amateurs (and possibly rescue services) will have to share the spectrum with you. You transmitting on a repeaters input frequency without a subtone set will in turn jam the repeater (PLL is before the TSQL) will make communications impossible in the same way as your neigbor stuck in the middle of the road with a burnt clutch will make driving impossible for others.

But hey, stay lazy, don't get a licence, i'm sure you'll be able to figure it all out fast when you're knee deep in flood waters.
by ben_w | 2025-06-16 10:49:04+00:00
I was in secondary school when the Wakefield claims got in the news in the first place, and as it was (1) published in a reputable scientific journal and had not been retracted, and (2) he was still allowed to call himself "Doctor", many of us took it seriously and I opted out.

I did get the vaccine much later, when I realised my earlier fears were unfounded, but as a teenager time it seemed like a risk not worth taking — especially as I'd already had separate measles and rubella vaccines in early childhood, leaving only mumps.
by Thomvis | 2025-06-16 10:50:41+00:00
My daughter died of AML earlier this year. AML is unfortunately much harder to treat than ALL. She was treated for almost three years (it came back twice). We "lived" with her in the hospital for around 1,5 years over that three year period.

Many of the chemo medications she got have been a stable of AML treatment for decades. From what I understood from our doctors, the improvement in survival rate for AML has come from supportive care, i.e. the ability to keep the patient alive during treatment. Treatment of bacterial and fungal infections has gotten a lot better.

AML is a very heterogeneous disease. The treatment depends a lot on the specific mutations the patient has. Research can only focus on so many target mutations at a time. We did see the progress over the three years we were there. I have high hopes that children with the same mutation as my daughter will in the near future have better chances, specifically thanks to menin inhibitors.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-06-16 10:51:00+00:00
>That's crash testing, which is about the safety of the people inside the vehicle.

Crash testing is much more than that. Check out NCAP for example. They specifically include safety ratings for other, vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians). And the Model 3 currently sits at the top spot of their 2025 rankings in that category.
by amiga386 | 2025-06-16 10:51:42+00:00
In most Japanese lessons in English, when you are introduced to だ/です/である, it is simply explained as being like "is", or if they've already set a rule that sentences end in verbs, it's introduced as the verb "to be". That conveys, rightly or wrongly, all the things English speakers understand about "is".

This Japanese lesson starts with the assumption that part of the "だ" hiragana looks like "=", which I already don't agree with! Even the dakuten (゛) on the character looks more like an equals than the swooshy bowl they're comparing to "=".

It then says that だ is comparable to equality and mathematical equations, rather than like the lingual is/are/be, and then has to qualify that the equality is non-commutative. They could've saved time by not making that comparison, and instead comparing with is/are/be, which English speakers already understand is not commutative. "John will be early" != "Early will be John" (unless Yoda, you are)
by tom_stager | 2025-06-16 10:52:39+00:00
Stager | Full-Stack Developer | On-Site (Rotterdam, NL) | Full Time

We’re building the most comprehensive event tech platform on the planet. Our system helps event organizers plan, promote, and sell tickets for their events. We're looking for a Full-stack Developer who can contribute across the entire stack, help modernize our architecture, and build reliable, user-friendly features that scale.

If you want to apply, please find the vacancy on our website stager.co/jobs.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-06-16 10:52:52+00:00
> Obviously a kid running out from behind a car this late is fairly difficult for any human or self driving system to avoid

Not really - it's a case of slowing down and anticipating a potential hazard. It's a fairly common situation with any kind of bus, or similarly if you're overtaking a stationary high-sided vehicle as pedestrians may be looking to cross the road (in non-jay-walking jurisdictions).
by NoboruWataya | 2025-06-16 10:53:14+00:00
Also related though maybe not resiliency-focused: It's quite easy now to download all of Wikipedia and all of Project Gutenberg to a hard drive, so that whatever problems you have in the post-apocalyptic hellscape, boredom won't be one of them.

Kiwix is the best software I have found for this and they make an extensive library of materials available for download themselves, which includes the aforementioned but also many other resources that would be helpful in a disaster scenario: https://library.kiwix.org/
by souvik3333 | 2025-06-16 10:53:48+00:00
Hey, the reason for the long processing time is that lots of people are using it, and with probably larger documents. I tested your file locally seems to be working correctly. https://ibb.co/C36RRjYs

Regarding the token limit, it depends on the text. We are using the qwen-2.5-vl tokenizer in case you are interested in reading about it.

You can run it very easily in a Colab notebook. This should be faster than the demo https://github.com/NanoNets/docext/blob/main/PDF2MD_README.m...

There are incorrect words in the extraction, so I would suggest you to wait for the handwritten text model's release.
by elevation | 2025-06-16 10:55:45+00:00
> You will NOT be able to jam a satellite outside local areas

It is true that you will not be able to jam the _downlink_ frequency outside local areas.

But due to the FM capture effect, anyone else in the same hemisphere with a basic 100w transmitter (and appropriate antenna) on the _uplink_ frequency will be able to deny the satellite service to all the 5W Baofeng radios that preppers are stockpiling.
by Keyframe | 2025-06-16 10:57:32+00:00
Right, but you can push unknowns into tmp vars only so much before you have to introduce constraints, otherwise it's all downright undetermined. You have to inject a structure into the placeholder soup or you're just pushing ambiguity around with no real net gain.. which is also fun to play around, question is will you get a paper out of it or even paid if you play like that to no end.
by djoldman | 2025-06-16 10:57:38+00:00
> I would consider this a death blow paper to the current push for using LLMs and LRMs as the basis for AGI.

Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully."

Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness."

Or the short versions: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang."
by mr_mitm | 2025-06-16 10:59:49+00:00
You only hear these terms in layman explanations. Physics has precise definitions for these things. When we say "ordered", we mean that a particular macrostate has only few possible microstates.

Check this Wikipedia article for a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_(statistical_mechan...

Details can be found in any textbook on statistical mechanics.
by 7bit | 2025-06-16 10:59:53+00:00
Fruits are not the immediate problem. You need 2-3 oranges for a glass of juice that you drink in one sitting.

Try peeling and eating 2-3 oranges in a sitting. It takes much longer and I would argue most people would be fine with eating one orange. But drinking a glass, or even a bottle of orange juice is something that goes much easier and faster.

Also, an orange also has fibre and stuff, so you get more of a healthy package opposed to just the sugar water.
by techwritescode | 2025-06-16 11:01:00+00:00
So cool to see the nesdev community getting a shout out here!

I’ve been part of this group for years and it’s been a great learning experience of engineering for limited hardware and making the most of it. The nesdev community has been super friendly and welcoming and helped me get up to speed very quickly.

Currently a lot of NES homebrew is written in assembly due to hardware and compiler limitations. While you can write C oftentimes it’s simpler and faster to use assembly with some classic optimization techniques.

For anyone interested in low level coding or getting started with 6502 development, NES is a great platform to start with.

While not fully complete yet, there is a project that I work on with a couple of other folks to bring better editor support for 6502 assembly to a bunch of common code editors.

https://github.com/techwritescode/ca65-lsp

Have fun building!
by WillAdams | 2025-06-16 11:01:03+00:00
Two articles on it (which probably were part of the source for this one):

- https://www.penaddict.com/blog/2016/1/17/bic-cristal-ballpoi...

- https://www.jetpens.com/blog/How-the-Ballpoint-Pen-Changed-t...

a book which has a bit on the usage of this and similar Bic models is:

https://www.paulshawletterdesign.com/2012/12/blue-pencil-no-...

(ob. discl., I received a copy (which I gave to my daughter) to write the review: http://ftp.tug.org/TUGboat/tb34-2/tb107reviews-zapfhallmark....) which has the line:

> Some such details are very humbling, such as the exquisitely beautiful design study for Zapfino-like capitals intended for use with Firenze shown with the 49 cent Deluxe Fine Point Bic ballpoint pen used to render the letters (pg. 43).
by cardanome | 2025-06-16 11:01:13+00:00
People confuse performance and internal presentation.

A simple calculator is vastly better as adding numbers than any human. An chess engine will rival any human grand master. No one would say that this got us closer to AGI.

We could absolutely see LLMs that produce poetry that humans can not tell apart or even prefer to human made poetry. We could have LLMs that are perfectly able to convince humans that they have consciousness and emotions.

Would we have have achieved AGI then? Does that mean those LLMs have gotten consciousness and emotions? No.

The question of consciousness is based on what is going on in the inside, how the reasoning happening and not the output. In fact the first AGI might perform significantly worse in most tasks that current LLMs.

LLMs are extremely impressive but they are not thinking. They do not have consciousness. It might be technically impossible for them to develop anything like that or at least it would require significantly bigger models.

> where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence

Humans have value for being humans. Whether they are slow or fast at thinking. Whether they are neurodivergent or neurotypical. We all have feelings, we are all capable of suffering, we are all alive.

See also the problems with AI Welfare research: https://substack.com/home/post/p-165615548
by Retric | 2025-06-16 11:01:45+00:00
Those support the utility or debate individual points but don’t make a coherent argument that LLM are strictly fair use.

First link provides quotes but doesn’t actually make an argument that LLM’s are fair use under current precedent. Rather that training AI can be fair use and researchers would like LLM’s to include copyrighted works to aid research on modern culture. The second article goes into depth but isn’t a defense of LLM’s. If anything they suggest a settlement is likely. The final instead argues for the utility of LLM’s, which is relevant but doesn’t rely on existing precedent, the court could rule in favor of some mandatory licensing scheme for example.

The third gets close: “We expect AI companies to rely upon the fact that their uses of copyrighted works in training their LLMs have a further purpose or different character than that of the underlying content. At least one court in the Northern District of California has rejected the argument that, because the plaintiffs' books were used to train the defendant’s LLM, the LLM itself was an infringing derivative work. See Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Case No. 23-cv-03417, Doc. 56 (N.D. Cal. 2023). The Kadrey court referred to this argument as "nonsensical" because there is no way to understand an LLM as a recasting or adaptation of the plaintiffs' books. Id. The Kadrey court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that every output of the LLM was an infringing derivative work (without any showing by the plaintiffs that specific outputs, or portion of outputs, were substantially similar to specific inputs). Id.”

Very relevant, but runs into issues when large sections can be recovered and people do use them as substitutes for the original work.
by angusb | 2025-06-16 11:03:45+00:00
re. extrapolation: I agree with that, but remember there's sampling error. The crashes/failures go viral but the lives saved get zero exposure or headlines. I don't think that means you can just ignore issues like this but I think it does mean it's sensible to try to augment the data point of this video with imagining the scenarios where the self driving car performs more safely than the average human driver
by tsimionescu | 2025-06-16 11:03:58+00:00
> But where is entropy in this picture? How do you even define entropy for a system of 2 particles?

The answer is that this doesn't happen in a system with only 2 particles. The idea of gravity as an entropic phenomenon is that you introduce some other kind of particle that permeates spacetime, so there is no system that only contains 2 particles. You may use some idea like virtual particles from quantum field theory, or you may define "quanta of space time" as something that is not technically a particle but basically works like one in a handwavy sense.

But the basic point of these entropy based theories is to explain gravity, and typcilaly spacetime itself, as an emergent result of a collection of numerous objects of some kind. This necessarily means that they don't make sense if applied to idealized systems with very few objects - which is why they typically posit such isolated systems simply can't actually exist in reality.
by joshstrange | 2025-06-16 11:03:58+00:00
I couldn’t agree more. I work in a codebase that has a handful of these “fun”-named functions/concepts and I hate it. It wasn’t funny the first time I came across it (just very confusing) and it’s not fun having to explain to new hires why a few things are named the way they are.

It needlessly complicates reading/following the code. Even if you explain the naming back at where you define the function/variable it add an extra click-through/hover to read that and an extra translation you have to do in your head when you read the “fun” variable name in the future.

One example is we have a flag called “dinnerbell”. What does that do? It tells the server receiving that flag to “come and get it”, “it” being the full data object instead of just getting a delta. It could have been called a whole slew of other things that would make more sense.
by aeonik | 2025-06-16 11:04:10+00:00
My take, for what it's worth,

Entropy isn’t always the driver of physical change, sometimes it’s just a map.

Sometimes that map is highly isomorphic to the physical process, like in gas diffusion or smoke dispersion. In those cases, entropy doesn't just describe what happened, it predicts it. The microstates and the probabilities align tightly with what’s physically unfolding. Entropy is the engine.

But other times, like when ice melts, entropy is a summary, not a cause. The real drivers are bond energies and phase thresholds. Entropy increases, yes, but only because the system overcame physical constraints that entropy alone can’t explain. In this case, entropy is the receipt, not the mechanism.

So the key idea is this: entropy’s usefulness depends on how well it “sees” the real degrees of freedom that matter. When it aligns closely with the substrate, it feels like a law. When it doesn't, it’s more like coarse bookkeeping after the fact.

The second law of thermodynamics is most “real” when entropy is the process. Otherwise, it’s a statistical summary of deeper physical causes.
by bloak | 2025-06-16 11:04:13+00:00
I'm fairly sure that the law treats humans and machines differently, so arguing that it would be OK if a person did it therefore it's OK to build a machine that does it is not very helpful. (I'm not sure you're doing that but lots of random non-lawyers on the Internet seem to be doing that.)

Claims like this demonstrate it, really: it is obviously not copyright infringement for a human to memorise a poem and recite it in private; it obviously is copyright infringement to build a machine that does that and grant public access to that machine. (Or does anyone think that's not obvious?)
by guenthert | 2025-06-16 11:04:19+00:00
> if I'm going to have to compile some things why not all the things?

Time? Compiling the kernel took 10m on a reasonable fast workstation-like PC. It could easily take three times as long on a more budget-friendly PC. And the kernel wasn't the largest package by any means. gcc (wants to be compiled three times) or, shudder, TeX? Very little benefit of compiling that oneself over and over again while a quite substantial cost.
by Al-Khwarizmi | 2025-06-16 11:04:27+00:00
Ever tried writing a few pages with it?

It requires too much pressure compared with gel pens, rollerball pens, let alone fountain pens (although the latter are not for everyone). It soon creates fatigue. And at least in my case I also make uglier handwriting with them that with gel pens, rollerball pens, let alone fountain pens.

It's an extremely reliable product to do what it does, as well as extremely cheap, but far from perfect IMO. I see it more as a last resort if nothing else is available.
by izacus | 2025-06-16 11:04:34+00:00
Also this is an enterprise policy constant, so it gets sent (and configured) as string/string dictionary via REST API from MDM backend. That's mostly because the constants can be of mixed types (e.g. "MAX_PASSWORD_CHARS" : "1", "DISALLOW_NETWORK_SWITCHING: "true" - example, constants not actual).
by lionkor | 2025-06-16 11:05:21+00:00
I bought a pack of 100 of them for super cheap a few years ago, and a pack of 200 or so pencils with erasers from amazon basics. They carried me through all my exams in university, I have some in every backpack, purse, everywhere. Never had to worry about not having a pen ready, or a replacement if I lost one the morning before the exam. That is truly a buy-it-for-life level investment.
by whereismyacc | 2025-06-16 11:05:31+00:00
> There are no probability distributions over possible states when there is perfect knowledge of the state.

I know very little about physics but I thought that the leading interpretations of quantum physics say that the probability distribution is all we can know about a system. The entropy is not due to due to a lack of information about the quantum state, but because the outcomes are inherently stochastic?
by akvadrako | 2025-06-16 11:06:34+00:00
On the other hand, getting a license is pretty easy. If you have a US address you can take 2 ten minute exams online for $10 to get General class; that's usable when traveling globally. It's a fixed pool of about 300 questions, so a half day of studying should be enough.

With the license, there are ham repeaters for FM and DMR. My cheap Chinese radio can reach the repeater 15km away.

It also supports APRS, but only for sending beacons. I can't really test it as there aren't repeaters around.
by mandmandam | 2025-06-16 11:06:46+00:00
> they do not worship at the alter of capitalism in quite the way which is endemic to the USA.

What were they like at the height of their empires? During their respective long slow declines? Did their people worship the worst of their colonists as national heroes? ...

And while they are not quite as Molochian as Americans today (no one said they are, in fact the argument was that America is rather exceptional) they certainly aren't as anti-capitalist as many others. Particularly when you look at the manner in which they pursue global economic interests.