MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by k310 | 2025-06-14 03:48:29+00:00
> We used this for a dog fence and the power is just right. An adult can hold the wire and feel the pulses; "Ow, ow, ow," but it's not much - I think a 9v battery has a bigger bite.

Rated 0.1 joules, no doubt because it's pulsed. I wonder if your application might be more voltage dependent in order to travel up the yellow wire.

(Voltage not stated in my product scan but they say 2000 volts is the minimum to shock animals )

The French would need a 220v adapter and plug. Lightning is a hazard and the unit needs to be disconnected during electrical storms.

Interesting though.
by makeitdouble | 2025-06-14 03:51:06+00:00
> Apple's actual guidelines are clear: only a few controls visible at once, infrequent access pattern, only on top of rich content.

> The criticism assumes they're redesigning everything when they explicitly documented the opposite.

Does Control Center fit those guidelines for applying Liquid Glass ?

It doesn't look like Apple has as much restraint as you're giving them credit for.
by Marsymars | 2025-06-14 03:51:33+00:00
> How can you possibly say that crude is half of the pump price?

I googled for a couple sources on the breakdown of the price of gasoline, and they seemed to be in agreement that the raw cost of crude is somewhere around half. (And broke refining out separately.)

I'm sure it's not perfect, but it seems fairly reasonable. (And it can be off by quite a lot and still not make a huge difference to the cost-per-km of driving.)
by kimjune01 | 2025-06-14 03:52:06+00:00
Thanks for reading and the thoughtful reply!

> proxy for intelligence

you're right, but it's too easy to gamify, or cheat on.

> can probably teach them how to use agents

I've met smart people that were anti-agentic coding. It's not a direct translation.

> finding bugs in AI code

I think this would be a better proxy for job performance than DS&A.
by tayo42 | 2025-06-14 03:55:59+00:00
Have companies actually said this section 174 thing has caused layoffs?

All I have seen is speculation but nothing concrete that really puts blame on this.

Section 174 being a trump thing, i would think if it was the cause of economic issues it would have been brought up endlessly because hes so polarizing, the media is addicted to trump news, he runs on being good for the economy and we just went through an election where this seems it would have been an easy thing to make him look bad. But none of that happened.

I get the logic and how people come to the conclusions, but if this piece of tax law is changed, will there really be changes in hiring?
by ulrikrasmussen | 2025-06-14 03:56:14+00:00
Not without a termination checker. Take a look at Twelf, it is a logic programming language and proof assistant based on the dependently typed LF logical framework. You can use general algebraic types in relations, and in general queries can be non-terminating. However, the system has a fairly simple way of checking termination using moded relations and checking that recursive calls have structurally smaller terms in all arguments.

Twelf is quite elegant, although not as powerful as other proof assistants such as Coq. Proofs in Twelf are simply logic programs which have been checked to be total and terminating.

Edit: Here's a link to a short page in the manual which shows how termination checking works: https://twelf.org/wiki/percent-terminates/

The syntax of Twelf is a bit different from other logic languages, but just note that every rule must have a name and that instead of writing `head :- subgoal1, subgoal2, ..., subgoaln` you write `ruleName : head <- subgoal1 <- subgoal2 <- ... <- subgoaln`.

Also note that this approach only works for top-down evaluation because it still allows you to define infinite relations (e.g. the successor relation for natural numbers is infinite). Bottom-up evaluation will fail to terminate unless restricted to only derive facts that contribute to some ground query. I don't know if anyone have looked into that problem, but that seems interesting. It is probably related to the "magic sets" transformation for optimizing bottom-up queries, but as far as I understand that does not give any hard guarantees to performance, and I don't know how it would apply to this problem.
by fsckboy | 2025-06-14 03:57:05+00:00
>what actually is the clinical definition of endometriosis? Plainly put, it is when tissue that resembles the uterine lining, or endometrial-like tissue, grows outside the uterus. The tissue can implant itself in nearby tissues, like the ovaries and fallopian tubes, or even more distal organs like the bladder and bowel. ... Over time, these repeated cycles of inflammation and fibrosis may lead to permanent structural changes within the abdomen and pelvis, contributing to chronic pelvic pain and infertility.

i feel like something has been left out. why would uterine lining cells outside the uterus lead to infertility inside the uterus? from this description, I can see all sorts of things going haywire, but it was my impression that the uterine lining was scarred and otherwise rendered infertile for implantation.
by StillBored | 2025-06-14 03:57:33+00:00
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but IIRC Gerstner's time at IBM was 100% financialization. He didn't solve any of IBM's core problems. Outside of the momentary bright spot of "Global Services" the largest impact he had was selling off IBM's immense real-estate (and other) capital they had acquired by being a capex business for a 100 years, and converted that all to a decade long free rent/etc 0 opex business, Along with EOL'ing their pension program, and a lot of other 'quality of life' stuff that made them one of the best companies to work for. It made the numbers look great as he "reduced overhead" in the short term, bur just created further long term problems. If IBM could have caught just a single one of the tech waves of the next 25 years they would have done fine, but for some reason they continue to snatch defeat despite seemingly always being in the right place at the right time. But it seems they always overcharge, over engineer, whatever their solutions and the market rejects them. (ex, flash arrays, POWER as an alternate hyperscaler server arch, watson/ML, failing to capitalize on centos, etc, etc, etc) while dumping spinning disk, fabs, etc at roughly the right time.
by twelve40 | 2025-06-14 03:58:46+00:00
> Meta needs to be a major player in AI

Honest question, why do they so existentially need to be a major player in AI? It's a social network that connects people, serves UGC and some spam/ads, and sells advertisement. Same but with photos for IG, same but with messages for Whatsap. Which part of this will die without AI? If they are obsessed with chatting with an AI bot on Whatsapp, just plug in grok or openai like Telegram, is that the killer feature worth bazillions of dollars?

(everything else seems like a failed experiment, VR, Libra, Facebook phone, whatever, nobody even remembers half these things)
by Ifkaluva | 2025-06-14 03:59:45+00:00
I’m unclear about two things:

- This seems like it’s a big problem for small startups, but a complete non-issue for FAANG. So why are the FAANGs doing such aggressive layoffs?

- Why is this in the public discourse until just now? Until a few weeks ago, the discourse seemed to be that the sudden discontinuation of ZIRP was the primary contributor to the tech job meltdown. Suddenly the narrative is changing, but nothing is new, given that tax code change happened in 2022.
by UltraSane | 2025-06-14 04:02:18+00:00
Stephen Baxter wrote a story named The Gravity Mine about the descendants of humanity living after all stars have died. They get energy from black holes but even they are starting to noticeably shrink. Their perception of time is billions of times slower than humans and the upshot of this is that the speed of light would actually seem pretty fast.

https://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/gravitymine.htm
by StillBored | 2025-06-14 04:03:03+00:00
What I don't understand is all this MBA training and everyone thinks they can copy the crazy margins that Apple has pulled off while being 12-24 months behind them. Be that matching the ipad's price point with obviously inferior hardware and no ecosystem like HP/Webos, or tossing up little fee's that act as roadblocks in the apple ecosystem to avoid noise/trash and end up just slowing they growth of the app market everywhere else.

And it continues to this day, when one looks at the QC/Windows laptop pricing, or various other trailing technology stacks that think they can compete in apples playground.
by streptomycin | 2025-06-14 04:03:26+00:00
The uterus is not the only thing involved in infertility. More generally, endometriosis probably affects fertility in multiple different ways, and a woman with endometriosis and fertility issues may never know what her specific problem is.

On the plus side, IVF works pretty well for many women with endometriosis. IVF patients with endo have only somewhat worse stats than other IVF patients.
by btilly | 2025-06-14 04:03:49+00:00
It's just a straight up liar's paradox. If enumerate is a function that works as advertised, then unenumerated is as well. If enumerate tries to list unenumerated, then enumerate can't work as advertised.

For the argument that I gave to work, you need what you might call Axiom ComposeFunc, you may always compose a new function by taking an existing function and doing something that is known to be valid with it. Obviously this axiom is true about the computable universe. But, more than that, it is also true about any generalization of "function" that behaves like most would expect a function to have.

Now it is true that your Axiom CompFunc and Axiom CountReals do not necessarily contradict each other. But CompFunc, ComposeFunc and CountReals do contradict each other, and the contradiction can be built by following Cantor's diagonalization argument.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-06-14 04:03:58+00:00
Yeah your brain is also maths and probability.

It’s called mathematical modeling and anything we understand in the universe can be modeled. If we don’t understand something we feel a model should exist we just don’t know it yet.

AI we don’t have a model. Like we have a model for atoms and we know the human brain is made of atoms so in that sense the brain can be modeled but we don’t have a high level model that can explain things in a way we understand.

It’s the same with AI. We understand it from the perspective of prediction and best fit curve at the lowest level but we don’t fully understand what’s going on at a higher level.
by giardini | 2025-06-14 04:04:04+00:00
One could always ramp up to bigger units:

https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/catalog/electric-fence-cha...

k310: "Lightning is a hazard and the unit needs to be disconnected during electrical storms."

Au contraire, you have brilliantly found a natural solution, namely, to connect the line(s) to nearby lightning rod(s)! Voila, problem solved! Unfortunately to do so may leave a possibly residual cleaning problem for a brief adjustment period as the public takes note of the changes. But, in any case, that problem is one for the street cleaners: another department.
by mrosett | 2025-06-14 04:04:24+00:00
This isn’t really an issue in biotech since companies don’t have any revenue until late in their lives. Ie if I’m doing discovery work for a drug candidate today, it won’t generate revenue for 7+ years. So when if I have to amortize those costs over 5 years, that process will be complete by the time the project generates revenue.

I can’t speak to the pharma side as much, but since the 174 issue is most painful for companies with liquidity issues, I doubt it has a huge impact on them.
by root_axis | 2025-06-14 04:04:28+00:00
I don't think it has much to do with Section 174. IMO, the explanation is that the software industry is saturated. Everything has been commoditized so it's cheaper to pay for software products than to pay engineers directly. Salaries are high and the ROI for building your own software is low. Big tech companies still need a lot of engineers, but not nearly enough to absorb the massive glut of engineers looking for jobs.

This is the new normal, like the legal industry 20 years ago
by skissane | 2025-06-14 04:04:36+00:00
These doomsday scenarios seem to all assume that there is only a single superintelligence, or one whose capabilities are vastly ahead of all its peers. If one assumes multiple simultaneous superintelligences, roughly equally matched, with distinct (even if overlapping) goals and ideas about how to achieve them - even if one superintelligence decides “the best way to achieve my goals would be to remove humans”, it seems unlikely the other superintelligences would let it. And the odds of them all deciding this is arguably a lot lower than any one of them, especially if we assume their goals/beliefs/values/constraints/etc are competing rather than identical
by briga | 2025-06-14 04:04:51+00:00
This is a nice "just so" explanation, but I don't think it is telling the full story, or even most of it. Sure tax policy probably has an impact, but so do interest rates, AI, tariffs, inflation, geopolitical turmoil, rampant speculation and hype cycles, etc. If this tax policy is so important why didn't it save the dot com crash from happening? Why are tech industries outside the US seeing similar hiring downturns? It's a boom and bust industry, we're in the bust, and it seems unlikely that one bad tax policy is the culprit.
by NooneAtAll3 | 2025-06-14 04:06:28+00:00
I don't want to comment of philosophy part, but isn't math part flawed?

The problem states that everyone shares dollar on the clock tick - that means the node of the game graph has out-degree of smth like 99^100, not 100? (or maybe ~comb(199,100) with bizarre distribution if you dislike multi-edges)

And the whole idea of "undirected graphs have easy stationary distribution, so our almost-stationary one has almost-that" isn't grounded in anything but a hunch... (and having >30% of "bad" nodes doesn't seem all that much "almost" to me)
by xnx | 2025-06-14 04:06:51+00:00
> I can now ask Claude to research a topic, write a well-structured blog post with proper HTML formatting, categorise it appropriately, and publish it directly to my blog—all in a single conversation.

slop2blog

The blog post will contain no more useful information than was in the original prompt. Post that instead of some cached/point-in-time output.
by a_e_k | 2025-06-14 04:07:24+00:00
Playing around, I found that the generator approach was competitive with this if you permuted the loop nest, and often even slightly faster (at the 1000 character length):

def any_gen_perm(s): return any(c in s for c in "aeiouAEIOU")

I think the crux is that you want the inner loop inside the fast C-implemented primitive to be the one iterating over the longer string, and to leave the outer loop in Python to iterate over the shorter string. With both my version and yours, the Python loop only iterates and calls into the C search loop 10 times, so there's less interpreter overhead.

I suspect that permuting the loop nest in similar variations will also see a good speed up, and indeed trying just now:

def loop_in_perm(s): for c in "aeiouAEIOU": if c in s: return True return False

seems to give the fastest result yet. (Around twice as fast as the permuted generator expression and your find implementation on my machine, with 100 and 1000 character strings.)
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-06-14 04:07:39+00:00
It's not that he needs a Sam Altman, but that he cannot be Sam Altman (for path-dependent reasons related to his standing in international politics),

not any advantage in virtue (or vices, for that matter)

In national politics, Sam is toe to toe with Elon,which is to say, not great, not terrible
by anonym00se1 | 2025-06-14 04:09:13+00:00
I may or may not have worked there for 4 years and may or may not be able to confirm that Meta is one of the most poorly run companies I've ever seen.

They are, at best, 25-33% efficient at taking talent+money and turning it into something. Their PSC process creates the wrong incentives, they either ignore or punish the type of behavior you actually want, and talented people either leave (especially after their cliff) or are turned into mediocre performers by Meta's awful culture.

Or so I've heard.
by BinaryMachine | 2025-06-14 04:09:31+00:00
Eh I am still not convinced that this will be good UI. I wish they would have put a one 1px white border around the glass UI button elements or something small like this to enhance it just a little better. I will have to use it to really get a feeling... Also that switch toggle shown in the video looks weird its so satisfying turning on/off a switch UI element without anything else interfering with such a simple concept.

I have liked MacOS UI upgrades over the years though, I am glad we don't use the brushed metal anymore :)
by CharlesW | 2025-06-14 04:10:41+00:00
> MusicBrainz has an amazing database, but a huge amount of stuff from bandcamp/beatport isn't there. Why wouldn't you automatically import that?

This is why Harmony is life-changing. Ideally, it would become an official MusicBrainz project and be integrated into the site, and into Picard.

For example, here's what happens when I search for a Brandcamp release by its Bandcamp URL: https://harmony.pulsewidth.org.uk/release?url=https%3A%2F%2F...

By clicking the "Import into MusicBrainz" button at the bottom, you can very quickly (usually ~2 minutes, once you get over the MusicBrainz learning curve) add this release as a new "release group", or as a new release in an existing group.
by twelve40 | 2025-06-14 04:11:37+00:00
Still confused, i show up to "consume content" from people i follow, not from Meta. Sure, occasional trash and spam and ads, and "recommended", and "promoted", but mostly things that people post. If content creators still come to post on say Instagram, which provides distribution and monetization, how does it matter which tools they used? Should Meta then try to acquire say Adobe Photoshop too, to produce better IG content?
by graemep | 2025-06-14 04:11:58+00:00
> Sounds poorly defined.

Issues like this always have exceptions and grey areas

> I'm "free to leave the EU if I don't like it",

A country is free to leave the EU. An individual can leave by moving elsewhere.

I have never come across anyone saying they could give up EU membership as an individual, as individuals are not members of the EU.

> I have no explicit obligation to participate on this forum or any other high profile tech forum, but should I feel inclined implicitly, now I'm beholden to the local moderation.

That is exactly the point. Private spaces can have all kinds of rules stopping you doing things you are free to do in public.
by solardev | 2025-06-14 04:13:16+00:00
Hasn't she been trying to buy it for a while, only to keep getting rebuffed?

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe

> In an attempt to regain control, Wojcicki made an initial bid in February 2024 to take 23andMe private, offering $2.53 per share in a joint bid, but it did not proceed.[39] In July 2024, Wojcicki offered 40 cents each for all outstanding shares not already owned by her directly or through affiliates.[40] The proposal was rejected by a committee set up to evaluate options for the company's future,[41] and in September the seven independent members of the board of directors all resigned.[42] The company subsequently filed with the SEC indicating that it was no longer open to third-party acquisition offers.[40] Users were concerned about the security of their genetic data, and were trying to delete it from the company's archives only to find out that it holds onto the data for three years before deleting to comply with "legal obligations".[43]

> In January 2025, 23andMe declared that it would need additional liquidity to fund operations, and was actively exploring strategic alternatives including a potential sale of the company.[45] Wojcicki made a third offer of 41 cents per share in March 2025.[39]

-------------

I don't know a lot about her, but she co-founded 23andme and has been tied to it ever since. Maybe it's her baby?
by perching_aix | 2025-06-14 04:15:11+00:00
> TFA literally and unironically includes such phrases as "AI is awesome". It characterizes AI as "useful", "impressive" and capable of "genuine technological marvels".

This does not contradict what I said.

> In what sense is the article dismissive? What, exactly, is it dismissive of?

Consider the following direct quotes:

> It’s like having the world’s most educated parrot: it has heard everything, and now it can mimic a convincing answer.

or

> they generate responses using the same principle: predicting likely answers from huge amounts of training text. They don’t understand the request like a human would; they just know statistically which words tend to follow which. The result can be very useful and surprisingly coherent, but it’s coming from calculation, not comprehension

I believe these examples are self-evidently dismissive, but to further put it into words, the article - ironically - rides on the idea that there's more to understanding then just pattern recognition at a large scale, something mystical and magical, something beyond the frameworks of mathematics and computing, and thus these models are no true scotsmans. I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea; I find the sheer capability of higher level semantic information extraction and manipulation to be already a clear and undeniable evidence of an understanding. This is one thing the article is dismissive of (in my view).

They even put it into words:

> As impressive as the output is, there’s no mystical intelligence at play – just a lot of number crunching and clever programming.

Implying that real intelligence is mystical, not even just in the epistemological but in the ontological sense, too.

> But here at Zero Fluff, we don’t do magic – we do reality.

Please.

It also blatantly contradicts very easily accessible information on how a typical modern LLM works; no, they are not just spouting off a likely series of words (or tokens) in order, as if they were reciting from somewhere. This is also a common lie that this article just propagates further. If that's really how they worked, they'd be even less useful than they presently are. This is another thing the article is dismissive of (in my view).
by tom89999 | 2025-06-14 04:15:34+00:00
As a patient with depression and alcohol dependence, i dont want an artificial treatment. Its important to leave the house, sit in front of a real human and do some chatting as my former therapist once did. A human therapist will smell the relapse from yesterday and can interpret your facial expression. Many people go into social retraction, dont leave the house, order food instead of go shopping, receive sunlight etc. Its important to take part in the normal social life as much as one can.
by Marsymars | 2025-06-14 04:16:49+00:00
I mean if I'm a potential new hire, I'm just going to ask why they're not using Git, and give them the opportunity to give me a good explanation before I start there.

I'm with you on the JS ecosystem - I work on crufty .NET desktop apps - but you couldn't pay me to work on my crufty .NET apps using SVN.
by Bukhmanizer | 2025-06-14 04:18:10+00:00
The way I see it is maybe more broad. Tech companies no longer see startups as threats anymore (except for AI).

The reasons for this involve the aforementioned tax changes, the loss of ZIRP, AI, offshoring, etc., but also include a whole host of legal and regulatory hurdles.

The upshot is that Facebook/Amazon/Google are no longer threatened by (non-AI) competitors because they know that unless you come into the ecosystem with literal billions of dollars and an army of lawyers (or the backing of a large foreign government), they can crush you one vaguely worded regulation at a time, and if they can’t, they can get the current administration to ban you.

AI has largely been excepted because the law isn’t settled yet, so it’s still possible for (eg. )Google to be threatened by a smaller competitor.