MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by altairprime | 2025-06-16 15:38:33+00:00
The Jetstream Edge pen uses the same SXR refill size as the 4 colors of refills for the SXE3/MSXE5 multicolor pens; while their website only lists 0.28mm and 0.38mm refills as compatible, the SXR-80-05 refills are also compatible. But I suspect the reason they’re not formally listing 0.5mm support is because the lower-capacity SXR runs out of ink too rapidly when used in single-color 0.5mm, and so that’s why they cap the pen at 0.38mm. Recommend avoiding these as an option.

However!

The SXN-150 and SXN-155 lines deliver normal capacity 0.5mm Jetstream pens; and their SXR-5 refills deliver single-color 0.5mm Jetstream through the SXR-5 refills.

https://www.mp-uni.com/vn/en/product/jetstream-sport-sxn-155...

https://www.mp-uni.com/sg/product/refill-sxr-5/

You can search for the often-dehyphenated SXR-5 refill compatibility to see what pens they fit besides the official SXN-150 options (like, for example, the Pentel Energel); MP’s own website isn’t listing the options properly on the refill page — they only list the SXN-155/S and not the SXN-150/C, for example — so some footwork would remain to identify precisely which official model numbers are associated with the 0.5mm refill — e.g. the SXN-150 and SXN-157 bodies sold at JetPens are all 0.7mm/1.0mm but accept any SXR-# refill for # in { 38, 5, 7, 10 }. I suspect any SXN-xxx* body where x >= 150 is compatible with any SXR-y refill, since the discontinued SXN-100 seems not to be and the SXN-189DS seems to be.

Note that I found it rather difficult to locate the SXN-155 body by model number for shipping to the United States; the UPCs for whichever models you want, e.g. 4902778040737, were much more efficient in locating options.

TLDR: Yes, there are official Jetstream 0.5mm pens and refills, in addition to modding any SXR-refillable Jetstream with 0.5mm yourself.
by sea-gold | 2025-06-16 15:38:35+00:00
Utterly Voice provides a completely hands-free computer experience. It is a highly customizable voice dictation and computer control application. It has been designed with many powerful features for advanced computer users, but it is also easy to learn for beginners.

Using only your voice, you can type text, edit text, press keyboard shortcuts, type alphanumeric sequences, manage windows, scroll content, control your mouse, and create macros. You can use it for writing documents, emails, browsing the web, coding, and more. See the video demos[1] of these use cases.

[1]: https://utterlyvoice.com/demos
by tired-turtle | 2025-06-16 15:38:45+00:00
Distancing the victim from the outcome of sentencing is by design and, arguably, for the better in a democracy. Crimes violate the social order, not just the victim. It behooves us all to have a system wherein (in theory) the system, not the victim, applies a set of rules to determine punishment, as contrary as that might seem to one’s sense of self, morals, etc. It’s a part of why “justice is blind.”
by quantadev | 2025-06-16 15:38:54+00:00
The reason I say LISP is close to English is because it's syntax is purely a verb followed by objects, and there's [practically] no other symbols in the language other than parenthesis.

Since the word "best" always gets everyone's dander up on HN, I was very careful to point out we have to define our metrics (of comparison) before we can use that word, and that's precisely what I did.
by crote | 2025-06-16 15:38:55+00:00
Sure, but how much of your wage do you spend buying electronics? The vast majority of my salary goes to fixed expenses like housing, food, healthcare, energy, and transport. Those are all highly location-dependent.

In location A you might spend 80% of your salary on fixed expenses, whereas in location B you only need to spend 20% of that same salary to pay for those expenses - leaving you with far more money for discretionary spending.
by mindslight | 2025-06-16 15:39:03+00:00
I'd say it's the rejection of a tangential political snipe in support of autocratic authoritarianism, in a place where it isn't going to lead to a fleshed-out discussion.

Keep turning the screws on people, and some people will turn to property destruction. The individual acts are wrong and misguided. But the overall dynamic is completely understandable, and ignoring it is as disingenuous as "let them eat cake".
by lambdaone | 2025-06-16 15:39:22+00:00
The real "resilience teams" are going to be at the telcos/ISPs, and they will have dark fibre between their networks and autonomous backup power in their data centres. They will be able to do IRC, VoIP telephony, email, etc. between their networks over statically routed point-to-point IP between their local networks even if BGP and the transit networks go down so they can "black start" the Internet. (Back in my ISP days, I remember reading about there being a private telephone network just for AS operators' NOCs to talk to one another quite independenty of the PSTN.)

For anything that takes even those out (eg. a "Big One" quake in California), you fall back to radio hams and autonomous radio links for the disaster services.
by Scoundreller | 2025-06-16 15:40:08+00:00
> A famous example off the top of my head is that even though OJ Simpson wasn't criminally convicted of murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, a civil court found him liable, awarding tens of millions of dollars in damages, to be paid to their families.

The trick here is to be fortunate enough to have a biiiiig monthly retirement pension that the courts can barely touch, or enough wealth to have already bought your mother a nice house (though I now read OJ screwed that up by not transferring her the title).

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/nation-world/1997...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-dec-01-me-59847...
by alex77456 | 2025-06-16 15:40:40+00:00
Cycling, in my experience, is usually way more intense than walking or even running/jogging. It just lets you cover larger distance and gives you more control over how your energy is used.

With the example of LLMs, sure, you could cycle the initial destination you were meant to walk to - write an article with its help, save a few hours and call it a day. Or you could cycle further and use the saved time to work on something a text model can't help you well with.
by CamouflagedKiwi | 2025-06-16 15:40:51+00:00
I've never needed to load 100 PDFs at once, and honestly I don't imagine I ever will. I guess it might happen for some people, so a dedicated app would be useful for them.

For me, having a separate dedicated app isn't worth it for the benefits you mention, which to me are minor compared to having to install and manage another thing (which, to be fair, I imagine Sumatra to be a very pleasant citizen at compared to Acrobat).
by BobaFloutist | 2025-06-16 15:41:15+00:00
At 25 mph, which I would hope would be the speed limit on roads next to schools, slamming on the brakes even seconds before colliding with children can make an enormous difference in how fast the car is going when it hits the kid.

Speed is the factor in collisions (other than weight), and modern brakes are incredibly good.

Not to mention that the car, with it's 360 degree sensors, could safely and efficiently swerve around the children even faster than it can brake, as long as there's not a car right next to you in another lane -- and even if there is, hitting another car is far less dangerous to their life than hitting the children is to yours.

These things should be so much better than we are, since they're not limited by unidirectional binocular vision, but somehow they're largely just worse. Waymo is, at best, a bit better. On average.
by tensor | 2025-06-16 15:41:33+00:00
The more important thing to me with any VLM is base OCR performance and hallucinations. It's not too hard to get improved average accuracy on very low quality scans using language models. Unfortunately these also typically produce large numbers of hallucinations, which are a deal breaker if you are trying to get out values for financial or legal purposes.

OCR that has lower accuracy, but where the inaccurate parts are left blank or flagged are far superior. Mistral OCR also suffers from this problem.

If your OCR produced bounding boxes for every text line, and ran a traditional OCR on the text, this could alleviate it. Or at the very least bounding boxes let users cross-correlate with output from traditional OCR.

Also a small note, it's probably best not to say your product beats Mistral when it's not even tested against it. Having more features doesn't make a product better if the accuracy is not better on those features.

I don't mean to be discouraging, this is an important space and it looks like you have a very feature rich model. I'd like to see a good solution be developed!
by theamk | 2025-06-16 15:42:18+00:00
No, it's not a problem with POSIX, and not even problem with Android (it can pass the number just fine).

It's a design decision of Whatsapp, because they want your full address book so that they can build a social graph and sell you more ads.

You don't need a new OS for that.

(A secondary problem is design of Android system, which allows app to know difference between "permission not granted" vs "permission granted, user has empty address book". But a change like that is fully backward compatible, Google can retrofit this at any moment)
by BobaFloutist | 2025-06-16 15:42:57+00:00
I want them to drive legally, but I also want them to be able to react to objects even if they don't have signs on them.

Signs are often obstructed by trees or are simply inadequate for safe driving, even when combined with the rules of the road. Any even "partially" automated driving should be able to trivially recognize when its view is compromised and proceed accordingly.
by ramesh31 | 2025-06-16 15:43:22+00:00
>No build process, no web-packer, no framework, no npm requirement. Just include the JS in your HTML and then you can create and include components.

How does the rest of your codebase look?

This is the primary problem with web components. No frameworks sounds nice in theory, but it only solves about 30% of the problem. The rest ends up an ad-hoc mixture of libraries and custom code for state management, routing, styling, cross-component communication, etc, to the point that you end up building your own framework that is brittle and unmaintainable. Applications like this generally end up as a huge confusing web of global event buses or with multiple tightly coupled layers of prop drilling because of that.

There was a dream that was web components once upon a time. It felt like the future. But the APIs ended up half implemented (poorly), and the spec was more or less abandoned by everyone but Google. Browser vendors could have done things right, and focused on pulling in the good things from the framework world (i.e. what happened with jQuery), but they didn't.
by notanastronaut | 2025-06-16 15:43:42+00:00
LLMs are dangerous in that the basically mirror and mimic whatever you put in. Paranoia in, magnified paranoia out. A mostly stable person undergoing a temporary crisis could spiral down further after the model picks up on and reflects it back in an attempt to be helpful per its overarching command to be so.

And if a person is already unbalanced it could definitely push them off the cliff into very unhealthy territory. I wouldn't be surprised if the reported incidents of people thinking they're being gang stalked doesn't increase as model usage increases.

Let alone spiritual guidance and all its trappings with mysticism.

It can be helpful in some ways but you have to understand the majority of it is bullshit and any insight you gleam from it, you put there, you just may not realize it. They're basically rubber duckies with a keyboard.
by BobaFloutist | 2025-06-16 15:45:14+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)

Shouldn't that be the one case where self driving system has an enormous natural advantage? It has faster reflexes, and it doesn't require much, if any, interpretation or understanding of signs or predictive behavior of other drivers. At the very worst, the car should be able to detect a big object in the road and try to brake and avoid the object. If the car can't take minimal steps to avoid crashing into any given thing that's in front of it on the road, what are we even doing here?
by josh_carterPDX | 2025-06-16 15:46:10+00:00
This needs to be a model for other states to follow. Too often, incarcerated people are left with very few real options to have a viable career beyond some sort of physical trade like construction, hospitality, or food service. And while all of those career options are great, they do not often provide a real living wage.

Hopefully, we see more of this throughout the country!
by HappMacDonald | 2025-06-16 15:46:32+00:00
> Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

One might argue a fourth end as well: removal.

When people talk about "cleaning up the streets" they don't mean causing ruffians to clean up their act, what they refer to is removing the ruffians entirely. To "someplace else". To "Not in my backyard". Out of sight, out of mind as is often said.

For profit prisons may view prisoners as cheap labor or levy bait, but for the voting public who gets no cut of that action the real inducement starts and ends with "make the problem go away". Sweep human beings we do not know how to cohabitate with under a rug.

Retribution may appeal to those directly wronged, or to the minority of sadists in a population. Deterrence is oft admired, but few honestly believe it's really possible given that harsh sentences never seem to cause crime to go to zero (sensationalism-driven media that magnifies every mole-hill notwithstanding) and that repeat offenses outnumber first offenses. Rehabilitation appeals to those with compassion, though nobody has a clear bead on how to actually land that plane with more than the lowest hanging fruit of only-slightly-off-course offenders.

So I think the real elephant in the room is that people want/demand/rely upon removal.
by batmaniam | 2025-06-16 15:46:36+00:00
An employee doesn't just suddenly go awol for no reason if they've been a model employee for over 10 years. This is burnout probably triggered by something big that happened in their personal life. Maybe a death in the family, a broken relationship, etc. It's no joke.

That's gonna make them really wonder about the meaning of life. If you haven't been paying him well or been providing increases to his salary, then that's gonna trigger an even more avalanche of existential thoughts.

The guy needs a break, let him have it. People aren't machines that are oblivious to external pressures outside of work. You can ask if everything's ok, but don't push it as it's people's personal lives. Propose he take a long vacation in your next 1:1, at least one month break. If he doesn't have enough vacation to cover, then just grant him special permission to take it under the table. He's been there for 10 years, he deserves a rest.

Don't be like shitlassian. https://shitlassian.com/ The fact that management is already considering firing this person for slipping after 10 years without any consideration to the person themselves, but can't because of some 'technical company rule' is pretty toxic IMO.
by taylodl | 2025-06-16 15:46:48+00:00
These incidents of denying entry to international visitors over seemingly minor issues illustrate the unpredictability and hostility of U.S. border enforcement. Even American citizens have been warned by their own government that re-entry could be made difficult. If that’s the case for citizens, imagine the risk for non-citizens.

Meanwhile, tech conference organizers need to re-think their venues. If you want global participation, consider hosting your events in more welcoming cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City, or Guadalajara. These destinations offer world-class infrastructure without the geopolitical baggage. Let American citizens navigate their own border policies, don’t make it your attendees' problem.

Besides, you're probably doing the Americans a favor by forcing them to get a passport.
by chasil | 2025-06-16 15:47:18+00:00
"...benzene holds a special place in education. Generations of high school and university students have been introduced to the elegance of its structure and the profound mystery surrounding its stability."

Admire it from a distance.

"Benzene is classified as a carcinogen, which increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses, and is also a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, bone marrow abnormalities and cardiovascular disease.

"...There is no safe exposure level; even tiny amounts can cause harm."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Health_effects
by foldr | 2025-06-16 15:47:20+00:00
I agree that the evidence of the RAT being deployed is somewhat convincing, but I've looked at the images and listened to the sounds, and I don't think it's as clearly established as the online 'consensus' would suggest. It's quite common for entirely erroneous theories to do the rounds in the aftermath of accidents. Some of these theories are backed up by expert opinion and an apparently convincing analysis of the available evidence. For example, here [1] is an completely incorrect early theory of Air France 447 supported by William Waldock, "who teaches air crash investigation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona".

>[Waldock] examined the photos and video of the stabilizer and rudder and said the damage he saw looks like a lateral fracture. "That would reinforce the idea that the plane broke up in flight," he said. "If it hits intact, everything shatters in tiny pieces."

It's always worth bearing prior probabilities in mind. Dual engine failure and in-flight structural failure are both possible failure modes, but they are very rarely what causes modern airliners to crash.

[1] https://eu.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2009/06/09/vertical...
by CaptainFever | 2025-06-16 15:47:22+00:00
IMO weights being downloadable doesn't mean it's open weight.

My understanding:

- Weight available: You can download the weights. - Open weight: You can download the weights, and it is licensed freely (e.g. public domain, CC BY-SA, MIT). - Open source: (Debated) You can download the weights, it is licensed freely, and the training dataset is also available and licensed freely.

For context:

> You're right. The Apache-2.0 license was mistakenly listed, and I apologize for the confusion. Since it's a derivative of Qwen-2.5-VL-3B, it will have the same license as the base model (Qwen RESEARCH LICENSE AGREEMENT). Thanks for pointing this out.
by perching_aix | 2025-06-16 15:47:40+00:00
So it has nothing to do with politeness then?

> awful without saying why

Why would I need to elaborate? You expressed that a lot of people hold it in high regard, I expressed I don't. That was exactly the extent I wanted to address it and I think it's a perfectly reasonable stopping point. I don't need to explain myself about my own impressions. To the extent it was relevant, I played along and that's it.
by itsmepal | 2025-06-16 15:47:49+00:00
And if I told you that from now on, and after the end of the wars and the beginning of a new era with a new generation, the science of "Its Me Pal" will become a fundamental pillar for the return to the real era, the era free from agendas, from the drawings that are harmful to the eye and the desire for perfection and control over everything, an era free from a Machiavellian, arrogant, haughty, domineering class that has the money, that orders and controls, and a class that obeys, exerts effort and time, endures humiliation, races against time, and turns into a zombie whose sole desire to get printed papers and sexual euphoria by any means, who does not care about any standard of honor and morals, an era in which there is an internet that enables you to do electronic prostitution and pornography, but it will be fought by everyone because the inverted pyramid will be straightened and the minds will become stuffed with awareness instead of being filled with the waste of pornography and its encouragement of foolishness and degeneracy, , a promise from me, my friend, and I tell you that everything they invented and tried to set limits for has not been shackled throughout the ages, and technology is the best proof, for they knew that limits are only made inside the minds, if the conscious minds are victorious, they will be freed from all false limits and will become limitless. Our weapon is the mind, science, and technology. And history does not forget,

The primary goal now is, to try to evaporate the idea of the great and giant companies that have the latest of everything, and making the society understand that we are capable of making anything and everything to be in our service and at the same time a real source of livelihood, not for there to become a monopolistic, controlling class under the pretext of "the latest techniques and the latest technology." And the question is, how is the industry made in the first place? The answer is from me and from you! From our minds, our effort, and our time in learning and research. And the disaster is that all of this is poured in the end for the benefit of the companies, not for the benefit of freelance and constructive work, because we grew up on the idea that Google and Facebook etc. are the greatest, the biggest, and the best companies. All the fakes from the owners of the giant companies were never employees, but they were doers! And after they took the positions, they started promoting their companies as the only biggest dream just to attract the minds and the educated! That's why you will see in the end every emerging generation, instead of thinking how he will invent or change the game, you see him thinking how will I join FAANG, how will I please the the shark in tank so that he funds my project and uses me!!!! Nikola Tesla is a real example of freedom of thought and that ideas, trying, and learning do not die! But on the condition of liberation from the slavery of the monopolists and money.
by scarface_74 | 2025-06-16 15:47:50+00:00
From the article

> The FTC website says that any individual company acting on its own may "refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power.

This is actually reasonable. Any one company can refuse to do business but can’t coordinate with competitors
by qingcharles | 2025-06-16 15:48:09+00:00
The place I was at you weren't even allowed a book about computers, lest you might gain enough knowledge to somehow access a facility computer and hack your way to freedom.

They had a computer lab, but it was only for Mavis Beacon. I found the C# compiler that's hidden away in the Windows directory and started teaching programming on the sly. Luckily one of the nuns at the facility took pity on me and bought C# Weekend Crash Course on Amazon (with the CD) and sneaked it through the security checks for me so I'd have a good reference to teach from.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-06-16 15:48:13+00:00
> You can do this via stored procs or (better in my experience) by adding an intermediate server process which the applications use, via a publicly documented API, and which then talks to the the database which may provide stored proc access to the intermediate server

I don't see how that is materially different from what the OP said, you're both advocating for a single server in front of the database. We can call it intermediate or not, but the only difference is whether the API is public, so it makes sense to keep business logic in the app code.