MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mapotofu | 2025-07-28 17:43:29+00:00
I’m a parent and agree with the assertion that text is visually unattractive and off-putting to most children. I’ve read to my kid (pre K) a lot (a lot), and he can read (a little), but he took more interest in learning to read through an app-based game that applied this principle, in teaching reading skills (Poio read).

It’s not that they can’t, it’s just not fun. Like when I play video games and not liking too much text before the action starts, but with shorter attention spans.

The age group included also has a lot of innocence that should be protected/balanced against future expectations, depending on where they are. There’s a lot of space and utility to letting kids be kids, they trust you more IMO when you do, making later lessons stick better. YMMV
by timeinput | 2025-07-28 17:43:54+00:00
There is a giant confusing tech stack here, but opening up this simple plain text page resulted in like 100% CPU usage from from gnome-shell when visiting from firefox on a pretty non-customized Ubuntu 24 install.

In the firefox task manager nothing really looked odd, but opening that tab and displaying it is insanely CPU intensive.

Pausing the autoplaying video makes it seem like a sane web page in terms of CPU usage. I'm surprised how much CPU playing that video consumed.
by Aurornis | 2025-07-28 17:44:09+00:00
> How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?)

Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androgens. That receptor serves numerous functions in not only humans but across countless other species.

For an analogy, imagine you're trying to plug a device into an outlet in your country. Yet it doesn't fit. When you look at the prongs you discover it actually has 6 prongs pointing in random directions and can't possible fit into any standard outlet in your country. In fact, you can't even see how it would possibly work at all in any outlet anywhere because it doesn't make sense. It's safe to say that the connector isn't "normal". That's basically what's happening here. There's a clear and obvious version of what's typical, and it's likewise clear when a rare variant can't be observed to have some differences that can't possibly work. Meanwhile you can go anywhere else and observe typical plugs inserted into typical outlets and they're functioning typically.

There is a very clear "normal" in this case and it's easy to see how the receptors are supposed to work. Call it "typical" if that makes you feel better, but the medical community isn't using these terms for judgment or scorn.

There's a movement to pretend like we can't call anything "normal" lest we hurt someone's feelings. Yet most of these patients are discovered prior to the age of 10 (e.g. pre-puberty) because they seek treatment for various symptoms that they recognize as "not normal".
by gruez | 2025-07-28 17:44:18+00:00
>I'm pretty sure it is accurate for some subset of the driving population, which was the claim.

It might be true, but that's not the same as "accurate". Let's imagine the same thing but for cyclists:

"I saw a cyclist run a red light and I had to brake to avoid T-boning him. Apparently some cyclists hate motorists and want inconvenience them as much as possible."

I'm sure there's probably "some" radical cyclists that utterly despise motorists (think /r/fuckcars) and want to go out of their to inconvenience them, but only mentioning that as a possible reason for the behavior is at best an act of omission. There's probably some far more innocuous explanation out there, like that the cyclist thought the way was clear (because there were no cars in sight).

>You didn't actually provide any evidence or argument to dispute that claim and completely ignored the key "risky" part of comment.

It's totally fair game to criticize one aspect of a comment even if you agree with the point broadly. For instance, I might not like what facebook's privacy record, but still object to comments that claim that facebook is bad for privacy because it's surreptitiously listening on people's phones.
by K0balt | 2025-07-28 17:44:19+00:00
I think there is validity in debating the metrics by which a culture should be measured, but ultimately I think that the greater good is served by allowing each culture to determine its own path. This maximises diversity of approaches to problem solving and philosophy, things which are far from solved problems for humanity.

This is not saying that cultures shouldn’t evolve, adapt, and embrace changing environments, but rather that it is probably a disservice to humanity for one culture to informatically infiltrate and destroy another without an appropriate contest that would establish a hierarchy of fitness. Even then, what kind of fitness? What is a fair contest? Etc etc etc.

Best just to let it be, and let them work out their best way forward.
by Kinrany | 2025-07-28 17:44:35+00:00
None of the four: code, tests, spec, people's memory, are the single source of truth.

It's easy to see them as four cache layers, but empirically it's almost never the case that the correct thing to do when they disagree is to blindly purge and recreate levels that are farther from the "truth" (even ignoring the cost of doing that).

Instead, it's always an ad-hoc reasoning exercise in looking at all four of them, deciding what the correct answer is, and updating some or all of them.
by Volundr | 2025-07-28 17:44:39+00:00
I'm not aware of anyone advocating to let Eddie Hall join a women's powerlifting meet. Generally athletic bodies have been establishing some criteria, ex being on testosterone suppression for a certain number of years.

Is it enough to remove the advantage? I can't begin to say. But acting like its as simple as "99th percentile men competing against 99th percentile women" are pretty clearly arguing in bad faith.
by namibj | 2025-07-28 17:44:39+00:00
They do. It's just that for two vectors to be orthogonal it's the case as soon as they're orthogonal when projected down to any subspace; the latter means that if for example one coordinate is all they differ on, and it's inverse in that value between the two vectors, then these two vectors _are already orthogonal._

In d dimensions you can have d vectors that are mutually orthogonal.

Interestingly this means that for sequence lengths up to d, you can have precise positional targeting attention. As soon as you go to longer sequences that's no longer universally possible.
by BriggyDwiggs42 | 2025-07-28 17:44:50+00:00
>Fetal/child development is a continuum. The only 2 instances of big change are fertilization and birth, but birth is more a change of environment, not a change of the child.

I think the fact that these states constitute big changes is exactly why people intuitively latch on to them as points at which to assign moral value to a developing human. What I’m arguing is that the logic for this falls apart on closer examination, and that the only real reason I see to argue the conception idea comes from religious authority. Yet you haven’t used religion in your arguments so far, so why is it the point for you?

> The way that wants are experienced changes over time. The way a newborn experiences a want is different from the way a 5-year-old experiences a want. We can infer what an embryo wants by what actions the embryo is taking. The embryo is working to grow into an adult.

I absolutely understand this reasoning and I have a certain appreciation for it. The problem is, if you assign single-celled organisms the capacity to want from a perspective, yet you use the capacity to want as your bar for moral consideration, then you are more or less saying any organism of any scale should receive equal moral weight, yet seemingly arbitrarily deciding to restrict this to those with human dna. I don’t think that definition of want is useful; I think the capacity to want needs to be thought of as requiring conscious experience to make much sense here, which is also the thing I’m trying to assign value to.

> If we want to go by when brainwaves are detected, that's 5 weeks fetal age, 7 weeks gestational age.

You’re on the right track. I’m not trying to convince you of a specific cutoff, but of the logic I think should lead those developing a cutoff. I’d want experts in fetal development and brain development and so on to be the ones who decide so that risk of harm is minimized. I imagine there are studies on this; I’ve seen indications the result would be anywhere between 7-24 weeks, but I don’t know precisely when.
by SketchySeaBeast | 2025-07-28 17:44:53+00:00
Having to do your own tax returns is funny to hear as a North American, we always have to do them.

I struggle with the child tax credits. If I'm childless and move from 99,999 to 100,000 it doesn't change my situation at all. I don't think we can view that in the same light - it's a tax credit benefit, but it's not just a matter of earnings. The goal is to support lower income families, so the line has to be drawn somewhere, and whether it's gradual or not someone is still going to complain about it going away.
by alach11 | 2025-07-28 17:44:59+00:00
> Everyone had to take an online class (about 8 hours) about effective meetings

As soon as I read this line I grimaced. This is a clear sign of an organization that doesn't respect peoples' time. The class should be an email (and proper follow-up by the management chain) establishing three rules:

- Meetings must have an agenda

- After a meeting, there must be a follow-up email describing what was decided and any action items

- Recurring meetings should be rare/exceptional

- Given good meeting notes and action items sent afterwards, reduce the invite list to decision makers; people who need to be informed can be added to the follow-up email
by alias_neo | 2025-07-28 17:45:05+00:00
> childcare vouchers before tax

I wasn't aware of this, I'll take a look and see if it applies thanks.

The pension route is the way I've gone to deal with it, but it doesn't fix the issue of "my bills are going up while my income can't". I'm sure retired me will be glad for it if it makes it that far, and we don't somehow end up being taxed to the hilt on _that_ too when we eventually get there.

EDIT: does > doesn't
by Polizeiposaune | 2025-07-28 17:45:18+00:00
Gametes are binary - functional gametes in anisogamous species are either egg or sperm.

On the other hand, the XX vs XY karotype (chromosome set) is just very strongly correlated with sex.

The master switch for sex determination in humans (and most mammals) is the SRY gene, usually found on the Y chromosome. Its presence or absence determines whether a developing embryo takes the path towards producing sperm or producing eggs.

SRY can migrate to the X chromosome (resulting in males with an XX karotype) or can be broken by mutation (resulting in females with a XY karotype, usually infertile because other stages of development of the reproductive system depend on having two X chromosomes).
by rayiner | 2025-07-28 17:45:45+00:00
> The reason why european countries don't run more CT scans isn't that they lack equipment, it's because the risk/benefit isn't good for cases like your

But because the risk/benefit isn’t as good, they don’t have as much of this expensive equipment. The U.S. has about 40 MRI machines per million people, versus 10 for Canada or Denmark or 20 for Spain.
by jjangkke | 2025-07-28 17:45:46+00:00
Its because both the left and right argue for extremes which are just the same energy with different wording.

I do not distinguish the far-left from far-right as they equally polarizing and extreme, and only seeks to pull people in the center towards them through violence, censorship and intimidation.

People in the center seeks a balance between the extremes. Some industries require immigration of labor force but it can't come with delusional ideologies that seek to manipulate the wages.
by TrainedMonkey | 2025-07-28 17:46:00+00:00
I tried it thrice:

> Hello! I'm GLM, a large language model trained by Zhipu AI. I'm here to help answer questions, provide information, or just chat about various topics. How can I assist you today?

> Hello! I'm Claude, an AI assistant created by Anthropic. I'm here to help you with questions, tasks, or just to have a conversation. What can I assist you with today?

> Hello! I'm GLM, a large language model trained by Zhipu AI. How can I help you today?
by MattGrommes | 2025-07-28 17:46:32+00:00
The problem I see is that since the chatbots are so easy to chat with, some people use them before they even try to do the work at getting human companionship. It almost never true that it's impossible for a person to find other people to be friends with or chat with. I've known plenty of people who said they would never find a companion due to X, Y, and Z intractable reasons but who stumbled into strong relationships anyway. A chatbot is "companionship" in the same way candy is food.

I think animal companions are a different class than chatbots since they're not trying to be people so I make no comment on those.
by shkkmo | 2025-07-28 17:46:45+00:00
> While milking their data with gov backed incentives.

Again, the whole thrust of this article is that people aren't incentivized yet to use or switch navigation apps.

> But it is not.

Yet. If that is something you want, go fund some opensource mapping apps to add the feature.

Without detailed technical information, this seems like a reasonable approach to solve a hard problem that isn't well solved now. Opt-in traffic data collection via an open standard api seems like be best case scenario here.

I'd be interested in specific criticism about how mapping apps are given access to the API, what exact data has to be shared to enable or other specific aspects of this program.

Your knee-jerk reactionary talking points aren't interesting though.
by GuB-42 | 2025-07-28 17:46:53+00:00
This! That's what I wanted since LLMs learned how to code.

And in fact, I think I saw a paper / blog post that showed exactly this, and then... nothing. For the last few years, the tech world became crazy with code generation, with forks of VSCode hooked to LLMs worth billions of dollars and all that. But AI-based code analysis is remarkably poor. The only thing I have seen resembling this is bug report generators, which is I believe is one of the worst approach.

The idea you have, that I also had and I am sure many thousands of other people had seem so obvious, why is no one talking about it? Is there something wrong with it?

The thing is, using such a feature requires a brain between the keyboard and the chair. A "surprising" token can mean many things: a bug, but also a unique feature, anyways, something you should pay attention to. Too much "green" should also be seen as a signal. Maybe you reinvented the wheel and you should use a library instead, or maybe you failed to take into account a use case specific to your application.

Maybe such tools don't make good marketing. You need to be a competent programmer to use them. It won't help you write more lines faster. It doesn't fit the fantasy of making anyone into a programmer with no effort (hint: learning a programming language is not the hard part). It doesn't generate the busywork of AI 1 introducing bugs for AI 2 to create tickets for.
by fnordpiglet | 2025-07-28 17:47:47+00:00
Specifically NASA is an exploration and science mission while SpaceX is a lift and transit provider for organizations like NASA. Historically NASA did their own lift and transit because no one else could and they seeded and researched the capabilities that SpaceX and other private ventures do today. This is a fine arrangement because commoditizing delta V is not exploration and science, it’s the means to it.

I’d note SpaceX is by far the most successful but by far not the only player in that space.

The brain drain and funding attack is on non military goals of NASA as well as on college and specifically graduate level people in the United States because they don’t ideologically align to the president. It’s a cultural revolution America style.
by lawlessone | 2025-07-28 17:48:03+00:00
I did that a few years ago. Had to download some tool to my PC.

Then make a request that takes 2 weeks to go through. and enter the or whatever (this was like 2016 or something).

Whole process was clearly designed to make you give up.

Their phones where junk then though and i just got something else in the end. They're a lot better now so actually unlocking it is probably worth something now.
by dreamcompiler | 2025-07-28 17:48:07+00:00
The main reasons I don't have "smart" devices in my house:

1. They introduce new and fascinating failure modes that never happened with the old, dumb devices (e.g. if your router fails you lose the ability to control your lights).

2. They demand human attention at the slightest provocation (e.g. the microwave beeps loudly forever when your food is done, every app on your phone insists on interacting with you whenever the company would like to upsell you something, etc.)

Item 2 above is what TFA is about. Yes you can often turn this shit off, but that's not the point. The point is you shouldn't have to. Useful technology should never call attention to itself in the manner of someone with narcissistic personality disorder.

But what about emergency situations? Glad you asked. Many airplane crashes in modern aircraft have happened because of "warning buzzer overload" which happens when one important system on the aircraft fails and then causes a cascade of secondary warnings, while giving the pilot no insight as to the root cause. A true AI assistant would reason about such situations and guide the pilot toward the root solution.

A true coding assistant would do the same kind of reasoning about program errors and suppress multipage error dumps in favor of flagging the root issue.
by svieira | 2025-07-28 17:48:18+00:00
"greater good" is a poor phrasing that doesn't point to the real thing-under-discussion. I prefer the phrase "common good" because it points to the feature that is unique to this good - it can only be held in common. That is, rather than being a "bigger" or a "fuller" good, it is a good that can only be achieved through collective action. No one person can have it of themselves, but together we can all have it. This necessitates collective sacrifice for the sake of this good.

It is also worth noting that not every good that is a "common good" is a necessary good. There are many common goods that can be legitimately given up because there is a hierarchy of goods as well.
by qcnguy | 2025-07-28 17:48:24+00:00
That's not how the EU works.

The EU Parliament was given a vote on von der Leyen. It was a ballot with a single name on it: hers. By the time it go to the rubberstamping stage the decision was already made. The MEPs couldn't propose other candidates for the vote, and the Parliament can't propose changes to the law either, so it's not the legislative branch of the EU. The legislative branch of the EU would be... the EU Commission. Which is also its executive.

The way von der Leyen was selected is a secret. Nobody knows how it happened. She didn't run in a democratic process of any kind, so she isn't a politician. If you ask EU fans they'll tell you the heads of state selected her. We have no evidence of this. That's the written process, but no records were produced of any such meeting, or a vote, or however it is that this decision was theoretically made. She could have been presented as a fait accompli by a single country, other countries could have been bribed, they could have been excluded entirely. We'd never know.
by lenerdenator | 2025-07-28 17:48:29+00:00
Not to speak for the other commenter, but there's a perception that private industry (SpaceX specifically) has been more agile in getting some things done than NASA had been; specifically, getting a purpose-built ISS taxi (the Dragon) built, tested, and launched.

In some ways, this isn't wrong. It's easier to get a private company to do that than to get NASA to do it, because there's not some congresscritter from Alabama or wherever constantly trying to direct aspects of the project into their state, or to make the project serve their patrons' interests.

Of course, you could also say that up until recently, Elon himself was just as much of a patron, but still.
by iLemming | 2025-07-28 17:48:52+00:00
> eventually gave up because -- well, Lisp, right?

That would be an utterly misguided approach. Lisp is amazing, you just need to give it a chance to be appreciated. Accept it with all its flaws and immense power, surrender to the malleability of the structure, dynamism of types and its homoiconic nature and you may find something incredible that would last you a lifetime.

You need to conquer two aspects - structural editing and REPL. Learn basic structural editing idioms - find a way in Emacs (or whatever editor of your choice) for automatically balancing parentheses, for slurping, barfing, transposing s-expressions, cutting and pasting them. That will make all your programming like literally assembling lego blocks - something every other (more traditional) programming language promises yet somehow fails to deliver.

Then learn eval commands - get into the habit of REPL-driven development. With Lisp, you don't have to wait for compiler, transpiler, linker, linter, etc., you can just write anything and see how it runs in-place. Often, you don't even have to save anything to a file. Relevant video to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ab3ArE8W3s - Stop Writing Dead Programs by Jack Rusher.

Try modern Lisp dialects - there's plenty to choose from depending on what kind of tasks you're trying to solve - Clojure, Janet, Fennel are all very fine candidates. Clojure is especially nice if you need to deal with data. In my opinion it's hands down the best medium for data manipulation - nothing even comes close to the joy of how you can quickly filter, sort, group, slice, dice any kind of data - json, csv, streamed, etc.

Besides, nature of Lisp simplifies certain problems to the jaw-dropping level of near absurdity. Watch this presentation and ask yourself, how would someone build anything like that in Python, JS/TS, Rust, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt06LLQaBY - SpreadSheesh! talk by Dennis Heihoff
by flumpcakes | 2025-07-28 17:49:53+00:00
I wouldn't call it Erotic. It's hard to describe but you just know that it's somehow sexualised. I would think that somehow maybe I am a crazy prude but these profiles then do link to adult content (from their youtube via link aggregators, which is definitely not an 'adult content' platform). I think it's some form of cross platform advertising while skirting around the 'no adult content' rules of youtube.
by roadside_picnic | 2025-07-28 17:50:01+00:00
It would be weird if the points in the embedding space where uniformly distributed but they're not. The entire role of the model in general is to project those results on to a subset of the larger space, that "makes sense" for the problem. Ultimately the projection becomes one in which the latent categories we're trying to predict (class, token, etc) become linearly separable.
by joenot443 | 2025-07-28 17:50:04+00:00
I think it's always a bit of a bummer when someone takes the time to write a really well-thought out comment and someone comes in with a reddit-style quip that adds nothing to the conversation but derails it for everyone else.

There are so many charitable and earnest ways to make the point you're getting at, why reach for such intellectually low hanging fruit?
by bogwog | 2025-07-28 17:50:34+00:00
Get a recent AMD or Intel laptop, add Linux, and install TLP. Idk if you'll get 12hr or not, but my Asus PX13 survived a 9hr+ intercontinental flight while working on a C++ codebase including compilation in Sublime Text with clangd LSP plugin (and no, I can't fall asleep on planes lol)