MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by keeda | 2025-07-20 20:20:36+00:00
> Google doesn't seem to count the time of waiting for the next subway train.

Pretty sure it does. My understanding is that it computes the time simply as (estimated_end_time - start_time), and it determines the estimated_end_time as whenever you would reach your destination, which accounts for train schedules and walking time.

> Since most people probably won't cut it that close...

At least in NYC, IME people did cut it that close because during regular hours (that actually extend pretty late into the evening) the frequency is high enough that if you miss a train you only need to wait a few minutes for the next one.

The other thing that has not been mentioned so far in this sub-thread (but maybe elsewhere) is that public transport is very relaxing. Even if it's crowded and you have to stand, you can use your smartphone because there is wireless reception on the subway.

And if you consider the madness that is driving in NYC traffic, there is no comparison. It's maddening even just sitting in a rideshare. I'm surprised you're seeing driving times being comparable. I'm actually doubting the Google Maps estimates, which are usually rock solid.
by f311a | 2025-07-20 20:20:56+00:00
Did something similar recently as well. I did not notice any need for plugins from day one of switching. Fzf can replace a lot of plugins if you know how to use it.

Things like git branch name and virtual envs are handled by starship.

My custom config is less than 10 lines now:

export HISTSIZE=1000000000 export SAVEHIST=$HISTSIZE setopt EXTENDED_HISTORY setopt autocd autoload -U compinit; compinit source <(fzf --zsh) eval "$(starship init zsh)" set -o vi
by gus_massa | 2025-07-20 20:21:01+00:00
Let's use the opportunity to ask technical questions / confirm my interpretation...

When I was young, nobody was sure if the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo%E2%80%93Kobayashi%E2%8... was real or complex. IIUC Wikipedia, now it's confirmed to be complex!!! [1]

The CP (charge-parity) symmetry is interesting, because if it is broken it means that the T (time) symmetry is also broken. In Quantum Mechanics if the operator to calculate the energy is real, then the system is invariant if you magically change the variable t to -t, this is call time inversion, that sounds cool but it's just a mathematical trick and not a device to travel back in time.

So a complex Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix ensure there is a "problem" when you change t to -t and this indirectly may explain why if the initial universe has the same amount of matter than antimatter, now it's not balanced.

If I can continue with some speculations because my handwaving is not strong enough ... In https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09119-3/figures/1

* in the top diagram a bottom quark transforms into a up quark, and W- particle, and then the W- particle decays into a strange and anti-up quark. This transformations uses 1 or 2 of the coefficients of the matrix.

* in the bottom diagram, there is an intermediate top quark, but after more interactions the result is the same. But the top quark here forces to use the others coefficients of the matrix. So the result has not only a different amplitude, but it's also complex!!! [1]

For the final result you must combine both diagrams and also a standard complex phase caused by the advance of time, something like |A*e^{itm}+B|^2. When you replace t with -t, the sign of the phase changes. If both diagrams had real amplitudes A and B it doesn't matter because |A*e^{-itm}+B|^2.

But if A is real and B=b+ci then |A*e^{itm}+b+ci|^2 is different of |A*e^{-itm}+b+ci|^2 and you get an asymmetry.

Is this correct? Anything to add/remove/rewrite?

[1] Sorry fo the exclamations marks. Nobody told me. 68.8°±4.5° is a lot. It's not slightly complex, it's very complex.
by loeg | 2025-07-20 20:21:36+00:00
> I dont know if OP achieved this,

They did not.

> but the client isnt told "we have your data" until both of the WALs are agreeing.

Wrong. In the proposed scheme, the client writes are ack'd before the WAL writes are flushed. Their contents may or may not agree after subsequent power loss or kernel crash.

(It is generally considered unacceptable for network databases/filers to be lossier than the underlying media. Sometimes stronger guarantees are required/provided, but that is usually the minimum.)
by nicoburns | 2025-07-20 20:21:46+00:00
The product people really want often isn't on the market at all. I speak of a product that is:

- Mass produced at scale

- High quality and will "last a lifetime" (a long time)

- Repairable when it breaks down

I believe that many people would happily pay a 20%, 50% or even 100% markup for such a product, but often often all of the available mass produced options are shitty quality (and the choice is between a bargain option or a "premium" option that is just as crappy quality but costs more because of the brand name). There might be a "boutique" hand-crafted alternative, but it will cost 5-10x more.

The other problem is imperfect access to information. Even where there is superior alternative on the market, it is often very difficult for consumers to determine which one it is. Which means they can't choose it. Which further means, there is no incentive for manufacturers to produce it.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-07-20 20:21:55+00:00
Actually what's happening now isn't owning the libs. The tenured leftwing social science professors are mostly fine. They weren't getting a lot of federal grant money anyway. But the labs that study, say, brain cancer, are dependent on federal grant money. Now they're dealing with huge, often arbitrary budget cuts.

So you get to feel like you're owning the libs, but really you're just hurting everyone.
by dentemple | 2025-07-20 20:22:01+00:00
I have deuteranomaly, and the hallucination worked for me, and it did appear like a crazy saturated blue-green ring around the shrinking red circle.

I suspect, however, that those of us with deuteranomaly probably see a different blue-green than normal-sighted folks due to the bent color cones.

The real question is, what about the folks with Deuteranopia (no working green cones at all)?

Deuteranomaly, though, is still probably the best place to start since that's the big one that affects (some say) up to 10% of all males. Every other form of colorblindness affects a much slimmer percentage of the population.
by DoctorOetker | 2025-07-20 20:22:17+00:00
Right, like discovering Huygens principle, or interference, integrals/sums of all paths in physics.

It is not because a whole lot of physical phenomena can be explained by a couple of foundational principles, that understanding those core patterns automatically endows one with an understanding of how and why materials refract light and a plethora of other specific effects... effects worth understanding individually, even if still explained in terms of those foundational concepts.

Knowing a complicated set of axioms or postulates endows one to derive theorems from them, but those implied theorem proofs are nonetheless non-trivial, and have a value of their own (even though they can be expressed and expanded into a DAG of applications of those "bitterly minimal" axiomatization.

Once enough patterns are correctly modeled by machines, and given enough time to analyze it, people will eventually discover a better how and why things work (beyond the mere abstract, knowledge that latent parameters were fitted against a loss function).

In some sense deeper understanding has already come for the simpler models like word2vec, where many papers have analyzed and explained relations between word vectors. This too lagged behind the creation and utilization of word vector embeddings.

It is not inconceivable that someday someone observes an analogy between say QKV tensors and triples resulting from graph linearization: think subject, object, predicate; (even though I hate those triples, try modeling a ternary relation like 2+5=7 with SOP-triples, its really only meant to capture "sky - is - blue" associations. A better type of triple would be player-role-act triples, one can then model ternary relations, but one needs to reify the relation)

Similarly, without mathematical training, humans display awareness of the concepts of sets, membership, existence, ... without a formal system. The chatbots display this awareness. It's all vague naive set theory. But how are DNN's modeling set theory? Thats a paper someday.
by gryn | 2025-07-20 20:22:31+00:00
> Wasn't Crypto supposed to solve this like a decade ago? Genuinely curious, as a 20 something, software developer who never understood why we don't have decentralized/globally neutral payments/transactions systems like internet.

because people like having the ability to dispute charges when they get scammed. they also like the ability to access their account by speaking to someone at the bank when they forget their credentials. (the dude that lost his bitcoin hard drive in a dumpster only recently gave up is search of landfills) if you see all these crypto companies end up creating layers that create shittier banks with extra steps.

that's also the reason payment processors don't like certain fields like nsfw/sex work, gambling , etc because a lot of fraud happens in them and therefore they cost more for them, At least that what their stance is, and I have no reason not to believe them because if you try to take online payment that's what you will see with time when your platform get targeted by shady individuals.

also governments like control. how do you freeze crypto like you freeze a bank account ? their wet dreams is people to stop using cash and only use electronic payments, that way they can freeze your whole life with a single order. (the official stance is to stop criminals, but they decide who get designated as such. said something they don't like ? welcome to the list)

to make thing worse, crypto has been almost exclusively used for shady things like gangs money laundering, scams, etc.

and in the end the blockchain does not solve any real problem. it's a technical solution in search of a problem.
by pyman | 2025-07-20 20:22:34+00:00
I get that you're not a fan of this new tech, and I agree with some of what you said, but you missed the point. These models are only as good as the data we give them. Behind them is data generated by people, their knowledge and wisdom. These models are capable of assisting us, and even representing us.

This isn't NFTs, Web3 or WebGL. It's a language tool that's already changing how we work. Some roles will disappear, some will evolve, and new ones will be created.

Data is the new oil and it will fuel these models until they can think for themselves.
Show HN: I built an AI tool that generates product photos and videos
by SaaSified | 2025-07-20 20:22:55+00:00
Hey HN, I'm Semih

After months of working on AI-generated visuals, I built Getaicraft — a simple tool where eCommerce sellers (Etsy, Shopify, etc.) can generate studio-like product images and videos using only a single photo.

Instead of hiring photographers or editing endlessly, users can upload a product image and choose AI-generated backgrounds or create short product showcase videos.
by ZenoArrow | 2025-07-20 20:23:03+00:00
> This definitely doesn't fully explain everything that is happening. Die sizes aren't changing that fast.

Let's look at a real world comparison.

Based on information I can find online...

* Apple M1 silicon die was 118.91mm2, used TSMC 5nm process node, and had 16 billion transistors.

* Apple M3 silicon die was 168mm2, used TSMC 3nm process node, and had 25 billion transistors.

If you compare these two, you can see that the increased die size did allow for most of the improvements in transistor count. Even if it's not a completely like-for-like comparison, and is not necessarily always as straightforward as this, it's obvious to me that transistor count on it's own is a poor measure of semiconductor process improvements, and a much better measure is transistor density (e.g. comparing how many transistors can fit into a wafer of a fixed size, such as 100mm2).
by yodelshady | 2025-07-20 20:23:12+00:00
I'll name and shame - Fruit of the Loom.

They may never have been amazing, but that's the point - they were a representative, middle-of-road brand and you could just assume their clothes would last. I've got a >10 year old shirt that's still fine and a new one that's holed after a single wash. It's not a QA fail, the loss of quality is very clearly deliberate.
by asdff | 2025-07-20 20:24:51+00:00
Part of the reason why they demand more aws capacity is from being marketed aws capacity. Additionally the elephant of the room of AI also something being marketed towards these companies.

Really the only reason why we don't consider making light websites and tooling these days like in the past where hardware constraints mandated it, is that all we think it is unsexy. That is it. All this waste for a sexy css and an ai app. Funny how we make a big stink of only calling libraries we actually use in code then we reach for a chatbot trained on all the corpus of man to tell us how many oz in a cup.
by jonas21 | 2025-07-20 20:25:24+00:00
How is it a strong dependency? If Claude were to disappear tomorrow, you could just switch to Gemini. If all proprietary LLMs were to disappear tomorrow (I don't know how that would happen, but let's suppose for the sake of argument), then you switch to free LLMs, or even just go back to doing everything by hand. There's very little barrier to switching models if you have to.
by filoleg | 2025-07-20 20:26:24+00:00
> Yes. Behavioral data is in most cases far more useful to them than DNA.

Makes perfect sense to me, to be honest. Outside of certain genetic deceases, the behavioral aspect is what ultimately matters. And afaik in terms of the US, a large proportion of the population dies due to behavioral aspects (which I would count obesity rates as an outcome of that).

A simple example: yes, I would say I am genetically predisposed to have addictive habits, suffer from liver failure due to alcohol+drugs, and/or deal with lung problems from smoking (given that this was the fate of multiple males up my ancestry tree from both sides of the family). Naturally, I believe that it is more valuable for an insurance company to know whether I actually engage in those harmful behaviors vs. my genes dictating the likelihood of me engaging in those behaviors. In the absence of the former, the latter could be pretty useful, but otherwise there is no competition at all.

Sure, genes can give you a probability of those behavioral aspects occurring, but going for the primary metric you are looking for vs. a weak predictor of it clearly makes way more sense.
by djaychela | 2025-07-20 20:26:34+00:00
With respect, I disagree. Musk is obsessed with the "the best part is no part ". Which only works if you don't actually need it. Combined with an obsession with cost cutting, and you get tunnel vision insisting on a course of action which does not know with 100% certainty about the world it is trying to navigate. And this has led directly to people dying.

Being obsessed only works when you turn out to be right, and tesla's system does not work as well as lidar.
by loeg | 2025-07-20 20:26:50+00:00
Also an option with io_uring: https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast24/presentation/joshi

(We use it at work it in a network object storage service in order to use the underlying NVMe T10-DIF[1], which isn't exposed nicely by conventional POSIX/Linux interfaces.)

Ultimately, having a full, ~normal Linux stack around makes system management / orchestration easier. And programs other than our specialized storage software can still access other partitions, etc.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Integrity_Field
by python-ggg | 2025-07-20 20:27:04+00:00
platonmarynych@gmail.com

My name is Platon, I'm a full-stack developer with four years of experience in fast-growing technology companies. During this time I've been involved in building EdTech, FinTech and SaaS platforms from scratch to production, working in small teams where every engineer has an impact on the product.

I am close to the startup dynamic - when everything is changing, speed of decision making is important, and code should be not just working, but strategically flexible. In Learnify and FinMate projects, I not only developed interfaces and APIs, but also built architecture, deployed CI/CD, wrote tests and solved infrastructure issues (AWS, Docker, EKS). I am autonomous, proactive and understand business priorities.

I'm interested in challenges, scaling, rapid iterations, and the ability to directly impact the product. I am able to quickly get into context, propose solutions and take responsibility. I'd love to be part of your team and drive growth together.

Let's have a chat.

Sincerely, Platon Marinich
by PaulHoule | 2025-07-20 20:27:11+00:00
I've been bothered by this since before there were transformers.

Probably the most interesting function over t is G(t), that function Chomsky said was the grammar in that it is true if t is well-formed and false if it isn't.

G(t) over t is not a manifold because it is not continuous and its projection in the embedding space can't be continuous either. It boggles my mind, and leaves me thinking that it's not legitimate to work in the embedding space but it obviously works.

If you have two points in the embedding space which represent well-formed sequences and draw a line that interpolates between them you'd think that there would have to be points in between that correspond to ill-formed sequences. Intuition over high dimensional spaces is problematic, but I imagine there have to be structures in there that "look" like a crumpled up ball of 2-d paper in a 3-d space or are folded up like filo dough.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-07-20 20:27:27+00:00
Licensing is just another aspect of friction, contributing to everyone sticking on 1.0 and making it annoying for anyone trying to move forward with XSLT. One liner is a lack of procedural logic in its implementation. Its fine for 1-1 mapping but as it gets used in more complicated scenarios it can be hard to developers to architect a solution because there's no space to breathe.
by lrvick | 2025-07-20 20:27:31+00:00
Homebrew also takes a wikipedia style approach to package maintenance where any of hundreds of unvetted internet randos can push any unsigned changes they want to all users of that package with no review.

When you install Homebrew you are literally granting access to virtually anyone remote access to your laptop.

Any security leaders in an org that allow Homebrew on workstations used for anything remotely sensitive should be fired.

I have been restricted from disallowing it at some orgs, which is my cue to leave before a major supply chain attack is blamed on me.
by joseda-hg | 2025-07-20 20:28:10+00:00
I don't think I follow, all of those people in my example are taking the same route / the same bus, How is that different? Or what difference would there be on a carpool / not a carpool?

On the same idea, walking a few blocks is the expectation here, being left on the same block on public transport would be enough to increase real state value

The bus I take everyday usually has:

- A random assortment of (Usually european) backpackers

- Some hospital workers

- A few factory workers

- Some office monkeys like me

- Random people dressed normally that I can't categorize

We just go along roughly the same route at the same hour
by kleiba | 2025-07-20 20:28:53+00:00
> Also I thought that the physical design was poor.

Really? Huh, that's interesting because I find them exceptionally well designed and very sturdy (i.e., kids-ready).

> Because the figures just sit on top of the box, you cant move it around whilst playing it or the figures just fall off and the audio stops.

The figures are magnetic and stay on the box when you move it.

> It was very frustrating watching my kid try to use it in the car on a long journery.

Do you have a different version, perhaps, than me?
by tptacek | 2025-07-20 20:29:11+00:00
The word "elective" is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence. Elective procedures aren't like cosmetic procedures; they're not "procedures you can maybe do or maybe not do". "Elective" in medicine is a term of art for "you can schedule it in advance". A total hip replacement is elective; so is a lung resection, so are many coronary bypasses.
by overgard | 2025-07-20 20:29:56+00:00
I think it's an unlikely future.

What I think is more likely is people will realize that every line of code written is, to an extent, a liability, and generating massive amounts of sloppy insecure poorly performing code is a massive liability.

That's not to say that AI's will go away, obviously, but I think when the hype dies down and people get more accustomed to what these things can and can't do well we'll have a more nuanced view of where these things should be applied.

I suppose what's still not obvious to me is what happens if the investment money dries up. OpenAI and Anthropic, as far as I know, aren't anywhere near profitable and they require record breaking amounts of capital to come in just to sustain what they have. If what we currently see is the limit of what LLM's and other generative techniques can do, then I can't see that capital seeing a good return on its investment. If that's the case, I wonder if when the bubble bursts these things become massively more expensive to use, or get taken out of products entirely. (I won't be sad to see all the invasive Copilot buttons disappear..)
by do_not_redeem | 2025-07-20 20:30:03+00:00
This optical illusion isn't some brand new thing. It's been widely known since I was a child, and surely hundreds of years before that.

The laser system results in a stronger perceptual effect than you get from the illusion alone. We didn't have the technology to build it until recently. I'm certain the people who built it knew about the illusion, and it's probably what inspired the experiment in the first place.
by georgecmu | 2025-07-20 20:30:04+00:00
For whatever reason, evolution decided those wavelengths should be overlapping. For example, M cones are most sensitive to 535 nm light, while L cones are most sensitive to 560 nm light. But M cones are still stimulated quite a lot by 560 nm light—around 80% of maximum.

The reason is simple: genes coding the long wave opsins (light-sensitive proteins) in these cones have diverged from copies of the same original gene. The evolution of this is very interesting.

Mammals in general have only two types of cones: presumably they lost full color vision in the age of dinosaurs since they were primarily small nocturnal animals or lived in habitats with very limited light (subterranean, piles of leaves, etc.) Primates are the notable exception, and have evolved the third type of cone, enabling trichromatic color vision, as a result of their fruitarian specialization and co-evolution with the tropical fruit trees (same as birds, actually).

So, what's interesting is that New World and Old World primates evolved this cone independently. In Old World primates the third cone resulted from a gene duplication event on the X chromosome, giving rise to two distinct (but pretty similar) opsin genes, with sensitivity peaks at very close wavelengths. As a note, because these genes sit on the X chromosome, colorblindness (defects in one or both of these genes) is much more likely to happen in males.

New World primates have a single polymorphic opsin gene on the X chromosome, with different alleles coding for different sensitivities. So, only some (heterozygous) females in these species typically have full trichromatic vision, while males and the unlucky homozygous females remain dichromatic.

Decent wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision_in_p...

Types of opsins in vertebrates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_visual_opsin