MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bombcar | 2025-07-07 14:08:48+00:00
Commercial suppliers.

No motel microwave is “smart”. No commercial kitchen is going to have the line cooks installing “apps”.

BUT BE AWARE that commercial items have different requirements and tradeoffs! You need to research them before buying. Some may matter to you, some may be a safety issue, some may be technically or actually illegal to run at home.

For example, commercial ovens may look similar to your home oven, but have zero insulation anywhere and NOT be designed to be installed next to anything except solid metal.

But commercial and used commercial can be great. You can still get zero smarts devices, like microwaves with literally no computers in them, just a timer dial.

You can also import many from the USA, but you’d have to check power requirements very carefully. Commercial equipment is often available in 240v in the USA but it may not be self-switching.

But be aware that commercial dishwashers work - but even if you don’t get a massive Hobart machine that they’re designed for speed, not energy efficiency or silent operation.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-07-07 14:08:49+00:00
But those have a tangible return to society that people flock to. Almost the entirety of Google products is open to anyone on Earth to just open up an use because that ad model is so successful. People click high value ads and it covers to cost of video distribution to anyone with an cell phone and wifi.

Jane street on the other hand is arbitraging against regular folks money, so they can distribute the gains to their select high value clients. There is no free office productivity suite and limitless "How to repair cell phones to start your own business" videos distributed to everyone for free.

In a way, they are doing opposite functions. Ad media takes from people who buy stuff and gives to people who don't (or cant't) buy anything. Jane street and their ilk take from regular people and give to those who have everything already.
by tdullien | 2025-07-07 14:09:21+00:00
Fair, there is a lot that is incomprehensible to all of us. I wouldn't call it "state" as it's fixed, but that is a rather subtle point.

That said, would you anthropomorphize a meteorological simulation just because it contains lots and lots of constants that you don't understand well?

I'm pretty sure that recurrent dynamical systems pretty quickly become universal computers, but we are treating those that generate human language differently from others, and I don't quite see the difference.
by saeedesmaili | 2025-07-07 14:09:40+00:00
After reading this I realized I also have an archive of my pocket account (4200 items), so tried the same prompt with o3, gemini 2.5 pro, and opus 4:

- chatgpt UI didn't allow me to submit the input, saying it's too large. Although it was around 80k tokens, less than o3's 200k context size.

- gemini 2.5 pro: worked fine for personality and interest related parts of the profile, but it failed the age range, job role, location, parental status with incorrect perdictions.

- opus 4: nailed it and did a more impressive job, accurately predicted my base city (amsterdam), age range, relationship status, but didn't include anything about if I'm a parent or not.

Both gemini and opus failed in predicting my role, probably understandably. Although I'm a data scientist, I read a lot about software engineering practices because I like writing software and since I don't have the opportunity at work to do this kind of work, I code for personal projects, so I need to learn a lot about system design, etc. Both models thought I'm a software engineer.

Overall it was a nice experiment. Something I noticed is both models mentioned photography as my main hobby, but if they had access to my youtube watch history, they'd confidently say it's tennis. For topics and interests that we usually watch videos rather than reading articles about, would be interesting to combine the youtube watch history with this pocket archive data (although it would be challenging to get that data).
by kinow | 2025-07-07 14:09:47+00:00
After some years applying for different positions, I started asking receuiters about their hiring process and straight out dropping out when there were technical tests like this.

Even when you nail the test, it is no guarantee you won't be just wasting your time.

I explain to the recruiter why I am turning down that opportunity and thank them.

Best jobs I had were mainly via my network of friends, or reaching out to engineers directly asking about their companies and open positions, then sharing CV and GitHub, then chatting about technologies used, bugs in production, and other past experiences.
by rightbyte | 2025-07-07 14:09:59+00:00
Ye. But the hard problem as I see it is the "the consequences of a bad decision" part, for which many "bad decisions" have no consequence but the arbitrary punishment from adults itself.

I.e. not cleaning up toys from the floor. Staying up late. Wearing different colored socks. Playing or speaking too laud. What ever. The consequences of those are really complex or fuzzy and the threshold level for breaking the rules arbitrary.

Also the subset of "bad decisions" that maybe have some distant future bad consequence, i.e. eating too much ice cream, are even harder. Or all the 'none will like you if you do that' things you need to teach kids.
by heymijo | 2025-07-07 14:10:36+00:00
I get what you're saying about perception being reality and that ARC-AGI suggests beating it means AGI has been achieved.

In practice when I have seen ARC brought up, it has more nuance than any of the other benchmarks.

Unlike, Humanity's Last Exam, which is the most egregious example I have seen in naming and when it is referenced in terms of an LLMs capability.
by Enginerrrd | 2025-07-07 14:10:47+00:00
Yeah as far as I know, in French words are always pronounced consistent with how they're spelled. The same is not true in English. Americans complain a lot about french spellings '-ioux', 'eau', etc. but they offer no gripe over the difference between '-ough' in 'enough' vs 'through'.

French is funny to me because the written language and the spoken language are in some ways quite different, with written french introducing considerable complexity. aller, allait, allais, allaient, alleé, etc. Since the spoken context for all the conjugations is almost always clear, I'm not sure why someone introduced the extra complexity.
by collingreen | 2025-07-07 14:11:08+00:00
I think the pushback here is from the following:

1. Because it is so dynamic and subjective, it is very hard to systematize this kind of interview, which makes it very hard to work into a repeatable or scalable process. The need to compare incoming candidates is an unfortunate reality of the industry for many companies.

1b. It is basically impossible to control for bias and things like "was the interviewer having a good day".

2. This kind of interview overly rewards charismatic speakers -- this is partially ok, depending on the role, because being able to speak accurately and cogently about the work you're doing and are going to do is part of the job (especially for staff+ engineering). It isn't necessary for all jobs, however.

3. Many people aren't good at driving this kind of conversation for whatever reason. When it goes well it goes well but when this kind of conversation goes poorly it reflects badly on the company.

4. People Ops want more control then this gives them, across many dimensions.
by beef_rendang | 2025-07-07 14:11:13+00:00
Absolutely viable.

Building on a a diverse transport layer of Bluetooth, UWB, and Wi-Fi Direct is incredibly astute as it would create a resilient, delay-tolerant fabric.

The model where senders pay and relayers earn is a perfectly balanced state machine, providing the exact proof-of-transit mechanism needed to prevent spam and ensure message integrity.

Ship a TestFlight beta and do a Show HN.
by cardanome | 2025-07-07 14:11:27+00:00
Computers were not much of a concern in 1887.

As Esperanto was designed to be a neutral language that took words from many (European) languages, it needed an orthography that would unambiguously denote those sounds.

You can trivially transliterate the circumflex letter with digraphs using h anyway. ĝ -> gh

Still perfectly readable.

If you want a language where there is a trivial and unambiguous mapping between written and spoken language and the sounds don't exist in basic latin script, you need to do something. You can use diacritics, you can use digraphs and other tricks or well you just give up. But saying they are "unnecessary complexity" is very mistaken.
by dmix | 2025-07-07 14:12:40+00:00
Translating Figmas from designers who don't understand web design is always the root problem, not the tools. They should be concepts of a design, but are often treated as what the final website should look and function like, even though they always overly value static aesthetic design over the chaotic nature of browser sizes, accessibility, variable font sizes, etc.

Which is why quality teams will have designers who have actually made websites before, outside a design or UX tool.
by ceejayoz | 2025-07-07 14:12:42+00:00
> For all of human history people have got along just fine, happily in fact, without “universal access to mental health care”

Mixing up "some people survived" and "everyone was fine" is a common mistake.

Some folks who're able to thrive today on drugs and therapy are the "tragically wandered off in a snowstorm" of past eras.
by DrillShopper | 2025-07-07 14:13:01+00:00
> despair is never the logical response

My partner is disabled and her transplanted kidney is failing. She will, in the next year or two, need dialysis and then a kidney transplant. Her Medicaid will be cut. The hospital she goes to will be closed. Both as a result of a bill that just passed. The average kidney transplant out of pocket costs $250,000, and because her first transplant happened before she met me, my insurance will deny her coverage because it's a pre-existing condition. We are in the process of trying to move to a different location, get her a job while she's going through kidney failure (not easy since nobody wants to hire a sick person, and definitely not at a workload that would give them benefits), and I'm in the process of trying to move us out of the country (I'm a dual citizen, she is not, so that's holding things up).

At what point in that is despair not a logical emotion, even when we're doing something about it? What is illogical about being so overwhelmed with circumstances that it makes you question whether waking up tomorrow is a net positive or negative? Please explain.
by germandiago | 2025-07-07 14:13:03+00:00
I thought it is perfectly reasonable to talk about spanish from Spsin the same you talk about English from England.

After all, it is where they come from originally and have their own spelling (colour vs color, etc.)

An x in standard spanish has always been the two sounds I told you and that mexican deviation is specific to Mexico.

Yes, it is over 100 million speakers but I was still assuming the root language in its original place as the reference. Sorry if I did not express it correctly.
Show HN: NYC Subway Simulator and Route Designer
by HeavenFox | 2025-07-07 14:13:56+00:00
Hello HN!

As a long term NYC resident, I have read countless articles on ideas tweaking subway services, but always found them hard to follow without visual aid. So over the long weekend I decided to build one. It has all the basic features: trains would spawn at their origin, stop at stations, and slow down if it gets too close to another. You can also design custom routes by piecing tracks together.

Have fun, and let me know what you think!
by blitzar | 2025-07-07 14:14:22+00:00
Those of a certain vintage (1991) will remember Dr Sbaitso.

HELLO [UserName], MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.

I AM HERE TO HELP YOU. SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY, OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE,

SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

They mostly asked me "And how did that make you feel?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Sbaitso
by hearsathought | 2025-07-07 14:14:57+00:00
Breitbart was found by the guy who help found huffingtonpost. Think about that. It's major bureau's are in LA, Texas, London, and Jerusalem ( wikipedia ). Hmmm? And if tucker carlson and many others are to be believed, it was founded during a meeting with netanyahu.

It's former chief employee, Steven Bannon, proclaims himself ( in every interview ) to be the biggest supporter of israel.

Like I said, we don't have a genuinely right-wing or left-wing media. We have pro-israel media that plays the superficial role of right-wing and left-wing, but none are.
by trinix912 | 2025-07-07 14:15:33+00:00
It was flat, yet designed well in the sense that one can tell which things are clickable, which areas scrollable, etc. Contrary to many modern flat UIs that don't even show the scrollbar upfront so you just have to "feel" when something is scrollable or not, don't distinguish between links and buttons, and so on.

It also manages to give controls "breathing room", yet not waste too much space on margins and paddings.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-07-07 14:15:33+00:00
If you can write code to solve ARC by "overfitting," then give it a shot! There's prize money to be won, as long as your model does a good job on the hidden test set. Zuckerberg is said to be throwing around 8-figure signing bonuses for talent like that.

But then, I guess it wouldn't be "overfitting" after all, would it?
by ferguess_k | 2025-07-07 14:15:34+00:00
Wait, that is him? JKCalhoun? I probably should read more closely.

Jeez JKCalhoun is one of my favorite commenters on HN. He is very knowledgeable about Apple stuffs and I knew he probably worked in Apple for a long, long time just by reading his replies. He is one of the people that I look up to (i.e., when I don't feel burned out).
by Twirrim | 2025-07-07 14:15:36+00:00
I used to give a code review task, of some particularly egregious python code. I'd provide all help with the syntax, and emphasise strongly upfront I don't expect them to know python or its syntax. It has proven to be a low stress task for candidates. They're not trying to solve a brain teaser, they're just doing something that's going to be part of the job. Reading code, understanding what it is doing, and providing feedback to make it more maintainable.

When all around me in this FAANG type role are engineers giving leet code esque questions, I was trying to be a breath of fresh air for them.

Sadly, I need to rethink this now, because you can throw it in an LLM and it'll give you a nearly complete answer. I've already had one candidate clearly do that.
by ceejayoz | 2025-07-07 14:15:38+00:00
It's a bit tough to compare between countries like this. Those stats don't reflect the infinite wait time that may be the case for someone without health insurance in the USA.

Even with insurance, in my area, neurologists book out 3-6 months.

Your own link offers this summary:

> A common misconception in the U.S. is that countries with universal health care have much longer wait times. However, data from nations with universal coverage, coupled with historical data from coverage expansion in the United States, show that patients in other nations often have similar or shorter wait times.
by Strilanc | 2025-07-07 14:16:45+00:00
Yeah this post nails the issue.

In order to do the X-basis measurement described in the paper, it's necessary to do very funky things to the simulated agents inside the computers. Probably the easiest way to implement the measurement would be to literally rewind the simulation back to before the measurement started, when the superposition was limited to a single qubit, do the measurement at that time, and then run the simulation back forwards to the current time. The paper doesn't specify an implementation, so it should work for any implementation, so this should be a valid way of doing the operation. But this implementation implies you're undoing all the reasoning the agents did, changing the initial state, and so as you run them forwards again they are redoing the same reasoning steps but in a new context where the premises no longer apply. Which of course results in them making mistakes. The same thing would happen classically, if you rewound a simulated agent to change some crucial fact and then assumed reasoning from premises that no longer held should still be valid.

I think Scott also co-authored a follow up paper, where they made some steps towards proving that the only computationally efficient way to implement the X-basis measurement was to do this simulation rewinding thing. But unfortunately I can't seem to find it now.
by linsomniac | 2025-07-07 14:16:47+00:00
With ~$600K/year of subscription revenue? I don't know how much they make on other bank-like functions, but I assume it's not nothing because other banks seem to survive without charging subscription fees.

I was hoping that, after going through a number of other "advanced money management" fintech banks over the years and them selling out, that going with a place that I directly paid to use would allow it to sustain independently and add features, but it seems like the other scenario I worried about became the issue: The subscription fee severely limited their membership pool.
by Gormo | 2025-07-07 14:16:58+00:00
> The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change.

Why would you assume that the full spectrum of opinions on an issue would be unchanging?

The concept of the Overton window is meant to represents how attitudes do change in response to variations in perceived extremes.

> Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean?

Basically, yes. I you have a mature system that's reached a stable equilibrium, then its parameters are likely to be optimized against its inputs and constraints, so deviation from that equilibrium is likely to produce less optimal results. If the inputs or constraints have changed significantly, of course, then that might not be applicable.
by benjiro | 2025-07-07 14:17:11+00:00
One rule for you, one rule for me ...

You never noticed the hypocrite behavior all over society?

* O, you drunk drive, big fine, lots of trouble. * O, you drunk drive and are a senator, cop, mayor, ... Well, lets look the other way.

* You have anger management issues and slam somebody to the ground. Jail time. * You as a cop have anger management issues and slams somebody to the ground. Well, paid time off while we investigate and maybe a reprimand. Qualified immunity boy!

* You tax fraud for 10k, felony record, maybe jail time. * You as a exec of a company do tax fraud for 100 million. After 10 years lawyering around, maybe you get something, maybe, ... o, here is a fine of 5 million.

I am sorry but the idea of everybody being equal under the law has always been a illusion.

We are holding China accountable for counterfeiting products because it hurts OUR companies, and their income. But when its "us vs us", well, then it becomes a bit more messy and in general, those with the biggest backing (as in $$$, economic value, and lawyers), tends to win.

Wait, if somebody steal my book, i can sue that person in court, and get a payout (lawyers will cost me more but that is not the point). If some AI company steals my book, well, the chance you win is close to 1%, simply because lots of well paid lawyers will make your winning hard to impossible.

Our society has always been based upon power, wealth and influence. The more you have of it, the more you get away (or reduced) with things, that gets other fined or jailed.
by stared | 2025-07-07 14:17:37+00:00
GPT 4.5 - oftentimes! (Though, I prompt it to do so.) Sometimes in a piercingly way.

GPT 4o (and many consumer models) are very agreeable - because it is what people like. Sometimes it goes over the board (https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/) and needs to be fixed.
by hwillis | 2025-07-07 14:17:47+00:00
> You still need enough power to cover that, especially if it has been a cloudy/rainy day, or week, or month.

That's besides the point! The window of highest demand completely covers the window of solar. You can build a LOT of solar before storage starts becoming cheaper than just building more solar. You only need storage if it's ALL solar- you can have a majority of your power supplied by solar with hardly any storage! There this idea that if you overbuild solar that power will have nowhere to go, or something- you can just turn it off. You use backup power for the non-shining hours and you're totally fine.

> And this is so easy and foolproof to do, just check out the Iberian power outage.

In fact I did[1]. Page 117: "In fact, in most of the network nodes analyzed, there is no correlation between voltage stability and the amount of solar generation or the amount of coupled synchronous generation"

They had 2.3 seconds of inertia, more than the regulated 2 seconds. Power sloshing through interconnects caused plant ramp rates to be overwhelmed one-by-one, causing the cascading failure, because they had no buffering. If they were all solar or wind plants, the failure would not have happened!

[1]: https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/v2/D4D1FAQGcyyYYr...
by iluvlawyering | 2025-07-07 14:18:05+00:00
Good catch. No such fallacy exists. Contextually, the implied reasoning (though faulty) relies on the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The mons ponus - if A then B - does NOT imply not A then not B. So if you see B, that doesn't mean A any more than not seeing A means not B. It's the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition - A is a sufficient condition for B, but the mons ponus alone is not sufficient for determining whether either A or B is a necessary condition of the other.
by piva00 | 2025-07-07 14:18:36+00:00
I haven't worked in places using off-the-shelf/SaaS CI in more than a decade so I feel my experience has been quite the opposite from yours.

We always worked hard to make the CI/CD pipeline as fast as possible. I personally worked on those kind of projects at 2 different employers as a SRE: a smaller 300-people shop which I was responsible for all their infra needs (CI/CD, live deployments, migrated later to k8s when it became somewhat stable, at least enough for the workloads we ran, but still in its beta-days), then at a different employer some 5k+ strong working on improving the CI/CD setup which used Jenkins as a backend but we developed a completely different shim on top for developer experience while also working on a bespoke worker scheduler/runner.

I haven't experienced a CI/CD setup that takes longer than 10 minutes to run in many, many years, got quite surprised reading your comment and feeling spoiled I haven't felt this pain for more than a decade, didn't really expect it was still an issue.
by steveklabnik | 2025-07-07 14:19:08+00:00
The post my original comment is on discusses doing this at length.

> And have there been any statistics done on that across open-source projects, like mean, median, percentiles and so on?

I am not aware of any. But in all the posts on this topic over the years, codegen always ends up being half the time. It’s why cargo check is built the way it is, and why it’s always faster than a full build. If non-codegen factors were significant with any regularity, you’d be seeing reports of check being super slow compared to build.