MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by coredog64 | 2025-09-25 15:39:58+00:00
> but I don't believe classical free market selfregulation can work out for the healthcare sector, by design.

That would come as news to the French.

The TL;DR of the French system is that you pay for your outpatient care at the point of service. Later, your insurance company will reimburse you for 80% of the "reasonable and customary" charges for the service. It's up to you to pick the provider that matches your budget.

Emergency care is understood as not amenable to the free market, and that doesn't have the same payment flow. Having said that, I could tell you some stories about folks who wound up worse off because the care was still rationed, just by the state instead of an insurance company.

I'll preempt the common next argument, and that is that emergency care is ~ 10% of US medical spending, so it's probably not Pareto efficient to start with that case when designing how this all works.
by addcommitpush | 2025-09-25 15:40:03+00:00
If they had absolute perfect performance at zero cost, you would not need a radiologist.

The current "workflow" is primary care physician (or specialist) -> radiology tech that actually does the measurement thing -> radiologist for interpretation/diagnosis -> primary care physician (or specialist) for treatment.

If you have perfect diagnosis, it could be primary care physician (or specialist) -> radiology tech -> ML model for interpretation -> primary care physician (or specialist.
by sumtechguy | 2025-09-25 15:40:18+00:00
The 94/95 web had no banners. Because most of it was hosted on university servers or some random guy/company just wanted to bear the cost.

I remember the big decision on if adverts should even be allowed... Well here we are. Users get free things. Advertisers pick up most of the bill. The second that model doesnt work sites pack it up. The 'before time' could be there but servers/bandwidth/people are not free. You can minimize those but in the end someone needs to pay the electric bill.
by theOGognf | 2025-09-25 15:40:23+00:00
This article is pretty good. My current work is transitioning CV models in a large, local hospital system to a more unified deployment system, and much of the content aligns with conversations we have with providers, operations, etc..

I think the part that says models will reduce time to complete tasks and allow providers to focus on other tasks is on point in particular. For one CV task, we’re only saving on average <30min of work per study, so it isn’t massive savings from a provider’s perspective. But scaled across the whole hospital, it’s huge savings
by jonas21 | 2025-09-25 15:40:31+00:00
People love to bring this up, and it was a silly thing to say -- particularly since he didn't seem to understand that radiologists only spend a small part of their time reading scans.

But he said it in the context of a Q&A session that happened to be recorded. Unless you're a skilled politician who can give answers without actually saying anything, you're going to say silly things once in a while in unscripted settings.

Besides that, I'd hardly call Geoffrey Hinton an AI evangelist. He's more on the AI doomer side of the fence.
by vel0city | 2025-09-25 15:40:47+00:00
> when it is heard the real reasons why ER is broken from people that worked there

You're confusing the symptom and the reason.

The symptom is the ERs are flooded with non-emergency care.

The reason is because they have nowhere else to go.

The solution is to give them somewhere else to go, i.e. give them actual primary care doctors and regular clinics instead of having their only option be going to ERs.

And FWIW, I personally don't like dehumanizing language, comparing people trying to get help to vermin.
by matteotom | 2025-09-25 15:40:51+00:00
What metric are you looking at when you say "the size of government has vastly and consistently outgrown the private sector" - AFAICT, excluding 2020 and 2021 (which I think is reasonable), the federal budget has been between 17% and 25% of GDP for the past 50 years (where the fluctuations are more a function of variable GDP).

The number of federal government employees has also remained mostly flat for the past 50 years (and IIRC most growth in overall public sector employment comes from schools).
by ViktorRay | 2025-09-25 15:40:51+00:00
One thing people aren't talking about is liability.

At the end of the day if the radiologist makes an error the radiologist gets sued.

If AI replaces the radiologist then it is OpenAI or some other AI company that will get sued each and every time the AI model makes a mistake. No AI company wants to be on the hook for that.

So what will happen? Simple. AI will always remain just a tool to assist doctors. But there will always be a disclaimer attached to the output saying that ultimately the radiologist should use his or her judgement. And then the liability would remain with the human not the AI company.

Maybe AI will "replace" radiologists in very poor countries where people may not have had access to radiologists in the first place. In some places in the world it is cheap to get an xray but still can be expensive to pay someone to interpret it. But in the United States the fear of malpractice will mean radiologists never go away.

EDIT: I know the article mentions liability but it mentions it as just one reason among many. My contention is that liability will be the fundamental reason radiologists are never replaced regardless of how good the AI systems get. This applies to other specialities too.
by fhd2 | 2025-09-25 15:41:00+00:00
I'm sorry, what? I run an agency (still figuring the space out), but just so I get that part: They asked a junior to "find a project" from a spreadsheet?

Don't they pair juniors up with seniors in existing projects? Before I'd "bench" anyone, I'd do that without charging for them, so they learn and can do realised billable hours later down the line. I'd feel so weird getting benched. I didn't know that was a thing anyone did frankly.
by mattkrause | 2025-09-25 15:41:12+00:00
Exactly! A lot (most?) of this spending has very obvious multiplier effects.

Tax enforcement is a trivial and almost immediate example. Spending $X on compliance seems to recover about $5X in evaded taxes. On top of that, there are knock-on effects: if it becomes easier to cheat on your taxes, more people may cheat.

Vaccines and other forms of preventative healthcare fall into this bucket too. Even completely ignoring the moral aspect of letting people (mostly kids!) fall unnecessarily ill, it often makes economic sense to pay a little bit to avoid having to potentially pay much more down the road. One ER visit can cover a lot of flu or COVID vaccines; a few nights in the ICU even more.

Research grants are maybe less obvious, but they have a huge multiplier too: the human genome project had something like a $120x return(!). This is not just big breakthroughs, but also all the work along the way. A lot of grant money goes to training people or supports small businesses making their equipment. I saw an interesting article claiming that the Air Force essentially bootstrapped the use of more exotic materials: military contracts covered the initial investment in (e.g.,) machinery for working with titanium, and once those fixed costs are covered, it was feasible to dip a toe into the consumer space and see if there's demand. Thus, titanium golf drivers.
by ascagnel_ | 2025-09-25 15:41:14+00:00
Also, "waste" doesn't have a singular definition: a contract with Honeywell (just picking a big government contractor at random) with the DOD/DOW to develop a new weapon could easily be seen as wasteful by one taxpayer, while another could see a different contract with Honeywell with the DOE or EPA to develop green energy tech as equally valid waste. The solution to this isn't to have one person run roughshod over already-signed contracts and commitments; the fix is for Congress either to not enter into them in the first place, or to use the CRA to override an agency's decision.
by lynndotpy | 2025-09-25 15:41:38+00:00
> If it's only breaking for you, and you alone, you can see why the rest of us are skeptical that it really is that broken.

There are several problems here.

Before anything, I want to note that we don't have to fight, we aren't enemies. We're on the same ideological side, even. This tastes like an angry and bitter internet argument. Do you taste it too?

We're just two people talking about web browsers. We don't need acrimony for each other. My bitterness is for the browser ecosystem. I am very sad about the browser ecosystem.

On that note, who are you speaking for, other than yourself, when you talk about "the rest of us"?

You are only you, and I am only me. The difference here is that you have good experiences with Firefox, and I have had bad experiences with Firefox.

Second, your skepticism is part of the problem with Firefox. In trying to find support for these issues, I mostly found people who did not believe me (or that I'm using it wrong, etc.)

The way you engage with people is common in the Firefox community, which is deleterious to the goal of having more people use Firefox. I think it's actually really important that we have a good non-Chromium non-corporate browser which people want to use, and Firefox is still the most promising one in the running.

Third, it's just incorrect to think I am alone in my issues. Some of these issues I could confirm were unfixed bugs, by finding them in the issue trackers. Others I could find with my issues in threads on Reddit, for example. Others are in this same thread we're commenting on. You can see people here talking about issues with Firefox, or needing to "Frankenstein" their install to get it to a usable state (a relatable experience for me, except I couldn't get it back into a usable state. I never want to touch user.js again.) My experience is lonely, but I am not the only person with my experience.

There is also the 94% to 98% of people on the internet who do not use Firefox. Some of those must be because they wanted to use Firefox, but had a breaking issue and went to Chrome.

People use software with bugs all the time, and Chromium and Safari's dominance is mostly because of years of costly domination from Apple and especially Google. But part of it is also things simply not working in Firefox. (Which is, also, partially due to Google expanding on Microsoft's IE-era standards playbook).

Finally, what is your position exactly? That Firefox can't possibly have the bugs I had? Or that I am lying about wanting a viable non-Chromium browser? I think you might be responding with a knee-jerk defense of Firefox, and you might assume I'm arguing in bad faith, which is fair, given this is the "Forum for Bad Faith Arguments About Computers with Some Amount of Financially-Motivated Arguments".

But I am ideologically motivated to be on Firefox's side. It's the largest browser engine not owned by a FAANG. Ideological motivation is the reason why I tried to use Firefox several times over several years, and why I spend time talking on the internet with strangers about web browsers.
by STKFLT | 2025-09-25 15:41:40+00:00
The requirement for making APIs immediately public only applies to connected devices under specific circumstances, which I would expect are a little more solidified at launch on account of how much integration work has to happen between different groups at Apple. AFAICT other APIs can remain private indefinitely unless they are subject to an interoperability request. Assuming the request is valid, Apple has 9-21 months to plan and implement any necessary changes to make the API public, where the time range is based on a self-assessment of the technical complexity of the request.

(See pages 87-88): https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
by mzmzmzm | 2025-09-25 15:41:50+00:00
Not to overly praise Valve which does have a profit motive, but their ecosystem + the Steam Deck + the openness of SteamOS really changes the landscape to where the "gaming on linux" punch line could really clear the hump and reach critical mass for developers. Something to fantasize about with each Windows update that adds new privacy converns and nothing else.
by jhedwards | 2025-09-25 15:42:00+00:00
I don't know if this was in your lifetime, but Bill Clinton reduced government spending through the National Performance Review. Not only did he do it, but he did it in a planned and strategic way, that included an initial phase of research, followed by education and recommendations, which were send to congress for approval.

You'll notice that this approach is consistent with basic project planning and execution principles, and follows the principles of government set out by our constitution. In contrast, DOGE sidestepped the legal and administrative principles of the government, which led to cuts followed by retractions, which are ultimately more costly and wasteful.

Reference: https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/bri...
by pjdesno | 2025-09-25 15:42:02+00:00
Oh, and by “full seek” I mean the time it takes to read the max block number (inner diameter) right after reading the min block number (OD) subtracting rotational delay.

You can do this test yourself with fio —readonly and root access to a hard drive block device, even if it’s mounted. (good luck reading any files while the test is running, but no damage done) Pick a variety of very high and low blocks, and the min delay will be when rotational delay is close to zero.
by projektfu | 2025-09-25 15:42:08+00:00
These are well-renowned books but I agree that it was hard to get started writing windows software. Win16 and Win32 were very strange APIs with a mixture of having to do things yourself, having the OS do it for you, and the OS calling you at unexpected times to get things done. WndProcs were re-entrant, because while you are handling WM_MOUSE you could get called by the OS to do a WM_PAINT. The whole architecture lends itself to spaghetti.

Or, you could use MFC, and then you just had to trust the library to do things right. Debugging your code wasn't easy because it would get lost in things that MFC was doing that you don't fully understand. A lot of the source code was available, however.

Or, you could use WTL, which was a third party library at the time that gave you a different way of doing it.

Debugging into/through Windows itself was really difficult due to the lack of source code. All you had were symbols and assembly. Because of how it worked, you could easily find memory corruption in your program because of some boneheaded thing you did, but finding the cause of it was hard because of its highly non-sequential nature.

Qt had a nicer approach with signals and slots, and used a more object-oriented way of building the software. Software was easier to understand. It also worked on Windows, but IIRC that part wasn't free. It is a long time since the late 90s so I am not sure about my memory. I enjoyed using Qt, though, and found it to be a much better programming model than straight Win32 or MFC. KDE was a great little system circa 2000, and it introduced the Konqueror browser that gave us the future we have today.

Anyhow, that is a lot to say that I understand how an intelligent person could read Petzold and still feel like a dummy. Writing Windows software in the late 90s/early 2000s was often humbling and there wasn't as much support from things like StackOverflow and the rest at the time.
Show HN: InsForge AI, Open-Source Alternative to Supabase (YC S20)
by tonychang430 | 2025-09-25 15:42:13+00:00
Hi HN, We are excited to present you InsForge AI. It is an open source project and we provide hosted versions with APIaccess as well. (Website: https://insforge.dev/ , Github: https://github.com/InsForge/InsForge)

We’re addressing a couple of key problems when using Supabase.

1. RLS enabled by default → queries fail without policies

2. Writing/maintaining Postgres policies is verbose and error-prone

3. Secrets and auth integrations require lots of manual setup

With InsForge, APIs ship with sane defaults via MCP servers — security rules are applied automatically so developers get safe behavior out of the box, without manual intervention. Both client and server code are fully open source.

For a quick start in the hosted version, login to our website and create a project. Then start connecting with your coding agent and start calling our APIs directly. You can find more details in our docs. https://docs.insforge.dev/quickstart

This is still an early release and we’d appreciate feedback from the community. What are your pain points when interacting with BaaS platforms? We’ll be around in the comments to answer questions. Thanks for reading!
by 7jjjjjjj | 2025-09-25 15:42:17+00:00
You to ask: Trusted by who.

The reason why ads aren't already served like this is the risk of fraud. The publisher can just make up claims of millions of impressions with no way to disprove it.

I assume Trusted Server comes with some mechanism to prevent this. That's what the name means: The server is trusted by the advertisers.
by BobbyJo | 2025-09-25 15:42:39+00:00
> Yes, TDD on production code is nice in theory, but it doesnt work in my case...

Parent said something more along the lines of "they don't work in every case, and trying to force it in every case is misguided".

I agree that too big is more common than too small with respect to PR size, but you aren't putting forward much of an argument against parents "there are no absolutes" argument by straw manning them.
by stingraycharles | 2025-09-25 15:42:55+00:00
To be honest, the internet was worse without Cloudflare, so as long as they provide a good service for their customers, I’m fine with it. This is one of those.

Google is in a perfect position to compete but they don’t, so it’s not like Cloudflare is a monopoly or something.

At least they’re not selling ads using your data.
by DarkNova6 | 2025-09-25 15:42:56+00:00
How long was that ago? I haven't seen any spreadsheet like this, but the internal tools aren't exactly the best (Accenture is too expensive to work for Accenture, haha).

But the bench also provided great opportunities to do actual good trainings, certifications and upskilling of all kinds. But the company stopped investing into its future long ago. It's just about short term gains for those on top.
by goosejuice | 2025-09-25 15:43:01+00:00
Sadly it often is box checking, code review or not. I'm only stating that there is no requirement in US healthcare that I'm aware of that requires approvals before merging code. Maybe that's not true in other industries. But most regulatory frameworks that I'm aware of are flexible, ambiguous, on implementation details by design.

If you find that outcomes are the same by making approvals optional at that stage, then do so with accompanied justification.
by skadamou | 2025-09-25 15:43:06+00:00
I'm not a doc or a pharmacist (though I am in med school) and I'm sure there are areas that AI could do some of a pharmacists job but on the outpatient side they do things like answering questions for patients and helping them interpret instructions that I don't think we want AI to do... or at least I really doubt an AIs ability to gauge how well someone is understanding instructions and augment how it explains something based on that assessment... on the inpatient side, I have seen pharmacists help physicians grapple with the pros and cons of certain treatments and make judgement calls about dosing that I think it would be hard to trust an AI to do because there is no "right" answer really. It's about balancing trade offs.

IDK, these are just limitations - people that really believe in AI will tell you there is basically nothing it can't do... eventually. I guess it's just a matter of how long you want to wait for eventually to come.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-09-25 15:43:09+00:00
That's a cart-before-the-horse analysis.

Labelling markets "rational" is pure rhetoric. There's nothing even remotely rational about a market system, because the moral basis of calling markets "rational" is... greed.

Just greed. Nothing else.

All of the failed outcomes, deaths, pollution, lost opportunities, distortions of democracy, and other damages are a direct consequence of this moral system which claims that greed is rational - when in fact unfettered greed is clearly and objectively sociopathic, with predictable sociopathic outcomes.
Show HN: PogiFit – Nutrition and Workout Tracker
by pobbypablo | 2025-09-25 15:43:16+00:00
Hi HN,

I just launched PogiFit, an app that tracks both nutrition and workouts. The idea is to keep everything in one place: macros, food database, workout routines, exercise history.

It has two parts:

Food: macro diary (auto or manual), option to just track calories + protein, supplement reminders, nutrition guides, different macros per day, and a food database of 100k+ items across all supported languages.

Workout: routine library (home, gym, powerlifting, bodybuilding, etc.), 240+ exercises, routine builder, simple workout tracker, progress history, and 1RM calculators.

I built it with Laravel, PicoCSS, jQuery, MySQL, and packaged it as a mobile app with Cordova. The biggest challenge has been by far keeping 21 languages up to date with every new feature and content, and working around Cordova’s limitations compared to native apps.

Available here:

Play Store - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pogifit.mo... Desktop web - https://pogi.fit
by ms7m | 2025-09-25 15:43:44+00:00
> The disclosures caused alarm among senior Microsoft executives, sparking concerns that some of its Israel-based employees may not have been fully transparent about their knowledge of how Unit 8200 used Azure when questioned as part of the review.

Highly likely, or at least a bit naive -- Completely reasonable to have local staff for a contract this big, but Microsoft should have independently 'double-checked' sooner
by glenstein | 2025-09-25 15:44:02+00:00
I understand that "just fork it" has been the canonical response to disagreements over direction of open source software. Sometimes that's the right call, the world is better for having a forked Syncthing, forked Nextcloud, and so on.

But I think there are cases, such as Chromium where the "just fork it" response is unrealistic about the burden of maintaining a codebase or the ongoing relationship to new updates, or not having capacity to solve new problems or comply with new standards in Google-independent ways. Part of the problem of Chromium is that it's normalized a velocity of development and of codebase size in exactly the way you would if you were going for embrace-extend-extinguish.

And the foundational point is still true, Google controls commits to Chromium, so the core project itself is not ever going to be an organic manifestion of community desires for an egalitarian internet. It's going to be whatever helps consolidate Google's monopoly.
by cko | 2025-09-25 15:44:07+00:00
I am a pharmacist who dabbles in web dev. We should easily be replaced because all of our work on checking pill images and drug interactions are actually already automated, or the software already tells us everything.

If every doctor agreed to electronically prescribe (instead of calling it in, or writing it down) using one single standard / platform / vendor, and all pharmacy software also used the same platform / standard, then our jobs are definitely redundant.

I worked at a hospital where basically doctors and pharmacists and nurses all use the same software and most of the time we click approve approve approve without data entry.

Of course we also make IVs and compounds by hand, but that's a small part of our job.