MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulHoule | 2025-09-13 22:51:05+00:00
In some cases that could destroy another wonderful natural resource. In Africa for instance it is not a net positive to plant a forest that would replace a Savannah that supports native animals if it were possible -- that is, there might not be enough water in such a place to support a forest so you could plant a bunch of trees and not have them grow.

But on some level you're right, "stopping deforestation" is an ecological goal that is valuable on its on and many of the ways to link it to climate finance don't really make sense. For instance you might take a flight for 4 hours that requires a permanent land use change, but the forest you protected might get cut anyway a few years later or burn down or maybe they plant a bunch of trees in the wrong spot and they don't grow.
by YAndreaRusso | 2025-09-13 22:51:14+00:00
Thanks, I just wanted different philosophies on shipping code: - If you're stuck on something hard, Peter would say "ship the hecky version tomorrow". - Linus would want proper code review first. - Carmack would rewrite your algorithm and find some clever way to do it with after components.

Basically covered the main approaches: ship fast and iterate. - Peter Sahil optimizes for performance that's Carmack. - Build for scale through process Linus. - Elegant hardware solutions Woz - the modern ML approach with Karpathy.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-13 22:51:25+00:00
Sometimes, we do stuff for reasons that folks, these days, can't relate to. I'm truly sorry that you've never had a Cause to which you could dedicate that kind of effort.

No one ever "took advantage" of me. I'm actually kind of hard to hoodwink.

Yes, I did "have to."

If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
by sedawkgrep | 2025-09-13 22:51:46+00:00
I'm struggling to understand your point, especially since the conclusion you posit is rather glib and dismissive.

Net-negative is not quantifiable. But it is definitely qualifiable.

I don't think you have to think of things in terms of "hate it more than I like it" when you have actual examples on social media of children posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, blatant misinformation proliferation, and the unbelievable broad and deep affect powerful entities can have on public information/opinion through SM.

I think we can agree all of these are bad, and a net-negative, without needing any mathematic rigor.
by pvaldes | 2025-09-13 22:52:39+00:00
Then, they can declare an independence war, and win that war. They can't have their cake and eat it.

Something that not even the most stubborn separatists want to do, while enjoying the special treatment of "I feel oppressed under the weight of all this Spanish fiscal benefits that other Spaniards don't have".

Until that war happens, saying I'm not Spanish, I'm from Catalonia, is like an American native from Oklahoma saying "I don't feel like an USA citizen, so I will not pay taxes but I will keep all the benefits, freedom of movement, etc that they have". Yes you are and US citizen. Feelings are irrelevant from a legal point of view. Stop acting like a child. After 20 years repeating the same dumb lie, is frankly annoying for the rest of us.
by brian_cunnie | 2025-09-13 22:53:31+00:00
A year ago I changed my CONTRIBUTING document to say that I don't accept pull-requests on my very modest open source project (a special purpose DNS server)

I like coding, but am not fond of reviewing other people's code.

Also, the few PRs I received weren't up to snuff: for example, they included code changes but not tests. If they included tests, they weren't comprehensive. And they never included documentation changes.
by OutOfHere | 2025-09-13 22:54:06+00:00
For lipids, besides the named tests, HDL, LDL, and triglyceride tests are older but shouldn't be overlooked.

For measuring inflammation, besides hs-CRP, additional tests are relevant and overlooked: regular CRP, ESR, and homocysteine.

Additionally, a heart attack can result from parasite induced inflammation too, e.g. in chagas disease, which is becoming increasingly common in the US while being very undetected without explicit testing. It is also very difficult to treat, but the gist 4196f31d12a43a95756e792500ff516f has some info on treating it. Lyme disease too can harm the heart permanently. In both cases a pacemaker could help as applicable.
Show HN: Tool for automating Twitter posts with news content and scheduling
by canercbo | 2025-09-13 22:55:58+00:00
I was struggling to keep my Twitter account active. Low engagement made it discouraging, and whenever I got busy or went on vacation, the account went quiet. Scheduling ahead was tedious, and writing posts consistently took more time than I had.

To address this, I built a tool that automatically pulls in the latest news, generates natural, human-sounding tweets, and can create matching images. It also allows scheduling posts for a full week and suggests optimal posting times based on activity patterns.
by stavros | 2025-09-13 22:56:02+00:00
But nobody is doubting that these people exist, or saying that their documents were faked maliciously. Back in my grandparents' time, they had a child, then a few years later they went to register the child, the clerk asked "how old is she?" and they said "7 or 8" when she was 11, for example.

My grandmother never knew her birthday, or her birth year. We just estimated, even though she was very much real.
by saghm | 2025-09-13 22:56:37+00:00
That being said, it seems like he might be better at blending in than he gives himself credit for:

>You can’t exactly stand up and walk out of a wedding mid-ceremony, so I just had to commit to this act and spent the next 20 minutes awkwardly sitting there trying to be as inconspicuous as my 6ft 2 ass could be

And yet, no one actually seemed to notice him other than the photographer (who presumably didn't know most of the guests beforehand), and the bride and groom only found out he was there because the photographer took a number of pictures with him.
by uninformedprior | 2025-09-13 22:56:53+00:00
> We have all had days when learning seemed easier than on other days

Unfortunately it's hard to trust our feelings on this. There is a lot of literature that demonstrates an inverse relationship between how well we felt we learned and how well we actually learned.

> mental preparation for learning

This is actually really big in the learning literature. It's not meditation, though, it's priming through pretesting and prior knowledge activation. These types of "warm ups" have outsized effects on retention and understanding.
by satyarthms | 2025-09-13 22:57:10+00:00
I have a bone to pick with the paragraph:

> But, as we now know, the results were also wrong. Adjusting for inflation, world GDP is now about five times higher than it was in 1970 and continues to rise. More than 90 percent of that growth has come from Asia, Europe, and North America, but forest cover across those regions has increased, up 2.6 percent since 1990 to over 2.3 billion hectares in 2020. The death rate from air pollution has almost halved in the same period, from 185 per 100,000 in 1990 to 100 in 2021. According to the model, none of this should have been possible.

Okay, forest cover increasing and death rate from air pollution decreasing contradicts the prediction from 1970, but I feel these trends are a result of richer countries being able to outsource their environmental pollution/destruction to the global south and scavenging it for raw materials. I wonder if the forest cover statistics count the massive expanses of land deforested and replaced with monoculture plantations (palm oil, etc.) that end up having a giant effect on biodiversity (and will no doubt come back to bite us in the ass)? Even if this outsourcing of externalities couldn't be modeled 50 years ago, I feel like that doesn't detract from the spirit of the takeaways from the Club of Rome and The Limits to Growth.
by variadix | 2025-09-13 22:57:30+00:00
Yeah, I’m not sure I see the problem (other than that threads are more expensive than e.g. file descriptors, but this is a moot point without a better API). You define how many requests in flight you want to allow and that sets the cap on how many worker threads you spawn/use, you could also support an unbounded number in flight this way by lazily spawning worker threads per requests. Cancellation/kill interfaces for multithreading are pretty much always a footgun. Even for multiprocessing on modern machines, if you’re doing something non-trivial and decide to use SIGKILL to terminate a worker process, it’s easy to leave e.g. file system resources in a bad state.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-09-13 22:58:11+00:00
“Dormant bacteria within the biofilm remain[ing] shielded from both the patient’s immune system and antibiotics because they cannot penetrate the biofilm matrix…”

Phages can penetrate biofilms [1]. (They have practice.)

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875263/
by foxglacier | 2025-09-13 22:58:38+00:00
I looked at the stoning gay people one through the link there and it isn't clear if he's advocating for it, against it, or just stating a fact about what the bible says. He used it to respond to a pro-gay Christian (Ms. Rachel from kids videos) who favored a law from Leviticus (love thy neighbor) and he pointed out that the same book also says to stone gays. He said that if you love God, you should love his laws, including that one (implying that Ms. Rachel should want to stone gays to be consistent with her stated belief). He described it as God's perfect law... but it's not clear if he actually condones or believes that or is just making a claim about what's true within the canon of the bible or what Ms. Rachel would believe to be consistent with herself.

Do you know if he ever clarified his position on killing gays anywhere else? If that's the only time he ever publicly mentioned it, on it's own, it's too ambiguous to call preaching hate.

So far, I can't find any hate preaching. I don't want to sift through everything just in case there's some hidden gem. You could just tell me which one is pretty clear if you knew about it. So I assume you're just repeating some popular opinion that isn't even true.
by solid_fuel | 2025-09-13 22:59:26+00:00
> I don't think it follows that something making money must do so by being harmful.

My point isn't that it's automatically harmful, simply that there is a very strong incentive to protect the revenue. That makes it daunting to study these harms.

> On the other hand The WSJ, Guardian, and other media outlets have published incorrect information on the same events. The primary method that people had to discover that this information was incorrect was social media.

I agree with your point here too, and I don't think the solution is to completely stop or get rid of social media. But, the problem I see is there are tons of corners of social media where you can still see the original lies being repeated as if they are fact. In some spaces they get challenged, but in others they are echoed and repeated uncritically. That is what concerns me - long debunked rumors and lies that get repeated because they feel good.

> If anything education is required to teach people to discuss opposing views without rising to anger or personal attacks.

I think many people are actually capable of discussing opposing views without it becoming so inflammatory... in person. But algorithmic amplification online works against that and the strongest, loudest, quickest view tends to win in the attention landscape.

My concern is that social media is lowering people's ability to discuss things calmly, because instead of a discussion amongst acquaintances everything is an argument is against strangers. And that creates a dynamic where people who come to argue are not arguing against just you, but against every position they think you hold. We presort our opponents into categories based on perceived allegiance and then attack the entire image, instead of debating the actual person.

But I don't know if that can fixed behaviorally, because the challenge of social media is that the crowd is effectively infinite. The same arguments get repeated thousands of times, and there's not even a guarantee that the person you are arguing against is a real person and not just a paid employee, or a bot. That frustration builds into a froth because the debate never moves, it just repeats.
by igouy | 2025-09-13 23:00:21+00:00
> joining them together in software

What if they were joined together by exposing 2 different overlapping film negatives?

You may enjoy "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop"

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Faking_it/nGvTg_HC32YC?...

> get the mountains you want and the rocks and people you want

Digital painting? Too difficult, maybe just use Firefly "Adobe's online AI image generator" ;-)
by joshdavham | 2025-09-13 23:01:16+00:00
> There is nothing more delightful than the drive-by PR that lands, fully formed and perfectly aligned, fixing a bug or adding a small, thoughtful feature.

I'm actually generally not a fan of "drive-by" PR's.

Unless the drive-by PR is fixing a simple bug in a simple way, then the contributor really should've opened an issue first. Doing otherwise is rude imo.

This is actually open source etiquette that I'd like to see encouraged more in the future. Something like "If you've never contributed to this project before, then open an issue first". I understand that this can be explicitly placed in a CONTRIBUTING.md file, but I think that this should just become common etiquette that we all follow and understand.
by kg | 2025-09-13 23:01:24+00:00
The way I look at this question is: Is there somehow a glaring vulnerability/missed opportunity in modern capitalism that billions of people somehow haven't discovered yet? And if so, is AI going to discover it? And if so, is a random startup founder or 'little guy' going to be the one to discover and exploit it somehow? If so, why wouldn't OpenAI or Anthropic etc get there first given their resources and early access to leading technology?

IIRC Sam Altman has explicitly said that their plan is to develop AGI and then ask it how to get rich. I can't really buy into the idea that his team is going to fail at this but a bunch of random smaller companies will manage to succeed somehow.

And if modern AI turns into a cash cow for you, unless you're self-hosting your own models, the cloud provider running your AI can hike prices or cut off your access and knock your business over at the drop of a hat. If you're successful enough, it'll be a no-brainer to do it and then offer their own competitor.
by seec | 2025-09-13 23:02:10+00:00
Apple is as petty as a little girl. They are "punishing" their users for the EU regulations in an attempt to get leverage by getting their users to complain at their representative against the regulations.

Not only is this disingenuous but also incredibly stupid. They are using their users just like parents would in a divorce to get leverage. As if the kids had anything to do with the parents' issues and had enough power to make a difference.

Even if their customers were to loudly complain, the regulations do not apply to just Apple, so they are asking for preferential treatment in return. Other companies have been able to offer similar features to their customers while complying with the regulations just fine, why can't Apple do it?

The good thing is that they make it easy to not buy and not recommend their devices to anyone in the EU, no matter how good their technology gets. Their features were already often requiring a new device purchase (even when there was no technological need) but now they are also locking stuff because of politics.
by NoahZuniga | 2025-09-13 23:02:23+00:00
You might live in an extremely free country and have no fear about political prosecution but still fear social prosecution.

If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends.
by foxglacier | 2025-09-13 23:03:13+00:00
In practice, you might struggle to do it well, but in principle, it could be a gigantic image sensor with no lens but a collimator on each pixel. You can angle the collimators to collect rays that would otherwise end up at the far-away camera.

Also, satellites photographing the Earth do it by moving the camera, and they can produce compression effects beyond what you'd get just because of their distance.
by JohnTHaller | 2025-09-13 23:03:57+00:00
Folks are added to the "Professor Watchlist" for everything ranging from being critical of Trump/MAGA to discussing institutional racism through the United States' history. Folks who wind up on the list routinely get harassed in person, online, and via direct calls/emails with racist and misogynist slurs as well as rape and death threats by Turning Point's followers.
by strnisa | 2025-09-13 23:04:23+00:00
The primary objective of the max-owed limit is to cap per-customer risk.

If you are suggesting that the max-owed limit is actually N×X, then that would multiply worst-case exposure by N, which is undesirable.

If you are suggesting that we charge the customer when they owe X while their max-owed limit is N×X, this would be worse for the customer, since they would pay `N × (X × variable_rate_fee + fixed_rate_fee)` instead of `N×X×variable_rate_fee + fixed_rate_fee` in payment processing fees.
by shoo | 2025-09-13 23:04:32+00:00
Agreed - adaptability to changing requirements is a very strong advantage for real-world work.

The first attempt to formalise some practical problem into a mathematical optimisation problem is often not quite right. You discover new things that change the problem statement after reviewing example solutions with experts who exclaim "that solution couldn't possibly work, because <discovery of additional requirements>".

A neat dynamic programming solution is a glorious thing, but dynamic programming relies on a mathematical problem with some elegant recursive substructure that you can exploit. Sometimes such elegant recursive substructure is going to be broken by additional requirements or side constraints that you discover during the project -- so the real valuable problem you actually need to solve has no such substructure, and you need to throw out your dynamic programming approach and go back to a blank sheet of paper to design a viable attack on the real valuable messy problem.

For lower-risk delivery of useful outcomes, it probably makes the most sense to use general purpose flexible black box solvers like constraint or MIP solvers early in the project, and focus efforts on rapidly discovering and extracting all the requirements, so you zero in on the real problem quicker. You don't want to prematurely invest a lot of time and effort building a highly efficient bespoke elegant solution to the wrong problem, then discover a month before a delivery deadline that everything needs to be thrown out.
by wewewedxfgdf | 2025-09-13 23:04:34+00:00
>> Is there somehow a glaring vulnerability/missed opportunity in modern capitalism that billions of people somehow haven't discovered yet?

Absolutely with 150% certainty yes, and probably many. The www started April 30, 1993, facebook started February 4, 2004 - more than ten years until someone really worked out how to use the web as a social connection machine - an idea now so obvious in hindsight that everyone probably assumes we always knew it. That idea was simply left lying around for anyone to pick up and implement rally fropm day one of the WWW. Innovation isn't obvious until it arrives. So yes absolutely the are many glaring opportunities in modern capitalism upon which great fortunes are yet to be made, and in many cases by little people, not big companies.

>> if so, is a random startup founder or 'little guy' going to be the one to discover and exploit it somehow? If so, why wouldn't OpenAI or Anthropic etc get there first given their resources and early access to leading technology?

I don't agree with your suggestion that the existing big guys always make the innovations and collect the treasure.

Why did Zuckerberg make facebook, not Microsoft or Google?

Why did Gates make Microsoft, not IBM?

Why did Steve and Steve make Apple, not Hewlett Packard?

Why did Brin and Page make Google - the worlds biggest advertising machine, not Murdoch?
by Spivak | 2025-09-13 23:04:56+00:00
I think we should operate on the premise that no society in the history of humanity has tolerated dissent and none ever will. So treating the symptom is all we can do. It's the basis of why privacy is necessary in any respect.

The rational tolerant society you imagine is so far fetched we don't even pretend it can exist even in fantasies.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-09-13 23:05:13+00:00
The "infinite surge in mobility" phenomenon only occurs if we model countries as infinite sources / sinks of people, and assume population movement has no impact on either country. Given both of these assumptions, the predicted phenomenon wouldn't cause any problems. Of course, neither assumption holds in real life; and if you re-do your models with more sensible assumptions, the phenomenon goes away.
by pedalpete | 2025-09-13 23:05:35+00:00
This seems fairly obvious on the surface, the relationship between sleep and cognitive decline have been "known" for a long time.

However, saying Apnea or insomnia increase the risk of dementia ignores the fact that apnea and chronic insomnia (not transitory) decrease the restorative function of sleep. That's what we need to be focused on.

I'm not saying people with chronic insomnia should ignore these issues, but the cognitive response to CPAP is inconclusive[1].

As the co-founder and CEO of https://affectablesleep.com, I'll admit I'm biased, as we focus on enhancing the restorative function of sleep, which we believe should be the primary focus of sleep health, not "how long did you sleep".

[1] https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/47/12/zsae161/7712690
by analognoise | 2025-09-13 23:05:51+00:00
We don’t have a moral or civil society anyway; we can’t even prosecute Trumps numerous illegal actions (even when convicted!). Can’t get the Epstein files. Can’t even point out Charlie Kirk was not a great person (while politicians said nothing about the school shooting the same day), and where it’s legal to kill 40,000 of us a year due to poor medical coverage so we can prop up the stock.

I’m not sure, given the moral dystopia we currently inhabit, what positive benefit would accrue from removing online anonymity?
by Theodores | 2025-09-13 23:06:17+00:00
I wish to quibble with you on this as there is a love/hate relationship between the conventional media and social media.

The mainstream media have several sources, including the press releases that get sent to them, the newswires they get their main news from and social media.

In the UK the press, in particular, the BBC, were early adopters of Twitter. Most of the population would not have heard of it had it not been for the journalists at the BBC. The journalists thought it was the best thing since the invention of the printing press. Latterly Instagram has become an equally useful source to them and, since Twitter became X, there is less copying and pasting tweets.

The current U.S. President seems capable of dictatorship via social media, so following his messages on social media is what the press do. I doubt any journalist has been on whitehouse.gov for a long time, the regular web and regular sources have been demoted.