MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by FrankWilhoit | 2025-11-05 23:47:09+00:00
So, pop it! Go into a bank -- any bank that is big enough to be busy but not big enough to have too many bouncers -- go up to a teller window and start pounding the counter and shouting "I want my money! Where is my money? What have you done with my money?" You might get arrested, but you'll pop the bubble, all right.
by FloorEgg | 2025-11-05 23:48:04+00:00
Satisfaction is reality minus expectations.

"Smart" tends to be used such that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).

Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on what is within our control (our own perceptions and actions).

Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.

Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
by tguvot | 2025-11-05 23:48:33+00:00
when i used pods, i had open box under counter. i could with literally closed eyes to take one and put it in machine without looking. using spoon involves more actions and there are chance that some of the powder will end up on floor/inside cabinet/etc.

now i use cartridge like this that is replaced once in 3 weeks https://www.mieleusa.com/c/powerdisk-automatic-dishwasher-de...

it's even more convenient.
by Findecanor | 2025-11-05 23:48:58+00:00
If we compensate for physical factors such as blood sugar, hemoglobin, pollution etc. and stress factors that disrupt concentration, I believe that we have all the same potential to train ourselves to be good at things that are called "smart". But they are just that: what people recognise as being smart.

As to stupidity... That is not a trait. That is not on a scale. That is a lifestyle choice — because it makes life easier.
by degamad | 2025-11-05 23:48:59+00:00
You've hit on the relevant distinction: user context vs system context.

I use containers to separate system context (partitioning cookies and site data) while remaining in the same user context (e.g. "personal browsing").

I use profiles for when I need different user contexts (different bookmarks and frequently used sites for different clients or projects).

When only one tool is available, you are limited by the constraints of that tool (e.g. bookmarks bleeding over between user contexts when using containers, or having to copy extensions or bookmarks into every profile).
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-11-05 23:49:48+00:00
> whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality

By your hypothesis people who are poor, at the bottom of society, and told that they have no chance in life are the most happy ones.

Additionally, it imples that a great way to make people happy is to brainwash them all the time that they have no chance in life, and additionally suppress them so that their expectations match their reality.

This whole idea feels deeply wrong and dystopian to me.
by buu700 | 2025-11-05 23:50:24+00:00
Aside from AI skepticism, I think a lot of it likely comes from low expectations of what the broader population would get out of it. Writing, reading comprehension, critical thinking, and LLM-fu may be skills that come naturally to many of us, but at the same time many others who "do their own research" also fall into rabbit holes and arrive at wacky conclusions like flat-Eartherism.

I don't agree with the idea that "we need rules to make people use the worse option" — contrary to prevailing political opinion, I believe people should be free to make their own mistakes — but I wouldn't necessarily rush to advocate that everyone start using current-gen AI for important research either. It's easy to imagine that an average user might lead the AI toward a preconceived false conclusion or latch onto one particular low-probability possibility presented by the AI, badger it into affirming a specific answer while grinding down its context window, and then accept that answer uncritically while unknowingly neglecting or exacerbating a serious medical or legal issue.
by Induane | 2025-11-05 23:50:34+00:00
It might be the case that the nuance is insufficient (false dichotomy).

Suppose someone asks the [emotionally loaded] question:

"Is abortion wrong?"

Technically this is a yes or no question; a binary.

One can quite easily answer that it depends, and then all the nuances can try to be enumerated in more detail. The fact is that the information presented was not actually nuanced enough to answer yes or no despite being worded as such.

You performed some similar gymnastics here. You assume it must be the case that it is one or the other when it may not be. Maybe meaning is local. Maybe it is real but subjective. Maybe it isn't a meaningful term (lol). Maybe it contains an intrinsic paradox!

A perhaps alternative question might be: "What is it that wishes to know the answer to that question?"

Figuring that out might be a necessary prerequisite.
by FloorEgg | 2025-11-05 23:50:41+00:00
Satisfaction is reality minus expectations.

"Smart" tends to be used in a way that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).

Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on the parts of our reality that are within our control (our own perceptions and actions).

Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.

Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
by ThrowMeAway1618 | 2025-11-05 23:50:43+00:00
>> You're talking out of your ass

>You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to.

Fair enough.

>> You are ignorant of both >You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to.

Would "the facts don't support your assertions in either case." be more acceptable? Or is noting a lack of knowledge in any way unacceptable?

I'm not trying to be snarky here. I just want to make sure I don't run afoul of the guidelines and make more work for you and the other already over-worked moderators.

Thanks!
by Blackthorn | 2025-11-05 23:50:55+00:00
We attempted an experiment in our own dishwasher after the video, trying Cascade Platinum boxed powder (only stuff available here) and Cascade Platinum Plus pods (which we had been using before). The experiment showed that, for our dishwasher and our water, the pods just worked significantly better. The main difference was in the silverware (tiny bits would occasionally be left with the powder).

A couple of months into the experiment with the powder, the dishwasher started to smell a bit foul, which usually indicates time to clean the filters, which I did. But this happened vastly sooner than I was used to with the pods.

Even if the powder's performance sucks intentionally because Cascade made it worse now, as a sibling comment suggested, ultimately that's the only powder option still available here.
by mythrwy | 2025-11-05 23:50:59+00:00
Indeed is is very easy to lead the LLM to the answer, often without realizing you are doing so.

I had a long ongoing discussion about possible alternate career paths with ChatGPT in several threads. At that point it was well aware of my education and skills, had helped clean up resumes, knew my goals, experience and all that.

So I said maybe I'll look at doing X. "Now you are thinking clearly! This is a really good fit for your skill set! If you want I can provide a checklist.". I'm just tossing around ideas but look, GPT says I can do this and it's a good fit!

After 3 idea pivots I started getting a little suspicious. So I try to think of the thing I am least qualified to do in the world and came up with "Design Women's Dresses". I wrote up all the reasons that might be a good pivot (i.e. Past experience with landscape design and it's the same idea, you reveal certain elements seductively but not all at once, matching color palettes, textures etc). Of course GPT says "Now you are really thinking clearly! You could 100% do this! If you want I can start making a list of what you will need to produce you first custom dresses". It was funny but also a bit alarming.

These tools are great. Don't take them too seriously, you can make them say a lot of things with great conviction. It's mostly just you talking to yourself in my opinion.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-11-05 23:51:14+00:00
> I have to disagree. In a very real sense, the residents of a political entity are the stakeholders within that political boundary and, at least in a democratic (small 'd') society, those stakeholders are, in fact, the owner/shareholders of that political entity.

That still doesn’t mean it makes sense to categorize government income as “profit” (for the purposes of this discussion trying to discern whether or not NH taxes alcohol).

Governments and businesses have (or are supposed to have) different priorities, and are (theoretically) structured so that in exchange for the government being given a monopoly on violence for those who don’t pay, the government (ideally) is working towards providing services that benefit all of society, for the long term.

The New Hampshire government’s website linked above even states:

> $146m Annual Contribution To The General Fund

What difference does it make if the tax is not separated out like alcohol taxes in most other states? The bottom line is New Hampshire could be selling alcohol for less, but it chooses not to in order to use the extra money to fund government services. That is a tax.
by borroka | 2025-11-05 23:51:46+00:00
I add that most problems are solved, assuming possessing the average (maybe even sub-average) intelligence needed to execute on them.

Think about weight loss: it's a solved problem, except in extremely rare cases of particular pathologies. Or think about being more attractive to the people we want to attract.

But you can't help but notice that the smartest people are the ones who invoke the laws of thermodynamics and the problems that arise from them, that a calorie is not a calorie in humans, for example, instead of simply eating less, as many less intelligent people intuitively know they should do, and do.

The most intelligent are those who refer to the findings of evolutionary biology, or to largely irrelevant social trends and mores, when pondering why they cannot get laid, instead of working to be more assertive, confident, outgoing, and fit, as the less intelligent are more likely to do, without thinking about it too much.

Or the endless conversations and debates, mostly online because in real life basically nobody cares, about God and religion and atheism, leading, as usual, to nowhere, while the less intelligent intuitively believe or not and that works for them.

As usual, there are selection effects at play, and we notice what we want to notice, ignoring, for the most part, other portions of the distribution of outcomes.

Nowadays, it is fashionable to say "you can just do things". And what some of the intelligent people miss is that they can just be happy. "But how can I be happy if nobody looks at me?" -- See above.
by macinjosh | 2025-11-05 23:52:41+00:00
Having the cleanest dishes is not always the optimization one is looking for.

I like pods because there is less of a chance my clumsy self, or younger kids can accidentally spill costly soap for my dog to try to lick up or overfill the dispenser. My dishes are almost never caked in fats and oils when I put them in. I do not use a pre-wash. If I do I break a pod in half and toss in the bottom.

This guy makes me roll my eyes. There is nothing more exhausting than a self-assured YouTuber lecturing others as if he has all the right answers. He is not wrong per se but not everyone has their own preferences and needs.
by FredPret | 2025-11-05 23:53:07+00:00
But the multi-pod strategy means you can give the machine soap to use in various cycles. Put some in the little flap, and some just in with the dishes.

I'm not sure if my machine even has a hardness marking, but when I used liquid dishwasher soap, I simply filled up the compartment every time.

As to the cost, yes it's 3X, but if you're reading this and you have a Costco membership, it's still a rounding error.

Pods just make life simpler and cleaner (no messy powders and gunky liquids in the soap cabinet), which is why I even have a dishwasher in the first place.
by jjk166 | 2025-11-05 23:53:24+00:00
> demanding citations is the favorite trick of people who want to waste your time precisely because they disagree with you and no matter what you come up with, they'll never give in. therefore, one should never give in to it.

That's incredibly dumb.

First, unless you are making a baseless claim, you have supposedly already done the research, so presenting evidence of your claim ought to not be any more of a burden on your time than making the claim was.

Second, you don't need the other party to accept the evidence you present, particularly if they are disagreeing in bad faith. No one can use the "asking for evidence" trick if you have presented the evidence.

Third, which is more efficient: having one person who made the claim present the evidence to back it up, or to make every single person who comes across the claim look up the evidence independently? Making baseless claims wastes everyone's time (and coincidentally is the actual favorite trick of those who want to waste your time because they disagree with you).

Fourth, if you give up on doing things you ought to because you're worried there will continue to be assholes on the internet afterwards, you'll never do much of anything at all.

Fifth, which type of comment do you prefer to read: the one that makes a claim without evidence which maybe you'll double check at some point if you have time, or the one that quickly gives you the evidence right there? Write the type of comments you like to read.
by mapcars | 2025-11-05 23:54:11+00:00
> The rules aren’t stable: what makes you happy may make me miserable

Thats not true, and so all the conclusions article makes. Happiness and all other human experiences have chemical base to them, its just unconsciously people create these experiences based on their memories and background.

There are ways, explored in the easter spiritual traditions, to create any sort of experiences by taking charge of certain processes in the body. There are records of people sitting in caves and experiencing states of utter blissfulness that the richest and most powerful will never know.
by mrandish | 2025-11-05 23:54:31+00:00
256 colors? VGA?

Bah! You kids with your newfangled graphics modes. 320 x 200 CGA and 16 colors is more than enough. See the linked "8088 MPH" video for proof: https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break-al...
by anyfoo | 2025-11-05 23:54:45+00:00
By that logic, "How does loved one dying affect different type of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for 'loss of a loved one'".

If you have depression or another condition affecting your affect and your emotions, sure. Otherwise it's pretty obvious to anyone that concepts on orders of magnitude higher levels than hormones being correlated with happiness, or if you prefer, those concepts having a significant effect on the overall action of those hormones.
by sarchertech | 2025-11-05 23:55:29+00:00
What’s illegal is practicing medicine. Giving medical advice can be “practicing medicine” depending on how specific it is and whether a reasonable person receiving the advice thinks you have medical training.

Disclaimers like “I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice” aren’t just for avoiding civil liability, they’re to make it clear that you aren’t representing yourself as a doctor.
by tzs | 2025-11-05 23:55:38+00:00
A good example of the difference it can make was the Flight 191 crash in Chicago in in 1979, which had an engine come off on takeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

The engine coming completely off tore through hydraulic lines, which were need to keep the slats extended. Airflow forced the slats to retract.

Here's what then happened:

> As the aircraft had reached V1, the crew was committed to takeoff, so they followed standard procedures for an engine-out situation. This procedure is to climb at the takeoff safety airspeed (V2) and attitude (angle), as directed by the flight director. The partial electrical power failure, produced by the separation of the left engine, meant that neither the stall warning nor the slat retraction indicator was operative. Therefore, the crew did not know that the slats on the left wing were retracting. This retraction significantly raised the stall speed of the left wing. Thus, flying at the takeoff safety airspeed caused the left wing to stall while the right wing was still producing lift, so the aircraft banked sharply and uncontrollably to the left. Simulator recreations after the accident determined that "had the pilot maintained excess airspeed the accident may not have occurred.
by imiric | 2025-11-05 23:55:54+00:00
> Since it came up in another thread (yes, it's trivial), a function `add` is no easier or harder to test with examples than with PBT

Come on, that example is practically useless for comparing both approaches.

Take a look at the article linked above. The amount of non-trivial code required to setup a PBT should raise an eyebrow, at the very least.

It's quite possible that the value of such a test outweighs the complexity overhead, and that implementing all the test variations with EBT would be infeasible, but choosing one strategy over the other should be a conscious decision made by the team.

So as much as you're painting PBT in a positive light, I don't see it that clearly. I think that PBT covers certain scenarios better than EBT, while EBT can be sufficient for a wide variety of tests, and be simpler overall.

But again, I haven't actually written PBTs myself. I'm just going by the docs and articles mentioned here.
by uberduper | 2025-11-05 23:56:22+00:00
If I'm smart, I certainly don't feel like it.

I can tell you I do not enjoy thinking. I hate it. It is a compulsion that I cannot avoid. I know that it makes most interactions in my life more difficult. I know it's a source of unhappiness. I cannot stop thinking.

I want to do. Not think. I fail to do. I think about failure.
by ineedasername | 2025-11-05 23:56:26+00:00
Prediction: there will be a huge demand for apps that have at least a baseline of functionality that is TUI enabled, preferably feature complete.

Why? Token in & out inference cost. Heck of a lot cheaper to use an LLM than a vision model for something like automating apps, or enabling your app to be agent-friendly at a low cost.
by blurbleblurble | 2025-11-05 23:56:31+00:00
Okay but how are people using it? It can so easily be misused: it's a signalling hormone that resets the phase alignment of the circadian rhythm. Yet so many people just eat it randomly like a sleeping pill. That's bound to be damaging in the long term. It shouldn't be necessary to take it every single night. If you're having trouble sleeping every single night, you've got other issues. Maybe you're stressed out by the world you live in. Maybe it means you're taxing your central nervous system, throttling it constantly. You need to go around the glutamate–glutamine cycle more often than you can sustain. There are metabolic costs to doing this. Maybe you've been eating food from soil devoid of minerals like magnesium, a critical cofactor in the glutamate-glutamine cycle. In fact people struggling with chronic stress have been shown to be statistically more likely to be insufficient or deficient in magnesium.

But you take melatonin because nobody wants to tell you all this. And you take it at random times thereby fucking up your circadian rhythm even worse.

Don't get me started on vitamin D and how that's _also_ a circadian phase signaller, but how I never see those big flashy press releases about whether or not vitamin D is good or bad ever go into this.

Why do I have so little faith that they controlled for timing in the study?
by mapcars | 2025-11-05 23:56:43+00:00
> It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)

Thats absolutely wrong and this is the reason why nothing works and being happy became and endless quest in the western culture.

In the eastern spiritual tradition they found the exact ways of managing body, mind, emotions and energy to reach highest peaks of bliss and ecstasy, and I speak from my own experience, its possible to feel so good that no amount of money, relationships, fame, power, whatever other things you can imagine will make you ever feel.

Because the real thing is happening inside, all the outside things you use to try to provoke inner experience, but it only works for a little bit.

Here its explained in a better way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY5l0k6BTvc
by lobochrome | 2025-11-05 23:57:29+00:00
KPIism is the death knell of modern society. In the 90s and 2000s this mantra of "measure and improve" took hold like a virus. It is in all instances I observe a rats race where everybody just starts to look for the cheat-codes instead of "doing-the-right-thing".

Arguably America is the pinnacle of this right now, where (many) politicians and (many) business leaders now feel justified do whatever's legal just to score points. I would argue this type of thinking was birthed in the UK though under Thatcher who as a first step removed the general trust in (civil servants in her case) your fellow human beings. Blair then came up to replace that trust with KPIs.

We need to get back to a world where we trust people to do the right thing - without measuring their success in short-term KPIs.
by brikym | 2025-11-05 23:58:19+00:00
The same thing happened here in NZ with AWS. The job creation stories is almost always bullshit. Down here in NZ the govt subsidizes an aluminium smelter which uses 13% of the national electricity just to provide 3,000 jobs. In the media headlines 3,000 jobs seems quite measurable and impactful compared to many customers overpaying for electricity by an mysterious undetermined amount. It's obvious which way the politicians are going to lean.
by dylan604 | 2025-11-05 23:59:05+00:00
What are the odds individuals learn their data has been found. What kind of damages could be awarded that would make hiring a lawyer and giving them 50% of winnings a worth while effort? I could also easily see individual cases combining to become class action reducing the winnings even further.

In other words, I find this a silly suggestion as it's just never going to work in the real world.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-11-05 23:59:14+00:00
I am confused by this comment about HIV/AIDS. Is it cynical? Are you confused why we have not "cured" HIV? I grew up during the AIDS Crisis. It was awful. People were dropping like flies. Today, you can be "technically" HIV positive, but test negative, give birth to HIV-negative children, and have unprotected sex (and not infect your partner). As far as I am concerned, the battle has been won. It is a miracle in my eyes.
by layer8 | 2025-11-05 23:59:25+00:00
Wikipedia claims that it originated in Lisp, and the oldest reference I can find is this from 1991: https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/LispGoodNewsBadNews.pdf (section 1.6.3)

In any case, before the JavaScript usage, it seems that treeshaking applied to objects to be included in a runtime image. The JavaScript usage is actually more akin to the dead-code elimination and link-time symbol removal of compiled and linked languages.