MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dpark | 2025-12-16 17:07:15+00:00
> I'm not sure why you are drawing a parallel to a good doctor that smokes.

Presumably because it is very analogous. You are essentially saying Dr. Mike shouldn’t be trusted because he made a bad decision. That is extremely similar to saying you shouldn’t trust a doctor’s advice because they happen to smoke.

> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

No. An ad hominem is when the person is attacked rather than the argument. A terrible person can still make a perfectly sound argument. Calling them terrible doesn’t change the argument, even if it is emotionally satisfying.

> I wrote specifically about him not being at the forefront and questioning his values, as displayed by his actions during the pandemic.

You’re attacking his actions and not his recommendations. Ad hominem.
by isacdaavid | 2025-12-16 17:07:19+00:00
If you actually read their paper, you will find that it's only the sign of the correlation that is being questioned. The field has generally been aware of this interpretational gap, and that's why two-sided hypothesis tests are important. Cellular neuroscience and electrophysiology are only starting to face the challenges that fMRI faced 2 decades ago.

To me this is like shitting on cars in 1925 because they kill people every now and then. Cars didn't go away, and nor will fMRI, until someone finds a better way to measure living people's brains.

TUM's press is being sloppy, from conflating fMRI with MRI to presuming this is revolutionary, and ignoring earlier empirical work against this narrative (Windkessel's, Logothetis beta/gamma coupling, etc.)
by BobaFloutist | 2025-12-16 17:07:34+00:00
It's funny because a central tenet of quantum mechanics, that I find deeply frustrating, is "No determinism, sorry."

So even as you chastise people for shying away from logically concluding the obvious, you're trusting your intuition over the scientific consensus. Which is fine, I've absolutely read theories or claims about quantum mechanics and said "Bullshit," safe in the knowledge that my belief or disbelief won't help or hinder scientific advancement or the operation of the universe, but I'd avoid being so publicly smug about it if I were you.
by ekjhgkejhgk | 2025-12-16 17:07:42+00:00
Yes, in fact I've heard people argue the opposite point, that EU benefits Germany more than the rest of the EU countries. The argument starts from Germany being more competitive than most EU countries. Protection from external trade is usually needed so that an industry can home brew and reach competitive or almost-competitive state, and trade barriers are then removed to keep improving against competition. But with competition in place you can't go from zero to one in established industries. The result, the argument goes, is that Germany ends up owning entire industries within the EU.

But some people cannot conceive that some arrangements can be win-win.
by danudey | 2025-12-16 17:07:47+00:00
> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize.

This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang).

> So for me the less entrenched Rust remains the more ability I keep to work on the software I use.

For me, the more entrenched Rust becomes the more ability I gain to work on the software I use.

> if Rust is going to continue entrenching itself in the open source software that is widely in use, it should at least be able to be compiled with by the mainline GPL compiler used and utilized by the open source community

I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those. Unless you somehow think that using Clang/LLVM could lead to Rust becoming closed-source (or requiring closed-source tools), which is almost impossible to imagine, the benefits of using LLVM outweigh the drawbacks dramatically.

> A piece of software, open source, written in Rust is equivalent to proprietary software from my perspective.

This just sounds like 'not invented here syndrome'. Your refusal to learn new things does not reflect badly on Rust as a technology or on projects adopting it, it reflects on you. If you don't want to learn new things then that's fine, but don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust.

> I will always prefer software I can control/edit/hack on as the key portions of my stack

You can control/edit/hack on Rust code, you just don't want to.

To be blunt, you're coming across as an old fogey who's set in his ways and doesn't want to learn anything new and doesn't want anything to change. "Everything was fine in my day, why is there all this new fangled stuff?" That's all fine, of course, you don't need to change or learn new things, but I don't understand the mindset of someone who wouldn't want to.
by D-Machine | 2025-12-16 17:08:23+00:00
Yes, well "almost all" is vague and needs to be qualified. Sample sizes have improved over the past decade for sure. I'm not sure if they have grown on median meaningfully, because there are still way too many low-N studies, but you do see studies now that are at least plausibly "large enough" more frequently. More open data has also helped here.

EDIT: And kudos to you and your advisor here.

EDIT2: I will also say that a lot of the research on fMRI methods is very solid and often quite reproducible. I.e. papers that pioneer new analytic methods and/or investigate pipelines and such. There is definitely a lot of fMRI research telling us a lot of interesting and likely reliable things about fMRI, but there is very little fMRI research that is telling us anything reliably generalizable about people or cognition.
by hermitcrab | 2025-12-16 17:08:28+00:00
“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” David Graeber

I guess the problem is scale. A system based on altruism, trust and reciprocity might work great for a community of 20 people. But it doesn't scale to millions of people. Consequently, we end up with (in the West) various shades of democracy, "the least bad system". However, democracy doesn't work well when a tiny fabulously-rich elite is able to buy up all the media and a sizeable chunk of the politicians.
by leosanchez | 2025-12-16 17:08:31+00:00
> Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital).

Globalization benefits capital in rich countries and labor in poor countries. As someone who is from a poor and corrupt country, I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization.

I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries.

Edit: Ironically your comment is also waaaay too black and white.
by yetihehe | 2025-12-16 17:08:47+00:00
> 2 m2 panel makes about 500w

It receives around 2.5kW[0] of energy (in orbit), of which it converts 500W to electric energy, some small amount is reflected and the rest ends up as heat, so use 1kW/m^2 as your input value.

> If we run the radiators at 80C (a reasonable temp for silicon), that's about 350K, assuming the outside is 0K which makes the radiator be able to radiate away about 1500W, so roughly double.

1500W for 2m^2 is less than 2000kW, so your panel will heat up.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/solar-radia...
by zamadatix | 2025-12-16 17:09:17+00:00
I've found it a bit like "what car did you drive in to work with today" in that any typical current and working car is not going to be a stark difference to a high end car in terms of how fast you get there... but you'd definitely notice a piece of crap with a donut, broken heating, and screeching brakes causing you problems if that's what you were comparing instead.

I.e. I can count the number of times I said "wow, uBO Lite didn't make this site usable but loading up Firefox with uBO and it worked fine" on one hand. At the same time, if I ever look and compare how much is actually getting blocked, uBO is definitely blocking way more. Doing a side by side compare of dozens of sites it becomes easier to see minor differences I wouldn't otherwise have noted, but may not have mattered as much.
by intended | 2025-12-16 17:09:27+00:00
If you know what goes into the making of good photos, or good art, you can make out the difference in ability.

If you use GenAI to simply remove effort, then it’s a savings of efficiency, not an expression of ability.

If they used GenAI to create pictures that couldn’t be taken, or to create compositions, novel tableaus or effects - then that is artistic.

I suppose post-modernism may not give a hoot.
by Bender | 2025-12-16 17:09:36+00:00
I included LFTP using mirror+sftp in my example as it is the secure way to give less than trusted people access to files and one can work around the lack of sliding windows by spawning as many TCP flows as one wishes with LFTP. I would love to see SFTP evolve to use sliding windows but for now using it in the data-center or over WAN accelerated links is still fast.

Rsync is great when moving files between trusted systems that one has a shell on but the downside is that rsync can not split up files into multiple streams so there is still a limit based on source+dest buffer+rtt and one has to provide people a shell or add some clunky way to prevent a shell by using wrappers unless using native rsync port 873 which is not encrypted. Some people break up jobs on the client side and spawn multiple rsync jobs in the background. It appears that openrsync is still very much work in progress.

SCP is being or has been deprecated but the binaries still exist for now. People will have to hold onto old binaries and should probably static compile them as the linked libraries will likely go away at some point.
by thesuitonym | 2025-12-16 17:09:46+00:00
I don't know that a partnership with Kagi is the move, as great as the two work for me. The last thing you want users to see when starting up a new browser is a paywall. It would be rad to see Firefox treat Kagi as a first-class citizen, but I think a true partnership would be detrimental to both.

Agree with you on everything else, though.
by dangus | 2025-12-16 17:09:48+00:00
Unironically, yes.

Again, focus on thinking about direct and noticeable impact to the lives of the masses, who are largely entirely disconnected or very casually attached to the political discourse. As you pointed out by implication, activists are a small portion of the overall population.

Roe v. Wade is an issue that has theoretical impact to most women from a statistical standpoint. Yes, the destruction of those rights is infuriating, but only if you’re actively paying attention to politics and/or actively trying to get an abortion. And even then, if you live in a large collection of high population blue states, the ruling being reversed didn’t actually change anything for you. Californians, New Yorkers, and Illinoisans didn’t lose any abortion rights.

Most women will never get an abortion. It’s an important political issue but also one that doesn’t impact most people.

59% of adults under the age of 30 use TikTok. 1/3 of all adults use it. Losing that app is a wildly noticeable negative to people’s lives.

The unwashed masses of idiots would see this as “Trump banned TikTok” and wouldn’t know or care that the law comes from congress or any of the other political details.
by marcusb | 2025-12-16 17:09:48+00:00
False equivalence. In your straw man, the elephant isn't misled into believing that by posing for a photo it could be "helped," nor is it possible to communicate such an idea to an elephant. In the story, money was raised for the boy's cancer treatment, and that money was improperly withheld, denying him the treatment those funds could have provided. He was harmed by that, and by being misled into thinking he could get treatment by appearing in the video, he was scammed. Lying to the family and stating the funds weren't raised is also scamming them.

But, of course, you know that, but you would rather dig and (try to) play semantic games than admit you are wrong. Do better.
by danaris | 2025-12-16 17:10:11+00:00
This is flat-out false.

For reference:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits.

(Emphasis added.)
by glenstein | 2025-12-16 17:10:18+00:00
Right and to your point, there's not a whole lot of precedent for browsers successfully funding themselves when the browser itself is the primary product.

Opera was the lightweight high performance extension rich, diversely funded, portable, adapted to niche hardware, early to mobile browser practically built from the dreams of niche users who want customization and privacy. They're a perfect natural experiment for what it looks like to get most, if not all decisions right in terms of both of features users want, as well as creative attempts to diversify revenue. But unfortunately, by the same token also the perfect refutation of the fantasy that making the right decisions means you have a path to revenue. If that was how it worked, Opera would be a trillion dollar company right now.

But it didn't work because the economics of web browsers basically doesn't exist. You have to be a trillion dollar company already, and dominate distribution of a given platform and force preload your browser.

Browsers are practically full scale operating systems these days with tens of millions of lines of code, distribued for free. Donations don't work, paying for the browser doesn't work. If it did, Opera (the og Opera, not the new ownership they got sold to) would still be here.
Show HN: Demo Scope – Mobile screen recorder with face cam and touch indicators
by admtal | 2025-12-16 17:10:22+00:00
I built this because I couldn’t find it.

Wanted to record demos of my web game with my face on screen. iOS screen recording doesn’t do face cam. Loom is desktop only. OBS is a whole thing.

So I made Demo Scope.

Load any mobile site in the built-in browser, hit record. Face cam is draggable and resizable. Touch indicators show every tap. Also does streaming, annotations, and narration over videos/photos from camera roll.

Free to try. $9.99 one-time. No subscription.

Marketing site: https://demoscope.app

App Store: https://apps.apple.com/app/demo-scope/id6755395174

Would love feedback.
by yupyupyups | 2025-12-16 17:10:33+00:00
In a liberal context, marriage means nothing except for being a symbol of a union between two people. But all rules, obligations and rights that make marriage a meaningful institution are rooted in religion, and are hence not always respected outside of religion.

You could argue that there are laws that only apply to married couples, and that THAT brings meaning to marriage. But:

Firstly, generally speaking, even the most important features of a marriage are not protected by law, most notably: fidelity. So the law is disjoint from what's traditionally considered to be obligations within marriage. That leaves the legal definition at the whims of contemporary polititians. Therefore, law cannot assign the word "marriage" any consistent meaning throughout time.

Secondly, to my limited knowledge, the line between a married couple and two people living together is increasingly getting blurred by laws that apply marriage legal obligations even to non-married couples if they have lived together for long enough. It suggests that law-makers do not consider a ceremony and a "marriage" announcement to be what should really activate these laws, but rather other factors. Although, they seem to acknowledge that an announcement of a marriage implies the factors needed to activate these laws. If that makes sense...

So marriage is inherently a religious institution that in a religious context comes with rules, obligations and rights. Hence why people who take religion seriously will find it offensive that somebody that completely disregards these rules calls themselves married.
by patcon | 2025-12-16 17:10:57+00:00
Love this framing

I like it because it makes it clear that the boundaries of those stable structures are what encode the world model that encompasses the future. Conscious systems just decode the boundaries of these recursive structures.

Corollary: LLMs aren't smart, they're just recursive structures (differently recursive than our minds) that can decode the boundary we store in language the recursion of language...? [2][3]

---

My semi-related crackpot theory (informed by some pending unpublished research involving Yakir Aharonov and Michael Levin) is that fundamentally, the structures of consciousness are just the result of thermodynamic evolution finding a way to emulate quantum effects at the macro scale: assuming Aharonov's two-state vector formalism[3] holds some truth, the quantum present is formed by a particle arriving from the past and future. Cross your eyes, and consciousness sure looks a lot like time travel, or information arriving from the future.

Aka consciousness is just a roundabout way to create an emulation layer for quantum effects.

[1]: http://sohl-dickstein.github.io/2024/02/12/fractal.html

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46191597

[3]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226852316
by WorldMaker | 2025-12-16 17:11:04+00:00
It might have been affected by the driving mode you were in?

For instance, one pedal modes (across manufacturers) tend to much highly favor regenerative breaking over friction brakes. Of the models I've driven such modes often seem to give you better feedback in the sweet spots of the pedal curve when you are just rolling and not braking/accelerating.

Additionally, in my experience rental cars are more likely to be in sports modes when you pick them up (I think some of the rental car places may even do this as policy to make customers happier when they rent them?), and down shifting them to more balanced energy modes (Ford's is called "Engage") can mean a huge difference in practical range.
by Draiken | 2025-12-16 17:11:08+00:00
I think Occam's razor explains this: the majority of people are incompetent.

People get to positions of power through many means and very few of those are related to competence. Be it nepotism, boot licking, friendship, inheritance, people failing upwards or just plain luck, these all lead to the same result: incompetent people making decisions.

Add to that the fact that it's very easy to hide incompetency in large organizations and we have the perfect recipe for these kinds of disasters.

Even on small organizations this is common. I've seen plenty of incompetent people getting funding for startups making all the wrong decisions. They're good at selling some BS to investors and that's about it, but now they're at the helm of an organization with people under them. Another good example is people opening businesses from their successes in other areas (I made money here, now let me open a restaurant with zero experience in this industry) or even out of their parent's pockets.

Incompetence is almost always the culprit.
by rootusrootus | 2025-12-16 17:11:28+00:00
They have a patent for a range extender under the bed, behind the axle. Which I guess could work, depending on how big an engine it needs to be. By my math it probably needs to make around 50hp, though for towing maybe double that. But it doesn't need to be a full size 400hp V6 or anything like that.

If they can throw it under the bed, keep the weight under control, maintain a decently big battery, and not lose the frunk ... then I'll be an optimist about this.

I'm planning to keep mine another 7 years, though, and they only announced the current lighting 4.5 years ago, so a lot can change before I'm in the market again.
by labcomputer | 2025-12-16 17:11:37+00:00
Yes, but you have to go to the FordPro site to find it: https://www.fordpro.com/en-us/fleet-vehicles/all/?vehicle=F-... . Has vinyl manual seats, rubber floor, etc.

You can only get the Lightning from the factory as a super crew with a center console, but some people have converted theirs to a front bench and column shifter for a total of six seats.
by chuchuben | 2025-12-16 17:11:54+00:00
It really depends on the team and organization at large companies. Every org is its own organism with full fledged characteristics. General advice is to stay away from orgs that have heavy offshore brought talent and stay close to the product org. More diversity leads to more politics which is natural outcome because everyone has their own vested interests. Some groups from S.E. Asia promote and protect each other. Same goes when teams have high presence of just white people.
by alwa | 2025-12-16 17:11:58+00:00
As a recent example, Jon Haidt seems to have used this kind of tactic to pull off a coup with the whole kids/smartphones/social media thing [0]. Everybody knew social media tech was corrosive and soul-rotting, but nobody could move individually to stand up against its “inevitability.”

Individual families felt like, if they took away or postponed their kids’ phones, their kid would be left out and ostracized—which was probably true as long as all the other kids had them. And if a group of families or a school wanted to coordinate on something different, they’d have to 1) be ok with seeming “backwards,” and 2) squabble about how specifically to operationalize the idea.

Haidt framed it as “four simple norms,” which offered specific new Schelling points for families to use as concrete alternatives to “it’s inevitable.” And in shockingly little time, it’s at the point where 26 states have enshrined the ideas into legislation [1].

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/19/jonathan-haidt-on-smartphone...

[1] https://apnews.com/article/cellphones-phones-school-ban-stat...
by seanhunter | 2025-12-16 17:12:05+00:00
The definition of a subsequence is if you have a(n) as a sequence of real numbers and n_1 < n_2 <n_3 < ... is an increasing sequence of integers then

a(n_1), a(n_2), a(n_3), ... is a subsequence of a_n and is denoted a(n_k).

So the indexes don't need to be contiguous, just increasing.

So in your example 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, ... is a decreasing subsequence.

edit: changed to using function-style notation because the nested subscript notation looks confusing in ascii