skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not?

Cars already have airbags and seatbelts which help a lot for the kind of collisions that would otherwise result in head injuries.

> It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.

I don't see what in their comment could be construed to say that helmets make you much safer regardless of vehicle.

> Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident

Is there a source for this? Should be a randomized A/B test as you mentioned, not just a correlation - wearing a hi-vis jacket or other precautions taken more often in dangerous situations probably also correlate with accidents.

Even if helmets do cause accidents through increased carelessness, some may still take issue to intentionally making a scenario more dangerous such that people are more careful. It's kind of settling for a local minimum, rather than aiming to reduce inherent risk alongside aligning people's risk estimates to not overestimate the precautions.
The is a price but regulators cap it off. It may not be a good business but a lot of things aren’t a good business if you actually have to pay market wages.
This has been around for several years now at the least
Table saws are deceptively dangerous - because they’re so large and fixed they feel safer than they are.

It’s definitely one of the “think three times and then do it slow and safe” tools in the shop.
This obviously could allow for a widening misalignment on a deeper level than we can easily observe.

I'm curious how this misalignment may manifest for the person's mental and physical health - as well as greater societal health in the long-term. If a person isn't bonding in reciprocal way with others ideally and in-person, and to use or have those people as a "soundboard" or counterweight to themselves.

If they are mostly with their own beliefs or current understandings of things without them being challenged by enough social interaction - then beliefs won't be kept in as much check as otherwise would be, where there's more chance that you'll be around peers that will question or challenge your beliefs on a deeper level; not thinking even anything super nefarious but we learn and organize our own brain/thoughts by talking with others, and how critical thinking is developed.

If using a parasocial relationship as a crutch without realizing it, nor being guided towards not needing it as a crutch, then there's going to be a growing imbalance for the individual and society's function.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with online streaming of games or OnlyFans NSFW content - it becomes a problem when it's more than just entertainment and more of an addiction.
One of my influential childhood memories was realizing that a product labeled 95% Fat Free was probably 5% fat.
> ah yes, the considerable inconvenience part of my comment.

Maybe in suburbia. In cities without insane rents and healthy work/life balances (IE: not NYC), there are often many grocery stores that make regular grocery shopping quite easy. (And rather fresh.)

Also regular grocery shopping means that people aren't loading up carts with 40+ items and in turn need 10 minutes to check out.

Grocery shopping becomes a non-item and promotes healthier inside cooking.
No doubt Pedal Me contractors operating in Dutch cities might choose to not wear a helmet. That'd be fine. But that choice should be left to the contractor, not the company.
>> but when these people are asked whether having kids made them happier they would say yes

This can be quite easily explained by peer pressure - You are expected to treat children as precious little gifts from god, and speaking ill about them makes you look bad in the eyes of your peers.
At global scale, these kinds of things end up mattering a huge amount. This is the basis of Komanoff's "price scales primarily with fleet size" argument. No one remembers that rule, but at planetary scale even seemingly small externalities end up driving costs. Case in point: do you know how many individual anti-wind organizations there are in Germany?
> How do you assign overhead to each activity?

Every business has to deal with this problem, and hospitals have already done so, because they do somehow come up with the amount to charge you.
You invented a problem. SPA team and Spring team have separate responsibilities. Our customers don’t care how it looks beyond ergonomics and functionality. It took us a long time to shift away from “SPA all the things” mentality.
This study is done by the same researcher as the first. I applaud Walker for studying this, but both his studies have a sample size of one cyclist - himself, riding in one area of one country. [He did put a wig on sometimes, so maybe you could say the sample size is 2? ]
Pour one out for all the junior engineers on teams with senior engineers who read this and argue to go back to poorly implemented MPA’s without the engineering talent to drive sensible abstractions.
Rusty Macros – Part 1 – Declarative Macros
And the common response to self checkout is that you are putting a checker out of work. Never mind the fact that most of the shelves are not stocked by store employees, but by distributors. A grocery store is basically a place where the store rents out shelf space to the highest bidder.
> then the policy is unconscionable

Let's say you do an A/B test on this policy and find 15 more people die with the helmet allowed policy, but in the other side, one person died who if they had chosen a helmet they likely wouldn't have. You're saying it is unconscionable to pick the policy where the 15 wouldn't have died?

Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.

Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
I suppose we could do something crazy like, I don't know, moving somewhere cooler?
It is interesting to see the various categories of reactions/objections, which point in different or conflicting directions.

1) The theory that this change reduces overall injury rate is true, therefore this is a good change.

2) The theory is false because of some mistake, or intentionally false, therefor this is a bad change.

3) The theory is true, but nonetheless this is a bad change because there are other factors more important than the injury rate.
> are less likely to be human art concepts than challenges for machines

Counter-example: there was one image I got that was a Gameboy as a concrete brick. That seems like a prompt you’d give DALL-E 2, but it was actually of human creation
> You believe that if the evidence indicates more people would die with the helmets

That ain't what was argued. The commenter above argued that helmets encourage people to take more risks. Even assuming that to be true, the sane answer is to train people to ride safely even when wearing helmets, not to ban helmets.

> it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths

1. "statistical certainty" is an oxymoron.

2. correlation != causation
Ask HN: Are there any good Diff tools for Jupyter Notebooks?
This is one of the biggest pain points of my work - reviewing diffs of Jupyter Notebooks.

Does anyone have any good tools for this that preserve the visuals of the Notebooks.

My approach has always been rendering the files as .py without the cell outputs and comparing which is a big PITA.

Anyone have any advice?
If hydrogen becomes a viable technology I agree it's a game changer to the whole discussion, but today the first pilot program plants are just coming online. It's possible they answer all the open questions that the renewables leave open, I would be delighted if they did.

Today, and in the future if hydrogen hits unforeseen snags, nuclear remains the proven option.
Foreigner living in Berlin. Ticket inspectors are civilized and polite. Altercations and provocations are rare. Given my observations, I will take this news report with a BIG pinch of salt rather than assume discriminatory behaviour.
The first document explains that people who take risks (like riding at high speeds or on a mountain bike) DO wear helmets in the Netherlands. Which is the reason why helmet wearers show up in hospital more often.

The second is a recent paper that applies evenly to people who ride a bike "normally", [From experience: at low speeds on segregated infrastructure at around 15 km/h or so]. My interpretation is that it concludes that wearing a helmet would improve safety for cyclists somewhat; however it would not (currently) be risk-cost-effective according to their measure; and would require intervention to break even.
Conceptual art remains a possibility.
I think they all got water damaged.
But a helmet will help even more. It costs nothing, what is there to reject?
Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged
What do you think the full set looks like?

Once you start adding conditions and context to the heuristic, it starts to look a lot like a Design Pattern.
they aren't intended to protect against cars, only falls, which are more likely to happen around cars

glad I could help out here
Shit. I guess I should remove the flags from my models.

But now how do I tell if a company is a qualified vendor or not? If a user is active and can login.

I could have sworn I just read an article about putting code that's not ready behind a feature flag instead of long running git branches... guess that was a fever dream?
Why do you have the big shopping trip on the weekends?

I have never lived in a suburb in my life, I am maybe 2 minutes walking from a small grocer and 5 from a larger. Still definitely save time (and money) by shopping big biweekly at the large grocer.
It really depends where you live. In some place like the US suburbs where the nearest grocery store is a 10+ min drive away yeah it can be a considerable inconvenience. But when you live in a city centre and it's a couple min detour from your walk home it's not a big deal. You can have fresher produce, fresh meat, breads that don't need to be shelf stable for a week, etc. It doesn't have to be inconvenient and it can bring a lot of advantages.
Commenting to refer in the future.
Getting any combination of flips is one in a billion.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

and

HHTHTHTTTTHTHTHTHTHTHHHTHTHTHTHTH

are equally as likely outcomes.
Most of Musk's politics posting started after Business Insider contacted him about the $250K hush payment to the flight attendant he had harassed. He was setting the scene to portray the coming reputational firestorm as political ax grinding.
Don't take the job. Every occupation has risk. Nobody wants the nanny.
Ask HN: Is GitHub Good for ML?
As part of my job I recently worked on an integration with GitHub and found out there are a lot of "open source" machine learning projects.
Although GitHub is an incredible way to develop software I find there are some obvious shortcoming of using it for open source data science collaboration.

I'd love to hear your thoughts if you agree/disagree.

Main things that are missing from GitHub IMO:

- Uploading, viewing, & reviewing data+models

- CAN'T REVIEW NOTEBOOKS

- Some parts of the workflow like experiment tracking & labeling

(Disclaimer: I'm a developer at DagsHub)
The problems is that cars passing cyclists isn't the only time adverse car-cyclist interactions occur.

I have been T-boned by a driver approaching from the opposite direction, in full daylight with no visual disruptions, when they failed to "look bike" and turned across my lane. They totally did not see me - so they fact I was wearing a helmet did not factor at all into the situation.

I was flipped through the air and landed 10m down the side road on my back. My backpack took the brunt of of the impact but my head still snapped back and hit the ground. The helmet protected my head and prevented what would have at least been a concussion and possibly a fractured skull.

In my 30+ years of regularly cycling on roads, I'd say the majority of close calls I've had have happened in with cars turning out of side streets of with cars turning across my lane from the opposite direction. Those are due to a combination of the following in my perceived order of likelihood:

- the driver checking for cars/buses/trucks and not looking for motorcycles or bicycles
- the driver seeing the cyclist but totally misjudging their speed and assuming they have time to complete their turn in front of the bike
- the driver being as asshole and cutting off the cyclist.

_Maybe_ the cyclist wearing helmet could affect the second scenario. It doesn't affect the first scenario and assholes are assholes regardless of helmet wearing.

I've had less trouble with close/reckless overtaking. It does happen, but it is highly unlike the car driver completely fails to see a cyclist they are overtaking.

Saying helmets reduce rider safety due to one scenario, where the car driver has to see the helmet and thus the cyclist in order to make a more risky overtaking gap judgement call, seems like a massive stretch to me.
I'm not sure that it's an unreasonable thing for humans (or more generally: communal conscious agents) to work this way. Indeed we should probably just accept it for now and make use of the phenomena as the article suggests by connecting people with more details about others in-authority around them.

Once a person knows more (relevant, accurate & truthful) information about another person then they will have a better mental-model of them, and I think that this will often make them feel like the other person could know them in better detail in-response as a person (even though there has only been one direction of information-flow so far).

The error could be huge if the base-assumption is wrong, but if it's not wrong then we could already know some specific details of the other person's mind quite well indeed (meme-complex-detected!).

In certain cases, especially around the description of qualities such as approachability and humility, hearing of these things from a speaker and in particular if they are common with the listener, could reasonably suggest that the speaker might also recognize these same qualities in the listener, and this could imply a possible connection without any bi-directional information transfer needed.
while there is a lot, bikes do not get their own infrastructure everywhere. most likely the street you live on has no bike path. many city streets have bike lanes but not separated from the road

i bet the more useful metrics are length of trip, average speed of the cars around you, and if you need to cross stop signs/intersections. dutch bike trips are often very short and the speed limits are low. you do not share the road with 35mph+ traffic as is common in america. intersections are the place where people get hurt on bikes the most and it’s more likely in american biking you will cross them. this one is where the separate infrastructure really comes in to play
It’s not terribly inconvenient if the store is in walking distance. Especially if work’s in walking distance and the store’s on your way home from work. Or if you work from home. I’ve been in this situation too, it’s really nice. Hit up the store a couple of times a week, get what you need.
I have never ever lived in a suburb and what I am saying is still true. It is simple economies of scale in relation to checking out time, if you go every day you are going to be spending more time than I do amortized over two weeks.
I've never skied with a helmet. Ridiculous. The only thing you can do about the risk of hitting or being hit, is stay home.
> I hired a union shop to build my house

Aren’t most tradespeople self-employed? How do you have a union when you’re the boss?
Personally I'd upgrade that to shopping 'offline' at all.

As a result when I do go to a supermarket myself for something it's not enough to warrant more than a basket, but man is it a nightmare having to actually 'search' for stuff instead of just typing it into a box!
Are you one of the guys who doesn't wear a seat belt due to 1 in a million chance that it might actually not help you?
There is a big asymmetry of effort in these kinds of requests, that are easily mistaken for winning the argument.
Please, defer from adding noise to the discussion by making random jokes
I never said I think wearing a helmet increases risk. I was pointing out their reasoning which many people here seem to be missing.
Thank you! This is exactly what I had in mind. The streaming aspect of MPA pages is a great example of something you can't really do in an SPA. (Although there are hacks: https://jakearchibald.com/2016/fun-hacks-faster-content/)
I feel that way about anything that tries to explain concepts with cartoons. “why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby” as a prime example of something I can’t look at for 5 minutes without wanting to burn it. Yet I know that lots of people are big fans of this approach. So I can only deduce that the world don’t move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some.

Personally, I put The Little Lisper/Schemer on the “Greatest Programming Books Ever” shelf, next to The C Programming Language. I found the style captivating — and insidious. The first time I read it, I thought I was learning a programming language, but it subliminally reprogrammed my brain to see recursion everywhere.
There is, it costs less than 10 minutes per day extra and you get quite a bit of freedom from it and at the same time don't have to figure out every meal in advance and can adapt at the last minute.

Bonus: I don't have to take the car either.
I said that phrase so that people that care know this article was pushed in their opinion section.

Opinion pages don't mean they lie, it means they will use facts to back up an opinion the writer is expressing. Their opinion pages have a slant for sure, but tend to be much on the rails that some other papers.

You are welcome to argue against the point WSJ editorial board (or guest writers, such as the piece I linked) is making on their pages, but outright discounting an argument because of a source is intellectually lazy. Yes, we need to discriminate by source at least some, but that should make us skeptical, not out right reject a point being made.
Oh, I miss del.icio.us - UI / execution / social discovery, all those fantastic finds... :)

I love tagging a lot, but the problem with tagging is that only a handful of software/services use look-up for tag1 AND tag2 (AND tag3...) filtering. It's such a simple concept to filter all used tags based on already selected if I'm making a query using tags. I can not understand how people don't get that without this tagging is more-or-less useless.

Few months ago I discovered Bibsonomy [0,1], which is open-source, written in Java, but far beyond my abilities to deploy it.

I've been using Obsidian for almost two years for my notes exclusively and it's a life changer, but devs do not seem to be interested in implementing this simple filtering mechanism in Tags Pane when working with tags [2], which defies the purpose of using tags extensively (like Del.icio.us allowed).

[0] https://bibsonomy.org

[1] https://bitbucket.org/bibsonomy/bibsonomy/src/master/

[2] https://forum.obsidian.md/t/filter-tags-list-in-tag-pane-whe...
Aren't automatic market makers with yield farming a thing outside crypto? Let's say Uniswap but with USD and GBP. Are those Ponzi schemes as well?
Out of all the people who are vehemently arguing that it is pure idiocy not to wear a helmet, how many of them wear a helmet when driving? I can pretty safely guess that the answer is a big fat zero.

Driving is high risk activity that can lead to severe head injuries. It is even easier to keep a helmet with your car than with your bike. The cost to risk profile here is extremely similar but the resultant behavior is quite different.

People rarely approach risks rationally and risk avoidance behavior is highly influenced by social acceptability.

During my lifetime of skiing, I have seen the shift from nobody wearing helmets to most people wearing them. The ski patrols worked hard to make helmet wearing first socially acceptable and then socially expected (at least in some groups.) The risks didn't changed, there was some rise in awareness, but the biggest change (from my perspective) is social.

This I see the vehement support for helmet wearing as predominantly cultural alignment enforcement rather than reasoned risk avoidance analysis.

Personally, I always wear a helmet skiing because it is more comfortable, plus I ski FAST sometimes. I rarely wear a helmet on a bicycle because I bike slow and strongly try to avoid situations where my safety is in the hands of other drivers. Instead I stick to mostly quiet residential streets, bike paths, or separated bike lines. The helmet has a much larger impact on my risk profile when skiing than biking because of my behaviors.

All that said, I don't think that the company should ban standard safety gear for their riders. Especially since they claim to have good incident tracking, they should be able to find and let go any riders who act recklessly with a helmet.
It probably is but they also have far less market saturation, they're still half as big as Netflix.

What about CNN+?
I have only ever lived in city centers, it is still faster to buy in bulk. I am vegan so maybe I am not appropriately weighting the fresh meat concerns, most of the stuff I buy does not spoil as easily.
Flat file websites make sense when you have a blog and such. I don't even know why you'd use a CMS when Next.js or SvelteKit can just generate all the pages from a folder with markdown files. Just write your content in Markdown or pull your content in at the static build stage and your content is ready to go.

Can anyone explain how sites like Flatboard handle user input into a flat file system? How do they handle conflicts with just one file? What's the workflow and set up like — can you use serverless or do you have to have a full server?
The study was performed by Ian Walker. Self reporting means he was both the researcher and the cyclist - he rode his bike, reported the data, then analyzed it. There were no surveys or other riders. Unless you count "female Walker", when he wore a wig.
If you are shopping mostly food that is processed and that favors longevity over quality and freshness, sure. If you have a minimal amount of care for what you and your family eat, you will be buying every other day anyway.

Also, if you watch the video you will see that bi-weekly driving/parking for groceries eats more of your time budget than multiple small trips to a well-located shop.
With this technique you can quickly cool your house down and then close the windows again perhaps an hour later.
That usually happens for well established companies/unicorns. I don't think someone raising seed/A or even series B can just rake millions into his pocket when the company isn't even close to profitable. But maybe I'm just naive?
> Wearing a helmet is a low-cost no-brainer

Or in this case, a low-cost keep-your-brainer.
Before you worry about 1 million daily visitors. Worry about 50 daily visitors.
Not at all, the other analogy was better

Yours seems to be based on the assumption that if it is not mandated by law, it is not a good idea that can save lives, which is the criteria by which others are evaluating this

It's also worth noting that biking in a city around cars and bikes and other people IS objectively risky, to the point where it is completely reasonable for someone to choose to wear a single piece of safety equipment over their single most important human organ