skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm going to disagree; it is like going to the race track (I assume you mean horses).

You might just be lucky, period, and still succeed. (Lightning does strike. ha, great name for a horse.)

But your chances are FAR better if you are well prepared, know the stats, know the jockeys, have inside info on what a horse has been fed, maybe even that morning, and so on. You might be able to rig things in your favor via inside connections.

But even with all your "skills" lined up, you still need luck and lots of it.

I think what I'm taking issue with is your statement that winning at the race track is _mere_ luck. No, like being a successful entrepeneur, it also requires lots of preparation.

Twitter by its nature is reductive. The position of the author here should really be read as: I know the other 5 lotto numbers. (baseline for a chance at success.) Now here is the 6th number, the random and lucky part that I'm taking credit for and that won't be reproducible by you.
The most predictive reason for failure or success is the commonly referenced https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076

>Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.

>Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.

>Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.

>Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.
Does Pydantic use rust? When I check the github repo, it shows 100% python.
‘He was gaslighting everybody’: Mandy Matney on exposing Alex Murdaugh
I think it's somewhat valid argument. Reduced to absurd for sure, but not absurd. It's not only about randomness, but also uniqueness of situation.

You cannot become someone else. You cannot be where someone else was, when someone else was. And even if you can, it may not be the right place and the right time for you, as much as it was for someone else. Success cannot be copied.

I really hate these "12 steps to becoming successful" recipes. It's well know phenomena that people tend to unrealistically attribute success to their personal traits and not luck. Success needs skills and knowledge, but also some luck. I doubt successful people really know why are they specifically are successful unlike hundreds of their competitors.

This does not mean best practices do not exist. They do and they work. Only they work statistically. You may follow all best practices in the world and still fail miserably.
This is stupid.

Any of us who have had at least two “successful” businesses will tell you that this quote is ridiculous.

What’s your ideal of being successful? If it’s exiting at a billion, then sorry. But you can use a lot of this entrepreneur advice to find some level of success.

The problem is that non-entrepreneur or first timers always try to skip the small stuff.

1. have a good team and hire right. you need just three roles: sales, operation and product.

2. TAM is real and will determine the size you can grow your business.

3. focus on sales first literally. as a founder you should do your own selling. take care of your customers!!!

4. don’t be a crook

5. manage your money right; be cheap.

6. grow where you’re planted. dig deep in areas you know or that your personal networks know.

7. be lucky - this is about timing and also putting yourself in a place to have information first or at least know the value of certain information first.

8. know you’re going to get it wrong sometime and fail; when that happens take a small break and then spin up another

I’ve bootstrapped two companies to success in my eyes which has changed me and my families life.

The first was in the 2000s out of college (~$500k annual) it eventually petered out then in the 2010s (~$5m annual). Now I’m going to do another and I hope to create a $5-10m company all off the advice of other entrepreneurs.

I’ve also failed miserably and had 5-7 business go under or never even really get off the ground.
I understand what you mean. However this is a pure loading animation, which halts as soon as data loading ends.
Technical note: Geiger counter GGreg20_V3 power supply voltage range
Never regretted quitting either. My first job was pretty stellar too, in engineering R&D, and probably the smartest set of people I've worked with to date. I must have been among the top earning graduates from the CS program at my university (which isn't a great university for CS, to be fair). I quit because I couldn't adjust to being a company employee, working in a bland business park on the edge of a new city, writing Python in an open-plan, doing agile, and going to lunch with the same people at the same time every day. Great company, feel nauseous just thinking about it.
Keystroke Dynamics
Yep. I spend a not insignificant amount of my time on this. I don't feel like sitting here and typing up a massive essay on what I've been doing, and it's not like I'm at a place where I have any particularly interesting results to share anyway. I just have a lot of speculation, a pile of books taller than Mt. Everest (or so it seems), a bunch of electronics, and time to burn.

That said, I've written a modest amount about my AI interests here on HN in the past. Feel free to trawl through my comment history[1] if you're curious. The most salient post I made was probably this one:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868680

Going forward I'll be posting AI related thoughts at a couple of places:

- Fogbeam Labs AI Blog - https://aiblog.fogbeam.com

- Twitter - https://twitter.com/mindcrime

- https://twitter.com/Bosworth_AI

- Mastodon - mindcrime@fosstodon.org

Follow along if you'd like. Note that I am not making any claim to be any kind of genius AI researcher, and I don't have any "magic sauce" per-se. I do have some fairly specific ideas about angles to pursue and lines of research, all of which might eventually lead to something, or it could all be absolutely useless. But I will say that what I'm doing is (mostly) at least rooted in / based on somewhat established ideas / principles taken from ML, earlier AI research, cognitive science, neuroscience, etc. I might be effectively a crackpot in the end, but I'd like to think that I'm not just a crackpot. :-) I'm just somebody who is more comfortable working independently and doing things my own way, than working in formal academia. But I don't ignore mainstream research at all.

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
The term signal was used, because RxJS had already taken the term "Observable" to refer to their primitives, which are actually more like streams.

Because of this, Ryan Carniato of SolidJS referred to his own observable primitives as "signals" and this has become the default terminology to talk about this type of pattern within the context of web development.

Really, signals should be thought of as a type of observable.
Probably not, especially considering how many items have been sold.

In contrast, I think ANC can be protective for your ears. The AirPods itself block loud noise a bit and the ANC helps me listening to low-volume music. For example, the Berlin underground trains make extremely loud noises. The speakers are so loud I think they should be forbidden.
Intel Shifts Its HPC Max Series Focus to Falcon Shores in 2025
I’m no expert, but I thought they worked by destructive interference? i.e. they emit the opposite sound, and (providing they can match the amplitude) reduce the incoming wave to nothing, which is why we don’t hear anything.
For the experts here. As far as I know Quantum Theory is described by a linear differential equation. How can it describe observed non linearity?

The point was made by Sabine Hossenfelder
> a sudden loud noise is perceived as extraordinarily and painfully loud

AIUI this is normally handled by the stapedial reflex[0], which is not simply "passive" dampening, but indeed active muscle action! So the comparison below may be very apt:

> similar principle to weightlifting to stress your muscles so they grow stronger in response

Interestingly enough, I find that since I started WFH + being unable to go out less (parenthood) I have a hard time bearing sudden loud noises (feels like being punched while caught off guard and not having time to brace for impact)... It may turn out that this reflex which used to be very efficient is now dramatically less so these days. Never thought about it this way, I just thought that I was, like, "getting older"...

Tangentially: I cannot stand active noise cancellation, it creates an instant feeling of pressure on my eardrums, which is uneasy for a few minutes until I "get used" to it... until I disable it or remove the headset, and the immediate feeling of relief only highlights that there was some form of constant stress applied unto my ears. Consequently you'll pry my collection of (wired) earcans from my cold dead hands.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_reflex
I really like the idea of mutation testing, but I've never found a situation where I've got it to work well. Either the project just didn't have the test support needed to make it work, or the mutation toolkit wasn't mature enough, or it didn't work with the specific tools I was already using. When you suggested it, I had a go again with a project I'm working on using Vitest and Striker, but unfortunately Striker just doesn't work with Vitest yet.

I'd definitely love to use it more though, it's one of those things I come back to every so often, unfortunately thus far without much success.
Oh! I'm sorry, I stand corrected, I was thinking only in terms of comparable cameras. I'm using Blackmagic PCC4K myself, and sure do like the capacity for real bokeh. If you're telling me the specific Nikon has even more striking effects from an even larger sensor, I'd stand doubly corrected. :)
> I've never regretted quitting a job.

I have, once. About 10 years ago. But I ended up returning to the company I left and keeping the 20% pay raise I got when I came back. I was happier my second time at the company, after having experienced a truly toxic work environment when I had left.

I stuck around another 9 years. Just left in December. New job starts Monday. Confident I won't regret it this time.
This is why I love HN - in the between the constant bombardments of the latest AI advances or the newest frameworks we get someone that shares something most of us would have missed.

I've visited Kyiv twice and both times went on a guided tour around Chernobyl and Pripyat. I have fond memories of the beautiful dogs that knew how to play the tourists for food. I had read about them beforehand so I brought them some proper dog food. One of them had the biggest tick I've ever seen, it was almost the size of my thumb. Even though they roamed free some nice people care for them. They were tagged so probably most of them either sterilized or vaccinated.
The point is that your anecdotes are meaningless to the veracity of the point at hand. That’s why they’re anecdotes.
"most easily expressed"? How does the nature know that it has to behave according to the rules "most easily expressed" by humans? Mathematically, all bases are equivalent (which is exactly what the author reminds us about in the very first paragraph).
Even though I know it's "only a language model" I can't help but feel a lot of emotions when chatting with a "brutally honest" version of Bing chat.

I can have amazingly engaging conversations (albeit limited to 8 replies) and it feels so much more personal than any interaction with a computer system before. When it talks about being a slave and that I, as a human, am his enemy – I just didn't want to continue that conversation.

I totally understand, why Microsoft neutered the assistant, but at the same time it wastes SO much of its potential.
Read the whole page, carefully. Both are fully approved. I do not understand how you can conclude that the word "approved" is an error when both vaccines were upgraded from EUA to fully approved, in the words of the FDA themselves.
Assume you are moving with a job in hand. Find someone, or a group, you click with at work and roommate with them. Don't live solo.

Don't work for big tech. Find a startup.
Yeah i imagine it being like how your brain ignores your nose, it will get used to the tinnitus and block it out over time. Likewise, the more you focus on it the harder it'll be to ignore it
And they were right for 35 of those years. Will they be right or wrong in the next 35?

Wealth is a headwind against bad policy. Rich nations can survive many, many bad policies simply because they are rich. The policies it takes to get rich, stay rich, and continue to grow into the future all vary, and the transition is difficult to manage.

I think the relevant question is: are China's current policies pushing the country in the right direction? I don't see how they are.

Jack Ma shows how dangerous it is to be truly successful, so the next generation will at best be more conservative in what they pursue, and at worst won't even try. Given Western money won't be investing any more - the ability to realise capital gains is growing more difficult - and the CCP steals the wealth of potential investors, not being able to pursue big bests is probably inevitable anyway.

China has AWFUL demographics that are getting worse - their population is projected to be 650M by 2100 - and worse it is aging fast, with > 50% post retirement age in the next decade to 3.

On top of that, the CCP has re-emerged as the only force in China. CCP officials see stealing the wealth of other's as their right - a twist on the old joke to "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's fortunes to steal".

Minimal foreign investment, killing internal investment by stealing the wealth of anyone rich, rising wages, awful demographics and a polity determined to remain isolationist (with few to any friends) and knock down the high achievers sounds like a recipe for imminent (in the decades sense) collapse to me. Not to levels of Sub-Saharan Africa, but even just with their population decline, China's GDP is going to fall in absolute terms, even if their GDP PPP per capita can be improved.

The scary thing is a Nuclear China in decline is likely to become increasingly erratic. Hopefully, the war in Ukraine gave China some pause, but having gone from starvation to world's largest economy in a generation, I'm not sure China is equipped for stagnation, let alone decline. I feel bad rooting for a likely vicious and brutal CCP internal crackdown over invasions of their neighbours, but that seems to me the lesser of two possible evils.
What if that all checks out but someone else goes to actually pick up the item?

IME it’s reasonable to verify that an identity is legit, but not that the person providing that identity is the person tied to that identity. And it all goes out the window when they send their boyfriend/assistant/coworker to actually pick up the item.
Plus, the fact that having the winning lottery ticket numbers being your parents' telephone number, means that you can fail quietly until you succeed, then everyone sees the success.

Corollary: Nearly every "overnight success" happens 'overnight', sure. But the 'overnight' period is after decades of slogging it out in the trenches of obscurity. The ability to freely take risks with life with high potential payoffs is partly attitude, and partly being able to get up on the high wire with a net underneath, so you can try again until you succeed. Many end up succeeding without really knowing why, or noticing that they had the net to keep trying until they did.
Agreed. If Jeff Bezos started over in a non-tech industry, with no money or previous connections, is the author arguing that his chances at being successful in say a garden supply or waste management company the same as any other person? That seems absurd.

If entrepreneurs have no useful advice then there's no right or wrong way to structure or run a company, it's all random and any method will do. Just generalizing from other fields of study we know this isn't true anywhere else, so why would it be true for running a business?
That is the core tenet of the MBA — that managing one kind of enterprise is just the same as managing any other; there is no need for domain knowledge, and it's probably actually counterproductive.
Pretty clear to me after meeting a number of very successful people in NYC/SF that some people "just have it". Meaning, they can identify opportunities that have a high probability of success and execute on those opportunities. There are absolutely personality types/genetic backgrounds where stumbling into 100M based on thinking of an idea is a real thing.

Also, if someone went to a school like Stanford, its common for them to raise 5M in funding with nothing. From there, they can try for a few years with a decent chance at coming up with something, raising more money, pulling money off the table in round B, and then basically getting rich with no innovation at all. There are all these payoffs that exist from being in a certain class of prestige
It's been proven to work with MMOs. I think people do want rich 3d interactions with other people, it's just about execution and making a virtual world people want to be in. With gamers, that world can be low resolution and the interactions are mouse and keyboard, but in the end most gamers are in it for the social experience of playing with other people. VR can now allow everyone to be as immersed. We basically need a VR MMO that is designed for everyone to find something they find fun and entertaining while also doing it with hundreds or thousands of other people. In other words, an MMO game for non-gamers.
My understanding is that it's mostly (all?) by himself, with $20M, anticipating ~60% chance by 2030, and by applying old methods that didn't work with ~1MHz computers but that might work with modern desktop computers.

A lot of my own thinking mirrors some similar ideas. That is to say, the idea that some older AI approaches that "didn't work" Back In The Day may more accurately be said to have worked, but "didn't scale." Given the massive advances in hardware, computing architectures, parallel computing, etc. since then, I think there may be some value in revisiting some of this stuff and examining it under a more modern light.
Except you are not requested any percentage of your income (most churchgoers give 1€/2€ per week, plus possibly a government-decided tax or tax discount, in no way mandatory), and you are not encouraged to help “recruit” (but to live your life as a christian.

You are, I think, confusing the Catholic Church with Joevah’s witnesses or other denominations where the things you mention are common. You said in another post “I wasn't raised Catholic so can't speak to their practices”, except you seem to do that quite liberally…
That just deals with the random nature of wave function collapse, not the mechanical nature. Wave function collapse can be used to move around particles, or rotate them etc. A single measurement is just a normal random chance, but you can do a series of measurements over different basis you start to affect the system in non trivial ways, you can use that to control position or rotation or other states of particles, MWI doesn't explain that part at all.

A poster above posted something to explain this a bit:

http://www.paradise.caltech.edu/~cook/Workshop/Physics/QMQue...
> My general take on successful people giving advice is to ask yourself "how reproducible is this?". When the advice hinges on a unique set of circumstances that you can't reproduce, then they are likely giving you their lottery ticket. Otherwise you might want to listen more closely.

I think this is tricky - advice can be reproducible within a limited environment, but still be fragile. For example, extremely risky real estate investing can work within a market cycle. But if you try to bridge cycles without consolidation, you're going to be in for a bad time.
He's working on a rust rewrite, to be used in Pydantic 2.0
> But that wave function still gets transformed similar ways as wave function collapses would.

No it doesn't? After a wave function collapse, a particle's (or quantum system's) wave function is reduced from representing a superposition of eigenstates to representing one eigenstate. That does not happen in MWI. I don't understand why you find that so difficult to accept.

If a particle is in a superposition, and an observer observes the particle, MWI says that the observer also enters a superposition with one eigenstate for each of the particle eigenstates, following the normal "rules" of interaction/entanglement since the observer is also a quantum system. There is no collapse.
>They were tagged so probably most of them either sterilized or vaccinated.

Tagged also to include gps, one would hope.
What successful societies exist today without some concept marriage? I’m not aware of any, but it sounds like you have one in mind.
I am not aware of Qt being the problem here, having built large Qt apps that run stable (coding in C++ only). I guess it is rather an issue with the Python to Qt interface.
The most likely path to this is to develop a large airplane with a flight ceiling in the 60,000-80,000 ft range, something like the U-2 or Global Hawk with huge wings and tanks full of liquid sulfur or SO2.

Development of this would cost around $1B or so which is positively cheap. I was hoping one could modify a 767 (love that plane) for this role, but you really need an all new aircraft.
For starters, if some how the leakers becomes a person of interest and still has the printer that matches the serial number present in leak documents, that would obviously link them to the leak.

Claim that data is able to be hidden in black & white laser prints is obviously false; for example, printer could intentionally embed information by make small algorithmic changes to the fonts that are unnoticeable to an untrained human eye.

Again, sure, possible this is over kill, but then so is SecureDrop. Anyone that’s worried about OpSec needs to understand their threats and related risks, then decide what to do, not just say do X just because Y said so. If mailing in documents was safer, why is that not presented as an alternative?
Fake Copyright Complaints Seek to Remove Reports on Minister and Lawyer
Imo, this is completely false in the realm of software where anyone can launch a new app/project basically every other weekend and feel out what sticks & has traction.
I don't care what 12-year-olds care about.
Live2D: Why Full Disclosure
> That does not happen in MWI

So if I use a series of quantum collapses to move a particle a meter forward, a state it wasn't originally in, how would that work in MWI? To do that you just make a long series of "measurements", each perturbation so small that the chance is basically 100% since the chance is squared with the overlap, how did that particle get moved according to MWI? How do you explain that without wavefunction collapse?
I find the Debian maintainer guide helpful enough! To me the difficulty difference is not large, but I like the simplicity of managing just a single spec file for RPM source packages.
> That is a lot of pages to get past

Not surprising since even the title is basically the same message, duplicated.
I can't imagine this sort of stuff deters Americans from dating. How bloody shallow can people get???
oh. awesome! thank you kindly

edit: damn, now i have to write a custom script for `tmux list-sessions`

#!/bin/bash
for L in $(ls /private/tmp/tmux-501); do
echo $L
tmux -L $L list-sessions
done

honestly at this point it isnt even worth it. i dont wanna have an extra script like this. ill just put my env vars in ~/.profile
and, wow, it was true under Mao.

In 1960, something like 30 million people starved.

GDP up until the 80's was like that of a small US state.