skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Chaney and co-authors Alyssa Baer and Ida Tovar showed pictures of campus areas at Utah Valley University, Westminster, BYU and the University of Utah to participants and asked them to click on areas in the photo that caught their attention.

That seems like an interesting way to handle this. I'm not sure how much I believe that data is entirely accurate.

I met some folks who tried using eye tracking to make their software more efficient (the cameras were very apparent, this wasn't some secret study), they compared that to what people told them they focused on in the software and they found that users were terrible narrators as far as telling them what they spent time on or looked at.

Both bits of data were handy for them, but I'm not sure just clicking on an image makes sense here.

The article then goes on to tie this to violence ... that seems like a pretty big leap. Doesn't mean it isn't true, but I'd like to see something more of a real clear connection to the images specifically. It's possible because of the threat of violence women are more observant of the periphery .. or they just do that naturally?
> I often find that weight loss discussion errs on the irrational side.

fify.
That might be an artifact of using pictures of paths instead of actually walking the paths for the study. It seems that the brain, despite the lack of peripheral in the study, still wants to focus on those highlighted areas.
> Big size impress management

I thought this was relevant mostly for line of code or similar metrics used to evaluate the size of projects (build sizes not being one of them). Or are you trying to imply that artifically inflating the perceived size of a project can indirectly and consistently affect the build sizes as well?
Spotlighting deer is illegal just about everywhere in the US. This shouldn't be a surprise to hunters. In no world does "spotlighting, but with a drone" make sense where spotlighting on it's own is illegal.
OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :)

> You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something.

I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it.

Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case?

> Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object.

That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter.

That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background.

It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.
Back in the day you would hope for rar/par if you were downloading something big, like a program you couldn't afford but needed to try, I'll leave it at that.
Because men get into fights with each other, and we're wired to protect our women.

If you go by statistics on abductions and abuse, it's really women who should be more on the lookout.

Men are less worried about some guy jumping out of a bush at night. Just fight him and move on; women can't fight back the same.
I think a lot of men don't realize that for most women, the feeling of walking around alone in a normal place is equivalent to a man walking around in a very sketchy neighborhood. Almost any man can overpower a woman and, if he really wanted to, kill her with his bare hands. But if a man wants to attack another man, his chance of success is only as good if he has a weapon of some kind.

It is for this reason that I encourage women to carry weapons and train with them. Even if it's just pepper spray, it's better than nothing. And like a fire extinguisher or a tourniquet, it only has to come in handy once to be worth all the trouble of keeping it around.
Buy a used EV with 50k miles on it, problem solved
I've ran into issues unzipping to a path too long with 7-Zip but immediately resolved with WinRAR. Might be a trivially solvable problem, but since WinRAR worked, I didn't bother investigating.
Attacks on Anonymity Systems: The Theory (2003)
I was recently reading up on Len Sassaman and his fascinating work on anonymous remailers. This used to be a very active area of research for cypherpunks, but it seems like people don't talk as much about these ideas anymore. I suppose TOR is the successor to these efforts (despite the fact that it seems controlled by the NSA).

In any case, while reading about Len, I came across this spectacularly good talk on YouTube. I learned so many cool things from the talk about how to design secure decentralized systems and how to evaluate threat models and think of creative attacks (as well as how to defend against them) that I wanted to share it with more people, thus the transcript linked here.

Even though the talk is "old" (from 2003), it still seems incredibly relevant and interesting to me, and I think you will enjoy it, too.
Firstly, I have no doubt that women are a lot more vulnerable at night.

That said, I don't think this "study" is fair.

> asked them to click on areas in the photo that caught their attention

I too, would click on whatever is lit up in the centre, but when actually walking at night I constantly watch my surroundings, as anyone probably does that didn't grow up a sheltered life or in a super safe area.
This likely depends from the place tho. Because for example where I live, women brave public transport often, frequently and normally. They would look at you as having second head if you suggested they are scared of being in a train.

Some places are more dangerous, others are safe. And also, some families raise girls to be afraid even if the place they live at is actually safe.
A non-trivial percentage of women are physically larger and stronger than a non-trivial percentage of men, yet those smaller men are not scared to walk alone at night for fear of running across a large woman.

The real hard truth is that some men assault women. The problem is that the assaulters look like every other man, meaning women can't target their fears at just the bad men.
Or theoretically possible: the risks are equally big for both genders but men tend to be on the lookout less so end up in trouble for often.
A lot of it is education. It sounds ridiculous but men aren't born with an innate idea of things like consent and boundaries, they have to be taught it.
Discovered VATSIM by chance watching a Youtube video about MS FlightSimulator and was impressed by the dedication of the various participants. This is the kind of stuff that make the internet awesome.
Eric Schmidt's communications were a lot better. But he mostly communicated verbally. He had a personality. He had opinions. He wasn't afraid to be unpopular.
I'd really like to see an expanded study that included pictures of both night time and daylight, in various settings (downtown, affluent neighborhood, sketchy area, highway, forest, hiking trail, jungle, desert, etc). I think it would help to tease out what is instinctual vs learned behavior.
I used to use it a lot in the past and I think it was mostly the convenience factor for me personally. I didn't want to learn another piece of software and I thought that WinRar did what it was supposed to do, reasonably well.
Cool, looks great, thank you!

Will try it out

What I want to do next is automate the application process

Currently I can produce custom resumes and cover letters based on a base resume and some examples, but then I still need to manually produce the final documents, visit the listing website and fill out all the forms/upload documents

It’s still pretty challenging to generate good customized resumes. Have you experimented with that at all?
Thats what the accessories are for!
> Each participant looked at 16 images and were told to imagine themselves walking through those areas.

Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure what that tells us, but not much.

If the labels on the heatmaps were reversed, I wonder if I would have updated the other direction at all the issue.
No it isn't. The fact that an ISP can make such an investment means that they should be held (at least partially) responsible for doing so.
Americans to Get $5k to Shop Under New Bill
27min full uncut version. https://youtu.be/BWxl921rMgM?si=9lVkkMBd5pAw2hSv
People clicked on features they thought were more important - ergo where they would normally be spending more time looking had they been physically there. If you have an issue with this study, how do you propose to test their hypothesis ?
In Optum/UHC's specific case, I can give an example of this from using their IVF benefits. In one plan we had from them my partner was entitled to 10k for treatment and 15k for medications. Optum Specialty Pharmacy was the only in-network pharmacy for the IVF drugs.

When we started ordering IVF medications under insurance, we found out that the price the pharmacy charged insurance was over 3x what their cash price was for nearly everything. We ran out of the 15k in a single retrieval cycle because of this, and wound up with a bill to the tune of several thousand dollars because one specific prescription ended up partially billing to insurance. People often lose sight of the fact that when you bill insurance, even if the item is only partially covered, the charge you must pay is the insurance negotiated rate even if the insurance is capped well below the price of the charge. We concluded that the medication benefit was a huge racket because of this, and I would imagine Optum rakes in thousands of dollars per patient on something that according to the policy documents is fully covered.

Meanwhile other nationwide pharmacies like Alto Pharmacy do offer the drugs at very reasonable prices, often 1/5 to 1/10 what Optum was charging.
Grabbed the wrong link, that's the 5min version.
Women scan their environments constantly (hyper-vigilence) when in places where men typically do not (walking in the dark being one of those).
I'm not sticking my head in the sand, I'm just not letting you/me/society off the hook for our agency here. It's not inevitable that we continue down this road — it requires the active and voluntary participation of millions of people. There is nothing compelling us to build a society like this. It doesn't have to happen. It is our choice to do so.
And new ones are created. I started selling AI art but never once sold a human made art. Art is evolving and so must artists.
What you say has some truth to it, but it is incomplete.

Consider the following: a weak man has less to be afraid of than a very fit woman, even when she is clearly stronger than him.
It's sweet you are willing to be so generous, but I think you are just being optimistic about how bad the state of external validity in social science research is.
Not sure why that would be ironic. Seems absolutely fitting, and the most likely place for a study like this to occur. Studying women in danger at BYU is like going to the antarctic to study penguins.
> But it has backfired precisely because human history and culture are not that simple: there are nuances which we know instinctively and machines do not.

The reason it's hard to fix is not because machines don't know things we know, it's that people don't know things either. I would bet close to 100% of people complaining about 'woke' AI would not be able to produce historically accurate pictures either and not because of drawing ability but because of lack of historical understanding (again, not because of lack of access to facts/google/etc).

Here's an example: If you asked an image model to show you a picture of WW2 solders firing artillery in drag, you'd mock it as being 'woke', absurd, pushing "gender ideology" yadda yadda. But that did actually happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/12cmtam/...

Any AI that does not return pictures of soldiers in drag firing artillery is biased and not historically accurate. Will DALL-E, SD, MJ, etc do that today without specific prompting? How many people here would draw such a picture if asked for pictures of ww2 soldiers? Most complaints about 'woke' AI are people complaining that AI doesn't re-affirm their pre-existing ideas. I'm highly skeptical that the people complaining about black popes have the same complaints about white depictions of jesus.
I think this was a good reminder for me that these models are not truly wild and neutral. There is a heavy editorial finger.

I spent some time asking Gemini directly what it could tell me about how it was programmed, what internal data Google uses it to train it, and what policy was used to determine what data was acceptable/unacceptable. You clearly hit a wall where someone programmed a bunch of hard stops about what it could talk about.

My problem is that I actually find Gemini really useful! I can ask Google to pull up directions to the closest, best Thai restaurant, and unlike the agony that was "voice assistants" Google will actually understand my question and return exactly what I am asking for with confidence.

It's a mysterious black box that is clearly being tampered with to gaslight me, and yet, I cannot deny it's utility. It's like letting Rasputin do my laundry.
Miruku grabs more capital as its plant-based dairy tech reaches proof of concept
> Just as an FYI, that error was made when the CEO was an engineer, not an MBA.

And not just any engineer, an engineer who specifically came from the fab side of things and not the chip design side of things.
When I worked in tech, people who were quick thinkers overshadowed everyone else, and it became a kind of machismo. The problem was, just because they were quick thinking didn't mean they were right. Outside of tech, being a more methodical thinker is more accepted and common... the key I've found is to use humor, grace, and humility and play the long game. Demonstrate wisdom over just being quick and clever.
The counterpoint to this is Greg LeMond's (possibly apocryphal) quote about cycling training: "it never gets easier, you just go faster." LeMond is the only American to win the Tour de France.

Closest I can get to a citation. https://books.google.com/books?id=PCtBBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA...
wow downvotes?! Forget this community, signing off.
who is likely to be more successful in negotiating with a very large corporation like Mercedes? A union representing thousands of workers or, an individual that is replaceable no matter what skills they have?
>Why can’t we live in a world where women don’t have to think about these things?

Human nature. Baked-in survival and reproduction strategies.
Thank you There’s a lot more that can be added to it, like scraping other websites, a nice interface and automatic resume personalization for the matched job

Would love your feedback after trying it out
You get to sound like a pirate.
But then they would have to compile the jit-optimized XLA to C. Do you know if that’s straightforwardly doable?
hci matters a great deal, yes, but you're applying more charity to the reading of this comic than unicef's annual budget can cover. what it actually says is that intellectually hard things aren't worth doing because attempting them creates more problems than it solves, which is a pernicious message, and a very tempting one

to make your reading plausible, you have to add the subtext 'and it's all the fault of the person who thought up the hard thing, anyway,' and i think that subtext is just as pernicious as the explicit message; it presupposes that all intellectual problems are in some sense as artificial as school grades, and so it's especially tempting to people whose main experience of intellectual challenges is in the context of school grades. and of course knowledge is very, very frequently used as a mere shibboleth, an ingroup marker rather than a toy or a tool; subjectsigma's [flagged] [dead] example of juvenile slang in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39538748 is just one of innumerable examples. that is another thing that makes this pernicious message so tempting

making hard things easier to do, and easier to do right, is very worthwhile; but in order to do that, you have to learn to do the hard thing in the first place, usually several hard things. for that, either you need to figure them out yourself, be lucky enough to have a mentor to guide you, or read the kind of manual which starts with 'how to read this manual', usually known as a 'textbook', 'paper', or 'standards document'. what's even harder than reading a textbook is that you have to do the exercises

so at best this kind of rhetoric is the intellectual equivalent of pulling up the rope ladder after you into the clubhouse, discouraging hoi polloi from learning the skills you've found valuable; at worst, and all too often, it's khmer-rouge-style assignment of mortal culpability to anyone who looks too nerdy

i agree that c compilers have better error messages than they used to, and rust's error messages are very good. but this comic still classes the rust compiler as a tool that creates far more problems than it solves, because its manual starts with a section entitled 'how to use this book': https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch00-00-introduction.html#how...

as i read it, the comic harshly condemns any artifact that can only be used effectively by people who are willing to put significant effort into learning, which covers c compilers, the rust compiler, and the lengthy catalog of artifacts i listed above

i don't think that attitude is praiseworthy (and you don't seem to think so either, instead disagreeing with my reading; i'm interested to hear if i'm wrong)
But the political climate of the last 15 years hasn't been congress deciding nothing should be done, it's been the two parties fighting over what or how it should be done, and filibustering anything that goes against their party line.
Use eye-tracking instead. Gets closer to what people do, rather than what they claim they do.

You know that thing where >95% of people claim to be above-average drivers? I'd like to rule that out.

Once again, because I think my comment will be misconstrued if I don't attach a disclaimer: I believe the result, but I don't believe the study.
Show HN: Wiggle Animate – make motion graphics in the browser
100% free and Open Source. Wiggle Animate is a vector-based motion graphics animation tool. Work directly in your web browser and access many animation functions. Useful for mockups, pitches, and simple animated graphics to be used as overlays, intercuts, titles, or calls-to-action.

Looking for your thoughts & feedback. Thanks!
I should have been more precise in my initial comment. There isn't much of this person's code available publicly at all.
Is it that the jobs do not absolutely require college degrees, but the degree is very nice to have? Or is it that the hiring mangers do not give any credence at all to college degrees?

I teach community college. I have the work experience to teach continuing education (CE) classes without my masters degree, but the masters degree helps. Am I a college graduate working in a job that does not require a college degree?
I actually paid for winrar in 2006. The meme does happen.
You don't always need to be the best in all circumstances if you work in a team. A good team (particularly one that gelled) is going to make use of everyone's temperament and skills.

For example, in high-pressure situations, such as when the infra is falling down, you might not be the one coming up with immediate mitigations, but you may be starting a reasoned, calm root-cause analysis that is just as important, if not with the same urgency, as mitigations. If you are also methodical in your troubleshooting, you are providing an alternate path to finding the issue that is different from with a more intuitive approach.

A colleague willing to let you take the time to hear you out helps out a lot.
Writing a Fast Compiler
Do you have an alternative theory that's more compelling than the one that many, many women report about their own thinking?
My understanding of "spotlighting" (I am not a hunter) is using a bright light source to mesmerize deer to make them easier to kill.

That seems fundamentally different to me than using a drone to recover a deer's body (that had previously been shot).

Does that matter?

Maybe it's the case that it's impossible to enforce a working difference between "using a drone light to mesmerize a deer pre-kill" vs "using a drone light to locate a deer's body", but in that case it seems like the law should just be against drones in hunting seasons/areas, rather than "spotlighting". But as far as I can tell no such law was on the books (and the judge also wanted clearer laws).
If you looked at the chip sideways we would be shooting way beyond femtometers, but if you happen to look at it from above then it's only 1 nm. Don't you think it's strange that the manufacturer is using metrics that make them look bad?
git repo fwiw: https://github.com/benz2012/wiggle-animate
Also, the grass tends to be greener in the past.
ChatGPT is doing a fantastic job spitting out the exact parts of StackOverflow that I need, adapted to my specific questions - and without that site's judgy vibe and bizarre notions of what is off-topic
‘Just’ and never ever ever ever forget.

Easy.

Just like it was for Ross Ulbricht!
Please sir can you then explain to me where in the law does it say that it’s okay to use a civilian harrass, steal from, attack another civilian simply because he inconveniently lived next door to the target of an illegal intervention?

The prosecutor that I’m talking about was the former head of the RIEC. The very organisation that embodies the entirely of this war against undermining that you are talking about. The civilian that I managed to force to court for stalking had been protected by this prosecutor for more than 10 years!!!!!!!!

Which part exactly am I’m seeing out of perspective ?

I’ve read a lot of criminal law! A civilian is not allowed to be used in an investigation that involves obsessive spying (stelselmatig observatie). For more than one year at a time, they need a contract in advance and they are not allowed to commit any crimes. So why are the openbare ministerie protecting this guy and publishing lies about me more than 10 years later????

I took the police to court and won. That also took me 5 years. I’ve seen the evidence that this guys was being protected by the OM. And that our lives were in danger from him. I have the reference numbers from the police files.

You seem to have a vested interest in all this, are you going to tell the listeners who the responsible prosecutor was for the villa murder scandal ? How about telling them what position this person has now ? The person responsible for the injustice referred to in the series de Villamoord was also one of the prosecutors responsible for the living hell that was inflicted on me and my family when we were accidentally caught between their stupid games that destroy peoples lives.

Are you also one of the people think that it’s okay to commit criminality against innocent civilians and strip them of their rights as well ?