skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It seems to me that from facts we can only derive more facts.

You seem to think of knowledge as something that has to be expressed in language to exist, whereas I do not.

> because facts can't directly justify values

Values are rooted in biology. Facts are not prescriptive, but our biology is.

> And this living and acting ought not necessarily involve having children, though it could.

You can find all sorts of words and facts to try to justify meaning, but meaning itself is ineffable; it is felt. Individualism will only get you so far.

> it makes sense to philosophize in a way directly related to us being living, acting things and not philosophical proof machines.

I don't think the poster you were replying to would disagree. I think they were getting at how people chase after a simulation of meaning instead of acting in a meaningful way. I think you can seek truth without getting lost in language games.
You may like to read https://pack.ac/note/pack and test it for yourself.
People don't want to click through, they want their question answered.
From my own perspective, the interesting part of the carbon3D thing was that apparently the real money was in dental and orthodontics - an area a lot of venture and 3D printing probably does not delve into all that often.

Admittedly, there's apparently an industry I had never looked at that's actually kind of interesting, with metal and resin printed dentures. [1]

Such as, the first company on that list, which I never read about on Tom's or Ars or other 3D printing sites, Zortrax [2], apparently makes a semi-cheap printer that does bioresin (can you get that for home use? RepRap bioresin spools?) for $2k. $2k seems cheap compared to the carbon3D ones, they're apparently $50k-100k. Could reasonably print my own dentures for $2k.

[1] https://all3dp.com/1/dental-3d-printing-a-guide-for-professi...

[2] https://zortrax.com/applications/digital-dentistry/
"Our data includes anonymized API calls to traditional search indexes like Google, Yandex, Mojeek and Brave, specialized search engines like Marginalia, and sources of vertical information like Wolfram Alpha, Apple, Wikipedia, Open Meteo, Yelp, TripAdvisor and other APIs. Typically every search query on Kagi will call a number of different sources at the same time, all with the purpose of bringing the best possible search results to the user."

So that's only telling a small part of the story.
Those technologies were brand new at the time, the discussions about the problem started in 2013. The company (I had zero input) choose a more established vendor with an older product. Given the time and institutional customers that were trusting us with their data, I suspect any cloud based offerings were a nonstarter, and open source felt like a liability.

Of course with 20/20 hindsight that decision is easy to criticize. I suspect their primary concerns were to minimize risk and costs while meeting our customer's requirements. Even today, making a brand new Google product or Facebook backed open source project a hard dependency would be too much risk for an established business.
AI is faceless, a website is not. The other content on the website will provide a clue as to whether the site is trustworthy or not. This is how web search has worked since the beginning.
Right, when most people complain about health care, they aren't complaining about quality of care when they get it. They're complaining about not being able to afford it.

Or, it being too confusing. That's a problem with health insurance, and not with money.

That's why some think that a national health care system that is designed primarily around effectiveness of distribution of payment, rather than extracting maximum profit from the flow of money between patient and provider, is the moral and effective solution.

To your last point, rationing low availability health care is nothing new. Alcoholics can't get liver transplants for example. There's a whole field of bioethics that can surely answer some of those questions.
I find that most people who object to SQL do not use TVFs. If you don’t have any tools to easily break down the steps of the work, of course SQL will feel like an opaque Write-only language. With TVFs you can easily iteratively add more complex steps to your query while checking your work while you build.
Although less common, if you let a tooth infection get bad enough it could potentially lead to other issues and even death.
I like this comment, and I'll pitch in my two cents on it.

Suppose Joe Salesman sells your friend Al a used car and it turns out they got a bad deal, the car was a lemon. What lesson should be learned from this?

a) This was an honest mistake. We expect this kind of variance in used vehicles, and the market works out kinks. I should feel comfortable buying a used car from Joe, should the need arise.

b) The information that this car was a lemon was available to Joe, who did not share it with Al because Joe thought Al was a sucker. I am better at diagnosing cars than Al, (or better at reading people), and I should feel wary about buying cars from Joe.

c) Joe only sells lemons, his business model is to rip people off, and there's no way to get a good deal on a used car from Joe. I should look elsewhere to buy a car.

d) This describes the business model of all used car salesmen, I should not buy a used car from a business that sells used cars.

e) This describes all business models when there is information symmetry between buyer and seller. I should not buy anything whose utility I cannot bound from below. (I need a warranty or similar arrangement from the seller).

There are obviously other options here, this is just to illustrate the spectrum of assumed adversariality. There was an article on HN recently declaring that salesman were more likely to get ripped off. I think this is because salesmen tend to think the answer to this question is (b) because salesmen exclusively interact with people who think that the answer is either (a),(b), or (c).

It's not just salesmen, actually. I think the phenomenon is equally well represented in people with business degrees. The core belief of an MBA is that you can subvert the regulatory structure, and people's psychology, to get them to give you more money for the thing than it costs you to make the thing. That's after all, where MBA income comes from. I think this comes much more naturally to people who think that the answer to the question above is (b).

I think by and large, whenever you hear that their company decided to purchase anything at all (but particular some sort of service), your instinct is that the purchaser was a gullible idiot, and that things would obviously work much better if no one was allowed to buy anything.

Personally, I do not think that ferocious skepticism is necessary to solve this problem. I think that it is much more cheaply and easily solved by having a moratorium on buying shit. Mozilla does not, EVER, need to be a customer.
Easy, Linux folks got a laptop/desktop that actually works out of the box, and they weren't really into Linux religion, rather whatever does POSIX would do.

A lesson taken by Microsoft years later, as Project Astoria ashes got repurposed as WSL.

A/UX failed due to management, and politics between IBM and Apple.
Funny though, if it was considered primary medical in the US I bet it would be a lot more expensive. I'm always surprised that dental care prices seem justifiable based on the services I received.
“Evidence” is not “imaginary”.
Imagination is fun. I'm pretty sure I can make your brain break a little bit more. Imagine they're all looped and there is no bottom level fastest super infinite computer.
To a point. I'm not a workaholic by any means, I skew towards working 20 hours weeks. When everything is good, the time off allows me to be incredibly productive. Breakthroughs happen by themselves.

I am, however, prone to anxiety. When things start to become uncertain and I get anxious, I find it's much better for me to take the extra hours head-on and work however much is needed to dig myself out - 30,40, 50, or 60. Otherwise both work and rest become really low-quality as I can never truly procrastinate away from worry. Focused work is the only way through.

Which is one reason why I try to avoid work where there are many emergencies and sudden operational problems. It throws me off my game completely.

Edit: apologies for the typos, not used to posting from my phone :)
6k Bitcoin mining machines in the US will be idled due to the halving
Would you please stop doubting? The consequences are just too great. /joke
It didn't change at all, rather was reduced in certain configurations.
First post on x.com created with a Neuralink implant
Or you do the easy mode and use sqlite for your file format.
every day i get a new follower or two which consistently have 50~70 following and 1000~1200 followers themselves (clearly bots)
The way they collect data seems fairly unlikely to count bots: "a panel of consumers who provide access to their information in exchange for the use of other apps, including apps that track screen time." I assume that both numbers were counted in the same way.
You might like this conversation Laz had with Tyler Cowen a few months back: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/lazarus-lake/
Universal Free School Meals Policy and Childhood Obesity
Can anyone find any explanation for how the researcher might have controlled for deception in this kind of study? The linked article mentions that they did control for delusional beliefs about the identities of the faces the individual was perceiving - this helps reject the hypothesis that this is part of a larger psychiatric issue.

But the journal link does not discuss how the researcher rejects the hypothesis that the individual could be fabricating the experience. It could also be the case that the researcher helped fabricate the results to produce work - a risk created in part by the unending pressure of publish/perish.

Obviously it would be very unfair to assume that either patient or researcher are deceptive here, given that it's far more likely that both patient and researcher simply want to help people with this condition. I do not want to call the researcher into question, and much less do I want to invalidate the patient's experience.

But I'm curious about how we should approach this with healthy skepticism in the age of the replicability crisis - what specific signals do you use to confirm the likely veracity of the researcher and subject, given the very subjective and unblinded nature of the case study, and lack of discussion on how we discard the deceptive hypothesis? Did you find details that I'm missing? And if you assign a percentage to your confidence in this result, what percentage is it, and why?
I have no idea what the legal weight is for a toml field so this repo really would benefit from having a formal copy of the Apache-2 license file https://github.com/hacspec/hax/blob/2da100068e9ae5e69e5b35bb... similar to its MIT friend https://github.com/hacspec/hacspec/blob/4ecc847fc944fe996e19...
And do you permit people to submit blogs and podcasts that they don't own? That's unclear at the moment.
To me, this is the key UX component that Kagi does correctly -- traceability to the underlying source result (which is usually also quite good with its linkbait penalizing).

I've found Kagi to be a great start for "I want to know a current fact in an area I don't follow actively."
As the laws of physics do not seem to stop at the borders of a skull, there is no sovereignty of the Self. But no one minds a thought thinking itself its own thinker, as there is no one at all. Just a thought.
Is your argument that diseases that you can’t die from shouldn’t be covered by primary medical care?
The point of the singularity isn’t that money won’t matter after it hits. The point of the singularity is that we can’t predict anything about the world after it hits.

Maybe money will be useless.

But maybe money will still be useful.

We can’t know until it hits. Maybe not even then.

Plus there is the problem that we don’t know which century it will arrive in, if ever.
I was raised as a Christian.

I sent an observation that is consistent even among some of the most stringent bible believing people.
As an embedded C++ developer, exit-time destructors have bit me many times.

In many cases, they pull in 100+ kB of useless code that only runs on exit. I've only got 128 kiB of RAM and my program doesn't exit, but good luck convincing the compiler this is true. It's so aggravating.
Can you believe kids these days get to grow up with cognizant computers? My starving teenage mind had to dial-up to a BBS.
Is it just the little dress shoes that have changed?
I get the sense that in some ways dentistry and optometry are also kept separate because of how complex they are, and that even something like eye cancer/mouth cancer wouldn't be something a GP would look at. Not sure where they'd draw the line, but I've definitely been to the GP for things I've thought were genuine, general health issues and been sent away because they happened to be in the mouth or somehow related to vision.
Not much to add. Strongly agree. Destructors are to preserve internal program invariant. External invariants need transactional guaratees.
There are a lot of things that impact quality of life that healthcare plans pay for, and must pay for by law. And chances are by the time you get an ER to handle a.dental problem, you are already half dead and they may not be able to save you.
This is not the same effect. You'd still rather have money prior to the industrial revolution than the same amount of money after. The money itself is worth more earlier. The phenomenon I described is mathematical fact.
Can also hit ‘q’ to show the Quick Answer feature if you forgot the question mark.

Love this feature too, especially the references! I end almost all my queries with a question mark now.
You've filled this page with comments on non-standard analysis, but the dual numbers have precisely zero to do with it. Calling people n00bs on a topic you apparently do no understand is silly.

Non-standard analysis deals with fields only, and the dual numbers are not a field, there are infinitely many zero divisors.

You should read the wiki pages on both, then maybe this mathoverflow post explaining it. The clearest way to maybe grasp the difference for you is that in any formulation of non-standard analysis, the square of any infinitesimal is another infinitesimal, and never 0. In the dual numbers, the square of any infinitesimal is always precisely, exactly zero.

They are so fundamentally different that anyone (like you) that claims to be so cognizant of either would never repeat they are the same as loudly and frequently as you are.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/341535/is-the-theor...
Not to mention that they have their own index that they're constantly working to expand:

> But most importantly, we are known for our unique results, coming from our web index (internal name - Teclis) and news index (internal name - TinyGem). Kagi's indexes provide unique results that help you discover non-commercial websites and "small web" discussions surrounding a particular topic. Kagi's Teclis and TinyGem indexes are both available as an API.

https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...
Sorry, if it somehow sounded that my example is somehow more than what was mentioned in the article. Absolutely not. I think that my example also very well demonstrates that lines of code (even that isn't really "code") isn't not a good way of measuring productivity etc. My example could be considered as an example of how a code review didn't "do it's job" for what might have been a newbies mistake. But I also think that code reviewers cannot be blamed for every bad piece of code that gets through (context matters).
Is the assumption here that Tailwind classes are somehow not A11Y compliant? That's false, you can both use Tailwind and make website fully accessible, reader-compatible.
I don't see how. There's no notation for addressing cells, and every cell runs the same formula.

It's a bit like a spreadsheet, but with every cell running the same function. But with notation for addressing cells, you could make Conway's Game Of Life with a program just a dozen characters in length.

With a z dimension and cell-addressing, you could probably create something like a weather model. But to be useful, you'd need a bigger canvas than 256x256.

You could probably do some interesting things if the language allowed an arbitrary number of dimensions.
I disagree, I think (especially as evidenced by Gemini) Google's people has a specific mission to make the world a better place, and "better" being defined by them such as ensuring that DEI is injected into everything. I am generally very supportive of diversity, but I think it's pretty clear that the goals of helping you find information and the goals of filtering/shaping that information to make the world more reflective of what they think it should be, are fundamentally in tension. That is what concerns me the most.
Common Table Expressions (CTE) do help a little, as you can query each “table” and inspect the output. Debugging a giant query with deeply nested sub queries is very painful indeed
As a child, NHS dentists were paid per treatment, preventative measures were counter to the business model. Nostalgia for the days of great and free oral health care is far from the reality of my lived experience.
What was the final edition of Encarta Encyclopedia? 2009? Might have to go back to the old ways of doing things.
This is what fills me with dread when it comes to LLM coding assistants.

LLMs solve the problem of "we don't have enough code, so let's generate low-quality code faster than ever", which, to a first approximation, is not actually the problem that anyone has; the problem we have is that we don't have the right code, and the code that we do have is already shit.

But at least managers will be happy that their reports are now checking in +100,000 LoC a day. What could possibly go wrong?
Furries! In! Space!
> The thing is traditionnally sports have been invented by men with charactetistics/rules that suited men first.

Take a look at the history of the concept of marathon; I think your claim is a stretch. Running fast from point A to point B isn't some kind of patriarchal conspiracy.

Also you make two contradictory claims, which one is it?

1) that the sport inherently is sexist in design, so of course women aren't winning

2) that women would be winning if the sport had more women competing

Those are opposite arguments.
I wish I could enforce this at my current company. Everyone is always “busy” and in meetings and fighting fires from earlier short-term-thinking projects
This could be considered a new era for the internet. Or whenever it starts being used to serve the majority of search results.

People who are skeptical of AI won't like it of course. But it will be a literal and practical change to the way the majority of internet searches work.

Google basically becomes the de facto personal agent for most people at that point. I would not be surprised to see Google Assistant merge into the main search product.

Microsoft had actually been strategic by promoting Copilot.

I know that many HNers generally hate Blockchain and smart contracts and decentralized technologies, but I feel this direction is the only viable alternative to monopoly platforms that are now even more directly acting as our interface to the world via agents.

Exactly what that looks like I don't know. But I do know it involves open protocols and probably open marketplaces for knowledge and other types of tasks.
If your program crashes or hangs it also doesn't run static destructors. And if this is safety critical you need the cleanup guarantee anyway, for example via a supervisor or watchdog process.
@dang, why did this get delisted?
This looks great relative to others (very similar to MacGPT), and I particularly like how advanced settings are available but tucked away behind discoverable affordances.

It's interesting that you have team pricing.

Can the Team leverage shared system prompts and/or assistants from a OneDrive-for-Business (SharePoint) folder or GitHub repo?

If not, what makes it "Team" instead of just individual?
Good point. Without the name, it's hard to see how it libels (if it's written, it's libel, not slander) the expert.

I suppose it might be considered defamatory if there were only one math education expert at Stanford and everyone knew who that was, but that seems implausible.
What Do You See?
Covered at length here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57094295-termination-sho...
That typesettings one has a confusing license. GitHub says MIT, the linked page says commercial use not allowed.
I just looked it up. Looks like he didn't get banned for anything related to Linux or programming, but for posting a video titled "71% of Gaza wants all Jews to die (according to new Gaza polling)".

https://rumble.com/v4kuyhr-youtube-removes-video-and-locks-c...

Make of it what you will.
Sad to say...but "that policy has no chance of working as you [imagine|hope|claim] it will" is a 99.97% useless argument, when [politicians|influencers|voters] are trying to meet emotional needs.
The bar keeps being lowered and the goal post keeps moving
I only skimmed the article but a few things jumped out at me that confirmed what I was going to suggest anyway, so let's go with that :)

"Better suited" is not the same thing as faster.

Less cellular and muscular breakdown might mean they're typically able to recover faster and perform better day after day, while not necessarily indicating that faster men's single-event times have some kind of sexism as a root cause.

The article discussed fast twitch vs slow twitch fibers and how men could be more powerful but worse at endurance, but again, what is the limit of endurance? As another reply to this post suggested, modern athletic performance foods might help men overcome what would otherwise be a disadvantage in multi-hour efforts. Of course, those same foods/fuels are likely designed with men in mind in the first place!
InstantID uses a non-commercial licensed model (from insightface) as part of its pipeline so I think that makes it a no-go for being part of Stability's commercial service.
Even looking on Amazon, DDR4 seems still a decent bit above $2/GB:

2 x 32GB: $142

2 x 64GB: $318

8GB: $16

2 x 16GB: $64

2TB of 128GB DDR4 ECC: $9,600 (https://www.amazon.com/NEMIX-RAM-Registered-Compatible-Mothe...)

> Servers that support that much are actually cheap (~$200)

What does this mean? What motherboards support 2TB of RAM at $200? Most of them are pushing $1,000. With no CPU.

It may not hit $50K, but it's definitely not going to be $2K.
Yes, but it shouldn't be to the point that it gets in the way of the content. But I'm not a web designer and I'm not the intended audience. Still, I like to click through to interesting (to me) things and check them out. The typeface kept me from investigating as far as I normally might.
It's always fascinating to see. The business portions are much easier to solve for with an engineering mindset, but it seems to be a common issue that engineers never take it into account.

This is saying nothing about "technologists" (or as they're starting to become derided as "wordcels": people that communicate well, but cannot execute anything themselves).

It would be... not trivial, but straightforward to map out the finances on everything involved, and see if there is room from any standpoint (engineering, financial, product, etc.) to get queries to breakeven, or even profitable.

But at that point, I believe the answer will be "no, it's not possible at the moment." So it becomes a game of stalling, and burning more money until R&D finds something new that may change that answer (a big if).
It’s interesting how popular Alzheimer’s research is on HN. I don’t really see any other website talk about it. I have multiple grandparents who were destroyed by it. I guess it is a scary future to look to