skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I knew of a building named Water's Edge, but spelled "Waters Edge". The absence of a possessive apostrophe was bothersome but I realised there's a case for sacrificing correctness for things like ease of communication and how the words look.

An insight from Oscar Wilde:

> Mr. Noel, in one of his essays, speaks with much severity of those who prefer sound to sense in poetry. No doubt, this is a very wicked thing to do. But he himself is guilty of a much graver sin against art when, in his desire to emphasise the meaning of Chatterton, he destroys Chatterton's music. In the modernised version he provides of the wonderful Songe to Ælla, he mars the poem's metrical beauty with his corrections, ruins the rhymes, and robs the music of its echo. [1]

(^^ that's from a short but wonderful essay, worth reading!)

[1] https://ia800203.us.archive.org/23/items/collectedworksau12w...
Seller price discrimination is a different phenomenon from what I am discussing.

I am hinting at how ex-ante price disclosure or negotiation reduces transactions costs of triangulation and trust.
Agreed. I’ve been trying to dial in a rule of thumb:

If you aren’t using the abstraction on 3 cases when you build it, it’s too early.

Even two turns into a higher bar than I expected.
thinking in terms of time encourages you to incorrectly think of complexity as linear, imho
We see these in Swedish too and they're just as incorrect, grammatically.

But the worst thing is usually the acute accent is used instead of a real apostrophe, which just makes it stand out even more.
so you would admit that a 25% diff in base pay would be plausible . so would you also admit a 25% diff in benifits would also be plausible . granted the total diff would work out to somewhere around 30~40% range , but i still hold if we are comparing true apple to apple and we exclude FAANG , we would most likely get in the 50% range.

Some emphasis should be made on the total percentage of H1B applicants 75% are Indian and at-least ~90% of those are in the TECH working for CTS, TCS both are consulting firms They dont sell any products or services (and dont have offices in SF). They survive by giving the lowest bid for a service . And when the minimum wage is the lower bound why bother paying any higher (60-75% discount), This was the case prior to trump. After Trump H1Bs became scarce and to justify it you needed "highly skilled" employees and they made the paygap more justifiable to 45-50%.

So i still hold my original statement H1B is for tech what H2A is for agriculture.
Well there's also compiler directives other than `inline`, like msvc's `__inline` and `__forceinline` (which probably also have an equivalent in gcc or clang), so personally I don't think you need to make the tradeoff between readability and reusability while avoiding function calls. Not to mention C++ constevals and C-style macros, though consteval didn't exist in 2007
If I’m understanding this correctly this proposal would fully break compatibility with many (most?) codebases, actually remove syntactic sugar and force more characters for the same functionality. I fail to see how this is even being considered.

I don’t understand the idiomatic viewpoint either here, I understand the author personally finds it confusing when excepts aren’t verbose but I think you would be hard pressed to find many python developers who agree. Even outside the ecosystem, most languages have been adding more support for bare excepts (like js with bare catch) so this feels like a step backwards.

But maybe I’m just not understanding this proposal!
> For the former case, you don't need any complex logic. A very typical example would be: i'm serializing a field or constructing a url so I want the variable name "Someproperty" as a lower case string. The lowercase transform is completely naive. I know exactly what the range of possible characters are and they aren't going to be Turkish or emoji, not least because I have asserted they won't be. And THIS is what the regular programming functions for upper/lower case are for. They are important, and they are most often correct. Because for all the other cases (i18n, user input, ...) you probably don't want to do toUpper/toLower at all to begin with!

C++ std::tolower/toupper (which are really just C tolower/toupper) are the wrong tool for that too though because they depend on the process locale which makes them a) horribly inefficient and b) prone to blow your program up in interesting ways on customer systems. Not quite as bad as the locale-dependent standard number parsing functions that want . in some localses and , in others but still should never be used.
Meanwhile in English we have our own apostrophe catastrophe where it's become commonplace online to add one to a plural.
An Old Clash Heats Up over Oppenheimer's Red Ties
New IP Scoring Tool to Combat Fraud – Powered by AI
Hey HN,

I’m excited to announce the launch of TrustedClicks, an AI-driven IP scoring tool designed to help businesses combat fraud, particularly in the realms of click fraud and bot traffic. Our tool provides accurate, real-time fraud detection by analyzing key data points from each IP address—such as location, behavior patterns, and suspicious activity—giving users an instant IP fraud score and trust level.

Key Features:

- AI-powered scoring that adapts to new threats quickly
- Real-time detection and risk assessment
- No upselling—affordable pricing with transparency
- Easy integration with just a few API calls

I’d love to hear your feedback, suggestions, or any questions you might have. You can check it out here: https://trustedclicks.ai/

Looking forward to your thoughts!
thanks so much for breaking your process down like that. I've been VERY curious about this for some time.. but have not had any time to play around myself.

In terms of the 20% traditional coding, was that something you had to figure out 100% yourself? or can a newbie also be guided on this part as well? I totally understand the benefit of just doing it quickly yourself, especially if you already have something to reuse that works.

This is how I will be teaching my 11yr old son to code going fwd!

re: Ai/Sheets
Can it propose and generate a better "P&L" based on feeding it "myShittyAttempt"
and the "Ideal_P&L_Sheet"? Would using Vision even help in this instance?
My preferred way of writing frontend code is ClojureScript with Reagent. That hasn't changed in eight years since I discovered Reagent eight years ago.

Just don't chase fads. Stick to things that you know are working fine.
> Aren't you assuming that humans are born with some kind of blank slate of a brain?

No; FTA:

>> ... humans are born with extremely sophisticated programming, provided by evolution. That programming integrates information from all our ancestors, arguably going back to the origin of life on earth.

> What if they don't get it from their senses.

That's a core question; FTA:

>> Is “pre-training” on visual data the secret to our success?

>> No.

>> Because… blind people? What are we doing here?

>> Deaf people show that (non-verbal) sound isn’t critical either....

>> Or maybe all that other sensory data is irrelevant. I don’t know. But that’s kind of the point—...
Yeah, the frontend scene definitely suffers from hype-driven development: it's not good enough that we have a tool to do the job, we need the tool to be the bestest ever on every possible metric, so we end up with a treadmill of additional frameworks, bundlers, etc. that are hyped up in any given year.

E.g., I might think to ask, "Which tool creates the output with the lesser overhead on the client, Webpack or Vite?" But I can't find anything solid about that, since everyone's too busy hyping up the dev experience or whatever.

It's a shame that you have to swim against the tide so heavily, if you value simplicity over immediate kitchen-sink levels of functionality. Personally, I've landed on pure client-side React (with any bundler, or with Babel alone if you're feeling adventurous) since it doesn't try to have any purpose other than updating components according to state. Many of its competitors have too much poorly-documented magic for my taste.
What does Tim Peters think about this change?
Knew it was python before the first line of code. Python lacks ceremony-free data syntax, that’s why people use dicts. Dataclasses have to be named, initialized and imported, which is tedious. Much easier to just foo({name, age}) and let typings match, but python doesn’t have that. Lack of “POPO” is a design mistake.
I think that says a lot about the origin of the joke, which most likely comes from outside Europe :)
hey now, it took me most of a decade to figure out that retep was peter backwards!

but also, it's not particularly identifying as there are a lot of peter's in and around bitcoin.
AlphaFold is a useful tool but it's unsatisfying from a physical chemistry perspective. It doesn't give much if any insight in to the mechanisms of folding, and is of very limited value in designing novel proteins with industrial applications, and in protein prediction for membrane-spanning proteins, extremophilic microbe proteins, etc.

Thus things like folding kinetics of transition states and intermediates, remain poorly understood through such statistical models, because they do not explicitly incorporate physical laws governing the protein system, such as electrostatic interactions, solvation effects, or entropy-driven conformational changes.

In particular, environmental effects are neglected - there's no modeling of the native solvated environment, where water molecules, ions, and temperature directly affect the protein’s conformational stability. This is critical when it comes to designing a novel protein with catalytic activity that's stable under conditions like high salt, high temperature etc.

As far as Nobel Prizes, it was already understood in the field two decades ago that no single person or small group was going to have an Einstein moment and 'solve protein folding', it's just too complicated. This award is questionable and the marketing effort involved by the relevant actors has been rather misleading - for one of the worst examples of this see:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/one-of-the-bigges...

For a more judicious explanation of why the claim that protein folding has been solved isn't really true:

"The power and pitfalls of AlphaFold2 for structure prediction beyond rigid globular proteins" (June 2024)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-024-01638-w
Pilot dies in middle of flight to Turkey, forcing emergency NYC landing
Does calculus matter? The Calculus Project says it's a key to advancing equity
I'll add a 4th rationale:
4. It will create work for countless developers which is completely consistent with the python core value of disdain for other people's time.

If this pep were implemented I suspect it would result in forcing thousands of not tens of thousands of people to spend hours modifying perfectly working code and destroying the ability to run old scientific code without modification. Extremely effective industrial sabotage if it were to be accepted.

It is hard for me to articulate how much peps like this reinforce my desire to never start another python project. Even if this pep is rejected the fact that there are people who would put in the time and effort to write and submit such a PEP tells me that they will do it again, and eventually they might succeed.
Back to the manufacture it goes! Not a big deal in a medium to large business. I'm unsure how a small business would deal with it, but the smaller you go, the less likely you'd have a standardized image.
https://archive.is/s2A8Z
Depends. USB devices have "class"es which define their functions. Or you can allow per device via "manufacturer:model" identifiers.

The controls can be very granular, if you decide to manage that.
The models and tools designed for the CASP competition were an example of running around the solution space at a glacial pace and getting stuck in local minima. I can't speak for Rosetta by my labmates had fairly successful tools that usually ranked right behind Baker's lab, and they were plagued by issues where the most successful models had impossible or idiosyncratic terms in them.

For example, a very successful folding model had the signs reversed on hydrophobic and some electrostatic interactions. It made no sense physically but it gave a better prediction than competing models, and it was hard to move away from because it ranked well in CASP.
It used to be true that the pumping stations themselves were powered by gas, but this is no longer guaranteed because some have been replaced by cheaper electrical pumps.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061902...
> and removes friction in visiting sites.

Advertising seriously increases that friction.

> How many would choose a world where you pay for every website you look at

Nobody, but that's not the alternative. That's not how it worked before advertising came in and degraded the web.
Still sounds like unnecessary risk when you can achieve it with a read-only CD drive.
other way around. using a near monopoly on android to suggest chrome. or the default in chrome being google.

just because you provide a way to do so, it's a lot of effort to swap. defaults matter. remember msft getting sued over IE?
Depends on the drive. Early drive firmwares were unencrypted and left debug features available. Modern drives use encrypted firmware and have the debug modes disabled. If you’ve got one of those early firmwares, you’re good to go. If not, you’ll need to patch your drive.

However, “encrypted” is fairly weak compared to, say, a game console when the key is the same for all drives and there’s no hardware-level anti-rollback…

As a result, it was fairly easily defeated on modern drives. Find key, decrypt firmware, make changes, re-encrypt, update. Thanks MediaTek for keeping the same flawed legally-approved chip architecture for almost a decade.
It bothers me that UBI is conflated with social support and welfare.
The term carries a bunch of connotation and implications which are material to the sprit of the statement.
I think that's a very negative way to view it.

We should try to follow recommendations from health professionals to the best of our ability.

However if I followed every doctor's recommendation, I would just be taking care of my health every waking hour. I would be very healthy and fit, but I wouldn't have the time to actually enjoy my life.
I agree. Our state AG filed a lawsuit after the pandemic — I don't even really remember exactly what goods it involved — but my impression at the time is that these things don't always covary in the way the article assumes. Increased prices don't necessarily bring down hoarding, and can actually exacerbate it if there's a perception that the goods are now much more valuable. Relatedly, it's also dangerous to assume that the sellers and suppliers don't overlap with the hoarders in controlling or otherwise unnecessarily restricting supply.

I was a little disappointed in the focus on price gouging as a policy platform — I think in many cases there's an underlying, simpler antitrust or price fixing prototype up the chain somewhere that could be applied to a given price spike phenomenon. But I'm not sure defending price gouging is really warranted either.
What is it about modern cookie implementations that make them more easily abused than whatever solution might be able to replace the current widespread usage of cookies for i.e., authorization and user settings?
Python doesn't use semantic versioning. The number after the first period is a major (annual) release and can and does contain breaking changes (though so far never on the scale of the 2->3 upgrade).

We may never see a 4.0 because of the scar tissue, but the language continues to evolve.
I agree with all that. Bringing up Boltzman brains was just an alternate way of explaining how inhabitants of a block universe could experience time as sequential without a real sequential ordering of universe states. Presumably if one can conceptualize a Boltzman brain coming into existence to experience one instant of a virtual life with virtual memories, you can imagine a long sequence of them experiencing the entirety of this virtual life. But the order in which this sequences comes into existence doesn't alter the directionality of subjective time evolution for the Boltzman brains.
The evidence is pretty heavy that they have a high price tag on keeping the default search position on browsers. The argument is somewhat more that their dominance in search is what affords them dominance in ads, which is what allows them to keep the dominance in search by purchasing the default spot.

This is even more relevant when a large portion of the first page of search results are essentially paid spots. Back when they were more algorithm focused and that was not directly influenced by revenue into the company, this was more defensible. Now, though, it is easy to say that they pay $X to keep the default search position to bring in $Y revenue.
> antitrust law says that you can't leverage a monopoly in one area in order to establish one in another area

Would Chrome have gained that much popularity if Google hadn't been the most used search engine, nay, website in the world?

> As far as I understand, developing a non-monopoly business to try to protect your monopoly business is not illegal.

IANAL either, but whatever Google is doing with Chrome should be illegal, i.e. making so many (open) web standards that it is basically impossible for a new browser engine entrant unless they invest billions.

In fact, I reckon that no major corporation should be sitting on the W3C board if they have vested interest in controlling the future of the internet. It's the equivalent of lobbying legislators, but worse, because the people writing the standards are openly on your payroll.

Right now the only thing that stands between Google and total domination of the world wide web is Apple and their stubborn dedication to Webkit. Another example that only a company with the revenue in the hundreds of billions can complete in this field that affects the entire world. I am sincerely thankful to them.
Life spans are growing but health spans are shrinking. What that means for money
Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
Ask HN: In October 2024, is it a good idea to get an RX 7900 XT for ML?
Pros:

Relatively low price - The 7900XT is more competitively priced compared to equivalent NVIDIA GPUs.

Good 4K gaming performance - For games at 4K resolution, the 7900XT can provide satisfactory performance.

George Hotz's tinybox project offers both 6x 7900XTX and 6x 4090, indicating that the 7900XT may have promising applications in certain computational fields.

Open-Source - ROCm (Radeon Open Compute) is open-source, while NVIDIA's official drivers are not. We should support open-source initiatives.

Cons:

Less mature software ecosystem - Getting research programs to run on the 7900XT may require substantial debugging and optimization work.

Higher power consumption - Compared to NVIDIA products of the same tier, the 7900XT generally has higher power consumption.

Driver stability issues - AMD GPU drivers have historically been less stable and reliable than NVIDIA's, potentially leading to driver crashes and other problems.

Resources:

https://github.com/geohot/7900xtx

Run machine learning on 7900XT and 7900XTX on PyTorch: https://gist.github.com/AlkindiX/9c54d1155ba72415f3b585e26c9df6b3

https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm
Which model had the signs reversed?

Yes, CASP was prone to getting stuck in local minima. I think the whole structure prediction field had become moribund.
> That isn't what Google is doing. They aren't using a monopoly in search to try to establish a monopoly in browsers or phone OSes. Google search will happily return results for Apple phones or for how to download Firefox.

Except that's not true. IIRC, before Chrome was ubiquitous and dominant, they used their search monopoly to incessantly nag people to install it. If Chrome had just popped up as a download on some Google website, and was never promoted by is other properties, I really doubt it would be so dominant today.

At the time Firefox had something like a ~25% market share and was growing fast, and IE had the rest). If Google hadn't used its monopoly, I bet we'd now have a 3-way browser split between Firefox, and Chrome, and a cleaned up IE.
Thinking about a Thought Experiment
Granted there are some people on earth who can speak those 3 languages fluently, but it greatly diminishes the pool of available people. If you wanted to take the example to the absurd, you could just start listing more languages, and ChatGPT would happily spit out the answer translated to 100 languages in a few seconds. No person could do that.
In the kindest way possible: we have no idea how the brain works, and it would be foolish to write off statistical relationships as a core mechanism the brain uses. Doubly foolish when considering that we are not even sure how LLMs work.
ordem e progresso = sorting and soup? https://www.progresso.com
> Then the same "implicit subsidy" goes for literally every facet of human activity

No, we generally pay for pollution. If I litter I pay. If I have to throw stuff away I pay (via taxes). If I have to dump dangerous chemicals I pay.

Oil industry can dump whatever they want into the air and they don't pay. You, and I, pay. We don't actually know how profitable oil is because of this.
"The Father: Adam Back

The Son: Peter Todd

The Holy Ghost: Greg Maxwell"

https://x.com/CullenHoback/status/1843884010013102314
What an amazing thing - "free healthcare" results in regular people being able to do what they want with their lives rather than being stuck doing something they don't want to!
The existence of two opposing PEPs says to me that there may be a case to be made for either side, so we should default to not changing things.

I used to think it’s likely that you can make a much stronger case for one side, but I personally feel that’s more for early language development phase. If it’s been a certain way for a long time, it ought to be overwhelmingly obvious and overwhelmingly supported by the community to change it. And even then I feel a bit of doubt.
Oh, it's because the site does `*{visibility:hidden}` during loading. Don't do that, show us the intermediate state >:)

You're artificially making your FCP also be your TTI, which means page navigation, when everything should be cached and fast, feels slow. That's not something e.g. Lighthouse tells you.

I recommend showing the page right away, even if there's going to be jank. Jank/Cumulative layout shifts can be fixed later.
The bottom line is you're not putting money where your mouth is. Real rugged devices can't have top notch performance because waterproofing and expanding wider operating temperature require insulation and therefore performance reduction but that's not important.

The very core of the problem is you - not personally but the vast majority would-be rugged phone buyers - just don't buy rugged phones, nor take it outdoors. People who'd demand rugged phones would just buy the latest and greatest iPhone, maybe with a case with reward points, and that covers almost every single use cases.

If there had been demand at all, the level of performance possible in a ruggedized phone will be the benchmark, and current high end will be considered over the top models with compromised ruggedness, but the reality isn't working that way at all.