ecosystem

I wonder what the acceptable collisions/delivery needs to be for it to match last mile truck safety level (ie UPS trucks are big and run into things with non-zero frequency)

Throwing up hands and saying: internalizing the externalized cost is "ridiculously expensive" is not proof it doesn't work.

The examples of the a la carte exercise brands referenced (SoulCycle, etc) are quite ineffective arguments -- those are successful businesses with loyal, high retention users because they provide specific, high value products to the users.

Short-term thinking is how hegemonies end.

Burner email services like AnonAddy, iCloud "Hide my email", et al work well for actual receipt but also provide isolation.

On this topic (parallel postulate), it took ~2000 years from Euclid and then 3 people all came to the same conclusion independently within ~10-20 years.

Progress is weird.

The specific controversy was whether without the parallel/5th postulate, there existed a logical contradiction, i.e. proving the parallel postulate

Yet, OP is repeating the same logical fallacy: the absence of a result is not a result of absence.

This is a generally known part of the history of mathematics.

Nobody ever believed it to be a "fundamental mistruth"

https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/M...

"Lobachevsky [mathematician contemporary of Gauss, who claimed parallel postulate was unnecessary] was relentlessly criticized, mocked, and rejected by the academic world. His new “imaginary” geometry represented the “shamelessness of false new inventions”"

Further, many claimed premature success in finding logical contridictions in geometry lacking parallel (Euclid's 5th) postulate; which meant they believed a 4-postulate geometry to be fundamentally false.

Making a hard, arbitrary deadline is a pretty extreme thing to do. ie Higgs Boson was a lot longer between theory and experiment than this.

Non-Euclidean geometry (geometric axioms in which one postulate is rejected such that the 3 angles of a triangle are not exactly 180 degrees) was considered a meaningless word game and fundamental mistruth.

Later, non-Euclidean geometry was actually essential to modern physics.

It's intellectually sketchy to judge future value by the present.

The legit criticism with a legit recommended change is even better.

A time and technological gap always exists between theory and a plan for experimental confirmation. Some gaps are fairly short. String theory's gap is undoubtedly long, not for lack of resources.

This gap justifies tapering the allocation of attention and research resources (funding, students, etc), which got lopsided following the strong marketing campaign driven by Greene.

What's your estimate for hardware costs? You can't get phone+service for $20/month. What if they have limited or poor credit?

Probably, but it wouldn't be the first time an axe grinding broke a sponsored monopoly.

It's ~$1/person direct, but how much indirect cost? Things become inexpensive when automation and technological progress makes them so, and the code copyright and restriction is a major barrier to do that.

The bigger issue is software development, imo. eg the IT team at a hospital or the medical office can't build a tool to help coding efficiency or accuracy. Further, public resources/websites with code-related information get DMCA takedowns. It's a stranglehold on innovation/progress.

Right, it seems a lot like the public support test fails for the AMA -- their purpose and actions are highly misaligned on CPTs, but IANAL.

The American Medical Association owns copyright to all the codes and their descriptions. They have an extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options and they strictly forbid training models with the codes.

This month, the practice was called out (https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy...) so the Overton window may be opening.

The AMA (a nonprofit!) clears ~$300M/year revenue from the codes, which is the direct cost passed through to consumers, but the indirect costs are the byzantine nightmare of OP.

"Update: Expanding to Pro and Max plans Oct 23, 2025"

Your link is broken?

What do you mean by "private functions"? Do you mean unlisted, but publicly accessible HTTP endpoints?

Are they in your sitemap? robots.txt? Listed in JS or something else someone scraped?

This comment is way too far down the page.

If the unit tests are slow enough to want to skip them, they likely are not unit tests but some kind of service-level tests or tests that are hitting external APIs or some other source of a bad smell. If the slow thing is the build, then cache the artifact keyed off the directory contents so the step is fast if code is unchanged. If the unit tests only run for a package when the code changes, there is a lack of e2e/integration testing. So, what is OP's testing strategy? Caching? It seems like following good testing practices would make this problem disappear.

"Swarm intelligence" doesn't seem a very anthrocentric/anthromorphic concept and the swarm coordination across tasks is the interesting aspect of this paper. Do you think this claim is unfounded? (Edited: typo)

The demo redirects to localhost.

But is the average Target shopper on a cheap Android phone accessing over non-broadband? Wayfair?

It's a fair point to note devs and users might have different devices, but in some cases they don't and the decision to use React might be well-founded with that fact.

Are the Indian news sources cited in the allegedly defaming Wikipedia article also considered to be western biased?

That could be true for half the prize, but for the other half, Hopfield is part of undergraduate and graduate physics canon.

Hopfield made substantial contributions (Nobel-contention work) in multiple fields, which is truly astonishing: Kinetic proofreading (biochemistry/biophysics), HopNets (ML), long distance electron transfer (physics), and much more.

Welcome news that he finally got there.

Hopfield associate NNs was several years prior to 1985.

+1. Check the demo video in OP titled "Sarcasm". Human asks GPTo to speak "dripping in sarcasm". The tone that comes back is spot on. Comparing that against current voice model is a total sea change.

You posted a lot of comments in response to complaints or critiques of postgrest (almost every one at the time of my reading).

Most of them are very terse, rude/dismissive, and in my view fall on the wrong side of hackernews etiquette. eg, "Sure you can. Just X" is not a educational or persuasive construction and neither are several other comments you've made on this submission.

If nothing else, I'd encourage you to respond to the best version (steelman) of these critiques, which will improve the quality of discussion and be more persuasive.