Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | yorwba's commentslogin

Because the constitution only allows drafting men: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...

The intersection of parties wanting to reinstate compulsory military service and parties supporting gender equality doesn't currently have the necessary supermajority to change the constitution. So we get a wishy-washy compromise, as is so often the case in democracies.


Western countries did not raise the standard of living using cash transfers, so of course looking at what they did won't tell you whether cash transfers are effective or not.

It's a point update to the closed-weight Qwen3.5-Plus. Of course there are no weights. Alibaba has consistently not released weights for their best models.

It's not a big problem in practice since you can split large character sets across multiple files and use multi-font support to combine them in the renderer.

Is the human baseline 248/248?

Assuming all the accents are British, I doubt it. I probably couldn't get all 248 myself.

They are all transcribed by multiple blinded "accent natives". But yes, your point is valid - going to see if I can tease out the "single person accuracy".

"Better" isn't just about increasing benchmark numbers. Often, it's more important that a system fails safely than how often it fails. Automatic speech recognition that guesses when the input is unclear will occasionally be right and therefore have a lower word error rate, but if it's important that the output be correct, it might be better to insert "[unintelligible]" and have a human double-check.

There are companies that already do nothing but serve tokens using models trained by others. Just running infrastructure and collecting a reasonable fee for their troubles. It's only a bad strategy if you want to claim to investors that you'll gain monopoly market share if only they could give you a few more billion dollars.

One of those people can republish their cleaned and validated version and the 999 others can compare it to the original to decide whether they agree with the way it was cleaned or not.

Having more independent samples helps filter out noise. If you had individual sensory neurons with outsized influence, then misfiring of such neurons would also have outsized influence.

This makes a lot of sense, thx!

Sounds plausible at least, but I think the question isn't necessarily making a valid assumption. Why do men have to have nipples? Why is our retina installed backwards? Why do sinuses drain upwards? It's just a path evolution took, it doesn't jump to some optimal design.

male nipples are developmental vestiges, the male condition is derived from response to embryonic testosterone, and is a developmental variation from default.

early stage embryos of both sexes are not easily distinguishable by genitalia, they look morphologically similar. later developmental events culminate in morphological rearrangement to male form.

lack of response to testosterone during development results n a curious state of affairs, where a person is genetically male, having x, and y chromosomes, develops according to a female plan. external appearances are female, with loss of secondary sex development in puberty.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...


Asking “why” questions about our body / evolution often (not always) gives informative answers. As in the example you gave: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-ou...

Interesting finding, though it doesn't explain animals with properly-wired retinas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye

(Scientific American is throwing up a paywall even though they're only republishing https://theconversation.com/look-your-eyes-are-wired-backwar... At least they link to the original.)


Correct, though interestingly apropos to the discussion is that sex is one of the ways evolution is able to get around local maximums.

It especially doesn't make sense considering that TurboQuant has been public on arXiv for almost a year: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19874 So it predates the late-2025 RAM price surge! https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/

I think that either investors were extremely skittish that the stocks might crash and jumped at the first sign of trouble (creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) or they were trading on non-public information and analysts who don't have access to said information are reading too much into the temporal coincidence of the Google Research blog highlighting this paper.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: