I think he meant number of reviewers per paper? Not total of reviewers.

BTW, I do think a highly educated society should give everyone capability to review or at minimum distinguish good papers

The leaderboard is ranked by the weekly download count by their "npx skills" command. This is Vercel new "standard" skills installer so obvious their skills are at the top.

Assuming that's a response to me... that explanation would have been nice, and it's misleading without it.

Hi! This is all explained in our docs: https://skills.sh/docs/faq

The other 4 cats are eat-only replicas? Is the primary predetermined or voted?

While I didn't have the math brain, I came to a pretty similar conclusion based on days swimming in Bulbapedia (with an added constraint that my Deoxys must have a slot).

Took the team to online matches and got swept, the pro players have completely different team choices and strategies.

Or on Chuck Norris: https://floor796.com/#t3l1,134,205

Or the black hole https://floor796.com/#t3r3,28,997

Or the Ninja Turtle to the left of the black hole.

Cute. There's that tripedal robot from Interstellar there.

This thread is great, truly the only way to get great answers on the HN is to post a wrong blog. But stupid wrong blogs are unlikely to get into HN front page, kudos for the writer for striking the right balance between easy to understand, working, interesting but faulty solution.

so true

It can misses some sensor readings, boil the water and scalds the user "automatically". Dumb heaters requires the user to "manually" do this, they never do though. P/S: I'd prefer your stop working scenario

That's interesting, because my intuition of an "average" face is, well, average and uninteresting. Can you share your source?

Here's one of the papers concerning "averageness=attractiveness": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

The trick is that there are two "averages" in play. Let's call them the "attractiveness average" and the "physical average". Your intuition concerns the attractiveness average: you know that there are beautiful people and ugly people, and "average people" must be somewhere in the middle, yes?

But when scientists average faces to create a perceived attractive face, they're averaging together the physical characteristics of each face: distance between the eyes, position of nose and ears on the head, size of mouth, symmetry, etc. The claim is that we have an intuitive, perhaps instinctual, notion of what humans "should" look like and our perception of attractiveness is roughly a measure of conformation to that standard. So an intuitively "average-looking" person is more correctly stated as having a medium amount of deviation from the human mean.

The average face should be perfectly symmetrical assuming iid. Perfectly symmetrical faces are generally seen as attractive across all cultures.

You need to reduce the standard to fit the Apple Intelligence (AI) in. This is also industry best practice.

Is there any reputable (reviewed, endorsed) AI model to detect skin cancer? I have a lot of similar moles, and playing with this app make me concern about all of them.

Lots of models out there but I would not trust any for diagnosis without review of a dermatologist yet. The challenge is unanticipated edge cases and managing risk/liability/regulation. I have no doubt that if a major AI company focused on this problem then these issues could be overcome with current technology but perhaps the market is not big enough to justify the investment required.

I heard that the good rule of thumb is to be concerned about unique ones. It much less probable that you develop exactly same looking cancer in two unrelated spots.

Yes we call this the "Ugly Duckling" sign