[HN Gopher] Pareto Front
___________________________________________________________________
Pareto Front
Author : binyu
Score : 247 points
Date : 2026-07-29 12:12 UTC (8 days ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| soupspaces wrote:
| https://www.mayerowitz.io/blog/mario-meets-pareto
| cubefox wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49195231
| Aachen wrote:
| Misread the title and got excited about a Pareto font, that is,
| the best possible font (presumably: distinct l/I, O/0, scores
| within error margins of the top readability and reading speed
| scores, widely available, etc.)
|
| Maybe in vein but did anyone already figure this one out? The
| closest I got was PT sans, open-licensed commissioned by the
| Russian ministry for communication (I found it surprising that a
| country that doesn't use Latin script made the best font!), but
| it's not widely shipped so you need to figure out how to include
| font files whenever you want to use it
| adornKey wrote:
| I'd also be interested in the Pareto Front of Fonts. That would
| be the final font collection - to rule them all.
| joshka wrote:
| lol same :D
| airstrike wrote:
| Inter with optional open type features turned on?
|
| https://rsms.me/inter/
| Aachen wrote:
| I didn't know fonts can have options. Another learning curve
| on how to enable that in Latex/Html/Libreoffice/anywhere else
| I use fonts ^^'. But still helpful to know about!
|
| ss02 disambiguation seems to be the one I'd be wanting to
| turn on, with tnum for monospace numbers being a good option
| as well that I hadn't even realised I wanted from a font!
| airstrike wrote:
| Yeah, those features are awesome! Sadly support for them is
| quite lacking in applications...
|
| Tabular numbers are awesome!
| notpushkin wrote:
| I feel like there should be a GUI tool to bake in any
| alternates into the font itself.
| airstrike wrote:
| Ok, I'll make it!
| cheesecakegood wrote:
| You mean like Commit Mono does? https://commitmono.com/
| gadders wrote:
| I thought it was some sort of Italian activism group.
|
| "The Pareto Front today claimed responsiblity for...."
| orthoxerox wrote:
| ...20% of the attacks causing 80% of the casualties?
| mdnahas wrote:
| As someone with an Italian grandmother and both a CS and
| Econ degree, I got a great laugh out of this joke! Bravo!
| pphysch wrote:
| No!! That is the Front of Pareto[1], a totally different
| group. Our Pareto Front only causes 20% of the casualties.
|
| [1] -
| http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/8.htm
| lucaslazarus wrote:
| You mean the People's front of Pareto!
| croisillon wrote:
| splitters!
| __s wrote:
| Trouble with fonts is sometimes monospace good, sometimes
| monodpace bad
|
| Anyways I'll namedrop Iosevka as perfect monospace font for
| working on 13" laptop
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| Seconding Iosevka, it's great for code! And you can get a
| version without ligatures.
| Aachen wrote:
| That looks... swingy! Took a second to get used to it but I
| think I like the refreshing take for a monospace font :)
| https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Iosevka+Charon+Mono
| arduanika wrote:
| No, it's far from the best possible font, but to its credit, it
| gets most aspects of typography right by just focusing on the
| ~1/5 of the requirements that actually really count.
| Aachen wrote:
| What are the 4/5ths that you don't like, and which one(s)
| would you recommend instead? (I'm mostly interested/focussed
| on the sans variant but also happy to hear about serif and
| mono)
| arduanika wrote:
| It's not that I don't _like_ them. It 's more just that
| some of these design considerations are not worth the
| effort to fret over, and if you're smart about your time,
| doing 1/5 of the work will get you something like ~4/5 of
| the results.
| notpushkin wrote:
| ...so it _is_ the Pareto font indeed!
| peesem wrote:
| look at Atkinson Hyperlegible? commissioned by the Braille
| foundation for low-vision readers which means it's very
| readable
| Aachen wrote:
| Huh, I'm positive this was one of the first I considered (or
| perhaps it was a different dyslexia font) but I can't find
| the reason why I would have preferred PT Sans over this. Each
| has some pros and cons: PT Sans has same-width digits;
| Hyperlegible has a nicer-looking Q (imo); PT Sans has a
| normal-looking zero (not struck); Hyperlegible has a normal-
| looking 'fi' combination (no ligature that merges the two
| characters into a new one); Hyperlegible has a 6 distinct
| from an inverted 9; PT Sans needs a bit less horizontal
| space. The font specifically designed for accessibility
| should be the easy winner if all else is equal anyway
|
| They apparently released Hyperlegible Next in 2025 which,
| flipping between tabs on Google Fonts (since the original
| website doesn't show the fonts), is nearly identical but has
| five new weight settings (nobody should imo ever use thin
| fonts though, it noticeably harms readability for me and my
| sight is only the tiniest bit below normal vision, but ok
| it's an option) and improved kerning (the original font had
| extremely little space between 'll', for example)
|
| The 2025 version sadly doesn't ship with my version of
| TexLive, but the original (from 2020) already does so that
| makes it easy to use as well! Cool stuff, thanks for the tip
| :)
| bhanu786 wrote:
| may, anyone explain what is this
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Basically, prioritization.
|
| It's really that simple.
|
| Eschew obfuscation.
| bhanu786 wrote:
| you have confused me
| Lerc wrote:
| Almost the complete opposite of prioritisation.
|
| The Pareto points are where you sacrifice the least of
| anything to get the most of everything.
|
| There's the saying about buying computers. Good, Cheap, Fast,
| pick any two. That's where you would prioritise.
|
| If someone makes something that better, cheaper, and faster,
| or even pretty close to the best on two of those and clearly
| better on the other. It's a Pareto point.
|
| Over time computers are getting better, cheaper and faster
| (software notwithstanding). The leading edge of that advance
| of all of the things is the Pareto front.
| jrrv wrote:
| Given this in the TFA
|
| > a Pareto front represents the set of solutions where no
| solution outperforms any other solution in the set at every
| objective
|
| I do not believe you are correct when you say
|
| > something that better, cheaper, and faster, or even
| pretty close to the best on two of those and clearly better
| on the other. It's a Pareto point.
|
| Since that would outperform on every objective
|
| GP's point that it's prioritisation does not seem incorrect
| to me. Prioritisation involves considering trade-offs of
| various approaches and deciding which aspects & attributes
| to optimise for, at the expense of others.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm not sure how that's the opposite of prioritizing, but
| if I'm wrong, then I'll happily admit it.
|
| We choose our items/workflows/technologies/whatever, so we
| get the best/most efficient/most effective/whatever, across
| the widest possible set.
|
| Sounds like prioritizing, to me, but I'm just a dumb hick,
| so I suppose I can be wrong.
| Lerc wrote:
| Prioritising is when you choose something over another. A
| drag racer prioritises time to travel a quarter mile.
|
| Going for the Pareto is when you elect not to prioritise.
| It is explicitly deciding to not choose one property over
| another ant to keep everything as much as you can.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I read it as finding the point of maximum effectiveness.
| The point at which the most is done for the most.
|
| Getting to that point can be calculated (in some cases),
| but I suspect most folks get there by trial and error.
| Finding out what is effective, and what is not, and
| choosing what is effective, over what is not, until
| there's no longer a choice. That often becomes tribal
| knowledge, and is handed down. There's always someone
| trying to improve it, and when they figure it out, that
| gets added to the tribal knowledge. Basically, that's how
| nature does it, so there's some serious prior art.
| Natural Selection is _brutal_ prioritization.
|
| In Morocco, they used to announce the end of the Ramadan
| fast, by holding up a black thread and a white thread,
| and waiting until they could not tell the difference.
|
| Then, they'd fire a cannon, and everybody would dig into
| some awesome soup. Sort of the same thing.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| No, it's more about maximizing the utility function and
| finding the "shield" where you'd start getting diminishing
| return beyond that
| isoprophlex wrote:
| "what's the family of optimal choices when you have multiple
| dimensions to rank on?"
|
| Say a race vehicle has acceleration, top speed as defining
| parameters. Some are slow but accelerate hard, others need a
| long time to reach very high top speeds. Others are in between,
| or just flat out bad at both.
|
| The pareto frontier is the set of vehicles that are best: pick
| one from the frontier and you can be sure that for it's given
| top speed, none accelerate faster. And vice versa, pick one
| with a given acceletation and you are sure none have a better
| top speed
| continuational wrote:
| When you have a tradeoff between two parameters, which points
| dominate the others in the sense that you can't choose another
| point without getting less of one of the parameters.
| bhanu786 wrote:
| thanks, may you tell me where we can use them?
| joshka wrote:
| The current thing that comes up regularly is choosing an
| LLM setup.
| felixguendling wrote:
| If you optimize one criterion, it's simple: lowest is best or
| highest is best. If you optimize multiple criteria, all optimal
| trade offs between any of the selected criteria are "best" in
| some way.
| chriswarbo wrote:
| If we have a set of things (e.g. language models) and some
| measures we care about (e.g. cost, speed, whether weights are
| open, scores for a few benchmarks, etc.), then some of those
| things will be "pareto optimal" (see below) and some won't. The
| "pareto front" is the subset that is pareto optimal.
|
| Some thing is "pareto optimal" when there isn't another thing
| that's AT LEAST AS GOOD in ALL measures, and BETTER in at least
| one way. For example, if we say there are no ties (for
| simplicity), then the cheapest language model is pareto
| optimal; the fastest model is pareto optimal; those which score
| highest on each benchmark are pareto optimal; and so on.
|
| Tradeoffs can also be pareto optimal: for example, if the
| cheapest model is also slow, then there will be more pareto
| optimal models which are "cheapest for their speed"; and so on
| for other tradeoffs (e.g. fastest that achieves a certain
| benchmark score; cheapest model with open weights; etc.).
|
| If you're making a decision about which thing to choose, you
| only need to care about those in the pareto front (since, by
| definition, anything that's not pareto optimal is objectively
| worse on at least one measure).
|
| Pareto optimality does not compare one measure against another:
| something that's 10000x slower can still be pareto optimal, if
| it's 1% cheaper than the alternatives. To pick a "best" thing,
| you could give a weight/importance to each measure, and combine
| them into an overall score: but that's subjective, and might
| vary between people and tasks. In contrast, focusing on the
| pareto front is a way to ignore those things that will never be
| the best, regardless of weighting.
| matsemann wrote:
| I honestly think the wikipedia article is too complicated. My
| own image example here as an another attempt to explain:
| https://imgur.com/a/5ZQIJDb
|
| Mapping the cost of something (like an algorithm), and the
| time it takes (so lower is better for both). 1, 3 and 5 are
| all optimal in their own sense. No one is strictly better
| than the other, just different tradeoffs you have to choose
| yourself. However, you would never choose 2, because for a
| lower cost you could get the same result choosing 3. Same
| with 4, 6 and 7, they all have something that's both faster
| and at the same time just as cheap you could choose.
|
| A pareto front is a bit like the classical "fast, cheap,
| good, choose 2". There are always tradeoffs, but if something
| is both slow, expensive and not better than something that's
| faster and cheaper, it's a bad choice, and thus not on the
| "pareto front".
| denismenace wrote:
| I'm assuming you must have discovered this through the OpenRouter
| LLM performance graphs.
| miyuru wrote:
| artificialanalysis for me.
|
| https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-comparison-tabs
| trash_cat wrote:
| I think the one from hugging face is much clearer, albeit its
| an arena metric and a bit tricky to find the pareto view.
| Look for the the top Navigation Bar (Agent Chat Code Image
| Video). Chat -> (dropdown) Text -> (Side panel) View as
| Pareto.
|
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmarena-ai/arena-leaderboard
| Aachen wrote:
| First mention in chats for me was September 2016. Not sure how
| that topic came up but LLMs aren't the only way to get there.
| It's also a rather obvious principle to come up with, at least
| I'm pretty sure I was doing it without thinking I should name
| the concept of picking the option that best fits your
| requirements
| gpt5 wrote:
| You can see the Pareto Frontier well in DeepSWE's chart here -
| https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/
|
| ChatGPT 5.6 Luna on the right (cheaper) cover most of the
| frontier, with a point for Deepseek flash, and higher performance
| overlapping heavily between 5.6 Sol and Fable.
|
| That DeepSeek point will probably move back towards Luna as
| deepseek announced a "significant" price increase coming to their
| API [1], which kind of demonstrates that beating the Pareto
| frontier is where the difficulty actually is).
|
| [1]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-06/deepseek-...
| kooi wrote:
| I've been wondering if OpenAI make Luna artificially cheap to
| get people into their eco system.
|
| I think it's great and hope the price can stay the same.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I think Luna might be just small enough to provide some kind
| of stepwise improvement in how it is hosted.
|
| Going from 81GB of weights to 79GB of weights can mean a 50%
| reduction in GPU capacity required.
|
| If you can fit a model in just one GPU (or rack) as opposed
| to across an entire datacenter, the latency gains can be
| substantial too. If you can reduce token latency by half,
| that would double the amount of customers you could support.
| CodeIsTheEnd wrote:
| I am training for a marathon, and, as I increase both by distance
| and pace, I am always excited when I have a "Pareto run": a run
| along the Pareto frontier of me trying to maximize distance and
| speed.
|
| When explaining it to some coworkers, I stumbled on a fairly
| intuitive explanation: "I've run farther before, and I've run
| faster before, but I've never run _this_ far, _this fast."
|
| There was some pushback about why not just call it a PR (personal
| record), but I would only use that term for fixed distances (1mi,
| 5k, 10k, etc.) or a consistent route that I've run many times
| before. Nobody would say "I set my 7.40 mile PR today." More
| importantly, it misses the comparison to all farther (and faster)
| runs--it's not exciting to set a 5k PR just because you've barely
| run that distance before, and the pace is actually slower that a
| 10k you've done.
|
| (Had a Pareto run of 7.40 miles @ 6:28/mi last week!)
| froxtrot wrote:
| Not relevant to pareto, but that's a really fun way to look at
| running. Not quite as fast as your pareto run shows, but I'll
| definitely keep that metric back of mind to keep the psyche
| high for running.
| reedf1 wrote:
| The cycling equivalent is your power curve, i.e. the longest
| you've held a power for a certain time interval.
| voidhorse wrote:
| So, while it's true that your runs with high speed _and_
| distance when both are considered are Pareto points, your max
| speed run and max distance run overall are _also_ Pareto
| points. So calling these high distance+speed runs "Pareto"
| doesn't actually distinguish them completely from other runs.
|
| A point is Pareto so long as it is _non-dominated_ --that is,
| you're not looking for dominating points, you're looking for
| points that are "no worse" than all others, in all criteria,
| _when you consider that point as a reference_.
|
| So your Pareto Runs are indeed Pareto points. However, your run
| with your fastest possible speed, even if your distance was
| really bad, is also still a Pareto efficient point.
|
| (Taking >= as more efficient here) By definition, the point A
| is Pareto if there is no point B such that in all criteria, B
| >= A, and for at least one criteria B > A. Take the run with
| the best speed. It is Pareto because we cannot find a single
| point B that satisfies both of these conditions. Your "Pareto
| Run" doesn't satisfy this set of conditions because it is worse
| in terms of speed, even if it has better distance than the max
| speed point.
|
| The only way your Pareto runs would be the only Pareto points
| in your record is if they simultaneously hit maxima for
| distance and speed when compared _to all other points_. So, for
| them to be the sole Pareto point, the clause ""I've run
| farther before, and I've run faster before..." would have to be
| false! The point would have to break both your all time records
| to be the solitary Pareto point. With running, because of how
| speed and distance are related this will basically never
| happen.
|
| The definition of Pareto efficiency is essentially _negative in
| nature_ --it's not about finding specific dominating points,
| it's about finding points that are _not dominated by any
| others_ on any criterion, period. All criteria are weighted
| equally in the search for Pareto points. It doesn 't build in
| any weighting like considering maximum across criteria as
| "better" than points that only maximize one criteria. For a
| "biobjective" problem like your runs, the Pareto set will
| always contain the points (MAX, -) and (-, MAX)--they may not
| be unique over the criteria but there will always be at least
| one representative for each, I believe.
| speedstyle wrote:
| They never said it was the only Pareto run? Just a _new_ one,
| improving the overall Pareto front
| vavikk wrote:
| Nice, this is exactly what I use for the multi-objective
| optimizer on a quantum network simulator I'm building -- scoring
| topologies on fidelity/latency/success rate tradeoffs.
| matsemann wrote:
| My thesis many years ago was on multi-objective optimization
| using evolutionary algorithms (in my profile), and maintaining
| a wide pareto front was what most algorithms (like NSGA-II)
| were attempting. If all individuals cluster around a small area
| (in for instance a weight/strength tradeoff), you will quickly
| get stuck. So should select solutions to keep for further
| search along the whole front (for instance some solution that
| is very strong but unfortunately also very heavy). Maybe keep
| some of them as candidates even if worse (not part of the
| pareto front), just to keep that part of the search space alive
| and avoid local optima.
|
| Of course, what's hard anyways when you have a good set of
| solutions that are pareto optimal, is to then choose between
| them. Especially as the dimensions (objectives) grow. In my
| example we can end up with many variants of strength/weight
| trade-offs that each are optimal, which one to choose?
| lorey wrote:
| Found this to display the optimal LLM choice while building
| evalry. It's such a useful tool, not only for thinking about it,
| but for visualization, too.
|
| Example: Which LLM gives me the best ELI5 explanations for a
| given price. https://evalry.com/benchmarks/explain-like-i-m-5-321
| bob1029 wrote:
| Pareto front sounds like an interesting way to optimize, but it
| suffers from the curse of dimensionality just like anything else.
|
| As the number of objectives (dimensions) increases, the number of
| samples you need to cover the frontier increases exponentially.
| You will very rarely find solutions that actually dominate other
| solutions in many practical optimization scenarios. With 2
| dimensions you have a 25% chance of domination. With 10
| dimensions it's a .098% chance.
|
| The most useful cases I've seen tend to occur where we just
| optimize for two things at once. The chances of domination are
| high, it's easy to visualize and very efficient to implement. As
| we get into higher dimensional spaces, things get weird really
| fast.
| krapht wrote:
| One I spent a few months working on was pathfinding for trucks.
| The goal is to find dominant solutions over {shortest time,
| lowest cost (tolls + fuel), avg road speed variance - traffic
| sensitivity} and then return 3-4 routes that are equal distance
| from each other in this dimensional space for users to pick
| from.
|
| As you say, the most useful things happen in low-dimensional
| spaces.
| peri-cl wrote:
| > _" As we get into higher dimensional spaces, things get weird
| really fast."_
|
| The geometric problem of computing a _d_ -dimensional Pareto
| set of cardinality _n_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_of_a_point_set
|
| has a truly weird property not covered by the computational
| complexity discussion on that page. It says there's an
| algorithm achieving O(n log(n)^(d-3) log log n), which is true
| and also a lie. The algorithm that achieves that asymptotic
| form is a galactic algorithm; and not an ordinary one in the
| sense of "has a large constant multiplicative factor", but one
| with this property (I've never found any other algorithm which
| exhibits it):
|
| _The runtime is within a bounded constant factor of n^2, for
| all n up to some critical N whose size is exponential in d_ (I
| think it was exactly 2^d or something).
|
| I.e. the runtime has "two shapes": it's purely quadratic up to
| a galactically-large constant, and thereafter has a transition
| into to a slower function. The asymptotic version in the
| textbooks isn't achievable in the real world (for all but very
| small dimension).
|
| There's an elementary proof using generating functions.
|
| edit to add: If anyone's curious about it, a simplified version
| of the recurrence relation that's enough to exhibit this
| behavior (you can instantly see it if you graph this
| numerically) is f(n,d=0) = 1 f(n=1,d)
| = 1 f(n,d) = n + 2f([?]n/2[?], d) + 2f([?]n/2[?],
| d-1)
| jonathaneunice wrote:
| The curse of dimensionality times the reality that good metrics
| are elusive or themselves a bit cursed. Many outcomes you're
| engineering or product-managing toward are quite squishy, hard
| to define, and hard to evaluate. "Easy to use" or "can be used
| within 10 minutes" or "cleans up this current order form" are
| easy to state but hard to rate and/or hard to actionably
| implement as metrics.
|
| I've built large, deep product evaluation frameworks, and it is
| 100% of the time a running argument with stakeholders, inside
| and out, "well you should have measured it this way" or "I
| think we should be targeting X not Y" or "why didn't you
| consider Z in the metric??"
|
| The Pareto Front in practice is squishy, fuzzy, and often quite
| moist and moldy.
| Whitespace wrote:
| I have a weightlifting spreadsheet with weight on the vertical
| axis and reps on the horizontal axis. The value of each cell is
| the estimated 1 rep max if I accomplish that lift. In theory if
| my e1RM is 100kg then I can lift any permutation of (weight,reps)
| that have the same e1RM. This is akin to knowing Pareto Frontier
| of my current strength.
|
| I use conditional formatting to color cells according to the
| probability that I can lift them--if I lifted 50kg for 10 reps
| then I can definitely do 50kg for 9 reps, so that cell is green.
| But if e1RM(50,10) > e1RM(40,15) then I can probably do that too
| so it's light green. The visualization naturally becomes Pareto-
| like.
|
| If I'm feeling strong I can aim for higher weight, lower reps. Or
| if I'm feeling weak I can close out a (weight, reps) that's below
| my current e1RM but I haven't accomplished yet. The end result is
| that I'm always "accomplishing" some sort of PR no matter how I
| feel.
|
| I call this e1RM Bingo.
| joncrane wrote:
| This is a cool way to gamify weightlifting. Cheers!
| godwinson__4-8 wrote:
| Indeed, GP should take a spin at turning into an app. Could
| be worthwhile to have Claude take a first stab at a MVP.
|
| If pursued, good luck!
| jerkstate wrote:
| If this is something you are interested in, I did make a
| mobile friendly SPA similar to this: https://curvefit.app
| xnx wrote:
| Clever name
| cman1444 wrote:
| Could you please share this spreadsheet? I would really love to
| have my own version of this.
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| Just copy-paste that description to Claude and have it create
| the spreadsheet.
| Whitespace wrote:
| The last time I tried this was back with Opus 4.6, and it
| was ok. I tried it with Fable 5 High just now and I was
| very impressed with the output. It took 7 minutes and one
| turn.
|
| I'm not one to believe in all the one-shot hype, but this
| was pretty good.
| wollowollo wrote:
| Respectfully, that's a cool illustration of the idea of xRMs
| etc but is missing the whole point of programming for higher or
| lower reps. E.g. lower reps are more stressful / higher cost of
| recovery but more strength-specific; high reps are better for
| hypertrophy work. But then, any well designed program will have
| you working across a range of rep ranges and so on.
|
| Please don't make an app based on this.
| jerkstate wrote:
| > high reps are better for hypertrophy work
|
| Some nuance here: the latest research shows that proximity to
| failure is the main hypertrophy driver regardless of load and
| rep count; high rep count makes proximity to failure harder
| to gauge; so high load/low reps close to failure is probably
| better for hypertrophy (there are other good reasons to do
| higher reps/lower load work though)
| bob1029 wrote:
| The most effective (difficult) training regimens usually
| avoid the middle of the distribution. You generally want to
| be operating at the extremes with some rotation schedule or
| duty cycle. High intensity interval training is an example of
| this philosophy that occurs within a single workout session.
|
| If you want the most 'optimal' form of this (aka, hell on
| earth), you should purchase a rowing machine. Being able to
| engage with very aggressive, full-body exercise every single
| day without exceptions is almost like cheating biology. You
| can maintain a 2-3x VO2 max premium over your peers with very
| little risk of injury.
| MSKJ wrote:
| Respectfully, that's missing the point of the comment. It's a
| fun thing to hit PRs, not everything needs a 'well actually'
| jerkstate wrote:
| I wrote this app as a SPA! It uses a curve formulation similar
| to Brzycki, except I added a "shape" parameter (an exponent
| gamma between 0 and 1) that slopes the 1rm downwards at the
| right side.
|
| My main finding for "pick whatever weight you want today" was
| that picking a lot of different weights made the curve less
| identifiable, so my latest iteration encourages you to pick a
| ladder for a few sentinel exercises per mesocycle in order to
| improve the statistical power. In addition, strength improves
| more quickly at >80% of 1RM, and hypertrophy depends on
| proximity to failure, so if you pick a lower weight, you really
| need to go to failure, which burns you out for the rest of your
| session, where leaving 1-2 reps in reserve is probably
| sufficient for hypertrophy and leaves a lot more gas in the
| tank for the rest of the session. Definitely open to
| suggestion/discussion here.
|
| https://curvefit.app (it runs on Cloudflare free tier, so I
| won't have to start running ads or charging until I hit a
| couple thousand users)
| 747-8I wrote:
| Great - commenting to refer to this
| fudged71 wrote:
| This is phenomenal, I'm definitely going to try this. Any
| chance this is OSS or plans to publish in the future?
| jerkstate wrote:
| There's no particular reason it's not OSS, but my main
| interest is collecting a lot of data on different athletes
| and publishing original research. Most weightlifting
| studies are small n and over a short amount of time. My
| particular interest is how volume, load, and fatigue are
| related to strength, endurance, and compliance over time.
| My intention is to run it for a while, look at the data to
| generate some hypotheses, pre-register them, then run some
| experiments (and by that I mean just keep collecting data).
| If someone else was particularly interested in this goal, I
| would definitely invite them to the project. That's why it
| was important for me to design it to be hosted for just the
| cost of the domain name, because I don't really intend to
| make money from it, I'm just interested in the data.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Respectfully, it's nothing new. Weightlifting industry has
| known this concept forever, it's often just expressed as charts
| rather than graphs, as it is easier to interpret.
|
| But they go even a step further, they extend into _3
| dimensions_ to also add body weight as a variable. So your
| graph would really have to be a 3D volume. Because different
| levels of body weight have different capabilities.
| rafabulsing wrote:
| Respectfully, his graph does not need 3 dimensions because
| it's a personal spreadsheet he uses just for his own
| training, so he can just display the data for his exact body
| weight.
| voidhorse wrote:
| One nuance that people sometimes miss is that pareto optimality
| in the continuous case and discrete case are distinct. Using
| continuous case algorithms on discrete feasible set optimization
| problems will make you miss the interior optimal points--only
| extremal/supported points on the positive orthant hull are
| identified by the continuous algos.
|
| Matthias Ehrgott's books on multicriteria optimization explain
| Pareto efficiency very well without sacrificing rigor. I think
| they do a better job than this article.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| I wonder why LLM love this word so much. Same as mint, seam,
| tier.
| amingilani wrote:
| _A seam is a place where you can alter behavior in your program
| without editing in that place_
|
| "Chapter 4: The Seam Model", Michael C. Feathers, Working
| Effectively with Legacy Code
| joncrane wrote:
| Question: in auto racing, could one have a Pareto Front balancing
| single lap pace (qualifying optimization) and race pace (pace
| over an entire stint of e.g. 20+ laps)?
| transitorykris wrote:
| You'd be looking at fuel level affecting choices of ride
| height, brake bias, etc. Possibly changes in line and distance
| travelled too. But, I'm curious how psychology can fit in here
| (or not. How do you measure it?). Driver concentration and
| confidence are important when trimming out aero or other
| adjustments for single lap flyers.
| hnnbxu2nwi wrote:
| The lesson landed
| cpa wrote:
| At $JOB, I use the Pareto frontier all the time.
|
| If one option is at least as good on every relevant dimension and
| better on one, just pick it. That's not really a trade-off, and
| it shouldn't need escalation. Eg, if two SaaS tools cost the same
| and have similar support, but one fits your use case better, you
| choose that one. Otherwise, you just suck at your job!
|
| The interesting decisions only start once you're already on the
| frontier, where getting more of one thing means giving up
| something else. If the better tool costs 50% more, now you're
| trading capability against cost, and that may need sign-off.
|
| Basically, everyone should be able to get to the frontier on
| their own. Coordination and arbitration at higher levels of the
| org / between different departments should happen on the
| frontier, where the trade-offs involve several people or teams.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I'm sadly twitchy when I hear "Pareto" - having endured numerous
| middle managers suggesting they can deliver 80% of the scope in
| 20% of the time (unrelated to the frontier topic here). Do that
| at each level of an org and the nonsense multiples rapidly.
|
| The 80/20 "rule," as far as I know, is meant to be descriptive
| after the fact. It can't be used as a planning assumption. To be
| fair to those managers, they don't really mean to be rigorous.
| They are just trying to justify cutting scope.
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Managers trying to justify _cutting_ scope...
|
| Is your planet accepting immigrants? I think I'd like it there
| nonameiguess wrote:
| That's the "Pareto Principle" whereas the frontier is talking
| about Pareto efficiency. They have the same name because both
| were first developed by the economist Vilfredo Pareto, but
| they're not actually otherwise related.
| bellowsgulch wrote:
| I don't think power law distributions are the same thing.
| However, actually, in different fields, power law distributions
| are descriptive enough you can use them as targets for abstract
| criteria.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Using the 80/20 rule to plan, is like that other old saw "Half
| the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is, I
| don't know which half"
| chermi wrote:
| We used to just call that efficiency. Overusage of "pareto
| frontier" annoys me almost as much people talking about
| "electrons" instead of just saying electricity or power.
| solomonb wrote:
| Now I want a hat with the Agnostic Front logo but that says
| Pareto Front.
| hnfwd5lqmp wrote:
| Simple idea, big payoff
| pmarreck wrote:
| A very useful concept to know!
| myroon5 wrote:
| (A few years outdated) AWS EC2 instance type pareto frontier:
|
| https://github.com/PatMyron/cloud#compute--memory-unit-price...
| dancemethis wrote:
| The real Pareto is the lawyer who was the victim of the Telerj
| prank call in the 80s. Don't be fooled!
| kazinator wrote:
| > _and every solution not in the set is outperformed by at least
| one solution in the Pareto front in every objective_
|
| Is that trying to say:
|
| "for every solution not in the set, there exists at least one
| objective such that at least one solution in the Pareto set beats
| that solution in that objective" i.e. every non-Pareto-front
| solution is beaten in some objective(s) by a Pareto-front
| solution, however it may be unbeaten in other objectives.
|
| Or is it:
|
| "for every objective in the system, every solution that is not in
| the set is beaten in that objective by one or more Pareto-set
| solutions."
|
| Or is it:
|
| "For every solution not in the set, there exists at least one
| Pareto solution which beats it in every objective."
| speedstyle wrote:
| The latter. Every solution not in the set is 'dominated'
| (outperformed in _every_ objective) by some specific point in
| the set.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-08-07 09:01 UTC)