MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by WalterBright | 2025-04-16 19:22:26+00:00
> Where can they go, to claim certificates or whatever, for their new knowledge, to get any chance of employment?

That is what I responded to, especially the "any chance" aspect.

A young colleague of mine wanted a job at a FAANG company. He did not have a programming degree or cert. He knew he'd be faced with the dreaded leetcode interview, and wanted to know how to proceed. I suggested to him to get the leetcode books, and study them for 3 weeks or so. He balked at that, and I said the 3 weeks would be the best investment of time he'd likely ever make. He got the point, and studied for 3 weeks. He aced the leetcode interview and got the well-into-6-figures job.

The people with get-up-and-go are going to find a way get what they want.

P.S. The people who are members of the D Language Foundation are all self-selected get-up-and-go types. I enjoy watching them grow into first class programmers.

BTW, here in Seattle we have a monthly "D Coffee Haus" meeting, where we talk about programming and airplanes. It's been going for a year now, and I should have thought of starting that a long time ago.
by mrcwinn | 2025-04-16 19:22:33+00:00
Well, in fairness, Anthropic has less because 1) they started later, 2) could learn from competitors' mistakes, 3) focused on enterprise and not consumer, 4) have fewer resources.

The point is taken — and OpenAI agrees. They have said they are actively working on simplifying the offering. I just think it's a bit unfair. We have perfect hindsight today here on HackerNews and also did zero of the work to produce the product.
by casey2 | 2025-04-16 19:22:47+00:00
The other story here is incremental growth of camera technology. The daguerreotype came out after his voyage on the HMS Beagle, by the time Origin of Specices was published (with no photography) Cameras still had to many practical limitations to justify a worse image. By 1872 Darwin would publish a book full of photography despite his remarkable drawing skills.

Something gives me the feeling that a lot of people are going to follow Darwin's example in the near future
by inglor_cz | 2025-04-16 19:22:48+00:00
Both the Romans and the US had success with immigrants in the military, provided that they were thoroughly mixed. A unit with 35 ethnicities in it usually does not rebel "like one man".

The Roman way started to fail when they moved to the foederati model, where there would be units of, say, only Goths under a Gothic commander. That proved dangerous.
by gavinhoward | 2025-04-16 19:23:29+00:00
> We know this doesn't work, and author admits as much.

Where do I admit this? About fines? Yes, fines don't work.

The difference with my proposal is that companies wouldn't lose a few days' worth of revenue to a fine, they would lose 100% of revenue. That goes from being a "cost of doing business" to an existential threat.

> Not to be rude to the author, but it sort of seems like they forgot that not all software is developed in the US.

I didn't forget. In fact, it's because of worldwide things that I keep pushing this here in the US. The EU already passed the Cybersecurity Resilience Act [1].

Sure, we may not have things apply globally, but we don't need agreement on the punishments globally. We just need agreement on the certification globally.

We have done global agreements before. ICANN, International Telecommunications Union, etc. ICANN is interesting because it started as US-only and expanded.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Resilience_Act
by kmeisthax | 2025-04-16 19:24:09+00:00
Every kind of property is imaginary. Yes, physical property has an element of physical possession, but that's not enough legal infrastructure to, say, rent that property out for a recurring fee that must be paid on pain of eviction or repossession. All of that has to be enforced by violence dealt by the state, which renders it just as "imaginary" as the copyright laws that are also backed purely by the fact that the state allows authors to call down the full force of the US government on people that infringe their copyright.

What you are mad about is not imaginary-ness, but centralization[0]. Any critique of law should be done on this yardstick - i.e. is that law protecting the interests of the many, or the few?

In prior decades, ordinary people did not have to care about copyright law, which is why the bargain was tolerable then: copyright took money out of the pockets of the few (publishers) and gave it to the many (authors). But now that publishers figured out how to buy up all the valuable assets and you can practically enforce copyright on individuals, the system has changed to one that takes money from the people at-large and puts it in the pockets of about four publishers. On that basis alone you can argue for abolishing copyright[1] because it no longer serves the interests of the public.

Now, let's look at the business model of AI companies. AI compute is hideously expensive, and so every company involved is already a highly centralized tech monopoly. And with only a few exceptions the largest models are all jealously protected trade secrets you're only allowed to access through heavily monitored APIs. Models with published weights do exist, but they are invariably either too big to run on most hardware or lag in capability and performance. The practical fact of the matter is that most people will use AI - even open models - through inferencing servers ultimately owned by tech monopolies. This is a deeply, incredibly centralizing force.

And, unlike copyright, trade secrecy is one of those few IP laws[2] that aren't completely imaginary. It's rooted in possession, just like physical property rights are. The "no imaginary rights" argument still gets us horrible tech monopolies that can censor or marginalize you.

[0] aka "wealth inequality"

[1] What you replace it with is a separate question, but again, Benn Jordan wants socialized ownership.

[2] "Laws that allow you to dictate the conduct of your competitors"
by seabass-labrax | 2025-04-16 19:24:09+00:00
> syndicated in realtime here: https://bsky.app/profile/samuelpepys.bsky.social

That really is wonderful! Reading how Pepys arranged for his diary to be preserved makes me think that he would have enjoyed this more modern presentation.

> Found out my uncle Wight and Mr. Rawlinson, and with them went to the latter’s house to dinner, and there had a good dinner of cold meat and good wine, but was troubled in my head after the little wine I drank.

"Troubled in the head" is a euphemism due a revival!
by jabiko | 2025-04-16 19:24:09+00:00
So if I understand it correctly, the blog author proposes to create a professional certification, require companies that produce software to have at least one of this certified individuals be responsible for reporting vulnerabilities of the companies software, complete with creating authorities that issue such certifications, training and also compliance enforcement.

And all this to fix a broken CVE system? I assume that the friction this generates has a bigger negative impact on the overall ecosystem than the non-optimal CVE system that exists right now.
by danenania | 2025-04-16 19:24:42+00:00
Cool to see more interesting terminal based options! Looking forward to trying this out.

I've been working on something related—Plandex[1], an open source AI coding agent that is particularly focused on large projects and complex tasks.

I launched the v2 a few weeks ago and it is now running well. In terms of how to place it in the landscape, it’s more agentic than aider, more configurable and tightly controlled than Devin, and more provider-agnostic/multi-provider/open source than Claude Code or this new competitor from OpenAI.

I’m still working on getting the very latest models integrated. Gemini Pro 2.5 and these new OpenAI models will be integrated into the defaults by the end of the week I hope. Current default model pack is a mix of Sonnet 3.7, o3-mini with various levels of reasoning effort, and Gemini 1.5 Pro for large context planning. Currently by default, it supports 2M tokens of context directly and can index and work with massive projects of 20M tokens and beyond.

Very interested to hear HN’s thoughts and feedback if anyone wants to try it. I'd also welcome honest comparisons to alternatives, including Codex CLI. I’m planning a Show HN within the next few days.

1 - https://github.com/plandex-ai/plandex
by nextaccountic | 2025-04-16 19:25:29+00:00
Why did you remove this thread?

https://old.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1jyy5am/psa_cursor_...

(For reference, here it is in reveddit https://www.reveddit.com/v/cursor/comments/1jyy5am/psa_curso... - text from post was unfortunately not saved)

It's already locked and with a stickied comment from a dev clarifying what happened

Did you remove it so people can't find about this screwup when searching Google?

Anyway, if you acknowledge it was a mistake to remove the thread, could you please un-remove it?
by CPLX | 2025-04-16 19:25:37+00:00
I don't hate jargon. I actually think jargon, as a concept, is clearly incredibly useful. When done right, you can take ordinary English words that people think they understand but we all don't agree on, and replace them with specific words only used in certain situations -- thus removing ambiguity about their meaning.

In such an instance that fact that normal people don't understand is kind of the point, you don't want people to think they understand when it's a specific or technical concept that has an agreed upon meaning, and they aren't yet familiar.

For example if I call something a "planning meeting" it's different then if I call it a "sprint meeting" as the latter isn't really used outside of a technical context and comes with a bunch of implicit assumptions about how the meeting will be structured and why it exists. While I could simplify it and call it a "planning meeting" in doing so I would actually lose clarity and specificity to those who are familiar with the jargon. Likewise someone unfamiliar might be prompted to figure out what that jargon means before showing up.

That's what jargon is for when used right. Then there's the other way to use it, which is to obscure or distract from the fact that the concepts being presented are too simple or obvious (or tangential) to be insightful at all, and the speaker has nothing to offer. The examples here were of someone doing the latter. Trust me, I was there.
by throwanem | 2025-04-16 19:25:41+00:00
I hope I don't have to link this adjacent reply of mine too many more times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43709056 Specifically "The venue is a matter of convenience, nothing more," and if you prefer another, that would work about as well. Perhaps Merano; I hear it's a lovely little town.
by ltbarcly3 | 2025-04-16 19:25:46+00:00
I can't reply directly so I'll reply here:

It's not that they should be assumed to be liars, I never meant that.

It's that there is no reason to listen to what they say. Either they can provide evidence that they deserve asylum or not. Everyone would say they should get asylum.

If they were not in danger: they say they were in danger

If they were in danger: they say they were in danger

Since they say the same thing either way, it is pointless to even factor in what they say. Some people are telling the truth, some people are lying, they all say the same thing so what someone says has no information value.

When making the initial determination on whether to allow someone to stay in the country, they do not have to show evidence, they just have to make a credible claim, and about 85% of those claims are accepted. Then later they have to show evidence at their interview and hearing. Of the people who pass the bar for the initial claim about 90% are not actually granted asylum, but about 80% drop out of the system (although the numbers don't prove they were lying because there are other factors). So initially 85% are approved (like the person in question here) and then later only 10% of those people actually show sufficient evidence of a credible fear. This doesn't prove that most of them are lying, but of all the people that claim they are in danger to be allowed to enter/stay 90% don't back it up with evidence, and 80% don't even complete the process, which I think is very strong evidence that a substantial majority are lying (even if you give the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe 50% of them can't complete the process because they don't understand it, lack resources, etc, that is still 50% that were lying).

It's notable that during covid, when claiming you were in danger did not give you an easy way to enter the country immediately, people also stopped claiming they were in danger.

Finally, it is probably important to quantify what 'danger' actually means. Is it a 10% chance of being killed? 1%? 1/1000? Does going home have to be more dangerous than the transportation to get there? Does it have to be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle? The murder rate in El Salvador is currently lower than Baltimore, a LOT lower. It's beyond unreasonable to defer deportations to a place if it's safer than where the person is staying now.
by udbhavs | 2025-04-16 19:25:47+00:00
Next, set your OpenAI API key as an environment variable:

export OPENAI_API_KEY="your-api-key-here"

Note: This command sets the key only for your current terminal session. To make it permanent, add the export line to your shell's configuration file (e.g., ~/.zshrc).

Can't any 3rd party utility running in the same shell session phone home with the API key? I'd ideally want only codex to be able to access this var
by jtagliabuetooso | 2025-04-16 19:25:52+00:00
In a nutshell, data and AI workloads require fast re-building and vertical scaling:

1) you should not need to redeploy a Lambda if you you're running January and February vs only January now. In the same vein, you should not need to redeploy a lambda if you upgrade from pandas to polars: rebuilding functions is 15x faster than lambda, 7x snowpark (-> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.17465)

2) the only way (even in popular orchestrators, e.g. Airflow, not just FaaS) to pass data around in DAGs is through object storage, which is slow and costly: we use Arrow as intermediate data format and over the wire, with a bunch of optimizations in caching and zero-copy sharing to make the development loop extra-fast, and the usage of compute efficient!

Our current customers run near real-time analytics pipelines (Kafka -> S3 / Iceberg -> Bauplan run -> Bauplan query), DS / AI workloads and WAP for data ingestion.
by ayoubdrissi | 2025-04-16 19:26:08+00:00
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. That’s a great point. We’re thinking about ways to support that, like having the option to set a shared fallback language for basic instructions or even using simple built-in prompts. In the future, we might also add live subtitles or AI translation to help in those situations. Thanks for bringing this up, it's super helpful.
by gavinhoward | 2025-04-16 19:26:48+00:00
I do want to be certified. I think it would be a great way to make money building Open Source Software.

> Companies don't care about it. We carry on as is...

If required by law, companies would care.

> This is a classic over-engineered solution that nobody wants to a problem that barely exists.

The sorry state of our industry means the opposite: the problem is big, but lack of teeth means companies can ignore it and externalize the costs.

> Just add burocracy, what could possibly go wrong...??

I'd prefer to create our own bureaucracy, not have governments push one on us, like the Cyber Resilience Act does in the EU.
by slyn | 2025-04-16 19:27:03+00:00
>Saying MCP is vulnerable is like saying "Web applications are vulnerable”

Just for reference, this GitHub follows in the tradition of many an example project all of which have the explicit intent of demonstrating not that the underlying concept is inherently vulnerable, but that implementations can be.

Damn Vulnerable Web App is probably the best known, but there are others for REST apis, web sockets, GraphQL, and more. They’re educational reference implementations that are deliberately insecure to use as an educational tool.
by forrestthewoods | 2025-04-16 19:27:13+00:00
18 years in my career and I’m still waiting for that BE target to rear its ugly head.

I’m more than happy to static_assert little endian. If any platform needs BE support then I’ll add support to the minimum amount of libraries necessary to do so. Super easy.

Here’s the thing. If you wrote BE compatible code today you probably dont even have a way to test it. So you’re adding a bunch of complexity and doing a bunch of work that you can’t even verify is correct! Complete and total waste of time.
by netcan | 2025-04-16 19:27:54+00:00
Interesting. Preselling ads huh?

I think your point about dominance is a main player. I can make a dozen cases for LLMs as world of opportunity and compliments for both of these companies.

It takes a lot of opportunity/gain to hedge against the risk of losing 20% of search or social media revenue.

If you already have the whole market, losing share is easier than gaining.

But to a dominant incumbent..."threat" just tends to come with bigger multiplier.
by ajross | 2025-04-16 19:28:05+00:00
Or use the results of mmap() or futex() system calls, or to model the behavior around barrier/serializing instruction. MMIO is likewise right out. It's just asking too much of the poor language standard to rigorously specify every possible thing you might do with C syntax, even though many of those things can be very valuably implemented in high level languages.

So they punted and left it up to the toolchains, and the toolchains admirably picked up the slack and provided good tools. The problem then becomes the pedants who invent rules like "any UB is harmful" above, not realizing the UB-reliant code is plugging the holes keeping their system afloat.
by SecretDreams | 2025-04-16 19:28:20+00:00
> That grant being cut merely because of containing the prefix homo is an example of indiscriminate cutting, in my opinion.

I disagree. I think it would be considered "discriminate cutting".

> Actually effectively cutting grants that only related to homosexuality or something would've been discriminate.

I agree and that's the point I was making. They're just cutting grants with the word "homo" in them because it meets their criteria of interest for cutting. Whether they deal with homosexuality or not is not a discriminate vs indiscriminate topic, but a topic of DOGE's competency in actually executing on their discriminate cutting vision.
by Animats | 2025-04-16 19:29:25+00:00
It was an nice little machine. But since it used the UCSD P-System, a slow interpreter, it was rather slow if you needed to compute anything.

(In my aerospace company days, our group evaluated a large number of forgotten machines, from the Apollo Domain and Symbolics 3600 down to the Terak. This was the era of weird UNIX workstations and things that were sort of like IBM PCs, but different. So I got to see most of the hardware of that era. Eventually settled on Sun 2 machines and 4.3BSD.)
by gruturo | 2025-04-16 19:29:36+00:00
After the TCP handshake, the very first payload will be the HTTPS negotiation - and even if you don't use encrypted client hello / encrypted SNI, you still can't spoof it because the certificate chain of trust will not be intact - unless you somehow control the CAs trusted by the browser.

With an intact trust chain, there is NO scenario where a 3rd party can see or modify what the client requests and receives beyond seeing the hostname being requested (and not even that if using ECH/ESNI)

Your "if you don't have an out-of-band reason to trust the server cert" is a fitting description of the global PKI infrastructure, can you explain why you see that as a problem? Apart from the fact that our OSes and browser ship out of the box with a scary long list of trusted CAs, some from fairly dodgy places?

let's not forget that BEFORE that TCP handshake there's probably a DNS lookup where the FQDN of the request is leaked, if you don't have DoH.
by dang | 2025-04-16 19:29:47+00:00
Thanks. It's always a puzzle what to do with threads based on articles that have since been superseded by later developments. Do we start a new thread based on a new article? The new article / thread usually fails to do very well, partly because there just was a big discussion, and partly because hearing about something getting fixed is less interesting and exciting than the original stimulus.

I've been playing recently with putting [fixed] at the end of the original title to indicate this sort of state change to the reader. Not sure if that's the best way, nor if the situation has genuinely been fixed or not, but I guess it's better than nothing. Swapping out the article and title would probably be too much of a rug pull on the existing thread.
by mubou | 2025-04-16 19:29:49+00:00
All it does is open DuckDuckGo in a new tab with the search query preceded by a backslash, which is DDG's "I'm feeling lucky" shortcut... I might as well just make DDG my new tab page.

I see in the source there's a function that sends your input to the chatbot, but I can't figure out how that's triggered. It's hooked up to the Search button, but that same button has an onclick that redirects you to Google. Doesn't make sense.

Did an AI write this?
by kristopolous | 2025-04-16 19:29:52+00:00
They're building concentration camps, sending peace activists to it.

They don't care about birthright or other forms of citizenship and are trying to do a nuremberg law to redefine it.

Also see Civil Service Law (1933) where they purged political opponents from government jobs.

They've tried to strip the power of the purse from Congress and ignore the courts which is how an enabling act would work in the US context.

He's even trying to Lebensraum Greenland.

The famous Nazi book burn was at an LGBT institute. They're demonizing the same group

Hitler even had an Elon Musk named Alfred Hugenberg. I mean it's like they hired historians to do a full reenactment.

I dunno. There's these people that are like "well you see the Nazis demonized Jews while Trump demonizes Muslims! The Nazi Beer Hall Putsch was in November and January 6 was in January! Trump has red hats while the Nazis had red armbands!" Just falls flat
by croemer | 2025-04-16 19:29:53+00:00
I asked o3 to build and test a maximum parsimony phylogenetic tree builder in Python (my standard test for new models) and it's been thinking for 10 minutes. Still not clear if anything is happening, I have barely seen any code since I asked to test what it produced in the first answer. The thought summary is totally useless compared to Gemini's. Underwhelming so far.

The CoT summary is full of references to Jupyter notebook cells. The variable names are too abbreviated, nbr for neighbor, the code becomes fairly cryptic as a result, not nice to read. Maybe optimized too much for speed.

Also I've noticed ChatGPT seems to abort thinking when I switch away from the app. That's stupid, I don't want to look at a spinner for 5 minutes.

And the CoT summary keeps mentioning my name which is irritating.
by taylodl | 2025-04-16 19:30:50+00:00
My thoughts on this approach:

- Yes, automate as much as possible. Lint, code formatters, and other analysis tools you may have at your disposable. The team needs to agree on the bar that must be met to submit the PR.

- Check the tests. If you've changed something, show me the tests that test that change. Most of my code review is analyzing the quality and coverage of your tests.

- I really don't care much about your actual code - the automated tools already enforced our coding standards. I'm not much for coding standards; I'll use whatever standard the team wants. I'm just glad they can be automatically enforced so I don't have to engage in pointless arguments that only serve to lower team morale.

At the end of the day, I really only care about your tests.