MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by invalidator | 2025-04-21 23:31:26+00:00
The author keeps calling it "pipelining", but I think the right term is "method chaining".

Compare with a simple pipeline in bash:

grep needle < haystack.txt | sed 's/foo/bar/g' | xargs wc -l

Each of those components executes in parallel, with the intermediate results streaming between them. You get a similar effect with coroutines.

Compare Ruby:

data = File.readlines("haystack.txt") .map(&:strip) .grep(/needle/) .map { |i| i.gsub('foo', 'bar') } .map { |i| File.readlines(i).count }

In that case, each line is processed sequentially, with a complete array being created between each step. Nothing actually gets pipelined.

Despite being clean and readable, I don't tend to do it any more, because it's harder to debug. More often these days, I write things like this:

data = File.readlines("haystack.txt") data = data.map(&:strip) data = data.grep(/needle/) data = data.map { |i| i.gsub('foo', 'bar') } data = data.map { |i| File.readlines(i).count }

It's ugly, but you know what? I can set a breakpoint anywhere and inspect the intermediate states without having to edit the script in prod. Sometimes ugly and boring is better.
by danielvaughn | 2025-04-21 23:32:01+00:00
So once again, I’m not advocating for games or denying reality. I’m simply advocating for as much clarity as is feasible.

Let’s take your example - boss has an affair with a coworker, you speak up about it, then you get the boot and sign an NDA. In that scenario, I’d probably say something like the following:

“There was an interpersonal incident that was out of my control, and unfortunately I’m not legally allowed to speak about it in detail. What I can say is that I learned how important it is to stand up for what’s right even if it comes at a personal cost.”

This isn’t playing a game, it’s having empathy for the person sitting across the table from you. They have to make a decision on very limited information, and you’re trying to help them make that decision. If I were to just say “hehe let’s just say that something crazy went down, and I’m out of a job.” Well technically I told the truth, but I certainly didn’t help the interviewer make their assessment.
by vlovich123 | 2025-04-21 23:33:01+00:00
Sure. But even there you start with an understanding of how you want to solve the problem and then spend all your time writing the proof in a way that the computer can prove that you have indeed solved it correctly. At all times you generally start with an idea of a solution - you might prototype stuff to test out different solutions and how you like them but with things that are less pure R&D you need to prototype less.
by avarun | 2025-04-21 23:33:15+00:00
This is a strawman if I've ever seen one. The person you're responding to said literally nothing about "daily use of a car". The point was that you need rideshare at some point in your life, which is a point you failed to respond to. There are trips, even in NYC, where you'd be severely inconveniencing yourself by not using rideshare, which makes it a tough calculus to choose between $20 and being banned from Uber for life.
by karaterobot | 2025-04-21 23:34:09+00:00
> The point of this experiment is not to see whether Regenerator can build a world-class and beloved publication without human journalists. I’m a huge fan of human journalists... I’m looking forward to working with human journalists and colleagues again soon.

When CEOs try to replace human jobs with AI, they never seem to wonder if the next step might be a board of directors saying "We're huge fans of human CEOs, but..."

If anything, it seems to me like defining a company vision and making decisions based on researching the market would be something generative AI would excel at even more than doing journalism. But CEOs never consider running that experiment, for whatever reason!
by alexdanilowicz | 2025-04-21 23:34:31+00:00
v0 is an amazing product. They've been around as long as we have (October 2023), and it's cool seeing how we have both iterated on the same problems.

Some differences with v0:

- Magic Patterns has a Figma-style canvas for collaborating with stakeholders. Makes it easy to view all your chats. - Password protection on designs (this is very important for some companies!) - Feedback collection on prototypes - Reusable components, so you can create a component library with us and then reference those components in your design. - We are only focused on frontend, which we think leads to less hallucinations. Also, when there is no database, you can go revert back to a different version of the design at any point.

We have a course for PMs, in case you find it helpful! https://www.magicpatterns.com/docs/documentation/ai-prototyp...
by actionfromafar | 2025-04-21 23:35:34+00:00
It would be really neat if the emulator had some kind of "escape mode" where it could jump to and run the native instruction set.

It could even be implemented to look like some kind of extension card in RAM. You write native instructions to a piece of RAM and call a special (otherwise invalid) 8086 instruction and the native execution kicks in.

Or if you want to make it more ambitious, create a COM or EXE format which indicates that the instructions are really ESP32 native, but with full access to the BIOS functions with some kind of translation layer.
by berdario | 2025-04-21 23:36:29+00:00
The grandparent comment is arguing about the budget over a whole year

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43751178

> We use the grid like a battery, getting a one for one credit for everything we put in. So during summer/daytime we put in enough to then use up our credit in winter/nighttime.

> The power we put in even covers the monthly connection fee.

> I’m just about to hit 12 months with mine, 8 Mwh generated, never paid a bill.

And later the same commenter argues

> When that happens, I’ll get batteries.
by alephnerd | 2025-04-21 23:36:32+00:00
> I wonder what's stopping Nvida from releasing an AI phone

B2C is a hellish headache that has marginal returns if you are not B2C first, and the amount of investment needed to be B2C competent just isn't worth it when there are alternative options to invest in

> A LLM competitor service (Hey, how about you guys make your own chips

Already exists. AI Foundary

> They are already releasing an AI PC

It's just an OEM rehash

> Their own self driving cars

Not worth the headache and also losing customers like Google or Amazon due to competitive pressure

------

Cannot reply: releasing their own "Nvidia Car" means they will lose their existing automotive partners becuase they will not spend on a competitor. Same reason Walmart stipulates EVERY tech vendor must decouple from AWS when selling to them.
by Aloisius | 2025-04-21 23:37:37+00:00
It's a setting (Settings > Emergency SOS). It used to be on by default and do a little siren sound before calling emergency services.

Personally, I just open the slide-to-turn-off phone screen instead (hold volume + side button for a couple seconds). Once that screen is loaded, it'll require a passcode to unlock after you cancel out.
by ay | 2025-04-21 23:38:08+00:00
Potentially. However, anecdotally a lot of service providers treat UDP to stricter rate limiting than TCP because it’s unauthenticated nature, so there is a back-pressure factor there.

Also: RFC9000 for QUIC is almost 50% longer than RFC9293 that is the new one for TCP - so, I would expect the implementation would be probably more complex ?

In the absence of that, everything will go over HTTP :-)
by alienthrowaway | 2025-04-21 23:38:49+00:00
> It has been shown many times before, with this shitshow being the latest example, that most "third world" countries simply do not have a legal system in place that can cope with rich Western or new-rich Asian exploiteers

It's almost as if the colonisers designed it that way. Sowing division, encouraging corruption and infighting while the actual administration was done from abroad, and just enough of it to keep the resources flowing out without regard for any long-term societal improvement for the natives. The same old colonial resource-extraction companies are still exploiting the countries that are allegedly "independent", but whose leaders are thoroughly bribed and have bank accounts and "investments" in Luxembourg, France, Dubai, the UK and the US that the former-colonisers are aware off. You want them to return and do achieve which goals, exactly? Cock-block China? No one is naive enough to think recolonisation can have benevolent intentions or executed benevolently.

If the west has an appetite for another round of sustained guerilla warfare and terror-tactics, then direct political control is the way to go, if not, then they should consider maintaining the status quo of monetary and service imperialism enabled by corruption, the WTO, the World Bank, the petro-dollar and the USD as the global reserve currency.
by mogwire | 2025-04-21 23:40:16+00:00
Licenses don’t matter and are rarely challenged in court.

This is the nature of OSS. Out right theft in hopes you will never know until it’s too late.

Very rarely do large corporations contribute their fair share back to any project.

Does this make me money and/or solve a problem quickly? Fork it and it’s mine.

Until we stop giving money to large corporations that profit off the free work of others, then it will never stop.

And it won’t because we like low cost solutions that work.
by ramesh31 | 2025-04-21 23:41:34+00:00
There's no such thing as "completely free" when it comes to LLM usage. Everyone knows that. But there are two different tiers of tools now. The "free" ones that use API keys directly, and the premium ones like Windsurf that operate on their own credit system. So yes, "free" is a meaningfully useful distinction here, in that you incur no cost for the tool itself.
by larodi | 2025-04-21 23:41:51+00:00
Given a prolog (not problog, but the non-stochastic one) source is a parametric grammar, we can perhaps* argue the inference on the programming logic level can be unfolded by using a pen and pencil. think L-systems, they are self-similar, and recursively defined. The catch is that the whole sequence gets rewritten on each step. If you can get the LLM to do this as it progresses with generation - you get recursion. Question is whether you can get the LLM rewrite the context window, and my bet would be someone is already working on it.

* I say perhaps, because PROLOG engines normally don't rewrite strings like crazy while doing inference, so my statement may be somewhat off.
by freehorse | 2025-04-21 23:43:20+00:00
I am also confused with such syntax of "passing as first argument" pipes. Having to write `x |> foo` instead of `x |> foo()` does not solve much, because you have the same lack of clarity if you need to pass a second argument. Ie `x |> foo(y)` in this case means `foo(x,y)`, but if `foo(y)` actually gives you a function to apply to `x` prob you should write `x |> foo(y)()` or `x |> (foo(y))()` then as I understand it? If that even makes sense in a language. In any case, you have the same issue as before, in different contexts `foo(y)` is interpreted differently.

I just find this syntax too inconsistent and vague, and hence actually annoying. Which is why I prefer defining pipes as composition of functions which can then be applied to whatever data. Then eg one can write sth like `(|> foo1 foo2 (foo3) #(foo4 % y))` and know that foo1 and foo2 are references to functions, foo3 evaluates to another function, and when one needs more arguments in foo4 they have to explicitly state that. This gives another function, and there is no ambiguity here whatsoever.
by TheKelsbee | 2025-04-21 23:44:19+00:00
Years ago, before the Internet, software was expected to be rather buggy. It took a long time to research and fix. Releasing software was expensive, you had to put it on physical media and ship it. QA was critical role, it was way less expensive to test the hell out it and fix it than it was to ship new code. The idea that computers could be trusted to perform tasks well was easily shattered when things went wrong, and the additional optics of losing customer trust went a long way into driving QA.

Fast forward to today, and it's way cheaper to ship code with bugs to prove out an idea works than it is to spend even a few minutes writing test cases and doing even a modicum of QA.

Ultimately, it's a not just a combination of all 3 things you've mentioned, which are all contributing factors; the real problem is any level of QA before proving an idea is seen as a waste of time and money. As someone who started in tech support & QA 30 years ago, it's really tough to see.
by keyle | 2025-04-21 23:44:31+00:00
I don't know if you've seen the videos, but the latency from input to result on the screen is, very, very bad. I don't think this is actually what you want.

We all want low-power retro computing but expect reasonable latency in usage. We also want WIFI working in every room and e-ink that doesn't suck and doesn't cost half a car... And the ability to browse the web (HTTPS). It's just not there yet.

When someone will make a product this good with all of the modern life "requirements", that will be a vastly successful product I imagine.
by epicdev | 2025-04-21 23:44:56+00:00
> Epic is known locally as an exploitative, abusive employer of software engineers

Not of software engineers, those are decently treated, but the reputation for other employees is questionable.

Epic has 4 major roles(and a bunch of support roles): software development, implementation services, technical services, and quality management.

Software developers are well paid for the area. While it can vary between teams and supervisors, a competent dev should be able to avoid being overworked.

Implementation services travels a ton to go setup new customers. It's definitely a quick burnout position if you don't thrive in that atmosphere. But the ones who do have some of the fastest compensation growth.

Technical services are by far the most overworked because they are assigned to support customers long term. The baseline expectation is 45 hours a week, and most are usually assigned to enough customers that it can exceed 50-55 easily. I would consider Epic to be doing a poor job keeping them from burning out.

Quality managers, who test and document the software, can be overworked depending on team. They are definitely underpaid. They have been the plaintiffs of previous lawsuits against Epic by employees.

The non-compete is only really effective at making employees wait a year before going to work directly for a customer. I've heard of people getting jobs at customers and just not working directly with Epic until after the year has passed. Developers can easily just go work for a different tech companies right away.

The Covid and remote work stuff was pretty bad. At least they backed down in 2020 after complaints to the county. Unfortunately it took a suicide in 2021 for them to ease up on the "must only work remote in the local area" policy before they started bringing us all back to office at the end of the year. At least they never gave us the impression it was long term like some companies did.
by alexdanilowicz | 2025-04-21 23:46:57+00:00
1. We're using Sonnet 3.7 for the first prompt. I've noticed with some prompts that require lots of files it can be PAINFULLY slow. Our servers also might be getting slammed from the HN traffic. We have a "fast" mode that uses 3.5 that you can toggle and that's the default for editing, however, it won't be as visually rich. We need to improve the loading experience for sure. One big UX/UI difference between our product and others is that our preview is always shown versus on other tools the code is always shown. Other tools will stream in the code to mask the load time. We used to do that, and will likely bring it back.

2. Re pricing - that's the most important feedback we'll hear all day! We used to have a "contact us for pricing" tier, but have found self-serve a lot more effective and easier to scale.

We actually still only 2 people, just my co-founder and me. When you say "custom value-based" are you referring to a "contact us for pricing" tier?
by ct0 | 2025-04-21 23:47:19+00:00
There are a few commercial products popping up and marketing. I think youll find what you find here interesting: https://old.reddit.com/r/writerDeck/ Im using a Boox palma 2 on a stand, and a Thinkpad Keyboard 2 to emulate the same thing. The battery life may not be 100 hours but considerable.
by zamadatix | 2025-04-21 23:49:06+00:00
DSLinux absolutely runs in 4 MB (i.e. w/o a RAM expansion pack), it's just going to take a bit of work to also fit the web server + whatever CGI they wanted without a pack.

The EZ-Flash V 3-in-1 actually added a whopping +16 MB (128 Mb) of PSRAM! Growing up I only ever had the +8 MB pack from Opera... what a weird bit of history that browser port was :).
by philipkglass | 2025-04-21 23:49:11+00:00
China has accounted for the majority of global solar panel manufacturing for over 10 years now:

https://www.statista.com/chart/1576/chinese-solar-photovolta...

Despite that dominance, prices continue to fall:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices

As an addendum, the US also saw a rapid increase in domestic solar panel manufacturing in recent years:

https://seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-cap...

But that was due to government incentives that are now under fire from the Trump administration.
by wahern | 2025-04-21 23:49:34+00:00
> The author keeps calling it "pipelining", but I think the right term is "method chaining". [...] You get a similar effect with coroutines.

The inventor of the shell pipeline, Douglas McIlroy, always understood the equivalency between pipelines and coroutines; it was deliberate. See https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/sieve/sieve.pdf It goes even deeper than it appears, too. The way pipes were originally implemented in the Unix kernel was when the pipe buffer was filled[1] by the writer the kernel continued execution directly in the blocked reader process without bouncing through the scheduler. Effectively, arguably literally, coroutines; one process call the write function and execution continues with a read call returning the data.

Interestingly, Solaris Doors operate the same way by design--no bouncing through the scheduler--unlike pipes today where long ago I think most Unix kernels moved away from direct execution switching to better support multiple readers, etc.

[1] Or even on the first write? I'd have to double-check the source again.
by zalzal | 2025-04-21 23:50:08+00:00
100% agree. There is a bigger point too: People assume LLM capabilities are like FLOPs or something, as if they are a single number.

In reality, building products is an exploration of a complex state space of _human_ needs and possible solutions. This complexity doesn't go away. The hard part of being an engineer is not writing JavaScript. It is building a solution that addresses the essential complexity of a problem without adding accidental complexity.

The reason this is relevant is that it's just the same for LLMs! They are tripped up just like human engineers into adding accidental complexity when they don't understand the problem well enough and then they don't solve the real problem. So saying "just wait, LLMs will do that in the future" is not much different than saying "just wait, some smarter human engineer might come along and solve that problem better than you". It's possibly true, possibly false. And certainly not helpful.

If you work on a problem over time, sometimes you'll do much better than smarter person who has the wrong tools or doesn't understand the problem. And that's no different for LLMs.
by AbstractH24 | 2025-04-21 23:50:34+00:00
It just seems like the idea its actually cheaper to ship broken code than invest in QA is, well, wrong.

And I'm just thinking about the amount of time people spend paying me to work through these bugs with the team at the startup building it.

Putting aside the whole "it's easier to keep a customer than it is to acquire one" and "easier to keep your good reputation that overcome a bad one" side of things (and there is one tool a client asked me to use that I told them either the tool goes or I do),
by kovac | 2025-04-21 23:50:36+00:00
Love it! Any idea how long the display can last? I've been playing around with e-paper (nothing as impressive as this!) dashboards. I use Waveshare displays that has a max of 1 million refresh cycles. The display you've used seems more capable.

My own humble e-paper projects:

https://www.asciimx.com/projects/e-reader/ https://www.asciimx.com/projects/etlas/
by evanjrowley | 2025-04-21 23:50:54+00:00
As a US citizen, I'm alarmed by the requirement for biometrics (e.g., Windows Hello) to access Windows Recall[0]. US courts have not reached consensus on whether biometrics are protected by the 5th amendment[1]. One could argue that because you leave your fingerprints on things and because your face is shown by virtue of it being attached to your person, biometrics are therefore unprotected, and law enformement may be able to use them to unlock devices without your consent. The likelihood of criminals exploiting this is even higher. Passwords and PIN codes are secrets that you can choose to divulge, but with biometrics, a gang could tie you up and simply hover your Android/iPhone over your face to unlock it. I agree that biometrics can enhance security, but if they're the sole source of authentication (as with many popular devices), then they just become an easily exploitable weakness.

[0] https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/privacy-and-cont...

[1] https://www.troutman.com/insights/us-v-brown-district-of-col...
by rowanG077 | 2025-04-21 23:51:15+00:00
Haskell has it's issues, but this really ain't it. $ is idiomatic and used all over the place and is greatly more readable than stacking up brackets. The discoverability is also great because, like most things in Haskell, you can literally just input it into hoogle: https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%24 and the first hit is, of course the definition of it. Which includes a full explanation what it does.
by WaitWaitWha | 2025-04-21 23:51:56+00:00
Hear,hear.

It is quite amusing to observe how certain media outlets, which often adopt a self-righteous stance, are now expressing indignation after being exposed for their inaccuracies. They seem to have convinced themselves that they possess the ability to discern genuine expertise, leading them to believe that such experts do not require thorough vetting.
by TimorousBestie | 2025-04-21 23:52:54+00:00
> I disagree with this characterization: “social media operators are arguably less involved in the curation of their websites’ content than these traditional examples.” A publisher who engages in light curation is making just as much of an editorial choice as those who engage in heavier curation. There’s not a “better” or “worse” level of curation; there are just different choices along a continuum.

There is a qualitative difference in the scope of curation between the court’s example (a newspaper of solely Letters to the Editor) and a social media website. I don’t think a single social media website has an editorial board that goes around explicitly approving content prior to dissemination. Lobsters, perhaps?
by galaxyLogic | 2025-04-21 23:53:34+00:00
Shouldn't there be some kind of points-system to the verification?

If I am verified by 2 parties each of whom is verified by 10 parties each of whom is verified by 1 party then my verification score would be 20 (= 2 x 10 x 1).

Then people could trust me beinhg me 20 x more than somebody who is only verified by one party who is only verified by one party who is not verified by anybody?