MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wraaath | 2025-04-14 04:06:53+00:00
True that stock _options_ are only worth something after an IPO, but vested and exercised stock options that get turned into equity is a different story.

Equity can be worth something via acquisition from private equity doing roll-ups, corporate buyers looking to fill strategic product niches, etc

Also, for the more heavily vc-funded late stage still pre-ipo plays, secondary market, which can be at a discount to the most recent vc round, or in some rare instances in a hot sector, premium.

One other thing - waiting for the IPO might be the worst thing to wait to do. The public markets are much more fickle than private markets. Once a company IPOs, there's usually a trading moratorium on insider shares, usually 180 days, so by then, the equity value may have completely imploded.
by derektank | 2025-04-14 04:08:58+00:00
I would really like to see what a reasoning model with access to player character information, resources available in the location, and the monster manual could do. One of the hardest things as a DM, in my experience, is creating a balanced encounter without fudging. This has always made it hard for me to justify presenting a truly deadly encounter which I feel has lowered the stakes of the game. It seems like it should be possible to create a system that knows the strengths/weaknesses of a party and that could create a challenging but not overwhelming encounter most of the time.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-04-14 04:09:28+00:00
> At that point any purpose you make for yourself is better than that one even if it's true.

Absolutely, let's not let thermodynamics be the final word on the topic.

But suppose we did... To anybody who would cite this as a reason to drill more oil, I'd say that part of the equation is that we must also survive. In 10k years there will still be plenty of useful sunlight falling on the planet. Ideally we'll be around then, harnessing it to throw really great parties or whatever. If we aren't choosy about our fuel sources in the near term we might not be around to continue at this purpose in the long term.
by lyu07282 | 2025-04-14 04:09:55+00:00
It's great for general and open ended conversation systems where there is no predefined flow or process to follow. Where you have general capabilities you add to the agent (web search, code execution, web drivers, etc.). But a lot of agentic architecture patterns aren't like that, there you want to closely model the flow, guard rails and constraints of the agent. You can't just take a bunch of MCP services and plug them together to solve every business problem. I think it's a bit unfair to MCP because it doesn't seem to even attempt to solve these problems in the first place. It's not replacing things like LangChain.

Everyone should welcome MCP as an open community-driven standard, because the alternative are fractured, proprietary and vendor-locked protocols. Even if right now MCP is a pretty bad standard over time it's going to improve. I take a bad standard that can evolve with time, over no standard at all.
by GeneralMayhem | 2025-04-14 04:10:29+00:00
> If you really believe your employer's stock will double in value, you can take your cash bonus and buy shares of it.

RSUs aren't quite that deal, because they're "invested" before they vest. Even assuming that the employer would be equally willing to give you either $X/yr in cash or $4X in RSUs over the next 4 years, you can definitely come out ahead if the stock keeps going up. It's effectively a form of leverage through time arbitrage; you get to buy $4X worth of stock at today's prices using money you don't have yet.

Consider a simplified scenario where the stock is flat forever, except that it doubles in a single day when you've been there for a year. If you take the $X in cash and immediately buy your employer's stock with all of it, you only double your money on that first year's paycheck. By the end of the 4 years, you would have $5X (the $4X you earned in salary/bonus, plus one extra X from the doubling). On the other hand, if you take the RSUs, that entire grant, including what hasn't vested yet, benefits from the increase. In this scenario, by the end of the 4 years, you have $8X.

Similar happens with any scenario where the price is monotonically-increasing, but with more arithmetic. If you assume that the stock will go up over time, and that you wouldn't want to be trying to time the market, this starts to look like a pretty good bet. Compound that with the fact that most employers will be willing to offer a much higher number in RSUs than in cash - that is, if they would offer $X in cash bonuses, they'll offer >>$4X over 4 years in RSUs, especially as a starting/signing-bonus offer - for reasons having to do with financial accounting, and it's suddenly a very attractive deal.

The main reason to prefer cash over RSUs is for diversification. But if we're talking about a public company, you can still sell the RSUs as soon as they vest in order to diversify (and the standard advice is to do so). You really only stand to lose if your employer's stock goes down between grant and vest - not just worse than market, but actually down - which, on average, is an easy bet to take. Getting RSUs at a private company is a much dicier prospect, of course, because now you're locked into that lack of diversification in a way that really matters; even after the point where you get the paycheck, you don't get to bail out if the ship starts to sink.
by dang | 2025-04-14 04:10:45+00:00
Please don't resort to accusing others of trolling, or of telling them they didn't read something (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43677540). These are swipes, which the HN guidelines ask you to edit out of your posts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

If people are posting bad information or bad arguments, it's enough to respond with good information and good arguments. It's in your interests to do this too, because if you make them without swipes, your arguments will be more credible.
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-04-14 04:12:41+00:00
More, uh, technical coverage by Bruno Macaes

https://archive.today/latest/www.newstatesman.com/business/e...

>If a country can become prosperous just by printing money it will likely lose interest in producing actual goods. There could be a psychological dynamic at play here, but even in its absence there would always be a monetary mechanism.
by GodelNumbering | 2025-04-14 04:14:37+00:00
The earnings filings are available on SEC. Where the product makes a difference is by analyzing interesting patterns and contextualizing it with different means

e.g. this NVDA earnings report: https://www.signalbloom.ai/news/NVDA/nvidia-revenue-soars-ma...

beyond the headline revenue/EPS miss/beat which is trivial, it correctly identifies a trend of margin compression and charts it. It also identifies the gaming revenue divergence from the datacenter revenues and so on. You can check out pretty much any report and odds are, you'll find things that weren't called out in the earnings release
by MrJohz | 2025-04-14 04:15:22+00:00
Surely if this is about creating a step in a checklist, all you need is a box to tick in the PR template, and that would be an even simpler version of this, requiring far fewer moving parts and being easier to use.

I think part of the criticism of (1) here comes from the complexity of the solution, which makes it feel like it should be competing with a more fully-fledged CI solution. But for a tool where the goal is really just to let the developers assert that they've run some tests, it's surely a lot more complicated than it needs to be, no?
by 9rx | 2025-04-14 04:15:25+00:00
> It was intended to be a systems language to replace C++

More specifically, it was intended to replace the systems that Google wrote in C++ (read: servers). Early on, the Go team expressed happy surprise that people found utility in the language outside of that niche.

> but has instead pivoted to be a "cloud language"

I'm not sure that is really a pivot. At the heart of all the "cloud" tools it is known for is a HTTP server which serves as the basis of the control protocol, among other things. Presumably Go was chosen exactly because of it being designed for building servers. Maybe someone thought there would be more CRUD servers written in it too, but these "cloud" tools are ultimately in the same vein, not an entirely different direction.

> or a replacement for Python

I don't think you'd normally choose Go to train your ML/AI model. It has really only gunned for Python in the server realm; the very thing it was intended to be for. What was surprising to those living in an insular bubble at Google was that the rest of the world wrote their servers in Python and Ruby rather than C++ like Google – so it being picked up by the Python and Ruby crowd was unexpected to them – but not to anyone else.
by righthand | 2025-04-14 04:16:03+00:00
Use a Git hook: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Hooks

For example, Run you lint script on pre-commit. You can use `git config core.hooksPath .githooks` in your package.json/cargo.toml/composer.json/etc scripts prepare hook to maintain your scripts in a `.githooks` directory in the repo.

You could also run your code coverage command on pre-commit to help with discipline. Sky is the limit.
by WheatMillington | 2025-04-14 04:16:49+00:00
No, it isn't. People are interested in whether a stock has volatility, and whether it has moved x%. If a $10 stock loses $1 it should show a roughly matching pattern to a $200 stock losing $20. Intersecting at zero will show a very large movement for the $10 stock and a very small movement in the $200 stock, despite the effect being the same to stockholders.
by kelseydh | 2025-04-14 04:17:57+00:00
A big revelation for me in solving so much timezone insanity came from realising that timezones should be expressed as locations rather than zones.

Avoid general terms like "Pacific Standard Time" and stick to location-specific ones like: "Vancouver/Canada". The latter is how people expect their time to work, and correctly handles whatever quirky choices jurisdictions choose to do with their time.
by londons_explore | 2025-04-14 04:18:04+00:00
> Shouldn’t they focus on their core service instead of trying to branch out

Their core service (sending letters) has seen declining per capita volumes ever since the invention of the telephone.

They need to branch out or die. The fact they have an employee visit every address in the nation every day gives them a huge benefit to getting into loads of businesses other companies wouldn't have a chance at.
by fastball | 2025-04-14 04:20:15+00:00
It's actually more than that, because the option costs less than the price of a full share. i.e. if your comp is $400k and you choose 100% stock options as your comp, that value allocation will almost certainly control more shares than if you took 400k in cash and used that to buy all NFLX shares.

If that wasn't the case then yes, there would be no reason to take options as comp because obviously (as you say) you can just buy NFLX on the stock market directly with some or all of your cash.
by crdrost | 2025-04-14 04:21:20+00:00
Yeah it's especially a bit humbling when you realize that the vast majority of critters are some form or another of carnivore/omnivore and there's only a trace few herbivores and they're all the "pests" like aphids that we are constantly doing battle with... Except when they are things like cows that we ourselves eat.

Plants are naturally a bit protected from animal predators by a simple economics of scale: proteins require nitrogen, we can't get it from the air even though it's abundant there, we need to get it from nitrogen fixing bacteria but those are farmed by plants in their plant roots... But plants are mostly cellulose and don't have much nitrogen by proportion. But then they are also actively protected by being extremely effective poison manufacturers, using their rigid cell walls to put things at high pressures, growing around pests, cutting off resources to leaves and regrowing them after the predator moves on, and attracting predators of their predators like ladybugs.

But the networks of interdependence that we eventually form should perhaps not be put into a traditional exploiter/exploited juxtaposition. “How can I tweak myself so that you find me indispensable?” is a question both the humans and the plants are asking of themselves vis-a-vis each other.
by TZubiri | 2025-04-14 04:23:02+00:00
Nope, the fruit is for the humans or whatever pollinators, as a reward, in a similar way that pollen is a reward for bees.

The food for the seed is inside of the seed, which is often not the fruit. Most fruits are different anatomically, but you will find that an apple has little seeds, you open it and you will find endosperm in it, mostly food for the little embryo in the seed.

For stuff like wheat we really do eat the endosperm, but for stuff like apples and watermelons and peaches, we spit out the seeds. (For peaches we often don't even see the seed, which is hidden inside of a woody endocarp, you can crack it open and find the actual seed inside.

So if you thought that the peach meat was the food for the seed you were doubly wrong, you need to go several layers deep in order to find the seed food.
by Jiahao_Luo | 2025-04-14 04:23:59+00:00
made a simple Tampermonkey userscript that adds a "Screenshot" button directly into the tweet menu on Twitter/X. It lets you capture a clean, high-quality image of a tweet with one click. The image is automatically copied to your clipboard, and a notification pops up with a download option. It's useful for quickly saving or sharing tweets outside the platform.

Would love to hear your feedback!
by rappatic | 2025-04-14 04:24:32+00:00
> One of the hardest things as a DM, in my experience, is creating a balanced encounter without fudging

Just fudge. I know it might seem dishonest, but I think I fudge at least a little bit in probably 80% of my encounters. The most important thing isn't accuracy from the DM's perspective, it's fun and accuracy from the players' perspective. Unless the players catch wind of the fudging, it literally only has upsides:

- You waste less prep time fine-tuning stat blocks and can spend more time on the interesting and material aspects of prep, like designing NPCs, dungeons, etc.

- It makes the combat encounters more interesting, because encounters that would be super one-sided in either direction are instead close and nail-biting

- It allows you to end a boring encounter quicker or prolong unexpectedly interesting encounters

- You can create cool moments where a monster fails an attack at a crucial moment or succeeds when the odds are stacked against them

...etc. I think well-executed fudging is a complete win-win situation, as long as your players don't find out.
by flomo | 2025-04-14 04:25:43+00:00
Yep, San Francisco's BRT line has been a huge success (despite being typically way late and over-budget). And actually SF has had 'proto-BRT' for a long time, but IMO they still need more subways.

Bodega does have a growth boundary, per google. (IMO the lack of that is the 'root of all evil' of USA development patterns.)
by mmcromp | 2025-04-14 04:26:00+00:00
I tried fennel for a game jam and honestly was pretty disappointed. The way lisp languages are pitched here, I thought I was in for a mind opening experience, but instead the end experience was pretty much identical to lua in ever meaningful way, the only differences felt surface level (I.e. using closures, and parentheses).

I'm forever indebt to lisp for giving JS it's saving graces (closures and FN as first class citizens), but I think we some honestly on what the end experience really is.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-04-14 04:27:21+00:00
When Beers says:

> According to the cybernetician the purpose of a system is what it does...

The "according to the cybernetician" part makes it pretty clear that we're now entering some kind of abstract space that cares not for the stated intentions of humans. It seems that what's "very hot right now" is to ignore the first part.

I think it's an especially reasonable position to take when the system in question has no designer to disagree with anyhow.
by TeaBrain | 2025-04-14 04:27:22+00:00
That's interpreting a lot from just four words. Opinion probably wasn't the best word for what I was referring to, but more-so their reference point for claiming that it is arguably his best work. My comment may seem dismissive to someone who hasn't read PKD, but VALIS is generally never considered a contender for his best work. To suggest that it is seems absurd which is why I responded as I did.
by roenxi | 2025-04-14 04:27:41+00:00
> It was amazingly satisfying to all my players, and it's also the exact sort of thing that I don't think the current batch of SOTA LLMs (even with the temperature cranked to 1) would ever think of in a MILLION years.

That actually seems like it'd be a pretty easy one for an LLM to get to. I tried

You are a highly intelligent and creative D&D campaign planner. Imagine a creature that is immortal with mechanics like The Picture of Dorian Gray - its soul is protected in a painting and that gives its body immortality. Please brainstorm some interesting ways to defeat this antagonist that might connect to other aspects of a campaign, suggesting new ideas.

and on the 2nd run on a small local LLM got "*Reflections and Mirrors*: The creature's soul is reflected in mirrors and reflective surfaces, making them vulnerable to attacks. The party must use mirrors to their advantage, luring the creature into a trap or using them to distract it while they attack." and "* *The Corruption of Beauty*: The immortal creature is a symbol of beauty and corruption. To defeat it, the party must find a way to strip it of its beauty and corruption, using it against itself. This could involve using a magical artifact that amplifies the creature's own corruption, or finding a way to expose its true nature and render it powerless.".

It seems quite reasonable that a large modern LLM could come up with exactly that idea in far less than a million years. Art, mirrors and defacing art are all pretty standard sounding themes for handling that sort of monster.
by MrJohz | 2025-04-14 04:27:45+00:00
It typically takes me maybe an hour to update my dependencies? I run type checks and e2e tests as part of that to have a relatively high degree of confidence that nothing has been broken. Also splitting the change into multiple steps (i.e. do minor/patch upgrades first, check nothing's broken, run a major upgrade, check nothing's broken, etc) means it's fairly to see where something is causing problems and needs to be handled more carefully.

I do this typically every couple of weeks, and it takes up almost no time at all in comparison to time spent on other work. Someone needs to review the eventual PR created, but that's also typically fairly easy. NPM makes this all very easy to do. In Python I've used tools like PDM or uv to handle dependencies similarly.
by arisbe__ | 2025-04-14 04:28:06+00:00
I know I was a bit over-the-top, but I stand by this logic that is far more general than "CPAP-as-an-answer" (but I do personally think it applies here but that is moreso speculation):

> "...If a hypothetical drug existed that was radically cheap and improved general health outcomes by 25%-50%, the institution of medicine and insurance by logic of self-preservation would not allow to exist or be known."

The reasoning is that there is a large capacity and infrastructure of trained professionals and insurance expectational-warp. If the medical visits and drug prescriptions were decimated the financial side of things would collapse. The reason they turn a blind eye to what we think of as truth-oriented science is that early career professionals have mortgages and debt and so are themselves locked-in to playing their cards in favor of institutional self-preservation. When this gets out of hand they begin to habitualize a rationalization-like thinking that is purely self-serving.

I am of the opinion that we are far past the point of corruption (it is unconscious in the professionals themselves), but it is mostly a question of debt thresholds and group psychology.

My reasons for saying you should yourself as a sleep apnea patient should just figure it out is that that is how pessimistic I am about such professional blindness. To be honest I'm leaving out the main problem with CPAP because by your response you just aren't ready to engage in creative thought (no offense that is almost all of humanity). Most of the intellectual and professional world sets a bar so damn low its like they are playing limbo. Meanwhile patients are like zombified robots programmed to trust the white lab coats like lambs to the slaughter.

Just like political debate is self-perpetuating such that a negatively defined identity is preserved and valued over mediation and understanding, most professionals use their brain power to self-sabotage away from institutional-skeptical inquiry as its too uncomfortable to self-sacrifice reputation, income and eventually their careers.
by neilv | 2025-04-14 04:28:08+00:00
Yeah, I've been burnt badly by that before.

Which is part of why my founder co-matching profiles mention that I'm looking to spread the equity wealth around among early hires, more than is usual.

If a prospective co-founder is turned off by that, without a really compelling reason, then we'd probably clash on other values as well. And I'd also think there's a good chance they'll backstab me when they think they can.
by protocolture | 2025-04-14 04:28:13+00:00
I used GPT 3 to help write my halloween one shot a few years ago.

The outcome was pretty good. As a language model it had quite a good understanding of tone and context. In fact it ended up adding (without my notice, I was quite tired) a whole layer of subtext, after the game my players were like "Ok now explain the goo!" and it turns out, that in 2 handouts, and 3 scene descriptions GPT had added linked, veiled descriptions of some space goop that I hadnt planned for.
by theamk | 2025-04-14 04:28:17+00:00
One way to look at the problem is to try to determine _why_ is that you can't find the documentation. I assume you used your wiki's search function - then why couldn't you find it?

Are you not familiar with keywords, so your search results return nothing? In this case, a glossary or a list of (company-specific) synonyms might help.

A common cause of empty search results is if the pages are so short that you need exact keywords to bring them up. In this case, adding explicit "Keywords:" section, including any error messages in full and adding a paragraph of motivation can help the documents to be found.

Are there too many matches, so you get overwhelmed and miss the correct page? In this case you'd want to work on titles, or go the other way and clean up the pages. Some basic category organization will be helpful too.

Sometimes the search is just bad. No excludes, or words don't match half of the time, or random matches, or knowledge is spread across half-a-dozen websites... This is hard to fix, but bringing up a separate search system (or AI agent nowadays) might still be easier than rewriting every single page to accommodate broken search.

In the worst case, you'll may try to give up on "search" completely and try a strict hierarchical organization, like Yahoo web directories in 1995. This may work great for introductory topics, but I don't think this will work for every single doc. There is a reason no one uses web directories anymore.
Show HN: GitHub Detective – Investigate what a GitHub user has been up to
by bilater | 2025-04-14 04:33:25+00:00
All—

Lazy Sundays are for fun vibe coding, and this particular weekend, I decided to play around with the GitHub API. Ended up building this little app: GitHub Detective.

It fetches the latest activity of a user, but in a nice way—you can filter by categories like PRs, issues, comments, etc., and easily navigate to them.

You can also generate a sarcastic analysis of the user based on their activity, then download and share it with friends. :)