MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sanderjd | 2025-04-07 15:55:58+00:00
I guess I have a different view on this... I feel like you left out that the past 20 years has also seen enormous success in this industry, even to a historically unprecedented degree.

You listed a number of things that have been super hyped flashes in the pan that never really panned out (or in the case of self driving cars, have taken way longer to pan out than people expected), but you didn't list the things that were super hyped and then became big successful sectors.

I remember when I thought "web 2.0" was overhyped, but now it's just the water we all swim in. I remember when that went from blogs to being social media, and I thought that was way overhyped too, but it turns out it was a big deal. The cloud was overhyped, "big data" was overhyped, SaaS was overhyped.

And it's true that all of these were overhyped! But they also turned into real business sectors.

It's certainly difficult to predict which hype-y things are going to mature into sustainably large markets, and which are going to fade into obscurity, but a model of "things that are hyped are doomed" is not predictive.

My own prediction is that AI tools are both overhyped and also very promising. I have no illusions that this prediction could be totally wrong. And even if it's right, I'm even more uncertain what the successful business models are going to be after the dust settles. We'll see!
by steveklabnik | 2025-04-07 15:56:05+00:00
> whether or not it was better to design around the fact that there could be the absence of “something” coming into existence when it should have been initialized

So this is actually why "no null, but optional types" is such a nice spot in the programming language design space. Because by default, you are making sure it "should have been initialized," that is, in Rust:

struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, }

You know that x and y can never be null. You can't construct a Point without those numbers existing.

By contrast, here's a point where they could be:

struct Point { x: Option<i32>, y: Option<i32>, }

You know by looking at the type if it's ever possible for something to be missing or not.

> Are there any pitfalls in Rust when Optional does not return anything?

So, Rust will require you to handle both cases. For example:

let x: Option<i32> = Some(5); // adding the type for clarity dbg!(x + 7); // try to debug print the result

This will give you a compile-time error:

error[E0369]: cannot add `{integer}` to `Option<i32>` --> src/main.rs:4:12 | 4 | dbg!(x + 7); // try to debug print the result | - ^ - {integer} | | | Option<i32> | note: the foreign item type `Option<i32>` doesn't implement `Add<{integer}>`

It's not so much "pitfalls" exactly, but you can choose to do the same thing you'd get in a language with null: you can choose not to handle that case:

let x: Option<i32> = Some(5); // adding the type for clarity let result = match x { Some(num) => num + 7, None => panic!("we don't have a number"), }; dbg!(result); // try to debug print the result

This will successfully print, but if we change `x` to `None`, we'll get a panic, and our current thread dies.

Because this pattern is useful, there's a method on Option called `unwrap()` that does this:

let result = x.unwrap();

And so, you can argue that Rust doesn't truly force you to do something different here. It forces you to make an active choice, to handle it or not to handle it, and in what way. Another option, for example, is to return a default value. Here it is written out, and then with the convenience method:

let result = match x { Some(num) => num + 7, None => 0, }; let result = x.unwrap_or(0);

And you have other choices, too. These are just two examples.

--------------

But to go back to the type thing for a bit, knowing statically you don't have any nulls allows you to do what some dynamic language fans call "confident coding," that is, you don't always need to be checking if something is null: you already know it isn't! This makes code more clear, and more robust.

If you take this strategy to its logical end, you arrive at "parse, don't validate," which uses Haskell examples but applies here too: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
by PhunkyPhil | 2025-04-07 15:56:35+00:00
Realistically, do you not think most of these things are largely solvable by a few, intentional changes to your daily routine?

30 minute walk before work, gym after work, outdoor/physical hobbies, intentional healthy eating, etc...

These, to me, aren't difficult and end up providing a net benefit on your life far outweighing the effort required to implement them.
by thundergolfer | 2025-04-07 15:56:49+00:00
The author works at Github, so yes not so much a "resource constrained" environment. It matches my experience at a high growth company, Canva, where in places it was easy to see the connection to profit and in other places quite hard. There were people that didn't care about their connection to profit, and there were expensive employees doing "good work" done merely because it was good to do. Canva could do that because its margins are 80+% and it made almost $1B in revenue at the time.
by ryandrake | 2025-04-07 15:56:50+00:00
Yep, if I could pick one positive thing to say about this administration, it's that they were totally transparent about their plans and intentions. They are doing exactly what they said (and wrote) that they would do in 2025. Hell, they even titled it "Project 2025."

Anyone saying, "Wait a minute, I didn't vote for this!" is either lying or stupid. They quite literally, in the actual, literal definition of "literally," spelled out every single thing they are currently doing, prior to the election. Zero people should be surprised by anything they are doing.
by johnecheck | 2025-04-07 15:57:19+00:00
Any number of species?

Maybe in theory, but propping up an entire ecosystem in collapse is well beyond Colossal's reach and incentives. This money and research would be better spent preventing the ecosystems from collapsing in the first place.

If we fix climate change, I could see an argument for investing in restoring the ecosystems that were destroyed. But 'de-extincting' a species without addressing the root causes of that extinction is idiocy.

Realizing this, these types will give up on re-introducing the original organism and instead create a bioengineered version that can survive in the changed world. I fear this path will not end well for us.
by troyvit | 2025-04-07 15:58:53+00:00
> these guys' plan of using signal to avoid record keeping was foolish and stupid, more than just because of their silly fear that Democrats would release their records (that would require Democrats growing a spine).

s/was/is. As in -- they're going to keep using Signal.

And yeah it is all for naught because as you say, there is no sign the dems as a group will grow a spine.
by atmanactive | 2025-04-07 15:58:54+00:00
Comodo was great until I've discovered it is using file system's altstreams to hash the files which resulted in sync programs constantly re-syncing all files. Naturally, when I start a backup/sync program, I expect only the last added/changed 1% to be transferred. With Comodo firewall installed, this wasn't the case. After digging for a way to disable that, I had to uninstall it.

Fort is my current number one, for sure.
by cootsnuck | 2025-04-07 16:00:06+00:00
Yea, I've experienced this too with 3.7. Not always though. It has been helpful for me more often than not helpful. But yea 3.5 "felt" better to me.

Part of me thinks this is because I expected less of 3.5 and therefore interacted with it differently.

It's funny because it's unlikely that everyone interacts with these models in the same way. And that's pretty much guaranteed to give different results.

Would be interesting to see some methods come out for individuals to measure their own personal success rate/ productivity / whatever with these different models. And then have a way for people to compare them with each other so we can figure out who is working well with these models and who isn't and figure out why the difference.
by SJC_Hacker | 2025-04-07 16:00:08+00:00
Thats probably the case 99% of the time.

But that 1% is pretty important.

For example, they are dismal at math problems that aren't just slight variations of problems they've seen before.

Here's one by blackandredpenn where ChatGPT insisted the solution to problem that could be solved by high school / talented middle school students was correct, even after trying to convince it it was wrong. https://youtu.be/V0jhP7giYVY?si=sDE2a4w7WpNwp6zU&t=837

Rewind earlier to see the real answer
by sramsay | 2025-04-07 16:00:15+00:00
I'm talking about who can sign the forms that say you fulfilled the requirements of a degree. Random people cannot do that. Emeritus professors usually retain that ability.

I've served on PhD defenses where you had uncredentialed people on the committee, but who could not sign off on the degree.

This probably looks different to you if you're a student, because you typically don't see the paperwork that gets sent around afterward. But a diploma is a legal document. There is no "rubber stamping" of anything. Not if the school would like to maintain its accreditation.
by const_cast | 2025-04-07 16:00:20+00:00
The other commenter says he will not discount your experience. I, however, will discount your experience.

Your experience isn’t real. What I mean is, you’re not actually talking about your experience, you’re talking about a very small subset of it.

When things work right, the result is invisible. Nobody sees payments that come in on time, meat that isn’t rotten, chemicals that aren’t in our water supply, or roads that aren’t shoddy. The visible part is when things DON’T work right. Since this is all you can see, this is all you think it is.

We cannot imagine a time without these regulations and bureaucrats because we haven’t lived it. But, it did exist. And it was horrifying. Evil beyond the comprehensions of modern men.

We have, largely, eliminated that. However, we did it too well. Now, modern men do not understand the plight. They do not understand that companies used to knowingly sell HIV infected medicine. They do not understand that chemicals used to leave newborns with facial deformities. They do not understand that meat used to kill you. They do not understand that our elderly worked until death. They do not understand that tobacco used to plague our country. They do not understand that people used to live at work. They do not understand that union members and their family were massacred on the streets.

You’re walking a fine line. I recommend working to understand what problems these institutions solve, and then research how good they are at solving them. I assure you, it is much, much higher than you think.
by gwd | 2025-04-07 16:00:24+00:00
> Each word/token is chosen as that which is statistically most likely to follow the previous.

The best way to predict the weather is to have a model which approximates the weather. The best way to predict the results of a physics simulation is to have a model which approximates the physical bodies in question. The best way to predict what word a human is going to write next is to have a model that approximates human thought.
by officeplant | 2025-04-07 16:00:37+00:00
As an EV owner I just don't see the benefit in the battery swap method. I spend a lot of time monitoring my battery's health and keeping the cell balance from going too far out of line.

Maybe its short sighted of me, but I don't want some abused battery from another owner swapped into my EV. The amount of trust I'd have to place on a battery swap station to give me a battery that's just as reliable/healthy as my own managed battery is far too great. Would they just reject people who try to swap faulty battery's or just take it as an operational loss and recycle batteries that fall out of spec.

Of course a lot of this ties into future ownership/rental financial models, however the world works with everything going towards subscription in the future. If you're just subscription/leasing a car as a service the vast majority of people won't care of give a shit anyway.

As for now I own my EV and when the battery needs replacement ten years from now I expect to be able to buy another one, hopefully larger/more capable, and continue on my merry way.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-04-07 16:01:01+00:00
I was recently working on simple demos for Genetic Algorithms that only use basic, programming techniques.

My first one just tries to make a 64-bit bitting that is all 1's. I made random selection, roulette wheel, and tournament. Random is there as empirical proof that GA's are smarter than chance. Tournament is doing a great job.

Next idea is student loans. For maybe 15 loans with different rates, what payment plan knocks them all out the fastest? I'm fixing the payment size with a payment plan being a list of numbers representing which loan to apply the payment to (or 0 for no payment). Each step is (a) apply payment, (b) advance all loans with interest, and (c) see if the total is zero. Fitness will be interesting given I need to optimize for minimal principle and payments.

I found some other easy examples people did online that beginners might want to recreate. They include trying to get from point A to B with bananas at random places (avoid falling), best combo of items in your backpack for travel, and ants finding the best path to get the most food in a 2D map. I'll try to dig up the links later if someone wants them. Otherwise, those descriptions alone might be a starting point.
by nico | 2025-04-07 16:01:15+00:00
> This will probably mean you have some revenue and some sense of where PMF might lay or some kind of brand/pedigree.

> Do not underestimate the value of YC brand and being able to present on Demo Day gives you

Except to get into YC you also need to have very good traction and a plan to 10x that quickly

The two exceptions to that I’ve seen are: 1) you’ve had a good exit before, 2) you graduated from Stanford, Yale, Harvard, or similar

So for people with neither of the above, finding 10-20 angels might actually be more doable than getting into YC. Although, once you’ve done that, YC is a lot more likely to take you in
by toomuchtodo | 2025-04-07 16:01:17+00:00
https://www.reddit.com/r/hiringcafe | https://hiring.cafe/ (not mine, but I've chatted with folks its worked for)

Know when to rest, not to quit. Take whatever job you can now while continuing to look for your next role.

> What helped you push through when it felt like the system failed you?

Grit and nihilism. No one is coming to save us.
by tecleandor | 2025-04-07 16:02:20+00:00
Also...

> granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.

If I use it for something it's not images because I want to create a DNG file that's a DNG file and a Gameboy ROM at the same time. Or if I'm a security researcher testing non compliant files. Or if I'm not a great developer or haven't had enough time to make my library perfectly compliant with the specification... Will I be sued for breaking the license?
by mubou | 2025-04-07 16:02:36+00:00
Of course, you're right. Neural networks mimic exactly that after all. I'm certain we'll see an ML model developed someday that fully mimics the human brain. But my point is an LLM isn't that; it's a language model only. I know it can seem intelligent sometimes, but it's important to understand what it's actually doing and not ascribe feelings to it that don't exist in reality.

Too many people these days are forgetting this key point and putting a dangerous amount of faith in ChatGPT etc. as a result. I've seen DOCTORS using ChatGPT for diagnosis. Ignorance is scary.
by hakunin | 2025-04-07 16:02:53+00:00
On the contrary, I don't want political _nonsense_. What loss would it be if we couldn't discuss politics under the same guidelines[1] we use for other HN discussions. Places like Reddit allow chaotic non-thoughtful one-liner slogan/meme discourse. If we manage to discuss politics according to HN guidelines, I don't know where else you'd find this level of thoughtful discourse on the internet. It does stress-test this site, but so far it's been able to handle it.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by bluefirebrand | 2025-04-07 16:02:55+00:00
> fireworks, cannons, jellyfish squeezing water out to accelerate, no sudies of orbits from moons and planets, no chemistry experiments, no inspiration from thousands of years of flamethrowers

Fireworks, cannons, chemistry experiments and flamethrowers are all human inventions

And yes, exactly! We studied orbits of moons and planets. We studied animals like Jellyfish. We choose to observe the world, we extracted data, we experimented, we saw what worked, refined, improved, and succeeded

LLMs are not capable of observing anything. They can only regurgitate and remix the information they are fed by humans! By us, because we can observe

An LLM trained on 100% wrong information will always return wrong information for anything you ask it.

Say you train an LLM with the knowledge that fire can burn underwater. It "thinks" that the step by step instructions for building a fire is to pile wood and then pour water on the wood. It has no conflicting information in its model. It cannot go try to build a fire this way and observe that it is wrong. It is a parrot. It repeats the information that you give it. At best it can find some relationships between data points that humans haven't realized might be related

A human could easily go attempt this, realize it doesn't work, and learn from the experience. Humans are not simply parrots. We are capable of exploring our surroundings and internalizing things without needing someone else to tell us how everything works

> That is, nobody taught humans to split the atom and then humans literally parotted the mechanism and did it, but you attempting to present splitting the atom as a thing which appeared out of nowhere and not remixing any existing concepts is, in your terms, absolute drivel

Building on the work of other humans is not parroting

You outlined the absolute genius of humanity building from first principles all the way to splitting the atom and you still think we're just parroting,

I think we disagree what parroting is entirely.
by notanormalnerd | 2025-04-07 16:03:00+00:00
This is my general opinion with regards to bureaucracy in Germany. All the data is most likely already there and all the technical challenges have been solved in the meantime. Why do I have to do the runaround from office to office, when they are physically connected by a piece if wire (aka the internet).

There is a reason why we have so much bureaucracy in Germany (1. because we like it) and second because it is supposed to provide trust, trust that every company I deal with is legit, trust that the system knows who is participating. Without trust nobody would make business or business would be very hard, because you would have to price in the risk of not having trust.
by graypegg | 2025-04-07 16:03:05+00:00
It might have changed since I last had to deal with this (I hope!) but excel, at least ~5 years ago, was storing cell contents as they appear in the function box in the UI. As in, `1,23` is 1 and 23/100 when read in fr-CA, and this would apply to the function names as well. So `=SOMME(...)`. Excel is smart enough to pick up on a locale flag in the file format, but obviously it then shows you a dialog asking you to convert it, needing the language pack.

I also won't assume that we were making "good" excel documents. It's possible we were shipping badly made exports haha
by rickdeckard | 2025-04-07 16:03:13+00:00
Yeah, but it's not standardised because its output is so close to "bare metal", it's wrapped into a standardised format a few steps later when a JPG/HEIC/... is created.

Supporting DNG means that those few steps later it should be standardised into ANOTHER RAW-equivalent. A format which happens to be patented and comes with a license and legal implications.

Among them the right for Adobe to every method you used to make this conversion from your proprietary bare-metal sensor-data. This is not trivial, because if you're a vendor working on sensor-tech you wouldn't want to be required to share all your processing with Adobe for free...
by officeplant | 2025-04-07 16:03:48+00:00
Yep, I refuse to pay for Ford's navigation. As of now neither carplay, nor android auto, can turn on battery preconditioning in my van. I've been monitoring the battery heater state in an app just in case it starts working in a future update. Recently an update finally allowed carplay to read my E-Transit's SOC when connected.

It would be nice if I could figure out some way to just force it on with a switch/aftermarket module talking to the canbus.
by thundergolfer | 2025-04-07 16:05:16+00:00
I'm not sure you understand Marx. The author probably has read Marx during their philosophy training.

'cost centre' does not mean a place that a capitalist is unable to perform exploitation. A cost center in Marxist terms can be understood as a department that participates in the money-commodity-money' (MCM') flow but doesn't directly complete the circuit to M'.

For example, delivering and receiving mail does not realize profit for most companies, but is an essential part of the business. If they spend $1,000,000 on the mail department in Q1, spending $2,000,000 in Q2 is likely to waste the extra $1,000,000. But spending zero in Q2 would cripple the company. That's a cost centre.
by cess11 | 2025-04-07 16:05:31+00:00
The absolute majority of Pharo code I've written has been quite procedural and throwaway in character. It's a tool I pull up for a bit of exotic exploratory programming against some remote API or file, typically just a 'script' in whatever the window is called.

In part because it's much easier to boot a fresh image and start hacking than some python3 -m venv incantation that sometimes breaks or breaks something else. There's a lack of libraries though, and now it might be easy to just point the image to a remote git repo to import it but I'm not sure, if it isn't other languages has it easier. At least when you can just copy the algorithm into a file and put the right formula at the top and start using it.
by mubou | 2025-04-07 16:05:40+00:00
LLMs don't approximate human thought, though. They approximate language. That's it.

Please, I'm begging you, go read some papers and watch some videos about machine learning and how LLMs actually work. It is not "thinking."

I fully realize neural networks can approximate human thought -- but we are not there yet, and when we do get there, it will be something that is not an LLM, because an LLM is not capable of that -- it's not designed to be.
by blurker | 2025-04-07 16:05:43+00:00
> most great engineers will actively work with management to make sure they're not single points of failure!

Sure, but that is a load bearing "great" for sure. Not every company is staffed with great, selfless engineers.

I'm an engineer and I've worked at companies with engineers who actively resisted making themselves not a single point of failure because it gave them control and job security. I think it's not uncommon to have these types at companies and it really sucks when they have their management Stockholm syndromed because they make it hard for all the other "great" engineers to do their jobs.