MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-04-23 06:05:11+00:00
> The goal of this process isn't to find the "best" people to admit

That is exactly the goal of this process. Otherwise why does someone with a 4.0 GPA have any better chance than someone with a 3.2 GPA? If all you cared about was "qualified" then there would be some minimum threshold and candidates above that threshold would be chosen at random.

> there's always going to be an imperfect system doing the picking.

"Perfection is impossible" doesn't mean that every imperfect alternative is equally bad.
by constantcrying | 2025-04-23 06:05:26+00:00
All polynomials "work" globally. That some polynomials form an orthonormal basis over certain intervals is essentially irrelevant.

The author does not address the single most important reason why high degrees of polynomials are dangerous. Which is pretty insane to be honest, obviously to be honest you have to at least mention why people tell you to be cautious about high degree polynomials AND point out why your examples circumvent the problem. Anything else is extremely dishonest and misleading.
by bpev | 2025-04-23 06:05:29+00:00
For what it's worth, ecosystem is a valid concern, esp compared to React, and esp if dealing with more niche features. Even for something fairly generic like Virtual List implementations. Virtual Lists do exist for solid (specifically tanstack is the most fully-featured, albeit under-documented), they aren't as battle-hardened or as well-documented as their react counterparts. Specifically, I have thought about digging into VirtualList internals, because of a couple issues that I haven't seen in some other framework impls (granted, of most the complex generic ui components, virtual-list is literally the one issue I had with ecosystem).

Also, you'll definitely start seeing edges faster. Things like touch event libraries, animation libraries, maplibre/dataviz/etc. I'd say that the solid ecosystem is at the point where you'll see 1-2 libraries for most things, but if those libraries aren't quite right for you, you can very quickly find yourself digging deeper than you'd like.

That being said, as parent stated, integrating vanilla libs isn't so hard. And also, there is a... solid... amount of people building headless libraries specifically for the ecosystem, which are quite useful (For example, I recently came across https://corvu.dev, which I've started integrating here and there). What I mean to say is less that solid has a poor ecosystem, and more that there isn't the infinite easy-access vibe-code-able pop-in-lib-to-solve-your-problem ecosystem of react.

Even with the shallow ecosystem, solidjs has been quite enjoyable to me. Also, in the two years I've been using it, I think I've built up enough of my own personal ecosystem that I don't really need to reach towards external dependencies all that much, which feels very nice.
by gymbeaux | 2025-04-23 06:05:31+00:00
Remote or offshore? I’ve worked with offshore teams (Infosys) that were vastly inferior to ChatGPT for writing code. We’re talking declares variables out of scope and checks that code in to source control. We’re talking forgets to remove comments in copy-pasted code that clearly refer to another F100 company. We’re talking takes 3 days to implement a one-liner code change.
by bigyabai | 2025-04-23 06:05:43+00:00
In an ideal world, Apple would have just built DirectX and sold the Xbox too. But you can't look at it from an executive's perspective, you have to look at it from the developer's point-of-view. This insistence on high-investment, low-ROI APIs is why the Mac doesn't have games. If you run the Metal playbook with VR again, you will have developers outright abandon you. We've already seen what happens.

Apple's GPUs support a decent chunk of the Vulkan featureset, you can go boot it up on an M1 with Asahi. Same goes for OpenXR. These are things that Apple neglects because they want to use their customerbase as leverage to market proprietary APIs. This hurts users, because Apple has neither industry-leading standards nor the leverage to force the industry to adapt. And they sure as hell lack the humility to just support both in the name of fair competition.
by andsoitis | 2025-04-23 06:06:05+00:00
> cheap addition when you already have to support iOS and iPadOS devices.

Presentation form factor and input modality is different on LRUD compared to touch, 10’ vs handheld.

There’s an opportunity cost: it is better to improve the user experience on the vast majority of TV devices (eg Samsung or Android TV or Fire tv) than it is to support a tiny market share device like Apple TV that you now also need to keep up to date.
by NoPicklez | 2025-04-23 06:06:17+00:00
It's also "From the same guys that brought you the Tesla Model S, 3 and Y". It's easy to point the finger at a bad product a company has made and throw out all of the good.

The new CAN looks to include tried and trued protocols that have existed for a while but would allow for a much better system.

The combustion engine was tried and trued and didn't need changing until someone decided to do something better and electric engines are better.
by jononor | 2025-04-23 06:07:09+00:00
AlphaProof is among the most relevant methods here. And because it trains by self-play, instead of historical human data - it has a much better chances of being able to solve novel problems, or come up with solutions that humans have not. It did pretty good at the 2024 Olympiad. Will be interesting to see how 2025 goes.
by hakfoo | 2025-04-23 06:07:33+00:00
DM&P? I think their "Vortex86" range seems to be the modern take on "low-end x86 designed for embedded markets".

Wonder what happened to some of the others-- the ALI embedded 386SX seems to be suddenly popular in those "Pocket 386" laptops, but I'd expect there are warehouses full of old AMD Elan/NSC Geode style parts waiting to get tapped.
by cricalix | 2025-04-23 06:08:58+00:00
Not the person you're asking, but I sail a 7 ton, 10 metre yacht. I can change course by 90 degrees in under 10 seconds if I need to (probably far less, depends how hard of a crash tack I do).

people do need to sleep if they're soloing offshore, so the warning would need to be at least a minute to be able to wake up, then there's putting on the safety equipment to go out on deck etc. So make that multiple minutes of warning for it to be useful..

Im not aware (which is not to say it doesn't happen) of that many incidents with sailing vessels and whales. However, you've prompted me to look, and it's more than I thought.

https://www.yachtingworld.com/cruising/new-approach-to-reduc...
by nopakos | 2025-04-23 06:09:07+00:00
I think these connected to TV devices are a wasted opportunity for gaming. They are great for family type video games and with some marketing from apple or Google they could sell tons of games. I happily paid for Beach Buggy, a Mario Kart type game, my kids are loving it and I think that the company makes a lot of money from this game alone.

But the support from Google is abysmal. No search functionality, developer hostility when trying to publish something etc.
by bigyabai | 2025-04-23 06:09:49+00:00
I think people are (rightfully) upset at the business-oriented decisions that limit MacOS as a platform, prevent competition on iOS and demand annual tithes from their developers like they're peons tilling land for coin. These are fair criticisms, prosecuted in a few courts even, and well within the realm of reasonable change.

Apple makes great things for their users when they collaborate with the industry. That's why we're concerned when they abandon standards and demand convergence on suspicious centralized cloud crap.
by krackers | 2025-04-23 06:09:55+00:00
The issue is the formal definition of regex only deals with whether a string belongs to language recognized by regex or not (boolean accept/non-accept), but regex in practice often talks in terms of "find the substring (if any) that matches". Which then causes issues because a regex is equivalent to an NFA so a given string can be matched in possibly multiple ways, which forces you to bring in the notion of a "greedy" vs "non-greedy" match in order to disambiguate. And then add in top of that the desire to define sub-matches in terms of capturing groups, and it's just a complete mess. And that's not even getting to not-strictly regular PCRE extensions like lookaround, backreferences, etc.
by eru | 2025-04-23 06:10:02+00:00
The algorithms on the Wikipedia page quoted actually solve a different problem. And they can do that in constant space.

So if someone tells you that one item in the stream is repeated so often that it occurs at least p% of the time (say 10%), then these algorithms can find such an element. But eg if they are multiple elements that occur more than p% of the time, they are not guaranteed to give you the one that occurs the most often. Nor are they guaranteed to give you any meaningful output, if the assumption is violated and no element occurs at least p% of the time.
by andsoitis | 2025-04-23 06:11:14+00:00
> The graphics division - these days - seems very intent on doing their own thing.

Apple is a top-down hierarchy with ruthless business strategy. Not a value judgment; merely a fact to keep in mind when entering a business relationship with Apple.

Mike Rockwell, serves as the Vice President of the Vision Products Group. Rockwell has been instrumental in spearheading the Vision Pro project and the underlying visionOS platform. His leadership has been pivotal in advancing Apple’s spatial computing initiatives.

To think he and his team have not made intentional choices to support/advance or undermine OpenXR would be naïve in my view.
by nathanaldensr | 2025-04-23 06:11:38+00:00
Are you familiar with AQAL? You strike me as someone on a high level of cognition. Unfortunately for you (and me), we are stuck in a world of low-level thinkers mostly concerned with their own control. You and I can wish it wasn't so, but it is. The higher level of cognition you're on, the lonelier life gets. There certainly won't be companies run and organized by such people because entrepreneurs tend to exist on lower levels of thinking.
by ern | 2025-04-23 06:12:07+00:00
Absolutely, I do appreciate that addition — I definitely had teachers like that.

It’s probably why, when I got to university and tackled subjects like probability theory, discrete math, and theoretical CS, I did extremely well — they weren’t reliant on the shaky algebra and trig foundation I had from school. Once the focus shifted to logic and conceptual thinking, without the baggage of poorly taught fundamentals, everything clicked
by smt88 | 2025-04-23 06:12:10+00:00
This conclusion is deeply divorced from reality.

A single(-ish) author is the strongest smell for a library. I've been burned countless times by a project's "BDFL" moving on to something else. Sometimes a new maintainer will take over, but it's rare.

Low commit count also suggests unresponsiveness to issues that are filed, especially for a TypeScript or JavaScript project.

This thread single-handedly convinced me not to start a Solid project.
by n8cpdx | 2025-04-23 06:14:45+00:00
I guess by comparisons to extremely anomolous conditions, yes it is a bad time. But it is still a time in which it is better to be a SWE than so many other careers. I'm not making FAANG money and my life is so fucking easy and comfortable compared to basically anyone I interact with IRL (aside from other SWEs). It seems like dealing with a mild form of what every other office worker deals with is a very low price to pay.

Perhaps it is an especially bad moment to be a laid off tech worker due to the surge in supply, but that's a very small proportion of SWEs.

I'm sorry you're being shouted at and cursed at, that's totally unacceptable in any workplace and I hope you're able to find something better. FWIW there are still places that give their SWEs offices with doors that close.
by Certhas | 2025-04-23 06:15:41+00:00
I think "the big bang happened everywhere" is more correct than your take. The big bang dlrefers to the early period of a spacetime with an initial moment. At that initial moment the distance between all points is zero. But there still are a full 3d set of locations. Starting at this initial moment, distances between points grow quickly. Thats the bang.

It is true that in GR you can't speak of "before" the big bang, but the big bang itself is a feature within time. It happens at the first moments of time and everywhere in space. And if you replace the initial singularity with a dense quantum foam and thus are able to extend time into the past in some quantum sense, the big bang doesn't go away.
by NoWordsKotoba | 2025-04-23 06:15:41+00:00
I worked for years as a BI consultant for some rather large Silicon Valley companies. My experience felt like 70% wasted time creating pipelines, data restructuring and visuals for insights that had minimal to no effect on the company's business.

30% of the work we did seemed to have value - but that was with a relatively targeted and preset set of questions to answer. It always felt as if someone higher up said, "let's get this data in shape to use for analysis" but never had any questions to ask of that data to begin with. I suspect that if LLMs can truly understand complex interactions across a multitude of datasets, the context within those interactions, along with dozens of exceptions, then it can be of use.
by photonthug | 2025-04-23 06:15:48+00:00
> I don't mind if somebody goes into the industry for money, as long as they actually care to do a good job, but those type of people are becoming more rare.

I think I've been very lucky to frequently have coworkers that want to do a good job, but what is remarkable is that I've never worked for a company that really wanted to do a good job. Leaders fail upwards, terrible companies often survive and thrive, and thrive even harder when they get more terrible. The product as such is often fake; the customer list is usually the really valuable thing, and the customers themselves cannot leave for whatever reason, because they have no alternatives or are somehow held hostage. Many B2B relationships are completely unnecessary, it's just a tactic for a person at the business to become or remain important. Most CEOs would much rather play power games with mergers and acquisitions than do the comparatively boring work of mastering fundamentals or being innovative in their industries. Some version of this kind of mentality is becoming common for investors and workers too. Real work just gets in the way of looting the corpse and arranging your exit plans.

As narratives become more important than substance at virtually every level of post-manufacturing economic activity in services, and incentive structures are screwed up enough for a long time.. it's sad but not surprising that workers eventually get the "no one else cares, why should I?" attitude.
by andsoitis | 2025-04-23 06:17:23+00:00
I don’t know that that is relevant.

In this context, what’s relevant is OpenXR. Apple’s visionOS does not natively support OpenXR, the open standard developed by the Khronos Group for cross-platform AR/VR development. Apple has not indicated any plans to adopt OpenXR, choosing instead to promote its proprietary frameworks such as ARKit, RealityKit, and PolySpatial for spatial computing on the Vision Pro.

What Apple is finding, however, is that there’s virtually no consumer or developer appetite for visionOS / Vision Pro.
by conductr | 2025-04-23 06:18:21+00:00
I don't think that argument needs to be made here, I mentioned it because it's something I observe daily in the real world. I talk to parents who let their kids use these things, I inquire about their reasons for doing so and their level of oversight. It's something I've personally taken an interest in as a parent myself who has a no tolerance policy towards it; I like to know other people's justifications for allowing it. Many of them do not supervise the use BTW. Even people I consider great parents otherwise, they may setup some parental control stuff initially but then the kid is off with their device in another room.

When it comes to privacy policies and ToS, I think a 6yo is reading into it just as much as their parent does. And by that I mean just looking for the [Agree] button.
by chii | 2025-04-23 06:19:09+00:00
> Or if a war breaks out and that company is in a country on the other side?

the company has something over the consumer, unlike the products of old. This is what i dislike about new age products that are so internet enabled.

It started with game consoles, but it won't end with cars.

I just want a self-contained piece of equipment that can work in perpetuity. Look at those old milling and lathe machines - some are as old as 30 yrs, and works brilliantly.
by skeptrune | 2025-04-23 06:20:00+00:00
> Cross-platform dev is for low-rent chumps, unless it's our cross-platform dev

From an article talking about their decision to build WebGPU[1]. I was definitely being dramatic, but do think that Apple's overall vibe doesn't mesh well with open standards.

[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2017/02/08/apple_webgpu/
by dragonwriter | 2025-04-23 06:20:35+00:00
> It would have to be the other way around or be a (possibly major) breaking change.

If it is going to reject the currently-accepted unsafe usage, its going to be a major breaking change in any case, so I don't see the problem. I mean, if you are lamenting it can't reject the currently-accepted SQL-interpolated-via-f-string because it can't distinguish it by type from plain strings with no interpolation, you are already saying that you want a major breaking change but are upset because the particular implementation you want is not possible. So you can't turn around and dismiss an alternative solution because it would be a major breaking change, that's what was asked for!
by atoav | 2025-04-23 06:21:03+00:00
You write "Products are often cheap enough" as if that is a law of nature — it isn't. That is the result of a global production chain that has valued efficiency of production over nearly everything else. This is currently changed, now national interests became more important in the most careless way possible.

There are many examples of countries where old technology has to be maintained because the new is unavailable or unaffordable.
by roeles | 2025-04-23 06:21:08+00:00
My understanding of Taoism is that it's all about moderation, balance.

There is probably a lot of long-term value in your process. Given my understanding, I would expect you to look at your employer holistically too, and realize that short term results are also valuable in their own way.

Like with yin-yang, short-term results hold within them the long term results: the money earnt enables the company to exist in the long term. Lessons learnt from delivering value can spark insight for architecture in the future.

Vice versa, the long term enables the short term. A codebase with little technical debt allows you to quickly implement changes in the short term.
by Protostome | 2025-04-23 06:21:14+00:00
> ... the value these companies/models try to deliver is that it brings down the search space of molecules you test in your funnel by several order of magnitude.

That’s the pitch, yes—but it rests on a crucial assumption: that the properties those models optimize (binding energy, predicted off-targets, etc.) are strongly correlated with what pharma ultimately cares about—clinical success. So far, that link is weak. That's great that I got 100 candidates instead of 1 or two, but if I have no way of knowing which one will be a better candidate for pre-clinical and clinical testing (which costs much more than the discovery stage, and hence, can't be done for more than a handful of molecules) the problem is only very partly solved.

Machine-learning screens are great at ranking compounds for tight binding or flagging obvious off-target liabilities, but most Phase II/III failures stem from issues the models don’t yet capture: PK/PD quirks, formulation hurdles, human safety signals, or simply the complex biology of disease. Narrowing the search space upstream is helpful, but it doesn’t tackle the real bottleneck—turning a “perfect” binder into a safe, effective therapy in people. Until the models address those downstream risks, the overall attrition curve won’t shift as much as the marketing decks suggest.
by Aeolos | 2025-04-23 06:21:47+00:00
Given the dramatic uptake of Cursor / Windsurf / Claude Code etc, we can be 100% certain that LLM companies are using LLMs to improve their products.

The improvement loop is likely not fully autonomous yet - it is currently more efficient to have a human-in-the-loop - but there is certainly a lot of LLMs improving LLMs going on today.
by hobofan | 2025-04-23 06:23:01+00:00
There are many things that would be in Apple's interest to do, but they aren't so that's a complete non-argument.

I think it's a very valid question to ask, as many open source projects I've seen in the past that had to interface with Apple on the developer tooling front had to go through constant pain, as Apple isn't willing to e.g. provide references for certain .plist files, forcing many project to try and reverse-engineer what they do. More precisely there are usually people inside Apple willing to do that, but incapable to do that due to internal structures that result in a lack of clearly defined ownership.

So given that, I would say that if/once the original contributor of this PR moves on(/is made to move on) from that project, there is a good chance that this would also mark the end of cooperation from Apple's side.
by vishnugupta | 2025-04-23 06:23:08+00:00
That's exactly what I'm saying. Let me explain.

The overemphasis on theory was probably justified when CSE program was created. Back then the field was quite new and engineers would often encounter problems that needed deep theoretical knowledge and mathematical modelling capabilities. In networking, compilers, distributed systems, OS, data storage systems etc., So a theoretical grounding was necessary to prepare them to solve those unknown problems.

However that doesn't seem to be the case anymore based on my experience. To build a typical business/consumer application there are well tested architecture patterns available along with technology and libraries.

Of course if one is operating at the bleeding edge (say chip design) then a deep grounding in theory (say physics of optics) is needed. But those are exception and not norm.

My frustration also stems from looking at the syllabus of typical CSE curriculum in India. In first year students learn a little bit of all other fields. Mechanical engineering, civil, electrical and so on. The CS courses start in real earnest from 4th semester. Why not start from CSE subjects right away? Why do they need to learn workings of an internal combustion engine!?

> the problem lies where the people holding the money think they can replace human with computer.

Those with money want to replace human workers with machines. Automation with robots and mechanisation has been happening in other fields (automobile, agriculture, construction...). That it'd happen to SWE was expected, no?

[1] https://vtu.ac.in/pdf/2022syll/csesch.pdf
by user_7832 | 2025-04-23 06:23:09+00:00
It’s not “CEO must know everything a junior does”, but more of “If a junior messes up doing something for the company, the CEO is finally answerable” - be it to the board, the govt or the public etc.

Rephrasing it - there’s a reason it’s Zuckerberg and Pichai and Tim Cook who go to congress, and not the folks implementing it on the ground level.
by dobladov | 2025-04-23 06:23:59+00:00
> Which bike to put it on?

As mentioned, a city bike, I don't think a dynamo hub would be a practical choice for a racing bike or mountain bike, nor fit all riders.

The drag is not an issue for a bike that I use to commute to work and go shopping, the convenience out weights by far the drag, and if the worry was weight and drag there are other parts that contribute much more like the carry bags, pannier rack, mudguards that again, are convenient.

Another positive factor not mentioned would be environmental, no need to create waste with batteries.