MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wavemode | 2025-04-21 17:31:17+00:00
> At this point you might wonder if Haskell has some sort of pipelining operator, and yes, it turns out that one was added in 2014! That’s pretty late considering that Haskell exists since 1990.

The tone of this (and the entire Haskell section of the article, tbh) is rather strange. Operators aren't special syntax and they aren't "added" to the language. Operators are just functions that by default use infix position. (In fact, any function can be called in infix position. And operators can be called in prefix position.)

The commit in question added & to the prelude. But if you wanted & (or any other character) to represent pipelining you have always been able to define that yourself.

Some people find this horrifying, which is a perfectly valid opinion (though in practice, when working in Haskell it isn't much of a big deal if you aren't foolish with it). But at least get the facts correct.
by caconym_ | 2025-04-21 17:32:28+00:00
> Aren't humans themselves essentially human made?

No, not in the sense in which the word "made" is being used here.

> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?

Neither of these work. Calling intelligence in animals "artificial" is absurd, and "inorganic" arbitrarily excludes "head cheese" style approaches to building artificial intelligence.

"Artificial" strongly implies mimicry of something that occurs naturally, and is derived from the same root as "artifice", which can be defined as "to construct by means of skill or specialized art". This obviously excludes the natural biological act of reproduction that produces a newborn human brain (and support equipment) primed to learn and grow; reportedly, sometimes people don't even know they're pregnant until they go into labor (and figure out that's what's happening).
by hellojesus | 2025-04-21 17:32:29+00:00
Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men?

It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct?

If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever.

I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor.

The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government.
by simonw | 2025-04-21 17:32:38+00:00
Speed and convenience will definitely win for most people. Hosted LLMs are so cheap these days, and are massively more capable than anything you can fit on even a very beefy ($4,000+) consumer machine.

The privacy concerns are honestly mostly imaginary at this point, too. Plenty of hosted LLM vendors will promise not to train on your data. The bigger threat is if they themselves log data and then have a security incident, but honestly the risk that your own personal machine gets stolen or hacked is a lot higher than that.
by Hyperlisk | 2025-04-21 17:32:49+00:00
That's not true. I just wrote a similar comment about design coming first. If you've written software for awhile you just know what it looks like and which design patterns will be useful. Then when you see what your LLM says is the right code you can glance at it and see if it is even on the right track.

If you're trying to LLM your way to a new social site you're going to need to know what entities make up that site and the relationships they have ahead of time. If you have no concept of an idea then of course the LLM will be "correct" because there were no requirements!

Software design is important today and will be even more important in the future. Many companies do not require design docs for changes and I think it is a misstep. Software design is a skill that needs to be maintained.
by nativeit | 2025-04-21 17:33:03+00:00
I don’t disagree with any of that, I think the challenge is certainly the costs of enforcement. For GPL licenses anyway (I realize the OP used the more permissive MIT license) I think their is (or there should be) a non-profit foundation established to collectivize the funding and legal actions necessary to support open source projects in these kinds of scenarios. Certainly, pursuing license violations in a manner that maximizes awareness and makes examples out of violators should prompt others to reconsider their actions.
by lenova | 2025-04-21 17:33:09+00:00
I think it will impact first-time users giving nerdlog a quick test/trial run, and cause them to bounce to another tool when it doesn't show them logs from journald out of the box. Users can be finicky and impatient with new tools ;-)

Example: I'm running an Arch-based Linux desktop. Installing ryslog took several minutes to build and install. If I wasn't highly motivated to try out nerdlog, I would have canceled the install.

Also, can the SSH requirement for localhost be bypassed? Most users won't be running an SSH server on their desktop, and this would improve nerdlog's use-cases and make it easier for new users to give it a quick local test run.

Final suggestion: add `go get` support to your repo, so that I can install nerdlog from a single command and not have to clone the repo itself.
by Linux-Fan | 2025-04-21 17:33:09+00:00
There is even some sort of “de-facto” standard for this purposes: Debian COPYRIGHT files: <https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-forma...>.

It may not be perfect for all cases (e.g. if some sort of dependency is linked but not present in the source tree it is naturally not really accounted for by Debian copyright files) but then there is always the options of either adding copyright information to every source code file (I don't like that style for redundancy but it is for sure a very clear way to do it) or to hand-craft a human-readable variant similar to the Debian approach but less formally.

In any case it seems that nothing is new aobut this and developers working with FOSS software should very well be aware of these concepts.
The Yellow Notepad – Tamed My Messy API Pipeline
by chandan_maruthi | 2025-04-21 17:33:36+00:00
Last week I spent three days wrestling with a data‑pipeline script. The API returned pages of JSON that—despite using cursors—felt impossible to checkpoint reliably. Every new edge case sent my code spiraling into complexity.

Then I did something old‑school: I grabbed a yellow notepad, sketched the entire flow, and within minutes I had an elegant design I was actually proud of. It was:

Simple to implement

Reliable in edge cases

Easy to debug

Why does sketching on paper work so well? Seeing the whole problem laid out on a single page seems to unlock our spatial reasoning in a way screens can’t.

I wonder where else I can be using this method to unlock a brain level, I often dont seem to utilize.
by jenadine | 2025-04-21 17:33:44+00:00
That doesn't really explain why.

It seems like what's bothering him is:

> give a single entity, the project steward, a special license distinct from the one that everyone else gets, so that they may use your contribution in any way they please

But that's not a justification.

The project steward is contributing more than 90% of the code, maintain the infrastructure and servers, do the promotion, ...

So yeah, they may give some condition to accept your contribution, but I think that's fair. They don't force you to contribute. And depending of the motivation for your contribution, you get what you want, eg, the feeling of contributing to an open source project presumably used by many people, or having that entity to maintain your patch for free.

I mean, you can fork if you like, but the likelihood that your fork is getting used is not that big, and mean more work from your side to maintain the change.
by int_19h | 2025-04-21 17:33:48+00:00
Your brain does rewire itself as you learn.

Here's a question for you. If we take a model with open weights - say, LLaMA or Qwen - and give it access to learning materials as well as tools to perform training runs on its weights and dynamically reload those updated weights - would that constitute learning, to you? If not, then why not?
by mmooss | 2025-04-21 17:34:01+00:00
Standard deviation helps, but you still need to know: standard deviation of what? It's no different than saying someone scored 78% - 78% of what? What is it in the denominator? Also, different scales can represent the same thing differently.

Secondly, the impact of the difference isn't known - you don't know the curve representing the relationship of score to impact. In some contexts a little change is meaningless - the curve is flat; in others the curve is steep and it can be transformational. And impacts only sometimes scale linearly with performance or score, of course.

Without that knowledge, standard deviation means nothing beyond how unusual, in the given population, the subject's performance is.
by ctoth | 2025-04-21 17:34:09+00:00
Have you seen this?

https://github.com/jehna/humanify

What they do is ground the LLM to the AST with Babel to ensure you still get the same shape of AST out of your deobfuscation pass. Probably this tool could be cleaned up, made to work with multiple llm and parser backends, have its prompts improved, &c.
by Krssst | 2025-04-21 17:34:23+00:00
> They are optional while the previous major is still maintained.

I don't think there is such a choice on Pixel phones but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. When the next major update is available the phone just asks to update to it every few days (but won't do it without user consent). I don't think there's security updates on a given phone for old major versions when a new one is available (there likely are for older phones that don't get the major update however).

Thank you for your explanations on flash wear, makes sense. Taking a low value of 13TB endurance (64GB times 200), this is still 7GB per day for five years and I don't think app updates can consume that much.
by toebee | 2025-04-21 17:34:29+00:00
We're envisioning a platform with a social aspect, so that is the biggest difference. Also, bigger models!

We are aware of the fact that you do not need to create a venv when using pre-existing uv. Just added it for people spinning up new GPUs on cloud. But I'll update the README to make that a bit clearer. Thanks for the feedback :)
by MaxBarraclough | 2025-04-21 17:35:13+00:00
With the disclaimer that I don't know Elixir and haven't programmed with the pipeline operator before: I don't like that special () syntax. That syntax denotes application of the function without passing any arguments, but the whole point here is that an argument is being passed. It seems clearer to me to just put the pipeline operator and the name of the function that it's being used with. I don't see how it's unclear that application is being handled by the pipeline operator.

Also, what if the function you want to use is returned by some nullary function? You couldn't just do |> getfunc(), as presumably the pipeline operator will interfere with the usual meaning of the parentheses and will try to pass something to getfunc. Would |> ( getfunc() ) work? This is the kind of problem that can arise when one language feature is permitted to change the ordinary behaviour of an existing feature in the name of convenience. (Unless of course I'm just missing something.)
by drdaeman | 2025-04-21 17:35:35+00:00
I suspect the disappointment wasn't about whenever LLMs exhibit cognitive-like properties or not, but rather about the negative connotations tied to the word "plagiarism". Yea, they replicate patterns from their training data. So do we (ok, to be fair I have no idea about others but I believe I know that I do), and that's normal.
by noisy_boy | 2025-04-21 17:35:54+00:00
> The human-LLM boosting interaction exists particularly when you use the LLM in its chat form

I feel reassured to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. With all the talk about in-IDE direct code editing, I was thinking that I was being somewhat of a luddite who feels like the chat form is the best balance between getting help from the AI and understanding/deciding how things are actually structured/working.
by jjulius | 2025-04-21 17:36:03+00:00
This is hobby-dependent and YMMV of course, but...

... go and do your hobby. Whatever it is. You're likely to meet people along the way who are also into whatever it is that you're doing. Even in the less sociable hobbies, you're bound to encounter like-minded folk at some point (take it from me, the not-so-social backpacker who likes going to remote places). You might not know where the groups are yet, but you'll figure it out, just like you figured out everything else about being in a new location - where the grocery stores are, where the good restaurants are, where whatever it is that you need might be located.
by abirch | 2025-04-21 17:36:12+00:00
I agree that this was a great article.

For me, this isn't intuitive. It works; however, it doesn't scream recursion to me.

def ints(): yield 1 yield from map(lambda x: x + 1, ints())

I preferred

def ints(): cnt = 1 while True: yield cnt cnt += 1
by florbnit | 2025-04-21 17:36:24+00:00
> In addition, I hope that the tooling ecosystem will adapt to support t-strings. For instance, I’d love to see black and ruff format t-string contents, and vscode color those contents, if they’re a common type like HTML or SQL.

This is such a strange take on t-strings. The only way for anything to infer that the template string is supposed to turn into valid HTML or SQL is to base it of the apparent syntax in the string, which can only be done in an ad-hoc fashion and has nothing to do with the template string feature.

The way the feature has been designed there is no indication in the string itself what type of content it is or what it will eventually be converted to. It’s all handled by the converting function.

As others have added, something like sql”select * from {table}” would have been able to do this, but there’s not even any guarantees that something that is in a template that will be converted into valid sql by a converting function should be any type of valid sql prior to that conversion. For all you know t“give me {table} but only {columns}” might be a converted into valid sql after the template is processed.
by Timon3 | 2025-04-21 17:36:42+00:00
So now we have moved from "tagged template literals have all the complexity of Python templates" to "if you define a specific template tag and use that, you can replicate one feature of Python templates". No mention of the other example I mentioned (which, by the way, wasn't an exhaustive list).

Now, I'll just ignore that you're still deliberately misrepresenting me in the hopes of gaining some actual knowledge from this discussion - please show me: which editor supports syntax highlighting for the specific example you just mentioned? After all, that was the topic of discussion - not whether it's possible to delay "tagging", but whether it's easier to do syntax highlighting for JS template tags. Please show me an existing editor, IDE or git repo for a tool that would highlight your specific example based on the `html(...template)` call in line 4 (so no heuristics based on line 3). Surely you're not just throwing random examples at the wall to see what sticks, right? You've actually been following the discussion and are arguing in the context of it?
by mmooss | 2025-04-21 17:37:06+00:00
Alas, I don't know a faster way. The question asked, iiuc, demonstrates a lack of understanding of standard deviation. That's fine; none of us know everything. But without that we can't intepret the results, and also necessary is understanding what the scale represents. Thus the fastest solution seems to be reading the author's interpretation rather than trying to do it yourself.
by kjkjadksj | 2025-04-21 17:37:09+00:00
These people are just as inhumane in person actually. In fact they want to test their opinions on you and see if you signal that you are also in their in group. Stuff like an old creepy guy gawking at a woman and asking you “how about that” is a someone common example of this. Or telling some story about some human condition where the punch line is well they were black and this isn’t surprising behavior given the racist stereotypes they believe in. These guys come out of the woodwork too. Like a total stranger on the bus would be like this, turn over at you unsolicited.
by chriskanan | 2025-04-21 17:37:28+00:00
From an outsider's perspective who has studied the history of science, it does feel a bit like the majority of the cosmology community refuses to consider alternative explanations that may also be consistent with observations but don't assume dark matter.

For example, this relativistic MOND-inspired theory is supposedly consistent with observations from CMB and gravitational lensing: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/143

There is also Jonathan Oppenheim's body of work on stochastic spacetime which supposedly accounts for these observations without needing dark matter (and it also doesn't need dark energy): https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversia...

It feels like the community is stuck in dogma, and is in need of a paradigm shift. I'd like to see more effort and funding towards testing alternative theories. I'd also argue strongly for more investment in space telescopes that could further our understanding, especially given how much JWST has already provided evidence against the standard model of cosmology.

About $6 to $11B have been spent trying to detect dark matter over the past 30 years or so, and nothing has turned up. Investing in testing alternatives and efforts to gather data that would help refine hypotheses seems like money well-spent to me.
by davepeck | 2025-04-21 17:37:30+00:00
With f-strings, you cannot write code to determine which portions of the resulting `str` were static and which were dynamic; with t-strings, you can. *

(As to your initial example: it's worth considering what will happen as you compose multiple bits of HTML via nesting to generate a large final page. The developer experience may become... unideal.)

* (barring undesirable hacks with inspect, etc.)
by Aperocky | 2025-04-21 17:37:37+00:00
> Experience Still Matters

My personal opinion is that now experience matters a lot more.

A lot of times, the subtle mistakes that LLM makes or wrong direction that it takes can only be corrected by experience. LLM also don't tend to question its own decisions in the past, and will stick with them unless explicitly told.

This means LLM based project accumulate subtle bugs unless there is a human in the loop who can rip them out, and once a project accumulated enough subtle bugs it generally becomes unrecoverable spaghetti.
by ein0p | 2025-04-21 17:38:03+00:00
One of the prerequisites for a successful negotiation is the willingness to walk away. This applies to both sides. I did consulting for a few years, years ago, and you'd be surprised what people are willing to pay. You'd also never know that unless you named your rate and were willing to walk away. I'm pretty sure any manager at Microsoft could easily swing a couple K. The main complication would be that this wouldn't be just a "meeting" then, and you'd need to set up a contract etc. Not insurmountable, just onerous and time consuming. So I'd insist on a much larger minimum, and would be willing to trade that for a lower price.
by trelane | 2025-04-21 17:38:36+00:00
Depends on your definition of "user"/"use" and "distribution" really.

If the service provider is the "user," and performing actions with it on behalf of the ultimate user is "use," and not "distribution," then you are technically correct. It restricts the service provider from forcing their customers to be dependent on the them and/or restricting the end users' use of the service, like the GPL does for proprietary software the user runs on their machine.

I personally disagree that running something on behalf of a user makes you the end user, but there's always the GPL if you think that.
by echelon | 2025-04-21 17:38:57+00:00
Open source has been hijacked by trillion dollar hyperscalers.

It's time we switch to "fair source" or "equitable source".

Put MAU/DAU/ARR/market cap limits in your license. Open to everyone with a market cap under $1B or revenues under $100M. All others, please see our "business@" email.

Place viral terms like the AGPL that requires that all other systems touched by your code to be open - especially the backend/server components that typically remain hidden.

We're giving away power to these companies for free, and they use their scale and reach to turn our software into a larger moat that ensnares us and taxes us in everything else we do.

Your contribution of open source in one area might bubble up as Microsoft or Google's ability to control what you see or how you distribute software to customers. It's intangible and hard to describe these insane advantages and network effects big players like this have to lay people, but I know we as software engineers understand this.

Open source has been weaponized against us. They get free labor and use our work to tax us, pin us down, out compete us, and control us. We need to fight back.
by Rooster61 | 2025-04-21 17:39:00+00:00
> the world record in 10 pin is a quantity of perfect strings bowled in a row

While I see what you are going for, judging an entire game off of an extreme is an intrinsically narrow set of criteria. I'd argue that the consecutive strike aspect is not what gets folks excited in 10 pin, its the ability to clean up one's spares and string together solid scores consistently. Regular Joe league bowlers get far more excited about someone picking up a greek church or some other wacky spare than hitting 7-8 strikes in a row.

> I don't really get NASCAR either, fwiw.

Understandable. NASCAR is an example of min maxing sort of in the same way D&D can be run different ways. Some groups like role play and story driven elements, some like to squeeze every bit of efficiency out of a character. NASCAR's draw is not in the fact that they go around an oval 200 times, its the small details and tweaks that differentiate HOW those cars go around those 200 times. It definitely does not appeal to everyone.