MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by msteffen | 2025-05-26 14:39:06+00:00
Sorry for the slow reply here, but in Java, “final” variables can’t be updated to reference a different object, but the underlying object can be modified with method calls (e.g. you can append things to a “final” ArrayList, whereas in C++ you can’t append to a const vector. In C++, you mark methods const to indicate that they don’t mutate the underlying object, and only cost methods can be called on const variables).

The Guava docs give an example of the defensive copying: https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/ImmutableCollectionsExp.... Any time an Immutable collection is created from another collection, the elements are deep-copied to avoid the possibility that they’re modified elsewhere, even if there’s no possibility of that happening. Even if you’re using e.g. an ImmutableList.Builder, the elements are copied when they’re Add()ed to the Builder, so that they’re the same when you call build(). I’m not sure but I think even some mutable collections make defensive copies of their arguments. I believe that Josh Bloch (who was in charge of Java at Google when I joined) also advocates for this in his book.

On writing this, it occurs to me that some kind of move constructor into these mutable collections might also do the job? Though you’d have to make sure there were no mutating references outside the mutable collection as well, which might require some kind of ownership model, so you might just wind up with Rust.

Finally, this is dumb but it’s killing me: I meant to type 400qps to 1200qps/core.
by OgsyedIE | 2025-05-26 14:39:27+00:00
The title (at time of writing) omits the full quote in a way that becomes a glaring misquote. His quote in full has a very different meaning:

> "And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight."

This is important to keep in mind. There are competing AI R&D orgs in dozens of different countries, not just America, China and France.
by major505 | 2025-05-26 14:39:31+00:00
Has anyone here ever used switf ouside the apple ecosystem? If so, how is the experience going?

I think in swift like C# and Microsoft. Yeah, you can and I do run a lot of C# code in other platforms. But if you really wanna use everything it has to offer, it needs to be in windows, at least in the development stages.
by jll29 | 2025-05-26 14:39:46+00:00
In most areas of law, whatever is not forbidden, is permitted.

Licensing law is the opposite: you are not permitted to do anything with a protected work unless you have been granted a prior written license.

(exceptions: fair use for scientific, non-commercial research, and copyright expiry e.g. seven decades after the death of the author, depending on the jurisdiction, of course.)
by hocuspocus | 2025-05-26 14:40:33+00:00
I fail to see what a CBDC and/or Fed sanctioned stablecoins would achieve for entities outside the US that need to transact in USD. It would essentially work the same as today under a new name?

The point of a CBDC is government control over an increased share of the money supply. Pretty irrelevant to USD balances held by other central banks.

The point of a stablecoin for an entity with an American banking license is... nothing?
Show HN: OpenII. True general intelligence (kinda)
by ark296 | 2025-05-26 14:40:38+00:00
Hey everyone!

I was browsing X and saw another startup get exposed for having their "AI" just be interns doing manual work.

I thought that was pretty funny, so I made OpenII, or intern intelligence. It plugs into your existing AI apps, but instead of calling a model, it calls me (the intern). You can also join the Slack (the join us button) to reply to any API calls people make.

It's accessible via the OpenAI library or cURL. Hope you all find this funny.
by johannesishere | 2025-05-26 14:41:11+00:00
After evaluating 93 items across 12 low-code AI agent development tools we found out the 3 most important selection criteria:

1. Two main product categories emerge - AI Native and AI Pivoting 2. The AI market moves too fast for enterprise adoption 3. Deterministic and code-based logic can bring an AI agent to an enterprise standard

In one of the most comprehensive technical market reports on AI Agents so far, independent research analyst Andrew Green conducted a transparent evaluation of workflow-based automation tools for writing AI agents.

AI Native vs AI Pivoting

AI Native tools are mostly startups that have built their platform extensively (and exclusively) to build AI agents - They offer a great deal of control over agents’ behavior - Have a limited integrations mechanism and portfolio

AI Pivoting tools are Workflow builders with AI retrofitted

- They are established players with proven enterprise production deployments - Have a great integration portfolio - Offer basic features for building agentic systems

Incumbency and Innovation An integrations portfolio and ecosystem take years to build, so regardless of how quickly a startup can deliver, these are long exercises. This is a clear advantage for incumbent workflow automation tools

New Agent-related capabilities are constantly rolled out, which is disruptive for both established players and their large customers. AI native tools are the likely first-to-market with all new releases

This means that AI Native and AI Pivoting tools are informally locked in to some market segments - Large enterprise can throttle AI market innovations in favor of stability with AI pivoters - Startups can grow alongside their AI native providers

Deterministic logic LLMs are inherently volatile, so for an Agent to conduct their tasks in a predictable manner, you must define deterministic logic to control both their inputs and outputs, especially in consumer-facing applications.

Raw results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yfSdf4BP1AqBRB0SeaOj...
by wyager | 2025-05-26 14:41:24+00:00
> I have little interest in humouring the idea that all of this boil down to an optimisation problem... I do have an economic degree by the way

I hope your degree was "economic" in the sense that you didn't pay much for it

> I think Piketty must have had something like half a dozen best sellers on this topic alone at this point.

Thinking pop-slop authors like Piketty are worth paying attention to is a worse self-indictment than the most condescending thing I could possibly say here.

You should downgrade your confidence that it's possible to meddle with natural resource allocation without causing problems.
by bjourne | 2025-05-26 14:41:55+00:00
Every experienced dev knows what happens when they are subjected to issue trackers with loads of features: some managers require all those features to be used (cause that's what they paid for!). So instead of spending your time debugging you have to ensure the bug is properly tagged, categorized, has the right version number(s) for affected software, has the right assignee, yadda, yadda. Then some busy beaver will send you email reminding you that you haven't filled in all the drop-downs and check boxes correctly....
by AtlasBarfed | 2025-05-26 14:42:00+00:00
A drug that deals with physical obstruction???

Does it make a sleeper want to be on their side? Is it a weight loss drug? Targeted area antiinflammatory? Cavity dialation?

For some snorers,bit would be an improvement based on that standard in my experience.

Exercise staying fit. Not getting fat and not drinking alcohol work for me.
by terhechte | 2025-05-26 14:42:04+00:00
Just at note that

> If the user doesn’t know the answer, the LLM can’t help. That’s not just a minor limitation—it’s foundational.

doesn't mean the LLM is not useful. My favorite use case for LLMs is them doing something I know 100% how to solve myself. However, they do it much faster and I can 100% understand their solution and give feedback in case it is wrong. No surprises. I much prefer this as it allows me to work on multiple tasks in parallel.
by LatteLazy | 2025-05-26 14:42:10+00:00
I don’t think that’s true in this case. I would assume the bank issuing the coin has to know the identity of the people they sell it to. But once those people sell it on, it’s not their problem any more. Sure they could get an order to seize those coins (/wallet) and would have to obey. But I don’t think they’d be required to kyc everyone on the network. Just their immediate counterparties…
by getgalaxy | 2025-05-26 14:42:16+00:00
The Cursor for SQL - getgalaxy.io

We think theres a huge gap in tooling for devs associated with writing SQL. We've reimagined the SQL editor to make it modern, fast, beautiful, and have a AI copilot that actually works. Importantly, we've also added sharing and collaboration in a Postman / GDrive nature so you never have to share queries with your team via slack or notion again.

Check us out and ping me on LI. getgalaxy.io linkedin.com/in/garrettawolfe
by mariusor | 2025-05-26 14:42:17+00:00
And how is that a bad thing?

Instead of being in a landfill and leaching microplastics it's all bundled up and contained. I don't really understand this defeatist attitude where if something is not perfect we should drop it all together. From my point of view any effort at sorting trash is beneficial to the ecosystem because even if we don't have a method to deal with the problem now, we can wait a generation or two for technology to improve.
by david-gpu | 2025-05-26 14:42:20+00:00
During my professional career the most complex math I had to use was, perhaps, a square root. Something on that ballpark. And that's coming from somebody who enjoyed learning Runge-Kutta methods in college.

Your mileage will vary. I didn't even touch a DBMS after college, either, and I think that is going to be far more useful for the average programmer.
by maeil | 2025-05-26 14:42:27+00:00
> I think maybe it gets downvoted because it comes across as victim blaming and has echoes of abusive reasoning.

Ah yes, rather downvote because it smells of victim blaming than actually coming to terms with the reality which has played a huge role in a superpower to spiral into facism. Seriously? Now's not the time for that.

> The left must change what they want

>It could be helpful to point to actual policy failings of Harris

You still don't get it at all, I literally stated it verbatim. It's not about policies, it's about candidates, attitude, messaging, narrative.

> The left must change what they want because otherwise the right will throw a hissy fit and start opening concentration camps?

As explained, this is not the case, there isn't a need to change the "wants" - that's the least of the concerns. But let's disregard that and imagine a world where yes, that is the case. Are we going to say "nuh-uh, we rather have concentration camps than change what we want"? If that would be the reality (which it isn't) then that's how things are. Start facing the reality we live in.
by tshadley | 2025-05-26 14:42:43+00:00
100% agreed with your experience, AI provides little value to one's area of expertise (10+ years or more). It's the context length -- AI needs comparable training or inference-time cycles.

But just wait for the next doubling of long task capacity (https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-com...). Or the doubling after that. AI will get there.
by 0xEF | 2025-05-26 14:43:26+00:00
That's great! What country are you in?

For context, I am in the US and in a position to see what goes on behind the scenes in most of the major auto-maker factories and some aerospace, but that's about as far as I can talk about it, since some of them are DoD contracters.

Quality Control is a valuable tool when deployed correctly and, itself, monitored for consistency and areas where improvement can happen. There is what I consider a limp-wristed effort to improve QC in the US, but in the end, it's really about checking some bureaucratic box as opposed to actually making better product, although sometimes we get lucky and the two align.
by bArray | 2025-05-26 14:43:32+00:00
I've not yet seen code review implemented in a good way in places I have worked. It's not really considered "real work" (may result in zero lines of code change) and it takes time to properly read through code and figuring out where the weaknesses might be. I just end up being forced to skim read for anything obvious and merging, because there is not enough time to review the code properly.
by jorvi | 2025-05-26 14:43:40+00:00
The EU is also looking into creating a digital euro ("eurocoin", so to speak). The basic idea being to break the power and thus risk of systemic banks.

You'd have an account at the ECB that you can keep your digital euros in and exchange to and for liquid euros. You'd get the ECB interest rate.

Then if banks want to convince you to hold your eurocoin on their wallet / exchange / stake it, they'd have to offer better features and better interest than the ECB.

Sadly banks are in full swing trying to torpedo the proposal with lobbying, to the point where there's a lot of noise about the ECB only being allowed to be a facilitator and not allowed to be actual competition to the bank, and instead it's banks that should get the sole right to hold digital euro accounts.

> But we enjoy pretty advanced banking services and arguably the most flourishing fintech ecosystem by worldwide standards

Interestingly enough the US does have very modern financial institutions: credit unions. An American woman I met in Vietnam and traveled together with for a bit had a Charles Schwab account that had more features, more free overseas withdrawals and a nicer mobile app than my Dutch bank. It was almost on par with Revolut / N26 / Bunq.
by modulovalue | 2025-05-26 14:43:49+00:00
The university I went to started its math education with groups, which is really unfortunate and they never even mentioned monoids.

Monoids are a key idea in computer science and I think that everyone should know what monoids are. Monoids are EVERYWHERE and once you recognize that you have a monoid you can immediately use known methods to compute over monoids in efficiently (e.g. https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...).

Once you have a certain lattice (I'm leaving out some details), you can solve problems efficiently by known methods (e.g. using dataflow solvers) and automatically have a proof that the solution always terminates.

I really wish that more people took their time to learn these fundamentals and I think this is a wonderful introductory site. I don't mean to offend anyone, but if you've never heard of most of that stuff, then I think that you don't deserve to call yourself a professional programmer. Why? You will reinvent solutions to problems that have been solved before much more efficiently then you will be able to i.e. you're an amateur.
by FooBarBizBazz | 2025-05-26 14:44:24+00:00
If you give up on unit tests and code review then the code is "yours" instead of "ours" and your coworkers will not want to collaborate on it with you.

However, this has to be substantive code review by technical peers who actually care.

Unit tests also need the be valued as integral to the implementation task. The author writes the unit tests. It helps to guide the thought process. You should not offload unit tests to an intern as "scutwork".

If your code is sloppy, a stylistic mess, and unreviewed, then I am going to put it behind an interface as best I can, refer to it as "legacy", rely on you for bugfixes (I'm not touching that stinking pile), and will probably try to rally people behind a replacement.
by garblegarble | 2025-05-26 14:44:48+00:00
Just a reader of this thread, but that wasn't my take on it. The text you quoted was, I think, an overgeneralisation (there are certainly manufacturers who perform above the baseline standards), but I don't think it was worded adversarially? It then provided some more information (some of which I have heard from others in the industry, especially around QA being pressured to pass defective items).

The post they are complaining about was a driveby dismissive statement that didn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever.
by burningion | 2025-05-26 14:45:27+00:00
or... maybe there's something to people being skeptical of datacenters?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/musks-xai-opera...

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memph...

> In just 11 months since the company arrived in Memphis, xAI has become one of Shelby County’s largest emitters of smog-producing nitrogen oxides, according to calculations by environmental groups whose data has been reviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News. The plant is in an area whose air is already considered unhealthy due to smog.

Had this set the precedent of working with the community, and _not_ breaking the law, I think we'd be in a better place all around.

Similarly, Amazon tried to take the excess nuclear power, without paying back into the electrical grid infrastructure, and got denied in 2024:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-interconnection-isa-ta...

and again in April of 2025:

https://www.ans.org/news/2025-04-16/article-6937/ferc-denies...
by GPerson | 2025-05-26 14:45:45+00:00
The main argument the AI defenders use nowadays to promote the development of this clearly harmful technology is that “if we don’t make the thing that almost certainly harms all humanity then China will!”

This is just Mutually Assured Destruction all over again. The only correct solution is for AI pacifists on both sides (means the people who support humanity and oppose this nonsense) to do a as much as they can sideline the AI hardliners (the people who think AI is a benefit) on both sides. Each country needs to believe the AI pacifists in the other country have relatively more support than the hardliners.
by WinstonSmith84 | 2025-05-26 14:46:43+00:00
> the Fed itself will start issuing stablecoins and out-legitimize everyone else

That's doubtful everyone else will be out-legitimized ... because ultimately the Fed will issue coins they can fully control (freeze, delete, etc. whenever they wish so). That doesn't make holding such money very valuable. A lot of people understanding this concern will favor USDT or similar privacy oriented coins and thus these coins will keep flourishing (however USDC could disappear for this very reason).
by 0xEF | 2025-05-26 14:46:58+00:00
Huge difference between me saying manufacturers will cut corners in any way they can (maybe you're taking this as consumer vs manufacterer?) and the person who replied to me saying I don't work a job that encounters "real" (read intentionally vague and diminutive) QC standars. One is a blanket statement that is backed by easily accessed and very public evidence, the other is personal attack.

Please do not conflate the two.
by 33hsiidhkl | 2025-05-26 14:47:07+00:00
I don't really understand your point. An LLM is loaded with a seed value, which is a number. The number may be chosen through some pseudo- or random process, or specified manually. For any given seed value, say 80085, the LLM will always and exactly generate the same tokens. It is not like stamped sheet metal, because it is digital information not matter. Say you load up R1, and give it a seed value of 80085, then say "hi" to the model. The model will output the exact same response, to the bit, same letters, same words, same punctuation, same order. Deterministic. There is no way you can say that an LLM is non-deterministic, because that would be WRONG.
by tomsmeding | 2025-05-26 14:47:29+00:00
To a certain extent, the line in Haskell is: don't use unsafePerformIO and unsafeCoerce. The tricky bit is that this line is not enforced by syntax or by the type system (unlike Rust, where you have a syntactic label `unsafe`). One generally puts "unsafe" before function names that have preconditions that are not expressed in their type, but this practice is not quite always adhered to -- though the worst offenders are reliably marked "unsafe".
by seanhunter | 2025-05-26 14:47:46+00:00
For people who don’t know the UK backstory, Nick Clegg is a widely-derided figure in the UK. He was the leader of the 3rd biggest party (the liberal democrats) and by making an alliance with the conservatives to let David Cameron become prime minister and then going along (as deputy prime minister) with a number of policies [1] that were seen by supporters of his party as anathema to their basic principles, saw his party utterly destroyed in the next election to the extent where they went from being a credible political force to having few enough members of parliament where they could all have fit into a US—style SUV and not been too cramped. He didn’t care because he peaced out immediately and took the Zuck dollar.

All of which to say if Nick Clegg says X there are a very large number of people who think “not X” by default. He’s even a lame duck at meta because they’re ditching him to replace him with Joel Kaplan who they think will help in their attempts to cosy up further with the Trump administration.

[1] Tuition fees for tertiary education in particular https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/libdems-tuition-fe...
by DetroitThrow | 2025-05-26 14:47:58+00:00
Unlike many other common private infrastructure projects being spun up, such as large warehouses or factory buildings, data centers don't employ large amounts of people except during the construction.

Without much tangible benefits to help uplift a surrounding community in some way, and certainly many tangible drawbacks known to communities at this point, they seem like an easy - the easiest? - NIMBY target in an era where corporate giants have burned a lot of trust.
by wronglebowski | 2025-05-26 14:48:23+00:00
“Local opposition” and NIMBYism is the primary reason we have a housing shortage, it’s a rampant problem across the US. The few grumpy old folks that show up to local planning meetings shouldn’t hold us back as a nation. Until we can find a way to get over that hump I’m not sure how we'll move forward in many aspects.
by deadfece | 2025-05-26 14:48:27+00:00
In Oklahoma, they tried to market a bitcoin farm project as a datacenter. It received a lot of opposition due to the noise levels anticipated.

The graft team tried to get the state government to give tax graft to "datacenters" but didn't define what a DC was - which could mean the graft might go to bitcoin farms as well.

I noticed that the article does not really distinguish between any of these.

Please excuse my English, graft is not my first language.
by major505 | 2025-05-26 14:48:33+00:00
Yeah, I dont like either, but I wont support Mozilla closed mind and stupidity. They pretty much abandoned Firefox (when was the last time they really updated the browser, other than incremental small corrections?), and I refuse to give my money to fund the type of shit they expend it.

They should have through about that before going all political in their positions as an organization. It was easy with the cushion of google and federal goverment money under them (impressive how easy is to do "charity" and activism with other people money).

Now I wanna see if they will put their wallets where their mouth is, and apparently, they will not.

Every time I receive a e-mail from mozilla fundation asking for 10 bucks to fund their precious inclusivity program that have nothing to do with firefox, because they lost goverment funds, I just laught and think they should ask for a loan from their previous CEO, since she receive 7 mi in one year. I just delete the e-mail after that.
by jajko | 2025-05-26 14:48:39+00:00
If you couldnt do the task youself (a very loaded statement which I honestly dont't believe), how could you even validate what llm did was correct, didnt miss anything, didnt introduce a nasty corner case bug etc?

In any case a very rare and specific corner case you mention, a dev can go on a decade or two (or lifetime or two) without ever experiencing similar requirement. If it should be a convincing argument for almighty llm it certainly isnt.